is it just me, or do other people think the same thing when Microsoft and "trustworthy computing" are used in the same sentence
It does seem something of an oxymoron. I think there are several reasons behind the move:
(1) After XP being touted as the most secure OS they've released then the huge hole, they deinitely needed to buttress the PR.
(2) Digital Rights Management is, IMHO, a big part of it. They don't want the Hollings bill or anything similar, as that'd be published and hardware. They want the control and proprietary nature of their own Media Player. I think they're looking not just at PC's but down the road when consumer electronics will be PC's hidden in a box be it players, set top boxes, etc. They'd rather have the royalties than a chance the newer embedded systems have a standard that would allow competitive products.
(3) Notwithstanding the XP security hole, they have had bad press for years for security in general and the lack of responsiveness and priority in that area. They're betting the ranch on.Net but also seeing others come up with competing ventures (AOL/TW and their partners, for one, which has the resources to compete). If people don't trust.Net for security and privacy, it's going to be as popular as their new corporate licensing, which forced down the throats of customers has been generally regurgitated by them vs. the quick sign up they expected..and the associated revenue streams.
(4) Bottom line, I think it'll be developed with an idea to insure a continued monopoly.
I'd have had more faith in the commitment had the memo discussed 'privacy and security' throughout. It was mentioned as what was wanted/needed, but everything then went the way of 'trustworthy computing'.. something totally undefined, and from here, another buzzword from Microsoft (i dislike that as much as their continued reference to my 'experience' at a computer. ) They've done the PR but left it as a concept, allowing them to develop it into anything they want as time goes by and as potential competition comes into view.
How quickly we are to jump to wondrous conclusions. I doubt this is a real application of the zero-point effect. I guess all the news media personell who were working 12 years ago when cold fusion came out have moved on and weren't around to lend caution where it was needed? I think it tends to support the criteria used by the 'new media', ie internet or cable news:
(1) No need to use history or past events or have any knowledge of them;
(2) Don't bother about using journalists with any background in the subject;
(3) Don't bother with attempting to get knowledgable source when you don't know anything about the subject being reported;
(4) If the story was carried by any other organization online or on cable, assume it's totally accurate and don't bother checking it out, no matter how far fetched it may seem (if they can figure out it really is far fetched).
In any case, they're not wrong to be exploring these options. Do you have a proven business model that allows freely distributing copies of intellectual work (not just software, but books, music, movies, etc.) without payment to the authors?
When you do, your rant will make more sense. Right now it's just another rant.
No, I don't have that proven business model BUT... there is statistical backup to say that they doth protest too much. When the copier was first distributed by Xerox, the book publishers went to court to block it's sale saying it'd put publishers out of business. It didn't. The same people wanting the copy protection for HDTV are the SAME people (Jack Valenti included) who went to court to fight the sale of VCR's using the same argument, that it'd put the movie industry out of business. In both cases, they lost in court. The end result was neither the publishers nor the studios were put out of business. (In fact, the VCR has been credited with saving studio's when they were really lagging some years back. They count on the VHS sales these days.) And to counter the RIAA who says CD sales are down for the first time in a decade and then blame P2P, they forget to mention there's a recession and almost every industry has seen a decline, the more successful saying it's the first decline in a decade.
If they actually had anything on TV worth _watching_, this might make a wee bit more sense. I might as well stand by the curb next to my garbage... carrying a shotgun and hollering.
Who cares - waste your money protecting it if you want. Nobody's gonna steal what's on TV. Most of us like two or three channels which we need the full package cable to get, naturally.
I don't disagree with you there, on the content angle. I loved the part in the article that said studios wouldn't broadcast their movies over-the-air unless there was copy protection. That's BS. Most studio's and over-the-air networks are owned by the same corporation. (CBS=Viacom=Paramount FOX=20th/21st Century Fox ABC=Disney) They aren't going to forgo all those ad dollars. I really don't care there as I don't park my butt in front of the TV all that often. But if they insert 'flags' to prevent recording of movies, then they'll do it with any NFL, broadcast, etc. That WOULD make me angry.
I have a very simple solution. They say they won't broadcast high def movies without copy protection? Fine. Leave me my right to time shift, and I'll leave them their's not to broadcast a movie. (As well as not being able to shut down my TV. You DO know the copy group wants to be able to shut down a TV remotely, don't you? I know they've looked at that option closely.)
I certainly take exception that the competitive companies didn't do much getting the lines and service back on, that they were insignificant. So what? They were required to lease the line. The lines are still owned by Verizon and it's THEIR responsibility for getting them back in service. As for the actual services provided down that pipe, I've got clients in lower manhanttan with other providers, and they returned to service at about the same time as Verizon's service. I knew Seidenberg and cronies where a bunch of a-holes, but I didn't know they were quite as arrogant as they have come out to be. Their timing, attempting to gain from the disaster is absurd, and deserves PR, hopefully all negative. It certainly supports the idea of competition. As for getting the services back and the hoopla, they did get the services back. But it was done by the old time telco line employees, just the ones that Ivan & Co have made their best attempt to downsize. It wasn't the groups hired since that they hope to replace those folks with at a huge ratio as far as persons as well as cost. I still think the only way to get real competition is to have a breakup ala AT&T. Let the 'last mile' and physical CO's (the buildings, not the switches) be retained as the regulated monopoly and let every service provider, including Verizon, compete for services over that pipe. It's the only way we ended up with real competition in long distance and I think it's the only way we'll have any real competition in local service.
What about me? The sports junkie? I could listen to sports events/talk the entire time I'm in the car...... some deleted.... All though many on/. would like to think that the world is filled with others like them, the fact is everyone on here is most likely the minority. Some, myself included, would spend $10/month getting live coverage of sports/news events.
I drive about 1800 round trip every 5-6 weeks or so. I usually end up finding ESPN radio most of the way on local stations (granted, AM). But how much broadcasting of actual sports events can they do if there isn't localization, due to blackout rules. I, and my car, could be in Chicago, but if I want to listen to a Yankees or Mets or Rangers of Knicks game and my car is registered in NJ or NY, do I not get it? I'd end up going back to the local stations to actually listen. I don't think I'd pay the freight. ALSO... They have flat rate per device, no 'additional' units like sat or cable tv, etc. So if I have it in car, truck, and home, the price really just tripled. Add the taxes, you're talking around $40/mo. To me that's a little much JUST for radio. I might be interested if I could pay a few bucks per additional unit, like the others. But not the whole fee.
