Excellent points. One only need consider how much computer usage is done in cubicle farms, and then picture everyone chattering "Scratch that!" at their workstation, and the utility of speech recognition as a primary form of input becomes very limited regardless of its accuracy. I have a copy of Dragon, and its accuracy is really quite impressive, but past the novelty I have almost never used it. Other than the fact that it requires virtual silence (aside from your voice) to operate, unless I already know *exactly* what I want to say, it is easier for me to compose text by keyboard and construct my wording as I go along. The only time I could see it being of much use is for dictating a handwritten or badly printed document where OCR wouldn't work.
Totally agreed. The guy seems like he oscillates back and forth between "web software" and "internet software" with no rhyme or reason. AIM is also misplaced here. If AIM and WoW qualify, why not Usenet or BitTorrent?
As far as I can tell, the free(b); will never get called. If both malloc()s work, it will hit the return 0; and bypass the subsequent code; if either one fails, the goto labels are past the free(b); statement.
Well, if they go with the airship surveillance, I think they should make them giant spherical balloons which look like giant eyeballs in the skies, and light them up at night for an even more ominous effect. After all, if we're going to live in a surreal dystopian future of eyeballs in the sky, it ought to at least look like what it is.
Huh? Anyone remember when DoubleClick tried to tie their cookies to privacy data a few years ago - now those people are in Google management. I fear the evil is creeping in the side door...
There's a hidden clause in the motto: "Don't be evil...outsource your evil instead!"
Most artists want to make shitloads of money, not just enough to make a decent living.
Says who? Most artists don't make shitloads of money, so why do so many keep at it? Do they simply enjoy failure?
local and indie artists don't make shit at bars/gigs. They make most of their money from CD and t-shirt sales, so I don't think your point really holds.
Since I didn't make any distinction about making money from gigs vs. CD and t-shirt sales, I question what "point" you think you're refuting.
Unfortunately, if there's no money in music anymore, the effect will trickle down to local and indie artists. With little hope of "striking it big" there becomes less incentive to produce any content.
Or maybe, instead of there being "no money in music anymore", there just might be no money in selling recordings anymore. This may kill the recording industry which has focused more and more exclusive on only the bands that "strike it big". However, it could in turn free up consumers' dollars to support many more local and indie artists who, in my experience, often only seek to strike it big enough to make a decent living, not necessarily to win the virtual lottery of American Idol-atry.
I don't think those monkeys did nearly as bad as the article suggests. As the article notes:
But after a month, the [six] Sulawesi crested macaques had only succeeded in partially destroying the machine, using it as a lavatory, and mostly typing the letter "s".
The hypothesis is that a million monkeys typing randomly for a million years will eventually produce a work of Shakespeare. After one month with six monkeys, they produced no less than a first draft of "Snakes on a Plane."
Youtube and Napster became huge because of the illegitimate content that was traded over them.
While I will grant you the point about Napster, I don't think it necessarily applies to YouTube. YouTube is at best good for short clips, whether copyrighted or not, not so much for anything full-length. Everything I've ever watched on YouTube is either video that the creator explicitly wanted to be there (promotional stuff for bands, etc.) or short clips from TV shows, that while technically infringing, is not any huge threat to the market for the real show and probably even works as promotion, at least IMHO. People who want to "steal TV" are getting it from BitTorrent, not YouTube.
YouTube became a phenomenon because it was the first popular way for people to share short video clips, not as vector to share copyrighted content. Yes, some copyrighted content does get shared, but I really don't see that as the *primary* reason for YouTube's rise, as opposed to Napster where I can't really make that argument.
Changing their website privacy statement is not a fundamental change which explains why they can't do updates without phoning home, as they did previously.
Without telling Windows Update which software and hardware you have, and which patches you have installed in the past, your only option would be to download every patch for every application and device ever released. This would quickly become unworkable.
As I posted upthread, Windows Update in Win2000 prominently displayed a message: "Checking your computer for installed updates...this is done without sending any information to Microsoft." And it only downloaded the updates I needed, not every one for every supported product.
Were they lying then? Otherwise, why couldn't they still do it that way, other than to collect information on you?
You realize that the complete list of patches and optional downloads, for all supported versions of all supported products, is likely to be freaking huge? You wouldn't want it downloading that every time you run Windows Update - especially not dial-up users.
I seem to remember Windows Update in Win2000 prominently displayed a message: "Checking your computer for installed updates...this is done without sending any information to Microsoft." And it only downloaded the updates I needed, not every one for every supported product.
Did something fundamental change as to why that system can't work anymore?
dBpoweramp Music Converter, often referred to the Swiss knife of audio. The basic version is free, and it will convert between just about any two audio formats you can name.
One thing to be aware of, however, is that converting from one lossy audio codec to another (e.g., MP3 to Ogg Vorbis) will result in a loss of audio quality.
Oh, good. So I guess you agree in some kind of copyright but have been wasting our time?
