>>>"It forces Microsoft to 'behave' more than they would otherwise do..." How? This delay just gives M$ more time for 'business as usual'. They aren't "in check"; they aren't "behaving"; they are trying to maintain the status quo as long as possible. Don't believe me? Take a look at this . What exactly is "slowing them down in their voracious ways"??>>>.... IANAL but didn't Judge Jackson require some interim restrictions on MS, which he then stayed pending appeal? Since the SC refused to hear case and now it'll be significantly longer, can't the DOJ go back to Judge Jackson and ask him to remove the stay. MS would then go to the appeals court to attempt to get the stay removed, correct? Would it be worth the effort?
Just like "free" ISPs, "free" mobile phones, "free" cable/satellite TV installation.... AH!. but in the US, if that appears in an ad, there MUST be included a statement including the conditions, ie, year of cellular or cable/sat tv, etc. If that wasn't done for the cat 'free' ads for radio shack, then they are also violating other (non USPS) regulations.. that'd be false advertising. (Granted the print may be damn small print, but it's gotta be there).. that is.violating it if there's any conditions, charges, etc not fully disclosed in the ad.
NAT devices just have to use different NAT security devices or license the patented security device. Unless there's only one way to perform the "security check" (ie, TCP sequence number or port number), in which case it's obvious to any expert and not patentable. IANAL, but this should FAIL PATENT requirements because it is obvious/logical, let alone the prior NAT process itself. (and NAT and proxies are prior art? hmm. art). The process of not allowing something through that doesn't have a 'slot' or originating IP address is OBVIOUS/LOGICAL. Reasoning?: if using NAT, unless you have the originating host ip address information, the device performing the NAT CANNOT determine where to forward the packet, ie, what address to put in the header. This is pure obvious logic for NAT in general. In the case of FTP, you have to proxy if you want it to work corrrectly in instances where the 'called' device is opening a port to the originating caller. This needs something like a proxy.. little lighter in 'obvious', but should be to anyone with a grain of salt. My first thought was they were back-door trying to patent H.323 for telephony... but that doesn't work, since the packets have to be scanned to determine the ports required to connect between inside/outside hosts, since ports and address can't only be determined from the header. (BTW, make note: i'm patenting process of proxying h.323 scanning disassembling / reassembling and addressing packet contents with appropriate addresses. If not already patented, it's MINE, and free to the world. Then again, if one simply knows the contents/requirements of H.323, it's obvious. the cicso NAT patent is a LOT more obvious than that.
It's about time we saw a serious push at alternative energy sources. This isn't as pure as solar, but it's definately a step in the right direction. True. Also, this may make the perfect BACKUP source for those using wind/solar. I've got land up in the mountains, no nearby electrical service. When I build, I plan on wind/solar. This make the perfect backup for times there's insufficient production... and it's a hell of a lot better than putting in an old diesal generator (which I had considered my option until a few years ago when I started following this)
>>>the interstate highway system was created after Eisenhower led a convoy from one coast to the other and realized that twisting highways and dirt roads made for inefficient travel. The time it took for a military convoy to go coast to coast was cut by something like a factor of ten.>>> Actually, that march wasn't coast to coast us, he was in the eurpoean theater in WW II, and not only noted the 'bad' roads, but the autobahn, which provided for quick troop movement for the germans. (Interstate system also had a requirement that every 'x' miles must have a straight section of roadway to permit the system to be used for aircraft landing/take-offs as well.)
>>>>If you can't record what's broadcast, how can you prove that it ever was?... Just imagine if the political candidates (for example) Macrovisioned their ads, so nobody could record
them and analyze them on the air! The free-speech implications are severe. ----- I think you hit the nail on the head. This is a LOT deeper problem than the MPAA and studios. Remember, everything including the News broadcast is 'copyrighted'. The ability of any entity, be it a cable company or the gov't in permitting a set to be shut down remotely is so dangerous, it is hard to fathom. And it's not one political side or the other that should be objecting. Let's say something like oh... a brief synposis of the pentagon papers of the future are broadcast or refered to in a news program. It can't be copied. The gov't gets a temporary order restraining the original entity from broadcasting anything else about it. It was a copyrighted story. It was set 'you can't copy this'. So the 'x' number of people on a local station were simply told 'you never saw this'.. A journalist tries to get a copy to review for a block buster article, and he find that it couldn't be recorded, and the original station can't comment (if you say that can't happen, see earlier/. annoy.com feature). It doesn't take a 'government' to do this, just a few misguided individuals that work for the government and a judge or two. This capability is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind. (It seems the politicians should be concerned too. The right can't record and examine every 'liberal' prime TV program to find the 'trash' they so wish to expose, the liberals can't record each buchanan speech and pick out the verbage they feel threatens each breath you take. Or a supposedly introspective program such as on CNN or FOX that attempts to review fairness of other news organizations features, which, if they don't choose to provide clips, likely can't be provided to support any comments.) I can believe the politicians are oblivious, they're blinded by the cash. But I'm surprised the press hasn't taken a WIDE stance, and the ACLU? that i love 1/2 the time and despise the other 1/2 (meaning they must be doing an ok job)... I haven' heard them.
