when the CLI dies - never. Spotlight is a fantastic tool, just as Folders are a fantastic tool. They compliment each other. Lets liken them to firearms:
Spotlight is a shotgun - no training required, you'll hit anything thats close to where your aiming. Its up to the user to decide if there was an appropriate 'hit'.
Folders are like sniper rifles - years of training and disciplin required. One shot, one kill.
The Joe Public militia will always use shotguns above sniper rifles - but you'll rarely find a professional army of developers withouts its marksmen.
I'd really like to see cocoa apps run on other systems, preferably from a Universal binary. There is no question that it would shake the industry up a bit, and it will be interesting to see who comes out on top. I think it would benefit, linux and apple at the expense of Microsoft, but Microsoft would still be on top.
Linux is a fantastic platform, getting Cocoa apps for free, from Mac developers like Adobe and Apple could only benefit it, but Linux will remain in the hands of the geeks. It will take more than a common API to get Linux on track, but for geeks on a budget its a treat.
Windows, will still be windows. It will still be a malware, virus heaven - a common API will not stop that. But if major developers can target Windows and get mac and linux for free, using XCode to provide Universal Binaries thats a win for everyone but Microsoft (who no doubt will resist the urge to use Xcode for their Office Suite).
Apple will still be second best, because they provide a solution not an operating system. They cannot compete with Dell on price- and Joe Public checks the price before anything else.
What I'd really like to see is IBM and Sun enter the party. If they could build other UNIX operating systems based around Power / Sparc that could run Cocoa apps, that would be a really interesting market and keep Apple on their toes.
Keeping offtopic. How is your mileage with downloaded books? My experience, from a looooong time ago was that it was cheaper to buy the book if you were going to print it out.
Have you managed to find book reader that is useful?
I've always found that there is something about the paper interface, that is so much more accessable and useable than a screen when dealing with volumes of text. Probably the most important being that they don't take up any screen real estate, and can be carried with me, when I want to get away from the PC, but still stay 'on topic'.
Why would you continue to develop for DirectX when you can hit almost every single machine on the market with OpenGL/x86?
Doom 3 proves that you can make cutting edge graphics with OpenGL.
If Apple can throw together some already open APIs and call it OpenX, then let Ubuntoo, Gentoo and FreeBSD et al use it, writing for DirectX will look a lot less attractive.
It makes more sense to develop for Mac than ever. The market share is going up and they have a wonderful development environment that in addition to giving you free data handling, UML modelling and the best GUI builder on the planet, will now cross compile your application for whatever processor flavour Apple decides to use next with little more than a check box tick.
The only thing the platform is missing is choice. You've got to buy an Apple.
I've just looked at the ADC documentation. They'll be using "Universal Binaries" aka fat binaries. And it will be x86. There is an appendix giving example translations between Alitvec and MMX and another describing how to code for different endians.
I know x86 is faster atm, but I can't help feeling that this is an ideological step backwards.
Saying that, as long as I'm not forced to check the software box for a an x86 logo and my 2007 mac screams in terms of performance I'll be happy. I'm too old to care too much about what processor I'm using. All I care about is whether it just works.
Despite being on the forefront of the technology to drive video on the home pc (iDVD, iMovie, H.264) I can understand why Apple might consider full screen a pro extra. There shouldn't be any content. There is no legal way of ripping a DVD (DMCA was designed for this purpose) or downloading TV in the states, and the only downloadable PPV content is porn. At a push there are trailers, but traditionally they've been such low quality that fullscreen would have been a joke. So who buys the full screen QT7 upgrade?
Pros, pirates and perverts. (Wow I can alliterate - even if I can't speel (sic))
All three of these markets are fair game. Its low blow - and undoubtedly unpopulour. But outside of these markets, I expect you'll find few who actually 'need' the feature and would rather pocket the extra £20.
The opening paragraph ircked me. I really don't believe that when Steve Jobs was talking about there being no content that he was talking about paid content. Most people use computers to maintain a library of their digital photos and music. Both of those applications have obvious mobile markets too. People take albums (both music and photo) to other people houses and have carried photos in wallets, and music on tape etc for years. Digital libraries of music and photos existed long before MP3 players and iPod photo.
