No, that isn't a logical argument if you pick it apart, but you don't get to cross-examine the MPAA lawyers -- just their witnesses.
You could, of course, bring a witness to pick apart their claims. Preferably someone in academia, who can cite good examples and make the judge understand what's at stake.
Re:No, Kaplan's just doing his job
on
The Future of Ideas
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Anyone got any suggestions?
Yeah, I'd like to be able to play the DVDs I've legally purchased on my BSD (or insert your favorite OS) box. Reverse engineering has traditionally been a legitimate method for making things work when the original owner of a technology isn't interested in pursuing some particular market or use of the technology.
Seems like a highly qualified guy - before MS he worked for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), Computer Forensic Lab and Computer Crime and Information Warfare department. Surely you could argue that MS is a blip on his otherwise unblemished record?
Actually, we have little evidence that he was good at his previous jobs either. Government systems get cracked constantly. Just because he had impressive titles, it doesn't mean he's the best guy for the job.
I think he means clarified for the masses, rather than for everyone. Judging by the president's approval ratings, the vast majority of people think we're doing the right thing. Anyone saying otherwise is likely to get strung up. A recent poll discovered that over 75% of people surveyed believe that anyone who is against the war or American foreign policy should not be allowed to give speeches at a college, among other restrictions.
B) Prevent multiple votes from the same IP address or NIC address ( allowing NAT server)
IPs can be spoofed and some companies own a LOT of IPs.
C) Instead of Counting every vote, select random votes from differetn internet demographics simular to TV rating methods.
The TV ratings systems that I know of require a lot of demographic information about the people doing the ratings. I know that I wouldn't be willing to give out information about myself in order to rate some website. Others probably would though, so who knows how that would turn out.
My karma is still well above the cap, so I doubt that even has anything to do with it. I think they must be using a Magic 8-Ball to decide or something.
Actually, from their press release, it seemed more like they just wanted to put Microsoft in the hotseat and see what kind of response they would get when they actually offer to make the deal better for the children by making sure they get a LOT more computers, and the software to go with them. I wish Microsoft would respond to their offer. I suspect the response would either be that RedHat has nothing to do with the case and should butt out, or that the computers would be useless without Windows installed. BS either way. It's quite obvious that this deal is not really "for the children", but "for Microsoft."
troll (tról) n. A poster who does not hypocritically slander Redmond-based software developers.
After reading your tag line, I'm not sure how to take your post. Are you just seriously lacking in critical thinking skills, or are you trolling? Either way your post should be modded down for the very reasons pointed out by others here. Primarily because you've done nothing to show that the hypocrisy that you speak of exists. Some people think one way, others think another way. That isn't hypocrisy. But you probably knew that.
Sorry, but you don't get a blank check to dictate terms to people when you release a work under copyright. Copyright is not even a true "right." It's simply a government-granted, limited, temporary monopoly on a piece of information. The "limited" part means that you only get the rights that the government grants you. If you aren't happy with that, then don't release the work.
Not really.. some people just seem to be born with one or the other. Rarely both.
And think about it. If MS products really all were crap, then some competetor would have come out of the framework with software that WASN'T complete crap, and people would buy it because it was better.
You have obviously done little to no research into the problems at hand. If you had, you would realize that your statement is a gross oversimplification.
Who? The government will lie about it? They're they ones who suggested it in the first place. MS just said... "Uh, ok sure".
I believe that's what I said. Someone in the prosecution plans to get elected using this "for the children" settlement. S/He apparently doesn't care that it does nothing to punish Microsoft, and does nothing to remedy the situation.
Yeah, and newsflash: government is corrupt! money buys power there too! (whodathunkit?)
Right, so we should just quit trying to seek justice. Quit trying to improve the situation. Quit trying to enforce the law. Sure. You're brilliant. We should have thought of this long ago!
If you were in their shoes, can you honestly say that you wouldn't do things any differently?
HELL YES I WOULD DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY!
Unfortunately I am encumbered by the fact that I have a conscience. Apparently nobody at Microsoft is similarly afflicted. I wouldn't be able to stomach using the slimy tactics and outright lies that Microsoft is so comfortable with. Perhaps I'm not cut out to be a cut-throat capitalist. I can live with that.
