Could we have a single Perl-related article on slashdot where the comments actually deal with the article at hand, and don't degenerate in to a general discusion of 1) Perl, 2) the readability and maintainability thereof, or 3) the inferiority or superiority of Perl as compared with Python or any number of other languages?
So, let's say he's convinced me that Microsoft can always retain a near-100% market share. But does that mean they actually keep making as much money? Redhat may have convinced us that you can make money on free software, but it doesn't look to me like you can make quite as much money selling free software as you can selling the proprietary stuff. Couldn't Micrsoft gain market share and still end up losing profits?
Part of the reason free software is good, I figure, is that it eliminates some redundant effort, and makes the software industry a bit more efficient. But seems to me that this means that in an open-source world, 100% of the software pie might just not be worth as much.
So, someone tell me now that I'm totally confused.
One problem is that with 7-digit dialing you know
that if a call goes through then it's a local
call. With 10-digit dialing it's harder to tell
whether you're being charged by the minute or not.
Easy to get burned if, for example, you assume
that the number your ISP gave you is local just
because it's in your area code, only to get a
nasty surprise with your long distance bill at
the end of the month.
And the social barrier to entering SIPB has always been high, due in large part to elitism among its members and the perception of elitism
by the community.
One got the impression (fair or not) from the Salon article that the people in this Berkeley club have in the past been rather arrogant and rude. If the attitude of people in your group is similar, then one can hardly blame the first-years from staying home now that they no longer depend on you for the decent computers.
All the talk of frankness and brutal criticism is particularly telling. Criticism is great, but it's much more effective if it's given politely. There's no reason why the occasion of dealing out criticism also needs to be an excuse for demonstrating one's superiority, or for miscellaneous verbal abuse.
You sound like someone that can understands the distinction between criticism and rudeness, and between flattery and basic politeness, but maybe some of your fellow SIPB people don't. Or maybe there's a more subtle problem--I've also been to my fair share of clubs where the older students talk amongst themselves and make no effort to meet anyone new--a very awkward situation to be in if you're new.
A new student at a place like MIT has a *lot* of social options. Would you advise such student take a second look at a club that can't treat them with basic respect?
Can anyone find the patent that they refer to, and figure out whether it would cover anything with the same user-interface? I tried poking around a bit on their website and a patent database, but to no avail.
Can't say I'd be excited about trading in QWERTY for a proprietary interface.
As in the true copyright protection that lets billions of stolen mp3s get downloaded each day?
Such behavior is already illegal. So here's an interesting question---why isn't the RIAA going after all people who are swapping mp3's? Why is it going after Napster instead?
If the RIAA sued a bunch of individuals (if they even made prominent examples out of a few), they could probably intimidate a lot of people to the point where they would change their behavior. Suddenly a much lower percentage of the traffic on Napster (or whatever) would be in illegal mp3's. Suddenly it would be much clearer that peer-to-peer protocols can have "significant non-infringing uses", and their court cases against companies like Napster, like earlier court-cases against the VCR producers, would be on much shakier ground.
The RIAA would be better off in the long run if they could embed copy-protection controls in every internet protocol. But that doesn't mean they need to do such a thing to prevent "piracy".
Of course we should support our artists. But why does that mean we have to let the RIAA reshape the cyberspace in their image?
---J. Bruce Fields
supporting development of free operating systems
on
Geek Charities?
·
· Score: 1
There was a good article last year from "Daemon News" about how to contribute to the development projects that you benefit from.--jbf
If this
behavior isn't checked, the next time something like this might happen
it could be any file, not just MP3s.
Bzzzt, wrong. Remember, this ISP makes money
by charging its customers for a service. They
can't afford to delete all of their customers files.
But they can afford to piss of customers that
are in a distinct minority (e.g., those who
actually create music instead of being passive
consumers) or customers that have no money (e.g.,
those who create music full-time,
and who don't sell gazillions
of records).