>>Why should laws apply to the entertainment industry? Mr. Valenti seems to think the entire industry so critical to the nation that it be above the law. ------- Of course he does, because if you remember, he's a Democrat with the capital 'D', going back to the lyndon johnson years. (Wasn't he a spokesman back then, helping keep the blinders on the citizens about Nam, IIRC.) While he may be 'senile' or appear totally dumb in depositions (his DeCSS depo would have been humorous if it wasn't so serious... he probably felt it was ok, since Bill and friends have said it's ok to deceive and lie in depositions, long as you don't think it's serious.) But he still has a lot of pull in Washington with the politicians and plenty of money to dole out via the industry. I never considered him very bright, but he has the connections...and IMHO, is nothing more than bought and paid for by the MPAA. (And he was probably pretty cheap since he has an ego the size of Saturn, just being in front of the camera probably takes care of 1/2 of that payment)
--A ruling by the Supreme Court stating that any use of Carnivore will be considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution until this system is subjected to an objective outside review, sponsored by the courts rather than by the department whose neat new toy is being reviewed.-- This is a good point and the courts is likely where it will end up. After all, the DOJ isn't a disinterested party, and the 'independant' review with the restrictions suggessted likely wouldn't hold up in court. While we're all concerned with the privacy aspect, which is good, try looking from a different perspective. IANAL, BUT, how about the first time anything is presented in court obtained by carnivore. Does not the defense have the right to tear this thing apart with experts of their own? It seems reasonable doubt can be alluded to simply by 'my client didn't get that email', 'carnivore altered the contents, that wasn't what the mail said'. After all, this isn't a disinterested 3rd party supplying the data under court order, it's the interested party, the FBI or any other group. If the defense isn't granted 'experts' cannot the court itself appoint an expert? I am beginning to wonder if the FBI will EVER attempt to place anything in evidence obtained from carnivore. Even if not evidence, if carnivore is simply used to further along an investigation does that not put it under the same scrutiny?....there ARE some pretty fiesty judges out there. As a side note, as one said Mr Cerf does deserve some respect as 'tcp/ip man'. However, that doesn't make him a consitutional law expert. IMHO, HIS opinion on the subject should have no more weight or 'respect' than anyone on/., unless someone on/. is a constitutional lawyer, then he/she gets the benefit.
--yes, this is logical. if the authorities are saying "we know you're copying copywrited works - you have a computer so you MUST be guilty of this. so lets dispense with trials and such and just slap a fine on you. you know you're guilty - just pay the fine" then I guess since we've already been judged and are paying the fine, we at least owe it to ourselves to enjoy the fruits of our 'crimes'.-- I think the Supremes would have a little problems saying it's a fine and you're guilty before being proven as such (so it'll be a use tax or somthing?) On the other hand, should something like that pass, I have a feeling they'd find it hard to convict anyone of copyright violations since you have essentially 'paid' for the use of music, movies, etc, by virtue of paying the 'fee'. We'll have one HUGE NEA (it'll surpass medicare and social security) and it's government job will be to pay all the artists in the land.... just lovely. IANAL, but this could get interesting for those who are. (Will they tax each newborn since a brain can memorize a song and therefore, will be in violation of copyright agreements?) I'd say this one should get the lawyers that new boat, house in the country, kids through college, and a nice retirement. (And Jack Valenti will still be around, saying everyone's a crook, and then not understand anything he's said, like the DVD deposition, IMHO. He'd have made a great Sgt in Hogan's Heroes (c) i'm sure that title is copyrighted, so all rights reserved by it's owner.)
--Uhm, hello? Didn't you bother to read the linked article before posting?.... said Fritz Attaway, executive vice president and Washington general counsel at the MPAA. "The vast majority of content won't be copy-protected, and the marketplace requires the ability to time-shift"---
And you believe this statement? The comment by the lawyer has absolutely NO basis OR requirement to be fact. IT's a little bit like the IM companies and Content providers (like Disney) that want AOL/Time-Warner to be forced in writing to say they'll open cable systems and IM standards not just say they'll do it publically or even in testimony. There'd be nothing to say 'oh, we changed our mind'. Their current statements are simply 'we intend to have open systems' (paraphrasing) and not many want to place their bets on that or allow the merger unless it's in writing and they're legally bound to do so.
You're correct, they tried it before with the VCR's and got slapped down in the betamax case. However, the MPAA will be packing the DMCA in their briefcase, which wasn't available then, and likely the reason they won't everything encrypted. Once encrypted, the 'decoding' will be illegal under the act since they'll claim it's a 'procection' mechanism. They'll use the same arguments as with the DeCSS case. Fair use will only mean fair use if you can find it unencrypted. Now they say 'go get a vhs copy for fair use, you can't decode dvd's'. However, what happens when they stop producing the VHS versions of movies, and only produce DVD's. Secondly, someone mentioned it'd be able to be recorded after leaving the set top box and a 'what they going to do, encrypt the code over firewire'. That's exactly what they want, they don't want the stream decoded until it's IN the TV or monitor.
I agree. It seems their 'product' is the ability to provide a 'virtual' BIOS to the system being booted at the time. AS it stand, they don't allow concurrent operation (and that seems a LONG way off in their 'versions'). Also, is not the BIOS copyrighted by the various vendors? Unless they did the clean room thing or have 'partners'..how'd they do that. Also, it seems they expect each OS to be 'well behaved' and take BIOS as gospel. Do OS's still do that? (including many they mention on their pages?) If so, that at least explains how they can 'virtualize' the disk, which is likely faked out.. They mention shared disk, with each program or utility for an OS believing they have exclusive access to a drive. In their future 'concurrent' operations, it seems 'concurrent' updates to shared dasd without some type of resource serialization with communication between OS's becomes a critical issue. They speak of 'upgrading' your OS but keeping the old OS you can run all of your old applications. If one buys an upgrade package, generally MS, since that is there they seem to be hitting, I do believe you violate the license if you attempt to run both the old and the upgraded systems. As for running a program without an OS, gee, I remember back when you simply loaded an 'exec', and some of us wrote machine code. But VERY few apps would ever fit the restrictions to run without some OS support. Their site also mentions being 'stuck' with the MS FAT file system for all these OS's they mention. A little strange, as NT, OS/2, Linux can all function without any FAT partitions at all. I am impressed with the virtual BIOS idea (though not the very poorly written and non-proofread web site), and think it'll be interesting to follow this company. However, I'm wondering if the most interesting path to follow will be the development path or the IPO path.
