The "Analogue Hole" is unaffected by digital restrictions
False, since content can be watermarked (invisibly) and made to be unplayable on different digital devices. With watermarks, even using a digital camcorder to record from your DRM'ed TV can be made impossible.
the whole point of the entertainment industry is, well, entertainment, and I for one probably would feel quite entertained on lolcats and self-produced music alone ^^
And I, for one, would feel entertained in seeing the entertainment industry going down:)
Also, while it is true that a punishment should be a deterrent to crime, the punishment must also be within the order-of-magnitude of actual damages in order to be just.
That's the problem right there: no punishment exists that satisfies both conditions.
The probability of getting caught (owning pirated material) is so extremely small that the punishment MUST be large to be a deterrent. Increasing the probability is not really an option because that would mean an invasion of privacy.
We can't just let it spiral completely out of control, to the point where it's no longer lucrative to produce anything.
True. But we should, imho, focus on protecting intelligent work, not casual entertainment.
It happens to be the case that intelligent work, such as software, is much easier to protect than movies and music, simply because the latter two you can record and replay. (Yes, I'm aware of software piracy, but there is still a lot that can be done about that if you really want to).
Now you're saying: but what if I write an educational book? Well, it can be argued that educational work should be free (there are many free initiatives), OR you could make your work interactive (hence not easy to copy). Or put it behind a paywall, with additional benefits for paying customers, like commenting and updates.
Another way would be the crowdsourcing model: you bring your new music/movie/book/whatever into the open ONLY after a sufficient amount of money has been raised.
These are just a few options. Let us not limit our views too easily.
The problem lies not just with the monopolist, but with the way the economy works. It allows for only a handful of influential companies in any market segment (including web-search, electronics, etc.) We expect those companies to behave well (following human ethical rules), but we forget that they have to live up to the shareholders' expectations, and thus are greedy by design.
A) Like someone else said, it does not matter HOW a company gets into a monopoly, but more how it behaves once it acquired its dominant position. How we can expect it to behave in the future is not even important because things may radically change with the change of a board. Bundling of products is anti-competitive, and should not be accepted from either MS or Google. Example: assume you are a game developer, and Google suddenly starts promoting a game that is very much like your game on their homepage (bundling), and starts giving it away for free (dumping), then you are basically out of business.
B) Monopolists or near-monopolists are not easily replaceable, almost by definition. Further, you make it seem like companies can compete in "honesty". Well, unfortunately, that is just not how the market works. In fact, perhaps a more realistic view is that companies compete in "deception". Google is an advertisement company, and thus may be considered masters in this art.
What we need is ways to break up large companies into smaller ones. Ways to commoditize their products. Like many programmers know, it makes more sense to build a system out of small modules which are open and easy to replace, than to build a large monolithic closed-source system. This is where economists and lawmakers can actually learn something from programmers.
Why not just do the following every once in a while:
1. go through all your files, 2. for each file, compute a checksum (e.g. using the unix tools md5sum or sha1sum), 3. for pairs of files giving similar checksum, compare them (optionally) and if equal remove one of them and make it a hard-link to the other.
It would surprise me if there was no free open-source script doing exactly this.
Most music does not come with its source either. And by source, you can think of music scores, the many different soundtracks that resulted, after mixing, in the final product, lyrics, etc. Similar arguments hold for movies and books. It may be better to tackle the problem in a more generic way, instead of focusing on software only.
The problem with HTML is that it actually does not work in every browser (reliably). The reason is that the standard is way too complex. The underlying reason is that it was designed for humans, not for compiler back-ends. Supporting a handful of machine instructions in a reliable and secure way is actually much simpler than supporting the enormous HTML (and javascript, css, etc.) standard.
So, in a way, W3C actually fundamentally fragmented the web when it introduced HTML.
Once NaCl gets sufficient momentum, I guess other vendors will, simply because it will allow them to access the content provided by the NaCl ecosystem.
ActiveX was not adopted because the technology was just inherently broken.
Let me say: Finally, general purpose computing coming to the web!
Besides, if this trend continues, we can finally be relieved of the quirks of web-browsers and just send our applications as-is, without any compatibility problems, and continuous maintenance due to continuously changing browser specs. Apps will JUST WORK (tm). About time.
A space probe that takes 9 years to go from earth to Pluto would take over 100,000 years to get to even our closest neighbor, a mere 4.2 light years away.
Well, I see that as a relief. It means that we're safe for at least another 4.2 years from crashing into any other solar system.
And, if only for environmental reasons, governments should force manufacturers and operators out of this business model.
Because if phones were "open", the community would develop its own software (OS) updates, and people would be far less inclined to buy new phones every couple of years.
