Because that would imply that your favourite language is a failure, and you find that conclusion unacceptable?
Hardly.
My personal tastes don't enter into it. I've slung enough (read hundreds of KLOCs) C or C++ to recognize the fact that its commercial success is more of an historical accident than a testament to its characteristics. Also, I'm something of a dilettante when it comes to Lisp; however, that hasn't kept me from appreciating its merits.
Lisp is a power tool for a Very Smart Person. Like all such tools, they're difficult to master. The truly successful stuff tends to be usable in an effective manner by people who aren't VSPs.
I think we're in agreement here. However, again, this doesn't speak to the technological "disposition" of the language. In fact, this seems contrary to your point about the marketplace favoring the best technology.
Then, if market performance and superior technology have nothing to do with each other, why should anyone invest their money in research? Or are you saying that all technology is performance art, and we may as well paint our bodies paisley and recite poetry from lightposts, because it's just as useful?
This is pure sophistry.
So you don't dig Lisp: fine. However, trying to defend the idea that economic success implies technological superiority is wholely without merit.
It's been about 10 years since the last time they were hyped. Besides, all the yammering about "computing in the cloud" has the thin-client folks excited.
Basically, I will continue to assert that IP has value irrespective of its lack of physicality.
My suggestion that copyright be limited to the lifetime of the artist is more of a compromise than a real endorsement.
Technology has created a situation where, in many cases, IP has enormous value; value well beyond any physical containment, distribution, or "viewing" mechanisms. As such, I see no merit to the idea that it's arbirtrary or valueless.
All of those analogies are predicated on the interpretation that the creation of recordings, video games, movies, books, etc is a one-time service instead of a product.
I do not accept that interpretation.
I see those items as products that the creator can offer for sale. The only reason that this is even an issue is because technology has recently developed distribution and reproduction means that make the cost of those operations effectively zero.
To my mind that doesn't reduce the intrinsic value of the product.
If you want to talk about restricting, or even eliminating, transferability I'll listen. But that isn't what I'm on about WRT my response to the OP.
As for the other examples you give: what's your point?
I'm all for extending the same rights those folks if that's your point.
My issue is that a lot of these arguments, and it would appear that yours falls into the same category, are really just kvetching about somebody who got rich from a one-hit-wonder.
I don't have a problem with your scenario. About the only caveat I would add is that I'm of the opinion that the time period should be, at least extendable to, the lifetime of the creator.
I'd also entertain arguments about severely restricting the time period if the right is transfered or even making the rights non-transferable.
I agree that lately there has been ridiculous IP efforts that will destroy innovation and eliminate consumer rights, but that wasn't my main issue.
It's impressive to see someone taking a stance that actually costs them money; to my mind, it gives added weight to your opinion. I'm under the distinct impression that a lot of others aren't in the same position.
It sounds like your creative efforts are a bit closer to domain we're talking about then my own, but let's take a slightly different example: authors.
Should they not be entitled to a cut from each copy sold?
If the industrial plant I design continues to run for 100 years, I don't get a 100-year stipend from the company.
It would if you put that in the design contract and they agreed.
Why should anyone else get an eternal pension for a one-off work?
Thank you for putting this is sharp relief. This was my problem with the OP. This all boils down to jealousy. A pseudo-populist idea that since you don't work in a fashion that gets royalties, then no one else should.
That sentiment doesn't even make sense in the context of your example since your talking about a presumably single-use design. Let's turn it around a bit:
You produce a design that is suitable to many plant owners. You make this design widely available. So, you don't think you should get paid by each one who uses it?
I don't accept that copyright is an incentive mechanism to produce "good" art.
You also hit my exact problem with the OP: not the copyright issue itself, but rather this bullshit idea that content creators aren't entitled to payments on a work in perpetuity.
If you want something someone produced, unless they're willing to give it to you, you should have to pay for it.
To be perfectly clear: I'm not talkng about heavy restrictions on fair use or derived works or draconian penalties for violations. I'm not even saying that the right sholud be transferable. If you want to suggest that only the original artist is entitled to receive payment limited to their life span...ok, I'll listen.
The problem is that most of these arguments are just thinly veiled jibes at the fact that someone who produced a popular item once can live easy after that. Just because you think they shoud have to toil for a living doesn't entitle you to their product.
