Alan Cox Files Patent For DRM

booooh writes "Alan Cox has filed a patent for DRM (Digital Rights Management). From the filing: 'A rights management system monitors and controls use of a computer program to prevent use that is not in compliance with acceptable terms.' According to the patent pledge of Cox's employer Red Hat, they will not license this technology if the patent is granted. And it can probably be applied to the DRM that is in Vista. This forum has a few more details.

Comments

Illegal iTunes?

[tedgyz]

I KNEW I should have kept using LimeWire instead of paying for songs on iTunes!

Wow!

[noamsml]

Either the patent system will be proven rotten, or DRM will be halted! It's a win-win!

Re:Wow!

[kurtmckee]

I think both of your outcomes hinge on the assumption that the patent is granted. Besides, do we really need anymore proof that the patent system is seriously b0rked?

Re:Wow!

[Andy Dodd]

"Either the patent system will be proven rotten, or DRM will be halted! It's a win-win!"

Or the patent system will work and the patent won't be granted (prior art).
Or the patent system will work and the patent will be granted because it is narrow in scope (only covers a specific type of DRM) which won't hurt DRM in general because no one implements it in the patented way. (If they do, prior art kills the patent)

Re:Wow!

[arivanov]

Neither.

Read the patent application.

It is actually an interesting take on the licensing paradigm. Most licensing programs either start denying you access which leads to loss of data if this happens in the middle of an operation. Alternatively, they kill your program altogether which is again loss of data. Alternatively they check for licensing only when the program starts. In the days of software suspend and 200+ days of uptimes neither one of these is a good idea.

What redhat is patenting is a three pronged approach - OS suspend, component suspend or application suspend when a license violation is encountered. The first one is obvious, the second one and third one are non-obvious until one consideres RedHat aquisition of Jboss. These actually make a lot of sense in a Jboss application.

Overall, I am not surprised that RedHat has no intention of licensing this commercially. If they provide the relevant support, this will give a Jboss based commercial application considerable advantage over BEA and Websphere.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or MS will pay undisclosed sum to patent office to stop it from patenting the idea.
Ummmm... stop they don't actually need to pay - they'll just say that filling that patent will stop their computers! 'Patent it and that will be the last thing you will ever patent!'

Re:Wow!

[antek9]

You gotta love that. DRM as prior art. Isn't it beautiful?

Re:Wow!

[rujholla]

or Microsoft finds the patent officer who is considering the patent and pays them 10 Million under the table to deny the patent.

Re:Wow!

[noamsml]

The patent system working? That would be a first.

Re:Wow!

[morgan_greywolf]

It may also be used in copies of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which is often licensed on a subscription model. Once the subscription expires, many companies typically end up using it anyway. Perhaps Red Hat is interested in stopping this. Notice that the patent covers use by application program os by operating systems. Red Hat is, first and foremost, an operating system vendor.

While the individual packages of RHEL are GPLed, the integrated OS as a whole is not. One interesting thought is -- what happens when packages in RHEL move to GPL V3? Will Red Hat be forced to not include them if they implement this DRM for RHEL?

Re:Wow!

[nomadic]

or Microsoft finds the patent officer who is considering the patent and pays them 10 Million under the table to deny the patent.

Microsoft? They're not huge DRM supporters by nature, they just implement it because they think that's the only way copyright holders will use Microsoft networks/products to distribute their music/movies/whatever.

Re:Wow!

[eMbry00s]

You have too much faith in that the patent system will work as intended. We all know it hasn't before, so let's be a bit optimistic now, shall we?

Or maybe not, whatever gets you spinning.

Re:Wow!

[bwt]

I believe that the patent will be granted. The PTO doesn't see this patent as any different than the myriads of other stupid patents they routinely grant. But the only way it might not be granted is if the publicity alerts the bad guys (MS, RIAA, MPAA, etc...) that they need to spin up their lobbiests to affect the PTO. I wish this story had not been run.

Assuming the PTO behaves as it has in the past, this patent will be granted and it will be up to litigation to sort out prior art. It will be up to Alan and Red Hat to pick who they want to attack first. If they pick somebody big, there is a serious danger that they will retaliate against Red Hat. Think about what IBM did to SCO. Every single SCO product has a patent claim infringement case against it.

If Red Hat is smart, they'd work out a deal with a friendly party who is willing to spend the money and litigate against them first. IBM or Novell might be candidates. The idea here would be that the "defendent" would want the courts to reach a common outcome with the plaintiffs and both sides would cooperate insofar as they would force the court to pick between precedents that are favorable to both sides.

Re:Wow!

[alx5000]

I don't know why, and I am not yet motivated to patent it, since my views on DRM are mostly unprintable....

Re:Wow!

[mavenguy]

While I'm totally dismissing the speculation of direct bribery this is historically extremely rare in the PTO. More likely avenues of influence other than the usual routes such as reexamination are protesting to higher PTO management and making it public to try to get pressure to "roll downhill" onto the examiner, or have the prosecution monitored, etc.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

> While the individual packages of RHEL are GPLed, the integrated OS as a whole is not.

stop smoking crack

Re:Wow!

[M1FCJ]

My understanding of RHEL licences are you can't ask for support for unlicenced copies - since all of the software is GPL or BSD licenced, they cannot stop you from using it, even after the support licence runs out. Don't forget that GPL does not have any restriction on use, it only controls distribution rights.

Re:Wow!

[Omnifarious]

What? You expect RedHat to actually use this? I don't know what planet you're from, but you're not from mine.

Re:Wow!

[hoeferbe]

morgan_greywolf wrote:

It may also be used in copies of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which is often licensed on a subscription model. Once the subscription expires, many companies typically end up using it anyway. Perhaps Red Hat is interested in stopping this.

I would guess your proposed situation is not a significant problem for Red Hat. Purchasers of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are large corporations that want the backing of their vendors. The way it works is that when one `purchases` Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the license one agrees to is for their support & updates. The money one pays Red Hat is for that technical support and `subscription` to the Red Hat Network in order to download & install updates. So, those large corporations are not going to let their subscription lapse because they want the support & updates. I would guess it would be extremely rare for any of Red Hat's enterprise customers to let their subscription lapse and run non-updated & non-supported RHEL products.

Re:Wow!

[spiritraveller]

I would guess it would be extremely rare for any of Red Hat's enterprise customers to let their subscription lapse and run non-updated & non-supported RHEL products.

And even if Red Hat did something like this, all these former customers would have to do is drop in CENTOS or one of the other recompiled clones of RHEL.

The grandparent's premise is ludicrous. Red Hat makes money by selling support, not software.

Re:Wow!

[julesh]

It may also be used in copies of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which is often licensed on a subscription model. Once the subscription expires, many companies typically end up using it anyway. Perhaps Red Hat is interested in stopping this.

Doing so would be an extra condition applied on use of the individual packages included in RHEL, and therefore a violation of the GPL. If there's any non-GPL software included (I've never tried it, so can't be sure), then it could be used for that.

Or it could be a landgrab aimed at Vista activation, which AFAICT works in exactly the way described.

Re:Wow!

[Net_Wakker]

You gotta love that. DRM as prior art. Isn't it beautiful?

+5 most perfect find of irony.

Re:Wow!

[arivanov]

RedHat themselves - never.

All of their JBoss customers which currently ship Jboss products using 3rd party licensing like flexlm and such - definitely. They will switch to a much better license enforcement mechanism supported by their primary framework provider. Cuts their costs and keeps their customers happier. As far as native apps running on Linux - possibly as well in the long run, not as soon as with the web services.

The most to suffer from this will be Globetrotter, Aladin and the like which provide license enforcement solutions for commercial software that ships on RHEL or based on Jboss. With one move Redhat just made them redundant as far as anything on their OS and application stack is concerned. Extra revenue for redhat and less revenue for some of the most hated companies out there.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the patent system will work and the patent won't be granted (prior art).

Philistine. You call that art?

Peculiar!

[Anonymous Coward]

You should think that someone had thought of this before?

Hope this works

[AlanS2002]

It might be something that reduces the threat of DRM completely making our computers useless.

It's not likely to affect Vista

[rumith]

Microsoft has got its back protected: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6330670&id= tNcIAAAAEBAJ&dq=digital+rights+management

Re:It's not likely to affect Vista

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

That's a patent for a DRM-enable operating system.

Seems Alan is trying to patent a subpart of DRM which will render it useless if it cannot be used.

Re:It's not likely to affect Vista

[Halo1]

The fact that Microsoft also has patents on DRM does not "protect" it in any way from this particular patent owned by Red Hat. A "defensive patent" only works to the extent that you can assert it to someone who is threatening you. So unless Red Hat starts incorporating DRM stuff in its products which infringes on Microsoft's patent, it has zero defensive value against Red Hat's patent.

That said, Microsoft has a whole lot of other patents as well, and some of those are bound to cover code distributed by Red Hat. I just wanted to correct the misconception that holding a patent on something automatically protects your use of that stuff: it doesn't in any way, all it does is give you the right to prevent others from doing that. But it's quite possible you need umpteen other patent licenses yourself to be able to actually do what you describe in your patent application.

Re:It's not likely to affect Vista

[Almost-Retired]

Based on the 2001 date of the M$ patent, it does look as if M$ has covered their butts, at least for the expiration date considerations. But rather than protecting the data, they would destroy the volatile copy in memory.

But this is a pretty good test of the patent system too, because Alan has probably some very similar methods claimed. The end result will probably be granted, but then disallowed on prior art grounds when it makes it to court. And while it may be to us, prima faci evidence of a broken system, but you can bet the farm it will be claimed by M$ as proof that the system works when they win. So we're (speaking as the public at large here) damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

OTOH, we need to give Red Hat and Alan a great big hand for making the effort and spending the $ to apply. We do certainly live in interesting times it seems. This I'll bet, will be at least as well followed in the FOSS world as the current scenario of making SCO go slowly broke paying the legals, or losing the scrap with Novell who has asked that all assets be frozen while there still is some left to pay the unpaid royalties. In that event the electricity will be off in parts of Linden UT the next day.

As for SCO, that must be some great stuff they grow in Utah if they thought for even a second that they could get a free ride and survive to fight another day. I want some of that. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if the court decides to liquidate all properties gained by officers of the corporation since the royalty payments went into arrears in an attempt to recover something for the plaintiff, Novel. That would certainly be fair, but I've NDI if its possible under corporate law, which usually insulates the people from the corporation monetarily.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Re:It's not likely to affect Vista

[akohler]

I believe that these patents are saying that they come out with the same results using different methods. I agree that this is unlikely to affect Vista, at least as long as MS sticks to its own patented methodology.

On the other hand, I don't think that that's what Red Hat is planning. My guess is that they:

1. Want to give their corporate customers the opportunity of DRM, rather than having them switch platforms.
2. Don't want to be locked out of the "Trusted Computing" fun and games.

If they patent their own DRM, no one's going to leave them behind, are they?

Re:It's not likely to affect Vista

[mavenguy]

This is a basic property of the right granted by a patent: The right to "exclude others" from making using or selling the invention, but not a right for the patent owner to make use or sell it themselves.

A common scenario: Party A gets a broad patent on some technology. Subsequently, party B gets a patent on an improved version of A's technology. Just because B has a patent doesn't mean he can make sell or use it without coming to an agreement with A, since A's patent still applies. Contra-wise, A can't use B's specific version of the technology without agreement, although A can still use his technology without agreement with B if A avoids B's specific technology (assumption here, of course, that there's no other patents that apply).

Re:It's not likely to affect Vista

[Score Whore]

OTOH, we need to give Red Hat and Alan a great big hand for making the effort and spending the $ to apply.

Why would you give them a hand? It's not their money they are wasting. While you might like the idea of someone blocking DRM via patents it's not something that could reasonably be within the scope of Red Hat's business.

If anything ought to be done to Red Hat it should be a lawsuit.

Re:It's not likely to affect Vista

[dfghjk]

"...from this particular patent owned by Red Hat."

Red Hat doesn't own this patent. They've merely applied for one.

This is good, but with caution

[jimicus]

Had it been any other sort of technology, filing a patent for it and then refusing to license it, thus crippling adoption of that technology, would be considered a terrible thing on /. But in the case of DRM and RedHat, I think most would make an exception.

But I'm still not that excited. Most on /. thought Novell was a fine upstanding company until recently.

Re:This is good, but with caution

[Anonymous Coward]

...Most on /. thought Novell was a fine upstanding company until recently.

Uh? What? Novell?

Do you read the same slashdot I read?

Re:This is good, but with caution

[rvw]

So what if Microsoft would buy Redhat in the future, can Redhat now make it so that this patent will never be used, no matter what?

Re:This is good, but with caution

[Anonymous Coward]

Most on /. thought Novell was a fine upstanding company until recently.

Indeed, there's no such thing as a "fine upstanding company", and that applies to RedHat, IBM and Google as well. They're all mindless corporations and anyone who believes otherwise is incredibly naive. When a corporation appears "good" it only means they have a great PR department. In reality they are neither good nor evil, they're just mindless and calculating.

