Slashdot Mirror

As soon as there are only one or a few dominant commercial services left, the dangers become obvious (only when it is already too late) if these start to hide part of the messages (e.g. eMail addresses, controversial topics etc.), switch to fee-based or geographically restricted access, or simply discontinue service.

This may have severe implications not just for historians' access to material a few decades down the road, but also even today, as already shown by some recent cases, e.g. for demonstrating prior art against bogus patents.

The Prelinger Archives has two films explaining how to dial a phone: How to Use the Dial Phone from 1927, and the more modern "talkie" Dial Comes to Town.

The Prelinger Archives has two films explaining how to dial a phone: How to Use the Dial Phone from 1927, and the more modern "talkie" Dial Comes to Town.

The Prelinger Archives has two films explaining how to dial a phone: How to Use the Dial Phone from 1927, and the more modern "talkie" Dial Comes to Town.

"Firstly, at this point in time, everything you make that is copyrightable is copyrighted automatically by the law. You are not in fact choosing to do it for a particular reason."

Yes, but I am not talking of my works which I place no notice on, but rather those works I place a notice on. These days, ti is GPL and CC BY-SA for me. Check:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22
http://zotz.openphoto.net/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/zbcw/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/nanoppix/
http://security.royans.net/projects/dydns/

"Secondly, I think you're confusing something. If you are creating works without any expectation of getting anything at all in return, then you appear to not be encouraged to create those works by the availability of copyright, and therefore shouldn't get a copyright since it is superfluous."

You are missing what motivates me with respect to copyright and also trying to reduce all motivations to economic ones. I think you are mistaken as to what motivates me. Perhaps it is that way with you, I cannot read your mind, but I have some inkling of my own.

"To be honest, I'm dubious. Your posts in this thread are copyrighted. Would you not post on /. if you had to register them in order to protect them? I don't think so. I think that you post here because you enjoy the debate, and the copyright status of the posts is irrelevant."

With the example you chose, which is my posting on slashdot, you are more than likely right. But you chose a wrong example. Check this link:

http://www.nanowrimo.org/userinfo.php?uid=47354

I wrote a novel in November 2004 as part of a contest. If I sort out some issues with my lawyer with respect to short quotes from songs of the era sprinkled here and there in the novel, I intend to publish it under some Creative Commons or similar license.

After all that work, I would not put it in the public domain, but would be happy to release as CC BY-SA. I will be quite happy, even if I do not receive a dime as a result of sales. This brings up a key issue with reguards to motivation. That is that we have a continumm from demotivation to total absence of motivation to motivation. You are speaking like there is only motivation and the absence of motivation.

While I am quite happy to share my work for no monetary reward, I find it demotivating to think others will make a derivative of my work and copyright it all rights reserved and not pay me. I am cool with them copylefting a derivative and not paying me. Perhaps this will remove the need to be dubious.

"Given that the system I describe is more or less how we did things from 1710-1977 and that we had a pretty thriving public domain, and that the number of copyrightable works didn't seem to shoot up upon the effective date of the 1976 Act, or the 1989 amendments, I think that those expansions of the law were not really justified."

I can easily agree that the expansions of the law were not justified. However, if one of the acts/amendments you cite was the one that made all works automatically copyrighted once comitted to a fixed medium, you are seriously mistaken in your claim that the number of copyrighted works did not shoot up (I realise you said copyrightable works, if there is a fine point to the difference, please enlighten.) I take it you meant works where the copyright was registered did not shoot up in number.

"One year statutory bar to filing, probably from publication, where that's significantly expanded from what it means now (e.g. inclusive of public performance). Five year terms from pu

The parts which were obviously manipulated (see before and after) are:

Dr. Andrew Miller - eyes
Peggy Miller - eyes
Timothy Allmon - eyes (if you can't see this one, the problem is in *your* eyes :)
Dr. Troy Franklin - hair
Jose Rosas - mouth
Fred "Skeet" Hoskins - eyes

This is a pretty exhaustive proof that the website is a fake.

--
Requiem for the FUD

The guy who wrote the museumofhoaxes page seems to think that the hoaxer is this this guy. If he spent 5 minutes reading the guy's web material, he'd realize that he's quite sincere, though not very bright.

Also, note that the OBJECTIVE web site was originally hosted by a Christian hosting company. Not a logical place to host a spoof!

