Besides, doesn't charging for taped concerts kind of go against the concert-tapes-as-promotion philosophy? The reason the Dead were the most successful concert band of all time was partially due to the free availability of tons of concert tapes. I know livephish has to pay for bandwidth, but this is a much larger divergence from the Dead/Phish philosophy of free concert music than people seem to believe.
Not at all.
You're perfectly free to continue making and trading audience tapes. These downloads are the soundboards, which Phish is treating as commercial releases, just distributed through the internet instead of on physical CDs.
Besides, the Dead did the same thing all along. What do you think Live Dead, Europe 72, Steal Your Face, Without A Net, the Vault series, and Dick's Picks are? Commercial releases of live concert soundboard recordings.
I would venture to say that these same Phish shows will be available on Etree sites, so why does livephish think people will pay for what they A) can get free already from Etree or B) will almost certainly end up on Etree anyway?
A) Etree will have the audience tapes for free. Live Phish Downloads will have the soundboards for sale. Your choice.
B) These recordings will NOT end up on Etree. These are commercial releases, which are off-limits for tape trading.
I thought that their SNL performance was really weak, and far below what they are capable of.
To be fair, it's their first time performing in public in two years, and the SNL television studio is certainly a different vibe than a packed concert arena. I suspect they'll shake the rust off in short order.
The topic here is a "credit-card theft" scam, which turns out to be much more than that. It's a shining example of the evils of the DMCA!
The spam I got was more then just credit card theft, it was an attempt at full-bore identity theft! The spam directed the user to a web page that asked for, among other things, my social security number, mother's maiden name, and drivers license number. (see Appendix A at the end of this post)
On top of that, the spam was encrypted! I tried to look at the source code, but instead found a javascript program, containing a decryption algorithm, and pages and pages of encrypted data. (See Appendix B at the end of this post) The function of this program is obvious. The program overlays itself with the decrypted identity-theft program, then runs it.
Naturally I didn't fill out the form or click submit once I saw what the web page was, but I did execute the encrypted program by following the link in the email, and I was able to use "View Page Source" to locate and capture the complete decryption algorithm and encrypted identity-theft program.
This is an interesting situation.
Here we have a piece of spam containing a Javascript program, which comprises a technological measure that controls access to another piece of either HTML or possibly Javascript (the copyright-protected identity-theft program), which in turn may or may not exploit some netscape or IE bug to steal my personal information.
Or it might operate at face-value, generating a simple HTML form, collecting field information, and sending the information off to a remote identity-theft collection computer.
I can't tell without (trivially) bypassing the technological measure, by altering the program to display the plaintext of the identity-theft program instead of executing it.
This technological measure (the javascript program) is obviously designed to prevent me (the intended identity-theft victim) from gaining access to the copyrighted identity-theft program to examine it.
Therefore, this whole identity theft scam is fully DMCA-protected! It would be a violation of 17 USC 1201(a) for me to alter the decryption program in such a way as to display the identity-theft program (and learn if I was an actual victim or just a potential victim.) It would be a violation of 17 USC 1201(b) for you to post a followup message explaining how to do it. The DMCA provides no exception for potential or actual victims of this sort of spam fraud, or for individuals attempting to aid potential or actual victims of this sort of spam fraud, or for individuals attempting to research this type of fraud.
So what if I were just to ignore the DMCA, decrypt the identity-theft program and reveal its contents? Obviously, the identity-theft ring isn't going to step forward and sue me, because presumably they are trying to conceal their identities and activities. That doesn't mean that I'm safe though. The problem is that under the DMCA, I would be risking Federal prosecution, even if all I was trying to do was determine whether I was an actual victim of identity theft!
In reality, I suspect that I would not be prosecuted by the Federal Government in this particular instance, but then who knows these days. The law is supposed to provide equal protection. In this case, not prosecuting me (for discovering for myself whether I was the victim of identity theft) would illustrate the selective enforcement of the DMCA. Dmitry Sklyarov faced prosecution by the Federal Government for bypassing a technological measure controlling access to ebooks, even after Adobe backed away from the lawsuit. How am I supposed to know whether or not I would face prosecution for exposing an identity-theft scam? Why should I, or anyone else, take the risk?
APPENDIX A: Information requested by the identity-theft program.
Full Name (Include your full middle name) Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Credit Card Number Expiration Date Cvv2 (Last 3 digits located behind your credit card or (4 digits for AMEX located on the front above your credit card number) Bank Name Bank Phone Number (Located on the back of the credit card) Social Security Number Mothers Maiden Name Date Of Birth Drivers License Number eBay User ID You can also use your registered email. eBay Password
APPENDIX B: The javascript program itself. function process(ar)
{
var Stri=''
var y, z, sum, n, n1, number, j=0
var key = new Array(25960,31077,121,104)
n1=4
for (j=0; j0)
{
z-=(y>5)+key[3]
y-=(z>5)+key[1]
sum-=0x9E3779B9
}
(I had to alter the spacing of the "Stri+=" lines because of the lameness filter: Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted. Also, slash appears to have inserted a space in the second "fromCharCode" in each line that isn't really there. Whatever.)
My favorite is the Mattel Agent Zero M Sonic Blaster 5530. What the picture fails to show is the little boy wetting his pants with excitement and joy when he opened his Christmas Present and saw that monster air bazooka. I know I would have!
