So, you've written a nice neo-Socialist manifesto, but are too shy to self-identify it as Socialism.
The sticky wicket is defining "need" - we humans are very good at pursuing satisfaction of our own, and very bad at defining application of the concept for others. Notice that Marx put it in the passive voice. He didn't assign no owner...but from the lab, the result of those judgments has always been bound and inverted scales of repression, withdrawal and violence...followed by ultimate recognition the system sucks and should be abandoned, followed by fading memory of that recognition and a renaissance of the original philosophy. It's kind of cool...you're part of the experiment!
My gentle recommendation is that you noodle on the following implications and build a truly novel manifesto: Who should define your need? Why shouldn't it be you? As humans have proven terrible at the discipline collectively (for example, we got an 'F' in Collectives), wouldn't it make (supremely ironic) sense that a robot or an algorithm based on analytics of 'similar' patterns (where you are an instance of a pattern) govern the determination? Are you willing to pledge unwavering subservience to an imposed assessment of your need, especially one based solely on quantitative measures? If you introduce a qualitative component, isn't it poisoned by the risk of subjective bias? Can you get everyone else to do the same thing without force or elimination of dissenters? What about the troubling implications of mob rule or the tyranny of the majority? Practically speaking, if it's not you that controls that definition, won't QoL reducing scenarios quickly emerge? Won't you start to cheat a system you deem inequitable?
I RTFM. Kudos to Ford for having the courage to broach and analyze the topic. Jeers to him for failing to produce a coherent framework of scenarios and faltering on credible presentation of the implications. Goal kick...
This crap is out of hand. Intellectual property needs no more protection. In fact, its reach should be circumscribed.
Let's cut the incentive back to 14 years, as with patents. That way, society can stimulate more production from 'artists' and their corporate masters. If they want more cash after a decade and a half, they'll have to work for it, like everyone else.
One of the interesting elements of the article is the revelation that Kevin McBride is neither a Boies, Schiller lawyer nor possesses an IP practice: "Kevin McBride, according to West Legal Directory, has a private practice in nearby Park City, Utah, where he specializes in litigation and appeals, not corporate-contract or intellectual-property law."
And yes, I agree it's astonishing that the foolish article would suggest that IBM's victory was a surprise. If McBride is a litigator by experience, he would have been well versed in the knowledge that the Plaintiff has the burden of proof/burden of production in setting forth evidence to support its claims.
A 5 minute phone call to a lawyer would have framed the scenario in a similarly understandable fashion for Mr. Kapica. Hey, that's what I thought journalists were supposed to do, investigate, don't speculate:)!
So I guess they decided not to compete on price. I must say I'm shocked, just like a deaf old cat snuck up upon and grabbed.
Re:The death throes of the RIAA's clients.
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
1. Expecting that the RIAA is just going to (sic) change it's mind is wishful thinking.
I liked it when you said, "Sing on, sweet rhetoric." Because that's just what you're doing here.
2. The law grants exclusive distribution rights to copyright holders, that's just the way it is.
The way it is? How come whenever the Great Defenders of the RIAA get pummeled by opposing viewpoints challenging their "How could anyone possibly disagree with me?" positions, they always fall back on the law, just the way it is. In your own article, you raise privacy questions regarding a hypothetical tracking system you envision, without noting that the enacted Patriot Act does that very thing. Thus, you are at odds with yourself, since you reject the principles involved in one enacted law, while defending a different set of principles with the bare justification that "it's the law." The Patriot Act is the law, too, but, by your own account, you don't seem to agree with some of its principles.
So which is it? Apparently, one can't self-justify a law. And it's a NIMBY problem for you, since your views on copyright appear to be controlled by the fact that you fear you would be harmed by the loosening or roll back of copyright protections for content owners.
3. Even if the RIAA miraculously decided (sic) that sharing non-DRM'd MP3s over Kazaa was ok, what about somebody who decides otherwise.
I don't see you complaining about the fact that restrictive RIAA client contracts don't permit musicians who would like to share non-DRM MP3's more freely than permitted by the standard industry deal to do so. We could discuss the nature of the oligopolistic industry that produces inequitable bargaining positions that lead to these deals, but that would be, like, so "anti-innovation" and pro-creative employee.
