40 Message 40: From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Tue Aug 3 11:29:33 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA15102; Tue, 3 Aug 93 11:29:30 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA25196; Tue, 3 Aug 93 11:29:16 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA16847 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Tue, 3 Aug 1993 14:23:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 14:23:24 -0400 Message-Id: <199308031823.AA16847@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: August 3, 373 P.N.O. [18:23:13 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Tue, 3 Aug 93 Volume 93 : Issue 214 Today's Topics: [2 msgs] (Meta)Physics of the Searle Argument [1 msgs] MEDIA: Slamming of FSF; more on software & video rental [2 msgs] Private Security Agents [1 msgs] Software market [1 msgs] TECH: encrypted computer? [2 msgs] intellectual property [2 msgs] software rental surprise [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 52191 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 22:45:26 -0700 From: tribble@netcom.com (E. Dean Tribble) Subject: TECH: encrypted computer? If more commerical software sold for $40 and came with a nice printed manual, there would be less piracy. I mean: If more software were free, there would be even less *piracy*. 'Course fewer people would bother making it at that point... dean ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 22:45:26 -0700 From: tribble@netcom.com (E. Dean Tribble) Subject: TECH: encrypted computer? If more commerical software sold for $40 and came with a nice printed manual, there would be less piracy. I mean: If more software were free, there would be even less *piracy*. 'Course fewer people would bother making it at that point... dean ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 00:49:07 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Private Security Agents Quoth starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu, verily I say unto thee: -=>Stanton presents this [that rentacops have no cop-like "authority" to shoot people, etc.] -=>as a bug, but I think it's a feature. Those soldiers -=>of the State that call themselves "police" (and other glorifying euphemisms) -=>and belong to the Standing Armies that occupy most US territory ought not to -=>have any power or authority whatsoever that is above and beyond that of the -=>ordinary person or any private security agent. Oh, I absolutely agree. I was just commenting that, as "police" such rentacops fail, since they aren't cops. If cops' "authority" were to be cut back to where it belongs, sure they'd be on equal footing. -=>It was the power of citizen's -=>arrest that gave rise to "police." They were originally only supposed to -=>be exercising this power as subcontractors. Any evidence of that? I'm not an expert on cops, but according to my history education, the police structure evolved as an outgrowth of the military structure, and had nothing whatsoever to do with private subcontracting, though the hiring of mercenaries and the like as bodyguards by wealthy merchants, etc., likely had influences. Just the fact that cops use military rank is rather telling. -=>People like Stanton may, indeed, disrespect "rentacops," but police are -=>generally over-rated anyways. You betcha! -=>And the threat of murder charges would be a good deterrent against excessive -=>force on the part of police. Actually, eliminating sovereign immunity would -=>help accomplish this, but "the police" will also have to be de-mystified in -=>order to get juries to convict them for their crimes. Need more citizens with video cameras then! From my observations, it would seem that the Rodney King example jarred loose a lot of "Officer Friendly" mythology in many people's minds. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 01:55:17 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: software rental surprise Quoth Brian Holt Hawthorne - SunSelect Engineering, verily I say unto thee: -=> -=>> When have people tried that? Renting software is illegal. Yes it went on -=>> in the Old Days, but that was long before the current market explosion. -=> -=>I've seen this assertion numerous times on this list, and am unwilling to -=>accept it without a reference. I can rent Nintendo software at the Blockbuster -=>Video store down the street today. Well, I'm not here to do your reading for you. Most major cities have libraries with law books. Anyway, part of what you are saying is one of my major points. Nintendo IS software. So are CDs and video tapes. They are legislating hypocrisy and doublestandards. Renting what most people call software (i.e. QModem Pro, CorelDraw!, Aldus Photosyler, Norton Utilities...stuff on diskettes) IS very illegal. This is federal law. I've read the law myself. If you can't find it, look around on EFF's gopher site, or mail someone at SEA or CPSR. Actually, best people to try would be SPA, since they just love to lecture about it. Sorry to seem so forceful on this issue but it really torques me off, since it is one of the major factors contributing to the rise in software prices. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 03:10:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: TECH: encrypted computer? Quoth E. Dean Tribble, verily I say unto thee: -=> -=> If more commerical software sold for $40 and came with a nice -=> printed manual, there would be less piracy. -=> -=>If more software were free, there would be even less. 