Here is an interesting thought. Why doesn't someone on Slashdot come up with a creative way for the RIAA or MPAA to make lots of money given the current market trends? We could make it a contest. The winner gets a big cut in the profits. Just remember, if you do come up with a winning idea, I want my finders fee:-)
Uh.. "why don't we"? Maybe.. because if we post such a great idea here, the companies in question would simply do that or similar, and not pay us a dime?;D
As for me, I have tons of ideas and I've never been shy to share them, but It is hard to legally accomplish much of anything innovative in the copyright labyrinth built by the current cartel.
This is one of the most insightful things I've heard on slashdot.
The truth of the matter is, we don't need the RIAA because WE can make content. This was why Youtube was initially so popular (and where it got it's name from). Nowadays, there is so much FUD about copyright infringement, and nobody can afford going to court just to prove that a video of them alone in a blank room is devoid of infringement.
But it's so easy to forget that content comes from PEOPLE, not from companies. It doesn't have to be polished because Worse is Better. Being available is more important than being perfected. And that is where most content industries get it wrong these days, they try to prevent content from being available. Their own content, and your ameture content whenever they can as it might satisfy audiences who would otherwise crave corporate mash.
So, rise up people! Create! Produce! Share! Collaborate! Play the piano in the living room! Entertain one another to weaken the hold of this multinational industry who takes it upon themselves to monopolize all entertainment options.
Look, someone needs to send/. audiophiles the memo that the 80/20% rule applies to sound quality just like everything else. Nobody signs on with RIAA specifically to market $15 albums to your <1% of the rich American population home theater setup.
Claiming that bands sign on with RIAA to obtain sound quality is like saying restaurants franchise with McD's to enhance their culinary appeal.
This reminds me of the Fullscreen / Widescreen discs in some early DVD releases.
Made a great 2 for 1 deal, sell off or give away whichever format you don't watch to whoever does. The industry realized their mistake there quickly! They were virtually teaching people how to illegally share content. It was a hoot;D
I'd say "feel free to trick them into that doh moment again", but.. yeah CD's are so 1990's.:P
Freedom means different things to different people. To a lot of people in the world "freedom" is not a religion, but just something we take for granted as long as we are kept safe from exposure to ideas we don't like or understand.
Just, you know, noticed a grammar error or two. Nothing to see here, move along!;D
You assume too much.
Would you be a willing speech advocate if your child was harmed due to speech on the internet? Harmed could be anywhere from crying about it to deep depression to suicide. Yeah, its happened.
OMFG I can't believe you just said that! I'm going to kill myself now, I hope you are happy murderer! Why can't you keep your small minded attacks to yourself? </sarcasm>
Wait, what? Ah shit! I put that end tag one sentence farther forward than I meant to. My bad!:P
He is only invoking UTF-8's ability to use the head end bits of a byte to signify place value, and then importing that idea into reporting string length.
Personally however, I would prefer something like a base-254 encoded integer of arbitrary length with a terminator character to solve this small, naive problem. For instance a preamble of, 0x02 0x9E 0xFF would indicate the upcoming string will be 666 bytes long, including preamble. This would handle unlimited size.
Nonetheless the bigger problem is that malformed data in null-terminated encoding schemes leads to hassles no more nor less than malformed data in preamble schemes do. So long as everyone follows the same convention and introduces no corrupt data, regardless of the scheme, you are fine. corrupt data or incompatible practices break any scheme. When that happens to a pascal string or similar (bit gets flipped in your preamble, turning a 20 byte string into a 3 terrabyte string, or else someone assumes a slightly different preamble convention) you end up with just as many buffer overruns et al as ever.
Why develop for three platforms and let geeks port that to many when you can develop as open source for one platform (DHTML) and actively encourage the geeks to port that to 3, and then to many?
Hell, if I worked at Google the last thing I would want would be to get involved in GNOME/KDE turf wars, piss off apple fanbois if it doesn't look precisely like a macintosh app or really develop anything for the Windows desktop. Like, ever. So instead, Google puts it on the Web where everyone can get at it from any modern platform (even/especially smartphones, and if you want a native copy then you or some hobbiests are free to write one (and thereafter support it:P)
Seriously, do you recall their last attempt at a Jabber desktop application, Gtalk? It even worked well, but then they dropped it like a bad habit in favor of the web-based version.
Additionally, one of their main design goals was to make Wave conversations embeddable into web pages. They would like this to be used for CMS, to replace forums, to replace blog comments, essentially they wish people to mash up Wave content with their own web pages. If they focused their deployment first to the desktop, they would miss out on that opportunity.
