I'm surprised at the number of/. folks who
are getting this wrong. Music is not being
downloaded, nor can it be. Same with songs.
What's being downloaded are recordings.
If you're confused on the difference, ask yourself
if you get a human when you download porn.
Or if you get your dead relatives back when
you look at pictures of them.
The RIAA is protecting recordings, by use of
copyrights on recordings. There's usually a
copyright on the music as well, and that's not
at issue here -- which is another example of
the difference. You're not in violation of
a music copyright when you download a recording.
You're in violation of a music copyright when,
say,
you make a recording of yourself singing
"Graceland"
and sell your recording without paying
Paul Simon.
Some/. folks have alluded to this difference
when pointing out that it's perfectly legal
to make recordings of your own original music
and make those recordings available for download
and free sharing. Yes, it is. If you own it,
you can give it away.
Now (as we all know) the vast majority of
activity in question is not musicians giving away
recordings of their own original music. The
vast majority of what we're talking about here
is people making copies of recordings
copyrighted by someone else.
Another way of highlighting the difference:
music that has fallen into the public domain;
recordings of it are still subject to copyright.
For example, Verdi's works have fallen into
the public domain, but if Pavoratti makes a
recording of him singing a Verdi song,
Pavoratti will no doubt exercise his right
to copyright that recording.
So: we are not talking about song swapping
at all here, there is no song swapping
happening here, nor can there be;
RIAA is not against song swapping,
even though it says it is; no music
has been downloaded nor can it be.
If we were really talking about song swapping,
we could be talking about, I'll sing you a song,
and you'll sing me one.
Now, why has RIAA gotten this so consistently
and completely wrong? Along with everyone else?
My theory is, the recording industry consciously
sought to redefine itself as the music industry,
in an attempt to convince people that the sole
or primary source of music was copyrighted
recordings, as if those records were music.
Now if this was the plan, it has been
notably successful. Most people speak and act
as if it were true.
But it is not true. In fact,
music is what happens when a musician plays
or sings. A recording is a great way to capture
some of that -- but it is not music. Music is
different every time; the same song will not
be the same every time it's sung or played.
By contrast a recording seeks to do the exact
opposite: be identical every time it's played
back. Recordings are a great thing, but are
not music. Photos are great but they're
not the people photographed.
I for one am tired of hearing the constant
mistake being repeated "song swapping" and
"music sharing". You want to share music,
get up and make some! You want to make
copies of recordings of someone else's
music, that's different.
> There is a tradeoff between functionality and security.
Correction: there are many tradeoffs between
functionality and security. Some are better
than others. Some give away so much security
that it doesn't matter how much functionality
you get in return, it's simply a bad trade.
Remote execution of untrusted apps with
complete privileges is an obvious example,
as cited here.
> Now people put security before functionality
Correction: people have always valued basic
security before whizzy functionality, and have
always preferred tradeoffs that didn't trade
the former for the latter. The only thing
new is that Micro$oft is (said to) have
discovered this.
I agree that it's not enough to stop buying,
you have to let the vendor know why you're
not buying their product any more.
In this case, since BMG won't identify which
product is crippled, I'll have to use the BMG
logo as my guide. I'd like to let BMG know
that's why I won't be buying any more BMG
product.
So what's the best way to let BMG know? A letter?
What address would be best to send it to?
Phone call follow-up perhaps? What phone number?
"The research presented in the jumbo JAMA issue, which was partially funded by a $600,000 National Cancer Institute grant, also caught the eye of Rep. John Porter (R-Ill.), a tobacco industry defender. At his behest, Glantz's NCI funding became the first National Institutes of Health grant ever targeted for cutoff by a congressional committee." ref
There is no dirtier example than tobacco industry pressure to shut down science it doesn't like. It's a precedent for just how ugly this could get.
> Ask your legal counsel, and I strongly suspect
> that if he is any good, he will tell you the
> same thing. Namely that it's _his_ problem,
> and that your engineers should not waste their
> time trying to find existing patents.
True and probably the right way to divide
up the problem. Legal problems to lawyers,
engineering problems to engineers.
