If the real goals are the twofold:
(i) Promote good UI/experience
(ii) Prevent Malicious Code
I'd propose a 3 tier system, supported by user ratings:
(a) Certified/Signed applications that have taken the time to go through the rigorous process.
(b) Unsigned applications t.hat are clearly marked to the end user as potentially dangerous
(c) Malware applications that are identified and reviewed as such after they have already been released into the system as Unsigned.
Charge all submissions to the official store still, to finance reviewing/identifying malware. Don't spend time/money identifying good ui / experience, let ratings and marketing and such cover that. Allow everything in immediately as unsigned to promote all the advantages of faster development. There is an increased risk to the users of getting "bad" stuff, but at least it's labelled as such. I don't think this is quite what's being done with android, but it'd be nice to see more gated application communities take an approach along these lines.
I pity them. I really do. Oh, and copyright will be rendered obsolete within the coming decade. No worries.
That's optimistic, but aren't you afraid of another unwinnable war (for copyright)? Perhaps not unlike the war on drugs. There can be casualties along the way towards progress if we let unrealistic laws to be passed, like the 754,224 people arrested last year for marijuana possession.
Now's not the time to sit by idly and say "They're unrealistic, there's no way they can stop it, so let them puff up and talk their talk and pass their laws, it won't matter". They may not be able to stop it, but they can sure as hell hurt a lot of people along the way.
In fact, for most bittorrent users, they upload significantly less than they download.
My correction in bold
You're uploading extremely small pieces, less than notes or beats, to numerous people. Once again, should that be considered infringement?
Has the RIAA focused on Kazaa/Limewire uploaders for that reason? With bittorrent, haven't they gone after trackers and supernodes for linking to infringing files instead? I may be misinformed on who their targets have been, and with what arguements.
Aside from your facetious tone and absurd example, this does actually sound compelling to my laymen senses. Sharing a part of a file with another user through a program designed to compile the entire file could perhaps be construed as participating in a conspiracy to share and compile the entire file.
What proves the intent and conspiracy of the uploader? Is it the way the software being used is designed? Is it the name of the file? Is it the downstream users final action of compiling the file that proves it?
Comedy Central is filling the void of informed journalism. Fox News is filling the (admittedly much larger) need for lowest common denominator pandering and idiocracy.
They may make jokes on both sides of the aisle (always have, and continue to do so), but Jon Stewart does have some clear biases on quite a few issues. I'm not criticizing the show, it's an incredibly valuable resource and I'm incredibly happy that they do the work that they do, but that doesn't change the fact that Stewart has some things he supports, and some he doesn't. Everyone does.
Watch the full Lou Dobbs interview from this week, and pretend for a second that you don't 100% agree with either of them, and see where they stumble upon themselves.
People aren't only searching for "CNN" or "Dell", they're searching for "current news analysis on this thing I care about" or "cheap netbook that does what I need". It hurts Dell and CNN a heck of a lot more than it hurts Google. Every single competitor of any company taking that risk of jumping ship is going to reap huge rewards that's not easily offset by a million or millions of dollars. The numbers are never going to add up, it's cheaper to pay Google to shut itself down.
Microsoft is actually taking the only realistic strategy, build a better value. They're not succeeding wonderfully, but clearly with both Windows 7 and Bing, they're trying to offer better value to consumers.
Even so, it would make the article less like an article and more like a discussion if they were to bring either that full forum or a different system into the foreground. It's not nearly as bad as not having comments, but it's still limiting.
That's pretty disingenuous. Copyright isn't just a tool that an individual can pick up and throw at another individual. It's a law that's in place that various entities are obligated to enforce and deal with (courts, etc). It can and is misused legally. A gun is a tool, if I get caught shooting someone in the foot I go to jail. The problem with copyright is that it has the force of law behind it.
It sounds like he's limiting his view of working musicians to the composers / producers / film scorers such as himself. And you're right anonymous coward, there's a lot more musicians out there besides those folks that do actually play music. But the composer/scorer types do exist right now, and a lot of them do make money as he is describing. If I were him, I'd be a bit nervous too. But I'd also start looking for my long term options.
I'd agree that there is a lack of real world experience in Mike's opinions, when it comes to composers, song writers, film scorers etc in particular. I'd also agree that there's a lot more "omg the lawyerz iz bad" than "here's a business plan to make money" on here. But, there is some of the latter.
