A lot of nice free software go unnoticed by the general public because no one is marketing it. (I'm probably missing some of it myself) That's a pity. This guy is solving that problem! Obviously he's only able to sell to those who didn't know about your books, so basically he's reaping part of the value generated when people discover Free books that fill their needs. That's ok with me.
Now, on the other hand, if he's not distributing the license with the books it's bad. It's also bad that he doesn't credit you when quoting the table of contents. If you think these problems outweigh the good he does, go get him, you can do that without the DMCA. Just think it over first, willya:-)
The fact that a clause you want to use (ISPs having to reveal copyright infringer's identities) was passed in a bill with clauses that you don't like shouldn't matter.
But this is (apparently) the clause he doesn't like!
In my opinion the alleged infringers' identity should not be revealed unless a judge issues a warrant. If he uses the DMCA that will happen, and I suspect that's the roots of his moral qualms.
- find the guy behind Dear Raed and get him back online. (And find out if the story's true) After that we can talk email access for Baghdadis trying to contact relatives abroad.
Quantum computing will destroy public key cryptography. The entire infrastructure for secure transfer over the Internet would collapse. On the other hand, it holds many exciting and useful possibilities.
Should we support research into quantum computing? (There's pretty much going on right now)
If a quantum computer is built, should the technology be restricted?
Is the question moot? That is, will it be settled by what is physically possible rather than by our ethical considerations.
the benefits gained by granting new rights to a few does not -- nay, cannot -- outweight the costs incurred by taking a right from all.
I agree that widespread use of any realistically attainable DRM will harm society at large. However, your original position, was that "Even for a creator, the fair use rights lost to DRM will outweigh the additional rights gained." (My emph.)
I disagree with this position because I find your use of "input" and "output" flawed. Why shouldn't you multiply Stephens "output" by a million, since that's how many copies his novel sells?
In this context it's easier to talk of "loss" or "gain", and you have not demonstrated that the losses outweighs the gains for the very well selling authors. The use of GE's slogan in a movie will not be prevented by DRM on this side of the singularity. Neither will DRM prevent Disney from animating the story of Aladdin. It may very well be stopped by stupid copyright laws, but that's not the point of this discussion.
Secondly, even if you are a prolific creator -- such as Steven King or the Beatles -- you cannot create as much media output as you have input.
I don't understand your use of "input" and "output". How do you measure them?
Even for a creator, the fair use rights lost to DRM will outweigh the additional rights gained.
Let's assume Stephens latest novel sells 10% better due to DRM. (A better assumption would be 99.999% worse, but nevermind) That could land him, say, extra $100.000. Are you really saying Stephen should value the fair use rights lost during his 3 months of writing at that value?
Does anyone else see an opportunity to create an intermediate category of punishment for copyright violators?
The danish regime is not too far from that. Antipiratgruppen (APG, think RIAA+BSA) placed some files copyrighted by their clients on Kazaa. They logged IP's downloading them, and then confirmed that the files were being shared by the downloaders. Subsequently they subpoenaed IP logs from the ISPs. Downloaders then recieved letters basically saying: You have illegally made copyrighted works available through Kazaa/E-donkey. We saw:
K music albums at $8
L movies at $27
N games at $40
If you do not pay within a week we will sue you for double that.
The evidence used was log files and screenshots. This created a lot of controversy. For instance about the single mom that was "fined" more than $2k for the downloads of her children. Of course most people just paid up.
I'd like an easy technological solution, but we don't have it, and we're not going to.
In fact, I suspect we do have one now: Easy and cheap online sale.
Smart content providers will beat the pirates on ease-of-use, not to mention good-conscience. It's not perfect, but I'm generally optimistic that it'll be good enough.
While waiting for the un-smart content providers to die off we should fight to stop copyright law from becoming too badly "fixed".
...it reminds me of my younger self as C64 owner and copyright infringer.
Back then, many game producers used DRM in different ways. There was no internet, I had very little money, no access to BBS'es and copying a single game took several minutes swapping disks. Yet I knew a couple of guys who could lend me bunches of new games for copying, DRM cracked and all. Everyone I knew had boxes stuffed with illegal games and perhaps one or two originals tops. Darknet indeed.
If that was the state of things back then, how can we reasonably expect that DRM will really limit copying today? I think we'll fare better informing people about the consequences of copyright infringement - both to themselves, but more importantly to the artists. I'd like an easy technological solution, but we don't have it, and we're not going to.
