Just wanted to reply with a tidbit you may be interested in.
This was actually law before copyright was issued without having to file for it. That is where the Library of Congress obtained the majority of their works.
From their FAQ page, section 5 talks about the copyright deposits, which unfortunatly are made alot less now, as one doesnt have to file for copyright with a copy of their work.
> If the author doesn't want the work released, he should have the right to keep it that way.
Yes, he has that right, but the 'cost' for getting a copyright on your work is that it is given to the public at the end of the copyright term.
If you dont wanna pay, the copyright game you aint gunna play.
And if you want it to be not released, he should not release it, concidering it has no copyright to protect it. All copys made are legal at that point, as there is no law to protect aginst it.
Gotta pick one or the other, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
> > Now would be the time to get using PGP and similar software.
> Thats great amongst a few like-minded people, but most people I know don't want > to fiddle with encryption
Just 8 years ago we said the same exact thing about the Internet.
"Oh, thats great for a few like minded people, but no real person would want to buy a computer just to send this email stuff that no one they know can read!"
The Internet is just one IP network. Phone companys have their own networks, they don't need to involve the Internet what so ever if they choose. Same as I don't need to plug my IP network into the Internet for things on my own network to talk to eachother.
So what you will do is replace that particular pen in that hole with one that provides a wireless link (RF or IR) to a real keyboard. Wireless USB may be real soon.. bluetooth exists.. or any of the propriatary things on the market today could work for this. Choose IR over RF if your concerned about easedroping.
Do you keep any persistant TCP connections to verify that? It's not that I don't believe you or anything, its just a 5 minute outage is generally not even noticed or felt if you dont have an always active TCP connection.
Despite it being labeled 'idle time' that only refers to irc privmsg (text to a person/channel)... Mode changes and joins/parts dont break an idle time. Its just a very quiet bot;)
> You might be surprised just how many geek gods are on dialup because they are geek gods.
Just to add my 'me-too' post:
I too am on a dedicated dialup. My ISP routes a/24 and/26 to me over it. In the area I am in, cable is the only other option availible (Horidly old phone wiring, cant even get isdn or a t1), but I can not run services nor get decent IP space and no reverse DNS control on cable here. Just not worth my time as a geek.
One of my bots on IRC i run from this dialup has an idle time of [] idle: 41d 2h 8m 11s [Tue Dec 16 12:29:19 2003]
No one I know on cable/dsl has stability like that.
I am planning to move soon to an area where a T1 will be possible. But till then, long live the dialup.
My only point was their own website and guide lines clearly state prior art, not prior patent.
I mean yes these are their own rules, but they should change them everywhere if that is what they now want to do so the public knows the new function of the USPTO.
Give your money to a company that makes laptops that DO support your OS of choice.
Some say it doesnt matter because Intel doesnt care about 5% of the users that would use this for linux, but I say if thats one less ivory back scratcher for someone at intel, all the better!
(1) On taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner shall make a thorough study thereof and shall make a thorough investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention. The examination shall be complete with respect both to compliance of the application or patent under reexamination with the applicable statutes and rules and to the patentability of the invention as claimed, as well as with respect to matters of form, unless otherwise indicated.
(Bold added by me)
So they are not doing their stated jobs by not looking for any/all prior art.
While yes I realize this is not a possible feat for them, not being specalists in any field but law, the fact remains that their own guidelines still state that it IS their job to do so.
(1) On taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner shall make a thorough study thereof and shall make a thorough investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention. The examination shall be complete with respect both to compliance of the application or patent under reexamination with the applicable statutes and rules and to the patentability of the invention as claimed, as well as with respect to matters of form, unless otherwise indicated.
> No, I didn't read it because it was slashdotted. But regardless of the mod > itself, I feel my point does stand on how cars are moving to more and more > distracting features.
Assuming your car is newer than a 1920, or its not a VW, then you already HAVE a computer in your car that controls all of these things. It's just as hidden away not in the pasenger compartment as this guys computer is.
If your going to blame this guy for being distracted, your equally as guilty for doing the same thing with the factory computer in your own car.
> DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads > to evade the blocking software.'
So why is it legal for them to knowingly and willingly 'evade' blocking software yet its illegal for one to 'evade' security measures (ie hacking/cracking) and to 'evade' DRM and to 'evade' the clearly stated desires one has for their own property?
> Why go after the spammers (ie. the bulk emailing services). It's like shooting > the messenger; instead, go after the advertisers of such spam emails, since > their whereabouts are easier to track down than anonymous spammers.
Because the messenger can say anything they want.
Imagine a spammer sends out ads claiming you personally are selling some crap, and give your personal information to 'buy' from. Then the law cracks down on you and not the one annoying people.
I have to agree with you. Im not much of hardcore gamer, and dont paeticularly even like FPS games at all.
At my friends Burnout2 is one of two games I actually enjoy playing on xbox. (Other being SoulCalaber2)
Good memorys of sitting around playing in 4 player mode for hours on end.
We found reching busses (or multple busses) racked up the most insurance money, so we spent tons of time figuring out the perfect way to cause multiple busses and trucks to flip and take out a few cars here and there.
Before the DMCA, technically they were right, these boxes _are_ legal to own. Now, its very illegal to _USE_ them... But to just own one, that was not.
Now granted, who in their right mind would spend money on one just to own and not use, I couldnt tell ya. But as far as the disclaimer goes, they only mentioned owning, not using, so it was technically acurate and truthful.
But you are no doubt right. DMCA makes any trafficing in them illegal now, including buying one.
I'm shocked these two people kept records around at all. Saving finantual documents for 7 years is only for ligit businesses after all;)
> As far as I know, there are laws in many states prohibiting the photographing of > children without the parent's permission. > Am I wrong?
I do believe that is wrong. If anything, maybe change 'many' to 'a couple' because alot states that I know of have no such law, and it doesnt seem likely that more than one or two states would agree on such a law really.
> In addition, there are regulations about how someone's photograph can be used > without that person's consent?
Yup, I believe it falls under copyright law to be honest.
When someone else takes a picture of you, that other person owns the copyright to the picture itself, but you as the person in it have some additional rights that you can use to limit the copyright owner in their use of that picture. Basically you dont have copyright over it so you cant just take the picture and use it as you wish, but you CAN veto the copyright holders choices in distributing it.
In this case, the pictures are not distributed, and most likely are not even stored unless it thinks it found a match, and even then its most likely only stored until someone human can verify the machines claim. Its possible they store the pictures, but as long as they don't give them to anyone, they should be fine.
> Can I go around tape recording people in public places to try and pick out > criminals? That's illegal, right?
Nope, perfectly legal, with the same restrictions as above. Don't go giving the tapes/soundfiles out to anyone else and your 100% in the clear legally.
I think this whole system is stupid for many reasons, but not this reason.
I mean, what gives you the right to try and dictate to me which photons that bounced off of you and entered my eyes I am allowed to realize I see?
If you dont want photons to bounce off of you and enter my eyes, I would suggest the laws of physics instead of laws of government.
> Then why not go all the way. Lets get a camera and radar detecter on every > highway and mail tickets.
This would defeat the purpose of speeding tickets. It would ruin the system just as much as if they removed the speed limit.
The government purposly enforces speeding laws to where under 1% of voilators will be ticketed. If anymore were caught, less people would do it, and it would lower their revenew stream. If any less got tickets, it too would lower the income. They purposly keep it at a catch rate that brings in the most money.
> Why not force everyone to get fingerprinted, and use them instead, whenever they > want to buy something (so they do not counterfit or use stolen credit cards), > whenever they take an exam, whenever they go to a bank, or enter a school.
Because anyone with common sense knows a fingerprint is about a billion times easier to steal than a credit card. I mean, who here would willingly and knowingly leave their credit card number a few thousand places that you have been through out your day? Not very many. But that is exactly what happens with fingerprints.
> And the government can keep all this data in a database. Heck maybe libraries > can use this too, to track what we read.
