| My review of Cory Doctorow's Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom is up at BlogCritics so tiptoe over and read it. |  |
Friday 27 September 2002
Get Cory's book
Monday 23 September 2002
Valenti talks to Dan
Jack Valenti talks to Dan Gillmor
We went around and around and around on a key question, namely how Hollywood thinks it can protect its films and TV shows from being copied on the Internet while not disrupting people's current ability to time-shift programming and otherwise enjoy what are known as ``fair use'' rights. In the end, he said without fully answering the question, people will have the same rights tomorrow as they have today -- and that preserving those rights is precisely what the entertainment industry has to work out with the technology industry.
He was adamant, however, that technology gear in the future -- including personal computers -- will have to be modified to prevent people from making unauthorized copies. This stance has angered many users of technology and worried some in the industry as well.
That's putting it mildly, Dan. Copying is what computers do. They don't have good concept of 'authority', especially as JV & co can't define it clearly in any case.
Another problem for the entertainment companies is what they're calling the ``analog hole.'' This recognizes the fact that human beings are not digital, so digital programming has to be converted to a format, known as analog, that we can see and hear. If digital programs have copy protection and then are turned into analog formats, the copy protection will be moot, he noted.
Shades of Oedipus and Lear - wilt thou rend thine eyes from their sockets, Mr Valenti?
Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up an important copyright issue of a different kind in a case called Eldred vs. Ashcroft (www.eldred.cc) -- asking whether a recent law extending copyright terms is constitutional. Hollywood, especially the Walt Disney Co., has been among the biggest boosters of these extensions, for obvious reasons.
Well, said Valenti, just read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' There's no ambiguity, he said; ``limited'' is whatever Congress says it is.
Been there, done that, made the T-shirt.
Lets look at it another way. Can you defend Hollywood movies as 'Science' or 'useful Arts'? Please enumerate their uses.
Can you explain how coloured celluloid is 'writing or discoveries'?
Constitutional literalism cuts both ways, Jack.
We went around and around and around on a key question, namely how Hollywood thinks it can protect its films and TV shows from being copied on the Internet while not disrupting people's current ability to time-shift programming and otherwise enjoy what are known as ``fair use'' rights. In the end, he said without fully answering the question, people will have the same rights tomorrow as they have today -- and that preserving those rights is precisely what the entertainment industry has to work out with the technology industry.
He was adamant, however, that technology gear in the future -- including personal computers -- will have to be modified to prevent people from making unauthorized copies. This stance has angered many users of technology and worried some in the industry as well.
That's putting it mildly, Dan. Copying is what computers do. They don't have good concept of 'authority', especially as JV & co can't define it clearly in any case.
Another problem for the entertainment companies is what they're calling the ``analog hole.'' This recognizes the fact that human beings are not digital, so digital programming has to be converted to a format, known as analog, that we can see and hear. If digital programs have copy protection and then are turned into analog formats, the copy protection will be moot, he noted.
Shades of Oedipus and Lear - wilt thou rend thine eyes from their sockets, Mr Valenti?
Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up an important copyright issue of a different kind in a case called Eldred vs. Ashcroft (www.eldred.cc) -- asking whether a recent law extending copyright terms is constitutional. Hollywood, especially the Walt Disney Co., has been among the biggest boosters of these extensions, for obvious reasons.
Well, said Valenti, just read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' There's no ambiguity, he said; ``limited'' is whatever Congress says it is.
Been there, done that, made the T-shirt.
Lets look at it another way. Can you defend Hollywood movies as 'Science' or 'useful Arts'? Please enumerate their uses.
Can you explain how coloured celluloid is 'writing or discoveries'?
Constitutional literalism cuts both ways, Jack.
Conundrum solved
Rosie was wondering about how Noah could have been 500 years old when he built the ark.
Andrew found an answer - 'maybe that was before Pandora's box was opened and brought death into the world'
Andrew found an answer - 'maybe that was before Pandora's box was opened and brought death into the world'
Wednesday 18 September 2002
CARP gets rid of radio
Europemedia.net says half of online radio is from outside the US:
In the last year alone the number of radio webcasters has declined by thirty one per cent, with US stations accounting for the majority of this steep decline. Based on the high copyright fees supported by the RIAA, well over one thousand US stations and internet-only webcasters quit streaming online.
