* Posts by Long John Silver

298 publicly visible posts • joined 21 May 2018

Page:

Trying out Microsoft's pre-release OS/2 2.0

Long John Silver
Pirate

Fascinating

On the one hand, I recollect frustrations arising from the restricted memory addressing of DOS. On the other, I marvel at the ingenuity which enabled running useful programs for many purposes despite RAM limitations. Those were the days when 'software bloat' was not an option.

Attacks on UK fiber networks mount: Operators beg govt to step in

Long John Silver
Pirate

A missed opportunity?

What's the point of having an 'official narrative' about geopolitical affairs when opportunities to embellish it are ignored?

We have been taught that China, Iran, N. Korea, and Russia are foci of evil, they collectively dedicated to smashing the benign 'world order' devised by Western European and North American powers. Particularly troubling to British folk is the imminent prospect of invasion by a Slavic horde intent upon rampaging through Britain in search of strong liquor and nuns of easy virtue.

The brave nations of NATO have temporarily stemmed the tide of interlopers during the latter's Ukrainian incursion. The great statesmen of Europe and the USA are united in belief that Russian forces soon shall tramp through Poland on their way to Berlin, Paris, and London. Britain's best hope is to gather forces, the remnants after mass surrender and return home by French, and other armies, all disillusioned by the ineptness of their political leaders; these troops, will make the 'last stand'.

The mighty minds of the UK Department of Defence, supplemented by renowned strategists at the Atlantic Council, deem it possible to bottle up Russian forces in the Paris Disney World and to await their voluntary dispersal back to Russia after sampling Anglo/American 'high culture' with its accompanying cuisine; anyone believing Grant Shapps, and his NATO equivalents, capable of devising this “cunning plan” for avoiding bloodshed must be inhabiting Cloud-Cuckoo Land: credit is due to the operator of the ministerial lift (aka elevator) in Whitehall.

The 'opportunity' alluded to in the title is to lay blame upon Russian saboteurs for attacks on UK fibre networks. This should raise fear in the UK to fever pitch. What if the Eurovision Song Contest, and other highlights in Western culture (e.g. Premier League football) no longer can be broadcast to the nation for the enrichment of entertainment moguls? To cement national unity, it will become a criminal offence to listen to Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, et al., or to show awareness of Russian literature, of Russia's contributions to mathematics and science, or to offer recognition of Russia's vital rôle in defeating Nazi Germany.

Повествование — это все.

Microsoft: Copyright law didn't stop the VCR and shouldn't stop the LLM

Long John Silver
Pirate

Leviathans fighting over scraps whilst the world goes to pot?

The digital era, in so far as it impacts upon ordinary people (scathingly called 'consumers'), took off in the 80s. Digital technologies have ceased to be optional in the context of most activities, ranging from manufacture through to entertainment; their applications to warfare undoubtedly excite the reptilian brains of belligerent political 'leaders'. Applications at one time in the realm of Sci-fi lie on the horizon. Digital technology is pregnant with further possibilities.

The latter 20th century, through to now, is the most intellectually challenging, hence stressful too, time experienced by ordinary people. Their leaders, sadly almost all of them far too 'representative' of the limited outlook and capacity for thought among electorates, are well beyond their depth. In part, it is understandable for people in general to be confused, and rudderless, because instant communication demands instant response; this leading to cascades of inanity on 'social media' (MSM too) such as X-twatter.

There is deep irony to observing Microsoft and publishers of so-called 'news' battling in court. Not only is each a leviathan by size and temperament, but also they may fittingly be considered remnants of the dinosaurs. They both wallow in a protected pool wherein their anachronistic modes of doing business (rentier economics) persist; they are arguing over share of the 'cake', not matters of principle.

Legislation rooted in the 18th century is not, in fact never was, fit for purpose. The inception of the 'digital age' has made clear that constructs capable of being expressed in digits cannot be owned, and controlled, in the same manner as physical artefacts. Law framed as if that were so is becoming unenforceable. That is pragmatic reality. Only simpletons imagine 'law' always to reflect a common notion of morality, or law always to coincide with good sense.

The players, in this reported legal battle, bear comparison with the Luddite's of old. Of course, they collectively are far more powerful/influential than were Luddites. They are trying desperately not to be swept away by an innovation supporting creation of possibilities for the many. Irony is compounded by the fact that doing away with 'intellectual property' (IP), to be replaced by 'attribution', leads to market-capitalism far less tainted by monopoly; however, in a world dominated by conglomerates, market-capitalism, as once understood, has ceased to be.

A further twist is that this and other 'protection of interests' legal actions (including criminal prosecutions) can be rendered nonsensical by a few strokes of the pen elsewhere on the planet. The 'Global South', so-called, contains many nations recently emerged from Western colonisation. Each has entered a global market for things, and for ideas, which is dominated by rules (conventions) set during the colonial era. It takes but one nation, that is one out of reach by US Marines, to recognise that its population's future is best served by unshackling people from a moribund body of law. The nature of the beast is that following the dropping of pretence in one nation that IP exists, the whole rotten legal edifice will collapse across the globe; that unless fools in the USA and UK take it as an opportunity to start WW3.

Damn Small Linux returns after a 12-year gap

Long John Silver
Pirate

A trend to set?

I have fond memories of MS-DOS, CPM, and Torch's CPN. Each was obliged to be compact in order to work with limited RAM and simple processors. Optional bells and whistles had to be provided from elsewhere. Early MS Windows piggybacked on MS-DOS.

The various iterations of MS Windows (I know nothing of macOS) accumulated bloat; this may be its eventual undoing. The Linuxen started off slim. The Kernel, common apart from tweaks amongst Linux flavours, defines the OS. Everything else in a particular distribution is an add-on designed to serve well some category of Linux use and/or users.

Linux Kernels have increased in size considerably, but this seems in part a necessity for accommodating a huge variety of base hardware products. However, the developers have some choice over what goes into the core, and what might be relegated to distribution designers to incorporate, or not.

Early versions of openSUSE (perhaps other distributions also) contained a powerful text-based utility enabling relative novices such as I to tune and compile the kernel according to taste, e.g. for a particular specification of central processor. Thereby, kernel size was reduced, and perhaps more clearly targeted operation enhanced its efficiency. Obviously, devotees of the internal complexities of the OS can do this off their own bats.

Nowadays, most Linuxen are aimed at IT support technicians and/or at individual users, wishing to deploy them 'out of the box'. Fast central processors, cheaper RAM, and peripheral storage, rapidly accessible and potentially of enormous capacity, abound.