'Course fewer -=>people would bother making it at that point... There's a difference between reducing prices 50% to attract 500% more customers, and thus make a tidy profit, and reducing prices 100% and attacting any number of people who won't pay you one thin dime. a BIG difference. This strategy may not always work, but it can. As for few people writing freeware, ask youself why most apps for XWindows are freeware. Some people program because they like it, and many do so to get their foot in the door. It's much snazzier on a resume to have: "Wrote FoobarPlus, a popular freeware graphics editor, used by an estimated 4000 people." that nothing but "40 assignments in CS-320 class completed on schedule." when it comes to the Programming Experience section. I know, you said fewER, and this is true, but just in case that really meant "no one", I had to throw that in. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 04:15:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: MEDIA: Slamming of FSF; more on software & video rental Quoth Ray, verily I say unto thee: -=> Ok, I'll bite. The reason video rental works is because VCRs -=>are analog and each successive recording gets worse. With cheap signal boosters they don't get much worse. You don't need 50 copies of Terminator do you? One will do. If you mean that tech allowing easy duplication would lead to something like cartels of video pirates doing it for money, this is true. Such markets already exist, however, as do markets for bootlegged tapes. This is not what I propose legalizing. BTW, as I understand it, the bootleggers' copies are made on high-end equipment, from laserdisk (or CD in the case of audio) onto tape. Few people can afford such equipment, so this black market is not a threat. You might be tempted to say "AH HA!" and point out that perfect copies of computer software requires no such equipment. I'd come back with the idea that if all computer owners have this capability (discounting the few with dusty old machines that have lousy, low capacity drives -- they can't run most recent software anyway), no such black market has arisen. Most of the arguments I keep seeing, that the established companies are hurt by new copying technologies that allow copyright violation, are just silly. If they were true, all publishing companies in the world would have been put out of business by Kinkos and CopyQwik. All these record companies would be dust, buried by TDK and Maxell and all the other purveyors of cassette technology. -=>Thus, there is value -=>in purchasing an original. This will change. When we do have better (non-analog) video tech, which will be soon, the only value there will be in purchasing an original is that you'll have a pretty box to but it in with blurbs on the back telling you how good the movie is and why you should buy it. People already pirate videos like crazy; the only significant difference, besides the D vs A you point out, is that videos can't (in their present state of non-interactive lack of complexity) generate a new market for manuals, upgrades, support-for-hire, and utilities. This actually supports my point even more: even WITHOUT this extra income, it's still wildly profitable, both for rental stories and for the companies that sell movies to them. BTW, in case you didn't know, many of the movies sold for rental are specifically licensed for this, and are superior, $80, tapes. The ones you buy for $19.95 are the packaged identically but far inferior quality. Do people mind? Do they even NOTICE? Not as far as I can see. Most of the people I know could care less if quality is a little lower, as long as it is not annoyingly so, thus they tape stuff off TV, copy rented videos, etc etc. -=>Secondly, there is no easy distribution -=>method for video tapes. There are no bbses to upload and download -=>video tapes from. There are channels for pirated videos. See the backpages classifieds in _Goldmine_ some time. This is not as "easy" as ULing/DLing to and from BBSs, until one steps back and looks at the larger picture: to use a BBS you have to work for the money to buy a PC, and a modem, you have to learn how to use it, properly configure the system, find and learn how to use a BBS and your comm software, etc. On the other hand trading bootlegged sci-fi flicks with some guy in Vermont costs you just some postage a week's patience. I DO see that there could be some problems inherent in my plan, when it comes to people uploading stuff to an FTP site for all to grab, thus bypassing the rental companies. But really, it should not be that severe. Only a small percentage of computer owners know how to use a BBS anyway, much less FTP; and besides, the rental stores are actually the least useful part of the picture anyway. They could easily be dispensed with, if everyone becomes networked, and finding warez becomes easy. Then just "seed" the BBS market with your product, and wait for the utility orders, tech support calls at $2.50 per minute, and orders for manuals, tutorials and hint books come rolling in. This would not work RIGHT NOW, but in the future I think it would be a very successful ploy, if the market changes the