Most people do not use their computers to store their DVDs. There is simply no advantage. DivX and MP4 is a noticably lower quality, in most instances you have to watch the video at your computer, and even by modern storage standards they take up a significant percentage of your harddisk. Also, it is a truely time consuming task. A full rip, strip, and encode is not only technically challenging for Joe Sixpack it takes the best part of 24 hours (for h.264) per disk.
The upshot of this is that you and I may have video content on our harddrives, but most people just don't. Even if they did, how many people actually want to be seen using a video player in the street? We're already being told to hide our ear buds for fear of getting mugged, and its dangerous to walk/drive whilst concentrating on video content.
I'm not saying that there isn't a market. I'm just saying its tiny. By the time Joe Sixpack is really demanding this technology over portable DVD players, laptops will be small enough and cheap enough to make a mass product unnecessary.
Even if Apple start to sell movies / TV on ITMS, I still don't think that they will release a iVid or iPod Video as the market is big enough with desktop and laptops. I could see apple producing a small box that connects to a network and allows you to watch network content like the XBox with XBMC - hope fully with the same form factor as the Airport and a bluetooth remote control.
I can definately see you point on this. But the great thing about domains is that they can expand. There is already a well defined censorship system in place with videos. Why not have:
*.g.kids
*.pg.kids
*.pg13.kids
or probably better:
*.kids
*.junior
*.teen
Your point about the sky trip is valid, but only goes to prove my point. Parents must have the right to protect their children and raise them as they see fit. I don't believe that letting an 11 year old watch a PG movie is a bad idea, but if I was in charge of a another persons child, that just isn't may call. Isn't it better that they were allowed to watch a movie at all than, not watch anything?
If parents are scared by the thought of their children watching PG movies, imagine how they must feel about the internet. I would rather a child was exposed to a restricted internet at school, than no internet
I'm sad that I've come to this conclusion, but the fact is that children are rediculously vulnerable with regards media - look at the amount of sugar and toys TV has got them hooked on. You may know that your child is wise enough to use a full, uncensored internet, but many children arn't, and the more that can be done to empower parents, without restricting the freedom of speech of others the better.
Who would regulate such a system? ICANN would be the most obvious choice, but they seem to be a toothless tiger. There is scope for a private company to take control of these domains and recoup funds from domain name granting, a percentage from site advertising, and imposed fines. The question then, is who regulates that company? If its based in the states, the government could.
Q. Will we always have a desktop PC like the one on your desk? A. It will be a huge flat screen, so the viewing size will be dramatically larger than it is now. It will be your preferred device to leave things on and [will] have a pen to make marks on things. Your input will be a combination of keyboard, pen, mouse, and speech. But yes, at your desk you'll have that device. When you walk away from the desk you'll take a tablet-sized device with you.
I've got a 20" iMac G5. It has a pen tablet for graphics, crappy speech input, and I use a 12" PowerBook when I'm away from my desk. I keep everything on my G5 except my current working set of files which I synchronise (and in a way backup) via iDisk.
This interview was taken in 2001, so I guess the 3 years it took Apple to make the dream a reality is about right. Maybe it was Cupertino starting their photocopiers for a change... except you'll be pushed to find such an elegant solution on the WinTel platform.
or at least it should be. I know the web is supposed to be the land of the free but meta data like this helps everyone.
Porn is tricky. Whatever your views on it are, the fact is there is a large body of people who are offended by it. Making it easier for those people to avoid it must be good for everyone. The difficult bit is encouraging.com porn to move to.xxx. I'd suggest an amnistace and allow all exisitng.com who want to move, to move there for free not $60 for the next year or so.
I've always thought that a better alternative to help kids would be to have a.kids, which is heavily policed. We'ed still have the whole of the web to exercise as much free speech as we liked, but in this one little island there would be rules regarding the type of content that can be displayed, enforcable with high fines and domain name loss. You could then configure your firewall to only allow web content from those sites. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than these parental control programs.
