Copying restrictions is an interesting subject to focus on, as it is very easy to say to anyone, who disagrees with these principles, that he or she is a thief (communist, leech etc).
Restrictions in a modern world are reactions to problems. We have smoking restrictions because of health-problems, driving-restrictions to safen the driving experience etc. As in the western world, I believe copying restrictions are also solutions offered to problems. Problems like the loss of revenue, theft of intellectual property etc.
I know - information is not like metal or a television set - more than one person can consume it without consequences to other consumers experience. But the expectation put on software developers by themselves and owners are the same as in the business of metal-production or home electronics.
Investors demand their revenues, employees want their salaries and governments ask their taxes.
Copyright restrictions are the answer to the problem of software theft - a multitude of apparatuses lose their monetary out-take when a person pirates software. Why should we look at this situation any different than eg. a person stealing a sports-bag from a shopping centre.
I repeat -the expectations put on software production are the same as in the rest of the market and this wont change until the market changes.
If one cannot find means to use proprietary software, it should shift to software suitable for him or her in monetary terms.
But what about my CD-s, DVD-s or downloaded music? As stated before - it is the producers right (artists in this case) to choose how a person can handle its creation. As mentioned before - there is a ocean of free alternatives offered.
Sunday, November 29
Software Licensing in 2015: a Prediction
I personally believe, that the upcoming years will sadly unify the whole personal computer market, meaning that the experience we have using different software products will be more native (boring in the sense of it-fanatics, but easy in the sense of common-user).
This unification at the moment will lead us to two types of software - web-based (producer owned) and pc-based but web-enhanced software. Perfect example of a web-based software is Google with its Services (Docs, Gmail, Calendar etc.). These application fulfil the common needs of a user and don't cost anything to him or her. But these solutions are easily manageable, meaning that the market will dumb-down (simple actions like "Go to Tools - Options and do that" will soon become too elaborate for the user). The other way is the Microsoft way - meaning people will still have a monetary entry-point to gain software and also they have to pay usage-fees to the company, when wanting support and updates to one's software.
We cannot say, which way is better, because to me (as a it-fanatic) it is overall anyway sad, that this unification (or standardisation) of the market is happening, because new innovative solutions are now harder to be made available because of the extensive standardisation. But as stated - the common user will greet the changes.
The changes are also greeted because the battle of paid software will soon end, as there are more and more solutions, which don't cost anything to the user and still look good and function as wished. However I don't believe that the free (usually web-based) software will rule the market by itself, as Microsoft model is more traditional and "safe" for the user and the money one has to spend to get software, will overall be in-significant to him or her (as Microsoft and alike will drop somewhat their prices, to better compete with Google and alike).
I don't have great faith in OpenOffice or smaller projects, which work as a Microsoft product but follow the Google paradigm. As the user-base will want more standardized products, OpenOffice (or other alternatives to Microsoft, whether paid or not) will seem either too difficult to use for the user or just a cheap copy, which is also avoided.
PS: Microsoft and Google in this article don't stand for the companies named, but rather symbolize the leaders of the sector (eg. in web production Dreamweaver vs. xxx; in photo editing PhotoShop vs. xxx etc.).
This unification at the moment will lead us to two types of software - web-based (producer owned) and pc-based but web-enhanced software. Perfect example of a web-based software is Google with its Services (Docs, Gmail, Calendar etc.). These application fulfil the common needs of a user and don't cost anything to him or her. But these solutions are easily manageable, meaning that the market will dumb-down (simple actions like "Go to Tools - Options and do that" will soon become too elaborate for the user). The other way is the Microsoft way - meaning people will still have a monetary entry-point to gain software and also they have to pay usage-fees to the company, when wanting support and updates to one's software.
We cannot say, which way is better, because to me (as a it-fanatic) it is overall anyway sad, that this unification (or standardisation) of the market is happening, because new innovative solutions are now harder to be made available because of the extensive standardisation. But as stated - the common user will greet the changes.
