" I've always wondered why teachers don't "open source" some text books."
Because no publisher would agree to print a textbook without the copyright. There is too much risk. eBooks may change things, however, and allow a GPL sort of model.
When has electric power ever been on the free market. The "private companies" that generate and transmit power are govt. regulated monopolies with no incentive to improve things unless the govt. says they must. Nothing improves unless a politician cares. This is about as anti free market as it gets. At least their's competition in the telcom market since AT&T, Sprint, etc. have their own networks instead of relying on a single network forced on them by law.
You should look at the history of Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Your notions of capitalism seem very misguided. Wealth IS produced through labor. It can be transferred through inheritence, etc., and then it's up to the person to spend the money or use it to generate more wealth. That doesn't mean you can't start a company from nothing. Many wealthy people invest venture capital in companies with promise started by people with little money, and a good idea. The role of efficiency in the generation of wealth is that it allows you to genrate more products for less cost, which is important in taking a prototype and making it cheap enough to sell at a reasonable price.
" Just because a country has food problems, and is communist, does not imply that it has food problems because it is communist."
Communism has failed or is about to fail in every attempt made for a simple reason. The individual is required to sacrifice his labor for society. Such a system gives no incentive to any worker, much less the entrepeneurs, who are now must be politicians to pursue enterprise by definition of the system. It's no surprise a communist country doesn't exist that holds free elections, because the population would soon realize that electing non-communists is a good idea.
An open standard must have a written description explaining all parameters. Therefore, simply having examples of a format does not make it an open standard. With this clarification, it is clear that Office documents do not follow an open standard, since there is no way to get a spec for the Office file format from MS.
I'd assume the beeps are a single tone. Run a fourier xform on the signal and look for any dominant tones (peaks) in the spectrum. Once the frequency is known, run the signal through a narrow band filter at that frequency to eliminate the noise. After that the tones should be recognizable enough to decode by ear.
"In the technology industry, the term "open standards" refers to nonproprietary software. Microsoft's software is considered "closed" because application developers and other programmers don't have free access to the blueprints."
Proprietary software can also adhere to an open standard. The idea of an open standard is an open interface (file format, API, etc.) that allows sw for various vendors to interoperate. This way you don't even need to see the source to write complementary or competing sw, you just need the spec. Open standard and open source are not synonymous, although the former is a subset of the latter.
If SCO wins their case against IBM, that will pretty much invalidate the GPL for Linux, at least in respect to IBM contributions. If they lose, they're going out of business anyway, so losing this case won't make any difference.
Even if you can record an album with your own capital, how are you going to get anyone to listen to it? The recording industry's job is to sort through all the crap and find the stuff someone wants to listen to. If they're not around, the radio stations are stuck with the job, and they don't want it, so they'll get together and hire people to do it for them. Guess what you have then? The recording industry in a new form.
This is nonsense. How do you "develop your career" if your too busy flipping burgers because you don't make any money from your career. No one's going to buy albums when they can download them for free under your utopian system.
Even if you can make the album for less than $500K, how are you going to promote the album? Look at the local bands you produced, how many of them are famous? My original assertion is correct, despite being modded down. The recording inductry takes the risk on bands. They're as necessary as any movie producer is to a writer or actor, or any venture capitalist is to a startup, etc.
The anti-RIAA article continues the fallacy that musicicians don't need the recording industry. Without writing a book, let me just pose the alternative. You want to be famous, and you think you have a good band. How are you going to get the half million or so to produce a studio quality album and get anyone on any radio station to play a track? This cost money. Go to a bank and propose a loan for $1M without any real collateral and see how long before security escorts you to the door.
What SCO is banking on is that IBM engaged in unfair competition law by dumping unix code into linux. Basically, IBM is competing unfairly with SCO by taking their knowledge of Unix and using it to develop linux. SCO proabably has a good chance of winning, on Bois wouldn't have signed on to the case. If you say this is ridiculous, then ask yourself how ridiculous is was that the government was interfering with MS's business, and see whether or not you're a hypocrite. I'll be amused if Linux gets burned by the same type of stupid laws they use to persecute MS.
Yes, lets get Kazaa lite banned, since we all love kazaa spyware etc., and lets set a precedent to prevent 3rd party clients from using a particular protocol so AOL can sue your favorite IM clone software maker. That's a really good idea/.ers.
