I believe they want to charge cab drivers because taxi services are businesses that make money. By playing the radio, you are "enhancing" the taxi ride experience, and the music industry thinks they should be compensated.
But the reasoning is obviously flawed. I mean I am not sure what Finnish definition of business is but, my understanding is everything could be described as a business:
- Driving your clients to lunch - you'd better turn that radio off or you'd be enhancing your clients' experience without paying to support those needy artists.
- Any commercial use of a vehicle equipped with a radio and/or stereo systems - they could go after each commercially registered vehicle and force owners to pay royalties to starving artists; after all, they can't enhance their drivers' experience while doing their evil commercial money-making business activities without at least sharing their revenue with those on the verge of dying of starvation who created wonderful pieces of art.
- Radios, CD players, etc. at workplace - obvious one, you make money, you allow your employees to enhance their experience while at it, pay up!
- God forbid you are self-employed - then you are the definition of business; they'll create separate licensing plan for this case. I mean come on, how can self-employed people sit and listen to music without paying extra? Those pirates!
Seriously now, I believe this copyright crap has gone way overboard long ago. I believe the original intent of COPY-right was to grant content creator a right to be a monopoly for creating *copies* of his/her creation. As copyright law is interpreted today in most places, the creator of content does not have ANY rights to his/her creations, rather these rights are in the hands of distributors and promoters.
As a further blow to the original intent of copy-right, it is not about copies anymore. There are no copies of any content created in a taxi cab. If taxi drivers were recording songs and giving the tapes to their customers those morons would have a point. If taxi drivers were actively selling the said content they would have a point. Radio signal is available to public, and it is meant to be heard by public whether on or off private property. If they have an issue with the radio signal as a medium they should not sell to and allow radio stations to transmit their content.
(f ) Reverse Engineering.--(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that the case should be thrown out.
I am not a lawyer either but the way that clause is interpreted depends on your interpretation of "availability" and "interoperability" right in this phrase:... that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person...
One interpretation could say that if you can play DVDs without cracking them then cracking them is illegal. Then you say - "but I can't play them on Linux". The answer: "But you can play them on PC". In other words, if the solution is made available to you, whether it incurs cost on your part or not, you have to use that solution.
Now, of course, the other extreme of interpretations is that you can define "interoperability" the way you want. So, for example, you should always be allowed to crack any DVD because you want it to be interoperable with some bogus 10-line software you have created.
Guess which side the courts will take. Who paid for the law?
This is a targeted marketing attempt towards businesses that heavily rely on advertizing revenue in exchange for bandwidth; maybe includes some free pr0n sites and similar free or low charge services. Obviously calling pop-up and cookie blocking "theft" is a promotional strategy. Everybody gets excited, people who need to notice the commercial do, and buy the service.
If this held any water as far as stealing is concerned in legal terms, it would, of course be a disaster for everyone. It would be illegal to have cookies and Javascript turned off? Then where would it stop? Maybe they could also require flash (for more appeal), Java, and AvtiveX. So not running Windows or software of web site operator's choosing could be equal to stealing. What if some features are not available to me?
Could I, in turn, sue them back for not using standard XHTML that does not validate through W3C's specification, and, thereby "stealing" the content from me that I would otherwise enjoy? That would be about, oh, 99.999% of websites I imagine.
So, yeah, the idea behind this terminology is ridiculous, but it serves their marketing purpose, I imagine.
I dunno', maybe this digital-rights-management stuff isn't so bad -- it lets me prove that what's mine is mine.
Also, with DRM I can by doctrine of first-sale (which says that you can't impose limitations on what I do with a CD once I've bought it, including restrictions on who I resell the whole package to) says that I can buy someone's scratched CD "virtually" at half.com, and then, owning that CD, I have fair-use rights to the content on it.
I think you are a little bit confused on what the DRM's intents are. They do not intend to sell you the DRMed content. They do intend to sell you any medium on which the content is stored (if any), and give you the license to listen or otherwise enjoy the DRMed content:
- during specific time period, or time(s), - on designated hardware and software only (w/additional software licensing fees) - leaving the seller or the licensor the full discretion to either charge you for, or simply and most likely not allow you to do anything else with the content, including but not limited to, litening or enjoying content when you want to, where you want to, sharing the content with friends, changing medium on which content is stored, etc.
The sooner we have ubiquitous digital rights management, the sooner my audio software can play anything that exists in the world, by buying it at $4.04 when I begin to listen to it and selling it at $4.04 +/- 0.04 when I'm done.
I can tell you right now that if such a DRM system would exist, YOU would NOT be the seller, YOU would be the consumer or a licensee. Let's be clear on this one.
There were some GPL violation issues recently with XBox Media Player but they have apparently now been resolved
Still not resolved with the old source code that was violating GPL from ffmpeg and xvid. If you read the mplayer website:
Their reasoning: the Win32 version that is/was available for download at http://xboxmediaplayer.com was an older version which didn't contain ffmpeg or xvid, and has non-GPL license, equipped with a DivX3 decoder which was 20-30% faster (!) than ffmpeg. Well that's what they say. Unfortunately, the source of that version was lost (??!!).
They also insist on us providing an apology. For what? They nuked any topic on their forum which was discussing GPL. The homepage did not contain enough information about licenses - only the success story of porting ffmpeg and xvid..
And the "losing" of the old source.. Either way, let's hope they are more tolerant to (L)GPL licenses now.
They took the code, distributed it violating both GPL and copyright, came up with lame excuses, conveniently "lost" the source code, and now demand an apology? Gimme a break! The only apology they get is "I'm sorry I won't go near your products for quite a while because I don't trust you!"
Washington DC - U.S. Department of Justice has just sent e-mails and fax letters to suspected terrorists all over the world warning them that the acts of terrorism are also illegal under the DMCA. The official hard copy letter will follow soon, announced the DOJ spokesperson.
Given the ease with which anyone can be charged with a DMCA violation as well as severe penalties that follow conviction, it is widely speculated that Justice Department will use this law to combat terrorism worldwide even more effectively.
