You make a good point re accepting terms of sale at the time of sale. If your art is easily replicated, it would be sensible to sell it to a consortium of buyers to obtain total revenue at the time of release. One then might as well embrace this deal by releasing the art under a creative commons license (so no-one gets prosecuted for copying it). Check out my site 'DigitalArtAuction' for more info.
If votes are closed transactions, it's closed to scrutiny.
What you need is a 'show of hands' kind of voting system.
This means that the electorate is able to perceive itself - a crucial aspect for demonstrating transparency.
So, ideally every voter publishes their vote - for all to see.
This means that anyone can count the votes.
1) Each time a vote is called for, a digital voting card/certificate is issued to all entitled registrants. This function is performed by open source software such that it is clear that the certificate is anonymised (no record is kept as to what recipient received which certificate). However, each one does have a serial number.
2) A voter then uses the certificate in conjunction with their own digital signature to create a specific vote. The resulting vote reveals its serial number and contains the vote selection, it also demonstrates that it could only have been produced in conjunction with a proper voting certificate and a proper (but untracable) digital signature. This enables the voter to assure themselves that it is their vote in the open ballot box and not an impostor's - and also that the vote is correct.
3) The votes may then be dropped in anonymously via any Cafe wifi access point, USB dongle, or even e-mail. These will be conveyed to the publicly hosted p2p/distributed system representing the national ballot box - which may be freely read by anyone. It is a civil offense to claim ownership of a particular vote (anonymity should be compulsory). It is up to each citizen to ensure that their vote has arrived in the ballot box.
4) The ability to read a vote's serial number is always possible. However, the vote itself is only visible with a decrypt code. This is published by the voting system at such time as it is decided that a count is permissible (will not greatly sway the minds of those who have yet to vote).
5) At some point the vote is closed - a count is fixed (in association with the serial numbers of votes that were available at the time of the count), and any subsequent votes are ignored.
Re:Two kinds of identity, we don't need one of the
on
An Online ID Registry
·
· Score: 1
Remember:
"No taxation without representation"
If virtual identities are taxed, then why shouldn't each virtual identity get a vote?
But, again, we need to avoid thinking that just because we often have a need to establish physical identity that therefore all online analogues of real world activities must also tie in to the physical identity.
It's a hard problem, but perhaps it's generally unnecessary. If real people have to vote, then require that the real person is physically identified.
Alternatively, if you require that virtual identities can vote, require that the only virtual identities entitled to vote are those that pay taxes.
Two kinds of identity, we don't need one of them
on
An Online ID Registry
·
· Score: 1
There are two kinds of identity: 1) A physical, human identity 2) A virtual identity
A virtual identity (like a company) is fine for accumulating reputation, trustworthiness, credit, and holding a bank account. The same virtual identity can also be prosecuted, with penalty in the form of the identity's reputation being impaired, perhaps even being terminated.
It really doesn't matter that humans or corporations could control umpteen different virtual identities.
People seem to get hung up as if there is some intrinsic unfairness to someone being able to have more than one virtual identity. Presumably these same people would also get upset by schizophrenics?
Why is it so important to pin down precisely which bag of flesh is operating a virtual identity? And why is it so important to ensure they can only operate one?
The inherent security of human memory enables us to assure that a virtual identity has one and only one controller (unless the controller decides to share their secret), we can also detect if the virtual identity is used in two or more locations contemporaneously and that enables us to discourage multiple controllers.
However, in order for us to assure that there is a one-to-one mapping between a human and a virtual identity, we'd need to figure out something that a human can only reveal/think one of. This is effectively a mental biometric. Perhaps there's a fingerprint/signature inherent in everyone's writing? Perhaps, an authentication test would require the operator to write 50 words on a particular subject? Perhaps the timings of each keystroke, choice of words, typos, etc. would confirm the human identity? But, what if the human was schizophrenic?
But, then so what? Even if we contrive to restrict a particular type of virtual identity to be generally limited to one per person, what has that acheived? We still don't yet know the bag of flesh. And still, why do we need to know?
On the other hand, why is the operator of a virtual identity interested in restricting themselves to a single identity, or in authenticating their physical identity?
