Last month I downloaded Pillars of Garendall, a game from Ambrosia Software. It's shareware, and limits how far you can go in the game before registering. So I played. I explored the areas I could, until I hit the limits. I decided it was worth the $25 to register so I could continue playing. It took them 2 days to process my credit card and send me a registration code.
That's 2 days I would have liked to be playing, but as I said, since I reached the limits before deciding to register, there wasn't anything new I could do for those two days.
The system should have processed my credit card immediately and sent me my code. I know other shareware outfits do that, and I was getty pretty impatient towards the end of that second day when I hadn't gotten the code yet.
In a world where you're getting the software off the net to begin with (and the full download is around 180 meg), you expect the registration system to be just as immediate.
Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object
which I believe does cover a lot of the/. crowd's argument. Sure, you own the recording, but you can't limit what we playback on.
-No copyright infringment suit can be brought against someone making home digital recordings.
Well, in my neighborhood the speed limit is 30 mph. Has been for years if not decades. The city recently put in speed bumps that make it tough to go more than 15 mph over them without doing damage to your car. It's still legal to go 30, but they find a way to keep you from doing something you're allowed to do anyway.
I'm guessing the RIAA's argument may be eerily similar -- it's still legal to make copies, but we won't make it possible.
It's been slow going in the I/O area. Ten years ago I thought chording keyboards would be the wave of the future. Sure, there's the Twiddler and a couple of other alternatives to the standard keyboard that are more suitable to wearable computing, but most are not ready for prime time.
Likewise, I've seen a dozen companies come and go each with their own HUDs. All were available in limited quantities for OEM/prospective LARGE purchases, but the number of wearable displays available to consumers is pretty small.
So it's not like people haven't been trying. It just hasn't taken off yet. Sony's new research into gesture recognition may be a move in the right direction, but it may be a while before there's a ready solution that anybody can buy.
You're right. I can see it turning into something akin to the MAME scene: "By downloading this collection of MP3s you claim that you own the original CD which they represent."
Of course, that's not totally unlike what my.mp3.com tried to pull off -- insert the CD to prove you own it, and it unlocks streaming MP3s of those tracks. And that didn't fly with the courts for some reason.
And, of course, what the Brain is doing today looks an awful lot like what Apple was doing 10 years ago with HotSauce Meta-Content Format aka X-Space aka Project X (google search).
It's a shame Apple didn't do more with it, but at the same time ironic that other companies are working on it today and passing it off as revolutionary.
I appreciate the tone of the letter. It sounds like a person wrote it -- not a lawyer. It seems pretty clear that this wasn't a boiler-plate form letter that was sent off without a thought. Kudos to Sony for having a human send correspondence.
I have AT&T Broadband at home (in Los Angeles) and yes, it seemed like port 80 was being blocked perhaps from Sunday until some point last night. Web browsers stopped functioning but other IP ports remained open.
Didn't see any warnings on their site (connected from elsewhere) yesterday though. You'd think they'd give people warning, and their suport phone number kept me on hold for hours on end...
The letter did not say anything about illegally used code.
From the letter... "From your website we were able to download software containing unlicensed AC-3 code components..."
Dolby has a patented method of decoding an AC-3 signal. AC-3 isn't a standard, it's a technology that Dolby Laboratories developed and licensed to many manufacturers, licensing the encoders to companies that develop LaserDiscs and DVDs and decoders to companies that build players for those media or audio receivers that can separate those audio channels.
This isn't a DCMA issue. It's a patent issue, and it's a good patent. They actually created something new and protected it. It's not like many of the bogus patents of late. The ability to encode 6 channels of discrete audio in one signal doesn't qualify as "obvious".
Clearly Dolby has patents on their audio encoding and decoding methods. They developed them, they own the patent rights fully. From the earliest Dolby noise reduction schemes to Pro-logic surround sound to AC3 which was a precursor to 5.1 sound to Dolby Digital, these are all well protected techniques that they have licensed to major manufacturers for decades.
Re:speaking on behalf of the Illuminati....
on
Review: Tomb Raider
·
· Score: 1
"so many movies"? Ok, let's see. The Illuminati are explicitly mentioned in only 4 features and 1 TV series that I can think of...
"Gargoyles" (tv series)
Being There (not explicitly mentioned, but you have an eye-in-the-pyramid at the end of the film, while guys figure out who they're going to make president next)
Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Ok, they're bad guys)
Tomb Raider
The Whoopee Boys (where it's not much more than a social club)
So don't get so high and mighty about discrimination. ------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
I've got an install CD for NT 4.0 Server that's less than 3 years old. I can install it on a new box, and it will run OK. Then I try to go to Microsoft's website to download the service packs...
You cannot even see www.microsoft.com from the browser installed with their own software!!!
NT 4.0 installs IE 2.0, and they've written their site so that you must have at least 3.0 to get any content.
So they sell you software, they make it obsolete, and they don't even give you a path to upgrade.
