About rant on Dave Thomas site, titled 'imitation...'

ruby-talk
21

No, it isn't. If each of them were to innovate by trying new and
different things, then the industry as a whole would expand in many
different directions. If we all just copy each other, then the amount
of innovation is reduced. It's a question of opportunity cost.

My post came from a frustration that there doesn't seem to be this
kind of vitality.

I understand what you are saying regarding rails and I agree.
Rails is a tailored solution and what makes it so special is that
it is done with ruby. The concept of rails is not so significant in
itself because it could be implemented on other platforms,
but only when it is done on ruby does rails gain its special significance.

However I think you may be misapplying that when using it as
a metaphor for your innovations in the publishing business.

Unless of course what you are trying to say is that your innovations
in themselves are not so special, and that it is only because your company
itself is different that your innovations have gained any special significance.

I believe Dave is trying to say the inverse. "We're not a big publishing company. We needed to make things work great for us. We came up with these innovations to do that. That lead to these further innovations that everybody is copying."

Unfortunately that sounds a little fool hardy to me. That thinking leads
one to the rationality that "the others suck because they are not us, so
copying our innovations wont help them until they become just as we are".

I think "Others suck because they try to follow our innovations without understanding how we managed to come up with them" is lesson you're looking for here.

Rails and Ruby work well together and *that* led to the innovations everybody is trying to copy. Just like The Pragmatic Programmers use of version control, instant typesetting and continuous build systems led to Beta Books and Fridays. Trying to copy the Beta Books or the Fridays probably won't be as successful for other publishers because they don't have the tool-chain PragProg does.

Will Beta Books be as successful (profit margin, time to completion) for the imitators? Probably not. They lack the foundation PragProg has that gives fast turnaround for minimal cost. PragProg also offers authors quite a bit more than other publishers.

Copying flashy stuff without the understanding it is flashy or how it became flashy leaves you with a shaky foundation to innovate upon.

Finding and building from your strengths will lead you to innovation.

···

On Jan 28, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Alex Combas wrote:

On 1/27/06, Dave Thomas <Dave@pragprog.com> wrote:

--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com

22

I see where you are coming from now, thanks for clearing this up.
Sorry if I stepped on any toes along the way but the initial
blog lead (me) to strange assumptions.

···

On 1/29/06, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:

I believe Dave is trying to say the inverse. "We're not a big
publishing company. We needed to make things work great for us. We
came up with these innovations to do that. That lead to these
further innovations that everybody is copying."

I think "Others suck because they try to follow our innovations
without understanding how we managed to come up with them" is lesson
you're looking for here.

Rails and Ruby work well together and *that* led to the innovations
everybody is trying to copy. Just like The Pragmatic Programmers use
of version control, instant typesetting and continuous build systems
led to Beta Books and Fridays. Trying to copy the Beta Books or the
Fridays probably won't be as successful for other publishers because
they don't have the tool-chain PragProg does.

--
Alex Combas
http://noodlejunkie.blogspot.com/

23

Reading through this thread as merely an interested bystander who only
just recently joined the rails community...I found it remarkably easy to
play "insert name of world changing technology here" with this
discussion. Computer operating systems, cellular technology (I work for
Qualcomm), automotive technology...the list is without end.

My point is not that one side or the other of this argument "sucks", and
the other side is "the right and true virtuous side". The point I would
like to make is that this argument is absolutely pervasive in the world
today. Somehow, during the same space of time where technology has
taken over the world, the ages old mechanisms we use for "paying" those
who think well have been almost lost in the shuffle.

Just as this remarkable age of communications and other digital
technologies have completely overturned the age old methods by which we
guarantee to pay a musician, so too, have they upset the apple cart that
those of us who hope to make a living by having good ideas would have,
in days gone by, put food on the table.

To put it another way, we now live in a world where Digital Rights
Management has replaced a big building full of vinyl stamping machines
as the means of guaranteeing to pay a musician for what he does best.

My question would be...what can we come up with to replace the outdated
and nearly worthless "patent process" with some sort of a "runs at the
speed of technology" mechanism for giving credit where credit is due?
Without some new mechanism, we have only two directions to go...

