Isn't that kind of like telling a con-man who used fake ID to con people that he may not use an ID or a razor blade, ever? Or a B&E artist that he may not posess a crowbar, hammer, or any rope? Or... a white-collar money launderer that he can't have any money? Or... well, the list goes on. The exception, of course, is guns... but we, as a society, prevent those who committed 'violent' crimes with guns from being allowed to legally posess guns, as they have demonstrated that they are a threat. A *violent, life-endangering threat*
Actually.. here in Canada.. there *are* laws stating that we may not receive american movie programming off satellite. It is *technically* illegal in Canada to subscribe to HBO. This happened during the 80's satellite TV craze.
See.. for a while, it was perfectly legal to descramble american programming off satellite without paying. You were allowed to receive it.. you could descramble it, as the american channels technically did not have license to sell you that programming... and at some point, it became illegal to *watch* it.
This is why so many canadians have US P.O Boxes where they send their satellite dish payments to, and have their codes/cards/whatever mailed back to.
Yes. Except.. it was *already* broadcast ona *public* medium where *anyone* could watch it... they just devised a method to extend that range. Had they simply developed an Uber-antenna that would let anyone in canada watch the station... nobody would have a problem.
Running a line from an antenna toa TV is also 'rebroadcasting' even if you don't think of it thwat way. You are converting a signal from radio to electricity for the last leg of it's journey.
Also.. as for royalties, the issue is clearly covered in Candian law. It is permissible to rebroadcast any TV signal you can receive over public transmission (ie: the entire RF spectrum), so long as you rebroadcast it in realtime, and do not modify it. (modify is defined, simply causing a change in signal quality or some such thing does not constitutemodification.. they mean modifying the broadcast with advertisements, your own video, etc...)
So.. the reason they even *started* it is because canadian law very explicitly makes what they are doing *completely legal*
No. I cannot copy it. I *can* AMPLIFY THE HELL out of it so that everyone for 100 miles can hear what you are saying. As Canadian law goes, one may not use a listening/amplification device to hear a conversation that they could otherwise not hear, but they *can* use such devices to amplify/aid in listening conversations they *can* already hear.
Also, as you said it loud enough for me to hear it, I can repeat it as often as I like, to whomever I like. I cannot, of course, claim it to be my original work, as it isn't, and I know it.
And we mean RF, not 'vibrating air' when we say airwaves.. though, of course, I would say that sound is most definately an 'air wave'....
Is it? What if your local laws said "Anyone who wants to may re-publish their own copies of your paper, so long as it is reproduced in it's entirety, and is placed on the shelf at rougly the same time as your own paper, and pulled also at the same time?"
The issue here isn't *stealing* anyone's content. It's rebroadcasting.. which is explicitly covered by our wonderful Canadian law. And unfortunately for those who are bitching (notice how none are the canadian companies who's broadcasts are actually being copied verbatim?), our courts and our laws tend to favour the individual over the bullshitting huge companies.
And as some have said, this doesn't imply we own the material *on* the airwaves.. but it does imply something similar. We take for granted, in Canada, that something broadcast publicly, using standard modulation, over public airwaves was *meant* for everyone to see and hear, and we reserve the right to extend those broadcasts as we see fit. Now.. we may not *modify* them to our own ends.. and we can't *steal* them for profit.. we don't own the work... we can't record it(well, we can, but we can't then broadcast it at a later time).
Hunh? I doubt they are that stupid. They are probably picking it up in Toronto, or whever their receiving station is. Hell.. if you don't want us to pick it up, don't broadcast it into our sovreign airspace!
Well.. I believe how it works is this. Either the US copany files charges in a Canadian court, or vice-versa.
Presuming it is filed in a US court, the reason the execs would show up is.... if they don't, they could be declared guilty in absentia, and could never enter the US again, under penalty of arrest.
Good point. As for 'iCrave should lose'.. well.. I don't know. I think all parties have to own up to it. I, for one, feel that none of our current laws specifically dealing with 'broadcasting' should apply to the internet, it's just such a totally different medium. The CRTC seems to see this as well (gee. they kind of.. MAKE SENSE! that's been happening more and more over the past few years.... I like it) IT is logical. Originally, the law allowing rebroadcasting was to allow others to take over... with things such as radio repeaters, when they felt like it, without fear of penalty. You could hop Toronto TV across the country if you had the technology... or bring it in on cable to a remote location.. and charge for it.. but you could not modify the programming. This was beneficial to all... the network got more coverage, and people got to see more TV when they otherwise couldn't. Now.. this is different. Though.. I must say....