And why does the unit have "sealed lead acid batteries" in it?
The units probably has three functions within it. The batteries in the 'middle' of the process. The fuel cell is responsible for converting the fuel to electricity, probably low voltage DC current, the batteries are charged and kept charged (and provide electricity while changing cylinders), and an inverter to actually output the 110 AC current.
But the price is totally absurd. There are units in the works, not that far out, that will produce current for your entire house, that will run on natural gas (and I believe it's expected to expand that with propane or methanol units not long after)... they'll provide continuous power, a lot more of it, and not absurdly priced. I can't see anyone really interested in units at that price point.
The Lanham Act [bitlaw.com] is actually a trademark / service mark protection law, not really a copyright law. To see Apple's lawyers use it in this context seems a bit out of the ordinary....
I'd guess there's a good chance these letters are written by the lawyers on the bottom of the totem pole in the office, possibly their first real 'work' after spending all their earlier days in the law library simply doing research for the big boys and girls in the firm. The Lanham Act probably sounded good or got grabbed from another letter in the past where it might have been a more appropriate reference.
That's just my opinion, then again (with regards and credits to Dennis Miller), I could be wrong.
I know Im going to be flamed to hell for saying this, but probably 95% of the people will have Microsoft windows at home, probably MS office at home and wont want to change their working practices, particularly teachers.
I'm not going to flame, but guessing the percentage is way off. If you look at the demographics of those schools who will be getting the hardware/software, it's likely, especially from the student standpoint, that many/most don't have computers at home. The teachers probably don't have the 'extra' cost items such as Office either. It's also bothersome that after a very limited number of years that these same poorer districts then have to find the funds for upgrading and maintenance, something they don't have.
Most of these school systems need a LOT more basic things in their classrooms. A settlement directed toward schools vs. $10 to each class individual may be appropriate, but who says it has to or should be hardware/software??? (And the 'value' of the software? Is that considered 'retail' for determining the amount of the settlement? That wouldn't seem appropriate in any case. Same as hardware, it should be actual not costs involved in any case.)
Social security cards are too easy to counterfeit, passports are for people who travel abroad, driver's licenses for people who drive and credit cards are for people with credit. That leaves a piece of the population who can't identify itself, which leads to many headaches.
Countries with national ID's don't have this problem and their citizens don't feel like the nasty government is plotting to tattoo a barcode on their ass. At least I don't. Would you feel better if, instead of introducing a new ID, social security cards became harder to forge? Because I don't see the difference.
Sure. And what happens to those who's inadvertantly been assigned the same social security number (i don't want to use the normal acronym SS number here, that's too scary). What happens to them? The INS can't handle those aliens who are in the country even legally at this point, which most of the terrorists were, and for whom there wouldn't be the extensive backgroud as there would already be on US citizens. So how in the hell would a national id card have helped?? And just how many people does it take to 'track' 270+ million people? McNealy is an a-hole, and for an old man, I'm not one to usually use that kind of term. But these knee-jerk reactions are totally absurd. Some of the terrorists did overstay their visa's. So what, even if we clamped down there, they likely would have been able to renew them. Again, most were here legally and most were unknown to the law enforcement agencies. That's not to say I'm not in favor of getting the CIA back into the business they were meant to be in and beefing up and greatly expanding their abilities. There ability to function was emasculated by some of those Congress types, and so many wanting to be so PC. I'd bet on them before I would any stupid idiotic national id card, sponsored by a number more of those stupid PC folks. (If that weren't the case they'd at first think logically it'd be better to start getting a handle on aliens in the country, being a smaller number and wish less known backgrounds. But that wouldn't be PC for them, so they'd rather come up with a system that'd be impossible to handle/control, make the amounts of data the NSA and others have to sift through look like a single 3X5 card compared to whatever new agency would control this, and essentially do little else than having the founding fathers rolling in their graves.) I knew an INS guy who was there as his second career after military. All through the 90's he was always frustrated because the folks in the field couldn't do their jobs and activity was halted by washington because they didn't want to look bad, get bad press, or not be, hell, to use it again, PC.
They'd only have to copyright twenty tones, not 1 million or whatever, since each tone has two tones making it up, and each digit is based on those combinations. Although there are also the pound, star, and a-d tones as well (although the a-d are really only used on PBX's) but those are irrelevant.
And that will undoubtedly be their problem. Since Bell Labs developed this many many years ago, one might first check to see if they've patented those two tone combinations previously, at least for the purposes of switching/dialing.
Airplanes -- restricted purchases, buyers must be verified before they are allowed to buy.
Dynamite -- again you must have a license to purchase in quality or high grade. records are kept on the sale thereof.
Plastic Explosives -- again restricted, the US military controls most of the supply, the rest is subjected to similar laws as Dynamite
Fertilizer chemicals -- again restricted purchasing, plus since they are often stored in large tanks/trucks in the open they must be guarded and monitored.
Telephones and other communication equipment -- these systems are subjected to recording and monitoring
Knives and Boxcutters -- large ones (esp if they are sold at gun shows or knife shows) are subjected to similar laws as guns
I'm not saying that your are incorrect, just that you might want to find better examples before sending your letter off.
I'm not saying your response is incorrect or that it should be correct, but:
Airplanes: You can go buy an airplane today. You can't FLY it unless you have the proper ticket, ie private, multi-engine, commercial, etc. But that does NOT preclude you or anyone from making the purchase. (I'm talking GA. An individual trying to buy a 747 might be suspect, but it's not prohibited).
The farm use products you mentioned. Unfortunately, they AREN't guarded and monitored as they should be. Being from the midwest/west, they're stored various places in and around the farming communities. I've never seen guards. Again, I think that may just have to change.
