worry. Suppose you or I develop a really great algorithm. Right now, at least theoretically, we can protect our ideas and sell them to larger companies. However, suppose the ability to patent algorithms was removed.
There's one glaring problem with this. A software "algorithm" isn't something you could market and sell without patents. What you market and sell are software packages that provide a useful service to people. It may contain that "algorithm" but the "algorithm" could be the best thing since sliced bread with a buggy difficult to use interface that's makes the software as a whole useless. Yet, because you have a patent no one else could develop a better product without paying you. Software is not an "algorithm" software is a complete package including services like support and requires constant upgrading to remain useful. Software patents remove the competitive forces that push improvements in both the software and support that are a great boon to the both the software industry and the consumer. Software patents cause stagnation.
I think you need a better understanding of the word hypocritical. Wanting to hang everyone for copyright violations but doing it yourself and thinking you shouldn't be punished is hypocritical. Wanting to hold someone to there own standards when they violate copyrights isn't hypocritical. It's justice.
When a manager knows too much about what they manage they tend to micro-manage and I am sure we all dislike that more than ignorant managers.
Having extensive knowledge of what one manages doesn't cause one to micro-manage. A lack of management skills is what causes one to micro-manage. To put it more bluntly crappy managers micro-manage, typically whether they have extensive knowledge of what they're managing or not.
Personally I would rather have a manager that gives me the responsibility and flexibility to make the decisions that are within the scope of my job function who knows nothing about what I do and how I do it than one that is more knowledgable but ties my hands when it comes to getting things done.
Again, this is a function of management ability and has nothing to do with the level of knowledge of what is being managed.
The CIO should dictate the overarching business strategy to the IS department and help ensure that their work helps accomplish the goals of that strategy. The details are for the rest of the department to figure out. Remember, the IS department is a supporting function, no different from accounting, marketing, or HR... it is not the business.
The problem here is that in order to "dictate overarching business strategy" one needs to understand the effects of said dictating at all levels. Without a thorough understanding of the options how can you select the best strategy? The next argument is they just need to hire people with the detailed knowledge to explain the effects. There are several problems with this. First if the CIO is going to base all his decisions on what his underling tells him what the hell do you need a CIO for. Second without thorough knowledge of IT how can you know who to hire to give you advice. Third whoever you hire is going to have predispositions towards their areas of expertise. If you hire a Windows expert everything is going to be Windows. If you hire a Java expert everything is going to be Java. If you hire a Web expert everything is going to be Web.
I'm sure I will be flamed for this response, but it is typical of technical people (not just IT, but in all functions) to have disdain for those in charge because they don't know what we know.
No they tend to have disdain for those in charge when those in charge repeatably tell them to implement solutions they know are less then optimal and then those in charge blame them when the less then optimal solution is less then optimal even though those in charge were told at the start it would be less then optimal. They make decisions based on who talked to them last since they don't have the knowledge to evaluate the options based on each options merit.
Why is it with every upgrade of Windows I spend hours searching menu's and dialogs for the new hidden location of some trivial configuration change yet having primarily RedHat experience I can boot Ubuntu (never used debian based Linux before) for the first time, or for that matter even Solaris 10 or OpenBSD and find everything for configuring stuff within seconds?
FYI, in the city of Iqaluit, Nunavut which is just shy of the Arctic circle and has a population of 5,236 you can get 2 Mbps broadband for about $60CDN. Elsewhere in this discussion someone mentioned that they lived is a large U.S. urban area and they could only get 768 Kbps for $65US.
I think the point is that there are only a couple of dozen isolated locations like that in Canada whereas there are thousands in the US. Expanding broadband to those couple dozen locations is trivial and cheap compared to doing the same thing to thousands of locations
However, doing so would piss off a significant portion of their user base.
I find this very puzzling. Every Google search brings up ads in a non-intrusive way that I don't even see unless I'm searching for something to purchase in which case the ads are sometimes helpful. Web ads like that don't cost the user anything. It's not like a TV ad that cost you time. You don't have to click anything or wait to see the information you're after. It's there exactly the same whether the ads are there or not. I don't think anyone but handhelds and phones pay for bandwidth by mega-byte anymore. Handhelds can be excluded from ads by technical means. It could hardly have any effect on editorial content.
Can anyone explain the downside here that makes people so strongly against it?
