The Punk Engineer

The New Testament and the Rashomon Effect

Here's a theory I've come up with. Note that I've had no formal training in New Testament philosophy. Consider:

The New Testament's four Gospels tell the story of Jesus from four different points of view. The authors, while allegedly "divinely inspired," all had their own agendas.

Perhaps you've seen Akira Kurasawa's masterpiece, Rashomon. This film tells the same story, that of a crime, from four different points of view. Each version of the story differs from the others in significant ways. Each person telling the story believes that his version is "The Truth." Each person telling the story has an agenda.

Back to the New Testament. As I said, the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell the story from different points of view, yet the stories differ and are sometimes contradictory. Xtian Fundamentalists (aka the "American Taliban") remind us that the Bible is the Literal Truth, The Word of G-d. Each Gospel is The Truth.

But if the Gospels differ, what is its truth? That's the question posed by Kurasawa. How can this be? The Fundamentalists have no answer, or at least one that makes sense and isn't contradictory.

As Patti Smith once sang, "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine."

ObPetBlogging

We love the dogs and cats. Here are Camille and Mancha, smiling as always:

Mancha with those eyes ...

Oscar:

Punk Rock Bowling!

Yep, next month I'm going to the BYO Records Punk Rock Bowling tournament in lovely Las Vegas. I'm on the Jersey Beat Irregulars team, representing Jim Testa's fabled fanzine and my former home of New Jersey.

I had the holes in the ol' Columbia 300 White Dot opened up a bit (my fingers are fatter than they were when I was 23) and I've been practicing. I don't think the Stern Brothers have anything to worry about.

Current projects

Stuff I'm working on:

a) Headphone amplifier with delay, for live-sound use. Handy when the console is 100' away from the FOH stacks. Normally, when you cue up something in the cans, you hear the headphones and the stacks. When you're far away from the stacks, the echo between the 'phones and the PA is annoying. Woody Nuss suggested it.

I've got layouts finished for two versions. One is deluxe: line in on combo XLR-TRS jacks, line out on XLR and TRS, headphone out on TRS, and an output level control. Expensive in small quantities. The less-deluxe version has line in on the combo jack, no line out and no level control. Both versions have a 20-x2 LCD and a rotary encoder for the user interface. Delay time can be set in feet, meters and milliseconds. The byte-wide 512k memories mean about 1.5 seconds of delay ... which oughta be long enough. Rather than putting a 1/4" TRS for headphone input, I put the combo jacks, figuring the console probably has control-room outs on 1/4" or XLR. You can always use an insert cable from the headphone out if necessary.

A Xilinx Coolrunner CPLD and two async SRAMs are the delay engine. There's a few pages of Verilog that implements the delay. It's basically a homework assignment for a student learning Verilog. Not at all difficult. The CPLD talks to the CODEC over I2S. The sample rate is 96 kHz simply because that's what the converters can do. Samples are 24 bits wide. A Silicon Labs 8051 handles the user interface. I use a 16VAC wall wart for power.

It's all too expensive. Who wants to pay more than $100 for this? Besides, once digital consoles take over, it'll be free.

b) I've had this idea for a one-rack-space wireless receiver cue box, basically a big switcher with a headphone jack that lets the wireless wrangler cue up any of 24 (expandable in groups of 24) wireless receivers. Good for troubleshooting, especially when the wireless wrangler is NOT the monitor or FOH engineer.

I use Phoenix connectors for the I/O because I assume that a rack full of wireless receivers is custom-wired at the shop before the rack gets sent out on tour for a year. These connectors use a whole lot less space than 24 XLRs. Anyways, the design is basically done and a layout started. Basically, an SiLabs 8051 runs the user interface, scanning buttons and lighting LEDs and enabling analog switches that select which input(s) will drive the headphone out. The usual sort of mic preamp chips do the inputs, and trimpots are used to set the gain for each channel.

c) I'd like to do a "digital snake" using the TI PGA2500 preamp chips in the stage box, with remote-control gain and a fibre interface. I bet I could do the muxing of the ADC data in an FPGA, and that FPGA drives the fibre PHY directly. I know this is a solved problem ...

"Is copying CDs a crime?"

I was involved in a, er, heated discussion about whether it's right or wrong, morally and legally, to copy music CDs and software. The unfortunate thing about most dinner-table debates is that one usually doesn't have all of one's bullet-point index cards available. So, I figured I'd inaugurate my blog with a post about my point of view on this subject.

First and foremost: I believe that the creator of a work of "intellectual property," whether the work is music, art, software, electronic hardware, whatever, is entitled to (indeed, has a right to) earn a living from his/her labor. I make no distinction between a song on a record album, a software application and a physical gadget.

This "right to earn a living" is why I believe in strong copyright laws and workable (and reasonable) patent laws. However, as a music fan, I am aware of the issue of Fair Use and the idea that I can buy a CD and pretty much be able to listen to the music on it wherever, whenever and however I like. Fair Use basically says that it's OK for me to rip a CD and upload the songs it to my iPod.