Where do you get off saying that something that doesn't physically exist belongs to someone else?
Because of the effort taken to produce it.
As for such an idea being arbitrary, you could make the same arguments for property ownership in general.
Lastly, I assume you're refering to things like sampling songs. Personally, I don't think that practice should constitute a violation of copyright. Nor do I think that fair use should be limited.
My main beef with the OP isn't so much a pro highly restrictive copyright stance as it is a rejection of the bullshit quasi-populist idea content creators aren't entitled to continually derive and income from a past work. Half the comments on this issue can be summed up as:
"Why should that guy still get paid for work he did once 20 years ago?"
I completely reject that view as nothing more than petty jealousy.
Copyright is here to help creator to live from their arts not to go to in an early retirement after a few hits.
How, exactly, did you come up with that idea?
What if 10% of the people on the planet purchase a "unit" annually for the next hundred years? If you want to tie it to the lifetime of the artist, fine. But where do you get off deciding how much people are entitled to make from their work?
It depends really, if these students are going to be the next anti-virus programmers and developers then something like this is useful.
No it doesn't depend.
Writing faster or more flexible signature-based detection methods, better heuristic detection engines, or finally getting decent behavioral detection is what anti-virus programmers work on. None of these things are helped in the slightest by having experience in writing self-replicating code.
Slashdot Mirror
Because that would imply that your favourite language is a failure, and you find that conclusion unacceptable?
Hardly.
My personal tastes don't enter into it. I've slung enough (read hundreds of KLOCs) C or C++ to recognize the fact that its commercial success is more of an historical accident than a testament to its characteristics. Also, I'm something of a dilettante when it comes to Lisp; however, that hasn't kept me from appreciating its merits.
Lisp is a power tool for a Very Smart Person. Like all such tools, they're difficult to master. The truly successful stuff tends to be usable in an effective manner by people who aren't VSPs.
I think we're in agreement here. However, again, this doesn't speak to the technological "disposition" of the language. In fact, this seems contrary to your point about the marketplace favoring the best technology.
Then, if market performance and superior technology have nothing to do with each other, why should anyone invest their money in research? Or are you saying that all technology is performance art, and we may as well paint our bodies paisley and recite poetry from lightposts, because it's just as useful?
This is pure sophistry.
So you don't dig Lisp: fine. However, trying to defend the idea that economic success implies technological superiority is wholely without merit.
If Lisp were that good, it would have done better in the marketplace.
Please.
Market performance has fuck all to do with the success of superior technology. Case in point: the Amiga.
Yes.
They're one time use.
It's been about 10 years since the last time they were hyped. Besides, all the yammering about "computing in the cloud" has the thin-client folks excited.
Walk Fremen style and you can stay incognito and avoid Shai-Hulud all at the same time.
We seem to be at an impasse.
Basically, I will continue to assert that IP has value irrespective of its lack of physicality.
My suggestion that copyright be limited to the lifetime of the artist is more of a compromise than a real endorsement.
Technology has created a situation where, in many cases, IP has enormous value; value well beyond any physical containment, distribution, or "viewing" mechanisms. As such, I see no merit to the idea that it's arbirtrary or valueless.
I understand that you see things differently.
All of those analogies are predicated on the interpretation that the creation of recordings, video games, movies, books, etc is a one-time service instead of a product.
I do not accept that interpretation.
I see those items as products that the creator can offer for sale. The only reason that this is even an issue is because technology has recently developed distribution and reproduction means that make the cost of those operations effectively zero.
To my mind that doesn't reduce the intrinsic value of the product.
Justification beyond that I think someone should be paid for their work and that I think IP has value?
I see don't see enforcing copyright as being any more synthetic or arbitrary than not enforcing it.
Nor do I think that society enforces, or should enforce, copyright to derive benefit. It should enforce copyright just as any other property right.
How many times do I have to say it?
If you want to talk about restricting, or even eliminating, transferability I'll listen. But that isn't what I'm on about WRT my response to the OP.
As for the other examples you give: what's your point?
I'm all for extending the same rights those folks if that's your point.
