This will scare you all. Currently, due to a bizarre and rather alarming interpretation of copyright law with the common law tradition in New York, it seem that Capitol Records (the holders of the sound-recording copyright to the beatles back catalogue) have won a landmark victory which means that in the US they have copyright FOREVER on the beatles music. Yes Forever. Read more at Groklaw here... this has distressing implications and shows that the record labels will do anything to hold onto that monopoly....
Death of folders is greatly exaggerated...
on
The Death of Folders?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Tiger's Spotlight is good, and certainly better than anything else I have used so far. However, the way it presents the search results is always a bit useless as the top ten seearches are top necessary the way to show me what I need. Additionally the lack of a boolean search is a big mistake as you can't narrow the search down. It is still much much faster for me to remember the folder and go straight to it. When that is no longer the case I'll believe in the death of folders.
We need something to help that is clear from the number of digital objects we have lying round on our computers these days. Some method of collecting these objects into conceptual sets or classifications (apart from file extensions which is not always the most useful) could be really useful - I have read some interesting stuff by people who are Metadata crazy (seem to have lost the links though - the tiger review of metadata writer was really interesting...) Maybe the answers are somewhere there.
But for most people, some method of grouping data, adding categorical schemes, visually and texturally organising and generally making files/objects more plastic in the way that we store them would be a great step forward.
But in any case, nested folders *do* still have uses. And I think we need --in addition to-- rather than --instead of--.
---- Posted anonymous as bloody slashdot is banning IP
I remember attending the Politics of Code conference in the UK in 2003 and hearing Richard Hill from International Telecommunication Union giving a very odd speech about the ITU and international regulation of the Internet etc. At the time I thought it was a coded land-grab for the transfer of control of ICANN to the ITU.
ICANN was also still in a confusing semi-democratic phase at the time (this seems to be steadily decreasing) and also weirdly self-imploding. Ester Dyson also gave the most contentless speech I think I have ever heard - no doubt to ensure minimum offense to anyone in the audience.
As with all these things wheels within wheels... but I do wish the call for some form of ICANN democracy would renew rather than lose it to a not very democratic body (i.e. the ITU) or to the corporations (kinda where it is now).
Assessing the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities In recent years there has been increased awareness of the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities, which could have widespread consequences for the environment and for public health.
This is really encouraging to see the the public service broadcasters 'getting' open source and trying to contribute to the community. If this could take off it could be a great boost to the entire copyleft/open-source ideas.
However I would warn that in the UK the content industry is sharpening its knives over The BBC Creative Archive. I attended a conference given at Westminster Media Forum where the representatives of the content industry where rabid about copyright and patent law and extremely hysterical about 'idea theft' as it was colourfully termed. When they heard about the Creative Archive plan... Phew! Some scary people were there... And they are not impressed with Creative Commons - who were shouted at, verbally attacked and generally given a very very frosty reception...
Strangest contribution (and it was a difficult choice considering the crazy assertions and unsubstantiated nonsense spoken) has to be the Arlene McCarthy MEP linking copyright, patent and 'idea' theft with 'Organised Crime', 'Paedophilia', 'Pornography', 'Terrorism' and 'Paramilitary Organisations'... She was truly loopy, and more worryingly serious!
John Naughton was fantastic castigating the dangers from 'slavish legislaters' (she didn't like that!) and gave a really excellent and balanced presentation calling for caution against listening to only the interests of the media corporations and content industry.
Most scary person (again a difficult choice) was Lavinia Carey, Director of FACT who told us that '65% of people didn't think it was a problem to share stuff' and that 'consumers have to be protected from themselves' and those who didn't were 'gonna get a shock'. To get a feeling for the balanced tone see the campaign to link copyright 'theft' and terrorism... Scary!
The major record companies are never going to be in any danger of going out of business due to downloading. And regardless of claims about 'piracy' and 'theft' this clearly demonstrates that much like any other industry they go through cyclical stages. Does this mean they'll hold back from all the big claims of the dangers of the evil pirates? I don't think so.
Considering how much of the industry has been locked down due to vertical and horizontal integration and oligopolistic market practices it is no suprise that they can sell so much. Just don't believe the lies they tout about how hard their lives are.
I still think that downloading has exciting possibilities for creativity and a line of flight from traditional music channels - especially through the potential of peer2peer networks and so on. But unfortunately there is a real danger of colonisation from the majors who have deep pockets and sharp lawyers.
The Internet offer the possibility of difference and a reterritorialisation of music creativity which is at essence a collective (networked) endeavour. If we allow the major's (few and fewer as they are) to close down this space with DRM and monopolisation of the distribution channels then it will be a very sad day for alternative music.
