can somone fill me in... i must have miss something... is krychek indistructable... wasn't he blown up once... and didn't he get his arms and legs cut off in russia???
i just don't get the mentality of trade secrets in the context of software or hardware. any electrical/computer engineer, with the proper motivation, should be able to reverse engineer your boards and software. in other words, if your competition can buy your product he/she knows how it works.
i do understand trade secrets in terms of production i.e. how much it cost to produce each board, the order of assembly, or how fast they can be produced. here your competition can only estimate.
i don't see how closed-source can protect your companies tech. if the product is unique and lasting get a patent to protect it! my guest is that, as usual in the computer industry, patenting the tech is not worth it, because you'll be using new boards/tech next year. which would mean you want to sell as many board this year as you can... so make the nerds happy and open-source the damn thing.
here is one of the best solutions i've seen... ovonic... check out the presentations... its a hydrogen storage system that will be compatable with existing infrastructure... and let's see lithium ion batteries are boasting.6 Wh/g * 1000 g/kg * 3600s/h * 1e-6 MJ/W-s= 2.16 MJ/kg ---42kg/gas * 42MJ-gas/kg / 2.16MJ-batt/kg = only 816 kg (getting better)... the real problem is power... current batteries cannot draw current fast enough for good performance.
No Electronic Theft (NET) Act - Amends Federal copyright law to define "financial gain" to include the receipt of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
Sets penalties for willfully infringing a copyright: (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; or (2) by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, one or more copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $1,000. Provides that evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
Let's see $1000/$17 per cd = 58 cds... 58 cds * 10 songs per cd = 580 songs per 180 day period (3 songs a day)?
Extends the statute of limitations for criminal copyright infringement from three to five years.
They can come after for up to five year from the infingement
Revises Federal criminal code provisions regarding criminal copyright infringement to provide for a fine and up to five years' imprisonment for infringing a copyright for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, at least ten copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of more than $2,500.
$2500/$17 per cd = 147 cds... 147 cds * 10 songs per cd = 1470 songs (8 songs a day)... more than this is a Federal crime?
Provides for: (1) up to three years' imprisonment and fines in infringement cases described above (exclusive of commercial gain intent considerations); (2) up to six years' imprisonment and a fine for a second or subsequent felony offense under (1); and (3) up to one year's imprisonment and a fine for the reproduction or distribution of one or more copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $1,000.
Penalities and repeat offense provisions
Requires, during preparation of the presentence report in cases of criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of live musical performances, and trafficking in counterfeit goods or services, that victims of the offense be permitted to submit, and the probation officer receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim and the extent and scope of the victim's injury and loss, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.
How to report infringement
Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to ensure that the applicable guideline range for a defendant convicted of a crime against intellectual property is sufficiently stringent to deter such a crime and adequately reflects consideration of the retail value and quantity of items with respect to which the crime against intellectual property was committed.
Can anyone provide an expert opinion?
Re:What are they going to do ...
on
An MP3 Update
·
· Score: 1
OK Gomer... let me be more specific! If I rip a cd that I paid for and then rip it and put the file in a public directory on my personal machine that has the ability to stream data, or maybe me and 10 friends build a netwok that allows each of us each a shared directory. (i.e. a legal copy can be heard by anyone without it moving from one hard-drive to another)
What are they going to do ...
on
An MP3 Update
·
· Score: 1
... when everyone's has the bandwidth to listen to songs on remote systems without copying them to their hard drive? Would that still be "copyright infringement"?
... and the maker of what ever got you drunk and who ever sold you your last drink. Sueing is not about illegal or legal it's mostly about money. If you kill someone while driving drunk I don't sue you. A district attorney files criminal charges against you and you go to jail for manslaughter. I don't sue you though I could. (I wouldn't really do this, but my point is that sueing isn't about legal its about money)
So why pursue the issue about theft/piracy/copyright violation? Because it's never just one person. If you don't stop it in its tracks then it will continue and flourish. Copy one track and it's no big deal, but if you get away with it then you copy more. If you get away with it, then other people are more likely to do the same thing.
COME ON! In order to set a real example they would have had to got the first guy/girl who copied a record and gave it to a friend. There are two levels to piracy.
1. people who make copies for thier friends
and
2. people who make copies and try to sell them as original works
Both are clearly illegal, but 1 was never significantly prosecuted until now. The only difference between Napster and the old network of friends is the speed at which you can perform the "transactions". They just fear change.
The only way to stop piracy 1 is to make music free or very cheap, and stop piracy 2 is to make it unprofitable. Sueing individual "traders" will just alienate fans.
There must be plenty of ways to make money by giving away music directly on the web: corporate sponsers, band merchendise... who needs a middle man anymore? Metallica would set a better example by switching paradimes rather than sueing fans!
Did they actually search though passed messages, or did they just list everyone who log in? If they did search messages did they get a warrent? If so who granted it? That's like granting a warrent to search thought every message in the a post office because someone in that neighborhood is be recieving stolen goods! I don't think anyone would grant a warrent for that. It's too broad.
