"We herby disclose that wide and frivolously granting of Software Patents is a threat to the operation of this publicly traded company. This includes unknown patents that might affect either our Microsft systems or our Linux systems. However we have not been notified of any specific patents infinged by our use of Microsoft systems or our use of Linux systems."
Lots of ideas sound reasonable when presented in isolation and built on top of assumptions you don't recognise. You need to identify and question the
hidden assumptions. The first thing you need to reconsider is your statement "create a market". Why is there a need to create a market? Whose interest are you serving? Many
DRM arguments presented BY CORPORATIONS are in terms of "it helps the artists" However please read this enlightning article
The Problem With Music by Steve Albini
for a more realistic view of the music marketing machine.
It is actually not the people who PRODUCE music who need drm. They are able to make a living off it through various means including concerts, merchandise.
Its only the people who MARKET music, who require drm - and the important question to be asked "What do these corporate marketing drones contribute to the
CREATIVE process of making music?"
You need to reconsider the PURPOSE of Copyright, and whether it should be taken to such an extreme. This can be a turning point in how you think about the
whole subject. You should consider Copyright that it is not a natural right but is an ARTIFICIAL monopoly GRANTED BY SOCIETY (ie you and me) TRADED in
exchange for something WE value - which is the creative process. My natural right is to be generous, to help people, and to share the things that I have.
As children this is drummed into us because it BENEFITS SOCIETY. Its "natural." What drm and extreme-copyright does is turn NORMAL PEOPLE into criminals.
I read an elightning article once (which I wish I could find again) which compares laws and ethics, and highlights the fact that law is a reflection of
eithics, NOT the other way around. Laws are made by the government ON BEHALF OF "the people" to help us to exist in harmony with each other. The ultimate
decision on laws "IS" made by the people in the election of governments (theoretically! which is belied by the way the spin machines works today and the
suspect nature of recent US elections.) The most interesting point made is that when "the people" WIDELY disregard a law, then it is a BAD law. It is the
LAW WHICH IS WRONG, NOT "THE PEOPLE", since the law is not reflecting the ethics of society. This is exactly what is happening with music today. People
WIDELY AND WITHOUT COMPUNCTION feel that it is "right" to share music they like with their friends. This indicates that current Copyright laws ARE WRONG
for the majority of society. Only a tiny part of society is trying to impose these laws on the rest of us, to make us criminals for doing what is natural,
which is sharing.
If the laws as they stand are wrong, they should be relaxed rather than strengthened. The fact that this disadvantages a particular type of business, a
tiny subset of society, is beside the point. SOCIETY IS NOT BUSINESS, SOCIETY IS PEOPLE trying to work out the best for all of us to have fulfulling lives.
If "WE" were choose not to reward artists (which is not the case, but an extreme hypotethical) then WE may suffer by a reduction in creative works, but
that is "OUR" choice. The artist CAN make a living BY PERFORMING. What many instead DO want is that we dont want people who don't contribute to the
creative process to not make money exploiting artists. Until recently the wide disemintation of creative works has required significant resources, and so
the distribution companies had a purpose. Now with the Interent, the resources required for distribution are so minimal that these corporations are less
important, and THIS is the reason they are desperate to have these laws implemented. These drm laws they wish to inflict on use protect THEM, not the
artists. To highlight this, please read to story
The Road to Tycho (The Right To Read).
While this is an extreme example, it is outside the realms of possibility in the future.
Consider that the original purpose of Copyright was to PR
I would LOVE to have some "effective" propaganda to distribute to friends and family, however this is not it. The narrator spoke too quickly and I found it hard to follow even though I already understand the issue. If it difficult for the initiated to follow, how effective is it going to be on the uninitiated?
The best way to have someone to learn something is to have them associate with it. The clip tries to do this, by using common examples, but doesn't give enough "wait time" for the example to sink in and make this association. It jumps to the next scene too fast, which draws the attention away from the association. Just keeping up the excitment by quick-changing scenes is not enough. Without "the association", people don't FEEL the issue.
That said. This COULD be very effective, and practice makes perfect. I'd like to encourage more of these be produced, to help the unitiated identify their own interests are at stake.