I'm still of the opinion that criminalising your audience is a very dangerous game for the record labels to be getting involved in. And also extremely sad and backwards. I think Steve Job's comment that he treats downloading tracks as his biggest competitor to iTunes Music Store.
In any case, it will further push the record labels one step further away from any claim to believe in the importance of music for music's sake and hopefully open up the eyes of fans to the sheer amount of manipulation these guys now have in terms of creating pre-planned acts, factory stamped songs and shallow, empty and talentless indivduals who want fame more than anything else.
It will be extremely interesting to see how the music press in the UK react - most of them are in the pay of the music business anyway except a few genuine exceptions, Void Magazine for one...
Also I really hope that this will provide more impetus to people experimenting with the copyleft music scene...
This is propaganda by the movie industry - plain and simple. Expect some legislation, hard words from politicians and poor starving movie execs to start bleating on about how hard their lives and the company profits are. This is the first salvo in a public relations drive that softens up the public ready for DRM for the movie masses.
No doubt some high profile ridiculous case will be discovered of a student with a trillion dollars in film copies in his/her bedroom causing the entire movie industry to fail. We've seen it before in music and we'll no doubt see the same arguments and PR tactics mobilised again to get legislation passed to *save* the industry.
It is depressing but it seems to work everytime. I only hope that people start to wake up and take a stand before its too late and the corporations have it all locked down exactly how they want it...
It is very interesting to see how developing countries are looking at Linux and other open source software as a means to leap-frog over technological problems and to create their own home-grown technology industries.
I have just got back from a conference in Slovenia at Cyberpipe which was full of Linux and open-source enthusiasts developing software that was situated locally.
And of course, there are also political and economic implications of Linux as it allows countries to avoid the costly licensing problems of Windows etc and also avoid the reliance on the US for closed technologies.
There were some extremely innovative lo-tech hi-tech solutions to problems. For example re-use of old 8080 PCs with Linux installed to control various devices - one in particular was a 12 bank screen for projecting images using old black and white monitors.
Have a look at the manifesto and the other interesting selection of papers and ideas at The Libre Society that is trying to theorise these developments...
A really interesting conference I attended in Germany earlier in the year is worth looking at Neuro Conference which both theorised the free software/copyleft stuff but also put into practice the methods of self-organisation and networking.
I went along and was fascinated to see how it all locked together and worked so well. The papers are on the Site here and there are some really interesting reads.
This is really good news and I am very pleased that a public sector company like the BBC should seek to do this. That they have used Creative Commons licenses is very interesting considering they are based on US law (and the UK ones are still under development) but still I am sure they have enough copyright lawyers should they need to sort something out.
Slowly from numerous angles the possibilities of the use and re-use of media is being closed down. This legislation will no doubt help *anyone* wishing to stop copyright issues and can be used to close down freedom of speech.
Instead of innovating past these problems the record label's are effectively allowing the state to mantain their monopoly for them... expect more legislation and more erosion of civil rights just to keep them fat and happy...
The major barrier to entry in the field of software development is inherently intellectual, not financial. I don't need to spend money on scarce resources like raw materials and factories to produce software; I need time, a computer, and a brain.
This is nonsense. Computers and education cost money - a lot of money. Intellectual work *is* expensive, have you every looked at the cost of R&D in corporations?
This means that the development of software is not inherently restricted to those with money - rich people, and companies.
I wish this were true. But the outlay to get a computer, train yourself - and perhaps most importantly - be able to have the time to learn is extremely limiting to the poor.
It's not the most stable piece of software I've ever used. Pages randomly vanish (ie trying to get Pop selected, or infact most sub-sub genres causes problems) searching is screwed and the site is very limited. I would say that the software is way way alpha and really you can only upload individual songs to individual artists.
Have experimentally uploaded a track by MEME vs XAN to see how it works but at the moment it seems the link is screwed. Maybe it'll work later.
Not sure where they are going with this as it is extremely basic but I would have loved to be able to specify a Creative Commons license as I was adding the song...
ps. If you are impatient to hear my track anyway you can get Meme Vs Xan - 24 - immediately from Loca Downloads
Slowly but surely it's being closed down
on
VIA Pulls PadLockSL
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
LibreSociety.org Manifesto Version 1.5.4 -- David M. Berry & Giles Moss
A constellation of interests is now seeking to increase its ownership and control of creativity. They tell us that they require new laws and rights that will allow them to control concepts and ideas and protect them from exploitation. They say that this will enrich our lives, create new products and safeguard the possibility of future prosperity. But this is a disaster for creativity, whose health depends on an ongoing, free and open conversation between ideas from the past and the present.