--OS/390 has also been around since the mid 60's starting life as OS/360 and going through several name changes (OS/VS, MFT, MVS, MVS/XA, MVS/ESA, and finally OS/390 -- I think I got the right lineup of names:)-- Actually you are pretty close. OS/360, MFT, MVT, OS/VS1 and OS/SVS, MVS, XA, ESA, OS/390. (VS1 and SVS were both 'current' operating systems at the same time, but operated substantially different. MVS was really 'operational' as of MVS 3.x. IMHO, nobody who ever ran MVS 2.x would ever want to admit it )
((a hardware company can't expect people to write drivers -and- buy their hardware...just as a volunteer fireman can't be expected to bring his own fire truck...)) There's a big difference in the type of organization and how you use 'volunteer'. In the case of the drivers, if a driver is written for 'x' OS, and given away, they're probably OK. If the harware vendor took the driver, claimed ownership, and then SOLD the driver, they'd likely end up in the position AOL is current sitting. As for the volunteer fireman, that's a horse or fire truck of a different color. Volunteer fire departments would fit under the 'charitable' or 'non-profit' setting that would exempt the organization (not sure, all 503(c) would fit in here?) IANAL, etc, just an opinion.
Re:Questioning the validity
on
Online Voting?
·
· Score: 1
I think the local elections, however, would be those subject to the most fraud. One has to live in the district where their vote is being cast. Let's say someone lives in Los Angeles and moves to San Diego. They were registered in Los Angeles, and keep voting online there. They register in San Diego, and vote there. Online, who's to say they're allowed to vote in those elections if they don't vote in their district. Voters are only purged if they don't vote 'x' times in elections. There's no method to determine they've moved a 1000 miles if they don't have to show up. Hell, I moved 6 times in the past 10 years. I could still be voting in local elections. Of course, the proposed solution will surely come from M$, with a national registry (something the founding fathers didn't want), which logs every voter, where they voted, and probably for whom (so much for the secret ballot. Of course, you'll only be allowed to vote if you're using an M$ product. (and one won't have to worry about voting from the grave in Chicago, it can be done nationally as long as someone is still alive who has the password/certificates to allow voting.)
I agree. Why not just sue M$, since if not for the Windows operating systems, the windows versions of the code wouldn't operate, and the code is run by the operating system, so it should be responsible for all code it runs. Absurd, true. Then again, how about CICSO. If not for routers, one couldn't transmit that code over the internet and hence violate the copyrights. I am surprised, relating to copyrights, that the Salon article didn't mention three other areas in comparisons. The first, the infamous Sony Betamax case. Also, I believe there were concerns, and indeed lawsuits back with the distribution of Xerox machines. And finally, wasn't there a 1st amendment thing back in the 70's supporting publishers (ie, it's ok to publish how to make a bomb, and not be responsible for the person who uses the book to actually make one?) At some point people, and the law, must take into consideration those who actually break the law. It seems the recent history has been solely for expediancy and money.
Either they 'got the point' and changed the eula or it wasn't carefully read initially. In the 'Scope' section, it specifically excludes GPL'd software (and others) except for the disclaimers/liability sections of the eula. Since they are distributing Linux, my only question would be if the source is contained on the CD or available from them as required.
While the 'hyperlink' term may be a more recent event, how is this patent different from things I've been doing since the mid 70's. Example: IBM 327X type display device, retrieve information over lines from a central computer, storing hidden information in certain blocks on the screen. The user selects information from a visible accessible field on the screen, which is transmitted back to the central computer along with the hidden fields (blocks). The central computer returns more information to the terminal from based upon the selection and the hidden 'blocks'. Hey folks (ie BT), this has been done for YEARS before 1989 OR 1980. (To jazz it up a little, you could even use light pen fields to make your selection). Oh, and I first worked for a place that did this back in 9/74.
((Hey Maroon! They're scarfing down movies and popular songs in MP3 format. You didn't get it at all, did you? Go back to handing out your greasy leaflets downtown. It's safer.)) As with playing a clip in a deposition that has nothing to do with DeCSS or DVD's, this also is an 'inoperative' statement. The distinction must be made between DISTRIBUTING the content, for which I dont' care at all if they send out their minions to shutdown and the right to determination (ie, the playing) of items purchased for your use. As for the analogy of 'making a key for everyones house and distributing it', it wasn't that long ago there were only a limited 'n' key/lock combinations for cars. YOU, if you're not that young, probably were walking around with a key that'd unlock tens of thousands of cars. THAT wasn't illegal, in fact they gave it to you. It's ONLY illegal if you use the key to steal the car...and in the 'old' days, you probably would have found a few within your own block.
I agree there can be a benefit if the UI guy and Corel. Though I'm not one who wants a dumbed down desktop, the example of the ability to change file type w/ a right click could end up with a compromise to simply have an option to have an 'advanced' or 'normal user' desktop, and allow the user to decide which they want... if the item gets discussed by all parties. As for the comment in the article re: the lawyers of corporate world, I think at some point we may see how open source will survive or evolve by a case or two. As it stated, the corporations have some big money in there, and if they take something the make small alteration and make it proprietary, suits could ensue. However, it forgets to mention that OTHER open source proponets are also companies with lots of $$ and laywers. An example, should a Corel do this, it'd be interesting to see if the IBM's of the world, now linux proponets, would step up to the plate and to insure open source remained just that.
