Interview With Bill Joy 159
richard koman writes: "In an interview with Bill Joy on openp2p.com, Bill reveals that he's working with Sen. Orrin Hatch to devise public policy on the Net and copyright infringement, and states his belief that wholesale copying of content is "too much of a nerd view of the world."" He's got an interesting perspective on Napster, despite being a shareholder of it.
Interesting take on .NET (Score:1)
I thought his perspective on why .NET is a colossal boondoggle is interesting. Microsoft is banking on XML as the savior of everything, but in this interview Joy says:
But Java and linking together the data types solves this component service composition model using programming language technology. XML doesn't because it's still just data. You still have to have a type system to plug the things together and essentially, dynamic linking, and you don't find that in XML just by itself... either you can compose components with behavior or you can't... and the problem is that without the ability to plug together behavior, you're basically stuck... You end up with 1,000 different XML-based thingies that don't ever really compose to do anything together. You don't have composable things because you don't have the algebra to put things together.
This is probably the simplest, most concise way of expressing this I've seen yet: some object behavior is inextricably linked to the language used to describe it. There are simply too many semantic and contextual difficulties to overcome. This is why MS couldn't really support COM/DCOM/COM+ development outside of their own compilers and can't support .NET objects in raw C++, but instead has to use a "type-safe" subset, or its own Java rip-off, C#. I also would expect that this is why the "promise" of language independence with .NET is not going to fly in the real world, unless language authors hack their babies to pieces, turning them into C# clones.
Granted, Python and some other languages can be compiled to Java bytecode, but aside from these pedagogical examples (and I would submit that trying this for anything other than simple applets or toy applications is next-to-impossible and counter-productive), any real work on the Java platform has to be done in Java. In the end we'll see that any real .NET service or application will have to be written in C#.
I'm not a language snob, honest. I just believe in the right tool for the right job. :)
Re:destroy the ecosystem?? (Score:1)
Since I do want artist to get a better break, I try to buy albums by artists on independent record labels that treat their artists right whenever possible.
Merge Records [mrg2000.com] is one of my favorites. Neutral Milk Hotel and The Magnetic Fields I enjoy heavily.
Also, K records [kpunk.com] for a band called ICU, as well as some of Beck's earlier stuff.
Oh, and guess how I heard about these bands (whose albums I now paid for).
That's right, Napster.
-the wunderhorn
Re:Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:5)
The nature of the internet is different than, say, books or tape recorders or any other information distribution system, and you fail to understand the distinctions at your peril.
The fact is, the internet makes copyrights either:
1) unenforceable, as so many have violated the law (e.g., Napster) that we can't lock them all up, or;
2) unendurable, as the only way to make sure copyrights aren't being violated is to invade our privacy and violate our civil rights.
This wasn't a problem before the internet, as the average information distributor couldn't do as much damage, and could be caught once he did become large enough to be a problem. For instance, the RIAA wouldn't prosecute you for taping an album off the radio in the past, they would get laughed out of court. Then they (not the RIAA this time, but the MPAA) got a little smarter and encoded VHS tapes and put the FBI WARNING! notice on the front of all movies. Okay, so far no invasion of privacy, but it did work a little better, although you can (legally?) tape a movie off of Showtime and give it to your friend.
But now copyright violaters can copy a four minute song down to an mp3 and distribute it to thousands of people in minutes, who can then forward it to a million in an hour.
That's a million criminals in an hour, or, if you want, 95 million criminals on Napster right now.
Which should we do? Arrest everyone on Napster (I imagine its a misdemeanor), stop them by monitoring their machine via Carnivore, or write new legislation that is cognizant of the new problems brought about by the new technology? I opt for the latter.
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:1)
Let me answer this:
BTW last time I checked, this kind of business model was called a cartel, illegal under both US and European anti-trust law. Where is the DOJ?
MartRe:Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:1)
See Title 17, Section 506 of the US Code [cornell.edu] where it defines Criminal Offenses in the context of Copyright Infringement and Remedies and it says:
From what I read, it seems that casual (less than $1000/180 days) copying is not a crime. This is underscored by the portion of the statement that says For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction...by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
Maybe the industry should change not laws. (Score:1)
Bill Joy: Well, software is a safe harbor that's morphing into a service. People don't want to install and manage software on their machines. They want someone to do it for them. You can steal software on an individual basis. It's very hard for an institution to steal a service, or in fact to deploy software that implements a service on a large scale. So that largely solves the problem. The personal productivity stuff is mostly given away in the context of a subscription or a communication service. You know, mail isn't an application, mail is a service.
So why is the music industry still making a profit from the medium and not switching over to a service industry like software? I don't have a solution, but I thought the question is an interesting one to ask.
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:1)
Most independent labels don't have sufficient circulation to make sure that their artists can get more than the bare necessities to survive (as artists that is, so I include costs for gear, studio time etc).
First of all, you've just agreed that circulation is not impossible to attain for independent labels. It may be hard, but it is not clearly not impossible.
Also, you've just agreed that artists do get the bare necessities they need when signing a contract with an independent label, and that these necessities include all the gear necessesary to do their job.
The only way to become succesful, whether you define that as wealth or widespread recognition, is through the superior distribution channels of a major label.
The way to earn recognition is by making superior music. People will pay for good music. If, however, one's music is not superior, then I agree that one needs the major labels to create the appearance that the music is good. Sadly, stupid people will buy bad music if they've been told that it's good.
The main point is this: good music sells itself.
All 5 (6?) major labels offer artists the same crappy deal, so there is no alternative.
You've just said that an artist can get by on the income earned from a contract with an independent label. If the major labels can offer a better deal, how is that "crappy" ?
However, you may be correct that many artists do not recieve compensation proportional to their ability. This can only be because they have allowed this to happen. They may be victims, but they have given their sanction to their exploiters, and that makes them guilty too. They need only to revoke that sanction, and the major labels will not survive. This is, of course, assuming that the artists are actually worth something, and that they could not just be replaced by the next guy. If these people are not irreplacable, then they aren't recieving millions because their abilities do not warrent it.
copyright infringement (Score:1)
Re:Senator Hatch listens to money (Score:2)
When it comes to copyright law, I really do think Hatch has good intentions. It's just that he can't really see past the "what's good for corporations is good for individuals" and "there is no God but market" stuff. And I think he thinks he "gets it" just because he's a semi-professional lyricist who's collaborated with a few Utah/local big names (though really, it's likely that his privileged position and semi-celebrity status has given him a distorted view of things).
There was a Senate field hearing held at BYU a couple months back. You might want to read my take on the event. [csoft.net]. I think it gives some idea that Hatch:
1) really was fishing for corporate support. I can't figure out why else all those corporations were there and allowed to read their press releases in the middle of the hearing
2) really is listening to people at Napster and to independant artists
3) really wants to do something, even if it might not be the greatest... ("let's look to the legislation that killed DAT as our possible solution")
--
Re:He mentions why I think Napster is WRONG (Score:2)
Early Homo-sapian grunts to neighbor: "My walrus."
