Fred McTaker 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (140)
-
On the post: Recognizing That Voice Is Just Data (Or How Google Voice Could Be Disruptive)
-
On the post: Even The Open Source Community Gets Overly Restrictive At Times
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2009 @ 01:23pmRe: Re: Re: This Article is Nonsense
"BTW, I hope you're not an intellectual property maximist/copyright maximist."
I am actually against IP in most forms. You can look at my past TechDirt and Against Monopoly comments for proof. Just hit my Profile link here.
The only valid form of media protections that I think are viable are Trademark (excluding dictionary and common words -- I don't think a TM like "Monster [Product]" is ever valid) and attribution rights (i.e. "authored by [Name]" must be printed with all copies). Related to attribution rights, I am against plagiarism, which I see as a consumer transparency/fraud issue rather than any "author rights" issue, similar to Trademark. I think patents are too rarely valid or novel to be of any real use, and software patents are especially farcical given the original Constitutional intent.
The only protection I left out of that list is Trade Secret, because I view it as a sort of "natural" protection that requires minimal government oversight. I think Registered Trade Secret should replace patents. The trade-off is that Registered Trade Secrets are easier to defend against industrial espionage with the government's help, and the Registration expires and thus goes public domain after a decent "limited time", let's say the same 20 years as patents are now.
With those definitions in play, I view the MIT license as the ability to keep Trade Secrets if you want to, but also the freedom to contribute back to the public domain if you want to. GPL forces all involved to give back to the public domain, whether they like it or not, which is the primary roadblock to game developer adoption. They may well decide they don't mind releasing their game code, either after the game is done or a few years after release (like iD has done with Doom and Quake). The point is they are given the freedom to decide their level of openness vs. Trade Secret at any point, and it is not imposed on them through OGRE's license. This makes them much more likely to try out OGRE, and contribute back if they like it.
To further clarify, I don't view copyrights on hidden code as valid, in contrast to assertions made by the 1996 Copyright changes. I don't think you should be able to copyright or claim attribution right on something you never publish in any form. The binary output you do release is what is copyrighted, and everything else should be Trade Secret status. What I am actually arguing here is the ability of game developers to select their own Trade Secrets vs. attribution vs. public domain. Unfortunately, the reality of current copyright-maximist laws skews the end result, which can't be seen as a fault in any OSI license. -
On the post: Even The Open Source Community Gets Overly Restrictive At Times
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2009 @ 12:58pmRe: Terminology clarification
Excellent analysis here! The only thing I have to add is that MIT is GNU GPL Compatible, meaning using OGRE under MIT will not prohibit games made with OGRE from being at least partially GPL licensed:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
(Listed here as the "Expat License")
Any change from the MIT license base to a more restrictive license (including GPL) will affect downstream forks based on the game as a whole, but would not affect OGRE-only changes upstream.
So to all those complaining that making OGRE non-GPL will make all games that use it non-GPL, that is simply not true. MIT licensing leaves it all up to the game developers, which is exactly the aspect that will allow OGRE to open up its base to contributors of all stripes: commercial, non-profit, or open community. -
On the post: Even The Open Source Community Gets Overly Restrictive At Times
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2009 @ 01:31amRe:
Be careful with "BSD". The first version of the BSD license actually had an advertising requirement that was untenable for most software developers, and could create a situation where the required ad text would smother any potential advertising when multiple BSD license sources were used. The BSD license everyone uses now is called "Modified BSD" with the advertising requirements stripped. The MIT license is even simpler than BSD, and a good choice for OGRE in my opinion. If you need the kind of user support GPL is designed for in a video game, that game has already failed.
-
On the post: Even The Open Source Community Gets Overly Restrictive At Times
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2009 @ 01:24amRe: Look At The Evidence
Yes, please do look at the evidence. List how many profitable video games are GPL licensed. Now list how many are not. How do those numbers compare?
-
On the post: Even The Open Source Community Gets Overly Restrictive At Times
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2009 @ 01:19amRe: This Article is Nonsense
"Let's take his OGRE game development framework released under a BSD license as opposed to the GPL as an example. The first thing that would happen is you would have game development companies adding their own changes to the code, but not distributing this with their games."
The point being made, that you missed entirely, is that this is precisely the scenario that is keeping most potential contributors away from the OGRE code in the first place. Why should any game developer want to be forced to release their entire codebase for their game to the public? They aren't even willing to spend the lawyer-time cash to see if the LGPL can get them around complete sharing!