It's good to hear that at least there's a debate! Somehow in the states it seems that the only people that are aware of the issue are computer programmers or lawyers, and only a subset of those groups at that. And, to make matters worse, the patent skeptics don't seem to have any sort of organized voice. Sounds like there's more of a chance for the side of sanity to get a hearing in Europe....---Bruce Fields
This site looks like a nice idea, but wouldn't it be better if the same amount of energy could be put into, say, revising the debian install manual, or the apt-get source pages, or whatever? It's nice to have a place where you can go to ask questions, but it's even better if the answers are already there in your system documentation, right where you expect them to be. (Which, unfortunately, seems to be the case less often than it should be, in every distribution I've tried.)
But I'm of the opinion that solving the problems faced by new users is best done at the OS level, not the documentation level.
Both approaches are necessary in my opinion. Help files are included with Windows, MacOS, etc. because even when a system is easy to use, people need assistance. No
interface will be easy for everyone who has never worked with it.
I would go so far as to say that no system which is so "easy to use" as to not require documentation is not powerful enough to be worth using....
Nothing against making interfaces that are as intuitive as possible, but documentation is the most important thing in any case. How else are you really going to learn how to, say, write shell scripts? And you can tell me that newbies don't need to know about scripting, but then what are they using linux for? One of the great things about unix-like systems is that you can figure out so much just by grepping through scripts in/etc, and that you can save so much effort with the occasional bash for-loop....
The great thing about the Internet now is that I, as an individual, can publish pretty much anything. I can write music and put it out, I can write fiction and put it out
where people can come by and access it. Until the early 90s this was just not possible. If my stuff is not enormously popular - so what - people who enjoy that kind of
thing can still get it. I can publish to my heart's content and the few hundred readers can read it. Similarly, I can go and get obscure stuff myself - something that
wasn't possible before the internet showed up in its current form due to publishing barriers.
But Freenet will just drop this stuff because it's not popular - and this seems like a retrograde step to me. It re-erects those old barriers to publishing that the
Internet is destroying - and eventually, Freenet just holds what the Sheeple want. We end up with a network that's no better than TV or the print press - containing
only what's popular. We end up with masses of Britney Spears or Blink 182, but you can't find something like the Bottom Feeders or Bradley N. Litwin.
Hm, I guess I had assumed that if you continued to request something from freenet, freenet would continue to supply it. If you were the only person to request it, then presumeably it would be stored in the node closest to you.... That is, on your computer. Would this be much different from having a web page on your server that no-one else ever reads?
But then, I don't understand how freenet works. No one does at this point, I suppose, because it's not finished. In any case, saying that "unpopular" stuff will be dropped isn't quite the same as saying that only the 1000 (or whatever) most popular documents will be kept in the system. Could you explain why you believe that Freenet would drop data that's still requested, but only by a small number of people?
Currently, yes, anyone can put something on the web, but only if they're willing to pay---sure, you can get free web space if you're satisfied with poor bandwith and banner ads, but if you want to get your stuff out to more than a few people, than you need resources.
Quite a few physicists and mathematicians know LaTeX, but it's far from
being a universal standard, and it does not allow the kind of control that is
necessary for a book with a complex layout and lots of illustrations. (To be
fair, many LaTeX users would consider this a feature, not a bug, since it
results from the philosophy of separating form from content.)
I'm not sure the author has really studied TeX very carefully; on the contrary, it is extremely flexible, and allows enormous amounts of control--it's just the default macros used by LaTeX that this author is unhappy with.
But maybe I'm missing something? What can you do in the page desktop publish programs he mentions that you can't do in TeX?
Not that I'm suggesting TeX would be the ideal format, but at least for a math textbook, say, it might work well, since most of the contributors are likely to be fairly comfortable with TeX already.
We fight for security in our Linux/FreeBSD boxes - why can't we fight
for security of copyright in digital music? Because it doesn't help us
economically (we can't steal songs at will)?
No, we oppose their technology because it gives an enormous amount of
power to Hollywood, power that they didn't have
before. It gives them unprecendented ability
to control access to (not just copying of) their
"content."
For the record, I have never
illegally copied an mp3, and I haven't even used
Napster. But I'm very worried by the idea of
shutting down interesting technology (e.g., distributed
file-sharing), and building alternative protocols
with copying controls built in, when there's no
evidence that this really solves a problem (who
has actually lost money because of Napster?), and
when there is evidence that the new protocols
give an enormous amount of new power to the
"content providers".