way I expect it to. -=>Thirdly, because VCR's are not random access and because -=>they are slow, there are no "copy parties" like software pirates have and -=>copying actually takes a large investment of time. ?? Almost every time I have several people over to watch movies, at least one brings another VCR. Maybe this is unusual? The difference is, that watching a file be copied is boring. Watching Star Wars be copied is not. The time investment is not something people seem to mind. It's almost like the copying is incidental to what you call the time investment. -=> The reason Laserdisc rental, Nitendo Cartridge rental, and Compact Discs -=>are purchased is because there is no easy way to copy them. Please re-read that. The 1st 2 media, one could use for an argument. The CD example however, makes no sense. CD's are purchased because people want them. CDs sound better. Whether they are easily dup'd is irrelevant. Hell the fact that CDs and videodisks are more or less the same item, and are treated utterly differently supports MY point, don't you think? - that the current software (and audio for that matter) markets are the way they are not because it is logical, but because they are resistant to change. Another failing in this logic is that video tapes and video disks, on another level, are the same sort of product, except that one can be duplicated in the same medium, and the other can't, having to be duplicated to tape. Yet both are rented. There is, in other words, little logic in deciding what can be rented and what can't. What it boils down to, is the makers of these media all want monopolistic control on it. All would, and when it loomed HAVE, fought against rental; some lost, some didn't. It's more a factor of who's lobbying group is most persuasive. -=>(although there are now 'backup systems' out there to copy and play disk -=>images of, nitendo/sega games. however, these systems can not reproduce -=>cartridges which have special blitters or graphis vector processors -=>on them) Which, currently isn't very many of them. Anyway, do you see Nintendo going out of business? Do you see Sega crying for legislation to illegalize the rental of game cartridges? Do you see the local Gamez-R-Us rental joint filing bankruptcy? NO. Because piracy does not harm the market. -=> I submit to you that if VCR's were digital, high quality, and recording -=>was fast and easy (no need for two VCRs) that the video rental industry -=>would be in trouble. Ever heard of SuperVHS? Ever heard of DAT? Ever heard of read/write mini-CDs? -=>The same thing would happen to Nintendo if games -=>were easy to copy. ?? You are contradicting observable reality. With this backup unit, you CAN easily copy most of them. Count on the resourceful to bust copy protect schemes indefinately. -=>In fact, I cite the opposition to DAT as evidence for -=>my point. If there were a video DAT, the same principles would apply. What happened to DAT serves as evidence of only 2 things: Big-name media companies fear losing monopolies, and try to establish new ones (cf. this new scheme for interactive media via cable tv wiring); when one of their monopolies is threatened, they scream and cry and make up bullshit for lobbyists to whisper in congression ears. New technology for media will be resented, opposed, and crushed or bought out when possible by media giants, if they do not control the new medium from the get-go. THIS is why DAT was swept under the US rug. The companies making DAT machines are the same ones that have been catching shit from the media companies for decades for making cassettes that record. They were hostile to them, so they didn't discuss it with them, they just made DAT and said here it is. In the case of these new mini-CDs, a LOT of wheeling and dealing has been going on, and the media companies have their finger in the pie this time. They get their say, so they don't mind. I'd also like to point out that the crippling of DAT tape decks (and thus the market for them) applies nowhere but the US, since (last I read) the European and Japanese models, sold there, are fully functional. DAT was all the rage in Japan for a while. Note also that you CAN get non-crippled DAT recorders here, but they are sold as items for people recording their own stuff, not as home-user DAT decks. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 10:11:51 GMT From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: (Meta)Physics of the Searle Argument I said that I didn't see why axioms ought to be excluded from truthfulness because they're unfalsifiable, and Ray replied: >From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) >Subject: The Searle Argument > > Physical axioms aren't excluded from truthfulness as long as they are >testable. If testability be the criterion, then this includes metaphysical axioms, too. >In the physical sciences, axioms are called postulates. Einstein's >speed of light postulate is accepted as 'truth' only because we can find >no counterexamples. For 70+ years, people have been trying to find a single >instance where relativity's postulates fail, and they haven't. Petyr Beckmann says he has succeeded in finding a falsification of the claim that the speed of light is absolute - that's about all I know about it, from a story for laymen in the latest "American Spectator" magazine. >> You