AFAIK, this doesn't happen. I'm under the impression each release of a driver for Vista has to be tested and signed off by MS. However it does pose the possibility of an insider creating a sekret backdoor. Once you've created one backdoor, it'd probably be a good insurance policy to create an extra one so that when the first one is discovered, you maintain access.
However, English flag red cross on white background firmly establishes prior art. Trademarks are as the predecessor (implicitly) pointed out restricted to the trade(s) in which they are used.
For example, You can (presumably) trademark Audi as the name of some cleaning supplies you happen to sell, and have it as an independent trademark from the car manufacturers. You have to be careful though as some trademarks have global recognition and are privelaged as such.
Achmed carefully approached the ThePresident, careful not to generate aggro by getting too close. He sighted his blunderbus and used Hunters Mark to designate his target. The time was right, so he unleashed his Snow Leopard on one of the Secret Service Agents. Distracted by the Leopard the Agent moved to give Achmed a clear shot, so Achmed unleashed Serpent Sting on firing his load at ThePresident.....
The constitution is saying that Congress is free to provide an incentive for inventors to publish their inventions by giving them a patent in return. A patent is effectively a monopoly on production/ licensing that invention for a period of time in order to make a financial gain.
The reason that Congress gives out patents is to progress science and the useful arts. The reasons that inventors want them is an opportunity to benefit financially. As far as I know you can't have one without the other.
I agree that what constitutes an invention for the purposes of securing a patent should be significantly narrowed down. I'm almost of the opinion that there should be "grading" of patents, giving protection for the longest time to *really* significant ideas.
The Constitution is effectively saying that it is within the powers of Congress to enact laws regarding patents and copyright, if Congress believes that by doing so it will promote the progress of science and useful arts.
The fact there may be unintended consequences and side effects to such laws is not within the remit of the Constitution. Protecting financial interests of patent holders, whether companies or individuals, however is a raison d'etre for patents, since by making an invention public, someone hopes to make money.
I'm beginning to think that we need to form a Copyright Reform Group lobbying organisation, which needs to lobby MPs and act as a counterweight to the BPI (UK equivalent of the RIAA) and its ilk. I think its only by good luck that the Gower report came down on the right side, but it doesn't go far enough.
I expected a prepared response, because most parties probably have an official position on a range of subjects and get lots of letters from their constituents. In the case of a party leader, there is no way that they would have the time to draft a letter to everyone. I'm hoping that my followup will get a non-standard response, but I'm not too optimistic.
The reported financial values remind me of those $100million drug busts, when you find you can buy the same quantity for $100 from your local dealer....oops!
I sent this reply and am waiting to see what the response is: Thankyou for responding to my email. Whilst I thank you for the reply, I do not think that the Party has thought its policy through on this issue.
Mr Cameron seems to have swallowed the industry spiel hook line and sinker.
The majority of "illegal" downloads were between normal people as a result of filesharing, and if the copyright law came down to a reasonable level, then these would be de facto illegal downloads would no longer be illegal. You should note that far from taking action against these mysterious "organised crime" figures, most download actions in court were taken against people like students. If it were not for Napster (illegal after a lot of court decisions) we would not even have royalties from downloads. The attitude on copyright is actually stifling innovation that would benefit the public at large.
The industry does have a right to initial protection, that is not an issue in dispute, but again, just because composers are given an unjust length of time in terms of copyright protection does not mean you should extend the injustice to all involved in the music industry.
I doubt you can name a large number of session musicians who are earning a reasonable pension from rights. Only 1-2% of any recordings have any worthwhile value after 20 years, so these session musicians are unlikely to be living a life of riley unless they have set up proper pensions like the rest of us have to. I suggest you challenge the music industry to see if they can put some figures as to how many session musicians are earning a reasonable income from their work more than 20 years ago, and I will suspect that it is extremely few. Only major performers and their heirs will really continue to significant income from these performances. Again, the Conservative party seems to have fallen into the trap of protecting a very small minority at the expense of the vast majority.
You seem to think that this is beneficial to musicians; it isn't. By freeing into the public domain a vast amount of work that new musicians can sample and replay without costs you would encourage a whole new generation able to innovate and derive without fear of prosecution.