We lost control when 1. Congress became a full time job and 2. When it started costing Millions of Dollars to run for office.
Also:
3. The passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.
The Constitution originally provided that:
Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
The 17th Amendment replaced this with:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
There was a reason why the House of Representitives was elected by the people and the Senate was chosen by the legislature. The reason was to establish a balance of power.
The members of the House of Repesentatives were to be elected by the public. It was expected that they would obtain election to office by making promises to the public, because that's how you get elected to office, plain and simple. The result, and problem, would be a steady increase in the duties, power and authority of the Federal Government at the expense of the power and authority of the State Governments, causing the State legislatures to become meaningless in the face of ever-increasing Federal power.
The Senate was supposed to act as a counterbalance. Because the Senate was selected by the State legislatures, the Senators were expected to represent the interests of the State legislatures, and act as a force opposing the expansion of Federal power. Senators didn't have to raise campaign funds and make campaign promises to appeal to the public -- instead they had to appeal to the State legislatures and promise to represent the interests of the States. That's why there were two Senators per state, as opposed to the proportional representation of the House. The design of the Senate was supposed to ensure that the interests of the state legislatures would be equally represented in the Federal Government, both amongst the states, and as a whole against the House.
This simple change to the Constitution destroyed the balance of power and over time has resulted in the mess that we have today.
Now, Senatorial candidates must raise millions of dollars, and make campaign promises directly to the public, just like House candidates. Therefore, both houses arrive in Washington with a mandate from their electors -- the public and corporate donors -- to expand the Federal government to fulfill the campaign promises that placed them in office.
The best way to deal with the problems of the growth of Federal power and excessive influence of corporations in Senatorial campaigns would be to repeal the 17th Amendment, and return control of the Senate to the State legislatures where it was originally intended to reside as a counterbalance to the populist Federal expansionist tendencies of the popularly elected House of Representitives.
The results of the 17th Amendment serves as a powerful cautionary tale to those who would make seemingly "harmless" amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution was a brilliantly designed document, riddled with checks and balances. In this case, a simple and apparently harmless change, increasing public participation in government elections by providing for the popular election of Senators, has disrupted the balance of power, and resulted in the gigantic, ever-increasing Federal Government we have today.
It wasn't mentioned in the article, but the comment period ends TODAY, Dec 6th. It was originally supposed to end on October 30th, but was extended to today.
If you want to submit your opinion to the FCC on this matter, and have them read and consider it, today is your last chance.
The digitalconsumer web page for sending comments is here.
Copyright on works produced by individuals lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. The poster is simply noting that, if the author asserts that his copyright is good for "70 years", this implies that the author is now dead. Perhaps, having achieved first post, he considered his life to be complete!
The basic premise of copyright law is to encourage the development of art for the benefit of mankind by providing incentive -- the right to profit from it-- to create it.
I have to disagree. Copyright law does not promote innovation and creation. The purpose of copyright law is to promote publication.
The exclusive rights clause was intended to address two problems:
1) Trade Secrets 2) Licensing, as opposed to publication, of writings.
Trade secrets are bad because they result in the loss of knowledge. For instance, Stradavarius violins are extremely fine musical instruments. Violin makers were notorious for tightly holding trade secrets. As a result, the knowledge of how to produce those superior instruments died with the instrument maker. Had a patent system been in place at the time, and had the violin makers chosen to accept a patent -- and disclose their manufacturing methods, then every violin manufactured today might be as good as a Stradavarius.
There is nothing in the patent laws that will help anyone to invent anything, and nothing that will make you decide to try to invent anything. The laws don't work that way, because they can't. The patent laws address a simple problem. Once a person invents something, they need a reason to publish their invention, rather than keep it as a trade secret.
Enter the patent. In exchange for disclosing the invention, the inventor receives a temporary monopoly over the exploitation of that invention. The temporary monopoly is the benefit to the inventor, and the benefit to the public is that after expiration of the patent, the public may make use of the knowledge.
This has nothing to do with the inciting of invention, and everything to do with the inciting of disclosure. Patents incite disclosure, not invention.
Similarly, the original copyright statutes covered books, and in particular, maps and charts. The specific inclusion of maps and charts is interesting, because it illustrates the true purpose of copyright.
Maps and charts were the "software" of their time. A sea chart cost a tremendous amount of money to develop -- measured in terms of exploration and expeditions -- and practically nothing to duplicate. The problem was that mapmakers, in order to prevent copying of their works, only would issue the maps to sea captains under restrictive licenses. Maps were being created, but progress in accurate maps was not being made because mapmakers could not compare their maps to each other and make corrections.
Copyright law was intended to sweep aside licensing terms on written works by offering a replacement -- in exchange for the act of publishing the work -- that is, making it available for public use -- the author would receive a temporary monopoly over the printing of the work.
The purpose of copyright is not to promote the creation of works. It doesn't do that. Copyright does not guarantee the right to profit off of works. The vast majority of copyright holders never make a penny from their work. Instead, copyright is intended to promote the publication of works. That's all that copyright law can ever do. The idea that stronger copyright laws are needed to promote the creation of new works is nonsense. That isn't what copyright law does, and it isn't what it was ever intended to do.
