Both Mike and Cory Doctorow seems to think that if some technology enable you to do "X" it automatically means that you're allowed to do it.
It is not, and numerous examples are available. Your car can drive 100mph and more, are you allowed to do it? You can build powerful radio transmitter - does FCC allows you? Read chemistry book about C4 - are you allowed to make explosives?
This "laws" thing is invented by society to regulate when (and who) is allowed to do whatever technology makes possible.
Yes, Cory in many countries it is not allowed to tinker with your car unless you qualified to. In even more countries, it's forbidden to tinker with your house (building itself) unless you've got permission.
DRM is not different. Bad idea by itself, but principle of limiting your "technological freedom" is not new.
Are you for real? Please check your history book about this "rebellion" thing you're talking about.
People will not rebel for stupid movies. Most of the world have bigger problems to care about: wars, economics, natural resources, etc.
Note to US residents: please use map to check where's "most of the word" is located. Hint: it's not even in Europe.
This "most of the world" will sign whatever treaty US will pressure them, and people will silently ignore it no matter what government officials say.
In same "most of the world" local ISP's have money, while so cutting customers will not fly.
Recent example: one Israeli newspaper published rumor that some ISP throttle bittorent. In _same_ day ISP representative issued statement where he insured customers that such thing will never happen; while other ISP's issued statements about their ability to handle any kind of load without need to throttle.
I'm confused - are we talking about papers or content
In no point Mike doesn't explain what this legal fight is actually about: writings themselves (original papers) or content of said writings.
Disputes over antiquated documents are neither surprising nor rare. Copyright, on the other hand has expired long ago, no matter who owned it before.
Wast majority of code found on sourceforge is useless junk no matter who wrote it and for what reason.
Very few high-profile OSS project reside on sourceforge, on the other hand.
Should I explain in even more detail?
Contrary to popular belief, free software (the useful one, not sourceforge) is not created by clueless dudes like you in spare time. People are paid to create it. From Linux kernel to OpenOffice, from Firefox to mysql, every single one was created by employees of some megacorp (Sun, IBM, Novel ...).
Overpriced - don't buy. Nobody forced you to by Autocad. Ah, right, there's no FOSS alternative - and you know _why_? Because you can't create Autocad - size project on your spare time. And those who can - already paid to do other useful things.
"The idea that people value software more based on price is total crap" - educate yourself first, before threshing others.
People are not logic machines, that's why we have psychology for people and mathematics for computers.
Your logic and reason seems to be complete lack of understanding of how economy works. When you say "yes, money is lost" you show how complete clueless you are on subject. Money _never_ lost.
And ranting about "earning rich people more money, while poor people ..." have no touch in reality; while smelling communist propaganda - I have enough of this in $country some time ago.
Repeat after me: money never lost, that's not how bank system works. When some rich dude have millions in bank, poor dude can take loan and start business.
To your points: "do homeless people ..." - that's irrelevant. They are _homeless_. Sick people doesn't work, which doesn't mean that you should not.
"The local merchant will likely invest the money you pay him locally" - and megacorp will what, eat money? Or invest on Moon? No, it will put money in bank and your local merchant will have cheaper loan. That's how bank work, whether you like it or not.
"If you haven't been watching the news lately..." - yes, corruption does not help. This have nothing to do with subject at hand.
"Megacorps take every opportunity to avoid taxes" - and your local shop does not?! Do you imagine some of them think: "is there any way to pay some more taxes"? No, you simply have no idea how business-taxes relationship works.
"Price is not value. Value is not price." - but there's strong relation between them. And every single valuable thing have price. Clean air (as other perks from mother nature) - environmental taxes; love - try to have a real relationship or family; and so on.
Mike, every time I read your post about software piracy I thing you turning off your ability to logic and reason.
Reducing software piracy will have all kind of effects, and first one is that people will start to value software _more_. There are studies all over that show - people value expansive stuff more. The more you pay for something - more you value it.
It also probable that software companies will start provide warranty for their products. When I pay for something - I expect warranty for every item - from toothpick to airplane.