From the article, it seems that some points Don made were uninformed
(the music standard would knock out local bands, for example).
Imagine for a moment a world where content
providers control a lot of important protocols
(SDMI could be one), and where they control the
major bandwidth coming into our homes (Time-Warner?).
Can't you imagine some potential for abuse? A local band attempting to do its own distribution would be a competitor to the people who controlled the distribution system.
Seems to me everyone is caught up in the
idea of having the government and corportations take away their rights online, but whats really going on here? Does everyone really think
that the rampant trading of mp3s is legal? Its one thing to compare it to making a copy of a CD or tape. But the truth is everyone is really
just getting albums and their favorite songs for free, and wants to keep them, no pay. Whats really going on isn't right, the current system
may suck, but that does mean two wrongs make a right.
I would argue that using the internet to distribute hate speech is also wrong. But many people (myself among them) believe strongly that the need to censor the intnernet is not so pressing as to require drastic revisions of the law, or to require distortions the entire structure of cyberspace to build in technology for censorship. Hence, for example, the outcry against the CDA.
This is the same sort of thing: sure, I don't think mass copyright violation is a good thing. But that doesn't mean that we should be rushing to rewrite the entire legal system (see the DMCA, and UCITA), to snuff new technologies in the cradle (see Napster), and to attempt to build controls which forbid legal fair use into every piece of new technology (see CSS, SDMI, etc.). In particular, why are we doing all of this before there's even evidence that the copyright violation that's going on is really a problem?
And, mostly importantly, why are we doing this when the "solution" to this "problem" will give the people who are pushing the solution immense power that they did not previously posess? In particular, it gives the "content providers" the ability to divide consumers into different markets each of which can be set a price that is the maximum that market will bear (region encoding on DVD's is just the start); it gives them the ability to charge for, and set conditions on, many different types of use that they could not easily control before (so, for example, use of portions of a work in reviews could be restricted to favorable reviewers); etc., etc.
Marti has softened his stance just
a bit. "I'm still concerned, and I'm still researching, but I'm less
concerned," Marti said.
and, later:
Still, Marti said he wouldn't encourage people to participate in the
hack. "I think SDMI is becoming less and less relevant," he said, as
the popularity of digital music continues to grow.
This might suggest some unfortunate waffling on Marti's part. But it's not exactly the strongest evidence for your statement. Do you have any other source?
Scroll down to read their advice to unsigned artists, they suggest to release their songs as MP3 or other open formats. It seems to sugges
that the EFF wants them to release the songs *for free* (as in beer).
I know his is what you meant, but just to clarify--releasing music using an open format is not the same as releasing it "for free". Virtually all the music you could buy at your local record store is in an open format....
Their business model is one I support, and one that I could see growing quite quickly - the one where you give people some physical thing that ties them to the service that pays for it. I don't think that it's a bad business model - but it needs legal protection because it would be very easy to destroy it.
Explain this to me--I honestly don't get it--what's so great about this type of business model? In particular, what's so great about it that it should be given special legal protection to encourage it? Please explain.
This guy is confused. Trademarks and patents have to be defended. Copyright does not. He's talking as if they were the same thing. He needs to sit down and have a good talk (and listen!) with his lawyer.
Agreed, he's confused; I wish he could have just laid out the legal claim that they're making so we could understand it, but his lumping together of all the different types of IP suggests that he doesn't know the legal justification.
However, I'm afraid you're confused too--my best guess is that the type of IP they're claiming is not trademarks, patents, or copyright, but trade secrets, which do have to be actively defended.
I have this idea that all these guys have done is said "hey! Hackers are doing something with our product that's bad for our business! It must be an IP violation. Send out the letters!" and then they haven't thought beyond that.... Could it be that simple?
For publishers, VSTi offers a content distribution model that
guarantees 100% market penetration at participating schools, --so students will be at your mercy--no sneaky going to the library, or borrowing a friend's book
significantly increases the number of titles students purchase each year,--more money!
significantly reduces overhead costs associated with manufacture and distribution of textbooks, and promises continued licensing of publisher materials through continuing education.--and all this costs you less!
