If you are going to solder together logic gates to implement an algorithm, the end result you get a machine. Such machine you can patent, no arguments here. and if you are building a machine which sole purpose is to run software, then you can patent that machine. There would be from my side no problem if the MpegLA patents were hardware patents on chips that decode/encode videos. Like a refrigerator or a vending machine is a patent-able machine, and they will not become new machines if you put new groceries inside.
The machine will not become "magically" a new machine only because you load a different software. You already have a patent on a general purpose computer. You can not patent each new algorithm you load in that general purpose computer as a new machine. It's like saying a cup will become a new machine if I put tea, orange juice or coffee in it. No, the cup is still a cup. A general purpose computer will stay a general purpose computer regardless what algorithms are loaded at the current time.
This whole debate is just lawyers talk. Also patents on "processes". Everybody knows that "processes" meant manufacturing processes and had nothing to do with computers.
I watched that StarTrek2009 and I'm 30. It was good compared to the ST:NG movies, which were just boring. But StarTrek2009 have no story. It's just Too Fast Too Furious in Space. Or Mission Impossible in Space.
In StarTrek2009 Kirk is just a douchbag that should be thrown out from StarTrek and would normally never get near a space ship. But because this is StarTrek and he is Kirk the script demand that he got captain at the end. What ever fine. It's not like the ST:NG movies were any good,
EA and Ubisoft are not content creators, they are content distributors. Also look at who is supporting the EME: Google, Microsoft, BBC. They are all content distributors, i.e. publisher. This is all about controlling media channels.
I thought the example of Nokia should be enough now. That's sad, I really enjoy my Vostro laptops. I guess after the deal is done Dell will be offering Windows RT and Windows 8 tablets and go south.
The whole DRM would be pretty useless if you would allow the web browser to render the decrypted video. Open source web browsers like Firefox could just save the decrypted video stream in a file. So I expect from EME will be just Flash now: a nice window in the web browser that plays the decrypted content.
Which comes with no surprise. DRM is not about pirates, it's about controlling the media channels. Why would Google, Microsoft and Apple come together and make a DRM standard? If it's standard, neither Google nor Microsoft nor Apple can control the media channel.
ROFL. I like your first question. If they have used whips to punish the slaves, wouldn't it be better if they would use a standard whip instead of their custom made whip?
For your second question: No.
Adobe goal was to dominate the web with their Flash technology. After years and years of waiting Adope finally released a Linux version of Flash, only to be horrible broken (see for example [1], HAL is deprecated for years). Then Microsoft starts a direct competitor to Flash: Silverlight. You would think because Adobe and Microsoft goals are to have a well established technology in the Web that they would offer best support. But besides Windows and MacOS there is no such best support.
So I ask, if two giants in the technology sector are not bothering to making a true system independent DRM implementation, why would anybody offer EME style DRM modules for Windows, MacOS and Linux? The EME will not change anything. All it will do is to introduce DRM to the open Web and took open and free system at a disadvantage.
The EME proposal don't even make it mandatory to return the decrypted content back to the browser. "CDM implementations may return decrypted frames or rendered them directly." Meaning, the CDM can just open a third application to show you the "protected" content.
With EME now you have ActiveX build in the Web. And a web browser will not be standard compliant if it can't access ActiveX. (replace ActiveX with the Content Decryption Module (CDM) of EME).
Because all what EME is doing is to standardize an API to access those CDMs (aka proprietary binary blobs, Microsoft-owned patent-encumbered blobs).
EME is not a standard of DRM. EME is a standard to access DRM via API. That is a very big difference. _If_ EME would be a standard of DRM, then anyone could implement the DRM and see the videos.
But EME just make the API standard do access DRM to decrypt the content. DRM can not be standardized, it's the very nature of DRM.
Solution is easy: bring back copyright laws to the original terms. 14 years plus 14 year extension, and only for registered works.
I don't think a publisher will register each and every of the 250,000 articles, and even if, at least the article would be available after only 14 years. The scientists can still publish with a publisher, the publisher could still sell the articles, but the articles wouldn't be locked away for 200 years (or whatever the copyright terms are currently).
You wonder if the Mickey Mouse Extension Act of 1998 have any cost to the public? Here you have it.
I find it quite funny always those comparisons: Xxx is using 1/3 of Internet, 10% of heavy users download 99% of normal users, etc. But nowhere they tell you how much capacity is left. You know that Netflix could create 99% of the whole of Internet traffic without affecting anything if there is enough capacity left? "Netflix eats the Internet" says only something about how much Netflix is favoured by the Internet users. It says nothing about Internet capacity.
I find it quite funny how people factor in any "upgrades". Did CS6 or CS5 or CS4 had anything missing that you would look forward to buy CS7 (or rent now the new one?).