Actually some libraries do indeed keep records on what you check out. Granted not very many from what it seems, but the ones that do keep records no doubt will try very hard to hide that fact, so its atleast not always obvious.
> The ability to monitor where everyone 24/7 is extremely helpful to the ability > to enslave a population.
I don't see the jump from "Property owner doing what they want on their own property" and "The ability to monitor where everyone 24/7 is"
I think the better reason to be worried is with the fact this technology doesnt really work at all. That or even the current law as it stands which this system is basing itself off of.
But this leading to somehow magically the big bad govt getting everyone to have one of these even if they dont want it (Taking away our choice, just as you are trying to do as well *) AND THEN they need to get mandatory access to said equepment... Far fetched? Of course it is.
* - I personally feel a person should be able to do as they wish with their own private property. If they wish to have a camera fail to detect a face, that is their call. If they DON'T want that, that too is their choice and I feel they should have the right to not have it. You seem to want to force this choice on other people just like the government would do in your dooms day description. Even if it is a different choice, its still not MY choice, as it should be for MY property. And that is the real point.
Slashdot Mirror
> And as for X-Boxes sitting at the store, every one of those that isn't bought is
> one more that doesn't have to be manufactured at a loss.
So what is the problem?
Emulators are no worse than the PS2 and GC and other consoles that one may feel is better and decide to buy over an xbox.
If you think an emulator is bad, go try to shut down some of MS's other competition for them while your at it.
> escrow for copyrighted works
Just wanted to reply with a tidbit you may be interested in.
This was actually law before copyright was issued without having to file for it.
That is where the Library of Congress obtained the majority of their works.
From their FAQ page, section 5 talks about the copyright deposits, which unfortunatly are made alot less now, as one doesnt have to file for copyright with a copy of their work.
> If the author doesn't want the work released, he should have the right to keep it that way.
Yes, he has that right, but the 'cost' for getting a copyright on your work is that it is given to the public at the end of the copyright term.
If you dont wanna pay, the copyright game you aint gunna play.
And if you want it to be not released, he should not release it, concidering it has no copyright to protect it. All copys made are legal at that point, as there is no law to protect aginst it.
Gotta pick one or the other, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
> > Now would be the time to get using PGP and similar software.
> Thats great amongst a few like-minded people, but most people I know don't want
> to fiddle with encryption
Just 8 years ago we said the same exact thing about the Internet.
"Oh, thats great for a few like minded people, but no real person would want to buy a computer just to send this email stuff that no one they know can read!"
Now look at us...
Don't assume IP == Internet
The Internet is just one IP network.
Phone companys have their own networks, they don't need to involve the Internet what so ever if they choose. Same as I don't need to plug my IP network into the Internet for things on my own network to talk to eachother.
"for those of us who weren't born with a soldering iron in our hands."
Um.. Ouch? The poor mother..
So what you will do is replace that particular pen in that hole with one that provides a wireless link (RF or IR) to a real keyboard. Wireless USB may be real soon.. bluetooth exists.. or any of the propriatary things on the market today could work for this. Choose IR over RF if your concerned about easedroping.
Do you keep any persistant TCP connections to verify that?
;)
It's not that I don't believe you or anything, its just a 5 minute outage is generally not even noticed or felt if you dont have an always active TCP connection.
Despite it being labeled 'idle time' that only refers to irc privmsg (text to a person/channel)... Mode changes and joins/parts dont break an idle time.
Its just a very quiet bot
If you concider holding ops pointless... but im sure your just a troll that knows not of such technical matters as irc.
> You might be surprised just how many geek gods are on dialup because they are geek gods.
/24 and /26 to me over it.
Just to add my 'me-too' post:
I too am on a dedicated dialup. My ISP routes a
In the area I am in, cable is the only other option availible (Horidly old phone wiring, cant even get isdn or a t1), but I can not run services nor get decent IP space and no reverse DNS control on cable here. Just not worth my time as a geek.
One of my bots on IRC i run from this dialup has an idle time of
[] idle: 41d 2h 8m 11s [Tue Dec 16 12:29:19 2003]
No one I know on cable/dsl has stability like that.