This isn't obscurity, they've got blinders on. I can't believe this is a well thought out process. First, I agree that intellectual property does exist, things shouldn't be for free. But others have already mentioned that when one purchases, for example a CD, all members of the family or guests can listen to it at will. The purchaser doesn't have to be present, just give permission (access). This has nothing to do with the original holder of the copyright (unlike a couple comments made.) But even if I buy into this, what are the problems. I buy it when I've had a few beers, so what happens now, they say I can only listen to it if I'm drunk? I'm an old guy, but I still workout. What happens on those days my arms are so damn sore I can hardly move them. Sorry, out of luck. You can't listen to your music after a workout. And if I break a finger or wrist? Hmm, guess one isn't allowed to listen to music after an injury (how do they put THAT in their EULA). And EULA or not, disclaimers or not, it seems there'd be enough problems the courts would be a tad crowded. (Not really, there are enough bottom feeder firms to take on class actions which in this instance, wouldn't be so bad.) And if I'm running some heavy crunching software that intterupts the responsiveness of the keystrokes in the buffer? Oh, that's right. Can't listen to music and multi-task. On the flip-side (for those old timers who remember 45's), how secure is this anyway. Who'll be the first to capture keystrokes and stuff them into the buffers at the appropriate time? The sellers are going to wonder how one person can be in 2 million places at a time. Or the first to capture output to the sound drivers? hmm, then maybe all I have to do is punch up 'song title, audio driver format' and we've got a new distribution method. Finally, since DIVX was mentioned in the article, what happens to the company that distributes this from a site and you've paid for it. They go belly-up? I guess you're right to use it has just terminated. That seemed to be a bad perception to the original DIVX, and then you even had the 'source', just needed the access to the site for authorization. With the net-ignorant (sorry, meant netnanny plan), I'm guessing there's a good chance one may not even have that. And finally, If I buy a new computer and keyboard and it acts even the slightest bit differently, I have to go out and buy all new music? (forget about the key that might stick in your keyboard and interrupt your normal flow of typing.. diry keyboard = no music? hmm) I'm surprised this is a 'music' thing. It sounds more like something a Jack Valenti type from MPAA would think up first. And one more finally, the old parties where everyone would bring some music. I guess that disappears, though quite legal today. In the future, I guess everybody has to buy a copy for their party. Hmm, this sounds more like a Microsoft plan than Valenti. I do think there has to be a way to protect both the originator of the intellectual property AS WELL AS the purchaser. This seems inept, not thought out, and basically something a 3 year old might think up (maybe the kids instead of the nanny has taken over the company).
As sad as it is, I recall hearing that story on the radio. I don't think it was even an 'everyone wear coke' shirts that day, simply a presentation by coke. The kid wearing the pepsi shirt was suspended. And this was a public, not private school. I think they used something like it was 'disruptive' to wear it. I cannot believe schools get away with it either, but after hearing of some of the 'zero tolerance' situations with kids being expelled, it tells me school boards have simply gone over the line. (They did that years ago, it's just getting worse.) I don't wonder why kids have problems, the 'growing up' that was done in schools years ago never happens. they get out and have no idea how to behave in a society where they have to use their own reasoning and logic, never having been able to develop it when they should have, in their younger years.... off my soap box now...
>Think about this globally. The US can pass a law that the US backbones cannot exchange information with "rogue networks," networks that don't follow US law. The US can pass a law that they will not trade with countries that don't pass similar laws. The UK can do the same. Pretty soon, there is no where to go. >If you don't think that this can be done, emember that until very recently, the US phone networks re prohibited from connecting to the Cuban phone network so you couldn't easily make a phone call from the US to Cuba. Yes, I know that the internet has obvious ways to route around this kind of lock but big governments can put a lot of pressure on service providers.
Actually, there were ways around the phone restrictions as well, and people usually routed through Canada. It may have been a law, but pretty much on the books only. (And we didn't then ban commerce/travel with Canada because of it.) Helms-Burton isn't really in place either, because it'd have the same problematic consequences. That's one business won't allow. What's bad for one business/politition can be good for another, and they'll all have their lobbyists and lawyers.
>>Justice Charles Edward Ramos has ruled that an Antiguan gambling site is covered by the laws of New York state simply because the service can be accessed from there. What about jurisdiction? How can an American court ruling affect Antigua? The owners of the site have no reason to obey any ruling given by a US court.
I don't know Judge Ramos, and IANAL. But I've believe his new york decision would be overturned in a ny minute on appeal. The Supreme Court has ruled a state can't mandate a business operating in another state can be required to collect sales tax for the state of the purchaser, unless the business has a presence in the state. And the product, no less, is being shipped to the state. Now we're talking international commerce, not just state-to-state commerce. Wouldn't this be somewhat analagous? His ruling seems to be based on illogical reasoning. Even ignorance of the internet wouldn't seem to be an excuse for overreaching on that one. Wonder how often this guy has decisions reversed. I WOULD think the person gambling could be prosecuted but not the entity providing the site.
