Don't forget that this is all done to "protect the Artists" (we all know the truth, but most don't).
It is therefore reasonable to attack the artists that come out in favour.
The Telegraph article has a photo of Adele. Don't know her opinion, but either they come out against soon or they are presumed in favour (though for 20 quid I will review their case) Boo outside their concerts. Use "xxx Kills The Internet!" Or, organize a public "CD burning" (have some real ones, have a bunch that you printed covers with a quality colour printer). The point is: make it personal. It's no longer the Grey Anonymous Regulatory Organization that is the bad guy. Give them a face.
But: make sure to not bother those artists that come out against, to the contrary, support them.
Didn't we make beats in NoiseTracker (remember Mahoney & Kaktus) on the Amiga back in the late 80s? So the sound sucks by today's standards, but the software was simple to use and free.
Why would today's "beat making software" be so expensive?
"In 1984, four Berkeley students—Douglas Terry, Mark Painter, David Riggle, and Songnian Zhou—wrote the first Unix implementation, called The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) Server."
Yes, UNIX people wanting to standardize were actually still busy with HOSTS.TXT from SRI-NIC.ARPA (see RFC 952).
The real crime here is that Tetris is still protected under copyright.
Tetris isn't that old, you know.
Release 1984, I believe. Less than 30 years ago. Even those arguing for shorter copyright terms would probably be okay with that still being protected.
1984 + 20 = 2004, so the game would be Public Domain (as in expiration of the "commercial copyright") on January 1st, 2005.
So, how long ago was 1984? Let's see... TEN YEARS before Windows '95? Indeed, there WAS no Microsoft Windows in 1984: Windows 1.0 was from November 1985. No bell ringing? OK, how about the year of the famous 1984 Super Bowl commercial introducing to the world the Apple Macintosh with a whopping 128 kilobytes of RAM?
please allow me to introduce myself; my name is Kwane Mbiko, Esq. I am writing to you regarding an urgent matter. The Copyright Group of Nigeria is (for tax reasons) the effective rights holder of a large number of US based artists. Unfortunately, we have evidence that you infringed on our copyrights by means of BitTorrent downloads and we are currently finalizing litigation against you in the Capital District Court in Abuja. You are hereby advised to start making travel preparations to appear before the court as required per Nigerian law as well as that you have to option to retain a local sollicitor to stand beside you.
Because of the travel distance involved, I am by exception authorized to offer you a settlement agreement. Please call my assistant Beka directly at 011 419 55 555 5555 to discuss payment details.
If I am enjoying some music, do I owe the artist for that enjoyment? (Owe in the sense of "some money or obligation is due" rather then the sense of "resulting from".)
Interesting question. Is the artist performing said music or are you replaying a recording of music performed some time in the past? Or are you listening to neighbours who turned their radio up? If it's a recording, how long ago was it made? Is the artist still alive? What recording is it? Is it a "Japanese original 1st CD pressing" (i.e. before the onset of the loudness wars) that has been out of print for decades? Is the only "legal" way of acquiring this recording going through CD collections at flea markets and hope you're in luck (in which case the artist also will get nothing)?
Maybe you're enjoying music over at the LoC's National Jukebox, music recorded over a century ago but still somehow under "state copyright"?
Impolite, but here's a question for you: why would I owe Vesta Victoria a single red penny for listening to her performance of "Poor John" recorded on June 20th, 1907 CE?
You're forgetting that like the rest of the government, education seems to be heavily controlled by the copyright cartels. How the hell did we let these people get this much money and power?
Because we've been giving our money to these people for over 80 years.Not to the artists. To the guy in the middle. Of course they are going to protect themselves: it's way too lucrative where they are.
There's only ONE thing politicians need more than "campaign donations": votes. Unfortunately, in the US electoral system (first past the post) and the SuperPACs etc, this is going to be hard. But at one point the Internet generations will outnumber the previous generations...
Salt isn't magic. If they stole your database they likely would get the salt and hash values (unless it is stored elsewhere and the hackers were unlucky). It will stop rainbow table attacks to be sure, but not brute force. At best (the hackers didn't get the salts) it will slow down brute force.
