I've read the article. I imagine that if you wanted to squint real hard, a creative and paranoid thinker might be able to squeeze out that this applies to WoW online chat. However, even the original post points out that this applies only to voice calls.
Law enforcement has had the ability for years to tap our phone lines. It was even illegal at one time to connect up any type of device to the PSTN that would disguise or scramble a conversation. Law enforcement officials, here in the United States, do, however, have to go through a legal process and seek permission from the courts in order to do so. So just because we have a new technology that allows us to communicate, common sense should be tossed to the wind? Granted, there will always be those officials that will attempt to abuse a new law, but the abuse of that law is what should be challenged, not the correct and proper application of the law. And as we learned with the HDTV copy-protection bit, the word of the FCC is not always the last word.
Please do not assume from my post that I'm an ultra conservative that thinks the goverment should monitor our every step. I don't favor new laws, especially when they are just knee-jerk reactions to whatever is the hot media topic. I for one would love to see a politician that ran on a platform of removing abused or nonsense laws instead of creating new ones. However, this isn't even a new law, it is simply putting VOIP on the same playing field as standard telephones. I don't recall anyone screaming foul when a similar classification was made by the FCC that required VOIP carriers to support 911 calls.
I would be much more concerned if the FCC had decided that VOIP should not be treated the same as a standard phone call, and thus would NOT require law enforcement to go through the proper channels to 'tap' the conversation.
I do not understand why the comments I've been reading suggest that this will be another avenue to censorship on the web. In reality, it is an opporunity to avoid censorship. I suppose it does provide an easy path for governments to ban access to the.xxx domains, however the purveyors of adult material would just continue to use the rest of the top-level domains to reach consumers. Instead this could be a great benefit to both the seller and consumer by providing a non-intrusive channel to such material. It would provide parents with a tool to prevent inappropriate material from reaching their children. And while most everyone has a general curiosity and interest, they don't especially welcome explicit images flashing across their computer screen simply because they mistyped a URL address. It is the extreme positions that state we either elimante or distribute to all that are madness. There is nothing bad about using a little common sense and responsability. (Unless, of course, you are a typical teenager with raging hormones. Then you can politely ignore this comment and continue your search for 'boobies')
Well as stated in an earlier post, they were ready to implement a two-pass algorithm, but it would've resulted in a speed hit. So I imagine that if they release the Dooom 3 source in the future, it will come with the 'patented' version removed and the two-pass algorithm installed. In a few years, the technological advancements will probably render the speed hit insignificant, anyway.
Yes, you are correct. I was thinking of trademarks. (Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, just an old man trying to remember things from long ago. -grin-) Anyway, just for the record I did a search and found what I believe to be the original text from the Atari ad.
ATARI SOFTWARE PIRACY THIS GAME IS OVER Atari is a leader in the development of games such as Asteroids(TM) and MISSILE COMMAND(TM)... We appreciate the response we have received from videophiles of the world who have made our games so popular. Unfortunately, however, there are companies and individuals who have copied ATARI'S games in an attempt to reap undeserved profits from games they did not develop. ATARI must protect our investment so that we can continue to invest in the development of new and better games. Accordingly, ATARI gives warning to both the intentional pirates and to the individuals simply unaware of the copyright laws that ATARI registers the audiovisual works associated with its games with the Library of Congress and considers its games proprietary. ATARI will protect its rights by vigorously enforcing these copyrights and taking the appropriate action against unauthorized entities who reproduce or adapt substantial copies of ATARI games regardless of what computer or other apparatus is used in their performance...
The text to note is the last sentence. A copy doesn't have to be a 'xerox' to be considered infringing. Atari successfully sued Magnavox over KC Munchkin, which did not look even close to PacMan, in my opinion, but was considered similar enough to be an infringement of Bally/Midway's copyright which Atari retained the home market distribution rights to. My point was that the titles mentioned by the IDSA could possibly be considered copyright infringements along the same lines as those mentioned by the ATARI ad.
Something that you might want to consider is that, while the publisher or author has given permission to distribute these works, it is possible that the publisher/author themselves were in violation of copyright laws. During the late 70's and early 80's there were a lot of independent developers that programmed 'clones' of popular arcade games for home computer/hobbyist systems. These games were distributed without permission or license from the copyright holders of the original arcade games. Many old timers will probably recall the infamous "This game is over" ads from Atari concerning clones of its licensed games. Most notable of these were the PacMan clones. It was during this time in the industry that Atari asserted that just because a game did not use actual code nor actual artwork from the original, it was not immune from copyright infringement litigation if it could be reasonably concluded that it diluted the copyrighted work's value. From the list of titles given, it appears that each of them are well known copyrighted and trademarked entities. As such, it is the duty of the copyright holders to enforce any alleged misuse of those copyrights/trademarks. It is doubtful that the Spectrum version of PacMan, Donkey Kong, or even 007 were distributed through a valid license agreement with the original copyright/trademark holders. Perhaps with some clarification from the IDSA, WorldOfSpectrum could contact the copyright/trademark owners of the alleged infringing properties and obtain permission from them. Please don't misunderstand my take on this. I am not attempting to side with IDSA, I just happened to glance at this issue from a different perspective.
