@froyo, no, and perhaps I'm being too generous. I explored those fields in college and this was exactly the sort of thing that would be tried, simply to test out the ability of algorithms to identify linguistic complexity.
But as Peet says, none of that could be true, this could have been someone's application of technology for its own sake, not for any academic reason.
Mike, I don't think this was created for the purpose of using tech to recognize sarcasm, so much as it was created for the purpose of seeing if it was possible (I don't know, just speculating). The fields of cognitive science and artificial intelligence are mostly driven forward by small steps like this. It seems like a nice, well-bounded problem to tackle with an experiment.
That sounds nothing like TAM. You actually asked a reasonable question. Statistics out of context can be misleading.
However, even on their own, many thousands of lawsuits seems beyond trivial. If you just consider some real-world examples, there is a federal court here called the rocket docket. They usually try a case in 3-5 days. So, for a single judge, that would be roughly 52 cases per year, not accounting for other activities, vacation, variability, etc. Just to try 1,000 cases would require 200 judges.
Of course these lawsuits are spread all over the country, and a vast majority never get tried, etc etc. I'm just trying to put some practical context on the numbers. Even if each of the 1,000 cases takes 1 hour for a court to deal with, that's one-half of a person-year, not accounting for all of the ancillary personnel impacts beyond the judge.
Yes, I read the whole claim before posting. What they have described is a process I used building data warehouses for companies in the mid 90s. And the process is overly broad because it describes a process used by nearly every single software development effort that includes data.
I realize it would be hard for someone to understand that doesn't do this for a living. The basic waterfall lifecycle expects logical design to occur before physical design. The logical design includes the specification of data elements in a manner that is understandable from a business perspective. The physical design takes the specific technology into account, by de-normalizing where appropriate and creating other physical elements. The physical design must be mapped back to the logical design, especially in instances where a COTS product pre-specifies the target data store.
As I said, ERP systems expose logical data elements with which business users interact that is independent of how the data is stored, and a mapping is created and maintained.
Ah, now we're going to redefine "non-profit" in a way designed to denigrate my example. Nice.
But good, you have experience with a volunteer non-profit, not the example given here. Now it's clear why you don't understand, because your experience doesn't apply to the store in St. Louis.
Also, it's fairly disingenuous for you to say that one set of motivations are pure and others aren't. Even individuals in volunteer organizations are driven by motivations and incentives that aren't necessarily explicit or pure. So stop peeing on others from on high, as you like to say.
As someone that works for a non-profit consulting firm (after having worked for a for-profit consulting firm for 12 years), you're completely wrong. Nearly everything about how I did business before applies to how I do business now, except two things: I don't have a profit incentive and my customers trust my motivations more than before. I still have a revenue incentive because I have to figure out how to keep x number of people employed and keep my business relevant. I still have to manage costs and overhead, and I still have to plan my strategy.
What is supposedly so different? And please speak from your experience.
Not by any definition I learned in business school. Competing based on what? Competition involves trying to serve some market dimension better than everyone else.
Well, let's take the first one for example. Methods and systems for logical to physical data mapping is something that has existed since data and software development lifecycles have existed. Nearly all ERP systems employ this to some degree and those have been around since long before 1998, and most custom development would call this "abstraction".
They're not even remotely the same thing. Among many other things, I'm currently involved in advising the government on use of the "cloud" (especially helping them understand how empty that word really is). One fundamental barrier for government is how to adapt FISMA/NIST to that type of computing. The idea of two different organization with applications of different classifications *running on the same hardware* and accessible by the same staff is a huge barrier.
How is helping organizations (govt or otherwise) understand the security implications of an architectural approach "fear-mongering"?
Huh? Fail to see how that makes sense. The issue here is that a *new* cost has been raised (by roughly 10,000% depending on the number of participants) and the gyms have to decide whether to pass that cost on to the customers. Clearly many of them are deciding not to.
If you're arguing that gyms are too expensive to begin with, that's a different issue. Or if you are arguing that they should have been paying that cost all along, my initial statement still applies, at the point the gym was opened, they would have had to decide if the music was worth it and worth including in their membership costs.
