500? That's the absolute minimum according to the rates they've proposed. If a station is simultaneously rebroadcasting via Internet an AM or FM broadcast, they pay $.07 per performance. I'm assuming this would be per song only, not per song, per user. That means if they play 10 songs an hour (seems about right, possibly a bit low) 365 days a year, they owe $6,132, plus 9% of that for the "Ephemeral License Fee", bringing the total to $6683.88. If they're not simultaneously rebroadcasting, then the cost doubles.
People wantwantwant but very few actually gave any $$.
Even if very few send money, the artists are still getting a better deal than they get with the record industry. Remember this bit from the article?
The arguments the labels are using, said Jill Berliner, a leading music lawyer, are exactly the ones Napster made. "And, from our perspective, if the technology is going to be out there and the artist isn't really going to make money, we'd prefer that our fans just get it for free," she said.
Sure, and nobody really has a problem with fucking themselves financially for the forseeable future. There are lots of bad consequences involved with declaring bankruptcy. It's not something to be done lightly.
While I agree with some of your comment, I think that there is some benefit to conformity on copyright issues. Without such conformity, you end up with situations where various countries decide not to honor each others copyrights, as it was in the past. This is what makes it especially hard for us to roll back copyright terms. The treaties. Even if we manage to convince the government that shorter copyright terms are better, how do we implement it without breaking treaties? I would like to see us declare unassigned US copyrights to only last for 30 years, and assigned or corporate-owned copyrights to last for 15-20 years. I just don't know how we could pull off such a thing without pissing off other countries with longer terms.
MS simply replaced "per-processor" licenses with "per-model" licenses. They still have the same stranglehold over OEMs though, so if the OEMs get uppity and try to sell a separate model of PCs with no OS, Microsoft can give them the back-of-the-hand treatment and raise their Windows license costs.
Big mean Microsoft does things every other business does!
Exactly my point. When you're a monopoly, doing things that every other business does can be quite illegal, as it was in Microsoft's case. Come back when you have a clue.
As far as I'm concerned, Netscape has jack-all to do with the case. Yeah they made complaints and testified, but Microsoft did plenty of things that are worse than anything they did to Netscape. Fact is, they have a monopoly, and that limits what they can legally do when it comes to business tactics. They didn't heed the last case against them. They laughed it off and continued to do as they please. If they get smacked down now, it's their own fault and they deserve it. It's not because of their competitors.
Big difference between a "preview" and a "review." Besides, when the "review" contains all sorts of claims about the game and gameplay that just aren't true, you know that the reviewer didn't actually review the game. He just wrote up a review based on reading the back of the box and/or the publisher's website.
This is what Gerald Mossinghoff had to say. I started off thinking that this guy might not be too bad. By the time I got to the end though, I realized that the way this guy thinks is the source of many of the problems with the patent system. Check out his report here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycommen ts/mossinghoffgeraldj.pdf
He seems to think that the current system is good enough and should not be challenged because it could cause confusion. Furthermore, he think that such a challenge would probably be unsuccessful due to the combined power of the high-tech industry, Patent Bar, and various inventors groups. He seems to think that it's a great thing that we've cemented IP laws in place through legislation and treaties. So much so that it would cause chaos if we were to try to roll any of it back or even simply subject patent applications to a higher standard than we currently do. I'm depressed now. Thanks Gerald.
Then we have economics professor, Richard Gilbert. He has a formula that will tell us whether we should pursue anti-trust suits against holders of blocking patents (collections of patents that bar competition). I can't really tell whether it makes sense or not since I don't have any handy way of applying it to a real world case. Does anyone have any idea what this guy is saying, or who will benefit the most from it? His presentation is done in Powerpoint, so you'll need access to MS Office or something else that can read Powerpoint documents. http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/guide1.ppt
Finally, we come to someone who is making sense to me. Yale president, Richard C. Levin. He makes several good points, some that cover the same topics as Mr. Gilbert, and others that cover areas of concern to many of us who have had our eye on the IP system. Read his presentation here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycommen ts/levinrichardc.htm
Because both the patent office and the courts have forgotten why patents exist.