I've read several posts that say it cost between $0.50 and $1.00 per cd to make a cd. This has got to be just the cost of cd production. What about the actual production costs: studio time? producer? art and jacket layout? advertising? shipping? tour? Record companies also give out advances. How many cd's have to be sold to break even? (that is without air play)
I'm getting really sick of all the news regarding copyrights and the internet. Especially, Metallica suing Napster. While, without a doubt, musicians should receive money for their work. The widespread use of Napster proves that more and more people don't want to pay them. Is Napster really responsible for the actions of its users? After all, you could do the same kind of trading with relay chat, newsgroups and e-mail. Napster just makes it easier. Does Napster lower sales? Statistics say otherwise, but lets face it, I certainly don't by more than one cd a month and I hardly ever need to by a new cd.
The way I see it Napster is the first step toward a new way of distributing music. Cd's are dead! Well dying anyway. Everyone should know that the hardest part of making a living from making music is advertisement. Getting people to go to show/concert, buy cds or cassettes, T-shirts, and other band propaganda is hard to do when know one knows who you are and what kind of music you play or that you even exist. What better way to advertise than on the internet with your music? The cost of providing free music is nothing compared to the cost of distributing cd's. Rob Zombie even said that most of the money that musicians make is from concerts and merchandising. A hint to all bands, drop those blood sucking leeches, and "Be Direct".
Now picture this, every band/musician has a web site. From their web site you can download all recorded music, order T-shirts, get tour information, or read about the their political views (though I personally hate it when bands do this). Then for a small membership fee (like a fan club fee) you could have access to special features like maybe live web cast of concerts and jam sessions, or chat interviews. They could also advertise from their sights (their favorite guitar strings, Coca-Cola, or whatever). Then programs like Napster could provide an open forum and search engine for people to find and discuss music. With the addition of some advertisement in Napster it would become like an on-demand radio station. All music, All Free, All the Time!!! Mp3.com is perhaps the closet to this model but still has a little ways to go.
Record companies should be scared though, because there in the wrong business for the future. Maybe they'll all become ISP's. The same with radio stations, did someone say wireless internet? The future is coming and you can't fight it so just accept it and make sure you have other marketable skills.
Slashdot Mirror
can somone fill me in ... i must have miss something ... is krychek indistructable ... wasn't he blown up once ... and didn't he get his arms and legs cut off in russia???
but also where do you draw enough power to generate an oscillating signal with enough amplitude to actually make a difference?
if you ar exciting a system at its resonant frequency you don't need a large input to get a large output.
bill gates has not proved he is genuis ... he stole every good idea from xerox, just like steve.
a visionary maybe but no a genious
i just don't get the mentality of trade secrets in the context of software or hardware. any electrical/computer engineer, with the proper motivation, should be able to reverse engineer your boards and software. in other words, if your competition can buy your product he/she knows how it works.
i do understand trade secrets in terms of production i.e. how much it cost to produce each board, the order of assembly, or how fast they can be produced. here your competition can only estimate.
i don't see how closed-source can protect your companies tech. if the product is unique and lasting get a patent to protect it! my guest is that, as usual in the computer industry, patenting the tech is not worth it, because you'll be using new boards/tech next year. which would mean you want to sell as many board this year as you can ... so make the nerds happy and open-source the damn thing.
here is one of the best solutions i've seen ... ovonic ... check out the presentations ... its a hydrogen storage system that will be compatable with existing infrastructure ... and let's see lithium ion batteries are boasting .6 Wh/g * 1000 g/kg * 3600s/h * 1e-6 MJ/W-s= 2.16 MJ/kg ---42kg/gas * 42MJ-gas/kg / 2.16MJ-batt/kg = only 816 kg (getting better)... the real problem is power ... current batteries cannot draw current fast enough for good performance.
someone moderate this guy down ... he needs to check his facts ...
gasoline -- 44,800 kJ/kg or 19,260 Btu/lb
methane -- 50,010 kJ/kg or 21,500 Btu/lb
you must be joking...
1)a military coup would have to go house to house to round up resistance.
2)a military coup would have split the military ... i.e. not everyone in the military would favor the coup
3)a strong military does not guarantee victory ... if you don't believe me ask the VC.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR022 65:@@@L
(REVISED AS OF 11/04/97 -- Passed House, amended)
No Electronic Theft (NET) Act - Amends Federal copyright law to define "financial gain" to include the receipt of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
Sets penalties for willfully infringing a copyright: (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; or (2) by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, one or more copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $1,000. Provides that evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
Let's see $1000/$17 per cd = 58 cds ... 58 cds * 10 songs per cd = 580 songs per 180 day period (3 songs a day)?
Extends the statute of limitations for criminal copyright infringement from three to five years.
They can come after for up to five year from the infingement
Revises Federal criminal code provisions regarding criminal copyright infringement to provide for a fine and up to five years' imprisonment for infringing a copyright for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, at least ten copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of more than $2,500.