If Linux is to gain greater foothold amongst office workers and home users, then acceptance of bloating may be necessary. However, Linux, amongst major OSs, is unique because of (mainly) open-source development involving divers private enterprise and independent operators. Thus far, the kernel development team has maintained a good grip, and is not under commercial imperatives to rush through novelty whilst neglecting to trim legacy code. The worst outcome for Linux would be a pathway split in Kernel development resulting in incompatibilities, rendering it difficult for end-users to take software off the shelf.

Dumping us into ad tier of Prime Video when we paid for ad-free is 'unfair' – lawsuit

Long John Silver
Pirate

Query: the timing of ads

Precisely how does Amazon fit ads into its presentation of 'content'?

Do they occur within the flow of a programme/film, that is, as ad-breaks familiar to commercial TV viewers?

If so, then what is the frequency of interruption per hour, and what is the range of individual 'break' durations?

How does this vary among recipient nations? For example, the UK has tighter regulation over terrestrial broadcast 'ad breaks' than the USA. Also, the nature of allowed ads varies.

Shall Amazon, in laxly controlled regions, adopt highly intrusive advertising, whereby ads show on the screen whilst a programme is running?

Will there be restriction on sudden, and large, upward variations in sound intensity when a 'break' is entered?

Also, to consider, is the matter of 'break' influence upon programming. Shall 'content' commissioned by Amazon be created in the knowledge of 'ad break' timings? This distorts dramatic flow when 'cliffhangers' are interpolated in order to retain audience interest across 'breaks'.

'Profit maximisation', or attempt thereat, in distinction from long-term sustainable income, this in the face of 'piracy', may be counterproductive.

Wikileaks source and former CIA worker Joshua Schulte sentenced to 40 years jail

Long John Silver
Pirate

Irredeemable sin?

Whenever the USA 'justice system' gets its teeth into a high profile case, it, more than many other such state apparatus elsewhere, goes for broke when sentencing.

On the assumption of Schulte truly having undermined security along with all other things fine about the USA, and placed children in harms way, one nevertheless is puzzled about how the sentencing tariff is arrived at. Presumably, the applicable law is framed in a broad manner, such as ten years to life. That leaves the matter of how judges (and appeal courts) arrive at figures like 40 years instead of, say, 47 years or 22 years.

Schulte's sentence offers negligible prospect (assuming early parole is disallowed) of later taking account of genuine repentance and good behaviour. Similarly, if deterring others from committing these crimes is an intention, many would consider very long sentences, those going beyond the need to protect the public by physically isolating the felon, to be devoid of effect; after all, the USA abounds with murder despite having the death penalty; also, in a past century, a British hangman was himself hanged for theft. It's often asserted that the chance of being caught outweighs a potential custodial sentence in the calculations of a would-be felon.

The above considerations leave one with the impression of sentencing in high profile cases containing a considerable element of political theatre.

Disease X fever infects Davos: WEF to plan response to whatever big pandemic is next

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: Obligatory masks when coughing

There was only one measure introduced during the Covid-19 epidemic which definitely benefited susceptible individuals: handwashing.

Whilst airborne droplets from someone else's sneeze may bring infection to somebody nearby, that even after deflection upwards by a mask, these are not the major means of transmission.

Droplets settle on nearby objects. Viruses remain potent for an appreciable time. Another means for viruses to rest on surfaces is when nasal discharge or saliva gets onto an infected person's hands, and later the person touches an object such as a door handle.

Handwashing, simply with soap and water, and for convenience using an antiseptic gel, protects against taking in the virus as when touching food to be placed in one's mouth (or when prone to picking one's nose).

Regular handwashing, especially just before touching food, is a basic hygiene precaution everybody should take during daily life. It reduces the prospect of infection by settled infectious materials (fomites) including the common cold, influenza, and various organisms which induce gastrointestinal illnesses. The benefit from handwashing ought to be instilled in children as soon as they are capable of using the procedure; the lesson should be reinforced throughout school life, and beyond.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: > If you do not trust Guardian, check any health authority or known hospital web-site

Masks worn by surgeons deflect expired air from the region of the incision. Nothing more.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re-inventing communicable disease control?

My impression of events in the UK during the Covid-19 pandemic was of headless chickens running around at No, 10 Downing Street. Confusion was exacerbated by the UK's three devolved Assembly Governments devising their own measures willy-nilly. When I pointed out this ludicrous situation to my MP, the response was that it was proper for “democratically elected” assemblies to devise measures suitable for their electorates. At the best of times, I have little enthusiasm for universal franchise representative democracy as at present implemented: Covid-19 exemplified the unsuitability of this method of governance, wherein ignorant representatives of ignorant people took it upon themselves to micromanage a disease outbreak. This 'response' appears to have been mirrored elsewhere; for example, chaotic behaviour within the USA at Federal, State, and municipal levels was evident.

Inkling of a systematic approach to infectious disease control arose early in the 19th century. The names Jenner, Pasteur, Snow, Chadwick, and Farr, spring to mind. The foundations for communicable disease epidemiology were laid. Medical Officers of Health (MOsH) were appointed in boroughs, and one at Westminster government level. Each district MOH was employed by a town council; he was allotted powers which could not be overridden by councillors. Thereupon, academic disease epidemiology, means of disease control, and relevant clinical disciplines arose; these in the context of a burgeoning scientific underpinning. A discipline known as Public Health arose, and during the course of time its scope and capabilities increased. In the 1970s, Public Health Medicine became a specific branch of medicine overseen (regarding training) by the newly created Faculty of Public Health Medicine (FPHM) within the Royal College of Physicians.

Successive subsequent 'health services reforms' led to dilution and fragmentation of public health services. Nowadays, the role vaguely equivalent to that of MOH is open to nonmedical applicants. MOH powers diminished greatly, especially freedom from local political control. The FPHM, now the Faculty of Public Health (FPH), opened to people other than medical practitioners, has become more 'woke' than professional; incidentally, the FPH appears to have made negligible contribution to discussion of Covid-19 control measures.

That sets the scene for the Johnson government's chaotic attempt at managing Covid-19. There still exists a MOH advising government. In the past, said person, in conjunction with colleagues at district/borough council level, would have taken the initiative. Ministers' responsibilities would encompass asking searching questions about proposed measures, and providing resources for those agreed. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) would be subordinate to the MOH and his team. It would be recognised that SAGE members, regardless of their 'distinction', are mostly narrow specialists perceiving threads of the tapestry, but not its entirety. No competent person managing the epidemic would place reliance on prognostication produced by an untested computer model (modern 'snake oil') proffered by Imperial College; at best it could offer qualitative insights concerning infection control measures, but public quotation of numbers emanating from the model was utterly foolish.

The general overlay of emotion and the presentation of mortality statistics without discussion of their import regarding years of quality life lost was worrisome.