Finally, notice how OBJECTIVE is distributing this banner demanding that the Landover site be shut down. I can't believe a spoofer would come up with the slogan "He didn't give His life to be mocked!", no matter how mock-serious he was trying to be.

It's pretty easy to "prove" that something on the web is bogus. You pick at little inconsistencies, and you ignore the contrary evidence. I've been accused of being a non-existant person more than once. The last time was on Slashdot, where I had a story accepted gushing about a new TV show I was enthusiastic about. Several people "proved" that I was a pseudo-person invented just to plug the show. Never mind that already had a couple thousand Slashdot posts in my history!

I don't feel like digging up this material again just to argue with you

I definitely don't need you to do it..
As i posted in a correction, the link I attached to the word 'proof' was wrong. The actual proof is here.

To sum it up: this is the members page as it is now, and this is what it was (it's stored in a cache site). The faces of the members were obviously edited (compare the eyes, especially. Arguably, they did it in order not to use the face of some actual people). This pretty much proves that the whole website is a fake.

OTOH, I totally agree that the anti-evolution movement is a reality (sadly). It's enough to look at what happens in some schools, as the CEO of the AAAS (the association that publishes Science) is denouncing.

--
Requiem for the FUD

You don't need sci-fi for that. Check out Democracy or Despotism by Encyclopaedia Britannica Films. It really helps to realise where do people live now...

Also, for those who missed it, here is a link to the 'ad' the MPAA put up.

You probably shouldn't. Nor should anyone else with a nice, fast internet connection. Between the iTunes/Napster/Walmart music stores, and the absolutely wonderful Internet Archive, you should be all set.

Now, for those of us who don't have high-speed internet access (due to availability reasons, at least on my part), having what really amounts to an unlimited amount of music/talk/sports/etc. available at the touch of a button is well worth the $10 or less per month XM costs me.

Considering how most American slashdotters (myself included) consider the DMCA to be a violation of our rights, I hope everyone will understand the urgency of my plight...I need somewhere to post this cheat code...

left-right-left-left-B-A-left-down-trigger-left-B

I can only hope Slashdot has the resources to protect my free speech. ;-)

Really, though...the DMCA sucks, but I can't see cheat codes being a violation while game makers keep putting them in on purpose. Aren't they the ones writing code to do different things when we enter the codes in? What next, prison time for opening an easter egg in Word?

Here's a link to the archived site, before it was taken down.

wayback goes back further for pokey than for friend bear, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. This is the first time I've heard of friend bear, though.

wayback goes back further for pokey than for friend bear, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. This is the first time I've heard of friend bear, though.

No need to bring in the fascists.. 'Democracy' itself is perfect for making everyone believe they have a choice and keeping everyone happy. Just as long as you don't look behind the scenes.

Whatever you call your system of governance, this film will provide you with a nice litmus test:

Despotism & Democracy - Encyclopaedia Britannica Films 1946

Coal contains trace radioactive elements, and when thousands of tonnes of coal is burned, trace amounts add up to significant amounts. And those radioactive elements can go right up the flue stack and into the air.

Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash: Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance
U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-163-97
pdf
archive.org cache

Karl S Kruszelnicki, What else might be in your Ceiling Dust?
link
archive.org cache

Coal contains trace radioactive elements, and when thousands of tonnes of coal is burned, trace amounts add up to significant amounts. And those radioactive elements can go right up the flue stack and into the air.

Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash: Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance
U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-163-97
pdf
archive.org cache

Karl S Kruszelnicki, What else might be in your Ceiling Dust?
link
archive.org cache

some other stuff (some of it FOR FREE mind you)
-another mp3 store
-ANOTHER mp3 store
-unfound sound, netlabel
-thinnerism/autoplate, TWO netlabels
-Archive.org's netlabel page, more techno than you could possibly consume in a lifetime!
-313 discussion list
-who is what and who

Chuck moore's 25x had 25 misc cores on one die. Specs:

.2 sq mm asynchronous microcomputer core 5 x 5 array of cores: 60,000 Mips 5 horizontal, 5 vertical parallel interconnect buses: 180 Ghz bandwidth Specialized computers to interface off-chip. Max power 500 mW @ 1.8 V, with 25 computers running 100mAh battery life is 1 year, with 1 computer running throttled 64-pin SOIC: mirrored pin-out to 4ns cache SRAM Array chips on 2-sided PCB

Shortly after he announced the chip, he took the link off his page. According to a post from him he's in a lawsuit

The Cell processor is pretty cool, but i see some room for improvement. They could have made simpler cores, and lots more of them.

