Check it:
AT&T holds a patent on an apparatus for digitally encoding and compressing recorded speech.... It bears emphisis, however, that uninstalled Windows software does not infringe AT&T's patent any more than a computer standing alone does; instead, the patent is infringed only when a computer is loaded with Windows and is thereby rendered capable of performing as the patented speech processor.
Hot, that means I can write white-room version of an MP3 encoder and distribute it lawfully, I simply cannot install it and use it. (It's an example, ignore the foreign patent implications of MP3 and the DMCA reverse-eng possibilities.)
On page 3 the court reiterates a precedent from Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp that states it is "not an infringement to make or use a patented product outside of the United States". Nice. Amazon can't go after peeps outside the US over patents (well, duh, but still, good to say it again). On page 5 the court goes over a law Congress made in response to that stopping exports of multiple pieces with no other use than to create an infringing whole. Still nice for US extraterritorials.
Seems the decision and Stevens's dissent focus on whether software is analogous to blueprints or components, hinging on the language of Deepsouth.
Ok, brass tacks. I track music, I mix music. I have worked at big mastering studios. I'm no platinum producer, but I have worked on things on iTunes. I've watched artists come into a mastering studio and listen for balance and tone, producers bring 8 versions of a song and stems to find the right sound. Basically, I've seen lots of people _care_ about how their art sounds.
No artist would ever want their fans to be tiered into those who get to hear their art how they intended, and those who get to hear it how they sort-of intend it. Sorry, but I think the DRM-free fanboys have forgotten where they put it. It's still insane that you become a second-class (or third now!) citizen of art if you cant afford it. If this music is now DRM-free, where's the argument for the lower bit-rates still being DRM encrusted? What's the argument for the lower bit-rates at all?
This is another way to get you to "upgrade" your music collection. This is business meant to screw you over (what portable players play non-DRM AAC the don't play DRM AAC anyway?). This is not a victory, or at least one not as large as the kiddies would have you think.
Paying for your consumer rights considered dangerous
It affects the definition of software. MS is saying that the contents of an installation disc are not software until they are installed (or run maybe). The GPL says you cannot distribute GPLed *software* with non-GPLed software.
But the contents of your installation CD, if MS wins on those grounds, wouldn't be software. Thus the GPLs restriction on distribution of software is moot. A lot of stuff would be moot. There is a legal question in the court of what is patentable, but also of what "software" means.
You should read the article. It's an amazing paraphrase of a scene that must have had Microsoft's attorneys shitting their pants
Justice Breyer realized. "I take it that we are operating under the assumption that software is patentable? We have never held that in this Court, have we?" he asked." That was not where they were going. MS argued that:
For foreign replication to work, a golden disk is shipped abroad to the replication service, containing the master of the Vista operating system that includes AT&T's drivers. It's not software at that point, Olson says, because no one can execute it. When it's installed onto a hard drive, then it becomes software, and it's the end customer who does that. Now, I see three outcomes.
A) Court says SW patents are unconstitutional. yeah right:-p.
B) Court says SW patents are constitutional, MS wins and nothing changes too much.
C) Court says a disc which is an installer is analogous to a "blueprint" and is not the same as a SW patent (and thus dodges the SW patent question). Everything explodes, GPL and non-GPL software living on the same installation CD (read: legal for nvidia drives to be distributed).
But really, read up. The killer quotes?
Justice Souter would not have the discussion divert into the patentability of photons. "Let's just take the master disk and forget the photon for the moment," and
AT&T is willing to concede that software isn't patentable, if the Court will conclude that the things that software does - the methods and procedures and instructions that a processor carries out once software is installed - are patentable. baazing! WTF is the difference?! Who knows!!!!
Why are people complaining about IE only? A) What did you expect, and B) Google's offering is a standalone app you need to install, and wasn't available for Linux for a long time. What's with the double standard here, partial browser compatability wins over a standalone installed app in my book. Maybe I'm just suprised at the reactions b/c I'm a Linux user and can't use most Google apps on release already, but this isn't really that suprising.
