Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
Well, what a whole load of freely given information my original posting provoked! :-[ Dave PS. A final (please) thought Money is a sign of poverty (in case I get accused of IP theft, this is a Culture quote from Iain M. Banks) -- These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer /*/ /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/; */ /* The University of York Phone 01904 432448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 432450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ /*http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/; */ /*/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
On 22/09/2011 00:52, Fons Adriaensen wrote: .. The only point I wanted to make is that the very concept of 'property', of 'owning' things makes sense only if it is recognised by others - it is a social agreement and not a law of nature. Well, lets look at that a bit more closely. Many people likely own things (or information) that nobody else knows about (secrets, in other words, or just extremely personal and private stuff). This does not make the ownership any the less. It does not fully fit reality to regard everything in the world as somehow managed or recognised by society. That arises much later in the evolution of a group. It is of course how many (who identify their individual self with that society) want to see it. The fact that society generally ~wants~ to know as much as possible about everything and everyone is evident, but not always acknowledged. It is simplest by far to declare that an individual had no a priori right of secrecy, ownership or privacy to begin with. Many a dictatorship has been built on that very principle. The problem is that what starts out as a seemingly objective sociological analysis, which it is assumed nobody would think to question, all too easily gets transformed into a moral imperative. This is any assertion of the basic form I want it therefore it is right, or, equally, I don't want it therefore it is wrong. The fundamental aspect of it is that it is ~personal~, even if, for example, God is substituted for I. At best, it is an ongoing public negotiation between personal privacy and public interest, moderated by a (nominally) independent and disinterested legislature. At worst, all it takes is a little reinterpretation. Darwin's famous survival of the fittest got changed very rapidly from the proper scientific meaning of best adapted to their environment to the strongest, and this instantly justified scientifically all manner of individual, group, and national aggression. Misuse (or, charitably, misunderstanding) of that phrase still pervades thinking today, and so it continues to be extremely dangerous. It led, among other things, to the journalistic hacking of mobile phones, an extreme example where the supposed supremacy of information outweighed all other imperatives. Information wants to be free (who said it first is irrelevant; who uses it as a rallying cry is very relevant) is of course much less extreme, but it is a moral imperative nevertheless - a justification for a desire. Many an oppression has been founded on the verbal rhetoric of an aphorism, as of course Orwell famously demonstrated, including the inspired ... but some are more equal than others. There are many variations of this basic pattern of moral imperative, of which perhaps the most pervasive these days is I want it, therefore it is my right. An increasingly common one is I deserve it therefore it is right. Both are expressions of a peculiarly 20th-Century post-war and growing narcissism**. It seems to be a fundamental aspect of an individual in a society (perhaps even a definition) that we are ashamed of our desires despite the necessity of expressing them (or the near impossibility of not expressing them), and will go to any lengths to represent them in some more acceptable form. Modern western culture is absolutely saturated in such moral imperatives, wherever possible taking the form of something quasi-scientific, ~non~-personal, so that they become immune to any sort of challenge, or, best of all, become effectively invisible, hidden so to speak in plain sight. It is not always a conspiracy, as much of the time it is done unconsciously, instinctually (so in that sense property is indeed a law of nature), but it is the mother of all memes. Without it most public media, particualrly the tabloids, would have absolutely nothing to print, and the speeches of politicians would become numbingly dull. The price, as usual, is eternal vigilance. Perhaps this is the time to resume normal service? Richard Dobson ** see for example The Narcissism Epidemic, http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1416575995 ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
RD's analysis was very interesting. But about Informantion wants to be free: People certainly deserve protection for the value of their intellectual work. But greed transforms this plausible principle often enough into abuse. Let me give an example: Scientific research papers and textbooks. Publishers in the past had to charge money for journals, just to pay for the cost of distriubtion and physical production of the journal in the first place. Same with books. Now along come changes. First of all,technology made the things cheaper to produce, for example because authors supply not typed material that needs type setting but computer ready copy where the type-setting is just a matter of pushing a button. Second, the distribution becomes free. Moreover, older papers and books are free to the publisher-the publisher already owns them. So what ought to happen? Books ought to get cheaper, the authors ought to get more of what they do cost(the authors are now doing some of the work that formerly was done by the publisher), and old papers ought to be free entirely on line. Did this happen? Well, somewhat. Some older parts of mathematical journals are free on line now. But not all. The AES is charging for old papers on line