Post #18,110
11/13/01 4:09:05 PM
|
Those who consort with villians
Pixar's got its own kettle of fish to fry. I've commented elsewhere (LinuxToday) that the movie industry's living a paradox: it needs low-cost, open, OTS, liberal-copyright policy dependent, compute power provided by free software to produce the movies it wants to sell on strict copyright policy, closed, vendor-specific hardware. Mediating that flow profits comanies such as Disney, but also sets them up for conflict.
Pixar needs to feel the pain as well. They either pass of their higher costs to Diz, tell Diz to quit making their life impossible, or die.
That's life.
--
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
Post #18,111
11/13/01 4:13:35 PM
|
That's naive.
Pixar needs to feel the pain as well. They either pass of their higher costs to Diz, tell Diz to quit making their life impossible, or die. And you're naive to think that a small company like Pixar can dictate anything, including higher prices, to Disney. Again, the point you ignored: idealistic, ineffectual protest is silly. Not going to see the movie is depriving my son of the enjoyment of the movie, and doing exactly two things to change Disney's perspective on SSSCA: jack, and shit, respectively. Regards,
-scott anderson
|
Post #18,126
11/13/01 4:42:47 PM
|
The power of individual action
Individual actions, without communications, are going to have limited impacts. You're right regards this.
If Pixar is unable to communicate its survival needs to Disney successfully, it will fail. I doubt it's as utterly unable to do so as you feel. However, my comment "that's life" is just that: there's no guarantee of survival for Pixar. If their technology model is incompatible with industry interests and the resulting legal environment, they'll have to deal with the consequences.
You're forgetting that the individual now has a means to communicate effectively with the rest of the world. This is among the lessons of [link|http://www.cluetrain.com/|The Cluetrain Manifesto].
In a similar case, a simple Google search for [link|http://www.google.com/search?q=adobe&hl=en&start=10&sa=N|Adobe] brings up a Sklyarov reference on the second page of results. Google rules the net, and the reflection of a brand against public discussion cannot be avoided. Several companies have discovered this through their own use of trademark enforcement, and in particular several entertainment companies (Warner and its defense of the Harry Potter "franchise", Sony and Aibo). Making your customer the enemy is bad policy.
I've posted to the Jobs forum my own success in branding me with my resume placement. An individual can influence the nuances of search engine results significantly. A group of individuals can have significant impacts. The traditional, patriarchal, company's own policies on controlling its "message" limits its ability to countract these effects.
The current baseline for Disney is that you'd have to dig through the first 120 Google results before you found mention of a Disney boycott googling "Disney". Let's see if we can't change that metric somewhat, eh?
--
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
Post #18,127
11/13/01 4:47:30 PM
|
Excuse me...
...but by neglecting this Pixar movie...you are denying the "good" part of the equation.
You should be SUPPORTING Pixar and their massive use of OSS. You should be screaming at Disney that more of their operations should be run like this...shouting Pixar's success at the top of your lungs hoping that the brass at Disney will understand the duality in their position and respond.
Otherwise...Scott's right.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,211
11/14/01 5:43:48 AM
|
Pixar
Pixar clearly understands the value proposition of free software.
However, if they're going to use that understanding to feed a regime that's fundamentally opposed to free software in its current form, then Pixar fails the ends test.
There's a theme running through several responses that supposes I think Disney (or Disney and Pixar) are of one mind, and are either all good or all bad. Sorry, that's not what I said, and it's not what I meant. The key is this: Disney is a core sponsor of the SSSCA, and has been a long standing proponent of copyright extension and legislated copy prevention regimes. It doesn't matter if it acts as a monolith or as a dysfunctional family to this end, what's important is the end, and the end is incompatible with free software.
Disney needs to be made aware of this in a way that it cannot ignore.
--
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
Post #18,251
11/14/01 11:51:55 AM
|
Question?
In my limited understanding, there are a couple of different issues: - free software
- free content
- copyrights & fair use
I know that the FSF believes that software (i.e. programs that can be used to manipulate content) should be free. They've used the GPL copyright as the method to ensure that source code is freely available. What I don't understand is the exact relationship with content. As I see it, the argument is not so much whether one can regulate content, but whether said regulation of content comes in conflict with free software. For example, I don't see that charging for DVD's and outlawing their replication for resale as being in conflict. Even methods that hamper fair use of content are not necessarily at odds with free software. Where the conflict comes into play is when the programmers are trying to use free software to view content. The fact that the content has a premium attached to it is not the issue. The fact that free software can not be used to view the content - even if a premium is being charged - would be the issue. Anyhow, the question is whether your beef with Disney is about charging for content? Or whether its the barriers to the use of free software to view that content?
|
Post #18,265
11/14/01 1:08:25 PM
|
(Half of) the second, and the third, is my theory:
"Content" (whether "free" or not), and "copyrights & fair use".