My point is this. The percentage of Americans who globe-hop, for whatever reason, is very small -- perhaps 1% of the population. Sure, that subset of people have a real need for a GSM capable phone. This makes them a tiny, insignificant marketing niche -- like the people who demand that their electric razor have a 110/220 volt switch, or that their camcorder have NTSC/PAL interoperability.
It's the other 99% of the population that will determine the fate of Cellular standards in America, and European interoperability is as relevant to most Americans as having 220 volt capability on their microwave oven, or that their camcorder be able to output a PAL signal. The vast majority of Americans will never need -- or expect -- their cellular phone to work outside of the U.S. They are only interested in a clear signal, how many minutes they get, and their monthly bill. Whether their cell phone will work in Europe is simply not a consideration.
I'm confused about what measures Berman believes would be acceptable, after reading the many disclaimers here.
This bill makes more sense when combined with the trend of media consolidation.
For instance, Time/Warner/AOL is a single company that controls both a large number of copyrights, and also a large portion of the internet infrastructure. Under this bill, TWAOL could develop and deploy router filters that would watch for packets that match the signature of P2P transfers of Time/Warner copyrighted works, and drop the packets.
In other words, it is a model for a censored internet -- placing big media in the position of a gatekeeper -- determine what data is allowed to cross the wires, and what data may not be transmitted.
One of the more interesting aspects of the pyramids is that there are NO gaps between the stone "blocks." There is an interesting theory that the stones are actually huge concrete blocks that were cast in place, rather than giant stones that were carved and dragged hundreds of miles.
Radio royalties are just another way of ripping off artists.
Here's why.
1) Record company signs artist. Loans artist money to record the album. Artist records album and gives it to the label to promote.
3) Label pays "independent promoter" $100,000-$500,000 to have the song placed on the radio. Strangely enough, it works, and the song is added to radio station playlists.
4) Every time the song is played on the radio, the radio station pays a couple of pennies to the label.
5) The label takes their 90% cut from those couple of pennies, and applies the remainder half-cent -- the "artists's share" of the radio royalty -- towards paying off the "independent promotion" payola bill. ----- Broadcast royalties are a sham -- a smokescreen. The record labels know full well that there's no money to be made on radio royalties. The real money comes in when people start to buy the vastly overpriced albums. For the record labels, radio play is nothing more than advertising for their cash-cow albums, and they have no problem with paying heavily to get that "advertising" on the air, be it payola or "independent promotion." The record companies want to pay radio stations to get their songs on the air, and they do it any way they can, because it's the only way that they will ever start selling albums. This is the reality of how money flows between record labels and radio stations. It sharply contrasts with the official fiction that radio broadcasts are a source of revenue for artists and labels.
If broadcast royalties actually reflected the market, then radio would have reversed royalties -- The record labels would pay the radio stations every time their songs are added to their playlists, or played on the air. Everyone understands that radio stations are in the business of putting commercials in people's ears, and we understand when they are paid for doing that. The disconnect comes when people deliberately try not to understand that radio stations are also in the business of putting music in people's ears, and the record labels line up with cash in hand to get their advertising on the air.
Somehow payment for exposure is OK when the product is soap, but not OK when the product is Backstreet Boys albums. Why? Both are advertising!
The answer seems to reside in this elaborate fiction of the airwaves as a "public trust." People want to think that the radio stations are providing a valuable service -- by playing music on the air -- and the statutory royalties reenforce that fiction. In reality, radio stations spend 95% of their time playing two different types of commercials -- commercials for advertisers, and commercials for record albums. Except that the record industry has the law rigged to conceal the fact that radio station music is also advertising as well, by requiring tiny, tiny royalties to be paid to artists, and concealing the real huge cash payments that are the real driving economic force between record labels and radio stations. ----- Back to the royalties. Who the hell can afford to pay those royalties? What's the real agenda here?
There is one group of companies that can afford to pay the statutory royalties, no matter how expensive they are per user. Those companies are the RIAA companies themselves, because they will essentially be paying themselves. I suspect that the real reason that the RIAA is pushing for sky-high royalty rates is to ensure that no one except for the RIAA corporations themselves can possibly afford the rates.
Then they will be free to "take over" internet radio, have used the royalty rates to drive the rest of the competition off of the net.
Or so goes the theory.
no-fee internet broadcasting licenses are the catch.
It will be interesting to see if "no-fee" internet broadcasting contracts become a trend. I think that royalty-free internet radio could become enormous for a couple of simple reasons:
1) It is something that a hobbyist can do 2) Therefore, if it can be made easy and legally safe to do, thousands of people will do it 3) Those royalty-free stations will only be playing songs from non-RIAA labels. Thus, the entire medium will be indy-saturated, the playing of major label songs on internet radio being, essentially, forbidden by law.
Eventually, those indy labels are going to start making money, because people are going to start hearing the music, and eventually buying the albums. The turning point will come when an independent album starts to rise up the charts -- even though it has ZERO broadcast radio play -- soley on the strength of internet radio exposure.
At that point, you'll see record companies start to quietly offer successful internet radio stations money to place their songs on their stations, except that this time there will be no "public trust" fiction to interfere with the natural market forces.
At the point when it actually becomes possible to make money on internet radio, watch for an explosion of new internet radio stations.
Now press reload a couple of times. When I do it, the page layout changes randomly -- large gaps appear and disappear both in the google title header, and the options list.