That's only a part of the problem. There's also the issue of the PTO having to be self-sufficient (i.e. it has to make enough money to support itself since the government will no longer fund it. So it grants practically every patent it thinks it can possibly get away with. That's how it makes money. Then the government gets to use the profit for whatever it wants.
The real red herring here is that you're talking in terms of benefits to authors and publishers rather than authors and the public. Copyright was intended to benefit both authors and the public. The public granted authors a limited monopoly on their creations, and in return those creations would be added to the public domain at the end of the copyright term. Since then, Congress has extended the copyright term 11 times, and passed numerous bills to broaden the scope, and further restrict the public from making use of copyrighted works (think DMCA).
Why is it that all of the legislation passed regarding copyright over the last 200 years or so only benefits authors/publishers and not the public? Why was the public interest not represented? It's the money stupid. Big publishers can afford to buy legislation. They get priveledged access to politicians and can make their case (insofar as they even need to make a case with all the money they toss around). The average citizen doesn't get this kind of access. That's one of the major problems with our current system.
Dig up all the records of who's funding who, and crosscheck it against what libery-violating statutes those people voted for.
Unfortunately, our Congress can pass such far reaching legislation as the DMCA without even going on the record with their votes. They passed the DMCA with a voice vote. If that isn't the most fucked up thing you've ever heard, then I'd love to hear what is. America, land of democracy. Funny, huh? How can you have democracy without accountability?
Your points illustrate exactly why we need copyright reform at the most basic level. Congress must be pressured to roll back the term limits to nearly their original length.
Think about it. Copyright started off as a compromise between the public and the creators. The public grants creators a limited monopoly on their creation, and at the end of that period, it becomes public domain for all to use freely. Now, what has happened since then? Congress has extended the term lengths 11 times. Additionally, the scope has been broadened quite a bit. Then there are the additional restrictions put in place by legislation such as the DMCA. How have any of these things benefitted the public? Who was standing up for our side when these bills were crafted and passed? Nobody of any significance, obviously. The copyright industry is a heavy contributor to political campaigns. We were sold out. Worse, hardly anyone noticed! (which is probably why they felt that they could get away with it)
Until the public is again given a fair deal, you can't expect them to show much respect for copyright. They'll do whatever they can get away with, just like the copyright industry.
I use both browsers every day. As far as loadtime is concerned, Mozilla is extremely quick when you use the "quickload" feature. It pops up about as quick as IE6 does. When it comes to rendering pages, Mozilla seems to be faster than IE6. It depends on the page, but I don't think IE6 does much of anything faster than Mozilla when it comes to rendering. I realize this is just anecdotal evidence, so if you have some hard evidence, then by all means, post it.
Mozilla is at least as fast as IE6 now. It does still have some bugs, but they've been noted and will be fixed. How long did it take Microsoft to create IE6? Mozilla will be better than that, and in less than half the time. There's no 1.0 release yet, but there have been some milestone releases. Hell, IE has always had plenty of bugs and security problems too. Your argument is lame.
We have recognized that computers allow us to do things that we cannot do unaided. We've been steadily progressing along, creating more powerful computers, more powerful interfaces, and trying to basically put it all together so that it becomes intuitive. Yes, we still have a long way to go, but it's getting better all the time. Some day we'll arrive at the point where computers augment our abilities without hampering us or tying us down. Such wonderful things are never created overnight. So yes, he points out a lot of problems with computer usage today, but that's to be expected. What we have today isn't the goal. We're working towards something much better.
Yeah, I sent in about a page or page and a half letter. I tried to make it concise, but since I'm not a lawyer, there is no legalese in it. Do only lawyers opinions count?
I wrote a letter, about a page and a half (i wanted it to keep it as concise as possible), to the DOJ in response to the request for comments. So mine should be included in those 15,000. Wish more people had written in.
Why don't you inform your own government of your opinion and get them to sue Microsoft as well? While your opinion shouldn't count for much, if anything here in the states, it should count to your own government.
Slashdot Mirror
500? That's the absolute minimum according to the rates they've proposed. If a station is simultaneously rebroadcasting via Internet an AM or FM broadcast, they pay $.07 per performance. I'm assuming this would be per song only, not per song, per user. That means if they play 10 songs an hour (seems about right, possibly a bit low) 365 days a year, they owe $6,132, plus 9% of that for the "Ephemeral License Fee", bringing the total to $6683.88. If they're not simultaneously rebroadcasting, then the cost doubles.
