People get flamed here on/. all the time for making an accusation without backing it up. You have to either acknowledge that you have no proof and are likely full of crap, or provide some evidence or at least some passable logic to back up your claim. I would expect better of a news organization... but then this *is* ZDnet. They've never been known for insightful, ethical, or even interesting journalism. Don't know much about Tucows really, but if the article originated with them, then they deserve the flames as much as ZDnet does for reposting it.
They force people to obey the law all the time. They also create or change laws when they aren't working properly, in their opinion. The only reason that the RIAA is in the position it's in now is due to government legislation. If the government didn't grant copyright protections, then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. However, the government did grant these protections (although IMO, they've been seriously abused through extensions and such), but with strings attached. The biggie for consumers is the "fair use" clause and the interpretations of it by the courts. The RIAA is trying to take away the protections that the government included for consumers and expand the control that corporations have over the copyrighted works they own.
It is well within the government's rights to pass legislation expanding fair use rights for consumers if they feel that the current law isn't clear or is no longer workable. When you consider that they are responsible for copyright in this country in the first place, it seems like they should be the ones to make sure that it keeps working in a way that it accomplishes its goals. The goal of copyright was not to give corporations absolute control over what we do with copyrighted works that we purchase. I think it makes perfect sense for him to remind them that the government giveth and the government can taketh away if they don't knock off their power trip.
As you pointed out, the government is already involved. They've been involved since the beginning. If they were to uninvolve themselves now, we'd all get screwed over by the RIAA in the courts because Congress passed some bad legislation. It's much too late for them to get uninvolved now.
If you want less government, the first thing that would have to be done is repeal mountains of innappropriate and/or generally crappy legislation and prevent the government from passing anymore like it. I would say this should include taking away most of the protections that the government offers corporations just as it would take away many protections from consumers. In the end, I doubt we'd be any better off though.
How do they plan to get people to buy this crap? Will it be forced upon us by the government? Will the major industry players all get together on this one to make sure we don't get a choice? Will consumers be willing to fight them on it? Will we decide to give them all the power by letting them foist this stuff upon us? Will viable alternatives exist? What does the industry plan to do to deter us from buying alternatives?
Judging from the past, I suspect that most of us will be good little sheeple and buy these products.
Happens all the time. Not just in this way either. There are also speculative patents known as "submarine patents." These are usually vague, sweeping patents that are kept forever in the processing phase until such time as enough commercial products exist to provide targets for lawsuits. At that time, the patent owner has his lawyer do whatever is needed to get the patent approved (and since it hadn't been approved yet, nobody could have seen it or disputed it), at which time they proceed to sue the pants off of anyone making anything that they believe infringes on their patent. It's usually faster and cheaper for these companies to pay the royalties than to try to dispute the patent (thanks to our wonderful PTO). That's why these guys often get away with these scams.
It doesn't sound like this is exactly what happened with RAMBUS, but it isn't much different.
Why should MOSR be held accountable for someone else breaking an NDA? Shouldn't Apple have to prove that an NDA was violated? Either way, once the info is out, it's out. Maybe Apple can sue the person who broke the NDA, but that should be the extent of their legal rights.
They hurt current Apple sales, and they keep people from buying hardware now because something better may be just around the corner.
This is the computer industry we're talking about. There is ALWAYS something better around the corner. That's why there are always jokes about how a computer is obsolete as soon as you buy it. Everybody knows that if they wait a few months, something better will be out there. Since there is always something better on the way, it doesn't really matter when you buy. You just buy when you need to buy.
There is NOTHING, REPEAT, NOTHING in copyright law that says that anyone must protect their copyright, or lose the right to enforce it. The can selectively enforce it all they want. The requirement you're talking about ONLY APPLIES TO TRADEMARKS. I see probably 10 people make this mistake in their responses to any copyright-related article on/., and just about every time they get corrected by someone. It's amazing that there are so many people out there with this misconception.
Looks to me like a pretty wide-open statement. They probably included the phrase "among other things" as a CYA clause so that any other onerous or potentially damaging purposes for the reports could be covered by their definition. Whether the courts will play along with this or not is anybody's guess.
