Forget the technical problems with VoIP. Money and cooperation is the real killers.
Amen to that john. Perhaps the entertainment companies aren't the only ones that need to revisit their business models.
I wonder if it would be heresy to suggest that the US government seize control of the "last mile" in order to level the playing field. I'm not sure whether or not I'd advocate that position because I'm not clear about its implications or legal ramifications, but it's worth a look.
I believe that governmental intervention should be considered an option when (and ONLY when) competing companies can't "play nice" and that society suffers as a result.
I've been waiting for them to empty the other barrel of the shotgun into their foot.
Now I have a reason.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, thank you for allowing me to speak. I'd like to address this letter and brochure that you have received from the entertainment cartels. What's that, Mr. Chairman? No sir, I did indeed call them cartels. No, please keep the lawyers in the room...they might find this informative. My presentation consists of the following:
Forgotten, I wonder if you work for a telecom company...because I do. And I totally understand every word of your post because my job's at stake too. I just wanted to state that first.
The existing telephone network is a tremendously useful infrastructure. People who dream about global networks seem to often miss the fact that we already have one.
That is extremely insightful; it's something that we should keep in mind.
And I'm sorry, but a significant part of that tremendous public good comes from the fact that it's been regulated - particularly when you consider countries outside North America, and particularly poor ones.
I can neither refute nor support this statement (I'm not that familiar with international telecom deployment), but it does make me wonder if perhaps you're confusing the government-regulated monopoly over telecommunications until 1984 with regulation in general when it comes to how we deployed this existing network? If I'm wrong, sorry but even if I'm right it raises the following question: would we have been able to run a copper line to every house in the United States (sorry folks, no snobbery, I can only talk about what I know) without a government-supported/regulated mandate?
If you want to REALLY dig into this can of worms, let's assume that AT&T WAS necessary for copper-to-the-home and while we're in hypothetical mode, let's say that AT&T hadn't been barred from data communications by governmental regulations. Would the internet have taken off like it did (empirical question...but keep in mind that we used dialup for a LOONG time before broadband hit the scene)?
That's just some background to hold in your/swap. Now VOIP hits this scene at a time when the holders of the last-mile are at fierce odds with the holders of the backbone, and none of them can seem to get along when it comes to wireless (again, I'm talking US here).
I percieve a danger in your raising this question right now, jeff. I think you might be raising code and content layer questions while the underlying physical layer is still highly volatile. I agree that VOIP should be unregulated, but I fear that you're putting the cart before the horse in the USA.
The state of the telecom industry in the USA is simply the culmination of a comedy of errors. I see VOIP becoming viable in Europe before it takes hold in the US...much like wireless service.
I applaud your efforts, Jeff...I just hope that you're not too far ahead of your time when it comes to the US and the FCC.:)
You better write out all of the vectors for each character of your document on paper, in case your computer becomes magically corrupted and nothing displays properly in vi, and no one can read your alphabet.
Hmmm, you're right. While I'm at it, I guess I should probably write out all of the vectors for paper magically disintegrating and pencils magically combusting spontaneously. Thanks for the tip, I'll get right on that.:)
(You should probably try to find a better counter to my argument that abstraction creates risk...but that was clever and funny.)
It is my sincere hope that you do NOT get modded down and instead, modded up.
Of course, I'm not really the type to edit HTML in a text editor much, either. Lately, I've been relying on Visual Studio.NET (I'm sure I'll get modded down for saying that) for my editing, since it does color-coding, automatic end-tab completion, automatic spacing, grouping of different pages in the same project space, and so I can see the webpage in progress.
Personally, I'm not a very big fan of anything with.NET in its title but I won't fault you for using the tool that works best for you.
Unfortunately, it's made me very lazy with my HTMLing. With all the stuff it does for me, I'm not to confident in my ability to write neat and good HTML without it's help.
This is why I hope your post gets modded up instead of down. Your honesty and objectivity is refreshing.
But it does make my work go a lot faster...
Perhaps, but have you considered all of the implications? What if there's a bug that causes your WYSIWYG to render web pages incorrectly? What if the next patch for your WYSIWYG introduces a bug? What if the webpage generated by your WYSIWYG application is coded so that only the browser created by the owner of your WYSIWYG app can view your webpages?
