This case is about more than just copyright. Don't forget that IBM has come back at SCO with patent violation allegations.
I feel it is far more useful to go for the full "IP" term here, as that is the heart of this nasty affair. It is a great case study in how ugly the IP world has become, and how distorted it is from what was intially intended.
I've been following the SCO case, and other IP-related cases, with great iterest -- collecting as many articles as I can about everything related. One thing I've noticed is that SCO's grandiose claims were plastered over all the business-related media pretty quickly, but all the rebuttal arguments (that make SCO's case looks like Swiss chesse) aren't showing up in the same outlets.
Unless some IT manager also read sites such as/., it's quite possible they would still believe SCO has a good case on their hands.
The whole thing is damning to Linux specifically, and open source as well. I cannot help but see a media bias against OSS. Anyone else notice this?
Not only did you not read the responses, but you didn't read the article. The point is... Diamonds are not as rare as deBeers lets the world think they are. And I'm not talking about the new 'fake' ones that can be created for $5.
Next time, try reading the comment rather than the first two words before your attack.
DeBeers controls the price of diamonds by controlling the rarity of them. I know they've got piles of them in their warhouses, that's how they control the price...duh.
My point, which people seem unable to grasp, is that this is not how RIAA controls the price of CDs. There is no RIAA warehouse out there with millions of U2 CDs sitting in boxes.
I don't deny that there's similarities there, but what the author was claiming is that RIAA is using supply (which the author equates to the number of new albums pumped out) to control CD prices. This is a bogus argument, since supply (as used by the author) would have zero impact on the price of a particular CD.
I haven't read all the comments yet, so this may be a dupe, but the author of the article is not comparing apples to apples.
True, both the member companies of RIAA and DeBeers are cartels, but what one controls through rarity (diamonds) the other controls through absolute control (music).
The author points to the fact that RIAA companies have pumped out 20% fewer new albums, and then somehow tries to parallel this to the same stratedy as DeBeers. Doesn't work I'm afraid. A diamond is a diamond, and having control over how many are on the market allows you control over price (assuming demand stays the same). The same is not true for music CDs...one album is not the same as another.
If (for example) the latest U2 album had been put out with only 100,000 copies made available, then the price could be pushed up on those CDs much higher as demand would not be met by that number. However, the price is completely uncorrelated to how many other albums are available.
A better correlation between DeBeers and RIAA would have been to focus on the loss of control each industry is facing. Diamonds will soon be cranked out at $5 per karat, and garage bands can now reach a global audience without RIAA interaction. The RIAA isn't playing nice in its death throwes, and I shudder to think what DeBeers will do in theirs.
Nothing wrecks a movie for me more than watching them talk about computers or doing stuff with computers that is so completely out to lunch that whatever illusion the movie has created so far is destroyed.
Then there's my wife, the genetics expert, for whom hollywood's attempts at describing that particular branch of science causes her to throw her popcorn in disgust.
I image that nearly everyone experiences this frustration with movies, regardless of their area of expertise though. I bet if my mom had watched american pie she would have said something along the lines of: "That's not how you bake a proper applie pie -- the crust should be darker!".
Forget this survey. Is there really a surprise when schools that cost $30,000 per year rank at the top? What I'm interested in is a country -vs- country ranking. Here in Canada we have some amazing universities, and I'd love to see them up against the US's best.
Yes, facts are essential, but it's the reporting of them where objectivity and subjectivity get mixed up.
For example, upon playing a game and having the game crash to desktop, a reviewer could write:
1. "I was playing and the game crashed to desktop."
Or...
2. "I was playing and the game crashed to desktop, but it wasn't a big deal because it only did it every 10 minutes."
The key difference there is that (1) is objective, while (2) is written very subjectively. Personally, a game crashing every 10 minutes is a very big deal to me, while to the reviewer it wasn't.
My argument is that subjective reporting of these types of game "features" have no place in a game review. They should be reviewed as objectivly as possible so you can let your readers determine for themselves if a particular "feature" is a big deal or not for them.
Most people who haven't read the story will probably see your comment as flamebait, but as someone who tried to read the article I wish I could mod your comment "+10 bang on".
