"Information wants to be free. Copying digital data doesn't take away anything from the original."
But the information was already freely available on the original site. The forged, plagerised site stole the presentation of the information to make themselves some advertising revenue.
If an artist doesn't want something to be copied, they shouldn't release it."
I can honestly say I've never heard this argument used.
Digital content should be done for the joy of creating
The original site creator did do that. he made it for his enthusiasm in all things car related. He then found out he could pay for the site with ad revenue, and maybe make some money for his hard work. The plagerists stole the presentation of this persons information solely to make money. they had no interest in using the information in an intellectual way.
It's my hope that the "abolish online copyrights" crowd will chime in on this case and explain better than I can why pirating MP3s and movies is okay, and this is not.
I'm not against "online copyrights" as you say. I am against the extension of copyrights for the purpose of greed, ie, Disney's fight to not let Mickey Mouse get released into the public domain. Abolishing copyrights is rediculous. Sensible copyright law is not. We don't really have sensible copyright law these days.
I'm not in favor of pirating mp3's or movies, yet I do see a great difference between this and that.
Was p2p itself founded on illegally distributed copyrighted materials?
Yes. It would not have attained a critical mass without infringing copyright in the works that were crossing the network.
That's not what I meant. Various applications (napster, etc.) depended on transfering illegally aquired material, true. p2p in itself is not an application, it is a technology. what i was asking is this, was p2p technology originally developed from illegally aquired (ie, pirated) technical specifications? The article pointed out that many of Edison's patents were illegally used to develop technology used by film companies. What is the parallel between that and p2p? The story never made any (i've never heard any either), and had very little to do with p2p altogether.
When expanded "Pirate to Pirate", where "pirate" in turn expands to "an infringer of a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret", P2P does indeed stand for unlawful file-sharing
you're changing the commonly accepted definition of p2p. With your reasoning, i could say that b2b stands for Butt to Butt, and say all companies involved in b2b are really doing some kinky sexscapades.
Vanuatu was remote enough from Eisner's reach...
Since when did Eisner have patents on implementations of p2p? The whole article talks about pirating technology, not pirating works of art. Someone basically ripped of Edison's patents and developed that technology without Edison's approval. Nothing like that happened with p2p techonology as far as I am aware.
That's the first line. This comming from Wired, who I use to think was some sort of tech magazine who had some knowledge. A technology can not "be" piracy. The technology could have "been" pirated, in the sense that it was secret, someone owned it, and then someone hijacked it. p2p was never someone's dark secret technology.
California was remote enough from Edison's reach that filmmakers like Fox and Paramount could move there and, without fear of the law, pirate his inventions
Yes, ok. Who did that with p2p?
A new industry had been founded, in part from the piracy of Edison's creative property
Allright, a new industry may have been founded from the use of p2p network applications to spread copyrighted materials illegally. Was p2p itself founded on illegally distributed copyrighted materials? some technical specification on how to develop p2p apps? did someone patent p2p and now that Intellectual Property is running rampant in the wild causing p2p to "be piracy"?
I must be missing something. "p2p" is not the same thing as "illegally copying copyrighted materials over a p2p network". Wired can suck it. This is written by Lessig? i just don't see the conclusions he's drawing
Finally, someone got a versioning scheme that held true and made sense. If only all "Version 2" software worked this well, we'd be blessed and probably have robots serving us Coronas and margaritas while we graze on a 7 layer dip and chips.
Will we now see Photorealistic Renderman come out for OSX and the G5? Hopefully?
Interesting... i thought to myself, what about BMRT as a renderman compliant renderer, if there is a Mac version, for those not wanting to wait for Pixar or Apple. But now www.bmrt.org doesn't seem to be resolving, and any results Google gives back seem to be a bit dated.
Exluna, Inc.'s "Entropy" renderer was the commercial big brother of BMRT. But that really doesn't do it justice -- it was very fast and efficient scanline renderer that also supports ray tracing, global illumination, area lights, and caustics. More Info from: http://www.exluna.com. Entropy was used on Star Wars Episode 2, Stuart Little 2, Reign of Fire, Blizzard, Hero, The Returner, and The Core. Entropy and BMRT was discontinued after Pixar sued Exluna and several of Exluna's founders.