Some ideas for next time: + Analyse the enemies' clips - particularly the "You wouldn't steal a purse. You wouldn't steal a car, etc..." This uses:
+ Repetition
+ Analogy - stealing a car is the same as copying 1's and 0's
+ A series of small "plausible" arguments, which combined lead to a startling conclusion
+ Produce three separate clips each concentrating a single issue. This would make it easier for people to digest the message - and they can be released over a period to string out the interest.
+ Rather than a single person, have two friends in a conversation - one helping the other - a common scenario which allows the lesser abled to identify with it (and those are probably the majority we need to convert to the cause)
An example this storyline...
+ To set up the absurd, start with "Imagine..." using a VCR to tape a TV show, and the police bust in. How absurd! BUT.....
+ Then repeat scene but show recording HDTV, and the police bust in - but this time the law supports them. Then link to the appropriate authoritive material ie extract from a Bill being debated.
+ Then switch to scene of neighbour watching police taking both friends in cuffs from house to cars with flashing lights saying "glad its not me".
+ Rewind that neighbour to when he had the opportunity to oppose the law, but didn't with some reference to negatives of inaction eg "first they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not act). The scene are activists protesting to politicians, but then some big coporation donates money to the compaign coffers, and the activists are dismissed, and the neighbour "says nothing"
+ Fast forward neighbour to a short time later after opening scene, when a friend of theirs brings over a HDTV show he taped "the other night" but it doesn't play on the neighbour's machine. The neighbours friend pulls a blackbox to allw it to be played, and BAM! the cops turn up and arrest both.
+ Pan to third neighbour watching second neighbour being taken away and saying "glad its not me"
or, something like that..... sorry it got a bit more involved than I meant - bit still, rather than "fantasy" superheros, try a "more mundane" "real life" examples that people can EMPATHISE with. To maintain peoples attention, just lay a pumping music track over it. It seems to work in the anti-paracy adverts pushed at the movies.
Another example, and one that I'd LOVE to see would be a spoof of the "You wouldn't steal a car!!!" which would then have a follow up scene going "BUT HEY!! If you could click on the car and drag a copy of it across the street that you could use, all without depriving the original owner of theirs, wouldn't that be cool."
Use regmon and filemon from http://sysinternals.com/. Export log to CVS and use a spreadsheet to sort the far column and check out any ACCESS DENIED errors.
Potentially the ESX stuff would be useful for the servers at work, but its kind of a side issue I wouldn't realistically be able to spend time on, so the "familiarity gap" remains.
What would REALLYYYYY interest me is an inexpensive way to run Linux and XP concurrently without the performance penalty of the Host-Guest configuration. A version of ESX limited to only two virtual machines would be ideal. It would definitely have me becoming familiar with that technology.
Also it would make it easier to slide Linux into the organisation, for those few critical Windows-Only-Business-Applications which tend to hold everything back.
And while the ideas are flowing, another useful feature would be having two video cards installed and assigning one to each virtual machine, so both could be displayed at the same time, so I could work on Linux and my low-tech-wife can work on Windows at the same time (until I can wean her off)
I thought also that the reason PBMRs hadn't been used is that they don't scale up as far as the alternatives, which didn't fit the big centralised energy strategy. So PBMR are a safer alternative, but limited in application, requiring a more distributed approch to energy generation.
Life is about balancing risks. The main argument against Nuclear are the safety/environmetal risks. Even burning fossil fuels isn't risk free either, due to their atmospheric emmisions. How then do you rate WAR, in terms of environmental damage and loss of life?
The US war in Iraq is (I believe) at least partly to protect the continuity of their oil supply in the coming energy crisis. So what happens when China runs short of oil, and needs to contest for it?...and what is the risk of this snowballing into a global conflict?
In terms of balancing risks, I for one am very glad China has significant plans for so many pebble reactors. I feel a lot safer that this will reduce their need to contend with the US for energy.