That argument makes no sense before the law. If publishing companies don't like me photocopying their books and passing them on to people, laden with ads for profit, could I say "No, the companies should have printed them on special anti-photocopying paper"? No. Google broke the law. The law assigns no responsibility to copyright holders to protect their property from those who would copy it, but it does bind the citizenry not to copy.
No it's more like the company saying "here you can have a copy of this book for free" and then telling you you can only look at it when your in our office lobby and then two weeks later telling you that you have to pay them for looking at it.
It ensures and protects press freedoms. My understanding of the theory is that if reporters could not protect their sources any one who revealed information would be subject to repercussions. This would prevent a great many people (i.e. insiders) from speaking out against things that are illegal or wrong. Deep Throat is the perfect example of this. He almost certainly would not have spoken to reporters if his anonymity wasn't guarantied and Nixon would probable still be President of the United States.
Honestly? Nothing. Your question is quite correct. Given the state of today's government, the politicians, the graft, the greed, the plutocracy, the abuse of power, by all rights the US government (and all three branches) should have been overthrown long ago as charged by the Declaration of Independence.
I hate to tell you this but you really need to actually know a little history of the US before you make statements like "Given the state of today's government". Read a little about the War of 1812 or even just about Alexander Contee Hanson and the Baltimore Riot of 1812. Today's government in the US is a rank amateur in political corruption and cronyism, suppression of rights and individual profiteering compared to the government in 1812 and then it was in a completely unjustified war that was started primarily as an attempt to steal Canada from Britain while it was distracted by Napoleon. Hell the British army that was invading the US and even burned the capital was primarily supplied by New England merchants. The British could pay better since the war pretty much bankrupted the US government. It really annoys me when people who clearly have no knowledge of US history talk about the current US government being the most corrupt and evil ever in the US.
For our very survival, we need to assume things are our fault and we must be willing to change, even if it may not be our fault.
The problem is the law of unintended consequences. History is rife with mans attempt to modify nature for the better only to have law of unintended consequences bite them in the ass when their efforts make things worse. A classic example of this was the mid-1900's theory that since forest fires destroyed mother nature's beautiful forests they must be bad and must all be extinguished. Later in the century they started discovering that many, if not most, forest fires were good things and were required to keep forest healthy.
So no, always assume the worst case and acting on it is not only what we need not to do, but it is what we need to take caution against. Our understanding of the planets climate is limited at best and grossly inaccurate at worst. Any claim otherwise is conceit of the highest level. In either case taking drastic actions to attempt to effect it is likely to cause much more harm then good. The northwestern countries economies are essential to the worlds health. The collapse of those economies would have far more dire consequences for the world (much worst for developing and undeveloped countries) than climate effects. Should we look at energy efficiency? Most assuredly, but it has to be implemented in an economically viable manner otherwise the results would likely be far worse than the disease it was intended cure.
So now it's Windows fault because people are too stupid or lazy to out figure the difference?
Now wait a minute. Isn't the fact that "people are too stupid or lazy to out figure the difference" the reason nobody can use Linux? Everyone keeps telling me that Windows just works so "stupid or lazy" can use it but Linux is too complex for "stupid or lazy" people.
You Microsoft shills are such hypocrites. Windows is easy and just works but I have to pay extra for the privilege to battle anti-virus software and anti-spyware software and figure out how to tweak IE so my machine doesn't get botted and buy and install MS Office and all the other software to do anything useful and keep upgrading my drivers so the computer won't crash (but that's not Microsoft's fault is it) and fight with Microsoft because my machine won't update because I upgrade my hard drive and video card and... and... and... But Windows just works.
Hmmm... or I could pop in an Ubuntu CD and it magically boots up a completely usable system with most of the software right there. Wow, I double click this little install icon and it installs after a few questions. It's truly amazing how much more difficult this is than installing Windows (or even buying a computer with Windows pre-installed). Now I need some financial software. So do I go pay Microsoft another $100 for that and try to figure out how to install it. Lets see. Double click this icon enter this key? Opps, I want to run it on this other computer but I can't because it was already installed on that computer. No, with Ubuntu I select this little thing called a Package Manager (yes I know apt-get but I'm being "stupid and lazy") from the Admin menu and search for finance and it brings up a whole list of finance software I can install. Personal finance managers, Stock portfolio managers and lots of interesting stuff. Wow, this is going to cost a fortune...wait...hold on, it's all free? Wow. Select one click apply and it's there. This is so much more difficult than Windows. Oh man, my network stopped working. Gee, if I was using Microsoft I could just call up old Billy Boy and he would send someone right around since it's a supported operating system. Since I'm not I'll try entering the error message into Google. Wow, several hundred hits on pages with every detail of the problem and how to fix it. But this is so much more difficult than Windows.
