More people getting confused between games and general competitive behaviour... But then, whoever decided to call game theory such a thing - when it's purely about competitive behaviour/co-operative behaviour in a competitive environment, is definitely to blame for all this.
Unfortunately for Jane - easy and hard is purely subjective, and therefore has no bearing on the matter at all.
Re: Re: Re: How much does our language affect our perspective?
Why someone has decided to re-post this post I made a while ago here, (probably from a reply to a topic on gamasutra.com), I really haven't a clue, since it's not really relevant to the matter at hand... Pointless - my apologies for whoever thought it was a good idea...
Re: How much does our language affect our perspective?
This is, I think, slightly, (very?), related to something I'm working on at the minute.
I'm currently working on a study of games as a matter of linguistics, (in relation to the English language), and the amount of confusion that exists around the subject is extremely high, all due to one problem:
The subjective manner in how we USE the language, affects our perception, recognition and understanding of what other words within the language represent.
Since we're taught to use the English language in a very subjective manner, (and the language itself reinforces such subjectivity), how much does this affect our perception and understanding of the world around us, without our awareness of what is happening?
This, of course, goes all the way back to Aristotle's Theory Of Art:
Any art we create - (story we tell) - merely reflects the experiences of its creator(s) back upon them.
You'd think that we'd fully understand all this stuff by now, wouldn't you? But you'd be wrong - and there would be a VERY good reason WHY!
Unfortunately, this reason is what I'm currently trying to write a paper about at the minute, but I need help, since I'm not an student or have any academic background, and it really needs to be a 'proper' academic paper - but it's SO simple and fundamental, it's almost funny that it hasn't been realised before now...
(We're talking (potentially) the most important English language paper ever, and (potentially) one of the most important language papers of all time... - (And no one seems to be interested in helping me :( ).
The biggest problem with making health care into an industry, (as the US has, and in so doing, has affected every other country), is that the best healthcare system is one that's NEVER USED.
In other words - having the best health care, and making a profit, are actually ideally incompatible.
With that in mind, along with the fact that health care HAS to treat everyone for lots of things equally - (since the minority can and WILL cause problems for the majority) - healthcare is actually one of the best systems designed for a socialist program - but only if it's done properly, and preferably from the ground up, without any interference - unfortunately, of course, such a scenario doesn't, and will probably never, exist.
Please, can people STOP trying to find analogies for the music industry by trying to use physical property and objects in place of INFORMATION. It CANNOT, WILL NOT, and will NEVER work...
Information is NOT property, and one of the reason why everything is so screwed up these days is because people keep on trying to treat it as that, and failing dismally, but dragging everyone one else along with them.
But the information itself ISN'T the problem here!
The problem is that some of the industry got itself so set in it's ways about DISTRIBUTING the information, (i.e. the carrier pigeon vs telegraph analogy I give above), that they're having trouble adapting to a newer, more efficient method of distribution, (and copying).
If the industry had charged for the creation of the information to begin with, rather than it's distribution, it wouldn't be in this situation right now.
And THAT is why it's ENTIRELY a business model problem, and NOTHING ELSE. And it's no-one else's problem, but theirs - if they can't adapt, then tough cookies.
"The implication is, of course, that the post-copyright world will not be substantially less shitty for artists than the current one. It may be worse, since it reduces the value of their creation further."
It depends on what they have to sell... If they have something to sell that people want to buy, then they'll succeed - if they don't, they won't - it really is that simple. If you can't make a product people want to buy, you do not 'deserve' to be in business...
The problem, is that companies have now found themselves built up to sell the wrong thing. It's like the carrier pigeon companies complaining that the telegraph has made their business obsolete - they'd built their companies up by distributing unique messages, but the only thing that made them so valuable, was that the carrier pigeons took so long to do anything and send them anywhere, so each individual message sent was valuable. In fact they were so valuable, that there was a law passed preventing the copying of messages without explicit permission.