Physical identity is simply totally irrelevant to e-commerce or any other kind of online transaction. It's only perceived as a need by those who can't face treating virtual identities as first-class citizens.
However, whilst the RIAA may wish to move to an IP based world where users never actually get their grubby hands on music, but are merely licensed to have the privilege of listening to it...
There will be another world, similar to one that slashdotters know so well, i.e. the 'open source' equivalent of music. This will be music that explicitly permits people to copy it, remix it, and sell it with added value (packaging, liner notes, etc.).
We're heading for polarisation: 1) Heavily locked down IP/music with draconian enforcement. 2) Free music.
On the one hand the wealthy plebs will simply pay their subscriptions and have music on demand, enjoying plenty of convenience, and on the other, the music geeks will file share the free music until the cows come home.
The question is, which market will musicians go to in order to build up their audience? Perhaps some will make their initial music free in order to virally market themselves, but once their audience is at a critical mass they'll switch over to iTunes et al...?
1) Publish the fact that they possess a particular CD. 2) Accept requests to stream this CD no sooner than 60 minutes after it's been requested. 3) Declare that it's a CD they legitimately obtained.
So this is just like Kazaa except guaranteeing you won't get your stuff sooner than an hour.
People are sharing files that have no inherent meaning (unless the holder of the file figures out to feed it into a particular program) and yet they are being sued for copyright infringement.
You try persuading RIAA that people are only sharing files (natural numbers) and not the actual artwork.
I'm talking about DIGITAL Artworks as opposed to just Artworks.
A priori a digital artwork is representable digitally in a binary file of finite length, and thus can be mapped to a finite digital number. If this is not the case, it cannot be a digital artwork. Remember that the interpretation of the file is separately provided information - which I suspect you're overlooking.
If you point out to me an analogue artwork that can't be represented digitally it's irrelevant. However, I would be interested if you can cite a digital artwork that cannot be represented digitally.
In any case I would simply call it 'member 1 of the set of non-digitally representable digital artworks' and thus it is representable by a number, so voom, it's numbered.
Remember, I did not say that every number represented an artwork, but that every digital artwork could be represented as a number - with an assumption that the rules for interpreting the number were separately available.
In computing we tend to keep the interpreting program file separate from the data file.
DNA is probably one of the best examples of packaging representation and reproduction information within the same package. DNA is at once both the encoding and the playback device.
Digital art is therefore discovery of interesting natural numbers that when interpreted using a particular format can be beheld for their aesthetic or functional aspects.
Obviously given limitless conceivable formats any number can be considered to represent any artwork. However, the fact remains that for any digital artwork and a specific format there exists a corresponding natural number that represents that artwork.
The creator or discoverer of an artwork withholds the details of the format and the natural number until they can assure attribution or remuneration.
So, yes, while a digital artwork is a number, a number is only a digital artwork if it is accompanied by knowledge of its format.
Nevertheless, requiring that all natural numbers belong to the public domain would be no bad thing. Thus intellectual property only exists where a particularly interesting/useful number+format is secret (known only to the discoverer). Once published, it's free.
Sale of art/secrets is thus where the revenue comes in, and mechanisms such as The Digital Art Auction are ideal to sell such secrets to large numbers of customers simultaneously.
Did you know that every single digital artwork known to man and yet to be created/discovered exists a priori?
All digital artworks can be represented as one big binary number (typically with a lot more digits than a googol).
Would you therefore use the argument that just because a digitally reprsentable work can be represented as a number from 1 to infintity (and hence exists a priori) that it therefore belongs in the public domain?
Much as I'd like to agree with you, what's being sold isn't so much the software as the package or distro, or in other words, 'convenience'.
The only time open source software is sold at the moment is when a contractor says "Pay me $500 or you can't have the software modification I've produced for you".
These software sales are always between developers and commissioning clients, except in one important case: Blender.
Blender is a unique landmark where open source software is sold to a large group of customers.
They could be using GPL software to compute Mandelbrot Sets or something.
And it is not beyond the realms of possibility that MS might sell a piece of GPL software. If they did, that wouldn't stop them being a 'closed source' vendor.
However, simply because you see little prospect for making money by selling GPL software does not mean the GPL is about preventing people from making money.
