Seems like bittorrent, or a bittorrent-alike protocol would be useful here.
Turn the RSSfeed into a tracker/seed and then all it has to keep track of is who has the latest version of the content and it could redirect feeders to each other, always preferring the latest updated version. Eventually, you will have the same scaling problems that bittorrent has (single tracker), but at least you stretch things out a few months or a year until a better solution ocomes around.
Eventually only one format will survive. People who buy into the losing standard will end up with an expensive doorstop.
DVD+R and DVD-R have been around, what, 4 years now? Neither seems any more likely to die before the other, why should HD-DVD and Blu-ray be any different? There is probably more chance of SuperDuper-DVD or Purpl-Ray killing HD-DVD/Blu-Ray than there is for one to stand triumphant over the other.
Typically the video is re-encoded and stereo audio gets turned into mp3 or ogg.
If the audio track is multichannel, it is usually just preserved in the original encoding. AC3 (Dolby Digital) is usually either 384Kbps or 448Kbps on the DVD and DTS is usually 768Kbps with the rare 1.5Mbps track.
Ogg vorbis does have provision for multichannel sound, up to (I think) 255 channels. I have not looked for over a year, but none of the encoders or decoders supported more than 2-channel ogg back then.
More so, it is the ISP's network, and by using it and paying for their services you agree to their rules, and if their rules say "we may suspend your access at our slightest whim should we receive information saying that you had allegedly infringed on someone's copyright", they can.
And in doing so they relinquish any pretense of being a common carrier. Kinda defeats the point of those safe-harbor provisions doesn't it.
So what? Firing a gun in the city limits is already illegal.
Besides, he doesn't even need it to "silence" only to change the sound pattern so that the system will not recognize it.
Re:Welcome to capitalism
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
Well, it's a trade-off: we want private companies to invest billions of dollars to develop medicines we need, but they'll only do so if there's the potential for profit. If there isn't, capital will flow out of drug companies's R&D budgets and into car manufacturers or something.
But why is it that the only way for them to make a profit is to attach a fee to the manufacturing of the end result? Why don't they charge directly for the end result in the first place?
For example - interested parties (rich infectees, government health care systems, even poor infectees, trust funds, and estates from those who died before the vaccine was finished, etc) post a bounty for the development of an effective vaccine. The more parties that are interested, the bigger the bounty gets. Once a vaccine is developed, the creator releases the information to the public at large and then collects the bounty.
Obviously I'm glossing over the details -- things like verification of effectiveness, guarantees of bounty payment, etc. But all those issues are mechanical and can be handled contractually.
The fundamental benefit of a scheme like this is that the vaccine developer still gets paid, and yet the vaccine is now available for the cost of manufacturing and distribution. No artificial costs that end up arbitrarily limiting access and costing real lives.
The major downside is that such a scheme does not have a theoretically unlimited upside. I don't know how that will affect the psychology of the market for drug research, but I suspect it would not hurt too much because any rational bean-counter would have already assigned a maximum value to the drug when deciding to begin and maintain research. Now that the number is known and defined by an actual market and not just "some MBA with a spreadsheet."
I think that's a deplorable idea--it combines undermining open political process with tolerance for repugnant social policies.
Glass Half Full?
Better that some good come of it than none.
Glass Half Empty?
The political process is already totally undermined.
The question is, do we want to fight to win, or fight to feel good about ourselves?
Glass Too Big
Just because our pet senator puts a rider in doesn't mean he has to vote for the bill. That's the benefit of tacking it on to something that is stupidly popular, he can put the rider and then the idiots have to decide if their redneck constituency is more important than their corporate constituency.
We need to identify a couple of congressdroids and start "lobbying" them. Having looked through OpenSecrets, it is amazing how cheap most of these guys go for. We all ought to be able to collectively scrape up enough spare change for at least 2 or 3 of them.
