When a belt-sander-pulley failure halted production in the customer's finishing area, the company rapid manufactured a replacement unit from polycarbonate on a Stratasys FDM Titan(TM) prototyping system.
Several hours later, the company was sued by the belt-sander-pulley manufacturer for patent infringement utilizing the Rapid Litigation system.
They basically said that they never threatened anyone with anything. I've been trying to find the actual letter that was sent to Prof. Felton, so I could read it for myself.
Does anyone have a copy of the original letter that the RIAA (or whoever) sent to Prof. Felton?
from the article "Congress continues to prod the recording industry. As recently as Friday, a pair of legislators introduced bills that would rewrite music licensing and copyright laws to promote competition among online music-service distributors and make it easier to buy and sell digital songs."
Does anyone have any information on this bill? The DMCA was meant to make things easier as well, and somehow it had the opposite effect.
What purpose could you possibly have for inventing OCR other than to steal people's copyrighted works? If something is not made available in digital form, it's because they didn't want it made available in that form. I would guess that 99% of the uses of OCR have to do with copyrighted works.
So... Do we make OCR illegal? It's certainly getting better and faster all the time. In the forseeable future, a machine could be invented where you drop in a few pages, or an entire book, and it converts it to digital form. Would the creator then be arrested? It's obviously very easy to get to that final step now, just like the DeCSS T-shirt I'm wearing could easily be used to spread copyrighted DVD's over the Internet. Right? That's what is being alleged, anyway.
Ok, the answer is that OCR does not circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. Or does it? Think about this long and hard. If OCR is not "a technological measure" and if pages stamped on books do not "effectively control access to a copyrighted work" then why are these books not immediately available in digital form? Of course it effectively controls access! I would consider this a form of analog encryption, which fortunately still allows our eyes to read it.
Finally, I've come across a product that that decrypts this form of analog encryption. I hope they don't get sued by someone like Adobe...
"Adobe Acrobat Capture 3.0 Personal Edition is a professional production tool for turning paper-based information into high-quality knowledge documents optimized for electronic distribution."http://www.adobe.com/products/acrcapture/main.html
I look to a future where copyright and fame were both largely 20th century phenomena. In the future, anyone will be able to get their face, music, writings almost anywhere by without having to have them "published".
For me, Napster seemed like a way to force the music industry (and others) into some new novel revenue generating construct in which everyone benefited. But in reality, it would mean the demise of a very powerful industry, though not necessarily the artists involved. In some ways (though to a lesser extent) it reminded me of the Chinese Students protesting against their government. It really seemed like "There are so many of us that NOTHING will be able to stop us now." But alas, they were stopped and so were we.
I don't necessarily like this approach that they are taking, but at some point, they have to be able to get some legal recourse for stopping people from sharing copyrighted materials. Either that, or forget the whole copyright system and replace it with something else, but realistically, that's never going to happen. Just like Income Tax will never be replaced with a more fair Sales Tax and we'll never get rid of guns in the hands of criminals.
I hear a lot of people bashing the RIAA/MPAA (myself included), but I don't hear very much constructive criticism. At some point, they have to be able to protect their interests.
Should they go after individual users? Personally, I think they should, but the outcry of that would probably be far greater than than anything they are doing now.
It was easy to hide behind Napster, when tens of millions of people were using the service, but at this point, if you've got 100 DVD movies on your system (assuming you've got the space!), I'd be pretty frightened of prosecution. And there wouldn't be much you could do legally, if they wanted to throw the book at you.
I'm wearing my Copyleft DeCSS T-Shirt as I type this, and if we're ever going to be able to denounce the DVD CCA and MPAA for going after 2600.com, then we're going to have to bend somewhere. It's like people say "DeCSS was not made to copy DVDs, it was made to watch your DVDs on Linux... Hey, did you copy that DVD for me yet?" That type of attitude should stop, and people should be willing to admit that what they are doing (copying and distributing DVDs, CDs, etc.) is wrong, if not in a moral sense, then at least in a legal sense.