Because the mechanism they use to ensure Free Software stays Free is based on copyrights. That "Intellectual Property Judo" thing, you know: Using the law that could *restrict* something, to make sure it's *not* restricted.
So in order to be able to fight for the "copyability" of Free Software the way they are doing it now, they need to defend the whole copyright *system* as-is. (And, given the purpose they want to use it for, they probably want to do so from a particular "angle": Stressing its *non-*restrictiveness.)
That, I think, is one possible reason why they would want to fight for Fair Use -- which the latest adopted, and even more so the proposed, legislation runs rough-shod over -- quite regardless of whatever software is used to view the content.
i.e: "Even if the content is proprietary, and even if Gerald is only ever going to view it in Micorsoft Media Player which has no technical problems playing it, the legislation that locks it into the distribution media is still Evil in and of itself, because it fuxxors-up the principles of copyright".
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #18,332
11/14/01 7:34:04 PM
|
Context of copyright law and free software
In my limited understanding, there are a couple of different issues: - free software
- free content
- copyrights & fair use
I know that the FSF believes that software (i.e. programs that can be used to manipulate content) should be free.[...]
What I don't understand is the exact relationship with content. As I see it, the argument is not so much whether one can regulate content, but whether said regulation of content comes in conflict with free software. For example, I don't see that charging for DVD's and outlawing their replication for resale as being in conflict. Even methods that hamper fair use of content are not necessarily at odds with free software.
[...]
Anyhow, the question is whether your beef with Disney is about charging for content? Or whether its the barriers to the use of free software to view that content? The beefs are as follows: Extension of copyright durations: the CTEA (copyright term extension act). There is no constitutionally justifiable reason for extending the term of copyright to the period currently allowed under US law. There is a case contesting this extension (Eldred v. Reno, now Eldred v. Ashcroft). Progress to date has been discouraging. The result of copyright extensions has been that little if any work published in the latter three-quarters of the 20th century has entered the public domain. The present-value worth of the extension from 54 years to life plus 70 is on the order of $5 for a typical work. Unfortunately, this isn't the rationale that applies. As the old saw says: "Who wants to live to be 90? Everyone who's 89." It's the (largely institutional) rights-holders of the very few old, but still valuable, works who seek such extensions. This doesn't directly effect free software, but it does have impacts on all culture. Anti-circ and takedown. The provisions of sections 1202 and 512 of Title 17 do effect free software directly. Sony's claimed infringement under 512 for, from what I understand, fully independent Aibo hacks. I've maintained that 512 is unconstitutional on the basis that it provides a legislated mode for accomplishing a judicial role: exemption of liability for infringement is granted to ISPs who take down content on request. The problem is that this is essentially a finding of guilt based on legislated actions. The 1202 section, and proposed SSSCA go far further. They mandate functionality which cannot exist (1202) and which must exist (SSSCA) in all software and hardware, as well as associated speech (Felton, Sklyarov). The chilling effects are extremely disturbing. Again, it's the media interests, including the RIAA -- mafia racket for Sony, EMI, Warner, BMG, Universal and 600 other lables to strong-arm their customers, Sony, Disney, and others, who are promoting this technology. It's not the charging for content per se, though there are mechanisms for supporting this regime which I have strong objections to. Your example of the DVDs is another interesting one. Realize that content restriction doesn't prevent duplication -- you can duplicate disks, content restriction intact -- with ease. The manufacturers admit this relatively freely. What the controls provide is playback restrictions, specifically region controls. The intent is to allow sale of cheap media in third world markets, without fear that such product will enter the US and Western Europe. It's a classic case of manufacturers searching for free markets where the benefits accrue to them, but implementing barriers to trade and free exchange of goods where they see lack of barriers as a disadvantage. Self interest is fine. Two-faced talk about free markets and barriers to trade is not. A further topic for discussion is the possible emergence of a non-free web. --
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
Post #18,424
11/15/01 12:55:53 PM
|
Grammar police
This doesn't directly effect free software, but it does have impacts on all culture. Urkk. [mode="Pet peeve"] "Effect" is a noun. You want "affect" above. And while you don't use "impact" as a verb -- or the even worse "impactful" bastardization I keep seeing -- is different from "effect" in that "impact" suggests physical collision. The simpler "effects" is IMO more appropriate above. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #18,471
11/15/01 6:48:37 PM
|
To continue in that vein, "impact"...