and so is Springer for example for mathematical journal articles, even old ones. And books are not cheaper at all. Textbooks for example are a deliberate money scam, with texts on ancient unchanging subjects like calculus going through frequent multiple editions with only meaningless changes to make sure that used copies cannot be used by students. This is a deliberate attempt to work the students over and extract money for nothing. (The changes are trivial but are such that students can no longer use an old eidtion, e.g., changes in the numbering and details of homework exercises). Publishers in short are being greedy, as are textbook authors. In a big way. Well, it is the publishers' last hurrah. Soon they will cease to exist and they deserve to. In a way, that is too bad. I like books. But many publishers are running a scam on the public. They deserve the fate that will soon be upon them. I was looking the other day for a cheap old calculus book to use as a text. The subject of couse and also how it is taught have not changed in the last fifty years or so so I figured I could find an old cheap textbook still in print but reissued cheap in paperback that I could use instead of asking the already financially stressed students(suffering from the collapse of public funding for public education in the USA) to spend nearly $200 on a new and unnecessarily expensive textbook. This search has failed , so far. Such is the greed of people that even books by authors long dead are still being offered, forty years later, at full price. The authors are no longer even around but their grandchildren (or whoever constitutes their estate) are still trying to make money out of books written in the 1960s. Fie upon them. The authors of calculus books were in those days, befor the thing became an industry, were not even making a living out of writing the books. They were taking time from being university professors, already (at that time) well paid and trying to make more money. This is all quite contrary to the proper academic spirit. Information really ought to be free, in many cases. The opposite approach serves only to entrench the culture that says that only the rich have access to much of anything. Robert ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
when i was a child my grandaunt told me the story of a demon who lived in old banyan tree. he would swoop down on unwary travellers, but the travellers always ran away. one day, one traveller could not run, and the demon stopped him. he said, sit down under the tree, and learn everything i know. that is the only way i can stop being a demon. i was turned into a demon for refusing to teach what i knew. i want to be freed of that curse. umashankar i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:06:38 -0700 From: gre...@math.ucla.edu To: richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk; sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent RD's analysis was very interesting. But about Informantion wants to be free: People certainly deserve protection for the value of their intellectual work. But greed transforms this plausible principle often enough into abuse. Let me give an example: Scientific research papers and textbooks. Publishers in the past had to charge money for journals, just to pay for the cost of distriubtion and physical production of the journal in the first place. Same with books. Now along come changes. First of all,technology made the things cheaper to produce, for example because authors supply not typed material that needs type setting but computer ready copy where the type-setting is just a matter of pushing a button. Second, the distribution becomes free. Moreover, older papers and books are free to the publisher-the publisher already owns them. So what ought to happen? Books ought to get cheaper, the authors ought to get more of what they do cost(the authors are now doing some of the work that formerly was done by the publisher), and old papers ought to be free entirely on line. Did this happen? Well, somewhat. Some older parts of mathematical journals are free on line now. But not all. The AES is charging for old papers on line and so is Springer for example for mathematical journal articles, even old ones. And books are not cheaper at all. Textbooks for example are a deliberate money scam, with texts on ancient unchanging subjects like calculus going through frequent multiple editions with only meaningless changes to make sure that used copies cannot be used by students. This is a deliberate attempt to work the students over and extract money for nothing. (The changes are trivial but are such that students can no longer use an old eidtion, e.g., changes in the numbering and details of homework exercises). Publishers in short are being greedy, as are textbook authors. In a big way. Well, it is the publishers' last hurrah. Soon they will cease to exist and they deserve to. In a way, that is too bad. I like books. But many publishers are running a scam on the public. They deserve the fate that will soon be upon them. I was looking the other day for a cheap old calculus book to use as a text. The subject of couse and also how it is taught have not changed in the last fifty years or so so I figured I could find an old cheap textbook still in print but reissued cheap in paperback that I could use instead of asking the already financially stressed students(suffering from the collapse of public funding for public education in the USA) to spend nearly $200 on a new and unnecessarily expensive textbook. This search has failed , so far. Such is the greed of people that even books by authors long dead are still being offered, forty years later, at full price. The authors are no longer even around but their grandchildren (or whoever constitutes their estate) are still trying to make money out of books written in the 1960s. Fie upon them. The authors of calculus books were in those days, befor the thing became an industry, were not even making a living out of writing the books. They were taking