...GPL it I sure as hell don't want a closed sourced vendor to take my hard work and make money from it.
In case you didn't notice, the GPL fully embraces the idea of a vendor (Microsoft or anyone else) being able to take your GPL source code and make money from it. All it requires is that if they release anything based on your source code, that they must release all the source code too.
The GPL is not about preventing anyone from making money.
If I sell you two black boxes that communicate via optical fibre and I say they use Quantum Cryptography and that the price is $500,000. How do you know that QC really is involved?
With PGP you might just think you'd be able to throw a mathematician/programmer at the kit and get them to check it.
How easy is it to get hold of a particle physicist to give the kit a once over?
Any time a big chunk of money is involved and the purchaser has to rely on trusting the vendor's word that the product does what it says it does... well, beware of charlatans.
"Oh yes, sir, this is the finest intangible cloth available - only the basest of philistines are unable to appreciate its fine lustre and colour".
I was going to post what you said (I reckon it would have been verbatim), so thanks for saving me the trouble.:)
Unfortunately, there seems to be a grey area around here. Some folk say that if you distribute it to anyone, that ipso facto any third party can demand a copy of the source.
I disgree with that clause, but it would be good to find out if it's really part of GPL or not.
The way I read it was that GPL only applied to the parties who legitimately received GPL binaries or source code thereof, i.e. if you neither have a legitimately obtained binary or the source code, you have no rights to either whatsoever.
For example, if I create a new version of Linux and circulate it (source/binary) among a dozen of my buddies, and it just so happens that my buddies and I see no need to share it any further, this still shouldn't require that any third party has a right to the source code. Of course, me and my buddies, still have the right to give out the source code, just not the obligation.
Slashdot Mirror
You make a good point re accepting terms of sale at the time of sale. If your art is easily replicated, it would be sensible to sell it to a consortium of buyers to obtain total revenue at the time of release. One then might as well embrace this deal by releasing the art under a creative commons license (so no-one gets prosecuted for copying it).
Check out my site 'DigitalArtAuction' for more info.
The problem is that the votes are not open.
If votes are closed transactions, it's closed to scrutiny.
What you need is a 'show of hands' kind of voting system.
This means that the electorate is able to perceive itself - a crucial aspect for demonstrating transparency.
So, ideally every voter publishes their vote - for all to see.
This means that anyone can count the votes.
1) Each time a vote is called for, a digital voting card/certificate is issued to all entitled registrants. This function is performed by open source software such that it is clear that the certificate is anonymised (no record is kept as to what recipient received which certificate). However, each one does have a serial number.
2) A voter then uses the certificate in conjunction with their own digital signature to create a specific vote. The resulting vote reveals its serial number and contains the vote selection, it also demonstrates that it could only have been produced in conjunction with a proper voting certificate and a proper (but untracable) digital signature. This enables the voter to assure themselves that it is their vote in the open ballot box and not an impostor's - and also that the vote is correct.
3) The votes may then be dropped in anonymously via any Cafe wifi access point, USB dongle, or even e-mail. These will be conveyed to the publicly hosted p2p/distributed system representing the national ballot box - which may be freely read by anyone.
It is a civil offense to claim ownership of a particular vote (anonymity should be compulsory).
It is up to each citizen to ensure that their vote has arrived in the ballot box.
4) The ability to read a vote's serial number is always possible. However, the vote itself is only visible with a decrypt code. This is published by the voting system at such time as it is decided that a count is permissible (will not greatly sway the minds of those who have yet to vote).
5) At some point the vote is closed - a count is fixed (in association with the serial numbers of votes that were available at the time of the count), and any subsequent votes are ignored.
Remember:
"No taxation without representation"
If virtual identities are taxed, then why shouldn't each virtual identity get a vote?
But, again, we need to avoid thinking that just because we often have a need to establish physical identity that therefore all online analogues of real world activities must also tie in to the physical identity.
It's a hard problem, but perhaps it's generally unnecessary. If real people have to vote, then require that the real person is physically identified.
Alternatively, if you require that virtual identities can vote, require that the only virtual identities entitled to vote are those that pay taxes.