Worst of all was insistence on “following the science”. Thereby, hard won experience by disease control professionals was set aside, and round wheels reinvented in square shapes. 'Science' cannot provide reliable answers during the timescale of a 'flu-like pandemic. The vaccine fiasco was appalling: prudent assessment procedures previously required for new vaccine roll-out were ignored, this particularly lamentable in the instance of introducing a hitherto untested production technology.

Also, the present day (going back at least two decades) crop of career politicians lack the broad education, rigorous reasoning skills, and facility for interpreting numerical data. These are required to pose searching questions to supposed 'experts', and to recognise bullshit answers.

The World Economic Forum, a grandly named club for self-appointed global meddlers, has no credentials whatsoever for devising plans to prevent/curtail the next pandemic of 'whatever'. However, to the Neo-liberalism dominated thought in the West, the WEF is inspirational for all matters.

OpenAI: 'Impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials'

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: Sounds like...

Copyright, USA style, is enforceable only where US Marines can reach.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: Sounds like...

Yes, but AI should be enabled to make, when practicable, attribution to sources. Copyright is an irrelevance: an anachronism, which the digital era plus so-called AI will abolish.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: Sounds like...

Anything sitting on the Internet is fair game.

If data are in need of protection, it is the responsibility of their custodian to arrange appropriate security.

People/institutions issuing news reports, opinion, or anything else purportedly protected by copyright should consider from whence (other than anachronistic law) their supposed entitlement to be recompensed for their work arises. The attitude appears to be “pay first, and then read.” It should be, “I have this to offer. If you like it, please support me (e.g. crowdfunding) in producing further works.”

Where AI is concerned, means are required for quotations and paraphrases to be given attribution of source, so far as practicable.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Angels dancing on the head of a pin?

The Statute of Anne (1710) enabled individuals to assert monopoly 'rights' over the distribution of their texts. Prior to that, various monopolies for making and selling things were individually issued by monarchs or enshrined in guilds.

Lawyers revel in developing the language of 'rights'. A 'right' nowadays appears to be an 'entitlement' enshrined in law, but somehow conferred by an entity/abstraction external to law. An entity could be entirely abstract, e.g. a deity, or corporeal, e.g. a king. So-called 'human rights' derive from a mixture of the god-given and wishful thinking. Rights associated with possession of physical property have differently been elaborated according to whatever power structure was in place.

Problems accumulating to this day have arisen from failure at the outset to recognise the irreducible qualitative differences between physical property and any dreamt other kind. What's called “intellectual property” (IP) inherently is intangible.

IP can be instantiated on physical media (e.g. paper, vinyl, and photographic emulsion). Each such incarnation exists in a single specific, but changeable, location in time and space. There can be multiple physical instances of the medium, each with supposed IP inscribed. Physical media can be bought, sold, lent, or stolen, just as may other physical artefacts. 'Transactions' involving physical media do not diminish the hypothetical store of inscribable 'content'. In so far as a transaction involving media is concerned, the medium changes ownership (or possession when lent or stolen) but that which is inscribed is owned by nobody or everybody. The price paid when a medium with 'content' is bought covers the cost of the medium, the cost of inscription upon the medium, and the cost of distribution; the transaction is one of convenience for a buyer seeking ready access to the 'content'; it represents add-value to 'content' itself lacking any monetary worth whatsoever, this regardless of expense involved when concocting the 'content'.

When a medium and the message it contains are indivisible, it's not unnatural, yet intellectually lazy, to conceive of them as one physical entity. In the early days of the printing press, copyright was the exclusive entitlement to distribute printed copies of text and lithographs. Transactions, being in the physical world, could be policed for compliance with the law.

With passage of time, the world of copyright became ever more complicated, inclusion of layout for text and tables, indexing, and typefaces, as IP are examples. Argument and legal judgements ensued over quotation and “fair use”. The introduction of photographs, recorded music, and cinema complicated matters considerably.

Only upon introduction of readily available digital computation, storage media, and transmission, did the penny fully drop for people not already immersed in the profitable world of ever more silly applications of IP 'rights'. Digital data cannot be 'owned' regardless of such pretence in law. For the past forty years, this realisation has dawned upon young people up to the middle-aged. Introducing supposed AI makes obvious the disconnect between enforceable copyright and reality. Of course, the specious nature of IP should have been recognisable when the Statute of Anne was formulated, but it was not so glaringly obvious as now.

There is a concatenation of circumstances leading to the demise of copyright and its associated rentier economics. The first is growing unhappiness about the productively futile nature of 'financialised' market-capitalism, which is consequential upon Neo-liberal economics. When sweeping that away, clearer understanding will return about malaise brought about by unchecked monopolies; these evident in transnational corporations, conglomerates, and nonsensical copyright taken to such an extreme that its whole conceptual foundation has collapsed. Ideas and their applications shall be incorporated within orthodox pre-neoliberal market-economics as they should from the beginning. Ideas cannot be traded. Creative aptitudes can be placed in open competition in markets. Acquired reputation is the selling point. Attribution to sources of ideas borrowed or derived from shall be the principal entitlement on offer to creative enterprise.

Everyone's suing AI over text and pics. But music? You ain't seen nothing yet

Long John Silver
Pirate

Deglobalisation, copyright, and AI

Seemingly, the USA is the global focal point for litigation over so-called 'intellectual property' (IP). 'Owners' and vendors of IP in other nations follow suit.

As regards much of the world, legal rulings and precedents established in the USA become de facto constraints elsewhere. This arises for two reasons. First, the US is the single largest market for the sale of IP products originating elsewhere, Therefore, foreign distributors become obliged to register presence in the US and to abide by US jurisdictional requirements.

Second, English language popular culture rests primarily in the hands of multinational companies. These have to deal with a plethora of differing national interpretations of the international copyright convention; therefore, they 'play safe' by sticking to US demands, which are reinforced via the US Trade Representative.

Deglobalisation, hastened by reactions to the USA/EU sanctions against Russia, is creating a new geopolitical environment which reflects in rearrangements of trading blocks. Also, the US economy is fragile, being dependent upon financialised pseudo-market-capitalism, and also upon (now declining) USD hegemony. The 'global south' may seek to revisit its current international obligations concerning copyrights, patents, and the reach of trademark laws.

AI technology is being embedded in commerce and in the public imagination at an astonishing pace. Its full potential for good and for ill is yet to be established. Unquestionably evident is AI's severe challenge to the (anachronistic) notion of IP; this comes atop of four decades of the burgeoning 'digital era' which of itself makes the concept of IP shaky, not least because IP laws are becoming unenforceable in the digital realm. The USA, and its major trading partners, will strive to place a cap on the technology's information sharing abilities; they will fail; this because of activity beyond their jurisdiction. Unless Internet blocking becomes truly effective, and taking into account anonymous distributed storage peer-to-peer networks, the rearguard battle against smashed paywalls, shared information, and entitlement to derive from and freely use information, is lost.