Stallman has spoken out about how TCPA is bad because DRM limits your computer. However, doesn't the GPL do the same thing? A BSD style license give the freedom to do anything you want with the code under license. However, under GPL, you cannot distribute binaries of a program without source if you used GPLed code. Therefore, GPL doesn't promote freedom of speech, but forced speech, which is not free, i.e. you don't have the freedom to keep your mouth shut about the code modifications. Thus, the GPL is an attempt to give something away, while still maintaining control over it. This is what DRM tries to do with information. So how can you crusade for GPL and against DRM/TCPA at the same time?
How many of you that don't want computer hardware legislated to include TCPA were all for the govt. regulating Microsoft? Give the govt. that type of power to restrict freedom and don't be surprised when they use it in ways you don't like.
The last article talks about p2p as a private transaction vs. http as a public transaction, and uses the analogy of handing out cdr's on a street corner vs. giving a cdr to a friend. This analogy is flawed though. Most p2p transfers occur between strangers, so you're not giving a copy to someone you know. A better analogy is that p2p is more like having a person shout "who has a copy of the latest White Stripes cd" on the sidewalk, and having some stranger hand him that cdr. It's not a private transaction. Just a different search mechanism.
"In a nutshell, Private Copying allows anyone to make a copy of a song purely for their own use. As you probably know, when you share files and someone downloads from you, what actually happens is that their computer makes a request and your computer actually sends the file to them. Thus, you're copying for someone else's use and infringing. It doesn't matter if you didn't realize that's what happens, either... intent is not required for infringement. "
I said essentially the same thing yesterday when the original article came out and I got modded up 1 for insightful and modded down 1 for overrated. Where's the justice?:-)
" The downloaders computer is actually making the company. The uploader is simply providing the means to get the copy just like the author stated.
So to put it in the light he's looking at it: The uploader sends the bits (loans the cd) and the downloader copies the bits (burns the cd). The analogy fits when looked at that way.
Of course, this is one of those round and round arguments that could go on forever:)"
When the uploaders computer sends you bits, it's not sending the original bits stored on the hard drive, but a copy of those bits. The uploader's computer makes the copy. The downloaders computer then records the copy, but did not make the copy.
I find it hilarious that this guy thinks artists are being ripped off because they voluntarily sign over copyright, or don't get published/produced. People go to the recording industry/pulishers because they are unwilling to mortgage their home on their music/writing career. So they go to the industry, who risk a lot of capital on their work, and are surprised that this company wants the rights to their work as well as the lion's share of the profits. The deserve this since they're taking all the risk. If you're that great, you can get a better deal elsewhere. But if your some random talent, your odds of making it are poor, and the industry may never recover its investment. Don't like it, don't sign up, like the author said. Go to a bank instead, and see if they'll from you the money to start your career. See what kind of luck you have there. PLease stop this nonsense however that the recording/publishing industry serves no purpose but to exploit artists. There the ones that give artists a chance in the 1st place.
This is analogous to getting arrested for manslaughter because someone stole your car and killed someone during the getaway. Regardless of whether you locked your car and he was a good thief, or you left the doors unlocked and the key in the ignition, you're not guilty of manslaughter. Having an insecure computer should not be a criminal offense, only writing software to break into that computer should be. Prosecute the criminals, not the victims.
Author's interpretation not necessarily correct
on
Canada Immune From RIAA?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"In fact, you could not have designed a law which more perfectly captures the peer to peer process. "Private copying" is a term of art in the Act. In Canada, if I own a CD and you borrow it and make a copy of it that is legal private copying; however, if I make you a copy of that same CD and give it to you that would be infringement. Odd, but ideal for protecting file sharers.
Every song on my hard drive comes from a CD in my collection or from a CD in someone else's collection which I have found on a P2P network. In either case I will have made the copy and will claim safe harbor under the "private copying" provision. If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself."
I disagree. The uploader's computer, is the one making the copy and sending it to the downloader. So it sounds like p2p sharing of copyrighted material is illegal in Canada.
"So that means every time you buy a CD to backup your Word documents, or photos, or home movies etc you pay a $0.77 tax which ends up going to the music industry."
Welcome to socialism, where wealth is arbitrarily redistributed based on the whims of those in power. This is what you get when you sacrifice the rights of individuals to promote the needs of the collective.
Slashdot Mirror
" I've always wondered why teachers don't "open source" some text books."