-- In response, we wish to defend the idea of a creative field of concepts and ideas that are free from ownership.
1. Profit has a new object of affection. Indeed, profiteers now shamelessly proclaim to be the true friend of creativity and the creative. Everywhere, they declare, "We support and protect concepts and ideas. Creativity is our business and it is safe in our hands. We are the true friends of creativity!"
2. Not content with declarations of friendship, the profiteers are eager to put into practice their fondness for creativity as well. "Actions speak louder than words" in capitalist culture. To display their affection, profiteers use legal mechanisms, namely intellectual property law, to watch over concepts and ideas and to protect them from those who seek to misuse them. While we are dead to the world at night, they are busily stockpiling intellectual property at an astonishing rate. More and more, the creative sphere is being brought under their exclusive control.
3. The fact that the profiteers are now so protective of creativity, and jealously seek to control concepts and ideas, ought to rouse suspicion. While they may claim to be the true friends of creativity, we know that friendship is not the same as dependency. It is very different to say, "I'm your true friend because I need you", than to say, "I need you because I'm your true friend". But how are we to settle this issue? How do we distinguish the true friend from the false one? In any relationship between friends we should ask, "Are both partners mutually benefiting?"
4. The profiteers' insatiable thirst for profit clearly benefits from their new friendship with the creative. Through their use of intellectual property law - in the form of copyright, patents and trademarks - concepts and ideas can be transformed into commodities that are controlled and owned. An artificial scarcity can then be established. But, unlike physical objects, concepts and ideas can be shared, copied and reused without diminishment. No matter how many people use and interpret a particular concept, the creators' use of that concept is not surrendered or reduced. But, much money is to be made when creative flows of knowledge and ideas become scarce products to be traded in the market place. Thus increasingly, intellectual property law is providing profiteers with vast accumulations of wealth. Indeed, immaterial labour (based on information, knowledge and communication) has now replaced industrial manufacture as the main producer of wealth in the age of technological capitalism. As such, the relationship codified in intellectual property law between creativity and profit can be seen as a core element of this wider structural transformation of the productive processes.
5. For many of us, the thought of intellectual property law still evokes romantic apparitions of a solitary artist or writer seeking to safeguard his or her creative work. It is therefore unsurprising that we tend to view intellectual property law as something that defends the rights and interests of the creative. Perhaps, in some removed and distant time, there was a modest respect in this specious notion. But this romantic vision of the creative is certainly ill at ease with capitalist 'reality'. Creators have become employees and each concept and idea they produce is appropriated and owned by the employer. Profiteers are using intellectual property law to amass the
LibreSociety.org Manifesto
Version 1.5.4
-- David M. Berry & Giles Moss
A constellation of interests is now seeking to increase its ownership and control of creativity. They tell us that they require new laws and rights that will allow them to control concepts and ideas and protect them from exploitation. They say that this will enrich our lives, create new products and safeguard the possibility of future prosperity. But this is a disaster for creativity, whose health depends on an ongoing, free and open conversation between ideas from the past and the present.
-- In response, we wish to defend the idea of a creative field of concepts and ideas that are free from ownership.
1. Profit has a new object of affection. Indeed, profiteers now shamelessly proclaim to be the true friend of creativity and the creative. Everywhere, they declare, "We support and protect concepts and ideas. Creativity is our business and it is safe in our hands. We are the true friends of creativity!"
2. Not content with declarations of friendship, the profiteers are eager to put into practice their fondness for creativity as well. "Actions speak louder than words" in capitalist culture. To display their affection, profiteers use legal mechanisms, namely intellectual property law, to watch over concepts and ideas and to protect them from those who seek to misuse them. While we are dead to the world at night, they are busily stockpiling intellectual property at an astonishing rate. More and more, the creative sphere is being brought under their exclusive control.
3. The fact that the profiteers are now so protective of creativity, and jealously seek to control concepts and ideas, ought to rouse suspicion. While they may claim to be the true friends of creativity, we know that friendship is not the same as dependency. It is very different to say, "I'm your true friend because I need you", than to say, "I need you because I'm your true friend". But how are we to settle this issue? How do we distinguish the true friend from the false one? In any relationship between friends we should ask, "Are both partners mutually benefiting?"
