Okay, sure, that's a good point. The right term should be cost:reward ratio, rather than risk:reward ratio. We should all be careful to phrase our positions to the highest level of abstraction so as to allow examination of the underlying justification.
However, it doesn't change the point. Breaking DRM is illegal; therefore it has a risk. Even if it were not illegal, it would add difficulty, making it functionally equivalent to a physical lock.
This is very different from current media DRM schemes. Once a file is broken there is no longer a barrier at all. Anyone can use the broken file, without physical access, without spending time "picking the lock", and without any skill.
Assuming (baselessly) they can find your freed file.
Except, as has been mentioned by others elsewhere in this thread, for the fact that picking my home's lock does not give you access to my neighbor's home.
I don't see how that would even count as a *relevant* difference, but it's not even true. Constructing a key given a lock, will give you an instrument capable of bypassing similar locks as well.
Also, to pick my Honda's lock you need physical access to my home. This limits greatly the number of people able to work on picking the lock. To break the security on a DRM'd file - any (easy to make) copy will suffice.
Okay, still not a relevant difference. So, for you (!), bypassing DRM protection is easier. Doesn't change the fact that DRM's inclusion, like physical locks, alters the risk:reward ration sufficiently to maintain profitability of the protected works.
Not one of the security models used in his analogy depends on giving the key to the potential attacker. With media DRM you are given a restricted format and an obscured key to unlock it. This is its weakness, and has no corollary with the examples he gave.
The listed examples (car locks, home locks...) actually are alike in this respect. When you lock your door, you "give" the thief the key in an obscured way. Ask any locksmith. The information contained in a physical lock, by itself, suffices to create a tool that can bypass that lock and other similar ones.
Two - in the case of car and home locks - deterrence is enough. I don't need to secure my house against a perfect thief, unless I have the Hope diamond in my bedroom. I only need to secure my home better than my neighbor does. Even securing my house well enough to change the risk:reward or difficulty:reward balance is enough to greatly reduce the chances of a break-in.
Copy protection is the exact same way. It only needs to be strong enough so that for most people, their utility is maximized by doing something *other* than copying the work. The person adding the copy protection is, just like you, trying to manipulate the risk:reward ratio of copying.
Thus without reading the complaint itself and the reasons Ford has we are left with only two conclusions.
Considering I foe'd you, I should probably remind you of a third theory, that Ford is just trolling for easy "protection money" because of the whole "not-funding-workers'-pensions" thing:-P
Now if the calendar has different cars (say it was 12 sports cars and the Mustang was just one) then I could see Ford being in the wrong
Well, then I think that highlights the absurdity of this all:
-"I'm selling a calendar containing the car models Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, Chrysler Sebring, Hyundai Tiburon, Toyata Solara, and Mitsubishi 3000GT." --> 100% okay
-"I'm selling a calendar containing car models. All of them are Ford Mustangs." --> OMG NO U HAVE 2 PAY 4 THAT!
And what is it going to do about my encryption keys?
Well, considering that you live your life with such privacy paranoia that you feel you have to post AC and therefore probably aren't much threat to the government... probably nothing.
"2. Laughably make pension promise that the union should know you won't be able to honor, and set aside no assets to pay for it, so that in the future, honoring the promises gores your profits, making UbuntuDupe suspicious you won't even be able to honor warrantees."
The issue is not putting any product in any picture, the issue is using a product with a trademarked design as a prominent feature of a picture that you're selling.
Yes, because I'm *sure* that's exactly where it will end. Keep in mind, "brand protection" is even more important in fashion than in cars, i.e. designers work day and night to ensure that their products are associated with the right people.
Now, what if I make some video wearing an Armani suit, mention the fact that it is an Armani suit, and do all kinds of offensive stuff, and encourage others to wear them and do that? Is it obvious whether Armani has the right to stop that?
What if I sell a fashion guide, showing the kinds of things people should wear, and 90% of it is Armani? Again, is it obvious whether that's kosher?
And if it's not, keep in mind trademark law requires them to sue specifically to prevent these ambiguous cases from cropping up.