But a building with a green top, that being trees, grasses, etc would help reduce ambient temperature caused by normal metallic/asphalt roofing materials.
Remember the scene where Greedo confronts Han in the cantena. Now we all know that in the original Star Wars, Han shoots first, but for the "special edition", Greedo shoots first, and his shot hits the wall next to Han.
Imagine Jar Jar sitting next to Han. Greedo shoots first, blowing Jar Jar's head off. Han shoots second, killing Greedo.
Everyone wins.
Re:Great thought...maybe the real fight is elsewhe
on
DeCSS' Continuing Saga
·
· Score: 5, Informative
How can it be a trade secret if every DVD manufacturer knows it??
It's a trade secret of an organization called the "DVD Copy Control Association" - or, the DVDCCA.
They license the trade secret to all of the player manufacturers, and in return, the player manufacturers sign a contract that, among other things, forbids them from building DVD players with unencrypted digital outputs, and requires them to include Macrovision distortion in the analog output signal. The contract also forbids the disclosure of the CSS algorithm.
The result is that, prior to DeCSS, if you wanted to manufacture DVD players, you needed to sign the contract and agree to the terms in order to obtain the necessary technology to decode DVDs.
Now, the CSS algorithm is cracked.
The danger that the industry is facing is this. If CSS is deemed, by the courts, to be a legitimately reverse-engineered trade secret, then the CSS decoding process would enter the public domain. If that were to happen, it would clear the way for the manufacture of DVDs without having to obey the restrictions of the CSS contract.
In other words, it would allow companies to start manufacturing DVD players with such desirable features as no Macrovision, and digital MPEG outputs. But it wouldn't allow all companies to do so...
... only those companies that had not signed a contract with the DVDCAA. In other words, the entire current player industry would be shut out -- they would be still required, by their DVDCCA contracts, to install Macrovision, and not offer digital outputs. This would be a disaster for the current crop of player manufacturers.
There's a reason that they are fighting so hard to force CSS into the category of "stolen trade secret" -- by sheer force of will, apparently. If DeCSS were to be ruled a stolen trade secret, then the courts would prevent anyone else from making commercial use of the algorithm.
This would be an incredible win for the movie industry -- they would receive what would be in effect a perpetual patent -- the right to exclude others from employing a process.
Note that they are fighting this battle on different fronts -- the DMCA case is to try and outlaw the dissemination of the algorithm. The Trade Secret case is to try and outlaw the implementation of the algorithm. They are fighting tooth and nail to control not the right to manufacture DVD players, but the right to dictate what features may and may not be included in DVD players.
I read the opening brief last night and I'm overwhelmed by the quality of the work. The plaintiffs have, over the course of the trial and appeals, clarified and distilled the essence of their case. Their arguments are very persuasive, and the writing is superb.
This is probably the most important copyright case of our generation. The government has characterized retroactive copyright extension as a "national tradition", and if this case fails, the result will be that Congress will be given the go-ahead to continue the "tradition", and the result will be perpetual copyright. The entire idea of a public domain of ideas will be destroyed.
Eldred is our last, best chance to prevent perpetual copyright. It's a tremendous effort, the best contemporary legal writing that I've EVER seen. I urge all Slashdot readers to read through the opening brief. It should be required reading for anyone interested in the issues behind copyright extension.
Ok, here's a nice big piece of promotion and hype. The new video format would allow you to own a copy of the movie in its original, digital theatrical format. In other words, you could own a copy of the same bitstream that was projected in the theatres.
But realistically, imagine a big-screen TV with a DVD player in Best Buy. Sitting next to it is a big-screen HDTV with a Hi-Definition DVD player playing the same movie. The difference would be obvious and stunning. Plus, the new hi-def players would play legacy DVDs. I think that such a format would be the catalyst for HDTV adoption. It would sell a lot of video projectors as well.
Here's another scenario. Imagine that the movie industry had decided that DVD was "too high" quality to be sold to the general public, and decided instead to sell VCDs. Had they done so, they would be "Napsterized" right now. Instead, VCDs and VCD quality video is a tiny niche. Everyone is used to DVD quality. Once DVD recorders hit the market, and internet bandwidth allows the easy transfer of 5 gig files, the movie industry must be ready with a new format that makes DVD quality video "second rate", or they'll be steamrollered by the "free alternative" just like the recording industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, doesn't charging for taped concerts kind of go against the concert-tapes-as-promotion philosophy? The reason the Dead were the most successful concert band of all time was partially due to the free availability of tons of concert tapes. I know livephish has to pay for bandwidth, but this is a much larger divergence from the Dead/Phish philosophy of free concert music than people seem to believe.
Not at all.
You're perfectly free to continue making and trading audience tapes. These downloads are the soundboards, which Phish is treating as commercial releases, just distributed through the internet instead of on physical CDs.
Besides, the Dead did the same thing all along. What do you think Live Dead, Europe 72, Steal Your Face, Without A Net, the Vault series, and Dick's Picks are? Commercial releases of live concert soundboard recordings.
I would venture to say that these same Phish shows will be available on Etree sites, so why does livephish think people will pay for what they A) can get free already from Etree or B) will almost certainly end up on Etree anyway?
A) Etree will have the audience tapes for free. Live Phish Downloads will have the soundboards for sale. Your choice.