"It's great that our government is doing its best against terrorism," - said Nancy from Virginia, - "if this law will help them prosecute these people, yeah, they definitely should use it."
Meanwhile, Congress, RIAA and its member companies are expected to show wide support to the DOJ on these issues. Nation's lawmakers promise to further improve security and economic stability through such laws as the DMCA. For example, several sources report that Senator Hollings is hard at work to propose an enhanced addition to the current DMCA which would create a central database of suspected DMCA violators. The database would be made up mostly by suspects entered by RIAA and MPAA. This database would then be used for background checks at video, audio, and rental stores when consumers purchase entertainment products. If, for example, someone fails a background check, the product they are trying to buy will cost 80-95% more.
"I think it's fair" - said Joe from Chicago, - "I don't steal any CDs or DVDs, so I don't want to pay more just because other people steal and companies lose billions in revenue. This way, people who steal will pay more to make up the losses, and I'll get the fair price."
And Joe is not alone. Lisa from Kansas also believes that "if you don't steal and have nothing to hide, you are fine, I fully support it." Gallup polls have shown over the years that people believe "stealing is wrong." Senator Hollings' law will give yet another weapon to the government and American businesses to defend and protect the nation from terrorists and DMCA violators. The law is expected to pass overwhelmingly both in the House and the Senate by unanimous consent.
Maybe competitors will crack each others DRM systems to prove them insecure and "leak" code through 14-year-old kids in northern europe.
Competitors? I thought it was the function of the RIAA (and similar groups worldwide) to make sure there are no competitors and/or competition.
While it looks like this is another DRM solution, I don't think it will matter much for consumers. Nothing will prevent both DRM implementations to interoperate within each other and/or charge additional fees to consumers for such interoperation.
Most casual users probably don't even consider the possibility of their address being harvested from other places, such as chat rooms.
I don't believe this. They have to know. Common sense should tell anyone that if you give someone else your information, they will be able to record that information; doesn't matter if it's credit card number, e-mail address, social security number, or mother's maiden name. If they do know enough not to give out their mailing address, SSN, and mother's maiden name to complete strangers online, then they should treat their e-mail addresses no differently.
Now, you may say that giving out SSN is more dangerous than giving out e-mail, but mere knowledge of this fact by any user proves their awareness of their actions.
(Illegal I know, you are supposed to pay it yourself in april...)
any state that adopts or joins this will kill the Ecommerce in their state.
First of all, I thought April was the income tax deadline, sales taxes are due at the end of each month.
Second, I can't access the article (WP/.ed?) but who are we going to pay the sales tax to? To the seller's or buyer's jurisdiction? Both? What about individual counties? Will they be able to add on their share?
So... how about setting up separate banks of computers in the library instead? One could be completely unfiltered, and accessible only to adults, and the other could be in the children's section, with filtered access, and hopefully a requirement that parents actively supervise their children's web-surfing.
While it is appropriate to think about different compromise solutions to any issue like this, your approach concerns me following ways:
- Children will still be locked out from the sites that are wrongfully blocked by the censorware, and allowed access to porn sites that were not caught.
- Federal government would require by law that parents actively supervise children's web-surfing. Libraries would have to enforce this unnecessarily strict regulation by overlooking parents who are, in turn, overlooking children browsing the web. Somehow, I have a feeling this will get tied to terrorism, and how we also need to oversee potential terrorists reading encyclopedias, looking up water treatment plants, etc.
- Children will not be able to use online resources while doing research at the library without parents' supervision. This will guarantee that some kids will never be able to do research online in the library as some parents simply won't have 2-3 hours per day to spare.
- Lastly, and probably most importantly, we are talking about Federal regulation, law, requirement, not a suggestion. Libraries, as it stands now, are free to implement any measures they deem necessary for this purpose. Libraries, at their own liberty can, and many of them actually have, installed software filters on their networks. It is troubling to me that the government is trying to put into law forcing all libraries implement a filtering software that (1) censors content that it is not supposed to censor by the same legislation, (2) fails to block access to content that it is supposed to block by that legislation, (3) will put the censor's powers into private sector. It is more troubling to me that government is trying to put into law something that they did next to zero research about. This is more of a campaign score points than actual resolution. Because most of the voting public will only see either (a) for children or (b) against children and for porn.
There are plenty of other microkernels in use very sucessfully. WinNT/2k/XP, Mac OS X, MkLinux, Minix, just to name a few!
Actually you prove what I am saying. Look at WinNT - originally designed as one of the most portable operating systems. Look at it now - they dropped the last Alpha support few years back, and went x86 only; Mac OS X runs only on Apple hardware, still to be proven how well and easily it can be ported outside of that. MkLinux and Minix are not practical solutions compared to monolithic Linux packages, not even close.
I am not claiming or arguing their success, however you define it, only pointing out Linus was right - the overdesign, performance issues are not worth their benefits. Someone still has to prove him wrong on this one, or threaten to fail the class, or whatever...
To solve the serial port problem, the GNU project is switching from the GNU Mach to the OSKit Mach, a Mach based on the OSKit for OS development from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah. "That version of Mach is supposed to get high speed serial line support, although it apparently isn't there in it yet," Stallman said. Before the GNU project could switch to the OSKit Mach, it had to rewrite the terminal support in the Hurd to support virtual consoles.
By the time these guys switch to the new kernel, test all modules, etc., etc. they will have to update it again for new speed improvements and HD sizes.
Linus was right that Microkernels tend to be overdesigned, give up speed, and are less practical than monolithic. This is the living proof.
As for your belief, business, the one's spending the BIG cash, do have to buy their software, and they still buy Microsoft products, so I can't agree with that belief.
Belief? I think it's more than just belief. If you read some feedback from businesses that are spending this cash, they are complaining that they are being forced to constantly upgrade, pay, subscribe, and fall into whatever one of the recent Microsoft licensing schemes orders them to do... and then it is so! Not because they voluntarily agree to, but because they are forced by a monopoly.
And, it is has to be weighed in also that Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its monopoly on the desktop OS market to illegally kill off its competitors. It is also subject of further investigation in Europe with similar tactics involving server software, including Win2k.