Other Homo-sapian grunts back: "Me give monkey?"
Early Homo-sapian grunts in reply: "Uggh (ok)"
In another example:
Early homo-sapian grunts to neightbor: "My walrus"
Other homo-sapian grunts back: "Infor... warluses want to be free!"
Early homo-sapian hits other homo-sapian on the head.
Re:He mentions why I think Napster is WRONG (Score:2)
Maybe I'm too old-fashioned to understand the whole real-new-economy business, but as I see it, if I do something, I am entitled to direct fee from everyone who uses it. Moreover, I'm entitled to ask for whatever I want in return for the use of a copy of my work. If the artist wants to set up a direct-to-consumer website where he/she sells (or gives away) her songs, then good for them. If they want to ally themselves with a huge record industry whose only purpose is to make a profit (nothing wrong with that!) then god for them too.
Re:He mentions why I think Napster is WRONG (Score:2)
Another perspective on this whole mess (Score:2)
Which should we do? Arrest everyone on Napster (I imagine its a misdemeanor), stop them by monitoring their machine via Carnivore, or write new legislation that is cognizant of the new problems brought about by the new technology? I opt for the latter.
I've got a different perspective on the whole matter of Peer-To-Peer copying. I'm all for it. I think that whether it's legal or not, the widespread availability of media has opened my eyes to whole different genres of music and culture, allowed me to experiment at little or no cost with independant music (some of the stuff I listen to would cost rediculous amounts of money imported from Europe), and because of this, encouraged me to spend money - on tangible things, like concerts, stickers, and t-shirts - not infinately reproduceable media. Really good music and games - and movies - I've even been inclined to buy (and buy it in a media that I can listen/watch forever, without endless royalties).
Another observation: I've been around computers for something like 14 years or so - and they've ALWAYS been used as tools to pass copyrighted media around to your friends at no charge. There's been the profiteering scum, yes - but they're quick to catch.
What I see happening is that shutting Napster down will be the worst thing the record industry ever did - because then a bunch of hackers are going to design a better, noncentralized, two way anonymous, global system like FreeNet [sourceforge.net], make it easy to use, and then you have the ultimate tool for freedom - or piracy, depending on how you look at it. Properly designed, it becomes near impossible to track people down, and could become part of every internet enabled OS out there. (I suspect this is what initiatives like Windows XP are about - I hope that product flops worse than DivX). This is also why people are horny to get protections on hard drives before we start talking about terabytes instead of gigabytes - although, I suspect they're not going to be successful.
Even better is the technology developed by Zero Knowledge [zeroknowledge.com]. Too bad it's not free, but I like their tech - a lot.
Interesting times ahead. What is the law, anyhow? If the majority of the population decides that something is OK and acceptable, then it's going to be legal at that point in time - Yes, I'm all aware about slavery and WWII Germany - but all that was legal at the time, too. Comparing copying music to killing people is a little extreme, too. The government exists for the people, and by the people (in the USA, anyhow..). Not for the corporations, by the corporations. Profits or no profits, that's not what it's about - sorry.
Information wants to be free, and two-way anonymous transfer & peer-to-peer copying means that it's about to be.
Music is a *service*! (Score:2)
Re:He mentions why I think Napster is WRONG (Score:2)
speech? It's not good. Not even a little.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, but some speech is mine, and some speech is yours, and I get to decide how you use my speech. If I want $5 per copy that you make of it, then that's fine and the copyright allows me to enforce that.
Re:The problem with Bill Joy (Score:1)
Re:Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:1)
Re:Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:1)
Your comment on the law fixing this problem is also crap. How is having a special law against internet copyright going to change people trading mp3s? Are you seriously suggesting that the punishment for dl'ing an MP3 should be severe enough to make people afraid to do it? Or are you suggesting that we pass laws to take away our privacy so that we can't do it in the first place?
Re:Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:1)
When in university, many of my classmates could not afford to pay ~$2000 per year on books, so they pooled together and bought 1 book, cut the spine, and made a great reproduction of the original, besides the cover. It was hard, but necessity forced them to adapt, though knowingly breaking the law.
Just because it is easy doen't mean people will do it. Just because it is hard doesn't mean people won't.
love me plese!!!! (Score:1)
Re:where did the money come from... (Score:1)
What's going on is that you missread. If there _was_ money involved (and I do not see any information supporting the claim), Bill Joy _does_ have quite a bit of it.
Reading between the lines w/ Joy and Allchin (Score:5)
I am willing to bet several dozen donuts that these two companies in particular (in addition to whatever tricks the RIAA and MPAA might be up to, per usual) are lobbying the US Congress to establish a legal framework for an all-out assault on untrusted clients. The ability of an individual to write or use free software that eschews the Digital Rights Management (a more honest term is Copy Prevention) constraints being built into the next generation of commercial software is the "threat lawmakers need to be made aware of" whereof Allchin spoke. Today we have Bill Joy, an influential blowhard with no love for Microsoft, stating openly and publicly "I think that the copyright laws need to be enforced, and maybe they need to be changed. We need an enforceable digital-rights management scheme..."
Why would anyone choose to use software that adds no value, but instead restricts what an individual may do with the hardware which he or she has purchased? Answer: They would, if the alternative was a stiff fine or jail time. A full-court-press is underway on behalf of the media business (with the help of technology companies like MS, Sun, and RealNetworks) to require DRM technologies be built into all connected devices.
The grand irony here is that Microsoft and Sun both know the value of free distribution, in terms of architectural lock-in, regardless of whether the copies are authorized or not. Don't look to Microsoft to build "phone-home"-style copy protection into versions of Windows sold in the developing world- they know there's more value in people pirating their software and driving up their market share in these places than there is money to be squeezed out of the few groups willing and able to actually license all of their MSWare. Sun gives away their software for the same reason. These two sharks are just along for the ride, because they know that having the government mandate the use of DRM technology is a sure recipe for vendor lock-in. Microsoft wants to control the whole pie (from server to client), where Sun is just realistic enough to know that they're not in a position to control the client themselves (that's for their friends at AOL TimeWarner), and so just want to own the server platform.
Folks, even though the lobbying going on here is smoky-back-room shit, bills will eventually have to come before Congress. I urge all of you to keep up with what bills are before the Judiciary and Commerce committees in the Senate and House. I would be astonished if new legislation mandating DRM did not get floated during this Congress. Hold on to your CD-RWs and non-SDMI-compliant MP3 players, folks. And your wallets. We're in for a dirty fight.