It just works is the biggest line of BS every created for a marketing campaign and millions are still eating the s**t as Microsoft piles on the plate it in front of them while complimenting Bill on how good it taste.
An encyclopedia, regardless of type, is a poor replacement for a textbook.
A textbook is a poor replacement for research especially when it comes to history. I've seen more blatantly incorrect information in college level history books then in Wikipedia (and I'm not implying Wikipedia is anywhere near perfect). Unfortunately most professors select textbooks that support their own prejudices (many times even their own book) for the courses they teach and aren't open to any viewpoints that may be counter to those prejudices no mater how well supported.
Yeah, that way you're going engender an evenhanded debate since anyone opposing your view will end up flipping burgers. No it doesn't prevent you from predicting the weather but it does make it much more difficult to make a profession of it. Your analogy is BS. AMA censor for malpractice is due to blatant negligence and/or incompetence not for new theories that don't happen to conform to mainstream thinking. Also it doesn't prevent you from practicing medicine. It just makes it a lot more difficult.
A more correct analogy would be that doctors would still not believe germ theory since any doctor who argued in support of it would have any medical accreditations stripped. There is no proof that humans are causing the current warming trend and certainly no proof as to what specific actions of humans are the cause. If you believe there is and anyone arguing otherwise should be censored your right up there with those doctors letting untold numbers die while ridiculing any of their peers who wash their hands before operating.
Unless you want to believe DRM threatens free weeklies and no-cover shows, too.
This is exactly what's happening. There are 2 aspects to DRM. The first is technical. The problem is it's impossible to have a purely technical solution. This has been proven repeatedly. Since technical solutions have failed the DRM supporters are now pushing for legal restrictions to enforce their failed technical solutions. The DMCA has already been passed. If they have their way they will get restrictive copyright laws passed that make free weeklies and no-cover shows illegal. So yes I do believe DRM threatens free weeklies and no-cover shows, too.
The model has been that you create content that people are willing to pay for, and you limit the distribution of that content, and people buy it. If you kill off the ability to limit the distribution of that content then you've killed off the incentive to invest resources into commercial media.
This is where you go wrong. In the old model the scarcity is what made the value. There was a high cost involved in getting creative works to the public. This cost required an investment that had to be recouped. To get a book published you had to find someone who was willing to take a risk on spending the money to publish, distribute and market your book. Copyright laws were designed to allow for a period of time over which the person or entity that made the investment could recoup that expense. Without copyright laws as soon as a book became popular everyone could publish it and the original investor would be unlikely to recoup those initial expenses. This would make it unlikely that anyone would make th investment to get anything published. That's the old model.
But with modern technology this model doesn't fit any more. The era of scarcity is over. It's relatively cheap and easy for anyone to create, publish, distribute and market creative works. I think this is a good thing since in the new non-scarce model creative works will become successful based on the merits of the work rather than on someone making the decision to invest in it. There should be a much larger variety of creative works available. The successful ones won't be required to make enough money to support the archaic publishing empire that the old model required. It just has to make enough to satisfy the actually creator and not support a huge publishing bureaucracy that produces nothing but sucks huge amounts out of the creative works.
The problem is everyone's trying to force the scarcity model onto a reality where scarcity no longer exists. DRM and and it's ilk are an attempt to force scarcity onto a technology that eliminated scarcity. This is being done by the old bureaucracy in an attempt to preserve their no longer needed or justified jobs. Creative artists can make money off there work without the old bureaucracy. They may not become the ultra-rich pop stars created by the old model publishing bureaucracy but a lot more of them will be able to make a decent living off their art.