$2500/$17 per cd = 147 cds ... 147 cds * 10 songs per cd = 1470 songs (8 songs a day)... more than this is a Federal crime?
Provides for: (1) up to three years' imprisonment and fines in infringement cases described above (exclusive of commercial gain intent considerations); (2) up to six years' imprisonment and a fine for a second or subsequent felony offense under (1); and (3) up to one year's imprisonment and a fine for the reproduction or distribution of one or more copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $1,000.
Penalities and repeat offense provisions
Requires, during preparation of the presentence report in cases of criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of live musical performances, and trafficking in counterfeit goods or services, that victims of the offense be permitted to submit, and the probation officer receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim and the extent and scope of the victim's injury and loss, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.
How to report infringement
Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to ensure that the applicable guideline range for a defendant convicted of a crime against intellectual property is sufficiently stringent to deter such a crime and adequately reflects consideration of the retail value and quantity of items with respect to which the crime against intellectual property was committed.
Can anyone provide an expert opinion?
OK Gomer... let me be more specific! If I rip a cd that I paid for and then rip it and put the file in a public directory on my personal machine that has the ability to stream data, or maybe me and 10 friends build a netwok that allows each of us each a shared directory. (i.e. a legal copy can be heard by anyone without it moving from one hard-drive to another)
... when everyone's has the bandwidth to listen to songs on remote systems without copying them to their hard drive? Would that still be "copyright infringement"?
MTV and all other broadcast media pay royalties every time they play a song!!!
... and the maker of what ever got you drunk and who ever sold you your last drink. Sueing is not about illegal or legal it's mostly about money. If you kill someone while driving drunk I don't sue you. A district attorney files criminal charges against you and you go to jail for manslaughter. I don't sue you though I could. (I wouldn't really do this, but my point is that sueing isn't about legal its about money)
COME ON! In order to set a real example they would have had to got the first guy/girl who copied a record and gave it to a friend. There are two levels to piracy.
1. people who make copies for thier friends
and
2. people who make copies and try to sell them as original works
Both are clearly illegal, but 1 was never significantly prosecuted until now. The only difference between Napster and the old network of friends is the speed at which you can perform the "transactions". They just fear change.
The only way to stop piracy 1 is to make music free or very cheap, and stop piracy 2 is to make it unprofitable. Sueing individual "traders" will just alienate fans.
There must be plenty of ways to make money by giving away music directly on the web: corporate sponsers, band merchendise ... who needs a middle man anymore? Metallica would set a better example by switching paradimes rather than sueing fans!
Did they actually search though passed messages, or did they just list everyone who log in? If they did search messages did they get a warrent? If so who granted it? That's like granting a warrent to search thought every message in the a post office because someone in that neighborhood is be recieving stolen goods! I don't think anyone would grant a warrent for that. It's too broad.
I've read several posts that say it cost between $0.50 and $1.00 per cd to make a cd. This has got to be just the cost of cd production. What about the actual production costs: studio time? producer? art and jacket layout? advertising? shipping? tour? Record companies also give out advances. How many cd's have to be sold to break even? (that is without air play)
If I asked my friend in El Paso, TX make a copy of "Master of Puppets" and send it to me... Could Metallica sue the post office?
I'm getting really sick of all the news regarding copyrights and the internet. Especially, Metallica suing Napster. While, without a doubt, musicians should receive money for their work. The widespread use of Napster proves that more and more people don't want to pay them. Is Napster really responsible for the actions of its users? After all, you could do the same kind of trading with relay chat, newsgroups and e-mail. Napster just makes it easier. Does Napster lower sales? Statistics say otherwise, but lets face it, I certainly don't by more than one cd a month and I hardly ever need to by a new cd.
The way I see it Napster is the first step toward a new way of distributing music. Cd's are dead! Well dying anyway. Everyone should know that the hardest part of making a living from making music is advertisement. Getting people to go to show/concert, buy cds or cassettes, T-shirts, and other band propaganda is hard to do when know one knows who you are and what kind of music you play or that you even exist. What better way to advertise than on the internet with your music? The cost of providing free music is nothing compared to the cost of distributing cd's. Rob Zombie even said that most of the money that musicians make is from concerts and merchandising. A hint to all bands, drop those blood sucking leeches, and "Be Direct".
Now picture this, every band/musician has a web site. From their web site you can download all recorded music, order T-shirts, get tour information, or read about the their political views (though I personally hate it when bands do this). Then for a small membership fee (like a fan club fee) you could have access to special features like maybe live web cast of concerts and jam sessions, or chat interviews. They could also advertise from their sights (their favorite guitar
strings, Coca-Cola, or whatever). Then programs like Napster could provide an open forum and search engine for people to find and discuss music. With the addition of some advertisement in Napster it would become like an on-demand radio station. All music, All Free, All the Time!!! Mp3.com is perhaps the closet to this model but still has a little ways to go.
Record companies should be scared though, because there in the wrong business for the future. Maybe they'll all become ISP's. The same with radio stations, did someone say wireless internet? The future is coming and you can't fight it so just accept it and make sure you have other marketable skills.