Game companies are highly competitive over their AI and control routines, and even if they are using middleware or an externally developed engine, they don't like the idea of having to release all their code just to get one small part of their codebase for free. Epic, Valve, Havok, and iD make >$10K's for each of their licenses for this very reason. For a lot of money, you get full access to their engine code, without any obligation to share your own. That is far more cost effective to most commercial game companies than using OGRE under GPL. OGRE under MIT will change that cost comparison entirely.
MIT licensing doesn't stop the same companies from sharing back selected pieces of code or improvements to OGRE. It just makes them MUCH more likely to use OGRE in their game in the first place, and vastly increases the base of developers who are in a position to give back improvements. They just don't want to be forced to give away their whole game, and want to be more selective about how OGRE can benefit from their feedback. The "free rider problem" is the lesser of OGRE's distribution problems, precisely because they are making a game engine, and game companies don't like being forced to give away their games for free. -
On the post: Recognizing That Voice Is Just Data (Or How Google Voice Could Be Disruptive)
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2009 @ 12:56amRe:
If you don't think your "real phones" don't get translated from analog to data, and data back to analog, you're an idiot. VoIP didn't start as a way to get around the phone system -- similar data conversions were used extensively by long distance companies and large businesses with their own backbone connections, so that they could fit more calls over less long-haul fiber lines, thus saving themselves massive deployment costs.
The "keys" you're thinking of are just QoS policies, which are expressly permitted in current Net Neutrality legislation, but must be transparent (read: in the fine print at sign-up time) to the consumer.
I like QoS rules that make "phone" calls more important than video downloads more than anyone -- I just think those QoS policies should be set by the consumer, not the monopolistic telco. Net Neutrality makes that the case, and without Net Neutrality rules you lose all consumer controls over QoS policy, so they can decide their partner video downloads are more important than your 911 VoIP call. -
On the post: Chamber Of Commerce Uses DMCA Claim Against Yes Men Prank Site
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2009 @ 07:09pmRe: Parody
@AC: I hope that was your own poor attempt at parody. Not all environmentalists are scientists, but most real scientists are environmentalists, as they have discovered through peer-reviewed empirical study that the planet Earth's environment is very important to little things like human health. They have also managed to perform analysis of earth's features, like polar ice cores, upper atmosphere sampling, and general climate status sampling, that prove the Earth's oceans are currently both warmer and more acidic (due to carbon dioxide absorption) than all recorded or scientifically-estimable history.
I know you can't see all that evidence from your Cheeto-stained couch, especially while you have the AC on. Try reading a real science journal or paper sometime, rather than that Intelligent Design book you spilled your beer on. -
On the post: Recognizing That Voice Is Just Data (Or How Google Voice Could Be Disruptive)
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2009 @ 06:20pmEven "dumb pipes" is too much credit
I think even the "dumb pipes" analogy is giving them too much credit. I think roads are a more accurate analogy, and trucks are the data packets, in defiance of ex-Senator Stevens.
The data packets that travel to/from your home to the businesses you want to interact with are more like cars than water. They use traffic signals (routers) along the way to help them get to the right place, faster and more efficiently. We accept roads (last mile) and highways (national backbone) as public funded services, primarily because there aren't better alternatives (trains and trolleys were gutted by the automobile lobbys in the areas they served, and buses are just bigger autos). Allowing private entities to own the roads would result in endless toll stops, and they would end up almost useless.
The current private-owned Internet should be thought of in the same way: mired in endless toll roads. -
On the post: Microsoft Wants To Block Out 3rd Party Storage
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2009 @ 05:23pmRe:
"I don't know about most people, but the ones I know have never even considered 3rd party hardware for the 360."
Why not? Your "people" don't like saving money?
I work in the games industry and I buy 3rd party accessories, cables, and controllers all the time. Sometimes it's to make sure they work with our games, but way more often it's because the item does the same job at a lower price, or a better job at any price.
This is just Microsoft's same old "embrace, extend, and then extinguish" for standards, now applied to hardware. It's evil and it deserves DOJ scrutiny. Consoles have been doing this forever, but in this case they pulled a bait and switch by using standard interfaces up front, and then locking them down by device ID via software. There is no possible justifiable reason for this change, especially when the 3rd-party equipment often exceeds the capabilities of the 1st-party equivalents. -
On the post: FCC: We Want Net Neutrality
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2009 @ 02:07amRe: Net Neutrality
They forgot one rule:
* All Internet consumers must have a choice among substantial competition, including connection providers, maintenance providers, and ISP markets.
The Internet is another service which may need a "Public Option", to provide real competition to the existing market Trusts and Monopolies. Breaking up Ma Bell never worked -- it reformed while they weren't looking, like a T-1000.
