How did all grad students complete their theses before the Wikipedia era?
Okay, you're right. It's silly to say that you cannot complete a thesis without access to Wikipedia. Obviously it can be done. Many grad students in North America don't even know Wikipedia exists, yet somehow they finish their thesis.
But the greater issue here is, obviously, the censoring of information. The more sources you restrict, the less useful the remaining information you have is. If you had access to *only* Wikipedia, that wouldn't be very good, because you can't double-check any of its facts. But not having access to Wikipedia also sucks, because you've lost an invaluable tool for learning about new subjects and finding new references.
The point is that this student, apparently, found Wikipedia to be a very valuable tool, and now he can't use. Yes there are other tools out there, but as more and more sources are systematically removed, his life (writing his thesis) becomes harder and harder. The fact that data is being censored systematically (not randomly) obviously makes this even worse. You KNOW that the information you have access to is biased. Wikipiedia is one source that works hard to remove bias, and present balanced accounts, and now that source is gone.
As a matter of fact, grads don't refer to encyclopedias when doing research.
Well that's not really fair. When I do research, I never quote Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) as a "source"... but I look up things on Wikipedia about 10 to 80 times a day. It's amazing for getting a quick definition, and introductory explanation, or whatever. When reading all kinds of obscure scientific articles, I often need a quick definition of some new word or field. Wikipedia gives me that. So while Wikipedia never ends up being cited in papers I publish, it is nevertheless one of the best time-saving tools I have at my disposal. So yes, scientists and grad students use wikipedia quite a bit when doing research. (Although not as a primary, quotable source.)
To summarize: I don't think this issue is about Wikipedia per se. Wikipedia is one very painful loss on a long list of things that have been censored in China. Any individual thing won't make writing a thesis impossible... but taken together: yes it is impossible to write a decent thesis when access to information has been restricted.
One reason I mention this is that it is easy to find examples of just causes that have failed. Failure != 'bad.'
Yes, you are right. Well put.
I would again just say that I think in this particular case (copyright), one of the main reasons that the business model is failing is precisely because it is unethical (or at the very least, not appreciated by the populace at large). Hence why it may be worth investigating while trying to determine the morality of the situation.
so striking down draconian anti-piracy laws needs to be done as a strike against oppressive IP protections, which means saying that the IP itself is not wholly valid.
Again, a slight difference is that helping the steel or airline industries didn't require draconian or oppressive laws. It required money and laws and maybe even protectionism, but didn't really limit the freedoms of the populace at large. In my opinion, it is okay to implement laws to protect business models, but it is NEVER okay to implement draconian laws (by which I mean laws that restrict the freedoms of citizens) to protect businesses.
But, again, I agree with what you've said. We need to consider the fundamental ethics before we worry about how it will affect economics.
That's not the point. The point is that 'information wants to be free' or 'no one owns IP, anyone should be free to copy or distribute it.' The model being viable|not viable has absolutely nothing to do with whether IP laws are valid or invalid. If the problem is just that the business model is broken, one solution is to try to make it viable again through legislative means.
There is a difference between ethics and law. Ethics are just that. Laws, on the other hand, try to balance ethics and pragmatic needs. A law may be "somewhat unethical" if it achieves a greater good, etc. (wiretapping is usually not ethical, but can be put to good use, etc.). I believe Richard Stallman's point of view is that: "The people gave up a right they could not use (making copies of works), in order for a perceived benefit (more artistic work). The world has changed, and now people should reclaim that right they gave up." (highly paraphrased) In this argument, copyright has always been somewhat unethical, but pragmatically people put up with it because of the net benefit to society. Nowadays, the unethical nature of IP is much more obvious, and people are understandably unhappy. Thus, perhaps the laws should be updated to reflect the fact that the pragmatic benefit no longer outweighs the combined ethical + pragmatic reasons to NOT have the law.
The model being viable|not viable has absolutely nothing to do with whether IP laws are valid or invalid.
Again, a business model has no bearing in an argument as to the ethics of owning concepts. However, when it comes to IP law, then business models (in addition to ethical concerns) must be considered. Laws are all about running societies properly... if changing a law would screw up businesses, (hence society) then the change should be avoided... unless the ethical case is great enough to outweigh those concerns.
The law is not about utility
The law is not only about utility... but nor is it entirely about ethics. Many laws exist for pragmatic, not ethical, purposes. Most laws represent a (attempted) balance between the concerns of our group morality, and the concerns of our group well-being.
That having been said, I believe we are both in favour of people spending a little more time thinking about the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of these arguments, rather than always jumping to a pragmatic justification for legal action. (I hope I have not misrepresented your stance.)
Why do we keep bringing up 'failed RIAA business models' ?? Because even though the debate should be about fundamental property rights and freedoms, the vast majority of people seem to concentrate on the business/money side of things. Seriously, if you have a debate with a random person you know, and you advocate removing copyright (or other IP law), their first reaction is not (usually) one of upholding a "fundamental right to own ethereal constructs" but rather they say "but without economic incentive, no new content will be made." Among my friends are a writer and a videogame level designer. Their reactions are very much about their own "bottom line." But even people who would not be personally affected by a change in economics find it difficult to imagine how the economy would run if IP didn't exist.
That's why we always need to bring up the business model end of it... because that's what a large number of people out there need to understand. They need to understand that the status quo is not sustainable... that the business model is flawed. Regardless of morality, the current evidence is that this business model is not doing very well.
Now, I would argue it is failing because making effortless copies is not unethical, and somewhere in the back of people's minds they feel this to be true (hence why they, by and large, don't feel guilty). I agree with you that we need to increase people's awareness of this issue as not just one of business, but also one of fundamental rights. However, to completely ignore the pragmatic sides of an issue is silly. Laws, after all, are all about balancing pragmatic and ethical issues.