The changes are also greeted because the battle of paid software will soon end, as there are more and more solutions, which don't cost anything to the user and still look good and function as wished. However I don't believe that the free (usually web-based) software will rule the market by itself, as Microsoft model is more traditional and "safe" for the user and the money one has to spend to get software, will overall be in-significant to him or her (as Microsoft and alike will drop somewhat their prices, to better compete with Google and alike).
I don't have great faith in OpenOffice or smaller projects, which work as a Microsoft product but follow the Google paradigm. As the user-base will want more standardized products, OpenOffice (or other alternatives to Microsoft, whether paid or not) will seem either too difficult to use for the user or just a cheap copy, which is also avoided.
PS: Microsoft and Google in this article don't stand for the companies named, but rather symbolize the leaders of the sector (eg. in web production Dreamweaver vs. xxx; in photo editing PhotoShop vs. xxx etc.).
Monday, November 23
About GNU GPL
I will introduce a small SWOT analysis of the GPL system, looking at the situation from strictly my point of view:
S
- high usability rate (since its free, users and developers have higher access to it)
- high usability satisfaction (since the code is available, it offers clients the ability to modify the software to meet one's needs)
- simplicity (as the code and software is unprotected, it is
W
- unable to capitalize (if everybody can modify your work and redistribute, it is absurd to ask money for your creation)
- high cost of doing business in comparison with the copyright field (using GPL one will lose incomes familiar to copyright section, eg. licence fees or update fees)
- lack of investors (because the business model is common only in software engineering, investors are afraid to put large amount of money into the project (planes are built by patents, sneakers by trademarking, films by copyright) - GPL doesn't follow the trend of the marketplace, being an alternative therefore never receives a lot of investments
O
- spread of the principle (for GPL to really gain ground, it is important to force-spread the GPL paradigm to different sectors of business. Wikinomics by Tapscott*)
- decrease of digital divide (if GPL turns into the main force behind software engineering, business and science can gloom in states other than US or EU, thus decreasing the monetary and information gap for example between Africa and the rest of the world)
- lower costs of doing business (as GPL mainly offers freeware, it is logical to assume, that the cost of doing business will lower for participants)
T
- Although the decrease of profits when using GPL would be imminent (thus a threat), I would assume the turnover would quite rise instead because of the new market-enterers, who gained opportunity thanks to GPL licenses.
- Rise of competition (although in economics, competition is greeted, it is still a false-greeting to me, as we see the majority of successful businesses in the world being monopolistic). GPL will definitely raise the competitive level, as new enterers are sure to access the market.
- Fragmentation of the market (as more and more new-comers enter the market, it would be impossible for the common-man to work with the computer. We all (in every age) can create documents using wordpad or Office - imagine now this sector being popular by 20 different software solutions. Some sort of it-speciality is needed then. Although PHP is a "free language", not much of the people know how to create it. First steps in that field by common people are made using Word (sic!), Dreamweaver of simply WYSIWYG methods offered by the platform (Google Docs).
In conclusion GPL is and was a very promising way of thinking about IP in the field of information technology. But if this perception doesn't spread, it will forever (or for a long period) be stuck in this field, always having to empower its existence and fight the ongoing waves of copyright in software engineering.
S
- high usability rate (since its free, users and developers have higher access to it)
- high usability satisfaction (since the code is available, it offers clients the ability to modify the software to meet one's needs)
- simplicity (as the code and software is unprotected, it is
W
- unable to capitalize (if everybody can modify your work and redistribute, it is absurd to ask money for your creation)
- high cost of doing business in comparison with the copyright field (using GPL one will lose incomes familiar to copyright section, eg. licence fees or update fees)
- lack of investors (because the business model is common only in software engineering, investors are afraid to put large amount of money into the project (planes are built by patents, sneakers by trademarking, films by copyright) - GPL doesn't follow the trend of the marketplace, being an alternative therefore never receives a lot of investments
O
- spread of the principle (for GPL to really gain ground, it is important to force-spread the GPL paradigm to different sectors of business. Wikinomics by Tapscott*)
- decrease of digital divide (if GPL turns into the main force behind software engineering, business and science can gloom in states other than US or EU, thus decreasing the monetary and information gap for example between Africa and the rest of the world)
- lower costs of doing business (as GPL mainly offers freeware, it is logical to assume, that the cost of doing business will lower for participants)
T
- Although the decrease of profits when using GPL would be imminent (thus a threat), I would assume the turnover would quite rise instead because of the new market-enterers, who gained opportunity thanks to GPL licenses.
