TFA speaks about an aspect of the support of patents that is often neglected by the/. commentators: the importance of the patents to the US commercial balance.
For me this is the number 1 reason for the existence of an inflated patent system in US, a country which has billions of dollars of yearly benefits from it and which desperately tries to enforce it to the rest of the world (in particular to the European Union and the WTO).
For me anyone trying the understand the behinds-the-scene of the discussion on patents should try to get a
good understanding
of the importance of the TRIPS to global trade and why it was a major negotiation issue in the
Uruguay Round.
A good wikipedia article is typically written by an expert, a person that knows a certain domain very well, that writes about it but that won't write about many other things. Good professionals typically don't have much time, they could find some time to explain their domain of activity but certainly won't take wikipedia editing as a hobby.
A rating system for editors would raise the power of non-experts, people that like to write about anything.
Suppose that engineers invent a tool the prevents people from seeing the buildings of a city. In order to see the same landscape we are used to we would have to pay a fee. People would protest saying that this restriction is too annoying to be accepted, and for us it seems to be an absurd idea, but once this system is in place one could argue that without it architects would lose most of their revenue and incentive to create. But of course architects can get paid otherwise like they are paid today: by the constructor of the building for instance.
The situation of music artists is the same: without DRM people would perhaps buy less frequently cds on the shops, but musicians could still earn money from concerts, classes, radio broadcasting and other comercial uses of their work. Besides, in spite of the facility of copying cds from a friend, many would still be ready to pay for the cd in a store because of the book that comes with it.
The problem of such "studies" is the same of Bell Curve. They present a lot of reasons of why the inteligence of a group could be genetically linked, they write peges and pages filling with blah-blah to make it seem thoughful and scientific, and yet they present no argument that makes their theory more likely the another linking the intelligence to the culture and education (I am sure someone could make a 40-page study with plenty of statistics, historical and "thoughful" reasoning claiming that this Jewish population is smarter than the average because of the way the children are raised, their culture, traditions etc).
Next they say "why not?" and claim that people not wanting to believe them, do it because of the politically incorrectness of their claims. The politically incorectness of their claims finally is used as an argument... exactly as it was the case in Bell Curve study.
This kind of speculative theory can hardly be called scientific, at least if accept the principle that scientific theories should be falsifiable. Of course we cannot falsify their claims and they can always continue saying "why not".
Possibility for copy, change format, edit, for private purposes, in fact everything which is encrypted should not be allowed to get copyright protection, since availability after end of copyright is essitial to the logic of the copyright principle (so encrypted tv is ok as long as we have at home access to the decoded signal but encrypted dvds are not...). I believe that this simple principle offers an answer to all the issues and debates around DMCA for instance... For the movie industry the choice would be: you either encrypt or demand copyright protection...
Smaller time period, perhaps use a principle that every kind of media (cds, books, software) should have the copyright limited to the period giving a mometary return corresponding to the half of the would-be return if the copyright was perpetual. This time period does not need to be precise, it would just orient legislators that would perhaps demand some kind of economics of statistical study (so cds would have a copyright of 5 to 15 year, books somewhat a longer period etc).
We should be able to make copies to friends as long as in limited, not commercial, not wholesale and not systematic scale (this would exclude p2p which is an anonymous exchange, but sending an email to a friend with a song from a cd we bought should not be a crime). If this freedom is too strong to fight for, perhaps combine this with the requirement of degrading copy (for music, copy with a limited bitrate).
Perhaps a principle that we should be allowed to have copies of copyrighted work (cds, photocopies of books) as long as we have at least the same amount of copyrighted material. Giving esporadically a copy of a cd to a friend should not be OK for the industry if we and this friend buy regularly copyrighted media (I really don't know if this is a good idea, the trouble is what is a principle that would be fair and also that has a chance to be accepted by those who make the laws...)
For music especifically:
Possibility to "quote" parts of the songs, put them in web pages, perhaps with the principle that we could only take a quote from the first half to avoid the possibility of rebuilding the song from multiple sources, and/or imposing a limited quality (bit rate?) for the "quotes". Everyone should be able to build a web page "my favourite songs" and put pieces of the songs in it.
Limit all users to only creating new entries, and to editing their own entries and those at least one karma-class below themselves
Regardlesss of whether the slashdot system is good or not for Wikipedia, note that your proposal is totally against the slashdot system itself. For in slashdot you don't need to be a perseverant user to write a score-5 article: even a anonymous coward can do it.
Restricting access basing on karma would discourage a lot of experts who have not the time or the patience to play the karma scoring game.
It's an issue of getting paid. I like getting paid.