And as I counted, the $1.7B is a lot closer to the value than the $1.1B
It's not going to cost them anywhere near 1.7B. The software will cost them about $200-$300K for duplication and the slim documentation that comes with it. Grand total of the settlement will be well under $1B. As others have noted, much of this they will likely write off (you would think that they wouldn't be able to write off a court settlement, wouldn't you?), so it ends up being the taxpayers taking the hit in the end anyway.
Having said all of that, yeah, they're being overly monopolistic, and yes, this is a rediculously small punishment for what they've been caught doing.
At least we agree on this. I would expect that any settlement should be designed to prevent, or at least deter, them from committing the same crimes in the future. This one doesn't even come close to that. It practically encourages more abuse by showing them how easily they can get off. Someone in the prosecution must be planning to use this settlement to get themselves elected to some office. They'll lie to the voters about how they did it for the children. I think I'm gonna be sick.
First, Microsoft gets off with paying just over 200 million. That's it. That 1.1 billion figure is garbage. That alone is a travesty.
Second, Microsoft receives no incentive to change it's business practices, which means that it is still perfectly free to go about reaming its customers and using its monopoly any way it pleases. That will allow them to make the money back many times over.
It's not a fitting punishment for the crime though. If MS was donating 1.1 billion worth of hardware, and then additionally providing software free of charge, then maybe we'd be getting somewhere. But that's not the case. When all is said and done on this, Microsoft will probably end up making money on the deal.
I do believe that Microsoft deserves a harsher punishment than donating software, but it's a decent start.
Unfortunately this isn't the start. It's the end. It's not like the deal is going to get any better for the prosecution. It's not even a punishment really. Microsoft will most likely end up MAKING MONEY on this deal. That's pretty screwed up. This has GOT to be something that MS lawyers dreamed up.
I was looking for something to do over the 4-day weekend anyway.. this is great:) I live in San Antonio, btw, so this is just a relatively short drive.
Why would they need to license the acronym in the first place? They aren't even remotely engaged in the same sort of business. How could it even be considered a trademark infringement?
Why not instead set a limit of what you can do (say 80) and always have it 80 (since seeing anything more than 80 is a waste of our eyes).
Well, wouldn't that have to be done by the game developer? Since the overclockers don't want to drop to 50fps, does this mean it actually does make some sense to overclock to get 180fps if it means you won't ever drop below 80 or so? That's what I'm getting from your answer.
I've been curious about this. I often hear the argument from overclockers that even though getting Q3 to run at 170fps doesn't make any real difference than running it at 80fps, the difference comes when things get busy and your framerate gets cut in half. If you're running at 80fps, then you could get dropped to 30 or 40 momentarily, while if you're running at 170, you may get dropped down to 80 or so and it would still be quite playable. Now I'm wondering if this is actually true, or if there is more going on than that, what actual difference would it make?
That's what the boxes looked like at the end of their trip. We don't know what they looked like when they started. Judging from the severity of the damage tho, they must have looked a hell of a lot better.
If Plaintiffs were to rely on such amended certificates accurately describing any ownership interest Plaintiffs hold, the Coalition's concerns regarding the ownership issues in this case will be abated. If Plaintiffs refuse, this Court should dismiss this case on the ground that it lacks jurisdiction as the invalid, work for hire copyright registrations are the only evidence presented by Plaintiff supporting their claim of authorship and ownership.
I think you're right, and I think this quote illustrates the coalition's strategy quite well. They are basically saying that the industry needs to decide real quick which way it's going to be. Either they can go after Napster and others or they can try to screw the artists, but they can't do both. I'm very eager to find out how this will play out.
Yeah.. too bad mp3.com is now owned by Vivendi and has begun tightening the screws on the artists there. Many smaller artists are leaving because mp3.com is cutting their percentages down to practically nothing. They can't even make back what mp3.com charges them to participate in their "pay for play" system. It will probably soon become just another marketing vehicle for Vivendi-owned artists.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the .50 cal rule dealt with machine guns, not single-shot sniper rifles. I could be wrong though.
No, that isn't a logical argument if you pick it apart, but you don't get to cross-examine the MPAA lawyers -- just their witnesses.
