OK, while we're here and on-topic, who here hasn't experienced this effect on Slashdot? I know I have, I know friends who have, and I've read posts about the perception of Slashdot going downhill, but I haven't actually heard anyone speak out against this effect. So, if you're out there, this is a perfect time to speak up.
Watermarks provide very little security, since you can find them just by comparing a few copies of the same file.
Provided you can get another few watermarked copies of the same file, which may be a problem if it actually starts working. Even if you do manage to organise it, and you found the watermark, would you be able to strip it? Would you be able to tell what parts are watermark-affected or not? And even if you can, this doesn't make watermarks useless. It helps slow piracy by attacking file-sharer's anonymity. Even if there are people who can organise to strip the watermark, it'll still hopefully decrease availability of pirated media.
Watermarks tied to users offer the RIAA an easy way to frame anyone, since they can create a watermarked copy of any file with your details and release it on the Internet.
OK, that's the stupidest thing I've heard all day. Firstly, I'm not convinced that the RIAA would want to frame you. Framing is illegal, risky, and takes too much time (y'know, for the material to circulate the P2P networks). I don't know why they would do that over choosing from one of the many IP addresses that could be plucked from a network. It's not much better of course, but it's easier, cheaper, and less risky.
Secondly, in theory, these measures are only as good in a court of law as their reliability. With a good lawyer, that could be a valid defence against the watermarking, but since you're suggesting the completely implausible, I doubt you could back up your defence with much substance.
There's a VERY finite supply of the time a specific artist can perform, so their income will come from selling that time to fans (i.e., live concerts or performances). Yes, this creates a real dilemma for writers, but I believe that MOST readers will prefer the artist's accepted printed book rather than the knock-off.
Yep, sometimes it's too finite. Some music (certain electronic music, for example) can't be produced live. Prints of a painting can be easily and professionally reproduced. Writers, as you said, but especially technical writers providing practical information. Many people just don't care whether or not the information they want is in a professional book binding, or on a web page. Any way they get the info is good by them, and the artist doesn't see a cent from it.
That's actually a big problem with these kind of "artists will learn to make do" solutions: there's always far too many people being left in the cold to make it a viable, society-wide solution.
Copyright, and other intellectual property restrictions, do little to promote new content or creations. The biggest wall for content creators is distribution, not creation. Millions, even billions of people create content, but only a few are able to distribute it.
OK, an artist makes some art. That's fine, many (not all) forms of art don't require significant capital investment. As you say, the real cost is distribution, and the artist has to decide whether or not to distribute commercially or at all. If this artist releases his work under copyright, hopefully (if people like the work) he will get some financial returns from his investment. Let's say people did like his work, and he makes a nice sum of money. He sees that his work was well received, and is pretty sure that another similar distributed work would earn him similar to more money, which means more and more nice sums of money. He feels encouraged to not only distribute his works but to create more, and to spend more time on his art.
That's the way it should work. Copyright helps encourage creation and distribution for desired artworks. Unfortunately, piracy just means more demand, not for his product, but for something identical to it in all but price.
The only bands who care are the ones who sold their souls to their management companies in exchange for access to the monopolized distribution sectors (radio, TV, large distro magazines) which are already going the way of the do-do.
OK. If you really believe that, why not let it be tested naturally on the free market? The RIAA members can stipulate whatever restrictions they want on their copyrights, and this new supposedly improved wave of media that ignores copyrights can release directly into the public domain if they want to. I guess we'll see which system works better.
I was initially under a similar impression, but they eventually convinced me that, for at least some of them, the issue runs deeper than that. It's not about free entertainment, it's about sharing information and entertainment, about being able to give a copy of your CD to friends so they can check it out, or being able to sample music without having to lay money down upfront (and without going to the trouble of finding a legal outlet). It's more noble than just a lust for free entertainment, and rather than greed, I put it down to short-sightedness and an impractical view.
They (and I) also don't like the fact that we constantly have to defend what little rights we do have to our copies of the media, and always the RIAA is pushing. I mean, I'm fine with the RIAA defending their copyrights, and with copyright infringement being illegal (in fact, I wholeheartedly support it), but you gotta admit, the RIAA are just pricks.
b) The punishment matches the crime - If you share a electronic copy of a CD, the retail price is about $8-10, as determined by the market. That would be the maximum punishment. If this is someone who has never been convicted of sharing copyrighted materials, there would be no punishment for a "first offense".