Now, please put aside your beaten to death example about "valuable air that is free of charge". This example is wrong all over - clean air is far from being free: you paying for it directly (cost of real estate) and indirectly (taxes).
The argument of "money not being lost" is a shame for someone claiming to have knowledge in economics. Money does not disappear anyway. It doesn't matter whether you spend it on pork from local merchant or software from megacorp. If you spend it to product with higher margin (software), said megacorp will either put money in bank (thus investing back into economy) or will hire more people (again, investing in economy). Exception is foreign megacorp, but that's what import taxes are for.
Glyn Moody's mental exercises of "what good software piracy brings to IT" are ridiculous. Every single industry pay for it's tools. Of cause, money spent on tools will not going to employees, but that's trade-off every industry make - automatic tools (costly, but effective) or manual labor (cheap, but ineffective).
Argument about "reducing/increasing number of jobs" is even more silly. Every automation (don't love progress?) reduce jobs. Remember your "creative destruction"? What matter, is amount of goods created, not number of people involved.
And finally - repeat after me: "software is utility, not entertainment". If (some) software fails - people die. Simple, isn't it? You can't say it about any other "creative industry". You can not replace software with movie, while you can instead of watching movie read book, for example. So, the mere fact that software distribution governed by same copyright laws as movie is coincidence, it will eventually be fixed.
Desktop OS have even more apps, should I use them all?
What an incredibly useless study. Some people use built-in apps, some download from third party. What exactly surprising here?!
Windows have literally thousands of apps, and on my computer installed only 3. OMG, app usage on computers in not impressive! PC software vendors will fail soon!
You're actually paying (indirectly) to cover cost of stolen goods. Store pay insurance and roll cost of insurance into price of goods.
>> This sort of proposal enforces a financial loss on the innocent and a financial gain on the guilty.
Like all other taxes. Unemployment fee is perfect example of that.
>> Why not jail everyone for a week rather than find the murderer and lock him up for life ?
Not all crimes are solved, or even investigated.
Re: Re: Re: Said it before and I will say it again...
>> Just because the majority does it does not mean its because they have nothing to hide
Yes it does. Tell, me mister privacy, why don't you encrypt your phone calls? Government can listen to them! Ah, I see - you rely on wiretapping laws to protect you. And with email it somehow different?
You can play with your toys all day long, nobody really want to read your email - (skip gmail robots). And when "people" will need your mail - you will give them encryption keys.
Re: Re: Re: Said it before and I will say it again...
Uh - no. Irrelevant issue. IIRC colonists stated their demands publicly, than waged propaganda _and_ war. Conspiracy is only small part it.
Back to original question: just pass (really) confidential info personally. Or by mail (you know, one with envelope). Those kind of communication is match harder to intercept without being noticed.
Here's another novel concept for you: keep your mouth shut. People like you are ridiculous, they for some reason think that if some stuff is encrypted in $algorithm, government can't read it. Wrong.
You see, genius, wast amount of population does not encrypt their messages. It doesn't matter whether it's good thing or not. It is a fact. So, your "secured" PGP'ed talk is very distinct. It's like writing "I have stuff to hide" on your back.
Another fact of life for you: when some man-in-black will come to ask you "a few questions" you can't say "I won't tell you". You will tell. That's why those 3-letter agencies exists - make people talk. Right-to-remain-silent you say? Yea, right.
Re: Re: You never been in actual buisness before, Mike?
>> No, that's what it cost to make
>> Except, time and time again people have shown that's NOT >> the case. The cost .. (skipped)... down ...
>> But the cost to make a movie has gone up? Why?
You repeatedly making same error again and again. Nobody shown that "that's not the case". What people in your examples shown is that you can shoot low-cost film with average quality. So what? Does it surprise anyone?
Yes, technology jumped forward, but how about paying "special guest star" $5M? No technology in the world will bring this cost down.