4. The profiteers' insatiable thirst for profit clearly benefits from their new friendship with the creative. Through their use of intellectual property law - in the form of copyright, patents and trademarks - concepts and ideas can be transformed into commodities that are controlled and owned. An artificial scarcity can then be established. But, unlike physical objects, concepts and ideas can be shared, copied and reused without diminishment. No matter how many people use and interpret a particular concept, the creators' use of that concept is not surrendered or reduced. But, much money is to be made when creative flows of knowledge and ideas become scarce products to be traded in the market place. Thus increasingly, intellectual property law is providing profiteers with vast accumulations of wealth. Indeed, immaterial labour (based on information, knowledge and communication) has now replaced industrial manufacture as the main producer of wealth in the age of technological capitalism. As such, the relationship codified in intellectual property law between creativity and profit can be seen as a core element of this wider structural transformation of the productive processes.
5. For many of us, the thought of intellectual property law still evokes romantic apparitions of a solitary artist or writer seeking to safeguard his or her creative work. It is therefore unsurprising that we tend to view intellectual property law as something that defends the rights and interests of the creative. Perhaps, in some removed and distant time, there was a modest respect in this specious notion. But this romantic vision of the creative is certainly ill at ease with capitalist 'reality'. Creators have become employees and each concept and idea they produce is appropriated and owned by the employer. Profiteers are using intellectual property law to amass the creative output of their employees and others. What is more, they continuall
A constellation of interests is now seeking to increase its ownership and control of creativity. They tell us that they require new laws and rights that will allow them to control concepts and ideas and protect them from exploitation. They say that this will enrich our lives, create new products and safeguard the possibility of future prosperity. But this is a disaster for creativity, whose health depends on an ongoing, free and open conversation between ideas from the past and the present.
-- In response, we wish to defend the idea of a creative field of concepts and ideas that are free from ownership.
1. Profit has a new object of affection. Indeed, profiteers now shamelessly proclaim to be the true friend of creativity and the creative. Everywhere, they declare, "We support and protect concepts and ideas. Creativity is our business and it is safe in our hands. We are the true friends of creativity!"
2. Not content with declarations of friendship, the profiteers are eager to put into practice their fondness for creativity as well. "Actions speak louder than words" in capitalist culture. To display their affection, profiteers use legal mechanisms, namely intellectual property law, to watch over concepts and ideas and to protect them from those who seek to misuse them. While we are dead to the world at night, they are busily stockpiling intellectual property at an astonishing rate. More and more, the creative sphere is being brought under their exclusive control.
3. The fact that the profiteers are now so protective of creativity, and jealously seek to control concepts and ideas, ought to rouse suspicion. While they may claim to be the true friends of creativity, we know that friendship is not the same as dependency. It is very different to say, "I'm your true friend because I need you", than to say, "I need you because I'm your true friend". But how are we to settle this issue? How do we distinguish the true friend from the false one? In any relationship between friends we should ask, "Are both partners mutually benefiting?"
4. The profiteers' insatiable thirst for profit clearly benefits from their new friendship with the creative. Through their use of intellectual property law - in the form of copyright, patents and trademarks - concepts and ideas can be transformed into commodities that are controlled and owned. An artificial scarcity can then be established. But, unlike physical objects, concepts and ideas can be shared, copied and reused without diminishment. No matter how many people use and interpret a particular concept, the creators' use of that concept is not surrendered or reduced. But, much money is to be made when creative flows of knowledge and ideas become scarce products to be traded in the market place. Thus increasingly, intellectual property law is providing profiteers with vast accumulations of wealth. Indeed, immaterial labour (based on information, knowledge and communication) has now replaced industrial manufacture as the main producer of wealth in the age of technological capitalism. As such, the relationship codified in intellectual property law between creativity and profit can be seen as a core element of this wider structural transformation of the productive processes.
5. For many of us, the thought of intellectual property law still evokes romantic apparitions of a solitary artist or writer seeking to safeguard his or her creative work. It is therefore unsurprising that we tend to view intellectual property law as something that defends the rights and interests of the creative. Perhaps, in some removed and distant time, there was a modest respect in this specious notion. But this romantic vision of the creative is certainly ill at ease with capitalist 'reality'. Creators have become employees and each concept and idea they produce is appropriated and owned by the employer. Profiteers are using intellectual property law to amass
I run LOCA records and I've been thinking that a wrapper that expressly indicates the copyleft properties of a song would be a superb step forward as any kind of sharing method would just check that the wrapper was in place. This could be linked to the Creative Commons licenses so that people can find out more information.
Question is the technical issue of implementation - it really would need to be an extension of the MP3 standard (or Ogg) and would have to be non-changable and able to convince a court should anyone wishing to defend their swapping need to do so.
Maybe a third-party Verisign-type music label could be the answer that holds a database of public domain tracks that 'signs' the MP3 and which can then be checked against in a database?