Yeah, I think that's thinking in the right direction and what the middlemen are really worried about. The ideas of a certain scale of distribution and market impact necessary for an author to make a living are outdated. With many of the costs of distribution removed, the authors need to figure out how to get noticed and then build a business model on a much smaller scale (hopefully). DH can speak to it better based on his experiences, but it makes sense to me.
I agree with you, but perhaps the angst is in the "pulp" novels that people use more as escapism and time-fillers than true literary enjoyment. For example, I'm sad to admit that I went through a phase where I read like 50 or so star trek novels. Those were written for volume not quality.
But then again, most people probably did what I did for those, which is get them from the library, borrow them, etc. I probably only bought a handful.
Nice strawman there. No one associated fair use with COMPLETE COPYING. But it was brought up in the discussion that not only should legal methods of DRM circumvention not be allowed but neither should fair use. They were related because some saw them as similar loopholes.
I suspect that very few here would argue that straight copying is a legitimate form of fair use, but I would ask you to consider that sometimes a strict interpretation of fair use is too limiting. An example would be the RedLetterMedia reviews which cover the whole movies. They are a combination of review and parody and use extensive portions of the movie.
What about the original question, that anti-circumvention clauses prevent legal actions allowed by the consumers? I could argue that the law as stated artificially extends creator rights by preventing lawful uses to which the creator's control does not extend. Why does that not bother you?
And this same perverted thing happens with patents. Rather than exploring and sharing ideas, innovators shun them so that in the course of their independent creation, no one can claim that they "knew" of a patent and chose to willfully infringe.
Most patents now are so broad that any reasonable person couldn't possibly understand their scope anyway to determine whether or not they might infringe. The result is to err on the side of infringement, which has a chilling effect.
"Fair Use is a loophole that should never have been placed into the law."
The more I read this, the more foolish it sounds. Are you really saying that news organizations, researchers, reviewers, and parodists (makers of parody) should not have the right to use elements of a copyrighted work? Really? I'd like to know how that's even possible...
No, you are restricting that choice to only the rights granted to them. Creators currently have the choices you outlined, to include NOT distributing their works if they do not want consumers to do things with their works that are legally allowed under the law.
What you are suggesting is that creators should have their cake and eat it too. They should be able to gain the benefits of distribution and sale while also restricting activities post-sale. First, that isn't even really possible with physical goods, so you could only practically try to apply it to digital goods. And second, let's suppose we make that change--are you willing to accept that would likely devalue many offerings, often significantly?
Well, there isn't anything wrong with that because the restriction would have been disclosed in a contract that was explicitly agreed-upon by both parties. That is not the situation we're discussing, however.
We're discussing whether or not the creator's wishes should extend beyond their mutually-understood rights to things that the law says are possible and allowable by consumers.
On the post: Who Needs A SarcMark When Your Computer Can Just Tell You When Someone's Being Sarcastic?
Re: Re:
On the post: Louisiana Wants To Put You In Jail If You Embarrass Anyone Under 17 Years Old Online
Re:
On the post: Who Needs A SarcMark When Your Computer Can Just Tell You When Someone's Being Sarcastic?
Re: Re:
But as Peet says, none of that could be true, this could have been someone's application of technology for its own sake, not for any academic reason.
On the post: Who Needs A SarcMark When Your Computer Can Just Tell You When Someone's Being Sarcastic?
On the post: A Look At Just How Much The RIAA Clogged The Court System With Mass Copyright Suits
Re: Clog?
However, even on their own, many thousands of lawsuits seems beyond trivial. If you just consider some real-world examples, there is a federal court here called the rocket docket. They usually try a case in 3-5 days. So, for a single judge, that would be roughly 52 cases per year, not accounting for other activities, vacation, variability, etc. Just to try 1,000 cases would require 200 judges.
Of course these lawsuits are spread all over the country, and a vast majority never get tried, etc etc. I'm just trying to put some practical context on the numbers. Even if each of the 1,000 cases takes 1 hour for a court to deal with, that's one-half of a person-year, not accounting for all of the ancillary personnel impacts beyond the judge.