Nothing new here... ------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
So if I listen to a song a few times without an instrument in my hands, then walk into a room where I can't hear the original, but do have an instrument, and I work out the TAB from what I remember in my head, then that would constitute a clean room reverse engineering which has been protected by the courts, right? ------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
That's not true. There's prior art to the PATENT application. If CDDB comes up with an idea in 1997, someone else does the same thing in 1998, CDDB files for patent in 1999 and it is granted in 2000, then the guys who were doing it in 1998 have prior art to the patent aplication by more than a year. Had CDDB filed in 1997 they would have been fine, even if it wasn't granted until 2000. But the fact that they didn't file right away could be damaging to any case they try to make. I believe there's a one year window during which they must file for the patent.
In fact, the USPTO site states
In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: "(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described
in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent," or "(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or
on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . .."
So there you have it. ------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
Go to delphion.com and look up U.S. Patents 5987525, 6061680, and 6154773.
Ok, first off, if the issue is why pay for something when you can get it for free, then you should do your patent searches at www.uspto.gov instead of Delphion.
Second, Patents 5987525 and 6154773 are for syncronizing an audio CD with a web site via a plugin, which doesn't apply here.
Third, Patent 6061680 is the one which covers database lookup. It was filed in July 1999. CDDB had been around a lot longer than that, and thus similar programs existed concurrent with the early days of CDDB. One such was a project called Disco that was programmed by an Apple employee and had clients on multiple platforms. This was in use at least by 1997. CDDB was small and independent in the beginning, and they didn't think to file a patent in time to really cover the database, at least if those 3 patents you site are the only ones they hold.
So how IS a unique URL different from a URL containing a GET query string? By definition, any web based postcard system that uses a unique card ID in the URL seems to fit this description, in that it's one to one tied to the recipient. Seems like any bookmarkable transaction using GET would meet these criteria. ------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
That may be okay. I recall reading on the USPTO site that for something to be shown as non-obvious, nobody can come up with the same idea within one year of your filing. So if they filed in April 97, and you were doing the same thing in August 97, without having heard of them (and their patent application would have been under wraps at that point, so it's unlikely they'd be saying, hey, we can do this and you can't), then there are good grounds for the obvious clause. ------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
I agree that Amazon has full claim to the patent. And as far as I'm concerned, they're welcome to it.
Everybody whines about how obvious it was, but tell me this -- if it wasn't patented, and every online retailer had it as an option on their site, would you really want to use it?
One-click is bad news waiting to happen. It's ordering a really bad movie late at night when you're not thinking straight. It's having your roommate or co-worker ordering stuff and putting it on your credit card. It's paying too much on shipping because 45 minutes later you want to add something else to your shopping cart.
Amazon can keep One-Click. I don't want it. ------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
Can't say what the best 1U machines are. I bought a 2U Dell server last year. They sent out advertising that had an "actual size" photo of the faceplate. It was pretty cool. Then I got the box, and the damned thing is too deep to fit in any racks that I have. (Close to 3 feet deep.)
1U Cobalts are nice, because they can fit in any cheap 19" rack that a musician may have lying around. 2U Dell or Compaq servers weigh a ton and really need rear rails (and no standard depth in the industry, it seems) to hold them.
With a starting price of $995, the Netra X1 server is extremely competitive when compared with other entry-level servers. It is an especially attractive proposition given the fact that the server comes complete with the Solaris Operating Environment and disk drive preinstalled along with remote management capabilities, making it ready for out-of-the-box use.
Slashdot Mirror
Last month I downloaded Pillars of Garendall, a game from Ambrosia Software. It's shareware, and limits how far you can go in the game before registering. So I played. I explored the areas I could, until I hit the limits. I decided it was worth the $25 to register so I could continue playing. It took them 2 days to process my credit card and send me a registration code.
That's 2 days I would have liked to be playing, but as I said, since I reached the limits before deciding to register, there wasn't anything new I could do for those two days.
The system should have processed my credit card immediately and sent me my code. I know other shareware outfits do that, and I was getty pretty impatient towards the end of that second day when I hadn't gotten the code yet.
In a world where you're getting the software off the net to begin with (and the full download is around 180 meg), you expect the registration system to be just as immediate.
Ambrosia failed on that one.
From your own source, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/202.html
which I believe does cover a lot of theWell, in my neighborhood the speed limit is 30 mph. Has been for years if not decades. The city recently put in speed bumps that make it tough to go more than 15 mph over them without doing damage to your car. It's still legal to go 30, but they find a way to keep you from doing something you're allowed to do anyway.
I'm guessing the RIAA's argument may be eerily similar -- it's still legal to make copies, but we won't make it possible.
Likewise, I've seen a dozen companies come and go each with their own HUDs. All were available in limited quantities for OEM/prospective LARGE purchases, but the number of wearable displays available to consumers is pretty small.