Re:This is good, but with caution

[KDR_11k]

I really don't think that's what's going on here, after all you can't patent something that has implementations on the market already.

Re:This is good, but with caution

[berck]

If you knew anything about RedHat, you'd realize that your comment is incorrect. They will license *any* of their patents for *free* for use in a GPL'ed application.

Re:This is good, but with caution

[burnin1965]

filing a patent for it and then refusing to license it, thus crippling adoption of that technology

Actually it likely will not cripple adoption. Although there is no intention of licensing the technology they didn't state they were going to sue anyone who had such technology in their products. I suspect that Red Hat has no issues with companies like Apple and Microsoft enraging their own customers by implementing technologies that hinder legal use of products they've paid for.

But I'm still not that excited. Most on /. thought Novell was a fine upstanding company until recently.

Its funny you should say that because I suspect this patent filing with no intention of licensing the technology is a direct result of Microsoft's shots over the bow of FOSS after signing an agreement with Novell. The patent filing along with the statement of intent are a defensive posture in the face of Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates flatulent IP statements concerning FOSS.

Re:This is good, but with caution

[jimicus]

Until recently. Okay, they hired some people with ideas which seem a bit at odds with Free software (cf. Mono), but I didn't see any great problem with Novell until they made their deal with Microsoft.

Everyone has their price, and the media industry and Microsoft between them have deep pockets.

Re:This is good, but with caution

[Omnifarious]

The same could be said about people. Whether you are good or evil depends on your actions and their results, not some mystical spirit force. Since corporations are capable of carrying out actions that have results, they can be good or evil.

Re:This is good, but with caution

[AJWM]

after all you can't patent something that has implementations on the market already.

ROTFL! While it may be true that you shouldn't be able to patent something already on the market, take a look at some of the patents that the US Patent Office has actually granted over the past few years.

Or did I miss your "<sarcasm>" tag?

Re:This is good, but with caution

[KDR_11k]

Considering that the companies who implement this DRM have large budgets and a vested interest to keep their ability to use DRM they'd easily be able to prove the patent baseless. Never mind that it'd be suicide for a patent holder to sue someone for patent infringement on something they've been doing for longer than you even have that patent.

Pointless waste of money and time

[Breakfast Pants]

He might as well try and patent the airplane. If he really wants to prevent further spread of DRM, he should use his energy educating people about it's true costs. The only people who are going to read about this already know about DRM.

Re:Pointless waste of money and time

[TheUnknown]

One of the possibility is that Red Hat wants to generate publicity for a reform patent. Once some major company begins to fight this patent, it will probably make its way in well-know newspapers (Wall Street Journal, NY Times, ...). If this happens, the general public will be (more) aware of the issues of DRM and patents. I know it's a long shot but it could work.

oblig.

[Servaas]

I for one welcome our cox overlord.

I would like to ...

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome our intellectual property owning masters, but I'm not sure if there is a patent on greetings or not?

Re:I would like to ...

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as it is not personalized:

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5993048&id= QKkWAAAAEBAJ&dq=hallmark+greeting+card&ie=ISO-8859 -1

or animated:

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT2884724&id= 9zUBAAAAEBAJ&dq=hallmark+greeting+card&ie=ISO-8859 -1

Huge loophole

[Anonymous Coward]

The system maintains the suspension for as long as the violation exists. Once compliance has been reestablished, the suspension is terminated. Anyone see a loophole in this section?

Making DRM-aware applications even more annoying?

[tfbastard]

From this patent application

The present invention provides a technique for preventing the unauthorized use of a computer application, operating system, or other program without causing the loss of any information or data.

And a bit further down:

When unauthorized use of the computer program is detected, any information and data is saved and the computer program and/or a portion of the computer system is disabled.

As patent law, legalese and such is not my area of expertise, I'm out on a limb here, but doesn't this sound like a patent for saving the state of an DRM-aware application before exiting if a DRM-breaking state occurs, thus making legal DRM-aware applications even more annoying to use?

Shot in the back

[mgiuca]

Wow, that would be a good shot in the back! I can't imagine how there's no prior art, but it'd be really sweet to have DRM patented by someone in the OS community.

(Can anyone find who the patent is actually registered to? Is it Alan Cox, or Red Hat, or is "Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale And Dorr, LLP patents" the name it will actually be registered under?)

Re:Shot in the back

[Anonymous Coward]

You've worked for Hale and Dorr?

Re:Shot in the back

[x2A]

Looks like a method of implementing DRM at the application level (eg, "is this app allowed to be run?"). At the document level (eg, DRM music) it may not actually be that important.

The Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Its like the one ring being destroyed in Mt. Doom

Re:The Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Me, I thought it was more goldy.
Or perhaps a bit peachy.

press

[mastershake_phd]

Wont all this attention alert the patent office to the real reason they are seeking a patent?

Re:press

[Cheesey]

I don't think the patent office is allowed to care about that.

In any case, many software patents are used "defensively", i.e. to counter claims of patent infringement from another corporation. These patents seem to have been taken out for the same reason. Let us hope they are never used for evil.

note to myself

[mapkinase]

patent outsource of torture

How is this supposed to work?

[ebcdic]

Surely if this "can be applied to the DRM that is in Vista", then there is prior art, and the patent is invalid?

Re:How is this supposed to work?

[ChetOS.net]

Don't call me Shirley.

Re:How is this supposed to work?

[cgenman]

How, exactly, has prior art been stopping patents from being granted?

Re:How is this supposed to work?

[VGPowerlord]

It hasn't. However, the moment he tries to use it on one of the large companies, they'll haul the matter in to court, most likely bankrupting Mr. Cox in the process.

Or did you forget that these are filthy rich companies we're talking about?

Re:How is this supposed to work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't these idiot moderators get some culture?

"Surely you can't be serious!"
"I am serious, and don't call me Shirly."
Leslie Nielson in "Airplane"

Re:How is this supposed to work?

[gnasher719]

'' It hasn't. However, the moment he tries to use it on one of the large companies, they'll haul the matter in to court, most likely bankrupting Mr. Cox in the process. ''

There are two possibilities how this could go to court:

1. Mr. Cox finds out that for example Microsoft does actually infringe on his patent, and he tries to do an Eolas on them. You can be sure that he would find lawyers who will happily support him for 60 percent of the proceeds on a no win, no fee basis. Mr. Cox would go down in public opinion quite a lot, but he might not care with $100mil in his pocket.

2. Microsoft starts attacking Linux with patent claims, and Mr. Cox's patent is used as part of the "assured mutual destruction" policy that patents are used for. It won't be Mr. Cox paying for the court case.

Re:How is this supposed to work?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have to had answered the question too - "it can, and don't call me Shirley."

But frankly it won't be funny either way.

probably not...

[TheCoop1984]

This probably won't be granted, due to the gobs of prior art around

Not really

[rumith]

You see, he's not trying to patent DRM as a concept, he's trying to patent the technology of DRM system state saving. While this patent may have little value itself, it might be a show-stopper for Apple, Microsoft and the like. IANAL, but I suppose that Red Hat lawyers have studied the piles of MS et al DRM patents and Vista license agreement, and have found a hole in it [i.e. something that they use in the license or in their technology but haven't patented]. And now that Vista is getting ready for launch, Microsoft gets this blow. Let's keep our fingers crossed and see what follows.

Re:Not really

[Timesprout]

Ah how sweet. Slashdot readers supporting an OSS company in patent trolling to damage Microsoft and others. I'm sure the irony, and indeed the stupidity of this move is totally lost on you.

Re:Not really

[MrHanky]

I'm sure it makes more sense to you if you look at it as a fight against DRM and closed formats instead of a fight against Microsoft. If it harms the corporations, then that's just collateral damage, not unlike consumer rights have been under the corporations' war against copyright infringement.

Re:Not really

[LihTox]

The irony is not lost; it is being sweetly savored. It may not work, and it's definitely fighting dirty, there is a certain poetic justice in using one despicable practice (bad patents) against another (DRM). It is, of course, also frequently argued that only when the patent system screws over the megacorps will the patent system be changed. Getting the MAFIAA and Microsoft on the side of patent reform wouldn't be such a terrible thing.

Re:Not really

[freezin fat guy]

> I'm sure the irony, and indeed the stupidity of this move is totally lost on you.

Yes. Yes it is.

Re:Not really

[Breakfast Pants]

[i.e. something that they use in the license or in their technology but haven't patented].

The patent filing was 2005, so unless it is a new addition to Vista inbetween that time, it's inclusion in Vista would be prior art, and Redhat's patent wouldn't be granted, and if it was granted it would be rendered unenforceable.

That's stupid (in the sense of *really stupid*)

[Anonymous Coward]

Two possible outcomes: The patent is granted or it's not. If the patent is not granted, which is very likely because there is a ton of prior art, then this just paints the Open Source crowd as leeches who need to latch on to someone else's inventions to get anything done. It's not like many people don't think that anyway. If the patent is granted then this obviously shows that the patent system is flawed, but rest assured that the issue will then be solved before courts in no time, which "proves" that there are checks and balances, so everything can continue as usual. Either way it will be proven that the patent system actually works, because a patent troll has been defeated, and on top of that it will be shown that the people who most adamantly argue against patents a) don't refrain from trying to use the system to their advantage (double standard) and b) file patents for other people's inventions, which we all know is STEALING (or intellectual theft or somesuch).

Re:That's stupid (in the sense of *really stupid*)

[init100]

If the patent is not granted, which is very likely because there is a ton of prior art,

Are you sure? This does not seem to be a patent for all DRM, but for a system that saves the state of the application when detecting a condition that violates the rules.

It's not like many people don't think that anyway.

What do you mean?

Either way it will be proven that the patent system actually works, because a patent troll has been defeated,

Red Hat is no patent troll. A patent troll is a company whose only business is patenting and suing for infringement. And that isn't a description of Red Hat by a long stretch.

on top of that it will be shown that the people who most adamantly argue against patents a) don't refrain from trying to use the system to their advantage (double standard)

So everyone that don't like the current implementation of the patent system should refrain from patenting things at all? Let's face it, patents exist and don't seem to be going away. As a corporation, refraining from patenting anything would be an invitation to competitors to sue, as you would have almost no defensive capability. Avoiding infringement altogether is about as easy as walking through a minefield, so in case you are sued, you need some defensive measures to fight off the attacker.

file patents for other people's inventions, which we all know is STEALING (or intellectual theft or somesuch).

A lot of patents cover the same or almost the same thing. It's a feature of the current implementation of patents, and whose patent is valid is left for the courts to decide.

One could suspect that the system is set up only to enrich lawyers, as lawyers in the patent office earn money proportional to the number of granted patent applications. Then their patent lawyer friends earn money when corporations battle it out in court. A different implementation might require the patent office to not issue patents that cover each other, but then the lawyers would not be able to enrich themselves as much.

FrostWire

[SpooForBrains]

FrostWire - all the *ahem* benefits of using Limewire, but without the annoying "Upgrade to Limewire Pro" popups.

Re:FrostWire

[Anonymous Coward]

LimeWire to warez is like AOL to newsgroups ("newsgroups" is something that us "grammer enligthned" used to enjoy before your shitty Web 2.0 bullshit and iPop iMusic).

Re:FrostWire

[Clueless Nick]

> "grammer enligthned"

Spahling ignorant?

Re:FrostWire

[tedgyz]

LimeWire to warez is like AOL to newsgroups ("newsgroups" is something that us "grammer enligthned" used to enjoy before your shitty Web 2.0 bullshit and iPop iMusic). Calling LimeWire out in the P2P world is like saying your cancer is better than my cancer.

FWIW, I jumped on LimeWire in the early days when it was semi-open-source. As a Java developer, I gravitated to that one. When itunes came out, I started paying for my music and uninstalled all P2P clients.

Re:FrostWire

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that was stupid.

In the old days, we had CDs, which had no DRM.

Then we had P2P, which had no DRM.

Along came the iTMS, and we had DRM.

And you picked the DRM choice? Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

Re:FrostWire

[Schemat1c]

When itunes came out, I started paying for my music and uninstalled all P2P clients.

How obedient of you, you deserve a treat.

*pats domesticated ape on the head*

Aww, isn't he cute?

Re:FrostWire

[tedgyz]

How obedient of you, you deserve a treat.
 
*pats domesticated ape on the head*
 
Aww, isn't he cute? Well, I can't say my motives were completely altruistic. I got sick of the spamwarez pawned by clients like limewire and bearshare. And of course, the death of napster.

I evaluated about 10 music management programs and decided itunes was the only one that met most of my requirements.

Believe me, I hate the DRM part, but I am willing to suffer DRM to get the features I wanted.

Re:FrostWire

[somersault]

I stopped without even using iTunes, I just buy CDs from Amazon when I want them. Anyway I agree with the slightly-foaming-at-the-mouth guy above you who is calling everyone losers for stealing music. It's pretty much the same as software piracy, except you tend to get a lot more enjoyment out of an album over the years than you do from any game, with the exception of the odd classic.