My issue is that a lot of these arguments, and it would appear that yours falls into the same category, are really just kvetching about somebody who got rich from a one-hit-wonder.
I don't have a problem with your scenario. About the only caveat I would add is that I'm of the opinion that the time period should be, at least extendable to, the lifetime of the creator.
I'd also entertain arguments about severely restricting the time period if the right is transfered or even making the rights non-transferable.
I agree that lately there has been ridiculous IP efforts that will destroy innovation and eliminate consumer rights, but that wasn't my main issue.
It's impressive to see someone taking a stance that actually costs them money; to my mind, it gives added weight to your opinion. I'm under the distinct impression that a lot of others aren't in the same position.
It sounds like your creative efforts are a bit closer to domain we're talking about then my own, but let's take a slightly different example: authors.
Should they not be entitled to a cut from each copy sold?
If the industrial plant I design continues to run for 100 years, I don't get a 100-year stipend from the company.
It would if you put that in the design contract and they agreed.
Why should anyone else get an eternal pension for a one-off work?
Thank you for putting this is sharp relief. This was my problem with the OP. This all boils down to jealousy. A pseudo-populist idea that since you don't work in a fashion that gets royalties, then no one else should.
That sentiment doesn't even make sense in the context of your example since your talking about a presumably single-use design. Let's turn it around a bit:
You produce a design that is suitable to many plant owners. You make this design widely available. So, you don't think you should get paid by each one who uses it?
I don't accept that copyright is an incentive mechanism to produce "good" art.
You also hit my exact problem with the OP: not the copyright issue itself, but rather this bullshit idea that content creators aren't entitled to payments on a work in perpetuity.
If you want something someone produced, unless they're willing to give it to you, you should have to pay for it.
To be perfectly clear: I'm not talkng about heavy restrictions on fair use or derived works or draconian penalties for violations. I'm not even saying that the right sholud be transferable. If you want to suggest that only the original artist is entitled to receive payment limited to their life span...ok, I'll listen.
The problem is that most of these arguments are just thinly veiled jibes at the fact that someone who produced a popular item once can live easy after that. Just because you think they shoud have to toil for a living doesn't entitle you to their product.
Where do you get off saying that something that doesn't physically exist belongs to someone else?
Because of the effort taken to produce it.
As for such an idea being arbitrary, you could make the same arguments for property ownership in general.
Lastly, I assume you're refering to things like sampling songs. Personally, I don't think that practice should constitute a violation of copyright. Nor do I think that fair use should be limited.
My main beef with the OP isn't so much a pro highly restrictive copyright stance as it is a rejection of the bullshit quasi-populist idea content creators aren't entitled to continually derive and income from a past work. Half the comments on this issue can be summed up as:
"Why should that guy still get paid for work he did once 20 years ago?"
I completely reject that view as nothing more than petty jealousy.
Copyright is here to help creator to live from their arts not to go to in an early retirement after a few hits.
How, exactly, did you come up with that idea?
What if 10% of the people on the planet purchase a "unit" annually for the next hundred years? If you want to tie it to the lifetime of the artist, fine. But where do you get off deciding how much people are entitled to make from their work?
Or witches some evil witches which is ridiculous 'cuz witches they were persecuted wicca good and love the earth and women power I'll be over here...
I've always known that the Apocalypse would fall on a Tuesday.
It depends really, if these students are going to be the next anti-virus programmers and developers then something like this is useful.
No it doesn't depend.
Writing faster or more flexible signature-based detection methods, better heuristic detection engines, or finally getting decent behavioral detection is what anti-virus programmers work on. None of these things are helped in the slightest by having experience in writing self-replicating code.
It's not even a little bit useful.
I do tend to agree. I was speaking of the "British" collectively. In that light, I think my point still stands.
Not right now.
I don't dispute that. I'll do you one better: they invented the concentration camp during the Boer Wars.
That still doesn't change the fact that during Gandhi's time they collectively felt squeamish about thrashing unarmed colonists.
If he'd said that at the right time and place in Cambodia, Pol Pot would've had him skinned alive and set fire to.
Since, essentially, Gandhi prevailed because the British found it distasteful to continue to maim and kill unarmed resistors: yes.
I'd argue that that situation was different. Pope John Paul II got involved and Soviet power was already waning.