It should be mentioned that as soon as we can start associating a value ('cost') to that CD ISO, we open the door for goverment taxation. If the taxing agencies, whether in the US or not can formulate the value of data, you can rest assured that a value added tax/sales tax will also be added on. Furthermore, will there be a method of 'returning' data that doesn't meet its advertised specifications or data that is incomplete bacause of a failed download? Obviously, IF the telecomunications industry is actually losing money then a tiered approach seems logical. However, as more and more ISPs merge into one, we need to ensure that they don't use their power to fix prices. I believe that the reason we now enjoy a flat rate structure is due to the intense competition that took place during the 90's. While a lot of players in that market lost money, lots more made money. Most of those that did lose money, lost it not because their cost of providing the service was out of line, but rather because they spent their venture capital foolishly and paid their CEO's for incompetance. It amazes me that as we are seeing more and more telco's push flat-rate cellular and long-distance packages, we see them whining about losing money on internet access. If its true, then let an independent auditor determine the cost per user (Please, no one suggestion Aurthur Anderson). I personally wouldn't mind paying more if I knew it was necessary to 'improve' the internet and broadband support. But I suspect its use is destined for some CEO's pocket. A CEO that will receive a large severance package when the company fails, despite the rate hikes. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. -grin-
Well the problem isn't that the modem was infected by the virus. The problem is due to a bug in the Cisco 67x routers that causes them to crash when a malformed large GET is sent to the http port and the web interface is enabled on that port.
So Cisco makes the router, but Qwest distributes and requires it to use their service. Seems to me that Qwest should be liable for the downtime and it should be Qwest's responsibility to go after Cisco for the damages.
I think these companies SHOULD be reponsible for defects in their products. And that is exactly what this was. The virus didn't even target the Cisco routers, it just had the effect of killing them when it queried them for Microsoft IIS servers.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read the article. I imagine that if you wanted to squint real hard, a creative and paranoid thinker might be able to squeeze out that this applies to WoW online chat. However, even the original post points out that this applies only to voice calls.
Law enforcement has had the ability for years to tap our phone lines. It was even illegal at one time to connect up any type of device to the PSTN that would disguise or scramble a conversation. Law enforcement officials, here in the United States, do, however, have to go through a legal process and seek permission from the courts in order to do so. So just because we have a new technology that allows us to communicate, common sense should be tossed to the wind? Granted, there will always be those officials that will attempt to abuse a new law, but the abuse of that law is what should be challenged, not the correct and proper application of the law. And as we learned with the HDTV copy-protection bit, the word of the FCC is not always the last word.
Please do not assume from my post that I'm an ultra conservative that thinks the goverment should monitor our every step. I don't favor new laws, especially when they are just knee-jerk reactions to whatever is the hot media topic. I for one would love to see a politician that ran on a platform of removing abused or nonsense laws instead of creating new ones. However, this isn't even a new law, it is simply putting VOIP on the same playing field as standard telephones. I don't recall anyone screaming foul when a similar classification was made by the FCC that required VOIP carriers to support 911 calls.
I would be much more concerned if the FCC had decided that VOIP should not be treated the same as a standard phone call, and thus would NOT require law enforcement to go through the proper channels to 'tap' the conversation.
I do not understand why the comments I've been reading suggest that this will be another avenue to censorship on the web. In reality, it is an opporunity to avoid censorship. I suppose it does provide an easy path for governments to ban access to the .xxx domains, however the purveyors of adult material would just continue to use the rest of the top-level domains to reach consumers. Instead this could be a great benefit to both the seller and consumer by providing a non-intrusive channel to such material. It would provide parents with a tool to prevent inappropriate material from reaching their children. And while most everyone has a general curiosity and interest, they don't especially welcome explicit images flashing across their computer screen simply because they mistyped a URL address. It is the extreme positions that state we either elimante or distribute to all that are madness. There is nothing bad about using a little common sense and responsability. (Unless, of course, you are a typical teenager with raging hormones. Then you can politely ignore this comment and continue your search for 'boobies')
Well as stated in an earlier post, they were ready to implement a two-pass algorithm, but it would've resulted in a speed hit. So I imagine that if they release the Dooom 3 source in the future, it will come with the 'patented' version removed and the two-pass algorithm installed. In a few years, the technological advancements will probably render the speed hit insignificant, anyway.
