I don't think you understand the legal process very well. Right now, M$ is just asking the Supreme Court to hear their case. That's called a petition for cert (which is short for some latin technical term I can't remember how to spell:-). The Court *does* typically make decisions on cert requests reasonably quickly, so unless they *agree* to hear the case at this point, it's unlikely to be a major delay. Given the situation, many of us agree that it's bloody unlikely for them to hear this case at this time. So it'll go one where the circuit court sent it.
Please explain why an encoding/decoding method used primarily to decode OTHER THINGS which I HAVE PURCHASED should be treated as "property"? Ideas are NOT property, they don't in any way resemble property, and idiots trying desperately to treat them as such should be the ones to get out of my way.
If Dolby is going to tell me I can't decode content encoded with their process in any way, and on any platform I choose, when I have legally purchased that content, then they're going to have to deal with me telling them to pound sand while I go do what I have always been able to do--use the things I purchase in the way I see fit.
Along the way, yes, many of us are trying to get the government to wake up, stop kissing corporate america's private parts, and make patent law at least somewhat rational again. In the meantime, civil disobedience is the word of the day. Presumably I'm not the only person who just went out to download the AC3 code just because of this issue, when in fact I probably never would have done so otherwise.
How can you get a "clean" copy of a protected disc? There are three basic approaches, in order of least to most desirable:
(1) Record directly from the analog outputs of the drive, feeding the sound into a sound card or outboard A/D converter. Some fidelity will be
lost when converting from digital to analog and back again, which is what the industry is counting on.
Seems to me that recording MP3's at less than 128 loses some fidelity anyway. I've heard people claim they can hear how much worse an MP3 is. If fidelity were the issue, nobody'd be ripping MP3's....
Having only watched the first 10 episodes, I'm not sure where the "sex" comes in. Aside from gratuitous shots of Valentine's bikini in ep 9 or 10, I can't think of anything I've seen along those lines that I'd expect someone to object to.... I suppose some of the more risque outfits, but that seems a mighty stretch. Without giving spoilers, does it get more explicit?
I am hoping that since they are relegating it to a "more adult" time slot, that they'll do it late enough on Sundays that they won't have to chop it too badly. But of course if it gets more explicit then what can you do? Bah. Good news/Bad news.
Personally, if someone charged me $3000 for a lock on my house for me to only find it was a keyless slide bolt, I'd be suing that contractor rather than supporting their right to hide the fact that it was a slide bolt through their own lawsuits.
For the record, I am listed; if you know my name, you can look me up. My main point was that it's ridiculous to say "you shouldn't expect more privacy than a home address", when in fact I can pay to have my home address unlisted in the commonly available public directories. Sounds like my home address has more opportunities for privacy than my domain registration.
If you want to argue that it should be so (and I know there are good reasons for being able to contact the owners of a domain, though I would argue that what's more important is being able to contact owners who actually provide equipment and name services than those who own "vanity" domains), I have no quibble in general with such arguments. But don't try to claim that people who want to be able to opt out of domain resitration listing of their home addresses and phone numbers are asking for "more" privacy than homeowners.
The article says that it puts bad blocks on the cd,
standard audio cd players play rigth over them, but a computer will think the cd is very very scratched and unplayable
A trick which game software companies have been using for some time, which is trivial for existing software to already work around. Hardly safe from ripping, though presumably you'd need more sophisticated software.
Because a person (legal or
individual) voluntarily chooses to be present on the Internet, the identity and contact
information of domain name registrants are entitled to no more privacy protection than are
a business or home addresses in the physical world.' -- Timothy P. Trainer, President,
International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC)
Last time I checked, you could choose to be UNLISTED and have LOTS of privacy protection.
I wonder what he would think if we published his personal information for all to see? How much you want to bet he isn't listed?
I think the point was they should not know which FORMAT they're listening too. What the piece is shouldn't affect their judgement, but prejudgements of a given format could factor into their judgement unless it was a blind test.
The only possible way I can see this as a sensible ban is if the manufacture of PS2 units requires revealing the encryption keys for DVD to Chinese, and the concern is that someone unscrupulous will use them for pirating.
Which is not to say that this is or isn't a reasonable concern, but I'd be surprised if Sony hadn't already considered that, being a media giant and all.....
I remember being awestruck by this book when I read it many years ago (though not 1968, I was a bit young then:-). I'm not sure if this was the first of the set, but Zelazny actually did a few of books based on various religious themes/styles. Eye of Cat covers American Indian themes (don't recall being able to get into it though), and Creatures of Light and Darkness uses egyptian mythology in a similar way and really rocked.
Re:Read the article first spaceboy
on
Movies in Space?
·
· Score: 1
"private zero gee research" sounds like Tito and his girlfriend, next time.
Just because it requires a reader to read the chip doesn't mean that it requires a reader to spend the money. If it doesn't require a reader to spend the money, then the chip is no better to track you with than the aforementioned hairbrained ways to track you via serial number.
(ii) not using
Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in
part.
Why does everyone choose not to emphasize that "includes"? The way I read both clauses i & ii it sounds to me like M$ simply is saying "you can't include the Software" (note the capitalization and the specific definition of "the Software" earlier in the license) "in any open-source/GPL/other undesireably licensed project, or any project using open-source tools". By "include" one would presume they mean "distribute".