That reminds me of my local public transport system (government sponsored), that had a policy for fare evasion. If you are caught riding the buses or trains without a ticket, then by golly you would be made to pay the full price for a ticket! Pretty harsh, huh? If you get caught, you end up in exactly the same situation as if you had just paid the fare. So many people just didn't pay the fare unless forced to. It wasn't any disincentive, and it meant that lots of fare-evasion went unpunished (although "punishment" is a bit of a stretch).
What you're proposing is even worse. Not content with just being made to pay for the CD, but you believe we shouldn't have to pay anything the first time! One free CD, whoopee! Not only that, but the maximum punishment doesn't include any provisions for legal fees or risk management (since not all lawsuits end up being won). It would, in effect, mean there would be no lawsuits at all, and the **AA would be completely powerless to enforce their IP. Since you seem to be resistant to the **AA dishing out disincentives, perhaps you'd prefer if the criminal court system were to handle it, since disincentives are its field of expertise.
I'm prepared to take your word for it that you are a competent admin for a linux server, and that your setup is of at least decent quality. The problem is that, in setting up the server, you may be making yourself invaluable to the school, and when your son leaves, another (possibly clueless) paid professional admin will have a hard time understanding the setup, especially if it's Linux. Yeah I know they should know Linux, and that the school shouldn't be consulting with anyone who doesn't, but that doesn't usually stop the process. I can just imagine the guy saying, "Well, I've had a look at the system. Who used it last? A parent? Oh right. Well, he left the whole system a mess. It's an odd setup, and I'm going to have to do quite a bit of maintenance for a small fee..."
In short, perhaps you should have instead pointed them to a decent IT firm, rather than the DIY approach.
Most people realise that there isn't really any sensitive information on a thumbprint, nothing personal that you may want to hide, nothing dangerous when in the wrong hands, but relatively useful for verifying ownership of a license.
Assuming the individual has a choice - most likely the institution in which the device is used will set policy. All it would take (in many circumstances) is a contribution from MS to sway that.
FTFS:
While Microsoft has been working on an OLPC-capable version of Windows for some time now, the interesting thing here is the dual-booting provision, rather than forcing users into an either-or choice.
MS is advocating dual booting. Perhaps they realise that lobbying to make Windows the only choice would just alienate them completely from the OLPC project?
Why not? For one thing because it would pretty much guarantee total anonymity to everyone online.
If you want to commit a crime online, it's easy enough to drive your car to the next city, open you laptop and connect to a random open AP.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a reason against anonymity and leaving unsecured connections? Or were you just being ironic when you say "Why not?"
OLPC was designed to run a customised Linux not Windows, which even in a somehow cut back version is, as we all know, very resource hungry. This is hardly a level playing field for Windows is it?
It's a level playing field in that both OSes get the same hardware to work on, given the same opportunity for proving themselves, and given as a (hopefully) unbiased choice. If Windows is truly too resource-hungry for the OLPC, then it will fail.
As for your assertion that you needn't have access to source code to learn, that may be the case for you and in fact many others but it is not the case for a very large number of people who learn kinesthetically. Access to source code and being able to hack is how many, many people learn - especially when formal education is out of the question.
Well that gives Linux another natural advantage, doesn't it? Besides, there's nothing to say you can't get open source applications on Windows, and hack that way.
Anyway, what I'm suggesting is that we stop prescribing reasons why one is better and the other isn't, based on what "many others" like, and actually give the people who use the machine an opportunity to decide for themselves. Even if 95% of them choose to scrap Windows (we can only hope!), it'll be worth it to show MS how unwanted Windows is in fresh markets.
BTW, I have no idea what the point of your second point is.
There have been presidents that got elected over a few hundred votes. How is that acceptable, that in an election where millions of people vote it's enough to have a few hundred more to take 100% of the power? The vote was split almost exactly 50-50, why isn't the power divided the same way?
That's a good question, and is basically the difference between a pure democracy and a democratic republic. It would be possible for us to go down the pure democracy path, and rather than having elected leaders, having decisions decided democratically. The problem with this approach, besides being more work, is it ends up making for an unstable and indecisive government. One day, you're signing a treaty, the next, you're breaking it. One day, you start free trade negotiations with a country, the next you're sanctioning it. It probably won't be as erratic as that, but it'd be enough to discourage trade deals, treaties, long-term investments in infrastructure, etc. The economy would suffer, everyone would suffer. The elected leaders can have their moment of power, and they don't have to argue with any opposition in 50-50 power in order to get the job done. Besides the house of representatives is meant to provide that kind of representation.