In the process the VSTi model
creates a copyright compliant environment on campus,--you won't even have to worry about fair use any more! Someone wants to photocopy a chapter of your book for a class presentation? Hah! They'll have to get your permission first....
gets rid of the need for used books,--You can make sell the same book over, and over, and over again.... And they'll have no first-sale rights, so they won't be able to pass it on to anyone else.
tailor-makes solutions to fit the unique needs of each campus. Work out precisely the most that the market will bear on each campus, and charge the most you can get away with! No-one can resell your books, so there's no opportunity for arbitrage--everyone pays through the nose!
Sounds like a great deal for someone, but not for the advancement of knowledge....
the typical view is that, once you post copyrighted material (that you hold the copyright to, otherwise you have infringed on another's copyright) to a public forum, be it a message kiosk on your local college campus, or an electronic messaging system, such as deja.com or the/. forums, you have implicitly given up any copyrights you may have held, and the work passes into public domain.
This is completely wrong. It's not so easy to give up copyright. When you post, e.g., to a usenet newsgroup, you are giving people an implicit license to do the things that are normally done with usenet postings--like to copy your posting as necesary to propogate it around usenet. You aren't giving permission to do anything else, and you definitely aren't giving up your copyright.
If you really want to put something in the public domain, you need to say so, explicitely, in writing.---Bruce Fields
Corporations such as Fuji are no longer selling a particular product (such as a series of shows about cooking). Instead, they are staking their claim to a piece of culture, and then attempting to charge for all participation in that piece of culture.
Their fear is that some significant amount of the Stuff in the quirkly little corner of idea-space named "Iron Chef" might some day be created and controlled by fans, instead of by Fuji. Perish the thought!
These days our only common culture centers around TV shows, commercials, and other corporate-owned stuff. Thus regular individuals are increasingly prohibited from being full participants in their own culture. And this situation is due in part to a legal regime that is supposed to *encourage* creativity?
Of course, copyright law does have safeguards built in; but we need to ensure that these safeguards are not forgotten. For that reason, we all need to understand the "fair use" exemptions and watch carefully to make sure that they are preserved and strengthened.
No, no, no..... You are NOT exempted from copyright law just because you haven't made a profit; why would there be such a fuss over mp3 trading if this were the case? There are four criteria that determine whether something is "fair use", and the intended use (e.g., for profit or not for profit) is one of the criteria, but it is not the only one.
For example, the amount that you've copied also matters--in this case, if fansites have only copied little bits and pieces, then that would make it easier for them to claim fair use. It also matters whether you're hurting the copyright-holder's potential market for their work; so, for example, Fuji could argue that the sound clips on a web site hurt the market for their future "Iron Chef Sound Clip Sampler" CD. All of these factors would have to be weighed by a court. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the case law to know how this would be decided.
IF the owners of the Iron Chef franchise don't police the usage of their logos, graphics, etc. by third-parties, then they'll lose control over the Iron Chef trademark. This is not a case where a company is supressing its growing fan base. It's only doing what's necessary to prevent other people from profiting from the Iron Chef trademarks. Even though these particular sites aren't for profit, if the Iron Chef people don't step in here, then it sets a precedent for other people (probably operating with profit in mind) to be able to use the logos, name, etc.
Aren't you confusing copyright and trademark law here? It seemed to me (maybe I missed something) that the cease-and-desist letter was complaining about copyright violations, not trademark violations. There was no accusation, for example, that the fan site was misreprenting itself as being run by Fuji; they just accused the website of copying material copyrighted by Fuji (e.g., sound clips)
Copyright law doesn't have the same notion of "dilution" that trademark law does---you don't lose the ability to pursue later infringers when you allow some copying.
Aside: does anyone know a good, basic, on-line or off-line introductions to trademark law? It keeps coming up so often that I'd like to understand it better.
Slashdot Mirror
Could we have a single Perl-related article on slashdot where the comments actually deal with the article at hand, and don't degenerate in to a general discusion of 1) Perl, 2) the readability and maintainability thereof, or 3) the inferiority or superiority of Perl as compared with Python or any number of other languages?
Uninformed generalizations are a dime a dozen.