...is usually singular and equipped with the definite article in this context, isn't it?
"This doesn't directly affect free software, but it does have an impact on all culture", like?
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #18,475
11/15/01 7:04:25 PM
|
Heard a new mangling of language today.
Received an email from Someone Fairly Important thanking someone because he able to 'vision our business'.
But as the saying goes... in English, any word can be verbed...
On and on and on and on,
and on and on and on goes John.
|
Post #18,491
11/15/01 8:41:02 PM
|
Quote from Calvin and Hobbes.
"Eventually we can make language a complete impediment to understanding".
LRPDism material, perhaps?
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #18,508
11/16/01 12:02:15 AM
|
Hmmm Wattersen read some Sufi aphorisms (?)
~
Language was invented that men might disguise their thoughts from each other
(Hinting at a prior time of more subtle and truthful communications = Optional)
|
Post #18,509
11/16/01 12:47:34 AM
|
No idea.
Calvin was inventing words for no discernable reason (other than he could). His Dad didn't care but riposted with vogue but useless words from his own youth. Calvin, of course, wasn't listening. The quote is a final remark from Hobbes.
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #18,520
11/16/01 5:49:06 AM
|
If that's your reading of the ripostes in Calvin & Hobbes..
I'd suggest rereading Mr. Calvin and Mr. Hobbes for the encrypted key. (or for that matter Peanuts -- even if Schultz would always answer the Q about 'what you really meant?' as ~ nahh.. they're just cute things kids say.. ;-)
I doubt there was an 'accidental' quip in any C&H. Ditto but with increasing fluff after a decade or three - for Schultz.
Just my take. Social satire isn't too hard to spot, especially when it's sublime.
A.
|
Post #18,527
11/16/01 7:58:02 AM
|
... it was entirely from memory.
I'm sorry, but I wasn't trying to read anything into or out of that particular strip. I was merely repeating what it said because the final line from Hobbes was, I thought, relevant to the discussion. That's all.
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #18,603
11/16/01 8:53:37 PM
|
Not a problem..
Your comment merely recalled for me an enigma of years past: when Schultz would never 'admit' that (even the most acutely insightful of) the 'words' in the balloons were merely.. "clever stuff kids say". 'We' didn't quite believe him, not often seeing kids That cute.
But I believe that Watterson has never er 'denied' that his is at root, a real Calvin (the theologian) VS Hobbes (the mechanistic philosopher) ongoing dialogue. There may even be some words of his out there someplace re that theme, as I only vaguely recall..
That's all :-)
Ashton
In Murica - 'comics' be our only public philosophy exercise - and nowadays, only reliable source of unvarnished 'news' commentary, too :[
|
Post #18,624
11/17/01 10:29:40 AM
|
Re: 'comics' be our only public philosophy exercise
In Murica - 'comics' be our only public philosophy exercise - and nowadays, only reliable source of unvarnished 'news' commentary, too :[
This is probably true, and I expect that this will become more so rather than less as time goes on. Television has conditioned the vast majority (probably two thirds to three quarters, not the 37% needed for an election) of our population to expect news in 15 second bites accompanied by a talking head to tell them what it meant.
If one is to try to raise consciousness about the environment, any political activity, or virtually anything meaningful, the response is generally going to be a quick classification (liberal/conservative/bunnyhugger/propeller head...) and dismissal or villification.
If one is to report news as a complex issue, spending the time to explain the background, issues from all sides, and possible consequenses, the mainstream tv watcher is likely to start flipping stations until a laugh-track or tits show up.
The germ of ideas can be planted with comics. Thoughts can be instilled in the general populace by a talented artist(think Berke Breathed or Bill Watterson) without the artist being pilloried for treason. At worst the artist can fall back to "It's just a freaking comic... Don't have a cow, man". Publish a paper critical of government or political people/processes on the internet, and you might have the Fumbling Bumbling Imbeciles breathing down your neck. Publish a comic in hundreds of news papers saying the same thing, the president will probaly read it while eating his Wheaties, and you are still pretty much safe. It's just a comic, man...
