I guess Lars made some interesting points, but what I keep coming back to is the idea that creators of intellectual property are supposedly harmed somehow when copies are made of their work without their knowledge.
No one is *plagarizing* Metallica by trading copies of their work. That is, no one is claiming that THEY produced, recorded or in any way created that work - so it's not as if Metallica is being deprived of thier proper credit for the work. I also haven't heard about distortions of the work (such as parody, or resampling into a new work) being a problem, either.
If money is not a problem, as Lars says, and they are not being plagarized, then what is the problem? I, like probably everybody reading this, create a certain amount of intellectual property myself in various forms. As long as people acknowldge that I created it, why should I care who reads/uses it? If people think my intellectual property is useful or interesting enough, perhaps I might see some compensation for it in the form of some fantastic new job. In the meanwhile, my current job will do.:>
Also (and probably like everyone else) I have trouble agreeing that there is a qualitative difference between bootlegs and MP3s. Either you want to have absolute control over your work, or you don't. This in-between state that Metallica is striving for is doomed to failure, I think.
It's true that the P300 (and other event-related potentials) have been known for years (and there's plently more work being done!), and that it's been the case that you need many trials to isolate these responses, but recently people have found ways to need only 8 or so trials - and I believe there is some work out there where you only need 1 or 2 trials.
The key, as they said in the article, is filtering out all the extraneous noise - both in the external environment and from inside the head.
That said, I agree that this is a bit overhyped at the current state of the research. Cool, but a long, long way from being the stuff of science fiction.
I don't think it's the fact that they hired a lobbyist so much as it's the fact that they hired this *specific* lobbyist to lobby this *specific* politician.
No doubt they hope that Bush will win the election and squash the whole affair, and hiring someone like Ralph Reed further shows they have no shame. W
Slashdot Mirror
I guess Lars made some interesting points, but what I keep coming back to is the idea that creators of intellectual property are supposedly harmed somehow when copies are made of their work without their knowledge.
:>
No one is *plagarizing* Metallica by trading copies of their work. That is, no one is claiming that THEY produced, recorded or in any way created that work - so it's not as if Metallica is being deprived of thier proper credit for the work. I also haven't heard about distortions of the work (such as parody, or resampling into a new work) being a problem, either.
If money is not a problem, as Lars says, and they are not being plagarized, then what is the problem? I, like probably everybody reading this, create a certain amount of intellectual property myself in various forms. As long as people acknowldge that I created it, why should I care who reads/uses it? If people think my intellectual property is useful or interesting enough, perhaps I might see some compensation for it in the form of some fantastic new job. In the meanwhile, my current job will do.
Also (and probably like everyone else) I have trouble agreeing that there is a qualitative difference between bootlegs and MP3s. Either you want to have absolute control over your work, or you don't. This in-between state that Metallica is striving for is doomed to failure, I think.
Wind
It's true that the P300 (and other event-related potentials) have been known for years (and there's plently more work being done!), and that it's been the case that you need many trials to isolate these responses, but recently people have found ways to need only 8 or so trials - and I believe there is some work out there where you only need 1 or 2 trials.
The key, as they said in the article, is filtering out all the extraneous noise - both in the external environment and from inside the head.
That said, I agree that this is a bit overhyped at the current state of the research. Cool, but a long, long way from being the stuff of science fiction.
W
I don't think it's the fact that they hired a lobbyist so much as it's the fact that they hired this *specific* lobbyist to lobby this *specific* politician.
No doubt they hope that Bush will win the election and squash the whole affair, and hiring someone like Ralph Reed further shows they have no shame. W