for what purpose? To get the system back to original state? That's supposed to be built in. To modify the system away from the vetted and trusted configuration? Sounds like you're not in the target market and some other system may be better suited to your needs.
Designing a platform that does what Joe Sixpack wants (email, farmville, and espn) but is unlikely to wind up in a botnet is a good thing. It's not suitable for what _I_ do, but that's my problem.
Actually, no. They were intended to help get more new ideas out into the open. Protecting inventors from uncompensated idea-copying for a limited time was the _method_, not the _purpose_.
I don't think he was griping about the patents themselves, mostly. He was simply heaping scorn on a business model whose only income streams are patent licensing and lawsuits, and whose only product is patent applications.
In the marijuana case, it would have been the defense attorney, and the only reason for the defense attorney not to explain that the defendant was a doctor who had complied with state law would be instructions from the judge. Can you come up with any possible way the defendant's occupation would be "illegally obtained information"?
Codecs are easy. DRM that makes the studio happy without pissing off the customer, that's hard. Especially since the correlation between "has only linux at home" and "hates DRM with a holy passion" is pretty high.
I'd expect them to bump the connection fee a little bit and get most of their extra money from the fact that you're probably going to be downloading more stuff over a faster link. I refuse to bet money on that prediction, though.
My main use for capslock is typing long names of constant values (which our programming guidelines say should be all-caps). I'm a lot faster typing normally with capslock than trying to type while one finger is holding down shift...
So the only thing they seem to have in common is that copyright wasn't available to them. I fail to see how you can definitively claim that the removal of copyright will result in one of those situations but not the other...
If you can get physical access to the camera, yeah. There's no way to make it both so that the guy taking the picture can't fake it and nobody else can cast doubt on the authenticity. (Which I guess means there's no way to guarantee that nobody can cast doubt on the authenticity:) This at least would help guarantee that if the camera _is_ in good shape, the photos it generated are legit.
Right. Now we just have to actually reach "no monopolies" and "no restrictions on competition", because the cost of building an initial set of cell towers is most certainly restricting new players from entering the market.
That brings up the question, are Comcast's customers paying comcast enough to cover all the costs of moving all that data? The old amount, yes; comcast wasn't getting money from Level3 so we must assume that it was paid for by customers. Now that more customers are demanding more data, the flat-rate fees may not be enough anymore, and getting Level3 to chip in (which they would presumably pass on to Netflix et al) keeps them from having to jack up customer prices (obsnark: as much as they would normally)
You appear to be assuming it was Rosario who supplied the disk, in which case the defendant would be right to be leery of it. The impression I got was that it was the defendant's disk, and presumably the defendant knows durn well what's on it...
Doesn't sound like he's asking MS to provide him with a box that does everything he wants, merely to be allowed to use the box he bought from MS to build a box that does everything he wants.
There's a special rule for copyright infringement (originally targeted, I believe, at for-profit bootlegging operations) that says "if the rights-holder wants, we can skip all that establishment of real damages and just say $250 per item", and then triple that if it's willful. The idea (if I'm right) was to keep the plaintiff from having to blow crap-loads of money on researching how many folks had bought the bootlegs, and to yield a substantial total to establish a deterring effect. Unintended Consequences, however, allow it to be used on a completely different class of infringer.
A city councilman who can impact zoning is less likely to get enough money from corporations to buy an ad campaign that will appease the pissed off voters who all live within 5 miles of the new plant than the state senator who can impact copyright legislation is to get enough to buy a campaign that will appease the people who want to watch their DVDs on something besides a set-top DVD player.
Don't knock it. Because of that, they are in fact allowed to download stuff and burn it to the CD, by Canadian case law. After all, they already paid for it.
Slashdot Mirror
for what purpose? To get the system back to original state? That's supposed to be built in. To modify the system away from the vetted and trusted configuration? Sounds like you're not in the target market and some other system may be better suited to your needs.
Designing a platform that does what Joe Sixpack wants (email, farmville, and espn) but is unlikely to wind up in a botnet is a good thing. It's not suitable for what _I_ do, but that's my problem.