The Knives and Boxcutters -- large ones. You mentions if sold at gun shows or knife shows and being subject sumilar to guns. First, those used in the current situation apparently were NOT large ones. Secondly, unless recent changes implemented, there isn't a lot in the way of restrictions on guns at gun shows. But with knives, it doesn't take a cythe or a 'big knife' to do what was done.
No it wouldn't make sense. What if the driver is sober, but he is transporting his drunken friends home from the pub?
Absolutely. It would cause every 'designated driver' to be 'suspected' of dui. The determination of probable cause must be the driver, not just an occupant. IANAL, (and though I did take law courses in school, most were only international law with a couple criminal... I still can't remember which is which when it comes to Miranda and Escabido), I DO seem to remember a 5th Amendment which might come back to haunt.
I have tended to be on the side of intellectual property, but this case changed my mind. This TV show, which I have never watched, is off the deep end. How can we help this guy who currently owns battlebots.org?
I also generally favor intellectual property and trademark protection when warranted. I still do. But this, and other similar companies going after domains, doesn't pass the smell test in the least. There's no confusion of identity, they aren't engaged in any similar activity, type or scope of business, etc. The term 'bots' has been around long before their trademark. And bots 'battling' is also ancient terminology, in internet years. The trademarks (and there are numerous) are detailed to include the program and about any type of adjunct merchandising from computer games to bottle caps. However, there doesn't seem to be a dilutive impact if 'battlebots.org' isn't in a competing area. Also, it's usually the '.com' one goes after, claiming 'unintentional' hits to another site due to 'confusion' searching for plaintiff's site. Obviously, '.org' is usually NOT where one begins looking. They likely get hits from those actually looking for the '.org', since it's more internet related in this case potentially benefiting the plaintiff. Possibly at the detriment of the defendant, should they get 'interested' in the.com site and not follow up with checks for.org?
I'd go after some publicity, most certainly. The Computer/Internet press? ok. But that seems like where we usually go. Mainstream press? why not. Most important? I'd be sending every piece of material to something like Daily Variety. Even an Entertainment Tonight or Access Hollywood might pick up a snipet on something nonsensical like this 'David v. Goliath' story (as long as both are produced by their owners). If you want your PR to work, make sure it's on THEIR home turf. For the disclaimer, however, IANAL, and I don't play one on TV; just get to see 30 or 40 pages of billing detail from them every month (sigh).
Oh..and finally.. their (the.com) lawyer goes to great detail with the Lanham act. As usual, they don't quite include all the pertinent data. Including those areas where consideration may be given in regard to 'bad faith' filing for a domain name. to wit:
(B)
(i)
In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(I)
the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
(II)
the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(III)
the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(IV)
the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;
(V)
the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(VI)
the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VII)
the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VIII)
the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and
(IX)
the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of section 43 [subsec. (c)(1) of this section].
(ii)
Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.
Oh yeah, SMALLPOX -- laugh track runing real hard.
Actually, smallpox is considered a real terrorist threat because (a) it's considered eliminated, so nobody is vaccinated against it anymore (b) there are no longer stockpiles of vaccine, and IIRC, not only are none manufactured, the actual virus as mostly (the operative word) been destroyed making it difficult if not impossible to ramp up vaccine production until there would be a breakout again (c) there were some amounts of it stored in fromer USSR countries that people were worried it could fall in the hands of terrorists and (d) the fact it is highly contageous.
CCTVs in public places aren't placed there to infringe on the constitutional rights of you or anyone else. They can't do that
because the Constitution doesn't protect your right to be invisible in a public place.
If your a known criminal or are engaging in criminal activity then a CCTV camera on the street corner isn't exactly welcome. But if
your Joe Average it's no better or no worse than someone standing there taking in the view.
Watching everyone all of the time takes a lot of resources. The former East German government tried it back in the days of the
Cold War. Eventually, it toppled under the strain that such a machine placed upon itself and, in turn, so did the Berlin Wall.
I disagree to some extent. There's a difference between 'someone' standing there and taking in the view and the 'state' (ie. police). Agreed that that's no Constitutional right to be invisible in public, there IS an implicit guarantee (as upheld by the courts) to a degree of anonymity in public, IIRC correctly, sometimes directly to prohibit infringement of that that IS Constitutionally protected, the right of assembly. Also, while the 'public' are freer in public to do/cause certain events regarding other individuals, some of these same things the state is specifically prohibited from doing. So, it's NOT the same as 'just taking in the view' be it a person or camera. The fallability (or infallability) of the system to identify or mistakenly identify is going to be interesting as cases end up in court. (There will certainly be some. While the super bowl didn't have any impact, the article stated nobody was detained due to crowd size, etc, so that isn't good example.) I have a feeling it may end up with detention of someone without real probable cause who's been mistakenly identified or identified by a 'misfiled' picture. Plus, as someone else noted receiving a license with a picture from a database, there are obviously OTHER large accumulations of pictures that have nothing to do with criminals. How about those arrested but never convicted? They could easily be mistakenly included, and watched even though they technically that prior arrest shouldn't provide any more probable cause than for average joe. And those, as in my case, where photo's/fingerprints are on file becuase of a previously submitted security clearance for an event (and anyone who's ever served in the military'). As for the comment on East Germany, maybe it only failed because they didn't have the technology that's available today? I don't think it's wise that we in the IS answer that question for them. I loved the comment that if someone is identified, a policeman will be sent and the person asked to identyfy themselves, etc, and it not the one they want, will simply explain the situation. Do they think criminals are going to correctly identify themselves as criminals or not carry false identification. And the person that isn't carrying identification (there IS no law that requires one to carry that, that was more the USSR style.) A person could be detained for absolutely no other reason than walking down the street, taking no action that would normally provide probable cause to stop the individual.At that point the individual has to prove their innocence, the opposite of what the founding fathers had in mind.
the companies listed as "irrelevant" are irrelevant only in terms of this particular venture...meaning, quite simply,
that their roles in its implementation are very small compared to the other more involved companies.
I'd disagree, particularly with Liberate. They go head to head with MS, having beaten them out in contracts for STB's as well as supplying STB's where MS WAS to be the supplier, only they couldn't deliver when they were suppossed to. They're large enough to make a standard 'stick' as well as become 'socially acceptable' to some of the skeptic corporate types.