It is curious how this ultra-liberal ideology of "let the money flow where it wants" is popular.
Do you consider that if Linux today or OSDN has a significant part of its income comming from Microsoft it is likely that this group will be able to make pressure to change their editorial style?
You suggest that comments on ads could be fun. But what if your client advertiser doesn't like those comments, how will you choose between this fun and your shelter habit?
Greenpeace for instance never acepts ads in its magazine. Do you think it should?
Besides justice and economics should never be mixed. It is a pitty some many in US think otherwise. And the worst thing is that model of caricatured justice is exported world-wide...
The article proposes killing as a joke but the proposal of thinking justice in economic terms is serious.
Not everything lends itself to 'spectacle' or live performance.
OK, so let those who depend on selling copyrighted music run the risk of having to live of something else if they had to opportunity to think about this issue for a minute.
I prefer that to the risk of being sued for sending a "remember that song?" email with to an old friend with an mp3 attached. And I am sure most people would agree with me.
Copyright should be imposed to commercial utilisation of someone else's work. That should be enough to let every artist survive. Of course any time you change a law -- or open a new road, or change the tax system -- there can be telented people harmed. But to restrict the freedom to share the information we want with friends is for me more incompatible with the basics of our civilisation than to ask this effort for the artists.
but it said we're now entering a period where inventors are producing stuff that has dubious value for society
For the society, yes, but wait until RIAA and other corporations realise the usefulness of such things. In some decades we could all live in cells like these and we will have to pay royalties for all "sensory stimulation".
Do you want to see the buildings around you? OK, but you have to pay the architecht's IP, otherwise you are stealing, profiting from someone else's work. Architechts deserve a decent earning, don't they?
Do you want to see the beautiful girl just in front of you? No problem, just pay the fee to the stylist that designed her dress and that contributed her nice appearence.
A new version of DMCA will rule out all tentative of scaping from these cells as an atempt to violate copyright holders' propriety.
Freedom activists will defend the right to escape from the cells for 1 or 2 reasons they can figure out that still don't infringe copyrights, while others will argue that most of us trying to escape from cells are actually really just willing to break copyrights.
Palladium is already a step in this direction, but soon people will realise that protecting only the IP that we can access through the computer leaves too much room to infringers...
In future we will likely all be in cells like these and we will have to pay royalties for all "sensory stimulation".
Do you want to see the buildings around you? OK, but you have to pay the architecht's IP, otherwise you are stealing, profiting from someone else's work. Architechts deserve a decent earning, don't they?
Do you want to see the beautiful girl just in front of you? No problem, just pay the fee to the stylist that designed her dress and that contributed her nice appearence.
A new version of DMCA will rule out all tentative of scaping from these cells as an atempt to violate copyright holders' propriety.
Freedom activists will defend the right to escape from the cells for 1 or 2 reasons they can figure out that still don't infringe copyrights, while others will argue that most of us trying to escape from cells are actually really just willing to break copyrights.
how can the Slashdot Effect exist when no-one clicks through to read the article
Hmmm my bet is that while half of slashdotters are looking for the article and producing the slashdot effect the other half is busy writing "insightful" comments based on their guesses. Since the earlier you write the more likely you are moderated up, the most typical slashdotter is finally the one who does not read...
Brazil uses alcohol as alternative to gasoline for vehicles since the 70's. The alcohol program (called PROALCOOL).
In the 80's a large percent of the car run with alcohol, but then the oil prices fell and the program became economically less interesting. But there are still cars running with alcohol in Brazil, and the technology of burning alcohol instead of gasoline is perfectly mastered in the country. Alcohol is also mixed in the gasoline (at 30%) used by regular gasoline cars.
I've become addicted to the Google toolbar. It only works with IE which I use at work since I am forced to use windows there. Now with Mozilla 1.0 and my constant wish to minimise the usage of Microsoft products, I am faced with the dilemma of keeping IE or loosing the Google toolbar.
Why haven't you implemented yet the toolbar for open source browsers? Are there technical difficulties or rather lack of interest from Google?
I my opinion, while comparing the treatment received by the Palestinians under the Israeli state to the Holocaust remains a futile exaggeration, comparing this state with the Nazism of the 30's or with the South African apartheid regime is perfect valid.
"open source" is now a superset of "free software"
We should not let this happen. The term "opensource" would never have been gained acceptance in our community if it was meant to be a synonym for free software. The interest of the community should be greater than the ambition and the narcisism of two individuals (ESR and RMS).
We should not let ESR decide alone what is good or bad in the name of "opensource". Finally a lot of what we do is call "opensource" by people from outside. If OSI accepts licenses that we do not like let us ask for a more representative organ, and not let it decide what it wants in the name of the rest.