In this day and age of litigation, there is NO reason why if you're going into businses you should even consider sole proprietarship or general partnership agreement. IANAL, but go pick up any of the Nolo self-help books (recomemnded by lawyer friends) and they make it clear:
Actually up until 2007, at least in Texas, Nolo and your lawyer friends would have been wrong. In Texas the best way was to form was a Limited Partnership with a LLC as the General Partner. In a Limited Partnership only the General Partner is liable but the owners of the LLC's personal assets are protected. The benefit was that up until 2007 a partnership didn't have to pay any franchise taxes at all. You run all your business through the partnership and pay most out through disbursements while using the LLC for insurance and other things you need a corporation for.
But after years of threatening they finally closed the hole buy eliminating the franchise tax and instituted a tax that's applicable to partnerships.
It is the same factors that drive the Shiite and Sunni conflict. It has lead to the most significant ideological gaps in human history.
Wait... I thought it had to do with the succession of rule after Mohammad died. So which are the traditional merchants and which are the artist? I'm going with the Shiites as the merchants since they're the current bad guys.
How are content creators supposed to support themselves? I mean writers, actors, singers.
I know the current system is useless, but how do we replace it and still have content be worth something so that creators can make a living?
It may actually make it easier for "writers, actors, singers" to support themselves by lowering the gateway of entry into the field. In the current system a few people in a few companies have compete control over which "writers, actors, singers" are going to make a living and how well of a living they are going to make. A system with decentralized control will hopefully allow the people buying the content to determine who makes a living rather than the assholes in charge of the companies make that up the ??AA. The current music industry is not artistically driven. It's manufactured music. Compare Britney Spears or the Back Street Boys to Led Zeppelin from an artistic standpoint. Think.. Music and movies that are driven by artistic content rather than how many millions are spent promoting them. You only have to go to Austin Texas for a weekend to realize there are hundreds of bands making music better than the current crap that's being forced on us through the current channels that allow you to make a living at it.
Or did you start to slouch the moment you read this?
Unfortunately, the problem with the 135 degrees position is that you need a very good chair with a head-rest, otherwise, sitting at 135 degrees while keeping you head straight (in order to be looking horizontally at your monitor, rather than at the ceiling) hurts the neck.
I'm typing this reclined in a lazyboy with a 22" wide screen monitor, mounted with an arm to the desk next to the chair, hovering about 18" away from eyes at a perfect viewing angle using a wireless keyboard and trackball connected to an 8 way KVM with 5 computers lined up within reach under the desk next to the chair. Add in the sound system, 42" HD LCD TV visible just to the right of the monitor and it makes for a work environment I don't mind spending 14 hours a day in. Oh... I also have an exercise bike that the arm mounted monitor can reach and I rigged with mounts for the keyboard and trackball. The only thing I haven't figured out is the whole bathroom thing.
What if the rest of the world cuts off the U.S. oil supply?
Did you know our neighbors to the north have the second largest oil reserves in the world. And if you think they are going to hold us off with their superior Zamboni technology, I just can't see it happening.
But the war in Vietnam still ended with the US running home with its tail between its legs. Go figure!
Vietnam is the only war in history in which the side that lost the war actually won every battle fought in the war. And won most of them decisively. What was probably the most decisive battle, the Tet Offensive, was militarily a disastrous defeat for the North in that not a single objective was achieved, they sustained crippling losses in failing to attain those goals and the US and South forces only sustained relatively minor loses. And this was the battle that turned the war around for the North.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we know where all the bees are going.
There's one glaring problem with this. A software "algorithm" isn't something you could market and sell without patents. What you market and sell are software packages that provide a useful service to people. It may contain that "algorithm" but the "algorithm" could be the best thing since sliced bread with a buggy difficult to use interface that's makes the software as a whole useless. Yet, because you have a patent no one else could develop a better product without paying you. Software is not an "algorithm" software is a complete package including services like support and requires constant upgrading to remain useful. Software patents remove the competitive forces that push improvements in both the software and support that are a great boon to the both the software industry and the consumer. Software patents cause stagnation.
I think you need a better understanding of the word hypocritical. Wanting to hang everyone for copyright violations but doing it yourself and thinking you shouldn't be punished is hypocritical. Wanting to hold someone to there own standards when they violate copyrights isn't hypocritical. It's justice.
Lets see where to start...
When a manager knows too much about what they manage they tend to micro-manage and I am sure we all dislike that more than ignorant managers.Having extensive knowledge of what one manages doesn't cause one to micro-manage. A lack of management skills is what causes one to micro-manage. To put it more bluntly crappy managers micro-manage, typically whether they have extensive knowledge of what they're managing or not.