By passing a law that prevents the sending of some kinds of email, the government is limiting the free speech of both individuals and companies. Whether you agree with SPAM or not, it's a constitutionally protected right of the sender, just like gun ownership. I
Wrong. First, this deals with commerce, ie unsolicited ads. There have been laws for years both on use of the mail (US Postal Service) and unsolicited fax mail. That's stood the tests of time and courts. (such things as identification, etc, on mail) That has not been deemed to have been any violation of your 'free speech'. As long as I use ISDN at times, as well as have to PAY for service to the internet to receive such notices, then it's also not free speech. 1st amendment does not protect 'recipient paid speech'. Using your 'free speech' argument, is like saying the post office must send all of your advertisements for free, because it's your free speech. I agree... You DO have the right of free speech. You do NOT have the right of free conveyance of that speech at others cost and nowhere does the constitution make any such statement or implication.
As I recall, didn't someone who created a site-modifier (to change the language of a site) face a lawsuit under DMCA? I could be wrong, but I seem to recall a time site modification sites were getting in trouble.
This really is 1984, MS is just a few years late...but I digress. You have a very interesting point on the DMCA, and I think it could provide some interesting fireworks, MS on both sides of an issue talking out of both sides of their mouth (like in the anti-trust case in court vs. public), but in this case, both in court, along with RIAA MPAA. What if I have a site that uses ssl for access, say a bank, and MS and their @#$@#$ little tags point to the new MS bank. Now, forget about lawsuits from the bank. Are they not retrieving content that has been encrypted? Now if you do that with a DVD, decrypt or, according to MPAA, try and take the content, there's no fair use, you're violating the law. Yet MS is going to implant this in their software. So for their media player, etc, they'll way, 'we'll protect music/movies, make us the monopoly provider, only we can do it', and if anyone tries to access it, they'll be breaking the law. (hell, mpaa and cable corp want encryption right to the monitor!). on the other hand, they're DOING it with ie. Screw what the source is, once IE has it, it's fair use/fair game, and we'll 'alter' the content. I see real mixed messages, maybe very confused judges. What a bunch of aholes. I do hope the appelate courts read some of this while they decide on the MS suit. While they can't retry the case at appelate levels, it has to enforce the arrogance/intent so that maybe Judge Jackson will be vindicated. (or whoever sets on the bench if/when it gets sent back down)
Exactly what codec is being disputed. Is this code or formulas that AT&T can PROVE MS is using or is it more like the Amazon 1-Click thing where they are suing for the concept.
From reading a couple articles, it seems MS was licensed for some uses of the codec, but are being accused of using it in other ways. No, this isn't like a 1-click and should be easily provable. The codecs used in telecommunications are well established standard algorithms, defined as such (like G.711, G.723 G.729a G.729b, etc), and included in ITU documents. It they're using a codec outside of an existing agreement or any agreement at all, it should be a slam dunk in determining that. (Net meeting uses H.323. Simply connect netmeeting with another compatible application accepting only the codec in question, and see if they negotiate to use it.)
No wonder they are all paranoid about Napster et al! Obviously, they are willing to pay a great deal to get thier songs to the masses, but now the power is in the hands of the individual.Yes, people still download what is on the radio, but in time that will change. When we are talking about THIS much money, someone somewhere is getting really scared.
You're right. It's the power and control, and they aren't about to give that up. As for 'in time that will change', not if they can help it. Even a big webcaster that has license agreements has is bgin hit by RIAA saying 'you're agreement doesn't allow for the listener to pick what they want to hear', they still want control of the playlists. They may bitch about payola (and that's what it is), but they're still paying it. and now evidently the stations are working it from their end and upping the ante. What I can't understand is how putting it through a 3rd party when it's still 'cash' makes it anything but payola. IMHO, it ought to just add another crime... money laundering. As you said though, it will change. Listerners will eventually be able to get what they want. But it'll take time, becuase while the stations may have the labels by the short ones, they have the artists in the same way... do it our way or your record goes nowhere. That'll only change when there are enough listeners to circumvent the hillary rosen's, riaa, the labels, and the stations taking the money. It's about time we get a little control back over what we listen to instead of being zombies to these arrogant aholes. (It is nice to know ratings are down. I used to listen to a clear channel station. After the merger, they turned it to crap. It's not even programmed on my car radio anymore.)
Funny how in PA, NJ, TX, and other states that have deregulated they haven't even seen a hint of a crisis. In fact, they now have choices in how "clean" there power is (coal, hydro, wind, bio-mass, gas, etc) and have seen rates drop slightly due to open competition.
I think you'll find that's due to a couple of reasons (though deregulation is different between NY, PA, etc.) First, there's plenty of power here, and transmission capabilities in the PA-NJ-MA grid. Second, at least here, the incumbant utilities weren't forced to buy at spot prices. They sold transmission facilities like in CA, but they can have contracts for power purchases.
Normally, power plants only transmit power about 300 miles (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) after that losses become too big. But I read in the U.S. News and world report, that b/c prices are so high, some power is being transmitted from as much as 600 miles away.
Bingo. and that's what the politicians like Davis forget to tell everyone when he says how much it costs to buy power from TX. Prices are already high from the producers in CA. If you have to buy it long distance, they have to 'ship' a LOT more than you end up getting. Let's say you want 5000MW from TX. Hell, they may have to ship 10000MW or more? They ain't going to give that to CA for free. So even if the prices were the same, it's going to cost a LOT more for that power all the way from Texas. If there was a lot of surplus, that might not be the case, they'd probably be willing to take a hit just to sell the power. But in these days, they just don't have to.
From the article
"The nice thing about this is you don't have to replace the whole line, just the lines with sag," Rodriguez said. "For a few hundred thousand dollars you can fix an existing line in a few weeks time so it wouldn't be a bottleneck."