Break the law, pay the price. So far we've been relatively lucky because they've been going after the wrong people (Dmitry Sklyarov, Napster, 2600, etc.)
Borland sells Kylix to make money. Perhaps that's a new idea to some of you, but companies still do that. Out of the goodness of their corporate heart, they decided to make an Open Edition of Kylix for all of us GNU freaks (myself included). By doing this, we can hope to see a whole bunch more neat stuff developed under the GNU. I've been using Delphi for years now producing applications for a vertical market, and I believe it to be superior than C++, but please feel free to try it and form your own opinion.
I personally believe that Kylix may do more for GNU than anything has in the past. Look for BIG things to happen in Linux/GNU over the next couple years.
Eventually, we'll all have brain implants that all we have to do is think (and pay a few bucks), and we have that information. The difference between "knowing" and "accessing information" will become lost. Likewise, the difference between "computing" and "thinking" will blur. What's 321,323 X 34,328? Will I know whether or not I'm actually figuring out the answer with my brain or if I'm visiting a site and plugging in the numbers.
Language will not be a barrier. Location will not be a barrier.
I'll probably get flamed by some of you dolts out there, but this actually makes more sense than filtering by title. The problem with filtering by titles is that things which should allowed may not be. For instance, I was one of the people potentially being sued by Metallica, because I had songs that I was sharing with titles that sounded like the songs would have violated copyright protection. But how did they know that I didn't have mp3s of flatulating dogs or something (which could be considered a parody)?
They didn't, because no one ever tried downloading any of those songs from me. Had someone actually downloaded from me, they would have noticed, but no one ever did.
But above and beyond that, it sounds like Napster would have been just as well off if it had allowed users to actually upload songs to their servers. From their penalties, etc., it seems to have made no difference.
What good does it do to climb a mountain? Does anyone benefit? Why play games? Ok, these things don't result in doing something illegal and neither should breaking encryption.
Now... If I was to take something from someone's house at the top of the mountain, that would be a crime. If I break the encryption, but do not otherwise do anything illegal with the material, why is that a crime?
Punish the crime. "Don't just make the act criminal, also make it criminal to do the steps that lead to the criminal act." Guess what? Any action can eventually lead to the commission of a crime, so let's just make doing everything illegal.
If I buy a pad-lock and take it apart and learn how it works, that should be illegal too.
Outside of software, are there any real analogies for this type of stuff? If I buy something and tamper with it, is there any other case where I can get into legal trouble?
Maybe our government is lying to us. Maybe we really were at fault. Maybe we invaded China. Maybe the two governments just fabricated this story to create a stronger sense of nationalism. Maybe China doesn't really exist, I mean, I've never been there. Maybe I'm trapped inside The Matrix and I just don't know it. Maybe none of you really exist and I'm the sole sentient being in the universe, but if that's the case, then who created this elaborate scheme to make it seem so real? Maybe I was just created mere moments ago, but I was given all of these memories so that it would seem like I'd been here.
41:And the angel opened the 31337th seal, and there was a calm in heaven. And when the angel had opened the 31337th seal, there came a sound of which had not been heard before. From the depths of Hell came forth lawyers, holding speech devices near their ears, into which they did speak for a time. Then a great cry came forth "Babylon is falling! How will we control our devices?" Then I beheld the spirit of the Lord bringing with him many boxes. Unto Man did he give distributions for the boxes, and all of those found using the distributions did survive plague of the Lawyers.
Seeds probably don't generally travel great distances, however, pollen does. If you read about the facts of this case (not necessarily what was on the news), his seeds were only partially Roundup tolerant. This can easily be explained by pollination. He planted some Monsanto seed and some that was not and they cross-pollinated.
From the legal decision...
"As earlier noted, the defendants did not purchase canola seed from 1993 until 1999.