Now the telegraph comes around, and all of a sudden, even though the messages they are distributing are still owned by the carrier pigeon industry, and them alone, people are now copying them and sending them by telegraph instead - because it's better. Not only is it better because it's fast and reliable - but it's ALSO a LOT cheaper - in fact, it's SO much cheaper to send by telegraph, that the carrier pigeon business is doing everything it can to try and stop the telegraph from working properly.
The problem for the carrier pigeon industry, is that one pigeon can only carry one message to one location at a time, whereas the telegraph can send the same message to many different locations at once, and it's so much cheaper to send a message, it's almost FREE.
However, they found someone sending a couple of their messages by telegraph, (obviously copied from at least two of their pigeons), and so they sued him/her. And got awarded millions of dollars. All for a couple of messages that cost pennies to transmit by telegraph, but $/£'s by carrier pigeon.
Of course, the carrier pigeon industry's excuse, is that their messages cost a lot more to make than those sent by telegraph. But they're wrong. This isn't he problem.
In fact, the messages sent by telegraph cost the same amount to make as those sent by carrier pigeon. The problem is that the telegraph industry is already thriving by itself, and sending more than just the messages similar to those sent by carrier pigeon. In fact there's so much information being sent, that to try and dictate by information type simply wouldn't work - (too much overhead) - so they charge a flat fee for TIME used, (in which to send any messages and information you people want, to as many people as they like), and this manages to cover the cost of all the information sent and received.
Indeed, because so much MORE information can now be sent, (as opposed to the short messages which carrier pigeons were limited to), many industries have evolved to take advantage of this fact.
All except the carrier pigeon industry, which is still sitting on top of their pile of their own created messages, and suing anyone they can find who sends them by telegraph.
And they refuse to accept that the messages they have are now only worth pennies since that's all they cost to be sent (by telegraph). In fact, some of their members have tried to send their messages over telegraph for the same price as by carrier pigeon, and are wondering why no-one is buying...
And so they complain to the government, saying that everyone is illegally copying and sending their messages by telegraph instead of using them and their pigeons instead.
And then, unfortunately, they do 'everything' they can to make sure that the government listens to them, and enacts laws in their favour, that make it illegal to read and copy a message from a carrier pigeon if you haven't paid for it.
But because everyone is now using the telegraph, they don't care, and just ignore them, even if they do like the messages copied from the pigeons. In fact, some people still buy the messages from the pigeons they like so much, but, of course, the numbers doing so are declining.
And then another company comes along, which has more to do with making telegraphs than breeding carrier pigeons, and they come up with a easy way to buy, send and receive messages online for a slightly increased cost. They then do a deal with the carrier pigeon industry for some of their messages too. This is a great success in the world of the telegraph, and for the company involved. In fact, it's so successful that other companies start doing the same.
But the carrier pigeon industry STILL isn't happy. They're no longer making the sort of money they used to make when a carrier pigeon was the only way to send messages, and so they try to increase the amount their messages sell for and try to limit the supply so that they'll be more valuable.
In fact, they've never once had all of their messages available for sale, simply because they're afraid they'll lose all of the value they have,and so they keep a lot of them still locked away some where where no one can read or copy them.
But people want to send all of the messages, and they want to do it for the prices they're used to using the telegraph - they're not interested in carrier pigeons anymore...?
But the carrier pigeon industry is still holding out and complaining - in fact, they're even making the pigeons MORE expensive to send.
And so the people have had enough, and copy and send any of the carrier pigeons messages they like, regardless - if they don't want to sell them to them at a price they want, then why should they get their business and money.
And, of course, the carrier pigeon industry isn't the only message making company. Although making messages to send via telegraph isn't really worth very much, in fact, it's probably hard to make living out of, people have found other ways of using the messages themselves in order to make the money elsewhere.
Does the carrier pigeon industry deserve to exist? Does it deserve to make money? Does it deserve all the judgements and fate of every individual who sends and copies their messages over the telegraph? Or should they change their business model so that they now sell a product that people want to buy at a price they want to spend? If the messages are almost worthless once created, since they can be copied and sent anywhere people choose for very little money, then why can't they find something else to sell? Lots of other people have, so why can't they?