--Bruce Fields
So, let's say he's convinced me that Microsoft can always retain a near-100% market share. But does that mean they actually keep making as much money? Redhat may have convinced us that you can make money on free software, but it doesn't look to me like you can make quite as much money selling free software as you can selling the proprietary stuff. Couldn't Micrsoft gain market share and still end up losing profits?
Part of the reason free software is good, I figure, is that it eliminates some redundant effort, and makes the software industry a bit more efficient. But seems to me that this means that in an open-source world, 100% of the software pie might just not be worth as much.
So, someone tell me now that I'm totally confused.
---Bruce Fields
I tried the Perl thing too. Ha-ha. Results were similarly useless for a couple other topics of interest to me.
In fact, can anyone find a single search for which this search engine returns useful results?
Are these people serious?? Or was I just unlucky?
---Bruce Fields
One problem is that with 7-digit dialing you know that if a call goes through then it's a local call. With 10-digit dialing it's harder to tell whether you're being charged by the minute or not. Easy to get burned if, for example, you assume that the number your ISP gave you is local just because it's in your area code, only to get a nasty surprise with your long distance bill at the end of the month.
---Bruce Fields
One got the impression (fair or not) from the Salon article that the people in this Berkeley club have in the past been rather arrogant and rude. If the attitude of people in your group is similar, then one can hardly blame the first-years from staying home now that they no longer depend on you for the decent computers.
All the talk of frankness and brutal criticism is particularly telling. Criticism is great, but it's much more effective if it's given politely. There's no reason why the occasion of dealing out criticism also needs to be an excuse for demonstrating one's superiority, or for miscellaneous verbal abuse.
You sound like someone that can understands the distinction between criticism and rudeness, and between flattery and basic politeness, but maybe some of your fellow SIPB people don't. Or maybe there's a more subtle problem--I've also been to my fair share of clubs where the older students talk amongst themselves and make no effort to meet anyone new--a very awkward situation to be in if you're new.
A new student at a place like MIT has a *lot* of social options. Would you advise such student take a second look at a club that can't treat them with basic respect?
---Bruce Fields
Can't say I'd be excited about trading in QWERTY for a proprietary interface.
Such behavior is already illegal. So here's an interesting question---why isn't the RIAA going after all people who are swapping mp3's? Why is it going after Napster instead?
If the RIAA sued a bunch of individuals (if they even made prominent examples out of a few), they could probably intimidate a lot of people to the point where they would change their behavior. Suddenly a much lower percentage of the traffic on Napster (or whatever) would be in illegal mp3's. Suddenly it would be much clearer that peer-to-peer protocols can have "significant non-infringing uses", and their court cases against companies like Napster, like earlier court-cases against the VCR producers, would be on much shakier ground.
The RIAA would be better off in the long run if they could embed copy-protection controls in every internet protocol. But that doesn't mean they need to do such a thing to prevent "piracy".
Of course we should support our artists. But why does that mean we have to let the RIAA reshape the cyberspace in their image?
---J. Bruce Fields
There was a good article last year from "Daemon News" about how to contribute to the development projects that you benefit from.--jbf
Bzzzt, wrong. Remember, this ISP makes money by charging its customers for a service. They can't afford to delete all of their customers files. But they can afford to piss of customers that are in a distinct minority (e.g., those who actually create music instead of being passive consumers) or customers that have no money (e.g., those who create music full-time, and who don't sell gazillions of records).
---jbf
It's good to hear that at least there's a debate! Somehow in the states it seems that the only people that are aware of the issue are computer programmers or lawyers, and only a subset of those groups at that. And, to make matters worse, the patent skeptics don't seem to have any sort of organized voice. Sounds like there's more of a chance for the side of sanity to get a hearing in Europe....---Bruce Fields
This site looks like a nice idea, but wouldn't it be better if the same amount of energy could be put into, say, revising the debian install manual, or the apt-get source pages, or whatever? It's nice to have a place where you can go to ask questions, but it's even better if the answers are already there in your system documentation, right where you expect them to be. (Which, unfortunately, seems to be the case less often than it should be, in every distribution I've tried.)