One way in which Wave > SMTP right off the bat is in user authentication.
If I wish to post in a wave which has been opened to public invite, or if I wish to start a new wave and invite people, I must first have an account on a wave server somewhere.
Sure, the wave server could be an ameture one, but when there is abuse other wavemasters (forgive me Sheppard!) can assign responsibility directly to the rogue server for allowing a spammer on board, who then can trace the matter back to an unspoofable abuser on their own network. Spam detection technology perfected in the SMTP jungle can be used as early warning of abuse which becomes much harder to replicate and repeat.
Furthermore, gateways from wave to Twitter, SMS, SMTP, and other IM services would need to be outfitted with their own spam filtering technologies to clean the crud they introduce into the system (which, if they do a bad job the gateway bot itself, acting with no more power than a simple user, would suffer diminished reputation).
Don't confuse me with an expert or anything, but this is simply how I extrapolate the differences between this protocol and the failures of SMTP.
if you had any steel in your spine you'd find some principles and refuse to consume it
Wait, no really? See, here is what I am talking about. I can't even sit in a darkened room humming to myself without being accused of filching the RIAA goods!
Rioting Pacifist proclaims SSH is broken! Requires centralized CA in order to be of any use! RP recommends all users switch to Telnet immediately to avoid False Sense of Security! Also, door locks encourage theft!
Seriously though, signed cert protects from passive eavesdropping. Wireshark is simple to deploy and represents a pretty wide threat when used to that end. Now actively mangling all traffic to a client so that you can usurp the entire data feed with fidelity, followed by double interception and impersonation takes a bit better attack vantage point, better software and it's a lot harder to be covert about.
Thus, encryption with weak certification, eg the "trusted first visit and check for changes thereafter" SSH model.. especially for in-house use by the folks who run the servers in question.. is definitely > plaintext. OTOH, requiring $$$ for a CA doesn't do much until you require an armed guard at the NOC either, since aggresive MITM attacks (especially in-house) are not always easier to pull off than physical access to the server or backup tapes. Again, yes the bank obviously already does that. I still don't happen to be a bank.
Are you saying that if I didn't buy RIAA music, and if I didn't pirate RIAA music, then Tenenbaum wouldn't have ever been sued?
No? Oh, whew! My bad, it almost sounded as though you were implying that what I do makes a god damned bit of difference in the world.;3
Oh! OK, no I think I understand, thanks for clarifying. What you really mean is that if I choose not to consume Copyrighted Material, legally or illegally, then I will be completely safe from *AA bullying. Well, that shouldn't be so hard. The public domain presently accounts for, what was it, upwards of 0.1% of all human knowledge? I'll just go sit in this darkened room then and tell myself ancient nursery rhymes to pass the time.:3
Why should academic works be held to a different standard as any non-fiction work. Or fiction, or artistic work, for that matter.
IMHO they should be held to no different standard at all. I support Copyright Abolition, and see this impedance mismatch within academia as simply one more illustration of why.
Unlike some in this thread, I believe that art and fiction are just as intellectually enriching as scientific research. I believe that the entirety of copyright infrastructure is a disservice to everyone, authors included.
This is a silly argument. Copyright is granted when material is published. If it's published, then it has been made public for anyone to read. In what possible world is this not the definition of sharing knowledge?
Er, this world.
To illustrate, I have just posted a 10 second video clip somewhere on my website. I have a pay mechanism up, so you can download my work and be licensed to watch it for personal amusement only, with the curtains drawn, no more than one (1) time per purchase, for the reasonable price of $3 million USD. Paypal only, please. Also, if you cite my work in your academic research it cannot be peer reviewed because even if your peers wanted to pay me $3 million per view to check my data, such usage is not granted by my "personal use only" clause.
My work has technically been "published" now, though it is a far cry from "available to everybody" and certainly would not meet the criteria of "sharing knowledge".
You know, you have a point there, cpt. I guess you don't really need the RIAA to reach customers after all.
Really, we all should have guessed as much, right? Seeing as how we all buy indie music at Wal-Mart and download label-less records from Itunes at least once a week, where did we think all that work was coming from?
I mean, it's not like the RIAA would do anything as despicable as prevent small start up artists who rebuff their advances from gaining exposure or marketshare by colluding with retail outlets or spreading FUD about small artists illegally remixing. They are the good guys!:D
a lot of people want good music recordings which can't be produced unless the producers can be paid for the recording itself.