And since messages are now worth very little, and can be copied and distributed so easily and cheaply, what does that mean for the law that prevents such things without permission?
Actually - the real problem, (and I've talked about this before) - is that they want BOTH!
They want to both SELL you a product, (that just happens to have some particular data/information/music/film etc. on it), and therefore be able to stop you from making unauthorised copies of it, while at the SAME TIME, licensing the particular information on the disk, in order to control how you use it.
Unfortunately, the law doesn't seem to see that the two are NOT THE SAME THING, and are, in fact, conflicting with each other - (which the DCMA in the US reinforces).
The problem, is that they should not be allowed to DO both - they should just pick one, license or sell, and stick with it. The reason for this, is that they are both covered by different laws and regulations, which, as I said, conflict - (at least here in the UK).
But since they have the politicians in their back pocket atm, they're being allowed to get away with it. (While most people just work round it completely).
INFORMATION, (in itself), IS NOT, NOR SHOULD EVER BE CONSIDERED, PROPERTY.
A lot of our problems arrive because people refuse to accept this statement - all because some companies have corrupted their original purpose, (distributing property that contained information), in trying to control the information itself.
But since the invention of the internet - the worlds greatest ever PURE information COPYING AND DISTRIBUTION system - (i.e. it doesn't require the transfer of scarce physical goods to operate, unlike paper & ink etc.) - their original reason for existing has changed, or is at least changing. Unfortunately they refuse to accept this, and are now trying to control the distribution and use of the information itself, regardless of any actual property it no longer needs, in a manner inconsistent with the way the internet works, and the way humanity wants and/or needs it to work.
Humanity has always thrived on the free exchange of information, and to try and force it to do anything otherwise is, well, not a good idea - it generally leads to such things as censorship and propaganda etc. - things which have always been tried, but always eventually failed, as humanity usually finds a way round it, or fights against it. (Yes, I know about China, but I don't see them staying that way indefinitely - humanity will/should always outlast any tyranny).
This isn't to say that information isn't valuable - it's just that, because of the internet, the information, in itself, isn't valuable ENOUGH to make people pay the amount of money a lot of companies think it's worth.
However, it's possible to add things to the information in order to increase it's value - even such basic things as presentation and organisation, in order to improve access etc. can increase its value to the point that some people think it's worth paying for. And this is without actually linking it with any actual 'property' which, by it's very nature, will be a scarce good that is more valuable...
But few companies seem to full understand this: because they were so used to dealing with limited, scarce physical property - (from paper and ink to plastic discs) - they're having trouble understanding what it is they're trying to sell now, and how to actually go about doing it.
And they've made a big mistake - they've done everything they can to try and make the INFORMATION itself, into a scarce good...
But information isn't, and will never be scarce, certainly now, as long as the internet exists. And so they're trying to do everything they can, from getting laws enacted, to artificially limiting access, to try and force their information into being a scarce good, just like they think it used to be.
But it never was, and still isn't. Information has never been a scarce good - it's only ever been the format that information took that was scarce - but that's changed, and a lot of companies have yet to understand that.
Of course they, (content creation/publishing companies etc.), won this particular 'battle', (i.e. the one in the courtroom), since the law here, unfortunately, was not really on TPB's side.
But the war goes on, as it has done for a while. And this is a war they cannot, MUST not, and WILL not be allowed to win, for humanity ALWAYS wins it's battles against tyranny in the end, even if the war continues...
The war of corporation vs humanity. This particular aspect in that war, has been ongoing ever since copyright was invented - (to protect book factories profits), and this is merely the latest battle.
The internet is humanities greatest ever information distribution, storage and copying system - and as such it was an inevitable development, from language, wired and wireless communication after computers were invented.
Unfortunately for these companies - they were built up by making money from the monopolistic distribution of information, and now the internet means humanity has no actual need for them for that particular reason.
Which means the ONLY way these companies can survive, is to USE the internet as bast as they can, and give humanity as many reasons as possible in order to use their company, as opposed to others.
But most are failing to do this.
If a company fails to supply enough of humanity with the service and product it needs to keep them in business, then WHY should they deserve to exist?
