I'd like to hear about a business model whereby the artists produce the music and put it out on the Internet for free. Where is the "business" here?
Patronage. Mass patronage.
Where anybody who would like the artist to produce another creation (album/song/book/poem/architectural design/movie/etc) for whatever reason can put money into a group escrow account. When the escrow account balance reaches the creator's asking price, the money is pocketed and the artist puts the work out on the internet for free.
As for how the artist gets started? Gives it away for free, just like they do today. The only difference is that instead of giving away their first four albums to the MAFIAA for free, they give one (or more if the first one sucks too much to generate an audience) directly to the public.
"That crazy amendment brought material that was in the public domain back into copyright!"
Now that is what I call stealing.
Hell, just extending the term of copyright is blatant theft from the public domain. The works were created under the terms of the social contract that existed at the time. The creators agreed to the terms, the public agreed to the terms when it paid the creators and their distributors. Then the lawyers yanked the rug out from underneath us, kept the money and kept the creations.
Maybe Microsoft realizes that there is some big business potential playing nicely with Apache?
Apache is one of the most powerful enablers of unix, particularly linux, systems in commercial environments. Seems to me that they want to make Apache even more attractive when run on windows, thus undercutting one of the prime footholds of linux. If they are able to co-opt some of the linux marketshare by providing the same exact functionality that's a net win for MS. Better a piece of the pie than an empty plate.
Stupidly bad software patents are there in the U.S. because of our friend IBM, who brought the lawsuit against the government forcing them to allow software to be patented in the 80's.
You forgot to mention that MS hired the guy who essentially built IBM's patent licensing division from scratch -- Marshall Phelps. Presumably to do for MS what he did for IBM.
You also have to worry that he was involved but that he had co-conspirators and his suicide may prevent the investigation from getting to them.
When I read the news reports earlier today, the first thing I thought of was Costas Tsalikidis's apparent suicide in the Greek cell phone tapping scandal that happened during the previous olympics. If you haven't read the story you should, its real james bond kinda stuff.
I'm not quite clear on how that's an effective threat...
You will not survive multiple headshots. You might survive a codeine overdose.
Furthermore, he only needs to take enough codeine pills to become quiescent and leave a little evidence in his stomach, they could have injected the rest in some non-obvious location like a mole, or if the guy was diabetic (dunno if he was) a previous insulin injection location.
So I guess you have to either find a way to permanently incarcerate people without any contact with others - so they can harm no one - or, you have to decide that society does not have the right to protect people from such danger.
Ain't that black and white. For one thing, plenty of non-sociopaths hurt other people in prison despite incentives to the contrary. For another, its only necessary to reduce contact to a reasonable level of safety, not eliminate it - for example, you've got more chance of being killed in a car accident than by a sociopath on the other side of 3 inches of plexiglass.
Dahmer's not such a great example either as he did not kill anyone while in prison.
I'm guessing you conveniently ignored the rest of your parent's post, the part about how the death penalty is no good? If you are concerned about those wrongly convicted, wouldn't it be worse to slay them then to have them alive?
Apparently so did all the mods, as post the OP's at 3 and the idiot who completely missed the OP's point is at 5. WTF?
But why would icc make AMD better than "no name" beats me.
Because Intel claimed the behavior of icc was a bug and they 'fixed' it - but apparently not the right way. They had been treating AMD as 'unknown' they fixed it by recognizing AMD cpus (instead of independently recognizing a cpu's full ISA) and using something at least partially optimized for AMD cpus when they do. But they still have the default 'unknown cpu' code path and that's probably what the nano gets by default.
I was wondering if there is some way we can get code audited by the community on a more formal basis, perhaps with a bounty system and a reputation system,
I don't think a reputation system is necessary. Just bug bounties. A good-quality auditor will find more bugs than a poor-quality auditor and thus will get paid more, thus the system automagically rewards more competent people.