Actually, no. They were intended to help get more new ideas out into the open. Protecting inventors from uncompensated idea-copying for a limited time was the _method_, not the _purpose_.
I don't think he was griping about the patents themselves, mostly. He was simply heaping scorn on a business model whose only income streams are patent licensing and lawsuits, and whose only product is patent applications.
In the marijuana case, it would have been the defense attorney, and the only reason for the defense attorney not to explain that the defendant was a doctor who had complied with state law would be instructions from the judge. Can you come up with any possible way the defendant's occupation would be "illegally obtained information"?
Codecs are easy. DRM that makes the studio happy without pissing off the customer, that's hard. Especially since the correlation between "has only linux at home" and "hates DRM with a holy passion" is pretty high.
That assumes the owner is still pressing disks...
I'd expect them to bump the connection fee a little bit and get most of their extra money from the fact that you're probably going to be downloading more stuff over a faster link. I refuse to bet money on that prediction, though.
The problem is once we get to TARDI schedule overruns will doom the project.
Great, now _I'm_ gonna wake up screaming tonight.
Least I can do is share one of my reactions: Star Wars with Han replaced by Vash the Stampede.
Those will be morphs for Victoria 8 :)
Even now the only Star Wars movies I have on DVD are 4-6... and it's the edition that came with original theatrical versions. *sigh* Such potential...
My main use for capslock is typing long names of constant values (which our programming guidelines say should be all-caps). I'm a lot faster typing normally with capslock than trying to type while one finger is holding down shift...
So the only thing they seem to have in common is that copyright wasn't available to them. I fail to see how you can definitively claim that the removal of copyright will result in one of those situations but not the other...
If you can get physical access to the camera, yeah. There's no way to make it both so that the guy taking the picture can't fake it and nobody else can cast doubt on the authenticity. (Which I guess means there's no way to guarantee that nobody can cast doubt on the authenticity :) This at least would help guarantee that if the camera _is_ in good shape, the photos it generated are legit.
Right. Now we just have to actually reach "no monopolies" and "no restrictions on competition", because the cost of building an initial set of cell towers is most certainly restricting new players from entering the market.
That brings up the question, are Comcast's customers paying comcast enough to cover all the costs of moving all that data? The old amount, yes; comcast wasn't getting money from Level3 so we must assume that it was paid for by customers. Now that more customers are demanding more data, the flat-rate fees may not be enough anymore, and getting Level3 to chip in (which they would presumably pass on to Netflix et al) keeps them from having to jack up customer prices (obsnark: as much as they would normally)
You appear to be assuming it was Rosario who supplied the disk, in which case the defendant would be right to be leery of it. The impression I got was that it was the defendant's disk, and presumably the defendant knows durn well what's on it...
Doesn't sound like he's asking MS to provide him with a box that does everything he wants, merely to be allowed to use the box he bought from MS to build a box that does everything he wants.
It's a nano-turing-machine. All it needs is an infinitely long wire...
There's a special rule for copyright infringement (originally targeted, I believe, at for-profit bootlegging operations) that says "if the rights-holder wants, we can skip all that establishment of real damages and just say $250 per item", and then triple that if it's willful. The idea (if I'm right) was to keep the plaintiff from having to blow crap-loads of money on researching how many folks had bought the bootlegs, and to yield a substantial total to establish a deterring effect. Unintended Consequences, however, allow it to be used on a completely different class of infringer.
I thought it had, in many cases. Is there ever a valid reason for the immune system to kill itself (anaphylactic shock)?
A city councilman who can impact zoning is less likely to get enough money from corporations to buy an ad campaign that will appease the pissed off voters who all live within 5 miles of the new plant than the state senator who can impact copyright legislation is to get enough to buy a campaign that will appease the people who want to watch their DVDs on something besides a set-top DVD player.
Don't knock it. Because of that, they are in fact allowed to download stuff and burn it to the CD, by Canadian case law. After all, they already paid for it.
What's the point of learning from a patent? You can't use what you learn; it's patented.