Wikipedia is one of the most heavily loaded sites on the internet (currently ranked #24). Apprently (for instance) they push hundreds of megabytes of data per second.
Servers are not cheap, and Wikimedia needs lots of them. They list 129 new servers in 2005. Looking at the hardware stats of these servers, they obviously cost many thousands of dollars each (can someone give me more accurate pricing?).
All of these things are not cheap. Also note that Wikipedia needs more server coordination that many other sites, because the content is dynamic and the database huge. If you're just looking up info, that's fine, the content can be mirrored across many different servers across the world. But when you edit material, there must be a way to propagate those changes quickly. In fact, those of us who edit Wikipedia know that it becomes much slower when you enter edit mode, since all such changes have to go through a central server (as I understand it), rather than just the "closest and faster" server available.
All of this to say that running Wikipedia is by no means cheap. Yes, they really do need that much money ($100,000/year for servers and bandwidth is pretty cheap when you realize how much they manage to accomplish with it). Hopefully the donations will always be enough to keep up with the demand for this content.
(P.S.: Yes, some of the servers they use were donated. These donations are also vital to the ongoing success of Wikimedia.)
I'm assuming this is a joke. All Wikipedia text is licensed under the GFL, which is free and open, allowing anyone else to copy and modify the text (so long as it remains free and open). This means that other sites (like Answers.com, etc.) are legally allowed to copy text from Wikipedia (as long as they correctly describe the copyright terms, which they do). In fact, I believe an agreement is in place to allow them to mirror Wikipedia content more efficiently.
Personally, I don't understand how Answers.com makes any money from their adds. Who would go to Answers.com instead of just checking out the latest version on Wikipedia? I would prefer if they didn't exist, since, as you said, they simply dilute search engine results. In any case, what they are doing it legal and no big deal.
I think it's hard for us geeks to understand why art is valued the way it is. If we have a wicked computer that works perfectly, but later find out that it's (omg) not a real AMD, but in fact some sort of replica... we say "who cares?... As long as the IO behaviour is what I wanted, that's all that matters!"
Seriously, though... like it or not, the way that art appraisal work has little (nothing?) to do with talent of the artist, and everything to do with perceived value and context. After all, a sufficiently awesome printer could produce (in principle) copies of Rembrandts that most people would not be able to differentiate, but ultimately they would have little value. Similarly, artificial diamonds are just as good (or better) in terms of purity, hardness and optical properties as natural diamonds, but the natural diamonds are valued higher "just because."
Even if no one can tell that it's a fake for many years, art critics want to know if it's real or not. Such knowledge can change the perceived value of the item, even if it doesn't change its physical appearance. Again, art value is NOT about how "nice" or "well done" a work is, but rather based on "how much are people willing to pay for it."
And in a strange way, having some Rembrandts shown to be fake would actually INCREASE the value of all the other Rembrandts, since they would suddenly be perceived to be a more rare commodity than before. So in fact a Rembrandt collection could stand to have its calculated worth INCREASED if some of them were found to be fakes. (Obviously other Rembrandt collections would also increase in value, especially if it were found that they contained no fakes.)
Lastly, let me mention that above and beyond the determination of the value of art, it's worthwhile from the perspective of art history to determine which ones are real and which are not. If a given conclusion about a time period is based upon a painting that turns out to be fake, well then we have to update the (art) history books.
Indeed. In fact, considering that amarok (and other OSS projects) have already taken care of so much of this, the question becomes "why a whole new project?" Why not just code the parts that one needs in order to interface with various music stores and various mp3 players, and release that stuff as a library that any OSS project (such as amaraok) can interface with.
We've taken xulrunner and sqlite and vlc and glued them together with some xml, javascript, and C++.
So, yes, they are aware of (and using) other OSS projects. That's good. But do we need to get used to a whole new UI? Most people already have a good music UI that they like and are comfortable with. Of greater use, as I said before, would be some plugins that any music player software could use to interface with various music stores and devices.
Would you make such a daring move for you children's sake?
You are purposefully implying, with this question, that it is a good thing (to prevent your child from using technology). Would I do something daring for the sake of my child? You bet. Do I think that removing them from technology represents a case where the child is better off? No.
Your one data point notwithstanding, I believe that a person is more likely to be happy, healthy, and intelligent if they have access to the full depth and breadth of what the world has to offer (including such things as: travelling to other countries, modern healtcare, books of all types, the internet, learning different languages, etc.).
Restricting a child's access to tools is silly. Smart kids will be smart no matter what. Giving them access to more of the world will make them more worldly.
I agree. We are not "addicted" to technology or gadgets or music or food or any number of other things that enrich our lives. I have a friend in psychology (actually neuroscience), and he often emphasises that in diagnosis, the difference between "something you like" and "addiction" is "does it disrupt the person's ability to live their life?" If the thing in question makes the person do questionable things, hurt themselves, or otherwise make it difficult for them to live a normal and happy life, then it is addiction (similarly, most psych conditions, like "depression" are analyzed in terms of how much it affects a person's ability to live their life, achieve their goals, etc.).
All of this to say that you cannot classify our like of technology as an "addiction." Are we selling our first-born children in order to satisfy our lust for new gadgets? Hardly. Is this fixation with technology making it difficult for us to live our lives? No. (In fact the technology sometimes makes our lives easier--hence it is a (partially) pragmatic desire.)
I find the hyperbole of "we are addicted to X" annoying (where X, these days, is often "video games" or "the internet" or whatever). I don't go into convulsions when I don't read slashdot for a day. I am employable and happy. I certainly wouldn't be stealing TVs and selling them on the black market in order to satisfy my insane lust for slashdot...