Competition and regulation are both basic requirements in basic needs markets that tend to form Natural Monopolies or Trusts, such as food, housing, health, transportation, and communications. Government should create competition when the market fails to. People need to realize that paying for monopoly rents and trust price-fixing is worse than paying for taxes, because you can't vote on corporate internal policy or management, only on external regulation. Imagine how much better services could be if you could directly vote on your landlord or ISP management. You can't even "vote with your dollars" (which is inherently not Democratic -- it's Oligarchic) when there's no competition.
I never voted for AT&T to dictate local DSL access limits -- they forced that on us through market manipulation and lobby money. I can only vote for politicians that will promise to strong-arm them into serving me better, or who will threaten them with real competition. Those politicians are far too rare.
I don't trust invisible hands. -
On the post: FCC: We Want Net Neutrality
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2009 @ 01:34amRe:
"Businesses created the internet as we know it."
This would be funny if it wasn't so completely false. If that were true, we would still be stuck deciding between Prodigy, AOL, or Compuserve, probably on the basis of their modem speed and per-message charges. The Internet as we know it started out as a GOVERNMENT project, in coordination with PUBLICLY FUNDED Universities, called ARPANET. Just look at the 3G wireless data market, where they try to dictate what kind of computer (these days cell phones are computers) you can connect to "their network." If we left it to businesses, there would be NO Internet -- just a series of loosely connected (if connected at all) CORPnets. If we were really lucky, Google would exist as a wholly owned subsidiary of AOL. -
On the post: Looking At The Redbox Antitrust Fight
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2009 @ 05:25pmRedbox in my area!
This article lead me to discover that there's already 10 RedBoxes within a 10 mile radius of my home. If Netflix is ever taking too long with my queue, maybe I'll try out Redbox instead. I hope the studios know that they're doing nothing more than advertising RedBox now. An Anti-Trust ruling against the MPAA/members would be icing on the cake!
-
On the post: Looking At The Redbox Antitrust Fight
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2009 @ 05:21pmRe:
"Doesn't Redbox or any rental outfit (Blockbuster, etc) require a licensing agreement and royalty payments to the studios?"
They could probably work out a contract like this if it's to their benefit, like early release access and (in the case of Blockbuster) special edits (i.e. more G rated cuts and dubs).
Based on the studios' reactions to RedBox's business model, I'm guessing they are sticking with good ol' First Sale Doctrine (FSD). This means if they buy the disc outright rather than "licensing" it (which is a B.S. concept unless you're licensing reprint/resell rights) they can use it as they please, including renting and selling used discs with impunity.
IIRC, Autodesk fought an eBay seller who was using FSD to resell boxes of their software that he found in garage sales, and they lost because FSD legally trumped their EULA. FSD is even more clear-cut when applied to retail media. -
On the post: Fake Car Noises Being Added To Many New Cars… May Be Required Soon
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2009 @ 12:16pmRe: Re:
The problem isn't car companies wanting to make money. The problem is how they do it: on the backs of tax-payer citizens, some who depend on public transportation. This "car must make noise" bill would end up acting like a subsidy for "car tones" sales. Public funded roads are a subsidy for the car industry in general, just like public funded train tracks are a direct subsidy to a given train industry. Emissions standards also shouldn't be considered a limit -- they are actually a free "pollute this much or less" pass to the car industry, under which they are immune from paying for a lot of the health and environmental problems they cause.
Anti-tax people really need to open up their mind about what constitutes a tax or subsidy. Any time government sets up anything that favors one industry over another (corn over broccoli, cars over trains), or rests power in a privately held Trust or Monopoly (insurance, autos, telcos, cable, etc.), you are being taxed by those corporations via a combination of direct subsidies and monopoly rents. Those taxes probably amount to more than the ones the IRS deals in. -
On the post: A Monstrous Trademark Dispute That Has Nothing To Do With Monster Cable
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2009 @ 01:35amTrademark common words?
This case shows exactly why no one should be allowed to trademark common or dictionary words. It's my understanding that such simple trademarks can only be enforced in coordination with the use of a specific logo and/or font with the use of the word. Otherwise the common use makes it too ambiguous to be enforceable, thus rendering the trademark unusable. Otherwise, what's keeping someone from trademarking the word "Best", and suing anyone who claims to have the "Best [Thing]" in any given product area?
-
On the post: Court Invalidates Key Patent Claims In Acacia's Streaming Media Patent
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2009 @ 01:58amRe: stop the shilling!!!
Hey 'staff1', try listening to your own advice. Stop shilling for the patent trolls that don't produce anything real. You just make yourself and your "Pee uh USA" site look more ridiculous with every troll comment you make.