Cable companies probably could offer it, relying on your indidivual record/playback requests and vaidating your subscriptions-like replay or tivo at a central site. But this stuff has all the problems described. Plus, if network shows are involved, you have the contractual agreements of the local stations. You'd have to replay only those stations that were in your local area, not a network station from another area. And if generic recording/playback then it's rebroadcasting. This is definitely a dead end that will profit only the lawyers. It'd end up cheaper for them to give all their subscribers a tivo than pay the legal fees, though certainly IANAL, just an opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>"It forces Microsoft to 'behave' more than they would otherwise do..." How? This delay just gives M$ more time for 'business as usual'. They aren't "in check"; they aren't "behaving"; they are trying to maintain the status quo as long as possible. Don't believe me? Take a look at this . What exactly is "slowing them down in their voracious ways"??>>>.... IANAL but didn't Judge Jackson require some interim restrictions on MS, which he then stayed pending appeal? Since the SC refused to hear case and now it'll be significantly longer, can't the DOJ go back to Judge Jackson and ask him to remove the stay. MS would then go to the appeals court to attempt to get the stay removed, correct? Would it be worth the effort?
Just like "free" ISPs, "free" mobile phones, "free" cable/satellite TV installation.... AH!. but in the US, if that appears in an ad, there MUST be included a statement including the conditions, ie, year of cellular or cable/sat tv, etc. If that wasn't done for the cat 'free' ads for radio shack, then they are also violating other (non USPS) regulations.. that'd be false advertising. (Granted the print may be damn small print, but it's gotta be there).. that is.violating it if there's any conditions, charges, etc not fully disclosed in the ad.
NAT devices just have to use different NAT security devices or license the patented security device. Unless there's only one way to perform the "security check" (ie, TCP sequence number or port number), in which case it's obvious to any expert and not patentable. IANAL, but this should FAIL PATENT requirements because it is obvious/logical, let alone the prior NAT process itself. (and NAT and proxies are prior art? hmm. art). The process of not allowing something through that doesn't have a 'slot' or originating IP address is OBVIOUS/LOGICAL. Reasoning?: if using NAT, unless you have the originating host ip address information, the device performing the NAT CANNOT determine where to forward the packet, ie, what address to put in the header. This is pure obvious logic for NAT in general. In the case of FTP, you have to proxy if you want it to work corrrectly in instances where the 'called' device is opening a port to the originating caller. This needs something like a proxy.. little lighter in 'obvious', but should be to anyone with a grain of salt. My first thought was they were back-door trying to patent H.323 for telephony... but that doesn't work, since the packets have to be scanned to determine the ports required to connect between inside/outside hosts, since ports and address can't only be determined from the header. (BTW, make note: i'm patenting process of proxying h.323 scanning disassembling / reassembling and addressing packet contents with appropriate addresses. If not already patented, it's MINE, and free to the world. Then again, if one simply knows the contents/requirements of H.323, it's obvious. the cicso NAT patent is a LOT more obvious than that.
It's about time we saw a serious push at alternative energy sources. This isn't as pure as solar, but it's definately a step in the right direction. True. Also, this may make the perfect BACKUP source for those using wind/solar. I've got land up in the mountains, no nearby electrical service. When I build, I plan on wind/solar. This make the perfect backup for times there's insufficient production... and it's a hell of a lot better than putting in an old diesal generator (which I had considered my option until a few years ago when I started following this)
>>>the interstate highway system was created after Eisenhower led a convoy from one coast to the other and realized that twisting highways and dirt roads made for inefficient travel. The time it took for a military convoy to go coast to coast was cut by something like a factor of ten.>>> Actually, that march wasn't coast to coast us, he was in the eurpoean theater in WW II, and not only noted the 'bad' roads, but the autobahn, which provided for quick troop movement for the germans. (Interstate system also had a requirement that every 'x' miles must have a straight section of roadway to permit the system to be used for aircraft landing/take-offs as well.)
>>>>If you can't record what's broadcast, how can you prove that it ever was? ... Just imagine if the political candidates (for example) Macrovisioned their ads, so nobody could record
them and analyze them on the air! The free-speech implications are severe. ----- I think you hit the nail on the head. This is a LOT deeper problem than the MPAA and studios. Remember, everything including the News broadcast is 'copyrighted'. The ability of any entity, be it a cable company or the gov't in permitting a set to be shut down remotely is so dangerous, it is hard to fathom. And it's not one political side or the other that should be objecting. Let's say something like oh... a brief synposis of the pentagon papers of the future are broadcast or refered to in a news program. It can't be copied. The gov't gets a temporary order restraining the original entity from broadcasting anything else about it. It was a copyrighted story. It was set 'you can't copy this'. So the 'x' number of people on a local station were simply told 'you never saw this'.. A journalist tries to get a copy to review for a block buster article, and he find that it couldn't be recorded, and the original station can't comment (if you say that can't happen, see earlier /. annoy.com feature). It doesn't take a 'government' to do this, just a few misguided individuals that work for the government and a judge or two. This capability is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind. (It seems the politicians should be concerned too. The right can't record and examine every 'liberal' prime TV program to find the 'trash' they so wish to expose, the liberals can't record each buchanan speech and pick out the verbage they feel threatens each breath you take. Or a supposedly introspective program such as on CNN or FOX that attempts to review fairness of other news organizations features, which, if they don't choose to provide clips, likely can't be provided to support any comments.) I can believe the politicians are oblivious, they're blinded by the cash. But I'm surprised the press hasn't taken a WIDE stance, and the ACLU? that i love 1/2 the time and despise the other 1/2 (meaning they must be doing an ok job)... I haven' heard them.