I maintain my website on the company intranet with vi and the only thing that takes up my time is recreating tables from a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, because if I try to use their "Save as Web Page" option...all I get is bloated XML.
we should totally be open to listening to alternative points of view, but is an open source conference really the proper venue for it?
That's a good question. My opinion is that context should and does matter, but that we should be very careful about how we determine what that context is.
If this were a conference called "Government's use of Norton Antivirus" and I were a CIO for the government, I'd be interested to hear McAfee's case. (Insert joke about Microsoft's inherent lack of security here.)
It helps to consider the perspective of the attendees of any given conference when determining who should be invited to speak at that conference. This conference is about the government using open-source software so I'm inclined to think that the attendees of the conference might be interested in hearing counter-proposals so that they can make more informed decisions. If this were a conference about advocating closed-source proprietary software in the government, if I were an attendee I would hope to see RMS offering a counter-proposal that advocates free software.
Debate is always A Good Thing(tm) when conflicting viewpoints adopt reasonable approaches to discussion because the audience almost always comes away more informed than they were before the debate.
The good news is that my post is relevant today.
The bad news that it might be criminal tomorrow.
Either way, go to sleep Thurog.:) We can't solve these problems tonight.
Content-makers and content-distributors vie for control until they collide (e.g. AOL-TW, Sony) at which time they engage in fierce legal battles which garner headlines.
Meanwhile, their customers carry on performing "criminal" actions.
You don't have to be Jeffrey Friedl to match this pattern.
The application is only 400k in size, but many users will notice that the download is over 20MB. This is because Locutus relies on Microsoft's.NET framework...
Thanks anyway, Ian. If you could disembowel the bloated.NET (.NOT?) framework dependency, you would find a much warmer reception here.
This:giant-room" is fucking huge - it's 10,000 sq feet huge. A small section of the room has a pit of sharp spikes with a warning sign above it - "Pit of Spikes Will Kill You!".
The children are ushered in on the side of the room away from the pit of spikes, and get to spend the entire day in the room. Away from the pit of spikes are the bathrooms and eating facilities.
The stupid children fall into the pit of spikes.
The smart ones stay away.
If you're too stupid to fall into a pit of spikes, we'll, good ridance.
Interesting point. I guess it all depends on your definition of "stupid". Obviously, your level of intelligence suggests that illiterate people are stupid.
Well, my level of intelligence suggests that people of your level of intelligence (that do not understand the use of contractions in the English language as evidenced by your usage of "we'll" instead of "well" and "ridance" instead of "riddance") are perfectly entitled to your uninformed opinion...but not before I suggest that you're an idiotic asshole.
You do make a point though...some people shouldn't be allowed to breed. I think your target should be the image that you see in a mirror.
Unless my textbooks have seriously misled me, this guy is one of the two most important people the history of computing. And he sits around writing HTML and browsing the web on a WinNT box?! This is just depressing.
I'm sorry you're depressed about his answers, but I'm confused about your reaction. Are you upset because he is using WinNT, or is it because he isn't as active in the technology sector anymore?
I'm a bit disappointed that he's using WinNT (even if you want to use Windows, 2000 is much better than NT). I can't imagine someone more ready-made for a GNU/Linux distro. But I'm not going to hold that against him.
Most individual innovation occurs when a person wants to "scratch an itch". That's what Dennis did when he created C. That he's using WinNT today should be a challenge to GNU/Linux developers everywhere...give him a reason to switch.
If you're upset because he's not actively participating in the GNU/Linux community, I say give the guy a break. If you cure cancer tomorrow, would it be fair for someone to criticize you 20 years later for not curing $some_new_disease?
While it's important to respect and honor great people, it's also important to remember that they're just people.
You do relize that the money system in the US hasn't been tied to gold or silver for a rather long time?
That's an interesting statement. I'm not much of an economist so I don't know much about issues in that sphere. Would you mind posting some links so that I can read up?
The belief that movies, music, or books are somehow licensed to you is incorrect. It's a popular misconception, presumably because the copyright industry wants people to believe it.
I totally agree with you, which leads me to the following question: Do you feel the same way about software? When I buy a CD with Windows 2000 on it, do I not then OWN that CD and its content?
I'm not trying to be contrary or trollish. I'm simply curious about your (and others) opinion when the fair use of content debate hits a bit closer to the general/. lifestyle. Should the intellectual property that resides on a computer software CD be any more protected by fair use than the intellectual property that resides on a DVD?