The current number of webcasting channels on the net is 3940, significantly lower than the all time high of 5710 stations from last year. Prior to this year US based stations represented nearly 60 per cent of all stations webcasting. Now international stations account for well over 50 per cent of all stations webcasting online.
In the last year alone the number of radio webcasters has declined by thirty one per cent, with US stations accounting for the majority of this steep decline. Based on the high copyright fees supported by the RIAA, well over one thousand US stations and internet-only webcasters quit streaming online.
The current number of webcasting channels on the net is 3940, significantly lower than the all time high of 5710 stations from last year. Prior to this year US based stations represented nearly 60 per cent of all stations webcasting. Now international stations account for well over 50 per cent of all stations webcasting online.
Tuesday 17 September 2002
Saturday 14 September 2002
Of media and messages
Let me start by saying I like text. I can read about 5 times as fast as I can listen, so it is efficient for me; writing clearly takes many times longer than verbally extemporising on the same subject, as you go back and revise and clarify (at least, you do if you respect your readers, and want to keep their attention).
Small Pieces Loosely Joined took David Weinberger the best part of a year to write, and I read it through in 3 hours or so, very efficiently absorbing his thoughts and insights.
Conversely, voicemail is appalling - it is easy to leave, but it can take 2 listenings to extract a phone number from a two minute rambling message.
Text is great at describing ideas; sound at emotions; pictures at providing overviews of complex data. In each case to do it well takes much effort, but it can be satisficed if there is a conversation—a one to one dialog going on. An IM chat can cope with mis-spellings and bad grammar; a phone call with long pauses and poor word choice, a whiteboard and pen handed back and forth saves hours of drawing, but if you want more than a few people to get it at once, and if you want it to stand for a while, you need to put the work in.
Weblogs fit neatly between magazine articles and email on the continuum that runs from books to instant messaging. I'm not sure where the multimedia messages Ted Shelton likes fit into the image continuum from Fine art to whiteboard doodles or where the audio weblogs that Adam Curry wants fit between recorded performances and voicemail.
Last night I went to see Jewel at The Mountain Winery. Sitting there alone with her guitar, she carried the 500 or so of us there with her through the performance, telling self-deprecating stories, inviting requests, even having a 'stalker' fan pick a song, and then got him to stand next to her and hold the lyrics up as she couldn't remember them as it was so obscure. Catch the show if you can. And her Soul City Cafe project sounds interesting too.
Small Pieces Loosely Joined took David Weinberger the best part of a year to write, and I read it through in 3 hours or so, very efficiently absorbing his thoughts and insights.
Conversely, voicemail is appalling - it is easy to leave, but it can take 2 listenings to extract a phone number from a two minute rambling message.
Text is great at describing ideas; sound at emotions; pictures at providing overviews of complex data. In each case to do it well takes much effort, but it can be satisficed if there is a conversation—a one to one dialog going on. An IM chat can cope with mis-spellings and bad grammar; a phone call with long pauses and poor word choice, a whiteboard and pen handed back and forth saves hours of drawing, but if you want more than a few people to get it at once, and if you want it to stand for a while, you need to put the work in.
Weblogs fit neatly between magazine articles and email on the continuum that runs from books to instant messaging. I'm not sure where the multimedia messages Ted Shelton likes fit into the image continuum from Fine art to whiteboard doodles or where the audio weblogs that Adam Curry wants fit between recorded performances and voicemail.
Last night I went to see Jewel at The Mountain Winery. Sitting there alone with her guitar, she carried the 500 or so of us there with her through the performance, telling self-deprecating stories, inviting requests, even having a 'stalker' fan pick a song, and then got him to stand next to her and hold the lyrics up as she couldn't remember them as it was so obscure. Catch the show if you can. And her Soul City Cafe project sounds interesting too.