If I look at this in a true geek hacker way (which is not how the courts work...) Technically, they *could* put repeaters all over the country, and broadcast to everyone in the country, and nobody could say shit.. they are doing it legally... so how is that so different than sending it over the net? Well.. the CRTC says it right...the internet is a media that would complement, not simply replace the programming. And they are right....
Wow. That's a *major* victory? Gimme a break. IT won't even make a dent, and it will just enrage everyone.
Seriously folks.. I'm not one for disobedience... but I can see it coming, this is just the tip of the iceberg. People are damn well going to do what they *want* to do, and not let the politicians and lawyers push them around. Are we going to stop working on DeCSS? no...
Yes. WE all realize this. But to a court.... Can joe average with his 'puter copy DVD? No.. he doesn't have the gear. Can he copy the movies if he has DeCSS? YES.. he can... Does Joe have something that can hold 2.4gig+ of data? Sure he does.. a HD! (I just bout a 30 gig drive.. that's enough for... 10 2.4gig movies?, my drive was $300.. that's what.. $30/movie, for permanent, fast storage? COOL!
IANAL.. but here's something I've observed as of late.
In the past, many laws have been made to protect business, various trademark, patent, copyright, and other IP related laws, as well as much business law. One thing that has usually (certainly, not in all cases) permeated these laws is the idea that 'non-commercial, free things done by individuals are usually *exempt* from these laws, or the concept that the law should not inhibit progress, only protect someone to a *reasonable* extent. A good example of this would be the DHRA, (digital home recording act)... you know, the one the RIAA threw a fit over with the Diamond RIO. When the DHRA was being drafted, it was *insisted* (not by the riaa, but by others on the committee) that personal, home computers be exempt from it's restrictions, as something as simple as music copy protection should *not* be able to hamper the technology.. ie: had this not been a clause, it could have been illegal to make a computer that could deal with digital audio, period! So it made sense.. it served it's purpose for a while.
Now.. we have this dreaded DMCA. I hated it before it was drafted, and passed, and I sure hate it now. The problem is.. it says that anyone making a device/method/whatever that has a primary purpose of defeating a technological mechanism used to prevent copies is illegal. It is exempt, if it has a *commercial* purpose other than that. So.. in one way, they have a very valid claim about the DVD stuff. OTOH... we must twist the words in our own favour. The primary purpose of this software, though it could, and most likely will, be easily used to *copy* video off dvd, is to allow the OSS community to develop DVD player software, and to get access to the data for *whatever reason they want*. The problem, of course, is that even if it's purpose is to enable us to make a DVD player... the primary purpose of the code being linked to *IS* to defeat the CSS scheme, nobody can really argue that, and the CSS scheme is the copy protection mechanism.. or so they say.
No. This is within their rights as the patent holder. They do not have to sue.. that implies damages. They sipmly state that they NOW rquire royalties, and will proceed to sue anyone who refuses to pay after this point. There are no past damages here.
This is patent law. Not trademark, not copyright, patent.
They don't *HAVE* to declare patent. They are not required to defend it. It is not going away. Just because they knew about it before hand does not invalidate their patent whatsoever.
From what I've heard/read, the fact that they knew about the infringement but didn't say anythign sipmly limits the damages they can claim for past infringement.. they can still set any licensing terms they want. (in other words, they can't reall claim damages past the point they found out about the infringement but chose not to say anything, as damages after that point were their fault)
Hmm. Yes. It is toxic, along with MANY OTHER things we use. Rubbing alcohol? That's toxic. Gasoline? That's toxic. Hair spray? Toxic. Lead-acid batteries? Toxic. Normal nickel-cadmium batteries? Toxic. Nickel-metal Hydride batteries? Toxic.
These cells would not be some kind of highly toxic thing. Yes, if you eat them, it will hurt you, possibly badly. This is far from something new to our society. As for 'explosions'.... ever read those notices on batteries 'Do not dispose of in fire or it may explode?'. How is this different? Like pen cartridge? Many plastics are *stronger* than aluminum, and *more* puncture resistant.