What the AI copyright fights are truly about: Human labor versus endless machines

Long John Silver
Pirate

Weasel words on behalf of copyright rentiers?

"The real beef concerns our future to create and be rewarded for it"

The choice of words for expressing the concern quoted above is telling about the stance of rentiers of so-called 'intellectual property'.

Reference to 'reward' is as disingenuous as when financialised-market-capitalism CEOs of banks claim their derisory efforts to earn an honest living as worthy of 'compensation'.

Earnings from (supposedly) creative activity are one thing: reward quite another.

The present system of legally sanctioned monopoly 'rights' permits vendors of ideas/products to define creativity, and to set the price for accessing the results of allegedly creative work. An analogy to bankers placing themselves on pedestals, persuading shareholders of bankers' unique talents, and thereby acquiring an obscene amount of 'compensation' is strong.

Regarding putative creativity, setting the monetary reward due lies collectively with recipients (directly or by copying) of digital material; they individually may seek to donate money in gratitude.

More importantly, for sustaining a genuine market, is how appreciation of a work offers motivation for donation (e.g. by crowdfunding) to support perceived talent in making further works. A digitally rendered work has zero monetary worth, this regardless of effort put into its making. Its cultural worth, or potential for practical application, may be tremendous. However, the only thing capable of being monetised is talent for making further high quality works as judged by recipients of an earlier work: a competitive market in skills rather than in abstract products vended as if they possess the same properties as physical artefacts.

An intangible product can raise income through knock-on sales of added-value, more tangible items. Examples follow.

Admired authors can engage in lecture tours, for which they are paid. An author/composer of reputation can take on teaching.

Musicians can earn money through direct performance in an auditorium. Distributed studio recordings serve as enticement to attend a live show.

Football clubs, as once before, can draw income from audiences in stadia. Souvenir items, and endorsed kit, can be sold. If clubs in a league want to broadcast streams to people outside their stadia, that is easily organised. Despite the stream having no intrinsic worth, and ephemeral cultural value, people would be willing to pay a modest subscription which guaranteed reliable access, and maybe offered tangibles such as discounted physical goods and services.

Academics in their main work rely upon accruing reputation to enable advance in employment by institutions and commerce. Writers of textbooks to be shared online (as inevitably happens anyway) can earn from donations, from giving access to online student support services, and to other tailored bonus material.

These examples, and many more which can be given, show how a change in attitude from "I have created this, take it on trust, and pay me for the privilege of accessing it" to "I have created this, I hope you will like it, please support me in my further efforts", does not stifle innovation. It does alter the flow of money streams. It cuts out unnecessary middlemen who trade in 'rights', and it leads to greater interaction between creators and their admirers.

Here's a list of thousands of artists Midjourney's AI is ripping off, creatives claim

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: Don't put it on the Internet

Indeed, but realisation that everything representable in digital format can be stored, and be distributed at negligible expense, is slow to penetrate the skulls of people inured by 'rentier economics'. They are rendered incapable of recognising the digital era in which we now live as offering immense opportunities, these far outweighing perceived threats to anachronistic ways of thinking.

This era leads to, and ultimately enforces, recognition that ideas, their representation, and their uses, cannot be corralled within confines dictated by artificial 'rights' based upon a concept of ownership applicable solely to physical entities, and enshrined within an ersatz monopoly defined by laws. This requires the so-called 'creative' to engage with recipients of their materials in a differing manner to that at present.

The language of 'rights' implies those seeking to view, copy, share, use, or derive from, a copyrighted work (similarly for patents) are in the position of supplicants seeking favour from their 'master'. 'Favour' is dispensed for a sum of money: the magnitude of the sum is wholly determined by the 'master'; the matter is almost entirely detached from conventional market-economics, competition, and 'price discovery'.

For example, a book is published. The contents of books represent their authors' desires to inform, to offer insights, or to amuse. An author may feel internally 'driven' to write. Preparation of a work may entail direct expense and/or opportunity cost in terms of time expended. None of the foregoing determine cultural worth for the book; that is a matter for readers, individually and collectively, to determine. Supplicants must pay an upfront fee in order to view the work. These readers incur their own opportunity cost from time spent perusing the book. If a reader deems a work unworthy of the cost of purchasing entitlement to access it and of the time spent reading it, there will be no refund of money paid. Purchase involves an act of faith by the buyer. Faith is strengthened should the reader have read previous works by an author, but that offers no guarantee.

The asymmetrical relationship between author and reader, this enforced by copyright law, bolsters an arrogance in authors founded upon the belief that anything they publish has cultural worth and some, defined by them, concomitant monetary worth. In fact, the proper relationship should be of an author as supplicant to potential readers. That dependency vitiates the notion of 'rights', and the ensuing rentier economics.

Generalising across the board to all would-be cultural contributions leads to 'rights' based funding's replacement by voluntary contributions from patrons, i.e. from individuals, collections of individuals as when crowdfunding the next work, from charitable funds, and from government support of the arts, sciences, and of speculative ambitions. The effect is profound. Need for a huge raft of middlemen ceases. Contributors to the technicalities of production charge a fixed fee, or take a share of donations to the creative individual (or group). As a result, a greater portion of individuals' disposable incomes is available for funding activities by others. The truly creative can draw a good income, from which may be made provision for old age: no longer would royalty rental figure in the minds of creators and those of genuinely helpful middlemen. Cultural renaissance would follow from a free-for-all attitude towards 'derivation'.

Creators do need some protections. These are twofold. First a move towards entitlement to attribution, this already strongly evident in academic works. Second, explicit protection in civil and criminal law against people misappropriating the reputation of another in order to filch income from patronage.

What comes after open source? Bruce Perens is working on it

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: Stop working for them for free.

Microsoft began as a highly innovative software manufacturer. It arose among a plethora of start-up companies. It survived competition, and remains as one of a handful of mega-providers in its field. Microsoft's contribution to the transition from analogue world to digital world was tremendous.

Now, apart from its huge market share, this coupled with largely successful efforts to lock personal and corporate/institutional customers into a cage, Microsoft is bloated and lacks 'lean and hungry' people at its helm as there were at its inception. Moreover, none of Microsoft's products is irreplaceable by alternative vendors or by (sometimes less polished) freely distributed software. Additionally, providers of hardware, and those of software for special tasks, nowadays routinely offer versions of device drivers and user programs tailored for non-Windows systems.

Microsoft, along with other companies such as Adobe, may be living off past glories.

Long John Silver
Pirate

American influence over matters IP, and software licensing

Articles in the Register discussing spats over 'rights' - licence terms, copyright, patents, trademarks, export restrictions, etc. - often have a USA 'flavour'. This may be a reflection of the USA's (seeming) economic might, and of the US being, perhaps, the most litigious nation on earth.