So they're only replacing some of the lines, wouldn't that mean it would be impossible to transmit data, since only some of the lines are being replaced? Still, it provides a roadmap for the future for full conversion, I just think that 2003 is probably way too early to expect data transmission:)
I think it's a case of an author writing an article on a subject on which they know very little. The 'sag' would include all high tension lines. The lines on the 'towers' 'sag' because of being highly susceptable to contraction and expansion and the distance between the towers. The 'little lines' he was talking about, I guess, in saying 'they'd branch off'...wouldn't actually. He probably means intermediate lines, carrying much lower (albeit higher than the normal 12k or so transmission lines) voltage stepped down at a substation. They wouldn't have any fiber in them at all. The fiber would be terminated at the substation or connected to another fiber run, etc. (The author thought maybe they were going to run fiber right on through the transformers? hmm) This really is a very OLD topic. Other companies, like AEP, etc, have been working on using their high power transmission easements for fiber. They were talking about this (fiber core) several yeras ago.
Re:Well they did sign an agreement
on
Launchcast Sued
·
· Score: 1
That's the RIAA's problem in a nutshell: they just can't handle the idea of paying customers having any say in what they receive! (Yes, paying; via ads, perhaps, but it isn't the RIAA paying their bandwidth bills...)
The greed and control freak attitudes of Ms. Rosen and the RIAA may have finally overstepped their bounds... and this may end up being good. The 'establishment', and the politicians all go along with the idea of copyrights, etc. But most people get a little spine when people beging to say 'we're going to tell you what you can listen to and when' even when it's a 'legally' licensed service. Is there any difference between this and the payola schemes and radio in the past other than at that time the labels were paying money under the table for forcing record play, and here they're simply forcing it by contract (and it won't cost them anything this way?).
I think your missing the point.. Gracenote is claimin that "their" intellectual property is not the data, but the means of storage, access, and catalogzation of the user submitted data.. Not that i agree with them.. but thats what they are sayin towards the bottom of the "open letter"
I think the problem is essentially that they took the user input in building their database then changed modalities as far as business practices. There's really a very simple solution. They should be permitted to retain their database and licensing fees... after REMOVING any and all entries that were from user input. They'll have their database and licensing fees which they want to protect. They just won't have much of a database that anyone will want to use their service..but again, they WILL have what they claim is theirs and for what they are billing. Fair enough?:) (Then again, if that's not acceptable to them, they should simply retroactively pay for all the submissions (up to the point they started charging)...in essence non-employee compensation of independant contractors for 'research and data entry services'.
Slashdot Mirror
It does seem something of an oxymoron. I think there are several reasons behind the move:
(1) After XP being touted as the most secure OS they've released then the huge hole, they deinitely needed to buttress the PR.
(2) Digital Rights Management is, IMHO, a big part of it. They don't want the Hollings bill or anything similar, as that'd be published and hardware. They want the control and proprietary nature of their own Media Player. I think they're looking not just at PC's but down the road when consumer electronics will be PC's hidden in a box be it players, set top boxes, etc. They'd rather have the royalties than a chance the newer embedded systems have a standard that would allow competitive products.
(3) Notwithstanding the XP security hole, they have had bad press for years for security in general and the lack of responsiveness and priority in that area. They're betting the ranch on
(4) Bottom line, I think it'll be developed with an idea to insure a continued monopoly.
I'd have had more faith in the commitment had the memo discussed 'privacy and security' throughout. It was mentioned as what was wanted/needed, but everything then went the way of 'trustworthy computing'.. something totally undefined, and from here, another buzzword from Microsoft (i dislike that as much as their continued reference to my 'experience' at a computer. ) They've done the PR but left it as a concept, allowing them to develop it into anything they want as time goes by and as potential competition comes into view.
How quickly we are to jump to wondrous conclusions. I doubt this is a real application of the zero-point effect. I guess all the news media personell who were working 12 years ago when cold fusion came out have moved on and weren't around to lend caution where it was needed?
I think it tends to support the criteria used by the 'new media', ie internet or cable news:
(1) No need to use history or past events or have any knowledge of them;
(2) Don't bother about using journalists with any background in the subject;
(3) Don't bother with attempting to get knowledgable source when you don't know anything about the subject being reported;
(4) If the story was carried by any other organization online or on cable, assume it's totally accurate and don't bother checking it out, no matter how far fetched it may seem (if they can figure out it really is far fetched).
In any case, they're not wrong to be exploring these options. Do you have a proven business model that allows freely distributing copies of intellectual work (not just software, but books, music, movies, etc.) without payment to the authors?
When you do, your rant will make more sense. Right now it's just another rant.
No, I don't have that proven business model BUT... there is statistical backup to say that they doth protest too much. When the copier was first distributed by Xerox, the book publishers went to court to block it's sale saying it'd put publishers out of business. It didn't. The same people wanting the copy protection for HDTV are the SAME people (Jack Valenti included) who went to court to fight the sale of VCR's using the same argument, that it'd put the movie industry out of business. In both cases, they lost in court. The end result was neither the publishers nor the studios were put out of business. (In fact, the VCR has been credited with saving studio's when they were really lagging some years back. They count on the VHS sales these days.) And to counter the RIAA who says CD sales are down for the first time in a decade and then blame P2P, they forget to mention there's a recession and almost every industry has seen a decline, the more successful saying it's the first decline in a decade.
If they actually had anything on TV worth _watching_, this might make a wee bit more sense. I might as well stand by the curb next to my garbage... carrying a shotgun and hollering.
Who cares - waste your money protecting it if you want. Nobody's gonna steal what's on TV. Most of us like two or three channels which we need the full package cable to get, naturally.
I don't disagree with you there, on the content angle. I loved the part in the article that said studios wouldn't broadcast their movies over-the-air unless there was copy protection. That's BS. Most studio's and over-the-air networks are owned by the same corporation. (CBS=Viacom=Paramount FOX=20th/21st Century Fox ABC=Disney) They aren't going to forgo all those ad dollars. I really don't care there as I don't park my butt in front of the TV all that often. But if they insert 'flags' to prevent recording of movies, then they'll do it with any NFL, broadcast, etc. That WOULD make me angry.