Personally I would rather have a manager that gives me the responsibility and flexibility to make the decisions that are within the scope of my job function who knows nothing about what I do and how I do it than one that is more knowledgable but ties my hands when it comes to getting things done.Again, this is a function of management ability and has nothing to do with the level of knowledge of what is being managed.
The CIO should dictate the overarching business strategy to the IS department and help ensure that their work helps accomplish the goals of that strategy. The details are for the rest of the department to figure out. Remember, the IS department is a supporting function, no different from accounting, marketing, or HR... it is not the business.The problem here is that in order to "dictate overarching business strategy" one needs to understand the effects of said dictating at all levels. Without a thorough understanding of the options how can you select the best strategy? The next argument is they just need to hire people with the detailed knowledge to explain the effects. There are several problems with this. First if the CIO is going to base all his decisions on what his underling tells him what the hell do you need a CIO for. Second without thorough knowledge of IT how can you know who to hire to give you advice. Third whoever you hire is going to have predispositions towards their areas of expertise. If you hire a Windows expert everything is going to be Windows. If you hire a Java expert everything is going to be Java. If you hire a Web expert everything is going to be Web.
I'm sure I will be flamed for this response, but it is typical of technical people (not just IT, but in all functions) to have disdain for those in charge because they don't know what we know.No they tend to have disdain for those in charge when those in charge repeatably tell them to implement solutions they know are less then optimal and then those in charge blame them when the less then optimal solution is less then optimal even though those in charge were told at the start it would be less then optimal. They make decisions based on who talked to them last since they don't have the knowledge to evaluate the options based on each options merit.
A CIO position is NOT a technical position.It should be if you want the best from your IS.
Why is it with every upgrade of Windows I spend hours searching menu's and dialogs for the new hidden location of some trivial configuration change yet having primarily RedHat experience I can boot Ubuntu (never used debian based Linux before) for the first time, or for that matter even Solaris 10 or OpenBSD and find everything for configuring stuff within seconds?
I don't have to pay $300 a user to upgrade. I would consider that a pretty significant difference.
Is that the spec for OpenXML 2009?
I think the point is that there are only a couple of dozen isolated locations like that in Canada whereas there are thousands in the US. Expanding broadband to those couple dozen locations is trivial and cheap compared to doing the same thing to thousands of locations
I find this very puzzling. Every Google search brings up ads in a non-intrusive way that I don't even see unless I'm searching for something to purchase in which case the ads are sometimes helpful. Web ads like that don't cost the user anything. It's not like a TV ad that cost you time. You don't have to click anything or wait to see the information you're after. It's there exactly the same whether the ads are there or not. I don't think anyone but handhelds and phones pay for bandwidth by mega-byte anymore. Handhelds can be excluded from ads by technical means. It could hardly have any effect on editorial content.
Can anyone explain the downside here that makes people so strongly against it?
No it's more like the company saying "here you can have a copy of this book for free" and then telling you you can only look at it when your in our office lobby and then two weeks later telling you that you have to pay them for looking at it.
It ensures and protects press freedoms. My understanding of the theory is that if reporters could not protect their sources any one who revealed information would be subject to repercussions. This would prevent a great many people (i.e. insiders) from speaking out against things that are illegal or wrong. Deep Throat is the perfect example of this. He almost certainly would not have spoken to reporters if his anonymity wasn't guarantied and Nixon would probable still be President of the United States.
I hate to tell you this but you really need to actually know a little history of the US before you make statements like "Given the state of today's government". Read a little about the War of 1812 or even just about Alexander Contee Hanson and the Baltimore Riot of 1812. Today's government in the US is a rank amateur in political corruption and cronyism, suppression of rights and individual profiteering compared to the government in 1812 and then it was in a completely unjustified war that was started primarily as an attempt to steal Canada from Britain while it was distracted by Napoleon. Hell the British army that was invading the US and even burned the capital was primarily supplied by New England merchants. The British could pay better since the war pretty much bankrupted the US government. It really annoys me when people who clearly have no knowledge of US history talk about the current US government being the most corrupt and evil ever in the US.