I don't suppose we're in danger of anyone adhering to or creating standards for this anytime soon. I really like Apple's iChat 'solution' but it simply doesn't play well with others which makes it worthless (unless everyone you know owns a mac... which they inevitably don't). It was cool that iChat has adopted jabber and AIM, but it would be cooler if they'd open iChat completely especially as all they appear to do is decoded 3 streams and distribute 1 H.264 streams (I say all I have no idea how complex that should be).
A four way, hetrogeous video chat shouldn't be a pipedream with todays technology
As a foreigner, I genuinely don't mean this as a troll. I am actually interested in the answer. How do creationist christians explain the existance of fossil fuels?
where all men have been before (and bought the t-shirt).
Please, Mr. Berman. Please get this one right. I really, really miss loving Star Trek. Star Trek is not not just about emotionless women in tight clothes... it just helps.
My understanding of how a GNU licenced operating system works in this situation is a little hazy. But this is slashdot, so I'll just jump right in. Wouldn't a BSD licenced OS make more sense for a laptop vendor?
Not if the location and velocity of one ball affected the behaviour of the other.
Imagine a situation where the balls are on different tracks. One ball has to consistantly complete a simple circuit in a set time or faster. The other has to get from one end of the path to another. Everytime the ball falls of the path, the time needed to complete the circuit is reduced and a life is lost. If the time on the circuit isn't achieved, the path width is reduced in the maze and a life is lost. And thats just two balls.
I'm looking for a single player, simultaneous multiple entity game. The entities must have distinct roles as individuals and be able to perform specific team actions, whilst the player maintains individual control. I'm not talking about mouse control, where agents follow predefined behaviours, I want controller control, where if I drop concentration for a fraction of a second I loose control. Think monkeyball with 2+ balls, or a topdown/side scroller, isometric rpg
I've been playing games for over 20 years. I'm good, and the current set of games just don't stretch my abilities. At the moment all I seem to be doing, is:
performing complex regular expressions in response to visual stimuli (Tekken and FPS)
refining, in realtime my solution to a simple map (racing games)
solving complex maps and state puzzels (FPS)
Generating input in response to environmental change (the sims etc)
I can't be the only one looking a for a challenge. I'll admit the market must be smaller, but it doesn't have to be an eye candy fest, just fun and difficult.
I'm really excited by the Cell. I've seen a few posts so far, but they seem to be missing the point. This isn't about the move from single core to multicore, this is something quite different. I see it as the next logical step in this progression:
Integer Processors
Floating Point Processors
SIMD
Stream Processors
We're just adding a new basic functionality to the repertoire of genreal purpose CPUs. Its no more dual core than adding FPU, Altivec or BPU.
OK, not every program is going to benefit from having 8 DSPs in the core, just as most programs don't benefit from having 2 FPUs. But there will be core applications that take serious advantage, freeing up the integer unit for percieved performance enhancements.
I really hope OS X gets this. The Core APIs and Quartz Engine could be modified to take advantage, with end developers not even having to know or care.
I'm already paying ~£40 for a new game. $375 ph is a lot of money for what voice actors do (or anyone else for that matter). Here are a few places I can see the money being better spent:
Supporting Macs and Linux
Letting Devs take a break, those poor slaves at EA
Reducing the cost of games
Coming up with original franchises don't require voice actors
The Starwars universe is great. A clever mix of magic, politics, religion and technology. This is what makes sci fi great. You take a few physical laws, mix them up a bit and see what happens when you introduce humans into it.
This is George Lucas' legacy: a standardised universe, that captivates the imagination. He has woven a rich tapestry of worlds, cultures and characters but is a lousy story teller, particularly dialog.
Please Mr. Lucas, let the universe go. Spend the remainder of you professional life as an executive producer who lets others write and direct, whilst you approve and fund.
As a side note, I'd really like to see a script from Kevin Smith. Given a free reign (and a ban from using his friends as cast members)he could write the Starwars adventure we all think we remember.
I think we are coming to the same conclusion, but from different ends. We both want you to be able to generate money so that you can continue to generate art. What we don't want is corporation XYZ (or anybody else) from being able to make money off your art without your permision - that just isn't fair.