Sheesh, it's one thing to be an ignorant moron once but I'm pretty sure that repeat offenders take the short bus to hell. (Just a joke, Jack! Keep those lawyers caged!)
I don't believe that all CS or EE grads are simply idiots that paid for a piece of paper. Even in those cases, their degree proves diligence...and they can't have slept through all of the classes so there must be some modicum of education.
Here's where I part ways with you, CC:
A CS degree tells me that you have a solid understanding of the concepts of computer science and mathematics, as well as some understanding of the related EE and physics concepts. It also implies that you have some experience writing code in at least one language and probably several. You also understand how languages are designed and supposed to work, as well as where they are likely to go wrong. You have a good idea of many common programming errors because you both committed them yourself and were shown examples by your instructors.
A degree does not guaranteeunderstanding of any subject, whether it's computer science, engineering, or poetry. The degree simply certifies that someone met the requirements of an institution. Fortunately, there are a lot of people that are really into this stuff and they go to college and really learn to understand computers. Unfortunately, there seem to be a great many more that latched onto a CS degree before the dot-com boom and they have NO CLUE how stuff works and, worse, they don't care to learn.
I applaud the hackers that have or are pursuing college degrees and/or certifications. I just wish the posers that don't give a shit about technology or computers would stop crowding the field so the rest of us could get some work done.
Hopefully this won't be redundant, but I couldn't pass it up.
... is there some character in Western European mythology, some hero, perhaps, after which we could name such a grouping, or cluster?
Beowulf?;)
--K.
Re:drag and drop file sharing
on
NARAS vs. the RIAA
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But what will come if the RIAA dies? What after that?
Excellent questions. While I don't have a crystal ball, I do have an idea of what could happen.
RL experience this weekend: I am an 80's music junkie. Pop, punk, bubble-gum...I love all of it. Relatively recently, a station opened here in Atlanta that plays 80's music only (thank you 105.3!!!) so that's pretty much all I listen to now. I was on my way to $somewhere this weekend and Pat Benatar's song "We Belong" was played on 105.3. My impulsive nature kicked in and I whipped the car into the Best Buy store that I was about to pass. I walked right by all of the artist-specific CDs and went straight to the "compilations" section. (I was a DJ at one time, so I learned long ago that it is not cost efficient to buy a CD for just one song.) Wham! Billboard's chart-toppers compilations for every year of the 80s. I looked over all of the 198x comp and sure enough, I found that song on one of those CDs. Price? $7.99 (USD). I got my song (with the bonus of having a lot more songs from that year that I also love) for less than half the price of a CD from a single band released today.
Based on this experience, I think (hope?) that the future of the music industry is a future where they offer songs (or even portions of songs) and let people vote. Based upon the outcome of those votes, they release compilation CDs with the most popular songs on them. I also think (hope?) that the artists themselves get more power and sell their songs themselves so that if I like the work of one artist, but most other people don't, I can just go get it directly from that artist/band. This is a radically different business model than what is in place today and it might have flaws that I haven't considered. But, based on my experience this weekend, I think it might be a workable solution where everyone (the artists, the customers, and the RIAA) can find a balance.
I wonder how long the publishers of movies such as this are going to get away with doing this. The only reason they do this is to maximize the amount of money they possibly squeeze out of the mindless masses that enjoy seeing pretty pictures moving.
I believe that this point (and the others you make) are true to a certain degree.
I'm sure many of you have read/heard the analogy of a large company to a large sea-going vessel; the bigger the ship, the harder it is to steer. Now, multiplex this analogy to the RIAA/MPAA...you essentially have The Raft (From Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash novel...if you haven't read it, you should) of these big companies.
Now, if it's hard to steer one big multinational company...how hard must it be to steer an entire raft of them all lashed together? Suffice to say, change is a hard sell to large companies, and the complexity of change is multiplied when large companies converge into organizations like the RIAA and MPAA. These organizations of conglomerates epitomize centralization in the market and they have hit the brick wall that is the de-centralized nature of the Internet.
So they're experimenting on one front while violently defending their monopoly on another front.
Their sales will drop until they realise they can't get away with it.