Without having the salts, it is brute force. With the salts, dictionary-attacks are -as evidenced by the 'weakest/stupidest/etc. LinkedIn passwords' stores- quite effective. It is also true that LeakedIn is having people try out their old passwords; what if they or a site like that keeps a log of all these passwords to add to the existing dictionaries?
Last time it was child porn, now it's the terrorists. This gets old fast.
If by that you mean that the next step will be "infringing content" you are absolutely correct... oh wait...
This could for instance include defamation terrorism related content, IPR infringements, illegal online gambling, child abuse content, misleading advertisements or incitement to hatred or violence on the basis of race, origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc.
It was probably the UK that put "defamation" in the same list. All hail the Web STASI!
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft can pull this off.
The real problem starts when 'stolen' keys are going to be abused for malware / used for loaders, etc. Then phase 2 will come into play: "suddenly realizing" that you also need some kind of key revocation system for this to be secure. But in phase 1 you already locked yourself in.
You will be totally at the CA (Microsoft)'s mercy. Replacing Microsoft with some US-government agency will make things even worse.
Calculate both the price of piracy enforcement and the price of piracy honestly, and see which costs more.
But that's the whole dirty, nasty trick. It's totally irrelevant which costs more. The point is that the costs of piracy enforcement are assumed by the tax payer, not the beneficiaries. The call for an Intellectual Property tax is in part to offset these costs.
You don't even need to calculate the benefits of a society with free access to all the works of man, where poor people have just as much access to culture as wealthy individuals.
For sound recordings, the 'works of man' start to become interesting with the advent of the vinyl sound recording (and not many people appreciate mono recordings, stereo was introduced later). Can you guess how many vinyl LPs have passed into the public domain?
According to J.Michael Straczynski (jms), just because the viewers demand content in a certain format or certain time does not mean they are entitled too it.
If, for example, Disney isn't selling DVDs of a given movie and has no plans to within the next decade, then Disney makes no more money off me if I don't pirate than if I do. What's the sound public policy behind keeping such a work out of the public's hands if it isn't being distributed or even prepared for distribution?
Two fine examples of the "Soup Nazi" attitude of the Copyright Industry. While the fictional character has a physical product that's in limited supply to sell, the Copyright Industry sells nothing more than an arrangements of bits, a.k.a. Extremely Large Numbers. Once this number has been published, it effectively becomes unlimited in supply and at near-zero cost.
The only thing that would stop someone to partake from the horn of plenty would be a moral code. Adhering to this code would be a lot easier if one were able to obtain a copy conveniently, cheaply, and at a fair (in the eyes of the consumer) price.
Displaying an attitude of "you can have a bone, when we decide to throw you one, and you better show some gratitude!" is not going to help encourage people to adhere to that moral standard.
The next step in the research will be to determine the remaining unknown quantity that is important to understanding the difference between matter and anti-matter in kaon decay. This last quantity will either confirm the present theory or perhaps, if they are lucky, Blum says, point to a new understanding of physics.
It appears that both theoretically and computationally there is still some work to be done.
Ok... you opened the door: chips and barcodes weren't invented yet, so eventually in Auschwitz "the SS authorities introduced the practice of tattooing in order to identify the bodies of registered prisoners who had died." (source).
Using the chips as an IFF? Yeah right. That'll make it easy for the combat droids. Soldier will of course have their chips removed and issued 'special' ones.
The council is made up of members of the Ruling Families. These families have many business interests throughout known space, and political decisions are closely linked to business needs. Non-members of the Ruling Families have little to no control over the choice of leaders and the everyday running of their government.
It is likely that the Ruling Families were initially a business arrangement which became a form of government as business relationships grew and merged. Their government is run according to a set of bylaws and there is no constitution or other set framework in place.
I haven't read any of Elizabeth Moon's works (yet), but is this meant as a warning where things may lead, or is this supposed to be her idealized version of government? Who knows?
Howard Schmidt was critical of CISPA in public. Goodbye, Howard. Notice how he isn't yet picked up by neither RIAA or MPAA? TFA sums it up best to what Michael Daniel's job will be: "determining the lines that need to be crossed with future SOPA-like bills."