-IsaaC
dumb (Score:1)
Foolish (Score:3)
So if an author who has distributed a work via DRM loses the original, and posesses the copyright, what prevents him from unlocking a DRMed copy, as is his Constitutional right?
If he can, why can't the rest of us pretend to be him and spoof the system?
If it's power left with an external authority, what if it doesn't comply with the author's wishes, won't that infringe on the copyright? Or are little guys who can't pay entitled to copyright but not entitled to this govt. mandated system?
Do the DRMs vanish magically when the term expires? How do they know? It can't get set at creation, b/c Congress might retroactively REDUCE the term. Does he propose that 99% of Internet traffic become "copyright queries" between content and a server?
How can it tell the difference between me quoting in a fair use manner, and in an infringing manner? Will each piece of content include a Pocket Judge as seen on TV?
If I compile enough materials togethether that I effectively have an unprotected copy of the original, what protects it? The OS? Will it be illegal, under the aegis of "promoting the arts and sciences" to write one's own readers and OSes? Seems to be now, but this will take very general purpose software, like say, vi, which can open text files w/o checking the DRM, and make them illegal unless a giant corporation owns them.
How is the DRM aware of changes that it needs to accomodate due to legal issues? If the courts decide it's unconstitutional, and that any work protected under it shall be stripped of copyright (not entirely unheard of, IIRC) do they all automatically comply? How? What if Congress or the courts add more forms of fair use? Do these things magically accomodate these changes in the law? Or are they stupid, inflexible computer programs? Which is the par for ALL programs... it's the human element that's important.
artist compensation (Score:1)
Re:artist compensation (Score:1)
Re:Too Much of A Nerd View (Score:1)
Personally, I'd rather pay the musician directly. Let the musicians set their own prices. They could even hire someone to do it for them if they wished.
I'd make it an honor system where people without enough money to pay could still download it. But I'm an anarcho-syndicalist at heart.
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:1)
If you know another means for men to be ruled then it'd be interesting to hear it.
All governments rule by force, that's pretty much how you tell they're ruling rather than just making suggestions that everyone can follow or not at their own discretion.
Re:Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:2)
It reminds me of what I was told about alcohol regulations for College football games. The regulations are there, but they are not routinely enforced. It's only when some jerk gets too drunk and has to be thrown out that they use the booze law as an excuse to get him out of there. Likewise, copyrights are violated every day and the industries allow this behavior routinely. But when they feel threatened they rally up the lawyers and make a big stink out of it. Gnutella hasn't hit the threshhold yet, but the thing is, if they succeed in getting the govt to prosecute the copyright law as it was written, and so many of us are subject to fines, jail time, police harrassment, then the people must revolt, for they are not being represented by their legislators.
So the laws as written are wrong, and although fundamentally the internet isn't different from Steve Gutenberg's printing press, it has brought the copyright law to a logical end through its efficiency and mass distribution capabilities. We have to re-think our laws, here.
I personally don't think that many laws should be on the books: 55 mph speed limit comes to mind. Can you think of any others?
Don't make half the country into outlaws!
Senator Hatch (Score:1)
Re:He mentions why I think Napster is WRONG (Score:1)
In a free market (one that obeys all of the standard economist's assumptions about markets) things will tend to sell at the marginal cost to produce.
Secondly, the concept of copyright is an artificial one, there is certainly a difference between theft of a physical object (which denies it's original owner its use) and copying (which does not).
You certainly have a right to charge someone a fee for your services/labor. However, Some of us question whether allowing you to dictate who may, and may not, engage in mutually desired economic transactions with your work product is desireable to society. i.e. if I have a CD, and bob wants to pay me $10 for a copy, you are no longer directly contributing to this transaction. Why should you be allowed to prevent us.
Copyright exists, not as a fundamental right of creators, but in order to promote the common good by encouraging people to make "creative" works. I for one, feel that the attempts to extend copyright go beyond this, and object to this.
Too Much of A Nerd View (Score:1)
I think having a nerd viewpoint is essential in make sure that we adequate and meaningful decisions made about the Wired World as we know it
Re:Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:2)
But it's not like we work that way anymore. It has to do with the way our legislators operate.
Funny, this is as good an argument as any for my pet peeve: the need for campaign finance reform.
LOL (Score:1)
-Isaac
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:1)
Oh, BTW, there are plenty of non-physcial menas of commiting rape. Blackmail, drugs, psychological tortures... it would all still be considered rape. In my view, M$ and many of the media industries use a combination of psychological torture and blackmail to get people to spend money, hence it is rape.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Re:Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:1)
This sounds like one of those "old wives tales", like the one about blacks' natural place being slaves and such.
Early muzak delivery services (Score:1)
If Bill Joy had been alive in those days, he would perhaps have vigorously advocated legislation to stop radio broadcasting, on the theory that "free" radio could would wipe out the promising commercial business of the dedicated-circuit Music companies. It's a very limited view, and it overlooks the fact that entire industries develop from the ashes of some older, untenable business model.
P2P is here to stay. It's no great technological revelation; it's simply the next, obvious step in the development of the mainstream internet. There are millions of machines on the net, with vast amounts of bandwidth connecting them. People will share information, and the only way to stop them is to impose draconian measures on their personal machines or network connections. That would be a disaster for our computer industry, and I sincerely doubt that such policies could ever be viable. But I'm an optimist.
Netropolis (Score:1)
Re:Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:1)
No genius, the guiding principle behind rule of law is not "if enough people want to do it then it must be ok", no matter what Mr. Crowley said. Laws have nothing to do with "the will of the people"
Every society since Hammurabi has has a code of laws, and not one in ten of those societies would have known what "will of the people" meant, much less wanted to enforce it. Laws are intended to prevent individuals acting in their own self interest from unfairly harming others or society as a whole.
Hey, I've got an idea: I'd really like a blow job from Jennifer Lopez, and I bet there's lots of guys out there that want the same thing. If I could just get enough signatures together, maybe I could convince Congress that the will of the people has spoken and they will pass the "J. Lo Hummer Act" requiring Jennifer to go down on any guy that asks her.
with humpy love,
Re:Yo (Score:1)
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:1)
An old man is harassed by three youths. Every day as he has his walk they harass him and tease him. After many weeks of this, the man is tired of it and devises a plan.
One day, after a particularly nasty taunting, the man tells the boys, "If you'll harass me tomorrow as well, I'll pay each of you a quarter!".
Of course, the boys jump on the opportunity. The next day, they give him a good harassing, and, true to his word, he gives each one quarter.
"Same time tomorrow, old man?", asks the leader of the band.
"Absolutely. Tomorrow, if you harass me, I'll pay each of you a nickel!"
The boys grudgingly agree, but, somewhere, deep down, feel they are being shafted.
The next day arrives, and, true to his word, the old man gives them each a nickel for their trouble, which is done with somewhat less gusto.
