(Engels)

the_pirate_bay_logo

“When Napster told the district court that it had developed a technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not good enough. Napster had to push the infringements ‘down to zero’. If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing technologies, not a war on copyright infringement.” (Lessig, p.74)

What is the percentage of identified infringing material on the Pirate bay? The discourse whether This portal is illegal or not shouldn’t be that complex. Free Culture, to me, is very important. We have should take the distribution of creativity very seriously! Creativity is the catalyst for inspiration, which in its place, is responsible for the social, political, and commercial development of our cultural identity. P2P – as an infrastructure – is a substantial contribution to the development of our cultural identity. The Pirate Bay (what’s in the name) facilitates this contribution as well! but, this has its influence on the revenue of honest creators. If we accept and normalize an amount of distributed infringing material, then, on the basis of the ratio between illegal and legal distribution, we could determine whether a facilitator operates illegal.

A few questions pop up… What really is illegal, when we accept a system that is old and based upon ‘property’ in a virtual world of endless re-productivity? Does a maximum compressed movie-file, which doesn’t comes near the original quality, is eligible for copyright infringement? Or, why should we prohibit or normalize illegal downloading when we technologically could enforce zero tolerance? Why isn’t the government being held responsible when a car driver is speeding and distrusting cocaine? P2P is held responsible in the same way! In my opinion, if the Pirate bay is excessively violating the norm (not 99.4%) then they should be punished! But what is the norm? Maybe we should be focusing on that!

(Engels)

Studying like a hard drive?

Studying like a hard drive?

I just stumbled upon this definition:

“An image (from Latin imago) is an artifact, usually two-dimensional (a picture), that has a similar appearance to some subject, usually a physical object or a person.” (wiki)

and it triggered this analogy…

Have you ever, at an examination, had the experience of being able to reproduce complete sentences? Just recovering plain text without actually understanding what is written. I had the pleasure a couple of years ago when I had to scrutinize a bunch of articles. I was able to reproduce the key arguments by looking at the shape of the text rather then its meaning. Not the best way to acquire knowledge for long term memory, but it’s just another way to acquire and reproduce or recover information. Not that I have the luxury of photographic memory, I wish! By focusing at the shape and associating on different levels, I was able to come up with the exact answers.

This brings me to the analogy of ‘drive imaging’.

My PC has the ability to reproduce information in a similar matter. It recovers (reproduces) important data on the primary hard drive when required. It does this by copying the entire drive as an exact image, ghost or shadow. Regardless the context, hence the words in the sentence. This functionality is much faster then the ‘conventional’ method of copying (or recovering) files, folders and its directory structure. The process is the equivalent of (a)building a structure in a – ready to go – modular fashion and (b)building a structure, from the ground up, by millions of bricks.

Thus,

Recovering or coping information (text/data) by focusing on the shape of the entire object (sentence/hard drive) regardless its context (content/directory structure).

(Engels)

After the introduction of the iPhone, Apple’s main focus is pointed towards its software. But, their is still room for innovation on its hardware. The virtual keyboard as a concept is really innovative and intuitive, but tapping my fingers on a hard surface isn’t, it’s a brutal business. My fingertips are already forming some hard skin, which in some time will probably brake the iPhone’s surface. That’s exaggerated of course, but my point is that Apple should rethink its hardware interface.

Why should they, in a cumbersome manner, try to make the buttons obsolete? Implementing tactile feedback (haptic feedback) and sound, to mimic the concept of the old fashion buttons, is not the smartest solution. Apple should rethink their answer to the virtual keyboard and start talking to Art Lebedev design team. The ‘new’ in new media is often overrated, because it’s just a remediation of an older medium. Apple does a great job in redefining the ‘new’. Hence, the many features of this phone, which is still the most innovative piece of consumer hardware in the market. To me, it’s a source of inspiration.

(Update 9-4-2009) This video illustrates my point! Introducing SLAP (Silicone ILluminated Active Peripherals) widgets

(Update 28-4-2009) Another video about haptic feedback. It’s still a long way to go! Behold the: Carnegie Mellon morphs ‘pop-up buttons’