Back to the technology side, movies in your examples are hardly meeting average level. There will be no "Matrix" there. And no "Lord Of The Rings" either. Yes, you can shoot better-than-before with $1000 camera and edit on your $2000 computer at home, but if you want result to be enjoyable on cinema-size screen, you will need to start adding zeros to equipment cost. Professional grade stuff is still very expansive (as in every single industry).
>> I've been involved in lots of planning efforts for big companies and small companies and we have NEVER -- not ONCE -- started with the budget and then figured out how to spend it
Have to call bullshit on this. Do you ever planned your own vacation? "I have saved $X, where can I go for this kind of money?" - does that sound familiar to you? Your explanation about _why_ this is "oh so bad idea" is missing, and there's reason for that. The reason is - you can't actually explain it. And you can't explain it because such explanation will look and feel stupid.
In whole lot of cases you start with budget. From government where "budget for year $X is $Y, how do we divide it" down to your vacation (see example above), budget comes before features. Tell us, what kind of industry works otherwise, maybe I will consider career move?
Re: Re: You never been in actual buisness before, Mike?
You have no idea how _anything_ is produced, do you? Go ahead and start a business. You will discover that movies are not special, "egos and extravagances" exists in every single industry.
>> That's also assuming that the footage on screen was necessary in the first place
So you're a director now? How about doing your own movie? Everything on screen will be necessary and you will hire Tom Cruise for $20 per hour.
You see, movie industry _is_ quite a competitive, so there's no reasons for costs to be artificially high.
On the post: Cory Doctorow Explains Why 'Free' Isn't His Concern; But Restrictions On Individual Rights Are
It's OK to "hold off what technology allows"
It is not, and numerous examples are available. Your car can drive 100mph and more, are you allowed to do it? You can build powerful radio transmitter - does FCC allows you? Read chemistry book about C4 - are you allowed to make explosives?
This "laws" thing is invented by society to regulate when (and who) is allowed to do whatever technology makes possible.
Yes, Cory in many countries it is not allowed to tinker with your car unless you qualified to. In even more countries, it's forbidden to tinker with your house (building itself) unless you've got permission.
DRM is not different. Bad idea by itself, but principle of limiting your "technological freedom" is not new.
On the post: Negotiators Get Close On ACTA, And Continue To Mislead About It
Rebelion?
People will not rebel for stupid movies. Most of the world have bigger problems to care about: wars, economics, natural resources, etc.
Note to US residents: please use map to check where's "most of the word" is located. Hint: it's not even in Europe.
This "most of the world" will sign whatever treaty US will pressure them, and people will silently ignore it no matter what government officials say.
In same "most of the world" local ISP's have money, while so cutting customers will not fly.
Recent example: one Israeli newspaper published rumor that some ISP throttle bittorent. In _same_ day ISP representative issued statement where he insured customers that such thing will never happen; while other ISP's issued statements about their ability to handle any kind of load without need to throttle.
On the post: The Kafkaesque Question Of Who Owns Kafka's Papers
I'm confused - are we talking about papers or content
Disputes over antiquated documents are neither surprising nor rare. Copyright, on the other hand has expired long ago, no matter who owned it before.
On the post: BSA Again Lies With Stats; IDC Should Be Ashamed To Put Its Name On Pure Nonsense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: as others point out
Autocad will. You seems to have no idea what Autocad is good for. It's manufacturing industry standard, for example.
FreeCAD you say? Unsupported hobby project? _This_ is supposed to be used for manufacturing? What planet are you from?
One idiot here mentioned Blender as Autocad substitute. Listen up, dude, Blender is not CAD, it's 3D animation tool.
On the post: BSA Again Lies With Stats; IDC Should Be Ashamed To Put Its Name On Pure Nonsense
Re: Re: Re: as others point out
Very few high-profile OSS project reside on sourceforge, on the other hand.
Should I explain in even more detail?
On the post: BSA Again Lies With Stats; IDC Should Be Ashamed To Put Its Name On Pure Nonsense
Re: as others point out
Overpriced - don't buy. Nobody forced you to by Autocad. Ah, right, there's no FOSS alternative - and you know _why_? Because you can't create Autocad - size project on your spare time. And those who can - already paid to do other useful things.
