Yes, there are a lot of posts on these 'holy war' topics that are deserving of the mantle, FLAMEBAIT, or TROLL. However, there are also some posts which are not, which really do attempt to go in to a discussion over the relative merits and demerits of such a system. Marking them -1 is idiotic.
Just because someone says something less than positive does not make them flamebait (ahhh...forgive my poor English).
Get real, folks. In the real world, Box A is sometimes superior to Box B.
Dreamcast is superior to Super Nintendo.
The amount of personal ego-based pride on Slashdot astounds me sometimes.
Well, techincally, his statement is true . The reasons as to why this may not matter are what could potentially be significant, but it seems safe enough to say that with 3 to 4 times as many processor cycles even the inferior (essentially) 64-bit SSE(SSE2,3DNOW,3DNOW+,whatever), would have a leg up on the more advanced (but not radically so) 128-bit Altivec.
So what he says is correct, me thinks
Don't just mark this as flamebait, why not argue the (somewhat) salient point.
Seriously. The text of the law (from the cd-rom version or what not) should be released on freenet.
If I have the money to buy the cdrom, I would do this myself
I got thirty bucks -- anyone else wnat to through is some change?;)
Re:The Open Source Intellectual Property Project
on
Is Law Copyrighted?
·
· Score: 1
This was posted as a joke, but really is not all that terrible of an idea. While it would never, ever, EVER get off the ground, they idea of an organization that attempted to copyright as much as possible (and why not patent everything too), and then release is all under the GPL.
I guess the resolution to this is just that we are screwed.
Isn't it interesting how the various relms of law, as they get broader and broader, slowly dissolving the rights of the consumer often catastrophicaly demonstrate this where they intersect
Its just sad.....
There really isn't anything we can do. Judges are to establishment to dig such a big hole in either realm of the law.
The idea of essentially legitimating supposed napster style distribution of movies on the internet scares the hell out of them
The idea of eliminating copyright protection from software, and destroy a good portion of the computing industry.
What will probably happen is the the court system will (in a contradictory way) rule that software is functional speech, and software is protected by copyright. They will simply refuse to make the logical jump that software not being expressive invalidates the notion of software copyright.
ehh....not really
It is moot, I think (well, maybe not moot in the legal sense, but essentially). Judge clarifies this with saying if MPAA tried to do it again, this would not be usable as precedent, and infact, there would be stuff in Kaplan decision that would be usable defensively.
But if they refused to reverse this injuction based upon this stupid argument.............I pity us:)
This is important. I think.
Some lawyer type explain to me why I am wrong, because I am sure I am.
1. In order for something to be copyrightable, it must be a) recorded is tangible form somewhere
b) expressive, original content
2. Computer software/code can be registered for copyright. (The Copyright office does not have any specific catagory for it, but says it can be considered a literary work)
3. Therefore, Computer Software/code is expressive work, and protected by the first amendment, under the strictest scrutiny.
It seems like if 2600 would make this argument (assuming the argument is valid), they win.
'Nuff said
Also, if this argument is not valid, it seems like software is not copyrightable. (Instead of being expressive context, it is merely the an algorithm, not something created, but something discovered. This maybe patentable, but I do not think it is copyrightable.)
hehe.....that would make a mess of the computing world.
Yeah, whatever. They are generally(judges, not necessarily these judges) as inqisitive as possible in order to determine the specifics of an argument. Just because they ask a question, doesn't mean the question reflexs upon their opinon. I just means that the context of that question is an issue than could(yes, could....they ask a lot of bunk question to) have legal ramifications
Its more a case of the Judge not really understanding what is going on---
The interruptions are so Judge X can clarify points of the compound arguments Sullivan was making.
Also, Judges generally are overzealous when it comes to asking questions of anyone-- The "tone" of their questioning does not always reveal their opinon on the matter, but is just them exploring the ramifications of an argument.
My reading of the transcript did make it seem like the judges bought a couple things:
1. Digital works in the public domain effectively have their copyrights extended indefinetly (unless the MPAA decides to be really, really nice about it)
2. DeCSS does not necessairly contribute to infringement- there are non-infringing uses of it.
3. Perhaps a narrow regulation must be implemented- they seemed almost scared talking about things like #1 above, and also about research, what not......