I would rather think that you buy CS5 and stay with it for the rest of your business. If there were no artificial pushes for upgrades, like a new version of Windows.
I beg to differ. FOSS is now leading in innovation, see the articles. Also FOSS is already leading in many I.T. sectors, like in Servers, Smartphones, Tables, etc.
From my non-professional usage of GIMP and Inkscape I would say those application can do at least 90% what Photoshop et.al. can do. For example, Linux did crushed the "heavyweight" at the server market quite fine: UNIX and Microsoft. The bigger problem is IMHO unfamiliarity between Photoshop and GIMP. If I start now using Photoshop, I wouldn't know where to start either.
"insufficient evidence"? Every biologists knowns how fructose and glucose is metabolised in the body/lover. Hint: glucose is converted to energy and fructose is converted to fat.
The problem is not so much that HFCS have so much fructose but the steady increase in fructose in the food. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usda_sweeteners.svg Because sugar is like LSD; you can make any food taste good by add a lot of sugar.
(for the reference see Futurama 30% Iron Chef; Bender wants fo become a master chef but he have no taste and his food is awful. So he adds LSD to his food and wins the competition.)
Not only that. If you look how much sugar the food industry have added over time, you will see a steady increase. And that even that the corn syrup is like 3 times (or something,like that) more sweet then table sugar.
If you look at the Wikipedia you see that they convert the "good" sugar (glucose) to the "bad" sugar (fructose) with corn syrup. Why "bad" and "good"? Because glucose is also known as the "energy of life" and you can store unlimited amount of glucose in your liver without any health effect. But the "bad" sugar aka fructose is converter almost entirely to fat.
Here is a very good explanation; Sugar: The Bitter Truth IMHO that video should be shown in every school.
A switch is not so bad if you gain productivity. So switch menu -> ribbon no productivity = bad; switch Windows -> Linux with increase productivity = good. I don't know if he is using Unity or Gnome. For example, the switch from Windows to Linux with Gnome or KDE is not very difficult. In fact KDE is just like the classic old Windows desktop, only much much better.
Oh please, Stupid users will always be stupid. And next level of stupidity will be that even the password typed is in clear text, the user will not recognise an upper case character and will think it is a lower case character and will call you up anyway.
Stupidity is always a race to the bottom. Somewhere you have to put a line and say: no, just learn how to do it.
Not only Shoulder surfing, but also security cameras. It would not be nice if I go to Internet cafés, and the web form will show to all people my passwords in clear.
Schneier now backs an approach taken by BlackBerry devices and iPhones, which display each character briefly before masking it.
That is not good with security cameras or other cameras, like web cameras, or mobile phone cameras, which are quite common in public places like Internet cafés.
PS: I referring to the article of Bruce Schneier: http://www.out-law.com/page-10152 not the article about Fedora. I know that it's very uncommon to install Fedora in public Internet cafés.
I really like how this really shows the difference between policy making in the US and the EU: EU: maybe those pesticides are really hurting the bees, so we going to ban them for 2 years and see if it's help. US: there are many stuff that hurts bees, but behind the pesticides are big cooperations so we rather do nothing.
"non-trivial costs to society" meaning the big cooperation don't like to take the hit on profits if there is a ban.
Did you do actually anything in those 40 years to promote the music? Or was it just sitting around on some Youtube channel; or in some old audio tapes; or on some old music CDs in a bin in the basement?
How are you deserve any money from work you did 40 years ego, and for which you did not do anything at all since now? Now I would understand it if you would actively promote the 40 years old music, like write to the younger performers, or offer them your music. But no: you just sit on your ass and wait for the music to be discovered. And after it is discovered, you now want money.
It's like the same story with Sita Sings the Blues The music used was basically forgotten for 90 years, but because Nina have done something useful now all the cockroaches came and demanded money from her work.
The film uses a number of 1920s Annette Hanshaw recordings. Although the filmmaker initially made sure these recordings were not covered by US copyright law,[8] a number of other copyright issues surfaced,[...]Nina Paley was unable to pay the approximately $220,000 that the copyright holders originally demanded.
Why are authors and musicians the only one that are so full of them self that they demand being paid for sitting on their asses for 40, 90, or 120 years, doing nothing?
Slashdot Mirror
If you are going to solder together logic gates to implement an algorithm, the end result you get a machine. Such machine you can patent, no arguments here. and if you are building a machine which sole purpose is to run software, then you can patent that machine. There would be from my side no problem if the MpegLA patents were hardware patents on chips that decode/encode videos.
Like a refrigerator or a vending machine is a patent-able machine, and they will not become new machines if you put new groceries inside.
The machine will not become "magically" a new machine only because you load a different software.