I am planning to move soon to an area where a T1 will be possible. But till then, long live the dialup.
My only point was their own website and guide lines clearly state prior art, not prior patent.
I mean yes these are their own rules, but they should change them everywhere if that is what they now want to do so the public knows the new function of the USPTO.
Simpler solution than that:
Give your money to a company that makes laptops that DO support your OS of choice.
Some say it doesnt matter because Intel doesnt care about 5% of the users that would use this for linux, but I say if thats one less ivory back scratcher for someone at intel, all the better!
> How precisely are we to name something that doesn't exist?
:P
Duke nukem forever?
> Let's all remember that the USPTO's job is to deal with paperwork, not to deal
> with prior art; that's what the courts are for.
Lets kindly not remember that, and I ask that you forget that incorrect bit of info as well.
In the USPTO's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure it clearly states in this section:
1.104 Nature of examination.
(a) Examiner's action.
(1) On taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner shall make a thorough study thereof and shall make a thorough investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention. The examination shall be complete with respect both to compliance of the application or patent under reexamination with the applicable statutes and rules and to the patentability of the invention as claimed, as well as with respect to matters of form, unless otherwise indicated.
(Bold added by me)
So they are not doing their stated jobs by not looking for any/all prior art.
While yes I realize this is not a possible feat for them, not being specalists in any field but law, the fact remains that their own guidelines still state that it IS their job to do so.
The USPTO states in their process manual that they _are_ the ones that should search for prior art before approving a patent.
You can find the exact section here on their website
The main page of their Manual of Patent Examining Procedure is at this link.
To quote the sections that apply here:
1.104 Nature of examination.
(a) Examiner's action.
(1) On taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner shall make a thorough study thereof and shall make a thorough investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention. The examination shall be complete with respect both to compliance of the application or patent under reexamination with the applicable statutes and rules and to the patentability of the invention as claimed, as well as with respect to matters of form, unless otherwise indicated.
> No, I didn't read it because it was slashdotted. But regardless of the mod
> itself, I feel my point does stand on how cars are moving to more and more
> distracting features.
Assuming your car is newer than a 1920, or its not a VW, then you already HAVE a computer in your car that controls all of these things.
It's just as hidden away not in the pasenger compartment as this guys computer is.
If your going to blame this guy for being distracted, your equally as guilty for doing the same thing with the factory computer in your own car.
> > Why would this be any more of a security hole than someone being logged in as
> > root and then doing "su - " ?
> Because you don't need to be logged in as anyone to do this. Any user who has
> access to the machine can do it.
Um, if someone has your admin/root password to type in it locally, all you do at the linux box is type:
Login: root
Password:
The only difference is typing root or not.
> DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads
> to evade the blocking software.'
So why is it legal for them to knowingly and willingly 'evade' blocking software yet its illegal for one to 'evade' security measures (ie hacking/cracking) and to 'evade' DRM and to 'evade' the clearly stated desires one has for their own property?
> Why go after the spammers (ie. the bulk emailing services). It's like shooting
> the messenger; instead, go after the advertisers of such spam emails, since
> their whereabouts are easier to track down than anonymous spammers.
Because the messenger can say anything they want.
Imagine a spammer sends out ads claiming you personally are selling some crap, and give your personal information to 'buy' from.
Then the law cracks down on you and not the one annoying people.
Wouldnt be much fun, i'd imagine.
I have to agree with you.
Im not much of hardcore gamer, and dont paeticularly even like FPS games at all.
At my friends Burnout2 is one of two games I actually enjoy playing on xbox.
(Other being SoulCalaber2)
Good memorys of sitting around playing in 4 player mode for hours on end.
We found reching busses (or multple busses) racked up the most insurance money, so we spent tons of time figuring out the perfect way to cause multiple busses and trucks to flip and take out a few cars here and there.
Almost makes me wish I had an xbox!
> Were the powers that be planning to save up a leap day? If they had, where
> would they have put it?
Feb 29h, every four years?