Re:FrostWire

[Knetzar]

Wow, you really must be grown up to get really upset about a post on slashdot and calling people names.

Re:FrostWire

[ravenshrike]

No you're not. Stealing something requires a physical object or an idea that you then proceed to utilize commercially. Now, it's arguably still wrong, but it is NOT stealing. However, this is why I burn all my CDs through the library. No pesky legal problems.

Re:FrostWire

[Mathiasdm]

Or you could use Limewire to download Limewire Pro...

Re:FrostWire

[Maxo-Texas]

There are other legal ways to get music besides paying for heavily DRM'd music. Allofmp3 is one, recording off FM radio is another.

Unlike you, I can see the justification for the way folks behave against music since I view the laws as having been bought illegally. The .25 cents is a good figure for what electronic music should cost. But they should also record the fact you bought it and give you a replacement copy if you lose your legally purchased product.

I'm sorry that the music industry successfully brainwashed you. Please stay away from preachers in death cults, you probably wouldn't be able to resist them any better.

Re:FrostWire

[shaneh0]

Allofmp3 is not legal. They have no rights to sell in the US. Keep dreaming.

Re:FrostWire

[Joebert]

Note the well structured greeting & its' comparison to a common letter.
First, the common greeting.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Now, let's take a look at the posters rendition.
While the choice of emotion, & objectionable stereotype used is questionable, it still maintains good form.

Go fuck yourself, loser.

Note that here, the poster has suggested that at this moment, they're of the same world, or on the same level, or able to understand eachother, we'll get into this in more detail later.

In this world there are things like "responsibility," "grown ups," and "stealing."

Here, the poster seems to be suggesting that DRM is in place to make sure nobody goes too fast.

I don't like the fact that my car has a chip governing it to 125MpH. But I deal with it. It doesn't give me a right to steal the car or simply stop paying the payments. "But it's not the same" you cry. "Nobody gets hurt" from stealing music, you say, except for huge corporations.

You have to admire the posters perseverance in this statement, though they are fully aware that they're incapable of expressing the ideas they believe in, they push on in hopes of teaching the person they're screaming at a "lesson".

Well, nobody gets hurt in insurance fraud except for large corps. And nobody gets hurt in the backdating of stock options grants except large corps. But "that's different" you say because for some crazy reason you have this notion that music--completely owned by its creator--has some sort of intrinsic desire to be free as in beer. I can't possible express how dumb of an idea this is.

I found this statement rather intresting, if there's no hope of being on the same level with theese people, how is it possible to know the ways in which they think ?

Here's a clue: every single criminal everywhere rationalizes what they do. Like a drug addict. You have come up with such tortured, convoluted value systems and logic that there's no hope in being on the level with you. You simply cannot see that you're no different than any other thief, despite how many times you try to attest otherwise.

The poster seems to have witnessed & participated in theese debates enough times that they've come to know the common responses from the other side & take it upon themselves to turn it into a one-sided argument.

Do I dislike the Apple DRM? Yes. Does that change the fact that it's completely and entirely wrong to steal content? Not for a second.

Looks can be decieving.

So GROW UP, because the REALITY is that you're STEALING. And understand that every time you post shit like that, all it does is make you look like a worthless piece of shit that is such a welfare case on society that you steal stuff that costs $1. Seriously, do you steal $0.25 packs of gum, too?

Re:FrostWire

[Jeremy Erwin]

iTunes sells single tracks though.

Why would anyone need to pirate software? Just get yourself GNU.

Re:FrostWire

[ultranova]

Go fuck yourself, loser.

Is this honestly the best troll you could come up with ? What is wrong with you people - don't you even try anymore ?

Trolls aren't what they used to be. But then again, I guess being made into a twisted parody of nature enslaved to Morgoth by a second rate hobbyist fantasy author and be forced to remember your time as a relatively benign mythological being from Scandinavian folklore all your miserable existence would do that to you, I guess. And the movie trilogy, which makes mockery of both your original and Tolkien-corrupted nature, would certainly not help.

See ? That's a troll. It combines trivia, imflammatory opinions, and a condescending tone with at least some creativity. That's how it's done. "Go fuck yourself, loser"... Bah.

And moderators: The best comments are always, invariably, drawn out as responses to the worst trolls (sometimes the story itself). Slashdot needs quality trolls. A quality troll is one that hits where it hurts, and provokes people to answer in detail with eloquence and passion. It helps hone your own views to the razor's edge as only a worthy foe can. Without them, Slashdot would be nothing more than a bunch of people congratulating each other over their l33tn3s. "Go fuck yourself, loser" is not a good troll, it doesn't mentally challenge even the dimmest-witted steroid-using old boxer. So mod up good trolls, and mod down garbage like the post I answered to.

Slashdot needs (+1, Troll) besides (-1, Troll).

Re:FrostWire

[somersault]

Yeah I know. I did actually used to use P2P stuff for single tracks, mostly like old songs that I remembered from my childhood :p I prefer to just buy albums though, partially to listen to in the car, partially just because I do like to support the artists. Of course there's the whole debate about how much the artist gets, but 1% of nothing is better than nothing..

Re:FrostWire

[Duds]

I presume you've never brought a CD, DVD or anything back from a trip abroad then.

Re:FrostWire

[mkw87]

Slashdot needs (+1, Troll) besides (-1, Troll).

I thought thats why we have +1 Insightful?



I kid, I kid

Re:FrostWire

[ConceptJunkie]

eMusic is legal. Granted the big labels won't play ball with them, but there is so much cool stuff on eMusic who needs the big labels? I usually use up my monthly download with 2 days of them being refreshed and I'm always finding more interesting stuff every month.

Re:FrostWire

[dwandy]

Is this honestly the best troll you could come up with ? What is wrong with you people - don't you even try anymore ?

well, you see the problem is that previous trolls didn't copyright or patent their trolls, so people can just outright steal the old ones. ... reuse them without paying, see? So they don't have to put any effort into coming up with new and better trolls.

What /. obviously needs is some kind of copyright and/or patent system(s) such that we will promote the creation of new and better trolls.

Re:FrostWire

[rho]

Finding and downloading stuff from iTMS is easier and faster than the P2P services. It's faster and easier enough that I'm willing to pay for it. I can burn a CD and re-rip back to MP3s if I want, accepting some quality degradation, or just use an appropriate player. Using the P2P systems were acceptable when there was nothing else. Now there is. I'm not so poor that I can't swing $10 for a CD's worth of music that I listen to for hours at a time.

iTMS's DRM is low-impact. I fear it not.

Re:FrostWire

[dfghjk]

"Stealing something requires a physical object or an idea that you then proceed to utilize commercially."

That is absurd. Theft does not require a physical object nor does it require commercial use.

Re:FrostWire

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Some times adults use "grown up language" at the big-boy table.

Yes, instead of using the word "stealing" to describe a phenomenon that is much more complicated than that.

Re:FrostWire

[Anonymous Coward]

Main Entry: 1steal
Pronunciation: 'stEl
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole /'stOl/; sto&#183;len /'stO-l&n/; steal&#183;ing
Etymology: Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan; akin to Old High German stelan to steal
intransitive verb
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive verb
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car> b : to take away by force or unjust means <they've stolen our liberty> c : to take surreptitiously or without permission <steal a kiss> d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of <steal the show>
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner <steal a visit>
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring <a basketball player adept at stealing the ball> <stole the election> b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard

Re:FrostWire

[Enigma2175]

but 1% of nothing is better than nothing.

It is? You obviously were asleep during math class.

Re:FrostWire

[shewfig]

"[...] What /. obviously needs is some kind of copyright and/or patent system(s) such that we will promote the creation of new and better trolls. [...]"

Let's think about this.

If the response to a post contains a thoughtful rebuttal, then by definition that response addresses all of the elements of a single claim, which makes it in violation of the patent.

If a response fails to represent the contents of the post in an appropriate manner, then it's a violation of trademark.

If a response quotes the initial post in any way, then it's a violation of copyright.

Ergo, reductio ad absurdum, the only possibly permissible posts are parody.

Hey, you're right!

Re:FrostWire

[dazlari]

Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it. - John Lennon

Re:FrostWire

[Maxo-Texas]

Allofmp3 is legal. Riaa just doesn't like the law they operate under.

If it was clearly illegal, they would have trivially had it shut down years ago.

"LEGAL" things that are wrong happen all the time. You were arguing from the point of things being legal or not- not from the point of them being moral or not. I didn't say Allofmp3 is moral- only that it is legal at this time.

Re:FrostWire

[Arker]

Theft is wrongfully taking someone elses property away.

*Copying* is illegal under some conditions, but it is never theft, as no property is taken.

It is a separate question as to whether something like *a song* can be property at all, but even if it is conceded solely for the sake of argument that it can be, merely *copying* it does not deprive the supposed owner of the song, and so can not be theft.

It is often stated that it is theft because it deprives the (purported) owner of the song of money he might have otherwise been paid, however this fails also, as regardless of what might or might not have happened otherwise, the money in question was never actually his. If you are about to buy my car for $3,000 but even a moment before the deal is finalised your brother shows up and convinces you to backout, that doesn't make him a thief. Just because I expected, for whatever reason, that the money would become mine doesn't magically make it mine. Depending on the exact situation, it's possible that your brother might be guilty of some offense, but that offense would not be stealing. Possibly tortuous interference or the like, but certainly not theft.

Re:FrostWire

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that by your definition your's being a detailed and drawn out response qualifies the parent troll as being a good troll. Unless you are admitting your demonstration of how to troll is not a good response?

You have trapped yourself.

Re:FrostWire

[Crunchie Frog]

Someone forgot to take their happy medicine this morning didn't they.

You are very entertaining. I mod you +1, Amusing Way To Pass The Working Day. You're welcome.

Re:FrostWire

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You're about the most condescending and arrogant troll I've seen in a while.

I actually do agree with you. Yup, I think you're spot-on with your comments about acquiring music legally (except for one tiny thing: it's not "stealing", and I dislike when people use that word to refer to copyright infringement). It does hurt corporations, and it really is better to stick within the boundaries of the law when downloading music.

But you don't have to pretend everyone who's opposed to you is a child who couldn't possibly have a worthwhile opinion. I think you're the one here who needs to grow up.

Re:FrostWire

[AlHunt]

Slashdot needs quality trolls. A quality troll is one that hits where it hurts, and provokes people to answer in detail with eloquence and

Oh, bite me.

Re:FrostWire

[quenda]

all the *ahem* benefits of using Limewire, but without the annoying "Upgrade to Limewire Pro" popups.

Use those benefits: search using limewire for "limewire pro". They can't really complain, can they?

Re:FrostWire

[Arker]

Read it and _learn_ asswipe.

See this post for an excellent reply to that.

I only have to add that YOU need to actually read the material you keep pasting.

1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

Re:FrostWire

[dfghjk]

"*Copying* is illegal under some conditions, but it is never theft, as no property is taken."

Not true. This is a tired argument. Copying is not "larceny" but not all theft is larceny. There are examples of theft: theft of services and theft of intellectual property for example, that do not involve the taking of physical property.

"It is a separate question as to whether something like *a song* can be property at all, but even if it is conceded solely for the sake of argument that it can be, merely *copying* it does not deprive the supposed owner of the song, and so can not be theft."

Wrong. You are confusing theft with larceny again. Not all theft is larceny. Copyright violation is certainly not larceny but that doesn't mean it's not theft.

"It is often stated that it is theft because it deprives the (purported) owner of the song of money he might have otherwise been paid, however this fails also, as regardless of what might or might not have happened otherwise, the money in question was never actually his."

His right to control distribution is his, however, and that has been taken from him.

"Depending on the exact situation, it's possible that your brother might be guilty of some offense, but that offense would not be stealing."

No, but that has no bearing on intellectual property theft.

Re:FrostWire

[The Hobo]

You win

Re:FrostWire

[Master of Transhuman]

"Finding and downloading stuff from iTMS is easier and faster than the P2P services. It's faster and easier enough that I'm willing to pay for it"

This is EXACTLY what I've been saying. NOBODY has EVER paid for MUSIC. They have paid for easy ACCESS to music.

The only time time anybody ever HAD to even pay for access was when all that existed was phonograph records and no cassette tape recorders (or perhaps that short period of time when there were CDs but no PCs).

I rarely bought records once FM/cassette recorders came out - I just taped off the radio. The defects in that approach mirror the defects in using P2P systems today: quality sucks, it takes time, hard to find, etc. And of course you had to buy tapes practically weekly.

The music industry needs to learn how to charge for ACCESS to music, not the music itself.

Apple is the only one who figured that out.

Unfortunately they have to use DRM or they won't get any stuff to sell from the music industry.

Since Apple only wants to sell iPods, not iTunes, if the industry would get off its ass and figure out how to make money from ACCESS to downloads, the music per se could be free and the artists would still get paid.

And the best way to get access to music is direct broadcast over the Net (video and/or audio). Charge for real-time access and forget about charging for the downloads. You can still charge for access to the downloads or not, as you choose. Why would anyone go anywhere else if YOU are the one providing the easiest downloads?