- Rise of competition (although in economics, competition is greeted, it is still a false-greeting to me, as we see the majority of successful businesses in the world being monopolistic). GPL will definitely raise the competitive level, as new enterers are sure to access the market.
- Fragmentation of the market (as more and more new-comers enter the market, it would be impossible for the common-man to work with the computer. We all (in every age) can create documents using wordpad or Office - imagine now this sector being popular by 20 different software solutions. Some sort of it-speciality is needed then. Although PHP is a "free language", not much of the people know how to create it. First steps in that field by common people are made using Word (sic!), Dreamweaver of simply WYSIWYG methods offered by the platform (Google Docs).
In conclusion GPL is and was a very promising way of thinking about IP in the field of information technology. But if this perception doesn't spread, it will forever (or for a long period) be stuck in this field, always having to empower its existence and fight the ongoing waves of copyright in software engineering.
Science Business
The problem that Soros and the Open Access movement focused on (lack of free or cheap scientific journals) was unknown to me for apparent reasons until last year when I started writing my bachelor thesis.
First - I'd like to state out the more "extreme" problems with scientific journals today - students lack the ability to browse them, as the principles of searching (and outcomes) in systems like EBSCO etc are not similar to what we (or they) are used to use. For example - my 16 year old brother doesn't know how to search Google with aids (using *, ?. + etc) and rather just inputs the word and hopes on the search aid (Google recommendations). Imagine what will happen, if he enters the college (which I hope he does) and tries to use this decades-old system to search for knowledge left by us or persons before us.
The other problem is that there is no universal platform for searching these articles. Imagine, if with have to search the internet from 3 or 4 engines to get a good overview of the subject. Sure it can be done today, but who really uses anything else but Google? (ok, Bing?). And because of the lack of the platform we are left in the situation, where the search results in different databases offer plentiful of results (a great amount of results aka. articles) but just a small fraction of them is eventually fount out by me to be useful to me. Unfortunately.
And only now do i reach to the third problem which is of course the the cost of these journals. Science business at the root of itself is ill to me, as I despise the concept that one should pay money for scientific knowledge. Why? I guess the critique would be the cost of production and reviewing (both academic and linguistic).
I agree with the cost but they can be minimized. The cost of publishing for example can be null - we have options of free-ware software that can be used to publicize the knowledge over internet. If one would like to own a hard copy (for reasons unknown to me forever), then he or she should pay for it (by a price higher than expected). I'd like to point out here the article by Umberto Eco where the gentlemen bashes my dislike of materialized knowledge, but for many reasons I still dislike the idea of printed word.
The cost of linguistic reviewing should be left to the author to carry (with different software and personal linguistic reviewers).
The cost of reviewing the article should be null. Why would a scientist or a researcher take money to review an article? I see the review process being part of what defines a scientist. After all - he or she was on the same position when starting their scientific career. I know that we all are busy - let's execute the laws of economy here then - the options being that there should be then more scientist (reviewers) or the publications should decline (greater time-frame for publicizing). Although here my idea gets its greatest error - we like that the scientific articles get published so rapidly - this gives us more knowledge on fresher subjects.
So I guess to only reason why scientific journals should and would take money, is because of the pressure from the scientific society to get fresher and greater amount of information. Who pays for it, is left to decide by the society, but eventually we all pay for it anyway though taxes so it is here unimportant.
Is this a Digital Divide-causing factor? Of course it is. Martin Hallik from the University of Tartu Library has written many articles on the subject, basically stating that Estonian scientist would get dumber and e-Estonia would further decrease in its innovation because of the lack of funding in scientific journals database subscription.
Imagine what is the situation in Armenia? Tunisia? Zimbabwe?
The divide is and unfortunately will continue to grow.