seem to imply that all physical laws must be stated in the form: If X, >> then Y. Have I got this right? If so, then what is the status of laws which >> can't be stated in this form, such as metaphysical axioms? > > A physical law is well-stated because it is compactly represented by >the mathematics behind it. Then what does "compactly represented" mean? > The idea that "living matter" can not merely be a machine is called >"vitalism". You're getting a bit too pedantic, Ray. Starting to seem condescending. >>Calling it supernatural presumes the mechanical view of nature. Why must >>nature be mechanical? It seems possible that mind could be natural, physical, >>but non-mechanical, in which case it wouldn't be "supernatural," but "super- >>mechanical." > > Give me an example of a physical system that is "super-mechanical" No. Answer the question: why must nature be mechanical? Because you can't imagine otherwise? It is not incumbent upon me to prove anything, any more than the burden of proof rests upon the atheist to disprove the existence of God. >An answer of "the mind" would be unsatisfactory because you have already >defined it to be so. No, I haven't defined the mind at all. > I'm not familar with this metaphysical principle of extension but perhaps >I could give you an example from physics. Photons and electrons do not >have extension. Photons and electrons do not have a volume (or radius). Electrons do have weight, though, don't they? How can anything that has weight not have volume? >Children are taught to envision them as little red and green spheres, but >in reality we treat them as point-like singularities. I wasn't asking what we treat them as, I was asking what they are. I realize that this form of statement is unpopular with many on this list, but that's what I want to know. How do we know these particles have no volume? > I do reject the mind-body dichotomy (which amounts to dualism). As far >as I'm concerned, life is mechanical, the human body is alive, and the mind >and the brain are one and the same. If I put a bullet in your head, your >mind is affected. As an interesting aside, my old psychotherapist told me a story once of a homeless man who was his patient when he was on staff at Bellvue. He couldn't get anything but hostility and profanity out of the man, who was dirty and unkempt, so he x-rayed him to see what he could find out. The side-view x-ray of his head showed a round dot about the size of a coin in the middle. The front view showed it in the middle as well. He'd been shot, the bullet had lodged in the middle of his skull, and they decided it would be more risky to try to remove it than to leave it it. However, for all the invective against "dualism" I'm aware of, there's precious little understanding of the issues Descartes was trying to resolve in any of them. I think his solution was mistaken, but I don't think this necessarily entails that nature is entirely mechanical and that mind and life is reducible to machine. > You seem to think that physics is confounded by non-extended entities >but you could not be more wrong. Actually, I suspect it's confounded by a lot more than that, but I can't confirm my suspicions very well. >> Human bodies behave in many ways that seem >> inexplicable by mechanics. > > You have just made an unsupportable assertion about the laws of >mecahnics, now I wish you to support it with evidence. It's a direct observation. I don't have to support it any more than I have to support my observation that my legs are chilly. I can't explain why I'm typing these words by mechanics any more that you can. >Frankly, after >everything you have said, I don't believe you know anything about mechanics, >biology, or physics. There you go again, being condescending. I admit to much ignorance of physics. I do know something of chemistry, biochemistry, and biology. I'm glad that you've taught me some things about physics. However, you've taught me nothing about the others. I could just as well state that you seem to know little of metaphysics. This wouldn't explain the subject to you, now would it? > So life doesn't behave contrary to laws of mechanics it just does things >which are inexplicable by them? Say what? In physics, if a system does >something which isn't explained by the laws associated with that system, then >the conclusion is that the laws are wrong. (physicist speak: incomplete) Very well: The content of the genetic code isn't explained by the known laws associated with that system, therefore they are incomplete. As for the ability of classical mechanics to explain what relativity can, Beckmann seems to disagree somewhat. > It seems you are clinging onto your viewpoint because you believe in >free will -- that your thoughts aren't simply caused by chemical reactions or >spinning gears. No, I'm questioning the idea that the Universe is a machine because I don't see why it is justified. > Postulating seperate physical, but "non-mechanical" (uncomputable) laws, >is almost identical to postulating a soul except calling it a physical >law makes you sound less irrational. I don't "postulate" them, I say that I don't see why they are impossible. In the absence of proof of this, I see know reason to believe it any more than there's any reason to believe in God. >Realize that throughout time and >in the present, most