In 1999, because this action had been initiated, on the advice of their counsel the defendants
destroyed all canola seed held from previous crops and purchased an entirely new inventory
of seed for the planting of their 1999 canola crop, the source of which would be
unquestioned. However, volunteer plants of Roundup Ready canola were said to be found
within the 1999 canola fields grown by the defendants."
Ok, so essentially, if you or a neighbor ever grow the Roundup(TM)-Ready(TM) canola, then you and everyone around you has to continue to pay Monsanto until the "volunteers" quit growing, which would mean 2 years of buying non Roundup(TM)-Ready(TM) seed.
My best bet right now is for satellite access for my rural home.
Wild Blue is poised to come online in early 2002 and further down the road, Teledesic, in 2005 (scheduled). Unlike current satellite connections, Wild Blue's will be 3Mbps (albeit with high pings (300ms+), nevertheless, it should be affordable and relatively easy to install.
Teledesic's system will be 64Mbps with very low ping times, since it uses Low Earth Orbit satellites (LEOs). I believe this is what is going to change everything. Sure, fiber would be good for you city dwellers, but 64Mbps for a guy in the middle of farm land is pretty good. It will probably be less BW for home users, but they are saying that it will be price competitive, so I'd expect nothing higher than $50/month, but probably more like $30-$40 for 1 to 3Mbps (that's just a guess, tho).
Slashdot Mirror
When a belt-sander-pulley failure halted production in the customer's finishing area, the company rapid manufactured a replacement unit from polycarbonate on a Stratasys FDM Titan(TM) prototyping system.
Several hours later, the company was sued by the belt-sander-pulley manufacturer for patent infringement utilizing the Rapid Litigation system.They basically said that they never threatened anyone with anything. I've been trying to find the actual letter that was sent to Prof. Felton, so I could read it for myself.
Does anyone have a copy of the original letter that the RIAA (or whoever) sent to Prof. Felton?
from the article "Congress continues to prod the recording industry. As recently as Friday, a pair of legislators introduced bills that would rewrite music licensing and copyright laws to promote competition among online music-service distributors and make it easier to buy and sell digital songs."
Does anyone have any information on this bill? The DMCA was meant to make things easier as well, and somehow it had the opposite effect.
What purpose could you possibly have for inventing OCR other than to steal people's copyrighted works? If something is not made available in digital form, it's because they didn't want it made available in that form. I would guess that 99% of the uses of OCR have to do with copyrighted works.
So... Do we make OCR illegal? It's certainly getting better and faster all the time. In the forseeable future, a machine could be invented where you drop in a few pages, or an entire book, and it converts it to digital form. Would the creator then be arrested? It's obviously very easy to get to that final step now, just like the DeCSS T-shirt I'm wearing could easily be used to spread copyrighted DVD's over the Internet. Right? That's what is being alleged, anyway.
Ok, the answer is that OCR does not circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. Or does it? Think about this long and hard. If OCR is not "a technological measure" and if pages stamped on books do not "effectively control access to a copyrighted work" then why are these books not immediately available in digital form? Of course it effectively controls access! I would consider this a form of analog encryption, which fortunately still allows our eyes to read it.
Finally, I've come across a product that that decrypts this form of analog encryption. I hope they don't get sued by someone like Adobe...
"Adobe Acrobat Capture 3.0 Personal Edition is a professional production tool for turning paper-based information into high-quality knowledge documents optimized for electronic distribution." http://www.adobe.com/products/acrcapture/main.html
Let's force him to start using proper Enlish. It's not as if it's a typo.
The thing that is especially discouraging to me as a programmer, is that "then" is a programmatical term that should never be confused with "than".
What a hoser.
Assuming you're serious about the $250, you must be getting that from the 688.480.
Hopefully, you're not stupid and you realize that in Europe, they use the period instead of a comma to separate monetary amounts.