I'll identify the legal live music tracker at Etree for ya. Sure, some of the bands (a little over 800 of 'em) have their music available at The Internet Archive, but the Archive requires explicit permission from the bands to host their material there. A lot of bands that allow taping/trading haven't (for whatever reason) opted in to the Archive. So the Etree site has tons of taper-friendly bands like They Might Be Giants, Primus/Les Claypool, Parliament/Funkadelic, Los Lobos, and GWAR, who aren't on the Archive, but who still allow (some of) their music to be traded.

I don't know why you say, "free software doesn't count." That seems pretty silly. Free software most certainly does count. Aside from updates to my Debian machines, I get most of my free software by BT. But there's probably more legal music trading going on on the Etree site every day than there is BT traffic in free software on the entire Internet in a month. So the argument is moot.

The point of BT is not to give you the fastest possible download. Its primary benefits are for the people offering files, who can offer those files to a lot more people than they would be able to if they had to use ftp/http. Those fast ftp/http sites you like? They're not fast because they use ftp/http. They're fast because they pay huge amounts of money for huge, fast pipes. I guarantee, if the guy offering the torrent that you're getting at 200kbps were using ftp or http, you'd be seeing speeds more like 2kbps.

But hey, if you don't like it, don't use it. Nobody's twisting your arm.

Years before Java, James Gosling wrote a "combination macro-preprocessor and theorem prover" named Ace, which was used to compile the rasterop code in X11/NeWS.

NeWS supported all 2^4 rasterop codes, but some were MUCH more commonly used than others. So Craig Taylor and James Gosling came up with a way to write huge pyramids of parameterized CPP macros, that could generate small slow code for uncommon rasterops, and big unwrapped fast code for common rasterops and their permutations (like scrolling up and down).

Eventlly it got out of hand, so for X11/NeWS, Gosling wrote a new C parse tree based macro processor called "ACE", that was more of a "theorem prover" (isn't everything?) than just dumb string replacement like CPP. It could estimate the number of instructions and the speed of the code, and you could advise it how to make the trade-offs in deciding between "fast" and "small" branches of macro expansions. You could write a 2-d raster loop macro several different ways, with alternative ways to expand it, and ACE would decide based on how fast you wanted each raterop variation to run.

Unfortunately, Java never had a macro facility, let alone a "theorem prover" like ACE. Of couse Lisp macros are more powerful, general purpose, cleaner and better intergrated than ACE. Unfortunately, Java's C-like syntax makes it impossible to design a decent macro facility. So instead of having indecent CPP macros like C, Java has no macros at all.

The lack of a built-in macro processing facility is one of Java's major weaknesses, which is one reason that Java simply can't hold a candle to Lisp.

-Don

These guys probably do...

shame no-one explained it to these guys back then :)

According to the Wayback machine, file size doesn't seemed to have changed (or reduced) that much. This old version from July 2004 is actually smaller (33.95kb) than the current one which is 40.55kb. Note that this is from Firefox's "View Page Info" which does not take the total size of the images, etc into account (I think).

But then there are several factors other than raw filesize leading to slower load times.

It's nice to see webpage developers at Microsoft aware of standards, and trying to adhere to them. From this comment:

At 6:29pm on 1 Feb 2005, Venkat Narayanan wrote:
Guys,
I work on the MSN.com Homepage team. Thanks for all of this feedback.
We know that there are still some validation errors. There are still some accessibility issues. We will be working to fix those issues as soon as possible. Please let us know what you think.

I think it only needs standards awareness from a few of the low-level developers to bring about a change. Even if the high level management/QA may not know or care about standards, a developer could make the work standards friendly without foregoing any of the performance/features. It would help, though to have management promote standards awareness, and devote resources to make sure they're complied with. Good for Microsoft if they're doing this. On the other hand, it may only be these few standards aware developers trying to do the right job.

Sigh... we've been through this before

Apple demanded $1.2 billion from Microsoft for alleged patent infringements...

The negotiations that resulted led to a strategic agreement between the two companies in August 1997, one part of which called for Microsoft to invest $150 million in Apple and for Apple to install Microsoft's Internet Explorer as the default Web browser for its customers... As part of his videotaped deposition, however, Microsoft Chairman and CEO Bill Gates testified repeatedly that his primary goal was to resolve the patent issues with Apple and obtain a patent cross license.