I'm assuming you're more productive with Linux than Windows. Since you're a student, it seems obvious to me that you should learn Java. Why? Because it's easier to develop (and compile) Java code on a linux machine than it is to develop (and compile!) C# code on a linux machine. I'm assuming you want to be sitting at a linux box when doing your assignments (whether at home or in the computer lab), since you'll be more productive, and can concentrate on programming rather than on the idiosyncrasies of the OS/GUI you are using.
Purely to make this learning experience as fruitful as possible, I recommend sticking with Java on Linux. In the future, support for C# coding on Linux may be better... but you need to learn now!
I'm no expert in economics, but the numbers quoted in TFA just don't make sense to me. I feel like there is a hidden assumption in this analysis. They are saying that countries that currently have massive "piracy" would, if only "piracy" were elimianted, have a gigantic boom in their IT sector. They say that Russia and China would see a massive increase in IT jobs and so forth.
I don't think so. They are assuming that there is a limitless demand for IT professionals that is not currently being satisfied. I don't think this is the case. These countries have a host of other economic and political problems that lead to many things, including not respecting other countrie's copyrights (oh no!) and having limited jobs for IT professionals. If they suddenly enforced copyright (and by this, it is implicitly meant the copyright of other countries) I don't think there would suddenly be a huge demand for copyright-enforcing bureaucracy.
I just don't see why people who are used to making copies without obtaining permission will go along with, and support, such a system. Frankly the point of the whole article is "other countries have this nifty law that lets the government tax ethereal things... and it lets companies sue lots of people for ethereal things! These countries are rich! Do you want to be rich? All you have to do is impose laws that manage ethereal things (like ideas), and *poof* you have wealth out of thin air!"
I don't believe in generating fictitious wealth using laws. It's barely sustainable for the countries that are doing it now; I just don't see how it would make sense for countries that don't have a history of such laws.
Even if applied "properly," I question the validity of the assumption that ideas can be "owned." The term itself is misleading and two major branches of intellectual property (copyright and patents) are based on highly dubious assumptions.
The arguments are extensive, and others have framed them far better than I can. Consider reading "Information Liberation" by Brian Martin (available online, of course), in particular Chapter 3: Against Intellectual Property (also available in PDF). There are many others interesting texts on the subject.
In short, I think a fairly compelling case can be made for "intellectual property" being, at it's core, a rather "bad" thing.
But ever since software companies stopped selling software and started selling services, they now are going after users.
It's entirely possible that I'm not understanding what you're getting at... but I see things as being quite the opposite as you. As I see it, it's because software companies won't give up the sell product business model that we have all these problems. If the software companies would stop trying to charge me for the zero-cost replication of their product, and would instead charge me for service, that would be fine. If they offer bad service, I can cancel my subscription, stop getting support, and still use the product (at my own risk!). If I'm in a jam, I can pay for service, in effect paying for them to actually do something.
This seems to work (to varying extents) for some OSS software vendors. I can use Mandriva, but if I want support, or faster downloads of newest products, I can pay for those services. I have no problem paying for access to enhanced services. I also see nothing wrong for charging users to play online games (servers and electricity cost money). I'm not convinced that charging me $50 everytime I want to install a copy of something is equally valid.
Frankly it's much easier, as a user, to stop being bothered by a company when they are service-based, since you can just cancel your subscription. It's annoying to have to deal with copy-protection and DRM on products that you "bought" years ago.
It seems that nowadays no discussion of Debian is complete without mentioning Ubuntu. I'm very much impressed with what Ubuntu has accomplished. It really is a great distro. But Ubuntu would be nowhere without Debian. I would have liked to hear his thoughts on Ubuntu. Does it's existence help or hinder Debian? I have heard elsewhere that Ubuntu and Debian do work together on some issues, and that it has been positive for both distros. Still, I would have liked to hear whether he considers Ubuntu a good thing, and what his experiences have been in dealing with that team.
Go make your own license and see what gets used more. No offense man, but do you see where I'm coming from on this?
With all due respect, you didn't read my post very carefully. I do see where you're coming from. In fact I agree with you. If you read my post, I was very careful to write:
Some people want the GPL to be rewritten...
I didn't say "I" for a reason. Remember, I was responding to the question "why is there a need for a rewrite?" I was providing an example of what some people are worried about (that doesn't mean I agree with their arguments, just because I can describe them). Nevertheless, I maintain what I said in my previous post:
It's a grey zone, and worthy of some careful debate.
I understand their concern. We don't want to leave a loophole in the GPL whereby people will end up using software without access to the source code. What if some insidious company starts "leasing" computers with GPL-derived code on them. Then they claim that the user is merely being given access to "program output" but that the user does not own the computer the code is running on and is not entitled to the binary. (Does it make a difference if the computer you are using, but don't own, is in the same room as you or far way in some company's server room? Maybe, maybe not...).
Again, my point in saying all this is not to advance a particular GPL-rewrite agenda. Currently, I'm of the opinion that there is no problem (in that regard) with the GPL. It works great, and I see no reason to force companies to expose their code unless the end binary is being distributed. That having been said, I'm very much in favour of some insightful debate on the subject, to make sure that we're not forgetting something subtle that will be used as a loophole later on.
I partially agree. It's entirely possible the virus infects lots and lots of computers before hitting a honeypot. However, part of the idea here is that once a honeypot gets infected, the signature is quickly spread all over the place. Under this system, not just the AV companies find out about it, but it spreads directly to all servers and even end-users quickly. So, for instance, some servers/routers/ISPs could, once they receive a new signature, simply block traffic with said signature. For instance, if email servers quickly got the new signatures, then this blocks that avenue of spreading (even if end-users have not received the signature yet).
The fast spreading of viruses is due to the exponential connectivity of the net. The idea with this system is to throw up roadblocks at the same rate (the signature spreads using the same exponential network). Even though viruses will still infect some people, the damage (in many cases) is lessened because the signature propagates quickly too. Not everyone has to be protected for the spread to be greatly slowed.