"And tomorrow, if you harass me again, I'll pay each of you a penny!" the old man proudly announces.
"A penny!", the leader exclaims, "what do you take us for?" and they never harass him again.
Erik
3. There's no way to be directly rewarded. (Score:2)
You know, there's no reason we can't just pay people for making good stuff [boswa.com]. They don't need a way to force them to pay, just a good argument that it is in the donor's own personal best interest to pay.
---
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:1)
Simple fact is, the best of minds among men should and do expect a return on their efforts that is as large as the benefits they provide other men.
Those that do not expect this lack self-esteem. These people have been taught by people like you that they should not be proud and expect what is rightfully theirs. They have been taugth by people like you that their proper role is as the slave of their inferiors.
To attach art[and I mean art in the sense of any well crafted item] so closely with greed is to debase those who create.
That which a man produces is his own. Since when did it become greed to only enter trades that are fair? No man should be expected to sacrifice his values and thereby his life to the likes of you.
Software as a service (Score:1)
as an example
someone uses redhat for there system. They got these for free. Something goes wrong they call redhat pay the $xxx for support they get the service redhat makes money.
Now look at music.
I find music I like, be it Snoop Doggie Dog. I download Snoop Doggie Dog mp3s and listen all the time. It is all great but it is still not what I want. Then Snoop Doggie Dog comes to my town to put on a show at $xxx per ticket. I like Snoop Doggie Dog and buy the ticket. I get a service Snoop Doggie Dog makes money.
basicly saying that they aren't really "giveing" away there work, but posting it as advertisement for what there real work is, Concerts.
As for books this will be a little diffrent because nobody wants to go watch someone write a book or pay to have a book serviced. Someone would have to think of the service level of books.
article title misleading (Score:2)
What, you mean we don't get to interview him? This is just an article about some other interview with him? Hemos, you tricked us!
Senator Hatch listens to money (Score:5)
He is responsible for the CTEA (written by Hatch), in which we all ironically know about today. More here [eagleforum.org].
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/nov98/98-
He co-authored the DMCA that's gonna throw a lot of slashdotters in jail for wearing the DeCSS t-shirt. More here [theregister.co.uk].
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/14179.ht
He's also responsible for this juicy piece [slashdot.org]
Do actions speak louder than words?? I think so. The difference between a whore on the street corner and Senator Hatch is at least the whore is honest about what she does.
I would invite other's in Utah to go have a beer with me where we can talk about Senator Hatch, but I'm the only one who drinks beer here and who didn't vote for Hatch.
He mentions why I think Napster is WRONG (Score:4)
That's exactly the issue!
Now, most artists would just be happy that they have more listeners !
BUT
*SOME* artist's don't want their work (yes, work. Those songs just didn't appear out of mid-air one day) being copied without their permission. *cough Metalica-in-it-for-the-money cough*
If geeks are not going to respect other's people "property" aka copyrights, why should we expect other people to honor the ones we hold dear, like the GPL.
That's the "crime" of napster. People not respecting other people's work.
To muddle the issue, Napster also provides one nice advantage: It makes it very easy to listen and try out new music.
I know a lot of people have bought new albums, specifically because they were able to hear the whole album first. But copying someone's work, when they the didn't give you permission, still doesn't make it right. (No, it's NOT stealing, it's "unauthorized reproduction." BIG DIFFERENCE.)
Oh well, this is will probably get modded down as flamebait, since I'm just expressing my opinion.
Strange, that Bill Joy is on the board of napster, but doesn't agree with it's principles...
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:1)
-={(Astynax)}=-
Let History Repeat Itself (Score:1)
He is also overlooking two important things. First that copyright is a fairly new concept yet it never stopped great literature from being written. By his logic, Shakespeare should not have written anything because his work could be used without his consent.
Secondly that the printing press is often considered the most important invention in modern times precisely because it put information into the hands of the people where before it had been mostly exclusive to the clergy in their high cathedrals.
Free flow of information would be beneficial to mankind just as it was in Gutenberg's day. Perhaps it would usher in a new Age of Renaissance.
Bill Joy seems to want us to trade that off to protect the financial interests of a few buggy whip makers and their stockholders.
Re:Senator Hatch listens to money (Score:2)
Don't you watch COPS? Whores are NEVER honest about what they do -- it's always either "massage therapy" or a "dating service". The undercover cops have to drag "give me money for sex" out of them.
Regardless, your point stands. Senator Hatch is little more than a guy who wets his finger and sticks it into the wind to find out what he believes... just like 533 other members of Congress.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:He mentions why I think Napster is WRONG (Score:2)
Let's have a little thought experiment. Imagine that the two of us live in an environment where there are absolutely no laws whatsoever.
Do you have freedom of speech? The answer is yes. In a state of nature you are not compelled to check with an external authority in order to speak. The First Amendment is a recognition of this right which is natural, and granted by God. It doesn't say that we have it, of course we have it. It says that Congress can't abdridge it.
Do you have a copyright that prevents me from exercising my freedom of speech to repeat whatever you just said? The answer is no. Again, in this state of nature, _I_ am not compelled to check with an external authority in order to speak _either_. You can't have it both ways.
(Additionally, you _do_ have the right not to speak at all. If I ask you a question you are not compelled by your inherent nature to answer. You can refuse. The Fifth Amendment is partially a recognition of this, although it's not really as strong.)
Speech is unownable. Blame God if you like, because that's how the universe actually works, but no one can own speech.
Now, when we get into the US, the situation is actually very similar, due to the clever writing of the Copyright Clause from which all copyright must derive in this country.
If you speak, you do not own your speech. *BUT* the government can create, out of whole cloth, a new, artificial (or 'positive') right. This is the right to make copies of that speech, under certain circumstances* _without legal liabilities_.
*The circumstances are basically: only if it promotes progress, only if you have that right (though you can choose to transfer it away), and only for a limited time before these rights vanish like sanity in front of Cthulhu)
Everyone can still copy your speech; this can't be prevented. And furthermore, in some situations it's highly desirable, and to deny it would in conflict with the requirements upon which copyright is granted. But what _you_ can do is sue them.
Backing up a little bit though, copyright is ONLY concerned with copying. (which includes public performance - also a form of dissemination) Use is right out the window. Authors do not get to control use. They never have, there's no natural basis, and hopefully they never will because it would be absolutely terrible.
The only control that an author has over the use of their work is to not give it to the person who they don't want to use it in the first place. You also can't prevent people from selling it to people you don't want to have it. That's generic property law.