I am aware that there is a difference between the Gowers report and the Select Committee report on the issue. Siding with the musicians seems ridiculous; for example I note from Hansard on 21st May that the discussion involved an MP concerned about his constituent "Fast Eddie Clarke" of Motorhead. Not to be rude, but Motorhead is a perfect example of one of the few well off bands who would benefit at the expense of the many. None of the rest of us working in day to day jobs will have royalty arrangements which will be inherited by his heirs. I do not begrudge Mr Clarke his musical success, or passing on what he earns in life to his heirs, but I do not see why this should effectively continue ad infinitum. Music copyright has effectively created a new peerage system, where you earn money purely because of who your father/ mother was.
In terms of votes, you're siding with the wrong side i.e the few instead of the many. I have generally welcomed the change in attitude of the Conservative Party, who I have long voted for but not without qualms about its cold social attitude. Under David Cameron, whether he is successful or not in his other endeavors, I will say that his best change has been to make the Conservatives more mainstream, warmer and less hostile. David Cameron's stated policy on this issue cannot be upheld.
Perhaps the most damning indictment on this issue can be stated thus: If I were a medical researcher and came up with a cure for Cancer, AIDs, or Malaria then I would not get "life+70 years" or even 50 years of royalties. I would get a patent for (give or take a few) about 20 years. I certainly would not get a royalty stream to "pass on to my heirs". I could responsibly invest the money I earned over those 20 years to provide security for my heirs, or I could spend it on a "rock and roll" lifestyle. It is regarded as a public good that protection should end after a limited time, resulting in lower cost medicine, and I do not see why artists should not have the same rules.
...don't until you've got an announcement of a reversal of policy on copyright. I got this reply after expressing my concerns about a speech David Cameron gave to the BPI.
Dear Mr Roberts,
I am writing on behalf of David Cameron to thank you for your e-mail following David's recent speech to the British Phonographic Industry AGM.
There is little doubt that copyright theft is a major threat to the future of our creative industries. Last year alone an estimated 20 billion music files were downloaded illegally. We must also not forget the strong evidence showing that much of the profit from illegal downloads and piracy goes to fund drugs and organised crime. Taking proper measures to protect our musicians and artists from such theft will allow more money to end up with musicians and artists, and will allow the music industry to reinvest in developing and nurturing new talent.
That is why David supports the extension of copyright term from the current 50 years to 70 years. This would reduce the disparity between the length of copyright term given to composers and that granted to producers and performers, and will protect the thousands of musicians who will lose the rights to their recordings over the next ten years. Some people think these are all multi-millionaire rock stars, but the reality is that many are low-earning session musicians who will be losing a vital pension.
Finally, we believe that extending copyright term will not only allow record companies to further reinvest in developing the next generation of musical talent, it will also encourage the industry to digitise both older and niche repertoire which will be good for all music fans.
Thank you, once again, for getting in touch. Yours sincerely,
Honor Fishburn Office of David Cameron MP House of Commons London SW1A 0AA
My original message was:
David Cameron is not winning friends and influencing people by the speech to the BPI. The recording industry is small, and overly vocal, while there are a vast number of people who expect that copyright should protect the immediate future of artists, but should not drag on to the obscene level of 50 or 70 years after the death of the artist or publication. Many people wonder what is so special about music when designs and patents only extend for 20 years or so. Like patents, copyright should be a deal; protection for a limited term in exchange for placing ideas into the public pool.
Copyright and Patents are designed to encourage people to place their ideas into the open so that other people may use them immediately at a cost, and so that the ideas therein may become part of the Public body of knowledge, available to all for the good of all.
Far from campaigning for an increase in the length of copyright, its duration should be reduced to that similar to patents.
This argument has been dragging on for ages. He should really read a speech by Thomas McCauley on Copyright from 1841, the opinions therein are still just as valid today.
The byline on this form states "Conservatives are tackling the issues that matter to the mainstream majority."; in making this speech Mr Cameron is pandering to an overprivileged minority. Their ideas and products deserve protection for a limited term, not fossilisation for ever.
Slashdot Mirror
I have just found a large hole in my sock, which is expanding, I wonder if my socks are an analogue of the Universe. or is it only the left one?
As the first Beowulf comment, it cannot be Redundant.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these....
I was wondering whether an Evanescant laser acted as a carrier for alternative rock
Damn you stole my idea! :-)
Is it a bird?
Is it a plane?
No, it's Superstar!
Has anyone else noticed the alarming trend of devices made to run on human fluids!
So now we know how the sexbot of the future is going to be "recharged"
You probably couldn't have shorted it. There have to be shares available in order for a short position to be taken up.