I believe that your conclusion is correct, but I think that they already know that they can't/won't get away with it. I believe that they're fighting a digital war that they know they cannot win, so they have chosen to fight the digital equivalent of a "forced retreat". By that I mean that they (the RIAA/MPAA) are going to eke every cent they can out of their customers until their current leadership can bail out (with a golden parachute) and keep their reputations intact. Once those dinosaurs are gone, we might actually see an entertainment cartel more willing to acknowledge the rights of their customers. Unfortunately, this process will probably require many years and many millions of dollars.
Anyone else think that debian is getting a bit anal in these matters?
In a word, yes. But I can understand why they're anal...it costs a lot to get sued, even when you're "right" (and even that term is up for grabs these days).
You said it best yourself, Alan:
Also, while as amusing as the legal flame wars about how paragraph 32 line 8 words 14-18 in the program license excludes it from being included in debian main are, they get old real soon.
Last week, one of my cousins said to me "I want to go to college and learn to be a programmer!" I told him to go to law school first.
People often (mistakenly) characterize the GPL with the phrase "Information wants to be free". Phooey. The GPL simply codified what we're becoming increasingly aware of: Information is free whether you like it or not.
Fueds like this only give fuel to the people that oppose my efforts to migrate my company's software infrastructure to GNU/Linux solutions. All they have to do is bring up the legal morass that we might become involved in and the beancounters throw my suggestions out the window. It will be a shame if the counter-culture independent creativity that has fueled this revolution turns in upon itself.
"In sum, substantial evidence does not support the jury's verdict that Rambus breached its duties" to disclose patents, the judges wrote in the ruling. "No reasonable jury could find otherwise."
I didn't read the full decision of the court (and I probably wouldn't understand much of it if I did...I speak Perl, not legalese) but something seems wrong when a 3-judge federal circuit court can overturn the ruling of a jury with language like that. I mean, if the administration of the case was mis-handled or the judge screwed up...I could perhaps understand. Maybe someone more familiar or more enlightened could explain this further.
I completely agree with your point. They should go after the person that leaked the content to begin with. But trying to find that person through traditional means was probably a little more difficult than picking on an big, juicy, easy target.
Well, if I'm in the business of creating and maintaining a fanbase and some confidant releases my unfinished content to my fanbase via Napster, persecuting Napster (a medium of my fanbase) just because it's a "big, juicy target" would be a (greedy|stupid|counterproductive) act.
It's not like I'll never buy another Metallica CD because their music sucks; it doesn't. I'm not going to buy their music because they support and contribute to a mentality that makes me a criminal before I even commit a crime.
But, to get to the point - is it FUD to say that linux is a "geek OS"? I don't really think it is. Consider that GPL'ed software is - by nature - written by geeks and always will be: it is software that has been written because someone, a computer programmer, has thought: "gee, I wish I had software that did X, Y or Z... why don't I see if I can write that".
I didn't mean to imply that you were spreading FUD...I was just afraid your statement could have been interpreted that way. I think you make a great point. I agree with you here, but I think you're failing to make a critical distinction when it comes to programmers. The programmers you call "geeks" in that context are programmers that I tend to think of as innovative programmers. Innovative programmers do exactly what you describe: write programs to scratch an itch (if I may paraphrase a bit) and screw the GUIs and needs of the clueless. What's important to note is that other programmers come along after these innovaters and improve the programs by adding options and various other features. And then other programmers come after those programmers and take the program and wrap a GUI around it. It's software evolution at its finest, but it only happens when 1) people care and 2) people can. You and I know that most people will never care, but we do know that the people who DO care...CAN.
So, what did I mean when I said that only commercial apps will be user-friendly? Only that commercial apps can afford to have usability studies, employ programmers to work on simple features that they themselves do not require, and in general be driven by competition to make a product that appeals to the most people.
Again, good points. But as the cost of those measures seem to be continuing to increase the price of the end-product (as in the costs of Microsoft's software)...it stands to reason that eventually people will decide that what they have is enough. At this point, the business model that you describe falls flat. To their credit, Microsoft has been a master when it comes to market manipulation; they've gotten their fingers so deep into so many aspects of computing that the very thought of competition is almost laughable to anyone that isn't a geek.
(*Engage John Lenin Imagine mode*)
Imagine what could happen if enough Joe Longnecks actually try GNU/Linux and supply the amount of feedback that Microsoft received back in the late 80s.
