The consideration isn't the expectation of improved code from others. The consideration is the promise to disclose the source code to any changes you distribute in binary form, and the promise to make the improved source code available under the terms of the GPL.
Consider a contract in which you license a patent for use in your product, in exchange for, say 1% of your gross product sales, if any.
The required public disclosure of functional, useful computer source code is VERY valuable consideration.
In fact, The GPL differs from the BSD license in that the GPL requires such consideration. The BSD license is more of a gift license then the GPL, and could therefore be found to be unenforcable.
The licensee of a GPL program receives consideration in the form of a license to use and improve the software.
The author of a GPL program receives consideration in the form of a promise by the licensee to disclose any improvements or modifications to the software in source code form, when the improved software is distributed in any form.
Such disclosements of valuable intellectual property would not be required in the absence of the GPL.
As anyone who's ever read an NDA knows, program source code, as developed by a company, is generally considered to be valuable goods, and an agreement to reveal what would otherwise be considered trade secrets should count as consideration.
This article apparently got lost in the slashdot server. It just appeared a few minutes ago in the "older stuff" column, having never appeared on the main page.
Quoting from the article" An S/390 running a light load will not run as quickly as a fast PC server under a light load, according to Courtney. The difference between the two systems will not be apparent until the load is much larger.
"The PC will begin to degrade and will typically reach a point where it avalanches down in performance as its load limit is exceeded. The mainframe starts out at a lower performance level, from the standpoint of an individual program task, but degrades much more slowly and much more linearly as the load increases," he says.
I remember, a while ago, reading in another article about a difference of opinion between some IBM programmers and the kernel maintainers. Supposedly, IBM was complaining that Linux performance went south when the number of running tasks became large, and proposed some scheduler changes, but the kernel developers didn't want to change it because the changes would have slowed the kernel down in the "normal" case of only a few active processes. Does anyone have a link to this or remember what I'm talking about?
Sounds like this article is describing the same known effect.
Some actual quotes from the patent: The following describes, in simple terms, what the present invention actually does. The present invention takes a transmission of energy, and instead of sending it through normal time and space, it pokes a small hole into another dimension, thus, sending the energy through a place which allows transmission of energy to exceed the speed of light.
And if that isn't spiffy enough... For accelerated plant growth, first, you need to create a hot surface that is more than 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Next, you need a strong magnetic field. Only one device is needed for this function. This allows energy from another dimension to influence plant growth.
Silly me... I thought that you could only patent REAL inventions, not fantasy inventions. Write up your warp drive and dilithium crystal patents now, kids, because they'll give you a patent on ANYTHING these days. The most important criteria for a patent to be issued these days appears to be the inclusion of a check for the patent fees. Your "new improved" self-funding patent office at work... for you!
Interesting... if the NAB succeeds, then an internet radio broadcaster might be able to avoid paying the higher royalties by licensing and setting up a small, low power radio station out in the middle of nowhere, and broadcasting the program to the local cows.
Mattel's position is that the authors of CPhack never had the rights to distribute their code in the first place, thus making any claim or issuance under the GPL bogus.)
However, according to the article: The agreement also states that Jansson and Skala attest they "are the sole proprietors of all rights" involved with cphack and have "not assigned" them to anyone else.
In other words, Mattel has signed a document acknowledging that the authors (had) all rights to cphack.
No wonder they settled. They WON!
Since both Mattel and the authors have agreed in writing that the authors had all rights to cphack, then they were certainly within their rights to license the program under the GPL, or under any other license.
Had the authors licensed the program under conditions that allowed for revocation of the license, then Mattel could go after anyone offering up a copy of cphack, claiming that as the new owner, they have exercised their right to revoke the license. However, the GPL does not allow revocation, leaving Mattel with no recourse.
An important lesson for anyone considering publishing a hack. Use the GPL. Distribute source code, and your work is effectively uncensorable.
Perhaps not exactly what Stallman had in mind when he wrote the GPL, but a nice effect, in my opinion.
Their web site says: By purchasing the i-opener you are agreeing to use the i-opener Internet service. The fee is $21.95 a month and will be billed approximately 2 days after the i-opener is shipped to you.
Ok... so pay for one month of service, then cancel. Modification of the i-opener in any way is in violation of our terms and conditions.
I can't find their terms of service on their site. Anyone have the complete terms of service?
I'm pretty sure that the doctrine of first sale applies here. Since they are selling the box to you, you have the right to do with it as you wish, whether that be replace the operating system, or use it as a pavement stone.
Anyway, several states explicitly forbid the tying of a purchased item with a subscription service.