But the legal problem does not just go away.
_Someone_ will have to deal with it.
Licenses will have to be obtained,
fees for same negotiated, or IP fights
in court will have to be engaged in,
for each patent infringed. That's how
it works. That's how you play the game
in the real world. If you don't like it,
don't ship product. A goal that
may concern folks in your organization
other than engineers.
This sheds light on the view that:
>> Big companies with big pockets are very
>> nervous about being too closely associated
>> with Linux because of this problem.
> The point being that that is _their_ problem
Yes. That's why they're nervous.
> and at a level that has
> nothing to do with technology.
No. The connections are many and varied.
That's why in a smart organization,
engineers and lawyers talk to each other.
E.g. it would cost us this much to license
the technology that does it this way,
or that much to do it this other way.
In the real world, conversations like this
happen all the time.
Legal problems don't go away just because we
have lawyers. Any more than plumbing problems
go away just because we have plumbers.
Yes, it's wise for engineers not to worry
all the time about whether they're infringing
a patent. If the technical approach is right,
licenses can be negotiated. Lawyers can advise
engineers on when it's necessary and what's
your best course of action.
This does not mean legal problems
go away; it means you will have to contend with
them at some point. They are a force in the
real world.
Similarly a homeowner shouldn't worry all the
time about her plumbing, shouldn't make decisions
about the house based solely on the plumbing, and should consult and use a plumber when a plumbing question or problem comes up. But this does not
mean that plumbing problems go away for the
homeowner. If you own a home, you will have to
contend with them. A good plumber is your
helper and friend, but you still own the pipes;
in the end, it's still your problem.
BTW, I'm not a fan of software patents. But as
long as they exist and governments allow them
and defend them, they're part of the real world.
It's naive to think that they or the problems
they present will go away just because there
are specialists (IP lawyers) in these problems.
Specialists are good, they can help you learn
where you stand, but the force of these patents
still exists and will still have to be contended
with. All other operating systems deal with
this every day. Linux will be no exception.
I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.
Suppose the announcement had been a human gene
had been discovered/identified that enabled
humans to use money. Would you believe that?
Suppose the announcement had been a gene
had been discovered/identified that enabled
humans to use toilets or similar facilities.
Would you believe that?
Suppose the annoucement had been a gene for
wearing clothes.
Suppose the claim was a gene for fashion.
You wouldn't believe that? No?
You'd say, no that's a social construction.
It's not genetic, can't be. Different humans
do it differently, and it's obviously related
to their culture, not what they're born with.
But these are all things uniquely human.
All humans do these things to one degree or
another, and no members of other species do them.
Gotta be in the genes, right? Gotta be a gene
for each of 'me, no?
No.
Some things uniquely human, we learn as humans
from other humans. Examples include clothing
and speech. And if you believe otherwise, you're
welcome to try getting those behaviors from a
human without letting him learn them from other
humans.
Us language capable species also rear our young in a sea of verbal behavior, the verbal community. Speech isn't just sounds, it's what you do with them, how much you're exposed to them, how important they are in the rest of your life. What contingencies they figure in.
We have a few not-very-controlled examples of individuals who were raised without a verbal community. They had the same gene, the same genetic endowment. They did not develop speech.
With all due respect to genes, without the right environment, quite a few potentials will never be realized. One of them is verbal competence.
The tobacco industry does this sort of thing
at lot: offers "voluntary" efforts. Almost
invariably, we later discover that the industry
knew the things it was offering would have no
effect on how it does business. Since it's
usually better informed on what does and doesn't
matter to its business, it's very good at offering
things that look good at the time, but are later
found out to be worth little, yet which
displace or stall real measures that would have been effective.
Example: the broadcast ban, generally thought
of as a big concession by the tobacco industry,
was in fact a deal to get the anti-smoking
ads off the air. Smoking, which had been
falling, flattened out, as both sets of ads
left the airwaves. This displaced a generation
of effective anti-smoking ads. Example: warning labels on packs: the industry negotiated soft "may be a risk" language for the warnings and then got 30 years of teflon in court. This displaced
real warnings (e.g. visible in ads, use of
graphics, warnings about addictive product,
list of additives and emitted substances, etc.)