On the post: Microsoft Decides It Can't Compete With Salesforce.com; Sues For Patent Infringement Instead
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I realize it would be hard for someone to understand that doesn't do this for a living. The basic waterfall lifecycle expects logical design to occur before physical design. The logical design includes the specification of data elements in a manner that is understandable from a business perspective. The physical design takes the specific technology into account, by de-normalizing where appropriate and creating other physical elements. The physical design must be mapped back to the logical design, especially in instances where a COTS product pre-specifies the target data store.
As I said, ERP systems expose logical data elements with which business users interact that is independent of how the data is stored, and a mapping is created and maintained.
On the post: Panera Bread Testing The 'Pay What You Want' Model
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But good, you have experience with a volunteer non-profit, not the example given here. Now it's clear why you don't understand, because your experience doesn't apply to the store in St. Louis.
Also, it's fairly disingenuous for you to say that one set of motivations are pure and others aren't. Even individuals in volunteer organizations are driven by motivations and incentives that aren't necessarily explicit or pure. So stop peeing on others from on high, as you like to say.
On the post: Pennsylvania AG Tom Corbett Can't Take Anonymous Twitter Criticism; Issues Subpoenas For IDs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Panera Bread Testing The 'Pay What You Want' Model
Re: Re: Re:
What is supposedly so different? And please speak from your experience.
On the post: Microsoft Decides It Can't Compete With Salesforce.com; Sues For Patent Infringement Instead
Re:
On the post: Microsoft Decides It Can't Compete With Salesforce.com; Sues For Patent Infringement Instead
Re: Re:
On the post: Pushing Cyberwar Moral Panic Apparently Quite Profitable For Booz Allen
Re:
They're not even remotely the same thing. Among many other things, I'm currently involved in advising the government on use of the "cloud" (especially helping them understand how empty that word really is). One fundamental barrier for government is how to adapt FISMA/NIST to that type of computing. The idea of two different organization with applications of different classifications *running on the same hardware* and accessible by the same staff is a huge barrier.
How is helping organizations (govt or otherwise) understand the security implications of an architectural approach "fear-mongering"?
On the post: Australian Gyms Dumping Pop Music After Massive Increase In Royalty Rates
Re:
If you're arguing that gyms are too expensive to begin with, that's a different issue. Or if you are arguing that they should have been paying that cost all along, my initial statement still applies, at the point the gym was opened, they would have had to decide if the music was worth it and worth including in their membership costs.
On the post: Authors Guild Worried About iPad Ebook File Sharing... But Focused On The Wrong Thing
Re: Been thinking about this..
On the post: Authors Guild Worried About iPad Ebook File Sharing... But Focused On The Wrong Thing
Re: Re: History is cool
But then again, most people probably did what I did for those, which is get them from the library, borrow them, etc. I probably only bought a handful.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: What Fair Use Tenant ?
I suspect that very few here would argue that straight copying is a legitimate form of fair use, but I would ask you to consider that sometimes a strict interpretation of fair use is too limiting. An example would be the RedLetterMedia reviews which cover the whole movies. They are a combination of review and parody and use extensive portions of the movie.
What about the original question, that anti-circumvention clauses prevent legal actions allowed by the consumers? I could argue that the law as stated artificially extends creator rights by preventing lawful uses to which the creator's control does not extend. Why does that not bother you?
On the post: Some Fiction About Fan Fiction
Re:
Most patents now are so broad that any reasonable person couldn't possibly understand their scope anyway to determine whether or not they might infringe. The result is to err on the side of infringement, which has a chilling effect.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Fair use is a loophole?
The more I read this, the more foolish it sounds. Are you really saying that news organizations, researchers, reviewers, and parodists (makers of parody) should not have the right to use elements of a copyrighted work? Really? I'd like to know how that's even possible...
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
What you are suggesting is that creators should have their cake and eat it too. They should be able to gain the benefits of distribution and sale while also restricting activities post-sale. First, that isn't even really possible with physical goods, so you could only practically try to apply it to digital goods. And second, let's suppose we make that change--are you willing to accept that would likely devalue many offerings, often significantly?
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
We're discussing whether or not the creator's wishes should extend beyond their mutually-understood rights to things that the law says are possible and allowable by consumers.
Next >>