time from being university professors, already (at that time) well paid and trying to make more money. This is all quite contrary to the proper academic spirit. Information really ought to be free, in many cases. The opposite approach serves only to entrench the culture that says that only the rich have access to much of anything. Robert ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110922/cbfa61a1/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:31:40PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote: On 22/09/2011 00:52, Fons Adriaensen wrote: .. The only point I wanted to make is that the very concept of 'property', of 'owning' things makes sense only if it is recognised by others - it is a social agreement and not a law of nature. Well, lets look at that a bit more closely. ... Again, I never wrote any of 'Information wants to be free', 'I want it herefore it is right', etc, I did not interpret Darwin, and I'm not stating any moral imperatives. So please stop blaming me for what may be some people's ideas or errors but certainly not mine. Ciao, -- FA ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
Sorry, ... but: No. It would be useful if people replied to the points posted, and not to what they wished people (seeming, regarded as opponents;-( had said. Michael On 22/09/2011 15:32, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:31:40PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote: On 22/09/2011 00:52, Fons Adriaensen wrote: .. The only point I wanted to make is that the very concept of 'property', of 'owning' things makes sense only if it is recognised by others - it is a social agreement and not a law of nature. Well, lets look at that a bit more closely. ... Again, I never wrote any of 'Information wants to be free', 'I want it herefore it is right', etc, I did not interpret Darwin, and I'm not stating any moral imperatives. So please stop blaming me for what may be some people's ideas or errors but certainly not mine. Ciao, It's a discussion. Relevant since there is an interest in the principles and problems of intellectual property (or whatever else we call it) on this list - to say nothing of the broader issues around free v commercial, the GPL, etc. Ultimately, ~all~ arguments not purely about hard facts hinge on the conflict between moral imperatives, and draw on rhetorical techniques to present them. I am not accusing or blaming anyone here. This is a very general issue. But the words social agreement inherently imply an imperative of some kind - the idea that ownership is relative or sanctioned, rather that absolute (if only in the sense that breaking the agreement might be judged under another imperative, or justified by it). I give simple examples to illustrate and clarify. These things are present in the words, whether we like it or not, intentional or not, and we ~all~ call upon them frequently, one way or another, perhaps the the more so the more political we are. Topics just on this list have included copyright, DRM and watermarking, as well as patents, and I have surely perpetrated quite a few moral imperatives myself, in unguarded moments! Richard Dobson ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110922/cbfa61a1/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
On 22/09/2011 18:38, Robert Greene wrote: Wonderful! The whole point of science is to give the information to other people. Scientists have done and do just this, all the time - primarily to fellow scientists. On top of their myriad internal channels they have arXiv (open access), CiteSeer, Nature (which for 51 print issues a year is really very cheap) and any number of other readily accessible outlets, so I think they are probably doing as well as they can, especially given that most of the time they are prevailed upon by their Universities to raise their publication rate simply for profile and fund-raising purposes, all of which rather cuts into precious research time. Scientific information ought to be public domain. Anything else is a cheat of the intention of sciece. Only to the very limited extent that it costs money to distribute things should there be any charge. The AES ought to be ashamed of trying to line the organizations pockets by selling old reprints and reports. The AES (along with the IEEE, about which similar complaints are voiced) stands somewhat apart, as it is not strictly speaking a scientific organisation but (as the name indicates) an engineering (industrial RD) one - we might almost call the JAES a trade journal. You have to qualify to be a full voting member of the AES. So they are unashamedly commercial/industrial in orientation, not least because the majority of its members are too. It is not a prime outlet for science research in the way Nature is, it is more of a club for working engineers. Companies employing them typically subscribe to the large AES CD and DVD and online libraries, so that having to download and pay for an individual paper hardly figures at all. Anyone with a university login can search and download all IEEE papers freely via the IEEEXplore facility, even an unpaid external visiting research fellow such as myself. It would be nice if the AES provided a similar resource. To the independent developer and researcher of course, where every dollar matters, yes it is all rather expensive, especially when you can't check a whole paper beforehand to make sure it is actually useful. On the other hand, anyone can ask to join an AES working group - no payment involved. I am a member of the AES31-related group (file format, project interchange), on which I had precisely no impact (they went ahead and ratified the horrible RF64 file format anyway), and I find that as such I can still access standards documents, such as on the newly announced AES50 HRMAI (High resolution multi-channel audio interconnection), which may be of interest to this list (a dizzying 24 channels each way at 24/96 over Cat-5 cable), so the picture is not all bad. Richard Dobson ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