So, while I agree with you, that for any desktop OS to become popular it has to be extremely easy to use, support all hardware, most software, etc., etc., it is also not too difficult to see why the circumstances are not perfect. For example, as far as the hardware gadgets are concerned, Microsoft doesn't make drivers or software for most of these gadgets, the hardware manufacturers do. If MS was successfully stopped to inflict its wrath on OEMs so they are free to ship PCs with any other OSes (read what happened with BeOS) without requiring most users to delete or uninstall (already paid for) Windows, then you would see what competition could bring to the desktop market. Other OSes, preinstalled, would gain some market share; hardware manufacturers would actually make software for them; MS OSes would not support *all* hardware flawlessly because all software would not be made specifically to satisfy MS. Regarding the last point, if you haven't seen already, check out the "driver signing" in WinXP, looks pretty close to extortion if you think about it.
Finally, it is OK if you choose to ignore any of the above. State the obvious - "all hardware and software is made for Windows, therefore I use it". But it is not OK to put undue blame or make it look as if - "hey! MS does it, why can't these Linux guys? They really suck!" without at least noting why things are certain bad way in the desktop market. Failure to recognize that may make stating such a belief seem like unreasonable at best.
BTW, I have been using SuSE since 5.x versions, I never experienced the problem you describe.
Does this mean that I cannot listen to CDs on my computer without being concidered a consumer without respect to listening pleasure?
More importantly, if this was happening in the U.S. it would definitely have a smell of a class action lawsuit against both sides - BMG and CD player manufacturers (including CD-ROM). Look at it from consumer's point of view:
"This CD player, or CD-ROM, or PC I bought has a CD logo on it... This CD I bought from BMG also has a CD logo on it. Then why in the hell can't I play this CD? Somebody must be lying to me and ripping me off! I'll let the judge decide."
Where are the consumer protection groups in Europe? Anybody awake?
Sure you can get it cheaper from other sources legal or not. Most of them still end up above $129 even for home edition. That's for retail pricing.
Linux is useful and fun for us nerds, but is a bit of a sell to non-nerds, and I don't see the above selling proposition as favoring SUSE for desktop applications -- Linux has no inherent appeal to non-nerds.
Second point, it's not about nerds or non-nerds. You need to read the referenced article from SuSE about the product release. The title in the heading says "SuSE Linux Develops Linux Desktops for Enterprises" in big letters, cannot be missed. Later in the article - "For the first quarter of 2003, SuSE Linux projects the release of SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop. With a focus on easy central administration, this Linux version will be optimized for deployment in large-scale enterprises, public administrations and companies with multiple locations." Now, when you talk enterprise, it's a slightly different animal. Licensing and contract terms are different, prices are different, etc. MS has a tendency of forcing customers to upgrade even if said upgrade is met with firm resistance from customers. In the same eweek article read the figure that 60% of MS' customers still run Win95/98. Clearly, these customers are resisting the cost of upgrade as well as being locked in one of the new controversial licensing schemes from Microsoft, some of them even ending up paying more than once for the same software.
From what I read and know, there is definitely a market there that will explore and consider an alternative supported OS that will run MS Office reliably; since they will not have to incur significant user training costs. They definitely will not switch everyone from Win9x to Linux overnight but they will be willing to evaluate and implement on a smaller scale as a starting point. SuSE's job is 1. marketing to and convincing these people, 2. delivering a reliable product. Once you pass the test, have few key happy customers under your belt, then others will start noticing you.
actually there is such a "rule" it is called 35 U.S.C. Section 120 you might want to look at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/0014.htm and in particular heading 201.08
Again, most of the prior applications referenced in those two patents are *abandoned*; therefore, you need to look at the same page you referenced under heading "203.05 Abandoned". The only two relevant applications that were not abandoned that were also referenced were:
1. In patent 5,576,951, now has its own patent, which is patent number 5,309,355; 2. In patent 6,289,319, now has its own patent 4,567,359.
However, claims under these patents are not under dispute by the patent owner. Again, check them yourself before posting crap.
When banks analyze their log file traffic and 90%+ of their traffic is coming from IE, then yes, people get the impression that IE is the standard.
In a related story, all branches of various major banks have concluded analysis of their customers' outfits when entering the bank. One of the key statistics revealed by this analysis was that over 90% of customers entering a bank wore long pants or dresses (mainly female). Customers wearing shorts were at about 7% of the total, and the rest was undistinguishable clothing.
Following this key statistic, all of the major banks have decided to deny entry and service to anyone wearing shorts by having one security guard outside of every branch. "Most our customers don't wear shorts anyway" - pointed out one of the senior VPs, who asked to remain anonymous. Wearing shorts was also attributed to having "less secure pocketing architecture" with more likelihood of tears, "losing stuff", and largely insecure banking atmosphere. Other reports have stated that shorts are not really appropriate when entering a financial institution to conduct a professional transaction.
Everyone at the end agrees that standard (long) pants and dresses (mostly for women) are a standard outfit, and barring customers wearing shorts from these bank branches would not eventually have a significant impact. Yet some of these people passionately standing by these alternative outfits have found other ways to "fool" banks. Some have reported that the latest in loose and somewhat longer shorts fashion allowed them to deceive the bank guards and pass by them undetected. Some of these "hackers" pointed out that "pushing your shorts down your waist" can help one a lot. It is also worth pointing out that this strategy will not work in all banks and all branches. Unofficial reports state that some bank guards are instructed to check every questionable clothing item thoroughly before allowing anyone inside.
Meanwhile, various cunsumer protection and civil liberties groups have cried foul, arguing that everyone wearing a decent outfit, including shorts, should be allowed inside the branches. Banks, however, remain firm in their approach to only allow standard outfits for now, but did not exclude the possibility of revisiting the issue 2 to 3 years down the road.
Everything else will be "Planned for the future" and they will be recruiting programmers.