B) These recordings will NOT end up on Etree. These are commercial releases, which are off-limits for tape trading.
I thought that their SNL performance was really weak, and far below what they are capable of.
To be fair, it's their first time performing in public in two years, and the SNL television studio is certainly a different vibe than a packed concert arena. I suspect they'll shake the rust off in short order.
Phish is the worst band I've ever heard. His lack of vocal range, and the droning melodies are mind numbing.
LOL
And by the way, which one's Pink?
The topic here is a "credit-card theft" scam, which turns out to be much more than that. It's a shining example of the evils of the DMCA!
a rC ode((y>>8)&0xFF)+F F)+String.fromCharC ode((y>>24)&0xFF)F F)+String.fromCharC ode((z>>8)&0xFF)+F F)+String.fromCharC ode((z>>24)&0xFF)
... ,29762809)
... (the encrypted data stream is very, very long) ...
... ,1125967000)
The spam I got was more then just credit card theft, it was an attempt at full-bore identity theft! The spam directed the user to a web page that asked for, among other things, my social security number, mother's maiden name, and drivers license number. (see Appendix A at the end of this post)
On top of that, the spam was encrypted! I tried to look at the source code, but instead found a javascript program, containing a decryption algorithm, and pages and pages of encrypted data. (See Appendix B at the end of this post) The function of this program is obvious. The program overlays itself with the decrypted identity-theft program, then runs it.
Naturally I didn't fill out the form or click submit once I saw what the web page was, but I did execute the encrypted program by following the link in the email, and I was able to use "View Page Source" to locate and capture the complete decryption algorithm and encrypted identity-theft program.
This is an interesting situation.
Here we have a piece of spam containing a Javascript program, which comprises a technological measure that controls access to another piece of either HTML or possibly Javascript (the copyright-protected identity-theft program), which in turn may or may not exploit some netscape or IE bug to steal my personal information.
Or it might operate at face-value, generating a simple HTML form, collecting field information, and sending the information off to a remote identity-theft collection computer.
I can't tell without (trivially) bypassing the technological measure, by altering the program to display the plaintext of the identity-theft program
instead of executing it.
This technological measure (the javascript program) is obviously designed to prevent me (the intended identity-theft victim) from gaining access to the copyrighted identity-theft program to examine it.
Therefore, this whole identity theft scam is fully DMCA-protected! It would be a violation of 17 USC 1201(a) for me to alter the decryption program in such a way as to display the identity-theft program (and learn if I was an actual victim or just a potential victim.) It would be a violation of 17 USC 1201(b) for you to post a followup message explaining how to do it. The DMCA provides no exception for potential or actual victims of this sort of spam fraud, or for individuals attempting to aid potential or actual victims of this sort of spam fraud, or for individuals attempting to research this type of fraud.
So what if I were just to ignore the DMCA, decrypt the identity-theft program and reveal its contents? Obviously, the identity-theft ring isn't going to step forward and sue me, because presumably they are trying to conceal their identities and activities. That doesn't mean that I'm safe though. The problem is that under the DMCA, I would be risking Federal prosecution, even if all I was trying to do was determine whether I was an actual victim of identity theft!
In reality, I suspect that I would not be prosecuted by the Federal Government in this particular instance, but then who knows these days. The law is supposed to provide equal protection. In this case, not prosecuting me (for discovering for myself whether I was the victim of identity theft) would illustrate the selective enforcement of the DMCA. Dmitry Sklyarov faced prosecution by the Federal Government for bypassing a technological measure controlling access to ebooks, even after Adobe backed away from the lawsuit.
How am I supposed to know whether or not I would face prosecution for exposing an identity-theft scam? Why should I, or anyone else, take the risk?
APPENDIX A: Information requested by the identity-theft program.
Full Name (Include your full middle name)
Address
City
State
Zip Code
Phone Number
Credit Card Number
Expiration Date
Cvv2 (Last 3 digits located behind your credit card or (4 digits for AMEX located on the front above your credit card number)
Bank Name
Bank Phone Number (Located on the back of the credit card)
Social Security Number
Mothers Maiden Name
Date Of Birth
Drivers License Number
eBay User ID
You can also use your registered email.
eBay Password
APPENDIX B: The javascript program itself.
function process(ar)
{
var Stri=''
var y, z, sum, n, n1, number, j=0
var key = new Array(25960,31077,121,104)
n1=4
for (j=0; j0)
{
z-=(y>5)+key[3]
y-=(z>5)+key[1]
sum-=0x9E3779B9
}
Stri+=String.fromCharCode(y&0xFF)+String.fromCh
String.fromCharCode((y>>16)&0x
Stri+=String.fromCharCode(z&0x
String.fromCharCode((z>>16)&0x
}
document.write(Stri)
Stri=''
}
}
function start() {
var ar=new Array()
ar[0]=new Array(-476521852,-2058851006,-25665082,
ar[13]=new Array(-575491891,665716493,
process(ar)
}
start()
(I had to alter the spacing of the "Stri+=" lines because of the lameness filter:
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.
Also, slash appears to have inserted a space in the second "fromCharCode" in each line that isn't really there. Whatever.)
I know. They all expected that it would be replaced by something better. If only they knew.
Break out the Ronco lighter fluid, and squeeze a healthy dose into the small hole at the end.