According to the CIA "[link|http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html"|http://www.cia.gov/...eos/us.html"] *, 97% of our population over 15 is literate. How many of these do you suppose can/would read a scholarly paper on abstract philosophy, or political issues that don't effect them at the moment? A glance at comic for a few moments gets them a chuckle or an "oh crap", and the germ of a political/philosophical position.
Instant gratification with little effort, and the purpetrator is virtually invulnerable. It's the way of the future!
I wish I was kidding,
Hugh
*got this error trying to post the reference properly (I put in the "!" to post the error)
"a" tag does not allow attribute HREF
<!A HREF="[link|http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html"|http://www.cia.gov/...eos/us.html"]>CIA statistics
Unmatched close tag
<!/A>
|
Post #18,630
11/17/01 12:42:32 PM
|
Bug in board software
I noticed that before, you have to put "href" in lower case for it to work.
Jay
|
Post #18,641
11/17/01 3:10:39 PM
|
Thanks...
|
Post #18,649
11/17/01 5:24:09 PM
|
My sentiments perzackly.. Comics are our last bastion.
And.. to do that Well: deserves IMhO as much recognition as to a Kafka, an Orwell (including Farley's Orwell T. Catt :-\ufffd). I'd (really) like to see a Nobel or at least a Pulitzer for: COMICS.
I can't improve on your capsule summary - it possesses both 'scale and relativity' (as the Sages say!) IF.. we ever start seeing censored comics, wholesale Fundamentalist (and other signifiable pressure groups - as protest out of all proportion to numerical bloc) achieving their aims; ie if Comics fail - that will be the last.. minute source of fresh air in this increasingly Fearful thus Authoritarian society.
As with HUAC, SISS - I Will be out on Those barricades.
(Odds Bodkins in the '70s, and several others: were the Tom Paines of their time.) I really *miss* Calvin & Hobbes, though his material was Timeless anyway.. Others are more wont to weave-in current events.
Non Sequitur Lives (so far). And he gets Quite political in his lampoons, every time. We need More COMICS! as our historically-ignorant and pampered culture is forced to face the philosophical consequences (always there, just ignored) of our worldwide hegemony. Oh.. and what greed might actually mean, in the end. Christians got That one right :-\ufffd
{sigh}
Ashton
PS - as to numbers. Read/write 'Literacy' is only a useful tool for those with continuing Interest (large I) in educating self. We settle (95.238% ;-) for amusement, inane passive infotainment. Hard to measure the effects of that - numbers are such crude crutches.. thus we Love stats on Everything.
[old refrain]
..especially Economics, our Achilles Heel.
[/refrain]
|
Post #19,191
11/21/01 9:09:57 PM
|
Ghod, no!
No Nobels, no Pulitzers. Those would be insults. At best, they would blow the cover.
----
"You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
|
Post #19,195
11/21/01 9:37:19 PM
|
Hmmm.. yer right! Recognize --> Homogenize--> Assimilate! :[
My badness.
What was I *thinking* ??
In atonement, will disassemble at least three machines and scatter their parts in a Senatorial Caucus, near the gizzard. :(
A. Ssshhh
|
Post #18,776
11/19/01 11:48:37 AM
|
I wonder.
Hugh N writes: The germ of ideas can be planted with comics. Thoughts can be instilled in the general populace by a talented artist(think Berke Breathed or Bill Watterson) without the artist being pilloried for treason. At worst the artist can fall back to "It's just a freaking comic... Don't have a cow, man". Publish a paper critical of government or political people/processes on the internet, and you might have the Fumbling Bumbling Imbeciles breathing down your neck. Publish a comic in hundreds of news papers saying the same thing, the president will probaly read it while eating his Wheaties, and you are still pretty much safe. It's just a comic, man... Hmm... I wonder which line, "Thoughts can be instilled" or "It's just a comic, man" the creator of [link|http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/viewbo.htm|The Boondocks] would have to fall back on -- even here, with this self-professedly rather cerebral group? Wanna bet against my hunch that several among us will lose their sense of perspective (ironosadly, precisely what he's trying to restore), and start frothing at the mouth a little, at the strips for, say [link|http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/viewbo.cfm?uc_fn=1&uc_full_date=20011004|October fourth], [link|http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/viewbo.cfm?uc_fn=1&uc_full_date=20011005|October fifth], or [link|http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/viewbo.cfm?uc_fn=1&uc_full_date=20011006|October sixth]? Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #18,856
11/19/01 6:05:18 PM
|
I would suppose both...