4. For those (sic) reasons, the leading alternatives call for governmental intervention and new laws.
To quote your article, this comment "is a bad idea propagated in bad faith." It's also sophistry, since it fails to note that the "leading" alternatives only lead because they're supported by the RIAA and its member companies. But please explain why Congressional hearings on the subject are routinely stocked with industry representatives and their affiliates, but include only a token presence or exclude entirely those with an opposing viewpoint.
And if you're referring to an EFF proposal, it's hardly a stretch to imagine that the organization would prefer a simple repeal of the DMCA and moderate expansion of Fair Use provisions of the existing Copyright Act to a completely new regulatory regimen.
5. I'm simply suggesting that people should be getting better informed about what those new laws would be before they decide that they are better.
Maybe they're better informed than you'd like to admit to yourself!
Of course, it would be up to the RIAA and SCO to make the decision about whether to sue...They'd have to very carefully weigh the pros and cons of the risky course on which litigation places all parties.
Hey, wait a minute--one malpractice suit comin' up!!
'Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc.'
As I remember it, if the member companies of the MPRIAA see the same type of stuff (whenever one makes a purchase or buys a subscription), they enjoy the legal right to collect any such information a customer must give them and "share" it with marketers for money.
How come they only "seem" concerned when they're not the ones doing it?
I thought it was 30 second clips and teaser trailers...f o r e v e r.
Now you can buy the meaning of the word "Intent"
on
Gates and Security
·
· Score: 1
"May I be of assistance?"
...to act as a Gates interpreter? I'm guessing that what he means when he says, to paraphrase, that M$ is working to provide protection against threats from anyone seeking to acquire digital property with malicious intent is...drumroll, please...that...Bill...opposes...with fervent passion...FILE SHARING!!! File sharing is evil, it's downright unMicrosoftican.
Oh yeah, and Linux is bad too. If the federal government would only eliminate 'n' and 'x' from the alphabet, then users would be unable to spell Linux, and thus, unable to use Linux. Sound familiar?
The post directly above yours expresses reservation about releasing software (i.e. "innovating") because of intellectual property concerns.
Far from enhancing software development, software patents and other IP tools are the things being utilized to inhibit it. Think about the recent history of IP litigation. Typical cases involve established entities with mature product lines suing upstarts with limited resources and new "innovations." It's a venal process intended to limit competition and there's no macroeconomic morality implicated.
It's fair to say that virtually every factual IP litigation scenario over the past 10 years supports this hypothesis.
Soon To Be Bottled Up In Committee!
on
Spam Meeting Wrap-up
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I love the fact that Congress has neglected to pass ONE law to deal with spam to this day...
...but it has managed to enact numerous laws addressing modern technology's other "scourge," copyright infringement.
It seems that folks in DC can get things done...when they want to.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you've written a nice neo-Socialist manifesto, but are too shy to self-identify it as Socialism. The sticky wicket is defining "need" - we humans are very good at pursuing satisfaction of our own, and very bad at defining application of the concept for others. Notice that Marx put it in the passive voice. He didn't assign no owner...but from the lab, the result of those judgments has always been bound and inverted scales of repression, withdrawal and violence...followed by ultimate recognition the system sucks and should be abandoned, followed by fading memory of that recognition and a renaissance of the original philosophy. It's kind of cool...you're part of the experiment! My gentle recommendation is that you noodle on the following implications and build a truly novel manifesto: Who should define your need? Why shouldn't it be you? As humans have proven terrible at the discipline collectively (for example, we got an 'F' in Collectives), wouldn't it make (supremely ironic) sense that a robot or an algorithm based on analytics of 'similar' patterns (where you are an instance of a pattern) govern the determination? Are you willing to pledge unwavering subservience to an imposed assessment of your need, especially one based solely on quantitative measures? If you introduce a qualitative component, isn't it poisoned by the risk of subjective bias? Can you get everyone else to do the same thing without force or elimination of dissenters? What about the troubling implications of mob rule or the tyranny of the majority? Practically speaking, if it's not you that controls that definition, won't QoL reducing scenarios quickly emerge? Won't you start to cheat a system you deem inequitable? I RTFM. Kudos to Ford for having the courage to broach and analyze the topic. Jeers to him for failing to produce a coherent framework of scenarios and faltering on credible presentation of the implications. Goal kick...