Economic power, as summarised by GDP, is heavily influenced by the amount of money sloshing around in an economy, but with little consideration for production of tangible things, for services of essential nature, and for the quality of life (distributions of income, wealth, education, opportunity, 'health', and habitation of a pleasant environment) of citizens. In principle, many strictures imposed by US laws do not, or should not, apply to other nations. However, hitherto economic dominance through trade, and military occupation/threat, is wavering. Yet, for the immediate future, the office of the U.S. Trade Representative retains sway over many other nations' implementations of various 'rights', especial attention being paid to so-called 'Intellectual Property' (IP).

Diplomatic, as distinct from military, enforcement of 'rights', these according to US interpretation, is effected through stringent terms in trade agreements, plus powers ceded to the Western controlled World Trade Organisation. Moreover, behaviours not explicitly agreed in trade treaties can perforce become adopted elsewhere: this is a consequence of so many major companies falling, at least in part, within US legal jurisdictions. For instance, concerning IP 'protection', I am unaware of stipulations within the US DMCA being directly enforceable in Europe/UK; however, online publishers must tread warily should they have legal presence in the USA, or depend upon provision of services from the USA (e.g. web hosting).

Viewed in this context, the USA calls the tune on IP matters, and this is reflected in the tangled and litigious realm of software licensing. Perhaps continuing 'de-globalisation', this coupled with states no longer in thrall to US hegemony (e.g. 'the global south') adopting their own stances, shall de-fang the likes of Microsoft and similar troublesome entities.

Zuckerberg hunkers down in Hawaii to wait out apocalypse

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: In case of a reset.....

A fly in the ointment is the phenomenon of regression towards the mean in the context of particulate (genes) inheritance of IQ and other attributes measurable on an interval scale.

Suckerberg offspring are expected to have IQ's less than the mean value of their presumably brilliant (a likely false assumption) parents and closer to the population mean; undershooting is possible.

Similarly, run-of-the-mill populations occasionally throw-up highly intelligent children.

The population of the Zuckerbunker will be far too small to guarantee survival of a gene pool for brilliance. In fact, survival following post-apocalyptic emergence from the bunker shall depend upon physical labour and subsistence level farming. Therefore, Suckerberg ought to plan for sustaining a population of peasants throughout the apocalyptic crisis. In later years, cross-breeding among Suckerberg's effete collection and the hardy peasant stock will offer the prospect of adequate genetic diversity. From the peasants, and from the cross-breeding, a trickle of talent shall emerge. To be valued will be characteristics related to community leadership (not merely company board management and playing with spreadsheets), robust health, hunting skills, and foresight.

In this context, Suckerberg and his descendants are most unlikely to retain tribal leadership. Indeed, Suckerberg, not the most appealing of persons, might be deposed long before emergence from the Zuckerbunker.

Ditto for occupants of similar merdebunkers.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Stuff the air inlets

The Zuckerberg creature will hunker down during a period of pre-apocalypse civil disorder. The Beast's security contingent will not be so enthusiastic as to place their own lives at serious risk. Also, the security force could rise up and take over the facility for themselves, and their families, After all, the Suckerberg will have served its purpose by having the refuge built, and the creature shall henceforth be of no value to anybody.

Dissidents in the locality of the Zuckerbunker could prepare now by ascertaining as much as possible about the layout of the underground facility. There must be points of weakness; for instance, intakes to the air filtration system.

Internet's deep-level architects slam US, UK, Europe for pushing device-side scanning

Long John Silver
Pirate

Workarounds?

The envisaged device-side scanning wholly depends, I assume, on software installed on devices rather than hardware modification during a device's manufacture. If so, this could be facilitated by commonly used operating systems like those provided by Apple, Google, and Microsoft.

I have yet to see discussion of software-based potential workarounds.

Science fiction writers imagine a future in which AI doesn’t abuse copyright – or their generosity

Long John Silver
Pirate

The monetary price for AI to access products of human creative endeavour

So-called AIs, or any human being for that matter, seeking to access, and perhaps use, information upon which current laws confer proprietorial 'rights', are, if they abide by current rules, customers in a rigged market.

Digitally encoded information is sold as if physical property. Yet, because sequences of digits have no unique physical presence, as would be the pretence when they are inscribed on a physical medium, they inevitably lack scarcity unless kept under lock and key, and chiselled into blocks of stone which require exertion for removal by a thief.

Scarcity is the foundation of market-economics. It has been since the recorded dawn of humanity. That which is scarce can be bartered for other things. Eventually, conveniently portable scarce objects (e.g. gold coinage) made trading more flexible. Nowadays, we use pieces of paper (or digital abstractions therefrom) in which we place trust that other people too will regard them as acceptable alternatives to gold, silver, etc.

The scarcity of supply (or of ease of access) for goods and services, coupled with demand and competition in supply, determine the current price.

Things lacking inherent scarcity, e.g. salt (sodium chloride crystals) found in huge deposits, as in the English county of Cheshire, are marketable too. The (retail) vendor is offering the considerable convenience of the product having being dug out, cleaned, and packaged, over the hassle of searching directly for deposits. Because what is in the packet has little intrinsic monetary worth, competition centres upon presentation, and the overall price remains very low.

Digital sequences have zero intrinsic scarcity but, just like table salt, they can be 'packaged' in various manners e.g. curated collections, and reliable Internet access (including streaming). However, attempts to put a price on individual sequences, no matter the cost of their production, are spurious. Only the artifice of imposed supposed scarcity via legally enforced monopoly rights can make a basis for 'price'. Yet, in the total absence of competition in providing any particular sequence, prices are arbitrary; they are determined by what 'the market can bear' (i.e. what people are willing to pay) instead of 'price discovery' in an ethos of competition.

In other contexts of markets, monopoly (and monopsony) powers are deemed unacceptable. Nations have 'antitrust laws'. However, in this Neoliberal era of broken markets and of conglomeration, law of that nature is little enforced.

Transition from the analogue to digital era has occasioned considerable worry among people anachronistically claiming ideas (however incarnated) as property like oxen, asses, and motorcars. Initially, concern arose over the increasing ease with which information expressed in analogue form could be copied (e.g. home taping and early varieties of photocopying). Full-blown domestic access to writable digital storage devices, and later ease of sharing 'content' via the Internet, were the beginning of the inevitable demise of digital 'rentier' economics.

AI's voracious appetite for digitally expressed information cannot be quelled/regulated globally. There shall always be Internet connected AIs accessible to the public, many of these being beyond the jurisdictions of IP rentiers. Perhaps, AI is the final straw to break the back of ersatz scarcity and the attendant sense of entitlement it arouses.

