I don't know much about patent law, but can't the courts force a patent holder to license something if the patent holder, by not licensing it, is harming the growth of a market or otherwise stifling progress? I recall a judge in one of the DVD flaps at some point saying something about forcing the DVD-CCA to grant licenses so competeing players can be built. I thought limiting licenses or charging outrageous licenese fees was illegal? Yes? No?
If you don't raise a stink, then there is no difference between you or the other sysadmin. It does not matter whether you only censor 5% of the sites and he censors 95%. The public never hears about it and censorship becomes just a little more acceptable.
On another note, what is the point of giving people access to the most powerful information retrieval system in the world, when you don't plan on letting them access whatever they want? If the potential for abuse bothers you, then give them arcade machines, magazines, and books. Then you can exercise control over the information and not have to fear the kiddies seeing a bit of skin.
The internet is the ultimate test of American hypocrisy. We've been preaching free speech for over 200 years, but now that we finally have it, I mean *really* have it, we run scared for the hills. So what is it America, does free speech matter? Or is it just a nice platitude that helps us feel superior all the other nations of the world (many of which don't seem to share our fear of *true* freedom of expression).
This is MORE important than civil rights, in the sense that it affects far more people. This isn't about nekkid pictures in the laundromat. It's about the *attitude* people take toward the free expression of ideas, one of the cornerstones upon which this country is based. Once the notion that it is OK to restrict access to information to certain people becomes aceptable, we are doomed. I want to live in a world in which any and all information is freely available to all who want it. It is up to me to ensure that my children are instilled with the values required to make good decisions and to use the information available to them wisely. Not governments, not schools, and definatley NOT LAUNDROMATS!
On the gripping hand, quitting your job and publicaly stating your reasons can often do far more to change attitudes than simply quietly working within the system. By quietly working to reduce the amount of censorship, you are still censoring. You are not making a stand against it, nor are you doing anything that will likely bring attention to the issue. All the while the crusders for the moral right will advance their agendas further and further. Social change usually doesn't happen by people quietly sriving against the system. It works by publically and willingly getting your butt kicked in the name of the cause. It ain't easy, and it ain't fun. But you have to ask yourself which is more important; you're comfy life, or the betterment of your Fellow Man? In some instances it may be teh former, but sometimes it will be the latter. The final decision is up to the individual. We already know which side of the fence the corporate oligopoly has decided upon.
Don't you think the parents have a right to decide what their children get to see or not? If parents don't want their kids to look at the stuff they will either teach them the appropriate values, or they will not let their kids into the place. It's not anyone elses reponsibility to see to the moral upbringing of my children.
What you do is stick to your ideals. It may be inconvenient. It may result in losing a job. But if it is something you feel strongly about, you must not surrender your conscience. It is especially hard if your ideals are significantly different than those of mainstream society. But where would we be if Martin Luther King had reached a "compromise" with Jim Crow legislation? What if Nelson Mandela decided to change his position in order to avoid the inconvenience of prison? The fact is, the actions you take are important, no matter how unimportant you may feel as an individual. It is only through many small individual acts that large-scale change will happen. As Camus wrote "it is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees."
I suspect that if we had replicator technology, we would probably also have the capability to build robots to take care of the drudgery. There wouldn't be any 7-11s, because what need is there of a convenience store when you can have your replicator create anything you need? The whole notion of "commerce" would lose all meaning. All that's left is the free exchange of ideas, and there would be no incentive to hoard those, since all of your needs would be provided for.
"If you don't believe me, then when you go to sell your house give me a call. I bet you change your mind real quick about who sets the price."
I suggest you try selling a home and see just how little control you have over the price:)
Sure I can set the price of my house at any arbitrary value I choose. However, if no one buys it, I have no choice but to lower the price or take it off the market. The price is dictated by what the buyer is willing to pay. If they don't want to pay my price, they can buy from someone who is selling at a cheaper price. The only way I can dictate the price is to collude with my fellow home sellers and fix the prices of all homes being sold at some arbitrary value, thereby giving the consumer no other option but to pay the price I've set. This happens to be highly illegal.
So don't share. Who cares? The point is, it's your choice. For every person who chooses not to share, there will probably be 1000 who will. It doesn't really matter, since the continued prosperity of all doesn't depend on people doing anything at all. Share, or don't. I'm certain that many people will come together explicitly for the purpose of advancing knowledge and sharing in a community.
Or maybe, if there are no more living expenses, people will create art simply because they want to. If one or two people enjoy it, wouldn't that be enough?
"Fine, look at the music as a service then. The artists have recorded it as a service. You are free to pay for it or not. Your choice."