Most musicians I know don't want to be small businessmen, sell t-shirts, tour, and musicians like me, composers, song writers, film scorers, well, we're just guys with kids, backyards, college tuition. Music is our day job.
I think I agree with you on that point also, but it's also true that most eletricians I know don't want to run their entire business either. Some of them do, and they do. Some of they don't, and they work for large or small businesses that handle the "selling t shirts" aspects. Internet and technology has changed what opportunities there are for promoting and selling music. The industry, by which I mean existing and upcoming large and small businesses have yet to catch up, but the opportunities are there for either the entrepreneurial musician, or for the entrepreneurial businessman to help the musician.
All in all, I wouldn't take anything Mike says here too seriously as it's not his words that are changing the industry. But if I were you, I would worry about the inevitable changes that technology is driving. A lot of the aspects of the old model just aren't the best or most realistic ways to make money any more, and change will happen. Maybe look for some hope in the few articles that do talk about the positive aspects of change, and be ready for it.
Agreed. Only nitpick I'd make is Ars hiding the comments at the bottom behind a click. Seems like a really poor attitude towards those "unscrupulous comments those dern people keep asking for on our articles". But other than that, good, the intro to the article does seem adequate to indicate the nature of the post.
... and if people downloaded it they probably wont have gone to see it, thats the way it works with movies that really suck ...
Maybe that's part of what they're really afraid of with this whole internet and piracy thing. The negative word of mouth and stigma happens with bad movies more-so now than before the internet. It'd sure be nice to just have to convince a couple of movie critics the movie is good instead of having to convince a massive swarm of people watching the whole thing.
Sucks having to make a good movie instead of just a 200 million dollar one, don't it?
I'm not convinced that Mike could hold his own in a live debate. Now Jon Stewart? There's a master debater.
Also, I don't think $10,000 or any reasonable amount of money is going to sway an industry lawyer into a mousetrap. All that said, still would be nice to see more articles done interview style and perhaps with some naysayers once in a while.
Cause Mike is too lazy to work on the weekends and doesn't trust anyone else to do write-ups, especially on "big news" like this? Not to place blame or anything, just making an observation.
Honestly I think it'd make more sense to be a little more reactive in these sorts of cases. Save some time by skipping the fluff middle of the day amusing articles and be ready to respond to big news on the weekends once in a while.
Are you arguing that the distinction between enforcement at the hardware level instead of the software level is deserving of a monopoly on the concept? Let's say I want to be slightly different and implement a virtual machine for basic operations, and have a host os that displays the ads and stops everything for interaction, is that also a non obvious extension of the concept?
I didn't read the patent, I don't know if what I described or what you described or both are what the patent describes. EITHER way, there's a lot of obvious extensions to this concept.
I fail to see why it's a good thing for anyone to grant a monopoly on the concept.
Something like Google street view or street cams do slightly reduce the level of privacy, because there's more people that can more easily view the area. Of course before that there wasn't absolute privacy or anything close to it, but on a side street with a fence only truck drivers or very tall people might have been able to view said "private" area. Now it is something that potentially a much larger audience can view.
This isn't to say that there's any legitimate need or any realistic way to stop such cameras and street view type of projects, just that the levels at which we are exposed is increasing due to technology. There is an effect and a trend happening here, and it's something that we do need to acknowledge and be aware of.
But cutting yourself off from the world (on the internet, in the information age, as an information provider/contributor) isn't a sustainable business model. Someone else can and will and has come along to take your place without cutting themselves off. This sort of hutzpah that says "I can wall myself off and they'll have to pay me, they have no choice" is a dangerous line of thinking.
RSS
Twitter
A proposal (as Derek Reed)
If the real goals are the twofold:
(i) Promote good UI/experience
(ii) Prevent Malicious Code
I'd propose a 3 tier system, supported by user ratings:
(a) Certified/Signed applications that have taken the time to go through the rigorous process.
(b) Unsigned applications t.hat are clearly marked to the end user as potentially dangerous
(c) Malware applications that are identified and reviewed as such after they have already been released into the system as Unsigned.