(and on a related note, what is with some of those Hyundai's trying to look like freakin' Mercedes-Benz with the round headlights and stuff... come up with your own ideas!)
The Sonata and the Kia Amanti? Hey, I thought they looked cool. Unfortunately, for the Sonata, that was only for the '03-'05 models. I was looking at buying one recently, and it no longer has those lights.
At the Detroit Auto Show, Hyundai debuted another "let's take on Mercedes" car, the Hyundai Genesis. Looks nice too.
You know one idea Hyundai didn't copy from Ford? Underfunded worker pensions.
Wow, this is bad. Just the other day I was wondering about IP rights in taking pictures of products, and if arguments about IP in pictures of other stuff carried over.
Now, imagine what it's like if you have to get permission to put *any* product in *any* picture.
I have no idea what legal grounds Ford has, but this MUST be prevented from spreading to pictures of products in general.
(Of course, Ford could just be trolling for easy cash because of that whole not-funding-workers'-pensions thing...)
That's why I suggest -- and not as a joke -- selling FOSS in boxed packages in retail stores. "A web browser that enhances computer security? For only $35? WOW!" "Hm, Microsoft Office for $130, or this 'Open Office' for $50? Heh, looks like I can save if I get this other one."
Then maybe throw in a tiny professional support contract so they don't feel ripped off when/if they find out it's free.
Or, another cover story: tell him it "costs" $50, but there's a "special site I know about" (i.e. main download site) where you can get it for free if you promise to tell them about bugs.
The problem with repeating the broken window fallacy over and over like some sort of mantra is that it assumes that the benefit from breaking the window can never be greater than the opportunity cost. What if the glazier, in a hurry for a dinner date, slaps some goo on the glass and in the process discovers $25 windshield repairs while-u-wait? That outcome is never discussed by economists.
Yes, it's not, because it's a bad argument.
It's true, that it's possible that there could be some amazing accidental discovery because of that event. But the probability would be no greater than the probability of a flash of insight when doing all of the other tasks that would be done had the window not been broken.
Yes, amazing discoveries are often made because of accidents. No, encouraging sloppiness and destruction will not *in the aggregate* increase the rate of innovation. What you gain in chance discoveries, you more than lose through the complete unreliability of the rest of your more methodical work.
Well, this may be of interest: At work one time, to two coworkers born ~1955, I jokingly referenced a "Bob Memorial Golf Course", where Bob was one of the two, the joke being that Bob would have a lot of money to fund those things. The both immediately assumed I was joking about Bob's death.
This suggests to me there's a generational difference in the connotation of "memorial".
So, in order words, you agree with me (that the justifications given in TFA were the wrong ones, and the benefits are in better technological growth rather than merely "more businesses and jobs"), but you're going to clumsily equivocate so that that isn't obvious, and then go on a long spiel about an economic theory you've long held.
That having been said, an economist knows what "externality" means. That word, which is highly relevant to this discussion, explains why your "broken window fallacy" accusation is wildly off the mark.
Actually, it shows precisely why my remark was relevant. Specifically, the strongest justification for space exploration is that it throws off far too many positive externalities for private actors to capture (and thus will underinvest in it), NOT that it "creates jobs" (which a "broken window" would do just the same).
No, I think you may have missed the point --- when people say space travel is "more important than economic considerations", I don't think they're claiming there is a "public good" at all, but rather, that we do it for reasons other than either it being a "public good" or being economically beneficial (i.e. *neither* of the two reasons you listed). Basically we do it because we are humans and we *like exploring*, simple as that.
That's *still* an economic consideration. "Liking exploring" -- deriving enjoyment from the experience of confidently knowing that humans or machines are being propelled deeper and more sustainably into space -- is an economic consideration! It is something that a lot of humans prefer to certain alternate uses of resources.
What I think you mean to say is that space exploration is a good, but not a "material" good. That is, people value space exploration, even though it comes at the cost of physical wealth (more and better cars, TVs, etc.) It is therefore still a public good -- the benefit (though non-material) spills onto lots of people who had nothing to do with the space program, and which its implementers cannot capture any recompense for, thus implying that any private space explorers will allocate "too few" resources to that end.
