You either support a creator's right to control how his creation is distributed, or you don't.
So then it's hypocritical to support the existence of U.S. law enforcement, and not support the existence of brutal police states. After all, either you support a government's right to control how its laws are enforced, or you don't.
As I understand it, the issue that most have with the RIAA's (and MPAA's) enforcement of copyrights is not so much the basic principle, but the tactics used.
and I hope the deal falls through. Motorola's "wireless expertise" has been on a gradual downslide for the last few years. In fact, they haven't made a really good phone (relative to the technology of the time) since the StarTAC. Each progressive generation of Motorola phones has gotten worse, and their current batch is pathetic.
Hopefully Apple and Motorola won't be able to strike a deal on this, and the field will be left open for a better phone manufacturer to move in.
There's nothing wet-blanketish about this. Only Michael Crichton fanboys think that cloning dinosaurs is a remotely plausible scenario, even if we are lucky enough to find intact DNA. The real excitement is the explosion of knowledge about these creatures that can result from such a find. Going from fossilized bones and eggs to actual DNA and cell tissue would represent a quantum leap in our understanding of dinosaurs; it might allow us to answer some questions that were believed to be unanswerable.
And mastodons are only barely "prehistoric". They coexisted with humans for thousands of years. Going from mammoth tissue to dinosaur tissue is like going from Galileo's telescope to the Hubble telescope.
I can't wait to see what sort of stuff they'll be able to find from this.
You make good points, and generally I agree with you. However, there are a few things I felt compelled to correct:
As to framerate, 30 fps is the *bare minimum* for fast-paced games. Note that 30 fps for a computer game is very different from 30 fps for a movie.
30 FPS is all you need visually. It's considered a bare minimum on computer games because you're running the game on your local CPU and GPU, and any heavy loads will hit the performance and drop your framerate below 30. But if the processing is happening on a big, bad-ass server then (hopefully) there's plenty of power to spare, and you only need to ensure that 30 FPS goes down the pipe.
I very much doubt the Google's machines will stay on the rack for 10-20 years... But that's irrelevant in any case -- I wasn't talking about servers. I was talking about the device that would be in your home and that you would use to access Google's servers.
This device -- it will have a monitor, right? And a keyboard? Speakers, too? Hmm... it will need a video chip to send the signal to the monitor, it will need a sound chip to send the signal to the speakers, it will need a NIC to deal with ethernet packets, it will need a microprocessor to run code locally, it will need RAM for the same reason...
But if that device is just a terminal, there will be far less need to upgrade it. An average user could easily go 5-10 years (or more) between upgrades.
There are certainly plenty of valid concerns already raised by others here, but I find it very ironic that Google might do to Microsoft what Microsoft did to IBM.
"May you live in interesting times..."
It sounds stupid and trivial, but remember the frame of reference for trademarks. If I start my own fast food restaurant chain and use "I'm lovin' it" as a slogan, I think it is fair for McDonald's to sue me (and win) for trademark infringement. My use of the slogan would easily cause confusion with customers. Maybe they think my restaurant is sanctioned or supported by McDonald's when it is not.
If I started an amusement park and used that slogan, McDonald's would have a tough time getting me to stop unless I was also infringing other trademarks (e.g. the entrance to the park was a pair of golden arches).
They would be unlikely to succeed, but if they so wished, they could give you a very tough time defending against such a claim, for the simple reason that they have more money and lawyers than you do. This is the real problem: it's not just a matter of who would ultimately win such a suit, but how long it would take and how much it would cost. Large corporations know this, and they know that they don't have to actually win a lawsuit in order to put their victim out of business.
Seems to me that, in some cases at least, only "limited" copyrights should be granted. For example, McDonald's could be granted a copyright on the phrase "I'm Lovin' It" as it is used for a fast-food restaurant (or even any restaurant). That would be reasonable, for the reasons you describe. OTOH, such a copyright would not apply to someone who opens an amusement park, or a publishing company, because no reasonable person could confuse those businesses with McDonald's. This, I think, would reduce the number of frivolous, "war of attrition" lawsuits filed by corporations with deep pockets.
Slashdot Mirror
You either support a creator's right to control how his creation is distributed, or you don't.
So then it's hypocritical to support the existence of U.S. law enforcement, and not support the existence of brutal police states. After all, either you support a government's right to control how its laws are enforced, or you don't.
As I understand it, the issue that most have with the RIAA's (and MPAA's) enforcement of copyrights is not so much the basic principle, but the tactics used.