But you're right that it's not simple, and there is no simple solution. Also, obviously virus-writers will try to exploit this system. Why not write a virus that includes signatures of legitamite traffic? Why not exploit the system to greatly increase web traffic (and thereby create a denial-of-service attack)? There will be many problems to be addressed... but still the idea has merit.
I think the reason this is interesting (as an idea anyway) is that it would be automated. Nowadays the anti-virus guys check things out, create patches, and deliver patches... so there is a spread of the immunization. Under this scheme, the signature would be automatically sent out to all computers, so people would become immunized very quickly. The cure would spread as fast as the virus, since everything is automated. But there, as far as I'm concerned is the problem. The article says:
The real trick is to make sure that the antiviral signature travels faster through the Internet than the virus itself,
I disagree. Sending signals to all participating computers real fast isn't such a big deal. After all, the virus has to poke around inside an infected computer, looking for data on "who to infect next." This immunization system will have a built-in table of how to efficiently route the cure. So it will be faster (or at least competitive with) the virus spreading speed. (I know, I know... virus-writers will exploit that very routing table...)
In my estimation, the real challenge is to automate the detection. The honeypot must somehow identify what is a virus and what is not (and do it quickly to be at all effective!). Sometimes this will be easy (the honeypot may have a store of thousands of files that it never touches, and if any one of them becomes modified, it must have been a virus trying to replicate itself, etc.)... other times, it may be darn difficult for a machine to tell it has become infected. After all, the whole point of a virus is that it does something unexpected (exploits a bug that was not known to exist). So determining that a virus is operating is hard.
I also see false positives being a major concern. If the honeypot starts issuing signatures for legitimate net traffic, then the system becomes worse than useless. Just my opinion. I'm no expert.
Sorry I guess I wasn't clear. Clearly Google and the military are different cases. The reason I mention the military is that if you put in a clause "All derivatives of GPL code must be made available to the world" then the military cannot use GPL code. Hence why I suggested a middle-ground solution would be "All GPL-derived code must be made available to users of the resultant program, even if the binary is not explicitly delivered to them." This would force Google to provide source code to users, but would allow the military to keep their changes to GPL code secret. Similarly, a large company that develops an in-house application based on GPL code can keep changes internal (so that their competitors don't get the code), as long as the in-house application never interacts with customers outside the organization.
I was NOT suggesting that the military uses of GPL code were an analogy to what Google does. There is a distinct difference.
Integrating wireless is not for "bells and whitsles" reasons. They are not trying to make the 100$ laptop "cool," they are trying to make it functional. The FAQ explains it quite well:
What about connectivity? Aren't telecommunications services expensive in the developing world?
When these machines pop out of the box, they will make a mesh network of their own, peer-to-peer. This is something initially developed at MIT and the Media Lab. We are also exploring ways to connect them to the backbone of the Internet at very low cost.
Basically the wireless is there because otherwise the laptop would be useless. Each laptop will have a very small and cheap hard drive (or flash memory?), and won't store much information. Instead, students will be able to share files easily, and the teacher will be able to send information to the students, without the need for expensive hardwired infrastructure. It also makes the "classroom" very portable.
Some people want the GPL to be rewritten so that you are forced to release the source code for a modified/derivative product, even if you don't distribute the resulting program/binary.
For instance, some people are somewhat annoyed that Google has a huge number of linux boxes running, and that they have tweaked and customized the linux code to get their own special version of linux. They clearly benefit from the open-source nature of linux, but do not release the changes they make. This is allowed under the GPL because they are not distributing the resultant program. They are only using it internally. Yet, they are distributing information/data/effects derived from the program (the return of search results comes from a linux system... even though they don't distribute the program itself to the end-user).
It's a grey zone, and worthy of some careful debate. If a company modifies GPL code and uses it only internally, should they be forced to publish the source code? What about the military? They want to use GPL code in their projects, but are not likely to accept releasing changes they make (for a whole variety of reasons!). Maybe a middle-ground is required: you need to distribute source/changes if you distribute the program/binaries AND if you distribute data resulting from this program (i.e.: even if the customer interacts with the program indirectly, and never has the binary on their system, they are still a "user" and need access to the source).
That's just one example of something that the original GPL didn't consider, and may be worthy of consideration now.
A spokeswoman for the F.B.I. said "we're aware of the possibility" that older wiretap systems may be foiled through the techniques described in the paper. Catherine Milhoan, the spokeswoman, said after consulting with bureau wiretap experts that the vulnerability existed in only about 10 percent of state and federal wiretaps today. (emphasis added)
So basically it is a minority of antiquated equipment that is vulnerable. Moreover, the person being wiretapped probably doesn't know what system is being used. It is not going to be possible to know, with any assurance, that you have actually defeated the system.
What this probably means is that the FBI will phase out these older systems a little faster than they intended to (mostly due to the publicity-- they were probably already aware of this vulnerability, but didn't care much because "the bad guys" were not aware of it).
Vonage told me I had 911 dialing a long time ago. I just checked my email records, and they sent me a confirmation eight months ago, on March 30, 2005. They said that it was active and I'm assuming they are not making that up. However, I am in Canada, whereas obviously this article pertains to the US. So is it possible that in Canada the other companies were more compliant?... or perhaps the legal pressure in Canada was more effective? Clearly Vonage is able (technologically) to deliver this service, so I tend to believe them when they say that it is the other telcos blocking their attempts.
Why does Microsoft insist on proposing a new "open" document format when there is already an established one...
Good point. And for that matter, if Microsoft is trying to support open document standards, then why not just open up the old Microsoft Office formats? You know, give us all the documentation, let us write fully compatible readers (legally). After all, lots of people already use MS Office formats. Of course, we all know that they are offering a new document format (rather than accepting what OpenDocument has to offer) purely because they want to maintain their Office software monopoly, which relies heavily on their document format monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
How did all grad students complete their theses before the Wikipedia era?