On the post: BSA Again Lies With Stats; IDC Should Be Ashamed To Put Its Name On Pure Nonsense
Re: Re: Mike, it's you who should be ashamed
People are not logic machines, that's why we have psychology for people and mathematics for computers.
On the post: BSA Again Lies With Stats; IDC Should Be Ashamed To Put Its Name On Pure Nonsense
Re: Re: Mike, it's you who should be ashamed
And ranting about "earning rich people more money, while poor people ..." have no touch in reality; while smelling communist propaganda - I have enough of this in $country some time ago.
Repeat after me: money never lost, that's not how bank system works. When some rich dude have millions in bank, poor dude can take loan and start business.
To your points: "do homeless people ..." - that's irrelevant. They are _homeless_. Sick people doesn't work, which doesn't mean that you should not.
"The local merchant will likely invest the money you pay him locally" - and megacorp will what, eat money? Or invest on Moon? No, it will put money in bank and your local merchant will have cheaper loan. That's how bank work, whether you like it or not.
"If you haven't been watching the news lately..." - yes, corruption does not help. This have nothing to do with subject at hand.
"Megacorps take every opportunity to avoid taxes" - and your local shop does not?! Do you imagine some of them think: "is there any way to pay some more taxes"? No, you simply have no idea how business-taxes relationship works.
"Price is not value. Value is not price." - but there's strong relation between them. And every single valuable thing have price. Clean air (as other perks from mother nature) - environmental taxes; love - try to have a real relationship or family; and so on.
On the post: BSA Again Lies With Stats; IDC Should Be Ashamed To Put Its Name On Pure Nonsense
Mike, it's you who should be ashamed
Reducing software piracy will have all kind of effects, and first one is that people will start to value software _more_. There are studies all over that show - people value expansive stuff more. The more you pay for something - more you value it.
It also probable that software companies will start provide warranty for their products. When I pay for something - I expect warranty for every item - from toothpick to airplane.
Now, please put aside your beaten to death example about "valuable air that is free of charge". This example is wrong all over - clean air is far from being free: you paying for it directly (cost of real estate) and indirectly (taxes).
The argument of "money not being lost" is a shame for someone claiming to have knowledge in economics. Money does not disappear anyway. It doesn't matter whether you spend it on pork from local merchant or software from megacorp. If you spend it to product with higher margin (software), said megacorp will either put money in bank (thus investing back into economy) or will hire more people (again, investing in economy). Exception is foreign megacorp, but that's what import taxes are for.
Glyn Moody's mental exercises of "what good software piracy brings to IT" are ridiculous. Every single industry pay for it's tools. Of cause, money spent on tools will not going to employees, but that's trade-off every industry make - automatic tools (costly, but effective) or manual labor (cheap, but ineffective).
Argument about "reducing/increasing number of jobs" is even more silly. Every automation (don't love progress?) reduce jobs. Remember your "creative destruction"? What matter, is amount of goods created, not number of people involved.
And finally - repeat after me: "software is utility, not entertainment". If (some) software fails - people die. Simple, isn't it? You can't say it about any other "creative industry". You can not replace software with movie, while you can instead of watching movie read book, for example. So, the mere fact that software distribution governed by same copyright laws as movie is coincidence, it will eventually be fixed.
On the post: Early Warning Signs: App Usage On Mobile Phones Still Not That Impressive
Desktop OS have even more apps, should I use them all?
Windows have literally thousands of apps, and on my computer installed only 3. OMG, app usage on computers in not impressive! PC software vendors will fail soon!
Techdirt really disappointing sometimes
On the post: Early Warning Signs: App Usage On Mobile Phones Still Not That Impressive
Re:
On the post: New Zealand Authors Demanding Compulsory Blanket 'You Must Be A Criminal' Internet Charge
Re: Re: This is a business model...
>> This sort of proposal enforces a financial loss on the innocent and a financial gain on the guilty.
Like all other taxes. Unemployment fee is perfect example of that.