If this is their business model, then they have shot themselves in the foot. The package they are selling (hardware plus service) has a higher salvage value (the hardware is the salvage item) then the initial purchase cost. They should have known better.
Back in 1980, my high school had a PDP 11/03 for student use. The operating system was an early version of RT11. We had a binary license, and received the operating system on a set of 8 inch floppies. I spent a lot of time on this machine.
One time I did a disk dump from the raw disk device to the console, and after a few pages of binary gibberish, out came several pages of operating system kernel source code! Apparently, Digital, when it made up the master disk for the operating system binary distribution, reused a floppy that had previously contained operating system source code, and never bothered to zero out the disk. Interesting stuff!
Wow... they're selling for between $250 and $300.00 on eBay! No wonder you can't find them in the stores... These decks are so valuable that people are actually making money speculating on them!
Gee... it might have something to do with the MPAA "investigating" Apex, and the implicit threat that these decks will be withdrawn from the market. Better get yours while you can!
Nothing like a little artificial shortage to create a huge market for an otherwise-obscure product. A month ago, your average novice DVD deck purchaser probably had no idea what a "region code" or "macrovision" was, and could have cared less if his deck couldn't play European DVDs. After all, what is the market for PAL capable VCRs in the US?
With all of this publicity, "defeatable region/macrovision coding" has suddenly become the hottest selling point you can put on a DVD player these days. Apparently, in this case, it adds $100.00 in value to a $180.00 player.
Expect a similar frenzy at the end of April, when it becomes illegal to sell a VCR that allows you to copy a macrovision tape. Thousands of people who would have never even thought of copying a commercial tape will run out and get their macrovision-free recorder, just because the government is about to make them illegal.
The MPAA is it's own worst enemy.
By lobbying for copyright laws, and interpretations of copyright laws that are unenforcable, wildly out of touch with reality, and invasive to the end user, the MPAA and RIAA are eroding public respect and support for copyright law. They are creating an unprecidented level of public contempt for their entire industry.
Anonymous Coward wrote: What's the best way to preserve the fresh young beauty of teenage girls?
It would have to be a medium that can weather centuries of nature, be transparently obvious to the viewer, and easy enough to reproduce.
Any ideas?
This was moderated down to -1, but the question is valid.
The longest lasting photographic processes known are the earliest. Daguerreotypes and tintypes, stored properly, are practically immortal. Flexible negatives, slides, and print film all deteriorate over time.
Go look on eBay. Do a search on "stereo realist". Expect to pay about a hundred bucks.
I have one of these cameras. They work very well. You'll also need a film cutter, and a viewer, all available on eBay on a regular basis. The viewers are somewhat expensive. You'll need blank slide mounts, which can be obtained from here for $8.00 per hundred. These cameras use ordinary slide film -- I use professional Kodachrome, which gives fantastic results.
You'll also need to know how to use a manual camera, as these cameras are all from the 1950s, and have no built-in light meter. You have to set the exposure, f stop, and focus yourself, and you set them just like an ordinary camera.
Once you've taken 3D pictures, you'll never want to go back to "mono" photography again. The 3D effect is absolutely stunning. I took a picture of some kids playing in a water fountain, and when I got the film back, I was astonished when I saw that the water drops were suspended in mid air... floating in full 3D!
The wire was made of stainless steel and was incredibly tough. I have a lot of recording wires. I defy you to break one with your bare hands. It'll cut your hand to the bone if you try.
They could break around SPLICES though... the recommended (and only) way to splice a recording wire was with a square knot!
Wire recordings have the advantage that they can last forever... it's just a stainless steel wire. no plastic base to deteriorate. No oxide to flake off. Just smooth, corrosion-proof, stainless steel. There is also no "tape hiss", because there are no individual magnetized particles. Just continuous wire. It's one of the best archival media ever invented. I have 50 year old wire recordings that sound absolutely fresh and new.
The disadvantages of wire recordings were that the format was mono-only, for obvious reasons, and the frequency response was limited.
But the recordings last forever. You can't say that about recording tape, CDRs, or DVDs.
The recorders, however, are old tube devices that have to be maintained like an old tube radio. -- tubes and capacitors need to be periodically checked and replaced, and god forbid I should have a crucial mechanical part break... yep... dead media. Unfortunately.
It's much worse then that. The estimates are that more then 90% of all silent features no longer exist in any form, and that around 50% of all films made before 1950 are lost. Certainly one reason why so many films were lost is due to the fragile nature of the films. Another interpretation of what happened is that these works were destroyed because they existed only as closely held copies, by companies that didn't appreciate their value.