You could, of course, bring a witness to pick apart their claims. Preferably someone in academia, who can cite good examples and make the judge understand what's at stake.
Anyone got any suggestions?
Yeah, I'd like to be able to play the DVDs I've legally purchased on my BSD (or insert your favorite OS) box. Reverse engineering has traditionally been a legitimate method for making things work when the original owner of a technology isn't interested in pursuing some particular market or use of the technology.
Seems like a highly qualified guy - before MS he worked for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), Computer Forensic Lab and Computer Crime and Information Warfare department. Surely you could argue that MS is a blip on his otherwise unblemished record?
Actually, we have little evidence that he was good at his previous jobs either. Government systems get cracked constantly. Just because he had impressive titles, it doesn't mean he's the best guy for the job.
I think he means clarified for the masses, rather than for everyone. Judging by the president's approval ratings, the vast majority of people think we're doing the right thing. Anyone saying otherwise is likely to get strung up. A recent poll discovered that over 75% of people surveyed believe that anyone who is against the war or American foreign policy should not be allowed to give speeches at a college, among other restrictions.
A) Insert a unique coded cookie to mark voters
Cookies can be deleted.
B) Prevent multiple votes from the same IP address or NIC address ( allowing NAT server)
IPs can be spoofed and some companies own a LOT of IPs.
C) Instead of Counting every vote, select random votes from differetn internet demographics simular to TV rating methods.
The TV ratings systems that I know of require a lot of demographic information about the people doing the ratings. I know that I wouldn't be willing to give out information about myself in order to rate some website. Others probably would though, so who knows how that would turn out.
My karma is still well above the cap, so I doubt that even has anything to do with it. I think they must be using a Magic 8-Ball to decide or something.
Actually, from their press release, it seemed more like they just wanted to put Microsoft in the hotseat and see what kind of response they would get when they actually offer to make the deal better for the children by making sure they get a LOT more computers, and the software to go with them. I wish Microsoft would respond to their offer. I suspect the response would either be that RedHat has nothing to do with the case and should butt out, or that the computers would be useless without Windows installed. BS either way. It's quite obvious that this deal is not really "for the children", but "for Microsoft."
Heh.. I submitted the RedHat press release and an InfoWorld article on it the day they made it, but it was rejected. Owell.
troll (tról) n. A poster who does not hypocritically slander Redmond-based software developers.
After reading your tag line, I'm not sure how to take your post. Are you just seriously lacking in critical thinking skills, or are you trolling? Either way your post should be modded down for the very reasons pointed out by others here. Primarily because you've done nothing to show that the hypocrisy that you speak of exists. Some people think one way, others think another way. That isn't hypocrisy. But you probably knew that.
When I can play a game that looks as good as the Final Fantasy movie, at a consistent 100 FPS that's when it's fast enough for me :)
Sorry, but you don't get a blank check to dictate terms to people when you release a work under copyright. Copyright is not even a true "right." It's simply a government-granted, limited, temporary monopoly on a piece of information. The "limited" part means that you only get the rights that the government grants you. If you aren't happy with that, then don't release the work.
Money has a funny way of outweighing morals...
Not really.. some people just seem to be born with one or the other. Rarely both.
And think about it. If MS products really all were crap, then some competetor would have come out of the framework with software that WASN'T complete crap, and people would buy it because it was better.
You have obviously done little to no research into the problems at hand. If you had, you would realize that your statement is a gross oversimplification.
Who? The government will lie about it? They're they ones who suggested it in the first place. MS just said ... "Uh, ok sure".
I believe that's what I said. Someone in the prosecution plans to get elected using this "for the children" settlement. S/He apparently doesn't care that it does nothing to punish Microsoft, and does nothing to remedy the situation.
Yeah, and newsflash: government is corrupt! money buys power there too! (whodathunkit?)
Right, so we should just quit trying to seek justice. Quit trying to improve the situation. Quit trying to enforce the law. Sure. You're brilliant. We should have thought of this long ago!
If you were in their shoes, can you honestly say that you wouldn't do things any differently?
HELL YES I WOULD DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY!
Unfortunately I am encumbered by the fact that I have a conscience. Apparently nobody at Microsoft is similarly afflicted. I wouldn't be able to stomach using the slimy tactics and outright lies that Microsoft is so comfortable with. Perhaps I'm not cut out to be a cut-throat capitalist. I can live with that.
