Will you be purchasing PDFs from DriveThruRPG?

[Umbran]

I reserve the right to revise my philosophy of the value of a tangible and intangible item, to make it understandable to the general public.

Fair enough.

Well, ideas do grow on trees. They are all around us. What takes time and energy is in expressing those ideas.

Let me put this another way - if you believe in the laws of physics that make the computers we are using for this communication possible, then the following is irrefutable: It is thermodynamically impossible for arrival at an idea to take zero energy. An idea is an ordered state within the brain. Making that ordered state requires energy. The laws of quantum mechanics forbid us from saying that it takes both zero energy and zero time.

Now, this perhaps seems a bit extreme. You may say, "Fine, it takes non-zero energy and time to come up with ideas. But really, the amount of energy and time required is negligible by human standards."

I fail to see any reason to make that leap, however. We can establish that the time and energy must be non-zero. How, then, can we simply assume that the time and energy required is always negligible? Upon what is this conclusion based?

The music as an expression of an idea does have value to me. The container of that expression (an mp3) doesn't have value.

Well, actually, it seems to me that the container, in general, does have some value for you. Given the same exact expression of ideas, you'll buy one container and not another. MP3's actually have a negative value - large enough so that it overrides the value of the expression it contains for all possible expressions.

[/quote] That's why I probably would never buy mp3s online, because while I value the music, the file itself I do not. The main reason I wouldn't buy music online is that for the money paid, I want a tangible object. Something I can hold, which would be the container of the content I paid for.[/quote]

Hm. The thing is, when you get an MP3, you do have a tangible thing. It is simply very small, and mashed in among other physical things. On your hard drive, there's bits of magnetic media that are flipped one way or another. You can pull out that hard drive and hold it in your hand. In total, the hard drive representation of the music is smaller than the CD, but it is by no means non-physical.

Yes, I could always burn a copy to a cd. Unfortunately, many mp3s that you might download are lower quality than I prefer.

Ah, but that's a separate issue. It isn't a question of whether it is an MP3 or a CD. It's a matter of completeness of the representation. A low-quality MP3 is, effectively, an expurgated version of the music. It is not unreasonable to want a more full version.

But, we must compare apples to apples - comparing incomplete MP3s to complete CD recordings is not fair. What if, as far as your ears are concerned, the CD and the MP3 are of equal fidelity?

As mentioned previously (and this not just from myself) ideas are available without cost. The content that expresses those ideas can be made available for a price.

As mentioned elsewhere - people are fooling themselves if they feel that ideas can generally be separated from the content that expresses them. The details of the expression change the idea, making the ideas and the expression inexplicably entwined.

 

[Wasgo]

Yes, however, I still disagree. Because nobody is going to pay you for writing down your thougts on paper unless they are deep. To earn the reward, cleverness is not sufficient, true. But it is required.

This would seem more true except for the fact that garbage gets published. Many romance novelists don't care much about the content and just try to publish as many as possible per year. The style and raw image is what sells it, not any real deep thought.

 

[The Sigil]

We may have a difference of definitions here, but at the moment, as stated, I have to strongly disagree with that statement. Some ideas take zero time and energy to think or comprehend. Others take a great deal of time and energy.

For my example, I turn to the realm of science. It was said, at one time, that only three people really understood Einstein's General Relativity Theory. This was, in essence, true. But it wasn't because nobody had read it. It wasn't because nobody knew the math required.

WARNING: THREAD HIJACK

Not quite true. Context is everything. My understanding of the matter is that at the time the quote was delivered, it went something like this...

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington was asked once by a reporter if it were true that only three people in the world understood the theory. Eddington simply stared off into space in an abstracted fashion. When asked what the trouble was, he replied: "I'm trying to think of who the third person might be."

The reason is simply, as I was told (and I could be wrong) when studying as I got my physics degree is not (contrary to popular belief) that the math is hard, but rather that Einstein had excitedly sent his paper to Eddington to read. At the time, only Einstein and Eddington had read the paper, and as such only they were privy to the idea - THAT's why Eddington couldn't think of a third person - not because the concept is hard, but because it had not been disseminated among more than two people.