Here is an example of how a single shortsighted business decision resulted in a huge cultural loss.
Around 1978, the Technicolor corporation stopped using the dye imbibition process.
Dye imbibition printing was the first commercially successful color movie process. With this process, instead of shooting a single color negative, the camera contained three negatives, and color filters. The result was three sets of negatives, one for red, one for green, and one for blue.
To make the final prints, each of the three negatives had to be individually cut and assembled to make a final negative. Then the negatives were printed onto a special film stock called "matrix" film, and developed using a special chemical process that hardened the film in proportion to the exposed silver content, then washed away both the silver and the unhardened emulsion. The result was that instead of a visible image on the matrix film, the color density was represented by emulsion thickness. Finally, these three matrix films were used as printing plates to transfer dye to the final release films, one color at a time, cyan, magenta, and yellow. The thicker parts of the matrix would transfer more dye, and the result was "Glorious Technicolor." Modern color film uses organic dye couplers, which tend to fade over time. Because Technicolor was using a printing process, they had their choice of what dyes to use, and they chose very bright, intense, fade resistant, acid based dyes. A properly made Technicolor print from 1939 looks the same now as it did the day it rolled off the printer over 60 years ago.
When color negative film was invented, the process changed slightly. Instead of making a matrix film from each of three negatives, all three matrices were made from the same color negative, using different color light filters to pass the desired color.
This process was very gentle on the negatives. A single matrix could be used to print hundreds of release prints, so the original negatives only had to be run through a printer occasionally when a new matrix needed to be made. The matrix stock itself was estar based -- an extremely strong, durable film stock that does not deteriorate over time like nitrate and acetate film.
When Technicolor shut down their dye imbibition production line, they were left with warehouses of matrix film; the printing plates for nearly every feature film ever printed in Technicolor, all meticulously cataloged and carefully stored.
In many cases, the matrices represented the last existing color record of the films. Color negative film, especially early color negative film, fades away over time, and release prints wear out, but the black and white matrices were completely stable. In many cases, the original nitrate negatives for many color features had already turned to dust, leaving the matrices as the ONLY existing preprint material available for countless films.
These matrices could have lasted nearly forever. Now that Technicolor has revived the dye imbibition process (The new, beautiful re-issue of Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window is in true Technicolor), had Technicolor saved their matrices, they would have the ability right now to reprint nearly every film that they had ever made. In perfect color.
Instead, seeing no use for this "obsolete media", they destroyed them all.
Now, the cost of restoring a single Technicolor film, if it can even be done, can run into the millions of dollars. The result is that it is hardly ever done, except for a very few extremely high profile films, like, for instance, "Gone With The Wind" or "Rear Window". What a loss.
References:
"Technicolor Movies: The History of Dye Transfer Printing", Richard W. Haines. McFarland & Company, 1993.
The UIC hospital just installed a pneumatic tube system this year. I don't know what they use it for. Of course, you can't fax or email a blood sample, so there's still some things that pneumatic tubes do that can't be replaced by a computer...
Decrypting their list, after all, is kind of an invasion of their corporate privacy.
Corporate privacy? Where did this concept come from? This is a breach of corporate secrecy -- a busted trade secret. They failed to adaquately protect their trade secret, and now it has been revealed. There are no privacy issues involved here. But what do they really expect to gain from the ISP's log files?
This is a public relations move. By aggressively going after the ISP, they are creating the impression that the release of the list-decrypting software was an illegal action, when it wasn't.
These and other errors in this piece are not the result of stupidity. This is a concerted campaign of disinformation aimed at altering public perception of the scope of copyright with the long term goal of abolishing fair use.
Absolutely.
You'll notice that the recording industry has substituted the phrase "copyright protection" for the phrase "copy protection", with the same aim. Their real target is fair use. They don't think we should have it, and since the courts don't agree with them, they are taking their misinformation campaign directly to the people.
You'll hear a lot more about this in October when the DMCA takes effect.
In the RIAA text they said that the law was passed in 1992, correct me if I am wrong, but.mp3 technology wasn't even created yet, or at least not very popular.
Yep. The RIAA made a huge mistake and completely misjudged the future of digital recording when they pushed for the law.
If they had taken the opposite approach, and imposed the kickback payment and SCMS requirements on computer peripherals that can record audio data, and at the same time flooded the market with cheap, standalone digital audio recorders, then MP3 would be irrelevant because most people would be too busy messing around with their standalone, non-networked, non-computer connected equipment to think about attempting to connect their digital recording deck to their computer.