Things they seemed wishy washy on
1. The injuction is limited to the defendants, so it does not require reversal. However, their questioning about linking arguments with respect to the times, for example, might make this a vary salient point.
2. Sullivan's argument that even if DeCSS does not require strict scrutiny in regards to the First Amendment, the 'weakest' test is the Turner test, which requires demonstration of harm, not just prediction of harm.
I'll stop here, because I forgot what else I wanted to talk about, and it really doesn't matter anyways, the salient points of the case are the ones above, I think.
This finally argument, about the Turner test, seems fantastic to me. Perhaps a real lawyer type would be willing to explain why it is not a show stopper. I mean:
1. Kaplan says DeCSS is a form of speech, one that is regulable, and is not protected by strict scrutiny, but instead by a lower stander, the Turner test.
2. Turner test requires proof of harm. Period.
3. Turner test therefore indicates this is protected speech. Done. Go home.
hmmmm
Actually, I live on a block (well, when I am at home, not at college) that seems pretty saturated with cable modems (from AT&T @home). I guess I don't really know if that is the case, but service has been avaliable for a few years now, I know of at least 6 other people on my block who have service, and the technicians that came by when we accidently cut our cable line (gardening accident;)) indiciated that there are quite a few users in my area (we started as the third household to get it). Overall, as much as I have heard horrible things about AT&T, I am really rather happy with it (happy enough to get cable service from @home at college as well).
Just my 2 cents
But the last word that I heard is the Sega is not stopping production of the dreamcast, but only in its current incarnation. If I can find the link, I'll post it, but the word was that sega has just recently put all(or most, or enough;)) of the dreamcast hardware on a chip, so that it will be avaliable as an add in card, for pc's, and for integration into home theatre devices. Like TV's, and DVD players, etc. If anyone remebers where this link is, post it;) I probably won't be able to find it. I believe that this was the unofficial followup to Sega official statement that it will start producing stuff for "other" platforms. Sega of America, I believe, clarifed it, and indicated that the "other" platforms were not other consoles, but were other incarncations of the dreamcast, which would be pretty cool.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because someone says something less than positive does not make them flamebait (ahhh...forgive my poor English).
Get real, folks. In the real world, Box A is sometimes superior to Box B.
Dreamcast is superior to Super Nintendo.
The amount of personal ego-based pride on Slashdot astounds me sometimes.
So what he says is correct, me thinks
Don't just mark this as flamebait, why not argue the (somewhat) salient point.
Get a clue before you hide his words
Check out some benchmarks before you display your ignorance for all to see.
Yes, there are many reasons as to why x86 processors do almost everything faster.
Just to name two:
1. Memory Bandwidth.
2. Bus Design
Plus, the athlon really is kind of a math monster
http://www.wpi.edu/~cmorgan/cpu_compare.html
Check this out. There also are some good ars technica articles on the matter. But they do not provide benchmarks.
Basically, Athlon 600MHZ and above is faster than G4 450MHZ. My T-bird 1Gig is faster than G4 whatever, I am fairly confident ;)
There goes my karma ;(
Why can't we do this?
-> = Firewire connection
Set-top box -> PC -> Where ever you want...
Sure, there will be little things to take care of, like decryption, and what not. But I doubt 'dtcp' will be foolproof.
In fact, I'll bet even money the first company to release a 'dtcp' card for your PC will mess it up and allow for very very easy reverse engineering.
Just my 2 cents
If I have the money to buy the cdrom, I would do this myself
I got thirty bucks -- anyone else wnat to through is some change? ;)
Yup. I like it.
Copyright the copyright laws----
Refuse to release them.
F*ck people left and right.
God....I would give two testicles, a lung, liver, frontal lobe and all four limbs for that ability.
Isn't it interesting how the various relms of law, as they get broader and broader, slowly dissolving the rights of the consumer often catastrophicaly demonstrate this where they intersect
Its just sad.....
There really isn't anything we can do. Judges are to establishment to dig such a big hole in either realm of the law.
The idea of essentially legitimating supposed napster style distribution of movies on the internet scares the hell out of them
The idea of eliminating copyright protection from software, and destroy a good portion of the computing industry.
What will probably happen is the the court system will (in a contradictory way) rule that software is functional speech, and software is protected by copyright. They will simply refuse to make the logical jump that software not being expressive invalidates the notion of software copyright.