I look to a future where copyright and fame were both largely 20th century phenomena. In the future, anyone will be able to get their face, music, writings almost anywhere by without having to have them "published". For me, Napster seemed like a way to force the music industry (and others) into some new novel revenue generating construct in which everyone benefited. But in reality, it would mean the demise of a very powerful industry, though not necessarily the artists involved. In some ways (though to a lesser extent) it reminded me of the Chinese Students protesting against their government. It really seemed like "There are so many of us that NOTHING will be able to stop us now." But alas, they were stopped and so were we.
I don't necessarily like this approach that they are taking, but at some point, they have to be able to get some legal recourse for stopping people from sharing copyrighted materials. Either that, or forget the whole copyright system and replace it with something else, but realistically, that's never going to happen. Just like Income Tax will never be replaced with a more fair Sales Tax and we'll never get rid of guns in the hands of criminals.
I hear a lot of people bashing the RIAA/MPAA (myself included), but I don't hear very much constructive criticism. At some point, they have to be able to protect their interests.
Should they go after individual users? Personally, I think they should, but the outcry of that would probably be far greater than than anything they are doing now.
It was easy to hide behind Napster, when tens of millions of people were using the service, but at this point, if you've got 100 DVD movies on your system (assuming you've got the space!), I'd be pretty frightened of prosecution. And there wouldn't be much you could do legally, if they wanted to throw the book at you.
I'm wearing my Copyleft DeCSS T-Shirt as I type this, and if we're ever going to be able to denounce the DVD CCA and MPAA for going after 2600.com, then we're going to have to bend somewhere. It's like people say "DeCSS was not made to copy DVDs, it was made to watch your DVDs on Linux... Hey, did you copy that DVD for me yet?" That type of attitude should stop, and people should be willing to admit that what they are doing (copying and distributing DVDs, CDs, etc.) is wrong, if not in a moral sense, then at least in a legal sense.
Break the law, pay the price. So far we've been relatively lucky because they've been going after the wrong people (Dmitry Sklyarov, Napster, 2600, etc.)
Borland sells Kylix to make money. Perhaps that's a new idea to some of you, but companies still do that. Out of the goodness of their corporate heart, they decided to make an Open Edition of Kylix for all of us GNU freaks (myself included). By doing this, we can hope to see a whole bunch more neat stuff developed under the GNU. I've been using Delphi for years now producing applications for a vertical market, and I believe it to be superior than C++, but please feel free to try it and form your own opinion.
I personally believe that Kylix may do more for GNU than anything has in the past. Look for BIG things to happen in Linux/GNU over the next couple years.
Eventually, we'll all have brain implants that all we have to do is think (and pay a few bucks), and we have that information. The difference between "knowing" and "accessing information" will become lost. Likewise, the difference between "computing" and "thinking" will blur. What's 321,323 X 34,328? Will I know whether or not I'm actually figuring out the answer with my brain or if I'm visiting a site and plugging in the numbers.
Language will not be a barrier. Location will not be a barrier.
We'll all be gods.
Perhaps if their server was multi-threaded, I'd be able to access the page...
:-/
Think about this.
If I posted a picture on my website of the key to a library, which then anyone could take that picture and have a key made, would I be liable?
I imagine so.
{
Lather;
Rinse;
Repeat;
}
Algoritm? Yes
Instructions? Yes
Speech? Yes
Go to the store and buy milk
Algoritm? Yes
Instructions? Yes
Speech? Yes
The examples could go on an on
Algoritm? Yes
Instructions? Yes
Speech? Yes
I guess you proved your point.
I like the fact that I can hide my mess inside of a box. There are just some things I'd rather not see.
I'll probably get flamed by some of you dolts out there, but this actually makes more sense than filtering by title. The problem with filtering by titles is that things which should allowed may not be. For instance, I was one of the people potentially being sued by Metallica, because I had songs that I was sharing with titles that sounded like the songs would have violated copyright protection. But how did they know that I didn't have mp3s of flatulating dogs or something (which could be considered a parody)?
They didn't, because no one ever tried downloading any of those songs from me. Had someone actually downloaded from me, they would have noticed, but no one ever did.