Instead, they took the exact opposite approach, and it completely backfired on them. Now the market is flooded with computer-based recorders, and dirt cheap CDR media the sells by the 50 pack, neither of which are subject to the law-mandated industry kickback payoff, have no copy controls whatsoever, and are conveniently connected directly to the internet, where users can download their free MP3 encoders and players.
Congress, with the help of record company lobbyists, has determined that lossless digital copying is not the same as lossy, hiss inducing, analog copying. It has therefore placed restrictions (the SCMS and the above-mentioned royalty) on digital copying.
Actually, the restrictions are placed on the manufacturers and importers of equipment that is designed and marketed for the primary purpose of making digital audio recordings. Section 1008, as you pointed out, explicitly specifies that this law does not place restrictions on digital copying. This is a crucial difference.
The general copyright laws place restrictions on copying of digital information, and provide fair use exceptions, but not this law. This law creates a kickback scheme where money is paid by equipment and media manufacturers directly to the recording industry, for the "privilege" of not being sued. It does not provide rights to, or place restrictions on the non-commercial end use of such equipment by consumers.
Don't think of it as a "tax." The fee does not go to the government. The fee is paid directly by the manufacturers of the recorders/media into an industry-controlled account, to be distributed to the RIAA's client companies.
The RIAA is lying in order to try to misinform you of your rights. From their web page: The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act.
The law they are referring to is the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. They are lying. It's written right into the law that the law does NOT apply to end users.
Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions [meaning things they can't sue you over, because they aren't illegal]
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
In other words, the law specifically says that the law does NOT apply to end users making non-commercial recordings.
In fact, the law only applies to persons who manufacture or import digital recording devices and media. Since you are not doing either, the law does not apply to you.
What does apply to you is the general law regarding copyright, which incorporate fair use. Under fair use, you are not infringing on copyright if you make personal copies of copyrighted materials, without distributing them, for your own use. This was decided by the courts, and is the reason why VCRs are legal to buy, sell, and use.
We don't need to get THIS law changed... it's already firmly on our side.
Once again, the RIAA does not want you to know your rights. They want you to be misinformed and believe that you are breaking the law when you engage in legal fair use practices. That is the purpose of the false, deliberately misleading statements on this web page.
Yes! The RIAA pushed through legislation that basically gives them a kickback on all blank digital audio media and recorders. However, Congress added an exemption for computers.
The result: There are only a few models of standalone CD recorders and DAT machines on the market, because they require expensive (remember the kickback) media, and implement the onerous SCMS protocol.
Not only that, but the law made a distinction between "professional" and "non-professional" digital audio recorders. Only "non-professional" models are required to implement SCMS. As a result, most "non-professional" DAT decks have disappeared from the market, leaving only the "professional" models, which oddly enough cost about as much as the "non-professional" models did before the law.
So what are people buying instead of standalone audio CD recorders and DAT decks? Super cheap computer-based 8x CDR recorders and dirt cheap CDRs by the 50 pack. Of course, it never occurred to the RIAA that by suppressing the market for standalone digital audio recording devices, they were pushing the development of home digital recording technology towards the ONLY device in the house with a direct connection to the internet. Now they are totally screwed. Stupid strategy, stupid tactics.
Public 1, RIAA 0.
In attempting to take control of all consumer recording technology, the RIAA has unintentionally driven the market towards the only digital recording technology with NO copy controls whatsoever, NO kickback fee, and a direct connection to the internet. It's the RIAA's worst nightmare, and they forced it into being through their ignorant, heavy-handed legal tactics.
This web page is an attempt to lie to the public to make people believe that their perfectly legal activities are somehow illegal because they do not use RIAA-crippled hardware and media.
Call it damage control. It's still a lie. The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
They are spreading misinformation because they want you to be ignorant of your rights.
Once you purchase a copy of an album, it is perfectly legal for you to transfer it to your computer.
They wish it was illegal.
There's nothing to prevent them from putting up a web site with misinformation in order to attempt to mislead the public, which is exactly what they have done.
Too late for me. Their actions convinced me to take the time to install junkbuster. Now most web ads are things of the past for me, and I'm not going back.
Slashdot Mirror
The consideration isn't the expectation of improved code from others. The consideration is the promise to disclose the source code to any changes you distribute in binary form, and the promise to make the improved source code available under the terms of the GPL.
Consider a contract in which you license a patent for use in your product, in exchange for, say 1% of your gross product sales, if any.
The required public disclosure of functional, useful computer source code is VERY valuable consideration.