As for pollution.. what are the end byproducts? How are they worse than current heavy-metal batteries? What about methanol fuel in racecars? they burn far more in a single day of racing than I bet the US would use in a year.
No.. they mean 48C. Your celeron is running at 34 C (The F is a typo)... because it has a BIG HEATSINK AND FAN. The crusoe will run at 48C *without* any cooling.
And yes.. the PIII would.. well.. not melt, but possibly do some damage to itself... but it only runs at 113 C *without* a fan & heatsink.
Like they said.. their market is not servers and high end workstations. Their market is PORTABLES. The main feature of the Crusoe process is the extremely low heat and extremely low power consumption.
So.. if it turns out that a Crusoe can perform about as well as that Celeron 450 you wanted to use, but uses a tenth of the power and doesn't need any extra cooling.... gee.. what are you going to use (Oh.. and it's cheaper) This is not a hard sell for vendors.... and this is their *first* couple chips.. wait to see what they do next.
Actually.. I think saying 'Spread Spectrum' covers more than just Frequency Hopping.... There is Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum, Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum.. and I'm sure there are/will be others....
Freq. Hopping is when you shift carrier frequencies arond within the wider spectrum (hence, spread) that you are using.
Direct Sequence is a lot wierder (very closely tied in to CDMA... or rather, I think CDMA is an extension of DSSS). In direct sequency, you simply 'spread' the signal over the whole wide spectrum at once.... and the special way the signal is coded gives it redundancy, and makes it hide.
in FHSS, on a spectrum analyzer, a definite pattern of carriers on different frequencies shows up.. ina proper bell curve around the center frequency. (I think it's a bell.. something similar anyway).
in DSSS, on a spectrum analyzer, a 'plateau' is all you see.. with fuzz under it.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that kind of like telling a con-man who used fake ID to con people that he may not use an ID or a razor blade, ever?
Or a B&E artist that he may not posess a crowbar, hammer, or any rope?
Or... a white-collar money launderer that he can't have any money?
Or... well, the list goes on.
The exception, of course, is guns... but we, as a society, prevent those who committed 'violent' crimes with guns from being allowed to legally posess guns, as they have demonstrated that they are a threat. A *violent, life-endangering threat*
That's funny.. considering it already went gold!
Actually.. here in Canada.. there *are* laws stating that we may not receive american movie programming off satellite. It is *technically* illegal in Canada to subscribe to HBO.
This happened during the 80's satellite TV craze.
See.. for a while, it was perfectly legal to descramble american programming off satellite without paying. You were allowed to receive it.. you could descramble it, as the american channels technically did not have license to sell you that programming... and at some point, it became illegal to *watch* it.
This is why so many canadians have US P.O Boxes where they send their satellite dish payments to, and have their codes/cards/whatever mailed back to.
Yes. Except.. it was *already* broadcast ona *public* medium where *anyone* could watch it... they just devised a method to extend that range.
Had they simply developed an Uber-antenna that would let anyone in canada watch the station... nobody would have a problem.
Running a line from an antenna toa TV is also 'rebroadcasting' even if you don't think of it thwat way.
You are converting a signal from radio to electricity for the last leg of it's journey.
Also.. as for royalties, the issue is clearly covered in Candian law. It is permissible to rebroadcast any TV signal you can receive over public transmission (ie: the entire RF spectrum), so long as you rebroadcast it in realtime, and do not modify it. (modify is defined, simply causing a change in signal quality or some such thing does not constitutemodification.. they mean modifying the broadcast with advertisements, your own video, etc...)
So.. the reason they even *started* it is because canadian law very explicitly makes what they are doing *completely legal*
But whether or not they make money is not an issue, the issue is whether or not they modify the broadcast.
No. I cannot copy it. I *can* AMPLIFY THE HELL out of it so that everyone for 100 miles can hear what you are saying. As Canadian law goes, one may not use a listening/amplification device to hear a conversation that they could otherwise not hear, but they *can* use such devices to amplify/aid in listening conversations they *can* already hear.
Also, as you said it loud enough for me to hear it, I can repeat it as often as I like, to whomever I like. I cannot, of course, claim it to be my original work, as it isn't, and I know it.