Okay, you're right. It's silly to say that you cannot complete a thesis without access to Wikipedia. Obviously it can be done. Many grad students in North America don't even know Wikipedia exists, yet somehow they finish their thesis.
But the greater issue here is, obviously, the censoring of information. The more sources you restrict, the less useful the remaining information you have is. If you had access to *only* Wikipedia, that wouldn't be very good, because you can't double-check any of its facts. But not having access to Wikipedia also sucks, because you've lost an invaluable tool for learning about new subjects and finding new references.
The point is that this student, apparently, found Wikipedia to be a very valuable tool, and now he can't use. Yes there are other tools out there, but as more and more sources are systematically removed, his life (writing his thesis) becomes harder and harder. The fact that data is being censored systematically (not randomly) obviously makes this even worse. You KNOW that the information you have access to is biased. Wikipiedia is one source that works hard to remove bias, and present balanced accounts, and now that source is gone.
As a matter of fact, grads don't refer to encyclopedias when doing research.
Well that's not really fair. When I do research, I never quote Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) as a "source"... but I look up things on Wikipedia about 10 to 80 times a day. It's amazing for getting a quick definition, and introductory explanation, or whatever. When reading all kinds of obscure scientific articles, I often need a quick definition of some new word or field. Wikipedia gives me that. So while Wikipedia never ends up being cited in papers I publish, it is nevertheless one of the best time-saving tools I have at my disposal. So yes, scientists and grad students use wikipedia quite a bit when doing research. (Although not as a primary, quotable source.)
To summarize: I don't think this issue is about Wikipedia per se. Wikipedia is one very painful loss on a long list of things that have been censored in China. Any individual thing won't make writing a thesis impossible... but taken together: yes it is impossible to write a decent thesis when access to information has been restricted.
One reason I mention this is that it is easy to find examples of just causes that have failed. Failure != 'bad.'
Yes, you are right. Well put.
I would again just say that I think in this particular case (copyright), one of the main reasons that the business model is failing is precisely because it is unethical (or at the very least, not appreciated by the populace at large). Hence why it may be worth investigating while trying to determine the morality of the situation.
so striking down draconian anti-piracy laws needs to be done as a strike against oppressive IP protections, which means saying that the IP itself is not wholly valid.
Again, a slight difference is that helping the steel or airline industries didn't require draconian or oppressive laws. It required money and laws and maybe even protectionism, but didn't really limit the freedoms of the populace at large. In my opinion, it is okay to implement laws to protect business models, but it is NEVER okay to implement draconian laws (by which I mean laws that restrict the freedoms of citizens) to protect businesses.
But, again, I agree with what you've said. We need to consider the fundamental ethics before we worry about how it will affect economics.
That's not the point. The point is that 'information wants to be free' or 'no one owns IP, anyone should be free to copy or distribute it.' The model being viable|not viable has absolutely nothing to do with whether IP laws are valid or invalid. If the problem is just that the business model is broken, one solution is to try to make it viable again through legislative means.
There is a difference between ethics and law. Ethics are just that. Laws, on the other hand, try to balance ethics and pragmatic needs. A law may be "somewhat unethical" if it achieves a greater good, etc. (wiretapping is usually not ethical, but can be put to good use, etc.). I believe Richard Stallman's point of view is that: "The people gave up a right they could not use (making copies of works), in order for a perceived benefit (more artistic work). The world has changed, and now people should reclaim that right they gave up." (highly paraphrased) In this argument, copyright has always been somewhat unethical, but pragmatically people put up with it because of the net benefit to society. Nowadays, the unethical nature of IP is much more obvious, and people are understandably unhappy. Thus, perhaps the laws should be updated to reflect the fact that the pragmatic benefit no longer outweighs the combined ethical + pragmatic reasons to NOT have the law.
The model being viable|not viable has absolutely nothing to do with whether IP laws are valid or invalid.
Again, a business model has no bearing in an argument as to the ethics of owning concepts. However, when it comes to IP law, then business models (in addition to ethical concerns) must be considered. Laws are all about running societies properly... if changing a law would screw up businesses, (hence society) then the change should be avoided... unless the ethical case is great enough to outweigh those concerns.
The law is not about utility
The law is not only about utility... but nor is it entirely about ethics. Many laws exist for pragmatic, not ethical, purposes. Most laws represent a (attempted) balance between the concerns of our group morality, and the concerns of our group well-being.
That having been said, I believe we are both in favour of people spending a little more time thinking about the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of these arguments, rather than always jumping to a pragmatic justification for legal action. (I hope I have not misrepresented your stance.)
You said:
What it boils down to is
But perhaps what you meant was:
What it should boil down to is
Why do we keep bringing up 'failed RIAA business models' ?? Because even though the debate should be about fundamental property rights and freedoms, the vast majority of people seem to concentrate on the business/money side of things. Seriously, if you have a debate with a random person you know, and you advocate removing copyright (or other IP law), their first reaction is not (usually) one of upholding a "fundamental right to own ethereal constructs" but rather they say "but without economic incentive, no new content will be made." Among my friends are a writer and a videogame level designer. Their reactions are very much about their own "bottom line." But even people who would not be personally affected by a change in economics find it difficult to imagine how the economy would run if IP didn't exist.
That's why we always need to bring up the business model end of it... because that's what a large number of people out there need to understand. They need to understand that the status quo is not sustainable... that the business model is flawed. Regardless of morality, the current evidence is that this business model is not doing very well.
Now, I would argue it is failing because making effortless copies is not unethical, and somewhere in the back of people's minds they feel this to be true (hence why they, by and large, don't feel guilty). I agree with you that we need to increase people's awareness of this issue as not just one of business, but also one of fundamental rights. However, to completely ignore the pragmatic sides of an issue is silly. Laws, after all, are all about balancing pragmatic and ethical issues.