First - I'd like to state out the more "extreme" problems with scientific journals today - students lack the ability to browse them, as the principles of searching (and outcomes) in systems like EBSCO etc are not similar to what we (or they) are used to use. For example - my 16 year old brother doesn't know how to search Google with aids (using *, ?. + etc) and rather just inputs the word and hopes on the search aid (Google recommendations). Imagine what will happen, if he enters the college (which I hope he does) and tries to use this decades-old system to search for knowledge left by us or persons before us.
The other problem is that there is no universal platform for searching these articles. Imagine, if with have to search the internet from 3 or 4 engines to get a good overview of the subject. Sure it can be done today, but who really uses anything else but Google? (ok, Bing?). And because of the lack of the platform we are left in the situation, where the search results in different databases offer plentiful of results (a great amount of results aka. articles) but just a small fraction of them is eventually fount out by me to be useful to me. Unfortunately.
And only now do i reach to the third problem which is of course the the cost of these journals. Science business at the root of itself is ill to me, as I despise the concept that one should pay money for scientific knowledge. Why? I guess the critique would be the cost of production and reviewing (both academic and linguistic).
I agree with the cost but they can be minimized. The cost of publishing for example can be null - we have options of free-ware software that can be used to publicize the knowledge over internet. If one would like to own a hard copy (for reasons unknown to me forever), then he or she should pay for it (by a price higher than expected). I'd like to point out here the article by Umberto Eco where the gentlemen bashes my dislike of materialized knowledge, but for many reasons I still dislike the idea of printed word.
The cost of linguistic reviewing should be left to the author to carry (with different software and personal linguistic reviewers).
The cost of reviewing the article should be null. Why would a scientist or a researcher take money to review an article? I see the review process being part of what defines a scientist. After all - he or she was on the same position when starting their scientific career. I know that we all are busy - let's execute the laws of economy here then - the options being that there should be then more scientist (reviewers) or the publications should decline (greater time-frame for publicizing). Although here my idea gets its greatest error - we like that the scientific articles get published so rapidly - this gives us more knowledge on fresher subjects.
So I guess to only reason why scientific journals should and would take money, is because of the pressure from the scientific society to get fresher and greater amount of information. Who pays for it, is left to decide by the society, but eventually we all pay for it anyway though taxes so it is here unimportant.
Is this a Digital Divide-causing factor? Of course it is. Martin Hallik from the University of Tartu Library has written many articles on the subject, basically stating that Estonian scientist would get dumber and e-Estonia would further decrease in its innovation because of the lack of funding in scientific journals database subscription.
Imagine what is the situation in Armenia? Tunisia? Zimbabwe?
The divide is and unfortunately will continue to grow.
Anglo-American vs. Continental European: Understanding of IP
When one thinks about the different perceptions of IP (eg. copyright) in the two continents, it is indeed different in many ways. US (UK less) has always had the representation of a Warner-Universal playground, where they state the rules and follow the consumers, while EU has been more of a liberal and consumer-protective state.
This stance derives from the two different judicial systems that rule the EU and US/UK courts. As the model in the US and UK (what is lawful and what is a crime/unlawful) depends on the persons ability to represent itself (lawyers) and the judges/juries perception of the situation (settlements of previous cases), it is rather easy to understand, why the consumers in US are in the losing position. One would imagine that it is quite hard for a person or a group of persons to fight against the conglomerates, when wanting to get their perception legitimized in a courtroom. The army of lawyers standing against them simply disallows it.
The judicial system of continental EU on the other hand is different, having more Deutsche influences. That meaning, that the law has to be written and universally accepted by every member of society. The mark-up of the laws has and will offer citizens the same rights in every situation with similar lines (but different backgrounds). This universality/equality denies media-conglomerates the ability to easily fight against the minorities (anti-current-IP etc.), because the majority usually doesn't like seeing acts criminalized by the courts - therefore the politics (and other persons affecting the courtrooms) don't have the will to support conglomerates that much in their fight.