I have a very simple solution. They say they won't broadcast high def movies without copy protection? Fine. Leave me my right to time shift, and I'll leave them their's not to broadcast a movie. (As well as not being able to shut down my TV. You DO know the copy group wants to be able to shut down a TV remotely, don't you? I know they've looked at that option closely.)
I certainly take exception that the competitive companies didn't do much getting the lines and service back on, that they were insignificant. So what? They were required to lease the line. The lines are still owned by Verizon and it's THEIR responsibility for getting them back in service. As for the actual services provided down that pipe, I've got clients in lower manhanttan with other providers, and they returned to service at about the same time as Verizon's service. I knew Seidenberg and cronies where a bunch of a-holes, but I didn't know they were quite as arrogant as they have come out to be. Their timing, attempting to gain from the disaster is absurd, and deserves PR, hopefully all negative. It certainly supports the idea of competition. As for getting the services back and the hoopla, they did get the services back. But it was done by the old time telco line employees, just the ones that Ivan & Co have made their best attempt to downsize. It wasn't the groups hired since that they hope to replace those folks with at a huge ratio as far as persons as well as cost. I still think the only way to get real competition is to have a breakup ala AT&T. Let the 'last mile' and physical CO's (the buildings, not the switches) be retained as the regulated monopoly and let every service provider, including Verizon, compete for services over that pipe. It's the only way we ended up with real competition in long distance and I think it's the only way we'll have any real competition in local service.
I drive about 1800 round trip every 5-6 weeks or so. I usually end up finding ESPN radio most of the way on local stations (granted, AM). But how much broadcasting of actual sports events can they do if there isn't localization, due to blackout rules. I, and my car, could be in Chicago, but if I want to listen to a Yankees or Mets or Rangers of Knicks game and my car is registered in NJ or NY, do I not get it? I'd end up going back to the local stations to actually listen. I don't think I'd pay the freight. ALSO... They have flat rate per device, no 'additional' units like sat or cable tv, etc. So if I have it in car, truck, and home, the price really just tripled. Add the taxes, you're talking around $40/mo. To me that's a little much JUST for radio. I might be interested if I could pay a few bucks per additional unit, like the others. But not the whole fee.
The units probably has three functions within it. The batteries in the 'middle' of the process. The fuel cell is responsible for converting the fuel to electricity, probably low voltage DC current, the batteries are charged and kept charged (and provide electricity while changing cylinders), and an inverter to actually output the 110 AC current.
But the price is totally absurd. There are units in the works, not that far out, that will produce current for your entire house, that will run on natural gas (and I believe it's expected to expand that with propane or methanol units not long after)... they'll provide continuous power, a lot more of it, and not absurdly priced. I can't see anyone really interested in units at that price point.
I'd guess there's a good chance these letters are written by the lawyers on the bottom of the totem pole in the office, possibly their first real 'work' after spending all their earlier days in the law library simply doing research for the big boys and girls in the firm. The Lanham Act probably sounded good or got grabbed from another letter in the past where it might have been a more appropriate reference.
That's just my opinion, then again (with regards and credits to Dennis Miller), I could be wrong.
I'm not going to flame, but guessing the percentage is way off. If you look at the demographics of those schools who will be getting the hardware/software, it's likely, especially from the student standpoint, that many/most don't have computers at home. The teachers probably don't have the 'extra' cost items such as Office either. It's also bothersome that after a very limited number of years that these same poorer districts then have to find the funds for upgrading and maintenance, something they don't have.
Most of these school systems need a LOT more basic things in their classrooms. A settlement directed toward schools vs. $10 to each class individual may be appropriate, but who says it has to or should be hardware/software??? (And the 'value' of the software? Is that considered 'retail' for determining the amount of the settlement? That wouldn't seem appropriate in any case. Same as hardware, it should be actual not costs involved in any case.)
Countries with national ID's don't have this problem and their citizens don't feel like the nasty government is plotting to tattoo a barcode on their ass. At least I don't. Would you feel better if, instead of introducing a new ID, social security cards became harder to forge? Because I don't see the difference.
Sure. And what happens to those who's inadvertantly been assigned the same social security number (i don't want to use the normal acronym SS number here, that's too scary). What happens to them? The INS can't handle those aliens who are in the country even legally at this point, which most of the terrorists were, and for whom there wouldn't be the extensive backgroud as there would already be on US citizens. So how in the hell would a national id card have helped?? And just how many people does it take to 'track' 270+ million people? McNealy is an a-hole, and for an old man, I'm not one to usually use that kind of term. But these knee-jerk reactions are totally absurd. Some of the terrorists did overstay their visa's. So what, even if we clamped down there, they likely would have been able to renew them. Again, most were here legally and most were unknown to the law enforcement agencies. That's not to say I'm not in favor of getting the CIA back into the business they were meant to be in and beefing up and greatly expanding their abilities. There ability to function was emasculated by some of those Congress types, and so many wanting to be so PC. I'd bet on them before I would any stupid idiotic national id card, sponsored by a number more of those stupid PC folks. (If that weren't the case they'd at first think logically it'd be better to start getting a handle on aliens in the country, being a smaller number and wish less known backgrounds. But that wouldn't be PC for them, so they'd rather come up with a system that'd be impossible to handle/control, make the amounts of data the NSA and others have to sift through look like a single 3X5 card compared to whatever new agency would control this, and essentially do little else than having the founding fathers rolling in their graves.) I knew an INS guy who was there as his second career after military. All through the 90's he was always frustrated because the folks in the field couldn't do their jobs and activity was halted by washington because they didn't want to look bad, get bad press, or not be, hell, to use it again, PC.
And that will undoubtedly be their problem. Since Bell Labs developed this many many years ago, one might first check to see if they've patented those two tone combinations previously, at least for the purposes of switching/dialing.
Dynamite -- again you must have a license to purchase in quality or high grade. records are kept on the sale thereof.
Plastic Explosives -- again restricted, the US military controls most of the supply, the rest is subjected to similar laws as Dynamite
Fertilizer chemicals -- again restricted purchasing, plus since they are often stored in large tanks/trucks in the open they must be guarded and monitored.