Come on/. crew, bash it on grounds of something, but being IE only isn't the anti-killer feature here.
Re:Seems an obvious patent
on
Talking iPods
·
· Score: 1
Indeed. I was playing with that concept some 15 years ago on a Commodore Amiga, and back then it wasn't a new concept either.
I haven't RTFA, but I've been a fan of the Homeless Guy blog for a while now (he mentions being included in the Wired article). His site is at http://thehomelessguy.blogspot.com/, he's living in Nashville, TN right now. He has many enlightening comments on who makes up the homeless population, how politics and "aid" affect them, and the impact of stereotypes. A good read.
I deals more with streaming than anything else. It provides licenses for:
1. One form and agency will be the only licensing method any non-dramatic musical work.
2. Incidental copies (in ram, buffers, etc) are covered under a royalty-free single license (possibly with an administrative charge).
a. an alternative suggestion is to waive any license for intermediate copies under a statute.
3. the Copyright Royalty Board will set royalty rates for existing and new digital medias (and may set them at zero value, ala incidental licenses)
4. If a royalty rate has _not_ been set for a media, the licensing body may still issue licenses, and the CRB may retroactively set rates. The aim is to make legal distrobution possible before red tape is finished, to combat (neccessary) infringement in new technologies.
5. there is no provision that addresses how royalties are to be distributed by designated agents to copyright owners. This should be addressed in statues accomponying the bill, and should not be left to the designated licensing agent (conflict of interest concerns).
Thats pretty much it. Most seems harmless, although I wonder who the CRB is made up of, govm't? RIAA? Public Oversight Committee (ha!)? The blanket royalty rate thing also is a _little_ spooky, it means all songs have the same royalty percentage (if I understand correctly), which seems to feed into the commoditization of music (personally, I am of the opinion that single-price markets destroy the incentive for labels and musicians to create truely original works). On point two, that's an administrative nightmare, so I'm hoping the alternative is strongly suggested or codified.
Basically, not _nearly_ as bad as slash and boingboing made it out to be, though truthfully this summary is from the proposal, not the actual letter of the law (and IANAL, though I am/have been a professional programmer, audio engineer, musician, and copyright geek).
I just noticed, GOOGLE has a link to SEARCH THE WEB in gmail.....and it links to GOOGLE's SEARCH!!!11 I bet they arn't paying themselves hard cash for that....the insanity.....
Google asserts that "The best way to handle the search box [...] would be to give users a choice when they first start up Internet Explorer 7."
Yeah, that's exactly what I want when I start using a browser, a popup window asking me which coporate giant I want to control a tiny feature I (as an average user) will probably never use. I _real_ sure FF's creative commons search wouldn't be there anymore, nor any other communitiy feature.
Look, Google, I know this sucks for you, but the users come first. Badgering them is not the solution to your business complaints. What ever happened to the guys who came up with "I'm Feeling Lucky"?
Sorry, MS wins this round. Atleast until somone comes up with a better solution that grants choice without destroying convenience, which is the whole point of the search box feature.
Our goal is to organize all of the world's information.
There is a very fine line between organization and control. By sheer classification and by deciding interfaces and limits on how to access that information, you exert a signifigant amount of control over perception and equal ease of access to biased sources. What happens when you _have_ all the world's information indexed?
</tinfoil_hat>
And for the umpteenth time, your goal is to maximize shareholder profits (which arguable, may or may not be monetary).
I hit the back button and it brought me back to your comment, not where I expected to be.
Yeah. Back buttons are on the features list for web 2.1:-(. I do think you can skip around chapters, I beleive it's described on the first page you arrive at (but maybe that was just on why's blog).
But really, last time I saw this discussion this: http://map.search.ch/index.en.html was pointed out by one of the authors as an app that tried to use AJAX and keep the browser forward/back button concept functional. Try zooming and dragging the map around, you can still go back to previous states you had the map in. Google maps ain't everything:-), and we always have room to make things better.