Is Google broke? Can't the media industry figure out to use Web access to make a buck like Google?

Morons. No, we're chimpanzees. We not only want OUR bananas, we want everybody else's bananas, too...

Re:FrostWire

[Dystopian Rebel]

So mod up good trolls, and mod down garbage like the post I answered to. Every so often while reading Slashdot (because such are the habits of a pathetic being who feels the need to belong somewhere, even if it's just to a Web site with a wretched tagging mechanism and a prominent editor who chose as his nickname part of the name of his favourite posh restaurant), I come across someone whose post makes me laugh, cry, sing, and want to make endless savage love to Angelina Jolie (well, alright, the latter is a constant with me), and I'm carried deliriously upon the current of the post's wit and perspicacity right up until the final sentence (verily, the final syllable!) where all my hopes and dreams are shattered like a nerd's eyeglasses in gym class because the poster makes a terrible grammatical blunder.

Ultranova, Sir (for I assume you are brother to Aldo), do you not realize that on Slashdot, no one can hear anything else you say and all good points in your argumentation are nullified if you dare (by exhibitionist caprice or merely obstinate refusal to try the Preview button before submitting the text) to use an intransitive verb as a transitive?

Do you not understand, you who are so cyranic in your punticilious destruction of the vulgar dullard on whom you have bestowed a little notoriety (but much more than he deserves, the sorry quarter-wit lickspittle avenger of the RIAA), that there is no bulbous, spike-haired and blackhead-peppered nose as terrifying in its marrow-curdling ghastly effect as a lapse in orthography or verbal orthomorphism on Slashdot?

Please make fun of him again. And this time, NO MISTAKES.

Re:FrostWire

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to point out that miserable troll was followed by a +5 reply of your own. And your troll, which is apparently praiseworthy, was followed by this sorry excuse for an observation.

Re:FrostWire

[Anonymous Coward]

'Where's my "Flamebait" mod?'

Up your ass, like everything else you've pulled out for our entertainment.

Re:FrostWire

[hobbez]

The Mod system here is really a huge joke. When 2/3 of the people would consider a "full life" to be sucking on Steve Job's reality distortion ejaculate for 8.5 hours a day there's just too much editorializing being done.

If the system is SOOOO bad on Slashdot, why not create your own? Or go read http://www.rnc.com/.
Read: I am not saying that if you have alternate views you should p-ss off, I'm saying if the site your reading irratates you, stop reading it!

Re:FrostWire

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how none of those include "to make a copy of data." The reason that the term "steal" bugs so many of us is that it just isn't the same thing as stealing. For example, if you rob someone and steal their only TV, then they now have no TV to watch on. To me the important detail here is that actual stealing involves the removal of the property from its presumably rightful owner.

However, software/music/video/etc "piracy" (a term which implies stealing under extreme violence despite the absolute lack of violence involved in real life software piracy) does not remove the property from the original owner. In fact, it may well be possible that they are never even aware that a copy was made due to a complete lack of ill effects to them. The only damage done is the theoretical damage to the distributers who theoretically sell one less copy for each copy that was "pirated." I say theoretical numerous times here because, in fact, the numbers calculated here are fully under the assumption that for each copy a sale is lost, when, in fact, sometimes the copies convince people to buy what they normally would not, and sometimes the copies go to people who would not (or could not) have bought.

So why should terms associated with violence and damage be used? Simply for the purpose of a PR campaign. Unless you are explicitely involved in that campaign, it seems to me that even people who are all for anti-piracy campaigns should still consider a more truthful term though. IMO it's defeating the purpose to go too far since to me at least it just emphasises the fact that they are trying to push this whole PR thing every single time I hear "stealing" or "piracy" mentioned in relation to copying data.

Re:FrostWire

[Ironica]

Copying is not "larceny" but not all theft is larceny. There are examples of theft: theft of services and theft of intellectual property for example, that do not involve the taking of physical property.

Ok, to properly understand that statement, I need to get some understanding of just what is meant by theft, and theft of services. (Theft of intellectual property does not seem to be a term with any particular legal or semantic definition, so there's not much point in using it as an example.)

From Wikipedia, "Theft of Services is the legal term for a crime which is committed when a person obtains valuable services -- as opposed to goods -- by deception, force, threat or other unlawful means, i.e., without lawfully compensating the provider of said services." So, ok, we have to use the catch-all "other unlawful means" for it to apply... but then we also have to define "services" to make sure we know what's been taken. (The Wikipedia article does go on to mention that crimes of this type are usually prosecuted as larceny... so that doesn't really make it fit as an example of non-larcenous theft.... but anyway.) Turns out there's 37 definitions of "service" in the first entry on dictionary.com, and none of them seem to have any vague resemblance to the recording of music with the intent to distribute commercially. So I'm not sure you can really argue that it's a "service."

What about theft? Well, that is, according to m-w.com, "1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property." (Definition 2 was obsolete, and definition 3 was as in stealing a base in baseball, so I've omitted them here.) Well, obviously, making a copy of something is specifically not "with the intent to deprive the rightful owner." So you're left with embezzlement or burglary. Burglary doesn't fit, so is this embezzlement? Dammit, I have to look up *another* word... let's see: "to appropriate fraudulently to one's own use, as money or property entrusted to one's care." Entrusted to one's care... well, if you worked for a radio station and made copies of the CDs for home use, that would work I guess, but for downloading off the web? Not so much.

But, when you read a definition of copyright itself, it isn't a property right. It's a right to do something. That's why violations are called "infringements," not "thefts." You're not appropriating something without proper reimbursement and agreement, you're violating the author's right to decide how their work is distributed. When someone is fired for their beliefs or race, we don't talk about how their "job was stolen," do we? If incriminating testimony is coerced from an individual, we don't call it "theft of innocence," right?

Now, the funny thing is, you already knew that, and said as much:

His right to control distribution is his, however, and that has been taken from him.

Taking a right away from someone is NOT THEFT. It is something else, which is illegal, but NOT THEFT.

So then the argument isn't "Did they own it?" but "Did they have that right to begin with?" They never owned the copy of their song you made, so obviously you didn't steal it from them. But the issue of whether or not they really morally and legally had the right to the distribution is what is really being discussed over and over again. The law says they did, but then there are other laws governing rights where you lose them under certain circumstances. For example, we have certain rights to privacy, which are mostly a matter of case law, but still extant. Celebrities, however, as "public figures," do not have exactly the same rights. Why? Because they benefit from being public figures, and it's very difficult to protect their "privacy" in certa

Re:FrostWire

[poopdeville]

(Speaking from experience)

Trolling a place like slashdot is not easy. Sure, you can occassionally stumble into a thread a annihilate it with a stupid question or vaguely inciteful comment. But slashdot has what I call "heterogeneous groupthink".

There are four or five major camps. The Linux crowd. The Windows crowd. The PS3 crowd. The Ayn Rand-influenced Librarian crowd. The Right Wing "Centrist" crowd. The Commie crowd.

Playing these crowds against each other is too easy. Boring. No fun at all.

So if you want some real lulz, you need to get them all riled up at the same time. Unfortunately, posts that touch upon topics that can do that are marked off topic very quickly.

Mine, for instance.

Re:FrostWire

[poopdeville]

You'll have a point the moment allofmp3 opens an office in the US. Until then, they're only selling in Russia. Legally.

Re:FrostWire

[void24601]

You've just made what could be considered one of the best Slashdot comments in response to one of the worst trolls... I sense a paradox.

Re:FrostWire

[somersault]

Easy to say after he made his rather generous living off of the back of it for however many years...

Re:FrostWire

[Zixia]

Since when have retailers or manufacturers given a replacement copy of something for free when you lose the original? I don't, nor do I expect to, get a new copy of a CD if I lose the one I bought.

But, I hear you argue, there is no physical media involved in buying an MP3, so there is no impediment to this kind of replacement that there was before. Sure, but there is still bandwidth costs, so you may have to cover them as a minimum, as well as any administrative costs incurred. Even so, I would bet that a record label wouldn't send me a replacement CD at cost if I lost the one I legally bought.

How would you prove you 'lost' the file? It would be easy to back-up somewhere, or replacing the hard drive, or simply claiming it was on another computer. You may argue that DRM assures the company that the file was where you claim it to be, but as you are wanting a replacement copy of an MP3 I am assuming you are against DRM; would you like a system where your music was intrinsically tied to a single system but would be replaced on system failure, or a system where you could do what you wanted with your purchases but had the drawbacks also associated with the likes of CDs on loss or damage?

It's one thing to want a system that is fair to use, but another to take an existing system, as with CDs, and then impose extra uses on that system, like free replacements, an expect it to be implemented.

Re:FrostWire

[Maxo-Texas]

You'd write it off to "good will" and really even a 25 cent replacement charge would be a profit center. You'd limit someone to a replacement a year with perhaps one extra replacement over the lifetime of the license.

Re:FrostWire

[dfghjk]

As is usually the case, you've set into arguing what is "theft" or "stealing" from a strictly legal perspective. Language itself is a superset of legal definitions and defining "theft" as a crime causes the word's meaning to be dependent on variations of law when it has meaning beyond that context. Just because someone calls copyright violations "theft" doesn't mean he's cracked open the law books and is referring to any law in particular and it really doesn't matter which law applies to copyright violation and whether it includes "theft" in its description. If "theft" requires taking of property or services, then what is "identity theft"?

Laws vary from location to location and some areas "theft" and "larceny" are one in the same. In others there are differences. Clearly, theft of physical property (larceny) is NOT what copyright violation is. That fact is obvious and has been ruled upon by the SCOTUS. US supreme court justices have gone on record as having said that, while copyright violation is not "theft of physical property i.e. larceny, it is clearly theft. They clearly understand the difference between language and law.

Regarding what constitutes property with copyright, the copyright itself is property as is the copyrighted work. If I produce an artistic work that is copyrighted (and certain copyright protections are implicit) I not only own the work (which may by reproducable at zero cost) but I own the copyright itself. I can sell the work, copies of the work, rights to reproduction and duplication, and I can sell the copyright itself. When you copy my work without authorization (and it doesn't fall under fair use), you are violating my right to control distribution and are stealing from me in that respect since you have taken from me the right to control that particular duplication and distribution. The crime you commit is not larceny but that does not mean it is not "theft". "Theft" is a word as well as a legal term.

As for the second half of your post, don't interpret my objections regarding "theft" to be a defense of the status quo. I dislike the current copyright system and believe it does not serve the best interests of the people. The purpose of intellectual property laws is to benefit the people and that has been clearly broken for some time.

As a curious aside, I once loaned a car of mine to a friend who was down on his luck and was without transportation for a week. The understanding was that he would use the car for the week to get to work and earn the money to pay off his car repair bills. Instead, he immediately changed his cellphone number and skipped town. After 3 weeks without being able to contact him, I decided to report the car stolen. The response from the police and my insurance company was that it was a personal matter for me to resolve with my friend because no theft had taken place. Since I had authorized him to take the car, no theft had occurred.

I certainly don't favor that interpretation and anyone knows that it was simply an excuse to get out of work on the policeman's part and to avoid responsibility for the insurance company. The guy clearly stole the car. After about a month a work, I tracked down his family and he was shamed into returning it. It had been smoked out, stank like an ashtray and had been in two accidents.

I'm not a big fan of arguing the technicalities of what constitutes legal theft versus fraud, copyright violation, etc. What I do know is when I've been stolen from ;-) When someone says that illegally downloading music is stealing and you cite legalese as an argument against it, you are simply disrepecting the language. When it's the RIAA saying it, they deserve better disrepect than that.

Re:FrostWire

[Ironica]

As is usually the case, you've set into arguing what is "theft" or "stealing" from a strictly legal perspective.

I'm sorry, you seem to have failed the reading comprehension portion of this exam. I discussed the semantic meaning of "theft" as is in the dictionary, and only got into legal definitions when finding out what copyright actually is.

When you copy my work without authorization (and it doesn't fall under fair use), you are violating my right to control distribution and are stealing from me in that respect

No, "violating a right" does not equal "stealing." That was the point to the middle of the post (again, work on the reading comprehension); we have many, many rights, and infringement upon those rights is rarely considered stealing, either colloquially or legally. The only reason the terms "stealing" or "theft" are used with copyright is because there is an assumption that the artist would have earned money if you hadn't done whatever you did. That assumption has never been borne out by any data whatsoever. So, that leaves us with infringement of a right, and then the argument is whether or not that right is justly earned and held. The terms "theft" and "stealing" are totally inappropriate to the discussion.

Re:FrostWire

[sco08y]

That's a troll. It combines trivia, imflammatory opinions, and a condescending tone with at least some creativity.

Nonsense. A troll is oriented entirely towards one result: disrupting the discussion. Most /. trolls just like to take the mickey out of self-important posters like you, but if on any political site you'll often see trolls that are trying to shut down or subvert the "other side."