And as I counted, the $1.7B is a lot closer to the value than the $1.1B
It's not going to cost them anywhere near 1.7B. The software will cost them about $200-$300K for duplication and the slim documentation that comes with it. Grand total of the settlement will be well under $1B. As others have noted, much of this they will likely write off (you would think that they wouldn't be able to write off a court settlement, wouldn't you?), so it ends up being the taxpayers taking the hit in the end anyway.
Having said all of that, yeah, they're being overly monopolistic, and yes, this is a rediculously small punishment for what they've been caught doing.
At least we agree on this. I would expect that any settlement should be designed to prevent, or at least deter, them from committing the same crimes in the future. This one doesn't even come close to that. It practically encourages more abuse by showing them how easily they can get off. Someone in the prosecution must be planning to use this settlement to get themselves elected to some office. They'll lie to the voters about how they did it for the children. I think I'm gonna be sick.
First, Microsoft gets off with paying just over 200 million. That's it. That 1.1 billion figure is garbage. That alone is a travesty.
Second, Microsoft receives no incentive to change it's business practices, which means that it is still perfectly free to go about reaming its customers and using its monopoly any way it pleases. That will allow them to make the money back many times over.
It's not a fitting punishment for the crime though. If MS was donating 1.1 billion worth of hardware, and then additionally providing software free of charge, then maybe we'd be getting somewhere. But that's not the case. When all is said and done on this, Microsoft will probably end up making money on the deal.
I do believe that Microsoft deserves a harsher punishment than donating software, but it's a decent start.
Unfortunately this isn't the start. It's the end. It's not like the deal is going to get any better for the prosecution. It's not even a punishment really. Microsoft will most likely end up MAKING MONEY on this deal. That's pretty screwed up. This has GOT to be something that MS lawyers dreamed up.
I was looking for something to do over the 4-day weekend anyway.. this is great :) I live in San Antonio, btw, so this is just a relatively short drive.
Why would they need to license the acronym in the first place? They aren't even remotely engaged in the same sort of business. How could it even be considered a trademark infringement?
Why not instead set a limit of what you can do (say 80) and always have it 80 (since seeing anything more than 80 is a waste of our eyes).
Well, wouldn't that have to be done by the game developer? Since the overclockers don't want to drop to 50fps, does this mean it actually does make some sense to overclock to get 180fps if it means you won't ever drop below 80 or so? That's what I'm getting from your answer.
I've been curious about this. I often hear the argument from overclockers that even though getting Q3 to run at 170fps doesn't make any real difference than running it at 80fps, the difference comes when things get busy and your framerate gets cut in half. If you're running at 80fps, then you could get dropped to 30 or 40 momentarily, while if you're running at 170, you may get dropped down to 80 or so and it would still be quite playable. Now I'm wondering if this is actually true, or if there is more going on than that, what actual difference would it make?
Well, if UPS deemed that it was packed properly (as they inspected the package at the PoD), shouldn't they be responsible for the damage?
That's what the boxes looked like at the end of their trip. We don't know what they looked like when they started. Judging from the severity of the damage tho, they must have looked a hell of a lot better.
If Plaintiffs were to rely on such amended certificates accurately describing any ownership interest Plaintiffs hold, the Coalition's concerns regarding the ownership issues in this case will be abated. If Plaintiffs refuse, this Court should dismiss this case on the ground that it lacks jurisdiction as the invalid, work for hire copyright registrations are the only evidence presented by Plaintiff supporting their claim of authorship and ownership.
I think you're right, and I think this quote illustrates the coalition's strategy quite well. They are basically saying that the industry needs to decide real quick which way it's going to be. Either they can go after Napster and others or they can try to screw the artists, but they can't do both. I'm very eager to find out how this will play out.
Yeah.. too bad mp3.com is now owned by Vivendi and has begun tightening the screws on the artists there. Many smaller artists are leaving because mp3.com is cutting their percentages down to practically nothing. They can't even make back what mp3.com charges them to participate in their "pay for play" system. It will probably soon become just another marketing vehicle for Vivendi-owned artists.