1) the brainy people become secretive and find ways to hide their
creations and sell individual tickets to those who would want to use the
creations. (obviously, this slows down the progress of all)

2) the brainy people give up on making a living from having big ideas
and decide to spend their days flipping hamburgers for a living
(obviously, this slows down the progress of all).

Just my meager ruminations on a thread that is an interesting new portal
through which to view this ubiquitous problem in this "new world".

jp

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

24

Jeff Pritchard wrote:
...

My question would be...what can we come up with to replace the outdated and nearly worthless "patent process" with some sort of a "runs at the speed of technology" mechanism for giving credit where credit is due? Without some new mechanism, we have only two directions to go...

Any mechanism would need to consider that different people will have similar ideas independent of each other, and that very few ideas emerge out of a vacuum; even knowing when an idea is actually new, instead of a (simple) variation on existing practice(s), is hard to pin down.

···

--
James Britt

http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
Ruby Code & Style - The Journal By & For Rubyists
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com - Building Better Tools

25

James Britt wrote:

Jeff Pritchard wrote:

My question would be...what can we come up with to replace the outdated
and nearly worthless "patent process" with some sort of a "runs at the
speed of technology" mechanism for giving credit where credit is due?
Without some new mechanism, we have only two directions to go...

Any mechanism would need to consider that different people will have
similar ideas independent of each other, and that very few ideas emerge
out of a vacuum; even knowing when an idea is actually new, instead of a
(simple) variation on existing practice(s), is hard to pin down.

--
James Britt

Thanks James,
As the old saying goes, if you put a million red-necks in front of a
million typewriters, one of them will eventually write Unix. If you put
two million red-necks in front of two million typewriters, would two of
them write Unix? More likely one would write BSD, and another would
write some other flavor of *nix. My point is that simultaneous
equivalent acts of genius makes for a good urban legend, but seems
rather unlikely. There would be differences between the two creations -
enough that one of them would be found to be preferable by the common
man in the street. If each of them were bound by the rules to use his
and only his version of the "invention", they would each benefit but
only to the degree that their version is deemed superior by independent
"customers".

Just one brief thought on the direction something like this could go...
A "Patent Process" for the new Millennium:
• The author of something "new": uses, acknowledges, and might choose
to add to an "open source" that relates to the accomplishment of his
creation. The scaffolding of the "invention".
• Things that the author considers novel can be left out of "open
source" and held back as proprietary and not to be shared or copied
without his consent (and remuneration). These things would be openly
described by the author as proprietary and not to be copied. The first
verifiable such publishing would always win.
• The open source community would then rigidly enforce both of the above
points, starting by actively turning their backs on any "new" creation
that fails on either of these points. If the "community" makes an
author aware of his sins and receives no retribution from the accused,
the community might then declare "open season" on the offender. (that
means whatever you might want it to mean)
• Any attempted interference with this process by a Lawyer, would be
treated as an infraction, and dealt with in the same way that any other
infraction of the rules would be - as moderated by the outrage and/or
indifference of "the community".

Only by keeping the rules of such a system as simple and unfettered by
"lawyer speak" as the above could such a system survive and flourish. I
think the non-specific nature of the third point is worthy of note. It
leaves open the possibility of escalation based purely on perceived
heinosity (new word?) and repeated offenses. Hell hath no fury like a
planet full of scorned hackers.

Its other saving grace is that this is "government of, by, and for the
people" - almost by definition. It requires no agreement, no vote.
Each person enforces the rules based on the degree of their outrage at
the offense of an evildoer. If an author commits a minor or gray area
infraction, most likely his punishment will be limited by the
indifference of "the community". Major offenders would be "stoned" back
to the stone-age (maybe even literally).

Humbly submitted as the solution to all that is wrong with the world (or
not).

···

----

I believe that the U.S. died on a calm summer afternoon when somebody
looked up and for the first time realized that we had all slept just a
little too long, and that an armed uprising by the general populace no
longer stood any slightest chance of succeeding. It is now government
"of, by, and especially for the government".

We lost this country one little piece at a time. Let's take back the
world by the same process. Open Source Government - gotta love it!
Guns? We don't need no stinkin' guns! GWB, your "government" has just
been deprecated by "the community".
Jeff Pritchard
The Mountain Man

(FWIW, I would like for you to consider the above description of "the
community" as my own contribution to open source government. I only ask
that when you think of or speak the term "the community" that you
pronounce it the way South Park's Cartman would - the communitay!)