Yes, you are correct. I was thinking of trademarks. (Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, just an old man trying to remember things from long ago. -grin-) Anyway, just for the record I did a search and found what I believe to be the original text from the Atari ad.
ATARI SOFTWARE
PIRACY
THIS GAME IS OVER
Atari is a leader in the development of games such as Asteroids(TM) and MISSILE COMMAND(TM)... We appreciate the response we have received from videophiles of the world who have made our games so popular. Unfortunately, however, there are companies and individuals who have copied ATARI'S games in an attempt to reap undeserved profits from games they did not develop. ATARI must protect our investment so that we can continue to invest in the development of new and better games. Accordingly, ATARI gives warning to both the intentional pirates and to the individuals simply unaware of the copyright laws that ATARI registers the audiovisual works associated with its games with the Library of Congress and considers its games proprietary. ATARI will protect its rights by vigorously enforcing these copyrights and taking the appropriate action against unauthorized entities who reproduce or adapt substantial copies of ATARI games regardless of what computer or other apparatus is used in their performance...
The text to note is the last sentence. A copy doesn't have to be a 'xerox' to be considered infringing. Atari successfully sued Magnavox over KC Munchkin, which did not look even close to PacMan, in my opinion, but was considered similar enough to be an infringement of Bally/Midway's copyright which Atari retained the home market distribution rights to. My point was that the titles mentioned by the IDSA could possibly be considered copyright infringements along the same lines as those mentioned by the ATARI ad.
Something that you might want to consider is that, while the publisher or author has given permission to distribute these works, it is possible that the publisher/author themselves were in violation of copyright laws. During the late 70's and early 80's there were a lot of independent developers that programmed 'clones' of popular arcade games for home computer/hobbyist systems. These games were distributed without permission or license from the copyright holders of the original arcade games. Many old timers will probably recall the infamous "This game is over" ads from Atari concerning clones of its licensed games. Most notable of these were the PacMan clones. It was during this time in the industry that Atari asserted that just because a game did not use actual code nor actual artwork from the original, it was not immune from copyright infringement litigation if it could be reasonably concluded that it diluted the copyrighted work's value. From the list of titles given, it appears that each of them are well known copyrighted and trademarked entities. As such, it is the duty of the copyright holders to enforce any alleged misuse of those copyrights/trademarks. It is doubtful that the Spectrum version of PacMan, Donkey Kong, or even 007 were distributed through a valid license agreement with the original copyright/trademark holders. Perhaps with some clarification from the IDSA, WorldOfSpectrum could contact the copyright/trademark owners of the alleged infringing properties and obtain permission from them. Please don't misunderstand my take on this. I am not attempting to side with IDSA, I just happened to glance at this issue from a different perspective.
When they outlaw computers, only outlaws will have computers.
It should be mentioned that as soon as we can start associating a value ('cost') to that CD ISO, we open the door for goverment taxation. If the taxing agencies, whether in the US or not can formulate the value of data, you can rest assured that a value added tax/sales tax will also be added on.
Furthermore, will there be a method of 'returning' data that doesn't meet its advertised specifications or data that is incomplete bacause of a failed download?
Obviously, IF the telecomunications industry is actually losing money then a tiered approach seems logical. However, as more and more ISPs merge into one, we need to ensure that they don't use their power to fix prices.
I believe that the reason we now enjoy a flat rate structure is due to the intense competition that took place during the 90's. While a lot of players in that market lost money, lots more made money. Most of those that did lose money, lost it not because their cost of providing the service was out of line, but rather because they spent their venture capital foolishly and paid their CEO's for incompetance.
It amazes me that as we are seeing more and more telco's push flat-rate cellular and long-distance packages, we see them whining about losing money on internet access.
If its true, then let an independent auditor determine the cost per user (Please, no one suggestion Aurthur Anderson). I personally wouldn't mind paying more if I knew it was necessary to 'improve' the internet and broadband support. But I suspect its use is destined for some CEO's pocket. A CEO that will receive a large severance package when the company fails, despite the rate hikes.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. -grin-
Well the problem isn't that the modem was infected by the virus. The problem is due to a bug in the Cisco 67x routers that causes them to crash when a malformed large GET is sent to the http port and the web interface is enabled on that port.
So Cisco makes the router, but Qwest distributes and requires it to use their service. Seems to me that Qwest should be liable for the downtime and it should be Qwest's responsibility to go after Cisco for the damages.
I think these companies SHOULD be reponsible for defects in their products. And that is exactly what this was. The virus didn't even target the Cisco routers, it just had the effect of killing them when it queried them for Microsoft IIS servers.