2) Transfer of a patent to another company incurs a one-time $50,000 transfer fee
- Fee is pro-rated based on length of time remaining on the patent
- Fee is indexed to inflation
Filing is free, but the transfer from Acme Corp to Acme 001 Inc. will cost. As well, in order to use it, Acme Corp would have to license it from Acme 001 Inc, also if 001 is the original filer to circumvent 2):
4) Patent licensing requires public disclosure of full license costs, terms, and conditions
AC should have added that anyone should be able to license the patent under the same conditions; the 50 that Acme Corp itself holds wouldn't need to be licensed so this rule would not be appicable to those 50. It can hold the core patents itself, but perhaps 50 should be 10 which would make that a lot more complicated.
As the small business, you can still continue to develop your own product even after Microsoft (for instance) infringed (not stole, my friends) on it. Once you have a finished product that has met all the qualifications of financial backers (except for the competition from Microsoft), THEN the infringement becomes an issue. It may even help with name recognition, etc. It's up to you, of course, to have a valid, non-trivial patent for which no prior art exists (going "bla-di-bla, but on a computer" then "bla-di-bla, but on a mobile device" is not going to cut it much longer(.
Am I crazy, or is sending a subpoena to Twitter not a little over the top for a simple 'disorderly conduct' charge? What's next, raiding your home and seizing your computers and storage devices for jaywalking?
Yes they would need a warrant, and yes the judge should laugh them out of his courtroom for doing this on a 'disorderly conduct' charge. They can waste taxpayer's money and the court's time somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget that this is all done to "protect the Artists" (we all know the truth, but most don't).
It is therefore reasonable to attack the artists that come out in favour.
The Telegraph article has a photo of Adele. Don't know her opinion, but either they come out against soon or they are presumed in favour (though for 20 quid I will review their case) Boo outside their concerts. Use "xxx Kills The Internet!" Or, organize a public "CD burning" (have some real ones, have a bunch that you printed covers with a quality colour printer). The point is: make it personal. It's no longer the Grey Anonymous Regulatory Organization that is the bad guy. Give them a face.
But: make sure to not bother those artists that come out against, to the contrary, support them.
Didn't we make beats in NoiseTracker (remember Mahoney & Kaktus) on the Amiga back in the late 80s? So the sound sucks by today's standards, but the software was simple to use and free. Why would today's "beat making software" be so expensive?
This is going to be very interesting when it gets officially introduced in Canada Q3 2014 for CAD 279.00
In Europe there's new "service pack" for IPRED, things like the INDECT program, etc. etc.
For North America and Pacific Rim, there's TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership)
Don't think for a minute that the demise of ACTA changes anything.
Darn, forgot the UNIX crowd;
"In 1984, four Berkeley students—Douglas Terry, Mark Painter, David Riggle, and Songnian Zhou—wrote the first Unix implementation, called The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) Server."
Yes, UNIX people wanting to standardize were actually still busy with HOSTS.TXT from SRI-NIC.ARPA (see RFC 952).
The real crime here is that Tetris is still protected under copyright.
Tetris isn't that old, you know.
Release 1984, I believe. Less than 30 years ago. Even those arguing for shorter copyright terms would probably be okay with that still being protected.
No, they wouldn't. See e.g. Dr. Rufus Pollock's research or the position paper of the European Greens/European Freedom Alliance faction in the EU parliament.
1984 + 20 = 2004, so the game would be Public Domain (as in expiration of the "commercial copyright") on January 1st, 2005.
So, how long ago was 1984? Let's see... TEN YEARS before Windows '95? Indeed, there WAS no Microsoft Windows in 1984: Windows 1.0 was from November 1985. No bell ringing? OK, how about the year of the famous 1984 Super Bowl commercial introducing to the world the Apple Macintosh with a whopping 128 kilobytes of RAM?
Yes, THAT is how long ago 1984 was!
Dear Madam, Sir:
please allow me to introduce myself; my name is Kwane Mbiko, Esq. I am writing to you regarding an urgent matter. The Copyright Group of Nigeria is (for tax reasons) the effective rights holder of a large number of US based artists. Unfortunately, we have evidence that you infringed on our copyrights by means of BitTorrent downloads and we are currently finalizing litigation against you in the Capital District Court in Abuja. You are hereby advised to start making travel preparations to appear before the court as required per Nigerian law as well as that you have to option to retain a local sollicitor to stand beside you.