They combust at Farenheit 451
AFAIK, this doesn't happen. I'm under the impression each release of a driver for Vista has to be tested and signed off by MS. However it does pose the possibility of an insider creating a sekret backdoor. Once you've created one backdoor, it'd probably be a good insurance policy to create an extra one so that when the first one is discovered, you maintain access.
However, English flag red cross on white background firmly establishes prior art. Trademarks are as the predecessor (implicitly) pointed out restricted to the trade(s) in which they are used.
For example, You can (presumably) trademark Audi as the name of some cleaning supplies you happen to sell, and have it as an independent trademark from the car manufacturers. You have to be careful though as some trademarks have global recognition and are privelaged as such.
Even better, as it claims to the three-D, build a papier-mache head
That a Leopard can change its spots!
Achmed carefully approached the ThePresident, careful not to generate aggro by getting too close. He sighted his blunderbus and used Hunters Mark to designate his target. The time was right, so he unleashed his Snow Leopard on one of the Secret Service Agents. Distracted by the Leopard the Agent moved to give Achmed a clear shot, so Achmed unleashed Serpent Sting on firing his load at ThePresident.....
I was asking myself the same question.
Transputers date back to the early/mid-'80s and patents therefore are out of date.
IIRC, each transputer had its own memory; it didn't share it.
The constitution is saying that Congress is free to provide an incentive for inventors to publish their inventions by giving them a patent in return. A patent is effectively a monopoly on production/ licensing that invention for a period of time in order to make a financial gain.
The reason that Congress gives out patents is to progress science and the useful arts. The reasons that inventors want them is an opportunity to benefit financially. As far as I know you can't have one without the other.
I agree that what constitutes an invention for the purposes of securing a patent should be significantly narrowed down. I'm almost of the opinion that there should be "grading" of patents, giving protection for the longest time to *really* significant ideas.
You're taking a very narrow view.
The Constitution is effectively saying that it is within the powers of Congress to enact laws regarding patents and copyright, if Congress believes that by doing so it will promote the progress of science and useful arts.
The fact there may be unintended consequences and side effects to such laws is not within the remit of the Constitution. Protecting financial interests of patent holders, whether companies or individuals, however is a raison d'etre for patents, since by making an invention public, someone hopes to make money.
a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of computers cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced...
I'm beginning to think that we need to form a Copyright Reform Group lobbying organisation, which needs to lobby MPs and act as a counterweight to the BPI (UK equivalent of the RIAA) and its ilk. I think its only by good luck that the Gower report came down on the right side, but it doesn't go far enough.
I expected a prepared response, because most parties probably have an official position on a range of subjects and get lots of letters from their constituents. In the case of a party leader, there is no way that they would have the time to draft a letter to everyone. I'm hoping that my followup will get a non-standard response, but I'm not too optimistic.
The reported financial values remind me of those $100million drug busts, when you find you can buy the same quantity for $100 from your local dealer....oops!
I agree, see the followup message I sent.
I sent this reply and am waiting to see what the response is:
Thankyou for responding to my email. Whilst I thank you for the reply, I do not think that the Party has thought its policy through on this issue.
Mr Cameron seems to have swallowed the industry spiel hook line and sinker.
The majority of "illegal" downloads were between normal people as a result of filesharing, and if the copyright law came down to a reasonable level, then these would be de facto illegal downloads would no longer be illegal. You should note that far from taking action against these mysterious "organised crime" figures, most download actions in court were taken against people like students. If it were not for Napster (illegal after a lot of court decisions) we would not even have royalties from downloads. The attitude on copyright is actually stifling innovation that would benefit the public at large.
The industry does have a right to initial protection, that is not an issue in dispute, but again, just because composers are given an unjust length of time in terms of copyright protection does not mean you should extend the injustice to all involved in the music industry.
I doubt you can name a large number of session musicians who are earning a reasonable pension from rights. Only 1-2% of any recordings have any worthwhile value after 20 years, so these session musicians are unlikely to be living a life of riley unless they have set up proper pensions like the rest of us have to. I suggest you challenge the music industry to see if they can put some figures as to how many session musicians are earning a reasonable income from their work more than 20 years ago, and I will suspect that it is extremely few. Only major performers and their heirs will really continue to significant income from these performances. Again, the Conservative party seems to have fallen into the trap of protecting a very small minority at the expense of the vast majority.