I'm curious to know whether there is a commercial equivalent to Ruby on Rails.
Well, if you mean a commercial equivelent in ruby, then no. I guess there might be a Java framework of some kind, but that's not really my realm. Furthermore, rails is licensed under the MIT license: http://dev.rubyonrails.org/svn/rails/trunk/railtie s/MIT-LICENSE. This means you can already "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell" rails. I'm not sure what advantage you would get over rails from a commercial equivelent, unless it was technically superior in some way.
I heartily suggest that the curious among you check out http://tryruby.hobix.com/. It's a great, quick interactive introduction to ruby. You can kick around the tires (so to speak) without needing to do anything more than visit the webpage. It's a great language with or without rails.
Also a great example of Ajaxy goodness, not to buzzword it too much. It's written by the affluent and creative why. Check out his neat-o blog too: http://redhanded.hobix.com/
So, since MS is keeping Sony from installing their "DRM" spy^H^H^Hsoftware, you can say they are circumventing Sony's DRM software, PLAINLY against the DMCA. The only question is.....who do we cheer for when evil sues evil over evil with evil laws?
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T holds a patent on an apparatus for digitally encoding and compressing recorded speech.
Hot, that means I can write white-room version of an MP3 encoder and distribute it lawfully, I simply cannot install it and use it. (It's an example, ignore the foreign patent implications of MP3 and the DMCA reverse-eng possibilities.)
On page 3 the court reiterates a precedent from Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp that states it is "not an infringement to make or use a patented product outside of the United States". Nice. Amazon can't go after peeps outside the US over patents (well, duh, but still, good to say it again). On page 5 the court goes over a law Congress made in response to that stopping exports of multiple pieces with no other use than to create an infringing whole. Still nice for US extraterritorials.
Seems the decision and Stevens's dissent focus on whether software is analogous to blueprints or components, hinging on the language of Deepsouth.
-mix
So Yay, DRM-free, goody gumdrops.
Ok, brass tacks. I track music, I mix music. I have worked at big mastering studios. I'm no platinum producer, but I have worked on things on iTunes. I've watched artists come into a mastering studio and listen for balance and tone, producers bring 8 versions of a song and stems to find the right sound. Basically, I've seen lots of people _care_ about how their art sounds.
No artist would ever want their fans to be tiered into those who get to hear their art how they intended, and those who get to hear it how they sort-of intend it. Sorry, but I think the DRM-free fanboys have forgotten where they put it. It's still insane that you become a second-class (or third now!) citizen of art if you cant afford it. If this music is now DRM-free, where's the argument for the lower bit-rates still being DRM encrusted? What's the argument for the lower bit-rates at all?
This is another way to get you to "upgrade" your music collection. This is business meant to screw you over (what portable players play non-DRM AAC the don't play DRM AAC anyway?). This is not a victory, or at least one not as large as the kiddies would have you think.
Paying for your consumer rights considered dangerous
-mix
1 Billion bucks? Could you _please_ pick a number that is at least related to what you're suing over?
It affects the definition of software. MS is saying that the contents of an installation disc are not software until they are installed (or run maybe). The GPL says you cannot distribute GPLed *software* with non-GPLed software.
But the contents of your installation CD, if MS wins on those grounds, wouldn't be software. Thus the GPLs restriction on distribution of software is moot. A lot of stuff would be moot. There is a legal question in the court of what is patentable, but also of what "software" means.
IANAL, obviously.
-mix
You should read the article. It's an amazing paraphrase of a scene that must have had Microsoft's attorneys shitting their pants Justice Breyer realized. "I take it that we are operating under the assumption that software is patentable? We have never held that in this Court, have we?" he asked." That was not where they were going. MS argued that: For foreign replication to work, a golden disk is shipped abroad to the replication service, containing the master of the Vista operating system that includes AT&T's drivers. It's not software at that point, Olson says, because no one can execute it. When it's installed onto a hard drive, then it becomes software, and it's the end customer who does that. Now, I see three outcomes.