You might say, "what if the code has no bugs?" I don't think that's possible for anything more than trivial size. But you certainly can get close to no bugs so you have to change the incentives. I would increase the per bug bounties as the rate of bugs found decreases. If you get to the point where only one bug is found per year, but that bug is worth $100K to the finder you will still get a lot of people looking for those rare bugs.
Ok then, point me to an open source benchmarking program that's as complete, and I'll use it.
I think that all of the SPEC suites are open source - they have to be because each vendor gets to tweak compiler settings in order to show both baseline (non-tweaked) and best possible (tweaked) performance. That may not be true for some of the newer suites like those which measure database performance on the hardware, although I think that even in those the choice of the database is up to the hardware vendor so they could use an open-source database if they wanted to. My personal experience is limited to the SpecFP and SpecInt suites.
The names aren't usually codified, but occasionally they are. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. ch. 4,
Ok, but from my way of looking at it, they realized they made a mistake by including the name so they completely nullified the entire chapter 7 years later just to fix that error.:)
Even if the names themselves weren't codified, some statutes refer to legislation by name.
Well, that's cheating. The reference to the ECPA does not come from the ECPA itself, it came from another bill passed almost ten years later in 1996. The ECPA did not include its own name in the statutes.
Even if neither of those were true, however, the name of the legislation is often used by the judiciary to determine what Congress's intent was. See, e.g., Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008) available at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-1101_021.pdf (resolving an ambiguity in the Communications Decency Act based on the name of the legislation).
As we all know, that's just dumb given how frequently the names of bills are just political cover for changing the law to do the exact opposite, and in this case I think the court erred. But hell, reading that decision is weird. They sure seemed to rule the opposite of the way they were talking about the good samaritan clause.
Ah yes, anecdotal evidence. Where would any standard slashdot piracy discussion be without anecdotal evidence?
Bullshit. #1 on the top 40 is the fucking penultimate of "anecdotal evidence" you are the one who made the comment about 10,000,000 downloads. Do you even have one documented anecdote of 10,000,000 downloads hurting business?
No, all you've got is hand-waving about "well understood principles." Would you be happier if I cited the Stanford Law paper that basically says the same thing? Or how about all the other anecdotes like Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, etc?
Your worldview is by far overly simplistic and the best you can do when faced with countering evidence is hide behind ignorance.
Seriously, what's the obsession with rediculous names for laws?
I was thinking about this recently after another story roused me into digging up the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act.
Turns out that while the contents of the bill end up integrated into the USC the title of the bill does not. So, at a minimum, congress can apparently use any stupid ass name they want without risking it becoming part of the official law. (That doesn't stop it from being documented in historical records of congress in the archives though, but only historians care about that.)
If you don't know enough basic economics to realize that the cost of 10,000,000 people downloading a song on P2P doesn't have real costs to the producer in the form of decreased demand for their products, then you are, quite simply, undereducated in this matter.
Funny that. My niece is in a music video that is just about to hit 10,000,000 downloads from youtube alone, nevermind the artist's own website where it has been on full-screen auto-play on the home page itself. The song is also currently #1 on the top 40, top 100 and highly ranked on a couple of other billboard charts for both airplay and sales. By your logic that can't be because all those downloads must be reducing demand.
The fact is that freeloaders have both positive and negative economic consequences and it is far from decided just how they impact the economic opportunity of distributors much less creators. To ignore the actual effects on the aggregate in favor of simplistic models about 'well understood basic principles of life' is to argue from ignorance.
Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling
on
UK P2P Fight Brewing
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Please. These are no "wild shots in the dark". If they were, they wouldn't work and wouldn't hold up in courts. As we've seen from cases in the USA and elsewhere, this is done algorithmically first by analyzing the shape of traffic to see that it is indeed p2p (by which ports it uses,etc) and then it uses a hash lookup table to identify known infringing files.
You need to pay closer to attention to the court documents that NewYorkCountryLawyer has excerpted here and on his blog. Your description of how the MAFIAA goes about suing people is FAR from accurate. For one, they do not use any traffic analysis - they just connect to bittorrent trackers like thepiratebay and/or user's own machines running limewire, etc. And two, they don't use file hashes, they just use keywords in filenames without even downloading the file themselves to check content. Yeah, I didn't believe it either until he posted some 'expert' testimony by one of the MAFIAA's 'expert' witnesses describing the process they use about a year ago.
