photonic x86 CPU design

[Evgenij Barsukov]

Lots of things didn't work in the middle-ages that would perfectly fine
today. To some extent, copyright is a legal solution to a problem that is
not inherently legal. DRM is one version of a technical solution to much the
same problem. The problem is, basically, if I think of or develop a creative
work, how can I let other people use it without losing control over it.

You will lose control of everything you have done for a simple reason of
being mortal. So why not admit it while you are still alive, and enjoy
the feeling that you actually helped other people with results of your
work? That is what lots of free-ware writers are doing.
Nevertheless, even for those of us who depends on copy-right to put
bread on the table (including myself), the question should be posed not
as you put it, but "how can I let other people use it so that I get a
fair compensation" (regardless of control).
Btw. even with such classical copyright objects
as books authors rarely have any control - they get their fixed
procentage from book sales, but copyright is controlled by the
publisher. Even more ridiculously, for scientific journal articles
authors get _nothing_ while publisher gets both copiright and profits.

So it is all about fair compensation, and if this can be achieved by
giving the content for free while gettign money from advertizers or
other equivalent methods, than I dont care. And it does not require all
the costly enforcement of artificial restrictions such as copy-right by
the state! Remember, this enforcement is _not free_, you pay for it by
paying taxes. So less enforcement might end up eventualy in _more_ money
in the pokets of knowledge creators.

Regards,
Evgenij

 

[Sander Vesik]

Btw. even with such classical copyright objects
as books authors rarely have any control - they get their fixed
procentage from book sales, but copyright is controlled by the
publisher. Even more ridiculously, for scientific journal articles
authors get _nothing_ while publisher gets both copiright and profits.

That is in most cases very far from truth - what writers normaly
sell to a publishing company is 'first printing rights in language
x in region y'. Any further printing or distribution is a
separate matter. In lots of cases the rights being sold are even
more restricted to say publishing in a periodical.

So it is all about fair compensation, and if this can be achieved by
giving the content for free while gettign money from advertizers or
other equivalent methods, than I dont care. And it does not require all
the costly enforcement of artificial restrictions such as copy-right by
the state! Remember, this enforcement is _not free_, you pay for it by
paying taxes. So less enforcement might end up eventualy in _more_ money
in the pokets of knowledge creators.

The fundamental mistake you make is the fair in 'fair compensation'.
There is no such thing. There isn't even a need for such a thing. Is
teh compensastion JK Rowling recieves for the Potter books fair? How
would you go about finding out?

 

[David Schwartz]

You will lose control of everything you have done for a simple reason of
being mortal. So why not admit it while you are still alive, and enjoy the
feeling that you actually helped other people with results of your work?
That is what lots of free-ware writers are doing.
Nevertheless, even for those of us who depends on copy-right to put
bread on the table (including myself), the question should be posed not as
you put it, but "how can I let other people use it so that I get a fair
compensation" (regardless of control).

No. Compensation is not the issue, control is. You admit this yourself
in the first paragraph, then you just totally ignore it in your second!

Btw. even with such classical copyright objects
as books authors rarely have any control - they get their fixed procentage
from book sales, but copyright is controlled by the publisher. Even more
ridiculously, for scientific journal articles authors get _nothing_ while
publisher gets both copiright and profits.

This is only the case if authors agree to such things. Increasingly, due
to improved technology, they don't have to. And so they sometimes don't.
Technology may well make publishers obsolete.

So it is all about fair compensation, and if this can be achieved by
giving the content for free while gettign money from advertizers or
other equivalent methods, than I dont care. And it does not require all
the costly enforcement of artificial restrictions such as copy-right by
the state! Remember, this enforcement is _not free_, you pay for it by
paying taxes. So less enforcement might end up eventualy in _more_ money
in the pokets of knowledge creators.

Not everyone just wants to get money for their work. Lots of people want
to change the world as well. You can't totally ignore this. If I want to use
my ideas to push my view of the future, and copyright law doesn't let me do
that, then I'll resort to technological solutions, EULAs, and the like.

DS

 

[The little lost angel]

No, you misundersood this one. By watching advertizements, you punish
yourself. This is the beatuty of this model, it does not require any
centralized enforcement.

HUH?! I don't know about it, but quite a few of the advertisements was
more entertaining than I ever found Simpsons! I hope you get the point

 

[Keith]

You will lose control of everything you have done for a simple reason of
being mortal.