I think it is somewhat depressing that anyone with a lawyer and no conscience can try to force us into the most ridiculous legal situations purely for the hell (and profit) of it. What a complete waste of time, tax dollars and effort by all concerned to try to force consumers into an unfair position.
Why don't they just make their replacement either
1. Cheap enough so the competition isn't worth looking at
For me this kinda seems very karmic. They have produced such a waste of time and effort by ordinary people that now they have their own medicine returned to them...
Now if we could just get them to transfer 13.1 billion (or proportion thereof) out of their bank accounts we could knock em out of business for good...
It's a really good article and I have to say from my own experience that I would thoroughly recommend the upgrade. Things like fast-user-switching and expose are just completely changing the way we work at loca. Especially for the Art Director who can have his usual billion windows open and still find things I need urgently by flipping them all off screen...
Stability wise I am impressed to. The only thing broken was the fact that Apple force you to place certain applications in the Application directory (rather than sub-directories below) which seems a bit stupid...
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you bother? Makes a lot more sense to get one of these and output to whatever you need... RME Fireface
This will scare you all. Currently, due to a bizarre and rather alarming interpretation of copyright law with the common law tradition in New York, it seem that Capitol Records (the holders of the sound-recording copyright to the beatles back catalogue) have won a landmark victory which means that in the US they have copyright FOREVER on the beatles music. Yes Forever. Read more at Groklaw here... this has distressing implications and shows that the record labels will do anything to hold onto that monopoly....
We need something to help that is clear from the number of digital objects we have lying round on our computers these days. Some method of collecting these objects into conceptual sets or classifications (apart from file extensions which is not always the most useful) could be really useful - I have read some interesting stuff by people who are Metadata crazy (seem to have lost the links though - the tiger review of metadata writer was really interesting...) Maybe the answers are somewhere there.
But for most people, some method of grouping data, adding categorical schemes, visually and texturally organising and generally making files/objects more plastic in the way that we store them would be a great step forward.
But in any case, nested folders *do* still have uses. And I think we need --in addition to-- rather than --instead of--.
---- Posted anonymous as bloody slashdot is banning IP
ICANN was also still in a confusing semi-democratic phase at the time (this seems to be steadily decreasing) and also weirdly self-imploding. Ester Dyson also gave the most contentless speech I think I have ever heard - no doubt to ensure minimum offense to anyone in the audience.
As with all these things wheels within wheels... but I do wish the call for some form of ICANN democracy would renew rather than lose it to a not very democratic body (i.e. the ITU) or to the corporations (kinda where it is now).
Assessing the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities In recent years there has been increased awareness of the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities, which could have widespread consequences for the environment and for public health.
This is an interesting 148 page report about the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities in the UK
Or the quick four page summary ;-)
Interesting the worries this report generated as politicians and commentators thought it might be a how-to guide for budding t3rrorists...
This is really encouraging to see the the public service broadcasters 'getting' open source and trying to contribute to the community. If this could take off it could be a great boost to the entire copyleft/open-source ideas.
However I would warn that in the UK the content industry is sharpening its knives over The BBC Creative Archive. I attended a conference given at Westminster Media Forum where the representatives of the content industry where rabid about copyright and patent law and extremely hysterical about 'idea theft' as it was colourfully termed. When they heard about the Creative Archive plan... Phew! Some scary people were there... And they are not impressed with Creative Commons - who were shouted at, verbally attacked and generally given a very very frosty reception...
Strangest contribution (and it was a difficult choice considering the crazy assertions and unsubstantiated nonsense spoken) has to be the Arlene McCarthy MEP linking copyright, patent and 'idea' theft with 'Organised Crime', 'Paedophilia', 'Pornography', 'Terrorism' and 'Paramilitary Organisations'... She was truly loopy, and more worryingly serious!
John Naughton was fantastic castigating the dangers from 'slavish legislaters' (she didn't like that!) and gave a really excellent and balanced presentation calling for caution against listening to only the interests of the media corporations and content industry.
Most scary person (again a difficult choice) was Lavinia Carey, Director of FACT who told us that '65% of people didn't think it was a problem to share stuff' and that 'consumers have to be protected from themselves' and those who didn't were 'gonna get a shock'. To get a feeling for the balanced tone see the campaign to link copyright 'theft' and terrorism... Scary!
Considering how much of the industry has been locked down due to vertical and horizontal integration and oligopolistic market practices it is no suprise that they can sell so much. Just don't believe the lies they tout about how hard their lives are.
I still think that downloading has exciting possibilities for creativity and a line of flight from traditional music channels - especially through the potential of peer2peer networks and so on. But unfortunately there is a real danger of colonisation from the majors who have deep pockets and sharp lawyers.