Because of the travel distance involved, I am by exception authorized to offer you a settlement agreement. Please call my assistant Beka directly at 011 419 55 555 5555 to discuss payment details.
Yours faithfully, etc. etc.
Here's a fundamental question:
If I am enjoying some music, do I owe the artist for that enjoyment? (Owe in the sense of "some money or obligation is due" rather then the sense of "resulting from".)
Interesting question. Is the artist performing said music or are you replaying a recording of music performed some time in the past? Or are you listening to neighbours who turned their radio up? If it's a recording, how long ago was it made? Is the artist still alive? What recording is it? Is it a "Japanese original 1st CD pressing" (i.e. before the onset of the loudness wars) that has been out of print for decades? Is the only "legal" way of acquiring this recording going through CD collections at flea markets and hope you're in luck (in which case the artist also will get nothing)?
Maybe you're enjoying music over at the LoC's National Jukebox, music recorded over a century ago but still somehow under "state copyright"?
Impolite, but here's a question for you: why would I owe Vesta Victoria a single red penny for listening to her performance of "Poor John" recorded on June 20th, 1907 CE?
I asked the professor
Look at you... even now sheltering "the professor". Name and shame, my friend; name and shame.
You're forgetting that like the rest of the government, education seems to be heavily controlled by the copyright cartels. How the hell did we let these people get this much money and power?
Because we've been giving our money to these people for over 80 years.Not to the artists. To the guy in the middle. Of course they are going to protect themselves: it's way too lucrative where they are.
There's only ONE thing politicians need more than "campaign donations": votes. Unfortunately, in the US electoral system (first past the post) and the SuperPACs etc, this is going to be hard. But at one point the Internet generations will outnumber the previous generations...
whether there's still an ongoing debate about "emacs vs vi".
No, that was preempted when WINE announced support for Notepad.exe
Salt isn't magic. If they stole your database they likely would get the salt and hash values (unless it is stored elsewhere and the hackers were unlucky). It will stop rainbow table attacks to be sure, but not brute force. At best (the hackers didn't get the salts) it will slow down brute force.
Without having the salts, it is brute force. With the salts, dictionary-attacks are -as evidenced by the 'weakest/stupidest/etc. LinkedIn passwords' stores- quite effective. It is also true that LeakedIn is having people try out their old passwords; what if they or a site like that keeps a log of all these passwords to add to the existing dictionaries?
Last time it was child porn, now it's the terrorists. This gets old fast.
If by that you mean that the next step will be "infringing content" you are absolutely correct... oh wait...
This could for instance include defamation terrorism related content, IPR infringements, illegal online gambling, child abuse content, misleading advertisements or incitement to hatred or violence on the basis of race, origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc.
It was probably the UK that put "defamation" in the same list. All hail the Web STASI!
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft can pull this off.
The real problem starts when 'stolen' keys are going to be abused for malware / used for loaders, etc. Then phase 2 will come into play: "suddenly realizing" that you also need some kind of key revocation system for this to be secure. But in phase 1 you already locked yourself in.
You will be totally at the CA (Microsoft)'s mercy. Replacing Microsoft with some US-government agency will make things even worse.
the game looks stiff and scripted
In this game, the Force guides all your actions...
Calculate both the price of piracy enforcement and the price of piracy honestly, and see which costs more.
But that's the whole dirty, nasty trick. It's totally irrelevant which costs more. The point is that the costs of piracy enforcement are assumed by the tax payer, not the beneficiaries. The call for an Intellectual Property tax is in part to offset these costs.
You don't even need to calculate the benefits of a society with free access to all the works of man, where poor people have just as much access to culture as wealthy individuals.
For sound recordings, the 'works of man' start to become interesting with the advent of the vinyl sound recording (and not many people appreciate mono recordings, stereo was introduced later). Can you guess how many vinyl LPs have passed into the public domain?
According to J.Michael Straczynski (jms), just because the viewers demand content in a certain format or certain time does not mean they are entitled too it.