But then, why the need to diss economics along the way?
This is why I say people need to focus on the *substance* of the position, and whether or not the conclusions follow from the premises, rather than get involved in definitional arguments. IMHO, you have a coherent position iff you can easily convert its phrasing into any other definition set and still believe in it.
I wish people would stop saying on this that economics doesn't matter, or space exploration is "more important than economic considerations."
There is economics terminology for this, and I wish people would use it.
Pro-space exploration people [1] seem to be saying that space exploration has the status of a national or global "public good", whose benefits can't be captured by private organizations and therefore will be underfunded by the private sector compared to how much benefit can be so created.
Anti-space exploration people [1] seem to be saying either that such a good cannot exist, or that space exploration specifically does not meet it.
If you want to justify your position, put it in those terms.
[1] who have a clue what they're talking about and whose arguments are resilient against obvious replies
Yeah, there is a sort of bias in finding "experts" on such a question. There's no "Society for the Termination of All Space Travel". The best you could do is find some economist to discuss the broader context of allocating resources to such a goal, or maybe a radical environmentalist (not a redundancy) group.
No, you're confusing the Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect.
"The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is also frequently confused with the "observer effect". The uncertainty principle actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time -- if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other. Thus, the uncertainty principle deals with measurement, and not observation. The idea that the Uncertainty Principle is caused by disturbance (and hence by observation) is not considered to be valid by some, although it was extant in the early years of quantum mechanics, and is often repeated in popular treatments."
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, sure, that's a good point. The right term should be cost:reward ratio, rather than risk:reward ratio. We should all be careful to phrase our positions to the highest level of abstraction so as to allow examination of the underlying justification.
However, it doesn't change the point. Breaking DRM is illegal; therefore it has a risk. Even if it were not illegal, it would add difficulty, making it functionally equivalent to a physical lock.
This is very different from current media DRM schemes. Once a file is broken there is no longer a barrier at all. Anyone can use the broken file, without physical access, without spending time "picking the lock", and without any skill.
Assuming (baselessly) they can find your freed file.
Except, as has been mentioned by others elsewhere in this thread, for the fact that picking my home's lock does not give you access to my neighbor's home.
I don't see how that would even count as a *relevant* difference, but it's not even true. Constructing a key given a lock, will give you an instrument capable of bypassing similar locks as well.
Also, to pick my Honda's lock you need physical access to my home. This limits greatly the number of people able to work on picking the lock. To break the security on a DRM'd file - any (easy to make) copy will suffice.
Okay, still not a relevant difference. So, for you (!), bypassing DRM protection is easier. Doesn't change the fact that DRM's inclusion, like physical locks, alters the risk:reward ration sufficiently to maintain profitability of the protected works.
I don't believe you have cited differences.
...) actually are alike in this respect. When you lock your door, you "give" the thief the key in an obscured way. Ask any locksmith. The information contained in a physical lock, by itself, suffices to create a tool that can bypass that lock and other similar ones.
Not one of the security models used in his analogy depends on giving the key to the potential attacker. With media DRM you are given a restricted format and an obscured key to unlock it. This is its weakness, and has no corollary with the examples he gave.
The listed examples (car locks, home locks
Two - in the case of car and home locks - deterrence is enough. I don't need to secure my house against a perfect thief, unless I have the Hope diamond in my bedroom. I only need to secure my home better than my neighbor does. Even securing my house well enough to change the risk:reward or difficulty:reward balance is enough to greatly reduce the chances of a break-in.
Copy protection is the exact same way. It only needs to be strong enough so that for most people, their utility is maximized by doing something *other* than copying the work. The person adding the copy protection is, just like you, trying to manipulate the risk:reward ratio of copying.
Thus without reading the complaint itself and the reasons Ford has we are left with only two conclusions.