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

26

Quoting Jeff Pritchard <jp@jeffpritchard.com>:

My point is that simultaneous equivalent acts of genius makes
for a good urban legend, but seems rather unlikely.

I'm not so sure. I mean, just in the past few weeks, look at the
markaby/xx/nitro markup thing, or to a much lesser extent the
solutions to the bin packing Ruby Quiz and the recentish lazy
evaluation thread.

As far as I can see, if you've got enough people working in the same
problem space, similar solutions are almost inevitable. I'd have to
say that the history of science and technology bears that out.
Independent reinvention tends to be the rule rather than the
exception, and questions of "who invented X?" turn out to be
incredibly nuanced.

While there's nothing wrong with penalising deliberate plagarism,
we'd do well to rid ourselves of the modernist fantasy of frequent
wholly unique acts of genius.

-mental

27

Thanks James,
As the old saying goes, if you put a million red-necks in front of a
million typewriters, one of them will eventually write Unix. If you put
two million red-necks in front of two million typewriters, would two of
them write Unix? More likely one would write BSD, and another would
write some other flavor of *nix. My point is that simultaneous
equivalent acts of genius makes for a good urban legend, but seems
rather unlikely.

I don't think that they would be considered acts of Genius. If they were
in front of a typewriter, all the code that they write would be useless.
:slight_smile:

There would be differences between the two creations -
enough that one of them would be found to be preferable by the common
man in the street.

Again, both would be sets of useless code on paper. Both would be useful
for the same thing, recycling. (or firewood) :slight_smile:

Remember, just typing something is not enough. There needs to be
something to interpret what was typed.

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

28

unknown wrote:

Quoting Jeff Pritchard <jp@jeffpritchard.com>:

My point is that simultaneous equivalent acts of genius makes
for a good urban legend, but seems rather unlikely.

I'm not so sure.

...

While there's nothing wrong with penalising deliberate plagarism,
we'd do well to rid ourselves of the modernist fantasy of frequent
wholly unique acts of genius.

-mental

Mental,
So Mr. X publishes three seconds before Ms. Y. Technically, X owns it,
but how many members of the community are going to be outraged by Ms.
Y's efforts to monetize her slightly tardy genius. Not many. My point
is that by removing the Lawyers and their need to make everything "a
decision", you allow the community to weigh each incident on its own
merits and make up their minds. Meanwhile, when some Bill Gates-ish guy
comes along and tries to own yet another space by flat out stealing the
best of what has already been claimed by others...at least a few members
of the community will get ticked off enough to do something about it.

Jeff Pritchard
The Mountain Man

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

29

I'll try to stimulate thought a bit.

My point is that simultaneous equivalent acts of genius makes
for a good urban legend, but seems rather unlikely.

I'm not so sure. I mean, just in the past few weeks, look at the
markaby/xx/nitro markup thing, or to a much lesser extent the
solutions to the bin packing Ruby Quiz and the recentish lazy
evaluation thread.

As far as I can see, if you've got enough people working in the same
problem space, similar solutions are almost inevitable. I'd have to
say that the history of science and technology bears that out.
Independent reinvention tends to be the rule rather than the
exception, and questions of "who invented X?" turn out to be
incredibly nuanced.

"In the same problem space"

If order (same solution) arises from chaos (researching), is that because of
restrictions in the search space?
If different solutions arise, is that because of limitations in tools/knowledge?

Or, why do dolphins have a tailfin as well as fishes?
One happens to be horizontal and the other vertical.
But you need some vertebrae (sp?) 'coz otherwise the solution is not available.

Or, "pyramids were built by egyptians *and* mayas *and* ... many more; they
must have had contact in the old ages!"
Well, no, it is just the simplest construction to reach to the sky.
Nowadays, with steel available, there's a lot more possible.
One day, with anti-gravity, someone may put the pyramid upside down.

While there's nothing wrong with penalising deliberate plagarism,
we'd do well to rid ourselves of the modernist fantasy of frequent
wholly unique acts of genius.