Straight from the horse's mouth.

Newsflash: you're not PROMOTING it, you're helping other people STEAL it.

Yeah. God damn those pirates.
Anything that doesn't cost money and contains others' intellectual property must be THEFT..

If you want Japanese cartoons before they're released in English, learn Japanese.

Yeah, I'll get right on that. How do you say "haha yeah right" in Japanese?

you can do it while you're at work if you have headphones and a cd-rom drive ...and, apparently, nothing to do at work.

Maybe if folks would stop STEALING things online, movie and music distributors would be a little less wary of wading into the digital pool to test the waters. After all, who's going to buy a new release online for $5 when they can get it a week early for free?

Oh for God's sake, people, stop trotting out this tired old horse and beating it every time something even remotely resembling copyright infringement shows up on Slashdot.

This is so wildly different from mp3 and movie piracy that I'm ashamed I'm even replying to this inane post. Your points are stupid. Your insight is weak. You have no idea what you're talking about and you are pissing in the pool of rational discourse with this absurdity. Please reformulate your ideas into something cogent and sensical and I'll try and reply in kind.

- A.P.

Pre-Trillian IA-64 Linux Contributions
* Feb '98: IA-64 Linux work begins at HP
* Oct '98: HP toolchain complete
* Jan '99: Kernel boots on processor simulator at HP
* Mar '99: First Public demo of IA-64 Linux on HP simulator
* Mar '99: Linux boots on Itanium(TM) processor logic model at Intel
* Apr '99: CERN joins HP development effort for C library
* Apr '99: IA-64 Linux work begins at VA Linux Systems
* May '99: Trillian Project Founded
HP donates initial toolchain and foundation kernel source code Intel and VA Linux Systems provide platform source code

Very nice--too bad there aren't other Newton users in the discussion to appreciate the joke.

WinNT has its roots in OS/2, not DOS.

Amid suspicions of intellectual property theft, DEC eventually sued Microsoft, citing that Cutler and his Mica team had actually continued the same project within Microsoft, culminating in the birth of the Windows NT OS. After Microsoft settled the case with DEC for $150 million, inside sources alleged that large quantities of NT's code (and even most of the programmer's comments) were identical to Mica's.

ATI's method of competing has been to lie continually about the future of being able to use this feature. For example, back in 2000, ATI announced the VHA SDK to allow Linux users access to the MPEG2 accelerators on their cards. After 5 years of waiting, ATI still has not released this to the general public. Instead, they claimed in a FAQ that the GATOS project is currently working toward hardware assisted IDCT... But the GATOS project had already publically announced "no planned support."

So, I contacted ATI developer relations via the web in 2003 and waited three months. They never got back to me. So, I contacted them by phone, they confirmed the following:

• ATI has no plans to ever release the announced VHA SDK to the general public
  
• Because of "lack of interest" (I guess on ATI's part, because there is plenty of interest to be found on Linux mailing lists), they feel no obligation to ever honor the press release
  
• ATI has never release specs for doing iDCT to the GATOS project and does not expect the GATOS project to be able to support iDCT
  
• When ATI's Linux FAQ stated that GATOS would be providing support, ATI already knew they had a policy which required withholding the specifications on how to write drivers to use the iDCT acceleration feature.
  

Bad news for Archive.org then! http://web.archive.org/web/20000816082507/http://w ww.umich.edu/~umich/fm-34-40-2/

According to some old mirrors of his site, his name was Frank Bruvik. Also you can try to make out the mirrors, the AP article says:

The Napster.no site provided links to music files in the MP3 format that could be downloaded for free. The site was online between August and November 2001, and provided links to about 170 free music files on servers outside Norway, the ruling said.

If you're going to list the MST3K titles, give them some credit! This site manages to cheer me up http://www.archive.org/movies/movies.php

Can it juggle flaming scissors?

Holy Zoophilia!

Ok. I consider myself a somewhat open minded person but that was just down
right gross. Oddly it was just like a train wreck, I didn't want to keep
reading but I couldn't pull my eyes away. It just got more and more
disturbing and foul.

I agree with him on the intelligence and emotional state of dolphins and
other cetaceans but intra species mating and the thought of 'masturbating'
or performance of fellatio or cunnilingus upon a dolphin just goes a bit far
round the twist.

Although I did get a slight chuckle and head shake out of a few things.