Because no publisher would agree to print a textbook without the copyright. There is too much risk. eBooks may change things, however, and allow a GPL sort of model.
"Free markets cause power blackouts?"
When has electric power ever been on the free market. The "private companies" that generate and transmit power are govt. regulated monopolies with no incentive to improve things unless the govt. says they must. Nothing improves unless a politician cares. This is about as anti free market as it gets. At least their's competition in the telcom market since AT&T, Sprint, etc. have their own networks instead of relying on a single network forced on them by law.
You should look at the history of Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Your notions of capitalism seem very misguided. Wealth IS produced through labor. It can be transferred through inheritence, etc., and then it's up to the person to spend the money or use it to generate more wealth. That doesn't mean you can't start a company from nothing. Many wealthy people invest venture capital in companies with promise started by people with little money, and a good idea. The role of efficiency in the generation of wealth is that it allows you to genrate more products for less cost, which is important in taking a prototype and making it cheap enough to sell at a reasonable price.
" Just because a country has food problems, and is communist, does not imply that it has food problems because it is communist."
Communism has failed or is about to fail in every attempt made for a simple reason. The individual is required to sacrifice his labor for society. Such a system gives no incentive to any worker, much less the entrepeneurs, who are now must be politicians to pursue enterprise by definition of the system. It's no surprise a communist country doesn't exist that holds free elections, because the population would soon realize that electing non-communists is a good idea.
An open standard must have a written description explaining all parameters. Therefore, simply having examples of a format does not make it an open standard. With this clarification, it is clear that Office documents do not follow an open standard, since there is no way to get a spec for the Office file format from MS.
I'd assume the beeps are a single tone. Run a fourier xform on the signal and look for any dominant tones (peaks) in the spectrum. Once the frequency is known, run the signal through a narrow band filter at that frequency to eliminate the noise. After that the tones should be recognizable enough to decode by ear.
"In the technology industry, the term "open standards" refers to nonproprietary software. Microsoft's software is considered "closed" because application developers and other programmers don't have free access to the blueprints."
Proprietary software can also adhere to an open standard. The idea of an open standard is an open interface (file format, API, etc.) that allows sw for various vendors to interoperate. This way you don't even need to see the source to write complementary or competing sw, you just need the spec. Open standard and open source are not synonymous, although the former is a subset of the latter.
If SCO wins their case against IBM, that will pretty much invalidate the GPL for Linux, at least in respect to IBM contributions. If they lose, they're going out of business anyway, so losing this case won't make any difference.
"The barrier of entry into the music world isn't anywhere near that high."
Then why are musician bitching about owing the studios millions of dollars if it didn't cost that much to get them started?
Even if you can record an album with your own capital, how are you going to get anyone to listen to it? The recording industry's job is to sort through all the crap and find the stuff someone wants to listen to. If they're not around, the radio stations are stuck with the job, and they don't want it, so they'll get together and hire people to do it for them. Guess what you have then? The recording industry in a new form.
This is nonsense. How do you "develop your career" if your too busy flipping burgers because you don't make any money from your career. No one's going to buy albums when they can download them for free under your utopian system.
Even if you can make the album for less than $500K, how are you going to promote the album? Look at the local bands you produced, how many of them are famous? My original assertion is correct, despite being modded down. The recording inductry takes the risk on bands. They're as necessary as any movie producer is to a writer or actor, or any venture capitalist is to a startup, etc.
The anti-RIAA article continues the fallacy that musicicians don't need the recording industry. Without writing a book, let me just pose the alternative. You want to be famous, and you think you have a good band. How are you going to get the half million or so to produce a studio quality album and get anyone on any radio station to play a track? This cost money. Go to a bank and propose a loan for $1M without any real collateral and see how long before security escorts you to the door.
What SCO is banking on is that IBM engaged in unfair competition law by dumping unix code into linux. Basically, IBM is competing unfairly with SCO by taking their knowledge of Unix and using it to develop linux. SCO proabably has a good chance of winning, on Bois wouldn't have signed on to the case. If you say this is ridiculous, then ask yourself how ridiculous is was that the government was interfering with MS's business, and see whether or not you're a hypocrite. I'll be amused if Linux gets burned by the same type of stupid laws they use to persecute MS.
Yes, lets get Kazaa lite banned, since we all love kazaa spyware etc., and lets set a precedent to prevent 3rd party clients from using a particular protocol so AOL can sue your favorite IM clone software maker. That's a really good idea /.ers.
