jump to navigation

Protected: Goddamit. February 28, 2010

Posted by Lupus in Uncategorized.
Enter your password to view comments.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Advertisements

Protected: Bleh April 8, 2009

Posted by Lupus in Uncategorized.
Enter your password to view comments.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Copyright: the never-ending story January 12, 2008

Posted by Lupus in Uncategorized.
4 comments

Killl! Kill! Kill!

UPDATE: Shamus comments.

Let’s see. Omo writes a rather disjointed post talking peripherally about some issues relating to copyright. He ends with this:

Contrary to marketing studies, it is still just as relevant today as it was in 2002–the Lessig keynote flash presentation about free culture. Are you ready to fight for your right to watch fansubs? Do something.

Avatar responds. In short, his point is this: if you are granted the right to watch free fansubs, soon thereafter there won’t be any for you to watch because all the anime production companies will go out of business. Mangas can be produced by starving artists working alone, but animation cannot be. Even low budget animation requires a lot of money, because it has to be created by paid staff. If there’s no income, there’s no money, thus no staff, thus no animation.

And then he says, animation cannot be produced using an “open source” model.

Well! That gored Author’s ox. Author, whose RL name is “Pete”, is a big wheel in open source development and is, shall we say, rather invested in the movement, and not just emotionally. Speak ill of OS in his presence at your peril! He opens up a can of whoopass on Avatar — and, I think, completely misses the point.

Avatar wasn’t saying that open source is evil. He wasn’t saying that it was impossible for it to be profitable. He was saying that it isn’t the solution to all problems — and he’s right. It sure as hell isn’t a solution to this one.

Author says:

How is “copyleft” synonymous with “non-profit”? Red Hat and MySQL sell nothing but copylefted things and reap handsome profits for it. It simply is FUD to conflate these things.

But it is Author who is muddying the water here, not Avatar. Yeah, Red Hat sells OS software, though I’m not sure I’d call the result “handsome profits”. (According to their most recent 10-Q, they made net $18 million in the third quarter of 2006. That’s pleasant but not “handsome”. For a company as old as they are, competing in an industry as large as they are, that’s not too much. Microsoft makes about that much in five minutes.)

What’s important here is not that something being developed open source is being sold profitably. What’s important here is that Red Hat has never made a schedule and stuck with it, because it isn’t possible to do so except in the trivial sense of “We’ll be issuing a new release on thus-and-so a day, and when that day comes we’ll inform you of what we decided to include in it, because it’ll be whatever we happen to have ready.”

By its nature, open source cannot produce product to a tight schedule. It’s never happened and it never will. UNLESS…

UNLESS it is “open source” produced by paid professionals working in a professional environment. In other words, indistinguishable from non-OS except that it’s given away once finished instead of being sold. (Perhaps given away to Red Hat, who in turn sells it.)

A lot of that is going on in the OS movement. The mythology is that nearly all of the development is being done by volunteer hobbyists. The reality is that a large part of it is being done by engineers hired by, and paid by, private corporations who are releasing the software they create under OS licenses, because in the long run it is profitable for them to do so.

Read Joel’s article carefully, because the kicker is this: the reason that makes IBM pay people to develop OS software won’t apply to J.C. Staff.

That’s what Avatar is saying. He isn’t saying that it’s impossible for any company dealing in OS to make money. He’s saying it can’t be done in animation. And he’s right about that. And if Pete would just calm down, and stop with the “How dare you say that about my mother!” reaction, he’d realize it was true.

As to Omo, he responds to Avatar in comments — and he, too, misses the point. In Avatar’s comments, Omo wonders if they’re two freight trains on separate tracks. Yup, they sure are.

Omo is making an argument based on what he thinks is right. “This is how it should be. We should have the right to make and watch fansubs without paying for them, and without having to worry about legal peril!”

Avatar is making an argument based on economics: if, no matter how, such a right becomes codified into law, it will kill the industry. That has nothing to do with right and wrong. It’s simply a statement of fact: if fansubs are legally protected, and come out of the shadows much further than they are now, they will extinguish the revenue flow which makes creation of new anime possible — for as a practical matter it can only be created by paid staff working to stiff deadlines. Absent that, production will slow to a trickle.

Avatar is, perhaps unknowingly, arguing that this is a case of the tragedy of the commons. The great Adam Smith developed a lot of the theory behind capitalism, but he made the underlying assumption that if all independent operators in the system work to optimize their own results, the system overall will also be optimized. The tragedy of the commons was the proof that this was not so.

A lot of theoretical work has been done on this, and all of it yields the same conclusion: it is to the benefit of everyone that each of us yield some of our liberty in these cases. If we do not try to selfishly optimize our own result, we in fact all get more in the long run.