>>Why should laws apply to the entertainment industry? Mr. Valenti seems to think the entire industry so critical to the nation that it be above the law. ------- Of course he does, because if you remember, he's a Democrat with the capital 'D', going back to the lyndon johnson years. (Wasn't he a spokesman back then, helping keep the blinders on the citizens about Nam, IIRC.) While he may be 'senile' or appear totally dumb in depositions (his DeCSS depo would have been humorous if it wasn't so serious... he probably felt it was ok, since Bill and friends have said it's ok to deceive and lie in depositions, long as you don't think it's serious.) But he still has a lot of pull in Washington with the politicians and plenty of money to dole out via the industry. I never considered him very bright, but he has the connections...and IMHO, is nothing more than bought and paid for by the MPAA. (And he was probably pretty cheap since he has an ego the size of Saturn, just being in front of the camera probably takes care of 1/2 of that payment)
--A ruling by the Supreme Court stating that any use of Carnivore will be considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution until this system is subjected to an objective outside review, sponsored by the courts rather than by the department whose neat new toy is being reviewed.-- This is a good point and the courts is likely where it will end up. After all, the DOJ isn't a disinterested party, and the 'independant' review with the restrictions suggessted likely wouldn't hold up in court. While we're all concerned with the privacy aspect, which is good, try looking from a different perspective. IANAL, BUT, how about the first time anything is presented in court obtained by carnivore. Does not the defense have the right to tear this thing apart with experts of their own? It seems reasonable doubt can be alluded to simply by 'my client didn't get that email', 'carnivore altered the contents, that wasn't what the mail said'. After all, this isn't a disinterested 3rd party supplying the data under court order, it's the interested party, the FBI or any other group. If the defense isn't granted 'experts' cannot the court itself appoint an expert? I am beginning to wonder if the FBI will EVER attempt to place anything in evidence obtained from carnivore. Even if not evidence, if carnivore is simply used to further along an investigation does that not put it under the same scrutiny? ....there ARE some pretty fiesty judges out there. As a side note, as one said Mr Cerf does deserve some respect as 'tcp/ip man'. However, that doesn't make him a consitutional law expert. IMHO, HIS opinion on the subject should have no more weight or 'respect' than anyone on /., unless someone on /. is a constitutional lawyer, then he/she gets the benefit.
--yes, this is logical. if the authorities are saying "we know you're copying copywrited works - you have a computer so you MUST be guilty of this. so lets dispense with trials and such and just slap a fine on you. you know you're guilty - just pay the fine" then I guess since we've already been judged and are paying the fine, we at least owe it to ourselves to enjoy the fruits of our 'crimes'.-- I think the Supremes would have a little problems saying it's a fine and you're guilty before being proven as such (so it'll be a use tax or somthing?) On the other hand, should something like that pass, I have a feeling they'd find it hard to convict anyone of copyright violations since you have essentially 'paid' for the use of music, movies, etc, by virtue of paying the 'fee'. We'll have one HUGE NEA (it'll surpass medicare and social security) and it's government job will be to pay all the artists in the land. ... just lovely. IANAL, but this could get interesting for those who are. (Will they tax each newborn since a brain can memorize a song and therefore, will be in violation of copyright agreements?) I'd say this one should get the lawyers that new boat, house in the country, kids through college, and a nice retirement. (And Jack Valenti will still be around, saying everyone's a crook, and then not understand anything he's said, like the DVD deposition, IMHO. He'd have made a great Sgt in Hogan's Heroes (c) i'm sure that title is copyrighted, so all rights reserved by it's owner.)
--Uhm, hello? Didn't you bother to read the linked article before posting?.... said Fritz Attaway, executive vice president and Washington general counsel at the MPAA. "The vast majority of content won't be copy-protected, and the marketplace requires the ability to time-shift"--- And you believe this statement? The comment by the lawyer has absolutely NO basis OR requirement to be fact. IT's a little bit like the IM companies and Content providers (like Disney) that want AOL/Time-Warner to be forced in writing to say they'll open cable systems and IM standards not just say they'll do it publically or even in testimony. There'd be nothing to say 'oh, we changed our mind'. Their current statements are simply 'we intend to have open systems' (paraphrasing) and not many want to place their bets on that or allow the merger unless it's in writing and they're legally bound to do so.
You're correct, they tried it before with the VCR's and got slapped down in the betamax case. However, the MPAA will be packing the DMCA in their briefcase, which wasn't available then, and likely the reason they won't everything encrypted. Once encrypted, the 'decoding' will be illegal under the act since they'll claim it's a 'procection' mechanism. They'll use the same arguments as with the DeCSS case. Fair use will only mean fair use if you can find it unencrypted. Now they say 'go get a vhs copy for fair use, you can't decode dvd's'. However, what happens when they stop producing the VHS versions of movies, and only produce DVD's. Secondly, someone mentioned it'd be able to be recorded after leaving the set top box and a 'what they going to do, encrypt the code over firewire'. That's exactly what they want, they don't want the stream decoded until it's IN the TV or monitor.
I agree. It seems their 'product' is the ability to provide a 'virtual' BIOS to the system being booted at the time. AS it stand, they don't allow concurrent operation (and that seems a LONG way off in their 'versions'). Also, is not the BIOS copyrighted by the various vendors? Unless they did the clean room thing or have 'partners'..how'd they do that. Also, it seems they expect each OS to be 'well behaved' and take BIOS as gospel. Do OS's still do that? (including many they mention on their pages?) If so, that at least explains how they can 'virtualize' the disk, which is likely faked out.. They mention shared disk, with each program or utility for an OS believing they have exclusive access to a drive. In their future 'concurrent' operations, it seems 'concurrent' updates to shared dasd without some type of resource serialization with communication between OS's becomes a critical issue. They speak of 'upgrading' your OS but keeping the old OS you can run all of your old applications. If one buys an upgrade package, generally MS, since that is there they seem to be hitting, I do believe you violate the license if you attempt to run both the old and the upgraded systems. As for running a program without an OS, gee, I remember back when you simply loaded an 'exec', and some of us wrote machine code. But VERY few apps would ever fit the restrictions to run without some OS support. Their site also mentions being 'stuck' with the MS FAT file system for all these OS's they mention. A little strange, as NT, OS/2, Linux can all function without any FAT partitions at all. I am impressed with the virtual BIOS idea (though not the very poorly written and non-proofread web site), and think it'll be interesting to follow this company. However, I'm wondering if the most interesting path to follow will be the development path or the IPO path.