*I'll* lose control at some point, certainly. That doesn't mean I have
no control now. That doesn't mean my family will have no control after I
am worm shit.

So why not admit it while you are still alive, and enjoy
the feeling that you actually helped other people with results of your
work? That is what lots of free-ware writers are doing.

Their choice. My family likes to eat. My employer likes to eat (kinda a
symbiosis there). You're advocating taking that choice away from me. I
don't much like dictators.

Nevertheless, even for those of us who depends on copy-right to put
bread on the table (including myself), the question should be posed not
as you put it, but "how can I let other people use it so that I get a
fair compensation" (regardless of control).

WTF are you talking about? Now you're all for copyrights. Make up your
mind!

Btw. even with such classical copyright objects
as books authors rarely have any control - they get their fixed
procentage from book sales, but copyright is controlled by the
publisher. Even more ridiculously, for scientific journal articles
authors get _nothing_ while publisher gets both copiright and profits.

No, it's not ridiculous at all. They've entered into a contract to
license their "rights" to another. Do you also have a problem with people
freely entering into contracts? Sheesh!

So it is all about fair compensation,

If one person has freely contracted his rights to another it is by
*definition* "fair". There can be no possible other interpretation of
"fair".

and if this can be achieved by
giving the content for free while gettign money from advertizers or
other equivalent methods, than I dont care.

Nor do I, but shouldn't the *individual* be able to decide what's best for
him? Contracts, and all...

And it does not require all
the costly enforcement of artificial restrictions such as copy-right by
the state! Remember, this enforcement is _not free_, you pay for it by
paying taxes. So less enforcement might end up eventualy in _more_ money
in the pokets of knowledge creators.

No, more in the pockets of thieves *and* less productivity. Why should I
produce if I can't be compensated.

 

[Keith]

To follow your logic, it would not be only me to commission Windows, but
an association of all users (e.g. severla billion people). I suspect I
could easily afford my share in this deal.

Nope, because the other ?,999,999,999 would just make a copy of the one
you commissioned. ...legally and morally, by your logic.

Note that I am not agains converting certain common practices, and
common contractual relationships into laws, just for symplifying the
logistics. But such laws have certain life-time, and should be discarded
as the contractual relationships they were based on became unpractical
and obsolete.

You're asking to go back to the middle ages and the guilds. No thanks!
As others have pointed out, by your logic you really must like DRM!

 

[David Schwartz]

Nope, because the other ?,999,999,999 would just make a copy of the one
you commissioned. ...legally and morally, by your logic.

Exactly, you'd have a nearly unsurmountable free rider problem. The best
way to solve it is investment, which is nearly impossible to organize
without ownership.

DS

 

[Bernd Paysan]

Or probably not, because other people have other needs and might have to
commission *their* feature requests, before they can make use of their
copy.

Exactly, you'd have a nearly unsurmountable free rider problem. The
best way to solve it is investment, which is nearly impossible to
organize without ownership.

So tell me: How does free software work, when there's the free rider
problem?

 

[Del Cecchi]

Or probably not, because other people have other needs and might have to
commission *their* feature requests, before they can make use of their
copy.




So tell me: How does free software work, when there's the free rider
problem?

Free riders are only a problem for those trying to make money from what
they produce. If one is doing it for other reasons then it's not a
problem. Graffiti artists don't worry about copying or people printing
photos of their work. They aren't in it for the money. Likewise I would
venture that many Linus contributors aren't in it for the money either.

 

[The little lost angel]

Exactly, you'd have a nearly unsurmountable free rider problem. The best
way to solve it is investment, which is nearly impossible to organize
without ownership.

Given the increasingly connected (and worrying IMO for privacy issues)
world, would it not be possible that a combination of technology and
paradigm shift in IP (intellectual property) sales process create a
situation for such "commission" by the masses?

i.e.
Originator generates idea/design/software/whatever. Puts up a
description on an international center PLUS what originator feels is
fair compensation for releasing said IP. World votes with their
pocket, once enough people/organisations pay into an intermediary
account, originator releases full details of the new
invention/work/whatever for consumption to those who bought it, who
will have FULL rights to do whatever they want.

There's a system to feedback if the product was satisfactory or not.
If significant majority of bidders feedback negative, half the
dissatisfied proportion is returned. e.g. 80% of bidders responded the
content/info/patent/whatever was crap, 40% of the paid amount is
returned evenly to all who paid.