Many more examples could be cited. The history
is long and ugly and it leaves one fact
uncontested: whenever the tobacco industry
offers to make a deal, whatever concessions
it's offering, it already knows would have
little effect on its business. It then holds
up these concessions as real reform and a sign
of its good faith. Politicians usually fall
neatly into line, shouting that this is real
change and big progress. The industry smiles
quietly and sails ahead, signing up another
generation of 14 year olds (median age).
Veteran tobacco industry watchers call this
"give an inch, gain a decade".
A longer-winded summary would be, figure out
what looks good and really doesn't matter,
make a big thing of offering that, and see
who goes for it.
Any similarity between Philip Morris and
Microsoft is entirely up to the reader.
The art of coining and using terms to frame an
issue in a way convenient to a particular
interest is well known.
"Business affiliates" falls gently upon the ear.
It's nice and vague, it suggests legitimate
players of some sort, and it even carries
a connotation of a longstanding, trusted
relationship ("we're affiliated with the
NASD"). It's not of course the most accurate
term. The parties that this decision lets
your phone company sell your calling data to
could be just about anybody.
A simple experiment: I called PacBell (SBC)
and ATT, my carriers, and tried to opt out.
SBC: voice machines offered me more than a dozen
choices of things to do, over the course of 4
minutes, none of which was "to opt out" or
anything close to it. Eventually a human came
on the line, who couldn't perform the service
either and didn't know anyone who could.
ATT: same outcome. ATT did claim they don't make
calling data available to anyone -- but since now
of course it's now legal for them to change their policy any time, I still wanted to opt out.
They were unable to do this.
I also tried their websites.
SBC: search for "opt out" returns no hits.
ATT: same outcome.
So, I wonder how many telco lobbyists told how many regulators how many times: oh, but the customer can opt out any time if they don't like it.
Slashdot Mirror
At the present rate, we'll catch all the drunk drivers, oh, never.
So, does that mean we should stop trying?
Of course not. Enforcement deters a certain amount of drunk driving that would otherwise be added to the problem. By problem I mean carnage.
It's all about deterrence. It's a well understood model.
If you're confused on the difference, ask yourself if you get a human when you download porn. Or if you get your dead relatives back when you look at pictures of them.
The RIAA is protecting recordings, by use of copyrights on recordings. There's usually a copyright on the music as well, and that's not at issue here -- which is another example of the difference. You're not in violation of a music copyright when you download a recording. You're in violation of a music copyright when, say, you make a recording of yourself singing "Graceland" and sell your recording without paying Paul Simon.
Some /. folks have alluded to this difference
when pointing out that it's perfectly legal
to make recordings of your own original music
and make those recordings available for download
and free sharing. Yes, it is. If you own it,
you can give it away.
Now (as we all know) the vast majority of activity in question is not musicians giving away recordings of their own original music. The vast majority of what we're talking about here is people making copies of recordings copyrighted by someone else.
Another way of highlighting the difference: music that has fallen into the public domain; recordings of it are still subject to copyright. For example, Verdi's works have fallen into the public domain, but if Pavoratti makes a recording of him singing a Verdi song, Pavoratti will no doubt exercise his right to copyright that recording.
So: we are not talking about song swapping at all here, there is no song swapping happening here, nor can there be; RIAA is not against song swapping, even though it says it is; no music has been downloaded nor can it be.
If we were really talking about song swapping, we could be talking about, I'll sing you a song, and you'll sing me one.
Now, why has RIAA gotten this so consistently and completely wrong? Along with everyone else?
My theory is, the recording industry consciously sought to redefine itself as the music industry, in an attempt to convince people that the sole or primary source of music was copyrighted recordings, as if those records were music.
Now if this was the plan, it has been notably successful. Most people speak and act as if it were true.