That has to be the most dangerous and darwin-award-ready description of an orange cannon I've ever seen.
Gasoline works better. Yes, we used to actually use gasoline. And we're still alive and uninjured to tell about it.
BTW, I do not recommend the use of gasoline in Polish cannons.
My favorite is the Mattel Agent Zero M Sonic Blaster 5530. What the picture fails to show is the little boy wetting his pants with excitement and joy when he opened his Christmas Present and saw that monster air bazooka. I know I would have!
We lost control when
1. Congress became a full time job
and
2. When it started costing Millions of Dollars to run for office.
Also:
3. The passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.
The Constitution originally provided that:
Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
The 17th Amendment replaced this with:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
There was a reason why the House of Representitives was elected by the people and the Senate was chosen by the legislature. The reason was to establish a balance of power.
The members of the House of Repesentatives were to be elected by the public. It was expected that they would obtain election to office by making promises to the public, because that's how you get elected to office, plain and simple. The result, and problem, would be a steady increase in the duties, power and authority of the Federal Government at the expense of the power and authority of the State Governments, causing the State legislatures to become meaningless in the face of ever-increasing Federal power.
The Senate was supposed to act as a counterbalance. Because the Senate was selected by the State legislatures, the Senators were expected to represent the interests of the State legislatures, and act as a force opposing the expansion of Federal power. Senators didn't have to raise campaign funds and make campaign promises to appeal to the public -- instead they had to appeal to the State legislatures and promise to represent the interests of the States. That's why there were two Senators per state, as opposed to the proportional representation of the House. The design of the Senate was supposed to ensure that the interests of the state legislatures would be equally represented in the Federal Government, both amongst the states, and as a whole against the House.
This simple change to the Constitution destroyed the balance of power and over time has resulted in the mess that we have today.
Now, Senatorial candidates must raise millions of dollars, and make campaign promises directly to the public, just like House candidates. Therefore, both houses arrive in Washington with a mandate from their electors -- the public and corporate donors -- to expand the Federal government to fulfill the campaign promises that placed them in office.
The best way to deal with the problems of the growth of Federal power and excessive influence of corporations in Senatorial campaigns would be to repeal the 17th Amendment, and return control of the Senate to the State legislatures where it was originally intended to reside as a counterbalance to the populist Federal expansionist tendencies of the popularly elected House of Representitives.
The results of the 17th Amendment serves as a powerful cautionary tale to those who would make seemingly "harmless" amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution was a brilliantly designed document, riddled with checks and balances. In this case, a simple and apparently harmless change, increasing public participation in government elections by providing for the popular election of Senators, has disrupted the balance of power, and resulted in the gigantic, ever-increasing Federal Government we have today.
It wasn't mentioned in the article, but the comment period ends TODAY, Dec 6th. It was originally supposed to end on October 30th, but was extended to today.
If you want to submit your opinion to the FCC on this matter, and have them read and consider it, today is your last chance.
The digitalconsumer web page for sending comments is here.
This is not offtopic.
Copyright on works produced by individuals lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. The poster is simply noting that, if the author asserts that his copyright is good for "70 years", this implies that the author is now dead. Perhaps, having achieved first post, he considered his life to be complete!
Absolutely not! It's an anonymously published work, which fully qualifies for copyright protection.
The basic premise of copyright law is to encourage the development of art for the benefit of mankind by providing incentive -- the right to profit from it-- to create it.
I have to disagree. Copyright law does not promote innovation and creation. The purpose of copyright law is to promote publication.
The exclusive rights clause was intended to address two problems:
1) Trade Secrets
2) Licensing, as opposed to publication, of writings.
Trade secrets are bad because they result in the loss of knowledge. For instance, Stradavarius violins are extremely fine musical instruments. Violin makers were notorious for tightly holding trade secrets. As a result, the knowledge of how to produce those superior instruments died with the instrument maker. Had a patent system been in place at the time, and had the violin makers chosen to accept a patent -- and disclose their manufacturing methods, then every violin manufactured today might be as good as a Stradavarius.
There is nothing in the patent laws that will help anyone to invent anything, and nothing that will make you decide to try to invent anything. The laws don't work that way, because they can't. The patent laws address a simple problem. Once a person invents something, they need a reason to publish their invention, rather than keep it as a trade secret.
Enter the patent. In exchange for disclosing the invention, the inventor receives a temporary monopoly over the exploitation of that invention. The temporary monopoly is the benefit to the inventor, and the benefit to the public is that after expiration of the patent, the public may make use of the knowledge.
This has nothing to do with the inciting of invention, and everything to do with the inciting of disclosure. Patents incite disclosure, not invention.
Similarly, the original copyright statutes covered books, and in particular, maps and charts. The specific inclusion of maps and charts is interesting, because it illustrates the true purpose of copyright.
Maps and charts were the "software" of their time. A sea chart cost a tremendous amount of money to develop -- measured in terms of exploration and expeditions -- and practically nothing to duplicate. The problem was that mapmakers, in order to prevent copying of their works, only would issue the maps to sea captains under restrictive licenses. Maps were being created, but progress in accurate maps was not being made because mapmakers could not compare their maps to each other and make corrections.
Copyright law was intended to sweep aside licensing terms on written works by offering a replacement -- in exchange for the act of publishing the work -- that is, making it available for public use -- the author would receive a temporary monopoly over the printing of the work.