In fact, The GPL differs from the BSD license in that the GPL requires such consideration. The BSD license is more of a gift license then the GPL, and could therefore be found to be unenforcable.
The licensee of a GPL program receives consideration in the form of a license to use and improve the software.
The author of a GPL program receives consideration in the form of a promise by the licensee to disclose any improvements or modifications to the software in source code form, when the improved software is distributed in any form.
Such disclosements of valuable intellectual property would not be required in the absence of the GPL.
As anyone who's ever read an NDA knows, program source code, as developed by a company, is generally considered to be valuable goods, and an agreement to reveal what would otherwise be considered trade secrets should count as consideration.
This article apparently got lost in the slashdot server. It just appeared a few minutes ago in the "older stuff" column, having never appeared on the main page.
Quoting from the article"
An S/390 running a light load will not run as quickly as a fast PC server under a light load, according to Courtney. The difference between the two systems will not be apparent until the load is much larger.
"The PC will begin to degrade and will typically reach a point where it avalanches down in performance as its load limit is exceeded. The mainframe starts out at a lower performance level, from the standpoint of an individual program task, but degrades much more slowly and much more linearly as the load increases," he says.
I remember, a while ago, reading in another article about a difference of opinion between some IBM programmers and the kernel maintainers. Supposedly, IBM was complaining that Linux performance went south when the number of running tasks became large, and proposed some scheduler changes, but the kernel developers didn't want to change it because the changes would have slowed the kernel down in the "normal" case of only a few active processes. Does anyone have a link to this or remember what I'm talking about?
Sounds like this article is describing the same known effect.
If more evidence is needed that the USPTO is completely out of control, I offer the following patent, granted just last month:
...
... I thought that you could only patent REAL inventions, not fantasy inventions. Write up your warp drive and dilithium crystal patents now, kids, because they'll give you a patent on ANYTHING these days. The most important criteria for a patent to be issued these days appears to be the inclusion of a check for the patent fees. Your "new improved" self-funding patent office at work ... for you!
US Patent 6025810: Hyper-light-speed antenna
Some actual quotes from the patent:
The following describes, in simple terms, what the present invention actually does. The present invention takes a transmission of energy, and instead of sending it through normal time and space, it pokes a small hole into another dimension, thus, sending the energy through a place which allows transmission of energy to exceed the speed of light.
And if that isn't spiffy enough
For accelerated plant growth, first, you need to create a hot surface that is more than 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Next, you need a strong magnetic field. Only one device is needed for this function. This allows energy from another dimension to influence plant growth.
Silly me
Interesting ... if the NAB succeeds, then an internet radio broadcaster might be able to avoid paying the higher royalties by licensing and setting up a small, low power radio station out in the middle of nowhere, and broadcasting the program to the local cows.
Mattel's position is that the authors of CPhack never had the rights to distribute their code in the first place, thus making any claim or issuance under the GPL bogus.)
However, according to the article:
The agreement also states that Jansson and Skala attest they "are the sole proprietors of all rights" involved with cphack and have "not assigned" them to anyone else.
In other words, Mattel has signed a document acknowledging that the authors (had) all rights to cphack.
No wonder they settled. They WON!
Since both Mattel and the authors have agreed in writing that the authors had all rights to cphack, then they were certainly within their rights to license the program under the GPL, or under any other license.
Had the authors licensed the program under conditions that allowed for revocation of the license, then Mattel could go after anyone offering up a copy of cphack, claiming that as the new owner, they have exercised their right to revoke the license. However, the GPL does not allow revocation, leaving Mattel with no recourse.
An important lesson for anyone considering publishing a hack. Use the GPL. Distribute source code, and your work is effectively uncensorable.
Perhaps not exactly what Stallman had in mind when he wrote the GPL, but a nice effect, in my opinion.
GPL: This License Kills Fascists
Their web site says:
... so pay for one month of service, then cancel.
By purchasing the i-opener you are agreeing to use the i-opener Internet service. The fee is $21.95 a month and will be billed approximately 2 days after the i-opener is shipped to you.
Ok
Modification of the i-opener in any way is in violation of our terms and conditions.
I can't find their terms of service on their site. Anyone have the complete terms of service?
I'm pretty sure that the doctrine of first sale applies here. Since they are selling the box to you, you have the right to do with it as you wish, whether that be replace the operating system, or use it as a pavement stone.
Anyway, several states explicitly forbid the tying of a purchased item with a subscription service.
If this is their business model, then they have shot themselves in the foot. The package they are selling (hardware plus service) has a higher salvage value (the hardware is the salvage item) then the initial purchase cost. They should have known better.