You already have a patent on a general purpose computer. You can not patent each new algorithm you load in that general purpose computer as a new machine. It's like saying a cup will become a new machine if I put tea, orange juice or coffee in it. No, the cup is still a cup. A general purpose computer will stay a general purpose computer regardless what algorithms are loaded at the current time.
This whole debate is just lawyers talk. Also patents on "processes". Everybody knows that "processes" meant manufacturing processes and had nothing to do with computers.
I watched that StarTrek2009 and I'm 30. It was good compared to the ST:NG movies, which were just boring.
But StarTrek2009 have no story. It's just Too Fast Too Furious in Space. Or Mission Impossible in Space.
In StarTrek2009 Kirk is just a douchbag that should be thrown out from StarTrek and would normally never get near a space ship. But because this is StarTrek and he is Kirk the script demand that he got captain at the end. What ever fine. It's not like the ST:NG movies were any good,
I don't think they are equals.
* Side tabs don't work
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/?src=search
http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/_treestyletab.html.en#screenshots
* Fonts don't work
* Some distributions don't package Chromium because it's a mess:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Chromium
* IMHO Chromium looks very ugly because of the custom window decorations
* Firefox just have much more addons
EA and Ubisoft are not content creators, they are content distributors.
Also look at who is supporting the EME: Google, Microsoft, BBC.
They are all content distributors, i.e. publisher. This is all about controlling media channels.
I thought the example of Nokia should be enough now. That's sad, I really enjoy my Vostro laptops.
I guess after the deal is done Dell will be offering Windows RT and Windows 8 tablets and go south.
Did you ask your crystal ball or went to a fortune teller?
The whole DRM would be pretty useless if you would allow the web browser to render the decrypted video.
Open source web browsers like Firefox could just save the decrypted video stream in a file.
So I expect from EME will be just Flash now: a nice window in the web browser that plays the decrypted content.
Which comes with no surprise.
DRM is not about pirates, it's about controlling the media channels. Why would Google, Microsoft and Apple come together and make a DRM standard? If it's standard, neither Google nor Microsoft nor Apple can control the media channel.
ROFL. I like your first question.
If they have used whips to punish the slaves, wouldn't it be better if they would use a standard whip instead of their custom made whip?
For your second question: No.
Adobe goal was to dominate the web with their Flash technology. After years and years of waiting Adope finally released a Linux version of Flash, only to be horrible broken (see for example [1], HAL is deprecated for years). Then Microsoft starts a direct competitor to Flash: Silverlight. You would think because Adobe and Microsoft goals are to have a well established technology in the Web that they would offer best support. But besides Windows and MacOS there is no such best support.
So I ask, if two giants in the technology sector are not bothering to making a true system independent DRM implementation, why would anybody offer EME style DRM modules for Windows, MacOS and Linux? The EME will not change anything. All it will do is to introduce DRM to the open Web and took open and free system at a disadvantage.
[1] http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/flash-player-11-problems-playing.html
So I ask again, what is the difference with EME? Sounds like you describe EME in detail.
EME is an API, and while open(ish), you can not implement it without carrying forward a ton of proprietary stuff (CDM).
Don't believe me? Prove me wrong. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html
The EME proposal don't even make it mandatory to return the decrypted content back to the browser.
"CDM implementations may return decrypted frames or rendered them directly."
Meaning, the CDM can just open a third application to show you the "protected" content.
"...it's just that one can make a long list like this for ANY large (or even medium) project."
Except the Linux kernel I guess.
But it's nice to hear it from an insider.
How will this be different with EME?
With EME now you have ActiveX build in the Web. And a web browser will not be standard compliant if it can't access ActiveX.
(replace ActiveX with the Content Decryption Module (CDM) of EME).
Because all what EME is doing is to standardize an API to access those CDMs (aka proprietary binary blobs, Microsoft-owned patent-encumbered blobs).
EME is not a standard of DRM. EME is a standard to access DRM via API. That is a very big difference.
_If_ EME would be a standard of DRM, then anyone could implement the DRM and see the videos.
But EME just make the API standard do access DRM to decrypt the content. DRM can not be standardized, it's the very nature of DRM.
Solution is easy: bring back copyright laws to the original terms. 14 years plus 14 year extension, and only for registered works.
I don't think a publisher will register each and every of the 250,000 articles, and even if, at least the article would be available after only 14 years. The scientists can still publish with a publisher, the publisher could still sell the articles, but the articles wouldn't be locked away for 200 years (or whatever the copyright terms are currently).
You wonder if the Mickey Mouse Extension Act of 1998 have any cost to the public? Here you have it.
I find it quite funny always those comparisons: Xxx is using 1/3 of Internet, 10% of heavy users download 99% of normal users, etc.
But nowhere they tell you how much capacity is left.