Charge all submissions to the official store still, to finance reviewing/identifying malware. Don't spend time/money identifying good ui / experience, let ratings and marketing and such cover that. Allow everything in immediately as unsigned to promote all the advantages of faster development. There is an increased risk to the users of getting "bad" stuff, but at least it's labelled as such. I don't think this is quite what's being done with android, but it'd be nice to see more gated application communities take an approach along these lines.
Re: (as Derek Reed)
I pity them. I really do. Oh, and copyright will be rendered obsolete within the coming decade. No worries.
That's optimistic, but aren't you afraid of another unwinnable war (for copyright)? Perhaps not unlike the war on drugs. There can be casualties along the way towards progress if we let unrealistic laws to be passed, like the 754,224 people arrested last year for marijuana possession.
Now's not the time to sit by idly and say "They're unrealistic, there's no way they can stop it, so let them puff up and talk their talk and pass their laws, it won't matter". They may not be able to stop it, but they can sure as hell hurt a lot of people along the way.
Re: (as Derek Reed)
In fact, for most bittorrent users, they upload significantly less than they download.
My correction in bold
You're uploading extremely small pieces, less than notes or beats, to numerous people. Once again, should that be considered infringement?
Has the RIAA focused on Kazaa/Limewire uploaders for that reason? With bittorrent, haven't they gone after trackers and supernodes for linking to infringing files instead? I may be misinformed on who their targets have been, and with what arguements.
Re: (as Derek Reed)
Aside from your facetious tone and absurd example, this does actually sound compelling to my laymen senses. Sharing a part of a file with another user through a program designed to compile the entire file could perhaps be construed as participating in a conspiracy to share and compile the entire file.
What proves the intent and conspiracy of the uploader? Is it the way the software being used is designed? Is it the name of the file? Is it the downstream users final action of compiling the file that proves it?
Re: (as Derek Reed)
Are we talking about the same Glenn Beck? The same one who to this day still hasn't responded to the allegations of that incident in 1990?
Re: Point #4? (as Derek Reed)
Comedy Central is filling the void of informed journalism. Fox News is filling the (admittedly much larger) need for lowest common denominator pandering and idiocracy.
Re: Re: Re: (as Derek Reed)
They may make jokes on both sides of the aisle (always have, and continue to do so), but Jon Stewart does have some clear biases on quite a few issues. I'm not criticizing the show, it's an incredibly valuable resource and I'm incredibly happy that they do the work that they do, but that doesn't change the fact that Stewart has some things he supports, and some he doesn't. Everyone does.
Watch the full Lou Dobbs interview from this week, and pretend for a second that you don't 100% agree with either of them, and see where they stumble upon themselves.
Re: (as Derek Reed)
People aren't only searching for "CNN" or "Dell", they're searching for "current news analysis on this thing I care about" or "cheap netbook that does what I need". It hurts Dell and CNN a heck of a lot more than it hurts Google. Every single competitor of any company taking that risk of jumping ship is going to reap huge rewards that's not easily offset by a million or millions of dollars. The numbers are never going to add up, it's cheaper to pay Google to shut itself down.
Microsoft is actually taking the only realistic strategy, build a better value. They're not succeeding wonderfully, but clearly with both Windows 7 and Bing, they're trying to offer better value to consumers.
Re: Re: Re: Read the Comments (as Derek Reed)
Even so, it would make the article less like an article and more like a discussion if they were to bring either that full forum or a different system into the foreground. It's not nearly as bad as not having comments, but it's still limiting.
Re: Re: Anymous Coward (as Derek Reed)
That's pretty disingenuous. Copyright isn't just a tool that an individual can pick up and throw at another individual. It's a law that's in place that various entities are obligated to enforce and deal with (courts, etc). It can and is misused legally. A gun is a tool, if I get caught shooting someone in the foot I go to jail. The problem with copyright is that it has the force of law behind it.
Re: This is one of the many reasons... (as Derek Reed)
XKCD on Orson Scott Card
Locke and Demosthenes
Re: Re: You guys scare me. (as Derek Reed)
It sounds like he's limiting his view of working musicians to the composers / producers / film scorers such as himself. And you're right anonymous coward, there's a lot more musicians out there besides those folks that do actually play music. But the composer/scorer types do exist right now, and a lot of them do make money as he is describing. If I were him, I'd be a bit nervous too. But I'd also start looking for my long term options.