It's the same reason some men read Cosmo magazine- it's like getting behind the lines and into the mind of the adversary.
I thought it was for the pictures.
I hope somebody told them that there's no Santa Claus on the moon. I'd hate to think they picked this spot for the wrong reasons.
Another exciting thing will be if they are able to extract mitochondrial DNA. That may answer some very interesting questions.
and I hope the deal falls through. Motorola's "wireless expertise" has been on a gradual downslide for the last few years. In fact, they haven't made a really good phone (relative to the technology of the time) since the StarTAC. Each progressive generation of Motorola phones has gotten worse, and their current batch is pathetic. Hopefully Apple and Motorola won't be able to strike a deal on this, and the field will be left open for a better phone manufacturer to move in.
I can't. I don't speak Japanese.
There's nothing wet-blanketish about this. Only Michael Crichton fanboys think that cloning dinosaurs is a remotely plausible scenario, even if we are lucky enough to find intact DNA. The real excitement is the explosion of knowledge about these creatures that can result from such a find. Going from fossilized bones and eggs to actual DNA and cell tissue would represent a quantum leap in our understanding of dinosaurs; it might allow us to answer some questions that were believed to be unanswerable. And mastodons are only barely "prehistoric". They coexisted with humans for thousands of years. Going from mammoth tissue to dinosaur tissue is like going from Galileo's telescope to the Hubble telescope. I can't wait to see what sort of stuff they'll be able to find from this.
Kaa,
You make good points, and generally I agree with you. However, there are a few things I felt compelled to correct:
As to framerate, 30 fps is the *bare minimum* for fast-paced games. Note that 30 fps for a computer game is very different from 30 fps for a movie.
30 FPS is all you need visually. It's considered a bare minimum on computer games because you're running the game on your local CPU and GPU, and any heavy loads will hit the performance and drop your framerate below 30. But if the processing is happening on a big, bad-ass server then (hopefully) there's plenty of power to spare, and you only need to ensure that 30 FPS goes down the pipe.
I very much doubt the Google's machines will stay on the rack for 10-20 years... But that's irrelevant in any case -- I wasn't talking about servers. I was talking about the device that would be in your home and that you would use to access Google's servers.
This device -- it will have a monitor, right? And a keyboard? Speakers, too? Hmm... it will need a video chip to send the signal to the monitor, it will need a sound chip to send the signal to the speakers, it will need a NIC to deal with ethernet packets, it will need a microprocessor to run code locally, it will need RAM for the same reason...
But if that device is just a terminal, there will be far less need to upgrade it. An average user could easily go 5-10 years (or more) between upgrades.
There are certainly plenty of valid concerns already raised by others here, but I find it very ironic that Google might do to Microsoft what Microsoft did to IBM. "May you live in interesting times..."
Clearly false, because all broad generalizations are wrong.
Jebus cripes! Copyright != Trademark. Completely different rights and standards apply. They are not even the same area of IP. GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
OK, your point is well taken. So substitute the word "copyright" for "trademark" in my post, and the argument is still the same.
It sounds stupid and trivial, but remember the frame of reference for trademarks. If I start my own fast food restaurant chain and use "I'm lovin' it" as a slogan, I think it is fair for McDonald's to sue me (and win) for trademark infringement. My use of the slogan would easily cause confusion with customers. Maybe they think my restaurant is sanctioned or supported by McDonald's when it is not.
If I started an amusement park and used that slogan, McDonald's would have a tough time getting me to stop unless I was also infringing other trademarks (e.g. the entrance to the park was a pair of golden arches).
They would be unlikely to succeed, but if they so wished, they could give you a very tough time defending against such a claim, for the simple reason that they have more money and lawyers than you do. This is the real problem: it's not just a matter of who would ultimately win such a suit, but how long it would take and how much it would cost. Large corporations know this, and they know that they don't have to actually win a lawsuit in order to put their victim out of business.
Seems to me that, in some cases at least, only "limited" copyrights should be granted. For example, McDonald's could be granted a copyright on the phrase "I'm Lovin' It" as it is used for a fast-food restaurant (or even any restaurant). That would be reasonable, for the reasons you describe. OTOH, such a copyright would not apply to someone who opens an amusement park, or a publishing company, because no reasonable person could confuse those businesses with McDonald's. This, I think, would reduce the number of frivolous, "war of attrition" lawsuits filed by corporations with deep pockets.