Actually, the previous information is incorrect. There's no such thing as an STM-4C.
An STM-4 consists of 4 multiplexed STM-1s with 1 set of Section OverHead bytes (so 1xB1, 1xD1-D3, 1xK1/K2, etc.).
A VC4-4C contains the capacity of 4 VC4s, with 1 set of Path OverHead bytes.
A VC4-4v (virtual concatenation) are basically 4 separate VC4s with some extra information in the H4 byte to allow the receiving end to put them in the correct order and time (since the VC4s may be transmitted through different paths, they may not arrive at the receiving end at the same time) so the payload in those 4 VC4s can be used as one set of payload.
If you want to ask questions on SONET/SDH, feel free to email me at phulshof@xs4all.nl. I've been designing/verifying SONET/SDH ASICs for about 6.5 years now, so I should be able to answer any question you got on the topic.:)
Ermm... I've been working in the telcom industry for about 6.5 years now, but I've never heard of an STM-4C. What you call an STM-4C is a standard STM-4, and your STM-4 definition is a special interface some telcom companies might be willing to provide for you.
Within a standard STM-4 however, it is possible to place an AU4-4C concatenated payload. This payload contains only one set of Path OverHead bytes i.s.o. 4.
Please realise that at least 95% of the Kazaa users have no idea of what they're doing, and do not realise that by default downloading automatically means making them available. Plausible deniability would work fine for most except computer science majors, because they can claim they thought they were just downloading material (legal in Canada and the Netherlands), and didn't know they were, under the default settings of Kazaa, doing something illegal.
I think there's quite a difference between "Linux user" and "member of the Open Source community (developer)". If we start blaming MicroSoft every time a Windows user does something... erm.. strike that;)
> [I don't even understand the next line in Dutch but I'll > try: ] Moreover Lindows distinguishes itself [huh?] from > Windows because of its name [and] Lindows takes > unjustified advantage from the [fuck knows: > undistinguishablility?] and reputation of the brand > Windows.
The Dutch sentence is grammatically flawed to begin with, but the (similarly flawed) translation should read: Moreover Lindows.com pushes against Windows by the naming of the product Lindows.com draws unjustified advantage of the distinguishing capacity and the reputation of the brand Windows.
I couldn't disagree with Lomet more to be honest. This is SOFTWARE we're talking about. If research in a field would take too much time, the problem most likely wouldn't exist anymore. Therefore the cost involved in researching a problem doesn't give cause for a 17 year monopoloy. On top of that: as multiple companies try to solve a problem at one time, why should only the first runner to the patent office deserve protection?
It's simple: if you don't research in software, by the time you have the needed knowledge it's irrelevant already. Copyright protection is more than enough needed to keep the software industry running smoothly.
I fear that you might be right in this. As I had a look at the site (I was actually interested, much like you) I was baffled by the setup. Why not get a complete team together immediately? You'll need the artists' input on the gamedesign and gamestory. Probably even before you're thinking about getting your programmers on board (although one or two to indicate what is possible, and what isn't, might not be so bad:).
Also: I've noticed that there's enough programmers willing to work on projects like these. It's the artists that are lacking! Even if you somehow manage to get the greatest game idea ever; if you can't get your artists together, you'll have nothing!
Oh well, let's see how this will end up. Perhaps I'll give it an email anyway. After all: next to being a musician I'm also a programmer.:)
Re:Sigh... EU Directive != DMCA
on
Euro DMCA Fails
·
· Score: 1
*rofl* no, though I do know the man.:) He didn't seem too happy with the endresult he helped create.
Your description sums up my problems with part 4 pretty well though: By the time this has been through all the procedures the actual circumvention tool will probably be next to worthless. The entertainment industry will slow this down as much as they can.
Re:You're correct: it's worse!
on
Euro DMCA Fails
·
· Score: 1
*nod*, the copyright cartel has managed to claim all the right words for political debates like this one. These kinds of debates are not won on arguments, but on rethorics (unfortunately). It's hard to win against 'theft', 'pirates', etc. The entertainment lobby was huge during the creation of this directive. Unfortunately I got involved a tad too late (I learned about the directive on Slashdot), but the national anti-directive lobbies have gotten off pretty well. Both the UK and the Netherlands have seen a flood of comments on the law proposals. Let's hope they'll have some success.
Re:You're correct: it's worse!
on
Euro DMCA Fails
·
· Score: 1
A very simple example? MOD chips. The processes in the US around MOD chips were based around copyright infringement, not circumvention. This is because the protective measure in MOD chips does not control access to a copyrighted work, and as such circumventing it is not illegal under the DMCA. Under the EU Directive however this would be illegal as circumvention of a 'non authorized act'.
And no, I don't believe US law applies outside the US, though not for lack of trying on the US side. There's some very interesting stories on pressure from the US on other countries to adopt this kind of legislation.
Re:Sigh... EU Directive != DMCA
on
Euro DMCA Fails
·
· Score: 1
*nod*, I'm very familiar with Article VI part 4. It does not give any indication as to when this should be made available, nor how it should be made available (price, location, proof of ownership required, etc.). If the Dutch implementation is any indication of how this part is viewed I don't have any faith in this part of Article VI.