So it's not like people haven't been trying. It just hasn't taken off yet. Sony's new research into gesture recognition may be a move in the right direction, but it may be a while before there's a ready solution that anybody can buy.
You're right. I can see it turning into something akin to the MAME scene: "By downloading this collection of MP3s you claim that you own the original CD which they represent."
Of course, that's not totally unlike what my.mp3.com tried to pull off -- insert the CD to prove you own it, and it unlocks streaming MP3s of those tracks. And that didn't fly with the courts for some reason.
I feel so dirty.
Order today, and we'll include a Randal Schwartz at no additional cost!!!
It's a shame Apple didn't do more with it, but at the same time ironic that other companies are working on it today and passing it off as revolutionary.
I appreciate the tone of the letter. It sounds like a person wrote it -- not a lawyer. It seems pretty clear that this wasn't a boiler-plate form letter that was sent off without a thought. Kudos to Sony for having a human send correspondence.
Didn't see any warnings on their site (connected from elsewhere) yesterday though. You'd think they'd give people warning, and their suport phone number kept me on hold for hours on end...
Cool. I always wondered what it was like to be on crack. Now I know. But thanks for the link, it should make for interesting reading.
From the letter... "From your website we were able to download software containing unlicensed AC-3 code components..."
Dolby has a patented method of decoding an AC-3 signal. AC-3 isn't a standard, it's a technology that Dolby Laboratories developed and licensed to many manufacturers, licensing the encoders to companies that develop LaserDiscs and DVDs and decoders to companies that build players for those media or audio receivers that can separate those audio channels.
This isn't a DCMA issue. It's a patent issue, and it's a good patent. They actually created something new and protected it. It's not like many of the bogus patents of late. The ability to encode 6 channels of discrete audio in one signal doesn't qualify as "obvious".
Clearly Dolby has patents on their audio encoding and decoding methods. They developed them, they own the patent rights fully. From the earliest Dolby noise reduction schemes to Pro-logic surround sound to AC3 which was a precursor to 5.1 sound to Dolby Digital, these are all well protected techniques that they have licensed to major manufacturers for decades.
- "Gargoyles" (tv series)
- Being There (not explicitly mentioned, but you have an eye-in-the-pyramid at the end of the film, while guys figure out who they're going to make president next)
- Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Ok, they're bad guys)
- Tomb Raider
- The Whoopee Boys (where it's not much more than a social club)
So don't get so high and mighty about discrimination.------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
You cannot even see www.microsoft.com from the browser installed with their own software!!!
NT 4.0 installs IE 2.0, and they've written their site so that you must have at least 3.0 to get any content.
So they sell you software, they make it obsolete, and they don't even give you a path to upgrade.
Nothing new here...
------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
So if I listen to a song a few times without an instrument in my hands, then walk into a room where I can't hear the original, but do have an instrument, and I work out the TAB from what I remember in my head, then that would constitute a clean room reverse engineering which has been protected by the courts, right?
------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
In fact, the USPTO site states
So there you have it.------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
So you said above, to which I replied...
------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
Ok, first off, if the issue is why pay for something when you can get it for free, then you should do your patent searches at www.uspto.gov instead of Delphion.
Second, Patents 5987525 and 6154773 are for syncronizing an audio CD with a web site via a plugin, which doesn't apply here.
Third, Patent 6061680 is the one which covers database lookup. It was filed in July 1999. CDDB had been around a lot longer than that, and thus similar programs existed concurrent with the early days of CDDB. One such was a project called Disco that was programmed by an Apple employee and had clients on multiple platforms. This was in use at least by 1997. CDDB was small and independent in the beginning, and they didn't think to file a patent in time to really cover the database, at least if those 3 patents you site are the only ones they hold.
------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
So how IS a unique URL different from a URL containing a GET query string? By definition, any web based postcard system that uses a unique card ID in the URL seems to fit this description, in that it's one to one tied to the recipient. Seems like any bookmarkable transaction using GET would meet these criteria.
------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
That may be okay. I recall reading on the USPTO site that for something to be shown as non-obvious, nobody can come up with the same idea within one year of your filing. So if they filed in April 97, and you were doing the same thing in August 97, without having heard of them (and their patent application would have been under wraps at that point, so it's unlikely they'd be saying, hey, we can do this and you can't), then there are good grounds for the obvious clause.
------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
Everybody whines about how obvious it was, but tell me this -- if it wasn't patented, and every online retailer had it as an option on their site, would you really want to use it?
One-click is bad news waiting to happen. It's ordering a really bad movie late at night when you're not thinking straight. It's having your roommate or co-worker ordering stuff and putting it on your credit card. It's paying too much on shipping because 45 minutes later you want to add something else to your shopping cart.
Amazon can keep One-Click. I don't want it.
------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
1U Cobalts are nice, because they can fit in any cheap 19" rack that a musician may have lying around. 2U Dell or Compaq servers weigh a ton and really need rear rails (and no standard depth in the industry, it seems) to hold them.
Ack.
------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??