:-P
Considering I foe'd you, I should probably remind you of a third theory, that Ford is just trolling for easy "protection money" because of the whole "not-funding-workers'-pensions" thing
Now if the calendar has different cars (say it was 12 sports cars and the Mustang was just one) then I could see Ford being in the wrong
Well, then I think that highlights the absurdity of this all:
-"I'm selling a calendar containing the car models Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, Chrysler Sebring, Hyundai Tiburon, Toyata Solara, and Mitsubishi 3000GT." --> 100% okay
-"I'm selling a calendar containing car models. All of them are Ford Mustangs." --> OMG NO U HAVE 2 PAY 4 THAT!
And what is it going to do about my encryption keys?
... probably nothing.
Well, considering that you live your life with such privacy paranoia that you feel you have to post AC and therefore probably aren't much threat to the government
Yes, it is more complicated. It's more like:
"2. Laughably make pension promise that the union should know you won't be able to honor, and set aside no assets to pay for it, so that in the future, honoring the promises gores your profits, making UbuntuDupe suspicious you won't even be able to honor warrantees."
The issue is not putting any product in any picture, the issue is using a product with a trademarked design as a prominent feature of a picture that you're selling.
Yes, because I'm *sure* that's exactly where it will end. Keep in mind, "brand protection" is even more important in fashion than in cars, i.e. designers work day and night to ensure that their products are associated with the right people.
Now, what if I make some video wearing an Armani suit, mention the fact that it is an Armani suit, and do all kinds of offensive stuff, and encourage others to wear them and do that? Is it obvious whether Armani has the right to stop that?
What if I sell a fashion guide, showing the kinds of things people should wear, and 90% of it is Armani? Again, is it obvious whether that's kosher?
And if it's not, keep in mind trademark law requires them to sue specifically to prevent these ambiguous cases from cropping up.
"Okay ... okay ... got it. Sounds good. Wait, now, just so we're on the same page, remind me again what a 'wetback' is?"
j/k I actually head a Ron Paul Meetup group, despite my reservations about some of his positions and the haze regarding the old Ron Paul newsletter.
(and on a related note, what is with some of those Hyundai's trying to look like freakin' Mercedes-Benz with the round headlights and stuff... come up with your own ideas!)
The Sonata and the Kia Amanti? Hey, I thought they looked cool. Unfortunately, for the Sonata, that was only for the '03-'05 models. I was looking at buying one recently, and it no longer has those lights.
At the Detroit Auto Show, Hyundai debuted another "let's take on Mercedes" car, the Hyundai Genesis. Looks nice too.
You know one idea Hyundai didn't copy from Ford? Underfunded worker pensions.
Wow, this is bad. Just the other day I was wondering about IP rights in taking pictures of products, and if arguments about IP in pictures of other stuff carried over.
Now, imagine what it's like if you have to get permission to put *any* product in *any* picture.
I have no idea what legal grounds Ford has, but this MUST be prevented from spreading to pictures of products in general.
(Of course, Ford could just be trolling for easy cash because of that whole not-funding-workers'-pensions thing...)
I'll start caring about income inequality, when the egalitarians that gripe about it start caring about inequality in beauty and access to sex.
Easy! Just follow the ESR method:
1) Wish *really hard* that some way exists.
2) Compare proprietary software to the Holocaust.
3) Insist that it's feasible to subsist on money from writing software if you don't have a mortgage or kids and camp/forage at MIT.
That's why I suggest -- and not as a joke -- selling FOSS in boxed packages in retail stores. "A web browser that enhances computer security? For only $35? WOW!" "Hm, Microsoft Office for $130, or this 'Open Office' for $50? Heh, looks like I can save if I get this other one."
Then maybe throw in a tiny professional support contract so they don't feel ripped off when/if they find out it's free.
Or, another cover story: tell him it "costs" $50, but there's a "special site I know about" (i.e. main download site) where you can get it for free if you promise to tell them about bugs.
The problem with repeating the broken window fallacy over and over like some sort of mantra is that it assumes that the benefit from breaking the window can never be greater than the opportunity cost. What if the glazier, in a hurry for a dinner date, slaps some goo on the glass and in the process discovers $25 windshield repairs while-u-wait? That outcome is never discussed by economists.
Yes, it's not, because it's a bad argument.
It's true, that it's possible that there could be some amazing accidental discovery because of that event. But the probability would be no greater than the probability of a flash of insight when doing all of the other tasks that would be done had the window not been broken.