The only reason their shenanigans have held up in court is that the relatively few people who have actually taken the gambit (the choice they offer is pay ~$2K now or they will take you to court for at least $10K and most people take the $2K fine rather than spend more than $2K on a lawyer and risk losing) have not had enough money or connections to bring in real experts to decimate the MAFIAA's piss-poor evidence collection.
If i don't, I have a mechanism to change this, which is to elect people who will change laws in ways that are amenable to me.
Its actually a minority at roughly 20% of the current prison population. Other broad categories are similarly sized - like violent offenders, property crimes, sex crimes, etc.
As a society, probably because we hate and fear law enforcement, we don't pay cops very well.
In the state of Massachusetts - the one always stereotyped as being full of liberals - cops can easily make a lot of money because state law says that any road construction requires actual police officers to direct traffic and what-not. Every once in a while a tv station does a report on how much money is wasted by this policy (which does not exist in any other state, afaik) the officers that work construction regularly do it on overtime thus multiplying their normal rate, the effect being that most who work construction routinely make over $100K per year.
Meanwhile cops in Mass have just as poor a reputation in Mass as anywhere else - and they really seem to love to put those "thin blue line" tags on their personal vehicles too.
Slashdot Mirror
That was your buddha moment.
I'd like to hear about a business model whereby the artists produce the music and put it out on the Internet for free. Where is the "business" here?
Patronage. Mass patronage.
Where anybody who would like the artist to produce another creation (album/song/book/poem/architectural design/movie/etc) for whatever reason can put money into a group escrow account. When the escrow account balance reaches the creator's asking price, the money is pocketed and the artist puts the work out on the internet for free.
As for how the artist gets started? Gives it away for free, just like they do today. The only difference is that instead of giving away their first four albums to the MAFIAA for free, they give one (or more if the first one sucks too much to generate an audience) directly to the public.
"That crazy amendment brought material that was in the public domain back into copyright!"
Now that is what I call stealing.
Hell, just extending the term of copyright is blatant theft from the public domain. The works were created under the terms of the social contract that existed at the time. The creators agreed to the terms, the public agreed to the terms when it paid the creators and their distributors. Then the lawyers yanked the rug out from underneath us, kept the money and kept the creations.
Maybe Microsoft realizes that there is some big business potential playing nicely with Apache?
Apache is one of the most powerful enablers of unix, particularly linux, systems in commercial environments. Seems to me that they want to make Apache even more attractive when run on windows, thus undercutting one of the prime footholds of linux. If they are able to co-opt some of the linux marketshare by providing the same exact functionality that's a net win for MS. Better a piece of the pie than an empty plate.
Stupidly bad software patents are there in the U.S. because of our friend IBM, who brought the lawsuit against the government forcing them to allow software to be patented in the 80's.
You forgot to mention that MS hired the guy who essentially built IBM's patent licensing division from scratch -- Marshall Phelps. Presumably to do for MS what he did for IBM.
You also have to worry that he was involved but that he had co-conspirators and his suicide may prevent the investigation from getting to them.
When I read the news reports earlier today, the first thing I thought of was Costas Tsalikidis's apparent suicide in the Greek cell phone tapping scandal that happened during the previous olympics. If you haven't read the story you should, its real james bond kinda stuff.
I'm not quite clear on how that's an effective threat...
You will not survive multiple headshots. You might survive a codeine overdose.
Furthermore, he only needs to take enough codeine pills to become quiescent and leave a little evidence in his stomach, they could have injected the rest in some non-obvious location like a mole, or if the guy was diabetic (dunno if he was) a previous insulin injection location.
So I guess you have to either find a way to permanently incarcerate people without any contact with others - so they can harm no one - or, you have to decide that society does not have the right to protect people from such danger.