Whine and whinge as they might, copyright rentiers shall soon be powerless to stultify creativity and access to knowledge.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: So Lawrence Block sets their price at zero

"... every author has the right to decide what can - and cannot - be done with their work."

Not so. Once a work is released (or escapes) to the world, access to it, and use made of it, cannot be constrained by its author or by someone to whom the author has traded 'rights'. That is a statement of reality. No amount of appeal to law and moral entitlement can alter that fact.

At present, a fierce rearguard action is being fought in the defence of so-called 'intellectual property' (IP). Commanders of the action are drawn from the top echelon of owners of 'rights'. These primarily are corporate entities, many being transnationals. Entities owning 'rights' are controlled by people whose sole acquaintance with creativity is in the realm of accountancy.

Disobedience to artificial barriers to access and to the use of supposed IP is rife, set to increase, and ultimately shall prevail. Re-ordering of the global geopolitical order, now well in hand, is resulting in the 'global south', and other economies subordinate to the West, beginning to question rules and 'conventions' imposed upon the world by once colonial powers.

Almost needless to say, truly creative individuals (those not constructs of industries such as recorded music production and conglomerate film making) will rise to the challenge of convincing other people to support their endeavours.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Science fiction or fantasy?

'Fantasy' fiction has an imaginative edge over "science" fiction. Works of the former, which can be very entertaining, require a degree of internal consistency, but don't need lip service to an at least vaguely plausible extrapolation of what we may regard as 'reality'. Science fiction lives more in the realm of 'what if?'; whilst almost all is meant to entertain, it also can encompass prophetic insight.

A 'Society of Fantasy Writers' could easily fabricate the scenario outlined in this article.

Science fiction writers ought to be more wary; the better among them could construct a highly plausible future in which ideas are no longer 'property'; a future with free for all 'derivation'; an immediate cultural renaissance; a time when the truly creative are acknowledged not so much for what they have already written, but for how that written presages more to come of similar quality. Little imagination is required to foresee a societal shift towards 'patronage' funding, in anticipation of more to come, of those whose work is appreciated, and consequent collapse of parasitical publishing empires, along with numerous middlemen, which collectively arrogate the lions share of income generated through vending creative works.

Do we really need another non-open source available license?

Long John Silver
Pirate

Financialisation versus origination

Idea creation and idea exploitation sit uneasily together.

Simple open-source licences are merely reminders that persons using the code - partially, wholly, or derived from - have no proprietorial claims over it, and that it is good manners to acknowledge the source(s) of code until such time as the code is so widely known as to be considered common programming knowledge.

Further complicating the licence stipulation pushes it into the realm of carpetbagging financial concerns, potential litigation, impracticability of 'rights' enforcement, and ambiguities among jurisdictions. As it is being found in different areas where people seek to make ideas (and their expression or application) proprietary, there is increasing pushback from a broadening body of other people demanding that 'content' be shared, and its production financed by patronage instead of a ramshackle body of 'rights' understood solely by specialised lawyers who never once have created anything of value to humanity.

AI copyright row deepens: Stability VP quits in protest over 'fair use' excuse

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: Greed - but from the creators

Contrary to the late Terry Pratchett's satirical assertion in his novel "Small Gods", the truth and/or usefulness of an idea does not rest upon its number of believers. Indeed, blind acceptance of that falsehood is implicit in present day instances of universal franchise representative 'democracy'.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Onward and upward?

Ed Newton-Rex has achieved his "15 minutes of fame".

EU lawmakers scolded for concealing identities of privacy-busting content-scanning 'experts'

Long John Silver
Pirate

Piecemeal planning

Two considerations come to mind: the Internet's role in facilitating 'abuse' of the vulnerable, particularly children, AND the power of emotional appeal for protecting children to cover nefarious intent, or at least overreach, by governments and their agencies.

For the sake of argument, assume protection of the vulnerable is the only motivation. Then bear in mind that as regards direct physical/sexual abuse of vulnerable individuals the main, but not exclusive, role of the Internet is supporting voyeurism. The remainder wherein children are inveigled into 'performing' for particular adults, and into coming into physical contact with adults, is much the more serious matter because attention is directed at perpetrators. Adding considerable fog to the issue is a documented tendency for adolescent children to share unseemly images among themselves.

A realistic stance entails acceptance that blanket screening of Internet correspondence and transmitted images would throw up so many false positives with respect to protecting identifiable children from further direct harm that police would be overwhelmed. As at now, there would be temptation to seek easy convictions, and browny points, on 'possession' instead of the footwork entailed in identifying harmed children and their tormentors.

Powers already exist for placing named suspects under surveillance. Their patterns of Internet use can be monitored even though the content is encrypted. Suspicion of direct physical/sexual abuse by an individual should lead to a low threshold for triggering raids on premises etc.

Put thusly, there are no grounds for treating the Internet aspect of crimes against children differently from the Internet aspects of preventing/investigating banking fraud, money laundering, and a host of other illegal activities.

UK may demand tech world tell it about upcoming security features

Long John Silver
Pirate

Putting hair on the chest of the Home Secretary?

Cruella Braverman is emulating the crass stupidity of a previous harridan who held the same Office of State. I refer to Teresa May. Oops! Did I mistakenly mention a porn star? Never mind, said 'star' most likely betters her insignificant namesake with respect to intelligence, charm, and photogenicity.

Cruella and her boss would more convincingly hold posts as Whitehall chaiwallahs.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: Shirley

Yes, if you want it to. All that's necessary is to legislate suitable curvature for space.

Enforcement will be easy. Every new building and every new mechanism constructed after the Act is passed which fails to topple down or seize up will be evidence of criminality by architects and designers.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Blind spot?

Odd, is it not, that justification for intrusive surveillance is never framed in terms of bankers' and others' malfeasance in the City of London, or tracking illicit flow of money to offshore havens?

Long John Silver
Pirate

We are fortunate to have a monarch capable of reading; that's so long as the text does not contain long words (i.e. > 7 letters).

Privacy advocate challenges YouTube's ad blocking detection scripts under EU law

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: Not this guy again

Given that material is posted voluntarily on YouTube, I don't know how someone accessing and using it according to their own wishes can be said to have stolen anything. The same goes for everything else left lying around on the Internet regardless of the wishes of its titular 'owner'. If one wants to keep one's digital sequences secure, place them under physical lock and key.

I agree with your remarks about up/down voting. It's the foolish notion underlying 'democracy' which leads people to believe the worth of an idea is determined by the number supporting it. Down-votes are badges of honour.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: No videos until you consent?

One doesn't need to be "allowed". Just do it.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Law, supposed 'rights', and reality occupy differing domains

YouTube's owners may huff and puff about their 'terms of use' until the cows come home. Likewise, the EU, or any other legislature, can muse over means of regulating the Internet, and the nature of permissible 'content', until some other topic takes their fancy.