(You could require anyone who bought a copy from you to agree to a contract in which they wouldn't resell it, or at least only with your permission, but the First Sale doctrine prohibits you from just printing a notice in a book sold in a public store. Selling to the general public undermines your position. This is good, because there is a recognized greater social goal to the creation and dissemination of works than there is to the control of the author)
Furthermore, why would it be fine for you to decide how I use your speech? Does that help society? (the objective of copyright: "to Promote Progress of Science and the Useful Arts," NOT to line the author's pockets; that's just one of an option of means to achieve progress)
There is simply no natural entitlement that authors have to copyrights, or that they have to use rights. If there were, it would exist independently of a government. It doesn't. Claiming that it does, or that the sky is blue, or that pi = 3 or that the Sun and the Planets orbit the Earth does not make it so.
our rights are evaporating (Score:2)
until two *personal* systems can connect, privately, without any government or corporate interference, unless granted by a search warrant (via a judge), our rights are being trampled.
it's as simple as that.
the internet desperately needs a way to tunnel existing services through an encrypted connection.
this is the only interim solution to the theft of our rights and liberties that the governments and corporations are currently undertaking.
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:1)
That it would be costly and inconvinient to switch to another OS is, believe a not, a perfectly valid reason to continue using Windows.<br><br>
Roads get worse with age. The various editions of Windows do not. The analogy is flawed. Windows 2000 is much better than Windows 3.1.
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:1)
You are quite right. I'm quite talented at walking, but that doesn't make me irreplacable. The talent needs to be rare to be worth anything.
There may be 3 or 4 people on earth who can't, for everyone else, a workable substitute could be found and trained.
The keyword here is could. People who would be extremely hard to replace naturally can demand quite a high wage. If you are going to demand to be paid millions, then your talents better be pretty rare, and your task pretty hard, or no one will give you so much money.
Imagine everyone were taught C++ from age 3. Now, as an employer, would you pay a very high wage to someone who was very good at writing C++ code (that being his only skill)? I certainly wouldn't, because even if he's very good, so is everyone else...
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:1)
In other words this means that the only instance in which the government would use force would be when an individual had violated the rights of others.
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:1)
Drug companies that expect a "return on their efforts" from third-world countries that can't afford their prices are just wrong though.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:1)
No no no. The value of a thing Is the price it will bring in unrestricted trade. If you can't understand that, or how that applies to this situation, then you will never be a rich man.
Unfortnately this lies on several fallacies. The foremost being an assumption that I want to be a rich man. (and for the punny types, I don't want to be a rich woman either).
The more important one being that the current situation with the RIAA cartel (thanks to a previous poster for that) THERE IS NOT UNRESTRICTED TRADE GOING ON HERE. The Cartel monopolizes the means of distribution through many techniques, and has split it up for their own benefit, not the benefit of the consumers, nor that of their artists who they treat as chattel, except when it does good PR for them to allow Metallica to get righteously indignant in public.
Re:Another perspective on this whole mess (Score:1)
I can't understand the geek viewpoint of corporations; it's as if at the heart of every corporate headquarters, there is a multi-tentacled alien entity that eats souls. Corporations are made up of people, corporate assets, and the organizational structure that binds them together. Profits are split between shareholders, employees, (which includes the Board) and reinvestment in the corporation. In other words, individual people control the corporation at every point, and individuals profit from the corporation's acts. If you think a corporation is grubbing money, then maybe you should buy some stock and get your piece of the pie too. If you think that they are doing something morally wrong, then don't buy their stock or their product, and don't feed into their profits. Very simple.
Stop believing that you are helpless before Corporate America, which is basically a house of cards built on the faith of investors. If "we the people" feel threatened by corporate government, we don't need to fight a gun battle; convince everybody you know to dump their stocks, bonds, and mutual funds on the market. Within months we'll be back to the days of the Mom and Pop General Store.
Thanks, cunt!
Love,
Slashfucker
Sun Microsystems the Nazi Connection?!? (Score:1)
Re:destroy the ecosystem?? (Score:1)
thing is...last weekend each of napster's servers had something like 12,000 individual people download shit, i think that if all of those people contatcted their senators/reps...they would have to listen.
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:1)
Hm... Sounds.... Utopian!
To be honest, if this were true in society, we'd have a lot of teachers who would be making a HELL of a lot more money than they are (and a lot more who would be starving). The problem is, our society does NOT pay "men" (ahem) based on the benefits they provide others, but rather on the benefits they can convince others they have provided. There is a subtle but very significant difference. If we lived in the society you describe, the leaders of RIAA would shrivel up from lack of food, and the artists would be twice as wealthy as they appear to be now (assuming that "art" is a "benefit"...hm....another can of worms opens when you ask someone to define "benefit).
The problem with Bill Joy (Score:2)
All his talks are about how these people are completely irresponsible and are going to kill us all with their actions. When I was at that Stanford talk a while ago, he spoke at length about how we should regulate biotech/nanotech/robotics/etc, and seemed to dismiss or just not hear many reasonable points by the other speakers. His statement here that building products that destroy our economy was a "nerd view" sounded like he was using "nerd" as an insult. I can see that from mainstream media and such, but he's in the industry.
On another note, I hear he got a few laughs at the talk in SF a couple of days ago. Unintentionally, of course. I don't think he gets it. Oh well, I'll just continue to use him as a contrast to sensible futurists.
Wow. (Score:2)
O'Reilly Isn't that somewhat alarmist? The fact is there are certainly studies that show that people are buying more music as a result of free sampling.
Joy: I'm more concerned, as I said, with the book industry.
O'Reilly: Yeah, well I'm a publisher and I'm not concerned about that one... what about software?
Joy: Well, software is a safe harbor that's morphing into a service.
So... the publisher isn't worried about the publishing industry. The software developer isn't worried about the software industry. Free sampling may increase music sales.
So who, exactly, are the copyright laws protecting here?
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:2)
-={(Astynax)}=-
Orin Hatch warned the RIAA (good) (Score:2)
You see, the media companies had complained that the reason they did not have "micropayment" arrangements with external parties was that they were not adequately protected in the online/digital world. Mr. Hatch's subcommittee worked hard (and quickly) to hammer out some protections (as the constitution stipulates they should) to address the business concerns.
Then the good senator got screwed by the media companies.
In the subcommittee hearings a few months back (on CSPAN -- the one with Sean Fanning, Lars Ulrich, etc.) Mr. Hatch laid into the RIAA president (who didn't want to testify -- he threatened to subpeona her instead) on what he considered a betrayal by the RIAA members.
He specifically condemned the fact that the RIAA had not worked to create a system whereby any mom/pop site could provide content for the masses using simple, easy-to-use license schemes. No fancy contracts, just fair use. That was what the DMCA was supposed to do, provide for a legal response in the event one of these sites went too far.
He told the RIAA they had "months" to provide such a system or face the possibility Congress would act in their absence. He specifically warned against an exclusive system of arrangements between the big producers. He wanted to see all of us able to provide this music to our customers for the same cost as the big guys.