I'm not sure how certain Peak Oil is, but its clear that over the next 20 years there is going to be a significant energy crisis. I believe in the long term future of distributed renewable energy, however its unknown whether these technologies can scale fast enough to fill the near-term gap. In terms of energy "availability", nuclear is a known technology and has a lower risk of failing to provide the required energy. Environmental risk is a different topic, but new technologies like pebble bed reactors look promising.
Fuel sources only need to last 100 years. With the increasing rate of technological advance, in 100 years, the options available for renewable energy generation will far advanced. However we need to survive the 20-30 years.
Point 3 of the GPL reiterates several times that the sourcecode/offer must "accompany the work". It this means the sourcecode/offer is "part of" the work, them we would be happy for Company Y to distribute the exact work that Company X gave them, as the enduser would still receive the sourcecode/offer. If Company Y removes the sourcecode/offer, it becomes a derivative work, and they GPL does apply to them, and they must provide the sourcecode/offer themselves.
The way out might come down to the interpetation of the term "Accompany it with", and whether this means that the accompanying sourcecode/offer is consider "part of the work" that X provides to Y. If Y sells it without providing or changing a thing, we would still be happy, since the sourcecode/offer will still be contained within the original work provided by X. If Y removes the sourcecode/offer, then this modification constitutes a derived work, at which point Y is bound by the GPL to distribute the source code.
To add to my own comment, I'm concerned for Australia's impending homogenisation with USA's IP laws.
I'll donate from here to get one of you guys in as a voice of reason. Quit all this lobbying...
hmmm.... how many participants does slashdot have is the USA?
Given the low voter turn out we hear about so often, it would be REALLY interesting to see if the elections could be slashdotted. Isn't there some long standing member of respect with a balanced world view who could run?
Don't bother campaigning... just request donations from invididuals covering the application fee. Call it something like the Public Betterment Technology Party; or the Tech4U party. (suggestions anyone?)
Of course, there'll now be a thousand ppl volunteering, so perhaps just the site owners, or their nominees.
Also, once you get in and the corporate campaign donations start rolling in, you'll turn to the dark side and slashdot will go to sh*t.
...but heh! it could be fun, and an interesting experiment.
Slashdot Mirror
So disclose it then...
"We herby disclose that wide and frivolously granting of Software Patents is a threat to the operation of this publicly traded company. This includes unknown patents that might affect either our Microsft systems or our Linux systems. However we have not been notified of any specific patents infinged by our use of Microsoft systems or our use of Linux systems."
It is actually not the people who PRODUCE music who need drm. They are able to make a living off it through various means including concerts, merchandise. Its only the people who MARKET music, who require drm - and the important question to be asked "What do these corporate marketing drones contribute to the CREATIVE process of making music?"
You need to reconsider the PURPOSE of Copyright, and whether it should be taken to such an extreme. This can be a turning point in how you think about the whole subject. You should consider Copyright that it is not a natural right but is an ARTIFICIAL monopoly GRANTED BY SOCIETY (ie you and me) TRADED in exchange for something WE value - which is the creative process. My natural right is to be generous, to help people, and to share the things that I have. As children this is drummed into us because it BENEFITS SOCIETY. Its "natural." What drm and extreme-copyright does is turn NORMAL PEOPLE into criminals.
I read an elightning article once (which I wish I could find again) which compares laws and ethics, and highlights the fact that law is a reflection of eithics, NOT the other way around. Laws are made by the government ON BEHALF OF "the people" to help us to exist in harmony with each other. The ultimate decision on laws "IS" made by the people in the election of governments (theoretically! which is belied by the way the spin machines works today and the suspect nature of recent US elections.) The most interesting point made is that when "the people" WIDELY disregard a law, then it is a BAD law. It is the LAW WHICH IS WRONG, NOT "THE PEOPLE", since the law is not reflecting the ethics of society. This is exactly what is happening with music today. People WIDELY AND WITHOUT COMPUNCTION feel that it is "right" to share music they like with their friends. This indicates that current Copyright laws ARE WRONG for the majority of society. Only a tiny part of society is trying to impose these laws on the rest of us, to make us criminals for doing what is natural, which is sharing.