Wikipedia is one of the most heavily loaded sites on the internet (currently ranked #24). Apprently (for instance) they push hundreds of megabytes of data per second.
Servers are not cheap, and Wikimedia needs lots of them. They list 129 new servers in 2005. Looking at the hardware stats of these servers, they obviously cost many thousands of dollars each (can someone give me more accurate pricing?).
All of these things are not cheap. Also note that Wikipedia needs more server coordination that many other sites, because the content is dynamic and the database huge. If you're just looking up info, that's fine, the content can be mirrored across many different servers across the world. But when you edit material, there must be a way to propagate those changes quickly. In fact, those of us who edit Wikipedia know that it becomes much slower when you enter edit mode, since all such changes have to go through a central server (as I understand it), rather than just the "closest and faster" server available.
All of this to say that running Wikipedia is by no means cheap. Yes, they really do need that much money ($100,000/year for servers and bandwidth is pretty cheap when you realize how much they manage to accomplish with it). Hopefully the donations will always be enough to keep up with the demand for this content.
(P.S.: Yes, some of the servers they use were donated. These donations are also vital to the ongoing success of Wikimedia.)
I'm assuming this is a joke. All Wikipedia text is licensed under the GFL, which is free and open, allowing anyone else to copy and modify the text (so long as it remains free and open). This means that other sites (like Answers.com, etc.) are legally allowed to copy text from Wikipedia (as long as they correctly describe the copyright terms, which they do). In fact, I believe an agreement is in place to allow them to mirror Wikipedia content more efficiently.
Personally, I don't understand how Answers.com makes any money from their adds. Who would go to Answers.com instead of just checking out the latest version on Wikipedia? I would prefer if they didn't exist, since, as you said, they simply dilute search engine results. In any case, what they are doing it legal and no big deal.
I think it's hard for us geeks to understand why art is valued the way it is. If we have a wicked computer that works perfectly, but later find out that it's (omg) not a real AMD, but in fact some sort of replica... we say "who cares?... As long as the IO behaviour is what I wanted, that's all that matters!"
Seriously, though... like it or not, the way that art appraisal work has little (nothing?) to do with talent of the artist, and everything to do with perceived value and context. After all, a sufficiently awesome printer could produce (in principle) copies of Rembrandts that most people would not be able to differentiate, but ultimately they would have little value. Similarly, artificial diamonds are just as good (or better) in terms of purity, hardness and optical properties as natural diamonds, but the natural diamonds are valued higher "just because."
Even if no one can tell that it's a fake for many years, art critics want to know if it's real or not. Such knowledge can change the perceived value of the item, even if it doesn't change its physical appearance. Again, art value is NOT about how "nice" or "well done" a work is, but rather based on "how much are people willing to pay for it."
And in a strange way, having some Rembrandts shown to be fake would actually INCREASE the value of all the other Rembrandts, since they would suddenly be perceived to be a more rare commodity than before. So in fact a Rembrandt collection could stand to have its calculated worth INCREASED if some of them were found to be fakes. (Obviously other Rembrandt collections would also increase in value, especially if it were found that they contained no fakes.)
Lastly, let me mention that above and beyond the determination of the value of art, it's worthwhile from the perspective of art history to determine which ones are real and which are not. If a given conclusion about a time period is based upon a painting that turns out to be fake, well then we have to update the (art) history books.
FYI, this is an old troll: Example one, example two, example three (and even repeated off slashdot).
Indeed. In fact, considering that amarok (and other OSS projects) have already taken care of so much of this, the question becomes "why a whole new project?" Why not just code the parts that one needs in order to interface with various music stores and various mp3 players, and release that stuff as a library that any OSS project (such as amaraok) can interface with.
According to one of their pages:
We've taken xulrunner and sqlite and vlc and glued them together with some xml, javascript, and C++.
So, yes, they are aware of (and using) other OSS projects. That's good. But do we need to get used to a whole new UI? Most people already have a good music UI that they like and are comfortable with. Of greater use, as I said before, would be some plugins that any music player software could use to interface with various music stores and devices.
Would you make such a daring move for you children's sake?
You are purposefully implying, with this question, that it is a good thing (to prevent your child from using technology). Would I do something daring for the sake of my child? You bet. Do I think that removing them from technology represents a case where the child is better off? No.
Your one data point notwithstanding, I believe that a person is more likely to be happy, healthy, and intelligent if they have access to the full depth and breadth of what the world has to offer (including such things as: travelling to other countries, modern healtcare, books of all types, the internet, learning different languages, etc.).
Restricting a child's access to tools is silly. Smart kids will be smart no matter what. Giving them access to more of the world will make them more worldly.
I agree. We are not "addicted" to technology or gadgets or music or food or any number of other things that enrich our lives. I have a friend in psychology (actually neuroscience), and he often emphasises that in diagnosis, the difference between "something you like" and "addiction" is "does it disrupt the person's ability to live their life?" If the thing in question makes the person do questionable things, hurt themselves, or otherwise make it difficult for them to live a normal and happy life, then it is addiction (similarly, most psych conditions, like "depression" are analyzed in terms of how much it affects a person's ability to live their life, achieve their goals, etc.).
All of this to say that you cannot classify our like of technology as an "addiction." Are we selling our first-born children in order to satisfy our lust for new gadgets? Hardly. Is this fixation with technology making it difficult for us to live our lives? No. (In fact the technology sometimes makes our lives easier--hence it is a (partially) pragmatic desire.)
I find the hyperbole of "we are addicted to X" annoying (where X, these days, is often "video games" or "the internet" or whatever). I don't go into convulsions when I don't read slashdot for a day. I am employable and happy. I certainly wouldn't be stealing TVs and selling them on the black market in order to satisfy my insane lust for slashdot...