(*Disengage John Lenin Imagine mode*):)
Now, as far as GNOME and KDE go... well, I think if you were honest you'd have to admit both of them have severe failings in terms of speed at the very least.
Absolutely. Most apps are slower in my experience. I've even encountered seg faults frequently in a lot of the most popular OSS apps. Whenever that error box pops up with a seg fault warning, it alarms me. But what surprised me even more was the reaction that my non-geek friends had to them. While I wanted to divine why the error occurred, they were amazed that they could just keep on working most of the time and didn't have to reboot! The first few times someone approached me saying "Ummm, I got this error about something called a Segmentation Fault..." I cringed...right up until they said "..but I just clicked on OK and kept on working."
Hmmm... perhaps not "coercing", but it did sound as though you were advocating linux whereever possible and encouraging everyone you knew to use it (you say "Teach them, Help them, Educate them and Support them" - isn't this linux advocacy?). This may possibly be a mis-reading on my part; sorry if that's the case:(
Maybe I sent conflicting signals, so no hard feelings. My position is this: If computer literacy were a standard of measurement on the level of reading, writing, and arithmetic...90% of the people I know operate at a first-grade level. I believe that my role (as resident computer geek) is to educate them. In much the same way that a political science professor teaches his/her students about the merits/demerits of different governmental philosophies, I think it is our role to teach people about computers and the choices that they have. I believe in educating people first because I've found that informed people ask the right questions and that allows me to give them better answers.
But I'm also seeing more and more that what you and I like about linux, most users couldn't care less. They're happy with what they've got and if they moved to linux they'd for the most part be sacrificing features for the benefits of a philosophy that they couldn't care less about.
I agree. I won't force my own personal philosophy on anyone and if they're happy with what they've got...more power to 'em (at least until their box gets compromised and attacks my box). I've never "sold" the free software philosophy on its philosophical merits (well, maybe once but he was already a perl hacker so that doesn't count). GNU/Linux sells to Joe Longneck based on price vs. functionality. People that are willing to learn more in order to spend less are more receptive than people that are willing to spend more to learn less.
The thing I love most about all of the *NIX variations is the wonderful way that UNIX was built to address file storage devices. I'm not the least bit concerned by Red Hat's EOL cycle because I know that I can mount a partition where I keep non-redundant data and just leave that partition alone whenever I load the next GNU/Linux or *BSD distro. The thought of teaching GNU/Linux "newbies" how this works is a bit daunting...but I'm willing to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen to that john. Perhaps the entertainment companies aren't the only ones that need to revisit their business models.
I wonder if it would be heresy to suggest that the US government seize control of the "last mile" in order to level the playing field. I'm not sure whether or not I'd advocate that position because I'm not clear about its implications or legal ramifications, but it's worth a look.
I believe that governmental intervention should be considered an option when (and ONLY when) competing companies can't "play nice" and that society suffers as a result.
--K.
Now I have a reason.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, thank you for allowing me to speak. I'd like to address this letter and brochure that you have received from the entertainment cartels. What's that, Mr. Chairman? No sir, I did indeed call them cartels. No, please keep the lawyers in the room...they might find this informative. My presentation consists of the following:
--K.
That is extremely insightful; it's something that we should keep in mind.
I can neither refute nor support this statement (I'm not that familiar with international telecom deployment), but it does make me wonder if perhaps you're confusing the government-regulated monopoly over telecommunications until 1984 with regulation in general when it comes to how we deployed this existing network? If I'm wrong, sorry but even if I'm right it raises the following question: would we have been able to run a copper line to every house in the United States (sorry folks, no snobbery, I can only talk about what I know) without a government-supported/regulated mandate?
If you want to REALLY dig into this can of worms, let's assume that AT&T WAS necessary for copper-to-the-home and while we're in hypothetical mode, let's say that AT&T hadn't been barred from data communications by governmental regulations. Would the internet have taken off like it did (empirical question...but keep in mind that we used dialup for a LOONG time before broadband hit the scene)?
That's just some background to hold in your
I percieve a danger in your raising this question right now, jeff. I think you might be raising code and content layer questions while the underlying physical layer is still highly volatile. I agree that VOIP should be unregulated, but I fear that you're putting the cart before the horse in the USA.
The state of the telecom industry in the USA is simply the culmination of a comedy of errors. I see VOIP becoming viable in Europe before it takes hold in the US...much like wireless service.