You know that Netflix could create 99% of the whole of Internet traffic without affecting anything if there is enough capacity left?
"Netflix eats the Internet" says only something about how much Netflix is favoured by the Internet users. It says nothing about Internet capacity.
I find it quite funny how people factor in any "upgrades". Did CS6 or CS5 or CS4 had anything missing that you would look forward to buy CS7 (or rent now the new one?).
I would rather think that you buy CS5 and stay with it for the rest of your business. If there were no artificial pushes for upgrades, like a new version of Windows.
I beg to differ. FOSS is now leading in innovation, see the articles.
Also FOSS is already leading in many I.T. sectors, like in Servers, Smartphones, Tables, etc.
From my non-professional usage of GIMP and Inkscape I would say those application can do at least 90% what Photoshop et.al. can do. For example, Linux did crushed the "heavyweight" at the server market quite fine: UNIX and Microsoft.
The bigger problem is IMHO unfamiliarity between Photoshop and GIMP. If I start now using Photoshop, I wouldn't know where to start either.
http://sandhill.com/article/open-source-drives-software-innovation/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2035651/open-source-is-taking-over-the-software-world-survey-says.html
Edit: I mean of course liver not lover :p
"insufficient evidence"? Every biologists knowns how fructose and glucose is metabolised in the body/lover.
Hint: glucose is converted to energy and fructose is converted to fat.
The problem is not so much that HFCS have so much fructose but the steady increase in fructose in the food.
See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usda_sweeteners.svg
Because sugar is like LSD; you can make any food taste good by add a lot of sugar.
(for the reference see Futurama 30% Iron Chef; Bender wants fo become a master chef but he have no taste and his food is awful. So he adds LSD to his food and wins the competition.)
Not only that. If you look how much sugar the food industry have added over time, you will see a steady increase. And that even that the corn syrup is like 3 times (or something,like that) more sweet then table sugar.
If you look at the Wikipedia you see that they convert the "good" sugar (glucose) to the "bad" sugar (fructose) with corn syrup. Why "bad" and "good"? Because glucose is also known as the "energy of life" and you can store unlimited amount of glucose in your liver without any health effect. But the "bad" sugar aka fructose is converter almost entirely to fat.
Here is a very good explanation; Sugar: The Bitter Truth
IMHO that video should be shown in every school.
A switch is not so bad if you gain productivity. So switch menu -> ribbon no productivity = bad; switch Windows -> Linux with increase productivity = good. I don't know if he is using Unity or Gnome. For example, the switch from Windows to Linux with Gnome or KDE is not very difficult. In fact KDE is just like the classic old Windows desktop, only much much better.
Oh please, Stupid users will always be stupid. And next level of stupidity will be that even the password typed is in clear text, the user will not recognise an upper case character and will think it is a lower case character and will call you up anyway.
Stupidity is always a race to the bottom. Somewhere you have to put a line and say: no, just learn how to do it.
Not only Shoulder surfing, but also security cameras.
It would not be nice if I go to Internet cafés, and the web form will show to all people my passwords in clear.
Schneier now backs an approach taken by BlackBerry devices and iPhones, which display each character briefly before masking it.
That is not good with security cameras or other cameras, like web cameras, or mobile phone cameras, which are quite common in public places like Internet cafés.
PS: I referring to the article of Bruce Schneier: http://www.out-law.com/page-10152 not the article about Fedora. I know that it's very uncommon to install Fedora in public Internet cafés.
I really like how this really shows the difference between policy making in the US and the EU:
EU: maybe those pesticides are really hurting the bees, so we going to ban them for 2 years and see if it's help.
US: there are many stuff that hurts bees, but behind the pesticides are big cooperations so we rather do nothing.
"non-trivial costs to society" meaning the big cooperation don't like to take the hit on profits if there is a ban.
Did you do actually anything in those 40 years to promote the music? Or was it just sitting around on some Youtube channel; or in some old audio tapes; or on some old music CDs in a bin in the basement?
How are you deserve any money from work you did 40 years ego, and for which you did not do anything at all since now?
Now I would understand it if you would actively promote the 40 years old music, like write to the younger performers, or offer them your music. But no: you just sit on your ass and wait for the music to be discovered. And after it is discovered, you now want money.
It's like the same story with Sita Sings the Blues
The music used was basically forgotten for 90 years, but because Nina have done something useful now all the cockroaches came and demanded money from her work.
The film uses a number of 1920s Annette Hanshaw recordings. Although the filmmaker initially made sure these recordings were not covered by US copyright law,[8] a number of other copyright issues surfaced,[...]Nina Paley was unable to pay the approximately $220,000 that the copyright holders originally demanded.
Why are authors and musicians the only one that are so full of them self that they demand being paid for sitting on their asses for 40, 90, or 120 years, doing nothing?