When we argue that DRM has no place in copyright law we need real understanding of its purpose and effect. Otherwise, we're just fighting windmills. Enough people doing that already...
This one is much better at saying "slashdotted". Neither of them do the "Aargh!" very well. Especially the IBM one ought to be convincing, given current circumstances;-)
Declan McCullagh suggested these four voluntary guidelines to deal with the privacy threat:
First, consumers should be notified--a notice on a checkout receipt would work--when RFID tags are present in what they're buying. Second, RFID tags should be disabled by default at the checkout counter. Third, RFID tags should be placed on the product's packaging instead of on the product when possible. Fourth, RFID tags should be readily visible and easily removable.
I like this idea, only it won't work without legislation. Somebody please convince the EU commission...
If this is available for free (especially since they are proposing this be legal file trading, liscensed by the big 4 or whatever), then there AREN'T profits generated from people downloading, but from researchers paying for CPU time.
Maybe we have a misunderstanding here. I thought you were supposed to pay per download (in CPU cycles) Since it's not implemented yet (and possibly never will be) it's hard to tell what will be the case.
I certainly take offense to the Hillary Rosen comparison:)
Be happy that it was (my perception of) your argument I compared to her, not your person. (And even Hillary may be a nice person, it's just so hard to show when ruining copyright law is your day job...)
If your average person downloads an album a month (a SEVERELY conservative estimate) that is a $15-20 album that isn't sold.
That's as far as revenue goes. Profit is not nearly that much. (I'd guess the retailer alone takes ~40%) With these costs shaved off, people will probably buy more music, perhaps generating more profit from less revenue. CPU cycles may still be too cheap, but you haven't proven it.
What's worse, you're propagating that dead "every-file-downloaded-is-a-CD-sale-lost" argument. While there may be a (documented?) correlation, it's much more subtle. Besides, its so Hillary Rosen.
I'm not slamming every slashdot user, and especially not you. I like the vibrant debate here. Even the trolls seem nice every now and then;-)
I'm slamming the editors. Considering how bad a job they do at filtering biased, dupe or outright false submissions, I think it's ironic that they posted an article on "bad tech journalism".
Here I'm treating "the editors", not "slashdot" as an entity and I think that's a lot more reasonable. OTOH this article was posted by pudge, editor of the Apple section, and I may have been unfair in lumping him in with the rest of the pack.
It's actually from march 2002. It's a 30-page academic paper with differential equations and other nice stuff, for the impatient I have reproduced the abstract:
ABSTRACT: We construct a competitive model of innovation and growth under constant returns to scale. Previous models of growth under constant returns cannot model technological innovation. Current models of endogenous innovation rely on the interplay between increasing returns and monopolistic markets. In fact, established wisdom claims monopoly power to be instrumental for innovation and sees the nonrivalrous nature of ideas as a natural conduit to increasing returns. The results here challenge the positive description of previous models and the normative conclusion that monopoly through copyright and patent is socially beneficial.
Slashdot critisizing bad tech journalism? Talk about the speck in your brothers eye! I can't count the number of biased, duped or outright false submissions slipping past the editors during the last months. Makes me wonder about what submissions they reject.
Honestly, I'm mostly here for the comments. For tech journalism, see El Reg
We recently got an email from a guy in Finland that he's going to duplicate a Unix box on commodity hardware! If you would like to give a hand, Send the person, Linus Torvalds an email
Naaah, not worth it. It's completely tied in with the x86 architecture, and the author says it will probably never support anything but AT hard-disks. If only they could finish HURD...
I have had cases where other consulting companies have taken documents that I put my blood sweat and tears into, changed a title page and then went an took work away from me
Peter Madsen successfully operated his homegrown 1-man submarine in the harbour of Copenhagen last fall. It has been submerged for 1½ hour, and gone to a depth of 10 m.
That came on the heels of an accident where his submarine was heavily damaged by crashing into a bridge. Don't blame Peter though - it was carried on a truck! (danish)
During the test this fall the only problem was paranoid police boarding the sub (danish) to assure that Peter was not an activist intending to disrupt the EU summit.
I hope to see that happen in my lifetime - even if permanent.com is too optimistic. That's why I like these probes, not because of the (negligible) impact danger.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of nice free software go unnoticed by the general public because no one is marketing it. (I'm probably missing some of it myself) That's a pity. This guy is solving that problem! Obviously he's only able to sell to those who didn't know about your books, so basically he's reaping part of the value generated when people discover Free books that fill their needs. That's ok with me.
