One thing I've not seen discussed is what happens if -- and that's a big if -- we reform our patent structure and even go so far as to eliminate software and business process patents as Mark Cuban desires.
Many other countries have mirrored our IP and patent laws, and so the problem as I see it is that we've dug ourselves into a very deep, very wide, very big hole.
If the US eliminates software patents, that opens the door for every other country to come in here and copy whatever they please and then sell the result. We, on the other hand, would still be subject to the laws of every OTHER country in which we do business.
Nokia and Samsung and others could sell, say, iPad clones here, whereas Apple could still get hit with patent lawsuits across the globe.
In essence, it's the Cold War unilateral disarmament problem. He who disarms first is at a severe strategic and tactical disadvantage...
"...historically, in the copyright industries there HAS BEEN NO pyramid. Either you succeed or you fail."
I can't believe you wrote something so puerile. Of course you either "succeed" or fail. But now define success, because you don't have to have a blockbuster to be a success.
No pyramid, huh? So you don't make living running this site? There aren't thousands, if not millions, of authors and writers and blog owners and musicians and bands and independent filmmakers and developers who work in the copyright industry and make a living doing so?
And even more writers and bloggers and garage bands and so on, who do it part time?
People that you, yourself, write about and discuss on almost a daily basis?
"By and large, copyright-centered business models generate blockbuster economies, in which very few people earn very substantial incomes while the great majority of producers receive little to nothing for their work."
Sorry, but the article fails on this point. Take practically ANYTHING, from making movies to novels to music to selling insurance to playing baseball to writing software. The top artists and "players" in a given field tend to make a lot of money.
The people at the bottom of the pyramid make little to nothing, and the ones in the middle make ends meet, or at least make enough to make their endeavor worthwhile.
As such, this distribution has NOTHING to do with copyright.
Nor does it prevent other people from choosing to employ "alternative" business models in order to generate additional income. A fact TechDirt delights in pointing out when discussing the music industry and the CwF/RtB methodology.
Please. His own statements and actions indicate that he knew where the "line" was, and exceeded it.
He asked a security guard in the store if he could "take a few pictures" with his camera. He asked an employee if he could install his software on a machine in order to try it out. He did NOT ask if he could install his software on hundreds of machines daily. He did NOT ask if he could surreptitiously take thousands of photos of Apple store customers, without their knowledge or consent.
Why? Because he himself knew that the former set of actions would be allowed, and the later would not. That one set would be considered fair and reasonable, and that one would not.
Did he even attempt to contact Apple corporate about his project? Did he even discuss it with the store manager, or anyone else in authority? Did he even attempt to setup his own computers in order to gather photos for his project? Did he ask friends to install his software? No, no, no, and apparently not.
In short, he lied, dissembled, evaded, and attempted to cover up his actions. Purposely, and deliberately.
No, the nightly rebuilds are because Apple expects people to screw up the machines: renaming files and folders, messing with the samples in iPhoto and iMovie and Garage Band, deleting junk, changing settings, and doing things that generally, over time, would result in a crappy demo experience. (Think display computers at Best Buy.)
"... taking a bunch of letters, numbers, and symbols that looks like java code and compiling it to Dalvik byte code... assuming you wrote or have a license to use said bunch of letters, numbers, and symbols. "
That "bunch" of letters, numbers, and symbols that looks like java code IS Java code, and that particular expression is subject to copyright. The same "bunch" of letters, numbers, and symbols also embodies algorithms and functions that are subject to patents.
And they didn't have a license. That's why they went to rather absurd lengths in a attempt to bypass it.
"And if Google 'tampered' with the original java and introduced a few juice to it so they should pay me even though it's a different thing?"
Java is a language specification, a JVM, and a set of class libraries. Google, from my understanding of the matter, didn't want to pay to license "Java". So they "supposedly" rebuilt the JVM in a clean room implementation, stripped the headers off the class libraries and recompiled them, and use a new "language" with the exact same syntax and idioms.
So, new JVM, same language, same libraries, plus additions. Plus many of the functions implemented in the JVM (JIT caching) and libraries (image processing, network stacks and so on) are under patents of their own.
So it's a new thing... and the same thing. But mostly all of that work is little more than a sneaky attempt to get around paying for a Java license.
"I have several images I'm using to create new ones as part of a larger project... Should I have to sacrifice the quality of my work [sic] just to satisfy one of the licenses?"
So let me get this straight: You're complaining that they didn't make the free images free enough, and that their lack in doing so is impacting YOUR work? Talk about being ungrateful. They gave many people something free, and all you can do is complain about it???
Reminds me of a jerk I overheard at a restaurant the other day. The waiter treated him to a free cup of coffee, and he had the gall to call the manager over to complain that his free coffee wasn't hot enough.
I believe you're correct regarding the "free" argument, though it's a bit odd that she's complaining about their use of the word "free" when the FOSS movement co-opted the word in the first place.