Trolling is something that every student of rhetoric should understand. (Which is why I have so many trolls as friends...) Filibustering is trolling. Protesters that disrupt meetings are trolling. The guy preaching from a car with loudspeakers is trolling.

Without them, Slashdot would be nothing more than a bunch of people congratulating each other over their l33tn3s. /. is pretty insular, to the extent that it's not it's because of differing viewpoints, not trolls. Most people browse at 3+ because most comments are pretty boring.

Re:FrostWire

[sco08y]

The Ayn Rand-influenced Librarian crowd.

Shit, you can troll them by just calling them a "crowd."

you: "So, you're an Objectivist?"

johngalt234285: "No, damn it, I'm an individual!"

Re:FrostWire

[Anonymous Coward]

"johngalt234285' got from lulz from me. Good work. :-)

I hoped someone would bite on the 'librarian' crack.

Re:FrostWire

[dfghjk]

"I'm sorry, you seem to have failed the reading comprehension portion of this exam. I discussed the semantic meaning of "theft" as is in the dictionary, and only got into legal definitions when finding out what copyright actually is."

Don't be a prick. This is no exam and you aren't qualified to quiz me, much less be so condescending. You chose dictionary definitions of the word "theft" that referred to legal definitions. Pick a definition of "theft" that doesn't refer to law and argue that one.

"No, "violating a right" does not equal "stealing.""

I never said they were equal, but it certainly can and does in this instance. I have a "right" to personal property and when you take it from me you are stealing. When you can argue that my right to distribution isn't "property", it isn't something that I possess, then maybe you have an argument.

"we have many, many rights, and infringement upon those rights is rarely considered stealing, either colloquially or legally"

Well, "rarely" is certainly subjective isn't it? Regardless, your point is irrelevant. It only matters whether "stealing" is an appropriate term in this case.

"The only reason the terms "stealing" or "theft" are used with copyright is because there is an assumption that the artist would have earned money if you hadn't done whatever you did."

"The only reason" my ass. I've offered you a reason that you've chosen to ignore in order to make that argument. Curious that, in refuting my claim you'd make a statement that is already directly contradicted by what you are refuting.

"The terms "theft" and "stealing" are totally inappropriate to the discussion."

Did your mother never teach you that taking something that wasn't yours was stealing? I guess in your case if it didn't exist in code then it was never taught to you. I'd love to hear you pitch your definition of "stealing" to your mom just before she whoops your ass. For that matter, I'd love to hear you explain that it's too great a burden to keep track of all candy in the store so you were entitled to relieve them of a few pieces. After all, how would they know you didn't obtain them legally? It's not stealing if they can't prove it after all. I am referring, of course, to the following:

"I tend to feel that, once you've sold a few million copies of a recording of a song (Hellooooo, Metallica!), it becomes somewhat burdensome on the government to enforce your rights to distribute it in the manner you choose."

Hardly offering a solution or any new perspective on the situation, are you?

You are free to engage in specious, and ultimately meaningless, arguments over the definitions of words in an attempt to deflect wrongdoing in this matter. It's popular here on /. for reasons that are interesting to contemplate. I have no problem calling a spade exactly what it is. Apparently, your priorities are different.

Re:FrostWire

[Baloo Ursidae]

That was surprisingly species dysphoric for someone who isn't obviously a furry fan.

What about the patents themselves?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone patented patenting something yet?

Re:What about the patents themselves?

[oliverthered]

You could patent patenting something that doesn't exist and acknowledge every other patent that exists.

Milk

[locokamil]

For the record, I laughed so hard when I read the headline that most of the milk came out of my nose (I was eating breakfast).

Go go OSS humor!

Re:Milk

[maxwell demon]

You just violated my patent on nose milking. Please pay me $1,000,000 licensing fee. Thanks.

Lets publicize it!

[VGPowerlord]

Good idea, lets publicize a patent that might have been able to slip past Apple, Microsoft, etc...

Except that, by bringing it to the public limelight, you've just guaranteed that the aforementioned companies will attempt to get the patent thrown out due to section 102 a or b of Title 35 of the US Code (Patents).

Re:Lets publicize it!

[VGPowerlord]

For reference, since I forgot to go back and link them, Title 35 102 a and b both deal with works that have already been known or patented anywhere prior to the filing, in or out of the US.

Re:Lets publicize it!

[Grashnak]

Good idea, lets publicize a patent that might have been able to slip past Apple, Microsoft, etc... Yah, because neither of those billion dollar corporations has anyone on staff who keeps track of irrelevant things like patents that might destroy their business models. Good thing they have Slashdot to catch these things /sarcasm.

Time Travel Patents

[jolyonr]

Seems like the following patent application may be more suitable for stopping DRM

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Time_Travel_Patents

Jolyon

Reminds me of a thought

[shish]

Why can't open source companies just go around patenting everything, then locking up the Evil(tm) ideas forever and releasing the Good(tm) ideas for free use by anyone?

Re:Reminds me of a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

They would have to be the first to invent stuff. This conflicts with their business model of making free clones of existing proprietary software.

Re:Reminds me of a thought

[Clueless Nick]

Have you thought of the Fucking(TM) Costs?

Re:Reminds me of a thought

[maxwell demon]

Patents (fortunately) don't last forever. If you patent something which is unlikely to come during the patent grant period anyway, it's just wasted money. Even worse, for Evil(tm) ideas, you might have given people ideas for afterwards.

Also, patents cost money. Lots of patents cost lots of money. Who has enough money to patent everything?

Re:Reminds me of a thought

[AVee]

Wonderfull idea. That is, when you all just let me be the judge of what is Good(TM) and what is Evil(TM). I'm clearly the best person for this job...

Go ahead, license it!

[dcavanaugh]

But with totally obnoxious terms. Red Hat could enact some kind of fee whenever DRM-protected content is played, essentially turning the whole DRM world into pay-per-view. And then there would be the price increases, linked to the average price of cable TV. I even have a name for it: Digital Rights Restriction -- Genuine Annoyance Edition. It that's too long to fit in a banner ad, they could just call it "Revenue Assurance".

The key is not to make money, it is to drive home the high cost of DRM, making the downside totally obvious to all. Remember, no matter how ridiculous the terms might be, it really won't be any worse than the copyright industry will do all by themselves in a few years. But instead of using the salami-slice method, the all-at-once/in-your-face method forces everyone to confront the issue here and now.

I think the DRM patent is a really nifty strategy, and presented here on Martin Luther King day, no less!

Re:Go ahead, license it!

[SST-206]

Nice ideas :-)

"Have you trashed SCO today?"

Not this week. Where's my hammer?

Re: Prior (Art?)

[TaoPhoenix]

Of course someone had surely thought of DRM before, and here he is.

The lovely part is using MS's own submarine tactics against them. If only Warren Buffett would sell short, then crank this patent suit and any cousins as far as they can go...

Oh gawd, if someone can actually land this and not "settle for $5000", EVERYONE has overcommited their 5-year business strategies to DRM. Come on, reel in all twelve of the eight-ton sharks polluting our media culture.

The captcha phrase is develops.

Claim 1 in the patent

[geeber]

From the disclosure:


What is claimed is
  1. A method of controlling use of a computer program, said method comprising the steps of: monitoring usage of said computer program for at least one instance of a rights violation event; saving, upon detection of said rights violation event, state information pertaining to said computer program; and suspending, upon saving said state information, operation of said computer program.


This is an awfully broad claim. I would think proving prior art here and invalidating the claim would be pretty easy.

Re:Claim 1 in the patent

[Evilest Doer]

This is an awfully broad claim. I would think proving prior art here and invalidating the claim would be pretty easy.

True, but this is the initial application. Patent lawyers generally draft ridiculously broad claims at the start and leave it up to the examiner to reject it and thus make them amend the claims to something much more narrow (depending on the case). Usually what happens is a lot of give and take until something reasonable is set, although a few high profile cases makes that seem otherwise to the uninitiated.

RMS ......

[kmf]

Rights Management System or Richard M Stallman .... hmmm

Whatever

[sjbe]

A patent is only useful if you have the money to defend the patent in court. Same with a trademark or copyright. Without lots of cash a patent is an empty threat.

Re:Whatever

[louzerr]

AND you have to get a judge to rule, AND you have to have the judge prosecute in a timely manner.

Even if they were found guilty of patent infringement at some point in the future, our sad, sad "legal" system would probably just let them walk again.

Geld uber alles!

Re:Whatever

[umStefa]

You don't need lots of cash to defend a patent in court, especially if the company you are suing has already sold large numbers of the infringing product. There is always a lawyer willing to take the case for a percentage of the judgement. The only catch is that if you don't have a lot of money, you may not get very much from the judgement (although you lawyer will be very happy with his new found wealth).

MS & SCO

[UnRDJ]

Even if this is invalid, look how much of a fuss SCO and MS have created with BS IP claims. I'm sure if Mr. Cox has paid attention, he can make a few heads turn. Or at least provide us with some amusement.

Re:MS & SCO

[MrNemesis]

Unfortunately, Alan Cox is not a billionaire. If he were I have no doubt that he could retroactively sue aforementioned coroprations and turn a tidy profit settling out of court, but as it is he's just a regular Joe meddling in the big boys' court system.

Unless he's granted a huge wad of cash by someone like RedHat (who I can't see wanting to be involved in a more-political-than-anything-else patent dispute that much), I don't really see this going anywhere, and in the grand scheme of things I don't think that's neccesarily a bad thing. One the one hand it's showing what a stupid mess software patents can be, on the other hand it's using them as a weapon, and this is one of the things I thought the majority of the FOSS community was against...?

Clearly not the Intent

[Morosoph]

The Red Hat statement on patents is such that they won't enforce it unless there's reason to retaliate.

Far from trolling, this is protection from trolling.

Re:Clearly not the Intent

[Anonymous Coward]

I $ure hope they don't find $ome rea$on to retaliate.

Cute, but cannot work I think

[Mostly a lurker]

I shall not comment on the likelihood of the patent being initially granted. Let's assume it is. Cox is then proposing to prevent anyone using DRM by refusing to license it to anyone on any terms. The trouble with that is such an action is grounds to cancel the patent. There are conditions in patent law designed to prevent anyone taking out patents with the objective of preventing the use of the embodied inventions. These were designed to prevent unfair competition, but will still apply.

Re:Cute, but cannot work I think

[fritsd]

There are conditions in patent law designed to prevent anyone taking out patents with the objective of preventing the use of the embodied inventions. These were designed to prevent unfair competition, but will still apply.

Name them. I thought you got a full monopoly for the term of the patent (20 years), which includes the right to license *or refuse to license* to anyone and for *any* cost, depending on your whim. In other words it's completely legal to use a patent just to block other companies' progress. Think: AIDS medicine production in India (gets decided in 2 weeks btw).
I can only think of one exception, and that's if a government decides a granted patent goes against national security (e.g. war plane manufacture in WWII, canadian BlackBerry lawsuit :-)) and overrules it for the government's own use.

Re:Cute, but cannot work I think

[Sique]

As long as you (or your company) has a product for sale incorporating said patent, you can not be forced to license it.

Re:Cute, but cannot work I think

[zsau]

Red Hat, AFAIK, licenses all their patents to software licensed under the GPL for any purpose whatsoever. So you could get a licence for it. It just wouldn't be very useful.

Re:Making DRM-aware applications even more annoyin

[RegularFry]

It's quite clever, actually. Any DRM-aware application that doesn't save state before shutting down will be vilified as being broken the first time anyone loses important data because of a false positive, and any DRM-aware application that does is in violation of this patent. This makes any DRM-aware application either a) broken, or b) illegal. Very neat. Simple, but neat.

Flamebait??

[Cheesey]

Flamebait? "The threat of DRM completely making our computers useless" is not a contraversial statement. Even if you really like DRM, you can probably think of some examples where it has been taken too far: think Sony rootkits, Starforce CDROM damage, and Jon Johansen and Dimitri Skylarov being arrested for hacking their own computers.

Read up on TCPA immediately. Consider how much of the design of Vista has been aimed at preventing access to high-quality copies of information protected by DRM. Should the film industry really have been allowed to design an operating system?

Re:Flamebait??

[AlanS2002]

Mod parent up.

I think my post got modded down because the moderator dissagreed with something that I posted on another topic. You watch this will get modded as flamebait or offtopic.

Re:Flamebait??

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM changes the computer into a limited appliance.

If I wanted a DVD player instead of a computer, I'd pay EUR 50-100, not EUR 500-1000+.

Re:Flamebait??

[NekoXP]

TCPA, HDMI and all the other DRM technologies do one simple thing to data; attempt to ensure that a simple man-in-the-middle attack to intercept that data cannot happen between a trusted source and an approved target.

The threat that "DRM will make your computer useless" is not really relevant. Nothing in TCPA really stipulates that all content must be filtered through DRM or that all content must be encrypted or obfuscated. All pipes between components may be marked trusted or not, and when content marked "only trusted paths" comes in, only those trusted components can be used. For data for which you have no trusted components, this is NOT down to you "being crippled by the industry" so much as "I didn't buy that component yet". Be it a DirectShow module, Apple's iTunes application, DVD player app. Whatever.