I applaud your efforts, Jeff...I just hope that you're not too far ahead of your time when it comes to the US and the FCC.
--K.
Hmmm, you're right. While I'm at it, I guess I should probably write out all of the vectors for paper magically disintegrating and pencils magically combusting spontaneously. Thanks for the tip, I'll get right on that.
(You should probably try to find a better counter to my argument that abstraction creates risk...but that was clever and funny.)
--K.
Personally, I'm not a very big fan of anything with
This is why I hope your post gets modded up instead of down. Your honesty and objectivity is refreshing.
Perhaps, but have you considered all of the implications? What if there's a bug that causes your WYSIWYG to render web pages incorrectly? What if the next patch for your WYSIWYG introduces a bug? What if the webpage generated by your WYSIWYG application is coded so that only the browser created by the owner of your WYSIWYG app can view your webpages?
I maintain my website on the company intranet with vi and the only thing that takes up my time is recreating tables from a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, because if I try to use their "Save as Web Page" option...all I get is bloated XML.
--K.
That's a good question. My opinion is that context should and does matter, but that we should be very careful about how we determine what that context is.
If this were a conference called "Government's use of Norton Antivirus" and I were a CIO for the government, I'd be interested to hear McAfee's case. (Insert joke about Microsoft's inherent lack of security here.)
It helps to consider the perspective of the attendees of any given conference when determining who should be invited to speak at that conference. This conference is about the government using open-source software so I'm inclined to think that the attendees of the conference might be interested in hearing counter-proposals so that they can make more informed decisions. If this were a conference about advocating closed-source proprietary software in the government, if I were an attendee I would hope to see RMS offering a counter-proposal that advocates free software.
Debate is always A Good Thing(tm) when conflicting viewpoints adopt reasonable approaches to discussion because the audience almost always comes away more informed than they were before the debate.
--K.
The good news is that my post is relevant today. :) We can't solve these problems tonight.
The bad news that it might be criminal tomorrow.
Either way, go to sleep Thurog.
--K.
Content-makers and content-distributors vie for control until they collide (e.g. AOL-TW, Sony) at which time they engage in fierce legal battles which garner headlines.
Meanwhile, their customers carry on performing "criminal" actions.
You don't have to be Jeffrey Friedl to match this pattern.
--K.
Thanks anyway, Ian. If you could disembowel the bloated
--K.
Interesting point. I guess it all depends on your definition of "stupid". Obviously, your level of intelligence suggests that illiterate people are stupid.
Well, my level of intelligence suggests that people of your level of intelligence (that do not understand the use of contractions in the English language as evidenced by your usage of "we'll" instead of "well" and "ridance" instead of "riddance") are perfectly entitled to your uninformed opinion...but not before I suggest that you're an idiotic asshole.
You do make a point though...some people shouldn't be allowed to breed. I think your target should be the image that you see in a mirror.
--K.
I can't wait to visit Nevada. I consider it the GNU/Linux equivalent for a state in the US. Lots of flavors, take your pick. :)
--K.
I'm sorry you're depressed about his answers, but I'm confused about your reaction. Are you upset because he is using WinNT, or is it because he isn't as active in the technology sector anymore?
I'm a bit disappointed that he's using WinNT (even if you want to use Windows, 2000 is much better than NT). I can't imagine someone more ready-made for a GNU/Linux distro. But I'm not going to hold that against him.
Most individual innovation occurs when a person wants to "scratch an itch". That's what Dennis did when he created C. That he's using WinNT today should be a challenge to GNU/Linux developers everywhere...give him a reason to switch.
If you're upset because he's not actively participating in the GNU/Linux community, I say give the guy a break. If you cure cancer tomorrow, would it be fair for someone to criticize you 20 years later for not curing $some_new_disease?
While it's important to respect and honor great people, it's also important to remember that they're just people.
--K.
That's an interesting statement. I'm not much of an economist so I don't know much about issues in that sphere. Would you mind posting some links so that I can read up?
--K.
.
When it comes to the Internet, you can pick a side, but not a party. What do we actually "own" when we buy a tangible item?
I submit that we topple these houses of cards called 'intellectual property'. Stand on your merits or get the hell out of the way.
But that's just me...and I could be sued.
--K.