:-)
Now, on the other hand, if he's not distributing the license with the books it's bad. It's also bad that he doesn't credit you when quoting the table of contents. If you think these problems outweigh the good he does, go get him, you can do that without the DMCA. Just think it over first, willya
The fact that a clause you want to use (ISPs having to reveal copyright infringer's identities) was passed in a bill with clauses that you don't like shouldn't matter.
But this is (apparently) the clause he doesn't like!
In my opinion the alleged infringers' identity should not be revealed unless a judge issues a warrant. If he uses the DMCA that will happen, and I suspect that's the roots of his moral qualms.
- find the guy behind Dear Raed and get him back online. (And find out if the story's true)
After that we can talk email access for Baghdadis trying to contact relatives abroad.
the benefits gained by granting new rights to a few does not -- nay, cannot -- outweight the costs incurred by taking a right from all.
I agree that widespread use of any realistically attainable DRM will harm society at large. However, your original position, was that "Even for a creator, the fair use rights lost to DRM will outweigh the additional rights gained." (My emph.) I disagree with this position because I find your use of "input" and "output" flawed. Why shouldn't you multiply Stephens "output" by a million, since that's how many copies his novel sells?
In this context it's easier to talk of "loss" or "gain", and you have not demonstrated that the losses outweighs the gains for the very well selling authors. The use of GE's slogan in a movie will not be prevented by DRM on this side of the singularity. Neither will DRM prevent Disney from animating the story of Aladdin. It may very well be stopped by stupid copyright laws, but that's not the point of this discussion.
Secondly, even if you are a prolific creator -- such as Steven King or the Beatles -- you cannot create as much media output as you have input.
I don't understand your use of "input" and "output". How do you measure them?
Even for a creator, the fair use rights lost to DRM will outweigh the additional rights gained.
Let's assume Stephens latest novel sells 10% better due to DRM. (A better assumption would be 99.999% worse, but nevermind) That could land him, say, extra $100.000. Are you really saying Stephen should value the fair use rights lost during his 3 months of writing at that value?
Does anyone else see an opportunity to create an intermediate category of punishment for copyright violators?
The danish regime is not too far from that. Antipiratgruppen (APG, think RIAA+BSA) placed some files copyrighted by their clients on Kazaa. They logged IP's downloading them, and then confirmed that the files were being shared by the downloaders. Subsequently they subpoenaed IP logs from the ISPs. Downloaders then recieved letters basically saying:
You have illegally made copyrighted works available through Kazaa/E-donkey. We saw:
K music albums at $8
L movies at $27
N games at $40
If you do not pay within a week we will sue you for double that.
The evidence used was log files and screenshots. This created a lot of controversy. For instance about the single mom that was "fined" more than $2k for the downloads of her children. Of course most people just paid up.
I'd like an easy technological solution, but we don't have it, and we're not going to.
In fact, I suspect we do have one now: Easy and cheap online sale.
Smart content providers will beat the pirates on ease-of-use, not to mention good-conscience. It's not perfect, but I'm generally optimistic that it'll be good enough. While waiting for the un-smart content providers to die off we should fight to stop copyright law from becoming too badly "fixed".
...it reminds me of my younger self as C64 owner and copyright infringer.
Back then, many game producers used DRM in different ways. There was no internet, I had very little money, no access to BBS'es and copying a single game took several minutes swapping disks. Yet I knew a couple of guys who could lend me bunches of new games for copying, DRM cracked and all. Everyone I knew had boxes stuffed with illegal games and perhaps one or two originals tops. Darknet indeed.
If that was the state of things back then, how can we reasonably expect that DRM will really limit copying today? I think we'll fare better informing people about the consequences of copyright infringement - both to themselves, but more importantly to the artists. I'd like an easy technological solution, but we don't have it, and we're not going to.
...that this is equally relevant to DRM skeptics.
When we argue that DRM has no place in copyright law we need real understanding of its purpose and effect. Otherwise, we're just fighting windmills. Enough people doing that already...
"Aargh! I've been slashdotted!"
;-)
This one is much better at saying "slashdotted". Neither of them do the "Aargh!" very well. Especially the IBM one ought to be convincing, given current circumstances
Generate more samples for yourself at http://www.naturalvoices.att.com/demos/
uttering the sequence:
"Aargh! I've been slashdotted!"