If the laws as they stand are wrong, they should be relaxed rather than strengthened. The fact that this disadvantages a particular type of business, a tiny subset of society, is beside the point. SOCIETY IS NOT BUSINESS, SOCIETY IS PEOPLE trying to work out the best for all of us to have fulfulling lives. If "WE" were choose not to reward artists (which is not the case, but an extreme hypotethical) then WE may suffer by a reduction in creative works, but that is "OUR" choice. The artist CAN make a living BY PERFORMING. What many instead DO want is that we dont want people who don't contribute to the creative process to not make money exploiting artists. Until recently the wide disemintation of creative works has required significant resources, and so the distribution companies had a purpose. Now with the Interent, the resources required for distribution are so minimal that these corporations are less important, and THIS is the reason they are desperate to have these laws implemented. These drm laws they wish to inflict on use protect THEM, not the artists. To highlight this, please read to story The Road to Tycho (The Right To Read). While this is an extreme example, it is outside the realms of possibility in the future.
Consider that the original purpose of Copyright was to PR
I would LOVE to have some "effective" propaganda to distribute to friends and family, however this is not it. The narrator spoke too quickly and I found it hard to follow even though I already understand the issue. If it difficult for the initiated to follow, how effective is it going to be on the uninitiated?
The best way to have someone to learn something is to have them associate with it. The clip tries to do this, by using common examples, but doesn't give enough "wait time" for the example to sink in and make this association. It jumps to the next scene too fast, which draws the attention away from the association. Just keeping up the excitment by quick-changing scenes is not enough. Without "the association", people don't FEEL the issue.
That said. This COULD be very effective, and practice makes perfect. I'd like to encourage more of these be produced, to help the unitiated identify their own interests are at stake.
Some ideas for next time:
+ Analyse the enemies' clips - particularly the "You wouldn't steal a purse. You wouldn't steal a car, etc..." This uses:
+ Repetition
+ Analogy - stealing a car is the same as copying 1's and 0's
+ A series of small "plausible" arguments, which combined lead to a startling conclusion
+ Produce three separate clips each concentrating a single issue. This would make it easier for people to digest the message - and they can be released over a period to string out the interest.
+ Rather than a single person, have two friends in a conversation - one helping the other - a common scenario which allows the lesser abled to identify with it (and those are probably the majority we need to convert to the cause)
An example this storyline...
+ To set up the absurd, start with "Imagine..." using a VCR to tape a TV show, and the police bust in. How absurd! BUT.....
+ Then repeat scene but show recording HDTV, and the police bust in - but this time the law supports them. Then link to the appropriate authoritive material ie extract from a Bill being debated.
+ Then switch to scene of neighbour watching police taking both friends in cuffs from house to cars with flashing lights saying "glad its not me".
+ Rewind that neighbour to when he had the opportunity to oppose the law, but didn't with some reference to negatives of inaction eg "first they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not act). The scene are activists protesting to politicians, but then some big coporation donates money to the compaign coffers, and the activists are dismissed, and the neighbour "says nothing"
+ Fast forward neighbour to a short time later after opening scene, when a friend of theirs brings over a HDTV show he taped "the other night" but it doesn't play on the neighbour's machine. The neighbours friend pulls a blackbox to allw it to be played, and BAM! the cops turn up and arrest both.
+ Pan to third neighbour watching second neighbour being taken away and saying "glad its not me"
or, something like that..... sorry it got a bit more involved than I meant - bit still, rather than "fantasy" superheros, try a "more mundane" "real life" examples that people can EMPATHISE with. To maintain peoples attention, just lay a pumping music track over it. It seems to work in the anti-paracy adverts pushed at the movies.
Another example, and one that I'd LOVE to see would be a spoof of the "You wouldn't steal a car!!!" which would then have a follow up scene going "BUT HEY!! If you could click on the car and drag a copy of it across the street that you could use, all without depriving the original owner of theirs, wouldn't that be cool."
bye for now.
Why does it need those? Its a security system.
Perhaps run the app over RDP on a Windows Terminal Server. Place it behind a firewall that allows RDP through.
Use regmon and filemon from http://sysinternals.com/. Export log to CVS and use a spreadsheet to sort the far column and check out any ACCESS DENIED errors.
oh, and dedicating one card to each virtual machine might make their 3D efforts simpler.