As a side note, anyone with a fair grasp of three-dimensional calculus - usually taught in the 2nd year of college calculus IIRC - can derive the basic equations of special relativity from Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism. I actually managed this task inadvertently when studying Maxwell's equations - I accidentally derived the equations for relativity before being taught that you can and how to do it - now, because I had already studied some relativity and knew what the equations looked like, I recognized them immediately - so that helped - but anyone with a couple of years of college calculus under their belt can understand the math involved. Given that many people take college calculus, I don't think it's being elitist to say that "it is not that hard." Most people who put forth the effort to study math for a couple of years in school can comprehend it. I'm not trying to toot my own horn, I'm just saying that I'm no super-genius and if *I* could accidentally stumble upon it in college without really trying, it's a pretty fair bet that anyone who actually tried to study it could understand it.

It was because, even given knowledge of the math, and a copy of the text, the thing was (and still is), darned hard to grok. Even with the simplest expression of the theory known to man, and full facility in the language in which it that expression is written, it takes effort.

I disagree by splitting hairs - given the knowledge of the math and a copy of the text, it's not that hard to grok. However, it takes a darn bit of effort (years of it) to gain the knowledge of the math... so getting to the point where you're able to claim "given the knowledge of the math" is what's so nastily hard about it.

And quantum mechanics is worse. Even today, it is commonly agreed by those who knowit best that if anyone tells you they fully understand quantum mechanics, they are lying to you.

Quantum is a little trickier, and part of the reason it can't be "fully" understood is that it deals in a continuous distribution of probabilities, for which there is no easy analog. As Feynman once put it,

Things on a small scale behave like nothing you have any direct experience about. They do not behave like waves. They do not behave like particles. They do not behave like clouds or billiard balls or weights on springs or like anything you have ever seen

That's why quantum is so hard - because quantum particles behave like perfect little mathematical constructs - and since math is abstract, it's sometimes hard to wrap your mind around. I studied quantum for a couple of years and still, it's counter-intuitive... the only thing I understand about quantum mechanics is "if I don't follow the math and try to follow anything else, I'm bound to mess up."

/HIJACK

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

Fascinating discussion.

An idea is an ordered state within the brain.

I think the problem is we're using the same words to apply to different things.

When I think of "idea" - especially in the context of copyright law - I think of an "abstract concept" independent of all else - including the brain that might comprehend it. Any particular "abstract concept" might not have been conceived of yet, and therefore is nowhere found as an ordered state in the brain.

As an example, I would submit to you that under my definition of "idea," the "idea" that we describe as "the theory of relativity" existed as such in 2,000,000 B.C. The abstract concept exists independent of all expression. However, the first time that idea was discovered (not created) was by Einstein some 2,001,900-ish years later.

IOW, "idea-space" exists independent of all else and humans discover (not create) ideas.

Making that ordered state requires energy.

True, and you begin splitting hairs here. However, I would argue that in this case, the ordering of which you speak - and the energy/time required to do so is the fixing of the idea in a medium - the human neural network. However, since the human brain is not recognized as a sufficiently communicable medium to allow others to comprehend the idea (by arranging their own neural networks) across both time and space, fixing it in that medium is not worthy of making the idea subject to copyright... in the same way that speaking an idea fixes the idea in the medium of sound waves (carried by air) but absent a sound recording device, a sound wave in air is not a sufficiently communicable medium to allow others to comprehend the idea across both time and space in significant quantities (because the sound wave can only travel so far and only persists for a very short amount of time before dispersal).

So if you wish to split hairs, there is where you are rewarded for your efforts with a copyright... by fixing the idea in a medium sufficient to render the comprehension of that idea by others across a significant amount of time and/or space.

As a reminder, we're talking about compensating someone for their ideas. If I am to compensate you, I must receive a benefit. You thinking an idea benefits me not at all until that idea is fixed in a medium that allows me to perceive it.

In other words, when you conceive an idea in your brain, that may have some form of value to you, but it can have no value to others and if they cannot receive value from you, they have no reason to give you something of value (money, copyright, etc.).

As mentioned elsewhere - people are fooling themselves if they feel that ideas can generally be separated from the content that expresses them. The details of the expression change the idea, making the ideas and the expression inexplicably entwined.

Ideas and expression are entwined, I will grant you that; however, as I mentioned, I believe "idea-space" exists independent of human thought, perception, and comprehension. I believe humans do not and cannot "create" ideas, we can only discover them.

Maybe that's a strange philosophical stance, but there it is.

--The Sigil

 

[Sir Whiskers]

It is true that you cannot copyright the idea of "love". Nor even, "lovers who are too proud and scared to admit their love". But you can copyright Rhett Butler's, "Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn," both in word and image. And by becoming icons, Rhett and Scarlett have become ideas unto themselves, yet they are copyrightable.

Now I think I see where you're going. A subtle point, dealing not just with abstract concepts, but the symbols we create which represent them. Some symbols are so compelling, so memorable, they co-exist in our minds with the underlying idea itself.