As an example of this guy's excellence in journalism, let me quote you some text he wrote regarding the topic of "Role Playing":
This is not to say that people, individually, are not intelligent. They are, for the most part. I don't know that I've met many who are truly apathetic, either. It's just that we're all abused.
We're all hurt children. We don't know who to believe, so we grasp for the most comforting, available parents we've got. We are raised not to believe in our own judgement, and to defer to Nabisco. To Tom Brokaw. To the Government. To Science. To God. To the experts.
Objectivity has got to go, for one thing. Anyone who says that the personal experience of interacting with a game can be discussed objectively - well they're just flat out wrong to even try. Experience colors everything we write, being humans and all. What we have to do is weigh our desire to share our opinion, the one we're sure is right, against the fact that no two persons will experience something in the same way.
WHAT!?! I don't care if this guy thinks games are evolving into an artform. That's almost meaningless in a game review. I buy a game for entertainment, and could care less if the creators think they are the next Piccaso.
Objectivity is essential in a game review. I want to know if a game crashes, if the AI is a pushover, if the interface is garbage, etc. While there's some subjectivity in those things, a crash is still a crash.
Sure, you need to subjective material in a game review. However, calling for the complete loss of objectivity in a review is just plain idiotic!
I can't tell, but I'm assuming that you work at an ISP (AUP complaint?). Why on earth would you care about this information?
"Oh no! One of our users is doing something illegal and it has nothing to do with us! Quick, pull the plug on him!!!"
Seriously...unless you are law enforcement, what could you possibly do with this information? If I wrote your ISP and told them I saw you smoking pot, should I expect them to pull the plug on your connection??? How is this any less rediculous?!?
While this is a very cool idea, the article was missing a few details. For example, did they try it out on actual skulls and see how close they came to the former owner of that skull?
This last little bit of the article doesn't exactly sell this new technology: ' The current prototype figures suffer a problem common to computer-generated faces, said Evison "They look ridiculously mannequin-like."'
This diamond article in Wired 'http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond. html' seems to indicate that Moore's law is sustainable for much more than ten more years.
Besides, I've been hearing about the death of Moore's Law for the last ten years.
I have a friend who also has his own music studio and has worked with some pretty amazing talent. In talking about the current state of the music industry, he has two interesting observations:
1. The music industry is impacted negatively by file sharing, at least at some level.
2. That his studio is most certainly not harmed by filesharing, but in fact is seeing a rather large increase in business as more bands try to get a decent polish on their work so they can get their MP3s out there.
Do you think this is just annecdotal, or true for most music studios?
It seems the only people these days that take the DMCA seriously are organizations like the ESA.
While I'm glad you can shrug this off with a laugh, you've hit the nail on the head with that quote above. The thing is, the ESA aren't the only ones taking the DMCA seriously. The RIAA will soon be issuing over 1000 lawsuites against music sharers -- thanks in whole to information obtained via the DMCA. The problem is, what if they used the same techniques to find violators?
ESA has a good faith belief that the Internet site found at {IPAddress} continues to infringe the rights of one or more ESA members by offering for download one or more unauthorized copies of one or more game products protected by copyright
"Sanctions: A form of financial 'punishment' where a Judge can order a party or attorney to pay for not following Court orders or not acting in good faith in a Court proceeding."
While it's all fun and games to laugh at this, what if AT&T had cut off his connection? What if that connection was vital to business?
I don't know how you go and get sanctions levied at organizations like this, but the ESA clearly violated good faith in this circumstance.
Oh, I agree with you completely. However, employees are allowed to video their employees (and often do so without notification), force drug testing, plus they are allowed to monitor email/internet access. It's hardly fair, kills moral (it certainly makes me dislike the company I work for), but they do it anyway. This is hardly anymore intrusive than the other things I mentioned.
After reading through all the comments, it's amazing how many people failed to read even a bit of the article (I shouldn't be surprised, but it's still something that drives me nuts).
From the article:
1. If police want to use this to find you, they can and already have. The article clearly mentions how this technology was used to nab a bomber in the US. As parent poster stated, this isn't something new, it just brings the technology to people who don't have access to it right now.