There are more reasons to boycott apple. For example,
- DRM. Download music from iTunes, and you can only play it on a limited number of computers (try it and you'll find out). Plus, your name gets engraved into the downloaded files so that they or their partners from the music industry can trace a copyright infringement back to you. Apple is downright an extension of the music industry. (Steve Jobs even received a Grammy Trustees Award for his accomplishments for the recording industry, or RIAA).
- Locking hardware to software. Back in the 80s, IBM and Microsoft had a deal that turned out to be very sweet for consumers: software and hardware were no longer tied together. As a result, any manufacturer could make PCs, and the major operating system of that time (if you like it or not) could run on it regardless of the brand of the computer. It even allowed the development open-source operating systems, without jail-breaking. Apple is reversing this. If IBM followed the strategy that Apple is taking now, I bet that Linux would not have even been possible.
- Pushing of proprietary standards. Many apps developed today could just as well be developed using open standards, e.g., HTML and javascript. Instead of aiding the further development of these standards, they are sucking developer power into their own eco-system and make the apps, that would otherwise be available to everyone, only accessible to their own customer-base.
- Being the middle-man. Any content provided by external parties, be it software (apps), music, movies or magazines, gets an Apple tax. Even Microsoft wasn't that evil.
- Being secretive about developer revenues. Developing for iOS isn't as lucrative as Apple makes us believe it is. Only a very small portion of the developer-base makes a lot of money. Those are the ones we hear about in the news. The majority, however, has a hard time to recover their investments, or makes a loss.
And, if you google around, I'm sure you'll find many other reasons to dislike Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
The "Analogue Hole" is unaffected by digital restrictions
False, since content can be watermarked (invisibly) and made to be unplayable on different digital devices.
With watermarks, even using a digital camcorder to record from your DRM'ed TV can be made impossible.
That, plus the fact that Dart compiles to Javascript.
Indeed, what is the problem?
the whole point of the entertainment industry is, well, entertainment, and I for one probably would feel quite entertained on lolcats and self-produced music alone ^^
And I, for one, would feel entertained in seeing the entertainment industry going down :)
Also, while it is true that a punishment should be a deterrent to crime, the punishment must also be within the order-of-magnitude of actual damages in order to be just.
That's the problem right there: no punishment exists that satisfies both conditions.
The probability of getting caught (owning pirated material) is so extremely small that the punishment MUST be large to be a deterrent.
Increasing the probability is not really an option because that would mean an invasion of privacy.
We can't just let it spiral completely out of control, to the point where it's no longer lucrative to produce anything.
True. But we should, imho, focus on protecting intelligent work, not casual entertainment.
It happens to be the case that intelligent work, such as software, is much easier to protect than movies and music, simply because the latter two you can record and replay. (Yes, I'm aware of software piracy, but there is still a lot that can be done about that if you really want to).
Now you're saying: but what if I write an educational book? Well, it can be argued that educational work should be free (there are many free initiatives), OR you could make your work interactive (hence not easy to copy). Or put it behind a paywall, with additional benefits for paying customers, like commenting and updates.
Another way would be the crowdsourcing model: you bring your new music/movie/book/whatever into the open ONLY after a sufficient amount of money has been raised.
These are just a few options. Let us not limit our views too easily.
The problem lies not just with the monopolist, but with the way the economy works. It allows for only a handful of influential companies in any market segment (including web-search, electronics, etc.) We expect those companies to behave well (following human ethical rules), but we forget that they have to live up to the shareholders' expectations, and thus are greedy by design.
A) Like someone else said, it does not matter HOW a company gets into a monopoly, but more how it behaves once it acquired its dominant position. How we can expect it to behave in the future is not even important because things may radically change with the change of a board.
Bundling of products is anti-competitive, and should not be accepted from either MS or Google. Example: assume you are a game developer, and Google suddenly starts promoting a game that is very much like your game on their homepage (bundling), and starts giving it away for free (dumping), then you are basically out of business.
B) Monopolists or near-monopolists are not easily replaceable, almost by definition. Further, you make it seem like companies can compete in "honesty". Well, unfortunately, that is just not how the market works. In fact, perhaps a more realistic view is that companies compete in "deception". Google is an advertisement company, and thus may be considered masters in this art.
What we need is ways to break up large companies into smaller ones. Ways to commoditize their products. Like many programmers know, it makes more sense to build a system out of small modules which are open and easy to replace, than to build a large monolithic closed-source system. This is where economists and lawmakers can actually learn something from programmers.
We can still use them for transporting proponents of the patent system.
we still have an effectively broken payment system, and instead of fixing it, they are going after the symptoms...