So in conclusion, the main difference between the two system comes out of different judicial systems - the persons or perceptions under them don't differ as much to me. But if I'd have to choose which one to support, I'm more pro-EU model as I like the concept of laws being universal to everybody, evading then the need to see and organize big-scale courtroom-theatricals.
This stance derives from the two different judicial systems that rule the EU and US/UK courts. As the model in the US and UK (what is lawful and what is a crime/unlawful) depends on the persons ability to represent itself (lawyers) and the judges/juries perception of the situation (settlements of previous cases), it is rather easy to understand, why the consumers in US are in the losing position. One would imagine that it is quite hard for a person or a group of persons to fight against the conglomerates, when wanting to get their perception legitimized in a courtroom. The army of lawyers standing against them simply disallows it.
The judicial system of continental EU on the other hand is different, having more Deutsche influences. That meaning, that the law has to be written and universally accepted by every member of society. The mark-up of the laws has and will offer citizens the same rights in every situation with similar lines (but different backgrounds). This universality/equality denies media-conglomerates the ability to easily fight against the minorities (anti-current-IP etc.), because the majority usually doesn't like seeing acts criminalized by the courts - therefore the politics (and other persons affecting the courtrooms) don't have the will to support conglomerates that much in their fight.
So in conclusion, the main difference between the two system comes out of different judicial systems - the persons or perceptions under them don't differ as much to me. But if I'd have to choose which one to support, I'm more pro-EU model as I like the concept of laws being universal to everybody, evading then the need to see and organize big-scale courtroom-theatricals.
Saturday, November 14
Steps to take, when avoiding conmen
Since I was searching for a new phone, cheap etc. used, I have met a lot of people with bad intentions in mind (rid the fool of his money).
So to help myself and to help others, I am posting some mandatory steps to take, when a person wants to avoid being conned.
1. Package posting is NOT an option. Never agree to get the goods by mail. Why?
- Usually you have to pay in front, meaning he/she gets the money and you hope to get SOMEthing
- Offer him/her to meet in his preferred location (even if you really can't be there). Usually the person says that this is impossible (because he or she is so busy) or offers a very weird time for the meeting (eg. 23:00 o'clock)
2. Don't let the "facts" calm you down.
- Usually the criminal offers you his/her id-number, mobile phone, e-mail and more. This is of course to make an illusion that you have something on HIM, but in fact you only have crap. Only real proof of his identity is a digitally signed copy of his ID. Usually that is TOO complicated for him.
- If he offers you facts, turn it vice versa: offer him true facts about you and say, that now he has the guarantee to send you the goods, while receiving money later
3. How to recognize a con
- Price of the goods is noticeable cheaper than the average
- Profile name is random (Mati2334) and the person's name is non-formal (mAti K.)
- Town is usually a small one and far from regional centres (Jõhvi, Valga, Hiiumaa)
So to help myself and to help others, I am posting some mandatory steps to take, when a person wants to avoid being conned.
1. Package posting is NOT an option. Never agree to get the goods by mail. Why?
- Usually you have to pay in front, meaning he/she gets the money and you hope to get SOMEthing
- Offer him/her to meet in his preferred location (even if you really can't be there). Usually the person says that this is impossible (because he or she is so busy) or offers a very weird time for the meeting (eg. 23:00 o'clock)
2. Don't let the "facts" calm you down.
- Usually the criminal offers you his/her id-number, mobile phone, e-mail and more. This is of course to make an illusion that you have something on HIM, but in fact you only have crap. Only real proof of his identity is a digitally signed copy of his ID. Usually that is TOO complicated for him.
- If he offers you facts, turn it vice versa: offer him true facts about you and say, that now he has the guarantee to send you the goods, while receiving money later
3. How to recognize a con
- Price of the goods is noticeable cheaper than the average
- Profile name is random (Mati2334) and the person's name is non-formal (mAti K.)
- Town is usually a small one and far from regional centres (Jõhvi, Valga, Hiiumaa)
Monday, November 9
Against Intellectual Property
Martin's chapter about the stagnating stance of IP today was interesting to read. The main idea, which was new to me, was his saying, that IP is a theft from the society, as one cannot produce any IP without the work of others before him.