And we mean RF, not 'vibrating air' when we say airwaves.. though, of course, I would say that sound is most definately an 'air wave'....
Is it? What if your local laws said "Anyone who wants to may re-publish their own copies of your paper, so long as it is reproduced in it's entirety, and is placed on the shelf at rougly the same time as your own paper, and pulled also at the same time?"
The issue here isn't *stealing* anyone's content. It's rebroadcasting.. which is explicitly covered by our wonderful Canadian law. And unfortunately for those who are bitching (notice how none are the canadian companies who's broadcasts are actually being copied verbatim?), our courts and our laws tend to favour the individual over the bullshitting huge companies.
And as some have said, this doesn't imply we own the material *on* the airwaves.. but it does imply something similar.
We take for granted, in Canada, that something broadcast publicly, using standard modulation, over public airwaves was *meant* for everyone to see and hear, and we reserve the right to extend those broadcasts as we see fit. Now.. we may not *modify* them to our own ends.. and we can't *steal* them for profit.. we don't own the work... we can't record it(well, we can, but we can't then broadcast it at a later time).
There is no way for them to tell how many people are watching when they broadcast over the airwaves *either*.
Hunh?
I doubt they are that stupid.
They are probably picking it up in Toronto, or whever their receiving station is.
Hell.. if you don't want us to pick it up, don't broadcast it into our sovreign airspace!
As someone pointed out, it's legal to 'rebroadcast' the signal. Sending the live video over the net will not necessarily qualify as 'broadcasting'.
Well.. I believe how it works is this.
Either the US copany files charges in a Canadian court, or vice-versa.
Presuming it is filed in a US court, the reason the execs would show up is....
if they don't, they could be declared guilty in absentia, and could never enter the US again, under penalty of arrest.
Good point. As for 'iCrave should lose'.. well.. I don't know. I think all parties have to own up to it. .. MAKE SENSE! that's been happening more and more over the past few years.... I like it)
.the internet is a media that would complement, not simply replace the programming. And they are right....
I, for one, feel that none of our current laws specifically dealing with 'broadcasting' should apply to the internet, it's just such a totally different medium. The CRTC seems to see this as well (gee. they kind of
IT is logical.
Originally, the law allowing rebroadcasting was to allow others to take over... with things such as radio repeaters, when they felt like it, without fear of penalty. You could hop Toronto TV across the country if you had the technology... or bring it in on cable to a remote location.. and charge for it.. but you could not modify the programming. This was beneficial to all... the network got more coverage, and people got to see more TV when they otherwise couldn't.
Now.. this is different. Though.. I must say....
If I look at this in a true geek hacker way (which is not how the courts work...)
Technically, they *could* put repeaters all over the country, and broadcast to everyone in the country, and nobody could say shit.. they are doing it legally... so how is that so different than sending it over the net? Well.. the CRTC says it right..
Wow. That's a *major* victory? Gimme a break. IT won't even make a dent, and it will just enrage everyone.
Seriously folks.. I'm not one for disobedience... but I can see it coming, this is just the tip of the iceberg. People are damn well going to do what they *want* to do, and not let the politicians and lawyers push them around.
Are we going to stop working on DeCSS? no...
Yes. WE all realize this. But to a court....
Can joe average with his 'puter copy DVD? No.. he doesn't have the gear. Can he copy the movies if he has DeCSS? YES.. he can...
Does Joe have something that can hold 2.4gig+ of data? Sure he does.. a HD! (I just bout a 30 gig drive.. that's enough for... 10 2.4gig movies?, my drive was $300.. that's what.. $30/movie, for permanent, fast storage? COOL!
IANAL.. but here's something I've observed as of late.
In the past, many laws have been made to protect business, various trademark, patent, copyright, and other IP related laws, as well as much business law. One thing that has usually (certainly, not in all cases) permeated these laws is the idea that 'non-commercial, free things done by individuals are usually *exempt* from these laws, or the concept that the law should not inhibit progress, only protect someone to a *reasonable* extent.
A good example of this would be the DHRA, (digital home recording act)... you know, the one the RIAA threw a fit over with the Diamond RIO.
When the DHRA was being drafted, it was *insisted* (not by the riaa, but by others on the committee) that personal, home computers be exempt from it's restrictions, as something as simple as music copy protection should *not* be able to hamper the technology.. ie: had this not been a clause, it could have been illegal to make a computer that could deal with digital audio, period! So it made sense.. it served it's purpose for a while.