I can give my work are for free (as in beer). I still, however, want it to be MY work. I may also, if I choose, give the rights to use my work away, in which case you're also "free" to use it or modify it as your please.
No, I think you're missing the point. Intentionally.
His comment was in regard to a POSITION PAPER put out by the FSF. It is not "documentation". A position paper is someone's clear and distinct position on a specific matter. For you to take it and "improve it" is to potentially change its meaning and their position.
And actually, you just neatly illustrated the problem. You took his comment and substituted "documentation" for "position paper" because it made your specific argument seem more reasonable, when that's not what he said or implied at all.
Same for Lessig's book. Those are his words, thoughts, and views on the subject at hand. Now, you to take it and "improve it". Are those still his thoughts? Would be agree with your changes? Are you putting words into his mouth?
If you want to write your own book or position paper, feel free. But don't copy my book wholesale and "improve" my words without my consent. You're not my editor, and I said what I meant to say.
Actually, I didn't know that. Perhaps, if I don't know that, then others may not know that, and instead of ranting about free not being free enough, you could spend your time helping to allay those kinds of concerns.
Regardless, given the article you just wrote, you'd seem to prefer that we not use ANY of the above licenses. Thus allowing anyone to "build" on anything.
Which has more than a touch of BS to it. You're completely free to write a book "building" on Lessig's work. (To use your specific example.) You're free to write about it and quote it and take excerpts from it and comment on it. (Fair use, after all.) Authors have be doing it for centuries now.
Now., what the current license doesn't seem to allow is for you to "build" on Lessig's book by copying 99% of it wholesale, just adding a few comments of your own, then putting your own name on it and selling it on Amazon.
And quite frankly, I'm good with that. Especially as it seems to be in line with the author's own wishes.
On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall
Re: Re:
Please. It's simple to setup a page where you see the article summary or the first paragraph or so, and then a paywall login or ad to see the rest.
And as such, "Big Search" can definitely index the "public" portion of the article.
Don't blindly repeat arguments that aren't true.
On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why President Obama Has The 'Jobs' Equation Backwards; Supporting Patent Reform That Limits Jobs
Competition
Many other countries have mirrored our IP and patent laws, and so the problem as I see it is that we've dug ourselves into a very deep, very wide, very big hole.
If the US eliminates software patents, that opens the door for every other country to come in here and copy whatever they please and then sell the result. We, on the other hand, would still be subject to the laws of every OTHER country in which we do business.
Nokia and Samsung and others could sell, say, iPad clones here, whereas Apple could still get hit with patent lawsuits across the globe.
In essence, it's the Cold War unilateral disarmament problem. He who disarms first is at a severe strategic and tactical disadvantage...
On the post: Google Being More Aggressive About Bad Patents; But Should It Go Even Further?
Quite a bit of money to spend on "bogus" patents.
On the post: Getting Past The Myth That Copyright Is Needed To Produce Content
Re: Re: Nothing to do with Copyright
I can't believe you wrote something so puerile. Of course you either "succeed" or fail. But now define success, because you don't have to have a blockbuster to be a success.
No pyramid, huh? So you don't make living running this site? There aren't thousands, if not millions, of authors and writers and blog owners and musicians and bands and independent filmmakers and developers who work in the copyright industry and make a living doing so?
And even more writers and bloggers and garage bands and so on, who do it part time?
People that you, yourself, write about and discuss on almost a daily basis?
No pyramid????? Are you nuts?
On the post: Getting Past The Myth That Copyright Is Needed To Produce Content
Re: Re: Nothing to do with Copyright
Then you agree the original article is flawed, in that copyright has nothing to do with "blockbuster" economics. Good.
I'll be glad to reduce the copyright term down to 14 years, or perhaps even 7. I'm all for the public domain.
But we need some legal protection to keep people, businesses, and corporations from simply ripping off a finished work before the ink's even dry.
Even Mike is discussing "weakened" copyright, and not calling for us to abolish it completely.
So no, we can't "dispense" with it.
On the post: Getting Past The Myth That Copyright Is Needed To Produce Content
Nothing to do with Copyright
Sorry, but the article fails on this point. Take practically ANYTHING, from making movies to novels to music to selling insurance to playing baseball to writing software. The top artists and "players" in a given field tend to make a lot of money.
The people at the bottom of the pyramid make little to nothing, and the ones in the middle make ends meet, or at least make enough to make their endeavor worthwhile.
As such, this distribution has NOTHING to do with copyright.
Nor does it prevent other people from choosing to employ "alternative" business models in order to generate additional income. A fact TechDirt delights in pointing out when discussing the music industry and the CwF/RtB methodology.
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
Re: Re:
He asked a security guard in the store if he could "take a few pictures" with his camera. He asked an employee if he could install his software on a machine in order to try it out. He did NOT ask if he could install his software on hundreds of machines daily. He did NOT ask if he could surreptitiously take thousands of photos of Apple store customers, without their knowledge or consent.
