Question?

Post #18,251 by ChrisR 11/14/01 11:51:55 AM Reply	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 by CRConrad 11/14/01 1:08:25 PM Reply	(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 by kmself 11/14/01 7:34:04 PM Reply	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 by drewk 11/15/01 12:55:53 PM Reply	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 by CRConrad 11/15/01 6:48:37 PM Reply	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 by Meerkat 11/15/01 7:04:25 PM Reply	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 by static 11/15/01 8:41:02 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 11/16/01 12:02:15 AM Reply	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 by static 11/16/01 12:47:34 AM Reply	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 by Ashton 11/16/01 5:49:06 AM Reply	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 by static 11/16/01 7:58:02 AM Reply	... 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 by Ashton 11/16/01 8:53:37 PM Reply	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 by hnick 11/17/01 10:29:40 AM Reply	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 by JayMehaffey 11/17/01 12:42:32 PM Reply	Bug in board software I noticed that before, you have to put "href" in lower case for it to work. Jay
Post #18,641 by hnick 11/17/01 3:10:39 PM Reply	Thanks...
Post #18,649 by Ashton 11/17/01 5:24:09 PM Reply	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 by mhuber 11/21/01 9:09:57 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 11/21/01 9:37:19 PM Reply	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 by CRConrad 11/19/01 11:48:37 AM Reply	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 by hnick 11/19/01 6:05:18 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 11/20/01 1:36:14 AM Reply	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 by kmself 11/16/01 1:28:51 AM Reply	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 by Ashton 11/16/01 6:02:24 AM Reply	Suitably sated serendipity Propinquity parallels perfunctory pushiness; propagates possibilities, pro-forma. Propriety pleases pundits! P er A.
Post #18,528 by static 11/16/01 8:03:45 AM Reply	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 by drewk 11/16/01 12:48:39 PM Reply	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 by static 11/16/01 10:47:28 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 11/17/01 4:19:12 AM Reply	Maybe adj. too - 'impacted tooth'? :-\ufffd
Post #18,602 by Ashton 11/16/01 8:44:29 PM Reply	A noble distinction I share; imagine bein deemed a Marketer!

Welcome to IWETHEY!