If people are selling prints of your work, then you are clearly entitled to a cut.
If a body decides to use your art to promote their product they should provide you with a fee - as they are profiting from your creativity through advertising. This is really the same as selling prints. Whether you decide to let them copy your work for a set fee or take royalties is entirely up to you (this is free market after all).
I don't necessarily feel that this should have a time limit on it, except for the life of the artist. If your 'estate' isn't creative why should they benefit from a law to protect the creative? Profits from creativity should go first to the artist. No artist, no fee. If people are satisfied with the art that is already in the public domain, then art is dead and we should all give up anyway.
Art is timeless, but its appreciation is a function of its popularity, which is volatile and can only be nurtured by marketing. If people are compelled to give away your art or copies of your art, for the sake of art, then only the artist can really benefit as it raises their profile, allowing them generate monies from commercial applications and original commisions.
In short, generating monies, whether directly, or indirectly from the creative works of another, without their prior concent should be illegal. Everything else is just advertising.
People didn't need to go to concerts to hear music, because they could hear it in the comfort of their own homes
That simply isn't true. People have never stopped going to performances. There is simply no comparison between a live performance and recorded one. If anything performances are getting bigger audiences than ever before because of the massive advertising that recorded performances represent. The performance arts that have 'suffered' because of 'piracy' are the intellectual arts, such as theatre, opera and galleries - because they arn't popular enough to be subject to viral marketing that copies represent.
The reason we gave up the right to copy works as a society was to increase the quantity and quality of creative works we'd have available to us as a society
This is true, but what I'd ask is did it work? Truely creative people don't need copyright to create great works of art, and many of our truely great artists died before they ever had a chance to profit from their works. The problem for a great artist is getting there art out there in the first place. Does a Van Gough or Da Vinci reduce in value everytime a print is made? Or does it just encourage more people to pay to see the original? The only thing that reduces in value is the copy.
I'll add a new point to my original post. Copyright is only of value where the product is the copy. If there is no original, then you need to protect the right of the creator for enough time that they can recoup the costs of making that product and a profit. The best examples I can think of are software, books and digital art. I almost included movies and TV, but TV is paid for by advertising and subscription, and movies sell the cinema experience - both of which I believe should be protected by law, if that law is copyright law, I can live with that.
Please don't assume that, like you, I can see the faults in the system, that I don't obey they system. I don't break laws ergo I don't steal copyrighted material. Insinuating that I do makes me look and feel bad.
Slashdot Mirror
when the CLI dies - never. Spotlight is a fantastic tool, just as Folders are a fantastic tool. They compliment each other. Lets liken them to firearms:
Spotlight is a shotgun - no training required, you'll hit anything thats close to where your aiming. Its up to the user to decide if there was an appropriate 'hit'.
Folders are like sniper rifles - years of training and disciplin required. One shot, one kill.
The Joe Public militia will always use shotguns above sniper rifles - but you'll rarely find a professional army of developers withouts its marksmen.
Step 1: Strap frickin' laser beams to sharks head
Step 2: Map the ocean
Step 3: ????
Step 4: PROFIT!!!
I'd really like to see cocoa apps run on other systems, preferably from a Universal binary. There is no question that it would shake the industry up a bit, and it will be interesting to see who comes out on top. I think it would benefit, linux and apple at the expense of Microsoft, but Microsoft would still be on top.
Linux is a fantastic platform, getting Cocoa apps for free, from Mac developers like Adobe and Apple could only benefit it, but Linux will remain in the hands of the geeks. It will take more than a common API to get Linux on track, but for geeks on a budget its a treat.
Windows, will still be windows. It will still be a malware, virus heaven - a common API will not stop that. But if major developers can target Windows and get mac and linux for free, using XCode to provide Universal Binaries thats a win for everyone but Microsoft (who no doubt will resist the urge to use Xcode for their Office Suite).
Apple will still be second best, because they provide a solution not an operating system. They cannot compete with Dell on price- and Joe Public checks the price before anything else.