---Bruce Fields
I would go so far as to say that no system which is so "easy to use" as to not require documentation is not powerful enough to be worth using....
Nothing against making interfaces that are as intuitive as possible, but documentation is the most important thing in any case. How else are you really going to learn how to, say, write shell scripts? And you can tell me that newbies don't need to know about scripting, but then what are they using linux for? One of the great things about unix-like systems is that you can figure out so much just by grepping through scripts in /etc, and that you can save so much effort with the occasional bash for-loop....
---Bruce Fields
Hm, I guess I had assumed that if you continued to request something from freenet, freenet would continue to supply it. If you were the only person to request it, then presumeably it would be stored in the node closest to you.... That is, on your computer. Would this be much different from having a web page on your server that no-one else ever reads?
But then, I don't understand how freenet works. No one does at this point, I suppose, because it's not finished. In any case, saying that "unpopular" stuff will be dropped isn't quite the same as saying that only the 1000 (or whatever) most popular documents will be kept in the system. Could you explain why you believe that Freenet would drop data that's still requested, but only by a small number of people?
Currently, yes, anyone can put something on the web, but only if they're willing to pay---sure, you can get free web space if you're satisfied with poor bandwith and banner ads, but if you want to get your stuff out to more than a few people, than you need resources.
---Bruce Fields
I'm not sure the author has really studied TeX very carefully; on the contrary, it is extremely flexible, and allows enormous amounts of control--it's just the default macros used by LaTeX that this author is unhappy with.
But maybe I'm missing something? What can you do in the page desktop publish programs he mentions that you can't do in TeX?
Not that I'm suggesting TeX would be the ideal format, but at least for a math textbook, say, it might work well, since most of the contributors are likely to be fairly comfortable with TeX already.
---J. Bruce Fields
No, we oppose their technology because it gives an enormous amount of power to Hollywood, power that they didn't have before. It gives them unprecendented ability to control access to (not just copying of) their "content."
For the record, I have never illegally copied an mp3, and I haven't even used Napster. But I'm very worried by the idea of shutting down interesting technology (e.g., distributed file-sharing), and building alternative protocols with copying controls built in, when there's no evidence that this really solves a problem (who has actually lost money because of Napster?), and when there is evidence that the new protocols give an enormous amount of new power to the "content providers".
Imagine for a moment a world where content providers control a lot of important protocols (SDMI could be one), and where they control the major bandwidth coming into our homes (Time-Warner?). Can't you imagine some potential for abuse? A local band attempting to do its own distribution would be a competitor to the people who controlled the distribution system.
---J. Bruce FieldsI would argue that using the internet to distribute hate speech is also wrong. But many people (myself among them) believe strongly that the need to censor the intnernet is not so pressing as to require drastic revisions of the law, or to require distortions the entire structure of cyberspace to build in technology for censorship. Hence, for example, the outcry against the CDA.
This is the same sort of thing: sure, I don't think mass copyright violation is a good thing. But that doesn't mean that we should be rushing to rewrite the entire legal system (see the DMCA, and UCITA), to snuff new technologies in the cradle (see Napster), and to attempt to build controls which forbid legal fair use into every piece of new technology (see CSS, SDMI, etc.). In particular, why are we doing all of this before there's even evidence that the copyright violation that's going on is really a problem?
And, mostly importantly, why are we doing this when the "solution" to this "problem" will give the people who are pushing the solution immense power that they did not previously posess? In particular, it gives the "content providers" the ability to divide consumers into different markets each of which can be set a price that is the maximum that market will bear (region encoding on DVD's is just the start); it gives them the ability to charge for, and set conditions on, many different types of use that they could not easily control before (so, for example, use of portions of a work in reviews could be restricted to favorable reviewers); etc., etc.
--J. Bruce Fields
Here's what you say:
Here's what the articl e that you link to says:
and, later:
This might suggest some unfortunate waffling on Marti's part. But it's not exactly the strongest evidence for your statement. Do you have any other source?
--J. Bruce Fields
I know his is what you meant, but just to clarify--releasing music using an open format is not the same as releasing it "for free". Virtually all the music you could buy at your local record store is in an open format....
