I've read several articles in recent months that pretty much state that Hollywood relies on the first weekend bump to make back production costs, even on crapola movies.
You can read The Age's version, which reports that exact effect as "buying your gross".
Funny how the first definition is accurate, but the second definition is the complete opposite.
If you're refering to the fit of the definition to the current state of the court case, you just haven't waited long enough. Right before anyone gets to a judge (or was it right before they get a judgement?), you'll see those who have so far absconded their arguments themselves abscond.
3. Alternatively, impose fees only on rejected patents.
For maximum results, retain the filing fee but implement a return policy for granted patents. This way there is no appearance of bias. (Sure, there is a bias, but it's less obvious than "file for free, pay if you fail".)
It's a shame that there is no decent, centralized place on the net for intelligent discussion. It's one of the biggest losses to humanity in recent years.
Bub, you're looking in the wrong place. What makes you think there is intelligence on the Internet? Case in point: Slashdot. "News for Nerds". You'd expect this to be intelligent conversation, right? Well, read at -1 threaded by date, and you've got a web-enabled USENET (it even has the same troll / spam ratio).
back then, shareware was just about the same as public domain in most people's minds
I hope you aren't trying to assert that this has magically improved since then... it seems (judging from P2P) that people now draw very little difference between copyright and public domain.
I will agree that a casual glance would lead anyone to conclude there is a singularity to be reached, but you ignored my final statement -- which I based my selection of examples around. The historical examples cited: writing, mobile print, computers -- are technologies that accelerate learning and sharing of information. There was little change in the pace of development between the Egyptians and Gutenburg: the slowest element in the storage and distrobution of knowledge was writing it down or verbally sharing. Then as the printing press became widespread, the hold back was distrobution. Over the years as simple improvements in transportation distrobution likewise improved, until computers accelerated distrobution capacity to beyond what anyone could have imagined, and the pace of advancement still has not overwhelmed us -- because the very technology that increases the pace of advancement increases our pace of acclimation.
My Gnutella node was loaded down with Linux ISOs, Cygwin software, and free ebooks (mainly PG texts). I say was because when this announcement came out, I decided getting caught in the crossfire was too high a risk (even if my offerings are 100% legitimate) and removed myself from the P2P scene. Given the RIAA's violent thrashings here -- for example, suing the college students for running mere indexing services -- I'm standing as far back as I can to watch the dinosaur's death throes. I'm sure I am not alone in that attitude, and the P2P traffic went up 10% anyway. I'm sure when you start seeing the stories entitled such things as "10,000 file traders arrested" we'll start seeing the boycott movement start in earnest.
This online book seems to do what you're asking for.
There Is No Singularity
on
Science Faction
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Will all do respect to Verner Vinge, I think this article is proof that there is no "technological Singularity" (a point where the pace of change is so rapid it is overwhelming).
Neanderthals could not envision a written word, although the Egyptians could. But the Egyptians could not envision movable type; eventually Gutenburg did. For Gutenburg, a "computer" refered to a person doing math, and was not a machine. In the '70s as computers began marching into many businesses, people cosidered cloning, quantum computing, nanotechnology, and many other things "sci fi" -- and yet they are developing now, for potential release within our lifetimes.
The pace of change over the past 100 years makes me unwilling to forecast what would come 50 or 100 years from now. Indeed, to the Neanderthal, Egyptian or even Gutenburg, the pace of our change would be beyond their tech horizon: their world was far more static and unchanging. Yet the changes over the past year -- or over the past 50 years -- have not overwhelming. The so-called "technological singularity" is not an event horizon, a point-of-no-return beyond which all natural law changes, but a traditional horizon, a permanently receeding point beyond which our future predictions become rapidly more hazy. This article helps show that we will always be able to see some distance ahead, be it only a few decades, and the change will not become instantly overwhelming. Indeed, the pace of change is limited by the ability of society to teach new thinkers what is currently the state-of-art level, and whatever technologies we invent to increase the pace of learning will also assist in increasing the pace of acclimation.
Federal laws prohibits solicitations to any line where the customer is charged for receiving the call, such as some cellular calling plans, with a fine of $500 (or damages, if greater) per incident. See http://www.usavetelecom.com/stoptelemarketers.html for more details. YMMV.
SCO's main thrust here is that every modern OS since SysV violates SCO's "intellectual property." If they do the same things that SysV could, they're infringing.
If that's true it's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. POSIX is a published standard (IEEE 1003) and as such those concepts cannot be "trade secrets" (they're definitely not secret). Anyway, in the interview - you did RTA, right? -- Darrl says it's all all about the code, not about UNIX methods.
He used the example of a Brazilian bank that was able to retrofit its old cashpoint hardware with inexpensive Linux software as an alternative to purchasing expensive software licenses and new machines. Because open-source software is in the public domain, support was provided by local engineers, creating Brazilian jobs, Hall said.