This reminds me of the ST:TNG episode "Darmok" where an alien race spoke only in representative phrases such as your example above. Completely off topic, but it occurs to me that such a communication system could never develop in concert with our copyright laws.

Don'tcha just love these discussions?

 

[johnsemlak]

Now I think I see where you're going. A subtle point, dealing not just with abstract concepts, but the symbols we create which represent them. Some symbols are so compelling, so memorable, they co-exist in our minds with the underlying idea itself.

This reminds me of the ST:TNG episode "Darmok" where an alien race spoke only in representative phrases such as your example above. Completely off topic, but it occurs to me that such a communication system could never develop in concert with our copyright laws.

Don'tcha just love these discussions?

A real world example of that might be references to Greek Mythology in literature to convey meaning.

Luckily, Greek mythology has always been public domain, even before the concept was invented. But much of our modern mythology isn't (references to Star Wars, for example.

 

[Yair]

[HIJACK CONTINUES...]

WARNING: THREAD HIJACK
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington was asked once by a reporter ... had not been disseminated among more than two people.

I was not aware of this anecdote. Nice

As a side note, anyone with a fair grasp of three-dimensional calculus - usually taught in the 2nd year of college calculus IIRC - can derive the basic equations of special relativity from Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism....

The original post referred to the General theory of relativity, however, which I do not believe follows from playing with Maxwell's equations. And IIRC its guiding principle (general covariance) was shown to be mathematically meaningless, which led to a series of alternate formulations (I personally was taught it under the premise of coordinate choice invariance). As such it can be argued that even Einstein himself didn't understand it...
At any case I think the general principle that some ideas are hard to get is quite true.
BTW, IIRC the core of SR equations were, actually, discovered prior to Einstein; it is just that Einstein gave them along with a physical interpertation. This was his genius.

I disagree by splitting hairs - given the knowledge of the math and a copy of the text, it's not that hard to grok. However, it takes a darn bit of effort (years of it) to gain the knowledge of the math... so getting to the point where you're able to claim "given the knowledge of the math" is what's so nastily hard about it.

I am sure you find it this way, but this has not been my experience. While the essence of the mathemathical theory can be ascertained quickly (if you know the maths), understanding the physical consequences (and hence the idea in full) can take some time. Why, even understanding the physics (i.e. getting a physical intuition) of Newtonian mechanics takes a lot of time, although the math is very straightforward.

Quantum is a little trickier, and part of the reason it can't be "fully" understood is that it deals in a continuous distribution of probabilities, for which there is no easy analog. As Feynman once put it,

There is really: a choice of one of several bets (probability distributions) which share some basic events, so that the shared basic events are given the same probability in every possible context (each bet consists a single context). IIRC, this will result in a quantum probability density (coupled to the standard Beysian contraints on assigning probabilities, of course).
Of course, this does not make QM any easier.

When I think of "idea" - especially in the context of copyright law - I think of an "abstract concept" independent of all else - including the brain that might comprehend it. Any particular "abstract concept" might not have been conceived of yet, and therefore is nowhere found as an ordered state in the brain.
...
IOW, "idea-space" exists independent of all else and humans discover (not create) ideas.

I must admit I find this semi-platonic approach interesting, but I guess I souldn't pursue this.

 

[Psion]

This just in:

DTRPG has updated their "response to misconceptions" link confirming that there is, in fact, a 6 machine limit, contrary to what Steve Wieck had posted. There is some provision to reset machines through Adobe customer service:

Note that you can only have 6 computers activated at any one time; however, the following is from Adobe Support: "If you have reformatted your hard drive or you have a new computer, you can call Customer Service at 800-272-3623 to get your activation reset. Press 1 for sales." We have used this number to reset activations with no difficulty.

 

[johnsemlak]

This just in:

DTRPG has updated their "response to misconceptions" link confirming that there is, in fact, a 6 machine limit, contrary to what Steve Wieck had posted. There is some provision to reset machines through Adobe customer service:

Well, it'd be much better if you could do the reset of machines online, of course.

 

[DaveStebbins]

Well, it'd be much better if you could do the reset of machines online, of course.

Right, especially since more than one of the publishers have said their main target is people who don't have access to an FLGS and people overseas who couldn't afford the shipping charges of hardcopy books. Now those overseas people have to place an international phone call to change their activations. I wonder how the cost of that compared to the cost of shipping overseas? Hopefully, by the time they need to change their activations, it will be something that can be done online.