But above and beyond that, it sounds like Napster would have been just as well off if it had allowed users to actually upload songs to their servers. From their penalties, etc., it seems to have made no difference.
What good does it do to climb a mountain? Does anyone benefit? Why play games? Ok, these things don't result in doing something illegal and neither should breaking encryption.
Now... If I was to take something from someone's house at the top of the mountain, that would be a crime. If I break the encryption, but do not otherwise do anything illegal with the material, why is that a crime?
Punish the crime. "Don't just make the act criminal, also make it criminal to do the steps that lead to the criminal act." Guess what? Any action can eventually lead to the commission of a crime, so let's just make doing everything illegal.
If I buy a pad-lock and take it apart and learn how it works, that should be illegal too.
Outside of software, are there any real analogies for this type of stuff? If I buy something and tamper with it, is there any other case where I can get into legal trouble?
Maybe we do... Maybe we don't... But what do I care? You don't really exist.
Maybe our government is lying to us. Maybe we really were at fault. Maybe we invaded China. Maybe the two governments just fabricated this story to create a stronger sense of nationalism. Maybe China doesn't really exist, I mean, I've never been there. Maybe I'm trapped inside The Matrix and I just don't know it. Maybe none of you really exist and I'm the sole sentient being in the universe, but if that's the case, then who created this elaborate scheme to make it seem so real? Maybe I was just created mere moments ago, but I was given all of these memories so that it would seem like I'd been here.
If it's not so, then prove it.
41:And the angel opened the 31337th seal, and there was a calm in heaven. And when the angel had opened the 31337th seal, there came a sound of which had not been heard before. From the depths of Hell came forth lawyers, holding speech devices near their ears, into which they did speak for a time. Then a great cry came forth "Babylon is falling! How will we control our devices?" Then I beheld the spirit of the Lord bringing with him many boxes. Unto Man did he give distributions for the boxes, and all of those found using the distributions did survive plague of the Lawyers.
Seeds probably don't generally travel great distances, however, pollen does. If you read about the facts of this case (not necessarily what was on the news), his seeds were only partially Roundup tolerant. This can easily be explained by pollination. He planted some Monsanto seed and some that was not and they cross-pollinated.
From the legal decision...
"As earlier noted, the defendants did not purchase canola seed from 1993 until 1999.
In 1999, because this action had been initiated, on the advice of their counsel the defendants
destroyed all canola seed held from previous crops and purchased an entirely new inventory
of seed for the planting of their 1999 canola crop, the source of which would be
unquestioned. However, volunteer plants of Roundup Ready canola were said to be found
within the 1999 canola fields grown by the defendants."
Ok, so essentially, if you or a neighbor ever grow the Roundup(TM)-Ready(TM) canola, then you and everyone around you has to continue to pay Monsanto until the "volunteers" quit growing, which would mean 2 years of buying non Roundup(TM)-Ready(TM) seed.
My best bet right now is for satellite access for my rural home.
Wild Blue is poised to come online in early 2002 and further down the road, Teledesic, in 2005 (scheduled). Unlike current satellite connections, Wild Blue's will be 3Mbps (albeit with high pings (300ms+), nevertheless, it should be affordable and relatively easy to install.
Teledesic's system will be 64Mbps with very low ping times, since it uses Low Earth Orbit satellites (LEOs). I believe this is what is going to change everything. Sure, fiber would be good for you city dwellers, but 64Mbps for a guy in the middle of farm land is pretty good. It will probably be less BW for home users, but they are saying that it will be price competitive, so I'd expect nothing higher than $50/month, but probably more like $30-$40 for 1 to 3Mbps (that's just a guess, tho).
If a group of people donate their time to build a house, does this hurt the home-building industry?
When doctors donate their time to help people (for free), is this a threat to doctors who just want to make money?
If I give a cup of sugar to my neighbor am I undermining the super-market?
Heck, if I grow food and give it away (which I do), I'm REALLY hurting people! Geesh! And I thought I was just being nice!