Er...... "good"? I only ask because without that term, your boldface rant boils down to "audio recording is not possible without benjamins".
And to be honest, the expense of appointing a recording studio normally need not exceed the expense of the environment the work will be replayed in. So if, as a consumer, you can afford a 7.1 soundproofed mini amphitheater then it should not require a buck o' five from everyone on earth to finance having the music recorded in a similar environment.
As for myself, I would prefer to hear music with scratches and dings if it means I and anyone can hear it for free and remix it without going to jail for our trouble. The long tail has no business being required to finance the levels of acoustic nitpicking that you have grown so Dependant on.
It breaks down barriers between a slew of popular communication and online collaboration methods that simply function better together.
Lestwise, I think it is unwise to assume a layman needs to understand their need for a thing before it becomes marketable. Nobody knew peanut butter and jelly would go good together until it was tried. Precisely what problem does Twitter or Facebook solve again? But ye, gads people sure use them.
Wave is intended to supersede other disparate communications protocols that are constantly "in our way", though we've conditioned ourselves to live with it. You never plan to "live-blog interactively with ten friends, while simultaneously editing a photo journal of our last bar night", but if you've ever been to a bar with 10+ friends who use Wave, and happen to be online discussing the matter the next day then the scenario you mention will simply unfold before you even realize it has occured. Now I don't know about you, but that is what I call "out of the way". You have things to say. You say them. They get said.. and the technology aids you to do so instead of complicating your life with:
* If I email her, she might not notice right away, but if I IM her it sounds too interuptive.
* Barry just sent me an email about it but he's not on chat right now to hear your opinion.
* I'd love to show you these pictures, but they're just too large to Email.
* I don't feel like sorting through them.
* I can't interface my photo manager with..
* Barry wouldn't get a copy since he hasn't fired up the IM.
* I was confused because you spelled that wrong. No, "that". Not that "that", the one in the paragraph above..
* I don't remember everyone's names. Tom does, but.. what.. should he rename the files and then re-upload?
* Look, this is just too damned hard. Whatever I wanted to say must not have been important enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is an interesting thought. Why doesn't someone on Slashdot come up with a creative way for the RIAA or MPAA to make lots of money given the current market trends? We could make it a contest. The winner gets a big cut in the profits. Just remember, if you do come up with a winning idea, I want my finders fee :-)
Uh.. "why don't we"? Maybe.. because if we post such a great idea here, the companies in question would simply do that or similar, and not pay us a dime? ;D
As for me, I have tons of ideas and I've never been shy to share them, but It is hard to legally accomplish much of anything innovative in the copyright labyrinth built by the current cartel.
This is one of the most insightful things I've heard on slashdot.
The truth of the matter is, we don't need the RIAA because WE can make content. This was why Youtube was initially so popular (and where it got it's name from). Nowadays, there is so much FUD about copyright infringement, and nobody can afford going to court just to prove that a video of them alone in a blank room is devoid of infringement.
But it's so easy to forget that content comes from PEOPLE, not from companies. It doesn't have to be polished because Worse is Better. Being available is more important than being perfected. And that is where most content industries get it wrong these days, they try to prevent content from being available. Their own content, and your ameture content whenever they can as it might satisfy audiences who would otherwise crave corporate mash.
So, rise up people! Create! Produce! Share! Collaborate! Play the piano in the living room! Entertain one another to weaken the hold of this multinational industry who takes it upon themselves to monopolize all entertainment options.
Look, someone needs to send /. audiophiles the memo that the 80/20% rule applies to sound quality just like everything else. Nobody signs on with RIAA specifically to market $15 albums to your <1% of the rich American population home theater setup.
Claiming that bands sign on with RIAA to obtain sound quality is like saying restaurants franchise with McD's to enhance their culinary appeal.
Alright, I'll... put you on the mailing list. Why did you want to know again?
I presume from your post that you have INTERNET access, rite?
Is your Wal-Mart out of blanks this week or something!?
(in their apparently shrewd understanding of market and morals), today they choose to spend their money on other things.
Ambiguity cleared up, don't thank me. ;3
This reminds me of the Fullscreen / Widescreen discs in some early DVD releases.
Made a great 2 for 1 deal, sell off or give away whichever format you don't watch to whoever does. The industry realized their mistake there quickly! They were virtually teaching people how to illegally share content. It was a hoot ;D
I'd say "feel free to trick them into that doh moment again", but.. yeah CD's are so 1990's. :P
Freedom means different things to different people. To a lot of people in the world "freedom" is not a religion, but just something we take for granted as long as we are kept safe from exposure to ideas we don't like or understand.