There are two kinds of identity:
1) A physical, human identity
2) A virtual identity
A virtual identity (like a company) is fine for accumulating reputation, trustworthiness, credit, and holding a bank account. The same virtual identity can also be prosecuted, with penalty in the form of the identity's reputation being impaired, perhaps even being terminated.
It really doesn't matter that humans or corporations could control umpteen different virtual identities.
People seem to get hung up as if there is some intrinsic unfairness to someone being able to have more than one virtual identity. Presumably these same people would also get upset by schizophrenics?
Why is it so important to pin down precisely which bag of flesh is operating a virtual identity? And why is it so important to ensure they can only operate one?
The inherent security of human memory enables us to assure that a virtual identity has one and only one controller (unless the controller decides to share their secret), we can also detect if the virtual identity is used in two or more locations contemporaneously and that enables us to discourage multiple controllers.
However, in order for us to assure that there is a one-to-one mapping between a human and a virtual identity, we'd need to figure out something that a human can only reveal/think one of. This is effectively a mental biometric. Perhaps there's a fingerprint/signature inherent in everyone's writing? Perhaps, an authentication test would require the operator to write 50 words on a particular subject? Perhaps the timings of each keystroke, choice of words, typos, etc. would confirm the human identity? But, what if the human was schizophrenic?
But, then so what? Even if we contrive to restrict a particular type of virtual identity to be generally limited to one per person, what has that acheived? We still don't yet know the bag of flesh. And still, why do we need to know?
On the other hand, why is the operator of a virtual identity interested in restricting themselves to a single identity, or in authenticating their physical identity?
Physical identity is simply totally irrelevant to e-commerce or any other kind of online transaction. It's only perceived as a need by those who can't face treating virtual identities as first-class citizens.
Good points parent.
However, whilst the RIAA may wish to move to an IP based world where users never actually get their grubby hands on music, but are merely licensed to have the privilege of listening to it...
There will be another world, similar to one that slashdotters know so well, i.e. the 'open source' equivalent of music. This will be music that explicitly permits people to copy it, remix it, and sell it with added value (packaging, liner notes, etc.).
We're heading for polarisation:
1) Heavily locked down IP/music with draconian enforcement.
2) Free music.
On the one hand the wealthy plebs will simply pay their subscriptions and have music on demand, enjoying plenty of convenience, and on the other, the music geeks will file share the free music until the cows come home.
The question is, which market will musicians go to in order to build up their audience? Perhaps some will make their initial music free in order to virally market themselves, but once their audience is at a critical mass they'll switch over to iTunes et al...?
Check out RawFlow
But someone could do the following:
1) Publish the fact that they possess a particular CD.
2) Accept requests to stream this CD no sooner than 60 minutes after it's been requested.
3) Declare that it's a CD they legitimately obtained.
So this is just like Kazaa except guaranteeing you won't get your stuff sooner than an hour.
Very little difference really.
Once upon a time someone sold a game for 2^64-1 grains of corn.
It was called chess.
Just because you can't deliver a quantity doesn't mean you can't sell it.
(In this case the corn was sold in exchange for the creation of the game of chess)
Tell that to RIAA!
People are sharing files that have no inherent meaning (unless the holder of the file figures out to feed it into a particular program) and yet they are being sued for copyright infringement.
You try persuading RIAA that people are only sharing files (natural numbers) and not the actual artwork.
Apologies for the ambiguity.
You're missing a tiny detail.
I'm talking about DIGITAL Artworks as opposed to just Artworks.
A priori a digital artwork is representable digitally in a binary file of finite length, and thus can be mapped to a finite digital number. If this is not the case, it cannot be a digital artwork. Remember that the interpretation of the file is separately provided information - which I suspect you're overlooking.
If you point out to me an analogue artwork that can't be represented digitally it's irrelevant. However, I would be interested if you can cite a digital artwork that cannot be represented digitally.
In any case I would simply call it 'member 1 of the set of non-digitally representable digital artworks' and thus it is representable by a number, so voom, it's numbered.
Remember, I did not say that every number represented an artwork, but that every digital artwork could be represented as a number - with an assumption that the rules for interpreting the number were separately available.
In computing we tend to keep the interpreting program file separate from the data file.
DNA is probably one of the best examples of packaging representation and reproduction information within the same package. DNA is at once both the encoding and the playback device.