Meanwhile, savvy people will devise workarounds to attempts at preventing them doing whatever they like to streams of data received on their devices. Other people of self-directed nature will seek out the workarounds.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: So view it in a different way

I use FreeTube on my Linux devices. It is excellent. Not only no Google 'ads' appear but also 'messages from sponsors' are stripped out.

I heard that Google has made an attempt to get FreeTube shut down. Fortunately, FreeTube is not easy for Google to grasp.

Judge bins AI copyright lawsuit against DeviantArt, Midjourney – Stability still in the mix

Long John Silver
Pirate

Derivation is a cornerstone of creativity

"... but also the content generated by those models – incorporating themes, elements, and styles created by human artists – was unlawful derivative work."

So, we (human, or a supposed AI) are meant to admire an artist's work, but woe betide anyone seeking to learn from it, to improve upon it, to take forward nascent possibilities, to express excitement via emulation of something momentarily original which itself inevitably arises from a long line of 'derivation'? Also, note that should something stunningly original arise, that in any area to which anachronistic copyright applies, then restriction on derivation threatens to leave a shining jewel forever (at least decades) detached from the evolving body of human achievement.

No combination of legal phrases can result in a clear distinction between 'legitimate' derivation and that which infringes so-called copyright. There is one protection against losing the opportunity to raise income by sale of original copies of one's works, and only one, for which an unambiguous law can be framed to benefit an artist; that is against misrepresenting oneself as the artist (composer, writer, etc.) to gain pecuniary advantage. For example, signing a drawing falsely under the name of the true artist, and seeking to sell it. Works clearly resembling, or derived from, those of another person, could then avoid accusations of plagiarism if offered to the world under headings such as "In tribute to X", "Based upon a work by X", "A variation on X's depiction of ...", "A digital copy of ...", and so on.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: I do feel sorry for them

"... and a judge or a jury may go either way on it."

That is another way of saying copyright law is a corpus of inconsistent nature.

Amazon Ads rolls out generative AI for ad image composition

Long John Silver
Pirate

Being a devoted user of ad-blocking technology, I too shall be untroubled by this nonsense.

King Charles III signs off on UK Online Safety Act, with unenforceable spying clause

Long John Silver
Pirate

My God no. Almost anybody else though would do.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Challenges spawn workarounds

Perhaps the Online Safety Act, with even more restrictive successors to be on the cards too, will provoke a flurry of workarounds. At the simplest level, the UK will see major uptake of foreign (outside Five Eyes jurisdictions) VPN services. The other Internet technology, one rapidly maturing in ease of use, to gain a boost shall be 'darknets'.

The lead will come from bright young folk, starting with teenagers and college students. They will mature into people unwilling to submit to ridiculous diktat from, mostly, ignorant politicians. Privacy is becoming important in people's lives in respect to generally accessing information available on the Internet, but hidden behind paywalls or blocked by copyright rentier interests.

Bad Vibrations: Music publishers sue Anthropic AI for using copyrighted lyrics

Long John Silver
Pirate

Anachronistic thinking is digging an ever deeper pit for the 'latter day' Luddites

Continuing reliance upon rentier economics is generating bodies of statute and case law adding to the already ramshackle structure prior to the digital era. Law concerning so-called 'intellectual property' (IP) always increases in complexity and in its reach, this impacting upon the workings of nations, companies, and individuals. Long since has this corpus of law become impenetrable to everyone other than those profiting from its enforcement. Almost all other civil and criminal law can be grasped sufficiently by the ordinary citizen. Bear in mind, despite appearance to the contrary, law is meant to guide citizens regarding acceptable conduct.

Complexity getting out of hand is indicative of increasing lack of clarity about purpose and definitions. It also reflects escalating difficulty of enforcement, this particularly upon introduction of technologies not envisaged when the specious notion of ideas being property in a sense similar to that referred to in the 'Ten Commandments' was introduced.

Ill-conceived law, that which is overly difficult to comprehend, that which is regularly flouted by many who deem it silly and too restrictive, and that which is steadily becoming impossible to enforce, is by definition 'bad law': it is there to be circumvented, ignored, and ridiculed. The many allegedly 'creative' people and the corporations profiting from their efforts are ignoring harsh realities which will shatter their overweening senses of entitlement. Meanwhile, the truly innovative shall be exploring other means for gaining recognition and income. Ironically, there shall be a return to the cottage industries in the days of the original Luddites. Huge, often conglomerate and transnational, rentier pseudo-enterprises shall go the way of the dinosaurs; a host of middlemen shall have to find more constructive uses for their energies.

Russia to ban all VPNs – again – says senator

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: Everyone's at it..

Broadcasting licences were withdrawn in the UK. At least two ISPs (BT and Virgin) block RT: there being irony in that VPN services connecting via the USA are unhindered.

Criticism of NATO's proxy war with Russia has been stifled in the UK and in other NATO nations. Indeed, in the UK there is a wing of the military - the 77th Brigade - now dedicated to propaganda and 'misinformation' to confuse a population whose collective thought processes rarely rise above the TV "Come Dancing" and similar pap.

Long John Silver
Pirate

A matter of opinion

"... when Moscow tightened censorship rules to prevent the populace from reading information that challenged its pathetic pretext for the illegal invasion of Ukraine – Russian citizens flocked to VPNs to access the content they craved."

Anyone troubling to study the history of events on the Ukrainian landmass from the mid-nineteenth century to the present day will be aware that the nation now calling itself Ukraine arose from turbulence among Europe's 'Great Powers'. Ukraine, at best, is an afterthought to the Soviet era: one consisting of what has turned out to be a toxic amalgam of several distinct European cultures; the poison introduced by 'Ukrainian Nationalists', these intimately associated with a legacy from Nazi Germany and Ukraine's home-grown Bandera.

To suit USA/NATO interests, these predicated on the Zbigniew Brzeziński doctrine (with extension now towards China), the story that present conflict in Ukraine started because of Russian invasion in February 2022 has been promulgated by Western officialdom. Even people hitherto unwilling to delve into the chequered history of life on the Ukrainian landmass might at least deign to note what happened in 2014 and observe how thereafter ethnic Russians within the old borders of Ukraine were provoked into revolt. What happened to Russian Ukrainians is now extending to others of ancestral origins in Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

Israel and Italy have cheapest mobile data out of 237 countries

Long John Silver
Pirate

An excellent interactive map

Some other providers of interactive maps as means of conveying information simply and efficiently should take note.

Authors Guild sues OpenAI for using Game of Thrones and other novels to train ChatGPT

Long John Silver
Pirate

Writers and publishers must come to terms with the 'digital economy' and adapt accordingly

From whence arose the notion that authors have 'ownership' over their 'works' rather than simple entitlement to be acknowledged?