That's sort of sad. Well, there's always POV-Ray Though it does aim towards RenderMan compliance.
I haven't seen or read this book, but my first impression from reading the review is that it's just a book that lists some shell scripts. There's no real challenge. You could customize the scripts endlessly, but real hackers write the scripts themselves (okay, borrowing code sometimes)
So what? I just bought a cookbook on sauces. What's different? Maybe I like a little more garlic in most my sauces so I'll throw some in here and there. Most of the sauce recipes, i would have never have thought to go with something I usually eat. Why does there need to be a "challenge"? It simply makes my meal more enjoyable.
Having 101 shell scripts that I can tinker with and add things that I like, or use them in a way that makes using my computer more enjoyable is great!
semi offtopic question, and the answer may not have any implications in the real world, however... say i go to a concert and legally record the audio. do i own the copyrights of that recording even though i am in no way affiliated with the band or their "label"?
Sounds like a good time for an equivalent to the Boston Tea Party.
Sure, the situations are a bit different, but it's still an unreasonable tax. I remember(atleast i think i remember this happening) a rise in stamp prices back in the 1980's here in the U.S. triggered some protesters to staple tea bags to mailed envelopes, as a reminder to the Boston Tea Party.
The big question is, how do I become an artist that is entitled to get this money? Do I have to be under contract of a certain recording/distribution company? Do I have to have proof that someone has illegally copied my music? Do all artists get the same amount? Do some get none? Are there any non-artists reaping the benefits of this tax? if so, why?
This ranks right up there as one of the most assinine laws around, not just france's implementation, but every other country that has such a law.
Like the article says, these codes were introduced in 1993. This would have made a good story - back then.
The problem is that turbo codes are so computationally intensive that using them in consumer electronics is only new becoming feasible.
Did you know about it? Did most people know about it? If something is making it more feasible to use, then its news. Dr. Evil wanted to put laser beams on sharks *years* ago, but no one's really done it. If something made it possible to put frikking laser beams on sharks today, it'd be news.
Oh, one more thing. They had a huge exhibit of interactive computer art type things. All were usually custom programmed with things varying from openGL and C++ to Flash, or other more obscure systems. They were fun to fiddle with, and usually no wait to hop on and try it.
I went there not too long ago, though the subway ride was a pain in the arse from borklyn, er um brooklyn, and flat out broken on the way back (fire someplace nearby in the subway). A lot of interactive stuff, and good for kids and the young at heart. There was (maybe still is) an exhibit of Tim Burton's paintings. Fun stuff too, like making flipbooks of yourself goofing off in front of a camera, making little stop motion animations on computers with little plastic "actors", dubbing your voice over real movie scenes, fiddling with soundtracks, etc. Lots of fun stuff. They also had, for all you trekkies, an exhibit of hundreds of star trek action figures (and other movie/tv action figures).
That is why i bought a gamecube. I like nintendo's style. Sure, it's easy to claim PS has "won the battle", but it's not that insightfull. Nintendo certainly has a section of the market that is different from PS.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like the weird cartoonish eye candy in my games, not my OS (*cough* OSX *cough*)
It doesn't matter what you want. It's what you need. If you understand a little more about why or how something works, you won't get as frustrated when something "breaks". You might know how to fix it yourself in 10 seconds. There's no substitute for being a little more self reliant.
You might not understand how your car works, but you probably know what could be wrong if you here a pop sound and lose control of your car a bit. You can get out of the car and check the tires to see if they are flat, or maybe open the hood and see if you see smoke. You wouldn't just keep driving until someone else notices your problem and decides to help you out. And your telephone... you know that to dial you need a dial tone (unless it's a cellphone, in which case you know you the service indicator to show you have service), and you know what a busy signal is.
My point is you need some knowledge of how the thing behaves when working and when not working. Ignorance will get you a whole lot of frustration.