C'mon now! They even state on the features page that The preferred protocol is IMAP. Why predict when you can read and find out? Features page says it will come with SMTP, Webmail, IMAP, LDAP, spam filter, Samba PDC, and DHCP. The features include E-mail (of course), scheduler, document management, project management, addressbooks, forums, knowledgebase, etc., etc., etc..
Not that you can't piece these software packages yourself, but this sounds like it will be an integrated solution for mail server like Exchange or Groupwise servers, integrated IMAP and web interface; basically they want people to have OpenExchange server interoperate with MS Exchange server (migrating period), and after you're sure everything is set up correctly as you want it then ditch the MS Exchange completely. All this will be configurable through YaST too.
To me it sounds very nice as an alternative and way cheaper too.
A Wild West aproach to internet justice would be great.
It actually may be in a way. If this guy could have a similar right by law to launch a DoS attack on eBay for falsely accusing him of stealing someone else's copyright and thereby depriving him of potential revenues... ah wait... it's "We, the Corporations" not "We, the People".
I'm not saying this is the solution; just saying corporations get protection, ordinary people get crap!
To me this sounds like a bug in the configuration rather than the software. And it does sound like a configuration mistake in the default install of this distribution.
Just don't jump to that conclusion. KMail uses file MIME types that are registered in KDE - that is configurable for and by each user and any apps they may install that may run the appropriate script to either create a new type or get control of the existing one. MIME types then can be and are used by variety of apps such as Konqueror, KMail, KBear, etc. that launch external apps or plugins that are registered for a given type. You can register *.bat, *.exe, *.com, *.vbs files' MIME type and associate them with Wine. Now, if this was done as a default from that guy's distro you may have a point; but also that user may have compiled and installed his own Wine and associated the above file types on his own.
On a side note, KDE has a very nice configuration tool for file MIME types that can be accessed by right-clicking on any file.
Eh? What patents are you looking at? Either you are a troll or you didn't check them yourself:
Patent 5,576,951: Inventors: Lockwood; Lawrence B. (5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037) Appl. No.: 210301 Filed: March 16, 1994 Patent date November 19, 1996.
Patent 6,289,319: Inventors: Lockwood; Lawrence B. (5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037) Appl. No.: 347270 Filed: November 30, 1994, Patent date September 11, 2001.
Where did you get the 1988? I am wondering if you are referring to the parent case text with abandoned applications that were referenced there? If so, the dates go back to 1984 and 1986. However, I am not aware of the rule that prior art has to pre-date any of the abandoned patent applications!
businesses were doing web sales for a few years before these yokels said "hey that sales system is not patented..."
Even the article states:
DeBrand, literally a mom-and-pop shop in Fort Wayne, Ind., has been selling its homemade chocolates over the Web "practically from the beginning, probably seven, maybe eight years...
and several paragraphs later:
The patents PanIP bases its lawsuits on were granted-the first in 1996...
This makes no sense. The shop has been selling stuff online since 1994-95. USPTO, with its head buried in the dumpster, approves and hands the patent to PanIP in 1996 on the obvious prior art stuff that had been going on by thousands of companies/individuals for years before. PanIP turns around and sues small companies that can't afford to defend against patent infringement and would probably rather pay $5k.
Note the following:
1. To PanIP: the company that you are suing has prior art to your patent if your accusation is correct that they are infringing in the first place. They have been in business longer and actually *doing* what you patented couple of years later.
2. I hope the judge sees (a) the obviousness and numerous prior art of the patents, (b) the ill intent of PanIP, LLC, (c) the frivolous and wrongful lawsuit brought by PanIP, and dismisses the lawsuit, awards legal expenses plus punitive damanges to the defendants, and orders to close down PanIP, LLC, put all its patents in public domain, and orders its founders/owners and laywers to spend 3 months in community service and 9 months living with GNU/RMS at their own expense!
3. USPTO will approve any patent claim that contains the word "apparatus". It seems like this is one of the qualifying criteria for approval. I can probably get an approval for a patent for an "apparatus that hammers the nails in the wood", or an "apparatus that can roll in a circular motion on any surface". Hey! why not - check out the infamous method of swinging on a swing granted on April9, 2002?
4. This has got to stop! Write to your local corporate representatives in DC and tell them this is devastating for local small and medium size business!
5. USPTO database and website should be turned into a comedy and satire website and public entertainment source (Ok... done already), but remove most of their entries' legal implications. On a side note, when you are bored and have nothing to do try searching patents on your favorite activity. How about a tub for bathing granted on June 25, 2002 solely from the drawings?
I do like Novell's strategy towards OSS, porting their tools to Linux, NDS, etc. I've used NDS, Groupwise, NES on Netware, and now NDS on Linux but following is just FUD.
From the Infoworld article:
Novell will embed the commercial version of MySQL, enabling developers to build applications without requiring use of the restrictive General Public License agreement, as is required of the open-source version of MySQL.
Failing to state what exactly it is that Novell's license will allow that is restricted by the GPL. Anything short of Novell's decision to let everyone and anyone redistribute their software freely without any restrictions I don't see how this is possible. Especially if you read the next paragraph that reads:
Developers can, for example, build a Web site with a database providing dynamic content on NetWare, according to Mickos.
<sarcasm> You're kidding me!!! Who should I praise for this innovation? Thanks to Novell, hundreds of thousands of websites will now be able to provide *dynamic content*!! Just think of the possibilities - online shopping, searching the web, personalized news; virtually no limits! Think of all this as opposed to the old-style, static-web, restrictive licensed GPL-ed software. <sarcasm/>
C'mon now. Who are they fooling with these kinds of comments?
Use XEmacs or complain to your favourite Emacs maintainer.
Favourite? I think you meant elected! Don't we elect everyone for Emacs? I thought the elections that are just around the corner......... Wait a minute!
I am surprised that almost nobody has mentioned Mozilla. Take a look at the Cross Platform Tk documentation and its architecture. They must have a discussion group as well, search for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe they want to charge cab drivers because taxi services are businesses that make money. By playing the radio, you are "enhancing" the taxi ride experience, and the music industry thinks they should be compensated.