For those that appreciate, though perhaps not necessarily enjoy, the former. For those with no sense of humor or irony, it's just a freaking comic, man... I wouldn't think too many of the latter, around here, but WTF do I know?
Regards,
Hugh
|
Post #18,909
11/20/01 1:36:14 AM
|
Legitimate copout?
See Drook's virtuoso quip in Oh Pun:
A sufficiency unto itself: to turn out legions of former infotainers.. to walk the streets behind shopping carts, laden with unused Owl entrails.. with only their murky crystal balls for company -
O O
|
Post #18,514
11/16/01 1:28:51 AM
|
Writing for effect
You got me on the first. I have trouble with affect and effect, and still have to look up usage notes (which I have trouble distinguishing). Within arm's reach I've got Webster's Ninth Collegiate and Fowler's Modern English Usage. My practice has been to affect a usuage in which effectively only effect is effective use. Note that affect has a verb form, though the usage is different from that intended here, and might itself be considered an affectation. More confusingly, effect, usually intended as a noun, has a verb form, the effect of which is to effect a confusion in the use of affect and effect, a trait which affects me as well.
You're wrong regarding impact. It's a verb (transitive and intransitive), as well as a noun, according to Webster's. Though the common usage of it (particularly in business speech) impacts me all wrong,
--
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
Post #18,521
11/16/01 6:02:24 AM
|
Suitably sated serendipity
Propinquity parallels perfunctory pushiness; propagates possibilities, pro-forma.
Propriety pleases pundits!
P er A.
|
Post #18,528
11/16/01 8:03:45 AM
|
A lessening impact.
The verb "impact" has had a somewhat reduced impact since it was verbed. Despite popular usage, I usually prefer to limit it to a noun. Whilst it may tend to impact less that way, it does mean I'm not mistaken for someone in Marketing. :-)
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #18,558
11/16/01 12:48:39 PM
|
Forther flogging of the deceased equine
Once upon a time, the only time "impact" was used as a verb was when describing a tooth.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #18,610
11/16/01 10:47:28 PM
|
That's a fascinating piece of trivia.
I'll try to remember it next time I want to annoy someone mis-using the verb "impact". :-)
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #18,619
11/17/01 4:19:12 AM
|
Maybe adj. too - 'impacted tooth'? :-\ufffd
|
Post #18,602
11/16/01 8:44:29 PM
|
A noble distinction I share; imagine bein deemed a Marketer!
|
Post #18,138
11/13/01 5:50:54 PM
|
Disney the big bad corporation
You might find [link|http://opensource.go.com/Tea/|this] interesting as well.
Obviously Disney isn't the monolith you're making it out to be. Again, boycotting Disney-produced films is useless, and in fact (as Bill and I have pointed out) counterproductive.
Regards,
-scott anderson
|
Post #18,150
11/13/01 6:58:21 PM
|
Was also involved with...
...Squeak for a couple of years, though Kay and Ingalls have taken the project outside when the layoffs came.
|
Post #18,198
11/14/01 12:19:24 AM
|
The individual has what?
I could rant to a non-technical individual all I want about Disney, and their eyes would just glaze over.
Until that changes, I can only communicate to people to whom communicating is superfluous.
So how would you suggest changing that?
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #18,209
11/14/01 4:44:40 AM
|
Well.. a letter to Kottar-Kotelly just now
couldn't hurt (?)
If she's more ept than is apparent - you're sure to be understood. If she's less ept, she'll still recognize brevity and decent syntax - so there's a chance she'll ask someone to elaborate where you've lost her.
[/lobbying]
Ashton
|
Post #18,219
11/14/01 9:31:23 AM
|
Re: The individual has what?
One of the reasons that Monsters, Inc. is doing so well at the box office right now (much better than Shrek) has to do with the demographics. Many of the people watching the film are teenagers, and they are more apt to glaze (or even laugh) than the parents taking their children.
We're much better off writing to publications, congresscritters, and other such venues than wasting time handing out fliers to people who really could give a rat's ass about free software.
Regards,
-scott anderson
|