You seem to think that this is beneficial to musicians; it isn't. By freeing into the public domain a vast amount of work that new musicians can sample and replay without costs you would encourage a whole new generation able to innovate and derive without fear of prosecution.
I am aware that there is a difference between the Gowers report and the Select Committee report on the issue. Siding with the musicians seems ridiculous; for example I note from Hansard on 21st May that the discussion involved an MP concerned about his constituent "Fast Eddie Clarke" of Motorhead. Not to be rude, but Motorhead is a perfect example of one of the few well off bands who would benefit at the expense of the many. None of the rest of us working in day to day jobs will have royalty arrangements which will be inherited by his heirs. I do not begrudge Mr Clarke his musical success, or passing on what he earns in life to his heirs, but I do not see why this should effectively continue ad infinitum. Music copyright has effectively created a new peerage system, where you earn money purely because of who your father/ mother was.
In terms of votes, you're siding with the wrong side i.e the few instead of the many. I have generally welcomed the change in attitude of the Conservative Party, who I have long voted for but not without qualms about its cold social attitude. Under David Cameron, whether he is successful or not in his other endeavors, I will say that his best change has been to make the Conservatives more mainstream, warmer and less hostile. David Cameron's stated policy on this issue cannot be upheld.
Perhaps the most damning indictment on this issue can be stated thus: If I were a medical researcher and came up with a cure for Cancer, AIDs, or Malaria then I would not get "life+70 years" or even 50 years of royalties. I would get a patent for (give or take a few) about 20 years. I certainly would not get a royalty stream to "pass on to my heirs". I could responsibly invest the money I earned over those 20 years to provide security for my heirs, or I could spend it on a "rock and roll" lifestyle. It is regarded as a public good that protection should end after a limited time, resulting in lower cost medicine, and I do not see why artists should not have the same rules.
8 million Gold Farmers!!
...don't until you've got an announcement of a reversal of policy on copyright. I got this reply after expressing my concerns about a speech David Cameron gave to the BPI.
Dear Mr Roberts,
I am writing on behalf of David Cameron to thank you for your e-mail
following David's recent speech to the British Phonographic Industry
AGM.
There is little doubt that copyright theft is a major threat to the
future of our creative industries. Last year alone an estimated 20
billion music files were downloaded illegally. We must also not forget
the strong evidence showing that much of the profit from illegal
downloads and piracy goes to fund drugs and organised crime. Taking
proper measures to protect our musicians and artists from such theft
will allow more money to end up with musicians and artists, and will
allow the music industry to reinvest in developing and nurturing new
talent.
That is why David supports the extension of copyright term from the
current 50 years to 70 years. This would reduce the disparity between
the length of copyright term given to composers and that granted to
producers and performers, and will protect the thousands of musicians
who will lose the rights to their recordings over the next ten years.
Some people think these are all multi-millionaire rock stars, but the
reality is that many are low-earning session musicians who will be
losing a vital pension.
Finally, we believe that extending copyright term will not only allow
record companies to further reinvest in developing the next generation
of musical talent, it will also encourage the industry to digitise both
older and niche repertoire which will be good for all music fans.
Thank you, once again, for getting in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Honor Fishburn
Office of David Cameron MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
My original message was:
David Cameron is not winning friends and influencing people by the
speech to the BPI. The recording industry is small, and overly vocal,
while there are a vast number of people who expect that copyright should
protect the immediate future of artists, but should not drag on to the
obscene level of 50 or 70 years after the death of the artist or
publication. Many people wonder what is so special about music when
designs and patents only extend for 20 years or so. Like patents,
copyright should be a deal; protection for a limited term in exchange
for placing ideas into the public pool.
Copyright and Patents are designed to encourage people to place their
ideas into the open so that other people may use them immediately at a
cost, and so that the ideas therein may become part of the Public body
of knowledge, available to all for the good of all.
Far from campaigning for an increase in the length of copyright, its
duration should be reduced to that similar to patents.
This argument has been dragging on for ages. He should really read a
speech by Thomas McCauley on Copyright from 1841, the opinions therein
are still just as valid today.
The byline on this form states
"Conservatives are tackling the issues that matter to the mainstream
majority."; in making this speech Mr Cameron is pandering to an
overprivileged minority. Their ideas and products deserve protection for
a limited term, not fossilisation for ever.
Grandmama has a user account and is not allowed to play with system configuration.
All her stuff will be in her home directory which she's free to organise how she wants.