2. To use it, the person with the phone has to consent. For kids, sucks to be you, but I certainly can't blame parents for wanting this. For employees, tough luck. It's not like it's your personal phone that's being traced...just your work phone.
How can you have a Jury on a patent trial?? Of course eBay lost...what person off the street would be able to realise how stupid a patent like this is.
This is like presenting a Jury with DNA evidence:
DNA Expert: "There is a 1/1,000,000,000 chance that this DNA comes from someone else."
Jury: "Holy crap! That guy wasn't 100% certain. Not guilty!"
In People -vs- Larry Flynt it was an issue because Larry was the one making the obscene stuff. This guy was charged with selling the obscene stuff...not really a speach issue, and I agree with the courts that this is probably something that is decided at a state level.
That being said, I think I'll stay far away from Texas. It's like looking back in time 100 years.
You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. There's a grey line between speech and stupidity, and based on the article this guy was pretty stupid.
That being said, I feel sorry for the guy. He enters into a plea bargain and agrees to plead guilty and receive 4 months in jail, but the judge gives him a year.
Fair enough, and you're certainly entitled to your views on morality, just as long as you realise that your views on morality DO NOT equal the majority's views.
If the 60 million song-swappers out there actually held the same views as you, then there wouldn't be 60 million song-swappers. If -- by downloading a song I would never buy in real life -- I would feel the exact same as if I went into a record store and shoplifted the same song, then I wouldn't download that song. Obviously myself, and millions more like me, do not equate IP violations with theft.
Personally, I draw the line at two points:
1.) If I would actually buy the CD/game/movie in real life, then I will go and buy the thing, even though I may have downloaded it already. I own over 100 DVDs, but I also have around 200 copied movies too.
2.) I would never sell copied content, and believe those who do so are the true "pirates". Downloading a song you would never consider dropping $15 on is one thing, burning it onto a CD and selling it for $5 is another.
Slashdot Mirror
This case is about more than just copyright. Don't forget that IBM has come back at SCO with patent violation allegations.
I feel it is far more useful to go for the full "IP" term here, as that is the heart of this nasty affair. It is a great case study in how ugly the IP world has become, and how distorted it is from what was intially intended.
I've been following the SCO case, and other IP-related cases, with great iterest -- collecting as many articles as I can about everything related. One thing I've noticed is that SCO's grandiose claims were plastered over all the business-related media pretty quickly, but all the rebuttal arguments (that make SCO's case looks like Swiss chesse) aren't showing up in the same outlets.
/., it's quite possible they would still believe SCO has a good case on their hands.
Unless some IT manager also read sites such as
The whole thing is damning to Linux specifically, and open source as well. I cannot help but see a media bias against OSS. Anyone else notice this?
don't The Simpsons have prior art on this one?
Not only did you not read the responses, but you didn't read the article. The point is... Diamonds are not as rare as deBeers lets the world think they are. And I'm not talking about the new 'fake' ones that can be created for $5.
Next time, try reading the comment rather than the first two words before your attack.
DeBeers controls the price of diamonds by controlling the rarity of them. I know they've got piles of them in their warhouses, that's how they control the price...duh.
My point, which people seem unable to grasp, is that this is not how RIAA controls the price of CDs. There is no RIAA warehouse out there with millions of U2 CDs sitting in boxes.
I don't deny that there's similarities there, but what the author was claiming is that RIAA is using supply (which the author equates to the number of new albums pumped out) to control CD prices. This is a bogus argument, since supply (as used by the author) would have zero impact on the price of a particular CD.
I haven't read all the comments yet, so this may be a dupe, but the author of the article is not comparing apples to apples.
True, both the member companies of RIAA and DeBeers are cartels, but what one controls through rarity (diamonds) the other controls through absolute control (music).
The author points to the fact that RIAA companies have pumped out 20% fewer new albums, and then somehow tries to parallel this to the same stratedy as DeBeers. Doesn't work I'm afraid. A diamond is a diamond, and having control over how many are on the market allows you control over price (assuming demand stays the same). The same is not true for music CDs...one album is not the same as another.
If (for example) the latest U2 album had been put out with only 100,000 copies made available, then the price could be pushed up on those CDs much higher as demand would not be met by that number. However, the price is completely uncorrelated to how many other albums are available.
