Well, correspondingly, when you increase the bus speed, you speed up the whole system (well, almost), whereas when you increase just the multiplier, you get quickly diminishing returns.
I don't have any modern statistics on this at all (surely someone does) but I remember that the Pentium 50 systems that ran with the bus at 50 were slightly faster than the Pentium 66 systems with the bus at 33.
With the internet, 90% of those middlemen are no longer necessary. They have no real economic reason for existence. So, they're trying to use laws which are supposed to exist for the good of the artists and of the public to preserve their positions.
Not so. If a business-type guy wants to sell software, he is (or should be, at least) concerned with the number of people who are actually running Linux. OS sales figures might be interesting for people thinking of marketing a Linux distro, but not for someone who wants to sell software that runs on Linux.
IF you're selling a cola drink, and have the intent to deceive the public, it's illegal.
If you're selling something unrelated (or not selling anything at all) and just happen to have a coincidentally close name, it isn't illegal under basic trademark law.
The PayPaI people may be violating PayPal's trademark -- but not through the domain name alone.
If the DVD is being distributed over the network, it's going to be further compressed in a lossy way -- just as MP3s are. This will likely remain true even as networks get faster -- the return from making it a perfect copy just isn't worth it, when a slightly less perfect copy is a tenth the size.
How is this relevant? Well, to make a pirated copy of a movie like this, DeCSS isn't even necessary. Just ripping it from the output of a DVD player will be fine.
So, if I understand you, copyright is good, but it's bad. Which is it?
It's good in its place, which is, as I said, to provide a benefit for society. It's not supposed to be used as a weapon against the public.
You're completely ignoring my point. We're giving Microsoft rights that we're not giving the MPAA and the RIAA. Why shouldn't the MPAA have the same rights as Microsoft?
No I'm not. Microsoft doesn't have those rights either. For example, I can attempt to run MS Word under Wine if I feel like it.
To clarify: providing someone with a tool for the express purpose of commiting a crime probably is aiding and abetting. To provide someone with a tool which could be used illegally but also has legitimate uses isn't.
Of course, since code is speech, that's a totally different issue.
Copyright (and other intellectual property) isn't some sort of magical natural right. It's something we've set up as a society because in general it's a good idea that promotes creative expression. However, it's not an infinite right -- there are limits to its extent, including the fair use doctrine. These limits exist for exactly the same reason as the IP laws themselves: the benefit of the public as a whole.
Since it's so easy to replicate digital media, it's fair to make some laws which govern doing so, and to have the government enforce those laws. But why should we radically increase the rights given? Large copyright interests are taking the opportunity presented by digital media to attempt an overcompensation -- they're asking for rights they've never had before.
They want to make money first. Wholesome (albeit a weird sort of wholesome) and amusing (if you can call it that) come second. I'm not sure if accuracy even enters the picture.
The current.com servers seem to be handling things okay -- that's gotta be the vast majority of requests. Having more TLDs would allow things to be *more* heirarchical, and actually improve the situation.
And the problem with the last bit is that company names aren't unique, and certainly aren't unique globally.
That still has the problem with overlapping trademarks -- trademarks are only unique within their class, and non-registered trademarks (tm instead of (r)) are limited by geography as well. There's a few famous marks (Coca Cola is probably one) but many many trademarks are re-used. Plus, there are a lot of commmon organizational terms which happen to be a trademark for one reason or another.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have any modern statistics on this at all (surely someone does) but I remember that the Pentium 50 systems that ran with the bus at 50 were slightly faster than the Pentium 66 systems with the bus at 33.
--
--
--
--
--
--
Sure. Just look at the stats for your network device.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
If you're selling something unrelated (or not selling anything at all) and just happen to have a coincidentally close name, it isn't illegal under basic trademark law.
The PayPaI people may be violating PayPal's trademark -- but not through the domain name alone.
--
--
How is this relevant? Well, to make a pirated copy of a movie like this, DeCSS isn't even necessary. Just ripping it from the output of a DVD player will be fine.
--
It's good in its place, which is, as I said, to provide a benefit for society. It's not supposed to be used as a weapon against the public.
You're completely ignoring my point. We're giving Microsoft rights that we're not giving the MPAA and the RIAA. Why shouldn't the MPAA have the same rights as Microsoft?
No I'm not. Microsoft doesn't have those rights either. For example, I can attempt to run MS Word under Wine if I feel like it.
--
--
Of course, since code is speech, that's a totally different issue.
--
Since it's so easy to replicate digital media, it's fair to make some laws which govern doing so, and to have the government enforce those laws. But why should we radically increase the rights given? Large copyright interests are taking the opportunity presented by digital media to attempt an overcompensation -- they're asking for rights they've never had before.
--
--
--
And the problem with the last bit is that company names aren't unique, and certainly aren't unique globally.
--
--
--