But it is not true. In fact, music is what happens when a musician plays or sings. A recording is a great way to capture some of that -- but it is not music. Music is different every time; the same song will not be the same every time it's sung or played. By contrast a recording seeks to do the exact opposite: be identical every time it's played back. Recordings are a great thing, but are not music. Photos are great but they're not the people photographed.
I for one am tired of hearing the constant mistake being repeated "song swapping" and "music sharing". You want to share music, get up and make some! You want to make copies of recordings of someone else's music, that's different.
training in another country, then come here
and practise medicine.
Yet somehow many manage it.
A few names from my PPO's in-network physicians list, doctors in my area, just pulled up from PPO website:
Dr. Massih Ghoddoucy, MD University of Teheran, Iran.
Dr. A. R. Jayaram, MD Mysort Medical College, India
Maliha Qadir, MD, King Edward Medical College, Pakistan
Maignonette Willkom, MD, University of the Philippines.
David Chee, MD, Burma Medical School
Nader Kaldas, MD, University of Ein Shames, Cairo, Egypt.
Calvin Lei, MD, Institute of Medicine, Burma.
Narendra Malani, MD University of Calcutta.
Jatinder Marwaha, MD Punjab University
Looks like somehow doctors from foreign medical colleges are getting in.
> There is a tradeoff between functionality and security.
Correction: there are many tradeoffs between functionality and security. Some are better than others. Some give away so much security that it doesn't matter how much functionality you get in return, it's simply a bad trade. Remote execution of untrusted apps with complete privileges is an obvious example, as cited here.
> Now people put security before functionality
Correction: people have always valued basic security before whizzy functionality, and have always preferred tradeoffs that didn't trade the former for the latter. The only thing new is that Micro$oft is (said to) have discovered this.
In this case, since BMG won't identify which product is crippled, I'll have to use the BMG logo as my guide. I'd like to let BMG know that's why I won't be buying any more BMG product.
So what's the best way to let BMG know? A letter? What address would be best to send it to? Phone call follow-up perhaps? What phone number?
Thanks!
(R-Ill.), a tobacco industry defender. At his behest, Glantz's NCI funding became the
first National Institutes of Health grant ever targeted for cutoff by a congressional
committee." ref
There is no dirtier example than tobacco
industry pressure to shut down science it
doesn't like. It's a precedent for just
how ugly this could get.
> I always wondered how long it would be before
> someone tried to give a "weather report" for
> the Internet.
It's been around since 1993:
http://www.internetweather.com/
> Ask your legal counsel, and I strongly suspect
> that if he is any good, he will tell you the
> same thing. Namely that it's _his_ problem,
> and that your engineers should not waste their
> time trying to find existing patents.
True and probably the right way to divide up the problem. Legal problems to lawyers, engineering problems to engineers.
But the legal problem does not just go away. _Someone_ will have to deal with it.
Licenses will have to be obtained, fees for same negotiated, or IP fights in court will have to be engaged in, for each patent infringed. That's how it works. That's how you play the game in the real world. If you don't like it, don't ship product. A goal that may concern folks in your organization other than engineers.
This sheds light on the view that:
>> Big companies with big pockets are very
>> nervous about being too closely associated
>> with Linux because of this problem.
> The point being that that is _their_ problem
Yes. That's why they're nervous.
> and at a level that has
> nothing to do with technology.
No. The connections are many and varied.
That's why in a smart organization, engineers and lawyers talk to each other. E.g. it would cost us this much to license the technology that does it this way, or that much to do it this other way. In the real world, conversations like this happen all the time.
Legal problems don't go away just because we have lawyers. Any more than plumbing problems go away just because we have plumbers.
Yes, it's wise for engineers not to worry all the time about whether they're infringing a patent. If the technical approach is right, licenses can be negotiated. Lawyers can advise engineers on when it's necessary and what's your best course of action. This does not mean legal problems go away; it means you will have to contend with them at some point. They are a force in the real world.
Similarly a homeowner shouldn't worry all the time about her plumbing, shouldn't make decisions about the house based solely on the plumbing, and should consult and use a plumber when a plumbing question or problem comes up. But this does not mean that plumbing problems go away for the homeowner. If you own a home, you will have to contend with them. A good plumber is your helper and friend, but you still own the pipes; in the end, it's still your problem.