A better correlation between DeBeers and RIAA would have been to focus on the loss of control each industry is facing. Diamonds will soon be cranked out at $5 per karat, and garage bands can now reach a global audience without RIAA interaction. The RIAA isn't playing nice in its death throwes, and I shudder to think what DeBeers will do in theirs.
Nothing wrecks a movie for me more than watching them talk about computers or doing stuff with computers that is so completely out to lunch that whatever illusion the movie has created so far is destroyed.
Then there's my wife, the genetics expert, for whom hollywood's attempts at describing that particular branch of science causes her to throw her popcorn in disgust.
I image that nearly everyone experiences this frustration with movies, regardless of their area of expertise though. I bet if my mom had watched american pie she would have said something along the lines of: "That's not how you bake a proper applie pie -- the crust should be darker!".
Forget this survey. Is there really a surprise when schools that cost $30,000 per year rank at the top? What I'm interested in is a country -vs- country ranking. Here in Canada we have some amazing universities, and I'd love to see them up against the US's best.
Yes, facts are essential, but it's the reporting of them where objectivity and subjectivity get mixed up.
For example, upon playing a game and having the game crash to desktop, a reviewer could write:
1. "I was playing and the game crashed to desktop."
Or...
2. "I was playing and the game crashed to desktop, but it wasn't a big deal because it only did it every 10 minutes."
The key difference there is that (1) is objective, while (2) is written very subjectively. Personally, a game crashing every 10 minutes is a very big deal to me, while to the reviewer it wasn't.
My argument is that subjective reporting of these types of game "features" have no place in a game review. They should be reviewed as objectivly as possible so you can let your readers determine for themselves if a particular "feature" is a big deal or not for them.
Most people who haven't read the story will probably see your comment as flamebait, but as someone who tried to read the article I wish I could mod your comment "+10 bang on".
:puke:
As an example of this guy's excellence in journalism, let me quote you some text he wrote regarding the topic of "Role Playing":
This is not to say that people, individually, are not intelligent. They are, for the most part. I don't know that I've met many who are truly apathetic, either. It's just that we're all abused.
We're all hurt children. We don't know who to believe, so we grasp for the most comforting, available parents we've got. We are raised not to believe in our own judgement, and to defer to Nabisco. To Tom Brokaw. To the Government. To Science. To God. To the experts.
Life is above us. We don't know any better.
Regarding game reviews:
Objectivity has got to go, for one thing. Anyone who says that the personal experience of interacting with a game can be discussed objectively - well they're just flat out wrong to even try. Experience colors everything we write, being humans and all. What we have to do is weigh our desire to share our opinion, the one we're sure is right, against the fact that no two persons will experience something in the same way.
WHAT!?! I don't care if this guy thinks games are evolving into an artform. That's almost meaningless in a game review. I buy a game for entertainment, and could care less if the creators think they are the next Piccaso.
Objectivity is essential in a game review. I want to know if a game crashes, if the AI is a pushover, if the interface is garbage, etc. While there's some subjectivity in those things, a crash is still a crash.
Sure, you need to subjective material in a game review. However, calling for the complete loss of objectivity in a review is just plain idiotic!
I can't tell, but I'm assuming that you work at an ISP (AUP complaint?). Why on earth would you care about this information?
"Oh no! One of our users is doing something illegal and it has nothing to do with us! Quick, pull the plug on him!!!"
Seriously...unless you are law enforcement, what could you possibly do with this information? If I wrote your ISP and told them I saw you smoking pot, should I expect them to pull the plug on your connection??? How is this any less rediculous?!?
While this is a very cool idea, the article was missing a few details. For example, did they try it out on actual skulls and see how close they came to the former owner of that skull?
This last little bit of the article doesn't exactly sell this new technology:
' The current prototype figures suffer a problem common to computer-generated faces, said Evison "They look ridiculously mannequin-like."'
This diamond article in Wired 'http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond. html' seems to indicate that Moore's law is sustainable for much more than ten more years.
Besides, I've been hearing about the death of Moore's Law for the last ten years.