Ain't that black and white. For one thing, plenty of non-sociopaths hurt other people in prison despite incentives to the contrary. For another, its only necessary to reduce contact to a reasonable level of safety, not eliminate it - for example, you've got more chance of being killed in a car accident than by a sociopath on the other side of 3 inches of plexiglass.
Dahmer's not such a great example either as he did not kill anyone while in prison.
I'm guessing you conveniently ignored the rest of your parent's post, the part about how the death penalty is no good? If you are concerned about those wrongly convicted, wouldn't it be worse to slay them then to have them alive?
Apparently so did all the mods, as post the OP's at 3 and the idiot who completely missed the OP's point is at 5. WTF?
Yes, I remember that...
But why would icc make AMD better than "no name" beats me.
Because Intel claimed the behavior of icc was a bug and they 'fixed' it - but apparently not the right way. They had been treating AMD as 'unknown' they fixed it by recognizing AMD cpus (instead of independently recognizing a cpu's full ISA) and using something at least partially optimized for AMD cpus when they do. But they still have the default 'unknown cpu' code path and that's probably what the nano gets by default.
I was wondering if there is some way we can get code audited by the community on a more formal basis, perhaps with a bounty system and a reputation system,
I don't think a reputation system is necessary. Just bug bounties. A good-quality auditor will find more bugs than a poor-quality auditor and thus will get paid more, thus the system automagically rewards more competent people.
You might say, "what if the code has no bugs?" I don't think that's possible for anything more than trivial size. But you certainly can get close to no bugs so you have to change the incentives. I would increase the per bug bounties as the rate of bugs found decreases. If you get to the point where only one bug is found per year, but that bug is worth $100K to the finder you will still get a lot of people looking for those rare bugs.
Ok then, point me to an open source benchmarking program that's as complete, and I'll use it.
I think that all of the SPEC suites are open source - they have to be because each vendor gets to tweak compiler settings in order to show both baseline (non-tweaked) and best possible (tweaked) performance. That may not be true for some of the newer suites like those which measure database performance on the hardware, although I think that even in those the choice of the database is up to the hardware vendor so they could use an open-source database if they wanted to. My personal experience is limited to the SpecFP and SpecInt suites.
The names aren't usually codified, but occasionally they are. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. ch. 4,
Ok, but from my way of looking at it, they realized they made a mistake by including the name so they completely nullified the entire chapter 7 years later just to fix that error. :)
Even if the names themselves weren't codified, some statutes refer to legislation by name.
Well, that's cheating. The reference to the ECPA does not come from the ECPA itself, it came from another bill passed almost ten years later in 1996. The ECPA did not include its own name in the statutes.
Even if neither of those were true, however, the name of the legislation is often used by the judiciary to determine what Congress's intent was. See, e.g., Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008) available at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-1101_021.pdf (resolving an ambiguity in the Communications Decency Act based on the name of the legislation).
As we all know, that's just dumb given how frequently the names of bills are just political cover for changing the law to do the exact opposite, and in this case I think the court erred. But hell, reading that decision is weird. They sure seemed to rule the opposite of the way they were talking about the good samaritan clause.
If you get your opinions from the anti-copyright maniac NYCL
So, are you saying he lied about the MAFIAA's court testimony?
you sue the phrase MAFIAA without irony,
I would like to sue them, no doubt. But I'm afraid I don't have any standing.
What's trolling about pointing out that once something has been digitised, it's free?
You are supposed to write it as gnu/free. That's why.
Seems it would be quicker to log in than to type all of that.
Unless he can't remember his password because his home browser has it memorized and he's not reading slashdot from home.
Ah yes, anecdotal evidence. Where would any standard slashdot piracy discussion be without anecdotal evidence?
Bullshit. #1 on the top 40 is the fucking penultimate of "anecdotal evidence" you are the one who made the comment about 10,000,000 downloads. Do you even have one documented anecdote of 10,000,000 downloads hurting business?
No, all you've got is hand-waving about "well understood principles." Would you be happier if I cited the Stanford Law paper that basically says the same thing? Or how about all the other anecdotes like Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, etc?