people put unexplainable data into supernatural >categories. That's what I think you are doing. I do realize that, but that's not what I'm doing. >philosophers tend to discuss things which >are outside the realm of science such as "Why do we exist?" "Does God >exist?" "Why is X like X?" A philosopher recently posed the question >"Why does existence exist?" in sci.physics hoping for an answer. Alas, >physics can't provide it because there's no way to judge the answer. That's not why physics can't answer the question. The reason is that it's not a physical question, but a metaphysical one. The answer is "because it does." This is Heidegger's question, well-known in metaphysics. Metaphysics is only one part of philosophy. Logic is another. So is epistemology. No other sciences can proceed without these. There are other parts of philosophy, but they aren't fundamental in this way. BTW, aesthetics is one of those other branches of philosophy. Since you called it an "aesthetic" issue whether to view life as organism or machine, Ray, care to explain the theory of aesthetics underlying this claim? >Philosophical questions may be interesting like "pure math" is to some >people but they don't really impact reality because they have no >applications. Logic has no applications? > Existence exists might be viewed as a foundation axiom that generates >everything else, but I view it as zero-information. Zero-information? Even though it has implications? >Existence is a definition. No, it isn't. A definition consists of a genus and a differentia. "Existence" has neither. >To say existence _exists_ is to invoke recursion. So what? Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL, The International Society for Individual Liberty, 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com Think Universally, Act Selfishly - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 06:18:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: intellectual property Quoth Harry Shapiro, verily I say unto thee: -=>1) A highly competitive market for software will yield better software -=> at better prices. Already have such a market. The ware IS better, but it costs more and more with each new release. Problem is the market's being controlled pigheadedly. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 8:28:47 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: MEDIA: Slamming of FSF; more on software & video rental Stanton McCandlish () writes: > > Quoth Ray, verily I say unto thee: > > -=> Ok, I'll bite. The reason video rental works is because VCRs > -=>are analog and each successive recording gets worse. > > With cheap signal boosters they don't get much worse. You don't need 50 > copies of Terminator do you? One will do. If you mean that tech allowing > easy duplication would lead to something like cartels of video pirates > doing it for money, this is true. Such markets already exist, however, as > do markets for bootlegged tapes. This is not what I propose legalizing. > BTW, as I understand it, the bootleggers' copies are made on high-end > equipment, from laserdisk (or CD in the case of audio) onto tape. Few > people can afford such equipment, so this black market is not a threat. > You might be tempted to say "AH HA!" and point out that perfect copies of > computer software requires no such equipment. I'd come back with the > idea that if all computer owners have this capability (discounting the few > with dusty old machines that have lousy, low capacity drives -- they can't > run most recent software anyway), no such black market has arisen. No black market has arisen for pirated software? Get real. Mass copying video tapes requires a significant investment of money, though. > Most of the arguments I keep seeing, that the established companies are > hurt by new copying technologies that allow copyright violation, are just > silly. If they were true, all publishing companies in the world would > have been put out of business by Kinkos and CopyQwik. All these record > companies would be dust, buried by TDK and Maxell and all the other > purveyors of cassette technology. Cassette technology isn't random access, and doesn't sound as good. > -=>Thus, there is value > -=>in purchasing an original. > > This will change. When we do have better (non-analog) video tech, which > will be soon, the only value there will be in purchasing an original is > that you'll have a pretty box to but it in with blurbs on the back telling > you how good the movie is and why you should buy it. Exactly my point. Eventually, there will be no value in purchasing any kind of info product with quality copying. > People already pirate videos like crazy; the only significant difference, > besides the D vs A you point out, is that videos can't (in their present > state of non-interactive lack of complexity) generate a new market for > manuals, upgrades, support-for-hire, and utilities. This actually > supports my point even more: even WITHOUT this extra income, it's still > wildly profitable, both for rental stories and for the companies that sell > movies to them. BTW, in case you didn't know, many of the movies sold for All of your arguments seem to be of the form "Hey, there's piracy now, but these companies haven't gone under yet!" Video piracy does not compare to software piracy. The quality is horrid, the