If we could just get them to slip it in as a rider on some big noisy and unrelated bill. We should target something ridiculously popular, like the anti-gay marriage brigade or the anti-flag burning bozos. Tag a secret little rider for copyright reform onto one of their bills and we could turn a bad thing into a good one.
Feature film production is one of the riskiest financial ventures that one can undertake because more than 80% of produced feature films lose money.
If ideas are really proprety, aka capital, then something must really be wrong with 80% of those movies. What kind of free market allows even a majority, much less a full 80%, of the producers to create and sell substandard and unwanted product?
Copyright laws help protect these rare profits so the film producers can survive and produce more of their art.
Sounds to me like you've just made one of the strongest arguments against copyright that I have yet heard. Who are these people that they get government protection for a product that is 80% flawed?
I bet that semi-conductor manufacturers would love to have the government protecting them so that they could sell chips with only a 20% yield and you happened to pay for one of the 80% of the failed chips, tough noogies, that's just chipright law and the only way to assure that those 20% of good chips get made.
if you take away the reward then you'll see the risk takers fade away.
Are you talking about hollywood here? There is no town more scared of risk than hollywood. Those guys are afraid to step outside their own front doors without a test audience to evaluate it first. Their current abject fear of risk is why so much of what they produce is generic pablum, and why they are fighting tooth and nail to put the internet genie back into the bottle, when if they were smart, they'd be making their three wishes instead.
There are other ways to reward creativity than via copyright. Most magazine article authors sign away all copyright to their articles upon publication, so they effectively get paid once for creation. Yet magazines continue to be published with new articles every day.
If downloaders thought of themselves as "supporting the band's future work" rather than "buying this song",which they could just as easily swipe, maybe they'd pay a little and not mind. Is that the paradigmn shift thats gnawing away at the mass marketing of music as we now know it?
Bingo! Paying for the production of music/art is like an internet-enabled modernization of the old system of patronage. It is inevitable that such a market develop. There are already people working on the mechanics - google up "street performer protocol" for some info.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like bittorrent, or a bittorrent-alike protocol would be useful here. Turn the RSSfeed into a tracker/seed and then all it has to keep track of is who has the latest version of the content and it could redirect feeders to each other, always preferring the latest updated version. Eventually, you will have the same scaling problems that bittorrent has (single tracker), but at least you stretch things out a few months or a year until a better solution ocomes around.
Eventually only one format will survive. People who buy into the losing standard will end up with an expensive doorstop.
DVD+R and DVD-R have been around, what, 4 years now? Neither seems any more likely to die before the other, why should HD-DVD and Blu-ray be any different? There is probably more chance of SuperDuper-DVD or Purpl-Ray killing HD-DVD/Blu-Ray than there is for one to stand triumphant over the other.
the United States of Mexico is actually the full name of Mexico
First they steal our jobs and now they steal our name???
Imagine another blue state with the population of California. I doubt that the present administration would want that.
Never underestimate the power of gerrymandering.
Typically the video is re-encoded and stereo audio gets turned into mp3 or ogg.
If the audio track is multichannel, it is usually just preserved in the original encoding. AC3 (Dolby Digital) is usually either 384Kbps or 448Kbps on the DVD and DTS is usually 768Kbps with the rare 1.5Mbps track.
Ogg vorbis does have provision for multichannel sound, up to (I think) 255 channels. I have not looked for over a year, but none of the encoders or decoders supported more than 2-channel ogg back then.
More so, it is the ISP's network, and by using it and paying for their services you agree to their rules, and if their rules say "we may suspend your access at our slightest whim should we receive information saying that you had allegedly infringed on someone's copyright", they can.
And in doing so they relinquish any pretense of being a common carrier. Kinda defeats the point of those safe-harbor provisions doesn't it.
Yeah except I said *legally* obtain.
So what? Firing a gun in the city limits is already illegal.
Besides, he doesn't even need it to "silence" only to change the sound pattern so that the system will not recognize it.