I totally agree with you, which leads me to the following question: Do you feel the same way about software? When I buy a CD with Windows 2000 on it, do I not then OWN that CD and its content?
I'm not trying to be contrary or trollish. I'm simply curious about your (and others) opinion when the fair use of content debate hits a bit closer to the general
--K.
Sheesh, it's one thing to be an ignorant moron once but I'm pretty sure that repeat offenders take the short bus to hell. (Just a joke, Jack! Keep those lawyers caged!)
--K.
Here's where I part ways with you, CC:
A degree does not guarantee understanding of any subject, whether it's computer science, engineering, or poetry. The degree simply certifies that someone met the requirements of an institution. Fortunately, there are a lot of people that are really into this stuff and they go to college and really learn to understand computers. Unfortunately, there seem to be a great many more that latched onto a CS degree before the dot-com boom and they have NO CLUE how stuff works and, worse, they don't care to learn.
I applaud the hackers that have or are pursuing college degrees and/or certifications. I just wish the posers that don't give a shit about technology or computers would stop crowding the field so the rest of us could get some work done.
--K.
Beowulf?
--K.
Excellent questions. While I don't have a crystal ball, I do have an idea of what could happen.
RL experience this weekend: I am an 80's music junkie. Pop, punk, bubble-gum...I love all of it. Relatively recently, a station opened here in Atlanta that plays 80's music only (thank you 105.3!!!) so that's pretty much all I listen to now. I was on my way to $somewhere this weekend and Pat Benatar's song "We Belong" was played on 105.3. My impulsive nature kicked in and I whipped the car into the Best Buy store that I was about to pass. I walked right by all of the artist-specific CDs and went straight to the "compilations" section. (I was a DJ at one time, so I learned long ago that it is not cost efficient to buy a CD for just one song.) Wham! Billboard's chart-toppers compilations for every year of the 80s. I looked over all of the 198x comp and sure enough, I found that song on one of those CDs. Price? $7.99 (USD). I got my song (with the bonus of having a lot more songs from that year that I also love) for less than half the price of a CD from a single band released today.
Based on this experience, I think (hope?) that the future of the music industry is a future where they offer songs (or even portions of songs) and let people vote. Based upon the outcome of those votes, they release compilation CDs with the most popular songs on them. I also think (hope?) that the artists themselves get more power and sell their songs themselves so that if I like the work of one artist, but most other people don't, I can just go get it directly from that artist/band. This is a radically different business model than what is in place today and it might have flaws that I haven't considered. But, based on my experience this weekend, I think it might be a workable solution where everyone (the artists, the customers, and the RIAA) can find a balance.
--K.
I believe that this point (and the others you make) are true to a certain degree.
I'm sure many of you have read/heard the analogy of a large company to a large sea-going vessel; the bigger the ship, the harder it is to steer. Now, multiplex this analogy to the RIAA/MPAA...you essentially have The Raft (From Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash novel...if you haven't read it, you should) of these big companies.
Now, if it's hard to steer one big multinational company...how hard must it be to steer an entire raft of them all lashed together? Suffice to say, change is a hard sell to large companies, and the complexity of change is multiplied when large companies converge into organizations like the RIAA and MPAA. These organizations of conglomerates epitomize centralization in the market and they have hit the brick wall that is the de-centralized nature of the Internet.
So they're experimenting on one front while violently defending their monopoly on another front.
I believe that your conclusion is correct, but I think that they already know that they can't/won't get away with it. I believe that they're fighting a digital war that they know they cannot win, so they have chosen to fight the digital equivalent of a "forced retreat". By that I mean that they (the RIAA/MPAA) are going to eke every cent they can out of their customers until their current leadership can bail out (with a golden parachute) and keep their reputations intact. Once those dinosaurs are gone, we might actually see an entertainment cartel more willing to acknowledge the rights of their customers. Unfortunately, this process will probably require many years and many millions of dollars.
--K.
In a word, yes. But I can understand why they're anal...it costs a lot to get sued, even when you're "right" (and even that term is up for grabs these days).
You said it best yourself, Alan:
Last week, one of my cousins said to me "I want to go to college and learn to be a programmer!" I told him to go to law school first.
People often (mistakenly) characterize the GPL with the phrase "Information wants to be free". Phooey. The GPL simply codified what we're becoming increasingly aware of: Information is free whether you like it or not.