Telephones and other communication equipment -- these systems are subjected to recording and monitoring
Knives and Boxcutters -- large ones (esp if they are sold at gun shows or knife shows) are subjected to similar laws as guns
I'm not saying that your are incorrect, just that you might want to find better examples before sending your letter off.
I'm not saying your response is incorrect or that it should be correct, but:
Airplanes: You can go buy an airplane today. You can't FLY it unless you have the proper ticket, ie private, multi-engine, commercial, etc. But that does NOT preclude you or anyone from making the purchase. (I'm talking GA. An individual trying to buy a 747 might be suspect, but it's not prohibited).
The farm use products you mentioned. Unfortunately, they AREN't guarded and monitored as they should be. Being from the midwest/west, they're stored various places in and around the farming communities. I've never seen guards. Again, I think that may just have to change.
The Knives and Boxcutters -- large ones. You mentions if sold at gun shows or knife shows and being subject sumilar to guns. First, those used in the current situation apparently were NOT large ones. Secondly, unless recent changes implemented, there isn't a lot in the way of restrictions on guns at gun shows. But with knives, it doesn't take a cythe or a 'big knife' to do what was done.
Absolutely. It would cause every 'designated driver' to be 'suspected' of dui. The determination of probable cause must be the driver, not just an occupant. IANAL, (and though I did take law courses in school, most were only international law with a couple criminal... I still can't remember which is which when it comes to Miranda and Escabido), I DO seem to remember a 5th Amendment which might come back to haunt.
I also generally favor intellectual property and trademark protection when warranted. I still do. But this, and other similar companies going after domains, doesn't pass the smell test in the least. There's no confusion of identity, they aren't engaged in any similar activity, type or scope of business, etc. The term 'bots' has been around long before their trademark. And bots 'battling' is also ancient terminology, in internet years. The trademarks (and there are numerous) are detailed to include the program and about any type of adjunct merchandising from computer games to bottle caps. However, there doesn't seem to be a dilutive impact if 'battlebots.org' isn't in a competing area. Also, it's usually the '.com' one goes after, claiming 'unintentional' hits to another site due to 'confusion' searching for plaintiff's site. Obviously, '.org' is usually NOT where one begins looking. They likely get hits from those actually looking for the '.org', since it's more internet related in this case potentially benefiting the plaintiff. Possibly at the detriment of the defendant, should they get 'interested' in the
I'd go after some publicity, most certainly. The Computer/Internet press? ok. But that seems like where we usually go. Mainstream press? why not. Most important? I'd be sending every piece of material to something like Daily Variety. Even an Entertainment Tonight or Access Hollywood might pick up a snipet on something nonsensical like this 'David v. Goliath' story (as long as both are produced by their owners). If you want your PR to work, make sure it's on THEIR home turf. For the disclaimer, however, IANAL, and I don't play one on TV; just get to see 30 or 40 pages of billing detail from them every month (sigh).
Oh..and finally.. their (the
(B)
(i)
In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(I)
the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
(II)
the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(III)
the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(IV)
the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;
(V)
the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(VI)
the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VII)
the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VIII)
the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and
(IX)
the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of section 43 [subsec. (c)(1) of this section].
(ii)
Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.
Oh yeah, SMALLPOX -- laugh track runing real hard. Actually, smallpox is considered a real terrorist threat because (a) it's considered eliminated, so nobody is vaccinated against it anymore (b) there are no longer stockpiles of vaccine, and IIRC, not only are none manufactured, the actual virus as mostly (the operative word) been destroyed making it difficult if not impossible to ramp up vaccine production until there would be a breakout again (c) there were some amounts of it stored in fromer USSR countries that people were worried it could fall in the hands of terrorists and (d) the fact it is highly contageous.
I disagree to some extent. There's a difference between 'someone' standing there and taking in the view and the 'state' (ie. police). Agreed that that's no Constitutional right to be invisible in public, there IS an implicit guarantee (as upheld by the courts) to a degree of anonymity in public, IIRC correctly, sometimes directly to prohibit infringement of that that IS Constitutionally protected, the right of assembly. Also, while the 'public' are freer in public to do/cause certain events regarding other individuals, some of these same things the state is specifically prohibited from doing. So, it's NOT the same as 'just taking in the view' be it a person or camera. The fallability (or infallability) of the system to identify or mistakenly identify is going to be interesting as cases end up in court. (There will certainly be some. While the super bowl didn't have any impact, the article stated nobody was detained due to crowd size, etc, so that isn't good example.) I have a feeling it may end up with detention of someone without real probable cause who's been mistakenly identified or identified by a 'misfiled' picture. Plus, as someone else noted receiving a license with a picture from a database, there are obviously OTHER large accumulations of pictures that have nothing to do with criminals. How about those arrested but never convicted? They could easily be mistakenly included, and watched even though they technically that prior arrest shouldn't provide any more probable cause than for average joe. And those, as in my case, where photo's/fingerprints are on file becuase of a previously submitted security clearance for an event (and anyone who's ever served in the military'). As for the comment on East Germany, maybe it only failed because they didn't have the technology that's available today? I don't think it's wise that we in the IS answer that question for them. I loved the comment that if someone is identified, a policeman will be sent and the person asked to identyfy themselves, etc, and it not the one they want, will simply explain the situation. Do they think criminals are going to correctly identify themselves as criminals or not carry false identification. And the person that isn't carrying identification (there IS no law that requires one to carry that, that was more the USSR style.) A person could be detained for absolutely no other reason than walking down the street, taking no action that would normally provide probable cause to stop the individual.At that point the individual has to prove their innocence, the opposite of what the founding fathers had in mind.
I'd disagree, particularly with Liberate. They go head to head with MS, having beaten them out in contracts for STB's as well as supplying STB's where MS WAS to be the supplier, only they couldn't deliver when they were suppossed to. They're large enough to make a standard 'stick' as well as become 'socially acceptable' to some of the skeptic corporate types.