I'd be far more interested in HDR. Why don't they pursue that route?
The point is, with this device, there is no DRM involved, and your TV won't be able to report the file names of the movies you watch to the MPAA.
Why not just do the following every once in a while:
1. go through all your files,
2. for each file, compute a checksum (e.g. using the unix tools md5sum or sha1sum),
3. for pairs of files giving similar checksum, compare them (optionally) and if equal remove one of them and make it a hard-link to the other.
It would surprise me if there was no free open-source script doing exactly this.
But what actual benefits
They're now allowed to, every hour, generate excessively loud noise for a couple of minutes. Just like the church in my street.
Most music does not come with its source either. And by source, you can think of music scores, the many different soundtracks that resulted, after mixing, in the final product, lyrics, etc. Similar arguments hold for movies and books. It may be better to tackle the problem in a more generic way, instead of focusing on software only.
Perhaps a 10" tablet with a 1" screen. Power consumption increases with screen size.
Java is much more high-level, because it integrates a garbage collector in the VM. This is what makes it a sluggish memory hog.
NaCl does not do that. It allows lean-and-mean code. It is basically like a lightweight version of VMWare/VirtualBox sitting in your browser.
The problem with HTML is that it actually does not work in every browser (reliably). The reason is that the standard is way too complex. The underlying reason is that it was designed for humans, not for compiler back-ends. Supporting a handful of machine instructions in a reliable and secure way is actually much simpler than supporting the enormous HTML (and javascript, css, etc.) standard.
So, in a way, W3C actually fundamentally fragmented the web when it introduced HTML.
Once NaCl gets sufficient momentum, I guess other vendors will, simply because it will allow them to access the content provided by the NaCl ecosystem.
ActiveX was not adopted because the technology was just inherently broken.
Native Client is a Chromium project, which means it is open-source, and other vendors can implement it as well.
Right? (IANAL)
But note, if Apple would allow Native Client in Safari, we would be able to run Flash on iOS after all :)
With your logic, any attempt at advancing the web can be seen as an attempt to fragment the web.
In light of the discussion here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/30/2159200/doctorow-the-coming-war-on-general-purpose-computing
Let me say: Finally, general purpose computing coming to the web!
Besides, if this trend continues, we can finally be relieved of the quirks of web-browsers and just send our applications as-is, without any compatibility problems, and continuous maintenance due to continuously changing browser specs. Apps will JUST WORK (tm). About time.
A space probe that takes 9 years to go from earth to Pluto would take over 100,000 years to get to even our closest neighbor, a mere 4.2 light years away.
Well, I see that as a relief. It means that we're safe for at least another 4.2 years from crashing into any other solar system.
Can we please stop drooling about office equipment.
What's the next hype? Printers with built-in book-binders? Talking paperclips that can also listen?
And, if only for environmental reasons, governments should force manufacturers and operators out of this business model.
Because if phones were "open", the community would develop its own software (OS) updates, and people would be far less inclined to buy new phones every couple of years.
There are more reasons to boycott apple. For example,
- DRM. Download music from iTunes, and you can only play it on a limited number of computers (try it and you'll find out). Plus, your name gets engraved into the downloaded files so that they or their partners from the music industry can trace a copyright infringement back to you. Apple is downright an extension of the music industry. (Steve Jobs even received a Grammy Trustees Award for his accomplishments for the recording industry, or RIAA).
- Locking hardware to software. Back in the 80s, IBM and Microsoft had a deal that turned out to be very sweet for consumers: software and hardware were no longer tied together. As a result, any manufacturer could make PCs, and the major operating system of that time (if you like it or not) could run on it regardless of the brand of the computer. It even allowed the development open-source operating systems, without jail-breaking. Apple is reversing this. If IBM followed the strategy that Apple is taking now, I bet that Linux would not have even been possible.
- Pushing of proprietary standards. Many apps developed today could just as well be developed using open standards, e.g., HTML and javascript. Instead of aiding the further development of these standards, they are sucking developer power into their own eco-system and make the apps, that would otherwise be available to everyone, only accessible to their own customer-base.
- Being the middle-man. Any content provided by external parties, be it software (apps), music, movies or magazines, gets an Apple tax. Even Microsoft wasn't that evil.
- Being secretive about developer revenues. Developing for iOS isn't as lucrative as Apple makes us believe it is. Only a very small portion of the developer-base makes a lot of money. Those are the ones we hear about in the news. The majority, however, has a hard time to recover their investments, or makes a loss.
And, if you google around, I'm sure you'll find many other reasons to dislike Apple.