Just, you know, noticed a grammar error or two. Nothing to see here, move along! ;D
You assume too much. Would you be a willing speech advocate if your child was harmed due to speech on the internet? Harmed could be anywhere from crying about it to deep depression to suicide. Yeah, its happened.
OMFG I can't believe you just said that! I'm going to kill myself now, I hope you are happy murderer! Why can't you keep your small minded attacks to yourself? </sarcasm>
Wait, what? Ah shit! I put that end tag one sentence farther forward than I meant to. My bad! :P
They didn't say it had to be continuous...
Damn all you slashdotters, infringing against the Mirriam Webster dictionary with each of your 11+ word posts!!1!
Damn! Yes, let's brainstorm this! ;D
I think you're both confusing all the geographically challenged Americans quite terribly
He is only invoking UTF-8's ability to use the head end bits of a byte to signify place value, and then importing that idea into reporting string length.
Personally however, I would prefer something like a base-254 encoded integer of arbitrary length with a terminator character to solve this small, naive problem. For instance a preamble of, 0x02 0x9E 0xFF would indicate the upcoming string will be 666 bytes long, including preamble. This would handle unlimited size.
Nonetheless the bigger problem is that malformed data in null-terminated encoding schemes leads to hassles no more nor less than malformed data in preamble schemes do. So long as everyone follows the same convention and introduces no corrupt data, regardless of the scheme, you are fine. corrupt data or incompatible practices break any scheme. When that happens to a pascal string or similar (bit gets flipped in your preamble, turning a 20 byte string into a 3 terrabyte string, or else someone assumes a slightly different preamble convention) you end up with just as many buffer overruns et al as ever.
Damn, was that a pic of your HTC I saw on goa.. I mean. NOTHING! NothingishappeninghereKthxBIE!!
Srsly guys, won't < give you an < charactar?
yeah.. it's goooood to know HTML et al without leaning on a WYSIWYG. And misappropriation is phun! :D
Why develop for three platforms and let geeks port that to many when you can develop as open source for one platform (DHTML) and actively encourage the geeks to port that to 3, and then to many?
Hell, if I worked at Google the last thing I would want would be to get involved in GNOME/KDE turf wars, piss off apple fanbois if it doesn't look precisely like a macintosh app or really develop anything for the Windows desktop. Like, ever. So instead, Google puts it on the Web where everyone can get at it from any modern platform (even/especially smartphones, and if you want a native copy then you or some hobbiests are free to write one (and thereafter support it :P)
Seriously, do you recall their last attempt at a Jabber desktop application, Gtalk? It even worked well, but then they dropped it like a bad habit in favor of the web-based version.
Additionally, one of their main design goals was to make Wave conversations embeddable into web pages. They would like this to be used for CMS, to replace forums, to replace blog comments, essentially they wish people to mash up Wave content with their own web pages. If they focused their deployment first to the desktop, they would miss out on that opportunity.
One way in which Wave > SMTP right off the bat is in user authentication.
If I wish to post in a wave which has been opened to public invite, or if I wish to start a new wave and invite people, I must first have an account on a wave server somewhere.
Sure, the wave server could be an ameture one, but when there is abuse other wavemasters (forgive me Sheppard!) can assign responsibility directly to the rogue server for allowing a spammer on board, who then can trace the matter back to an unspoofable abuser on their own network. Spam detection technology perfected in the SMTP jungle can be used as early warning of abuse which becomes much harder to replicate and repeat.
Furthermore, gateways from wave to Twitter, SMS, SMTP, and other IM services would need to be outfitted with their own spam filtering technologies to clean the crud they introduce into the system (which, if they do a bad job the gateway bot itself, acting with no more power than a simple user, would suffer diminished reputation).
Don't confuse me with an expert or anything, but this is simply how I extrapolate the differences between this protocol and the failures of SMTP.
if you had any steel in your spine you'd find some principles and refuse to consume it
Wait, no really? See, here is what I am talking about. I can't even sit in a darkened room humming to myself without being accused of filching the RIAA goods!
Extree! Extree! Read all about it,
Rioting Pacifist proclaims SSH is broken! Requires centralized CA in order to be of any use! RP recommends all users switch to Telnet immediately to avoid False Sense of Security! Also, door locks encourage theft!