I am normally pretty calm about errors of fact, but this one made me see some red. Open source software is in fact copywrighted, and not in the public domain. Just because the author is willing to release many of the protections of copyright does not force it into the public domain. (IOW, the choice of "closed & copyright v. open & public domain" is a false dichotomy.) Making statements like the above would suggest to people who don't actually know better -- managers, for example -- that it is perfectly safe to include GPL software into their product, and ignore the source distrobution requirements. Could someone who was there please tell us if this was, in fact, what was said or if this is a misquote?
Likewise, is there any reason that SCO could not write up a contract with a customer requiring that the customer not redistribute the code? If so, why is this situation different from the employee's situation?
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Once SCO gives the code to anyone who is not a part of SCO -- to wit, they distribute the code -- they are bound by the GPL and may not limit their customers' excercise of any GPL rights. That difference is simple: internal use by employees is not distrobution, so contract clauses between the employer and employee can prevent all distrobution; however, once the code has been released once, it is released for good.
The interpretation that "the GPL holds that IP SCO allows to be used by a select few must be freely released to any and all" is simplistic at best, and I think it's specifically, explicitly incorrect.... If someone is going to make a claim like that, they ought to quote the relevant clause from the GPL.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Not to me. I look and I see a list of distributors (DVD or VHS or whatever, doesn't matter) and question why this film is different from, say, The Matrix.
The only way you're going to convince me that this film is not in the public domain is to show me a page that quotes chapter and verse of German copyright that proves this film is still under copyright.
By the Berne convention of international copyright law, any original work is protected. Even "works" as trivia as a picture of paint splotches or a recording of white noise. If you can "fix in some material form", it's automatically copyrighted. And of course, when someone converts a video from analog to digital, some amount of noise is added by your equipment. That random variation could itself be a protected "work".
I call bullshit. (Not against your argument -- I now see where you are indeed [more] correct in your interpretation of the law -- but that is not what the law was meant to protect.) The Berne convention -- especially clauses 3 and 5 -- rankles with me no end.
You know, I just realized why so many media companies are pushing for expirational media. If new releases -- a "director's cut" or "digitally restored" footage -- qualifies for copyright, then all the media companies must do is force an expiration on all of their products that is less than the protection, and then noone else is ever capable of distributing the work.
So the only way for me to get a public domain book is to have a physical copy of it, and not even a digital conversion such as that done by Project Gutenburg will suffice?
What I have is in a natty yellow case and is put out by a "Madacy Entertainment". Public domain (unrestored footage), and very poor video in general, but it was only $5.
I'd be interested to see how someone could argue that the GPL can extend to "binary patches", whereas the movie studios have no control over "DVD patches".
How about this argument: a executable patch is a permanent -- often irreversbile -- change, whereas CleanFlick's alterations file allows an alteration to the program without permanent change... more akin to using dynamic linked libraries than actually patching the program file. Since, in both cases, there is a 'core' file (such as the Linux kernel), which is only altered "during performance", so to speak, alongside the 'optional' data file doing such runtime alterations (such as a binary, non-GPL module), I would say that we already have a clear example of how that point could be argued.
I own a copy of Fritz Lang's Metropolis on a DVD. The film footage of this movie is in the public domain (there was no original audio track). Because this film is CSS encoded, the DMCA makes it a crime for me to copy this film for others (doing so is an illegal violation of the copy protection).
Could someone please explain to me what good I (as the end consumer) should see in this law? All I see right now is greedy media companies trying to loophole themselves eternal copyrights (or any effective analog) of a sort that independent creators are prevented from sharing that term of protection. They are using otherwise reasonable-sounding arguments -- such as "director's vision" in the case against CleanFlicks or the (now tired) complaint of piracy against Studio 321, and at one time I might have found myself agreeing with those complaints -- but when I realized that they are pushing a campaign for eternal control of media even to the destruction of fair use ("it's not a sale, it's a licensing -- laws reguarding sales do not apply"[link goes to a.PDF]) and that they refuse any middle ground or quid pro quo, those arguments lost all meaning with me. I fear that the DMCA may create a modern, digital stationer's guild, and the thought that the *AA may have exactly that in mind frightens me.
Not paying your fees and watching a DVD on Linux? Well that's illegal.
Just curious here, but what viewing fees did you have in mind about watching DVDs? Do you mean the fees that are paid by the software authors, or some fee I have never heard of that is paid by the end user?
Slashdot Mirror
Bravo for Google News, I say!
I believe that in the Lindows suit Microsoft essentially lost their trademark on "Windows" as being too generic.
This is an article on how PKZip is trying to get a patent on something for which many people could claim prior art.