Quite funny were his quetions to the RIAA on what constitutes "fair use"...basically he told them they were wrong. When the RIAA president tried to argue that "the law" sided with them, he reminded her that he (or at least his committee) sets the law and he'd have to make some changes to get things straightened out.
Mentioned during the hearing was the fact that Mr. hatch is a musician himself and actually distributes his music over the Internet. I think I recall him saying that he's made enough money to "buy me dinner once or twice".
He also spent most of the morning listening to Metallica and teased Lars a bit about his style.
Now I read that Mr. hatch is on the prowl. Specifically quoted in the CNN article, he said that he'd given them time and they'd produced no deal. He warned 'em...
Re:He mentions why I think Napster is WRONG (Score:2)
Re:He mentions why I think Napster is WRONG (Score:2)
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:2)
Yeah, you're jealous. The solution isn't to impoverish musicians but to reward people who create information proportionately to the good they provide.
There is a ridiculous assumption hidden between the lines here that musicians, authors, and inventors somehow aren't doing "real work" like manufacturers and printers. This is stupid, because without the musicians, authors, and inventors the manufacturers and printers wouldn't have anything to manufacture or print. They are the real architects of our economy, our culture, and our technology, and it makes sense they should be massively compensated if their ideas take hold on a massive scale.
Unfortunately, there seem to be no sane voices on this issue. One side wants to be able to steal freely from the creators of information, the other wants a fascist state. Surely there is another way.
Re:He mentions why I think Napster is WRONG (Score:3)
Given the current nature of computers and the Internet, there is only one reasonable answer to this line of thinking. Here's the short version:
Get over it.
A slightly longer version: The keynote of human progress throughout recorded history has been towards increased abundance at reduced cost. The plow was invented to make producing more food easier. The printing press was invented to make more books, less expensively. The telephone was invented to communicate more information in less time. ...Increased abundance at reduced cost.
In many ways, the computer is the ultimate embodiment of this struggle: Infinite abundance at zero cost. It is now possible for you to say, "I want this song," and a copy of it will appear on your computer.
We achieved this goal after thousands of years of struggle, hardship, war, and painstaking scientific inquiry. So tell me, after all that trouble on the part of your forebears, who hoped that, perhaps one day in the future they could only imagine, we might actually get to this point... Why would you want to throw it away?
Moreover, why would you want to throw it away almost solely at the behest of individuals who are already filthy stinking rich?
In one very important sense, you are correctly concerned about how we will provide incentives for artisans to continue to produce amazing creative works. But attempting to control the proliferation of artifacts is not in any way a reasonable solution. The political and social consequences of such an approach are absolutely disasterous when taken to their inevitable conclusion.
The goal is to reward and encourage artisans to create stuff for all to enjoy. To achieve this, copyrights were instituted to give the artisan exclusive control of commercial trading of their work (with the unstated assumption that the artisan would take their reward from that commercial activity). But that solution is a hack, as it addresses commerce, not creative activity. Yes, it gets money into the artist's pocket (or rather, it used to before Big Media), but it doesn't address the real problem at a fundamental level. And if you're not addressing the actual bug in the system, then you have a hack, not a solution.
Copyrights are a hack. The world has undergone an upgrade, and the hack will no longer work. It's time to go back to the drawing board and engineer a proper solution.
Schwab
Re:Youve got the GPL all wrong (Score:2)
BSD makes their stuff freely available now. To them copyright is irrelevant already.
A company would have no way to prevent others from selling copies of their binary-only software
They sure would. Dongles, encryption, licenses, application key servers, you name it.
MOVE 'ZIG'.
Re:A nerd view? (Score:2)
Not exactly a nerd point of view.
Of course, Joy is one of the smartest people ever to sit down at a computer.
Copyright, not Useright (Score:2)
Artists have not lost control over the uses of their recordings. Artists never had control over the uses of their recordings. Artists were never supposed to have control over the uses of their recordings.
What they (or whoever they sell to) have is a temporary monopoly over the distribution of copies of their works.
This blurring of the fundamental distinction between reproduction and access is a key element of recording industry Newspeak, behind which they hide their grab of new monopoly privileges which are nowhere to be found in the Constitutional basis of American copyright law.
/.
Re:Youve got the GPL all wrong (Score:2)
A company can take BSD source, then apply their copyright to it. The law will back them up. BSD loses. Copyright is exremely relevant to BSD. BSD'ers are pro-copyright, they want others to be able to sell their stuff proprietarily. GPL'ers are counter-copyright.
They sure would. Dongles, encryption, licenses, application key servers, you name it.
Imagine legalized warez.
As an artist + community radio supporter (Score:3)
He does software, and doesn't see free software as a problem. What with his argument you'd expect him to want to stop free software on the grounds that it hurts the ecosystem! But software, the guy's familiar with, so he doesn't step in it on that issue.
He tells Tim O'Reilly that books are a problem, whereupon Tim (who's done great things with making O'Reilly books _competitive_ with free information by making them easy to handle, attractive, lie open to the proper page etc) rightly responds, "No, I don't think that's a problem and _I_ am the publisher".
And he tells the _world_ that free music is a problem, and who is there to say, "No, I am a musician and I don't think that is a problem"? Who, that has a CLUE about how the industry freaking works and where artists can reasonably expect to earn money! Does he _want_ to permanently establish a situation where consumer money is paid directly to record industry suits? Is he that naive and uninformed that he feels they are basically good people and their statements should be taken at face value? BAD mistake. Someone ask him if he trusts the Mafia too- the links are well, well established.
Then to top it off he uses radio as the example of happy fine control and regulation! Reality check- the FCC is _in_ _the_ _pocket_ of the media industry by now. You don't have choice, you don't have a market, you have Big Media locking out everyone else, and the only response to this has been the _thriving_ community radio movement, delivering programming that actually relates to the needs and interests of the community. You may be more familiar with it as 'pirate radio'... God knows what Bill thinks of that. Maybe he wants all the pirate radio people thrown in jail too, or at least to smash up their transmitters and 'clean up the airwaves' for the big corporate boys.
God, does this guy make me angry at times. The government people at least have this merit- they know what criminals act like, because half of them are corrupt or on the take themselves. Bill Joy behaves like he _believes_ what he's saying, and this is arguably worse. Scoundrels can be bribed or bought, but Bill Joy's liable to try and ruin my own personal career prospects just for my own good, liable to turn complete control of media over to the same _scumbags_ who run it today, even though the 'ecosystem' is TRYING TO REJECT THAT POISON. The 'ecosystem' is trying to _reject_ the Big Three record labels, the tightly controlled Top 40 Radio market, it is trying to develop choice and mobility and its own ways to work out what's good.