I certainly agree with that position.
But some critique to that point of view still - all men are not created equal. It is fascinating and humane to say that every child has equal capabilities. This is however not the case, as there has been only 1 Einstein, 1 Gates and 1 Kennedy etc. This is a longer discussion so I will not open it now, but I wanted to point out some especially noticeable chapters from the text, so here it goes:
---
This to me is the most important outtake of the text. Agreed 100%.
A rather socialist way of perception, but I can understand the origin of that thought, as it would be catastrophic, if people would gain benefits on the basis of their genetics etc. (which play more and more vital role in the success of one).
This is of-course an absurdity that needs to be dealt with. 10 years at max is the normal "durance" of a copyright protection I think.
Exciting, but I disagree. The masses are stupid and I fear that bad ideas have such a great marketing behind them, that nowadays they always pass through.
EXACTLY! Right now everybody in Estonia is bashing the workers - under-qualified and overpaid. But the failure of our business model in companies has been neglected. I understand that doing business in Estonia by Estonians is hard, as we are bitter and jealous of co-citizens success, but one still has to admit, that (party because of the fact before-mentioned) our quality of business-management was and is low.
What? Definitely part worth going into.
Newton and Patents, no way, right!?
How can this be? Educational spending has risen world-wide to my understanding (OECD reports). If that is not the case, then it is truly troubling.
GREAT! I have always thought of this, when listening or reading Ansip's speeches / Savisaar's blogs.
I need to read this! (Alfie Kohn, Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and other Bribes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993))
This is of-course true and the most recent example of it was the news where Estonia's Academic Libraries revealed, how much do they spent on e-library's (scientific article bases) - the amounts were mind-blowing.
This is to every extent true. A study called "Framing the War" (of Iraq in US Daily Newspapers) showed perfectly how the public opinion was manipulated by major dailies around US.
So why the proposition to justify piracy? I still think that piracy is stealing and it is criminal activity. One has to respect the authors wish to gain money from his or her's work. As there are plenty of free alternatives, piracy to me seems more and more absurd and obnoxious.
Interesting. Again a socialist way of thinking to me but I guess if I focus on the thought more (read more), I would eventually agree with the notion.
And the perfect ending statement:
Review of Chapter 3 "Against Intellectual Property" of the Brian Martin's book.
I certainly agree with that position.
But some critique to that point of view still - all men are not created equal. It is fascinating and humane to say that every child has equal capabilities. This is however not the case, as there has been only 1 Einstein, 1 Gates and 1 Kennedy etc. This is a longer discussion so I will not open it now, but I wanted to point out some especially noticeable chapters from the text, so here it goes:
---
Suppose you have written an essay or made an invention. Your intellectual work does not exist in a social vacuum. It would not have been possible without lots of earlier work -- both intellectual and nonintellectual -- by many other people. This includes your teachers and parents. It includes the earlier authors and inventors who provided the foundation for your contribution. It also includes the many people who discussed and used ideas and techniques, at both theoretical and practical levels, and provided a cultural foundation for your contribution. It includes the people who built printing presses, laid telephone cables, built roads and buildings and in many other ways contributed to the "construction" of society. Many other people could be mentioned. The point is that any piece of intellectual work is always built on and is inconceivable without the prior work of numerous people.
This to me is the most important outtake of the text. Agreed 100%.
A person who is born with extraordinary natural talents, or who is extremely lucky, deserves nothing on the basis of these characteristics.
A rather socialist way of perception, but I can understand the origin of that thought, as it would be catastrophic, if people would gain benefits on the basis of their genetics etc. (which play more and more vital role in the success of one).
Where once copyrights were only for a period of a few decades, they now may be for the life of the author plus 70 years.
This is of-course an absurdity that needs to be dealt with. 10 years at max is the normal "durance" of a copyright protection I think.
As long as the competition is fair -- which means that all ideas and contributors are permitted access to the marketplace -- then good ideas will win out over bad ones. Why? Because people will recognize the truth and value of good ideas.
Exciting, but I disagree. The masses are stupid and I fear that bad ideas have such a great marketing behind them, that nowadays they always pass through.