Well, I couldn't get their website to show me a sample report. I kept getting "Transfer Interrupted!" instead of the report. However, the following section seems to say that there are other kinds of information, besides "credit info" that could cause such a report to be classified as a credit report.
A "consumer report" is, in turn, defined in Section 603(d)(1) as a report containing information bearing on an individual's credit standing or his or her "character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living" that is used or expected to be used for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for, among other things, employment, insurance, or credit.'
Like I said, I haven't seen a report, but it looks like they may have a pretty broad interpretation of what is considered a credit report. This is probably a good thing since many factors go into considering your credit-worthiness other than your account balances and credit history.
It's been shown that treatment programs work much better for curbing drug use than law enforcement does for preventing it. We can send millions of dollars and tons of equipment all over South America, but that isn't going to change a thing. All it does is help continue to create the artificial scarcity that makes drugs so profitable in the first place, which encourages more people to get into the business. Then there's all the corruption that it creates, even in our own military, police forces, and government. We need to quit trying to prevent the drugs from coming in and work on education and treatment. These are the most effective ways we have of dealing with the problem. Hopefully if we, as a country, ever get our sh|t together and tell the politicians to give up this never-ending "war," we can get some of our liberties back as a side-effect. I doubt they'll give up their new-found power easily though.
I think the companies are just catering to the types of people that make up the vast majority of attendees at these shows, namely men. If there were more women attending, you'd probably see half-naked men showing up at the booths too. Or whatever else the companies seem to think will attract women. Giant chocolate bars perhaps.:)
Depends on what each side does. They can do it the clean way, making their products and letting consumers choose, or they can do it the dirty way, with market-division proposals, dumping, exclusionary contracts and product tying. It's all in how they do it. Whether or not they are a monopoly will also affect what is and is not ok.
Of course the intelligent posters usually offer some evidence to back up their claims. Don't see anything of the sort on this propaganda flyer of Microsoft's. Can't even find any on the "Freedom To Innovate" pages of their website.
This is basically the same conclusion I came to. Had to read pretty far down the page to find your post, but I figured that somebody had to have posted something like this by now. I was trying to think of what other sort of interface you could have when you're using a mouse and keyboard, but decided that what we've got is probably as good as any other interface designed to be used with a mouse, keyboard and monitor. Once we figure out a better way of communicating with our computers, we'll come up with a better GUI (assuming it would still be useful).
Er..I don't know about the States, but here in the UK that's exactly the case. Nobody ever does, but it's still the law. Still plain stupid though.
Well, here in the states, you don't have to get permission. That's why the previous poster's statement was so completely wrong. Copyright holder's aren't supposed to have that much power or control.
Even Courtney comes to the conclusion that a new way is needed. She doesn't think the record companies are going to go away anytime soon, and they are still needed in some ways, but perhaps something will come along to give the artist some more power instead of them having to sign over the rights to their creations forever in return for some chance of making a living at what they do (but more likely just earning them a lot of debt). (and don't give me any BS about them not *having* to sign anything... if they aren't already huge and they want to get their album distributed, then they don't get a choice.)
People who want to share copyrighted files over Napster should be required to specific permission from the content owner for each and every single transfer of that content.
Wrong, and just plain stupid. That's like saying that everyone who tapes a tv show must request and receive permission first. Like saying that I must ask before I can make a copy of a cd that i own so that I can keep it in my car and it won't be a great loss if it gets all scratched up.
We have "fair use" for a reason. It's because copyright holders were never meant to have absolute control over the works that they've copyrighted. That's where the music industry has screwed up. They've been trying to expand their power and control for years. It would be nice to see them finally get stepped on.
No, it's not stupid. They were obviously hoping that a lot more of those allegations would stick. When only 2 of them did, they decided that it wasn't even worth pursuing that case. They are planning on trying something else with another suit against Connectix.
Gotta agree with you on that. While the vast majority of people don't buy Playboy for the articles, they are missing out if they don't bother to read them somewhere along the way.
Well, 7 of their 9 allegations got tossed out, and from what the article says, it looks like they're going to file, or have already filed, another case against Connectix.