---J. Bruce Fields
Explain this to me--I honestly don't get it--what's so great about this type of business model? In particular, what's so great about it that it should be given special legal protection to encourage it? Please explain.
--jbfAgreed, he's confused; I wish he could have just laid out the legal claim that they're making so we could understand it, but his lumping together of all the different types of IP suggests that he doesn't know the legal justification.
However, I'm afraid you're confused too--my best guess is that the type of IP they're claiming is not trademarks, patents, or copyright, but trade secrets, which do have to be actively defended.
I have this idea that all these guys have done is said "hey! Hackers are doing something with our product that's bad for our business! It must be an IP violation. Send out the letters!" and then they haven't thought beyond that.... Could it be that simple?
--jbf- guarantees 100% market penetration at participating schools, --so students will be at your mercy--no sneaky going to the library, or borrowing a friend's book
- significantly increases the number of titles students purchase each year,--more money!
- significantly reduces overhead costs associated with manufacture and distribution of textbooks, and promises continued licensing of publisher materials through continuing education.--and all this costs you less!
In the process the VSTi model- creates a copyright compliant environment on campus,--you won't even have to worry about fair use any more! Someone wants to photocopy a chapter of your book for a class presentation? Hah! They'll have to get your permission first....
- gets rid of the need for used books,--You can make sell the same book over, and over, and over again.... And they'll have no first-sale rights, so they won't be able to pass it on to anyone else.
- tailor-makes solutions to fit the unique needs of each campus. Work out precisely the most that the market will bear on each campus, and charge the most you can get away with! No-one can resell your books, so there's no opportunity for arbitrage--everyone pays through the nose!
Sounds like a great deal for someone, but not for the advancement of knowledge....This is completely wrong. It's not so easy to give up copyright. When you post, e.g., to a usenet newsgroup, you are giving people an implicit license to do the things that are normally done with usenet postings--like to copy your posting as necesary to propogate it around usenet. You aren't giving permission to do anything else, and you definitely aren't giving up your copyright.
If you really want to put something in the public domain, you need to say so, explicitely, in writing.---Bruce Fields
Corporations such as Fuji are no longer selling a particular product (such as a series of shows about cooking). Instead, they are staking their claim to a piece of culture, and then attempting to charge for all participation in that piece of culture.
Their fear is that some significant amount of the Stuff in the quirkly little corner of idea-space named "Iron Chef" might some day be created and controlled by fans, instead of by Fuji. Perish the thought!
These days our only common culture centers around TV shows, commercials, and other corporate-owned stuff. Thus regular individuals are increasingly prohibited from being full participants in their own culture. And this situation is due in part to a legal regime that is supposed to *encourage* creativity?
Of course, copyright law does have safeguards built in; but we need to ensure that these safeguards are not forgotten. For that reason, we all need to understand the "fair use" exemptions and watch carefully to make sure that they are preserved and strengthened.
---Bruce Fields
No, no, no..... You are NOT exempted from copyright law just because you haven't made a profit; why would there be such a fuss over mp3 trading if this were the case? There are four criteria that determine whether something is "fair use", and the intended use (e.g., for profit or not for profit) is one of the criteria, but it is not the only one.
For example, the amount that you've copied also matters--in this case, if fansites have only copied little bits and pieces, then that would make it easier for them to claim fair use. It also matters whether you're hurting the copyright-holder's potential market for their work; so, for example, Fuji could argue that the sound clips on a web site hurt the market for their future "Iron Chef Sound Clip Sampler" CD. All of these factors would have to be weighed by a court. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the case law to know how this would be decided.
---Bruce Fields
Aren't you confusing copyright and trademark law here? It seemed to me (maybe I missed something) that the cease-and-desist letter was complaining about copyright violations, not trademark violations. There was no accusation, for example, that the fan site was misreprenting itself as being run by Fuji; they just accused the website of copying material copyrighted by Fuji (e.g., sound clips)
Copyright law doesn't have the same notion of "dilution" that trademark law does---you don't lose the ability to pursue later infringers when you allow some copying.
Aside: does anyone know a good, basic, on-line or off-line introductions to trademark law? It keeps coming up so often that I'd like to understand it better.
---Bruce Fields