What I'd really like to see is IBM and Sun enter the party. If they could build other UNIX operating systems based around Power / Sparc that could run Cocoa apps, that would be a really interesting market and keep Apple on their toes.
Keeping offtopic. How is your mileage with downloaded books? My experience, from a looooong time ago was that it was cheaper to buy the book if you were going to print it out. Have you managed to find book reader that is useful? I've always found that there is something about the paper interface, that is so much more accessable and useable than a screen when dealing with volumes of text. Probably the most important being that they don't take up any screen real estate, and can be carried with me, when I want to get away from the PC, but still stay 'on topic'.
Why would you continue to develop for DirectX when you can hit almost every single machine on the market with OpenGL/x86? Doom 3 proves that you can make cutting edge graphics with OpenGL. If Apple can throw together some already open APIs and call it OpenX, then let Ubuntoo, Gentoo and FreeBSD et al use it, writing for DirectX will look a lot less attractive.
It makes more sense to develop for Mac than ever. The market share is going up and they have a wonderful development environment that in addition to giving you free data handling, UML modelling and the best GUI builder on the planet, will now cross compile your application for whatever processor flavour Apple decides to use next with little more than a check box tick. The only thing the platform is missing is choice. You've got to buy an Apple.
I've just looked at the ADC documentation. They'll be using "Universal Binaries" aka fat binaries. And it will be x86. There is an appendix giving example translations between Alitvec and MMX and another describing how to code for different endians. I know x86 is faster atm, but I can't help feeling that this is an ideological step backwards. Saying that, as long as I'm not forced to check the software box for a an x86 logo and my 2007 mac screams in terms of performance I'll be happy. I'm too old to care too much about what processor I'm using. All I care about is whether it just works.
Despite being on the forefront of the technology to drive video on the home pc (iDVD, iMovie, H.264) I can understand why Apple might consider full screen a pro extra. There shouldn't be any content. There is no legal way of ripping a DVD (DMCA was designed for this purpose) or downloading TV in the states, and the only downloadable PPV content is porn. At a push there are trailers, but traditionally they've been such low quality that fullscreen would have been a joke. So who buys the full screen QT7 upgrade?
Pros, pirates and perverts. (Wow I can alliterate - even if I can't speel (sic))
All three of these markets are fair game. Its low blow - and undoubtedly unpopulour. But outside of these markets, I expect you'll find few who actually 'need' the feature and would rather pocket the extra £20.
The opening paragraph ircked me. I really don't believe that when Steve Jobs was talking about there being no content that he was talking about paid content. Most people use computers to maintain a library of their digital photos and music. Both of those applications have obvious mobile markets too. People take albums (both music and photo) to other people houses and have carried photos in wallets, and music on tape etc for years. Digital libraries of music and photos existed long before MP3 players and iPod photo.
Most people do not use their computers to store their DVDs. There is simply no advantage. DivX and MP4 is a noticably lower quality, in most instances you have to watch the video at your computer, and even by modern storage standards they take up a significant percentage of your harddisk. Also, it is a truely time consuming task. A full rip, strip, and encode is not only technically challenging for Joe Sixpack it takes the best part of 24 hours (for h.264) per disk.
The upshot of this is that you and I may have video content on our harddrives, but most people just don't. Even if they did, how many people actually want to be seen using a video player in the street? We're already being told to hide our ear buds for fear of getting mugged, and its dangerous to walk/drive whilst concentrating on video content.
I'm not saying that there isn't a market. I'm just saying its tiny. By the time Joe Sixpack is really demanding this technology over portable DVD players, laptops will be small enough and cheap enough to make a mass product unnecessary.
Even if Apple start to sell movies / TV on ITMS, I still don't think that they will release a iVid or iPod Video as the market is big enough with desktop and laptops. I could see apple producing a small box that connects to a network and allows you to watch network content like the XBox with XBMC - hope fully with the same form factor as the Airport and a bluetooth remote control.