Scuse me.... I meant a 1K file when represented as a binary number has around 8,192 digits.
Mea culpa.
Still bloody more digits than a googol has.
You're confusing digits with quantity Mr J.Holder.
A 1K file when represented as a binary number has around 1,024 digits.
A googol when represented as a binary number has 333 digits.
Googol
You may be thinking of a Googolplex...
Digital art is therefore discovery of interesting natural numbers that when interpreted using a particular format can be beheld for their aesthetic or functional aspects.
Obviously given limitless conceivable formats any number can be considered to represent any artwork. However, the fact remains that for any digital artwork and a specific format there exists a corresponding natural number that represents that artwork.
The creator or discoverer of an artwork withholds the details of the format and the natural number until they can assure attribution or remuneration.
So, yes, while a digital artwork is a number, a number is only a digital artwork if it is accompanied by knowledge of its format.
Nevertheless, requiring that all natural numbers belong to the public domain would be no bad thing.
Thus intellectual property only exists where a particularly interesting/useful number+format is secret (known only to the discoverer). Once published, it's free.
Sale of art/secrets is thus where the revenue comes in, and mechanisms such as The Digital Art Auction
are ideal to sell such secrets to large numbers of customers simultaneously.
Talking of 'big numbers that existed a priori'...
Did you know that every single digital artwork known to man and yet to be created/discovered exists a priori?
All digital artworks can be represented as one big binary number (typically with a lot more digits than a googol).
Would you therefore use the argument that just because a digitally reprsentable work can be represented as a number from 1 to infintity (and hence exists a priori) that it therefore belongs in the public domain?
I like that idea...
So, the trick is to make all your money on the first sale.
The Digital Art Auction
Much as I'd like to agree with you, what's being sold isn't so much the software as the package or distro, or in other words, 'convenience'.
The only time open source software is sold at the moment is when a contractor says "Pay me $500 or you can't have the software modification I've produced for you".
These software sales are always between developers and commissioning clients, except in one important case: Blender.
Blender is a unique landmark where open source software is sold to a large group of customers.
It won't be the last.
That's because the mechanisms to sell open source software are a bit thin on the ground at the moment.
If you check out The Digital Art Auction
you'll see that I'm working on such a mechanism.
They might not choose to release it...
They could be using GPL software to compute Mandelbrot Sets or something.
And it is not beyond the realms of possibility that MS might sell a piece of GPL software. If they did, that wouldn't stop them being a 'closed source' vendor.
I quite agree.
However, simply because you see little prospect for making money by selling GPL software does not mean the GPL is about preventing people from making money.
It's also an 'Emperor's New Clothes' problem.
If I sell you two black boxes that communicate via optical fibre and I say they use Quantum Cryptography and that the price is $500,000. How do you know that QC really is involved?
With PGP you might just think you'd be able to throw a mathematician/programmer at the kit and get them to check it.
How easy is it to get hold of a particle physicist to give the kit a once over?
Any time a big chunk of money is involved and the purchaser has to rely on trusting the vendor's word that the product does what it says it does... well, beware of charlatans.
"Oh yes, sir, this is the finest intangible cloth available - only the basest of philistines are unable to appreciate its fine lustre and colour".
I completely agree with you.
Keep the right for an author to be correctly attributed as the creator of their work.
Ditch the whole concept of copy control (at least online, on computer networks intended for efficient content distribution and duplication).
_________________________________
Intellectual property is a figment of the imagination.
I was going to post what you said (I reckon it would have been verbatim), so thanks for saving me the trouble. :)
Unfortunately, there seems to be a grey area around here. Some folk say that if you distribute it to anyone, that ipso facto any third party can demand a copy of the source.
I disgree with that clause, but it would be good to find out if it's really part of GPL or not.
The way I read it was that GPL only applied to the parties who legitimately received GPL binaries or source code thereof, i.e. if you neither have a legitimately obtained binary or the source code, you have no rights to either whatsoever.
For example, if I create a new version of Linux and circulate it (source/binary) among a dozen of my buddies, and it just so happens that my buddies and I see no need to share it any further, this still shouldn't require that any third party has a right to the source code. Of course, me and my buddies, still have the right to give out the source code, just not the obligation.