|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 03 2012 @ 05:48 AM EDT |
How many people really want personalisation of their web responses ? Personally
I've always thought it was a ploy by marketroids to extract personal information
and be able to send more targeted (and hence offensive) adverts. Opinions
please. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Sunday, June 03 2012 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
.
PJ has whipped up a News Pick followed by her comment and
links. She is of course suspicious of Nokia's denial and
rightly so.
The failing Barnes and Noble received $300 million from the
Monopoly in defending against a suit where they made this
accusation against MOSAID and thus Nokia and the Monopoly.
They regret not settling before this accusation was made.
Google has the wherewithal to repeat it broadly and prove
it. The utter destruction of Nokia as it previously existed
is the best proof of this scheme.
.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Sunday, June 03 2012 @ 05:08 PM EDT |
li
nk
This is a very interesting idea. I am fascinated by what happens
when different realities collide. I believe Google's Susan Wojcicki summed it
up clearly:
This is not a technical problem, this is much more of
a business issue.
This is the big challenge such a meeting would
face. The Internet is here. It is not going away. Business models based on
the scarcity of content (information) distribution are bound to fail. The main
problem is that there will be two opposing agendas in the meeting. Hollywood's
agenda is about crippling the Internet in order to keep their scarcity based
business model alive. Silicon Valley's agenda will be to convince Hollywood to
adapt their business model to take advantage of the new technology, not cripple
it.
Max Planck said:
A new scientific truth does not triumph
by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its
opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with
it.
The same is true with new technology. I think the current
leaders in Hollywood are unable to grasp the new reality created by the
Internet. We may have to wait many years for new leadership to emerge before
Hollywood starts to act in a rational and sensible manner. I wish with all my
heart there was some way to convince the old guard of the dire need for them to
accept the new reality.
Here is a proposal for a sensible business model
that would take advantage of the Internet and also greatly improve the content
created by Hollywood. Give it all away for free. I know this sounds crazy and
I know this is anathema to the existing leaders in Hollywood but it is the only
sensible long term solution.
The obvious criticism of this idea is that
there is no way for content creators to make money if they don't restrict access
to their content. This antiquated viewpoint is the heart of the problem. As
long as Hollywood clings to it, the meetings proposed by Ari Emanuel will be
useless. The obvious solution is captured in the phrase:
Don't
applaud, just throw money!
I'm willing to pay for content.
Millions of people are willing to pay for content. Hollywood's current business
model is based entirely on the idea that many people are willing to pay for
content. The only question is the timing. Should they pay before or after?
It is true that if creators don't get paid, they will eventually stop
creating. This truth is self-evident. If I see a commercial-free fan-fic movie
and I like it then I donate to the movie makers to thank them for what they gave
me and to encourage and fund them to make more. Even if some people (perhaps
even a majority) refuse to ever pay for the content they enjoy, this system will
still generate a lot of money for creators.
The wonderful thing about
this system is that it is vastly more efficient than the current system. There
will
be no need for the massive movie advertising campaigns we have now. Just
post your trailers on YouTube. In addition, we won't have to infest content
with commercials, which, for the most part, only serve to fuel economic
inefficiencies.
People will vote with their pocketbooks based on the
actual content received, not based on the lies and false promises of movie
advertisements. Creators of popular content will be rewarded by the market and
creators of unpopular content will be punished based on the actual content
provided. The fact that only morally advanced people will vote is a feature
not a bug.
Of course, this system would force Hollywood to make content
that morally advanced people like instead of making content that is easy to
sell. I can see why they would find such a prospect threatening and frightening
but even they have to admit this would make the world a better place and allow
them to greatly improve the benefit they provide to society.
Likewise,
movie theaters would be forced to provide a viewing experience that people enjoy
enough that they are willing to pay for it. Such theaters already exist.
Propping up shoddy, unpleasant movie theaters by making content scarce is a
great disservice to society. It allows movie theaters to thrive that don't add
value. It is not just a disservice to the patrons, it is also a disservice to
the people who work at such places. They are only there to make a buck, they are
not there to provide a valued service. Their vacant stares and robot-like
gestures tear my heart. And yet the owners wonder why patronage is declining
and their only response is to compound the real problem by desperately trying to
enforce information scarcity.
I think the model I've proposed is the only
sensible end-point. Our only other choice is to disable the Internet and all
other forms of efficient information transfer. If Hollywood is not willing to
take even baby steps in the direction of this new model then meeting with them
will be a waste of time and we will have to use the waiting solution proposed by
Max Planck.
--- Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more
contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Sunday, June 03 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
See Alsup is
Wrong: APIs Must be Given Copyright Protection. Alsup being wrong would
imply the law being wrong as well.
Every developer who takes their
first programming class is completely mystified by the utter silliness of all of
the abstract classes and seemingly useless interfaces that pepper the Java API.
Implementing all of these codeless interfaces always seems academic and
laborious to a newcomer. But there's always a point where a developer leaves the
college classroom and starts doing some real development where the light goes on
and they hit that Eureka moment where they finally appreciate the benefit and
beauty of the way the various Java components participate in interface based
polymorphism, or inheritance based abstraction.
Maybe only developers
know what developers know?
I don't think any lawyer or Judge on a
district court would have any appreciation or understanding of what was written
in the previous paragraph, but every Java developer does. Beauty, symmetry, form
and functionality are only created out of nothing in the Bible. When it happens
in the real world, it's a product of intellect and ingenuity, and when that type
of ingenuity manifests itself in an API, the minds responsible for it are
entitled to some type of protection for their creation.
Contrast
the rights of the author of a literary work under § 106 and the expanded
rights for the author of pictorial, graphical and sculptural works under § 113. The music of
the spheres for software is in it's function (operation). Expanding the rights
of software authors would result in patent like protection for the life of the
author plus 70 years, enclosing ideas. Onomatopoeia aside ( § 102 ):
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,
concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is
described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
If
you want to be a performance artist, try wind sculptures, meanwhile the premise
for expanded author's rights for software literary works appears in error as
does casting aspersions on the Judge's legal opinion by emotional appeal.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: calris74 on Sunday, June 03 2012 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
Here is a simply oustanding comment on that
thread:
If APIs were copyrightable, then every
time you override
a method or implement an interface, you'll have to pay
up.
Why? Because before you were using a pay-for product
without
paying for it, and now that you override a method, you have
to pay?
You have a deluded (i.e. Groklaw) view of software
and licenses.
For
example, now that APIs are not copywritable, I can link
to GPL without having
to publish my work under GPL (since
the linking portion of the GPL license is
only enforceable
if APIs are copywritable).
Peace,
Cameron
Purdy | Oracle
(Writing as an individual and not a
spokesperson.)
This really shows just how poorly a lot of people
understand
what is really at play here
What the 'non-copyrightability'
of the API allows for is a
clean-room implementation of the GPL library. This
is
essentially what Linus was pointing out what all the FUD
about copyright
violations in Android due to use of the
Linux headers was floating
about.
If Judge Alsup had ruled that APIs were copyrightable (or if
the appeals court decides to overrule) then Linux would be
in major trouble as
a result of it being a clean-room
implementation of the POSIX API
- Maybe this
was really what Oracle were after...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|