>> Why not jail everyone for a week rather than find the murderer and lock him up for life ?
Not all crimes are solved, or even investigated.
On the post: New Zealand Authors Demanding Compulsory Blanket 'You Must Be A Criminal' Internet Charge
Re: Re: This is a business model...
On the post: RIM Works Out Deal In Saudi Arabia, Causing Many To Wonder If They Can Trust Their BlackBerry
Re: Re: Re: Said it before and I will say it again...
When you meet people that _really_ want your email - your game is up, no matter whether it was real conspiracy or home porno.
On the post: RIM Works Out Deal In Saudi Arabia, Causing Many To Wonder If They Can Trust Their BlackBerry
Re: Re: Re: Said it before and I will say it again...
Yes it does. Tell, me mister privacy, why don't you encrypt your phone calls? Government can listen to them! Ah, I see - you rely on wiretapping laws to protect you. And with email it somehow different?
You can play with your toys all day long, nobody really want to read your email - (skip gmail robots). And when "people" will need your mail - you will give them encryption keys.
On the post: RIM Works Out Deal In Saudi Arabia, Causing Many To Wonder If They Can Trust Their BlackBerry
Re: Re: Re: Said it before and I will say it again...
Back to original question: just pass (really) confidential info personally. Or by mail (you know, one with envelope). Those kind of communication is match harder to intercept without being noticed.
On the post: RIM Works Out Deal In Saudi Arabia, Causing Many To Wonder If They Can Trust Their BlackBerry
Re: Said it before and I will say it again...
You see, genius, wast amount of population does not encrypt their messages. It doesn't matter whether it's good thing or not. It is a fact. So, your "secured" PGP'ed talk is very distinct. It's like writing "I have stuff to hide" on your back.
Another fact of life for you: when some man-in-black will come to ask you "a few questions" you can't say "I won't tell you". You will tell. That's why those 3-letter agencies exists - make people talk. Right-to-remain-silent you say? Yea, right.
On the post: Making A High Quality Film On The Cheap With A Digital SLR
Re: Re: You never been in actual buisness before, Mike?
>> Except, time and time again people have shown that's NOT >> the case. The cost .. (skipped)... down ...
>> But the cost to make a movie has gone up? Why?
You repeatedly making same error again and again. Nobody shown that "that's not the case". What people in your examples shown is that you can shoot low-cost film with average quality. So what? Does it surprise anyone?
Yes, technology jumped forward, but how about paying "special guest star" $5M? No technology in the world will bring this cost down.
Back to the technology side, movies in your examples are hardly meeting average level. There will be no "Matrix" there. And no "Lord Of The Rings" either. Yes, you can shoot better-than-before with $1000 camera and edit on your $2000 computer at home, but if you want result to be enjoyable on cinema-size screen, you will need to start adding zeros to equipment cost. Professional grade stuff is still very expansive (as in every single industry).
>> I've been involved in lots of planning efforts for big companies and small companies and we have NEVER -- not ONCE -- started with the budget and then figured out how to spend it
Have to call bullshit on this. Do you ever planned your own vacation? "I have saved $X, where can I go for this kind of money?" - does that sound familiar to you? Your explanation about _why_ this is "oh so bad idea" is missing, and there's reason for that. The reason is - you can't actually explain it. And you can't explain it because such explanation will look and feel stupid.
In whole lot of cases you start with budget. From government where "budget for year $X is $Y, how do we divide it" down to your vacation (see example above), budget comes before features. Tell us, what kind of industry works otherwise, maybe I will consider career move?
On the post: Making A High Quality Film On The Cheap With A Digital SLR
Re:
On the post: Making A High Quality Film On The Cheap With A Digital SLR
Re: Re: You never been in actual buisness before, Mike?
>> That's also assuming that the footage on screen was necessary in the first place
So you're a director now? How about doing your own movie? Everything on screen will be necessary and you will hire Tom Cruise for $20 per hour.
You see, movie industry _is_ quite a competitive, so there's no reasons for costs to be artificially high.
Next >>