It's only a service when they are actually performing the service. A recording is just an imperfect facsimile of the performance.
"There's a difference between what someone says they think it's worth and what it's actually worth."
No, there isn't. Something is worth ONLY what someone else is willing to pay for it. There is no such thing as inherent value apart from the consumer. It soesn't matter at all what it cost you to produce it, since if no one is willing to pay what you are asking, it isn't worth anything, and in fact reepresents a net loss.
"you have a whole bunch of other people who think the music is worth what they charge for it and are willing to pay that."
And those are the people who will keep music alive. As long as people perceive something to have worth, they will pay for it according to they value they perceive. So what if the kiddies keep downloading for free? The music they like will likely start to disappear if the don't pay something for it. If that happens, they won't have any more music, or they will start paying enough to support the artists. Again, they probably won't pay enough to make anyone rich, and that's a good thing. Also, instead of being able to make a couple of albums and live off the royalties, the artists might just have to settle down and start making a lot of music, since the amount of money they will be able to make on any one song will likely be limited. Again, this is a good thing. The original idea behind copyrigjt was to give the author a limited period of time in which to make money, thereby encouraging them to come up with more ideas. Look back to the artists in the past. They would churn out huge quantities of music. The concept of a one hit wonder didn't exist.
"Your entire argument boils down to saying that the fact that because stealing music is so easy relative to paying for it that a significant people choose to steal it means prices are inflated"
Once again, no. My argument is that prices are inflated way over what the music is actually worth. That is why the industry is facing this lawsuit. Recorded music is probably worth something, and we will probably find out what it is actually worth when it becomes possible to obtain music and pay the artist what you believe it is worth in an efficient, easy manner.
"Your argument basically boils down to I get stuff for free over here, so why don't I get everything for free?"
No, my argument is that outrageous CD prices and the whole notion of copyright, as it currently exists, is an artificial and non-intuitive construct. The natural idea is that ideas should be free, since by copying them I have taken nothing from you. You still have the idea in a complete and undiminished form. What is worth paying for are the *services* and *items* that add value to the idea. It is not logical that the author of an idea should get anything other than what people feel that idea is worth. If they think your music should be free, then you are entitled to nothing. If that causes you to stop making music, fine. There will be plenty of others who will fill your shoes. Either that, or fewer and fewer people will produce music. But if people really want to hear music, they will probably start paying artists they like in order to ensure they keep making music. Artists probably won't be able to make bazillions of $$, but the vast majority of artists don't make tons of money right now anyway (music is a big-business, profitable venture *only* because record labels have artificially made it that way - people made just as much music before the RIAA showed up as they do now, and I would argue that the quality and musicianship of artists back then was an order of magnitude better than N'synch). In fact, the only thing likely to change is that big greedy record labels will go away and artists will continue to make music as they have since Man first wacked two bones together to tap out a rythym, and another person liked it enough to sit quietly and listen.
People would share their creativity because there would be absolutely no reason not to. There would be great incentive to release your ideas, because of the potential enhancement to your reputation, status, and respect.
"But the problem is it never came to pass because F.Fred had to become a pool cleaner [or did something else that isn't duplicatable and re-distributable]."
The one point alot of people seem to be missing is that replication technology makes the whole concept of a job and income meaningless. Farmer Fred doesn't become a pool cleaner because there is no reason for him to. He doesn't need to make money because he can replicate anything he needs (this is the one point that I think Marx had right - ownership of the means of production). What's left for Farmer Fred to do? Probably spend most of his time designing new and better tasting fruits and then freely distributing those designs. If Fred's designs are good, and people replicate them a lot, Fred's reputation will grow. People will turn to Fred about suggestions for new fruit. He will gain respect in the fruit-design community, and other fruit-designers will likely seek Fred out and offer their assistance in creating other new fruits, or will learn from Fred so they can go on to make even better fruits.
Here's what: We all would have food for free, and the farmer could stop working in the field and do something else. This is the Star Trek ideal. If we had replicators, there would no longer be any need for money, or for anyone to toil away producing things. You would be free to either spend your life exploring and learning, or wasting away engaging in idle entertainment.
I think we are very slowly but surely moving in this direction. You think the flap with Napster is big, wait until stereolithography becomes feasible for the average person at home. Imagine if we all had 3D printers that could pretty much make any plastic object we wanted. Think of all the little doo-dads you would never have to buy. Think of all the cool designs people would invent and distribute. The patent lawyers will really start crawling out of the woodwork then.
But RedHat is also available as a free download. Which one I get is my choice. If the record labels offered a choice, either pay $18 for the CD, or download the mp3 for free, then there would be no problem.