- *.g.kids
- *.pg.kids
- *.pg13.kids
or probably better:- *.kids
- *.junior
- *.teen
Your point about the sky trip is valid, but only goes to prove my point. Parents must have the right to protect their children and raise them as they see fit. I don't believe that letting an 11 year old watch a PG movie is a bad idea, but if I was in charge of a another persons child, that just isn't may call. Isn't it better that they were allowed to watch a movie at all than, not watch anything?If parents are scared by the thought of their children watching PG movies, imagine how they must feel about the internet. I would rather a child was exposed to a restricted internet at school, than no internet
I'm sad that I've come to this conclusion, but the fact is that children are rediculously vulnerable with regards media - look at the amount of sugar and toys TV has got them hooked on. You may know that your child is wise enough to use a full, uncensored internet, but many children arn't, and the more that can be done to empower parents, without restricting the freedom of speech of others the better.
Who would regulate such a system? ICANN would be the most obvious choice, but they seem to be a toothless tiger. There is scope for a private company to take control of these domains and recoup funds from domain name granting, a percentage from site advertising, and imposed fines. The question then, is who regulates that company? If its based in the states, the government could.
From you're usnews link:
Q. Will we always have a desktop PC like the one on your desk?
A. It will be a huge flat screen, so the viewing size will be dramatically larger than it is now. It will be your preferred device to leave things on and [will] have a pen to make marks on things. Your input will be a combination of keyboard, pen, mouse, and speech. But yes, at your desk you'll have that device. When you walk away from the desk you'll take a tablet-sized device with you.
I've got a 20" iMac G5. It has a pen tablet for graphics, crappy speech input, and I use a 12" PowerBook when I'm away from my desk. I keep everything on my G5 except my current working set of files which I synchronise (and in a way backup) via iDisk.
This interview was taken in 2001, so I guess the 3 years it took Apple to make the dream a reality is about right. Maybe it was Cupertino starting their photocopiers for a change... except you'll be pushed to find such an elegant solution on the WinTel platform.
or at least it should be. I know the web is supposed to be the land of the free but meta data like this helps everyone.
.com porn to move to .xxx. I'd suggest an amnistace and allow all exisitng .com who want to move, to move there for free not $60 for the next year or so.
.kids, which is heavily policed. We'ed still have the whole of the web to exercise as much free speech as we liked, but in this one little island there would be rules regarding the type of content that can be displayed, enforcable with high fines and domain name loss. You could then configure your firewall to only allow web content from those sites. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than these parental control programs.
Porn is tricky. Whatever your views on it are, the fact is there is a large body of people who are offended by it. Making it easier for those people to avoid it must be good for everyone. The difficult bit is encouraging
I've always thought that a better alternative to help kids would be to have a
Yes you can... but as someone who's tried it, it just isn't the same, in fact its rubbish.
A four way, hetrogeous video chat shouldn't be a pipedream with todays technology
As a foreigner, I genuinely don't mean this as a troll. I am actually interested in the answer. How do creationist christians explain the existance of fossil fuels?
where all men have been before (and bought the t-shirt).
Please, Mr. Berman. Please get this one right. I really, really miss loving Star Trek. Star Trek is not not just about emotionless women in tight clothes... it just helps.
My understanding of how a GNU licenced operating system works in this situation is a little hazy. But this is slashdot, so I'll just jump right in. Wouldn't a BSD licenced OS make more sense for a laptop vendor?
Not if the location and velocity of one ball affected the behaviour of the other.
Imagine a situation where the balls are on different tracks. One ball has to consistantly complete a simple circuit in a set time or faster. The other has to get from one end of the path to another. Everytime the ball falls of the path, the time needed to complete the circuit is reduced and a life is lost. If the time on the circuit isn't achieved, the path width is reduced in the maze and a life is lost. And thats just two balls.I'm looking for a single player, simultaneous multiple entity game. The entities must have distinct roles as individuals and be able to perform specific team actions, whilst the player maintains individual control. I'm not talking about mouse control, where agents follow predefined behaviours, I want controller control, where if I drop concentration for a fraction of a second I loose control. Think monkeyball with 2+ balls, or a topdown/side scroller, isometric rpg
I've been playing games for over 20 years. I'm good, and the current set of games just don't stretch my abilities. At the moment all I seem to be doing, is:
I can't be the only one looking a for a challenge. I'll admit the market must be smaller, but it doesn't have to be an eye candy fest, just fun and difficult.
