This ridiculously overbroad patent claims to cover the obvious process of requesting a file over a network. Prior art on this dates back at least 15 years
If this patent is demonstrated to be enforceable (it shouldn't be based on the above - but who knows), then it will effectively give Altnet the (legal, not moral) right to sue almost any P2P network out there, since they all rely on this obivous technique.
Basically it looks like their strategy would be to use this patent to force every other P2P network to install the DRM technology they have been working on.
Attacking the RIAA seems more like a stunt than a real strategy, but hopefully the RIAA has the resources to invalidate this patent, if they do, then they will be doing the world of P2P a big favor.
Why would this chart be more difficult to manipulate than the old record stores version? To manipulate the old chart, you have to send people out to travel the country buying copies in the significant record shops.
Yes, but because they knew which record shops were being used to collect data, the effect of their purchases could be multiplied. With this approach they would actually need to compete directly with *real* purchases.
Those familiar with the BBC will be familiar with "Top of the Pops" - a long-running BBC show targeting teenagers which used the TV station we all pay for to funnel the greatest pile of unbelievably crap commercial noise (the term "music" doesn't really apply) into the eager ears of Britain's youth. This was based on the UK singles chart which is widely regarded to be completely manipulated by the music industry. Why exactly the British public must pay for this weekly infomercial for the worst the music industry has to offer is quite beyond me.
With any luck, the music industry will have a more difficult time in manipulating this chart, and it will therefore more accurately reflect the musical tastes of the UK's youth.
I think it is increasingly clear that SCO is going to lose this fight, but that won't compensate anyone for the uncertainly they have created around the reputation of Linux in their shameless effort to inflate their stock price.
I really hope the individuals behind this disgraceful farce get blacklisted by every tech company on the planet, they deserve nothing less.
This sounds like just another attempt to coin a new term. Skimming through the article I don't see any new concepts, nor even new combinations of concepts. Grid computing instead of P2P, now wireless grids, what next - P2P XML?
If the stated goal is to punish conduct only, as opposed to create a loophole to the Betamax test so that litigation may be used to effect technology regultion, there are many ways to do that.
But would that allow the RIAA to go after Streamcast and Grokster again (which will, I suspect, be their litmus test of acceptability for a future version of the Act)?
Will it ever be possible to target the makers of Kazaa and Morpheus, without the supposedly unintended consequences that everyone worries about?
Now, obviously the law can't simply name the companies it wants to get rid of, so there has to be some kind of test to identify these "bad actors". The fundamental problem (for the Induce Act) is that there may not exist an objective test that can effectively isolate those they wish to isolate, meaning that the Induce Act will inevitably require a subjective test. Subjective tests must be clarified by litigation, but it only requires the threat of litigation to torpedo many potentially valuable new technologies before they even get out of the angel investor's office.
It is therefore my suspicion that it will be impossible to rewrite the Induce Act such that it addresses the concerns of the IEEE, CEA, EFF, and others, while still achieving its stated goal. This probably means that the current effort to come up with a compromise is unlikely to bear fruit. I doubt the situation is improved by the fact that the person charged with achieving this compromise is the Register of Copyrights, Mary Beth Peters, who has a more anti-technology view than even the RIAA will comfortably admit to.
Whatever happens, I am sure that history will regard the Induce Act as the most violent death throe yet of a powerful and influential industry. Lets hope they don't take too many useful technologies down with them.
What makes Google the right company to do this - is it only that they can get sufficient eyeballs?
If so, there is nothing particularly interesting about this. Sure, any piece of software that gets a direct link from the Google front page is going to have a massive advantage over its competitors, and yes, were that to happen, it would be nice if that software happened to use an open protocol with lots of open source clients.
The fact that he chose instant messaging as the application, and Google as the big powerful company with all the eyeballs is somewhat irrelevant, the same would be true of almost any application and almost any company with a massively popular website.
Of course, if the big powerful company just happens to be Google, the darling of Slashdot editors, then it certainly won't hurt his advertising click-through revenue:-)
This is yet another example of outdated "tail wagging the dog" thinking. Government regulation of the communication infrastructure is no-longer necessary, and the government is going to have to accept this fact.
How are they going to force non-US VoIP companies to comply with this requirement? It isn't like there aren't already a variety of ways to communicate in a manner that thwarts government snooping, the fact that the old phone system made this relatively easy is no reason to cripple modern communication mechanisms.
Yeah, the Gay Nigger Association guys get moderated down to 0 for what they post, so Hans really deserved to get banned for days for posting a comment that many people felt was worthy of being moderated up.
but obviously it's fixed now.
Not to my knowledge, it could easily happen again.
I'm not going to blame any companies for the actions they take under the fucked-up "law" known as the DMCA.
That is really dumb. If everyone followed that line of reasoning, Dmitry Sklyarov would still be rotting in jail, and Adobe would be unrepentant. There are many immoral ways to abuse bad laws, the existence of those laws is not an excuse to misuse them.