Now I'm a diehard Linux user
I'm assuming you're more productive with Linux than Windows. Since you're a student, it seems obvious to me that you should learn Java. Why? Because it's easier to develop (and compile) Java code on a linux machine than it is to develop (and compile!) C# code on a linux machine. I'm assuming you want to be sitting at a linux box when doing your assignments (whether at home or in the computer lab), since you'll be more productive, and can concentrate on programming rather than on the idiosyncrasies of the OS/GUI you are using.
Purely to make this learning experience as fruitful as possible, I recommend sticking with Java on Linux. In the future, support for C# coding on Linux may be better... but you need to learn now!
I'm no expert in economics, but the numbers quoted in TFA just don't make sense to me. I feel like there is a hidden assumption in this analysis. They are saying that countries that currently have massive "piracy" would, if only "piracy" were elimianted, have a gigantic boom in their IT sector. They say that Russia and China would see a massive increase in IT jobs and so forth.
I don't think so. They are assuming that there is a limitless demand for IT professionals that is not currently being satisfied. I don't think this is the case. These countries have a host of other economic and political problems that lead to many things, including not respecting other countrie's copyrights (oh no!) and having limited jobs for IT professionals. If they suddenly enforced copyright (and by this, it is implicitly meant the copyright of other countries) I don't think there would suddenly be a huge demand for copyright-enforcing bureaucracy.
I just don't see why people who are used to making copies without obtaining permission will go along with, and support, such a system. Frankly the point of the whole article is "other countries have this nifty law that lets the government tax ethereal things... and it lets companies sue lots of people for ethereal things! These countries are rich! Do you want to be rich? All you have to do is impose laws that manage ethereal things (like ideas), and *poof* you have wealth out of thin air!"
I don't believe in generating fictitious wealth using laws. It's barely sustainable for the countries that are doing it now; I just don't see how it would make sense for countries that don't have a history of such laws.
I agree with what you say, except:
Protecting intellectual property is good.
Even if applied "properly," I question the validity of the assumption that ideas can be "owned." The term itself is misleading and two major branches of intellectual property (copyright and patents) are based on highly dubious assumptions.
The arguments are extensive, and others have framed them far better than I can. Consider reading "Information Liberation" by Brian Martin (available online, of course), in particular Chapter 3: Against Intellectual Property (also available in PDF). There are many others interesting texts on the subject.
In short, I think a fairly compelling case can be made for "intellectual property" being, at it's core, a rather "bad" thing.
But ever since software companies stopped selling software and started selling services, they now are going after users.
It's entirely possible that I'm not understanding what you're getting at... but I see things as being quite the opposite as you. As I see it, it's because software companies won't give up the sell product business model that we have all these problems. If the software companies would stop trying to charge me for the zero-cost replication of their product, and would instead charge me for service, that would be fine. If they offer bad service, I can cancel my subscription, stop getting support, and still use the product (at my own risk!). If I'm in a jam, I can pay for service, in effect paying for them to actually do something.
This seems to work (to varying extents) for some OSS software vendors. I can use Mandriva, but if I want support, or faster downloads of newest products, I can pay for those services. I have no problem paying for access to enhanced services. I also see nothing wrong for charging users to play online games (servers and electricity cost money). I'm not convinced that charging me $50 everytime I want to install a copy of something is equally valid.
Frankly it's much easier, as a user, to stop being bothered by a company when they are service-based, since you can just cancel your subscription. It's annoying to have to deal with copy-protection and DRM on products that you "bought" years ago.
It seems that nowadays no discussion of Debian is complete without mentioning Ubuntu. I'm very much impressed with what Ubuntu has accomplished. It really is a great distro. But Ubuntu would be nowhere without Debian. I would have liked to hear his thoughts on Ubuntu. Does it's existence help or hinder Debian? I have heard elsewhere that Ubuntu and Debian do work together on some issues, and that it has been positive for both distros. Still, I would have liked to hear whether he considers Ubuntu a good thing, and what his experiences have been in dealing with that team.
Go make your own license and see what gets used more. No offense man, but do you see where I'm coming from on this?
With all due respect, you didn't read my post very carefully. I do see where you're coming from. In fact I agree with you. If you read my post, I was very careful to write:
Some people want the GPL to be rewritten...
I didn't say "I" for a reason. Remember, I was responding to the question "why is there a need for a rewrite?" I was providing an example of what some people are worried about (that doesn't mean I agree with their arguments, just because I can describe them). Nevertheless, I maintain what I said in my previous post:
It's a grey zone, and worthy of some careful debate.
I understand their concern. We don't want to leave a loophole in the GPL whereby people will end up using software without access to the source code. What if some insidious company starts "leasing" computers with GPL-derived code on them. Then they claim that the user is merely being given access to "program output" but that the user does not own the computer the code is running on and is not entitled to the binary. (Does it make a difference if the computer you are using, but don't own, is in the same room as you or far way in some company's server room? Maybe, maybe not...).
Again, my point in saying all this is not to advance a particular GPL-rewrite agenda. Currently, I'm of the opinion that there is no problem (in that regard) with the GPL. It works great, and I see no reason to force companies to expose their code unless the end binary is being distributed. That having been said, I'm very much in favour of some insightful debate on the subject, to make sure that we're not forgetting something subtle that will be used as a loophole later on.
I partially agree. It's entirely possible the virus infects lots and lots of computers before hitting a honeypot. However, part of the idea here is that once a honeypot gets infected, the signature is quickly spread all over the place. Under this system, not just the AV companies find out about it, but it spreads directly to all servers and even end-users quickly. So, for instance, some servers/routers/ISPs could, once they receive a new signature, simply block traffic with said signature. For instance, if email servers quickly got the new signatures, then this blocks that avenue of spreading (even if end-users have not received the signature yet).