Alternatively, a satisfaction pledge can be offered, where bidders
offer X amount above the original if they are happy with what they
got.

So say Microsoft lists "Office Vista" and states US$1 billion. OSF
lists "Open Office 3" and states US$1 million. People decided not to
bother with Office Vista, Microsoft gets to keep their IP all to
themselves. Say 5 million people donated 20cents each, they are free
to charge whatever they want to make a copy, or for free. Doesn't
matter as the originator OSF is already fairly compensated with
US$1million to upkeep servers, reward the contributors and such.
People get to use OO3 freely.

If they find it sucks instead and feedback so, OSF will only get part
of the US$1 million. The next time OSF lists "Open Office 4" and
states US$1M again, not enough funds will be donated and it will die
there or they may have to list it for a low low price to regain user
confidence. Then, Microsoft may have polished "Office Siesta" more and
list it for US$100million and gets their money instead. If the
feedback was highly positive, they might get an extra US$5M from
satisfaction pledge and get away with asking for US$300M next time.

Or Scriptwriter X lists a script for a new movie at US$1m, Disney
funds all US$1M, X releases full script to Disney. Disney makes movie,
list it for US$500M, say 10 theater chains bid a total of $500M, they
get the digital copy and would be in their best interest to either
sell or show the movies as soon as possible to as many people at the
lowest possible price to recoup their investment. In fact, this system
might actually eliminates intermediaries totally for content, saving
costs for the end users.

If the movie stinks, so Disney loses money and since they are the sole
winner/bidder, they will make X lose half the fair compensation. Of
course if some corp abuses the feedback, the author can always choose
to blacklist them from bidding. Also the next time Disney lists a
movie with a script by X, people might not vote with their money. So
the system self-regulates.

Pros
1. Solves fair compensation to originator
2. Encourage true innovation since once you stink a few times, nobody
will support anything else you try to invent/produce
3. Eliminates rubbish patents such as "cat entertaining optical
projector"
4. Enable wider usage of new technology/info/art/content
5. Cuts intermediaries for content distribution

Cons
1. Reduce funds injected into the economy... because IP lawyers get
retrenched, multi million IP lawsuits ceases to be.

 

[Andy Freeman]

i.e.
Originator generates idea/design/software/whatever. Puts up a
description on an international center PLUS what originator feels is
fair compensation for releasing said IP. World votes with their
pocket, once enough people/organisations pay into an intermediary
account, originator releases full details of the new
invention/work/whatever for consumption to those who bought it, who
will have FULL rights to do whatever they want.

Blah, blah, blah. This idea isn't new or unknown. However, it is
rarely,
if ever, used, so there's some problem.

It's easy enough to prove that it works - do it.

-andy

 

[Evgenij Barsukov]

That is in most cases very far from truth - what writers normaly
sell to a publishing company is 'first printing rights in language
x in region y'. Any further printing or distribution is a
separate matter. In lots of cases the rights being sold are even
more restricted to say publishing in a periodical.

I am talking from own experience in publishing both scientific articles
and books. I do not know a single scientific journal which does not
require you to transfer copyright to it. Give me one example of a majour
journal (not something that is not getting indexed) like this?
Regarding books, unless you are a famous author like Rowling, you
are happy if a publisher has accepted your book and will get a contract
that is ready written for you, take it or live it. That is the reality
of what happens.

The fundamental mistake you make is the fair in 'fair compensation'.
There is no such thing. There isn't even a need for such a thing. Is
teh compensastion JK Rowling recieves for the Potter books fair? How
would you go about finding out?

I agree, there is no cetnralized ways of finding this out, that is
why I am not proposing to have a central "evaluating" authority. But
they are indirect ways, that are already at work in web and TV
advertizement. For example web-site that get more hits is more
valuable, so advertizement there is more expencive. Thare are
independent non-govermental entities that monitor the hit-rate.
Same exists for TV and Radio.
Of cause this simple method would not work for scientific
literature, because there might be only 20 hits (nothing compared with
100000 hits by a gaming web-site), but each of this "hits" results
in huge improvements in productivity because it is done by a highly
valuable specialist and based on this hit he will build a machine that
millions are going to use. So there should be some ways of weighting the
"effective potential" of each hit without however punishing those
specialists for using knowledge by requiring money from them.
I admit that such method is not field-tested yet. It could be some
centralized agency, or it could be a commercial entity (preferable)
which would provide such "weighing" services.