I have a friend who also has his own music studio and has worked with some pretty amazing talent. In talking about the current state of the music industry, he has two interesting observations:
1. The music industry is impacted negatively by file sharing, at least at some level.
2. That his studio is most certainly not harmed by filesharing, but in fact is seeing a rather large increase in business as more bands try to get a decent polish on their work so they can get their MP3s out there.
Do you think this is just annecdotal, or true for most music studios?
It seems the only people these days that take the DMCA seriously are organizations like the ESA.
While I'm glad you can shrug this off with a laugh, you've hit the nail on the head with that quote above. The thing is, the ESA aren't the only ones taking the DMCA seriously. The RIAA will soon be issuing over 1000 lawsuites against music sharers -- thanks in whole to information obtained via the DMCA. The problem is, what if they used the same techniques to find violators?
ESA has a good faith belief that the Internet site found at {IPAddress} continues to infringe the rights of one or more ESA members by offering for download one or more unauthorized copies of one or more game products protected by copyright
"Sanctions: A form of financial 'punishment' where a Judge can order a party or attorney to pay for not following Court orders or not acting in good faith in a Court proceeding."
While it's all fun and games to laugh at this, what if AT&T had cut off his connection? What if that connection was vital to business?
I don't know how you go and get sanctions levied at organizations like this, but the ESA clearly violated good faith in this circumstance.
Oh, I agree with you completely. However, employees are allowed to video their employees (and often do so without notification), force drug testing, plus they are allowed to monitor email/internet access. It's hardly fair, kills moral (it certainly makes me dislike the company I work for), but they do it anyway. This is hardly anymore intrusive than the other things I mentioned.
Thank you for writing my post for me. :-)
After reading through all the comments, it's amazing how many people failed to read even a bit of the article (I shouldn't be surprised, but it's still something that drives me nuts).
From the article:
1. If police want to use this to find you, they can and already have. The article clearly mentions how this technology was used to nab a bomber in the US. As parent poster stated, this isn't something new, it just brings the technology to people who don't have access to it right now.
2. To use it, the person with the phone has to consent. For kids, sucks to be you, but I certainly can't blame parents for wanting this. For employees, tough luck. It's not like it's your personal phone that's being traced...just your work phone.
How can you have a Jury on a patent trial?? Of course eBay lost...what person off the street would be able to realise how stupid a patent like this is.
This is like presenting a Jury with DNA evidence:
DNA Expert: "There is a 1/1,000,000,000 chance that this DNA comes from someone else."
Jury: "Holy crap! That guy wasn't 100% certain. Not guilty!"
I'd like to apologize to all forced to read my horrible misspellings in the above post.
Must get more coffee...
How does free speach come into play here?
In People -vs- Larry Flynt it was an issue because Larry was the one making the obscene stuff. This guy was charged with selling the obscene stuff...not really a speach issue, and I agree with the courts that this is probably something that is decided at a state level.
That being said, I think I'll stay far away from Texas. It's like looking back in time 100 years.
So, how long until drug runners send little planes from Columbia to Florida?
This gives me too many ideas...
You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. There's a grey line between speech and stupidity, and based on the article this guy was pretty stupid.
That being said, I feel sorry for the guy. He enters into a plea bargain and agrees to plead guilty and receive 4 months in jail, but the judge gives him a year.
"What the hell?"
What the hell indeed.
Fair enough, and you're certainly entitled to your views on morality, just as long as you realise that your views on morality DO NOT equal the majority's views.
If the 60 million song-swappers out there actually held the same views as you, then there wouldn't be 60 million song-swappers. If -- by downloading a song I would never buy in real life -- I would feel the exact same as if I went into a record store and shoplifted the same song, then I wouldn't download that song. Obviously myself, and millions more like me, do not equate IP violations with theft.
Personally, I draw the line at two points:
1.) If I would actually buy the CD/game/movie in real life, then I will go and buy the thing, even though I may have downloaded it already. I own over 100 DVDs, but I also have around 200 copied movies too.
2.) I would never sell copied content, and believe those who do so are the true "pirates". Downloading a song you would never consider dropping $15 on is one thing, burning it onto a CD and selling it for $5 is another.