One result is that quite a few ideas that happen to serve the interests of employers at the expense of workers -- such as that the reason people don't have jobs is because they aren't trying hard enough to find them -- are widely accepted although they are rejected by virtually all informed analysts.
EXACTLY! Right now everybody in Estonia is bashing the workers - under-qualified and overpaid. But the failure of our business model in companies has been neglected. I understand that doing business in Estonia by Estonians is hard, as we are bitter and jealous of co-citizens success, but one still has to admit, that (party because of the fact before-mentioned) our quality of business-management was and is low.
Others are challenging to much of the population, such as that imprisonment does not reduce the crime rate or that financial rewards for good work on the job or grades for good schoolwork are counterproductive.
What? Definitely part worth going into.
But speech without action is pointless. True liberty requires freedom to promote one's views in practice.Amen!
It is usually argued that the most dynamic parts of science are those with the least secrecy.
Newton and Patents, no way, right!?
However, as governments reduce their funding of universities, scientists and university administrations increasingly turn to patents as a source of income.
How can this be? Educational spending has risen world-wide to my understanding (OECD reports). If that is not the case, then it is truly troubling.
The most common sort of plagiarism is built into social hierarchies. Government and corporate reports are released under the names of top bureaucrats who did not write them; politicians and corporate executives give speeches written by underlings.
GREAT! I have always thought of this, when listening or reading Ansip's speeches / Savisaar's blogs.
There is a large body of evidence showing, contrary to popular opinion, that rewards actually reduce the quality of work.
I need to read this! (Alfie Kohn, Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and other Bribes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993))
Intellectuals are enormous consumers as well as producers of intellectual work.
This is of-course true and the most recent example of it was the news where Estonia's Academic Libraries revealed, how much do they spent on e-library's (scientific article bases) - the amounts were mind-blowing.
The way that an issue is framed makes an enormous difference to the legitimacy of different positions. Once intellectual property is undermined in the minds of many citizens, it will become far easier to topple its institutional supports.
This is to every extent true. A study called "Framing the War" (of Iraq in US Daily Newspapers) showed perfectly how the public opinion was manipulated by major dailies around US.
Unfortunately, illegal copying is not a very good strategy against intellectual property, any more than stealing goods is a way to challenge ownership of physical property. Theft of any sort implicitly accepts the existing system of ownership.
So why the proposition to justify piracy? I still think that piracy is stealing and it is criminal activity. One has to respect the authors wish to gain money from his or her's work. As there are plenty of free alternatives, piracy to me seems more and more absurd and obnoxious.
More fundamentally, it needs to be recognized that intellectual work is inevitably a collective process. No one has totally original ideas: ideas are always built on the earlier contributions of others.
Interesting. Again a socialist way of thinking to me but I guess if I focus on the thought more (read more), I would eventually agree with the notion.
And the perfect ending statement:
Intellectual property is theft, sometimes in part from an individual creator but always from society as a whole.
Review of Chapter 3 "Against Intellectual Property" of the Brian Martin's book.
Sunday, November 1
Social Engineering
Good case of social engineering
As Mitnick states the following:
, then it is very hard for me to find a good case. Manipulating or fooling people is commonly a bad thing. I would imagine, that a good case of social engineering is very hard to find. But possible.
For example defence war - there would be no greater good for example, when Russia invaded Georgia (or when Georgia killed innocent Russian citizens), when the nation under attack would have used social engineering to gain necessary information about the enemy's systems. Social engineering is closely tied to spying, and spying is a good cause, because it enables a country to achieve goals with lesser casualties to both sides at war.
And who hates Bond anyway?
Measures against social engineering attempts
#1 Known sites
Use well known sites when in the internet. Twitter in twitter, social-network in Facebook, e-mail in Google etc. Although the sites are huge and therefore lack of personal touch, they have a greater responsibility towrds their user-base, because of the high public attention on the owners. And credential thefts are unlikelier to appear in these sites (administrators are faster to help). Of course I haven't used any alternatives for the before-mentioned sites, so I don't KNOW how things are there, but I assume it.