Tens of millions voted for the other guy, how can it be acceptable that they get zero representation?
A good politician will still try (one may even say "especially try") to represent the people who didn't vote for them as far as possible without breaking political promises (if possible), and without alienating too many of their core voters. OK, so it isn't 50-50 representation, but it certainly isn't 100-0.
Oh yeah? And Windows is pretty much a global standard, so case closed.
Or maybe we can do away with naming "killer attributes", and let them compete on equal terms.
BTW, I've learned and developed heaps on Windows, which ultimately gave me the technical ability to learn Linux. Not having access to source code is no major barrier to "learning" and "developing". Your contention is bullshit.
Well I, for one, don't think it's a bad idea for windows to be offered as an alternative OS. They'd be competing on even terms (so long as Windows doesn't boot automatically if you fail to choose your OS in the allocated time), and the people who actually use the machine could tell which one they prefer. Then they'd probably have to delete the other partition for the space.
I think what you're really wanting is for the parties and the media to stop drumming to the beat of the people, and start drumming to your own. Ever wondered why the top political parties hold a monopoly? It's not because they engage in anti-competitive practices, but because they just do what the people want. The media covers them extensively because, let's face it, they're simply the most relevant topic to cover, since so many people will be voting for them. Knowing voters, they'll continue to elect someone they're confident will run the country without trampling on their interests, and so indeed, nothing much will change.
sounds like he was making excuses as for why he believes in something he knows is a lie.
I don't think you understand. Not everyone believes that science is the be-all and end-all of truth and reality. It only sounds that way because of your personal bias. A more devout (and misguided) religious person may see it as making excuses for evolution, since he seems to only teach it, not to believe it. Why can't he just be content with privately viewing science as one of God's logic puzzles or one of his tests of faith?
(Disclaimer: all these views are just followed tangentially from the few words he actually said on the subject, they may not represent his opinion with perfect accuracy)
Oh, in that case, I agree with you. I thought you were claiming that "green", "bio", and "open" don't actually mean anything, and are empty buzzwords, but you're right. Take the word as a guide and find a second opinion to confirm.
Open is like bio, green and other feel-good words. It means that someone wants you to believe that there is more to something than there really is.
When I hear the Linux kernel being referred to as "open source" software, I must admit, I don't really "believe that there is more to something than there really is" (whatever that means). When I hear Solar power as being "green", I sure as hell don't think the panels themselves will be a lovely shade of emerald. When I look at a biology textbook, I pretty much think that information on biology is contained in there. Nothing more, nothing less.
Perhaps these "feel good" words actually have attainable meanings?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, while we're here and on-topic, who here hasn't experienced this effect on Slashdot? I know I have, I know friends who have, and I've read posts about the perception of Slashdot going downhill, but I haven't actually heard anyone speak out against this effect. So, if you're out there, this is a perfect time to speak up.
Secondly, in theory, these measures are only as good in a court of law as their reliability. With a good lawyer, that could be a valid defence against the watermarking, but since you're suggesting the completely implausible, I doubt you could back up your defence with much substance.
Hey, I'm not judging you! I just had some concerns. If you say you've got it covered, buddy, I believe you. No need to get so defensive.
That's actually a big problem with these kind of "artists will learn to make do" solutions: there's always far too many people being left in the cold to make it a viable, society-wide solution.OK, an artist makes some art. That's fine, many (not all) forms of art don't require significant capital investment. As you say, the real cost is distribution, and the artist has to decide whether or not to distribute commercially or at all. If this artist releases his work under copyright, hopefully (if people like the work) he will get some financial returns from his investment. Let's say people did like his work, and he makes a nice sum of money. He sees that his work was well received, and is pretty sure that another similar distributed work would earn him similar to more money, which means more and more nice sums of money. He feels encouraged to not only distribute his works but to create more, and to spend more time on his art.
That's the way it should work. Copyright helps encourage creation and distribution for desired artworks. Unfortunately, piracy just means more demand, not for his product, but for something identical to it in all but price.OK. If you really believe that, why not let it be tested naturally on the free market? The RIAA members can stipulate whatever restrictions they want on their copyrights, and this new supposedly improved wave of media that ignores copyrights can release directly into the public domain if they want to. I guess we'll see which system works better.
