01 JAN 2017 by ideonexus
Good software is not copy-protected
Good software is not copy-protected. That's a somewhat controversial position on a highly controversial subject. Many manufacturers try to discourage "piracy" (wholesale copying) of their software by various protective devices. Fine. The problem is, if the users can't copy all or parts of the program easily within their own working environments, the tool is much less adaptable. Another vulnerability and another nuisance factor is added to a situation already chancy and problematic. Software ... 1 
notes
notes24 NOV 2015 by ideonexus
Why use Openly Licensed Educational Resources?
Resources that are openly licensed benefit schools in a number of ways, but most notably they help to:
Increase Equity – All students have access to high quality learning materials that have the most up-to-date and relevant content because openly licensed educational resources can be freely distributed to anyone.
Save Money – Switching to educational materials that are openly licensed enables schools to repurpose funding spent on static textbooks for other pressing needs, such as invest... 1 notes
notes14 OCT 2013 by ideonexus
The Problem of Machine-Aggregated Knowledge
he nuts and bolts of artificial-intelligence research can often be more usefully interpreted without the concept of AI at all. For example, in 2011, IBM scientists unveiled a “question answering” machine that is designed to play the TV quiz show Jeopardy. Suppose IBM had dispensed with the theatrics, and declared it had done Google one better and come up with a new phrase-based search engine. This framing of exactly the same technology would have gained IBM’s team as much (deserved) rec... 1 notes
notesIf an AI works by aggregating the works of the sum total of human knowledge, should the humans that discovered that knowledge be compensated? Science works the same way, but ideas remain free.
03 JAN 2012 by ideonexus
Why Not Creative Commons with a Caveat?
I realize the whole point is to get a lot of free content out there, especially content that can be mashed up, but why won’t Creative Commons provide an option along the lines of this: Write to me and tell me what you want to do with my music. If I like it, you can do so immediately. If I don’t like what you want to do, you can still do it, but you will have to wait six months. Or, perhaps, you will have to go through six rounds of arguing back and forth with me about it, but then you can... 1 notes
notesWhy not a license that requires you to contact the artist and pitch your mashup idea? Why not allow the artist to put a disclaimer that they don't approve of your mashup?
03 JAN 2012 by ideonexus
We Are Moving to a World Where Only Advertising is Worth ...
If you want to know what’s really going on in a society or ideology, follow the money. If money is flowing to advertising instead of musicians, journalists, and artists, then a society is more concerned with manipulation than truth or beauty. If content is worthless, then people will start to become empty-headed and contentless.
The combination of hive mind and advertising has resulted in a new kind of social contract. The basic idea of this contract is that authors, journalists, musicians... 1 notes
notesArtists are being forced to give away their content for free, making it essentially worthless. When content is worthless, people will become contentless.
01 JAN 2010 by ideonexus
Who Profits from "Free"?
So everyone agrees these days: Hooray for pirates! Art and culture (or, more discouragingly, "content") should be free. Techno-utopians of the left and right envision a future in which everything ever made is accessible, at no cost, with a click of a button. Those who think "free" as in speech envision a new digital order offering an inclusive cultural commons and mass enlightenment through access to information; those who think "free" as in beer merely see a cheaper way to get rich. "Just be...Folksonomies: creative commons
Folksonomies: creative commons
1 notes
notesCapitalists love all this free stuff online, they get to make so much money off of it. I do appreciate the irony of me attempting to do the same with MemexPlex.
01 JAN 2010 by ideonexus
How Do Artists Make Money in a World of "Free"
Obviously we must balance our desire for free stuff with a concern for work. but the open-source software tradition, our final authority on all social questions these days, has little to say about labor, oppression, compensation or collective bargaining. The supposed liberation heralded by those who promote free culture is winner-takes-all; exploit or be exploited, as long as you share your code. Anderson concedes this point, acknowledging that we "measure success in terms of creation of vast...Folksonomies: creative commons
Folksonomies: creative commons
1 notes
notesIt's easy for Google, buzzword-techno-Utopians, and progressives to estole the virtues of free media online, where copyrights are being broken down and everyone is producing free content because they love to do so, but artists still need to make a living. Media corporations are still getting rich, and software pirates are promoting their goods while trading them for free online. While google makes billions on indexing content, while those producing the content make nothing. What is the solution to this?