They have failed to understand, that because of the internet, information, in itself, now has very little inherent value. The ease of access, and the right price to certain information, however, HAS been shown to contain SOME value - (see itunes etc.).
Unfortunately for humanity, (and therefore for the companies themselves), they have not seen fit to use the internet as a main distribution system for their entire catalogue, and, as I said before, are therefore failing in their job to distribute their content/information. Why? It's why they're supposed to exist? If they wish to succeed, then they must follow the market humanity has created for them. If they cannot, then they should go out of business and be replaced by someone who can.
Unfortunately, here is where the copyright laws FAIL in their job. In the grand scheme of things, the copyright laws have only guaranteed a short-term spur in profits - but in the medium term - everyone loses, and humanity will not allow itself to lose - hence the existence of TPB et al..
I've met quite a lot of people in my time who's hearing wasn't as good as they thought it was. I mean, even though I know MY hearing is very good, I took one of those high frequency hearing tests, and it was obvious that I'm now 30 years old, and not 20 any more judging by the frequencies I couldn't hear...
Hearing ability is extremely variable, and the amount of people who don't fully realise how bad their hearing is, is probably going to increase for quite some time - (especially given the volume at which people listen to music these days - I personally can't stand anything loud and bass-heavy - it gives me headaches/makes me ill :( ).
I've had people saying that it's impossible to hear differences between various types of audio for a while too - from high bit-rate MP3's to WAV's etc..
The funny thing, is that I always could - though I think my DAW was probably the main reason for that - (good sound-card/headphones (DT100's)/monitors etc.).
One person I ran into reckoned that there wasn't even a difference between 16 and 24-bit audio files!! :-O
I'm of the opinion - (note that this may, or may not agree with the law) - that acts such as copying a movie/film/piece of music etc. BEFORE it's been officially released, should not come under copyright law at all, but under TRADE SECRET intellectual property law instead.
Yes, they may steal a DVD or CD etc. with the data on it, in which case you can do them for the theft of an object too, but if they're stupid enough to do that then they deserve it.
The reason WHY I say it would be better and more consistent via trade secrets, is that in that part of the law, there is a clear difference between a civil and criminal offense, which I feel is exactly what really matters here as far as the sort of information media companies deal with. The reason for this, is that this sort of information, in the grand scheme of things, is simply NOT IMPORTANT enough to humanity for it to be worth getting all that hot and bothered about, and therefore for the GOVERNMENT to be involved and for the TAX-PAYER to have to end up paying for any of the proceedings - (which will happen if the accused hasn't got enough money/assets). I.e. - there's not enough ACTUAL benefit for the tax-payer in order to make it a criminal case - UNLESS, the person is making a profit from it... (Which isn't the case here).
Yes, the media companies might reckon that without them civilization would fall apart, but of course that's a load of bullshit - given how long civilization existed before copyright was invented, (let alone media companies have existed), I think we can survive, (and maybe even benefit!) without either.
So, how would it be dealt with as a trade secret? Well, I'm just going to point out the short section in law that defines a criminal act rather than a civil one to support my case - (with a couple of words capitalized to make my point):
2. Elements of the Criminal Offenses
a. Economic Espionage (obviously not affected by the matter we're talking about).
Section 1831, "economic espionage," requires that the theft of trade secrets benefits a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent in some manner. (25) This type of misappropriation of trade secrets not only covers outright theft (26) or unauthorized duplication, (27) but also includes trafficking in stolen trade secrets, (28) as well as the attempt (29) and conspiracy (30) to commit these offenses. Section 1831 includes an intent component requiring that the misappropriation be "knowingly" committed. (31)
b. Theft of Trade Secrets (THIS ONE!)