Wrong. First, this deals with commerce, ie unsolicited ads. There have been laws for years both on use of the mail (US Postal Service) and unsolicited fax mail. That's stood the tests of time and courts. (such things as identification, etc, on mail) That has not been deemed to have been any violation of your 'free speech'. As long as I use ISDN at times, as well as have to PAY for service to the internet to receive such notices, then it's also not free speech. 1st amendment does not protect 'recipient paid speech'. Using your 'free speech' argument, is like saying the post office must send all of your advertisements for free, because it's your free speech. I agree... You DO have the right of free speech. You do NOT have the right of free conveyance of that speech at others cost and nowhere does the constitution make any such statement or implication.
This really is 1984, MS is just a few years late...but I digress. You have a very interesting point on the DMCA, and I think it could provide some interesting fireworks, MS on both sides of an issue talking out of both sides of their mouth (like in the anti-trust case in court vs. public), but in this case, both in court, along with RIAA MPAA. What if I have a site that uses ssl for access, say a bank, and MS and their @#$@#$ little tags point to the new MS bank. Now, forget about lawsuits from the bank. Are they not retrieving content that has been encrypted? Now if you do that with a DVD, decrypt or, according to MPAA, try and take the content, there's no fair use, you're violating the law. Yet MS is going to implant this in their software. So for their media player, etc, they'll way, 'we'll protect music/movies, make us the monopoly provider, only we can do it', and if anyone tries to access it, they'll be breaking the law. (hell, mpaa and cable corp want encryption right to the monitor!). on the other hand, they're DOING it with ie. Screw what the source is, once IE has it, it's fair use/fair game, and we'll 'alter' the content. I see real mixed messages, maybe very confused judges. What a bunch of aholes. I do hope the appelate courts read some of this while they decide on the MS suit. While they can't retry the case at appelate levels, it has to enforce the arrogance/intent so that maybe Judge Jackson will be vindicated. (or whoever sets on the bench if/when it gets sent back down)
From reading a couple articles, it seems MS was licensed for some uses of the codec, but are being accused of using it in other ways. No, this isn't like a 1-click and should be easily provable. The codecs used in telecommunications are well established standard algorithms, defined as such (like G.711, G.723 G.729a G.729b, etc), and included in ITU documents. It they're using a codec outside of an existing agreement or any agreement at all, it should be a slam dunk in determining that. (Net meeting uses H.323. Simply connect netmeeting with another compatible application accepting only the codec in question, and see if they negotiate to use it.)
You're right. It's the power and control, and they aren't about to give that up. As for 'in time that will change', not if they can help it. Even a big webcaster that has license agreements has is bgin hit by RIAA saying 'you're agreement doesn't allow for the listener to pick what they want to hear', they still want control of the playlists. They may bitch about payola (and that's what it is), but they're still paying it. and now evidently the stations are working it from their end and upping the ante. What I can't understand is how putting it through a 3rd party when it's still 'cash' makes it anything but payola. IMHO, it ought to just add another crime... money laundering. As you said though, it will change. Listerners will eventually be able to get what they want. But it'll take time, becuase while the stations may have the labels by the short ones, they have the artists in the same way... do it our way or your record goes nowhere. That'll only change when there are enough listeners to circumvent the hillary rosen's, riaa, the labels, and the stations taking the money. It's about time we get a little control back over what we listen to instead of being zombies to these arrogant aholes. (It is nice to know ratings are down. I used to listen to a clear channel station. After the merger, they turned it to crap. It's not even programmed on my car radio anymore.)
I think you'll find that's due to a couple of reasons (though deregulation is different between NY, PA, etc.) First, there's plenty of power here, and transmission capabilities in the PA-NJ-MA grid. Second, at least here, the incumbant utilities weren't forced to buy at spot prices. They sold transmission facilities like in CA, but they can have contracts for power purchases.
Normally, power plants only transmit power about 300 miles (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) after that losses become too big. But I read in the U.S. News and world report, that b/c prices are so high, some power is being transmitted from as much as 600 miles away.
Bingo. and that's what the politicians like Davis forget to tell everyone when he says how much it costs to buy power from TX. Prices are already high from the producers in CA. If you have to buy it long distance, they have to 'ship' a LOT more than you end up getting. Let's say you want 5000MW from TX. Hell, they may have to ship 10000MW or more? They ain't going to give that to CA for free. So even if the prices were the same, it's going to cost a LOT more for that power all the way from Texas. If there was a lot of surplus, that might not be the case, they'd probably be willing to take a hit just to sell the power. But in these days, they just don't have to.
I think it's a case of an author writing an article on a subject on which they know very little. The 'sag' would include all high tension lines. The lines on the 'towers' 'sag' because of being highly susceptable to contraction and expansion and the distance between the towers. The 'little lines' he was talking about, I guess, in saying 'they'd branch off'...wouldn't actually. He probably means intermediate lines, carrying much lower (albeit higher than the normal 12k or so transmission lines) voltage stepped down at a substation. They wouldn't have any fiber in them at all. The fiber would be terminated at the substation or connected to another fiber run, etc. (The author thought maybe they were going to run fiber right on through the transformers? hmm) This really is a very OLD topic. Other companies, like AEP, etc, have been working on using their high power transmission easements for fiber. They were talking about this (fiber core) several yeras ago.
The greed and control freak attitudes of Ms. Rosen and the RIAA may have finally overstepped their bounds ... and this may end up being good. The 'establishment', and the politicians all go along with the idea of copyrights, etc. But most people get a little spine when people beging to say 'we're going to tell you what you can listen to and when' even when it's a 'legally' licensed service. Is there any difference between this and the payola schemes and radio in the past other than at that time the labels were paying money under the table for forcing record play, and here they're simply forcing it by contract (and it won't cost them anything this way?).
I think the problem is essentially that they took the user input in building their database then changed modalities as far as business practices. There's really a very simple solution. They should be permitted to retain their database and licensing fees... after REMOVING any and all entries that were from user input. They'll have their database and licensing fees which they want to protect. They just won't have much of a database that anyone will want to use their service..but again, they WILL have what they claim is theirs and for what they are billing. Fair enough? :) (Then again, if that's not acceptable to them, they should simply retroactively pay for all the submissions (up to the point they started charging)...in essence non-employee compensation of independant contractors for 'research and data entry services'.