Somebody writes something and becomes an author. A publisher may arrange distribution of the work, this inscribed upon a physical medium. A bookshop, the second level intermediary taking a 'cut', sells someone a copy. Thereupon, the nature of the trade becomes peculiar. The buyer may believe he has been deceived into paying for rubbish. If he returns to the shop and demands his money back he will be laughed at, but that wouldn't be the case should he return a packet of mouldy rice to a food store.

Taking this further, the buyer may wish recompense from the author for the 'opportunity cost' (of time) he incurred reading the book.

We may presume people start writing because they believe they can produce work of interest to other people (not just to a publishing house). The genuinely creative writer will be driven by the pleasure principle. He may wish to do this as his occupation. If so, he must convince other people to buy his works after, at best, a cursory glance at their contents. Seemingly, being a self-proclaimed creative individual confers a privileged status with attached entitlements.

The proper way round is for an author to persuade other people of his ability to interest them. Thereafter, those appreciative of his writing may arrange finance for further output (patronage). This modality doesn't work well in the context of books presented in analogue form (i.e. on paper). Nevertheless, expectation of people buying the author's/publisher's products without having recourse for all, or some, money back is odd in context of trade in general.

These days, a printed book may be considered an added-value physical product associated with the ideas expressed in the book. Printed books have some convenience and also can be of aesthetic appeal: these fit squarely into supply and demand market economics.

Digital versions are better suited to an explicitly 'patronage mode' of funding: people either donate money upfront in support of further writing, else they download a copy of the work and, if pleased with it, donate what they consider it was worth to them. The brutal fact for authors and publishers to consider is that without the patronage model becoming the norm (after being proselytised by authors and publishers), works presented in digital format shall increasingly enter the 'commons' regardless of authors, publishers, and the ramshackle anachronistic law supporting them.

So-called 'AI', a useful but as yet misnamed technology, shall proliferate rapidly. Rentier copyright holders will find it difficult to identify specific targets to squeeze money from. OpenAI is an innovator of what soon shall be a routine computational tool. Just consider the present failure of copyright cabals to shut down Sci-Hub, LibGen, Z-Library, and many more. Consider the sheer impossibility of identifying those behind 'sharing', and their visitors, when greater use is made of darknets.

In this edition of El Reg is mention of the UK governments' "Online Safety Bill". The Bill is a wedge to open the door to widespread citizen surveillance; it won't open far because encryption is resilient against schemes generated by tiny minds at Westminster. This legislation, if extended, can offer no succour to the likes of the Authors' Guild. It would be better for Guild members to come to terms with the reality of digital technology and to adapt their means of raising income (and their expectations of life-style) accordingly.

UK Online Safety Bill to become law – and encryption busting clause is still there

Long John Silver
Pirate

What's not to like about an online safety bill?

The answer is the poor educational standards (narrowness) exhibited nowadays by members of the Houses and by people appointed to high office of state, the rarity of exceptional intelligence among legislators (bright people have better things to do than climb the greasy political pole), and the questionable probity of people in the British legislature.

Sysadmin and spouse admit to part in 'massive' pirated Avaya licenses scam

Long John Silver
Pirate

Similarity to "BMW's pay-as-you-toast subscription failure" article in The Register?

This account of a "pirated Avaya licenses scam" appears to concern providing means to unlock features in software already in a customer's possession. The underlying issue seems similar to that reported in the article linked to below.

https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/18/opinion_column/?td=rt-3a

The matter generalises further into vendor attempts to restrict access to controlling software in agricultural machinery, and yet more into the territory of repairing or reconfiguring devices such as mobile phones.

With respect to software, it may be argued that any bundled with a device (or telephony system) falls in its entirety into the customer's hands to use with the device as he wishes. If full functionality requires 'unlocking' with a code, rather than installation of additional software, then a customer devising means to unlock or paying somebody else to do so is responding sensibly to a rigged market.

Textbook publishers sue shadow library LibGen for copyright infringement

Long John Silver
Pirate

Re: Tschüss, copyright!

No, your suggestion merely props up an anachronistic and moribund system.

Long John Silver
Pirate

Paradigm shift?

The global population is immersed in what Thomas Kuhn (philosopher of science) called a 'paradigm shift'. Doubt about the utility of the paradigm was present at its inception, but only nowadays with information stored in digital format, and the almost universal reach of the Internet for propagating digital sequences, paradigms, i.e. copyright and patents, drawing upon the notion of ideas being property to be rented out are specious and anachronistic. For culture expressed in print, an inkling of challenge to rentiers arose when (analogue) photocopiers became ubiquitous. A/V distribution exclusive 'rights' were imperilled by domestic adoption of audio and video cassettes with players capable of recording. The threat to publishers of academic papers arose immediately alongside photocopiers in universities. It took the move into the digital domain before high quality copying and distribution of A/V materials was available to households: 'pirating' textbooks, novels, computer software, and so forth, was not practicable either until wholly digital (storage, viewing, and copying apparatus) was available cheaply.

Purveyors of 'protected rights' content, this purportedly sold on an open market, were 'hoist by their own petard' when suddenly ordinary people grasped the true meaning of 'competition'. Unless kept under lock and key, digital sequences cannot be withheld from the 'Commons'. There is no scarcity. Hence, no 'price discovery'. Therefore, no monetary value attachable to them. The only conceivable connected 'market' to free for all digital is that of selling 'added value' goods and services associated with particular digital sequences.

'Rights' are ceasing to be commodities to be traded. That is a reality brought about by private individuals recognising the ersatz nature of markets for digital entities and through observing the entitlement-dependent 'rip-off' economics of rentiers along with a host of useless middlemen.

What of the noble souls who create, the people now facing penury? That hoary old chestnut is easily despatched when an economic model compatible with real, rather than monopoly orientated, economics is introduced. The market becomes that for creative ability and associated skills: players consisting of individuals and aggregates. They sell their services to other people, to collections of patrons (e.g. via crowdfunding), or to public institutions (e.g. universities, and foundations commissioning works). Industry too can hire innovators; it is free to keep developments as trade secrets; however when secrets escape there is no recourse to copyright and patent law; some start-up companies may find secrecy, if they can enforce it, useful until they find their feet,

The traded commodity is reputation. On that basis patronage is received. The ramshackle edifice of intellectual property law is demolished. In its place will be a small, and easy to understand, body of law protecting creative individuals (and groups) from imposters: there would be a 'criminal' element concerning grave misrepresentation, and a 'civil' element dealing with recompense. Nowhere in the legal backdrop shall there be any suggestion of digitally represented artefacts bearing monetary value.

Page: