Considering my own admittedly speculative musing about a lot of subjects I think I need to put up something discussing how entertainment has different rules.
For instance, if they can get it, people will often happily "borrow" something entertaining, and then refuse to pay for it in any way. And I used quotes as I feel confident that plenty of people in the entertainment industry see that as stealing, where yeah, I think in a lot of cases for now, until the web evolves a bit, it often is. But you can literally do it, like by checking out a book or something from a library.
For certain things, like movies, it's interesting to speculate on how much it can take away from revenue, though I think that can be overblown, as great films can make money indefinitely. So I think when the web matures, you'll see this issue more focused on people who have to make their money immediately, versus people with an intellectual property that can draw revenue for years and years and years.
Like I have movies to add to my entertainment library, where yup, will purchase them, when they're available and I have the funds. So irritating now in the early days of the web when it's just not possible to purchase a movie for your own personal library of films because entertainment executives simply haven't made it possible.
With photos it's looking like a focus will have to be on some kind of certification for originals, as it's possible to endlessly reproduce them perfectly. So just having a photo is meaningless as to its value, unless somehow it IS completely exclusive. But it can matter like if you're in someone's home and they have a blown up photo hanging on their wall, whether or not it's a taken copy, or they have something certified from the photographer.
It tells you about them. So I'm sure some people will work to figure out a way to distinguish the "real thing" from counterfeits, just for status reasons.
People will pay for things just to show their place in society. And I think that yes, information itself is being commoditized to a large extent, but not completely. And that as people get used to so much information flowing so easily we'll see society adjust as it always has as thousands of years of human history have seen many times where technology has shifted things.
With entertainment, novelty has value. And the monetary value of novelty definitely wears off quickly. However, entertaining works can also have enduring value, which may or may not be monetized.
So when you see certain people howling in rage at the web, I think it's usually about novelty: watching your money float away as curious people check out the hook without paying.
Nothing I do is about novelty. So I find it hard to care about it. But I try to appreciate the issue intellectually, which is the point of this post.
James Harris
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Monday, May 25, 2015
Some thoughts on my learning the web
To me a lot of posting I do is talking out things as I try to learn the web, where it's this great adventure. But also you don't want to be taken, or look stupid...well, does it really matter so much how you look? I'm not as excited about that one. But being taken is something I think it's very human to worry over.
No one wants to be cheated and I feel good that I'm having a great experience on the web, learning a lot, and getting to share some things of my own, and it's good.
It has taken time for me to figure some things out though. Like community IS a huge big deal, where for instance the open source community is critical to the continued health and existence of the web.
In community it isn't so much about what any particular person does, but that every one does their best to support the community which supports them.
Most people do try. But some people like to muck things up. Some people mess things up just for the fun of it. Others are neutral, tending to not be a detriment, but also not helping either. And somehow it all mostly works.
To me when I'd worry most that maybe I was somehow being cheated in the process it was about money, which is why it was so important for me to work it out, and now I'm like, I'm not being cheated! Yeah!!! So that was really the point of a lot of posting, working out the monetary system to see if maybe I was being cheated, and am not. So done.
Hmmmm...but now that's all worked out what do I do next? I'm sure I'll think of something.
James Harris
No one wants to be cheated and I feel good that I'm having a great experience on the web, learning a lot, and getting to share some things of my own, and it's good.
It has taken time for me to figure some things out though. Like community IS a huge big deal, where for instance the open source community is critical to the continued health and existence of the web.
In community it isn't so much about what any particular person does, but that every one does their best to support the community which supports them.
Most people do try. But some people like to muck things up. Some people mess things up just for the fun of it. Others are neutral, tending to not be a detriment, but also not helping either. And somehow it all mostly works.
To me when I'd worry most that maybe I was somehow being cheated in the process it was about money, which is why it was so important for me to work it out, and now I'm like, I'm not being cheated! Yeah!!! So that was really the point of a lot of posting, working out the monetary system to see if maybe I was being cheated, and am not. So done.
Hmmmm...but now that's all worked out what do I do next? I'm sure I'll think of something.
James Harris
My view on why web helps licensing
Have been enjoying photographs a lot lately on the web, which got me thinking more about how different things are today as they can zip all over the world easily. And I think that is a huge positive, while there have been problematic aspects.
For instance, some have concluded that information can flow so easily and perfectly now that it can be digitized that it must be free, which is I think at best naive, when it comes to human behavior, or worse, terribly cynical about humanity. Paying for things in my opinion isn't about ease of capture, or not stealing from the grocery store would be acceptable as long as they can't catch you. Or so would stealing from restaurants, if you could just dart off, and I actually watched a couple do so once. They just walked out of one without paying when the only staff had to go to the back for a reason.
So yes, there ARE people who want to take things from others without giving them anything in return, but they're called thieves. And that is not new information! Technological advance has NOTHING to do with it.
What can be confusing though is that money is NOT the only or even the primary way people tend to give back, unless with strangers. In community, you can have most interactions with a lot of sharing and caring where no money is involved at all. But even with community with no money involved, yes there can be thieves there as well who will take, take, take from others without wanting to give anything back in return.
Taking relentlessly and giving nothing back is as old as humanity.
If you believe that ease of acquisition is all that matters with human beings and buying things then I think it easy to charge you may very well be a thief. After all, such a belief could seem to justify a behavior to someone. And maybe thieves console themselves believing all people are morally bankrupt, but that's not true.
Money is about a social contract. It's about a way to give back in exchange for value received.
So money being paid for something versus it simply being taken really has nothing whatsoever to do with how easily something can be acquired without prosecution but is about two parties, which means yeah, people can and do actually pay for things they could instead steal.
That all human beings are NOT thieves is that great awakening of the turn to the modern web, and I think it funny to believe they all are, which says more about you than anyone else, if you think all human beings are basically evil and corrupt creatures with no morality.
But like I have some photographs and make NO money from them directly, which is ok with me. But let's say I found out some people somewhere in the world were making money from them, should I necessarily care? No, not necessarily.
Yes, those people are thieves. And would be getting unfair favors, but the web has a natural solution, which is transparency. Like I can note that I don't have anything licensed, which is ok with me. I don't know if there is demand and am not really a money focused person anyway.
So if you see any of my photographs out there in a selling situation you know thieves are connected.
And that's how the web will push web licensing, as legitimate companies will check for such information. And people who want ethical products will check for such information.
So people who provide creative works simply need to provide such information.
How that's best done. I'm not sure. But I'm sure the web will figure it out.
For me, it's easy. No one has licensed any of my photos. But I don't know of any cases where my photos are being used commercially, but even if I did, I wouldn't get too excited.
But I would want people to know the person who stole the work.
Eventually your reputation will be the most valuable thing you have, as the web makes it easier for people to keep up with what you're doing, and harder to hide what you've done.
James Harris
For instance, some have concluded that information can flow so easily and perfectly now that it can be digitized that it must be free, which is I think at best naive, when it comes to human behavior, or worse, terribly cynical about humanity. Paying for things in my opinion isn't about ease of capture, or not stealing from the grocery store would be acceptable as long as they can't catch you. Or so would stealing from restaurants, if you could just dart off, and I actually watched a couple do so once. They just walked out of one without paying when the only staff had to go to the back for a reason.
So yes, there ARE people who want to take things from others without giving them anything in return, but they're called thieves. And that is not new information! Technological advance has NOTHING to do with it.
What can be confusing though is that money is NOT the only or even the primary way people tend to give back, unless with strangers. In community, you can have most interactions with a lot of sharing and caring where no money is involved at all. But even with community with no money involved, yes there can be thieves there as well who will take, take, take from others without wanting to give anything back in return.
Taking relentlessly and giving nothing back is as old as humanity.
If you believe that ease of acquisition is all that matters with human beings and buying things then I think it easy to charge you may very well be a thief. After all, such a belief could seem to justify a behavior to someone. And maybe thieves console themselves believing all people are morally bankrupt, but that's not true.
Money is about a social contract. It's about a way to give back in exchange for value received.
So money being paid for something versus it simply being taken really has nothing whatsoever to do with how easily something can be acquired without prosecution but is about two parties, which means yeah, people can and do actually pay for things they could instead steal.
That all human beings are NOT thieves is that great awakening of the turn to the modern web, and I think it funny to believe they all are, which says more about you than anyone else, if you think all human beings are basically evil and corrupt creatures with no morality.
But like I have some photographs and make NO money from them directly, which is ok with me. But let's say I found out some people somewhere in the world were making money from them, should I necessarily care? No, not necessarily.
Yes, those people are thieves. And would be getting unfair favors, but the web has a natural solution, which is transparency. Like I can note that I don't have anything licensed, which is ok with me. I don't know if there is demand and am not really a money focused person anyway.
So if you see any of my photographs out there in a selling situation you know thieves are connected.
And that's how the web will push web licensing, as legitimate companies will check for such information. And people who want ethical products will check for such information.
So people who provide creative works simply need to provide such information.
How that's best done. I'm not sure. But I'm sure the web will figure it out.
For me, it's easy. No one has licensed any of my photos. But I don't know of any cases where my photos are being used commercially, but even if I did, I wouldn't get too excited.
But I would want people to know the person who stole the work.
Eventually your reputation will be the most valuable thing you have, as the web makes it easier for people to keep up with what you're doing, and harder to hide what you've done.
James Harris
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Opening Class Viewer with a class
While my open source project Class Viewer is for Java developers, I have pondered ways of making it more useful to others like coding instructors or software companies, which is why I finally got the opening to a class to work. Here is an example of a screenshot with Class Viewer being opened to its own class:
Clipped the bottom a bit, and it's really more small than I thought, um, ok, so the point of such a thing is that you can open Class Viewer to some default class.
Command line instruction for the above:
java com.jstevh.viewer.ClassViewer ClassViewer
If you wanted to default to String class it would be:
java com.jstevh.viewer.ClassViewer String
And that's with code unpacked from the jar, of course, which is what I recommend you do so that you can get full access to the classpath, and local files.
And I'm thinking some software company could use that to direct people to some code or something and I'm vague as it's kind of a vague notion. Kind of thing you put there and see if people need it or not.
Oh yeah, Class Viewer is a JApplet which was because I wanted it to be very web centered from the start, now over a decade ago. Got a vague idea about it being useable to let people browse your codebase online. Kind of like an easy reference guide. So this feature is also meant to help you open to info about your own code, in a webpage, or that's the idea.
James Harris
Clipped the bottom a bit, and it's really more small than I thought, um, ok, so the point of such a thing is that you can open Class Viewer to some default class.
Command line instruction for the above:
java com.jstevh.viewer.ClassViewer ClassViewer
If you wanted to default to String class it would be:
java com.jstevh.viewer.ClassViewer String
And that's with code unpacked from the jar, of course, which is what I recommend you do so that you can get full access to the classpath, and local files.
And I'm thinking some software company could use that to direct people to some code or something and I'm vague as it's kind of a vague notion. Kind of thing you put there and see if people need it or not.
Oh yeah, Class Viewer is a JApplet which was because I wanted it to be very web centered from the start, now over a decade ago. Got a vague idea about it being useable to let people browse your codebase online. Kind of like an easy reference guide. So this feature is also meant to help you open to info about your own code, in a webpage, or that's the idea.
James Harris
Who will code our future?
One of those subjects that gets a lot of attention is diversity in coding, where I've posted a couple of times already, but maybe feel like I should say a bit more as I am I guess an anomaly though I'm sure that will change.
Being a Black man, from the Deep South, who not only can code but I've been a lead Java developer, one of seven, on a multi-million dollar project, which we delivered by the way, isn't exactly the norm from what I've heard.
But how did I get there?
Reality is I was obsessed with computers from the moment I heard of them, and was lucky enough that my Dad bought one even though I joke he screwed up with a TI-94A instead of a Commodore 64. I joke that if he'd got the latter we would be billionaires by now as it allowed assembly language coding while I was stuck with BASIC.
So I was coding from the age of 12, as that was back in 1982.
When I eventually ended up doing professional software development, writing code was the easy, but also hard part, as it is difficult to get the best code, and I'm fierce at getting the best code, but also wicked fast. It's weird watching other people, but I digress.
The social part was actually harder. Usually, yeah, I was one of few Black guys. But I didn't detect any walls against Black people. I just applied, interviewed, and went to work. And in fact roared up as a developer until maybe I burned myself out as well as left for personal reasons to pursue personal projects.
I have never seen any indications that Black people are barred.
They apparently just weren't applying. Of if they were, lacked the skillsets to get the job, where I think you best start getting those as a kid. Like with writing, people who become writers tend to be focused on writing from childhood. Why? Good question.
I have only some computer science courses from teenage years, and nothing was asked about them when I got my first coding job. The company just thought it worth letting me try, and I demonstrated ability. Getting that ability is about being excited by computers and coding from childhood.
It's like writing. Coding IS writing, for computers.
The people who will code our future will be dominated I firmly believe by people who started out as kids, fascinated by computers and coding on them. You look at big names who helped define things so far, and yes, they tend to be white males, but they were the ones who yup, had computers or access to them at an early age!
Like Steve Jobs is a great example, as check his history as to when he first got his eager hands onto a computer system.
The best thing we can do for diversity in coding is let kids code.
And it can be about priorities: if parents don't buy that computer for their kids, maybe someone should, as where would I be today if I weren't one of those kids with a computer in his hands at the age of 12 back in 1982?
James Harris
Being a Black man, from the Deep South, who not only can code but I've been a lead Java developer, one of seven, on a multi-million dollar project, which we delivered by the way, isn't exactly the norm from what I've heard.
But how did I get there?
Reality is I was obsessed with computers from the moment I heard of them, and was lucky enough that my Dad bought one even though I joke he screwed up with a TI-94A instead of a Commodore 64. I joke that if he'd got the latter we would be billionaires by now as it allowed assembly language coding while I was stuck with BASIC.
So I was coding from the age of 12, as that was back in 1982.
When I eventually ended up doing professional software development, writing code was the easy, but also hard part, as it is difficult to get the best code, and I'm fierce at getting the best code, but also wicked fast. It's weird watching other people, but I digress.
The social part was actually harder. Usually, yeah, I was one of few Black guys. But I didn't detect any walls against Black people. I just applied, interviewed, and went to work. And in fact roared up as a developer until maybe I burned myself out as well as left for personal reasons to pursue personal projects.
I have never seen any indications that Black people are barred.
They apparently just weren't applying. Of if they were, lacked the skillsets to get the job, where I think you best start getting those as a kid. Like with writing, people who become writers tend to be focused on writing from childhood. Why? Good question.
I have only some computer science courses from teenage years, and nothing was asked about them when I got my first coding job. The company just thought it worth letting me try, and I demonstrated ability. Getting that ability is about being excited by computers and coding from childhood.
It's like writing. Coding IS writing, for computers.
The people who will code our future will be dominated I firmly believe by people who started out as kids, fascinated by computers and coding on them. You look at big names who helped define things so far, and yes, they tend to be white males, but they were the ones who yup, had computers or access to them at an early age!
Like Steve Jobs is a great example, as check his history as to when he first got his eager hands onto a computer system.
The best thing we can do for diversity in coding is let kids code.
And it can be about priorities: if parents don't buy that computer for their kids, maybe someone should, as where would I be today if I weren't one of those kids with a computer in his hands at the age of 12 back in 1982?
James Harris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)