Too many people have contributed for free/opensource software. I don't see why we would give two people the liberty to decide what these terms should mean. Free software shouldn't mean software with a license from FSF, or software adhering to the "free software movement started by RMS", or software that RMS likes. Opensource software shouldn't mean OSI approved.
I fully disagree the idea that we should make a distinction between those terms. For me it is a conceptual and strategical mistake. free software should not mean GPL'd software or software using a FSF license. Not even RMS restricts the word "free" to the licenses from FSF.
Eric Raymond used the term opensource as a synonym for free
software. As he said, the single reason for adopting this term
was that it would be more easily accepted by the business
world. It was meant to be a synonym and I see no interest of
changing that (except by enemies of opensource/free
software).
The reasons I see why people tend to see a difference
between these two terms are:
"free software" == "software using a license from FSF". Mistake:free software should simply mean software which is
free. And software using licenses other than those from FSF
(BSD, artistic, NPL, etc) are called "free" by RMS himself.
I fully disagree the idea that we should make a distinction between those terms. For me it is a conceptual and strategical mistake. free software should not mean GPL'd software or software using a FSF license. Not even RMS restricts the word "free" to the licenses from FSF.
"free software" == good software for RMS, "open source"
== good software for ESR. Mistake: disputes such the
one involing the license used by Apple should not be a ground
for splitting those concepts. If you take two people from FSF and ask if you
can do something with GPL, you will often get two different answers
(go check gnu.misc.discuss). Licenses are a tricky subject. RMS and ESR do disagree on some issues, but we should not "make" them disagree more than they actually do... and not extend this disagrement to basic concepts like free or opensource software.
The first effort to establish a definition to free software
was DFSG.
As far as I know both RMS and ESR fully agree with DSFG (though OSI definition carries some changes). One
calls it "free software" the other "open source". We should
call it the way we prefer and not try to extract two different concepts out of them.
Just say no to Intelectual Property! I hope the author of this
sig doesn't mind...:-)
like how MS will obviously blur perception of Open Source and Free Software to their benefit
I fully disagree the idea that we should make a distinction between those terms. For me it is a conceptual and strategical mistake. free software should not mean GPL'd software or software using a FSF license. Not even RMS restricts the word "free" to the licenses from FSF.
Eric Raymond used the term opensource as a synonym for free
software. As he said, the single reason for adopting this term
was that it would be more easily accepted by the business
world. It was meant to be a synonym and I see no interest of
changing that (except by enemies of opensource/free
software).
The reasons I see why people tend to see a difference
between these two terms are:
"free software" == "software using a license from FSF". Mistake:free software should simply mean software which is
free. And software using licenses other than those from FSF
(BSD, artistic, NPL, etc) are called "free" by RMS himself.
"free software" == good software for RMS, "open source"
== good software for ESR. Mistake: disputes such the
one involing the license used by Apple should not be a ground
for splitting those concepts. If you take two people from FSF and ask if you
can do something with GPL, you will often get two different answers
(go check gnu.misc.discuss). Licenses are a tricky subject. RMS and ESR do disagree on some issues, but we should not "make" them disagree more than they actually do... and not extend this disagrement to basic concepts like free or opensource software.
The first effort to establish a definition to free software
was DFSG.
As far as I know both RMS and ESR fully agree with DSFG (though OSI definition carries some changes). One
calls it "free software" the other "open source". We should
call it the way we prefer and not try to extract two different concepts out of them.
Just say no to Intelectual Property! I hope the author of this
sig doesn't mind...:-)
Slashdot Mirror
She: It's true Red Bird that I am your only woman?
He: Sure darling, I have always told you that I only have one woman.
Hi,
My wife believes in Astrology in until strange phonomena like the Mars effect are not explained I don't think I can criticize her.
Last post!
apol
TFA speaks about an aspect of the support of patents that is often neglected by the /. commentators: the importance of the patents to the US commercial balance.
For me this is the number 1 reason for the existence of an inflated patent system in US, a country which has billions of dollars of yearly benefits from it and which desperately tries to enforce it to the rest of the world (in particular to the European Union and the WTO).
For me anyone trying the understand the behinds-the-scene of the discussion on patents should try to get a good understanding of the importance of the TRIPS to global trade and why it was a major negotiation issue in the Uruguay Round.
A good wikipedia article is typically written by an expert, a person that knows a certain domain very well, that writes about it but that won't write about many other things. Good professionals typically don't have much time, they could find some time to explain their domain of activity but certainly won't take wikipedia editing as a hobby.