Talk about demonising the wrong entity here. The DMCA isn't Apple's fault.
If I didn't think it would get me banned from Slashdot for several days (see sig), I might point out how hypocritical this is, if this were any other company using the DMCA to threaten Open Source developers and inhibit interoperability, most of the Slashdot crowd would be burning their effigy by now.
For the modern left, "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" only apply to ideas they agree with.
This is true of many on both sides. It is amazing how so many cloak themselves in libertarianism when discussing issues where they don't want government involvement (think abortion or gun control), yet resort to the classic "will somebody please think of the children?!" on issues where they do (again, think abortion or gun control).
Neither side has a monopoly on freedom from inappropriate government intervention.
(BTW, this is not an advert for the Libertarian party, I don't think I should be able to put down my liver or kidneys to secure a loan).
Not that poor, Estonia has really embraced communications technology over the past few years, to the point that it is now one of the more wired countries in the EU.
I am amazed that nobody has built an open source VoIP application, perhaps around the Speex codec, which employs simple UDP NAT circumvention to get around the nasty configuration issues which plague most VoIP applications.
Until someone does, Skype, a proprietary closed protocol, but the only "zero configuration" VoIP application I know of, is likely to continue to acquire users.
Not if your opponent is fireproof. Many of the most aggressive patent parasites don't build any software themselves and are therefore immune to retaliatory patent attacks.
That a company like Google could stoop to claiming their rights have been infringed upon by an operation that predates their own is extremely disappointing.
Indeed, I find it terribly hard to believe that a company endorsed by the Slashdot groupthink could possibly do anything bad.
So... it may be old, but it's good to have running jokes.
I have heard plenty of running jokes about jews, muslims, and blacks - but thankfully/. isn't the type of place where such jokes are tolerated. I don't really see why insults to the French should be treated any differently.
Slashdot Mirror
If this patent is demonstrated to be enforceable (it shouldn't be based on the above - but who knows), then it will effectively give Altnet the (legal, not moral) right to sue almost any P2P network out there, since they all rely on this obivous technique.
Basically it looks like their strategy would be to use this patent to force every other P2P network to install the DRM technology they have been working on.
Attacking the RIAA seems more like a stunt than a real strategy, but hopefully the RIAA has the resources to invalidate this patent, if they do, then they will be doing the world of P2P a big favor.
With any luck, the music industry will have a more difficult time in manipulating this chart, and it will therefore more accurately reflect the musical tastes of the UK's youth.
I really hope the individuals behind this disgraceful farce get blacklisted by every tech company on the planet, they deserve nothing less.
This sounds like just another attempt to coin a new term. Skimming through the article I don't see any new concepts, nor even new combinations of concepts. Grid computing instead of P2P, now wireless grids, what next - P2P XML?
Now, obviously the law can't simply name the companies it wants to get rid of, so there has to be some kind of test to identify these "bad actors". The fundamental problem (for the Induce Act) is that there may not exist an objective test that can effectively isolate those they wish to isolate, meaning that the Induce Act will inevitably require a subjective test. Subjective tests must be clarified by litigation, but it only requires the threat of litigation to torpedo many potentially valuable new technologies before they even get out of the angel investor's office.
It is therefore my suspicion that it will be impossible to rewrite the Induce Act such that it addresses the concerns of the IEEE, CEA, EFF, and others, while still achieving its stated goal. This probably means that the current effort to come up with a compromise is unlikely to bear fruit. I doubt the situation is improved by the fact that the person charged with achieving this compromise is the Register of Copyrights, Mary Beth Peters, who has a more anti-technology view than even the RIAA will comfortably admit to.
Whatever happens, I am sure that history will regard the Induce Act as the most violent death throe yet of a powerful and influential industry. Lets hope they don't take too many useful technologies down with them.
If so, there is nothing particularly interesting about this. Sure, any piece of software that gets a direct link from the Google front page is going to have a massive advantage over its competitors, and yes, were that to happen, it would be nice if that software happened to use an open protocol with lots of open source clients.
The fact that he chose instant messaging as the application, and Google as the big powerful company with all the eyeballs is somewhat irrelevant, the same would be true of almost any application and almost any company with a massively popular website.
Of course, if the big powerful company just happens to be Google, the darling of Slashdot editors, then it certainly won't hurt his advertising click-through revenue :-)
How are they going to force non-US VoIP companies to comply with this requirement? It isn't like there aren't already a variety of ways to communicate in a manner that thwarts government snooping, the fact that the old phone system made this relatively easy is no reason to cripple modern communication mechanisms.
I was going to reply to his comment but you said it better :-)
Neither side has a monopoly on freedom from inappropriate government intervention.
(BTW, this is not an advert for the Libertarian party, I don't think I should be able to put down my liver or kidneys to secure a loan).
Until someone does, Skype, a proprietary closed protocol, but the only "zero configuration" VoIP application I know of, is likely to continue to acquire users.