Now.. we have this dreaded DMCA. I hated it before it was drafted, and passed, and I sure hate it now. The problem is.. it says that anyone making a device/method/whatever that has a primary purpose of defeating a technological mechanism used to prevent copies is illegal. It is exempt, if it has a *commercial* purpose other than that. So.. in one way, they have a very valid claim about the DVD stuff.
OTOH... we must twist the words in our own favour. The primary purpose of this software, though it could, and most likely will, be easily used to *copy* video off dvd, is to allow the OSS community to develop DVD player software, and to get access to the data for *whatever reason they want*.
The problem, of course, is that even if it's purpose is to enable us to make a DVD player... the primary purpose of the code being linked to *IS* to defeat the CSS scheme, nobody can really argue that, and the CSS scheme is the copy protection mechanism.. or so they say.
No. This is within their rights as the patent holder.
They do not have to sue.. that implies damages. They sipmly state that they NOW rquire royalties, and will proceed to sue anyone who refuses to pay after this point. There are no past damages here.
This is patent law. Not trademark, not copyright, patent.
They don't *HAVE* to declare patent. They are not required to defend it. It is not going away.
Just because they knew about it before hand does not invalidate their patent whatsoever.
From what I've heard/read, the fact that they knew about the infringement but didn't say anythign sipmly limits the damages they can claim for past infringement.. they can still set any licensing terms they want. (in other words, they can't reall claim damages past the point they found out about the infringement but chose not to say anything, as damages after that point were their fault)
Hmm.
Yes. It is toxic, along with MANY OTHER things we use.
Rubbing alcohol? That's toxic.
Gasoline? That's toxic. Hair spray? Toxic. Lead-acid batteries? Toxic. Normal nickel-cadmium batteries? Toxic. Nickel-metal Hydride batteries? Toxic.
These cells would not be some kind of highly toxic thing. Yes, if you eat them, it will hurt you, possibly badly. This is far from something new to our society.
As for 'explosions'.... ever read those notices on batteries 'Do not dispose of in fire or it may explode?'. How is this different?
Like pen cartridge? Many plastics are *stronger* than aluminum, and *more* puncture resistant.
As for pollution.. what are the end byproducts? How are they worse than current heavy-metal batteries? What about methanol fuel in racecars? they burn far more in a single day of racing than I bet the US would use in a year.
Wow. Groundbreaking technology. They say they might have a working model in 5 or 6 years....
No.. they mean 48C. Your celeron is running at 34 C (The F is a typo)... because it has a BIG HEATSINK AND FAN. The crusoe will run at 48C *without* any cooling.
And yes.. the PIII would.. well.. not melt, but possibly do some damage to itself... but it only runs at 113 C *without* a fan & heatsink.
Like they said.. their market is not servers and high end workstations. Their market is PORTABLES.
The main feature of the Crusoe process is the extremely low heat and extremely low power consumption.
So.. if it turns out that a Crusoe can perform about as well as that Celeron 450 you wanted to use, but uses a tenth of the power and doesn't need any extra cooling.... gee.. what are you going to use (Oh.. and it's cheaper)
This is not a hard sell for vendors.... and this is their *first* couple chips.. wait to see what they do next.
That's basically what happend, IIRC.... and they *did* use her idea.. it wasn't ignored. It was kept quiet, though.. it had to be.
Actually.. I think saying 'Spread Spectrum' covers more than just Frequency Hopping....
There is Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum, Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum.. and I'm sure there are/will be others....
Freq. Hopping is when you shift carrier frequencies arond within the wider spectrum (hence, spread) that you are using.
Direct Sequence is a lot wierder (very closely tied in to CDMA... or rather, I think CDMA is an extension of DSSS). In direct sequency, you simply 'spread' the signal over the whole wide spectrum at once.... and the special way the signal is coded gives it redundancy, and makes it hide.
in FHSS, on a spectrum analyzer, a definite pattern of carriers on different frequencies shows up.. ina proper bell curve around the center frequency. (I think it's a bell.. something similar anyway).
in DSSS, on a spectrum analyzer, a 'plateau' is all you see.. with fuzz under it.