Presumably their SDK includes libraries, right? So you can't ship their libraries "in whole or in part" with your software if you you developed using any of the "evil" open source tools, or if your product is open sourced with one of the "evil" licenses.
Seems within their rights to demand. Of course, it's ridiculous, but since when have EULA's been reasonable or even enforceable??
Slashdot Mirror
why I'm going to be using netscape 4.76 - 128 for the next 10 years.....
Only until it gets to the Supreme Court. Enjoy it while it lasts.
I don't think you understand the legal process very well. Right now, M$ is just asking the Supreme Court to hear their case. That's called a petition for cert (which is short for some latin technical term I can't remember how to spell :-). The Court *does* typically make decisions on cert requests reasonably quickly, so unless they *agree* to hear the case at this point, it's unlikely to be a major delay. Given the situation, many of us agree that it's bloody unlikely for them to hear this case at this time. So it'll go one where the circuit court sent it.
I don't recall anyone saying that Micro$oft should be denied their right to petition the court.
If Dolby is going to tell me I can't decode content encoded with their process in any way, and on any platform I choose, when I have legally purchased that content, then they're going to have to deal with me telling them to pound sand while I go do what I have always been able to do--use the things I purchase in the way I see fit.
Along the way, yes, many of us are trying to get the government to wake up, stop kissing corporate america's private parts, and make patent law at least somewhat rational again. In the meantime, civil disobedience is the word of the day. Presumably I'm not the only person who just went out to download the AC3 code just because of this issue, when in fact I probably never would have done so otherwise.
Yeah, and tell me now who offers a reasonable level of support to actually know this. Not the Bells!
(1) Record directly from the analog outputs of the drive, feeding the sound into a sound card or outboard A/D converter. Some fidelity will be lost when converting from digital to analog and back again, which is what the industry is counting on.
Seems to me that recording MP3's at less than 128 loses some fidelity anyway. I've heard people claim they can hear how much worse an MP3 is. If fidelity were the issue, nobody'd be ripping MP3's....
Sounds like half a dozen or more of the standard TV sci-fi shows from the last 30 years.
I am hoping that since they are relegating it to a "more adult" time slot, that they'll do it late enough on Sundays that they won't have to chop it too badly. But of course if it gets more explicit then what can you do? Bah. Good news/Bad news.
Personally, if someone charged me $3000 for a lock on my house for me to only find it was a keyless slide bolt, I'd be suing that contractor rather than supporting their right to hide the fact that it was a slide bolt through their own lawsuits.
If you want to argue that it should be so (and I know there are good reasons for being able to contact the owners of a domain, though I would argue that what's more important is being able to contact owners who actually provide equipment and name services than those who own "vanity" domains), I have no quibble in general with such arguments. But don't try to claim that people who want to be able to opt out of domain resitration listing of their home addresses and phone numbers are asking for "more" privacy than homeowners.
A trick which game software companies have been using for some time, which is trivial for existing software to already work around. Hardly safe from ripping, though presumably you'd need more sophisticated software.
Last time I checked, you could choose to be UNLISTED and have LOTS of privacy protection.
I wonder what he would think if we published his personal information for all to see? How much you want to bet he isn't listed?
I think the point was they should not know which FORMAT they're listening too. What the piece is shouldn't affect their judgement, but prejudgements of a given format could factor into their judgement unless it was a blind test.
Except that a large part of the Asian market uses VCD. To pirate DVD images to VCD you'd need to rip the content with the encryption keys, right?
Since when?
http://www.papajohnsonline.com/html/pj/pj_i ndex.js p
Which is not to say that this is or isn't a reasonable concern, but I'd be surprised if Sony hadn't already considered that, being a media giant and all.....
I remember being awestruck by this book when I read it many years ago (though not 1968, I was a bit young then :-). I'm not sure if this was the first of the set, but Zelazny actually did a few of books based on various religious themes/styles. Eye of Cat covers American Indian themes (don't recall being able to get into it though), and Creatures of Light and Darkness uses egyptian mythology in a similar way and really rocked.
"private zero gee research" sounds like Tito and his girlfriend, next time.
Just because it requires a reader to read the chip doesn't mean that it requires a reader to spend the money. If it doesn't require a reader to spend the money, then the chip is no better to track you with than the aforementioned hairbrained ways to track you via serial number.
Applixware did not make Star Office. Applix is a totally different office suite.
You need to get your facts straight. I can get Microsoft Internet Explorer for Solaris, and it works just fine.
If your "recipient software" doesn't INCLUDE (aka "distribute") the Microsoft software, you can develop it any way you want.
Great, isn't it?
Why does everyone choose not to emphasize that "includes"? The way I read both clauses i & ii it sounds to me like M$ simply is saying "you can't include the Software" (note the capitalization and the specific definition of "the Software" earlier in the license) "in any open-source/GPL/other undesireably licensed project, or any project using open-source tools". By "include" one would presume they mean "distribute".
Presumably their SDK includes libraries, right? So you can't ship their libraries "in whole or in part" with your software if you you developed using any of the "evil" open source tools, or if your product is open sourced with one of the "evil" licenses.
Seems within their rights to demand. Of course, it's ridiculous, but since when have EULA's been reasonable or even enforceable??