You mean, people actually still buy movies on physical media? As opposed to what? Using BitTorrent? Have you ever tried downloading a hi-def movie? Unless you and your torrent-sharing buddies are logging into an OC-12 line or better, good luck with the wait!
I'll take a prop bet with anyone here that the black market of light bulbs in Australia after 2010 will be very profitable -- and very easy to maintain. I'll take a prop bet that I'll be making TONS OF PROFIT selling incadescent light bulbs to Australians in dire in need!
1. Go to Home Depot 2. Buy contractor cases of incandescent light bulbs 3. Open account on Ebay 4. ??? 5. PROFIT!!!
That's exactly what I was trying to get across with this post in another article. It's not about money per se, it's always been about control. As long as the **AA and the TV media companies have control of the means of distribution, there's an unending supply of disproportionate profit that never goes into the hands of artists, it goes into the hands of the distribution channel.
The Internet provides a way for artists to directly connect to end-users. It gives them the means to find an audience, no matter how niche their work might me.
If people gain control of how they connect with the artists, then who needs the RIAA, MPAA, the TV networks, or radio companies like ClearChannel? Money can flow from consumers to artists directly, completely bypassing all the middlemen, who today make the bulk of the money.
It's like Cisco says in their TV spots: Anyone can be famous. Welcome to the human network.
As you know, it's not about copyrights or money. It's about control. The media industry doesn't want to lose control of content. If anyone can upload, then anyone can upload content -- it doesn't even matter who's it is. They've been calling the shots, deciding what people should see and how the pairs of eyeballs should be divided up amongst them. Google/YouTube creates anarchy and chaos where they no longer have control over what people see and what people do with what they see.
Mass media isn't so profitable if everyone can participate. That's what it's all about and that's what it's always been all about. Everything else is misdirection.
They've had 10 billion years to visit us. The magnitude of that amount of time is staggering. Consider how far we've come in the last few hundred years. Consider how far along we'll be in a thousand years. Now consider that the universe is a million times older than that. How do you know they haven't been here and left before we got here? We've only been around an extremely small fraction of that time. Best estimates put us starting out between 80,000 and maybe 150,000 years ago, tops. That's like around 1/10th of 1% of the time. Any alien races could easily have come in the 99.9% of the time we weren't here yet and perhaps even left no trace of their presence here, or none that we can spot very easily.
Well, there is the whole "anti-corporate bent" thing Jimmy was talking about. Like it or not, Google is a megacorp now, answerable only to their bottom line no matter what they say about not being evil.
So the question would be: what's in it for Google? PageRank puts Wikipedia at the top because Wikipedia articles get linked to quite a bit.
Pfft. 5-7 years. No extensions, no exceptions, period. If it's going to take you multiple years to develop your product, you should have to rely on trade secret and copyright laws. If someone else discovers the same thing during that period and beats you to patenting -- guess what? It was obvious to other people in the field! That makes your idea non-patentable in the first place.
Make patents non-transferrable. That way companies can't game the system by having their engineers filing patents individually.
Also, no more patents for ideas that haven't been implemented. If you can't demonstrate an implementation in front of God and country, forget it. You don't get one.
Eliminate software patents. Software is protected by copyright, it doesn't need patent protection too.
Finally, have patent examiners who are experts in various fields of technology: computer hardware patents must be examined by someone skilled in hardware design, medical patents must be examined by someone skilled in the medical field.
I'm sick of people with this semantical misunderstanding of the word 'theory.'
There is less evidence in support of Newton's Theory of Gravity (or even Einstein's Theory of Relativity) than there is in support of the Theory of Evolution. The term 'law' has not been used in science for a very, very long time. The word theory should not be confused with the word 'hypothesis'. In science, a hypothesis is closer to how the common vernacular uses the term 'theory'. A hypothesis is just an idea based on observation. A theory is what grows from a hypothesis: Scientists continue additional observations and experiments over the course of time and use those results and observations to refine or refute the hypothesis. Eventually the hypothesis becomes sound enough to become a theory. A theory must be supported by multiple sources of available evidence; it must be repeatable, consistent, empirically testable, and falsifiable. It must be multiply reproducible. Yes, theories must admit that they might be wrong. But there are no absolutes in this world -- just as they must admit that they might be wrong, theories are also the soundest explanations for natural occurence that science has available.