The fast spreading of viruses is due to the exponential connectivity of the net. The idea with this system is to throw up roadblocks at the same rate (the signature spreads using the same exponential network). Even though viruses will still infect some people, the damage (in many cases) is lessened because the signature propagates quickly too. Not everyone has to be protected for the spread to be greatly slowed.
But you're right that it's not simple, and there is no simple solution. Also, obviously virus-writers will try to exploit this system. Why not write a virus that includes signatures of legitamite traffic? Why not exploit the system to greatly increase web traffic (and thereby create a denial-of-service attack)? There will be many problems to be addressed... but still the idea has merit.
I think the reason this is interesting (as an idea anyway) is that it would be automated. Nowadays the anti-virus guys check things out, create patches, and deliver patches... so there is a spread of the immunization. Under this scheme, the signature would be automatically sent out to all computers, so people would become immunized very quickly. The cure would spread as fast as the virus, since everything is automated. But there, as far as I'm concerned is the problem. The article says:
The real trick is to make sure that the antiviral signature travels faster through the Internet than the virus itself,
I disagree. Sending signals to all participating computers real fast isn't such a big deal. After all, the virus has to poke around inside an infected computer, looking for data on "who to infect next." This immunization system will have a built-in table of how to efficiently route the cure. So it will be faster (or at least competitive with) the virus spreading speed. (I know, I know... virus-writers will exploit that very routing table...)
In my estimation, the real challenge is to automate the detection. The honeypot must somehow identify what is a virus and what is not (and do it quickly to be at all effective!). Sometimes this will be easy (the honeypot may have a store of thousands of files that it never touches, and if any one of them becomes modified, it must have been a virus trying to replicate itself, etc.)... other times, it may be darn difficult for a machine to tell it has become infected. After all, the whole point of a virus is that it does something unexpected (exploits a bug that was not known to exist). So determining that a virus is operating is hard.
I also see false positives being a major concern. If the honeypot starts issuing signatures for legitimate net traffic, then the system becomes worse than useless. Just my opinion. I'm no expert.
Sorry I guess I wasn't clear. Clearly Google and the military are different cases. The reason I mention the military is that if you put in a clause "All derivatives of GPL code must be made available to the world" then the military cannot use GPL code. Hence why I suggested a middle-ground solution would be "All GPL-derived code must be made available to users of the resultant program, even if the binary is not explicitly delivered to them." This would force Google to provide source code to users, but would allow the military to keep their changes to GPL code secret. Similarly, a large company that develops an in-house application based on GPL code can keep changes internal (so that their competitors don't get the code), as long as the in-house application never interacts with customers outside the organization.
I was NOT suggesting that the military uses of GPL code were an analogy to what Google does. There is a distinct difference.
Basically the wireless is there because otherwise the laptop would be useless. Each laptop will have a very small and cheap hard drive (or flash memory?), and won't store much information. Instead, students will be able to share files easily, and the teacher will be able to send information to the students, without the need for expensive hardwired infrastructure. It also makes the "classroom" very portable.
Some people want the GPL to be rewritten so that you are forced to release the source code for a modified/derivative product, even if you don't distribute the resulting program/binary.
For instance, some people are somewhat annoyed that Google has a huge number of linux boxes running, and that they have tweaked and customized the linux code to get their own special version of linux. They clearly benefit from the open-source nature of linux, but do not release the changes they make. This is allowed under the GPL because they are not distributing the resultant program. They are only using it internally. Yet, they are distributing information/data/effects derived from the program (the return of search results comes from a linux system... even though they don't distribute the program itself to the end-user).
It's a grey zone, and worthy of some careful debate. If a company modifies GPL code and uses it only internally, should they be forced to publish the source code? What about the military? They want to use GPL code in their projects, but are not likely to accept releasing changes they make (for a whole variety of reasons!). Maybe a middle-ground is required: you need to distribute source/changes if you distribute the program/binaries AND if you distribute data resulting from this program (i.e.: even if the customer interacts with the program indirectly, and never has the binary on their system, they are still a "user" and need access to the source).
That's just one example of something that the original GPL didn't consider, and may be worthy of consideration now.
Let's keep this in perspective. The article says:
A spokeswoman for the F.B.I. said "we're aware of the possibility" that older wiretap systems may be foiled through the techniques described in the paper. Catherine Milhoan, the spokeswoman, said after consulting with bureau wiretap experts that the vulnerability existed in only about 10 percent of state and federal wiretaps today. (emphasis added)
So basically it is a minority of antiquated equipment that is vulnerable. Moreover, the person being wiretapped probably doesn't know what system is being used. It is not going to be possible to know, with any assurance, that you have actually defeated the system.
What this probably means is that the FBI will phase out these older systems a little faster than they intended to (mostly due to the publicity-- they were probably already aware of this vulnerability, but didn't care much because "the bad guys" were not aware of it).
Vonage told me I had 911 dialing a long time ago. I just checked my email records, and they sent me a confirmation eight months ago, on March 30, 2005. They said that it was active and I'm assuming they are not making that up. However, I am in Canada, whereas obviously this article pertains to the US. So is it possible that in Canada the other companies were more compliant? ... or perhaps the legal pressure in Canada was more effective? Clearly Vonage is able (technologically) to deliver this service, so I tend to believe them when they say that it is the other telcos blocking their attempts.
Why does Microsoft insist on proposing a new "open" document format when there is already an established one...
Good point. And for that matter, if Microsoft is trying to support open document standards, then why not just open up the old Microsoft Office formats? You know, give us all the documentation, let us write fully compatible readers (legally). After all, lots of people already use MS Office formats. Of course, we all know that they are offering a new document format (rather than accepting what OpenDocument has to offer) purely because they want to maintain their Office software monopoly, which relies heavily on their document format monopoly.