I think what upsets me most about Bill Joy right now is that he sees nothing wrong with viewing the _companies_ as the ecosystem, and totally ignoring the content creators and the content consumers. Maybe working for a server maker has left him unable to focus on anything but middleware! But his point of view is simply inexcusable. I could see _including_ the companies and taking some interest in looking after them (in addition to- surprise- new companies that might actually- surprise- compete with the old ones!), but to completely leave out the creators and the consumers is totally intolerable...
At least Orrin Hatch is fumbling towards a clue...
then let's look at the other side (Score:2)
Yes, I agree technology requires new laws. But I wouldn't be worried about Disney or Sony losing money. If those companies went out of business tomorrow, very little of actual cultural value would be lost. Almost all our cultural heritage has been created without the benefit of copyrights, and the argument that we need extensive copyright protections now is flimsy at best.
I'd be concerned foremost about having mechanisms installed everywhere that give a few companies complete control over how and what we communicate. The risk of that isn't merely that Disney won't be able to make hundreds of millions with the latest rip-off of a 19th century fairy tale, the risk of that goes to the core of our democracy and freedoms.
local music equivalent to free software (Score:2)
My advice to you would be to use free software.
And support local music! There are plenty of unsigned struggling bands selling CDs at $5 at any given night at local dive bars, just to recoup the cost of production (hardly ever a profit). You will find that after sampling enough local bands, I can almost guarantee that eventually you'll encounter something good enough to displace RIAA and MTV culture-trusts' stranglehold on creativity.
(Of course, you'll have to get used to the fact that local bands can't support $30k engineering/production budgets to get the sound on any pop CD today, but consider it the same way you would aquire a taste for a new food.)
I realize this is a bit offtopic, but I felt that free source needed to be equated to local music.
---
Re:Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:2)
Re:Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:2)
Unless it's fair use. How am I stealing if I am obtaining a digital copy of a song that I own on LP? The issues are far more complex than you imply =/
Re:The problem with Bill Joy (Score:2)
Harsh words from an anonymous coward (Score:2)
Napster has its place. In its current form that place might be right below a fee-based service which serves quality-assured product, but not all Napster use is infringing.
I have downloaded about 1400 songs since getting broadband. (I regard MP3 exchanging as less than useless without broadband.) These fall into 3 categories:
1. Songs I never would have bought, about 200
OK, not "never;" if downloads were a reasonable price (say $0.50/song) I'd have probably paid willingly for this little collection. But no way would I have bought CD's totalling over $1,000 or, what is it, four bucks a song that one site wants to charge? Given the current distribution models, I think this was entirely fair. It isn't like I downloaded every song I ever heard; I used some discretion here.
2. Songs I already own, about 1000.
Before I got DSL, I spent almost a year recording a very large collection of LP's onto CD's. Naturally the ones I listen to most were in the worst shape. I have gradually reconstructed these reconstructed CD's using better quality MP3's from Napster. I regard this as a quality improvement comparable to the one I made when I ran the original vinyl through DC-ART. Why should I pay twice for something because it was originally sold on technologically inferior media?
3. Money lying around in the road, 200 songs.
All right, I have ID'ed someone who has a very fast connection and there is an entire Bob Dylan album there I don't have, I can Do The Right Thing (tm) and leave it be or select tracks 1-12 and hit Get Selected Music. It's not like I went hunting for it, but I was looking for something legit and There It Was, so I did the human thing.
In similar news it has happened a few times that drug couriers running payments up and down I-12 near here have had blowouts on tires stuffed with money. If you passed such a scene would you drive by or stop and pick up a few bills? There is only one answer I would really believe.
I don't know what the final answer should be w/r/t things like Napster. I want artists to be paid but I don't want dagummint's nose up my butt every time I download a file either. I don't think anybody is being very reasonable in the whole debate.
Re:Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:2)
The fact that so many people are willing to break copyright law when it is made easy for them to do so is a clear indication that copyright law needs to be changed. After all, the laws are to enforce the will of the people, right?
Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:3)
Yo (Score:2)
Device: A word substituted for Devise if your a dumbass moron who didn't spend enough time on your 3rd grade vocabulary lesson.
If we're all so smart, how come this happens so often?
Go ahead, mod me down for it, but damnit, it's true and I'm sick of it.
--
Re:He mentions why I think Napster is WRONG (Score:3)
I suggest that you post, "whoops, I was talking out my butt about record companies taking on the burden of studios/advertising/distribution" unless you prefer to argue that artists should never be paid anything in the first place. The whole burden lands on the artists, which is why platinum sellers are found declaring bankruptcy- they slip up and act like they're being paid 16% of net, without realising that they are paying the entire burden of studios and about half of distribution.
Re:Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:2)
How about musicians having to _create_ and _produce_ and _work_ so that they can develop enough of a reputation that people will say 'hey, that guy's pretty good at music!' and opportunities will arise such as playing on someone else's session, mixing somebody's home-recorded album, or gigging at a private party of rich dotcommers?
I know at least two people who've gone and checked out my music when I mentioned it on Slashdot and took the trouble to write to me and say 'hey, that's pretty good!'. You give me ONE REASON why I should deserve that if I chose to just sit back and not do anything. My next recordings will _blow_ _people's_ _minds_ because I _work_ on the craft. I don't ever anticipate not working on it.
Besides which, the approach of 'internet-based penny-earning' for musicians (as opposed to label-based being-promised-millions) will work for a _lifetime_. It'll only get better as you continue to work and practice your art and craft. By contrast, the system you're defending has an average career length of _two_ _years_! It's completely screwed. Anything would be an improvement.
Re:destroy the ecosystem?? (Score:2)
That said- now GO READ THE STUFF the nice fellow posted for you about why the record industry must die! He's probably referring to the famous rant by the great Steve Albini. Read it! Just because people are doing something positive does not excuse you from educating yourself about how totally unacceptable the music business is and how little alternative there seems to be. I hope guys like Jim at Ampcast can make an alternative, but if he gets his kneecaps broken for it I'd hope some people were paying attention to the fact that the traditional music business is a bunch of _criminals_, and that defying them is a good way to get blacklisted, locked out of pressing plants like Negativland, or even getting beat up. Did you really think it was like the computer industry? The music business has a dark, dark past. Even superstars like Bob Marley had record company thugs threatening DJs to get their records played. The record industry DOES need to be destroyed, stopped, replaced. Merely supplanting it is not enough.
Re:He mentions why I think Napster is WRONG (Score:3)
Decisions, decisions... :-)
At the risk of making your eyes bug out: Yes. They are the conclusions I've reached after thinking long and hard about what infinite abundance at zero cost implies.
But in a world where anyone can copy anything, anytime, anywhere, the whole concept of mine-versus-yours loses all meaning.