No matter how you slice it, Intelligent Design is not science. It doesn't hold up to the rigorous scientific scrutiny that scientific theories must hold up against. Evolution does. Intelligent Design is nothing more than religious dogma; it is not now, never will be, nor can it ever be by definition, a scientific theory.
I have nothing against people having their children taught Creationism. But not in a science classroom. The time and place for studying Creationism is in a religious setting, not a science classroom.
Exactly. Sometimes you want to do something just to see if you can do it. If we didn't have people with attitudes like that, where would open source software be? A lot of these guys write code just because they want to see if they could do it. Linus is a perfect example. He didn't set out to dominate the world. He set out to see if he could write a UNIX-like kernel -- and he did. This sort of thinking leads to bigger and better things later. In Linus' case, we have a world-class enterprise-ready operating system. In the case of Hayabusa, the knowledge that such a thing can be done could lead to re-usable spacecraft capable of long-distance flight. Why haven't we sent manned missions to Mars yet? For one, we don't know if we can get the people back. But stuff like this is what proves our capbilities of doing these things.
Man, if only someone put together a list of phone numbers and published them... let's say in a big thick book. Then they could sell ad space and make millions!
They could even advertise their book on TV! Imagine if they got someone like, maybe, um...David Carradine as a spokesperson! Infinite information!
You are trying to turn the page. Do you want to turn the page? Yes. Would you like to read the next page? Yes Oops! You did not read and agree to the copyright page! Would you like to read the copyright page? No. This book requires activation. Please enter your product activation code now: ____________________________________ Would you like to use this activation code? Yes! Would you like to activate the book? YES! You are trying to make notes on the page. This is not allowed. Ok You are trying to make illegal copies of this book on your copier. This is not allowed. Ok You are tearing your hair out? Would you like to tear your hair out? YES, YES YES YES!!!! You appear to be insane. Would you like mental help? ARRGGHGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
I hope they introduce a geek/computer/technology-magazine too. Why? We already have Slashdot, Digg, k5, LWN, Linux.com, etc. One more to the pile? There's more to life than technology and computers and geek topics. Most of us geeks are also very well versed in politics, entertainment, world affairs, local affairs, law, business, etc. That's one reasons why sites like the wikia magazines, groklaw, and so forth have been popping up as of late.
Yes. Obtaining a circumvention device is as illegal as providing one to others. Hence,playing encrypted DVDs on Linux via libdvdcss is illegal because you had to have obtained libdvdcss, which for the purposes of the DMCA is a circumvention device. The only valid way to defeat DRM under DMCA is to devise your own means entirely.
Let's support this "piracy" for what it really is -- free marketing for talented actors, musicians, writers and producers. When you see something you like, either go and buy it directly from the actor/musician you like (say, on tour or at the theater), or pay to see them live. This is where the market has to go -- let the "pirated" CD/DVD be the advertising, let the official CD/DVD be the way that you compensate them for producing a quality product, and let the live performance be the way they realize a lifetime of income for a lifetime of work. While I agree with another poster in this thread that live performances don't work for every sort of copyrighted item that is pirated -- games and applications software being the big ones, I do think that there are sources of revenue that need to be looked at.
For example, merchandising has been used for years to make money for the studios. How many of you have officially-licensed Star Trek, Star Wars, B5 coffee mugs, t-shirts, costumes, models, toys, books, posters etc.? You've been paying their respective studios tons of money! Paramount wouldn't have to make money from a single new Star Trek movie, yet their cash cow would continue to be Star Trek just from merchandising dollars alone. This doesn't really fit your model (since it's copyright and trademarks that's keeping these dollars flowing), but it does show another stream of revenue that isn't based on the movie and music distribution cartels^Wsystems.