The purpose of copyright is not to promote the creation of works. It doesn't do that. Copyright does not guarantee the right to profit off of works. The vast majority of copyright holders never make a penny from their work. Instead, copyright is intended to promote the publication of works. That's all that copyright law can ever do. The idea that stronger copyright laws are needed to promote the creation of new works is nonsense. That isn't what copyright law does, and it isn't what it was ever intended to do.
My point is this. The percentage of Americans who globe-hop, for whatever reason, is very small -- perhaps 1% of the population. Sure, that subset of people have a real need for a GSM capable phone. This makes them a tiny, insignificant marketing niche -- like the people who demand that their electric razor have a 110/220 volt switch, or that their camcorder have NTSC/PAL interoperability.
It's the other 99% of the population that will determine the fate of Cellular standards in America, and European interoperability is as relevant to most Americans as having 220 volt capability on their microwave oven, or that their camcorder be able to output a PAL signal. The vast majority of Americans will never need -- or expect -- their cellular phone to work outside of the U.S. They are only interested in a clear signal, how many minutes they get, and their monthly bill. Whether their cell phone will work in Europe is simply not a consideration.
GSM won for 1 reason: it's the standard: across countries in 4 out of 5 continents
Yes, but what percentage of Americans ever travel outside of North America?
I'm confused about what measures Berman believes would be acceptable, after reading the many disclaimers here.
This bill makes more sense when combined with the trend of media consolidation.
For instance, Time/Warner/AOL is a single company that controls both a large number of copyrights, and also a large portion of the internet infrastructure. Under this bill, TWAOL could develop and deploy router filters that would watch for packets that match the signature of P2P transfers of Time/Warner copyrighted works, and drop the packets.
In other words, it is a model for a censored internet -- placing big media in the position of a gatekeeper -- determine what data is allowed to cross the wires, and what data may not be transmitted.
They should instead call it the "Gnu Project with Linux", or GPL for short. That would eliminate all of the confusion.
One of the more interesting aspects of the pyramids is that there are NO gaps between the stone "blocks." There is an interesting theory that the stones are actually huge concrete blocks that were cast in place, rather than giant stones that were carved and dragged hundreds of miles.
Radio royalties are just another way of ripping off artists.
Here's why.
1) Record company signs artist. Loans artist money to record the album. Artist records album and gives it to the label to promote.
3) Label pays "independent promoter" $100,000-$500,000 to have the song placed on the radio. Strangely enough, it works, and the song is added to radio station playlists.
4) Every time the song is played on the radio, the radio station pays a couple of pennies to the label.
5) The label takes their 90% cut from those couple of pennies, and applies the remainder half-cent -- the "artists's share" of the radio royalty -- towards paying off the "independent promotion" payola bill.
-----
Broadcast royalties are a sham -- a smokescreen. The record labels know full well that there's no money to be made on radio royalties. The real money comes in when people start to buy the vastly overpriced albums. For the record labels, radio play is nothing more than advertising for their cash-cow albums, and they have no problem with paying heavily to get that "advertising" on the air, be it payola or "independent promotion." The record companies want to pay radio stations to get their songs on the air, and they do it any way they can, because it's the only way that they will ever start selling albums. This is the reality of how money flows between record labels and radio stations. It sharply contrasts with the official fiction that radio broadcasts are a source of revenue for artists and labels.
If broadcast royalties actually reflected the market, then radio would have reversed royalties -- The record labels would pay the radio stations every time their songs are added to their playlists, or played on the air. Everyone understands that radio stations are in the business of putting commercials in people's ears, and we understand when they are paid for doing that. The disconnect comes when people deliberately try not to understand that radio stations are also in the business of putting music in people's ears, and the record labels line up with cash in hand to get their advertising on the air.
Somehow payment for exposure is OK when the product is soap, but not OK when the product is Backstreet Boys albums. Why? Both are advertising!
The answer seems to reside in this elaborate fiction of the airwaves as a "public trust." People want to think that the radio stations are providing a valuable service -- by playing music on the air -- and the statutory royalties reenforce that fiction. In reality, radio stations spend 95% of their time playing two different types of commercials -- commercials for advertisers, and commercials for record albums. Except that the record industry has the law rigged to conceal the fact that radio station music is also advertising as well, by requiring tiny, tiny royalties to be paid to artists, and concealing the real huge cash payments that are the real driving economic force between record labels and radio stations.
-----
Back to the royalties. Who the hell can afford to pay those royalties? What's the real agenda here?
There is one group of companies that can afford to pay the statutory royalties, no matter how expensive they are per user. Those companies are the RIAA companies themselves, because they will essentially be paying themselves. I suspect that the real reason that the RIAA is pushing for sky-high royalty rates is to ensure that no one except for the RIAA corporations themselves can possibly afford the rates.
Then they will be free to "take over" internet radio, have used the royalty rates to drive the rest of the competition off of the net.
Or so goes the theory.
no-fee internet broadcasting licenses are the catch.
It will be interesting to see if "no-fee" internet broadcasting contracts become a trend. I think that royalty-free internet radio could become enormous for a couple of simple reasons:
1) It is something that a hobbyist can do
2) Therefore, if it can be made easy and legally safe to do, thousands of people will do it
3) Those royalty-free stations will only be playing songs from non-RIAA labels. Thus, the entire medium will be indy-saturated, the playing of major label songs on internet radio being, essentially, forbidden by law.