But the reasoning is obviously flawed. I mean I am not sure what Finnish definition of business is but, my understanding is everything could be described as a business:
- Driving your clients to lunch - you'd better turn that radio off or you'd be enhancing your clients' experience without paying to support those needy artists.
- Any commercial use of a vehicle equipped with a radio and/or stereo systems - they could go after each commercially registered vehicle and force owners to pay royalties to starving artists; after all, they can't enhance their drivers' experience while doing their evil commercial money-making business activities without at least sharing their revenue with those on the verge of dying of starvation who created wonderful pieces of art.
- Radios, CD players, etc. at workplace - obvious one, you make money, you allow your employees to enhance their experience while at it, pay up!
- God forbid you are self-employed - then you are the definition of business; they'll create separate licensing plan for this case. I mean come on, how can self-employed people sit and listen to music without paying extra? Those pirates!
Seriously now, I believe this copyright crap has gone way overboard long ago. I believe the original intent of COPY-right was to grant content creator a right to be a monopoly for creating *copies* of his/her creation. As copyright law is interpreted today in most places, the creator of content does not have ANY rights to his/her creations, rather these rights are in the hands of distributors and promoters.
As a further blow to the original intent of copy-right, it is not about copies anymore. There are no copies of any content created in a taxi cab. If taxi drivers were recording songs and giving the tapes to their customers those morons would have a point. If taxi drivers were actively selling the said content they would have a point. Radio signal is available to public, and it is meant to be heard by public whether on or off private property. If they have an issue with the radio signal as a medium they should not sell to and allow radio stations to transmit their content.
(f ) Reverse Engineering.--(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
... that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person ...
I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that the case should be thrown out.
I am not a lawyer either but the way that clause is interpreted depends on your interpretation of "availability" and "interoperability" right in this phrase:
One interpretation could say that if you can play DVDs without cracking them then cracking them is illegal. Then you say - "but I can't play them on Linux". The answer: "But you can play them on PC". In other words, if the solution is made available to you, whether it incurs cost on your part or not, you have to use that solution.
Now, of course, the other extreme of interpretations is that you can define "interoperability" the way you want. So, for example, you should always be allowed to crack any DVD because you want it to be interoperable with some bogus 10-line software you have created.
Guess which side the courts will take. Who paid for the law?
This is a targeted marketing attempt towards businesses that heavily rely on advertizing revenue in exchange for bandwidth; maybe includes some free pr0n sites and similar free or low charge services. Obviously calling pop-up and cookie blocking "theft" is a promotional strategy. Everybody gets excited, people who need to notice the commercial do, and buy the service.
If this held any water as far as stealing is concerned in legal terms, it would, of course be a disaster for everyone. It would be illegal to have cookies and Javascript turned off? Then where would it stop? Maybe they could also require flash (for more appeal), Java, and AvtiveX. So not running Windows or software of web site operator's choosing could be equal to stealing. What if some features are not available to me?
Could I, in turn, sue them back for not using standard XHTML that does not validate through W3C's specification, and, thereby "stealing" the content from me that I would otherwise enjoy? That would be about, oh, 99.999% of websites I imagine.
So, yeah, the idea behind this terminology is ridiculous, but it serves their marketing purpose, I imagine.
I dunno', maybe this digital-rights-management stuff isn't so bad -- it lets me prove that what's mine is mine.
Also, with DRM I can by doctrine of first-sale (which says that you can't impose limitations on what I do with a CD once I've bought it, including restrictions on who I resell the whole package to) says that I can buy someone's scratched CD "virtually" at half.com, and then, owning that CD, I have fair-use rights to the content on it.
I think you are a little bit confused on what the DRM's intents are. They do not intend to sell you the DRMed content. They do intend to sell you any medium on which the content is stored (if any), and give you the license to listen or otherwise enjoy the DRMed content:
- during specific time period, or time(s),
- on designated hardware and software only (w/additional software licensing fees)
- leaving the seller or the licensor the full discretion to either charge you for, or simply and most likely not allow you to do anything else with the content, including but not limited to, litening or enjoying content when you want to, where you want to, sharing the content with friends, changing medium on which content is stored, etc.
The sooner we have ubiquitous digital rights management, the sooner my audio software can play anything that exists in the world, by buying it at $4.04 when I begin to listen to it and selling it at $4.04 +/- 0.04 when I'm done.
I can tell you right now that if such a DRM system would exist, YOU would NOT be the seller, YOU would be the consumer or a licensee. Let's be clear on this one.
There were some GPL violation issues recently with XBox Media Player but they have apparently now been resolved
Still not resolved with the old source code that was violating GPL from ffmpeg and xvid. If you read the mplayer website:
Their reasoning: the Win32 version that is/was available for download at http://xboxmediaplayer.com was an older version which didn't contain ffmpeg or xvid, and has non-GPL license, equipped with a DivX3 decoder which was 20-30% faster (!) than ffmpeg. Well that's what they say. Unfortunately, the source of that version was lost (??!!).
They also insist on us providing an apology. For what? They nuked any topic on their forum which was discussing GPL. The homepage did not contain enough information about licenses - only the success story of porting ffmpeg and xvid..
And the "losing" of the old source.. Either way, let's hope they are more tolerant to (L)GPL licenses now.
They took the code, distributed it violating both GPL and copyright, came up with lame excuses, conveniently "lost" the source code, and now demand an apology? Gimme a break! The only apology they get is "I'm sorry I won't go near your products for quite a while because I don't trust you!"
SAFER NATION
Washington DC - U.S. Department of Justice has just sent e-mails and fax letters to suspected terrorists all over the world warning them that the acts of terrorism are also illegal under the DMCA. The official hard copy letter will follow soon, announced the DOJ spokesperson.
Given the ease with which anyone can be charged with a DMCA violation as well as severe penalties that follow conviction, it is widely speculated that Justice Department will use this law to combat terrorism worldwide even more effectively.
"It's great that our government is doing its best against terrorism," - said Nancy from Virginia, - "if this law will help them prosecute these people, yeah, they definitely should use it."