Full ack.
(I'll sidestep the patent issue, even though I have a lot to say about it;
read Lawrence Lessig if you want to know more.)

···

---

I also agree with the point that understanding comes with imitation. Plainly
imitating in order to make money is... futile... irritating... and often it
seems to be just that. It can also mean the other company is adapting, for
real, but it's gonna take them much more time than it took you, for various
reasons.

As a scientist, it is easy to say that understanding should be the goal,
hence imitation is merely the starting point. But also scientists, most of
the time, are not capable of making anything but a tiny improvement.

Or, why are there so many programming languages? why does Ruby use so many
ideas from other languages and why do we all think it merits the language's
existence?

30

Ah, but what about when popular, marketing-savvy Ms Q "popularises" something legitimately claimed by quiet, introverted, and previously unknown Mr Z? The community, being predisposed to liking Ms Q, probably wouldn't be fussed, and it's likely just as many people will think that Ms Q invented it as will stand up for Mr Z, given the lack of perfect information. As the 'community' becomes larger, this information gap grows, making it easier for people to take advantage of.

I think you attribute a sense of moral justice to the Mobbe which most of them simply don't apply to everyday situations (because it costs them: there's a significant opportunity cost involved in gathering enough information to make accurate decisions). Presented with a good-enough solution, people will tend to use it regardless of the ethics of who provides it; examples abound in virtually every sphere of life.

So while it's clear to me that the current patent framework is hideously broken at the moment (patent applications have an inverse correlation with %R&D spend in software - what does THAT tell you?), this does not mean that a legal framework for creativity rights can or should be done away with; there's no other way to protect the rights of people like Mr Z.

matthew smillie.

···

On Jan 30, 2006, at 16:25, Jeff Pritchard wrote:

Mental,
So Mr. X publishes three seconds before Ms. Y. Technically, X owns it,
but how many members of the community are going to be outraged by Ms.
Y's efforts to monetize her slightly tardy genius. Not many. My point
is that by removing the Lawyers and their need to make everything "a
decision", you allow the community to weigh each incident on its own
merits and make up their minds. Meanwhile, when some Bill Gates-ish guy
comes along and tries to own yet another space by flat out stealing the
best of what has already been claimed by others...at least a few members
of the community will get ticked off enough to do something about it.

31

Looking at both what came before and especially what came after my
little experiment of suggesting "open source government", I am struck by
the lack of hubris here. Not the usual individual hubris, but rather an
unexpected lack of group hubris.

I rather expected the group to at least jokingly grab onto the idea of
open source government, not because I thought then or think now that it
is workable or "right and true", but simply because it sounds like
something a group of software guys would find interesting and fun to
play with.

There seems to be at least some belief here (and judging from the lack
of posts disagreeing with it, some generalized agreement from the
group), that intelligent people are somehow not virtuous enough to
engage in a successful attempt at self government; a belief that such a
government would require the participants to be better at considering
the success of the group over and above the success of the individual.
I used the word virtuous for that property just due to an apparent lack
of a more suitable term.

In an effort to grok the unexpected endemic ennui that seems to engulf
the responses to this thread, I tried to imagine a completely unbiased
viewpoint from which to view this puzzle. I was surprised to find
myself toe to toe with the notion that perhaps we are expecting too much
from this universe. We are asking it to reward us for our genius (or
even our incremental improvements in technology) when, as far as we can
tell from all experimental evidence to date, the universe couldn't give
a crap. This universe seems more likely to reward the conniving bastard
who thinks of a better way to sell someone else's invention to the
masses. This is a survival of the fittest universe, not a survival of
the most "virtuous" (whatever we might individually choose to imagine
that word to mean) universe.

So, perhaps the most pragmatic and practical answer to the dilemma from
which this thread arose is that we all need to decide, individually, how
much of our brain power we are willing to expend on survival and the
creature comforts, and be willing to expend that effort along lines that
are valued by the universe we live in rather than what we might consider
to be a more "virtuous" path.

Perhaps that which we, the nerds of the world, view as slimy behavior of
"the suits"...should instead be viewed merely as a more practical use of
ones time, given the easily identifiable indifference with which this
universe holds our "acts of genius".