Eventually, those indy labels are going to start making money, because people are going to start hearing the music, and eventually buying the albums. The turning point will come when an independent album starts to rise up the charts -- even though it has ZERO broadcast radio play -- soley on the strength of internet radio exposure.
At that point, you'll see record companies start to quietly offer successful internet radio stations money to place their songs on their stations, except that this time there will be no "public trust" fiction to interfere with the natural market forces.
At the point when it actually becomes possible to make money on internet radio, watch for an explosion of new internet radio stations.
On the other hand, he could play quake when you was stuck in stopped traffic
Try this. Go to the google bork language page:
http://www.google.com/intl/xx-bork/
Now press reload a couple of times. When I do it, the page layout changes randomly -- large gaps appear and disappear both in the google title header, and the options list.
Is it just me?
But a building with a green top, that being trees, grasses, etc would help reduce ambient temperature caused by normal metallic/asphalt roofing materials.
You should take a look at the City of Chicago is doing with the roof of their City Hall. Sadly, the greentop is being treated as a research project and is not open to the public.
Here's an idea.
Remember the scene where Greedo confronts Han in the cantena. Now we all know that in the original Star Wars, Han shoots first, but for the "special edition", Greedo shoots first, and his shot hits the wall next to Han.
Imagine Jar Jar sitting next to Han. Greedo shoots first, blowing Jar Jar's head off. Han shoots second, killing Greedo.
Everyone wins.
How can it be a trade secret if every DVD manufacturer knows it??
...
It's a trade secret of an organization called the "DVD Copy Control Association" - or, the DVDCCA.
They license the trade secret to all of the player manufacturers, and in return, the player manufacturers sign a contract that, among other things, forbids them from building DVD players with unencrypted digital outputs, and requires them to include Macrovision distortion in the analog output signal. The contract also forbids the disclosure of the CSS algorithm.
The result is that, prior to DeCSS, if you wanted to manufacture DVD players, you needed to sign the contract and agree to the terms in order to obtain the necessary technology to decode DVDs.
Now, the CSS algorithm is cracked.
The danger that the industry is facing is this. If CSS is deemed, by the courts, to be a legitimately reverse-engineered trade secret, then the CSS decoding process would enter the public domain. If that were to happen, it would clear the way for the manufacture of DVDs without having to obey the restrictions of the CSS contract.
In other words, it would allow companies to start manufacturing DVD players with such desirable features as no Macrovision, and digital MPEG outputs. But it wouldn't allow all companies to do so
... only those companies that had not signed a contract with the DVDCAA. In other words, the entire current player industry would be shut out -- they would be still required, by their DVDCCA contracts, to install Macrovision, and not offer digital outputs. This would be a disaster for the current crop of player manufacturers.
There's a reason that they are fighting so hard to force CSS into the category of "stolen trade secret" -- by sheer force of will, apparently. If DeCSS were to be ruled a stolen trade secret, then the courts would prevent anyone else from making commercial use of the algorithm.
This would be an incredible win for the movie industry -- they would receive what would be in effect a perpetual patent -- the right to exclude others from employing a process.
Note that they are fighting this battle on different fronts -- the DMCA case is to try and outlaw the dissemination of the algorithm. The Trade Secret case is to try and outlaw the implementation of the algorithm. They are fighting tooth and nail to control not the right to manufacture DVD players, but the right to dictate what features may and may not be included in DVD players.
I read the opening brief last night and I'm overwhelmed by the quality of the work. The plaintiffs have, over the course of the trial and appeals, clarified and distilled the essence of their case. Their arguments are very persuasive, and the writing is superb.
This is probably the most important copyright case of our generation. The government has characterized retroactive copyright extension as a "national tradition", and if this case fails, the result will be that Congress will be given the go-ahead to continue the "tradition", and the result will be perpetual copyright. The entire idea of a public domain of ideas will be destroyed.
Eldred is our last, best chance to prevent perpetual copyright. It's a tremendous effort, the best contemporary legal writing that I've EVER seen. I urge all Slashdot readers to read through the opening brief. It should be required reading for anyone interested in the issues behind copyright extension.
Ok, here's a nice big piece of promotion and hype. The new video format would allow you to own a copy of the movie in its original, digital theatrical format. In other words, you could own a copy of the same bitstream that was projected in the theatres.
But realistically, imagine a big-screen TV with a DVD player in Best Buy. Sitting next to it is a big-screen HDTV with a Hi-Definition DVD player playing the same movie. The difference would be obvious and stunning. Plus, the new hi-def players would play legacy DVDs. I think that such a format would be the catalyst for HDTV adoption. It would sell a lot of video projectors as well.
Here's another scenario. Imagine that the movie industry had decided that DVD was "too high" quality to be sold to the general public, and decided instead to sell VCDs. Had they done so, they would be "Napsterized" right now. Instead, VCDs and VCD quality video is a tiny niche. Everyone is used to DVD quality. Once DVD recorders hit the market, and internet bandwidth allows the easy transfer of 5 gig files, the movie industry must be ready with a new format that makes DVD quality video "second rate", or they'll be steamrollered by the "free alternative" just like the recording industry.