However, Vista does not make any impact on.. high definition movies you encoded yourself without DRM, or high definition movies that have in general not been set to enforce DRM. Nor can it reasonably stop you from playing an unencrypted MP3 file. If you don't like your DRM media being crippled by the fact that you do not have these trusted components available you have two choices - either buy the trusted component (DVD player plugin, new monitor with HDCP), or simply don't buy DRM media. In either case, all your chosen media will keep working, encrypted or not, just maybe at a lower resolution, more limited functionality, but certainly not USELESS (no manufacturer on the planet is proposing to flat-out deny access to media based on an insecure path, and the DRM consequence of trying to play someone else's tune on your player is a matter of encryption key availability)

Neither system is truly any different to people insisting on PGP Signing and Encrypting their mail.

Since it IS consumers who drive the market on this, and significant backpeddling has been done to ensure that systems carry on working even through violations, things may get better (relaxing restrictions). Having a non-HDCP monitor means, your content gets displayed at higher-than-SD but lower-than-HD resolution. Those who give a shit about this will have already known about it, and bought the correct monitor. They are not affected by the DRM, therefore.

Re:Flamebait??

[NormalVisual]

The threat that "DRM will make your computer useless" is not really relevant.

It seems quite relevant to me when faced with the possibility of having to purchase a bunch of new gear just to be able to run DRM'd software or watch DRM'd movies and other content that wouldn't otherwise require a hardware upgrade.

Re:Flamebait??

[frogstar_robot]

Ubiquitous TCPA could also be used to ensure that motherboards will only boot MS approved kernels and bootloaders. I could very easily see MS strongarming large vendors into that to get good volume licensing deals.

um

[Clueless Nick]

Or was that deliberate? I *should* preview before submit.

Let us suppose this patent is granted

[goldcd]

and Novell ends up with the power to block or license the technique of DRM to anybody it sees fit

Why exactly are we convinced that Novell will just bury the technique and shield us from DRM forever?

Novell is a publicly owned company and has a duty (legally) to earn money for their shareholders. I cannot see of a situation where they'd make more by sitting on it, than they would by licensing it - If I was a shareholder in a company that got this patent, I'd want them to make me money.

Whatever their intentions are going into this , unless they produce a cast-iron legally binding document promising otherwise, this just means that all DRM will have another kick-back to Novell on it.

Re:Let us suppose this patent is granted

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you got your companies mixed up. It's Redhat NOT Novell.

Re:Let us suppose this patent is granted

[Arimus]

Last time I checked Alan Cox works for Redhat.

Redhat != Novell

Isn't it first to file?

[Anonymous Coward]

rgds

Re:Isn't it first to file?

[Andy Dodd]

Not in the U.S.

And "first to file/first to invent" only covers when two people/companies file a patent at around the same time without any previous public disclosure of their work. (e.g. they both developed the same thing independently) Previous (patented or unpatented) publically disclosed work trumps a patent.

"First to invent" can often be hard to prove though, so in reality it's usually "first to file" unless you were VERY careful in documenting your invention process and have lots of money for lawyers.

Re:Isn't it first to file?

[Ciggy]

And "first to file/first to invent" only covers when two people/companies file a patent at around the same time without any previous public disclosure of their work. (e.g. they both developed the same thing independently

Surely this given example is a reason the patent should be rejected as obvious - two independent people [versed in the art] have come up with the same invention?

Re:Isn't it first to file?

[Andy Dodd]

Not necessarily. They may be independent of each other, but are dependent on $N million per year in R&D funding and equipment.

It's entirely possible for two research teams to put forth years of effort independently of another one if they are in a corporate environment. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_process , although in that case there isn't any explanation for why Bessemer got the patent (the only reason I can think of is that Kelly didn't have the inclination/money to file for a patent, and didn't have the inclination/money to dispute it either, showing that "first to invent" doesn't always wind up being reality for a patent because it's such a pain to prove, or maybe in that era it was "first to file")

It was applied for in 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

so this isn't new

*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[Per Abrahamsen]

Your product is only covered by the patent if it fits all the claims of the patent.

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[XLawyer]

This may be true somewhere, but not in the United States. In the U.S., you infringe a patent if any claim of the patent describes what you are doing.

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong.

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[*weasel]

no, he's right.

If your invention includes all the elements of any given claim, you infringe in the US.

You may be confused with regards to dependent claims.
(E.g. Claims that begin with something like "The invention in claim 1, where ..." )

In the case of dependent claims, you'd have to include all the elements of that claim, and its parent claims up to the initial independent claim, to infringe.

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[mavenguy]

Just to further clarify if you infringe a dependent claim, you also infringe the entire parent chain of claims up to the root independent claim.

The main reason for even including dependent claims is to possibly retain validity if broader parent claims are subsequently ruled invalid, since each claim must be considered as a whole for the purposes of applying prior art. Of course, if the accused infringer is not described in a surviving, narrower dependent claim, then he avoids the infringement, so, within the limits of the patent specification disclosure (which cannot be added to after the original filing) the strategy is to draft broad claims, then add dependent claims directed to increasing levels of detail.

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[FallLine]

Per Abrahamsen,

As I said before, you and most people on slashdot understand very little about patents. You're all too ready to tar and feather any patent holder based on your misinterpretation of specific patents and patent law (not to mention a lack of appreciation for certain fundamental aspects of business)

That said: Infringement can be (and often is) found if a product violates any one individual claim in the patent. The product, however, must violate every limitation found within that claim, i.e., if you violate all but 1 part of it, then you can't be infringing that claim. If a claim is a dependent claim, i.e., it makes a reference to another claim, then that dependent claim is just incorporating aspects of the patent it is referring to in itself (instead of repeating the independent claim) so you're still essentially just concerned with the language one claim (even if that one claim brings in another claim). Just because a product violates a claim though does not mean that the patent or the claims the product allegedly violates will actually hold up in court (prior art).

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[Endo13]

No, actually, your product or process does have to show all the elements listed in the patent. The real absurdity is that as long as your product does have all those elements, you're infringing, no matter how insignificant those elements actually are to your product, and no matter how obvious those elements might look to you. One great example is that lawsuit against Nintendo http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/08/ 2138250 over the Wiimote, because it has a "trigger" button underneath. And coincidently, the Wiimote also has buttons on top just like the item that Nintendo is supposedly infringing on.

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[geeber]

Your product is only covered by the patent if it fits all the claims of the patent.

Except that, in the grandparent post, I wasn't concerned about whether a product would violate the patent. My point is that before the situation even gets to that point, the patent is going to have difficulty issuing in the first place since 1) the patent authors have written a very broad claim, and 2) a lot of people have been working on DRM for a long time. While I know next to nothing about the specifics of DRM, to my untrained eye it seems easy to find prior art that would invalidate claim one of the patent.

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[FallLine]

No, actually, your product or process does have to show all the elements listed in the patent.

No, it does not. The product/process must contain all the elements of just one claim: not all the elements of all the claims. There is a huge difference between the two. If this were really the case, it would be impossible to violate the majority of patents as they contain dependent claims that are mutually exclusive (often the dependent claims describe various implementations of the same idea).

You don't have to take my word for it. Read this:

Something infringes a patent if it has all the elements of a claim in the patent, or performs all the steps of a claim. It does not have to match all the claims, a single one will do. However, it is important that it matches all elements in that single claim. Most patent courts take this requirement quite strictly and will not easily ignore an element in a claim unless it is clearly irrelevant. One often-heard argument against ignoring an element is that patent writers are aware of the strict interpretation and so would not put in an element unless necessary. Therefore, an element that is present in the claim must have been deemed necessary and so may not be ignored.

One great example is that lawsuit against Nintendo http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/08/ 2138250 over the Wiimote, because it has a "trigger" button underneath. And coincidently, the Wiimote also has buttons on top just like the item that Nintendo is supposedly infringing on.

I didn't read this case, but citing slashdot on patent issues is like citing Soviet propaganda to find out about the US Constitution. It is just about the worst place to find reliable information on patents.

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[jc42]

2) a lot of people have been working on DRM for a long time.

Yeah, but have any of them actually produced valid, workable DRM software? I get the impression that most of them are invalidated (i.e., "cracked") within days of release. Either that, or like the Sony "rootkit DRM", the DRM was a fiasco that was quickly withdrawn due to its side-effects on customers' equipment.

Cox and RedHat can be making the claim that all previous DRM has been poorly-functioning and/or vaporware, and they're the first ones to have actually implemented it. If so, those who support DRM should support their patent. (Whether software should actually be patentable is an independent issue.)

There's a lot of precedent for patents for inventions that others have attempted. I recently read an interesting history of the invention of the zipper. Many people tried to invent such a mechanism in the 1800s. Their attempts generally worked for a while, but were fragile and required frequent replacement. Finally, someone came up with the zipper that we all know, which both worked and was sturdy enough to last for years in normal clothing. They got a patent on it, despite the fact that many other (poor) zipper mechanisms had already been invented. Theirs was slightly different from all the others, and it actually worked well.

There are many stories like this in the history of technology, with many false starts before someone comes up with a good solution to a problem.

There is another potential problem with this patent, however. It's the way that the US Patent Office now accepts patents without a working model. So it's entirely possible that Cox and RedHat are also patenting vaporware that they can't build. Do we know much about this question?

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[Endo13]

I didn't read this case, but citing slashdot on patent issues is like citing Soviet propaganda to find out about the US Constitution. It is just about the worst place to find reliable information on patents. You know, the first part of your post might deserve a +5 informative because you happen to know of some website dealing with law, but piece is without question a -1 troll. Too bad you can't give a post two different mods. Some of us actually do bother to read the linked article (and sometimes even a few more articles on the same subject, if they exist).

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[FallLine]

You know, the first part of your post might deserve a +5 informative because you happen to know of some website dealing with law

Unlike the vast majority of people on slashdot (especially those whining loudest about patents), I actually have real knowledge and experience with them (though I would not hold myself out as a patent expert). I've filed several patents (for my own business and a previous employer) and my wife is a laywer & is admitted to the patent bar. I simply cited the website to end the silly debate.

Some of us actually do bother to read the linked article (and sometimes even a few more articles on the same subject, if they exist).

Your assertion was simply wrong so there was no reason for me to read through a bunch of sophomoric rants on slashdot. If you still think the "article" illustrated something relevant to this debate, then please tell us exactly what it was.

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[Endo13]

Unlike the vast majority of people on slashdot (especially those whining loudest about patents), I actually have real knowledge and experience with them (though I would not hold myself out as a patent expert). I've filed several patents (for my own business and a previous employer) and my wife is a laywer & is admitted to the patent bar. I simply cited the website to end the silly debate.

Your assertion was simply wrong so there was no reason for me to read through a bunch of sophomoric rants on slashdot. If you still think the "article" illustrated something relevant to this debate, then please tell us exactly what it was.

Thank you for confirming that you are indeed an elitist prick with an attitude that reeks of bullshit.

I wasn't completely sure before, but no there's no doubt.

Oh, I'm sorry, did you actually think your "real knowledge and experience" with patents makes your opinion worth more than that of anyone else? Sorry kid, you still get just one vote, like every other Joe Sixpack.

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[FallLine]

That you for confirming that you are indeed a populist asshole with an attitude that reeks of ignorance.

I wasn't completely sure before, but now there's no doubt.

Oh, I'm sorry, did you actually think your "real knowledge and experience" with patents makes your opinion worth more than that of anyone else?

At bare minimum my knowledge and experience with patents suggests that the facts that I present are about 100x more likely to be true than your own. In point of fact you were wildly incorrect about a very fundamental aspect of patent law. This also suggests that you have never made a concerted attempt read and understand virtually any of the patents that slashdot has whined about. If you had you would realize that your understanding was fundamentally incorrect since the vast majority of patents with misinterpretation of patent law would either be impossible to violate (since the seperate claims are often mutually exclusive and it would be impractical to violate them all in any one product) or that those few remaining patents would be impossible to violate or at least trivial to work around (since each additional claim would create a patent of very narrow scope)

For instance, if you had actually read Alan Cox's "DRM" patent would know that claims 1 and 7 would cancel each other out (with your "all elements" interpretation of patents).

Alternatively, if you had actually read the much whined about Amazon "1-click" patent you would know that, at the very least, any website could trivially work around Amazon's patent by simply not employing "speaking of a sound" (accepting the user's voice input) to trigger the 1-click action (claim #1). Not to mention that the patent would be impossible to violate because claim #3 (clicking a button) and claim #4 (accepting voice input) are mutually exclusive (with your flawed understanding).

My opinions about the overall value of IP are also far more likely to be worthwhile since they are guided by actual experience and knowledge instead of slashdot's typical group-think, FUD, and scaremongering.

Oh, and by the way, why is it OK for you to cite your experience ("I've done both plumbing and electrical myself, about 4 years of experience in them actually) but not for me to talk about mine? Quite the double standard.