A rating system for editors would raise the power of non-experts, people that like to write about anything.
apol
An analogy may help:
Suppose that engineers invent a tool the prevents people from seeing the buildings of a city. In order to see the same landscape we are used to we would have to pay a fee. People would protest saying that this restriction is too annoying to be accepted, and for us it seems to be an absurd idea, but once this system is in place one could argue that without it architects would lose most of their revenue and incentive to create. But of course architects can get paid otherwise like they are paid today: by the constructor of the building for instance.
The situation of music artists is the same: without DRM people would perhaps buy less frequently cds on the shops, but musicians could still earn money from concerts, classes, radio broadcasting and other comercial uses of their work. Besides, in spite of the facility of copying cds from a friend, many would still be ready to pay for the cd in a store because of the book that comes with it.
apol
One more line in my "why to switch to Linux" list.
apol
Next they say "why not?" and claim that people not wanting to believe them, do it because of the politically incorrectness of their claims. The politically incorectness of their claims finally is used as an argument... exactly as it was the case in Bell Curve study.
This kind of speculative theory can hardly be called scientific, at least if accept the principle that scientific theories should be falsifiable. Of course we cannot falsify their claims and they can always continue saying "why not".
apol
For any media:
For music especifically:
don't convert to Islam
Regardlesss of whether the slashdot system is good or not for Wikipedia, note that your proposal is totally against the slashdot system itself. For in slashdot you don't need to be a perseverant user to write a score-5 article: even a anonymous coward can do it.
Restricting access basing on karma would discourage a lot of experts who have not the time or the patience to play the karma scoring game.
apol
The author was kind enough to remind us that even girls may be using Linux...
Or he was sexist enough and could imagine nothing but a girl having difficulties with driver installation...
It's an issue of getting paid. I like getting paid.
It is curious how this ultra-liberal ideology of "let the money flow where it wants" is popular.
Do you consider that if Linux today or OSDN has a significant part of its income comming from Microsoft it is likely that this group will be able to make pressure to change their editorial style?
You suggest that comments on ads could be fun. But what if your client advertiser doesn't like those comments, how will you choose between this fun and your shelter habit?
Greenpeace for instance never acepts ads in its magazine. Do you think it should?
Besides justice and economics should never be mixed. It is a pitty some many in US think otherwise. And the worst thing is that model of caricatured justice is exported world-wide...
The article proposes killing as a joke but the proposal of thinking justice in economic terms is serious.
OK, so let those who depend on selling copyrighted music run the risk of having to live of something else if they had to opportunity to think about this issue for a minute.
I prefer that to the risk of being sued for sending a "remember that song?" email with to an old friend with an mp3 attached. And I am sure most people would agree with me.
Copyright should be imposed to commercial utilisation of someone else's work. That should be enough to let every artist survive. Of course any time you change a law -- or open a new road, or change the tax system -- there can be telented people harmed. But to restrict the freedom to share the information we want with friends is for me more incompatible with the basics of our civilisation than to ask this effort for the artists.
For the society, yes, but wait until RIAA and other corporations realise the usefulness of such things. In some decades we could all live in cells like these and we will have to pay royalties for all "sensory stimulation".
Do you want to see the buildings around you? OK, but you have to pay the architecht's IP, otherwise you are stealing, profiting from someone else's work. Architechts deserve a decent earning, don't they?
Do you want to see the beautiful girl just in front of you? No problem, just pay the fee to the stylist that designed her dress and that contributed her nice appearence.
A new version of DMCA will rule out all tentative of scaping from these cells as an atempt to violate copyright holders' propriety.
Freedom activists will defend the right to escape from the cells for 1 or 2 reasons they can figure out that still don't infringe copyrights, while others will argue that most of us trying to escape from cells are actually really just willing to break copyrights.
Palladium is already a step in this direction, but soon people will realise that protecting only the IP that we can access through the computer leaves too much room to infringers...
Do you want to see the buildings around you? OK, but you have to pay the architecht's IP, otherwise you are stealing, profiting from someone else's work. Architechts deserve a decent earning, don't they?
Do you want to see the beautiful girl just in front of you? No problem, just pay the fee to the stylist that designed her dress and that contributed her nice appearence.
A new version of DMCA will rule out all tentative of scaping from these cells as an atempt to violate copyright holders' propriety.
Freedom activists will defend the right to escape from the cells for 1 or 2 reasons they can figure out that still don't infringe copyrights, while others will argue that most of us trying to escape from cells are actually really just willing to break copyrights.
Hmmm my bet is that while half of slashdotters are looking for the article and producing the slashdot effect the other half is busy writing "insightful" comments based on their guesses. Since the earlier you write the more likely you are moderated up, the most typical slashdotter is finally the one who does not read...