In addition to (2) being important for the internet, I think a valid consideration is how persistant is the information available online going to be in the future. servers are renamed, shut down, reorganized, and so on. Is it going to be commonplace for a person to archive their own versions of someone elses web site in the case that the site closes down? Wikipedia is very popular, if it shuts down in the future, what happens? All of that knowledge could be scattered. If an encyclopedia publishing company closes, the results are still tangible and available either at a library or elsewhere. Will libraries need or want to invest in authorized copies of websites for future reference?
I agree all too much on your first point. I hate "google" as a verb. Someone says, "Go google for bla bla bla..." and all I can think is, "i'm sorry but I'll use whatever i want to search for bla bla bla." Now T.V. shows are using google as a verb. why in gods green earth did the writers have to say "i just googled for" instead of "i just search for... on the web"?
McBride, 44, is pitting SCO against an industry it once helped develop.
I'm confused. I read this expecting a short treatise on the history of law and litigation to follow, yet it started talking about companies like Caldera International Inc., a software company.
Not only that, but you only get one side of the story when the teacher is also the author. In classes I took where the teacher wasn't the author, the teacher would often say, "now this is the way he does it, but this is an easier|faster|more intuitive way to do it." When the teacher is the author, your stuck usually learning only one way to do things, which is often the way it makes sense to someone who has known the subject for 30 years, and not always suitable to a newbie.
is it this Ben Cowell, from http://commoncontent.org/user/14
Name: Ben Crowell Bio: I teach physics and astronomy at Fullerton College, a community college in southern California. I come fully equipped with a PhD in physics from Yale, but I more fondly remember my undergraduate years at UC Berkeley. On the rare occasions when I'm away from my Linux box, I like to play jazz saxophone.
Slashdot Mirror
"Information wants to be free. Copying digital data doesn't take away anything from the original."
But the information was already freely available on the original site. The forged, plagerised site stole the presentation of the information to make themselves some advertising revenue.
If an artist doesn't want something to be copied, they shouldn't release it."
I can honestly say I've never heard this argument used.
Digital content should be done for the joy of creating
The original site creator did do that. he made it for his enthusiasm in all things car related. He then found out he could pay for the site with ad revenue, and maybe make some money for his hard work. The plagerists stole the presentation of this persons information solely to make money. they had no interest in using the information in an intellectual way.
It's my hope that the "abolish online copyrights" crowd will chime in on this case and explain better than I can why pirating MP3s and movies is okay, and this is not.
I'm not against "online copyrights" as you say. I am against the extension of copyrights for the purpose of greed, ie, Disney's fight to not let Mickey Mouse get released into the public domain. Abolishing copyrights is rediculous. Sensible copyright law is not. We don't really have sensible copyright law these days.
I'm not in favor of pirating mp3's or movies, yet I do see a great difference between this and that.
Was p2p itself founded on illegally distributed copyrighted materials?
...
Yes. It would not have attained a critical mass without infringing copyright in the works that were crossing the network.
That's not what I meant. Various applications (napster, etc.) depended on transfering illegally aquired material, true. p2p in itself is not an application, it is a technology. what i was asking is this, was p2p technology originally developed from illegally aquired (ie, pirated) technical specifications? The article pointed out that many of Edison's patents were illegally used to develop technology used by film companies. What is the parallel between that and p2p? The story never made any (i've never heard any either), and had very little to do with p2p altogether.
When expanded "Pirate to Pirate", where "pirate" in turn expands to "an infringer of a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret", P2P does indeed stand for unlawful file-sharing
you're changing the commonly accepted definition of p2p. With your reasoning, i could say that b2b stands for Butt to Butt, and say all companies involved in b2b are really doing some kinky sexscapades.
Vanuatu was remote enough from Eisner's reach
Since when did Eisner have patents on implementations of p2p? The whole article talks about pirating technology, not pirating works of art. Someone basically ripped of Edison's patents and developed that technology without Edison's approval. Nothing like that happened with p2p techonology as far as I am aware.
OK, P2P is "piracy."
That's the first line. This comming from Wired, who I use to think was some sort of tech magazine who had some knowledge. A technology can not "be" piracy. The technology could have "been" pirated, in the sense that it was secret, someone owned it, and then someone hijacked it. p2p was never someone's dark secret technology.