People wantwantwant but very few actually gave any $$.
Even if very few send money, the artists are still getting a better deal than they get with the record industry. Remember this bit from the article?
The arguments the labels are using, said Jill Berliner, a leading music lawyer, are exactly the ones Napster made. "And, from our perspective, if the technology is going to be out there and the artist isn't really going to make money, we'd prefer that our fans just get it for free," she said.
Metallica made the first and biggest stink about Napster. Dre gets mentioned in the article at least :)
Sure, and nobody really has a problem with fucking themselves financially for the forseeable future. There are lots of bad consequences involved with declaring bankruptcy. It's not something to be done lightly.
While I agree with some of your comment, I think that there is some benefit to conformity on copyright issues. Without such conformity, you end up with situations where various countries decide not to honor each others copyrights, as it was in the past. This is what makes it especially hard for us to roll back copyright terms. The treaties. Even if we manage to convince the government that shorter copyright terms are better, how do we implement it without breaking treaties? I would like to see us declare unassigned US copyrights to only last for 30 years, and assigned or corporate-owned copyrights to last for 15-20 years. I just don't know how we could pull off such a thing without pissing off other countries with longer terms.
MS simply replaced "per-processor" licenses with "per-model" licenses. They still have the same stranglehold over OEMs though, so if the OEMs get uppity and try to sell a separate model of PCs with no OS, Microsoft can give them the back-of-the-hand treatment and raise their Windows license costs.
Big mean Microsoft does things every other business does!
Exactly my point. When you're a monopoly, doing things that every other business does can be quite illegal, as it was in Microsoft's case. Come back when you have a clue.
As far as I'm concerned, Netscape has jack-all to do with the case. Yeah they made complaints and testified, but Microsoft did plenty of things that are worse than anything they did to Netscape. Fact is, they have a monopoly, and that limits what they can legally do when it comes to business tactics. They didn't heed the last case against them. They laughed it off and continued to do as they please. If they get smacked down now, it's their own fault and they deserve it. It's not because of their competitors.
Big difference between a "preview" and a "review." Besides, when the "review" contains all sorts of claims about the game and gameplay that just aren't true, you know that the reviewer didn't actually review the game. He just wrote up a review based on reading the back of the box and/or the publisher's website.
But think of all the ASCII art that wouldn't be possible without the backslash! This guy is my hero!
This is what Gerald Mossinghoff had to say. I started off thinking that this guy might not be too bad. By the time I got to the end though, I realized that the way this guy thinks is the source of many of the problems with the patent system. Check out his report here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycommen ts/mossinghoffgeraldj.pdf
He seems to think that the current system is good enough and should not be challenged because it could cause confusion. Furthermore, he think that such a challenge would probably be unsuccessful due to the combined power of the high-tech industry, Patent Bar, and various inventors groups. He seems to think that it's a great thing that we've cemented IP laws in place through legislation and treaties. So much so that it would cause chaos if we were to try to roll any of it back or even simply subject patent applications to a higher standard than we currently do. I'm depressed now. Thanks Gerald.
Then we have economics professor, Richard Gilbert. He has a formula that will tell us whether we should pursue anti-trust suits against holders of blocking patents (collections of patents that bar competition). I can't really tell whether it makes sense or not since I don't have any handy way of applying it to a real world case. Does anyone have any idea what this guy is saying, or who will benefit the most from it? His presentation is done in Powerpoint, so you'll need access to MS Office or something else that can read Powerpoint documents. http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/guide1.ppt
Finally, we come to someone who is making sense to me. Yale president, Richard C. Levin. He makes several good points, some that cover the same topics as Mr. Gilbert, and others that cover areas of concern to many of us who have had our eye on the IP system. Read his presentation here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycommen ts/levinrichardc.htm
Because both the patent office and the courts have forgotten why patents exist.
That's only a part of the problem. There's also the issue of the PTO having to be self-sufficient (i.e. it has to make enough money to support itself since the government will no longer fund it. So it grants practically every patent it thinks it can possibly get away with. That's how it makes money. Then the government gets to use the profit for whatever it wants.