Regards,
Evgenij

 

[Evgenij Barsukov]

HUH?! I don't know about it, but quite a few of the advertisements was
more entertaining than I ever found Simpsons! I hope you get the point

I get the humor of it, but the point was somewhat different -
adveritizement itself is just an example of many schemes that do both
- provide reward for content creation/distrubution
- do not punish use of knowledge which is good for humanity as a whole
(as by requiring to pay for it)

Regards,
Evgenij

 

[Evgenij Barsukov]

Blah, blah, blah. This idea isn't new or unknown. However, it is
rarely,
if ever, used, so there's some problem.

It's easy enough to prove that it works - do it.

The problem with this is - there is already state supported
copy-right protection, which makes existing system economicaly
viable (and is payed for by your taxes). However, remove or scale-back
the state sponsored copy-right protection, and than indeed you could see
undistorted picture how the alternative systems work and compete with
each other.
It is like just with any kinds of subsidies - the goverment
control over copy-right is a subsidy to one specific way of handling
content creators compensation, which happens to be conter-productive
because it punishes the users of knowledge instead of encouraging them.
This subsidy makes this method apear economicaly viable compared to
others. Remove this subsidy, and it might turn out that other ways of
handling are more efficient.

Regards,
EVgenij

 

[David Schwartz]

Given the increasingly connected (and worrying IMO for privacy issues)
world, would it not be possible that a combination of technology and
paradigm shift in IP (intellectual property) sales process create a
situation for such "commission" by the masses?

Absolutely!

Ask yourself this question -- there's a feature that's not in Windows or
Linux. It requires a knowledgeably kernel coder to develop the feature.
Which would be easier/cheaper -- getting the feature into Windows or getting
it into Linux?

DS

 

[Del Cecchi]

Blah, blah, blah. This idea isn't new or unknown. However, it is
rarely,
if ever, used, so there's some problem.

It's easy enough to prove that it works - do it.

-andy

So my incentive is just wait. Either you will lower price, or someone
else (or several someones) will buy it and give it away or resell for a
lower price.

 

[Alex Colvin]

Originator generates idea/design/software/whatever. Puts up a
How about originator sits in subway with laptop computer. Places empty
computer bag on ground in front. Writes code for download as long as
people throw money into computer bag. For more money you can request
functionality.

 

[George Macdonald]

What U.S. is that? When AT&T was broken up landline telephone was the
only game in town. Period. Now you have four multi-state landline
companies, (at least) three major wireless companies, three or more
cable companies offering net access and dozens of companies offering net
phone. I'm not sure what "they" are going to get you, but you sure have
choices you didn't. Oh, net access; cable, DSL, dial, WiFi, WiMax,
Verizon wireless, sounds as if there are some serious choices there as well.

You're confusing the issue here... if you think that IDT and Sprint count
for much. From my POV, SBC and Verizon are by far the overwhelming owners
for all communications and they now own MCI and AT&T, which both provide a
big piece of the Internet backbone. The FCC has just gifted them the right
to own the DSL market, from wires all the way up to ISP - this is absurd,
even more so given their manifest incompetence. Who would have thought,
back at the break-up, that a bunch of wooden poles at the side of the road
could possibly have so much value? Note those are the same companies which
dragged the U.S. down to the level it's at in high speed communications --
close to the worst in the developed world -- with their archaic notions of
charging for "message units" and sloth on the last mile.

 

[Evgenij Barsukov]

So my incentive is just wait. Either you will lower price, or someone
else (or several someones) will buy it and give it away or resell for a
lower price.

Waiting is not an option:

- for a lawmaker, it means he is eathing his bread for nothing, while
problem that needs a change of law remains unsolved

- for a businessman waiting is a lost opportunity. The contradiction is
there, anybody who will come up with a way to resolve it will earn a lot
of money. Google already did that with on-line content (and did earn a
lot of money), but a lot of other knowledge types such as books,
intellectual property, music remains without a mechanism that allows
itterative finding and realizing appropriate compensation without
punishing the use.

Regards,
Evgenij

 

[prep]

So tell me: How does free software work, when there's the free rider
problem?

What problem? The `free rider' is zero cost to the software writer,
unlike transport systems where the extra mass does have a finite cost.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.