Re: You guys scare me. (as Derek Reed)
I'd agree that there is a lack of real world experience in Mike's opinions, when it comes to composers, song writers, film scorers etc in particular. I'd also agree that there's a lot more "omg the lawyerz iz bad" than "here's a business plan to make money" on here. But, there is some of the latter.
Most musicians I know don't want to be small businessmen, sell t-shirts, tour, and musicians like me, composers, song writers, film scorers, well, we're just guys with kids, backyards, college tuition. Music is our day job.
I think I agree with you on that point also, but it's also true that most eletricians I know don't want to run their entire business either. Some of them do, and they do. Some of they don't, and they work for large or small businesses that handle the "selling t shirts" aspects. Internet and technology has changed what opportunities there are for promoting and selling music. The industry, by which I mean existing and upcoming large and small businesses have yet to catch up, but the opportunities are there for either the entrepreneurial musician, or for the entrepreneurial businessman to help the musician.
All in all, I wouldn't take anything Mike says here too seriously as it's not his words that are changing the industry. But if I were you, I would worry about the inevitable changes that technology is driving. A lot of the aspects of the old model just aren't the best or most realistic ways to make money any more, and change will happen. Maybe look for some hope in the few articles that do talk about the positive aspects of change, and be ready for it.
Re: Read the Comments (as Derek Reed)
Agreed. Only nitpick I'd make is Ars hiding the comments at the bottom behind a click. Seems like a really poor attitude towards those "unscrupulous comments those dern people keep asking for on our articles". But other than that, good, the intro to the article does seem adequate to indicate the nature of the post.
Re: What a crock ..... (as Derek Reed)
... and if people downloaded it they probably wont have gone to see it, thats the way it works with movies that really suck ...
Maybe that's part of what they're really afraid of with this whole internet and piracy thing. The negative word of mouth and stigma happens with bad movies more-so now than before the internet. It'd sure be nice to just have to convince a couple of movie critics the movie is good instead of having to convince a massive swarm of people watching the whole thing.
Sucks having to make a good movie instead of just a 200 million dollar one, don't it?
Re: Re: (as Derek Reed)
I'm not convinced that Mike could hold his own in a live debate. Now Jon Stewart? There's a master debater.
Also, I don't think $10,000 or any reasonable amount of money is going to sway an industry lawyer into a mousetrap. All that said, still would be nice to see more articles done interview style and perhaps with some naysayers once in a while.
Re: (as Derek Reed)
Cause Mike is too lazy to work on the weekends and doesn't trust anyone else to do write-ups, especially on "big news" like this? Not to place blame or anything, just making an observation.
Honestly I think it'd make more sense to be a little more reactive in these sorts of cases. Save some time by skipping the fluff middle of the day amusing articles and be ready to respond to big news on the weekends once in a while.
Re: Re: Been Done (as Derek Reed)
Are you arguing that the distinction between enforcement at the hardware level instead of the software level is deserving of a monopoly on the concept? Let's say I want to be slightly different and implement a virtual machine for basic operations, and have a host os that displays the ads and stops everything for interaction, is that also a non obvious extension of the concept?
I didn't read the patent, I don't know if what I described or what you described or both are what the patent describes. EITHER way, there's a lot of obvious extensions to this concept.
I fail to see why it's a good thing for anyone to grant a monopoly on the concept.
On Privacy (as Derek Reed)
Something like Google street view or street cams do slightly reduce the level of privacy, because there's more people that can more easily view the area. Of course before that there wasn't absolute privacy or anything close to it, but on a side street with a fence only truck drivers or very tall people might have been able to view said "private" area. Now it is something that potentially a much larger audience can view.
This isn't to say that there's any legitimate need or any realistic way to stop such cameras and street view type of projects, just that the levels at which we are exposed is increasing due to technology. There is an effect and a trend happening here, and it's something that we do need to acknowledge and be aware of.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You won't read the WSJ anymore? (as Derek Reed)
But cutting yourself off from the world (on the internet, in the information age, as an information provider/contributor) isn't a sustainable business model. Someone else can and will and has come along to take your place without cutting themselves off. This sort of hutzpah that says "I can wall myself off and they'll have to pay me, they have no choice" is a dangerous line of thinking.