Besides, RedHat isn't charging just for the media. They are charging for the customer support you get when you buy the boxed product, as well as a set of printed manuals.
I would imagine reporting on the existence of certain hardware and using pictures of that hardware would fall under fair use. The only thing the website would need to do is properly attribute the author of the photos. If the author wished to remain anonymous, the website could keep that information secret, and use the numerous shield laws in existence for protection.
On the other hand, if the website was directly profitting from those pictures (i.e. selling the pictures themselves) I think they could be in trouble (I don't think that happened though).
I'm not an expert in trade secret law, but isn't the burden of keeping trade secrets secret on the company? I mean, once the info is leaked, it isn't a trade secret anymore. The only way they would have a case against the websites would be if the sites had received the information from Apple directly, and had signed an NDA.
I find this whole affair alarming in that it is further evidence for the continuing erosion of our rights, and increasing aggressiveness on the part of corporate America in trying to underine our rights and exercise total control over everything. If we are not careful, it won't be long until we live in a world were corporations monitor your life down to the most minute detail. You will be forced to live your life as they see fit, and the only information you will have is what they deem appropriate. If some of thses issues are not dealt with in the Supreme Court sometime soon, we are all in big trouble.
Two points: 1) What about people legitimately researching pornographic literature? Do they not have a right to do their research? 2) What the hell is wrong with pr0n anyway? As an adult, I don't see any thing wrong with it. There ain't nothing wrong with looking at pictures of nekkid people.
Rip-Off I've never seen anything like it before or since. Incredible concept, awesome game. Rampage Just plain different. Rip Cord Try to land a parachute on a platform Reactor Just plain interesting.
Sorry, add sports games to the three genres already listed. Firefighter is just another shooter (point the water hose instead of a gun. wow.), and I would categorize the skateboarding, skiing, kayaking, etc. as driving games. I would also classify the flight sims (haven't seen any new ones lately) as driving games, since they don't really simulate flying at all. Horse racing (you're talking about the first person thing where you sit on a model horse, right?) is just another driving game.
I didn't think your examples were addressing my point. I don't disagree that there were clones made of some of the classics. That's irrelevant (in fact, I wish clones would have been made of more of the clasics; I would LOVE to see a clone of Crazy Climber done with modern graphics). Plus, most of the games you cited are already considered old and are hard to find in an arcade. The point is that back then, in any arcade there would have been many different kinds of games to choose from. Today you only really have three choices. I disagree that there are new games being put out that vary from the shoot/fight/drive mold. -Vercingetorix
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know much about patent law, but can't the courts force a patent holder to license something if the patent holder, by not licensing it, is harming the growth of a market or otherwise stifling progress? I recall a judge in one of the DVD flaps at some point saying something about forcing the DVD-CCA to grant licenses so competeing players can be built. I thought limiting licenses or charging outrageous licenese fees was illegal? Yes? No?
-Vercingetorix
On another note, what is the point of giving people access to the most powerful information retrieval system in the world, when you don't plan on letting them access whatever they want? If the potential for abuse bothers you, then give them arcade machines, magazines, and books. Then you can exercise control over the information and not have to fear the kiddies seeing a bit of skin.
The internet is the ultimate test of American hypocrisy. We've been preaching free speech for over 200 years, but now that we finally have it, I mean *really* have it, we run scared for the hills. So what is it America, does free speech matter? Or is it just a nice platitude that helps us feel superior all the other nations of the world (many of which don't seem to share our fear of *true* freedom of expression).
-Vercingetorix
This is MORE important than civil rights, in the sense that it affects far more people. This isn't about nekkid pictures in the laundromat. It's about the *attitude* people take toward the free expression of ideas, one of the cornerstones upon which this country is based. Once the notion that it is OK to restrict access to information to certain people becomes aceptable, we are doomed. I want to live in a world in which any and all information is freely available to all who want it. It is up to me to ensure that my children are instilled with the values required to make good decisions and to use the information available to them wisely. Not governments, not schools, and definatley NOT LAUNDROMATS!
-Vercingetorix
On the gripping hand, quitting your job and publicaly stating your reasons can often do far more to change attitudes than simply quietly working within the system. By quietly working to reduce the amount of censorship, you are still censoring. You are not making a stand against it, nor are you doing anything that will likely bring attention to the issue. All the while the crusders for the moral right will advance their agendas further and further. Social change usually doesn't happen by people quietly sriving against the system. It works by publically and willingly getting your butt kicked in the name of the cause. It ain't easy, and it ain't fun. But you have to ask yourself which is more important; you're comfy life, or the betterment of your Fellow Man? In some instances it may be teh former, but sometimes it will be the latter. The final decision is up to the individual. We already know which side of the fence the corporate oligopoly has decided upon.