California was remote enough from Edison's reach that filmmakers like Fox and Paramount could move there and, without fear of the law, pirate his inventions
Yes, ok. Who did that with p2p?
A new industry had been founded, in part from the piracy of Edison's creative property
Allright, a new industry may have been founded from the use of p2p network applications to spread copyrighted materials illegally. Was p2p itself founded on illegally distributed copyrighted materials? some technical specification on how to develop p2p apps? did someone patent p2p and now that Intellectual Property is running rampant in the wild causing p2p to "be piracy"?
I must be missing something. "p2p" is not the same thing as "illegally copying copyrighted materials over a p2p network". Wired can suck it. This is written by Lessig? i just don't see the conclusions he's drawing
"Yes Captain, our engines have been set to 'Fuscia'"
...At this point in the little theatre in my mind, I realized what the headline was trying to say.
"No Leutenant! Not out engines, our Search engines!"
"Yes sir, setting search engines to 'Fuscia'"
"Fuscia!? No, set them to 'Vie'"
"Violet, Sir?"
"Leutenant, set our search engines to 'vie', thats an order!"
"What color is 'Vie', Sir?"
Finally, someone got a versioning scheme that held true and made sense. If only all "Version 2" software worked this well, we'd be blessed and probably have robots serving us Coronas and margaritas while we graze on a 7 layer dip and chips.
your usage of the word racist is incorrect. 'prejudice', 'regionalist', etc.. but not racist. so don't play the racist card.
Will we now see Photorealistic Renderman come out for OSX and the G5? Hopefully?
Interesting... i thought to myself, what about BMRT as a renderman compliant renderer, if there is a Mac version, for those not wanting to wait for Pixar or Apple. But now www.bmrt.org doesn't seem to be resolving, and any results Google gives back seem to be a bit dated.
Then i read the renderman faq and found this tidbit:
Exluna, Inc.'s "Entropy" renderer was the commercial big brother of
BMRT. But that really doesn't do it justice -- it was very fast and
efficient scanline renderer that also supports ray tracing, global
illumination, area lights, and caustics. More Info from:
http://www.exluna.com. Entropy was used on Star Wars Episode 2,
Stuart Little 2, Reign of Fire, Blizzard, Hero, The Returner, and The
Core. Entropy and BMRT was discontinued after Pixar sued Exluna and
several of Exluna's founders.
That's sort of sad. Well, there's always POV-Ray Though it does aim towards RenderMan compliance.
I haven't seen or read this book, but my first impression from reading the review is that it's just a book that lists some shell scripts. There's no real challenge. You could customize the scripts endlessly, but real hackers write the scripts themselves (okay, borrowing code sometimes)
So what? I just bought a cookbook on sauces. What's different? Maybe I like a little more garlic in most my sauces so I'll throw some in here and there. Most of the sauce recipes, i would have never have thought to go with something I usually eat. Why does there need to be a "challenge"? It simply makes my meal more enjoyable.
Having 101 shell scripts that I can tinker with and add things that I like, or use them in a way that makes using my computer more enjoyable is great!
semi offtopic question, and the answer may not have any implications in the real world, however... say i go to a concert and legally record the audio. do i own the copyrights of that recording even though i am in no way affiliated with the band or their "label"?
Sounds like a good time for an equivalent to the Boston Tea Party.
Sure, the situations are a bit different, but it's still an unreasonable tax. I remember(atleast i think i remember this happening) a rise in stamp prices back in the 1980's here in the U.S. triggered some protesters to staple tea bags to mailed envelopes, as a reminder to the Boston Tea Party.
The big question is, how do I become an artist that is entitled to get this money? Do I have to be under contract of a certain recording/distribution company? Do I have to have proof that someone has illegally copied my music? Do all artists get the same amount? Do some get none? Are there any non-artists reaping the benefits of this tax? if so, why?
This ranks right up there as one of the most assinine laws around, not just france's implementation, but every other country that has such a law.
... and then come the FBI raids.
FBI? na, the corporations themselves will be doing the raiding. You'll be lucky to get a legal, court approved, FBI raid.
maybe, but colleges aren't in the business of supporting p2p apps.