Sorry kid, you still get just one vote, like every other Joe Sixpack.

Presuming you're actually old enough to vote, we both just have one vote, but my vote will be a whole hell of a lot more informed than your own. And while you're entitled to your own vote and own opinion, you're not entitled to your own set of facts.

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

[Endo13]

I want to thank you for the free entertainment. It's really been quite amusing. And I'd love to give you more material so you could keep showing how full you are of yourself and how much of an asshole you are, but sadly I have work to do, so here the fun must end.

He left a backdoor

[LPrecure]

From the patent:

A rights management system monitors and controls use of a computer program to prevent use that is not in compliance with acceptable terms. The system monitors usage of the computer program for usage and activities that are not in compliance with the license or other use terms. Upon detection of a violation of these terms, state information pertaining to the computer program is saved and operation of the computer program and/or a portion of the computer system is suspended. The system maintains the suspension for as long as the violation exists. Once compliance has been reestablished, the suspension is terminated.

All Microsoft has to do to get around his patent is make it so that, once DRM breaks your computer, it stays broke. (Until you do something. Like, the infamous "format and reinstall".) (Which, BTW, you can only do once.)

Re:He left a backdoor

[Caffeinate]

Which, BTW, you can only do once.

Contrary to the FUD being spewed around by the anti-Microsoft drones, the licensing in Vista is not as Draconian as you might think. Link: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_lice nsing.asp

Re:He left a backdoor

[Kalriath]

(Which, BTW, you can only do once.)

Contrary to popular belief, eventually (after about 6 months or so) the Microsoft Activation Clearinghouse does forget that you activated, opening the door for you to activate that same key again - even on a different machine.

What has this got to do with Novell exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you meant Redhat?

Mr. Cox, you are brilliant

[ratboy666]

The current attack vectors on cryptographic based "DRM" schemes are (1) accidental key leakage, (2) the key exchange system or (3) the fact that the data must be eventually decoded.

Note that (3) is what makes DRM systems very dumb. It also follows that the Operating System must get involved in order to so hide the data.

If the Operating System allows a debugger to run AT THE SAME TIME as the "DRM", its attackable. If the OS allows "unsigned" drivers to run, its attackable.

The OS (for example, Vista) will (eventually) not allow unsigned drivers. It must also "kick out" or "suspend" all non-DRM (unsigned) software when DRM content is played.

This behaviour falls into Mr. Coxs patent.

Now, if (Vista) doesn't implement the scheme, it remains vulnerable. So, the problem must be solved another way.

My suggestion then is to ALSO patent (or disallow) by widely publishing the idea that a hypervisor (VM supervisor) can be used for DRM control as well, and can also be used to suspend, terminate or otherwise control applications that could be used to attack DRM software.

Got that? It's now published.

Re:Mr. Cox, you are brilliant

[Breakfast Pants]

Well now that it's published it can't be patented. Thanks a lot asshole.

Trolling

[Morosoph]

I didn't say that my post was protected from trolling ;o)

I know a guy who works there...

[Kadin2048]

...I'll tell him to be on the lookout for any coworkers who show up with new Porsches, Corvettes, etc., in the coming weeks. I think it would stick out just a little.

*Any* claim is enough for a patent violation

[jjon]

Your product is only covered by the patent if it fits all the claims of the patent.

Nonsense.

The claims are alternatives; if you infringe any claim then you infringe the patent.

Typically there are a few broad "independent" claims (including claim 1), and a bunch of other claims that add extra bits. For example, claim 1 might say "a widget that does A", and claim 2 might say "a widget according to claim 1 that also does B". This means that there are nice broad claims (claim 1), but if the broad claims are invalidated by prior art then you can maybe keep a few of the more specific claims (claim 2 - maybe there's prior art for widgets that do A but not for widgets that do A and B).

Re:Making DRM-aware applications even more annoyin

[x2A]

Not if you unconditionally save state before checking DRM, so that it's already saved should it need to suspend.

Not entirely sure it's "stupid"...

[Svartalf]

Considering the BS sabre rattling MS has been doing via Ballmer with regards to "potential" Patent problems with Linux it might be strategic instead of stupid. As long as we have the stupidity of Patents in their current form, it's inevitable that you will have companies doing this sort of thing.

Criswell Predicts ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems like something we should all hope will fail. If it is true that Linux violates 283 patents, or even if it is not, attempting to prevent a major industry from asserting DRM can do much more harm than good.

If granted and enforced, the best case scenario is that people working on the kernel and other major software components (like SAMBA) will finally get an opportunity to become patent experts and remove any patented code. In many ways here, ignorance is bliss.

Some may argue that Red Hat will exchange the use of this patent in a patent swap, e.g. licensing it to Microsoft/Apple/etc. in exchange for permanent indemnity against all potentially infringing technology in publically available source code (or similar terms). The likelyhood of this happening, of course, is virtually nil.

Re:Criswell Predicts ...

[Anonymous Coward]

yay Preview and Submit buttons switching places.

... but finally, I'm not arguing against this tactic. As long as this system exists and is used as it is, it must be used by all parties simply to acheive parity. In a sense it is good to see public companies supporting developers like this, even though they are 'merely' supporting their own employees and thus interests. In this sense, it is not only a good thing but a necessary one.

Change; reform, however, will not come from this. But that makes it no less valuable or more frivolous. Because, to paraphrase what has been said before, when fighting DRM, whatever we do will be insignificant, but it is very important that we do it..

If it wins wave bye bye to online media sales...

[Goth Biker Babe]

What no one gets is that DRM is a big compromise. Like all security its a balance between keeping things usable and keeping the media suppliers and the customers happy.

In a commercial world commercial companies have no requirement to sell anything to any one. So if you say I'll not buy it because it has X or does Y then that's your prerogative. It's the company's prerogative not to sell you something. It is the company's commercial decision to decide how many sales they are happy to lose that way.

So if this goes through. That doesn't suddenly mean that you'll be able to buy any media from any store and play it on any player. All that will happen is that some products will lose their DRM and others will be taken off of the market and online stores will close because the media companies wont be happy to allow their wares to be out there unprotected regardless.

So who will win from this? A bunch of evangelistic techie nerds who put their own principles over pragmatism. And who will lose? Basically you average Joe who's one of the many who's bought an iPod and one of the 2b downloads from iTunes say. And for us in between? I'll not lose out because DRM doesn't affect the CD rips I do and I never download pirated music anyway since most of the bands I listen to are small independent ones who sell CDs directly or through small record companies and who need every penny they can get...

Is any of that patented?

[Anonymous Coward]

If not, it is open for patenting. Unless the technology has been released more than a year beforehand.

However, for it to be released, you'd need to have produced the source code or description that is human readable. Microsoft (and all CSS companies) don't do that, they rely on trade secret to protect the human readable elements. If it's a trade secret, it isn't prior art.

Re:One Phrase To Say It All..

[mikkelm]

Man, if there was a "-1 idiot".. .. sadly, there's a "-1 flamebait". :(

Microsoft?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Microsoft? They're not huge DRM supporters by nature

Say what? I have just three words for you.

Windows Genuine Advantage.

Re:Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Say what? I have just three words for you.

Windows Genuine Advantage.

And I have just three words for you.

developers developers developers

Re:Microsoft?

[MirrororriM]

Microsoft? They're not huge DRM supporters by nature

Say what? I have just three words for you.

Windows Genuine Advantage.

And apparently they missed the whole "PlayForSure" thing Microsoft came up with too...

Re:Microsoft?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

PlaysForSure* was an illustration of the OP's argument that MS only supported DRM for the "Content Producers" (except that the xxAA doesn't produce content...).

WGA, shows that MS likes DRM for itself.

*Except on Zune

Re:Microsoft?

[Antique Geekmeister]

And two more words: "Trusted Computing", which is very specifically designed for DRM.

Early Edition

[Nom du Keyboard]

Tomorrow's news today: Microsoft buys Red Hat with petty cash and now owns the entire world.

Re:If it wins wave bye bye to online media sales..

[Slashcrap]

And who will lose? Basically you average Joe who's one of the many who's bought an iPod and one of the 2b downloads from iTunes say.

So basically Apple customers?

Well, that's just awful. I can't imagine anyone wanting to harm such a fine, upstanding body of people.

What could they possibly have done to deserve it?

You would think from this that they spend all their time whining on-line, annoying people and defending DRM just because it's a product of the shining beacon of anal light that is Apple. And that's just absurd.

Re:If it wins wave bye bye to online media sales..

[Anonymous Coward]

Property is theft. You're a moron.

They've also filed an international application

[mavenguy]

PCT/US04/42423 was filed a year later claiming the benefit of this filing date of the US application. I have no idea what other "designated offices" have been elected; what other patent offices will accept software claims?

Also, according to a recent PTO Official Gazette The art unit to which this application is assigned has been giving first actions on applications filed about the time of this one, so perhaps an action will be forthcoming soon, although it depends mainly on the individual examiner's docket when the application must be acted on (oldest new application in docket must be acted on within two biweeks).

Perfect

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

All Microsoft has to do to get around his patent is make it so that, once DRM breaks your computer, it stays broke. (Until you do something. Like, the infamous "format and reinstall".) (Which, BTW, you can only do once.)

Exactly. It forces DRM to be nasty (unless you licence this patent) and therefore harder to shove down consumers' throats.

Even if Red Hat licenses this patent out for an exorbitant amount of money (which it would have to be, considering DRM really hurts Red Hat's business), it will serve to fund the development of free alternatives to DRM-infested software.

Right!

[Wooky_linuxer]

Because media companies are very happy to not sell you anything and not make any profit just because they can't forcefeed you DRM. If DRM is banned, either they sell you non-DRMed media or they die. If you truly believe they'd rather die then sell you non DRM'ed media... well. DRM is just a way they found to maximize their profits. If they were obliged to have less profits, they would do it anyhow. Unlike us, they do not have any moral instances on DRM.

Re:Right!

[Goth Biker Babe]

They will not go bust, just back to more traditional forms of media sales. If you can't buy your media online anywhere then you'll have to buy them either as CDs or whatever.

I don't have any moral instances on DRM either. In the end it's my decision as to whether I want to go that route or not. If enough people don't like DRM and no one buys it then the companies will go bust. If people buy DRMed media then they wont.

Surely in a free market and a free country companies have a right to sell what they like and people to buy what they like. If you don't want to play the game then fine. But that doesn't mean other people don't want to play the game. So stop spoiling it for them.

It's kind of like democracy. A person is intelligent but people are idiots or how else will some of our leaders be elected. But what's the alternative. We can't go around saying, you can't vote for X, or you're not intelligent enough to vote, etc. That way leads the path to dictatorship. If you want a free market economy which gives you those cheap consumer devices you desire then you're going to have to put up with the rough as well as the smooth.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say you have some issues, but it sounds like you have the whole subscription.

ROFLMFAO!!!

[xeeazgk]

Hahaha!! Booyah... IP law bites corporate America in the ass! W00t! The irony is seeping out of my router as we speak.

Then why was RAND...

[thrill12]

... ever added to certain standards ? If not to protect against suddenly appearing patents that kill the standard, why would they protect any standard with an agreement such as RAND ? If it is true what you are saying, RAND is not necessary as the law can always override it.

And even if it can override it, perhaps it is pretty difficult to achieve (plus costly...).

Why save state for a media player?

[lowe0]

The biggest opposition to DRM seems to be media players. How much pertinent state is there really to save in a media player?

The content providers are going to do whatever they have to to not be in violation of this patent while still delivering DRM-protected content. They simply aren't going to do business without protecting their interests to the fullest extent that the law allows and that the customer accepts. And right now, most consumers seem to be pretty accepting of DRM (see iTunes).

Correction

[lowe0]

Sorry, I meant to say "The biggest use of DRM seems to be media players." I started a thought with "opposition", but decided to start from a different angle, and must not have cleared the sentence.

Ah yes.

[goldcd]

For some reason I got Suse and Redhat mixed up
*smacks head into desk*

Re:Making DRM-aware applications even more annoyin

[RegularFry]

That's true. I hadn't thought of that.

Good DRM eg Steam

[nicolastheadept]

There are a few examples of good DRM such as with Steam. This allows you to install on as many computers as you want and doesn't suffer the Music related problem of incompatibility of devices.

Re:Good DRM eg Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

Good DRM? Can't Steam kill your account for reasons of its choosing, thus disallowing you to use the software licenses that you have purchased? Having to connect to the internet to play an offline game is Good DRM?

Re:If it wins wave bye bye to online media sales..

[Goth Biker Babe]

So defending DRM is whining but complaining about it isn't? If you don't like what's out there go and make something you would like. That's your right. Just as it's my right to pay Apple to give me a device with DRM in. I'm not defending DRM I'm defending my right to choose what I do with my money without some sour busy body putting their oar in and spoiling it for me.

Prior art: NES and Atari 7800

[tepples]

Looks like a method of implementing DRM at the application level (eg, "is this app allowed to be run?").