#2 Passwords
Change your password every two month. Use 2 or 3 password types for websites (classify the passwords into categories - eg. e-mails, random sites and essential sites (banking)).
#3 Notice
Notice everything. The website's address. Uncommon changes in the content. News about sites that you use. Random browsing is convenient but dangerous to your privacy.
#4 Internet is not superior
When your friend sends you a love-letter or hate-mail, don't believe it at once. There is an opportunity that his or hers account has been compromised. When everything else fails, count on the traditional communication - meeting a person face to face.
#5 Use of biometric securities
Install a finger-print reader to your laptop and use it. That hardens the task for the social engineer to steal your identity.
As Mitnick states the following:
"Social Engineering uses influence and persuasion to deceive people by convincing them that the social engineer is someone he is not, or by manipulation."
, then it is very hard for me to find a good case. Manipulating or fooling people is commonly a bad thing. I would imagine, that a good case of social engineering is very hard to find. But possible.
For example defence war - there would be no greater good for example, when Russia invaded Georgia (or when Georgia killed innocent Russian citizens), when the nation under attack would have used social engineering to gain necessary information about the enemy's systems. Social engineering is closely tied to spying, and spying is a good cause, because it enables a country to achieve goals with lesser casualties to both sides at war.
And who hates Bond anyway?
Measures against social engineering attempts
#1 Known sites
Use well known sites when in the internet. Twitter in twitter, social-network in Facebook, e-mail in Google etc. Although the sites are huge and therefore lack of personal touch, they have a greater responsibility towrds their user-base, because of the high public attention on the owners. And credential thefts are unlikelier to appear in these sites (administrators are faster to help). Of course I haven't used any alternatives for the before-mentioned sites, so I don't KNOW how things are there, but I assume it.
#2 Passwords
Change your password every two month. Use 2 or 3 password types for websites (classify the passwords into categories - eg. e-mails, random sites and essential sites (banking)).
#3 Notice
Notice everything. The website's address. Uncommon changes in the content. News about sites that you use. Random browsing is convenient but dangerous to your privacy.
#4 Internet is not superior
When your friend sends you a love-letter or hate-mail, don't believe it at once. There is an opportunity that his or hers account has been compromised. When everything else fails, count on the traditional communication - meeting a person face to face.
#5 Use of biometric securities
Install a finger-print reader to your laptop and use it. That hardens the task for the social engineer to steal your identity.
Hactivism
To me, the recent and most astounding case of hactivism comes from Sweden, where in the year 2006, Pirate Party was formed.
I remember visiting the site myself, when first news about the possible shutdown of Pirate Bay started to appear. At that time the project seemed to be a geek-thing and I didn't take it seriously. Then again - the tought of a torrent-search site out of Western Europe (and US) being taken down was at that time ludacris to me (so-called law-brakers were the sharers not the platfrom).
Apparently this ludacris-to-realisation has greatly affected Pirate Party which now is the third biggest party in Sweden. Also they have a member in the European Parliament and basically all of the politics in Sweden now understand for the need to change the copyright laws (some of them even support Pirate Party principles).
Another interesting affect from the creation of Pirate Party is the idea-spread - you can see from this map that almost every significant developed country in the world has now a Pirate Party or at least an initiative.
To me, that is a great example of "clean" hactivism.
I remember visiting the site myself, when first news about the possible shutdown of Pirate Bay started to appear. At that time the project seemed to be a geek-thing and I didn't take it seriously. Then again - the tought of a torrent-search site out of Western Europe (and US) being taken down was at that time ludacris to me (so-called law-brakers were the sharers not the platfrom).
Apparently this ludacris-to-realisation has greatly affected Pirate Party which now is the third biggest party in Sweden. Also they have a member in the European Parliament and basically all of the politics in Sweden now understand for the need to change the copyright laws (some of them even support Pirate Party principles).
Another interesting affect from the creation of Pirate Party is the idea-spread - you can see from this map that almost every significant developed country in the world has now a Pirate Party or at least an initiative.
To me, that is a great example of "clean" hactivism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)