In a rare interview Eriogonom truncatum states "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
I'm really excited by the Cell. I've seen a few posts so far, but they seem to be missing the point. This isn't about the move from single core to multicore, this is something quite different. I see it as the next logical step in this progression:
We're just adding a new basic functionality to the repertoire of genreal purpose CPUs. Its no more dual core than adding FPU, Altivec or BPU.
OK, not every program is going to benefit from having 8 DSPs in the core, just as most programs don't benefit from having 2 FPUs. But there will be core applications that take serious advantage, freeing up the integer unit for percieved performance enhancements.
I really hope OS X gets this. The Core APIs and Quartz Engine could be modified to take advantage, with end developers not even having to know or care.
The Starwars universe is great. A clever mix of magic, politics, religion and technology. This is what makes sci fi great. You take a few physical laws, mix them up a bit and see what happens when you introduce humans into it.
This is George Lucas' legacy: a standardised universe, that captivates the imagination. He has woven a rich tapestry of worlds, cultures and characters but is a lousy story teller, particularly dialog.
Please Mr. Lucas, let the universe go. Spend the remainder of you professional life as an executive producer who lets others write and direct, whilst you approve and fund.
As a side note, I'd really like to see a script from Kevin Smith. Given a free reign (and a ban from using his friends as cast members)he could write the Starwars adventure we all think we remember.
I think we are coming to the same conclusion, but from different ends. We both want you to be able to generate money so that you can continue to generate art. What we don't want is corporation XYZ (or anybody else) from being able to make money off your art without your permision - that just isn't fair.
If people are selling prints of your work, then you are clearly entitled to a cut.
If a body decides to use your art to promote their product they should provide you with a fee - as they are profiting from your creativity through advertising. This is really the same as selling prints. Whether you decide to let them copy your work for a set fee or take royalties is entirely up to you (this is free market after all).
I don't necessarily feel that this should have a time limit on it, except for the life of the artist. If your 'estate' isn't creative why should they benefit from a law to protect the creative? Profits from creativity should go first to the artist. No artist, no fee. If people are satisfied with the art that is already in the public domain, then art is dead and we should all give up anyway.
Art is timeless, but its appreciation is a function of its popularity, which is volatile and can only be nurtured by marketing. If people are compelled to give away your art or copies of your art, for the sake of art, then only the artist can really benefit as it raises their profile, allowing them generate monies from commercial applications and original commisions.
In short, generating monies, whether directly, or indirectly from the creative works of another, without their prior concent should be illegal. Everything else is just advertising.
In the spirit of healthy debate, I'll retort
That simply isn't true. People have never stopped going to performances. There is simply no comparison between a live performance and recorded one. If anything performances are getting bigger audiences than ever before because of the massive advertising that recorded performances represent. The performance arts that have 'suffered' because of 'piracy' are the intellectual arts, such as theatre, opera and galleries - because they arn't popular enough to be subject to viral marketing that copies represent.
This is true, but what I'd ask is did it work? Truely creative people don't need copyright to create great works of art, and many of our truely great artists died before they ever had a chance to profit from their works. The problem for a great artist is getting there art out there in the first place. Does a Van Gough or Da Vinci reduce in value everytime a print is made? Or does it just encourage more people to pay to see the original? The only thing that reduces in value is the copy.
I'll add a new point to my original post. Copyright is only of value where the product is the copy. If there is no original, then you need to protect the right of the creator for enough time that they can recoup the costs of making that product and a profit. The best examples I can think of are software, books and digital art. I almost included movies and TV, but TV is paid for by advertising and subscription, and movies sell the cinema experience - both of which I believe should be protected by law, if that law is copyright law, I can live with that.
Please don't assume that, like you, I can see the faults in the system, that I don't obey they system. I don't break laws ergo I don't steal copyrighted material. Insinuating that I do makes me look and feel bad.