Slashdot Mirror
People get flamed here on /. all the time for making an accusation without backing it up. You have to either acknowledge that you have no proof and are likely full of crap, or provide some evidence or at least some passable logic to back up your claim. I would expect better of a news organization... but then this *is* ZDnet. They've never been known for insightful, ethical, or even interesting journalism. Don't know much about Tucows really, but if the article originated with them, then they deserve the flames as much as ZDnet does for reposting it.
Yeah.. that AOL Platinum crap.
(plus a 14 year extension if the artist is still alive.)
I think it should only be extended if the artist is still alive and still owns and controls the copyrighted work.
They force people to obey the law all the time. They also create or change laws when they aren't working properly, in their opinion. The only reason that the RIAA is in the position it's in now is due to government legislation. If the government didn't grant copyright protections, then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. However, the government did grant these protections (although IMO, they've been seriously abused through extensions and such), but with strings attached. The biggie for consumers is the "fair use" clause and the interpretations of it by the courts. The RIAA is trying to take away the protections that the government included for consumers and expand the control that corporations have over the copyrighted works they own.
It is well within the government's rights to pass legislation expanding fair use rights for consumers if they feel that the current law isn't clear or is no longer workable. When you consider that they are responsible for copyright in this country in the first place, it seems like they should be the ones to make sure that it keeps working in a way that it accomplishes its goals. The goal of copyright was not to give corporations absolute control over what we do with copyrighted works that we purchase. I think it makes perfect sense for him to remind them that the government giveth and the government can taketh away if they don't knock off their power trip.
As you pointed out, the government is already involved. They've been involved since the beginning. If they were to uninvolve themselves now, we'd all get screwed over by the RIAA in the courts because Congress passed some bad legislation. It's much too late for them to get uninvolved now.
If you want less government, the first thing that would have to be done is repeal mountains of innappropriate and/or generally crappy legislation and prevent the government from passing anymore like it. I would say this should include taking away most of the protections that the government offers corporations just as it would take away many protections from consumers. In the end, I doubt we'd be any better off though.
How do they plan to get people to buy this crap? Will it be forced upon us by the government? Will the major industry players all get together on this one to make sure we don't get a choice? Will consumers be willing to fight them on it? Will we decide to give them all the power by letting them foist this stuff upon us? Will viable alternatives exist? What does the industry plan to do to deter us from buying alternatives?
Judging from the past, I suspect that most of us will be good little sheeple and buy these products.
Happens all the time. Not just in this way either. There are also speculative patents known as "submarine patents." These are usually vague, sweeping patents that are kept forever in the processing phase until such time as enough commercial products exist to provide targets for lawsuits. At that time, the patent owner has his lawyer do whatever is needed to get the patent approved (and since it hadn't been approved yet, nobody could have seen it or disputed it), at which time they proceed to sue the pants off of anyone making anything that they believe infringes on their patent. It's usually faster and cheaper for these companies to pay the royalties than to try to dispute the patent (thanks to our wonderful PTO). That's why these guys often get away with these scams.
It doesn't sound like this is exactly what happened with RAMBUS, but it isn't much different.
Why should MOSR be held accountable for someone else breaking an NDA? Shouldn't Apple have to prove that an NDA was violated? Either way, once the info is out, it's out. Maybe Apple can sue the person who broke the NDA, but that should be the extent of their legal rights.
They hurt current Apple sales, and they keep people from buying hardware now because something better may be just around the corner.
This is the computer industry we're talking about. There is ALWAYS something better around the corner. That's why there are always jokes about how a computer is obsolete as soon as you buy it. Everybody knows that if they wait a few months, something better will be out there. Since there is always something better on the way, it doesn't really matter when you buy. You just buy when you need to buy.
There is NOTHING, REPEAT, NOTHING in copyright law that says that anyone must protect their copyright, or lose the right to enforce it. The can selectively enforce it all they want. The requirement you're talking about ONLY APPLIES TO TRADEMARKS. I see probably 10 people make this mistake in their responses to any copyright-related article on /., and just about every time they get corrected by someone. It's amazing that there are so many people out there with this misconception.
More good info.
Looks to me like a pretty wide-open statement. They probably included the phrase "among other things" as a CYA clause so that any other onerous or potentially damaging purposes for the reports could be covered by their definition. Whether the courts will play along with this or not is anybody's guess.