Meanwhile, Congress, RIAA and its member companies are expected to show wide support to the DOJ on these issues. Nation's lawmakers promise to further improve security and economic stability through such laws as the DMCA. For example, several sources report that Senator Hollings is hard at work to propose an enhanced addition to the current DMCA which would create a central database of suspected DMCA violators. The database would be made up mostly by suspects entered by RIAA and MPAA. This database would then be used for background checks at video, audio, and rental stores when consumers purchase entertainment products. If, for example, someone fails a background check, the product they are trying to buy will cost 80-95% more.
"I think it's fair" - said Joe from Chicago, - "I don't steal any CDs or DVDs, so I don't want to pay more just because other people steal and companies lose billions in revenue. This way, people who steal will pay more to make up the losses, and I'll get the fair price."
And Joe is not alone. Lisa from Kansas also believes that "if you don't steal and have nothing to hide, you are fine, I fully support it." Gallup polls have shown over the years that people believe "stealing is wrong." Senator Hollings' law will give yet another weapon to the government and American businesses to defend and protect the nation from terrorists and DMCA violators. The law is expected to pass overwhelmingly both in the House and the Senate by unanimous consent.
Maybe competitors will crack each others DRM systems to prove them insecure and "leak" code through 14-year-old kids in northern europe.
Competitors? I thought it was the function of the RIAA (and similar groups worldwide) to make sure there are no competitors and/or competition.
While it looks like this is another DRM solution, I don't think it will matter much for consumers. Nothing will prevent both DRM implementations to interoperate within each other and/or charge additional fees to consumers for such interoperation.
Most casual users probably don't even consider the possibility of their address being harvested from other places, such as chat rooms.
I don't believe this. They have to know. Common sense should tell anyone that if you give someone else your information, they will be able to record that information; doesn't matter if it's credit card number, e-mail address, social security number, or mother's maiden name. If they do know enough not to give out their mailing address, SSN, and mother's maiden name to complete strangers online, then they should treat their e-mail addresses no differently.
Now, you may say that giving out SSN is more dangerous than giving out e-mail, but mere knowledge of this fact by any user proves their awareness of their actions.
(Illegal I know, you are supposed to pay it yourself in april...)
/.ed?) but who are we going to pay the sales tax to? To the seller's or buyer's jurisdiction? Both? What about individual counties? Will they be able to add on their share?
any state that adopts or joins this will kill the Ecommerce in their state.
First of all, I thought April was the income tax deadline, sales taxes are due at the end of each month.
Second, I can't access the article (WP
So... how about setting up separate banks of computers in the library instead? One could be completely unfiltered, and accessible only to adults, and the other could be in the children's section, with filtered access, and hopefully a requirement that parents actively supervise their children's web-surfing.
While it is appropriate to think about different compromise solutions to any issue like this, your approach concerns me following ways:
- Children will still be locked out from the sites that are wrongfully blocked by the censorware, and allowed access to porn sites that were not caught.
- Federal government would require by law that parents actively supervise children's web-surfing. Libraries would have to enforce this unnecessarily strict regulation by overlooking parents who are, in turn, overlooking children browsing the web. Somehow, I have a feeling this will get tied to terrorism, and how we also need to oversee potential terrorists reading encyclopedias, looking up water treatment plants, etc.
- Children will not be able to use online resources while doing research at the library without parents' supervision. This will guarantee that some kids will never be able to do research online in the library as some parents simply won't have 2-3 hours per day to spare.
- Lastly, and probably most importantly, we are talking about Federal regulation, law, requirement, not a suggestion. Libraries, as it stands now, are free to implement any measures they deem necessary for this purpose. Libraries, at their own liberty can, and many of them actually have, installed software filters on their networks. It is troubling to me that the government is trying to put into law forcing all libraries implement a filtering software that (1) censors content that it is not supposed to censor by the same legislation, (2) fails to block access to content that it is supposed to block by that legislation, (3) will put the censor's powers into private sector. It is more troubling to me that government is trying to put into law something that they did next to zero research about. This is more of a campaign score points than actual resolution. Because most of the voting public will only see either (a) for children or (b) against children and for porn.
There are plenty of other microkernels in use very sucessfully. WinNT/2k/XP, Mac OS X, MkLinux, Minix, just to name a few!
Actually you prove what I am saying. Look at WinNT - originally designed as one of the most portable operating systems. Look at it now - they dropped the last Alpha support few years back, and went x86 only; Mac OS X runs only on Apple hardware, still to be proven how well and easily it can be ported outside of that. MkLinux and Minix are not practical solutions compared to monolithic Linux packages, not even close.
I am not claiming or arguing their success, however you define it, only pointing out Linus was right - the overdesign, performance issues are not worth their benefits. Someone still has to prove him wrong on this one, or threaten to fail the class, or whatever...
To solve the serial port problem, the GNU project is switching from the GNU Mach to the OSKit Mach, a Mach based on the OSKit for OS development from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah. "That version of Mach is supposed to get high speed serial line support, although it apparently isn't there in it yet," Stallman said. Before the GNU project could switch to the OSKit Mach, it had to rewrite the terminal support in the Hurd to support virtual consoles.
By the time these guys switch to the new kernel, test all modules, etc., etc. they will have to update it again for new speed improvements and HD sizes.
Linus was right that Microkernels tend to be overdesigned, give up speed, and are less practical than monolithic. This is the living proof.
As for your belief, business, the one's spending the BIG cash, do have to buy their software, and they still buy Microsoft products, so I can't agree with that belief.
Belief? I think it's more than just belief. If you read some feedback from businesses that are spending this cash, they are complaining that they are being forced to constantly upgrade, pay, subscribe, and fall into whatever one of the recent Microsoft licensing schemes orders them to do... and then it is so! Not because they voluntarily agree to, but because they are forced by a monopoly.
And, it is has to be weighed in also that Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its monopoly on the desktop OS market to illegally kill off its competitors. It is also subject of further investigation in Europe with similar tactics involving server software, including Win2k.