Considering that this thread started on a point pertaining to "copyright laws as they exist now", not necessarily whether copyright laws should exist at all, who's wasting whose time?
Hm. You make a good point. How about this: I'll simply ask for a reason why something *could* exist without copyright, but not with copyright.
Oh, wait, I already did that before you jumped in with your insights!
And I actually provided such a reason (that most of the public domain works that Walt Disney used derivatively to build his media empire would not be PD under today's laws, which ironically were largely sponsored by Disney), which you seem to have ignored.
It's not provable in the mathematical sense, but given that the artists preferred not to use the non-copyright method that was available to them, and did require significant financial investment, it is unreasonable to think otherwise.
I would take exception to both of your "givens". Remember, copyright is automatic to all creative works; the creator need do nothing to obtain copyright protection. Using a "non-copyright method", OTOH, requires specific action on the part of the creator to release his work under some alternative licensing scheme. So to claim any artist who does not choose the latter deliberate path to the former automatic path prefers the legal default is specious. One thing Lessig notes in his book is that prior to 1976 when copyright terms were 28 years, extensible to 56 years, over 95% of registered copyrights were *not* renewed, so there is a clear indication that creators in many cases are just fine with their work going into the public domain.
Nor do all or even most copyrighted works "require significant financial investment". This post, upon creation, is a copyrighted work, but I can assure you the financial investment is minimal. So I would submit that the vast majority of copyrighted works *would* be created whether copyright protections exist or not.
That said, I will agree that there are many great works that would likely not have been created without *some* sort of protection, but you seem to be saying that this is *always* the case, which I would deem unreasonable.
However, the claim in question -- that there exist artistic works that are not produced because of copyright -- was the only unreasonable claim here that was lacking proof. (Remember, "I can't create a derivative of this copyrighted work" is not an argument -- that work only existed because of copyright.)
Of course, it is impossible to prove that something that does not exist would exist under some other conditions. I'll even say that the opposite, the claim that a given copyrighted work would not exist except for copyright, is just as unprovable.
However, consider that Walt Disney built his empire largely upon works (Snow White and Cinderella as the most obvious examples) that were public domain at that time, but under today's more restrictive (and effectively unlimited as long as ex post facto extensions are allowable) copyright laws, these public domain works would not have been available for Disney to create his profitable derivative works.
If you can, take the time and read the book. Lessig does not argue that copyright should not exist at all, but his argument is that copyright has become so unbalanced in the favor of "creators" (really, corporations which dominate the content industry) that it works against its original constitutionally stated purpose of promoting progress.
Your post assumes that there are no artistic works that would not be made because of copyright laws as they exist now.
Give me a scenario.
You might want to read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture. (It's even downloadable for free.) In it, he gives a number of scenarios where highly restrictive copyright laws, combined with the fact that there is no central registry by which one can determine what works are copyrighted any by whom, do inhibit creators from creating content.
This is the most insightful work I've read yet on the problems of modern copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent points. One only need consider how much computer usage is done in cubicle farms, and then picture everyone chattering "Scratch that!" at their workstation, and the utility of speech recognition as a primary form of input becomes very limited regardless of its accuracy. I have a copy of Dragon, and its accuracy is really quite impressive, but past the novelty I have almost never used it. Other than the fact that it requires virtual silence (aside from your voice) to operate, unless I already know *exactly* what I want to say, it is easier for me to compose text by keyboard and construct my wording as I go along. The only time I could see it being of much use is for dictating a handwritten or badly printed document where OCR wouldn't work.
Now when will the first 1TB drive come out with a name I can trust? (Seriously, how they never retired the DeskStar name is beyond me.)
If you don't know what I mean...
Totally agreed. The guy seems like he oscillates back and forth between "web software" and "internet software" with no rhyme or reason. AIM is also misplaced here. If AIM and WoW qualify, why not Usenet or BitTorrent?
Bravo! You deserve both Funny and Insightful for that.
As far as I can tell, the free(b); will never get called. If both malloc()s work, it will hit the return 0; and bypass the subsequent code; if either one fails, the goto labels are past the free(b); statement.
I've read that that story was highly exaggerated. In reality, the blacksmith gave 20 British soldiers brandy and wine and then they were hammered.
Well, if they go with the airship surveillance, I think they should make them giant spherical balloons which look like giant eyeballs in the skies, and light them up at night for an even more ominous effect. After all, if we're going to live in a surreal dystopian future of eyeballs in the sky, it ought to at least look like what it is.
There's a hidden clause in the motto: "Don't be evil...outsource your evil instead!"
Says who? Most artists don't make shitloads of money, so why do so many keep at it? Do they simply enjoy failure?
Since I didn't make any distinction about making money from gigs vs. CD and t-shirt sales, I question what "point" you think you're refuting.