First, the fact that the penis is prehensile and can be used to pick up and
carry things. I would love to have a prehensile penis that was between 12-14
inches. Think of all the things you could do. Like hold a piece of wood
steady while sawing it, or carrying all the grocery bags into the house at
the same time, or being able to open a door when your hands are full...

Second, that one should watch out when receiving vaginal(but he is not a
woman and thus is not sure that a woman wouldn't be able to take this) or
anal intercourse due to the fact that the male is from 12 to 14 inches long
very muscular and can shoot up to 14 feet. The danger here being that one
could get severe internal injuries that would be a bit hard to explain to
the ER doc. Gosh, no shit? I can see that conversation: "You see Doc, I was
blowing my dolphin partner and he got so into it he accidentally broke my
nose. He really is a good dolphin Doc! He didn't mean to do it! Really! He
doesn't have a mean bone in his body! It just sort of happened and he felt
really bad about it afterwards! Please don't report him for domestic abuse!"

Third, that one needs to be careful having one's face in the general area of
the genitalia or when performing fellation or cunnilingus on said animal as
in the case of a female dolphin a possible broken nose can occur and in the
case of a male a possible broken neck from the pelvic thrusts or severe
damage to the throat and/or face due to the velocity and force of
ejaculation. But that if one really wanted to do this just make sure that
the male ejaculates under water.

Cut to the Coroner's report on cause of death to the police: Fracture of the
C2 spine due to a mistimed vigorous pelvic thrust by victim's cetacean sex
partner while victim was engaged in oral copulation with aforementioned
cetacean. Death ruled accidental. Recommend that no criminal charges be
brought against the victim for being such a sick fuck as victim is deceased.

Or how about the poor doctor who has to tell the family: "Mrs. Jones, I am
very sorry for your loss. You see, your son's bottle nosed dolphin lover...
yes, yes I did say bottle nosed dolphin....yes, just like flipper...
accidentally blew a hole the size of a small casaba melon in his colon when
he ejaculated inside your son during anal intercourse... Yes, yes I did say
anal intercourse with a dolphin... Yes your son was the 'catcher' and the
Dolphin was the 'Pitcher" Mr. Jones... I can't say Mrs. Jones, I have no
idea what made him do that... Best not to focus right now on what you did
wrong raising him Mrs. Jones... No Mr. Jones it isn't for me to judge if
your son was a freak or not..."

Forth, he gives specific directions on how to stimulate and find a
'partner'. Including that one should really stay away from places like a
marine life aquarium as it is too public a place, the dolphin is not in his
or her natural habitat, and that people may object but it is possible if one
can sneak in at night.

Super. I can see it now "Mommy, why is that daddy in the fish tank playing
with the dolphin's birdie? You told me I would go blind and grow hair on my
hands if I did that! Will the dolphin go blind and grow hair?"

Fifth, that he curren

It's located at www.theWholeDangInternet.com

. For an older copy try the Internet Archive.

This was discussed a few years ago in the article "WINE: A new place for KLEZ to play", although the original site is now defunct (the article was also covered on Slashdot).

Actually, I think he was talking about Diceland Technologies. Unfortunately their webpage seems to be a placeholder, so I'll dredge up a link to the archived version. I'd still like to see those things, but I quit holding my breath a few years ago.

Yes. Congress can pass whatever copyright laws it wishes because the Constitution gives them that power.

No.

The constitution says congress can only pass copyrights for the purpose of promoting the advancement of progress. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that this is the only valid purpose for which copyright laws may be created. That they must ultimately serve the public.

In addition, congress is still bound by other portions of the constitution. In fact much of fair use was established on constitutional grounds, things congress did NOT have the power to restrict through copyright law.

>To what degree can they deny me the right to say what I like?
When it becomes copyright infringement.

Circular argument. You (falsely) claimed that congress can pass any copyright law they like, thereby turning anything into copyright infringment. There are in fact various constitutional limits to what congress can restrict.

if it weren't for Congress there would be no such thing as fair use.

WRONG.

Fair use is NOT granted or defined by congress of by copyright law. In fact fair use did not appear in the text of copyright law before 1976. But it certainly existed before 1976. In fact if you read the fair use section of the law, the only thing it actually says of any binding legal effect is the fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringment of copyright. Period. It also happens to mention examples of fair use and list some factors courts shall consider in deciding fair use. The examples are merely examples and the 4 factors are not the only factors that may be considered. The courts roitinely consider other factors, and they are perfectly free to give the four listed factors ZERO weight.