Yes, amazing discoveries are often made because of accidents. No, encouraging sloppiness and destruction will not *in the aggregate* increase the rate of innovation. What you gain in chance discoveries, you more than lose through the complete unreliability of the rest of your more methodical work.
Well, this may be of interest: At work one time, to two coworkers born ~1955, I jokingly referenced a "Bob Memorial Golf Course", where Bob was one of the two, the joke being that Bob would have a lot of money to fund those things. The both immediately assumed I was joking about Bob's death.
This suggests to me there's a generational difference in the connotation of "memorial".
So, in order words, you agree with me (that the justifications given in TFA were the wrong ones, and the benefits are in better technological growth rather than merely "more businesses and jobs"), but you're going to clumsily equivocate so that that isn't obvious, and then go on a long spiel about an economic theory you've long held.
That having been said, an economist knows what "externality" means. That word, which is highly relevant to this discussion, explains why your "broken window fallacy" accusation is wildly off the mark.
Actually, it shows precisely why my remark was relevant. Specifically, the strongest justification for space exploration is that it throws off far too many positive externalities for private actors to capture (and thus will underinvest in it), NOT that it "creates jobs" (which a "broken window" would do just the same).
No, I think you may have missed the point --- when people say space travel is "more important than economic considerations", I don't think they're claiming there is a "public good" at all, but rather, that we do it for reasons other than either it being a "public good" or being economically beneficial (i.e. *neither* of the two reasons you listed). Basically we do it because we are humans and we *like exploring*, simple as that.
That's *still* an economic consideration. "Liking exploring" -- deriving enjoyment from the experience of confidently knowing that humans or machines are being propelled deeper and more sustainably into space -- is an economic consideration! It is something that a lot of humans prefer to certain alternate uses of resources.
What I think you mean to say is that space exploration is a good, but not a "material" good. That is, people value space exploration, even though it comes at the cost of physical wealth (more and better cars, TVs, etc.) It is therefore still a public good -- the benefit (though non-material) spills onto lots of people who had nothing to do with the space program, and which its implementers cannot capture any recompense for, thus implying that any private space explorers will allocate "too few" resources to that end.
But then, why the need to diss economics along the way?
This is why I say people need to focus on the *substance* of the position, and whether or not the conclusions follow from the premises, rather than get involved in definitional arguments. IMHO, you have a coherent position iff you can easily convert its phrasing into any other definition set and still believe in it.
I wish people would stop saying on this that economics doesn't matter, or space exploration is "more important than economic considerations."
There is economics terminology for this, and I wish people would use it.
Pro-space exploration people [1] seem to be saying that space exploration has the status of a national or global "public good", whose benefits can't be captured by private organizations and therefore will be underfunded by the private sector compared to how much benefit can be so created.
Anti-space exploration people [1] seem to be saying either that such a good cannot exist, or that space exploration specifically does not meet it.
If you want to justify your position, put it in those terms.
[1] who have a clue what they're talking about and whose arguments are resilient against obvious replies
Yeah, there is a sort of bias in finding "experts" on such a question. There's no "Society for the Termination of All Space Travel". The best you could do is find some economist to discuss the broader context of allocating resources to such a goal, or maybe a radical environmentalist (not a redundancy) group.
So an economist asked some guys who haven't gotten past the broken window fallacy? Ok, whatever.
Space exploration may be justified, but let's see if we can talk about without getting dazzled about all the jobbies it creates.
Yeah, yeah, flamebait, etc.
No, you're confusing the Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect.
"The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is also frequently confused with the "observer effect". The uncertainty principle actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time -- if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other. Thus, the uncertainty principle deals with measurement, and not observation. The idea that the Uncertainty Principle is caused by disturbance (and hence by observation) is not considered to be valid by some, although it was extant in the early years of quantum mechanics, and is often repeated in popular treatments."
I've generated electricity with silicon before, I just inserted piezoelectric material into the breast implants. Or was that silicone?
Hm, I've got a great new policy with a noble rationalization. I've needed one ever since my "recycling menstrual blood" fell through.