-
On the post: Speakeasy The Latest VoIP Provider To Block Certain Calls
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2009 @ 12:45amRe: Hmm
"Just hack out the law and go back to the drawing board."
I agree to the basic premise here, but I would go further and just hack out the old outdated tech, and have everyone upgrade to all-data lines plus VoIP (this can be done the Earthlink way, where the VoIP equipment is at the local colo, so the house connection just acts like a regular phone line). Get rid of the old minor remnants of the POTS system entirely. If you think your current "long distance" phone provider doesn't use VoIP tech internally, you're hopeless. Instead of Universal Telephone service we should have Universal Internet service, with a VoIP address registration requirement per building (for 911 and reverse-911 purposes). Concepts like area-codes and domestic long distance calling have been outdated since cell phones in the late 80's and should all be abandoned. Most of the old POTS based system should go along for the ride, into the trash bin of history.
Before people start yelling "but what if I'm not in DSL range?" you need to realize that analog audio is just another form of data. It can be digitized and compressed to use less of your POTS bandwidth than it does now, and you can use the leftover bandwidth for other data. Even if the space for other data is just a few Kb/s, that's better than what you can do with an old POTS type modem that isn't tolerant of simultaneous voice calls. Besides, government should have the incentive to bring you more broadband options, rather than stick you with an over-priced rural POTS connection like they do now. -
On the post: Shouldn't Intent Be A Part Of Criminal Law?
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2009 @ 06:54pmRe:
Pharmacists have Federal, FDA, and State regulations they need to abide by to operate and keep their license. After the Pseudoehepdrine limit laws were passed, one of those regulations became reporting sales of Pseudoehepdrine products, with special attention to large sales.
-
On the post: Shouldn't Intent Be A Part Of Criminal Law?
Fred McTaker ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2009 @ 06:46pmRe:
Intent is already an important part of most crime law definitions. That's why "temporary insanity" is still an acceptable yet difficult line of defense in a murder case -- if you were insane, your actions cannot be attributed to intent. "Premeditated" actions are also punished more harshly than accidents or even crimes of "negligence". The problem Mike and the WSJ are talking about here actually have more to do with laws designed to predict and prevent crime, rather than solve any actual crime.
My parents were both cops when I grew up, and I know how they think. They are continuously frustrated with their inability to really prevent crime on their own, yet having to deal with the invariably depressing aftermath. So, being the types with a law enforcement hammer, and thus seeing all crimes as nails, they work with politicians and legislators to interpret actions that *usually* lead to crimes, and re-define them as crimes within themselves. Thus the law about hording pseudoephederine products -- that's something Meth manufacturers do way more often than anyone else, so rather than having to prove the crime of methamphetamine manufacture after the fact, they just make this preparation step a crime in itself.
I personally think a better approach is to deal with the social and community problems that lead to crime, rather than attempting to "prevent" crime by criminalizing pre-crime actions. In fact I think community development is the only ethical way to lower crime rates, and criminalizing (even statistically valid) pre-crime actions is a horrible encroachment on personal liberty. Everything else constitutes trying to make cops into psychics, and they can't do that on TV very well yet, much less in real life.
Re: Re: Re: Even "dumb pipes" is too much credit
Actually it's a bit more complicated than that. Google Voice essentially uses the same tricks those old 10-10- discount long distance numbers used, with lots of nice voicemail and web integration added on. You "call in" to GV through your own local number, and select what you want to do, including make a call out. You then dial the number, and the call gets routed over GV VoIP connections until it gets translated to POTS analog at or near the destination. They thereby get around all long distance charges, making traditional long distance service unnecessary, which has been true for years but Telco monopolists would never let on. They also have vastly reduced International rates negotiated with carriers in each country, using the same VoIP-POTS routing tricks to get around cross-country charges, in the same way more "standard" VoIP services like GizmoProject and Skype Call-Out already do.
You can also link GV to a GizmoProject SIP account (hopefully more SIP services in the future) to avoid the POTS system entirely on your end. If the destination of the call also has VoIP, you can use Google as a tool to circumvent POTS entirely, while still using the old number system instead of SIP addresses. GizmoProject and Skype charge for "call-in" numbers, and Google eats the cost to give you a free GV call-in number (presumably in return for advertising exposure on their web interfaces).
Personally I prefer SIP addresses when available -- they look just like email adresses name@domain.ext, which is much easier to remember than a 10-15 number string. Potentially once SIP services are advanced enough, your voice/video SIP, IM, Wave, and email accounts can all be the same address. They can also have aliases and numerical "shortcuts", so are much more flexible than old POTS numbers.