So, while I agree with you, that for any desktop OS to become popular it has to be extremely easy to use, support all hardware, most software, etc., etc., it is also not too difficult to see why the circumstances are not perfect. For example, as far as the hardware gadgets are concerned, Microsoft doesn't make drivers or software for most of these gadgets, the hardware manufacturers do. If MS was successfully stopped to inflict its wrath on OEMs so they are free to ship PCs with any other OSes (read what happened with BeOS) without requiring most users to delete or uninstall (already paid for) Windows, then you would see what competition could bring to the desktop market. Other OSes, preinstalled, would gain some market share; hardware manufacturers would actually make software for them; MS OSes would not support *all* hardware flawlessly because all software would not be made specifically to satisfy MS. Regarding the last point, if you haven't seen already, check out the "driver signing" in WinXP, looks pretty close to extortion if you think about it.
Finally, it is OK if you choose to ignore any of the above. State the obvious - "all hardware and software is made for Windows, therefore I use it". But it is not OK to put undue blame or make it look as if - "hey! MS does it, why can't these Linux guys? They really suck!" without at least noting why things are certain bad way in the desktop market. Failure to recognize that may make stating such a belief seem like unreasonable at best.
BTW, I have been using SuSE since 5.x versions, I never experienced the problem you describe.
Does this mean that I cannot listen to CDs on my computer without being concidered a consumer without respect to listening pleasure?
More importantly, if this was happening in the U.S. it would definitely have a smell of a class action lawsuit against both sides - BMG and CD player manufacturers (including CD-ROM). Look at it from consumer's point of view:
"This CD player, or CD-ROM, or PC I bought has a CD logo on it... This CD I bought from BMG also has a CD logo on it. Then why in the hell can't I play this CD? Somebody must be lying to me and ripping me off! I'll let the judge decide."
Where are the consumer protection groups in Europe? Anybody awake?
Or, for much less than $129 I can get an OS (Windows XP), that absolutely runs MS Office and which definitely runs vrtually all other Windows apps.
First, See the retail XP home edition pricing.
- Upgrade from Win98/ME: $99
- Full version: $199
Sure you can get it cheaper from other sources legal or not. Most of them still end up above $129 even for home edition. That's for retail pricing.
Linux is useful and fun for us nerds, but is a bit of a sell to non-nerds, and I don't see the above selling proposition as favoring SUSE for desktop applications -- Linux has no inherent appeal to non-nerds.
Second point, it's not about nerds or non-nerds. You need to read the referenced article from SuSE about the product release. The title in the heading says "SuSE Linux Develops Linux Desktops for Enterprises" in big letters, cannot be missed. Later in the article - "For the first quarter of 2003, SuSE Linux projects the release of SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop. With a focus on easy central administration, this Linux version will be optimized for deployment in large-scale enterprises, public administrations and companies with multiple locations." Now, when you talk enterprise, it's a slightly different animal. Licensing and contract terms are different, prices are different, etc. MS has a tendency of forcing customers to upgrade even if said upgrade is met with firm resistance from customers. In the same eweek article read the figure that 60% of MS' customers still run Win95/98. Clearly, these customers are resisting the cost of upgrade as well as being locked in one of the new controversial licensing schemes from Microsoft, some of them even ending up paying more than once for the same software.
From what I read and know, there is definitely a market there that will explore and consider an alternative supported OS that will run MS Office reliably; since they will not have to incur significant user training costs. They definitely will not switch everyone from Win9x to Linux overnight but they will be willing to evaluate and implement on a smaller scale as a starting point. SuSE's job is 1. marketing to and convincing these people, 2. delivering a reliable product. Once you pass the test, have few key happy customers under your belt, then others will start noticing you.
actually there is such a "rule" it is called 35 U.S.C. Section 120 you might want to look at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/0014.htm and in particular heading 201.08
Again, most of the prior applications referenced in those two patents are *abandoned*; therefore, you need to look at the same page you referenced under heading "203.05 Abandoned". The only two relevant applications that were not abandoned that were also referenced were:
1. In patent 5,576,951, now has its own patent, which is patent number 5,309,355;
2. In patent 6,289,319, now has its own patent 4,567,359.
However, claims under these patents are not under dispute by the patent owner. Again, check them yourself before posting crap.
When banks analyze their log file traffic and 90%+ of their traffic is coming from IE, then yes, people get the impression that IE is the standard.
In a related story, all branches of various major banks have concluded analysis of their customers' outfits when entering the bank. One of the key statistics revealed by this analysis was that over 90% of customers entering a bank wore long pants or dresses (mainly female). Customers wearing shorts were at about 7% of the total, and the rest was undistinguishable clothing.
Following this key statistic, all of the major banks have decided to deny entry and service to anyone wearing shorts by having one security guard outside of every branch. "Most our customers don't wear shorts anyway" - pointed out one of the senior VPs, who asked to remain anonymous. Wearing shorts was also attributed to having "less secure pocketing architecture" with more likelihood of tears, "losing stuff", and largely insecure banking atmosphere. Other reports have stated that shorts are not really appropriate when entering a financial institution to conduct a professional transaction.
Everyone at the end agrees that standard (long) pants and dresses (mostly for women) are a standard outfit, and barring customers wearing shorts from these bank branches would not eventually have a significant impact. Yet some of these people passionately standing by these alternative outfits have found other ways to "fool" banks. Some have reported that the latest in loose and somewhat longer shorts fashion allowed them to deceive the bank guards and pass by them undetected. Some of these "hackers" pointed out that "pushing your shorts down your waist" can help one a lot. It is also worth pointing out that this strategy will not work in all banks and all branches. Unofficial reports state that some bank guards are instructed to check every questionable clothing item thoroughly before allowing anyone inside.
Meanwhile, various cunsumer protection and civil liberties groups have cried foul, arguing that everyone wearing a decent outfit, including shorts, should be allowed inside the branches. Banks, however, remain firm in their approach to only allow standard outfits for now, but did not exclude the possibility of revisiting the issue 2 to 3 years down the road.
with POP3 functionality.
Everything else will be "Planned for the future" and they will be recruiting programmers.
C'mon now! They even state on the features page that The preferred protocol is IMAP.