Your worldview is by far overly simplistic and the best you can do when faced with countering evidence is hide behind ignorance.
Seriously, what's the obsession with rediculous names for laws?
I was thinking about this recently after another story roused me into digging up the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act.
Turns out that while the contents of the bill end up integrated into the USC the title of the bill does not. So, at a minimum, congress can apparently use any stupid ass name they want without risking it becoming part of the official law. (That doesn't stop it from being documented in historical records of congress in the archives though, but only historians care about that.)
If you don't know enough basic economics to realize that the cost of 10,000,000 people downloading a song on P2P doesn't have real costs to the producer in the form of decreased demand for their products, then you are, quite simply, undereducated in this matter.
Funny that. My niece is in a music video that is just about to hit 10,000,000 downloads from youtube alone, nevermind the artist's own website where it has been on full-screen auto-play on the home page itself. The song is also currently #1 on the top 40, top 100 and highly ranked on a couple of other billboard charts for both airplay and sales. By your logic that can't be because all those downloads must be reducing demand.
The fact is that freeloaders have both positive and negative economic consequences and it is far from decided just how they impact the economic opportunity of distributors much less creators. To ignore the actual effects on the aggregate in favor of simplistic models about 'well understood basic principles of life' is to argue from ignorance.
Please. These are no "wild shots in the dark". If they were, they wouldn't work and wouldn't hold up in courts. As we've seen from cases in the USA and elsewhere, this is done algorithmically first by analyzing the shape of traffic to see that it is indeed p2p (by which ports it uses,etc) and then it uses a hash lookup table to identify known infringing files.
You need to pay closer to attention to the court documents that NewYorkCountryLawyer has excerpted here and on his blog. Your description of how the MAFIAA goes about suing people is FAR from accurate. For one, they do not use any traffic analysis - they just connect to bittorrent trackers like thepiratebay and/or user's own machines running limewire, etc. And two, they don't use file hashes, they just use keywords in filenames without even downloading the file themselves to check content. Yeah, I didn't believe it either until he posted some 'expert' testimony by one of the MAFIAA's 'expert' witnesses describing the process they use about a year ago.
The only reason their shenanigans have held up in court is that the relatively few people who have actually taken the gambit (the choice they offer is pay ~$2K now or they will take you to court for at least $10K and most people take the $2K fine rather than spend more than $2K on a lawyer and risk losing) have not had enough money or connections to bring in real experts to decimate the MAFIAA's piss-poor evidence collection.
If i don't, I have a mechanism to change this, which is to elect people who will change laws in ways that are amenable to me.
You must be awfully rich to be able to afford that kind of influence, the MAFIAA has contributed over 26 million dollars to politicians so far this year.
As long as you are mistaking "to" for "too", you ought not be complaining about the spelling in other posts.
As long as you think vagoogoo is a simple mispelling you ought not to be posting in the first place.
prying the little rugrat out of her dilated vagoogoo.
(My apologies to my as-yet-unconceived (I hope) second child).
As long as you are calling it a 'vagoogoo' you are to young to have a first child, never mind a second.
it's definately a crime to think some kid could die in iraq without ever having had a beer.
It is? Then, I suggest you practice civil disobedience and think about it, think about it a lot.
Its actually a minority at roughly 20% of the current prison population. Other broad categories are similarly sized - like violent offenders, property crimes, sex crimes, etc.
As a society, probably because we hate and fear law enforcement, we don't pay cops very well.
In the state of Massachusetts - the one always stereotyped as being full of liberals - cops can easily make a lot of money because state law says that any road construction requires actual police officers to direct traffic and what-not. Every once in a while a tv station does a report on how much money is wasted by this policy (which does not exist in any other state, afaik) the officers that work construction regularly do it on overtime thus multiplying their normal rate, the effect being that most who work construction routinely make over $100K per year.
Meanwhile cops in Mass have just as poor a reputation in Mass as anywhere else - and they really seem to love to put those "thin blue line" tags on their personal vehicles too.