time and money invested to make the copy is large compared to software. When I can upload a CD-ROM to anyone over the phone in less than 1 minute there will be mass piracy. The CD companies will be hurt and the price of media will have to rise. > > -=>Secondly, there is no easy distribution > -=>method for video tapes. There are no bbses to upload and download > -=>video tapes from. > > There are channels for pirated videos. See the backpages classifieds in > _Goldmine_ some time. This is not as "easy" as ULing/DLing to and from > BBSs, until one steps back and looks at the larger picture: to use a BBS > you have to work for the money to buy a PC, and a modem, you have to learn > how to use it, properly configure the system, find and learn how to use a > BBS and your comm software, etc. On the other hand trading bootlegged > sci-fi flicks with some guy in Vermont costs you just some postage a > week's patience. I DO see that there could be some problems inherent in > my plan, when it comes to people uploading stuff to an FTP site for all to > grab, thus bypassing the rental companies. But really, it should not be > that severe. Only a small percentage of computer owners know how to use a BBS You assumption, not mine. People will learn what they need to know to use pirate utilities. > > -=>Thirdly, because VCR's are not random access and because > -=>they are slow, there are no "copy parties" like software pirates have and > -=>copying actually takes a large investment of time. > > ?? Almost every time I have several people over to watch movies, at least > one brings another VCR. Maybe this is unusual? The difference is, that And it takes 2 hours to make one copy. > -=>(although there are now 'backup systems' out there to copy and play disk > -=>images of, nitendo/sega games. however, these systems can not reproduce > -=>cartridges which have special blitters or graphis vector processors > -=>on them) > Which, currently isn't very many of them. Anyway, do you see Nintendo > going out of business? Do you see Sega crying for legislation to > illegalize the rental of game cartridges? Do you see the local Gamez-R-Us > rental joint filing bankruptcy? NO. Because piracy does not harm the market. These backup systems cost more than the Nitendo/Sega systems themselves. They need to be built by hackers (you have to make them yourself), and they require an IBM/Mac/Amiga to use. (even more $$$) > -=> I submit to you that if VCR's were digital, high quality, and recording > -=>was fast and easy (no need for two VCRs) that the video rental industry > -=>would be in trouble. > > Ever heard of SuperVHS? > > Ever heard of DAT? > > Ever heard of read/write mini-CDs? None of which can be easily duplicated as software. Music piracy will really take off when it becomes centrally distributed on a network. > -=>The same thing would happen to Nintendo if games > -=>were easy to copy. > > ?? You are contradicting observable reality. With this backup unit, you > CAN easily copy most of them. The backup unit requires a large investment of money. Backed up games take a long time to load vs cartridge. > Count on the resourceful to bust copy protect schemes indefinately. A simple silicon solution could make busting copy protection tremendously expensive (can you say $100,000-$1,000,000 of engineering equipment?) The Clipper chip is a good example. It is way beyond most people's ability to break open a tamper-resistent die and get at the circuitry. > I'd also like to point out that the crippling of DAT tape decks > (and thus the market for them) applies nowhere but the US, since (last I > read) the European and Japanese models, sold there, are fully functional. > DAT was all the rage in Japan for a while. Note also that you CAN get > non-crippled DAT recorders here, but they are sold as items for people > recording their own stuff, not as home-user DAT decks. The media is also very expensive. British CD's and DATs have a hidden $6 charge to pay for the industry. I'm tired of arguing with you. Your arguments are all based on a system which already has copyright law enacted and where there are significant barriers to copying large amounts of data (gigabytes of digital video, hundreds of megabytes of audio) But not only that, you even object to vendors trying to limit their software distribution through technological means. If I write a piece of software, you don't have a right to have it. I don't give a shit about whether you "NEED" it or not. Programmers don't program for your needs. It is perfectly reasonable that in the future, the industry will collaborate on a new platform that contains built in copy protection and network autheticated services. While it is true that the protection could be broken, it could be made far outside anyone's price range. I can envision many systems in which protection would be very hard to break without advanced equipment. Any software company which didn't go along with a platform consortium would be shooting itself in the foot. They'd lose profits from piracy and miss out on the new platform. Such a system could allow "rented" software (pay-per-use) which would charge you everytime you used the software. Thus, you could copy it for free but the software wouldn't run until you paid for it. -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 8:31:12 