If you look at the congressional record regaurding that fair use section, they explicitly stated that it was not intended to expand, diminish, or alter fair use in any way. It was merely inteded to reflect and maintain the existing state of fair use.

If you don't beleive me I can dig up links backing it all up. Links to the fair use section, to the first appearance of that section, to the congressional record about adding that section, and to the establishment of fair use by the Supreme Court around 200 years ago on constitutional grounds.

It was a Constitutional issue, right up to the point where the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 7-2 that Congress still has the power to change the duration of a copyright. It is no longer a Constitutional issue until either the Supreme Court reverses the previous ruling or another act of Congress.

Wrong. Try reading the PDF. This appeal is perfectly consistant with the Eldred case you cite. In fact they breif extensively relies on and builds upon the Supreme Court ruling in that case.

-

You say you are Arab American. This web site is in Persian, as you can see from Archive.org . So how come you know all this about them?

You seem to be confusing ISNA (Iranian Students News Agency, the subject of this Slashdot article) with ISNA (Islamic Society of North America)?

The latter ISNA is a well reputed Muslim organization in America and not related to promoting terrorism nor fake charities.

An Arab American would most likely spelled it as Quran and not Koran too.

You being an Anonymous Coward tells me that are trolling, and not just confused.

I noticed the other day that the internet archive is now offering proper movies to download, not just collections of old adverts, corporate training videos and government anti-drug educational films.

Some examples are Night of the living dead and Roger Corman's Fast and the furious

They're also building a collection of Open source movies

I noticed the other day that the internet archive is now offering proper movies to download, not just collections of old adverts, corporate training videos and government anti-drug educational films.

Some examples are Night of the living dead and Roger Corman's Fast and the furious

They're also building a collection of Open source movies

I noticed the other day that the internet archive is now offering proper movies to download, not just collections of old adverts, corporate training videos and government anti-drug educational films.

Some examples are Night of the living dead and Roger Corman's Fast and the furious

They're also building a collection of Open source movies

I noticed the other day that the internet archive is now offering proper movies to download, not just collections of old adverts, corporate training videos and government anti-drug educational films.

Some examples are Night of the living dead and Roger Corman's Fast and the furious

They're also building a collection of Open source movies

They are aiming particularly to tap the younger video-game generation

I think they misspelled tapster.com

Background story> .

sorry for the archive.org link, apparently tapster - like its lesser known brother - has succumbed to the power of the RIAA. Or was it because they streamed in dobly?

Property can only be owned by one person at a time. If someone takes the property, the previous person is deprived of it. This is not so with artistic works and such.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Isaac McPherson, said the following: "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."

Believing that copyright is a natural right is absolute folly. Copyrights expire (that is, after all, the subject of the article above). A natural Right does not expire!

Let's look at the United States Constitution: "[Congress shall have the power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" A Right, as recognized by the Constitution, is inalienable, endowed by our creator. What the aforementioned passage does is gives people the privilege of a government-granted monopoly over their idea as an incentive to think up more ideas. You need to go here and watch the first video, which covers the difference between Rights and privileges.

Yes, the power was granted to Congress by the Constitution, but only "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts", if my memory serves correctly. The argument would be that Congress has gone beyond the scope of the powers granted to it. I won't make an entire defense of their claim -- but you should read the actual filing linked to in the article itself, especially the Introduction section, which is (surprisingly) understandable and in plain English.

It looks to me like this case builds a lot on the Supreme Court's reasonings in Eldred v. Ashcroft, so just because the previous case was lost doesn't mean that this one is automatically doomed.

...or the old versions of google. I hope no one (else?) starts asking for their archived pages back.

After reading TFA I expect this case to go to the Supreme Court and make massive waves, at least.

Not to troll, but I noticed that this link had something to do with http://www.archive.org.. If you haven't been to this page before, you must go! It has been around for several years, and has some pretty kick ass archives of the internet.. yes.. the internet. You can get a look at snapshots of sites differet points in time. A must see.. I like looking at tech sales sites and lookin at the crazy prices :)

... will soon be playing rarely seen restored film reels of the "1980's desktop war" in color.

Seriously, I like to see this vintage stuff. I used to read BYTE magazine, and saw the adverts for "The Computer Chronicles",
but never got to see the series. Fortunately, these are available for download at archive.org