The way you frame the problem though, your solution not only cuts out the distribution system entirely, but it cuts out income for the producers, writers and directors. Those who produce, write and direct feature films are usually not the same sort who produce, write and direct live performances -- because these are very different businesses. There's a lot you can get away with on film that you can't get away with on stage -- and vice versa.
In the day of shared hosting and virtual hosts on the same IP address, this appears to have the potential for huge collateral damage.
Nah. I disagree. I think this is exactly the reason a lot of shared hosting providers have policies disallowing illegal, 'immoral' and 'obscene' content (read: pr0n, hate speech, etc.) It's not just about government firewalls, either. They want to avoid collateral damage caused by corporate and consumer proxy filtering as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Hot ice? Is that anything like "cold steam"?
Nope.
:-D
Stands for Python'll Eventually Replace this Language.
or, optionally:
Perl Eats Ruby for Lunch
1. Go to Home Depot
2. Buy contractor cases of incandescent light bulbs
3. Open account on Ebay
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!!
Eloquently put, sir.
That's exactly what I was trying to get across with this post in another article. It's not about money per se, it's always been about control. As long as the **AA and the TV media companies have control of the means of distribution, there's an unending supply of disproportionate profit that never goes into the hands of artists, it goes into the hands of the distribution channel.
The Internet provides a way for artists to directly connect to end-users. It gives them the means to find an audience, no matter how niche their work might me.
If people gain control of how they connect with the artists, then who needs the RIAA, MPAA, the TV networks, or radio companies like ClearChannel? Money can flow from consumers to artists directly, completely bypassing all the middlemen, who today make the bulk of the money.
It's like Cisco says in their TV spots: Anyone can be famous. Welcome to the human network.
As you know, it's not about copyrights or money. It's about control. The media industry doesn't want to lose control of content. If anyone can upload, then anyone can upload content -- it doesn't even matter who's it is. They've been calling the shots, deciding what people should see and how the pairs of eyeballs should be divided up amongst them. Google/YouTube creates anarchy and chaos where they no longer have control over what people see and what people do with what they see.
Mass media isn't so profitable if everyone can participate. That's what it's all about and that's what it's always been all about. Everything else is misdirection.
So does this mean that they're gonna arrest Taco, Zonk and Co.?
Well, there is the whole "anti-corporate bent" thing Jimmy was talking about. Like it or not, Google is a megacorp now, answerable only to their bottom line no matter what they say about not being evil.
So the question would be: what's in it for Google? PageRank puts Wikipedia at the top because Wikipedia articles get linked to quite a bit.
Don't look at me. I just add "LOL PENIS" to Slashdot posts. See parent.
Pfft. 5-7 years. No extensions, no exceptions, period. If it's going to take you multiple years to develop your product, you should have to rely on trade secret and copyright laws. If someone else discovers the same thing during that period and beats you to patenting -- guess what? It was obvious to other people in the field! That makes your idea non-patentable in the first place.
Make patents non-transferrable. That way companies can't game the system by having their engineers filing patents individually.
Also, no more patents for ideas that haven't been implemented. If you can't demonstrate an implementation in front of God and country, forget it. You don't get one.
Eliminate software patents. Software is protected by copyright, it doesn't need patent protection too.
Finally, have patent examiners who are experts in various fields of technology: computer hardware patents must be examined by someone skilled in hardware design, medical patents must be examined by someone skilled in the medical field.
I'm sick of people with this semantical misunderstanding of the word 'theory.'
There is less evidence in support of Newton's Theory of Gravity (or even Einstein's Theory of Relativity) than there is in support of the Theory of Evolution. The term 'law' has not been used in science for a very, very long time. The word theory should not be confused with the word 'hypothesis'. In science, a hypothesis is closer to how the common vernacular uses the term 'theory'. A hypothesis is just an idea based on observation. A theory is what grows from a hypothesis: Scientists continue additional observations and experiments over the course of time and use those results and observations to refine or refute the hypothesis. Eventually the hypothesis becomes sound enough to become a theory. A theory must be supported by multiple sources of available evidence; it must be repeatable, consistent, empirically testable, and falsifiable. It must be multiply reproducible. Yes, theories must admit that they might be wrong. But there are no absolutes in this world -- just as they must admit that they might be wrong, theories are also the soundest explanations for natural occurence that science has available.