--OS/390 has also been around since the mid 60's starting life as OS/360 and going through several name changes (OS/VS, MFT, MVS, MVS/XA, MVS/ESA, and finally OS/390 -- I think I got the right lineup of names :)-- Actually you are pretty close. OS/360, MFT, MVT, OS/VS1 and OS/SVS, MVS, XA, ESA, OS/390. (VS1 and SVS were both 'current' operating systems at the same time, but operated substantially different. MVS was really 'operational' as of MVS 3.x. IMHO, nobody who ever ran MVS 2.x would ever want to admit it )
((a hardware company can't expect people to write drivers -and- buy their hardware...just as a volunteer fireman can't be expected to bring his own fire truck...)) There's a big difference in the type of organization and how you use 'volunteer'. In the case of the drivers, if a driver is written for 'x' OS, and given away, they're probably OK. If the harware vendor took the driver, claimed ownership, and then SOLD the driver, they'd likely end up in the position AOL is current sitting. As for the volunteer fireman, that's a horse or fire truck of a different color. Volunteer fire departments would fit under the 'charitable' or 'non-profit' setting that would exempt the organization (not sure, all 503(c) would fit in here?) IANAL, etc, just an opinion.
I think the local elections, however, would be those subject to the most fraud. One has to live in the district where their vote is being cast. Let's say someone lives in Los Angeles and moves to San Diego. They were registered in Los Angeles, and keep voting online there. They register in San Diego, and vote there. Online, who's to say they're allowed to vote in those elections if they don't vote in their district. Voters are only purged if they don't vote 'x' times in elections. There's no method to determine they've moved a 1000 miles if they don't have to show up. Hell, I moved 6 times in the past 10 years. I could still be voting in local elections. Of course, the proposed solution will surely come from M$, with a national registry (something the founding fathers didn't want), which logs every voter, where they voted, and probably for whom (so much for the secret ballot. Of course, you'll only be allowed to vote if you're using an M$ product. (and one won't have to worry about voting from the grave in Chicago, it can be done nationally as long as someone is still alive who has the password/certificates to allow voting.)
I agree. Why not just sue M$, since if not for the Windows operating systems, the windows versions of the code wouldn't operate, and the code is run by the operating system, so it should be responsible for all code it runs. Absurd, true. Then again, how about CICSO. If not for routers, one couldn't transmit that code over the internet and hence violate the copyrights. I am surprised, relating to copyrights, that the Salon article didn't mention three other areas in comparisons. The first, the infamous Sony Betamax case. Also, I believe there were concerns, and indeed lawsuits back with the distribution of Xerox machines. And finally, wasn't there a 1st amendment thing back in the 70's supporting publishers (ie, it's ok to publish how to make a bomb, and not be responsible for the person who uses the book to actually make one?) At some point people, and the law, must take into consideration those who actually break the law. It seems the recent history has been solely for expediancy and money.
Either they 'got the point' and changed the eula or it wasn't carefully read initially. In the 'Scope' section, it specifically excludes GPL'd software (and others) except for the disclaimers/liability sections of the eula. Since they are distributing Linux, my only question would be if the source is contained on the CD or available from them as required.
While the 'hyperlink' term may be a more recent event, how is this patent different from things I've been doing since the mid 70's. Example: IBM 327X type display device, retrieve information over lines from a central computer, storing hidden information in certain blocks on the screen. The user selects information from a visible accessible field on the screen, which is transmitted back to the central computer along with the hidden fields (blocks). The central computer returns more information to the terminal from based upon the selection and the hidden 'blocks'. Hey folks (ie BT), this has been done for YEARS before 1989 OR 1980. (To jazz it up a little, you could even use light pen fields to make your selection). Oh, and I first worked for a place that did this back in 9/74.
((Hey Maroon! They're scarfing down movies and popular songs in MP3 format. You didn't get it at all, did you? Go back to handing out your greasy leaflets downtown. It's safer.)) As with playing a clip in a deposition that has nothing to do with DeCSS or DVD's, this also is an 'inoperative' statement. The distinction must be made between DISTRIBUTING the content, for which I dont' care at all if they send out their minions to shutdown and the right to determination (ie, the playing) of items purchased for your use. As for the analogy of 'making a key for everyones house and distributing it', it wasn't that long ago there were only a limited 'n' key/lock combinations for cars. YOU, if you're not that young, probably were walking around with a key that'd unlock tens of thousands of cars. THAT wasn't illegal, in fact they gave it to you. It's ONLY illegal if you use the key to steal the car...and in the 'old' days, you probably would have found a few within your own block.
I agree there can be a benefit if the UI guy and Corel. Though I'm not one who wants a dumbed down desktop, the example of the ability to change file type w/ a right click could end up with a compromise to simply have an option to have an 'advanced' or 'normal user' desktop, and allow the user to decide which they want... if the item gets discussed by all parties. As for the comment in the article re: the lawyers of corporate world, I think at some point we may see how open source will survive or evolve by a case or two. As it stated, the corporations have some big money in there, and if they take something the make small alteration and make it proprietary, suits could ensue. However, it forgets to mention that OTHER open source proponets are also companies with lots of $$ and laywers. An example, should a Corel do this, it'd be interesting to see if the IBM's of the world, now linux proponets, would step up to the plate and to insure open source remained just that.