Lots of people burn copies of music CDs for friends, much as we used to make cassette copies of our vinyl albums. Lots of people also make copies of software and share it with friends. Here's the rub. Unless the creator has given explicit permission for a person to make a copy of a CD for a friend, then it's illegal to do so.

Here are a few of the usual arguments to support such copying. One is that, "I want to expose this music to my friend who'd never otherwise here it." That's great, as far as it goes, but if the friend likes the music, then shouldn't the friend go out and buy a copy? Yes, friend should, but often doesn't.

Another goes along the lines of, "The labels are ripping off the artists, so 'Fuck the Man!'" Sure, so when a band's legit record sales are nothing but everybody seems to have a copy of the record, the label can rightly say, "Your sales suck and we're dropping you."

A third argument is used to justify pirating software: "It's too expensive." The most egregious example of this is when a record producer pirates a ProTools plug-in and uses it to make a hit record. Let's see, the record made millions of dollars, yet you're too cheap to spring the $300 for the tool that was a vital part of your product? And you want the guys who wrote the plug-ins to continue creating new products that you'll pirate? And the record producer is entitled to be paid for his work, but the people who make it possible for him to work aren't?

The biggest difference between a hardware product and a software product (and by software I mean music and movies as well as computer programs) is that making as many perfect copies of the software as one wants is both simple and effectively free. Anyone can copy a DVD in their living room. Basically nobody can copy a dishwasher, at least cost-effectively.

Why is this difference important? If I give you my chainsaw, I can't cut my firewood until you return it, or I buy a new one. But if I give you a perfect digital copy of my new Born To Run disc, I can still play my copy whenever I please. It's worth noting that there's a pretty good market for used CDs. As much as the record companies and artists (and authors and book publishers) may not like it, the secondary market is legal. I own a "thing," and it's my right to sell the thing. But once I sell it, I no longer have it.

There is an interesting argument that says, "I bought a cassette of Springsteen's Born To Run, and it broke. Since I bought it once and Fair Use says I can copy it, then can you make a copy of your CD for me?"

No. I can't. I'm sorry that your tape broke. But replace "Springsteen Cassette" with "television." "I bought a TV set a few years ago, and it broke. Mr. Sony, can I have a replacement for free?"

Sure you can, if the TV died during the warrantee period. If not, then tough luck. Buy a new TV. Sure, both the TV and tape can last a very long time when properly cared for, but it's unreasonable to expect Sony to replace your ten-year-old TV with a new unit, and so it's unreasonable for Sony to give you a new copy of the Springsteen record.

(Of course, there is the notion that a company might wish to keep a customer, and if that means replacing a TV that's out of warrantee, that's excellent, but of course the company is under no obligation to do so. Maybe Bruce will give you a copy of the re-ish BTR if you plead your case.)

The person with whom I was debating argued that "If the software is already out there and is copied, it's already obsolete, so the people who wrote it should be working on the next product." I'd like to make two points here. One is that why should they bother working on the next product if nobody is paying for the current product? (How are you supposed to develop software if you can't pay the electric bill?) And the second is simply that the current product is already "leading edge," ergo, not obsolete.

This person also suggested that "the [creators] need to use strong copy protection for their work." In other words, DRM, Digital Rights Management. There are lots of problems with this argument, the most obvious being that every encryption method used to protect software is cracked almost immediately. Yep, software developers have the mindset that their customers are thieves. There are those that will say, "software developers really don't mind piracy, as it gets people using the program, and then they'll buy it." Yeah, people are using the program, but what's the incentive to pay for something you've already got for free? Oh, yeah, so new versions can be developed. Right, when most of your user base isn't paying, how fast will new versions be developed?

Another argument against DRM is the Sony rootkit fiasco. In their efforts to prevent piracy, Sony effectively fucks your computer. Not good for the ol' Public Relations, eh? Thats' a good way to make your customers distrust any product you release for the foreseeable future.

A third argument against DRM is that every scheme I've seen renders Fair Use meaningless.

A fourth argument against DRM is that the content providers want to tell the hardware vendors how to design products. There's nothin' like specialized, expensive products that go obsolete as soon as the Next Big Thing comes out. It's another way to piss off your customers.

Having said all of this: if a content/IP creator wants to give away his/her work, that's great. More power to them. While I'm not entirely convinced that free and open-source software is always going to be higher-quality than proprietary software, I will say that I depend on certain open-source applications: emacs, Subversion, Firefox, Cygwin, X Windows, Open Office, Perl, Samba, the Entire Frickin' Internet Infrastructure. I'm glad that this stuff is out there. I just don't know how Stallman pays his rent.

Furthermore: I believe that copyrights should have reasonable expiration periods. I understand that Walt Disney's heirs have benefitted from his works, but at some point, you have to say, "enough is enough. He innovated, now so should you. Get a job." (Just think about Will in About A Boy: his dad wrote the hit song and he just lives off the royalties.)

Along those lines, if a software company goes bankrupt or ends a product line, why not open the source? It's worth more as an educational tool than a product (otherwise, they'd still be in business!).