But in cases where the tragedy operates, selfish over-utilization eventually destroys the resource, leaving everyone the poorer.

Irrespective of whether it ought to be a right, the consequences of doing it are bad for everyone. And that’s what would happen if Omo succeeds in his quest to gain the legally protected right to produce fansubs: he’ll kill the industry off. He’ll have the right to fansub anime and distribute it freely, but no anime will be produced for him to fansub and distribute.

By yielding that right, by paying for something he thinks he should get for free, he will help make it so that anime continues to be produced.

That is Avatar’s argument. Omo’s claims about whether it ought to be like that don’t affect the expected result.

Low-to-moderate level fansubbing, more or less the current state of affairs, is an example of free riding. And one of the pernicious aspects of these kinds of situations is that they usually can tolerate a small amount of it. As long as there are a large enough number of people buying intellectual property, then others can take it for free without making the system collapse.

But Omo wants to go further than that. He wants everyone to ride free. He thinks it should be a right.

Perhaps so. That’s a moral judgment. But if that happens, who pays the fuel? Irrespective of the morality of it, economically it isn’t possible. The money has to come from somewhere. When free riders begin to see that as an entitlement, and to demand that it apply to everyone, the system collapses.

The money has to come from somewhere.

So: Omo says, “This is right. This is proper. This is how it should be!” Avatar responds, “Yes, but it isn’t economically possible. It has to be paid for; you can’t develop animation using open source models.” Author responds huffily, “How dare you speak ill of open source! Red Hat makes money off it, you know!”

And I say, “Yeah, but…” Yeah, but that has nothing to do with this situation. No one is going to pay their own animators to create animation to give away, because there’s no way for them to make money off it, unlike open source software, where doing so indirectly leads to more profit for them.

Original blog post open source release by Steven Den Beste of Chizumatic. Open source blogging, FUCK YEAH!

So Impz read this comic… January 24, 2007

Posted by Lupus in Uncategorized.
9 comments

After reading Danny’s comic, Impz is understandably unhappy.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
WordPress have fucking stingy column width, so click to see the whole pic.

UGUU~

*I apologise for the low quality, don’t have a scanner. The shadow on the bottom is my head…

Find those creepy movies! October 10, 2006

Posted by Lupus in Uncategorized.
2 comments

M&M’s stole Virgin Record’s idea and has put up a flash with clues for 50 creepy movies in them. You can find it here.

With the help of some friends I managed to find 42. How well can you do?

Here is an incomplete answer if you need help. Get finding!

Australia proceeds to round 2 June 24, 2006

Posted by Lupus in Uncategorized, WTF.
add a comment

I’m like totally WTF too.

Why are marriage rings worn on the ring finger? June 23, 2006

Posted by Lupus in Uncategorized.
6 comments

ring

Saw this on a blog.

知道结婚戒指为什么要带在无名指上吗?
1.伸出你的两手,将中指向下弯曲,对靠在一起,就是中指的背跟背靠在一起

2.然后将其它的4个手指分别指尖对碰

3.请确保以下过程中,5个手指只允许一对手指分开。

4.请张开你那对大母指,大母指代表我们的父母,能够张开,每个人都会有生老病死,父母也会有一天离我们而去。

5.请合上大母指,再张开食指,食指代表兄弟姐妹,他们也都会有自己的家世,也会离开我们。

6.请合上食指,再张开小母指,小母指代表子女,子女长大后,迟早有一天,会有自己的家庭生活,也会离开我们。

7.那么,请合上小母指,再试着张开无名指。

这个时候,大家会惊奇的发现无名指怎么也张不开,

因为无名指代表夫妻,是一辈子不分离的。

真正的爱,粘在一起后,是永生永世都分不开。

Translation (by me):

“Do you know why marriage rings are worn on the ring finger?
1. Take your hands, and bend your middle fingers. Put them together, with their backs touching each other.

2. Now, touch the tips of your other fingers together.

3. For the remainder of this test, make sure only one pair of fingers are apart at any one time.

4. Please take your thumbs apart. The thumbs represent our parents, and can be taken away. Where there’s life there’s death, and our parents will one day leave us.

5. Please put your thumbs back together, and take your fore-fingers apart. They represent our siblings, who will have their own family and life, and they will leave us too.

6. Please put your fore-fingers back together, and take your little fingers apart. They represent our offsprings. When the children grow up, they will also have their own family. They too, will leave us.

7. So now, please put your little fingers back together, and try to take your ring fingers apart.

And you’ll find to your surprise that, no matter what you do, the ring fingers won’t come apart.

The ring finger represents husband and wife, and they are bound together for life.

Real lovers, once joined together, can never be taken apart again, as long as you live.”

If you try hard enough, you can force representation into any you see. Take Evangelion for example. But this, I heartily approve. Spread the love.