So, let me posit that the core of this dilemma is not how to change the
system into one that "properly worships our IQ", but rather what sneaky,
conniving methods we can come up with to use it to get whatever it is
that we want from this universe. Then individually decide just how much
of that we can stomach.

Interesting thread for me.

jp
(aka, the Mountain Man)
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the author. 8^)

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

32

Quoting Matthew Smillie <M.B.Smillie@sms.ed.ac.uk>:

Ah, but what about when popular, marketing-savvy Ms Q
"popularises" something legitimately claimed by quiet,
introverted, and previously unknown Mr Z? The community, being
predisposed to liking Ms Q, probably wouldn't be fussed, and it's
likely just as many people will think that Ms Q invented it as
will stand up for Mr Z, given the lack of perfect information.
As the 'community' becomes larger, this information gap grows,
making it easier for people to take advantage of.

There's also the situation where Mr. X and Mr. Y both independantly
come up with something at about the same time, both publicise it,
and each attract their own communities.

Then one day the two communities discover one another, and
recriminations and headaches for everyone ensue. Again, the issue
is partly an information gap.

Neither one of these two scenarios is hypothetical; this stuff
happens.

-mental

33

To me, it's not clear that we can create a system where the average Mr
Z will be better off than in a system with no restrictions. Being an
occasional parallell inventor (or a Mr Z -I don't know which), it is
not entirely clear to me that we should, either.

An example: About ten years ago, I invented the idea of using secure
hashes as a reference in version control systems, allowing re-use of
the same data and layering of metadata. Similar ideas appear in Git,
Monotone, and a system Compaq had that I've forgotten the name of.
While not having capacity to implement it alone, I've tried to plug a
design based on this for a long while. I don't know if that's been
the source of inspiration for Git, or Monotone, or Compaq, or if
that's parallell invention. On the other hand, does it matter? It
seems clear to me that the world be worse off if they hadn't been able
to use that idea, for instance by me protecting it.

I've had ideas grabbed and software used outside my license, and while
it's a bit aggrevating, in reality, it usually makes the world a
better place. It empowers those that actually want to create things
and get them out there, and makes the world overall go forward. I'm
much more aggrevated about the cases where I've wanted to do things
and couldn't than I'm by the ones where others have wanted to and has
"exploited" me.

Eivind.

···

On 1/30/06, Matthew Smillie <M.B.Smillie@sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

Ah, but what about when popular, marketing-savvy Ms Q "popularises"
something legitimately claimed by quiet, introverted, and previously
unknown Mr Z? [...]

So while it's clear to me that the current patent framework is
hideously broken at the moment (patent applications have an inverse
correlation with %R&D spend in software - what does THAT tell you?),
this does not mean that a legal framework for creativity rights can
or should be done away with; there's no other way to protect the
rights of people like Mr Z.

34

Neither one of these two scenarios is hypothetical; this stuff
happens.

Yep. I've reinvented tons of things. Generally it happens like this: I'm working on a problem, and I get a seed of an idea. I flesh it out for a couple of weeks, and get to the point where I can accurately describe it and start to implement it. It's usually around then that I find out that someone published this in the last couple of years. The problem being that until I can really describe an idea, it's really hard to search for the idea elsewhere. I mean "the thing that takes a distribution of those other doo-dads and puts it through a function that I haven't quite defined yet" doesn't get many good results on Google or Citeseer, you know?

Thankfully, I've been getting closer and closer in time to the people publishing my ideas, so hopefully I'll be first by the time I'm done grad school. At least I hope so, or submitting my thesis could be very, very embarrassing.

matthew smillie.

35

Matthew Smillie wrote:

Neither one of these two scenarios is hypothetical; this stuff happens.