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: intellectual property Stanton McCandlish () writes: > > Quoth Harry Shapiro, verily I say unto thee: > > -=>1) A highly competitive market for software will yield better software > -=> at better prices. > > Already have such a market. The ware IS better, but it costs more and > more with each new release. > > Problem is the market's being controlled pigheadedly. Stanton, why don't you start your own company then? If your philosophy is so superior then prove it. Anyone can develop software with little capital start up. I'll be watching the market to see if FreeBieSoft beats out Microsoft in growth and profits. -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 8:35:23 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: Software market > Stanton, why don't you start your own company then? If your philosophy > is so superior then prove it. Anyone can develop software with little > capital start up. I'll be watching the market to see if FreeBieSoft beats > out Microsoft in growth and profits. Interestingly enough, Ray, it seems that Microsoft themselves are encouraging the proliferation of more software, via their latest generation of development tools, including VCC+, VB and Access, not to mention all the beta versions of NT they shipped (around 85,000) and so forth. Sure, its only in their self-interest to do all this, since its a win-win situation for them. But this is exactly the kind of attitude we need to see more of. Industry needs to realize when its more appropriate to encourage competition rather than stifle it. Personally, given the tools now available, I don't see why more software isn't being published. I think everyone is still slow to catch on to the fact that low-end market is now a quick-turn one, which makes it easy to get into. I only wish I could participate myself. As it is, I instead spend all my time with school. At least I get a chance to use all these tools and develop software in this manner where I work. Fun stuff! Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 11:15:27 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: (Meta)Physics of the Searle Argument I can't resist this. Someday I will overcome this weakness! In <9308031011.aa06076@genie.genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes: |> Ray replied: |> > Physical axioms aren't excluded from truthfulness as long as they are |> >testable. |> |> If testability be the criterion, |> then this includes metaphysical axioms, too. Please give an example. |> >In the physical sciences, axioms are called postulates. Einstein's |> >speed of light postulate is accepted as 'truth' only because we can find |> >no counterexamples. For 70+ years, people have been trying to find a single |> >instance where relativity's postulates fail, and they haven't. |> |> Petyr Beckmann says he has succeeded in finding a falsification of the |> claim that the speed of light is absolute - that's about all I know about it, |> from a story for laymen in the latest "American Spectator" magazine. Tachyons have been around as a theoretical possibility since 1962, but not verified by experiment (unless it was done _very_ recently). I'll wait for more definition before commenting further, since the absolute speed of light can mean a couple of things that are actually only loosely related. [Tim asks a defintiional question] [Tim ironically insults Ray as "pedantic"] [Tim tries to shift onus of proof back, in a direction contra Occam] [Tim repeats "Because you can't imagine otherwise?" as if imagination were sufficient to do physics. Argumentum ad ignorantium] [Tim admits "I haven't defined the mind at all." Special pleading] |> > I'm not familar with this metaphysical principle of extension but perhaps |> >I could give you an example from physics. Photons and electrons do not |> >have extension. Photons and electrons do not have a volume (or radius). |> |> Electrons do have weight, though, don't they? How can anything that has |> weight not have volume? This is a slightly confusing area. Electrons have a measurable but tiny "rest mass" (9.1093897e-31 Kg), but photons are massless (you can impute a relativistic mass to them, but that's just hv/c^2, which is another way of referring to their energy, so it's not used much anymore. In the above, you're trying to think about quantum phenomena in classical terms, an exercise in futility. [...] |> I wasn't asking what we treat them as, I was asking what they are. I |> realize that this form of statement is unpopular with many on this list, but |> that's what I want to know. It's not merely "unpopular", it's also nonsensical. You're still looking for Platonic essences; so, you're in the wrong cave. |> How do we know these particles have no volume? They behave as particles with no volume, and this does not violate theory. Or, the short smartass answer is, we know by using the scientific method. [...] |> Actually, I suspect [physics is] confounded by a lot more than that, but I can't |> confirm my suspicions very well. There are questions answerable by science, questions answerable by direct experience, and questions that abuse language by diverging from what can be experienced, saith the unreconstructed Positivist. You seem to think that physics is confounded whenever you ask it a question that is outside its domain. This is not true. It is as if you were the only one on this list who spoke French, and because we don't answer you _en Francais_ when you ask "Ou sont les neiges d'antan?"