Consider a more concrete example. Let's say we each have a small red ball. One belongs to me; the other belongs to you. They are in all other ways completely indistinguishable. We put both balls inside a box, close it, shake it up for a while, and open it.
Which ball is yours? Clearly, one is not yours (it's mine), and you'd like to be certain -- out of nothing more than courtesy -- that you don't pick the wrong one. Since they're identical, how can you tell which is yours? More fundamentally, does it really matter?
I contend that it doesn't matter. Once you have infinite, perfect duplication, the idea of mine-versus-yours becomes silly. Pick either ball; it doesn't matter. Each of us will end up with a ball. Make a copy of one and give it to a third person. Then mix all three up in the box again. Which one is the "copy" and which ones are the "originals?" Since everyone's going to get a ball, it doesn't matter. Copying does not diminish what we have.
This is precisely the situation existing in the memories of our computers. Thus, the idea of "ownership" of a digital artifact that can be infinitely copied starts to look specious.
This is not to say the transition to the Real New Economy won't be tumultuous; it definitely will. But unless the issues are conceptualized correctly, society will endure a lot of unnecessary anguish as it charges down blind alleys.
Schwab
What about Scott Adams' Copyright ? (Score:2)
He then steals^H^H^H^H^H^Hquotes the whole text of a Dilbert cartoon. Surely he's taking Scott Adams' work and passing it on to others without recompensing the original author. Bit like Napster users really...
Re:Making special laws for the net is stupid (Score:2)
Re:Too Much of A Nerd View (Score:2)
--
Re:He mentions why I think Napster is WRONG (Score:4)
Copyrights _are_ good when properly used.
But they are NOT by any means whatsoever fundemental to human nature. They are wholly artificial, and from the dawn of man to the 17th century didn't exist. At all. And it took another hundred years for copyrights to be anything really interesting or useful or good. (they were originally a form of censorship, which to some extent they still are)
Sure, even babies have a concept of ownership. (which I object to - that strikes me as something learned, not inherent from the womb) Shall we all act like babies?
I'll grant that it is up to artists to decide what they want to do with their work. It is not, however, up to artists to decide what WE will do with their work once we have it.
Copyright. COPY-RIGHT. Not, a million times NOT USE-RIGHT. And not, a billion times not an inherent, natural right. We have copyrights to serve a purpose. When they don't, they're not valid. When they don't fit into the narrow mold we allot them from the graciousness of our hears, they're not valid.
Besides which, you're not all that up to date on your economic models. Napster users are rabidly capitalistic. They want stuff for the lowest price possible. Free is very low indeed. If they were communists they would pay musicians according to their needs. Not according to how good they were. Or even if they did anything at all. But the musicians would be expected to play as much as they could, according to their abilities.
Note by the way, that not only do we live in a system which is largely, but not entirely capitalistic, it would not be desirable to do so. While good things can come FROM any economic model, human beings have a certain set of ground rules (e.g. freedom of speech) which are not always compatable with those of the economy (e.g. pay to speak) and it is essential that we favor humanity over relatively trivial dollars and cents.
Am I defending Napster users? Not particularly. But I refuse to walk into the trap that businesses have set for us either; their goals are not coincident with the goals of me in specific or that are desirable for humanity at large.
Copyright is good. Generally. The copyright we've got now, and the rush to exploit it, lengthen it, retroactively apply it, and otherwise destroy its nemesis, the freedom of speech? It's not good. Not even a little.
Re:destroy the ecosystem?? (Score:2)
It's amazing how much whining people are doing about the record industry, and how little they are actually doing about it. Do you want artists to get a better break? Form a company that does just that. Otherwise, quit your bitching.
-jon
Re:What about Scott Adams' Copyright ? (Score:2)
If he wants to show it as a slide in a presentation, then he has to pay Scott Adams money.
-jon
Bill Joy conversation simulator... (Score:2)
Joy: Britney Spears blah blah blah java blah blah jini blah blah...
me: What?!? How is java related to Britney spears?
Joy: Britney blah blah blah blah java blah blah java blah blah.
me: Are you just making up quasi-random responses until you hit on a train that leads in a tangetial way to plug java?
Joy: Essentially blah blah blah java...
me: Okay, whatever, get out of here.
Joy: Jini.
me: Go Bill, get the hell out.
Joy: Java.
me: Gates is in the front lawn! Go get 'im!
Joy: Java! Java! Jini! Java! World Domination! Java!
And Joy is the notorious nanotech Luddite (Score:2)
I didn't know about Hatch, but Bill Joy is notorious in nanotech circles for his Proposal to relinquish development of robotics, genetic engineering and nanotechnology [foresight.org], ie. abandon the research that the world's top visionaries see as not only the next major phase of engineering, but also quite possibly the next major milestone in the evolution of Mankind.
Be that as it may, Bill Joy is totally oblivious to even the simplest and most clearcut of arguments when it conflicts with his own point of view, to the point of farce. The fact that abandoning robotics, genetic engineering and nanotechnology would be the most unenforceable directive in the history of ineffective directives seems to matter not at all to him --- it doesn't support his position, so it can't be relevant and isn't even worth a response.
Even if there were a significant buy-in to the idea of relinquishment in the west, which there is most patently not, a single undercover research team achieving any significant advance in the nanotech field would have the potential to effectively destroy the western economy and possibly a lot more, unless counter-agents are developed before that time. Given that a simple SPM (one of the primary tools in nanotech research) can be created for just a few thousand dollars in nothing more fancy than a school lab, Joy's proposal is so akin to trying to bury our collective head in the sand that it's quite astounding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another perspective on this whole mess (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Someone hand me a cluestick... (Score:2)
His assumption that Napster/Napster like entities will 'destroy the ecosystem' of industries like books and music makes a few invalid assumptions [yes, I know they've probably come up here before, but so long as there are the clueless, we must continue distributing the clue]
1. All those who create do so merely for the purpose of making money, and as a result, removing that possibility means no one will ever create again.
Well now, and I thought I was cynical. Simple fact is, most who create solely to make money create inferior items. The true craftsmen [of anything] create because something inside them motivates them to do so. Its why many, many bands are far better before they became popular, its why much of the philosophy of mankind was conceived and written before copyrights were a wet dream in some lawyers loins, and its why open source software exists today. To attach art[and I mean art in the sense of any well crafted item] so closely with greed is to debase those who create. As a programmer, I take actual offense, and I would as a musician or a poet.
2. If folks give [music/text/software] away, those who make it have no way to make money.
Well, here he defeated his own arguements, by statign that software has become about service. Well, maybe its time for writing and music to become about service as well [you know, like the used to be a long time ago, before somone could create one above average collection of songs and retire?]. He basically gives a way for anyone who has been Napsterized to make a living, so how can the ecosystem collapse?
Sometimes, you wonder about people.
-={(Astynax)}=-