-Vercingetorix
Yeah, and Rosa Parks was only riding the bus.
-Vercingetorix
Don't you think the parents have a right to decide what their children get to see or not? If parents don't want their kids to look at the stuff they will either teach them the appropriate values, or they will not let their kids into the place. It's not anyone elses reponsibility to see to the moral upbringing of my children.
-Vercingetorix
What you do is stick to your ideals. It may be inconvenient. It may result in losing a job. But if it is something you feel strongly about, you must not surrender your conscience. It is especially hard if your ideals are significantly different than those of mainstream society. But where would we be if Martin Luther King had reached a "compromise" with Jim Crow legislation? What if Nelson Mandela decided to change his position in order to avoid the inconvenience of prison? The fact is, the actions you take are important, no matter how unimportant you may feel as an individual. It is only through many small individual acts that large-scale change will happen. As Camus wrote "it is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees."
-Vercingetorix
I think you mean "vowels," No? :)
-Vercingetorix
I suspect that if we had replicator technology, we would probably also have the capability to build robots to take care of the drudgery. There wouldn't be any 7-11s, because what need is there of a convenience store when you can have your replicator create anything you need? The whole notion of "commerce" would lose all meaning. All that's left is the free exchange of ideas, and there would be no incentive to hoard those, since all of your needs would be provided for.
-Vercingetorix
I suggest you try selling a home and see just how little control you have over the price :)
Sure I can set the price of my house at any arbitrary value I choose. However, if no one buys it, I have no choice but to lower the price or take it off the market. The price is dictated by what the buyer is willing to pay. If they don't want to pay my price, they can buy from someone who is selling at a cheaper price. The only way I can dictate the price is to collude with my fellow home sellers and fix the prices of all homes being sold at some arbitrary value, thereby giving the consumer no other option but to pay the price I've set. This happens to be highly illegal.
-Vercingetorix
I'm a flaming bleeding-heart liberal and *I* think he acted like an idiot.
-Vercingetorix
So don't share. Who cares? The point is, it's your choice. For every person who chooses not to share, there will probably be 1000 who will. It doesn't really matter, since the continued prosperity of all doesn't depend on people doing anything at all. Share, or don't. I'm certain that many people will come together explicitly for the purpose of advancing knowledge and sharing in a community.
-Vercingetorix
Or maybe, if there are no more living expenses, people will create art simply because they want to. If one or two people enjoy it, wouldn't that be enough?
-Vercingetorix
It's only a service when they are actually performing the service. A recording is just an imperfect facsimile of the performance.
"There's a difference between what someone says they think it's worth and what it's actually worth."
No, there isn't. Something is worth ONLY what someone else is willing to pay for it. There is no such thing as inherent value apart from the consumer. It soesn't matter at all what it cost you to produce it, since if no one is willing to pay what you are asking, it isn't worth anything, and in fact reepresents a net loss.
"you have a whole bunch of other people who think the music is worth what they charge for it and are willing to pay that."
And those are the people who will keep music alive. As long as people perceive something to have worth, they will pay for it according to they value they perceive. So what if the kiddies keep downloading for free? The music they like will likely start to disappear if the don't pay something for it. If that happens, they won't have any more music, or they will start paying enough to support the artists. Again, they probably won't pay enough to make anyone rich, and that's a good thing. Also, instead of being able to make a couple of albums and live off the royalties, the artists might just have to settle down and start making a lot of music, since the amount of money they will be able to make on any one song will likely be limited. Again, this is a good thing. The original idea behind copyrigjt was to give the author a limited period of time in which to make money, thereby encouraging them to come up with more ideas. Look back to the artists in the past. They would churn out huge quantities of music. The concept of a one hit wonder didn't exist.
"Your entire argument boils down to saying that the fact that because stealing music is so easy relative to paying for it that a significant people choose to steal it means prices are inflated"
Once again, no. My argument is that prices are inflated way over what the music is actually worth. That is why the industry is facing this lawsuit. Recorded music is probably worth something, and we will probably find out what it is actually worth when it becomes possible to obtain music and pay the artist what you believe it is worth in an efficient, easy manner.