Well, I couldn't get their website to show me a sample report. I kept getting "Transfer Interrupted!" instead of the report. However, the following section seems to say that there are other kinds of information, besides "credit info" that could cause such a report to be classified as a credit report.
A "consumer report" is, in turn, defined in Section 603(d)(1) as a report containing information bearing on an individual's credit standing or his or her "character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living" that is used or expected to be used for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for, among other things, employment, insurance, or credit.'
Like I said, I haven't seen a report, but it looks like they may have a pretty broad interpretation of what is considered a credit report. This is probably a good thing since many factors go into considering your credit-worthiness other than your account balances and credit history.
It's been shown that treatment programs work much better for curbing drug use than law enforcement does for preventing it. We can send millions of dollars and tons of equipment all over South America, but that isn't going to change a thing. All it does is help continue to create the artificial scarcity that makes drugs so profitable in the first place, which encourages more people to get into the business. Then there's all the corruption that it creates, even in our own military, police forces, and government. We need to quit trying to prevent the drugs from coming in and work on education and treatment. These are the most effective ways we have of dealing with the problem. Hopefully if we, as a country, ever get our sh|t together and tell the politicians to give up this never-ending "war," we can get some of our liberties back as a side-effect. I doubt they'll give up their new-found power easily though.
I think the companies are just catering to the types of people that make up the vast majority of attendees at these shows, namely men. If there were more women attending, you'd probably see half-naked men showing up at the booths too. Or whatever else the companies seem to think will attract women. Giant chocolate bars perhaps. :)
Depends on what each side does. They can do it the clean way, making their products and letting consumers choose, or they can do it the dirty way, with market-division proposals, dumping, exclusionary contracts and product tying. It's all in how they do it. Whether or not they are a monopoly will also affect what is and is not ok.
Of course it also would allow them to claim a much larger support base than they really have. All in all, it would probably do more harm than good.
Of course the intelligent posters usually offer some evidence to back up their claims. Don't see anything of the sort on this propaganda flyer of Microsoft's. Can't even find any on the "Freedom To Innovate" pages of their website.
This is basically the same conclusion I came to. Had to read pretty far down the page to find your post, but I figured that somebody had to have posted something like this by now. I was trying to think of what other sort of interface you could have when you're using a mouse and keyboard, but decided that what we've got is probably as good as any other interface designed to be used with a mouse, keyboard and monitor. Once we figure out a better way of communicating with our computers, we'll come up with a better GUI (assuming it would still be useful).
Er..I don't know about the States, but here in the UK that's exactly the case. Nobody ever does, but it's still the law. Still plain stupid though.
Well, here in the states, you don't have to get permission. That's why the previous poster's statement was so completely wrong. Copyright holder's aren't supposed to have that much power or control.
Even Courtney comes to the conclusion that a new way is needed. She doesn't think the record companies are going to go away anytime soon, and they are still needed in some ways, but perhaps something will come along to give the artist some more power instead of them having to sign over the rights to their creations forever in return for some chance of making a living at what they do (but more likely just earning them a lot of debt). (and don't give me any BS about them not *having* to sign anything... if they aren't already huge and they want to get their album distributed, then they don't get a choice.)
That's chickenshit logic and everybody knows it.
Nope. That's the way our legal system works.
People who want to share copyrighted files over Napster should be required to specific permission from the content owner for each and every single transfer of that content.
Wrong, and just plain stupid. That's like saying that everyone who tapes a tv show must request and receive permission first. Like saying that I must ask before I can make a copy of a cd that i own so that I can keep it in my car and it won't be a great loss if it gets all scratched up.
We have "fair use" for a reason. It's because copyright holders were never meant to have absolute control over the works that they've copyrighted. That's where the music industry has screwed up. They've been trying to expand their power and control for years. It would be nice to see them finally get stepped on.
No, it's not stupid. They were obviously hoping that a lot more of those allegations would stick. When only 2 of them did, they decided that it wasn't even worth pursuing that case. They are planning on trying something else with another suit against Connectix.
Gotta agree with you on that. While the vast majority of people don't buy Playboy for the articles, they are missing out if they don't bother to read them somewhere along the way.
Well, 7 of their 9 allegations got tossed out, and from what the article says, it looks like they're going to file, or have already filed, another case against Connectix.