BTW, I'm not a fan of software patents. But as long as they exist and governments allow them and defend them, they're part of the real world. It's naive to think that they or the problems they present will go away just because there are specialists (IP lawyers) in these problems. Specialists are good, they can help you learn where you stand, but the force of these patents still exists and will still have to be contended with. All other operating systems deal with this every day. Linux will be no exception. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.
Suppose the announcement had been a gene had been discovered/identified that enabled humans to use toilets or similar facilities. Would you believe that?
Suppose the annoucement had been a gene for wearing clothes.
Suppose the claim was a gene for fashion.
You wouldn't believe that? No?
You'd say, no that's a social construction. It's not genetic, can't be. Different humans do it differently, and it's obviously related to their culture, not what they're born with.
But these are all things uniquely human. All humans do these things to one degree or another, and no members of other species do them. Gotta be in the genes, right? Gotta be a gene for each of 'me, no?
No.
Some things uniquely human, we learn as humans from other humans. Examples include clothing and speech. And if you believe otherwise, you're welcome to try getting those behaviors from a human without letting him learn them from other humans.
Us language capable species also rear our young
in a sea of verbal behavior, the verbal
community. Speech isn't just sounds, it's
what you do with them, how much you're exposed
to them, how important they are in the rest
of your life. What contingencies they
figure in.
We have a few not-very-controlled examples of
individuals who were raised without a verbal
community. They had the same gene, the same
genetic endowment. They did not develop speech.
With all due respect to genes, without the
right environment, quite a few potentials
will never be realized. One of them is
verbal competence.
Example: the broadcast ban, generally thought of as a big concession by the tobacco industry, was in fact a deal to get the anti-smoking ads off the air. Smoking, which had been falling, flattened out, as both sets of ads left the airwaves. This displaced a generation of effective anti-smoking ads. Example: warning labels on packs: the industry negotiated soft "may be a risk" language for the warnings and then got 30 years of teflon in court. This displaced real warnings (e.g. visible in ads, use of graphics, warnings about addictive product, list of additives and emitted substances, etc.)
Many more examples could be cited. The history is long and ugly and it leaves one fact uncontested: whenever the tobacco industry offers to make a deal, whatever concessions it's offering, it already knows would have little effect on its business. It then holds up these concessions as real reform and a sign of its good faith. Politicians usually fall neatly into line, shouting that this is real change and big progress. The industry smiles quietly and sails ahead, signing up another generation of 14 year olds (median age).
Veteran tobacco industry watchers call this "give an inch, gain a decade".
A longer-winded summary would be, figure out what looks good and really doesn't matter, make a big thing of offering that, and see who goes for it.
Any similarity between Philip Morris and Microsoft is entirely up to the reader.
"Business affiliates" falls gently upon the ear. It's nice and vague, it suggests legitimate players of some sort, and it even carries a connotation of a longstanding, trusted relationship ("we're affiliated with the NASD"). It's not of course the most accurate term. The parties that this decision lets your phone company sell your calling data to could be just about anybody.
So what's a more accurate term?
A few possibilities:
other businesses
other companies
subcontractors
contractors
customers
henchmen
ilk
anyone
other pieces of the company
Any other suggestions?
-- Jon
A simple experiment: I called PacBell (SBC) and ATT, my carriers, and tried to opt out. SBC: voice machines offered me more than a dozen choices of things to do, over the course of 4 minutes, none of which was "to opt out" or anything close to it. Eventually a human came on the line, who couldn't perform the service either and didn't know anyone who could. ATT: same outcome. ATT did claim they don't make calling data available to anyone -- but since now of course it's now legal for them to change their policy any time, I still wanted to opt out. They were unable to do this. I also tried their websites. SBC: search for "opt out" returns no hits. ATT: same outcome. So, I wonder how many telco lobbyists told how many regulators how many times: oh, but the customer can opt out any time if they don't like it.