-Vercingetorix
No, my argument is that outrageous CD prices and the whole notion of copyright, as it currently exists, is an artificial and non-intuitive construct. The natural idea is that ideas should be free, since by copying them I have taken nothing from you. You still have the idea in a complete and undiminished form. What is worth paying for are the *services* and *items* that add value to the idea. It is not logical that the author of an idea should get anything other than what people feel that idea is worth. If they think your music should be free, then you are entitled to nothing. If that causes you to stop making music, fine. There will be plenty of others who will fill your shoes. Either that, or fewer and fewer people will produce music. But if people really want to hear music, they will probably start paying artists they like in order to ensure they keep making music. Artists probably won't be able to make bazillions of $$, but the vast majority of artists don't make tons of money right now anyway (music is a big-business, profitable venture *only* because record labels have artificially made it that way - people made just as much music before the RIAA showed up as they do now, and I would argue that the quality and musicianship of artists back then was an order of magnitude better than N'synch). In fact, the only thing likely to change is that big greedy record labels will go away and artists will continue to make music as they have since Man first wacked two bones together to tap out a rythym, and another person liked it enough to sit quietly and listen.
-Vercingetorix
People would share their creativity because there would be absolutely no reason not to. There would be great incentive to release your ideas, because of the potential enhancement to your reputation, status, and respect.
-Vercingetorix
The one point alot of people seem to be missing is that replication technology makes the whole concept of a job and income meaningless. Farmer Fred doesn't become a pool cleaner because there is no reason for him to. He doesn't need to make money because he can replicate anything he needs (this is the one point that I think Marx had right - ownership of the means of production). What's left for Farmer Fred to do? Probably spend most of his time designing new and better tasting fruits and then freely distributing those designs. If Fred's designs are good, and people replicate them a lot, Fred's reputation will grow. People will turn to Fred about suggestions for new fruit. He will gain respect in the fruit-design community, and other fruit-designers will likely seek Fred out and offer their assistance in creating other new fruits, or will learn from Fred so they can go on to make even better fruits.
-Vercingetorix
I think we are very slowly but surely moving in this direction. You think the flap with Napster is big, wait until stereolithography becomes feasible for the average person at home. Imagine if we all had 3D printers that could pretty much make any plastic object we wanted. Think of all the little doo-dads you would never have to buy. Think of all the cool designs people would invent and distribute. The patent lawyers will really start crawling out of the woodwork then.
-Vercingetorix
Besides, RedHat isn't charging just for the media. They are charging for the customer support you get when you buy the boxed product, as well as a set of printed manuals.
-Vercingetorix
On the other hand, if the website was directly profitting from those pictures (i.e. selling the pictures themselves) I think they could be in trouble (I don't think that happened though).
I'm not an expert in trade secret law, but isn't the burden of keeping trade secrets secret on the company? I mean, once the info is leaked, it isn't a trade secret anymore. The only way they would have a case against the websites would be if the sites had received the information from Apple directly, and had signed an NDA.
I find this whole affair alarming in that it is further evidence for the continuing erosion of our rights, and increasing aggressiveness on the part of corporate America in trying to underine our rights and exercise total control over everything. If we are not careful, it won't be long until we live in a world were corporations monitor your life down to the most minute detail. You will be forced to live your life as they see fit, and the only information you will have is what they deem appropriate. If some of thses issues are not dealt with in the Supreme Court sometime soon, we are all in big trouble.
-Vercingetorix
Two points: 1) What about people legitimately researching pornographic literature? Do they not have a right to do their research? 2) What the hell is wrong with pr0n anyway? As an adult, I don't see any thing wrong with it. There ain't nothing wrong with looking at pictures of nekkid people.
-Vercingetorix
When a public institution such as a library tries to use such censorware, it is evil.
-Vercingetorix
Rampage Just plain different.
Rip Cord Try to land a parachute on a platform
Reactor Just plain interesting.
And that's just the R's.
-Vercingetorix
Sorry, add sports games to the three genres already listed. Firefighter is just another shooter (point the water hose instead of a gun. wow.), and I would categorize the skateboarding, skiing, kayaking, etc. as driving games. I would also classify the flight sims (haven't seen any new ones lately) as driving games, since they don't really simulate flying at all. Horse racing (you're talking about the first person thing where you sit on a model horse, right?) is just another driving game.
-Vercingetorix
I didn't think your examples were addressing my point. I don't disagree that there were clones made of some of the classics. That's irrelevant (in fact, I wish clones would have been made of more of the clasics; I would LOVE to see a clone of Crazy Climber done with modern graphics). Plus, most of the games you cited are already considered old and are hard to find in an arcade. The point is that back then, in any arcade there would have been many different kinds of games to choose from. Today you only really have three choices. I disagree that there are new games being put out that vary from the shoot/fight/drive mold.
-Vercingetorix