No matter how you slice it, Intelligent Design is not science. It doesn't hold up to the rigorous scientific scrutiny that scientific theories must hold up against. Evolution does. Intelligent Design is nothing more than religious dogma; it is not now, never will be, nor can it ever be by definition, a scientific theory.
I have nothing against people having their children taught Creationism. But not in a science classroom. The time and place for studying Creationism is in a religious setting, not a science classroom.
And what's to stop you from putting another router/firewall behind the Comcrap router? (Hint: nothing)
Exactly. Sometimes you want to do something just to see if you can do it. If we didn't have people with attitudes like that, where would open source software be? A lot of these guys write code just because they want to see if they could do it. Linus is a perfect example. He didn't set out to dominate the world. He set out to see if he could write a UNIX-like kernel -- and he did. This sort of thinking leads to bigger and better things later. In Linus' case, we have a world-class enterprise-ready operating system. In the case of Hayabusa, the knowledge that such a thing can be done could lead to re-usable spacecraft capable of long-distance flight. Why haven't we sent manned missions to Mars yet? For one, we don't know if we can get the people back. But stuff like this is what proves our capbilities of doing these things.
They could even advertise their book on TV! Imagine if they got someone like, maybe, um...David Carradine as a spokesperson! Infinite information!
You are trying to turn the page. Do you want to turn the page? Yes.
Would you like to read the next page? Yes
Oops! You did not read and agree to the copyright page! Would you like to read the copyright page? No.
This book requires activation. Please enter your product activation code now: ____________________________________
Would you like to use this activation code? Yes!
Would you like to activate the book? YES!
You are trying to make notes on the page. This is not allowed. Ok
You are trying to make illegal copies of this book on your copier. This is not allowed. Ok
You are tearing your hair out? Would you like to tear your hair out? YES, YES YES YES!!!!
You appear to be insane. Would you like mental help? ARRGGHGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
He's an anarchocapitalist. Commodity is just part of the economist jargon that's very pervasive amongst that crowd.
I actually think he's at least partially right and has a very interesting perspective.
No way. Malware is made by an Intelligent Creator. It is what it is. Intelligent Malware Design is just as good a theory as Malware Evolution.
Yeah, but now we got HD-DVD Blu Arnezami. That's at least as easy to say and remember as DVD-JON.
What?
Yes. Obtaining a circumvention device is as illegal as providing one to others. Hence,playing encrypted DVDs on Linux via libdvdcss is illegal because you had to have obtained libdvdcss, which for the purposes of the DMCA is a circumvention device. The only valid way to defeat DRM under DMCA is to devise your own means entirely.
For example, merchandising has been used for years to make money for the studios. How many of you have officially-licensed Star Trek, Star Wars, B5 coffee mugs, t-shirts, costumes, models, toys, books, posters etc.? You've been paying their respective studios tons of money! Paramount wouldn't have to make money from a single new Star Trek movie, yet their cash cow would continue to be Star Trek just from merchandising dollars alone. This doesn't really fit your model (since it's copyright and trademarks that's keeping these dollars flowing), but it does show another stream of revenue that isn't based on the movie and music distribution cartels^Wsystems.
The way you frame the problem though, your solution not only cuts out the distribution system entirely, but it cuts out income for the producers, writers and directors. Those who produce, write and direct feature films are usually not the same sort who produce, write and direct live performances -- because these are very different businesses. There's a lot you can get away with on film that you can't get away with on stage -- and vice versa.
Nah. I disagree. I think this is exactly the reason a lot of shared hosting providers have policies disallowing illegal, 'immoral' and 'obscene' content (read: pr0n, hate speech, etc.) It's not just about government firewalls, either. They want to avoid collateral damage caused by corporate and consumer proxy filtering as well.
Err...Good luck with that. You can see what happens to anyone who disagrees with the U.S., just ask the Iraqis--better yet, ask the Japanese.