The problem is the law of unintended consequences. History is rife with mans attempt to modify nature for the better only to have law of unintended consequences bite them in the ass when their efforts make things worse. A classic example of this was the mid-1900's theory that since forest fires destroyed mother nature's beautiful forests they must be bad and must all be extinguished. Later in the century they started discovering that many, if not most, forest fires were good things and were required to keep forest healthy.
So no, always assume the worst case and acting on it is not only what we need not to do, but it is what we need to take caution against. Our understanding of the planets climate is limited at best and grossly inaccurate at worst. Any claim otherwise is conceit of the highest level. In either case taking drastic actions to attempt to effect it is likely to cause much more harm then good. The northwestern countries economies are essential to the worlds health. The collapse of those economies would have far more dire consequences for the world (much worst for developing and undeveloped countries) than climate effects. Should we look at energy efficiency? Most assuredly, but it has to be implemented in an economically viable manner otherwise the results would likely be far worse than the disease it was intended cure.
Now wait a minute. Isn't the fact that "people are too stupid or lazy to out figure the difference" the reason nobody can use Linux? Everyone keeps telling me that Windows just works so "stupid or lazy" can use it but Linux is too complex for "stupid or lazy" people.
You Microsoft shills are such hypocrites. Windows is easy and just works but I have to pay extra for the privilege to battle anti-virus software and anti-spyware software and figure out how to tweak IE so my machine doesn't get botted and buy and install MS Office and all the other software to do anything useful and keep upgrading my drivers so the computer won't crash (but that's not Microsoft's fault is it) and fight with Microsoft because my machine won't update because I upgrade my hard drive and video card and ... and ... and ... But Windows just works.
Hmmm... or I could pop in an Ubuntu CD and it magically boots up a completely usable system with most of the software right there. Wow, I double click this little install icon and it installs after a few questions. It's truly amazing how much more difficult this is than installing Windows (or even buying a computer with Windows pre-installed). Now I need some financial software. So do I go pay Microsoft another $100 for that and try to figure out how to install it. Lets see. Double click this icon enter this key? Opps, I want to run it on this other computer but I can't because it was already installed on that computer. No, with Ubuntu I select this little thing called a Package Manager (yes I know apt-get but I'm being "stupid and lazy") from the Admin menu and search for finance and it brings up a whole list of finance software I can install. Personal finance managers, Stock portfolio managers and lots of interesting stuff. Wow, this is going to cost a fortune...wait...hold on, it's all free? Wow. Select one click apply and it's there. This is so much more difficult than Windows. Oh man, my network stopped working. Gee, if I was using Microsoft I could just call up old Billy Boy and he would send someone right around since it's a supported operating system. Since I'm not I'll try entering the error message into Google. Wow, several hundred hits on pages with every detail of the problem and how to fix it. But this is so much more difficult than Windows.
It just works is the biggest line of BS every created for a marketing campaign and millions are still eating the s**t as Microsoft piles on the plate it in front of them while complimenting Bill on how good it taste.
A textbook is a poor replacement for research especially when it comes to history. I've seen more blatantly incorrect information in college level history books then in Wikipedia (and I'm not implying Wikipedia is anywhere near perfect). Unfortunately most professors select textbooks that support their own prejudices (many times even their own book) for the courses they teach and aren't open to any viewpoints that may be counter to those prejudices no mater how well supported.
Yeah, that way you're going engender an evenhanded debate since anyone opposing your view will end up flipping burgers. No it doesn't prevent you from predicting the weather but it does make it much more difficult to make a profession of it. Your analogy is BS. AMA censor for malpractice is due to blatant negligence and/or incompetence not for new theories that don't happen to conform to mainstream thinking. Also it doesn't prevent you from practicing medicine. It just makes it a lot more difficult.
A more correct analogy would be that doctors would still not believe germ theory since any doctor who argued in support of it would have any medical accreditations stripped. There is no proof that humans are causing the current warming trend and certainly no proof as to what specific actions of humans are the cause. If you believe there is and anyone arguing otherwise should be censored your right up there with those doctors letting untold numbers die while ridiculing any of their peers who wash their hands before operating.
This is exactly what's happening. There are 2 aspects to DRM. The first is technical. The problem is it's impossible to have a purely technical solution. This has been proven repeatedly. Since technical solutions have failed the DRM supporters are now pushing for legal restrictions to enforce their failed technical solutions. The DMCA has already been passed. If they have their way they will get restrictive copyright laws passed that make free weeklies and no-cover shows illegal. So yes I do believe DRM threatens free weeklies and no-cover shows, too.