Yep. I've reinvented tons of things. Generally it happens like
this: I'm working on a problem, and I get a seed of an idea. I flesh
it out for a couple of weeks, and get to the point where I can
accurately describe it and start to implement it. It's usually
around then that I find out that someone published this in the last
couple of years. The

Just look at my post about callbacks and events: me reinventing the Observer during a complete memory blackout :).
The problem with any system enforcing the rights of individuals is the point where the enforcement stops being for the individual and becomes enforcement for enforcement's sake.
Whenever a law ceases to be justice (and laws are seldom just in all their facets) it becomes a problematic burden exploitable by the few and savvy. Unfortunately the "solution" nowadays is to wrap everything in clauses, exceptions and bureaucracy.
Inevitably you get a situation where illegality becomes a norm because the law is unjust. In times past similar situations lead to revolutions.
Control can turn to oppression very easily (the subject of patterns and intellectual rights is very much a subject of control) and unfortunately humans tend to want to control everything, starting from their environment and ending with their thoughts.
Personally I think that a broad mind and a proactive attitude is necessary in a large scale to keep such oppression from happening. This requires education, mostly the capacity to seek multiple points of view before judging.
Would you teach your kids to think even if at the end they are going to disagree with you? I know a lot of people who won't and I find it sad because they produce fodder for the indefinable "they" to whom we attribute all the evils of this world, be it government or corporations, sects or cartels.
This is getting way off topic.
V.-

···

--
http://www.braveworld.net/riva

____________________________________________________________________
http://www.freemail.gr - äùñåÜí õðçñåóßá çëåêôñïíéêïý ôá÷õäñïìåßïõ.
http://www.freemail.gr - free email service for the Greek-speaking.

36

Indeed. We have this in England and Wales - playing musical instruments in public houses (pubs, bars etc) is illegal without a license for entertaining (not just a license, but several...). Whereas if you move to Scotland (a part of the Great Britain and a part of the United Kingdom) it is perfectly legal. Not sure what happens in Northern Ireland. In Scotland they view folk music as part of their culture and to be encouraged. Sadly in England (and Wales as it appears to always have the same rules) this is not the case.

So me and my mandolin and a pint of beer - that is illegal. Unbelievably stupid, but true. However 200 drunken football supporters and a live football feed from satellite TV - perfectly legal - no license for entertainment required. I'll leave it to you to judge which environment causes less disturbance and/or possible aggravation.

Utterly stupid laws, enforceable with draconian fines and a serious prison term. Ignored in many places, enforced in others. Totally ridiculous.

Just a real world example from the world's #1 jobs-worth enforcement country. Stupidity like this make it embarrassing to be English, but it seems to be part of the UK psyche at the moment.

Anyway I'm seriously off topic even though demonstrating the point above...

Stephen

···

In message <43E28673.7070006@freemail.gr>, Damphyr <damphyr@freemail.gr> writes

Inevitably you get a situation where illegality becomes a norm because the law is unjust. In times past similar situations lead to revolutions.

--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/software.html
Computer Consultancy, Software Development
Windows C++, Java, Assembler, Performance Analysis, Troubleshooting

37

In Italy you might also get a SIAE inspector (our local RIIA) giving you a
fine if the song you are singing in the pub is copyrighted :slight_smile: What a sad
state of affairs.

···

On 2/3/06, Stephen Kellett <snail@objmedia.demon.co.uk> wrote:

In message <43E28673.7070006@freemail.gr>, Damphyr <damphyr@freemail.gr> > writes
>Inevitably you get a situation where illegality becomes a norm because
>the law is unjust. In times past similar situations lead to revolutions.

Indeed. We have this in England and Wales - playing musical instruments
in public houses (pubs, bars etc) is illegal without a license for
entertaining (not just a license, but several...). Whereas if you move

38

We have that too. Its all over Europe and also in the US. Each has its own form. Typically you need a license for a copyright work performance and also for the playback of the same work via a jukebox and so on. However these are not issued by the government and are not laws of the land (whereas the situation I described is law on the statute book) although they are enforceable via copyright law.

I attend 2 to 3 regular licensed (legal) music events and up to 9 illegal music events a month. I'm in breach of the law for playing a mandolin or bagpipe in a public house! Step outside onto the footpath and I am perfectly legal. What a sad world.

I notice the RIAA are suing a woman that has never used a computer.

Stephen

···

In message <dd533d4b0602030248o663df9c1s42914c58dfe2ef4b@mail.gmail.com>, chiaro scuro <kiaroskuro@gmail.com> writes

In Italy you might also get a SIAE inspector (our local RIIA) giving you a
fine if the song you are singing in the pub is copyrighted :slight_smile: What a sad
state of affairs.

--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/software.html
Computer Consultancy, Software Development
Windows C++, Java, Assembler, Performance Analysis, Troubleshooting