How in the hell does your comment rebutt anything he said? You sure you didn't accidentally respond to the wrong post??
You thought wrong. They've been patenting them for quite a while now.
The real red herring here is that you're talking in terms of benefits to authors and publishers rather than authors and the public. Copyright was intended to benefit both authors and the public. The public granted authors a limited monopoly on their creations, and in return those creations would be added to the public domain at the end of the copyright term. Since then, Congress has extended the copyright term 11 times, and passed numerous bills to broaden the scope, and further restrict the public from making use of copyrighted works (think DMCA).
Why is it that all of the legislation passed regarding copyright over the last 200 years or so only benefits authors/publishers and not the public? Why was the public interest not represented? It's the money stupid. Big publishers can afford to buy legislation. They get priveledged access to politicians and can make their case (insofar as they even need to make a case with all the money they toss around). The average citizen doesn't get this kind of access. That's one of the major problems with our current system.
Dig up all the records of who's funding who, and crosscheck it against what libery-violating statutes those people voted for.
Unfortunately, our Congress can pass such far reaching legislation as the DMCA without even going on the record with their votes. They passed the DMCA with a voice vote. If that isn't the most fucked up thing you've ever heard, then I'd love to hear what is. America, land of democracy. Funny, huh? How can you have democracy without accountability?
Your points illustrate exactly why we need copyright reform at the most basic level. Congress must be pressured to roll back the term limits to nearly their original length.
Think about it. Copyright started off as a compromise between the public and the creators. The public grants creators a limited monopoly on their creation, and at the end of that period, it becomes public domain for all to use freely. Now, what has happened since then? Congress has extended the term lengths 11 times. Additionally, the scope has been broadened quite a bit. Then there are the additional restrictions put in place by legislation such as the DMCA. How have any of these things benefitted the public? Who was standing up for our side when these bills were crafted and passed? Nobody of any significance, obviously. The copyright industry is a heavy contributor to political campaigns. We were sold out. Worse, hardly anyone noticed! (which is probably why they felt that they could get away with it)
Until the public is again given a fair deal, you can't expect them to show much respect for copyright. They'll do whatever they can get away with, just like the copyright industry.
I use both browsers every day. As far as loadtime is concerned, Mozilla is extremely quick when you use the "quickload" feature. It pops up about as quick as IE6 does. When it comes to rendering pages, Mozilla seems to be faster than IE6. It depends on the page, but I don't think IE6 does much of anything faster than Mozilla when it comes to rendering. I realize this is just anecdotal evidence, so if you have some hard evidence, then by all means, post it.
Mozilla is at least as fast as IE6 now. It does still have some bugs, but they've been noted and will be fixed. How long did it take Microsoft to create IE6? Mozilla will be better than that, and in less than half the time. There's no 1.0 release yet, but there have been some milestone releases. Hell, IE has always had plenty of bugs and security problems too. Your argument is lame.
Is he sure that people are willing to pay the extra costs that this additional testing will create? People already think software costs too much.
We have recognized that computers allow us to do things that we cannot do unaided. We've been steadily progressing along, creating more powerful computers, more powerful interfaces, and trying to basically put it all together so that it becomes intuitive. Yes, we still have a long way to go, but it's getting better all the time. Some day we'll arrive at the point where computers augment our abilities without hampering us or tying us down. Such wonderful things are never created overnight. So yes, he points out a lot of problems with computer usage today, but that's to be expected. What we have today isn't the goal. We're working towards something much better.
Yeah, I sent in about a page or page and a half letter. I tried to make it concise, but since I'm not a lawyer, there is no legalese in it. Do only lawyers opinions count?
I wrote a letter, about a page and a half (i wanted it to keep it as concise as possible), to the DOJ in response to the request for comments. So mine should be included in those 15,000. Wish more people had written in.
Why don't you inform your own government of your opinion and get them to sue Microsoft as well? While your opinion shouldn't count for much, if anything here in the states, it should count to your own government.
/. killed my link.. blah
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/059600117 7/ qid=1013050700/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/002-6023155-26328 66