Prior art: the 10NES Checking Integrated Circuit (CIC) in the Nintendo Entertainment System, 1985. Prior art: the digital signature on games for Atari 7800 game console, 1986.

Re:Prior art: NES and Atari 7800

[x2A]

"Prior art: the 10NES Checking Integrated Circuit (CIC) in the Nintendo Entertainment System"

Nope: "constantly comparing the locally generated pseudo random sequence with the stream received from the cartridge. When a difference was encountered, the processor reset would be activated"

"the digital signature on games for Atari 7800 game console"

Nope: "when the system starts up, the BIOS performs a mathematical algorithm using the data in the cart and the encryption key. If this algorithm yields a valid result, then the cart must be a 7800 cart, the system is locked into 7800 mode and the cart is executed. If the algorithm fails, the system is locked into 2600 mode and the cart is executed"

Completely different.

Insightful

[Belial6]

And that was in insightful post. I vote for +1 Troll and -1 Troll to be added.

Who's the patent holder?

[melted]

If it's RedHat, I'd rather he didn't patent this. I trust good ol Alan. I don't trust a corporate entity. Their interests change. If, say, five years from now IBM buys RH, we may very well see this patent enforced.

DRM times

[Kancept]

I gotta say it isn't so much DRM I dislike. I've been hit with DRM issues in one of my latest projects. Got around it easy enough. Not all files have are easy to get around though- think tech demos from companies or somesuch. My problem with DRM is the authentication part. How do we know in 5 years if the server the machine needs to contact is around to "allow" me to use what I have purchased. That's my issue. Machines move like formats. In 5 years I'd still like to listen to my music and my movies without fear that the companies who placed the DRM on their files is still around, let alone running servers to let you use what you have.

Go, Alan, Go; YEAAA

[InsaneProcessor]

I think that Alan did the best thing for DRM than anyone has ever done. RedHat won't license it if the patent is granted and Alan will be soul owner. I want a piece of his action! Hell, I'll even pay for his lawyers!

Anyhting that prohibits "fair use" is bad. DRM is a virus that invects everywhere.

Pot to kettle...do you read me?

[gosand]

If he really wants to prevent further spread of DRM, he should use his energy educating people about it's true costs.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It will only waste your time, and annoy the pig.

Better copyright protection than DRM...

[argent]

Something that I thought of while responding to another message...

DRM-protecting online music sales does absolutely nothing to prevent people distributing copyrighted music illegally online. The fact that both action stake place online is a red herring: the two areas are completely unrelated. Whether the "pirate" got the copy he's distributing online from iTMS online or Borders down the street is irrelevant.

If the labels really wanted to do something about people sharing files they'd have Apple remove the DRM from the iTunes version, and instead watermark each track with a hash of the credit card number or other identifying information of the person who purchased it. Then when they found a copy online they could simply give Apple the watermark and get the identity of the person who originally distributed it.

Of course, any savvy "pirate" would filter the file and remove the watermark - but any savvy pirate would be ripping the higher quality version from a CD in the first place. After a few high profile cases, people would be less likely to share a downloaded track than one they ripped from a CD. Pretty soon the labels would be experimenting with un-DRMed watermarked online-only distribution to protect their copyrights.

So, who's going to patent this one?

Question

[kahrytan]

  Wouldn't dvds and hd dvds (more so for hd) fall under DRM protected data? \

Proof you cannot teach a pig to dance

[Weaselmancer]

It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.

DRM makes it harder to protect music.

[argent]

They will not go bust, just back to more traditional forms of media sales.... you'll have to buy them ... as CDs ...

Which are not DRM-protected

See Better copyright protection than DRM....

Steam isn't DRM in the sense we're using it here.

[argent]

First, there's already code to prevent cheating by monitoring what you run on your computer built in to the games, so people playing multiplayer online games are apparently willing to accept draconian restrictions on what they can run on their computer as a condition of playing the game.

Second, you can't play a multiplayer game without servers, so it people don't care if it has to connect to a server to authorize or decrypt local data, if the company's defunct the game's useless anyway.

But most importantly, the vast majority of these games don't need DRM to enforce payment. They can give the game away without any protection at all, since you need an account on their servers to log into them.

This is really not readily generalizable beyond the gaming market.

Microsoft hardware killing?!

[Devv]

What if this is a patent to stop Microsoft if they try to make the hardware companies include the ability to ruin the hardware on which a pirated system runs. If such hardware sees the light of day then anyone with a marketshare under 90% won't have any hardware to run their software on.

The whole point is to use the patent

[bareminimum]

You can't patent something to withold a third party from using your proprietary technology. The whole point of the patent system is to allow you a head start on competition. If you do not make the technology available yourself, a judge can force you to license it out to someone who will..

Double-edged sword??!

Re:The whole point is to use the patent

[Anonymous Coward]

No they can't. There is no mandatory licensing in US patent law. Or in most of the rest of the world's either.

Now he's trying!!!

[argux]

Look, now he's actually trying!

Quick, quick! Mod him up!

Patenting the Patent System

[Doc Ruby]

And it can probably be applied to the DRM that is in Vista.

Then that patent would be totally invalid, if patents were anything but a suffocating scam.

Prior art != invalidation

[DynaSoar]

It's an obviously frequent /. misconception that disclosing prior art invalidates a patent/application. The fact is that a similar prior art search and disclosure is a necessary part of the patent search and application process. It proves that one has done one's homework. What needs to be shown is that the patent applied for differs from prior art in a *significant enough* way as to validate the request. Discovery and disclosure by another party of prior art not covered in the disclosure AND of a nature that shows that the request is not unique enough to merit a patent CAN and SHOULD invalidate the request, but this is not always the case.

The Inventor's Handbook (http://web.mit.edu/invent/h-main.html) describes this and many other relevant points in a manner far more readable than the patent laws.

Bad Automotive Analogy Alert

[2short]

"I don't like the fact that my car has a chip governing it to 125MpH."

So disable it. You've every right to, and if it's any of the ones I'm familiar with, the dealer will be happy to help you with it too. They'll also sell you tires that won't disintegrate at 130; Which is what the stock ones will do, which is of course the whole point of that chip.

Not sure what the relevance to DRM is, except to show you're an idiot that doesn't know what he's talking about, but the rest of your post makes that pretty clear anyway.

drm and linux ... oil and water

[Anonymous Coward]

imho, ppl will avoid using intrusive drm applications in the first place. I guess he could submit it for inclusion into the kernel and then linux distributions could enable it by default... lol ;-)

Prior Art!

[bwcbwc]

Well, wait a minute. If the patent's claims could be enforced against existing DRM systems like those in Vista, then those systems would constitute prior art for the patent. The only way a DRM system could violate the patent is if the system performs one or more of the claims made in the patent. But if a pre-existing system performs one of the claims in the patent, then the pre-existing system constitutes prior art for that claim, invalidating the patent.

I'm not saying the patent can't be granted, but I don't see how it can be applied to Vista, unless it was submitted in 2004-2005, before information about Vista's DRM was made available.

How does this affect current DRM systems?

[Myria]

DRM systems existed long before the filing date - what was legal then can't be illegal now just because it was patented afterward; it would implicitly be prior art.

I don't trust Red Hat - what is to say that down the line Red Hat won't make their own DRM system?

Re:How does this affect current DRM systems?

[Haley's Comet]

Everyone seems to be so worried about DRM, buying an Escalade or catching STD's (STD's & Escalades discounting the avid /. posting person) that they all can't see what this really is... This is just a battle to slow down what is happening.

Not that I'm not patriotic, but our US of A is NOT invulnerable to the fallacy that "We are a utopia, and will continue to be so". Let me put it this way: All countries have had a pattern. The people that know the least, know it the loudest. While the intelligent person is tuning them out, the masses (or "sheep") are eagerly eating those words as if they had A1 steak sauce on them. Those "sheep" are the people that vote the most, buy the most and are the most proactive. The government is forced to listen to the majority, even if it is stupid and removes our rights. According to the system now in place, "money talks and bullshit is the poor people". We are GOING to have rights revoked, it is unavoidable.

For example, our First Amendment Right was revoked by denying prayer in school, but that was revoked in retaliation to the censorship the Christians imposed. Does this seem like the current DRM case to you?

__________________________________________________ ______
Stupid should hurt, but only the stupid.

Humans never truly grow up, they just get better toys.

Re:How does this affect current DRM systems?

[wellingj]

I don't trust Red Hat - what is to say that down the line Red Hat won't make their own DRM system?

What if the GPL their patent?

Re:Making DRM-aware applications even more annoyin

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time you think of something like that, you (at least attempt to) patent it first then tell us about it afterwards.

Re:Making DRM-aware applications even more annoyin

[x2A]

that would completely break my "not bothered" image thing I got goin on here *lol*

Seriously, effort. Besides, it's "published" now, it's out there, it's safe :-p

.25?

[jamesmacaulay]

The .25 cents is a good figure for what electronic music should cost.

Wait, is that .25 cents or 25 cents? You don't happen to work for Verizon, do you?

Re:If it wins wave bye bye to online media sales..

[bnenning]

That doesn't suddenly mean that you'll be able to buy any media from any store and play it on any player. All that will happen is that some products will lose their DRM and others will be taken off of the market and online stores will close because the media companies wont be happy to allow their wares to be out there unprotected regardless.

Fine. Given a choice between no online media sales and the elimination of general purpose computing that the **AAs want, I choose the former.

So who will win from this? A bunch of evangelistic techie nerds who put their own principles over pragmatism.

Techie nerds like Steve Wozniak. If the **AAs have their way, guys like him won't be able to get the hardware and software they could use to create the next big thing. Sorry, I'm not prepared to reduce the chances of technological breakthroughs that benefit all of humanity so that you can have an easier time buying Shakira albums.

Trivia?

[fluxrad]

Trolls aren't what they used to be. But then again, I guess being made into a twisted parody of nature enslaved to Morgoth by a second rate hobbyist fantasy author and be forced to remember your time as a relatively benign mythological being from Scandinavian folklore all your miserable existence would do that to you, I guess. And the movie trilogy, which makes mockery of both your original and Tolkien-corrupted nature, would certainly not help.

You do realize the origin of "trolling" stems from the fishing term, right? You're right, though. The term definitely ain't what it used to be.

Re:Trivia?

[wyohman]

You do realize the origin of "trolling" stems from the fishing term, right? You're right, though. The term definitely ain't what it used to be.

True, True. But what really irks me is that nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.

Re:Making DRM-aware applications even more annoyin

[Perky_Goth]

True, but slow

Re:Making DRM-aware applications even more annoyin

[x2A]

Nah, you can leave the VM to do it these days. Something like, the OS writes any dirty pages to a backing store (file rather than anonymous) when they don't get used for a length of time. If the program resumes quickly, it's all still in memory. If you stay suspended for a while, pages will start being written to disk. If the program gets terminated, the remaining pages can be flushed quicker to disk. The memory can then be reclaimed if it needs to be, and you swap back in as you need on resume. The application code and data itself will already be memory mapped to the binary, so nothing extra required here. The OS can be told not to swap pages out during normal execution unless resources are low, as with anonymous swap. Depending on the application, size of data etc, and how much of that data gets changed regularly, you'd wanna tweak writeout patterns.

EROS was a research OS that applied this kind of persistence across the board. If you ran a DRM prog on top of EROS, everything I described above would basically happen automatically, without needing to add any code to the app, as part of the way the OS Just Does Things(tm).

Re:Making DRM-aware applications even more annoyin

[Perky_Goth]

I had forgotten VM. But forcing sync on every change can still be a performance problem, I think.

Re:One Phrase To Say It All..

[sam0vi]

I'm sorry for your weak personality and your emotional issues. Have a nice day

Re:Making DRM-aware applications even more annoyin

[x2A]

"But forcing sync on every change can still be a performance problem, I think"

Yep, but you wouldn't need to, the OS can keep it in memory, syncing to disk at low intervals, before suspend (something you'd probably wanna do anything, and means it's already on disk when you recheck drm on resume), and before freeing the pages after the program exits. Is just treated like a swap file, specific to that memory range, that's persistent (unlike anonymous swap, which is freed from swap once the page is unmapped from the address space). If the app gets suspended due to drm fail, the pages are frozen, and the OS can take its time writing them out (then freeing the pages for other processes if memory is needed, and read back in when the app resumes - pretty normal behaviour)

Slashdot Lemmings

[NateTech]

It's just a way to get RedHat (which is boring and lifeless these days) back in the press. Business is business, and any news is news.

Cox is just pumping up his net worth, no worse or better than any other company big wig.

See through the hype surrounding the initials "DRM" and think about the real world outcome of Alan Cox turning in such a patent... RedHat gets noticed again, Cox gets noticed again... etc. Merry-go-round.

Nothing new to see here, move along, or join the parade of Slashdot Lemmings to run and squeal and jump for hyped up joy, making themselves no better off, but making Cox and the gang quite a bit of real world monetary value.

Not that handing money to them isn't probably a good thing, compared to handing it to others... but people, really -- it's just a marketing ploy. No better/worse than the ones from Microsoft.