A) Court says SW patents are unconstitutional. yeah right
B) Court says SW patents are constitutional, MS wins and nothing changes too much.
C) Court says a disc which is an installer is analogous to a "blueprint" and is not the same as a SW patent (and thus dodges the SW patent question). Everything explodes, GPL and non-GPL software living on the same installation CD (read: legal for nvidia drives to be distributed).
But really, read up. The killer quotes? Justice Souter would not have the discussion divert into the patentability of photons. "Let's just take the master disk and forget the photon for the moment," and AT&T is willing to concede that software isn't patentable, if the Court will conclude that the things that software does - the methods and procedures and instructions that a processor carries out once software is installed - are patentable. baazing! WTF is the difference?! Who knows!!!!
-mix
Heh, see, even Linus has gone Agile. New-wave 2.0 web developers rejoice! :-)
I'll bite:
/. crew, bash it on grounds of something, but being IE only isn't the anti-killer feature here.
Why are people complaining about IE only? A) What did you expect, and B) Google's offering is a standalone app you need to install, and wasn't available for Linux for a long time. What's with the double standard here, partial browser compatability wins over a standalone installed app in my book. Maybe I'm just suprised at the reactions b/c I'm a Linux user and can't use most Google apps on release already, but this isn't really that suprising.
Come on
Indeed. I was playing with that concept some 15 years ago on a Commodore Amiga, and back then it wasn't a new concept either.
God is there nothing you people can't do?
I haven't RTFA, but I've been a fan of the Homeless Guy blog for a while now (he mentions being included in the Wired article). His site is at http://thehomelessguy.blogspot.com/, he's living in Nashville, TN right now. He has many enlightening comments on who makes up the homeless population, how politics and "aid" affect them, and the impact of stereotypes. A good read.
-mix
I've been waiting to get ACPI cpu-scaling un-broken, In theory this release provides that fix. Any other popular/big fixes out there?
-mix
Here:
s ings/SIRAof2006DiscussionDraft.pdf
http://media-cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/gems/cmu
and a summary (actually an initial proposal),
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html
I deals more with streaming than anything else. It provides licenses for:
1. One form and agency will be the only licensing method any non-dramatic musical work.
2. Incidental copies (in ram, buffers, etc) are covered under a royalty-free single license (possibly with an administrative charge).
a. an alternative suggestion is to waive any license for intermediate copies under a statute.
3. the Copyright Royalty Board will set royalty rates for existing and new digital medias (and may set them at zero value, ala incidental licenses)
4. If a royalty rate has _not_ been set for a media, the licensing body may still issue licenses, and the CRB may retroactively set rates. The aim is to make legal distrobution possible before red tape is finished, to combat (neccessary) infringement in new technologies.
5. there is no provision that addresses how royalties are to be distributed by designated agents to copyright owners. This should be addressed in statues accomponying the bill, and should not be left to the designated licensing agent (conflict of interest concerns).
Thats pretty much it. Most seems harmless, although I wonder who the CRB is made up of, govm't? RIAA? Public Oversight Committee (ha!)? The blanket royalty rate thing also is a _little_ spooky, it means all songs have the same royalty percentage (if I understand correctly), which seems to feed into the commoditization of music (personally, I am of the opinion that single-price markets destroy the incentive for labels and musicians to create truely original works). On point two, that's an administrative nightmare, so I'm hoping the alternative is strongly suggested or codified.
Basically, not _nearly_ as bad as slash and boingboing made it out to be, though truthfully this summary is from the proposal, not the actual letter of the law (and IANAL, though I am/have been a professional programmer, audio engineer, musician, and copyright geek).
GUYS!