Its really really sad
ehh....not really It is moot, I think (well, maybe not moot in the legal sense, but essentially). Judge clarifies this with saying if MPAA tried to do it again, this would not be usable as precedent, and infact, there would be stuff in Kaplan decision that would be usable defensively. But if they refused to reverse this injuction based upon this stupid argument........ .....I pity us :)
This is important. I think. Some lawyer type explain to me why I am wrong, because I am sure I am. 1. In order for something to be copyrightable, it must be a) recorded is tangible form somewhere b) expressive, original content 2. Computer software/code can be registered for copyright. (The Copyright office does not have any specific catagory for it, but says it can be considered a literary work) 3. Therefore, Computer Software/code is expressive work, and protected by the first amendment, under the strictest scrutiny. It seems like if 2600 would make this argument (assuming the argument is valid), they win. 'Nuff said Also, if this argument is not valid, it seems like software is not copyrightable. (Instead of being expressive context, it is merely the an algorithm, not something created, but something discovered. This maybe patentable, but I do not think it is copyrightable.) hehe.....that would make a mess of the computing world.
Yeah, whatever. They are generally(judges, not necessarily these judges) as inqisitive as possible in order to determine the specifics of an argument. Just because they ask a question, doesn't mean the question reflexs upon their opinon. I just means that the context of that question is an issue than could(yes, could....they ask a lot of bunk question to) have legal ramifications
Its more a case of the Judge not really understanding what is going on--- The interruptions are so Judge X can clarify points of the compound arguments Sullivan was making. Also, Judges generally are overzealous when it comes to asking questions of anyone-- The "tone" of their questioning does not always reveal their opinon on the matter, but is just them exploring the ramifications of an argument. My reading of the transcript did make it seem like the judges bought a couple things: 1. Digital works in the public domain effectively have their copyrights extended indefinetly (unless the MPAA decides to be really, really nice about it) 2. DeCSS does not necessairly contribute to infringement- there are non-infringing uses of it. 3. Perhaps a narrow regulation must be implemented- they seemed almost scared talking about things like #1 above, and also about research, what not...... Things they seemed wishy washy on 1. The injuction is limited to the defendants, so it does not require reversal. However, their questioning about linking arguments with respect to the times, for example, might make this a vary salient point. 2. Sullivan's argument that even if DeCSS does not require strict scrutiny in regards to the First Amendment, the 'weakest' test is the Turner test, which requires demonstration of harm, not just prediction of harm. I'll stop here, because I forgot what else I wanted to talk about, and it really doesn't matter anyways, the salient points of the case are the ones above, I think. This finally argument, about the Turner test, seems fantastic to me. Perhaps a real lawyer type would be willing to explain why it is not a show stopper. I mean: 1. Kaplan says DeCSS is a form of speech, one that is regulable, and is not protected by strict scrutiny, but instead by a lower stander, the Turner test. 2. Turner test requires proof of harm. Period. 3. Turner test therefore indicates this is protected speech. Done. Go home. hmmmm
Actually, I live on a block (well, when I am at home, not at college) that seems pretty saturated with cable modems (from AT&T @home). I guess I don't really know if that is the case, but service has been avaliable for a few years now, I know of at least 6 other people on my block who have service, and the technicians that came by when we accidently cut our cable line (gardening accident ;)) indiciated that there are quite a few users in my area (we started as the third household to get it). Overall, as much as I have heard horrible things about AT&T, I am really rather happy with it (happy enough to get cable service from @home at college as well).
Just my 2 cents
But the last word that I heard is the Sega is not stopping production of the dreamcast, but only in its current incarnation. If I can find the link, I'll post it, but the word was that sega has just recently put all(or most, or enough ;)) of the dreamcast hardware on a chip, so that it will be avaliable as an add in card, for pc's, and for integration into home theatre devices. Like TV's, and DVD players, etc. If anyone remebers where this link is, post it ;) I probably won't be able to find it. I believe that this was the unofficial followup to Sega official statement that it will start producing stuff for "other" platforms. Sega of America, I believe, clarifed it, and indicated that the "other" platforms were not other consoles, but were other incarncations of the dreamcast, which would be pretty cool.