I will agree that a casual glance would lead anyone to conclude there is a singularity to be reached, but you ignored my final statement -- which I based my selection of examples around. The historical examples cited: writing, mobile print, computers -- are technologies that accelerate learning and sharing of information. There was little change in the pace of development between the Egyptians and Gutenburg: the slowest element in the storage and distrobution of knowledge was writing it down or verbally sharing. Then as the printing press became widespread, the hold back was distrobution. Over the years as simple improvements in transportation distrobution likewise improved, until computers accelerated distrobution capacity to beyond what anyone could have imagined, and the pace of advancement still has not overwhelmed us -- because the very technology that increases the pace of advancement increases our pace of acclimation.
My Gnutella node was loaded down with Linux ISOs, Cygwin software, and free ebooks (mainly PG texts). I say was because when this announcement came out, I decided getting caught in the crossfire was too high a risk (even if my offerings are 100% legitimate) and removed myself from the P2P scene. Given the RIAA's violent thrashings here -- for example, suing the college students for running mere indexing services -- I'm standing as far back as I can to watch the dinosaur's death throes. I'm sure I am not alone in that attitude, and the P2P traffic went up 10% anyway. I'm sure when you start seeing the stories entitled such things as "10,000 file traders arrested" we'll start seeing the boycott movement start in earnest.
This online book seems to do what you're asking for.
Neanderthals could not envision a written word, although the Egyptians could. But the Egyptians could not envision movable type; eventually Gutenburg did. For Gutenburg, a "computer" refered to a person doing math, and was not a machine. In the '70s as computers began marching into many businesses, people cosidered cloning, quantum computing, nanotechnology, and many other things "sci fi" -- and yet they are developing now, for potential release within our lifetimes.
The pace of change over the past 100 years makes me unwilling to forecast what would come 50 or 100 years from now. Indeed, to the Neanderthal, Egyptian or even Gutenburg, the pace of our change would be beyond their tech horizon: their world was far more static and unchanging. Yet the changes over the past year -- or over the past 50 years -- have not overwhelming. The so-called "technological singularity" is not an event horizon, a point-of-no-return beyond which all natural law changes, but a traditional horizon, a permanently receeding point beyond which our future predictions become rapidly more hazy. This article helps show that we will always be able to see some distance ahead, be it only a few decades, and the change will not become instantly overwhelming. Indeed, the pace of change is limited by the ability of society to teach new thinkers what is currently the state-of-art level, and whatever technologies we invent to increase the pace of learning will also assist in increasing the pace of acclimation.
Instead, copyright the musical tones that are played by the act of dialing your number, then go RIAA all over their asses.
Federal laws prohibits solicitations to any line where the customer is charged for receiving the call, such as some cellular calling plans, with a fine of $500 (or damages, if greater) per incident. See http://www.usavetelecom.com/stoptelemarketers.html for more details. YMMV.
Once SCO gives the code to anyone who is not a part of SCO -- to wit, they distribute the code -- they are bound by the GPL and may not limit their customers' excercise of any GPL rights. That difference is simple: internal use by employees is not distrobution, so contract clauses between the employer and employee can prevent all distrobution; however, once the code has been released once, it is released for good.
Clear enough for you?
The only way you're going to convince me that this film is not in the public domain is to show me a page that quotes chapter and verse of German copyright that proves this film is still under copyright.
You know, I just realized why so many media companies are pushing for expirational media. If new releases -- a "director's cut" or "digitally restored" footage -- qualifies for copyright, then all the media companies must do is force an expiration on all of their products that is less than the protection, and then noone else is ever capable of distributing the work.
Very clever. Very, very clever....
Nice troll. Too bad you are wrong, wrong wrong.
I think the film is in the public domain because for what other reason would there be so many varied distributors for just the US listed on IMDB?
What I have is in a natty yellow case and is put out by a "Madacy Entertainment". Public domain (unrestored footage), and very poor video in general, but it was only $5.
Could someone please explain to me what good I (as the end consumer) should see in this law? All I see right now is greedy media companies trying to loophole themselves eternal copyrights (or any effective analog) of a sort that independent creators are prevented from sharing that term of protection. They are using otherwise reasonable-sounding arguments -- such as "director's vision" in the case against CleanFlicks or the (now tired) complaint of piracy against Studio 321, and at one time I might have found myself agreeing with those complaints -- but when I realized that they are pushing a campaign for eternal control of media even to the destruction of fair use ("it's not a sale, it's a licensing -- laws reguarding sales do not apply"[link goes to a .PDF]) and that they refuse any middle ground or quid pro quo, those arguments lost all meaning with me. I fear that the DMCA may create a modern, digital stationer's guild, and the thought that the *AA may have exactly that in mind frightens me.
Just curious here, but what viewing fees did you have in mind about watching DVDs? Do you mean the fees that are paid by the software authors, or some fee I have never heard of that is paid by the end user?