Back in 1980, my high school had a PDP 11/03 for student use. The operating system was an early version of RT11. We had a binary license, and received the operating system on a set of 8 inch floppies. I spent a lot of time on this machine.
One time I did a disk dump from the raw disk device to the console, and after a few pages of binary gibberish, out came several pages of operating system kernel source code! Apparently, Digital, when it made up the master disk for the operating system binary distribution, reused a floppy that had previously contained operating system source code, and never bothered to zero out the disk. Interesting stuff!
Wow ... they're selling for between $250 and $300.00 on eBay! No wonder you can't find them in the stores ... These decks are so valuable that people are actually making money speculating on them!
... it might have something to do with the MPAA "investigating" Apex, and the implicit threat that these decks will be withdrawn from the market. Better get yours while you can!
Gee
Nothing like a little artificial shortage to create a huge market for an otherwise-obscure product. A month ago, your average novice DVD deck purchaser probably had no idea what a "region code" or "macrovision" was, and could have cared less if his deck couldn't play European DVDs. After all, what is the market for PAL capable VCRs in the US?
With all of this publicity, "defeatable region/macrovision coding" has suddenly become the hottest selling point you can put on a DVD player these days. Apparently, in this case, it adds $100.00 in value to a $180.00 player.
Expect a similar frenzy at the end of April, when it becomes illegal to sell a VCR that allows you to copy a macrovision tape. Thousands of people who would have never even thought of copying a commercial tape will run out and get their macrovision-free recorder, just because the government is about to make them illegal.
The MPAA is it's own worst enemy.
By lobbying for copyright laws, and interpretations of copyright laws that are unenforcable, wildly out of touch with reality, and invasive to the end user, the MPAA and RIAA are eroding public respect and support for copyright law. They are creating an unprecidented level of public contempt for their entire industry.
What the hell do they think they are doing?
Anonymous Coward wrote:
What's the best way to preserve the fresh young beauty of teenage girls?
It would have to be a medium that can weather centuries of nature, be transparently obvious to the viewer, and easy enough to reproduce.
Any ideas?
This was moderated down to -1, but the question is valid.
The longest lasting photographic processes known are the earliest. Daguerreotypes and tintypes, stored properly, are practically immortal. Flexible negatives, slides, and print film all deteriorate over time.
- John
At the risk of being a troll, if we all had pneumatic tubes, you could be enjoying hot grits right now!
I want one of the cameras, myself.
... floating in full 3D!
Go look on eBay. Do a search on "stereo realist". Expect to pay about a hundred bucks.
I have one of these cameras. They work very well. You'll also need a film cutter, and a viewer, all available on eBay on a regular basis. The viewers are somewhat expensive. You'll need blank slide mounts, which can be obtained from here for $8.00 per hundred. These cameras use ordinary slide film -- I use professional Kodachrome, which gives fantastic results.
You'll also need to know how to use a manual camera, as these cameras are all from the 1950s, and have no built-in light meter. You have to set the exposure, f stop, and focus yourself, and you set them just like an ordinary camera.
Once you've taken 3D pictures, you'll never want to go back to "mono" photography again. The 3D effect is absolutely stunning. I took a picture of some kids playing in a water fountain, and when I got the film back, I was astonished when I saw that the water drops were suspended in mid air
Cool!
The wire was made of stainless steel and was incredibly tough. I have a lot of recording wires. I defy you to break one with your bare hands. It'll cut your hand to the bone if you try.
... the recommended (and only) way to splice a recording wire was with a square knot!
... it's just a stainless steel wire. no plastic base to deteriorate. No oxide to flake off. Just smooth, corrosion-proof, stainless steel. There is also no "tape hiss", because there are no individual magnetized particles. Just continuous wire. It's one of the best archival media ever invented. I have 50 year old wire recordings that sound absolutely fresh and new.
... yep ... dead media. Unfortunately.
They could break around SPLICES though
Wire recordings have the advantage that they can last forever
The disadvantages of wire recordings were that the format was mono-only, for obvious reasons, and the frequency response was limited.
But the recordings last forever. You can't say that about recording tape, CDRs, or DVDs.
The recorders, however, are old tube devices that have to be maintained like an old tube radio. -- tubes and capacitors need to be periodically checked and replaced, and god forbid I should have a crucial mechanical part break
It's much worse then that. The estimates are that more then 90% of all silent features no longer exist in any form, and that around 50% of all films made before 1950 are lost. Certainly one reason why so many films were lost is due to the fragile nature of the films. Another interpretation of what happened is that these works were destroyed because they existed only as closely held copies, by companies that didn't appreciate their value.