Like the article says, these codes were introduced in 1993. This would have made a good story - back then.
The problem is that turbo codes are so computationally intensive that using them in consumer electronics is only new becoming feasible.
Did you know about it? Did most people know about it? If something is making it more feasible to use, then its news. Dr. Evil wanted to put laser beams on sharks *years* ago, but no one's really done it. If something made it possible to put frikking laser beams on sharks today, it'd be news.
universities, from what i hear, have enormous problems with the amount of p2p traffic hogging bandwidth.
Oh, one more thing. They had a huge exhibit of interactive computer art type things. All were usually custom programmed with things varying from openGL and C++ to Flash, or other more obscure systems. They were fun to fiddle with, and usually no wait to hop on and try it.
I went there not too long ago, though the subway ride was a pain in the arse from borklyn, er um brooklyn, and flat out broken on the way back (fire someplace nearby in the subway). A lot of interactive stuff, and good for kids and the young at heart. There was (maybe still is) an exhibit of Tim Burton's paintings. Fun stuff too, like making flipbooks of yourself goofing off in front of a camera, making little stop motion animations on computers with little plastic "actors", dubbing your voice over real movie scenes, fiddling with soundtracks, etc. Lots of fun stuff. They also had, for all you trekkies, an exhibit of hundreds of star trek action figures (and other movie/tv action figures).
That is why i bought a gamecube. I like nintendo's style. Sure, it's easy to claim PS has "won the battle", but it's not that insightfull. Nintendo certainly has a section of the market that is different from PS.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like the weird cartoonish eye candy in my games, not my OS (*cough* OSX *cough*)
It doesn't matter what you want. It's what you need. If you understand a little more about why or how something works, you won't get as frustrated when something "breaks". You might know how to fix it yourself in 10 seconds. There's no substitute for being a little more self reliant.
You might not understand how your car works, but you probably know what could be wrong if you here a pop sound and lose control of your car a bit. You can get out of the car and check the tires to see if they are flat, or maybe open the hood and see if you see smoke. You wouldn't just keep driving until someone else notices your problem and decides to help you out. And your telephone... you know that to dial you need a dial tone (unless it's a cellphone, in which case you know you the service indicator to show you have service), and you know what a busy signal is.
My point is you need some knowledge of how the thing behaves when working and when not working. Ignorance will get you a whole lot of frustration.
In addition to (2) being important for the internet, I think a valid consideration is how persistant is the information available online going to be in the future. servers are renamed, shut down, reorganized, and so on. Is it going to be commonplace for a person to archive their own versions of someone elses web site in the case that the site closes down? Wikipedia is very popular, if it shuts down in the future, what happens? All of that knowledge could be scattered. If an encyclopedia publishing company closes, the results are still tangible and available either at a library or elsewhere. Will libraries need or want to invest in authorized copies of websites for future reference?
I agree all too much on your first point. I hate "google" as a verb. Someone says, "Go google for bla bla bla..." and all I can think is, "i'm sorry but I'll use whatever i want to search for bla bla bla." Now T.V. shows are using google as a verb. why in gods green earth did the writers have to say "i just googled for" instead of "i just search for ... on the web"?
i give up. i'm going home. end rant.
McBride, 44, is pitting SCO against an industry it once helped develop.
I'm confused. I read this expecting a short treatise on the history of law and litigation to follow, yet it started talking about companies like Caldera International Inc., a software company.
Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?
No, they're usually only interested in one thing.
Not only that, but you only get one side of the story when the teacher is also the author. In classes I took where the teacher wasn't the author, the teacher would often say, "now this is the way he does it, but this is an easier|faster|more intuitive way to do it." When the teacher is the author, your stuck usually learning only one way to do things, which is often the way it makes sense to someone who has known the subject for 30 years, and not always suitable to a newbie.
is it this Ben Cowell, from http://commoncontent.org/user/14
Name: Ben Crowell
Bio: I teach physics and astronomy at Fullerton College, a community college in southern California. I come fully equipped with a PhD in physics from Yale, but I more fondly remember my undergraduate years at UC Berkeley. On the rare occasions when I'm away from my Linux box, I like to play jazz saxophone.