This is where you go wrong. In the old model the scarcity is what made the value. There was a high cost involved in getting creative works to the public. This cost required an investment that had to be recouped. To get a book published you had to find someone who was willing to take a risk on spending the money to publish, distribute and market your book. Copyright laws were designed to allow for a period of time over which the person or entity that made the investment could recoup that expense. Without copyright laws as soon as a book became popular everyone could publish it and the original investor would be unlikely to recoup those initial expenses. This would make it unlikely that anyone would make th investment to get anything published. That's the old model.
But with modern technology this model doesn't fit any more. The era of scarcity is over. It's relatively cheap and easy for anyone to create, publish, distribute and market creative works. I think this is a good thing since in the new non-scarce model creative works will become successful based on the merits of the work rather than on someone making the decision to invest in it. There should be a much larger variety of creative works available. The successful ones won't be required to make enough money to support the archaic publishing empire that the old model required. It just has to make enough to satisfy the actually creator and not support a huge publishing bureaucracy that produces nothing but sucks huge amounts out of the creative works.
The problem is everyone's trying to force the scarcity model onto a reality where scarcity no longer exists. DRM and and it's ilk are an attempt to force scarcity onto a technology that eliminated scarcity. This is being done by the old bureaucracy in an attempt to preserve their no longer needed or justified jobs. Creative artists can make money off there work without the old bureaucracy. They may not become the ultra-rich pop stars created by the old model publishing bureaucracy but a lot more of them will be able to make a decent living off their art.
Actually up until 2007, at least in Texas, Nolo and your lawyer friends would have been wrong. In Texas the best way was to form was a Limited Partnership with a LLC as the General Partner. In a Limited Partnership only the General Partner is liable but the owners of the LLC's personal assets are protected. The benefit was that up until 2007 a partnership didn't have to pay any franchise taxes at all. You run all your business through the partnership and pay most out through disbursements while using the LLC for insurance and other things you need a corporation for.
But after years of threatening they finally closed the hole buy eliminating the franchise tax and instituted a tax that's applicable to partnerships.
Wait... I thought it had to do with the succession of rule after Mohammad died. So which are the traditional merchants and which are the artist? I'm going with the Shiites as the merchants since they're the current bad guys.
I know the current system is useless, but how do we replace it and still have content be worth something so that creators can make a living?
It may actually make it easier for "writers, actors, singers" to support themselves by lowering the gateway of entry into the field. In the current system a few people in a few companies have compete control over which "writers, actors, singers" are going to make a living and how well of a living they are going to make. A system with decentralized control will hopefully allow the people buying the content to determine who makes a living rather than the assholes in charge of the companies make that up the ??AA. The current music industry is not artistically driven. It's manufactured music. Compare Britney Spears or the Back Street Boys to Led Zeppelin from an artistic standpoint. Think.. Music and movies that are driven by artistic content rather than how many millions are spent promoting them. You only have to go to Austin Texas for a weekend to realize there are hundreds of bands making music better than the current crap that's being forced on us through the current channels that allow you to make a living at it.
I'm typing this reclined in a lazyboy with a 22" wide screen monitor, mounted with an arm to the desk next to the chair, hovering about 18" away from eyes at a perfect viewing angle using a wireless keyboard and trackball connected to an 8 way KVM with 5 computers lined up within reach under the desk next to the chair. Add in the sound system, 42" HD LCD TV visible just to the right of the monitor and it makes for a work environment I don't mind spending 14 hours a day in. Oh... I also have an exercise bike that the arm mounted monitor can reach and I rigged with mounts for the keyboard and trackball. The only thing I haven't figured out is the whole bathroom thing.
I call bullshit. MOPP gear doesn't have a fly.
Did you know our neighbors to the north have the second largest oil reserves in the world. And if you think they are going to hold us off with their superior Zamboni technology, I just can't see it happening.
Vietnam is the only war in history in which the side that lost the war actually won every battle fought in the war. And won most of them decisively. What was probably the most decisive battle, the Tet Offensive, was militarily a disastrous defeat for the North in that not a single objective was achieved, they sustained crippling losses in failing to attain those goals and the US and South forces only sustained relatively minor loses. And this was the battle that turned the war around for the North.