The Internet offer the possibility of difference and a reterritorialisation of music creativity which is at essence a collective (networked) endeavour. If we allow the major's (few and fewer as they are) to close down this space with DRM and monopolisation of the distribution channels then it will be a very sad day for alternative music.
I'm still of the opinion that criminalising your audience is a very dangerous game for the record labels to be getting involved in. And also extremely sad and backwards. I think Steve Job's comment that he treats downloading tracks as his biggest competitor to iTunes Music Store.
In any case, it will further push the record labels one step further away from any claim to believe in the importance of music for music's sake and hopefully open up the eyes of fans to the sheer amount of manipulation these guys now have in terms of creating pre-planned acts, factory stamped songs and shallow, empty and talentless indivduals who want fame more than anything else.
It will be extremely interesting to see how the music press in the UK react - most of them are in the pay of the music business anyway except a few genuine exceptions, Void Magazine for one...
Also I really hope that this will provide more impetus to people experimenting with the copyleft music scene...
No doubt some high profile ridiculous case will be discovered of a student with a trillion dollars in film copies in his/her bedroom causing the entire movie industry to fail. We've seen it before in music and we'll no doubt see the same arguments and PR tactics mobilised again to get legislation passed to *save* the industry.
It is depressing but it seems to work everytime. I only hope that people start to wake up and take a stand before its too late and the corporations have it all locked down exactly how they want it...
CIA Factbook
Oh and the conference for anyone interested was the HAIP conference.
I have just got back from a conference in Slovenia at Cyberpipe which was full of Linux and open-source enthusiasts developing software that was situated locally.
And of course, there are also political and economic implications of Linux as it allows countries to avoid the costly licensing problems of Windows etc and also avoid the reliance on the US for closed technologies.
There were some extremely innovative lo-tech hi-tech solutions to problems. For example re-use of old 8080 PCs with Linux installed to control various devices - one in particular was a 12 bank screen for projecting images using old black and white monitors.
Have a look at the manifesto and the other interesting selection of papers and ideas at The Libre Society that is trying to theorise these developments...
Quite interesting....
A really interesting conference I attended in Germany earlier in the year is worth looking at Neuro Conference which both theorised the free software/copyleft stuff but also put into practice the methods of self-organisation and networking.
I went along and was fascinated to see how it all locked together and worked so well. The papers are on the Site here and there are some really interesting reads.
Instead of innovating past these problems the record label's are effectively allowing the state to mantain their monopoly for them... expect more legislation and more erosion of civil rights just to keep them fat and happy...
This is nonsense. Computers and education cost money - a lot of money. Intellectual work *is* expensive, have you every looked at the cost of R&D in corporations?
This means that the development of software is not inherently restricted to those with money - rich people, and companies.
I wish this were true. But the outlay to get a computer, train yourself - and perhaps most importantly - be able to have the time to learn is extremely limiting to the poor.
Have experimentally uploaded a track by MEME vs XAN to see how it works but at the moment it seems the link is screwed. Maybe it'll work later.
Not sure where they are going with this as it is extremely basic but I would have loved to be able to specify a Creative Commons license as I was adding the song...
ps. If you are impatient to hear my track anyway you can get Meme Vs Xan - 24 - immediately from Loca Downloads
Yes sorry about that! ;-)
LibreSociety.org Manifesto
Version 1.5.4
-- David M. Berry & Giles Moss
A constellation of interests is now seeking to increase its ownership and control of creativity. They tell us that they require new laws and rights that will allow them to control concepts and ideas and protect them from exploitation. They say that this will enrich our lives, create new products and safeguard the possibility of future prosperity. But this is a disaster for creativity, whose health depends on an ongoing, free and open conversation between ideas from the past and the present.
-- In response, we wish to defend the idea of a creative field of concepts and ideas that are free from ownership.
1. Profit has a new object of affection. Indeed, profiteers now shamelessly proclaim to be the true friend of creativity and the creative. Everywhere, they declare, "We support and protect concepts and ideas. Creativity is our business and it is safe in our hands. We are the true friends of creativity!"
2. Not content with declarations of friendship, the profiteers are eager to put into practice their fondness for creativity as well. "Actions speak louder than words" in capitalist culture. To display their affection, profiteers use legal mechanisms, namely intellectual property law, to watch over concepts and ideas and to protect them from those who seek to misuse them. While we are dead to the world at night, they are busily stockpiling intellectual property at an astonishing rate. More and more, the creative sphere is being brought under their exclusive control.