Or maybe, instead of there being "no money in music anymore", there just might be no money in selling recordings anymore. This may kill the recording industry which has focused more and more exclusive on only the bands that "strike it big". However, it could in turn free up consumers' dollars to support many more local and indie artists who, in my experience, often only seek to strike it big enough to make a decent living, not necessarily to win the virtual lottery of American Idol-atry.
Eh, Stone Zeppelin was little more than a ripoff of Neanderthal blues rock-beaters of a previous era, like Muddy Glacial-Ice and Howlin' Mammoth.
I don't think those monkeys did nearly as bad as the article suggests. As the article notes:
The hypothesis is that a million monkeys typing randomly for a million years will eventually produce a work of Shakespeare. After one month with six monkeys, they produced no less than a first draft of "Snakes on a Plane."
Further research is clearly needed.
While I will grant you the point about Napster, I don't think it necessarily applies to YouTube. YouTube is at best good for short clips, whether copyrighted or not, not so much for anything full-length. Everything I've ever watched on YouTube is either video that the creator explicitly wanted to be there (promotional stuff for bands, etc.) or short clips from TV shows, that while technically infringing, is not any huge threat to the market for the real show and probably even works as promotion, at least IMHO. People who want to "steal TV" are getting it from BitTorrent, not YouTube.
YouTube became a phenomenon because it was the first popular way for people to share short video clips, not as vector to share copyrighted content. Yes, some copyrighted content does get shared, but I really don't see that as the *primary* reason for YouTube's rise, as opposed to Napster where I can't really make that argument.
Changing their website privacy statement is not a fundamental change which explains why they can't do updates without phoning home, as they did previously.
As I posted upthread, Windows Update in Win2000 prominently displayed a message: "Checking your computer for installed updates...this is done without sending any information to Microsoft." And it only downloaded the updates I needed, not every one for every supported product.
Were they lying then? Otherwise, why couldn't they still do it that way, other than to collect information on you?
I seem to remember Windows Update in Win2000 prominently displayed a message: "Checking your computer for installed updates...this is done without sending any information to Microsoft." And it only downloaded the updates I needed, not every one for every supported product.
Did something fundamental change as to why that system can't work anymore?
I wholeheartedly agree that to say that "a certain congressman deserves 'two in the back of the head'" is offensive.
They ALL deserve two in the back of the head.
dBpoweramp Music Converter, often referred to the Swiss knife of audio. The basic version is free, and it will convert between just about any two audio formats you can name.
One thing to be aware of, however, is that converting from one lossy audio codec to another (e.g., MP3 to Ogg Vorbis) will result in a loss of audio quality.
Considering that this thread started on a point pertaining to "copyright laws as they exist now", not necessarily whether copyright laws should exist at all, who's wasting whose time?
Perhaps you should heed your own sig.
Yeah, this is Slashdot...you should be discussing things like FOSS or Dvorak keyboards.
And I actually provided such a reason (that most of the public domain works that Walt Disney used derivatively to build his media empire would not be PD under today's laws, which ironically were largely sponsored by Disney), which you seem to have ignored.
I would take exception to both of your "givens". Remember, copyright is automatic to all creative works; the creator need do nothing to obtain copyright protection. Using a "non-copyright method", OTOH, requires specific action on the part of the creator to release his work under some alternative licensing scheme. So to claim any artist who does not choose the latter deliberate path to the former automatic path prefers the legal default is specious. One thing Lessig notes in his book is that prior to 1976 when copyright terms were 28 years, extensible to 56 years, over 95% of registered copyrights were *not* renewed, so there is a clear indication that creators in many cases are just fine with their work going into the public domain.
Nor do all or even most copyrighted works "require significant financial investment". This post, upon creation, is a copyrighted work, but I can assure you the financial investment is minimal. So I would submit that the vast majority of copyrighted works *would* be created whether copyright protections exist or not.
That said, I will agree that there are many great works that would likely not have been created without *some* sort of protection, but you seem to be saying that this is *always* the case, which I would deem unreasonable.
Of course, it is impossible to prove that something that does not exist would exist under some other conditions. I'll even say that the opposite, the claim that a given copyrighted work would not exist except for copyright, is just as unprovable.
However, consider that Walt Disney built his empire largely upon works (Snow White and Cinderella as the most obvious examples) that were public domain at that time, but under today's more restrictive (and effectively unlimited as long as ex post facto extensions are allowable) copyright laws, these public domain works would not have been available for Disney to create his profitable derivative works.
If you can, take the time and read the book. Lessig does not argue that copyright should not exist at all, but his argument is that copyright has become so unbalanced in the favor of "creators" (really, corporations which dominate the content industry) that it works against its original constitutionally stated purpose of promoting progress.
...should read..."determine what works are copyrighted and by whom"...
You might want to read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture. (It's even downloadable for free.) In it, he gives a number of scenarios where highly restrictive copyright laws, combined with the fact that there is no central registry by which one can determine what works are copyrighted any by whom, do inhibit creators from creating content.
This is the most insightful work I've read yet on the problems of modern copyright.