Monday 9 September 2002
Pinker on human nature
Stephen Pinker writes on human nature
I think that there is a quasi-religious theory of human nature that is prevalent among pundits and intellectuals, which includes both empirical assumptions about how the mind works and a set of values that people hang on those assumptions. The theory is has three parts.
One is the doctrine of "the blank slate": that we have no inherent talents or temperaments, because the mind is shaped completely by the environment?parenting, culture, and society.
The second is "the noble savage": that evil motives are not inherent to people but come from corrupting social institutions.
The third is "the ghost in the machine", that the most important part of us is somehow independent of our biology, so that our ability to have experiences and make choices can't be explained by our physiological makeup and evolutionary history.
These three idea ideas are increasingly being challenged by the sciences of the mind, brain, genes, and evolution, but they are held as much for their moral and political uplift as for any empirical rationale. People think that these doctrines are preferable on moral grounds and that the alternative is a forbidden territory that we should avoid at all costs.
I think that there is a quasi-religious theory of human nature that is prevalent among pundits and intellectuals, which includes both empirical assumptions about how the mind works and a set of values that people hang on those assumptions. The theory is has three parts.
One is the doctrine of "the blank slate": that we have no inherent talents or temperaments, because the mind is shaped completely by the environment?parenting, culture, and society.
The second is "the noble savage": that evil motives are not inherent to people but come from corrupting social institutions.
The third is "the ghost in the machine", that the most important part of us is somehow independent of our biology, so that our ability to have experiences and make choices can't be explained by our physiological makeup and evolutionary history.
These three idea ideas are increasingly being challenged by the sciences of the mind, brain, genes, and evolution, but they are held as much for their moral and political uplift as for any empirical rationale. People think that these doctrines are preferable on moral grounds and that the alternative is a forbidden territory that we should avoid at all costs.
Sunday 8 September 2002
Citizens, not babies
Ron Duplantis calls opponents of Berman's P2P bill: "A bunch of crybabies!"
I'd like one of the cry babies who responded here to answer a
couple of questions for me:
1. Do they think that "sharing" copyrighted materials without compensating
the authors -- as defined under all laws including fair use ones -- should
be illegal? Don't play word games, you know what I mean: if under present
law, a copyright holder wishes to be compensated for each copy of his work,
should the "sharing" of such a work with someone who does not compensate
the author constitute an illegal act by BOTH the sharer and the sharee? Put
even another way, if a rock group releases a new CD, you alone buy it, and
you "share" it with the world (without compensating the rock group), should
any of those actions be considered illegal? If the answer is no, ignore
question #2 and feel free to continue to believe in an anarchical world
that will never exist.
Yes, this not only should be illegal, it is. However, rather than try to prosecute those doing this under extant law, (no cases have been brought that I am aware of - correct me if I'm wrong) the publishers' lobby is trying to pass a new law to give them a way round due process and the presumption of innocence. The RIAA/Verizon case is another example of trying to avoid the trouble of preparing a case and convincing a judge by going after the ISP.
That a Bill should need an FAQ many times longer than the original describing its intentions is a pretty good indication that the original is poorly drafted.
2. Technologically-speaking, how would you suggest that those copyright
holders stop the illegal "sharing" of their work? As the saying goes, "It's
always easier to be an editor than a writer." If you don't like the
side-effects of Berman's bill, propose something yourself.
I would suggest they prosecute individuals whom they can prove to a court are causing significant losses - settling these kinds of things is what courts are for.
I would also suggest that instead of trying to disinvent the open internet, they adopt a model that gives a financial incentive for people who promote sales of their works via internet sharing - it would be significantly cheaper to do this than the sums they sink into semi-legal payola for radio airplay.
Details at mediAgora
I'd like one of the cry babies who responded here to answer a
couple of questions for me:
1. Do they think that "sharing" copyrighted materials without compensating
the authors -- as defined under all laws including fair use ones -- should
be illegal? Don't play word games, you know what I mean: if under present
law, a copyright holder wishes to be compensated for each copy of his work,
should the "sharing" of such a work with someone who does not compensate
the author constitute an illegal act by BOTH the sharer and the sharee? Put
even another way, if a rock group releases a new CD, you alone buy it, and
you "share" it with the world (without compensating the rock group), should
any of those actions be considered illegal? If the answer is no, ignore
question #2 and feel free to continue to believe in an anarchical world
that will never exist.