3. The fact that the profiteers are now so protective of creativity, and jealously seek to control concepts and ideas, ought to rouse suspicion. While they may claim to be the true friends of creativity, we know that friendship is not the same as dependency. It is very different to say, "I'm your true friend because I need you", than to say, "I need you because I'm your true friend". But how are we to settle this issue? How do we distinguish the true friend from the false one? In any relationship between friends we should ask, "Are both partners mutually benefiting?"
4. The profiteers' insatiable thirst for profit clearly benefits from their new friendship with the creative. Through their use of intellectual property law - in the form of copyright, patents and trademarks - concepts and ideas can be transformed into commodities that are controlled and owned. An artificial scarcity can then be established. But, unlike physical objects, concepts and ideas can be shared, copied and reused without diminishment. No matter how many people use and interpret a particular concept, the creators' use of that concept is not surrendered or reduced. But, much money is to be made when creative flows of knowledge and ideas become scarce products to be traded in the market place. Thus increasingly, intellectual property law is providing profiteers with vast accumulations of wealth. Indeed, immaterial labour (based on information, knowledge and communication) has now replaced industrial manufacture as the main producer of wealth in the age of technological capitalism. As such, the relationship codified in intellectual property law between creativity and profit can be seen as a core element of this wider structural transformation of the productive processes.
5. For many of us, the thought of intellectual property law still evokes romantic apparitions of a solitary artist or writer seeking to safeguard his or her creative work. It is therefore unsurprising that we tend to view intellectual property law as something that defends the rights and interests of the creative. Perhaps, in some removed and distant time, there was a modest respect in this specious notion. But this romantic vision of the creative is certainly ill at ease with capitalist 'reality'. Creators have become employees and each concept and idea they produce is appropriated and owned by the employer. Profiteers are using intellectual property law to amass the
LibreSociety.org Manifesto Version 1.5.4 -- David M. Berry & Giles Moss A constellation of interests is now seeking to increase its ownership and control of creativity. They tell us that they require new laws and rights that will allow them to control concepts and ideas and protect them from exploitation. They say that this will enrich our lives, create new products and safeguard the possibility of future prosperity. But this is a disaster for creativity, whose health depends on an ongoing, free and open conversation between ideas from the past and the present. -- In response, we wish to defend the idea of a creative field of concepts and ideas that are free from ownership. 1. Profit has a new object of affection. Indeed, profiteers now shamelessly proclaim to be the true friend of creativity and the creative. Everywhere, they declare, "We support and protect concepts and ideas. Creativity is our business and it is safe in our hands. We are the true friends of creativity!" 2. Not content with declarations of friendship, the profiteers are eager to put into practice their fondness for creativity as well. "Actions speak louder than words" in capitalist culture. To display their affection, profiteers use legal mechanisms, namely intellectual property law, to watch over concepts and ideas and to protect them from those who seek to misuse them. While we are dead to the world at night, they are busily stockpiling intellectual property at an astonishing rate. More and more, the creative sphere is being brought under their exclusive control. 3. The fact that the profiteers are now so protective of creativity, and jealously seek to control concepts and ideas, ought to rouse suspicion. While they may claim to be the true friends of creativity, we know that friendship is not the same as dependency. It is very different to say, "I'm your true friend because I need you", than to say, "I need you because I'm your true friend". But how are we to settle this issue? How do we distinguish the true friend from the false one? In any relationship between friends we should ask, "Are both partners mutually benefiting?" 4. The profiteers' insatiable thirst for profit clearly benefits from their new friendship with the creative. Through their use of intellectual property law - in the form of copyright, patents and trademarks - concepts and ideas can be transformed into commodities that are controlled and owned. An artificial scarcity can then be established. But, unlike physical objects, concepts and ideas can be shared, copied and reused without diminishment. No matter how many people use and interpret a particular concept, the creators' use of that concept is not surrendered or reduced. But, much money is to be made when creative flows of knowledge and ideas become scarce products to be traded in the market place. Thus increasingly, intellectual property law is providing profiteers with vast accumulations of wealth. Indeed, immaterial labour (based on information, knowledge and communication) has now replaced industrial manufacture as the main producer of wealth in the age of technological capitalism. As such, the relationship codified in intellectual property law between creativity and profit can be seen as a core element of this wider structural transformation of the productive processes. 5. For many of us, the thought of intellectual property law still evokes romantic apparitions of a solitary artist or writer seeking to safeguard his or her creative work. It is therefore unsurprising that we tend to view intellectual property law as something that defends the rights and interests of the creative. Perhaps, in some removed and distant time, there was a modest respect in this specious notion. But this romantic vision of the creative is certainly ill at ease with capitalist 'reality'. Creators have become employees and each concept and idea they produce is appropriated and owned by the employer. Profiteers are using intellectual property law to amass the creative output of their employees and others. What is more, they continuall
-- David M. Berry & Giles Moss
A constellation of interests is now seeking to increase its ownership and control of creativity. They tell us that they require new laws and rights that will allow them to control concepts and ideas and protect them from exploitation. They say that this will enrich our lives, create new products and safeguard the possibility of future prosperity. But this is a disaster for creativity, whose health depends on an ongoing, free and open conversation between ideas from the past and the present.