I was initially under a similar impression, but they eventually convinced me that, for at least some of them, the issue runs deeper than that. It's not about free entertainment, it's about sharing information and entertainment, about being able to give a copy of your CD to friends so they can check it out, or being able to sample music without having to lay money down upfront (and without going to the trouble of finding a legal outlet). It's more noble than just a lust for free entertainment, and rather than greed, I put it down to short-sightedness and an impractical view.
They (and I) also don't like the fact that we constantly have to defend what little rights we do have to our copies of the media, and always the RIAA is pushing. I mean, I'm fine with the RIAA defending their copyrights, and with copyright infringement being illegal (in fact, I wholeheartedly support it), but you gotta admit, the RIAA are just pricks.
First they came for the 10 year old girls, and I laughed because they had no concept of sharing being wrong
Then they came for the grandmas, and I laughed because they're all technophobic
Then they came for the people without computers, and I laughed because they couldn't possibly be guilty
Then they came for me, and no-one was left to laugh at me.
Sweet. I got the last laugh.
What you're proposing is even worse. Not content with just being made to pay for the CD, but you believe we shouldn't have to pay anything the first time! One free CD, whoopee! Not only that, but the maximum punishment doesn't include any provisions for legal fees or risk management (since not all lawsuits end up being won). It would, in effect, mean there would be no lawsuits at all, and the **AA would be completely powerless to enforce their IP. Since you seem to be resistant to the **AA dishing out disincentives, perhaps you'd prefer if the criminal court system were to handle it, since disincentives are its field of expertise.
I'm prepared to take your word for it that you are a competent admin for a linux server, and that your setup is of at least decent quality. The problem is that, in setting up the server, you may be making yourself invaluable to the school, and when your son leaves, another (possibly clueless) paid professional admin will have a hard time understanding the setup, especially if it's Linux. Yeah I know they should know Linux, and that the school shouldn't be consulting with anyone who doesn't, but that doesn't usually stop the process. I can just imagine the guy saying, "Well, I've had a look at the system. Who used it last? A parent? Oh right. Well, he left the whole system a mess. It's an odd setup, and I'm going to have to do quite a bit of maintenance for a small fee..."
In short, perhaps you should have instead pointed them to a decent IT firm, rather than the DIY approach.
Yeah, it's tolerated. Why wouldn't it be?
Most people realise that there isn't really any sensitive information on a thumbprint, nothing personal that you may want to hide, nothing dangerous when in the wrong hands, but relatively useful for verifying ownership of a license.
Clearly your priorities are mixed up.
Surely our children's sobriety is worth more than a measly $xxxx?
How dare you!
Anyway, what I'm suggesting is that we stop prescribing reasons why one is better and the other isn't, based on what "many others" like, and actually give the people who use the machine an opportunity to decide for themselves. Even if 95% of them choose to scrap Windows (we can only hope!), it'll be worth it to show MS how unwanted Windows is in fresh markets.
BTW, I have no idea what the point of your second point is.
Oh yeah? And Windows is pretty much a global standard, so case closed.
Or maybe we can do away with naming "killer attributes", and let them compete on equal terms.
BTW, I've learned and developed heaps on Windows, which ultimately gave me the technical ability to learn Linux. Not having access to source code is no major barrier to "learning" and "developing". Your contention is bullshit.
Well I, for one, don't think it's a bad idea for windows to be offered as an alternative OS. They'd be competing on even terms (so long as Windows doesn't boot automatically if you fail to choose your OS in the allocated time), and the people who actually use the machine could tell which one they prefer. Then they'd probably have to delete the other partition for the space.
... or just to copyright holders who complain to AT&T.
I think what you're really wanting is for the parties and the media to stop drumming to the beat of the people, and start drumming to your own. Ever wondered why the top political parties hold a monopoly? It's not because they engage in anti-competitive practices, but because they just do what the people want. The media covers them extensively because, let's face it, they're simply the most relevant topic to cover, since so many people will be voting for them. Knowing voters, they'll continue to elect someone they're confident will run the country without trampling on their interests, and so indeed, nothing much will change.
(Disclaimer: all these views are just followed tangentially from the few words he actually said on the subject, they may not represent his opinion with perfect accuracy)
You'll also be screwing with the sub-pixel rendering, and all those documents and web pages won't look so good any more.
Oh, in that case, I agree with you. I thought you were claiming that "green", "bio", and "open" don't actually mean anything, and are empty buzzwords, but you're right. Take the word as a guide and find a second opinion to confirm.
You are officially the first person on Slashdot to get modded up for expressing a desire to listen to Brittany Spears!
Perhaps these "feel good" words actually have attainable meanings?