Potentially the ESX stuff would be useful for the servers at work, but its kind of a side issue I wouldn't realistically be able to spend time on, so the "familiarity gap" remains.
:) ?
What would REALLYYYYY interest me is an inexpensive way to run Linux and XP concurrently without the performance penalty of the Host-Guest configuration. A version of ESX limited to only two virtual machines would be ideal. It would definitely have me becoming familiar with that technology.
Also it would make it easier to slide Linux into the organisation, for those few critical Windows-Only-Business-Applications which tend to hold everything back.
And while the ideas are flowing, another useful feature would be having two video cards installed and assigning one to each virtual machine, so both could be displayed at the same time, so I could work on Linux and my low-tech-wife can work on Windows at the same time (until I can wean her off)
anyone at VMWare listening...
Professional courtesy.
The casing is defintely graphite (https://www.pbmr.com/index.asp?Content=4&).
I thought also that the reason PBMRs hadn't been used is that they don't scale up as far as the alternatives, which didn't fit the big centralised energy strategy. So PBMR are a safer alternative, but limited in application, requiring a more distributed approch to energy generation.
Life is about balancing risks. The main argument against Nuclear are the safety/environmetal risks. Even burning fossil fuels isn't risk free either, due to their atmospheric emmisions. How then do you rate WAR, in terms of environmental damage and loss of life?
...and what is the risk of this snowballing into a global conflict?
The US war in Iraq is (I believe) at least partly to protect the continuity of their oil supply in the coming energy crisis. So what happens when China runs short of oil, and needs to contest for it?
In terms of balancing risks, I for one am very glad China has significant plans for so many pebble reactors. I feel a lot safer that this will reduce their need to contend with the US for energy.
I'm not sure how certain Peak Oil is, but its clear that over the next 20 years there is going to be a significant energy crisis. I believe in the long term future of distributed renewable energy, however its unknown whether these technologies can scale fast enough to fill the near-term gap. In terms of energy "availability", nuclear is a known technology and has a lower risk of failing to provide the required energy. Environmental risk is a different topic, but new technologies like pebble bed reactors look promising.
Fuel sources only need to last 100 years. With the increasing rate of technological advance, in 100 years, the options available for renewable energy generation will far advanced. However we need to survive the 20-30 years.
Point 3 of the GPL reiterates several times that the sourcecode/offer must "accompany the work". It this means the sourcecode/offer is "part of" the work, them we would be happy for Company Y to distribute the exact work that Company X gave them, as the enduser would still receive the sourcecode/offer. If Company Y removes the sourcecode/offer, it becomes a derivative work, and they GPL does apply to them, and they must provide the sourcecode/offer themselves.
the offer of source code must accompany the the work, ie it must be on the CD :)
The way out might come down to the interpetation of the term "Accompany it with", and whether this means that the accompanying sourcecode/offer is consider "part of the work" that X provides to Y. If Y sells it without providing or changing a thing, we would still be happy, since the sourcecode/offer will still be contained within the original work provided by X. If Y removes the sourcecode/offer, then this modification constitutes a derived work, at which point Y is bound by the GPL to distribute the source code.
ahhh... the chicken and the egg problem.
what you need to remember is that perhaps the chicken is just and eggs way of producing another egg.
To add to my own comment, I'm concerned for Australia's impending homogenisation with USA's IP laws. I'll donate from here to get one of you guys in as a voice of reason. Quit all this lobbying...
hmmm.... how many participants does slashdot have is the USA?
Given the low voter turn out we hear about so often, it would be REALLY interesting to see if the elections could be slashdotted. Isn't there some long standing member of respect with a balanced world view who could run?
Don't bother campaigning... just request donations from invididuals covering the application fee. Call it something like the Public Betterment Technology Party; or the Tech4U party. (suggestions anyone?) Of course, there'll now be a thousand ppl volunteering, so perhaps just the site owners, or their nominees. Also, once you get in and the corporate campaign donations start rolling in, you'll turn to the dark side and slashdot will go to sh*t.
...but heh! it could be fun, and an interesting experiment.