If, for example, Disney isn't selling DVDs of a given movie and has no plans to within the next decade, then Disney makes no more money off me if I don't pirate than if I do. What's the sound public policy behind keeping such a work out of the public's hands if it isn't being distributed or even prepared for distribution?
Two fine examples of the "Soup Nazi" attitude of the Copyright Industry. While the fictional character has a physical product that's in limited supply to sell, the Copyright Industry sells nothing more than an arrangements of bits, a.k.a. Extremely Large Numbers. Once this number has been published, it effectively becomes unlimited in supply and at near-zero cost.
The only thing that would stop someone to partake from the horn of plenty would be a moral code. Adhering to this code would be a lot easier if one were able to obtain a copy conveniently, cheaply, and at a fair (in the eyes of the consumer) price.
Displaying an attitude of "you can have a bone, when we decide to throw you one, and you better show some gratitude!" is not going to help encourage people to adhere to that moral standard.
Don't forget, IPRED is already in force, so the announced revision is not a 'new law' nor a 'treaty'.
The next step in the research will be to determine the remaining unknown quantity that is important to understanding the difference between matter and anti-matter in kaon decay. This last quantity will either confirm the present theory or perhaps, if they are lucky, Blum says, point to a new understanding of physics.
It appears that both theoretically and computationally there is still some work to be done.
Ok... you opened the door: chips and barcodes weren't invented yet, so eventually in Auschwitz "the SS authorities introduced the practice of tattooing in order to identify the bodies of registered prisoners who had died." (source).
Using the chips as an IFF? Yeah right. That'll make it easy for the combat droids. Soldier will of course have their chips removed and issued 'special' ones.
As well, Familias Regnant universe:
The council is made up of members of the Ruling Families. These families have many business interests throughout known space, and political decisions are closely linked to business needs. Non-members of the Ruling Families have little to no control over the choice of leaders and the everyday running of their government.
It is likely that the Ruling Families were initially a business arrangement which became a form of government as business relationships grew and merged. Their government is run according to a set of bylaws and there is no constitution or other set framework in place.
I haven't read any of Elizabeth Moon's works (yet), but is this meant as a warning where things may lead, or is this supposed to be her idealized version of government? Who knows?
Howard Schmidt was critical of CISPA in public. Goodbye, Howard. Notice how he isn't yet picked up by neither RIAA or MPAA? TFA sums it up best to what Michael Daniel's job will be: "determining the lines that need to be crossed with future SOPA-like bills."
Any word about an "Airport Improvement Fee" (actual wording may vary) that will be tacked on tickets flying out of/terminating in Minneapolis?
2) Transfer of a patent to another company incurs a one-time $50,000 transfer fee
- Fee is pro-rated based on length of time remaining on the patent
- Fee is indexed to inflation
Filing is free, but the transfer from Acme Corp to Acme 001 Inc. will cost. As well, in order to use it, Acme Corp would have to license it from Acme 001 Inc, also if 001 is the original filer to circumvent 2):
4) Patent licensing requires public disclosure of full license costs, terms, and conditions
AC should have added that anyone should be able to license the patent under the same conditions; the 50 that Acme Corp itself holds wouldn't need to be licensed so this rule would not be appicable to those 50. It can hold the core patents itself, but perhaps 50 should be 10 which would make that a lot more complicated.
As the small business, you can still continue to develop your own product even after Microsoft (for instance) infringed (not stole, my friends) on it. Once you have a finished product that has met all the qualifications of financial backers (except for the competition from Microsoft), THEN the infringement becomes an issue. It may even help with name recognition, etc. It's up to you, of course, to have a valid, non-trivial patent for which no prior art exists (going "bla-di-bla, but on a computer" then "bla-di-bla, but on a mobile device" is not going to cut it much longer(.
Am I crazy, or is sending a subpoena to Twitter not a little over the top for a simple 'disorderly conduct' charge? What's next, raiding your home and seizing your computers and storage devices for jaywalking?
Yes they would need a warrant, and yes the judge should laugh them out of his courtroom for doing this on a 'disorderly conduct' charge. They can waste taxpayer's money and the court's time somewhere else.