I just noticed, GOOGLE has a link to SEARCH THE WEB in gmail.....and it links to GOOGLE's SEARCH!!!11 I bet they arn't paying themselves hard cash for that....the insanity.....
Google asserts that "The best way to handle the search box [...] would be to give users a choice when they first start up Internet Explorer 7."
Yeah, that's exactly what I want when I start using a browser, a popup window asking me which coporate giant I want to control a tiny feature I (as an average user) will probably never use. I _real_ sure FF's creative commons search wouldn't be there anymore, nor any other communitiy feature.
Look, Google, I know this sucks for you, but the users come first. Badgering them is not the solution to your business complaints. What ever happened to the guys who came up with "I'm Feeling Lucky"?
Sorry, MS wins this round. Atleast until somone comes up with a better solution that grants choice without destroying convenience, which is the whole point of the search box feature.
-mix
...and get the Karma...but I'm so fucking shocked confused and angry. What the hell?
-mix
Ok, time to get april 1st started:
Story contains "OMG": 1 shot
Story contains Google, MS: get a beer
Zonk says something foolish: shot of beer
SLOW DOWN DAAMMIY!!11ToO muCh..1!!lk21;l1k
So I looked at this initially with the same elitism and disdain of any slashdotter...but take a look at this link of google: http://www.google.com/finance?q=google&btnG=Search &hl=en
Ignore the stupid sliders, and maybe yahoo already did all this but...
- Flags on signifigant news and where it fell on the stock's timeline, COOL
- Blog posts about the company, ties into the current buzz, COOL
- Hooks into google groups to see discussions going on about said company, COOL
Simply a great way to see where a company is both financially, and in the net community's eyes. Simple, but neat.
Oh, and check out Viacom: http://www.google.com/finance?cid=703770
The blog posts about tom cruise and south park? see, that is damn cool.
-mix
Our goal is to organize all of the world's information.
There is a very fine line between organization and control. By sheer classification and by deciding interfaces and limits on how to access that information, you exert a signifigant amount of control over perception and equal ease of access to biased sources. What happens when you _have_ all the world's information indexed?
</tinfoil_hat>
And for the umpteenth time, your goal is to maximize shareholder profits (which arguable, may or may not be monetary).
Old coders don't die, they just de-compile.
*hyuck* -mix
Yeah. Back buttons are on the features list for web 2.1
But really, last time I saw this discussion this: http://map.search.ch/index.en.html was pointed out by one of the authors as an app that tried to use AJAX and keep the browser forward/back button concept functional. Try zooming and dragging the map around, you can still go back to previous states you had the map in. Google maps ain't everything
-mix
Well, if you mean a commercial equivelent in ruby, then no. I guess there might be a Java framework of some kind, but that's not really my realm. Furthermore, rails is licensed under the MIT license: http://dev.rubyonrails.org/svn/rails/trunk/railti
http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/pages/Available
-mix
Actually, the new design is the opposite of pastels and rounded corners, it's alot of empty whitespace and Georgia font. Being web 1.0 is so web 2.0.
;-), was I too obvious? )
(I actually like the old design more
-mix
I heartily suggest that the curious among you check out http://tryruby.hobix.com/. It's a great, quick interactive introduction to ruby. You can kick around the tires (so to speak) without needing to do anything more than visit the webpage. It's a great language with or without rails.
Also a great example of Ajaxy goodness, not to buzzword it too much. It's written by the affluent and creative why. Check out his neat-o blog too: http://redhanded.hobix.com/
-mix
Neat!
So, since MS is keeping Sony from installing their "DRM" spy^H^H^Hsoftware, you can say they are circumventing Sony's DRM software, PLAINLY against the DMCA. The only question is.....who do we cheer for when evil sues evil over evil with evil laws?
-mix
Maybe this explains the 8333% increase in email virii on our (relativly small) hosting cluster yesterday?
-mix
Is it cooler to pretend to be a geek (wear 'Save Pedro' shirts, etc.) than to really be one?
;-) -mix
heh, what a geek.