This isn't obscurity, they've got blinders on. I can't believe this is a well thought out process. First, I agree that intellectual property does exist, things shouldn't be for free. But others have already mentioned that when one purchases, for example a CD, all members of the family or guests can listen to it at will. The purchaser doesn't have to be present, just give permission (access). This has nothing to do with the original holder of the copyright (unlike a couple comments made.) But even if I buy into this, what are the problems. I buy it when I've had a few beers, so what happens now, they say I can only listen to it if I'm drunk? I'm an old guy, but I still workout. What happens on those days my arms are so damn sore I can hardly move them. Sorry, out of luck. You can't listen to your music after a workout. And if I break a finger or wrist? Hmm, guess one isn't allowed to listen to music after an injury (how do they put THAT in their EULA). And EULA or not, disclaimers or not, it seems there'd be enough problems the courts would be a tad crowded. (Not really, there are enough bottom feeder firms to take on class actions which in this instance, wouldn't be so bad.) And if I'm running some heavy crunching software that intterupts the responsiveness of the keystrokes in the buffer? Oh, that's right. Can't listen to music and multi-task. On the flip-side (for those old timers who remember 45's), how secure is this anyway. Who'll be the first to capture keystrokes and stuff them into the buffers at the appropriate time? The sellers are going to wonder how one person can be in 2 million places at a time. Or the first to capture output to the sound drivers? hmm, then maybe all I have to do is punch up 'song title, audio driver format' and we've got a new distribution method. Finally, since DIVX was mentioned in the article, what happens to the company that distributes this from a site and you've paid for it. They go belly-up? I guess you're right to use it has just terminated. That seemed to be a bad perception to the original DIVX, and then you even had the 'source', just needed the access to the site for authorization. With the net-ignorant (sorry, meant netnanny plan), I'm guessing there's a good chance one may not even have that. And finally, If I buy a new computer and keyboard and it acts even the slightest bit differently, I have to go out and buy all new music? (forget about the key that might stick in your keyboard and interrupt your normal flow of typing.. diry keyboard = no music? hmm) I'm surprised this is a 'music' thing. It sounds more like something a Jack Valenti type from MPAA would think up first. And one more finally, the old parties where everyone would bring some music. I guess that disappears, though quite legal today. In the future, I guess everybody has to buy a copy for their party. Hmm, this sounds more like a Microsoft plan than Valenti. I do think there has to be a way to protect both the originator of the intellectual property AS WELL AS the purchaser. This seems inept, not thought out, and basically something a 3 year old might think up (maybe the kids instead of the nanny has taken over the company).
As sad as it is, I recall hearing that story on the radio. I don't think it was even an 'everyone wear coke' shirts that day, simply a presentation by coke. The kid wearing the pepsi shirt was suspended. And this was a public, not private school. I think they used something like it was 'disruptive' to wear it. I cannot believe schools get away with it either, but after hearing of some of the 'zero tolerance' situations with kids being expelled, it tells me school boards have simply gone over the line. (They did that years ago, it's just getting worse.) I don't wonder why kids have problems, the 'growing up' that was done in schools years ago never happens. they get out and have no idea how to behave in a society where they have to use their own reasoning and logic, never having been able to develop it when they should have, in their younger years. ... off my soap box now ...
>Think about this globally. The US can pass a law that the US backbones cannot exchange information with "rogue networks," networks that don't follow US law. The US can pass a law that they will not trade with countries that don't pass similar laws. The UK can do the same. Pretty soon, there is no where to go.
>If you don't think that this can be done, emember that until very recently, the US phone networks re prohibited from connecting to the Cuban phone network so you couldn't easily make a phone call from the US to Cuba. Yes, I know that the internet has obvious ways to route around this kind of lock but big governments can put a lot of pressure on service providers.
Actually, there were ways around the phone restrictions as well, and people usually routed through Canada. It may have been a law, but pretty much on the books only. (And we didn't then ban commerce/travel with Canada because of it.) Helms-Burton isn't really in place either, because it'd have the same problematic consequences. That's one business won't allow. What's bad for one business/politition can be good for another, and they'll all have their lobbyists and lawyers.
>>Justice Charles Edward Ramos has ruled that an Antiguan gambling site is covered by the laws of New York state simply because the service can be accessed from there. What about jurisdiction? How can an American court ruling affect Antigua? The owners of the site have no reason to obey any ruling given by a US court.
I don't know Judge Ramos, and IANAL. But I've believe his new york decision would be overturned in a ny minute on appeal. The Supreme Court has ruled a state can't mandate a business operating in another state can be required to collect sales tax for the state of the purchaser, unless the business has a presence in the state. And the product, no less, is being shipped to the state. Now we're talking international commerce, not just state-to-state commerce. Wouldn't this be somewhat analagous? His ruling seems to be based on illogical reasoning. Even ignorance of the internet wouldn't seem to be an excuse for overreaching on that one. Wonder how often this guy has decisions reversed. I WOULD think the person gambling could be prosecuted but not the entity providing the site.
Cable companies probably could offer it, relying on your indidivual record/playback requests and vaidating your subscriptions-like replay or tivo at a central site. But this stuff has all the problems described. Plus, if network shows are involved, you have the contractual agreements of the local stations. You'd have to replay only those stations that were in your local area, not a network station from another area. And if generic recording/playback then it's rebroadcasting. This is definitely a dead end that will profit only the lawyers. It'd end up cheaper for them to give all their subscribers a tivo than pay the legal fees, though certainly IANAL, just an opinion.