...go to Debian Jr. Project
In the 80's a large percent of the car run with alcohol, but then the oil prices fell and the program became economically less interesting. But there are still cars running with alcohol in Brazil, and the technology of burning alcohol instead of gasoline is perfectly mastered in the country. Alcohol is also mixed in the gasoline (at 30%) used by regular gasoline cars.
A black person in the 50's stepping up in a segregated bus was not an "agent of injustice to another".
Why haven't you implemented yet the toolbar for open source browsers? Are there technical difficulties or rather lack of interest from Google?
The following well-written articles address the question of comparing Israel with the Nazi state:
Final Solution in the Occupied Territories by Edward Herman
Apartheid in the Holy Land by Desmond Tutu
Open Letter to General Ariel Sharon by Breyten Breytenbach
I my opinion, while comparing the treatment received by the Palestinians under the Israeli state to the Holocaust remains a futile exaggeration, comparing this state with the Nazism of the 30's or with the South African apartheid regime is perfect valid.
We should not let this happen. The term "opensource" would never have been gained acceptance in our community if it was meant to be a synonym for free software. The interest of the community should be greater than the ambition and the narcisism of two individuals (ESR and RMS).
We should not let ESR decide alone what is good or bad in the name of "opensource". Finally a lot of what we do is call "opensource" by people from outside. If OSI accepts licenses that we do not like let us ask for a more representative organ, and not let it decide what it wants in the name of the rest.
Too many people have contributed for free/opensource software. I don't see why we would give two people the liberty to decide what these terms should mean. Free software shouldn't mean software with a license from FSF, or software adhering to the "free software movement started by RMS", or software that RMS likes. Opensource software shouldn't mean OSI approved.
Eric Raymond used the term opensource as a synonym for free software. As he said, the single reason for adopting this term was that it would be more easily accepted by the business world. It was meant to be a synonym and I see no interest of changing that (except by enemies of opensource/free software).
The reasons I see why people tend to see a difference between these two terms are:
- "free software" == "software using a license from FSF". Mistake:
free software should simply mean software which is
free. And software using licenses other than those from FSF
(BSD, artistic, NPL, etc) are called "free" by RMS himself.
I fully disagree the idea that we should make a distinction between those terms. For me it is a conceptual and strategical mistake. free software should not mean GPL'd software or software using a FSF license. Not even RMS restricts the word "free" to the licenses from FSF.
- "free software" == good software for RMS, "open source"
== good software for ESR. Mistake: disputes such the
one involing the license used by Apple should not be a ground
for splitting those concepts. If you take two people from FSF and ask if you
can do something with GPL, you will often get two different answers
(go check gnu.misc.discuss). Licenses are a tricky subject. RMS and ESR do disagree on some issues, but we should not "make" them disagree more than they actually do... and not extend this disagrement to basic concepts like free or opensource software.
The first effort to establish a definition to free software was DFSG. As far as I know both RMS and ESR fully agree with DSFG (though OSI definition carries some changes). One calls it "free software" the other "open source". We should call it the way we prefer and not try to extract two different concepts out of them.Just say no to Intelectual Property! I hope the author of this sig doesn't mind...:-)
I fully disagree the idea that we should make a distinction between those terms. For me it is a conceptual and strategical mistake. free software should not mean GPL'd software or software using a FSF license. Not even RMS restricts the word "free" to the licenses from FSF.
Eric Raymond used the term opensource as a synonym for free software. As he said, the single reason for adopting this term was that it would be more easily accepted by the business world. It was meant to be a synonym and I see no interest of changing that (except by enemies of opensource/free software).
The reasons I see why people tend to see a difference between these two terms are:
- "free software" == "software using a license from FSF". Mistake:
free software should simply mean software which is
free. And software using licenses other than those from FSF
(BSD, artistic, NPL, etc) are called "free" by RMS himself.
- "free software" == good software for RMS, "open source"
== good software for ESR. Mistake: disputes such the
one involing the license used by Apple should not be a ground
for splitting those concepts. If you take two people from FSF and ask if you
can do something with GPL, you will often get two different answers
(go check gnu.misc.discuss). Licenses are a tricky subject. RMS and ESR do disagree on some issues, but we should not "make" them disagree more than they actually do... and not extend this disagrement to basic concepts like free or opensource software.
The first effort to establish a definition to free software was DFSG. As far as I know both RMS and ESR fully agree with DSFG (though OSI definition carries some changes). One calls it "free software" the other "open source". We should call it the way we prefer and not try to extract two different concepts out of them.Just say no to Intelectual Property! I hope the author of this sig doesn't mind...:-)