-- In response, we wish to defend the idea of a creative field of concepts and ideas that are free from ownership.
1. Profit has a new object of affection. Indeed, profiteers now shamelessly proclaim to be the true friend of creativity and the creative. Everywhere, they declare, "We support and protect concepts and ideas. Creativity is our business and it is safe in our hands. We are the true friends of creativity!"
2. Not content with declarations of friendship, the profiteers are eager to put into practice their fondness for creativity as well. "Actions speak louder than words" in capitalist culture. To display their affection, profiteers use legal mechanisms, namely intellectual property law, to watch over concepts and ideas and to protect them from those who seek to misuse them. While we are dead to the world at night, they are busily stockpiling intellectual property at an astonishing rate. More and more, the creative sphere is being brought under their exclusive control.
3. The fact that the profiteers are now so protective of creativity, and jealously seek to control concepts and ideas, ought to rouse suspicion. While they may claim to be the true friends of creativity, we know that friendship is not the same as dependency. It is very different to say, "I'm your true friend because I need you", than to say, "I need you because I'm your true friend". But how are we to settle this issue? How do we distinguish the true friend from the false one? In any relationship between friends we should ask, "Are both partners mutually benefiting?"
4. The profiteers' insatiable thirst for profit clearly benefits from their new friendship with the creative. Through their use of intellectual property law - in the form of copyright, patents and trademarks - concepts and ideas can be transformed into commodities that are controlled and owned. An artificial scarcity can then be established. But, unlike physical objects, concepts and ideas can be shared, copied and reused without diminishment. No matter how many people use and interpret a particular concept, the creators' use of that concept is not surrendered or reduced. But, much money is to be made when creative flows of knowledge and ideas become scarce products to be traded in the market place. Thus increasingly, intellectual property law is providing profiteers with vast accumulations of wealth. Indeed, immaterial labour (based on information, knowledge and communication) has now replaced industrial manufacture as the main producer of wealth in the age of technological capitalism. As such, the relationship codified in intellectual property law between creativity and profit can be seen as a core element of this wider structural transformation of the productive processes.
5. For many of us, the thought of intellectual property law still evokes romantic apparitions of a solitary artist or writer seeking to safeguard his or her creative work. It is therefore unsurprising that we tend to view intellectual property law as something that defends the rights and interests of the creative. Perhaps, in some removed and distant time, there was a modest respect in this specious notion. But this romantic vision of the creative is certainly ill at ease with capitalist 'reality'. Creators have become employees and each concept and idea they produce is appropriated and owned by the employer. Profiteers are using intellectual property law to amass
I run LOCA records and I've been thinking that a wrapper that expressly indicates the copyleft properties of a song would be a superb step forward as any kind of sharing method would just check that the wrapper was in place. This could be linked to the Creative Commons licenses so that people can find out more information.
Question is the technical issue of implementation - it really would need to be an extension of the MP3 standard (or Ogg) and would have to be non-changable and able to convince a court should anyone wishing to defend their swapping need to do so.
Maybe a third-party Verisign-type music label could be the answer that holds a database of public domain tracks that 'signs' the MP3 and which can then be checked against in a database?
I think it is somewhat depressing that anyone with a lawyer and no conscience can try to force us into the most ridiculous legal situations purely for the hell (and profit) of it. What a complete waste of time, tax dollars and effort by all concerned to try to force consumers into an unfair position.
Why don't they just make their replacement either
1. Cheap enough so the competition isn't worth looking at
2. Of such high quality that ditto.
Now if we could just get them to transfer 13.1 billion (or proportion thereof) out of their bank accounts we could knock em out of business for good...
It's a really good article and I have to say from my own experience that I would thoroughly recommend the upgrade. Things like fast-user-switching and expose are just completely changing the way we work at loca. Especially for the Art Director who can have his usual billion windows open and still find things I need urgently by flipping them all off screen...
Stability wise I am impressed to. The only thing broken was the fact that Apple force you to place certain applications in the Application directory (rather than sub-directories below) which seems a bit stupid...