Seriously though, signed cert protects from passive eavesdropping. Wireshark is simple to deploy and represents a pretty wide threat when used to that end. Now actively mangling all traffic to a client so that you can usurp the entire data feed with fidelity, followed by double interception and impersonation takes a bit better attack vantage point, better software and it's a lot harder to be covert about.
Thus, encryption with weak certification, eg the "trusted first visit and check for changes thereafter" SSH model.. especially for in-house use by the folks who run the servers in question.. is definitely > plaintext. OTOH, requiring $$$ for a CA doesn't do much until you require an armed guard at the NOC either, since aggresive MITM attacks (especially in-house) are not always easier to pull off than physical access to the server or backup tapes. Again, yes the bank obviously already does that. I still don't happen to be a bank.
It is? rilly??
Forgive me, but if he sees another what, he's going to what?!? *head*a splode*
Alright svar, I'll bite.
Are you saying that if I didn't buy RIAA music, and if I didn't pirate RIAA music, then Tenenbaum wouldn't have ever been sued?
No? Oh, whew! My bad, it almost sounded as though you were implying that what I do makes a god damned bit of difference in the world. ;3
Oh! OK, no I think I understand, thanks for clarifying. What you really mean is that if I choose not to consume Copyrighted Material, legally or illegally, then I will be completely safe from *AA bullying. Well, that shouldn't be so hard. The public domain presently accounts for, what was it, upwards of 0.1% of all human knowledge? I'll just go sit in this darkened room then and tell myself ancient nursery rhymes to pass the time. :3
Why should academic works be held to a different standard as any non-fiction work. Or fiction, or artistic work, for that matter.
IMHO they should be held to no different standard at all. I support Copyright Abolition, and see this impedance mismatch within academia as simply one more illustration of why.
Unlike some in this thread, I believe that art and fiction are just as intellectually enriching as scientific research. I believe that the entirety of copyright infrastructure is a disservice to everyone, authors included.
This is a silly argument. Copyright is granted when material is published. If it's published, then it has been made public for anyone to read. In what possible world is this not the definition of sharing knowledge?
Er, this world.
To illustrate, I have just posted a 10 second video clip somewhere on my website. I have a pay mechanism up, so you can download my work and be licensed to watch it for personal amusement only, with the curtains drawn, no more than one (1) time per purchase, for the reasonable price of $3 million USD. Paypal only, please. Also, if you cite my work in your academic research it cannot be peer reviewed because even if your peers wanted to pay me $3 million per view to check my data, such usage is not granted by my "personal use only" clause.
My work has technically been "published" now, though it is a far cry from "available to everybody" and certainly would not meet the criteria of "sharing knowledge".
You know, you have a point there, cpt. I guess you don't really need the RIAA to reach customers after all.
Really, we all should have guessed as much, right? Seeing as how we all buy indie music at Wal-Mart and download label-less records from Itunes at least once a week, where did we think all that work was coming from?
I mean, it's not like the RIAA would do anything as despicable as prevent small start up artists who rebuff their advances from gaining exposure or marketshare by colluding with retail outlets or spreading FUD about small artists illegally remixing. They are the good guys! :D
It breaks down barriers between a slew of popular communication and online collaboration methods that simply function better together.
Lestwise, I think it is unwise to assume a layman needs to understand their need for a thing before it becomes marketable. Nobody knew peanut butter and jelly would go good together until it was tried. Precisely what problem does Twitter or Facebook solve again? But ye, gads people sure use them.
Wave is intended to supersede other disparate communications protocols that are constantly "in our way", though we've conditioned ourselves to live with it. You never plan to "live-blog interactively with ten friends, while simultaneously editing a photo journal of our last bar night", but if you've ever been to a bar with 10+ friends who use Wave, and happen to be online discussing the matter the next day then the scenario you mention will simply unfold before you even realize it has occured. Now I don't know about you, but that is what I call "out of the way". You have things to say. You say them. They get said.. and the technology aids you to do so instead of complicating your life with: .. what .. should he rename the files and then re-upload?
* If I email her, she might not notice right away, but if I IM her it sounds too interuptive.
* Barry just sent me an email about it but he's not on chat right now to hear your opinion.
* I'd love to show you these pictures, but they're just too large to Email.
* I don't feel like sorting through them.
* I can't interface my photo manager with..
* Barry wouldn't get a copy since he hasn't fired up the IM.
* I was confused because you spelled that wrong. No, "that". Not that "that", the one in the paragraph above..
* I don't remember everyone's names. Tom does, but
* Look, this is just too damned hard. Whatever I wanted to say must not have been important enough.