Bandwidth sponsored by danish research funding...
Declan McCullagh suggested these four voluntary guidelines to deal with the privacy threat:
First, consumers should be notified--a notice on a checkout receipt would work--when RFID tags are present in what they're buying. Second, RFID tags should be disabled by default at the checkout counter. Third, RFID tags should be placed on the product's packaging instead of on the product when possible. Fourth, RFID tags should be readily visible and easily removable.
I like this idea, only it won't work without legislation. Somebody please convince the EU commission...
Oh yeah, Declans article was linked by slashdot.
If this is available for free (especially since they are proposing this be legal file trading, liscensed by the big 4 or whatever), then there AREN'T profits generated from people downloading, but from researchers paying for CPU time.
:)
Maybe we have a misunderstanding here. I thought you were supposed to pay per download (in CPU cycles) Since it's not implemented yet (and possibly never will be) it's hard to tell what will be the case.
I certainly take offense to the Hillary Rosen comparison
Be happy that it was (my perception of) your argument I compared to her, not your person. (And even Hillary may be a nice person, it's just so hard to show when ruining copyright law is your day job...)
If your average person downloads an album a month (a SEVERELY conservative estimate) that is a $15-20 album that isn't sold.
That's as far as revenue goes. Profit is not nearly that much. (I'd guess the retailer alone takes ~40%) With these costs shaved off, people will probably buy more music, perhaps generating more profit from less revenue. CPU cycles may still be too cheap, but you haven't proven it.
What's worse, you're propagating that dead "every-file-downloaded-is-a-CD-sale-lost" argument. While there may be a (documented?) correlation, it's much more subtle. Besides, its so Hillary Rosen.
here
Especially recommended are the tutorials where you can pick up material corresponding to your current understanding of quantum mechanics.
For this article, you might be looking for the Kindergarten explanation of entanglement
I'm not slamming every slashdot user, and especially not you. I like the vibrant debate here. Even the trolls seem nice every now and then ;-)
I'm slamming the editors. Considering how bad a job they do at filtering biased, dupe or outright false submissions, I think it's ironic that they posted an article on "bad tech journalism".
Here I'm treating "the editors", not "slashdot" as an entity and I think that's a lot more reasonable. OTOH this article was posted by pudge, editor of the Apple section, and I may have been unfair in lumping him in with the rest of the pack.
Here
It's actually from march 2002. It's a 30-page academic paper with differential equations and other nice stuff, for the impatient I have reproduced the abstract:
ABSTRACT: We construct a competitive model of innovation and growth under constant returns to scale. Previous models of growth under constant returns cannot model technological innovation. Current models of endogenous innovation rely on the interplay between increasing returns and monopolistic markets. In fact, established wisdom claims monopoly power to be instrumental for innovation and sees the nonrivalrous nature of ideas as a natural conduit to increasing returns. The results here challenge the positive description of previous models and the normative conclusion that monopoly through copyright and patent is socially beneficial.
Slashdot critisizing bad tech journalism? Talk about the speck in your brothers eye! I can't count the number of biased, duped or outright false submissions slipping past the editors during the last months. Makes me wonder about what submissions they reject.
Honestly, I'm mostly here for the comments. For tech journalism, see El Reg
We recently got an email from a guy in Finland that he's going to duplicate a Unix box on commodity hardware! If you would like to give a hand, Send the person, Linus Torvalds an email
Naaah, not worth it. It's completely tied in with the x86 architecture, and the author says it will probably never support anything but AT hard-disks. If only they could finish HURD...
is the printer-friendly version
I have had cases where other consulting companies have taken documents that I put my blood sweat and tears into, changed a title page and then went an took work away from me
Why haven't you sued under copyright law?
Peter Madsen successfully operated his homegrown 1-man submarine in the harbour of Copenhagen last fall. It has been submerged for 1½ hour, and gone to a depth of 10 m.
That came on the heels of an accident where his submarine was heavily damaged by crashing into a bridge. Don't blame Peter though - it was carried on a truck! (danish)
During the test this fall the only problem was paranoid police boarding the sub (danish) to assure that Peter was not an activist intending to disrupt the EU summit.
is not spotted by not eating pork, but by drinking and whoring
NOW we're talking needle in hay-stack...
to make fuel and infrastructure from materials already in space
I hope to see that happen in my lifetime - even if permanent.com is too optimistic. That's why I like these probes, not because of the (negligible) impact danger.