Fueds like this only give fuel to the people that oppose my efforts to migrate my company's software infrastructure to GNU/Linux solutions. All they have to do is bring up the legal morass that we might become involved in and the beancounters throw my suggestions out the window. It will be a shame if the counter-culture independent creativity that has fueled this revolution turns in upon itself.
--K.
I didn't read the full decision of the court (and I probably wouldn't understand much of it if I did...I speak Perl, not legalese) but something seems wrong when a 3-judge federal circuit court can overturn the ruling of a jury with language like that. I mean, if the administration of the case was mis-handled or the judge screwed up...I could perhaps understand. Maybe someone more familiar or more enlightened could explain this further.
--K.
Well, if I'm in the business of creating and maintaining a fanbase and some confidant releases my unfinished content to my fanbase via Napster, persecuting Napster (a medium of my fanbase) just because it's a "big, juicy target" would be a (greedy|stupid|counterproductive) act.
It's not like I'll never buy another Metallica CD because their music sucks; it doesn't. I'm not going to buy their music because they support and contribute to a mentality that makes me a criminal before I even commit a crime.
--K.
Whew! hehe
I didn't mean to imply that you were spreading FUD...I was just afraid your statement could have been interpreted that way. I think you make a great point. I agree with you here, but I think you're failing to make a critical distinction when it comes to programmers. The programmers you call "geeks" in that context are programmers that I tend to think of as innovative programmers. Innovative programmers do exactly what you describe: write programs to scratch an itch (if I may paraphrase a bit) and screw the GUIs and needs of the clueless. What's important to note is that other programmers come along after these innovaters and improve the programs by adding options and various other features. And then other programmers come after those programmers and take the program and wrap a GUI around it. It's software evolution at its finest, but it only happens when 1) people care and 2) people can. You and I know that most people will never care, but we do know that the people who DO care...CAN.
Again, good points. But as the cost of those measures seem to be continuing to increase the price of the end-product (as in the costs of Microsoft's software)...it stands to reason that eventually people will decide that what they have is enough. At this point, the business model that you describe falls flat. To their credit, Microsoft has been a master when it comes to market manipulation; they've gotten their fingers so deep into so many aspects of computing that the very thought of competition is almost laughable to anyone that isn't a geek.
(*Engage John Lenin Imagine mode*)
Imagine what could happen if enough Joe Longnecks actually try GNU/Linux and supply the amount of feedback that Microsoft received back in the late 80s.
(*Disengage John Lenin Imagine mode*)
Absolutely. Most apps are slower in my experience. I've even encountered seg faults frequently in a lot of the most popular OSS apps. Whenever that error box pops up with a seg fault warning, it alarms me. But what surprised me even more was the reaction that my non-geek friends had to them. While I wanted to divine why the error occurred, they were amazed that they could just keep on working most of the time and didn't have to reboot! The first few times someone approached me saying "Ummm, I got this error about something called a Segmentation Fault..." I cringed...right up until they said "..but I just clicked on OK and kept on working."
Maybe I sent conflicting signals, so no hard feelings. My position is this: If computer literacy were a standard of measurement on the level of reading, writing, and arithmetic...90% of the people I know operate at a first-grade level. I believe that my role (as resident computer geek) is to educate them. In much the same way that a political science professor teaches his/her students about the merits/demerits of different governmental philosophies, I think it is our role to teach people about computers and the choices that they have. I believe in educating people first because I've found that informed people ask the right questions and that allows me to give them better answers.
I agree. I won't force my own personal philosophy on anyone and if they're happy with what they've got...more power to 'em (at least until their box gets compromised and attacks my box). I've never "sold" the free software philosophy on its philosophical merits (well, maybe once but he was already a perl hacker so that doesn't count). GNU/Linux sells to Joe Longneck based on price vs. functionality. People that are willing to learn more in order to spend less are more receptive than people that are willing to spend more to learn less.
Great discussion, shellbeach!
--K.
That's a good point.
The thing I love most about all of the *NIX variations is the wonderful way that UNIX was built to address file storage devices. I'm not the least bit concerned by Red Hat's EOL cycle because I know that I can mount a partition where I keep non-redundant data and just leave that partition alone whenever I load the next GNU/Linux or *BSD distro. The thought of teaching GNU/Linux "newbies" how this works is a bit daunting...but I'm willing to do it.
--K.