Yes, this not only should be illegal, it is. However, rather than try to prosecute those doing this under extant law, (no cases have been brought that I am aware of - correct me if I'm wrong) the publishers' lobby is trying to pass a new law to give them a way round due process and the presumption of innocence. The RIAA/Verizon case is another example of trying to avoid the trouble of preparing a case and convincing a judge by going after the ISP.
That a Bill should need an FAQ many times longer than the original describing its intentions is a pretty good indication that the original is poorly drafted.
2. Technologically-speaking, how would you suggest that those copyright
holders stop the illegal "sharing" of their work? As the saying goes, "It's
always easier to be an editor than a writer." If you don't like the
side-effects of Berman's bill, propose something yourself.
I would suggest they prosecute individuals whom they can prove to a court are causing significant losses - settling these kinds of things is what courts are for.
I would also suggest that instead of trying to disinvent the open internet, they adopt a model that gives a financial incentive for people who promote sales of their works via internet sharing - it would be significantly cheaper to do this than the sums they sink into semi-legal payola for radio airplay.
Details at mediAgora
Thursday 5 September 2002
Ernie deconstructs MS marketing with a lawyer's eye
Ernie deconstructs MS marketing with a lawyer's eye
3. Easily access your entertainment experiences from one place
Microsoft is not kidding. If you use this heavily restricted version of Windows XP, you will be able to access your entertaiment from only one place. If, for example, you record a TV show on this system, you won't be able to burn it to DVD to watch on your laptop on a plane. Rip a CD onto the harddrive, and the music stays there. What most people consider a bug, Microsoft considers a feature.
3. Easily access your entertainment experiences from one place
Microsoft is not kidding. If you use this heavily restricted version of Windows XP, you will be able to access your entertaiment from only one place. If, for example, you record a TV show on this system, you won't be able to burn it to DVD to watch on your laptop on a plane. Rip a CD onto the harddrive, and the music stays there. What most people consider a bug, Microsoft considers a feature.
Monday 2 September 2002
German Romanticism (2)
 | Another friend we visited this weekend wanted to paint a fairytale castle on her bedroom wall. I suggested she use one of Ludwig's - either Neuschwanstein or the never-built Falkenstein. |
meditation
To church again. 2 bible passages - Luke 17:11-19 - In tests, 9 out of ten cured lepers don't thank you for it.
Then Galatians 5:16-24, which I'll quote in full
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Now the gist of this is pretty obvious, but what did he mean by excoriating 'variance' and 'emulations'? Am I supposed to stop running Mac Classic? Paging Akma...
Akma explains:
Quickly, Greek "eris" (variance) = conflict, contentiousness"
Greek "zhlos" = "jealously, zeal" not quite "envy" (which would be a different word); I suppose the KJV translators sort of took a shot in the twilight.
RSV and ASV give "strife" and "jealousy"
Then Galatians 5:16-24, which I'll quote in full
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Now the gist of this is pretty obvious, but what did he mean by excoriating 'variance' and 'emulations'? Am I supposed to stop running Mac Classic? Paging Akma...
Akma explains:
Quickly, Greek "eris" (variance) = conflict, contentiousness"
Greek "zhlos" = "jealously, zeal" not quite "envy" (which would be a different word); I suppose the KJV translators sort of took a shot in the twilight.
RSV and ASV give "strife" and "jealousy"
German Romantics (1)
 | This weekend we visited some friends who have a lovely house up in the Santa Cruz Mountains. From their deck one can look out over a sea of trees cascading down the valley towards the Pacific Ocean, with fog curling in from the bottom, gradually floating up through the valleys. Looking out over this, I felt like the man in Caspar David Friedrich's painting, which I remember from the cover of the Penguin edition of Nietzsche's Ecce Homo Caspar David Friedrich : Reisender über dem Nebelmeer, 1818 |