Section 1832, "theft of trade secrets," applies to the misappropriation of trade secrets for the ECONOMIC BENEFIT of anyone other than the true owner. (32) Unlike [section] 1831, offenses are not limited to activities that benefit a foreign government. However, three prosecutorial limitations exist that are not present in the "economic espionage" offense:
(33) (i) the intended benefit realized must be economic in nature; (34) (ii) the thief must intend or know that the offense will injure the rightful owner; (35) and (iii) the stolen information must be "related to or included in a product produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce." (36)
Like [section] 1831, [section] 1832 also contains an intent component requiring that the misappropriation be "knowingly" committed. As interpreted by some federal circuits, the attempt and conspiracy provisions of [section] 1832 do not require the existence of an actual trade secret. (37)
This last section, IMHO, would makes far more sense for the media companies to deal with when people are selling pre-release copies of media goods, (i.e. for commercial gain). Since the current distribution of Wolverine is NOT commercial, however, then it should come under CIVIL law, and not criminal - i.e. it should NOT be a crime.
(Though, yes, if the person who copied it took a disc with it on, then they should be prosecuted for stealing the disc, but not copying the film. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the studio taking the person to a CIVIL court for damages, which is exactly what should be done - the disagreement is between the studio and the person copying their film, and shouldn't really involve the government - the government should only really be involved in commercial copyright infringement - not because of copyright, but because it's the GOVERNMENTS role to decide who can run a commercial business in its territory, and therefore it now becomes a criminal case between the government and the person/people involved, rather than a civil case between two parties).
Of course, this is all my idea and opinion of how it SHOULD work for humanities benefit, but of course all media companies don't care about humanity, only their own (hugely inflated) self worth...
And here we have yet another case of short-term thinking (on both sides) making things far worse than they needed to be...
I don't know why, but it seems like a lot of companies and organizations on both sides of the Atlantic atm seem to be suffering from short-sightedness, and it's a bit frustrating. Especially when you yourself suffer for it.
I'd ask if there's anyone out there these days that does actually think in the long-term, but we've just had the best example of it in the U.S. Presidential Election from Barack Obama. If anyone out there can learn anything from this Election, then please learn that...
(Bit of an OT rant, but I really feel a need to post this somewhere, sorry):
(Unfortunately I've been hit by a case of short-term thinking aswell, by the people at hexus.net.
I'm a potential customer - (am looking for a PC PSU and SATA DVDR - (my current PSU is too old for SATA, and is not powerful enough to run the new computer (M-B/CPU/Memory) I'm looking to buy early in the new year), right NOW - (TODAY!), with an eye on further purchases in the new year - (need to replace my DAW, which died)).
I was originally planning to buy from cconline.com but thought I'd ask some more about which PSU to buy, so I visited hexus to ask - (since they, like me, are UK based), and found that they are affiliated with scan.co.uk and have a deal that if you make 20 posts on their forums, you get free P&P.
So, you'd think that, since I was looking to buy the next day, (which I was very open about), it would be in THEIR interests to have me be able to make those 20 posts - (so long as they're not out-and-out spam!) - in order to buy through them, from scan, and not cconline, right?
So when I created a thread in their general discussion area - (so it's out of the way, and not Off Topic) - (I created a thread for something I'd been hammering away at all yesterday morning (I had 51 of them at the time - have written more last night) - U.S. Election haiku - (it started on the TIME magazine Swampland blogs)) - I was open about the fact that I was going to make 10 quick posts containing my poetry - (it was all I needed to make to get the free P&P), and I thought they'd understand...
How wrong can someone be? You'd have thought that getting 20 posts in their forums for free P&P would cause the world to end, based on their replies! Now, I'm a creative person - (I normally write music, not poetry) - and I don't like it when people tell me when I how I must do so.
Needless to say, as far as I'm concerned, hexus.net no longer exists, and scan.co.uk has lost a customer. I even emailed them to let them know, since it's not their fault, though it is, unfortunately for them, their problem.
Just another example of why being petty towards potential customers is not a good idea if you wish for them to become ACTUAL customers. Although the media companies like to do the same thing, they at least have a monopoly over certain products that almost allows them to get away with it. Consumer online computer hardware companies, however, most certainly DON'T.
I'll leave you with an example of the poetry I was posting for my discount:
Palin and McCain
Blizzard snow and desert rain
Failed in (Failing) their campaign