Let's cut the incentive back to 14 years, as with patents. That way, society can stimulate more production from 'artists' and their corporate masters. If they want more cash after a decade and a half, they'll have to work for it, like everyone else.
And yes, I agree it's astonishing that the foolish article would suggest that IBM's victory was a surprise. If McBride is a litigator by experience, he would have been well versed in the knowledge that the Plaintiff has the burden of proof/burden of production in setting forth evidence to support its claims.
A 5 minute phone call to a lawyer would have framed the scenario in a similarly understandable fashion for Mr. Kapica. Hey, that's what I thought journalists were supposed to do, investigate, don't speculate :)!
So I guess they decided not to compete on price. I must say I'm shocked, just like a deaf old cat snuck up upon and grabbed.
I liked it when you said, "Sing on, sweet rhetoric." Because that's just what you're doing here.
2. The law grants exclusive distribution rights to copyright holders, that's just the way it is.
The way it is? How come whenever the Great Defenders of the RIAA get pummeled by opposing viewpoints challenging their "How could anyone possibly disagree with me?" positions, they always fall back on the law, just the way it is. In your own article, you raise privacy questions regarding a hypothetical tracking system you envision, without noting that the enacted Patriot Act does that very thing. Thus, you are at odds with yourself, since you reject the principles involved in one enacted law, while defending a different set of principles with the bare justification that "it's the law." The Patriot Act is the law, too, but, by your own account, you don't seem to agree with some of its principles.
So which is it? Apparently, one can't self-justify a law. And it's a NIMBY problem for you, since your views on copyright appear to be controlled by the fact that you fear you would be harmed by the loosening or roll back of copyright protections for content owners.
3. Even if the RIAA miraculously decided (sic) that sharing non-DRM'd MP3s over Kazaa was ok, what about somebody who decides otherwise.
I don't see you complaining about the fact that restrictive RIAA client contracts don't permit musicians who would like to share non-DRM MP3's more freely than permitted by the standard industry deal to do so. We could discuss the nature of the oligopolistic industry that produces inequitable bargaining positions that lead to these deals, but that would be, like, so "anti-innovation" and pro-creative employee.
4. For those (sic) reasons, the leading alternatives call for governmental intervention and new laws.
To quote your article, this comment "is a bad idea propagated in bad faith." It's also sophistry, since it fails to note that the "leading" alternatives only lead because they're supported by the RIAA and its member companies. But please explain why Congressional hearings on the subject are routinely stocked with industry representatives and their affiliates, but include only a token presence or exclude entirely those with an opposing viewpoint.
And if you're referring to an EFF proposal, it's hardly a stretch to imagine that the organization would prefer a simple repeal of the DMCA and moderate expansion of Fair Use provisions of the existing Copyright Act to a completely new regulatory regimen.
5. I'm simply suggesting that people should be getting better informed about what those new laws would be before they decide that they are better.
Maybe they're better informed than you'd like to admit to yourself!
Hey, wait a minute--one malpractice suit comin' up!!
As I remember it, if the member companies of the MPRIAA see the same type of stuff (whenever one makes a purchase or buys a subscription), they enjoy the legal right to collect any such information a customer must give them and "share" it with marketers for money.
How come they only "seem" concerned when they're not the ones doing it?
What?! WHat?! WHAT?!
I thought it was 30 second clips and teaser trailers...f o r e v e r.
...to act as a Gates interpreter? I'm guessing that what he means when he says, to paraphrase, that M$ is working to provide protection against threats from anyone seeking to acquire digital property with malicious intent is...drumroll, please...that...Bill...opposes...with fervent passion...FILE SHARING!!! File sharing is evil, it's downright unMicrosoftican.
Oh yeah, and Linux is bad too. If the federal government would only eliminate 'n' and 'x' from the alphabet, then users would be unable to spell Linux, and thus, unable to use Linux. Sound familiar?
And copyrights!
The post directly above yours expresses reservation about releasing software (i.e. "innovating") because of intellectual property concerns.
Far from enhancing software development, software patents and other IP tools are the things being utilized to inhibit it. Think about the recent history of IP litigation. Typical cases involve established entities with mature product lines suing upstarts with limited resources and new "innovations." It's a venal process intended to limit competition and there's no macroeconomic morality implicated.
It's fair to say that virtually every factual IP litigation scenario over the past 10 years supports this hypothesis.
It seems that folks in DC can get things done...when they want to.