Why predict when you can read and find out?
Features page says it will come with SMTP, Webmail, IMAP, LDAP, spam filter, Samba PDC, and DHCP. The features include E-mail (of course), scheduler, document management, project management, addressbooks, forums, knowledgebase, etc., etc., etc..
Not that you can't piece these software packages yourself, but this sounds like it will be an integrated solution for mail server like Exchange or Groupwise servers, integrated IMAP and web interface; basically they want people to have OpenExchange server interoperate with MS Exchange server (migrating period), and after you're sure everything is set up correctly as you want it then ditch the MS Exchange completely. All this will be configurable through YaST too.
To me it sounds very nice as an alternative and way cheaper too.
A Wild West aproach to internet justice would be great.
It actually may be in a way. If this guy could have a similar right by law to launch a DoS attack on eBay for falsely accusing him of stealing someone else's copyright and thereby depriving him of potential revenues... ah wait... it's "We, the Corporations" not "We, the People".
I'm not saying this is the solution; just saying corporations get protection, ordinary people get crap!
To me this sounds like a bug in the configuration rather than the software. And it does sound like a configuration mistake in the default install of this distribution.
Just don't jump to that conclusion. KMail uses file MIME types that are registered in KDE - that is configurable for and by each user and any apps they may install that may run the appropriate script to either create a new type or get control of the existing one. MIME types then can be and are used by variety of apps such as Konqueror, KMail, KBear, etc. that launch external apps or plugins that are registered for a given type. You can register *.bat, *.exe, *.com, *.vbs files' MIME type and associate them with Wine. Now, if this was done as a default from that guy's distro you may have a point; but also that user may have compiled and installed his own Wine and associated the above file types on his own.
On a side note, KDE has a very nice configuration tool for file MIME types that can be accessed by right-clicking on any file.
the patent has an effective filing date of 1988!
Eh? What patents are you looking at? Either you are a troll or you didn't check them yourself:
Patent 5,576,951:
Inventors: Lockwood; Lawrence B. (5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037)
Appl. No.: 210301
Filed: March 16, 1994
Patent date November 19, 1996.
Patent 6,289,319:
Inventors: Lockwood; Lawrence B. (5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037)
Appl. No.: 347270
Filed: November 30, 1994,
Patent date September 11, 2001.
Where did you get the 1988? I am wondering if you are referring to the parent case text with abandoned applications that were referenced there? If so, the dates go back to 1984 and 1986. However, I am not aware of the rule that prior art has to pre-date any of the abandoned patent applications!
businesses were doing web sales for a few years before these yokels said "hey that sales system is not patented..."
Even the article states:
DeBrand, literally a mom-and-pop shop in Fort Wayne, Ind., has been selling its homemade chocolates over the Web "practically from the beginning, probably seven, maybe eight years...
and several paragraphs later:
The patents PanIP bases its lawsuits on were granted-the first in 1996...
This makes no sense. The shop has been selling stuff online since 1994-95. USPTO, with its head buried in the dumpster, approves and hands the patent to PanIP in 1996 on the obvious prior art stuff that had been going on by thousands of companies/individuals for years before. PanIP turns around and sues small companies that can't afford to defend against patent infringement and would probably rather pay $5k.
Note the following:
1. To PanIP: the company that you are suing has prior art to your patent if your accusation is correct that they are infringing in the first place. They have been in business longer and actually *doing* what you patented couple of years later.
2. I hope the judge sees (a) the obviousness and numerous prior art of the patents, (b) the ill intent of PanIP, LLC, (c) the frivolous and wrongful lawsuit brought by PanIP, and dismisses the lawsuit, awards legal expenses plus punitive damanges to the defendants, and orders to close down PanIP, LLC, put all its patents in public domain, and orders its founders/owners and laywers to spend 3 months in community service and 9 months living with GNU/RMS at their own expense!
3. USPTO will approve any patent claim that contains the word "apparatus". It seems like this is one of the qualifying criteria for approval. I can probably get an approval for a patent for an "apparatus that hammers the nails in the wood", or an "apparatus that can roll in a circular motion on any surface". Hey! why not - check out the infamous method of swinging on a swing granted on April9, 2002?
4. This has got to stop! Write to your local corporate representatives in DC and tell them this is devastating for local small and medium size business!
5. USPTO database and website should be turned into a comedy and satire website and public entertainment source (Ok... done already), but remove most of their entries' legal implications. On a side note, when you are bored and have nothing to do try searching patents on your favorite activity. How about a tub for bathing granted on June 25, 2002 solely from the drawings?
I do like Novell's strategy towards OSS, porting their tools to Linux, NDS, etc. I've used NDS, Groupwise, NES on Netware, and now NDS on Linux but following is just FUD.
From the Infoworld article:
Novell will embed the commercial version of MySQL, enabling developers to build applications without requiring use of the restrictive General Public License agreement, as is required of the open-source version of MySQL.
Failing to state what exactly it is that Novell's license will allow that is restricted by the GPL. Anything short of Novell's decision to let everyone and anyone redistribute their software freely without any restrictions I don't see how this is possible. Especially if you read the next paragraph that reads:
Developers can, for example, build a Web site with a database providing dynamic content on NetWare, according to Mickos.
<sarcasm>
You're kidding me!!! Who should I praise for this innovation? Thanks to Novell, hundreds of thousands of websites will now be able to provide *dynamic content*!! Just think of the possibilities - online shopping, searching the web, personalized news; virtually no limits! Think of all this as opposed to the old-style, static-web, restrictive licensed GPL-ed software.
<sarcasm/>
C'mon now. Who are they fooling with these kinds of comments?
Use XEmacs or complain to your favourite Emacs maintainer.
... ... Wait a minute!
Favourite? I think you meant elected! Don't we elect everyone for Emacs? I thought the elections that are just around the corner...
I am surprised that almost nobody has mentioned Mozilla. Take a look at the Cross Platform Tk documentation and its architecture. They must have a discussion group as well, search for it.
:)
Dude, somebody even put out a DOS prompt