Here is an example of how a single shortsighted business decision resulted in a huge cultural loss.
Around 1978, the Technicolor corporation stopped using the dye imbibition process.
Dye imbibition printing was the first commercially successful color movie process. With this process, instead of shooting a single color negative, the camera contained three negatives, and color filters. The result was three sets of negatives, one for red, one for green, and one for blue.
To make the final prints, each of the three negatives had to be individually cut and assembled to make a final negative. Then the negatives were printed onto a special film stock called "matrix" film, and developed using a special chemical process that hardened the film in proportion to the exposed silver content, then washed away both the silver and the unhardened emulsion. The result was that instead of a visible image on the matrix film, the color density was represented by emulsion thickness. Finally, these three matrix films were used as printing plates to transfer dye to the final release films, one color at a time, cyan, magenta, and yellow. The thicker parts of the matrix would transfer more dye, and the result was "Glorious Technicolor." Modern color film uses organic dye couplers, which tend to fade over time. Because Technicolor was using a printing process, they had their choice of what dyes to use, and they chose very bright, intense, fade resistant, acid based dyes. A properly made Technicolor print from 1939 looks the same now as it did the day it rolled off the printer over 60 years ago.
When color negative film was invented, the process changed slightly. Instead of making a matrix film from each of three negatives, all three matrices were made from the same color negative, using different color light filters to pass the desired color.
This process was very gentle on the negatives. A single matrix could be used to print hundreds of release prints, so the original negatives only had to be run through a printer occasionally when a new matrix needed to be made. The matrix stock itself was estar based -- an extremely strong, durable film stock that does not deteriorate over time like nitrate and acetate film.
When Technicolor shut down their dye imbibition production line, they were left with warehouses of matrix film; the printing plates for nearly every feature film ever printed in Technicolor, all meticulously cataloged and carefully stored.
In many cases, the matrices represented the last existing color record of the films. Color negative film, especially early color negative film, fades away over time, and release prints wear out, but the black and white matrices were completely stable. In many cases, the original nitrate negatives for many color features had already turned to dust, leaving the matrices as the ONLY existing preprint material available for countless films.
These matrices could have lasted nearly forever. Now that Technicolor has revived the dye imbibition process (The new, beautiful re-issue of Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window is in true Technicolor), had Technicolor saved their matrices, they would have the ability right now to reprint nearly every film that they had ever made. In perfect color.
Instead, seeing no use for this "obsolete media", they destroyed them all.
Now, the cost of restoring a single Technicolor film, if it can even be done, can run into the millions of dollars. The result is that it is hardly ever done, except for a very few extremely high profile films, like, for instance, "Gone With The Wind" or "Rear Window". What a loss.
References:
"Technicolor Movies: The History of Dye Transfer Printing", Richard W. Haines. McFarland & Company, 1993.
A site devoted to Technicolor Movies
The home page of a modern-day dye transfer artist
The UIC hospital just installed a pneumatic tube system this year. I don't know what they use it for. Of course, you can't fax or email a blood sample, so there's still some things that pneumatic tubes do that can't be replaced by a computer ...
Decrypting their list, after all, is kind of an invasion of their corporate privacy.
Corporate privacy? Where did this concept come from? This is a breach of corporate secrecy -- a busted trade secret. They failed to adaquately protect their trade secret, and now it has been revealed. There are no privacy issues involved here.
But what do they really expect to gain from the ISP's log files?
This is a public relations move. By aggressively going after the ISP, they are creating the impression that the release of the list-decrypting software was an illegal action, when it wasn't.
These and other errors in this piece are not the result of stupidity. This is a concerted campaign of disinformation aimed at altering public perception of the scope of copyright with the long term goal of abolishing fair use.
Absolutely.
You'll notice that the recording industry has substituted the phrase "copyright protection" for the phrase "copy protection", with the same aim. Their real target is fair use. They don't think we should have it, and since the courts don't agree with them, they are taking their misinformation campaign directly to the people.
You'll hear a lot more about this in October when the DMCA takes effect.
In the RIAA text they said that the law was passed in 1992, correct me if I am wrong, but .mp3 technology wasn't even created yet, or at least not very popular.
Yep. The RIAA made a huge mistake and completely misjudged the future of digital recording when they pushed for the law.
If they had taken the opposite approach, and imposed the kickback payment and SCMS requirements on computer peripherals that can record audio data, and at the same time flooded the market with cheap, standalone digital audio recorders, then MP3 would be irrelevant because most people would be too busy messing around with their standalone, non-networked, non-computer connected equipment to think about attempting to connect their digital recording deck to their computer.