[1] you berate us in English for poor communication. |> >> Human bodies behave in many ways that seem |> >> inexplicable by mechanics. |> > |> > You have just made an unsupportable assertion about the laws of |> >mecahnics, now I wish you to support it with evidence. |> |> It's a direct observation. I don't have to support it any more than I have |> to support my observation that my legs are chilly. I can't explain why |> I'm typing these words by mechanics any more that you can. This is just unbelievable. Tim, please try to read these words as if someone else had written them, and see if you see the fallacy. Especially look for the argumentum ad ignorantium. [pure bilateral bickering deleted] |> Very well: The content of the genetic code isn't explained by the known |> laws associated with that system, therefore they are incomplete. What part of genetics are you not satisfied with? I think it's moving along at a pretty good clip, and that the open questions are at a very tiny level of detail. I'd be fascinated to know where your vital essence has room to hide between the codons. |> As for the ability of classical mechanics to explain what relativity can, |> Beckmann seems to disagree somewhat. Well, we need the references on that. Anyone who can help please do. All I can do about it is look Beckmann up in the library or read the American Spectator [MAGNA CUM GRANO SALIS][2] article. BTW, there's no mention on sci.physics or in the physics FAQ of any such result. [More burden-of-proof shifting] [...] |> That's not why physics can't answer the question. The reason is that it's |> not a physical question, but a metaphysical one. The answer is "because it |> does." This is Heidegger's question, well-known in metaphysics. Read that again and see if you can tell why some of us don't waste time studying metaphysics. However, I seem to remember[3] that Heidigger had a bit more to say on the subject than that. |> Metaphysics is only one part of philosophy. Logic is another. So is |> epistemology. No other sciences can proceed without these. There are other |> parts of philosophy, but they aren't fundamental in this way. The parts of metaphysics, logic, and epistemology that are actually of any use are that way because they closely resemble physics, mathematics, and the scientific method, respectively. |> BTW, aesthetics is one of those other branches of philosophy. Since you |> called it an "aesthetic" issue whether to view life as organism or machine, |> Ray, care to explain the theory of aesthetics underlying this claim? Occam already did this. The theory with the fewest assumptions wins. |> >Philosophical questions may be interesting like "pure math" is to some |> >people but they don't really impact reality because they have no |> >applications. |> |> Logic has no applications? Non sequitur. "Logic" is not a question, it is a class of methods, a significant part of which Boole reduced to a calculus. It is this which is widely applicable. |> > Existence exists might be viewed as a foundation axiom that generates |> >everything else, but I view it as zero-information. |> |> Zero-information? Even though it has implications? It has one bit of information; the message is either "Existence exists" or "Existance exists, NOT". However, the latter, nihilistic, message has, in one POV, null implications, because "therefore, nothing we do or think matters a stinking bit" is such a compelling conclusion. Of course, the Existentialists built back up from such a foundation, or the related "Existence IS, but alone it is void and unresponsive". This was a brave thing to do psychologically, but look where it got them. |> >Existence is a definition. |> |> No, it isn't. A definition consists of a genus and a differentia. "Existence" |> has neither. |> Maybe Ray meant existence is a datum. Wasn't that fun? You enjoy the occasional spot of pedantry also, who doesn't? |> >To say existence _exists_ is to invoke recursion. |> |> So what? ^^^^^^^ How fitting that would have been as the last word on this thread; too bad it won't be. No, we of all people should not fear recursion! But again, what he _meant_ was (Ray, poke me if my words in your mouth taste bad :-) a circular definition. Which is what you get to eventually whenever you ask "Why?" or "But what _is_ that, really?" enough times. ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here [1] "Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan?" is the refrain of one of Francois Villion's best-known poems: "But where are the snows of yesteryear?" [2] The large grain of salt is in respect of the fact that the Spectator is a conservative polemical rag, so their motives for publishing something like this must be highly suspect. Cui bono? Creationists? [3] My big burst of reading philosphers dates to the very early 60's, at which time I picked up a smattering of classics, Hegel, Kant, Heidigger, and a lot of Sartre; later I read Neitzche and Schopenhauer with some relish. In fact, I credit FN with saving me from the Existential doldrums, and eventually from speculative philosophy. ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #214 ********************************* &