Why? Because he himself knew that the former set of actions would be allowed, and the later would not. That one set would be considered fair and reasonable, and that one would not.
Did he even attempt to contact Apple corporate about his project? Did he even discuss it with the store manager, or anyone else in authority? Did he even attempt to setup his own computers in order to gather photos for his project? Did he ask friends to install his software? No, no, no, and apparently not.
In short, he lied, dissembled, evaded, and attempted to cover up his actions. Purposely, and deliberately.
That's the line.
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...with an individual repeatedly installing his own, private monitoring software on hundreds of computers over the course of several days?
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
I'm pretty sure theft of service is also a crime.
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
On the post: Patents As Theft: How Oracle & Microsoft Seek To Profit From Android Despite Having Nothing To Do With It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
Well, I consider copying something, changing part of it, and then claiming it to be your own simply to avoid paying a license fee "sneaky."
And the legality of doing so is still under consideration.
On the post: Patents As Theft: How Oracle & Microsoft Seek To Profit From Android Despite Having Nothing To Do With It
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
That "bunch" of letters, numbers, and symbols that looks like java code IS Java code, and that particular expression is subject to copyright. The same "bunch" of letters, numbers, and symbols also embodies algorithms and functions that are subject to patents.
And they didn't have a license. That's why they went to rather absurd lengths in a attempt to bypass it.
On the post: Patents As Theft: How Oracle & Microsoft Seek To Profit From Android Despite Having Nothing To Do With It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
Java is a language specification, a JVM, and a set of class libraries. Google, from my understanding of the matter, didn't want to pay to license "Java". So they "supposedly" rebuilt the JVM in a clean room implementation, stripped the headers off the class libraries and recompiled them, and use a new "language" with the exact same syntax and idioms.
So, new JVM, same language, same libraries, plus additions. Plus many of the functions implemented in the JVM (JIT caching) and libraries (image processing, network stacks and so on) are under patents of their own.
So it's a new thing... and the same thing. But mostly all of that work is little more than a sneaky attempt to get around paying for a Java license.
On the post: Shouldn't Free Mean The Same Thing Whether Followed By 'Culture' Or 'Software'?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Shouldn't Free Mean The Same Thing Whether Followed By 'Culture' Or 'Software'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree, but addition
So a better analogy is that the waiter offered someone else a free cup of coffee, and now he's bitching that his coffee isn't free too.
On the post: Shouldn't Free Mean The Same Thing Whether Followed By 'Culture' Or 'Software'?
Re: Re: Agree, but addition
So let me get this straight: You're complaining that they didn't make the free images free enough, and that their lack in doing so is impacting YOUR work? Talk about being ungrateful. They gave many people something free, and all you can do is complain about it???
Reminds me of a jerk I overheard at a restaurant the other day. The waiter treated him to a free cup of coffee, and he had the gall to call the manager over to complain that his free coffee wasn't hot enough.
On the post: Shouldn't Free Mean The Same Thing Whether Followed By 'Culture' Or 'Software'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can give my work are for free (as in beer). I still, however, want it to be MY work. I may also, if I choose, give the rights to use my work away, in which case you're also "free" to use it or modify it as your please.
But I can still have one without the other.
On the post: Shouldn't Free Mean The Same Thing Whether Followed By 'Culture' Or 'Software'?
Re: Re: Missing the point
His comment was in regard to a POSITION PAPER put out by the FSF. It is not "documentation". A position paper is someone's clear and distinct position on a specific matter. For you to take it and "improve it" is to potentially change its meaning and their position.
And actually, you just neatly illustrated the problem. You took his comment and substituted "documentation" for "position paper" because it made your specific argument seem more reasonable, when that's not what he said or implied at all.
Same for Lessig's book. Those are his words, thoughts, and views on the subject at hand. Now, you to take it and "improve it". Are those still his thoughts? Would be agree with your changes? Are you putting words into his mouth?
If you want to write your own book or position paper, feel free. But don't copy my book wholesale and "improve" my words without my consent. You're not my editor, and I said what I meant to say.
On the post: Shouldn't Free Mean The Same Thing Whether Followed By 'Culture' Or 'Software'?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Regardless, given the article you just wrote, you'd seem to prefer that we not use ANY of the above licenses. Thus allowing anyone to "build" on anything.
Which has more than a touch of BS to it. You're completely free to write a book "building" on Lessig's work. (To use your specific example.) You're free to write about it and quote it and take excerpts from it and comment on it. (Fair use, after all.) Authors have be doing it for centuries now.
Now., what the current license doesn't seem to allow is for you to "build" on Lessig's book by copying 99% of it wholesale, just adding a few comments of your own, then putting your own name on it and selling it on Amazon.
And quite frankly, I'm good with that. Especially as it seems to be in line with the author's own wishes.
Next >>