Well, it's a trade-off: we want private companies to invest billions of dollars to develop medicines we need, but they'll only do so if there's the potential for profit. If there isn't, capital will flow out of drug companies's R&D budgets and into car manufacturers or something.
But why is it that the only way for them to make a profit is to attach a fee to the manufacturing of the end result? Why don't they charge directly for the end result in the first place?
For example - interested parties (rich infectees, government health care systems, even poor infectees, trust funds, and estates from those who died before the vaccine was finished, etc) post a bounty for the development of an effective vaccine. The more parties that are interested, the bigger the bounty gets. Once a vaccine is developed, the creator releases the information to the public at large and then collects the bounty.
Obviously I'm glossing over the details -- things like verification of effectiveness, guarantees of bounty payment, etc. But all those issues are mechanical and can be handled contractually.
The fundamental benefit of a scheme like this is that the vaccine developer still gets paid, and yet the vaccine is now available for the cost of manufacturing and distribution. No artificial costs that end up arbitrarily limiting access and costing real lives.
The major downside is that such a scheme does not have a theoretically unlimited upside. I don't know how that will affect the psychology of the market for drug research, but I suspect it would not hurt too much because any rational bean-counter would have already assigned a maximum value to the drug when deciding to begin and maintain research. Now that the number is known and defined by an actual market and not just "some MBA with a spreadsheet."
Glass Half Full?
Better that some good come of it than none.
Glass Half Empty?
The political process is already totally undermined.
The question is, do we want to fight to win, or fight to feel good about ourselves?
Glass Too Big
Just because our pet senator puts a rider in doesn't mean he has to vote for the bill. That's the benefit of tacking it on to something that is stupidly popular, he can put the rider and then the idiots have to decide if their redneck constituency is more important than their corporate constituency.
We need to identify a couple of congressdroids and start "lobbying" them. Having looked through OpenSecrets, it is amazing how cheap most of these guys go for. We all ought to be able to collectively scrape up enough spare change for at least 2 or 3 of them.
If we could just get them to slip it in as a rider on some big noisy and unrelated bill. We should target something ridiculously popular, like the anti-gay marriage brigade or the anti-flag burning bozos. Tag a secret little rider for copyright reform onto one of their bills and we could turn a bad thing into a good one.
If ideas are really proprety, aka capital, then something must really be wrong with 80% of those movies. What kind of free market allows even a majority, much less a full 80%, of the producers to create and sell substandard and unwanted product?
Copyright laws help protect these rare profits so the film producers can survive and produce more of their art.
Sounds to me like you've just made one of the strongest arguments against copyright that I have yet heard. Who are these people that they get government protection for a product that is 80% flawed?
I bet that semi-conductor manufacturers would love to have the government protecting them so that they could sell chips with only a 20% yield and you happened to pay for one of the 80% of the failed chips, tough noogies, that's just chipright law and the only way to assure that those 20% of good chips get made.
if you take away the reward then you'll see the risk takers fade away.
Are you talking about hollywood here? There is no town more scared of risk than hollywood. Those guys are afraid to step outside their own front doors without a test audience to evaluate it first. Their current abject fear of risk is why so much of what they produce is generic pablum, and why they are fighting tooth and nail to put the internet genie back into the bottle, when if they were smart, they'd be making their three wishes instead.
There are other ways to reward creativity than via copyright. Most magazine article authors sign away all copyright to their articles upon publication, so they effectively get paid once for creation. Yet magazines continue to be published with new articles every day.
Mod up - if the example on that page is true - even if it only works on text, then that is the filter the CSI guys use all the time
Bingo! Paying for the production of music/art is like an internet-enabled modernization of the old system of patronage. It is inevitable that such a market develop. There are already people working on the mechanics - google up "street performer protocol" for some info.
And to a non-religious person, the knowledge that many people are "praying for them" can lead to a significant creep-out effect.