Before the DMCA, technically they were right, these boxes _are_ legal to own.
;)
Now, its very illegal to _USE_ them... But to just own one, that was not.
Now granted, who in their right mind would spend money on one just to own and not use, I couldnt tell ya. But as far as the disclaimer goes, they only mentioned owning, not using, so it was technically acurate and truthful.
But you are no doubt right. DMCA makes any trafficing in them illegal now, including buying one.
I'm shocked these two people kept records around at all.
Saving finantual documents for 7 years is only for ligit businesses after all
> As far as I know, there are laws in many states prohibiting the photographing of
> children without the parent's permission.
> Am I wrong?
I do believe that is wrong. If anything, maybe change 'many' to 'a couple' because alot states that I know of have no such law, and it doesnt seem likely that more than one or two states would agree on such a law really.
> In addition, there are regulations about how someone's photograph can be used
> without that person's consent?
Yup, I believe it falls under copyright law to be honest.
When someone else takes a picture of you, that other person owns the copyright to the picture itself, but you as the person in it have some additional rights that you can use to limit the copyright owner in their use of that picture.
Basically you dont have copyright over it so you cant just take the picture and use it as you wish, but you CAN veto the copyright holders choices in distributing it.
In this case, the pictures are not distributed, and most likely are not even stored unless it thinks it found a match, and even then its most likely only stored until someone human can verify the machines claim.
Its possible they store the pictures, but as long as they don't give them to anyone, they should be fine.
> Can I go around tape recording people in public places to try and pick out
> criminals? That's illegal, right?
Nope, perfectly legal, with the same restrictions as above.
Don't go giving the tapes/soundfiles out to anyone else and your 100% in the clear legally.
I think this whole system is stupid for many reasons, but not this reason.
I mean, what gives you the right to try and dictate to me which photons that bounced off of you and entered my eyes I am allowed to realize I see?
If you dont want photons to bounce off of you and enter my eyes, I would suggest the laws of physics instead of laws of government.
Just a couple of details...
> Then why not go all the way. Lets get a camera and radar detecter on every
> highway and mail tickets.
This would defeat the purpose of speeding tickets. It would ruin the system just as much as if they removed the speed limit.
The government purposly enforces speeding laws to where under 1% of voilators will be ticketed. If anymore were caught, less people would do it, and it would lower their revenew stream. If any less got tickets, it too would lower the income. They purposly keep it at a catch rate that brings in the most money.
> Why not force everyone to get fingerprinted, and use them instead, whenever they
> want to buy something (so they do not counterfit or use stolen credit cards),
> whenever they take an exam, whenever they go to a bank, or enter a school.
Because anyone with common sense knows a fingerprint is about a billion times easier to steal than a credit card.
I mean, who here would willingly and knowingly leave their credit card number a few thousand places that you have been through out your day? Not very many.
But that is exactly what happens with fingerprints.
> And the government can keep all this data in a database. Heck maybe libraries
> can use this too, to track what we read.
Actually some libraries do indeed keep records on what you check out.
Granted not very many from what it seems, but the ones that do keep records no doubt will try very hard to hide that fact, so its atleast not always obvious.
> The ability to monitor where everyone 24/7 is extremely helpful to the ability
> to enslave a population.
I don't see the jump from "Property owner doing what they want on their own property" and "The ability to monitor where everyone 24/7 is"
I think the better reason to be worried is with the fact this technology doesnt really work at all.
That or even the current law as it stands which this system is basing itself off of.
But this leading to somehow magically the big bad govt getting everyone to have one of these even if they dont want it (Taking away our choice, just as you are trying to do as well *) AND THEN they need to get mandatory access to said equepment... Far fetched? Of course it is.
* - I personally feel a person should be able to do as they wish with their own private property. If they wish to have a camera fail to detect a face, that is their call. If they DON'T want that, that too is their choice and I feel they should have the right to not have it.
You seem to want to force this choice on other people just like the government would do in your dooms day description. Even if it is a different choice, its still not MY choice, as it should be for MY property. And that is the real point.