Stallman has spoken out about how TCPA is bad because DRM limits your computer. However, doesn't the GPL do the same thing? A BSD style license give the freedom to do anything you want with the code under license. However, under GPL, you cannot distribute binaries of a program without source if you used GPLed code. Therefore, GPL doesn't promote freedom of speech, but forced speech, which is not free, i.e. you don't have the freedom to keep your mouth shut about the code modifications. Thus, the GPL is an attempt to give something away, while still maintaining control over it. This is what DRM tries to do with information. So how can you crusade for GPL and against DRM/TCPA at the same time?
How many of you that don't want computer hardware legislated to include TCPA were all for the govt. regulating Microsoft? Give the govt. that type of power to restrict freedom and don't be surprised when they use it in ways you don't like.
I didn't know they were on writing terms.
The last article talks about p2p as a private transaction vs. http as a public transaction, and uses the analogy of handing out cdr's on a street corner vs. giving a cdr to a friend. This analogy is flawed though. Most p2p transfers occur between strangers, so you're not giving a copy to someone you know. A better analogy is that p2p is more like having a person shout "who has a copy of the latest White Stripes cd" on the sidewalk, and having some stranger hand him that cdr. It's not a private transaction. Just a different search mechanism.
"In a nutshell, Private Copying allows anyone to make a copy of a song purely for their own use. As you probably know, when you share files and someone downloads from you, what actually happens is that their computer makes a request and your computer actually sends the file to them. Thus, you're copying for someone else's use and infringing. It doesn't matter if you didn't realize that's what happens, either... intent is not required for infringement. "
:-)
I said essentially the same thing yesterday when the original article came out and I got modded up 1 for insightful and modded down 1 for overrated. Where's the justice?
" The downloaders computer is actually making the company. The uploader is simply providing the means to get the copy just like the author stated. So to put it in the light he's looking at it: The uploader sends the bits (loans the cd) and the downloader copies the bits (burns the cd). The analogy fits when looked at that way. Of course, this is one of those round and round arguments that could go on forever :)"
When the uploaders computer sends you bits, it's not sending the original bits stored on the hard drive, but a copy of those bits. The uploader's computer makes the copy. The downloaders computer then records the copy, but did not make the copy.
I find it hilarious that this guy thinks artists are being ripped off because they voluntarily sign over copyright, or don't get published/produced. People go to the recording industry/pulishers because they are unwilling to mortgage their home on their music/writing career. So they go to the industry, who risk a lot of capital on their work, and are surprised that this company wants the rights to their work as well as the lion's share of the profits. The deserve this since they're taking all the risk. If you're that great, you can get a better deal elsewhere. But if your some random talent, your odds of making it are poor, and the industry may never recover its investment. Don't like it, don't sign up, like the author said. Go to a bank instead, and see if they'll from you the money to start your career. See what kind of luck you have there. PLease stop this nonsense however that the recording/publishing industry serves no purpose but to exploit artists. There the ones that give artists a chance in the 1st place.
This is analogous to getting arrested for manslaughter because someone stole your car and killed someone during the getaway. Regardless of whether you locked your car and he was a good thief, or you left the doors unlocked and the key in the ignition, you're not guilty of manslaughter. Having an insecure computer should not be a criminal offense, only writing software to break into that computer should be. Prosecute the criminals, not the victims.
"In fact, you could not have designed a law which more perfectly captures the peer to peer process. "Private copying" is a term of art in the Act. In Canada, if I own a CD and you borrow it and make a copy of it that is legal private copying; however, if I make you a copy of that same CD and give it to you that would be infringement. Odd, but ideal for protecting file sharers.
Every song on my hard drive comes from a CD in my collection or from a CD in someone else's collection which I have found on a P2P network. In either case I will have made the copy and will claim safe harbor under the "private copying" provision. If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself."
I disagree. The uploader's computer, is the one making the copy and sending it to the downloader. So it sounds like p2p sharing of copyrighted material is illegal in Canada.
"So that means every time you buy a CD to backup your Word documents, or photos, or home movies etc you pay a $0.77 tax which ends up going to the music industry."
Welcome to socialism, where wealth is arbitrarily redistributed based on the whims of those in power. This is what you get when you sacrifice the rights of individuals to promote the needs of the collective.