Instead, they took the exact opposite approach, and it completely backfired on them. Now the market is flooded with computer-based recorders, and dirt cheap CDR media the sells by the 50 pack, neither of which are subject to the law-mandated industry kickback payoff, have no copy controls whatsoever, and are conveniently connected directly to the internet, where users can download their free MP3 encoders and players.
- John
Congress, with the help of record company lobbyists, has determined that lossless digital copying is not the same as lossy, hiss inducing, analog copying. It has therefore placed restrictions (the SCMS and the above-mentioned royalty) on digital copying.
Actually, the restrictions are placed on the manufacturers and importers of equipment that is designed and marketed for the primary purpose of making digital audio recordings. Section 1008, as you pointed out, explicitly specifies that this law does not place restrictions on digital copying. This is a crucial difference.
The general copyright laws place restrictions on copying of digital information, and provide fair use exceptions, but not this law. This law creates a kickback scheme where money is paid by equipment and media manufacturers directly to the recording industry, for the "privilege" of not being sued. It does not provide rights to, or place restrictions on the non-commercial end use of such equipment by consumers.
- John
Don't think of it as a "tax." The fee does not go to the government. The fee is paid directly by the manufacturers of the recorders/media into an industry-controlled account, to be distributed to the RIAA's client companies.
The correct term for such a fee is a "kickback."
Less confusing now?
The RIAA is lying in order to try to misinform you of your rights. From their web page:
... it's already firmly on our side.
The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act.
The law they are referring to is the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. They are lying. It's written right into the law that the law does NOT apply to end users.
Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions [meaning things they can't sue you over, because they aren't illegal]
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
In other words, the law specifically says that the law does NOT apply to end users making non-commercial recordings.
In fact, the law only applies to persons who manufacture or import digital recording devices and media. Since you are not doing either, the law does not apply to you.
What does apply to you is the general law regarding copyright, which incorporate fair use. Under fair use, you are not infringing on copyright if you make personal copies of copyrighted materials, without distributing them, for your own use. This was decided by the courts, and is the reason why VCRs are legal to buy, sell, and use.
We don't need to get THIS law changed
Once again, the RIAA does not want you to know your rights. They want you to be misinformed and believe that you are breaking the law when you engage in legal fair use practices. That is the purpose of the false, deliberately misleading statements on this web page.
- John
Yes! The RIAA pushed through legislation that basically gives them a kickback on all blank digital audio media and recorders. However, Congress added an exemption for computers.
The result: There are only a few models of standalone CD recorders and DAT machines on the market, because they require expensive (remember the kickback) media, and implement the onerous SCMS protocol.
Not only that, but the law made a distinction between "professional" and "non-professional" digital audio recorders. Only "non-professional" models are required to implement SCMS. As a result, most "non-professional" DAT decks have disappeared from the market, leaving only the "professional" models, which oddly enough cost about as much as the "non-professional" models did before the law.
So what are people buying instead of standalone audio CD recorders and DAT decks? Super cheap computer-based 8x CDR recorders and dirt cheap CDRs by the 50 pack. Of course, it never occurred to the RIAA that by suppressing the market for standalone digital audio recording devices, they were pushing the development of home digital recording technology towards the ONLY device in the house with a direct connection to the internet. Now they are totally screwed. Stupid strategy, stupid tactics.
Public 1, RIAA 0.
In attempting to take control of all consumer recording technology, the RIAA has unintentionally driven the market towards the only digital recording technology with NO copy controls whatsoever, NO kickback fee, and a direct connection to the internet. It's the RIAA's worst nightmare, and they forced it into being through their ignorant, heavy-handed legal tactics.
This web page is an attempt to lie to the public to make people believe that their perfectly legal activities are somehow illegal because they do not use RIAA-crippled hardware and media.
Call it damage control. It's still a lie.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
They are spreading misinformation because they want you to be ignorant of your rights.
Once you purchase a copy of an album, it is perfectly legal for you to transfer it to your computer.
They wish it was illegal.
There's nothing to prevent them from putting up a web site with misinformation in order to attempt to mislead the public, which is exactly what they have done.
Too late for me. Their actions convinced me to take the time to install junkbuster. Now most web ads are things of the past for me, and I'm not going back.
They pissed in the well.
They *are* indestructable. I have a personal stash of about six of them, which is hardly necessary because I have never had a single one fail on me.
First thing I do when I get a new computer is throw away the keyboard.