On a brighter note though: The explanation of the Dutch proposals sofar show reasonably clearly what this law should not do. In Dutch courts these explanations actually carry a lot of weight. There's still hope.:)
You're correct: it's worse!
on
Euro DMCA Fails
·
· Score: 2, Informative
At least the DMCA stopped at circumventing a 'technological measure' that controls access to a work. The EU directive defines a 'technological measure' as anything that stops you from unauthorized acts. Yes, that's unauthorized acts! That goes quite beyond 'mere' access to a work.
Re:Sigh... EU Directive != DMCA
on
Euro DMCA Fails
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Can you please point out the part where it establishes a 'right' to exercise the equivalent of 'fair-use'?
How exactly is the BSA involved?!?
on
Euro DMCA Fails
·
· Score: 1
As far as I remember this EU directive does not apply to software. In fact: software has had a non-circumvention clause in Dutch law for quite some time already.
Re:Netherlands, here I come...
on
Euro DMCA Fails
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, one of the reasons for the delay has been the crisis in (read: fall of) the Dutch government. The Dutch implementation has already been through several rounds of review though, and it'll probably be up for discussion in the 2nd Chamber pretty soon after the elections in January. As I'm very much involved in these discussions I'll keep you posted on the progress...
Not too long ago we've been seeing these VHS tapes that would only be usable as an empty recordable tape after 2 times viewing. They were a complete failure, since noone was interested in buying them. It's probably where this idea will end up as well: the trashbin.
I bought an XBOX, and since the agreement wasn't on the outside of the box, Buying it is not an implicit agreement of any kind.
True perhaps, but EULA's are not on the outside of the box either. As said: their legality is questionable.
Also, Several of the chips that Lik-Sang sold didn't include any BIOS software... So it literally was just a collection of parts, and a method of connecting those 'parts' to an XBOX...
I don't know if the XBox MOD contained copyrighted material or if it violated the DMCA. The article was very silent about the reason(s) MS objected to these MODs being available. As long as no Cease and Decist letter, or even a lawsuit has been filed, it's hard to figure out the exact details.
1. No, you don't sign an agreement when you buy an XBox. Even if such an agreement was included, it is questionable if this holds any legal value.
2. Profit is not truly an issue in this conflict.
3. There are a few reasons why a MOD chip (and/or its sale) can be illegal: - The MOD chip contains copyrighted code from the original. - The MOD chip qualifies as a circumvention device under the DMCA or similar non-US law. These are usually the reasons a MOD chip is pulled off the market by a court order.
From what I understood from the consumer electronics companies, those tuners are not exactly cheap at this time. To force placing those tuners in all TVs, while most people will probably never need one, places a high unneeded cost on the American customers. To do such at an economic time like this is questionable to say the least.
I've actually been involved in the requirements process of the BPDG, and in my opinion the Slashdot standpoint is a correct one. I'm sure you're enjoying your current HDTV, but under those requirements your current HDTV would not exist.
Please have a look at http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/, and read through the final document. It'll give you a good idea why so many people here are truly against these proposals.
"Copying copyrighted material is indeed a violation, certainly here in the US, and that's where USC is, after all."
I don't claim to fully know US copyright law, but I do believe home copies fall under fair use, even in the US. Dutch law is slightly easier in that matter, since this exception to copyright is actually written down in law. US law however is more flexible.
"Actually, my understanding is that the price factored into blank cassettes was basically a concession granted to the entertainment companies to keep them from fighting the introduction of tape decks that could record."
Government needs no such concession. Home copies are considered fair use (US: through the courts, elsewhere: written in law). As it was impossible to check if people owned the original, or if a copy came from e.g. TV/radio, government felt that based on enforcibility problems, home copies of audio/video should not fall under copyright, but compensation for those copies would be available through an extra price on recordable media.
Interesting question though: as movies get written on CD, should the price hikes for CDs be distributed between RIAA and MPAA now, i.s.o. just falling to the RIAA?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the previous information is incorrect. There's no such thing as an STM-4C.
:)
An STM-4 consists of 4 multiplexed STM-1s with 1 set of Section OverHead bytes (so 1xB1, 1xD1-D3, 1xK1/K2, etc.).
A VC4-4C contains the capacity of 4 VC4s, with 1 set of Path OverHead bytes.
A VC4-4v (virtual concatenation) are basically 4 separate VC4s with some extra information in the H4 byte to allow the receiving end to put them in the correct order and time (since the VC4s may be transmitted through different paths, they may not arrive at the receiving end at the same time) so the payload in those 4 VC4s can be used as one set of payload.
If you want to ask questions on SONET/SDH, feel free to email me at phulshof@xs4all.nl. I've been designing/verifying SONET/SDH ASICs for about 6.5 years now, so I should be able to answer any question you got on the topic.
Ermm... I've been working in the telcom industry for about 6.5 years now, but I've never heard of an STM-4C. What you call an STM-4C is a standard STM-4, and your STM-4 definition is a special interface some telcom companies might be willing to provide for you.
Within a standard STM-4 however, it is possible to place an AU4-4C concatenated payload. This payload contains only one set of Path OverHead bytes i.s.o. 4.
Please realise that at least 95% of the Kazaa users have no idea of what they're doing, and do not realise that by default downloading automatically means making them available. Plausible deniability would work fine for most except computer science majors, because they can claim they thought they were just downloading material (legal in Canada and the Netherlands), and didn't know they were, under the default settings of Kazaa, doing something illegal.
I think there's quite a difference between "Linux user" and "member of the Open Source community (developer)". If we start blaming MicroSoft every time a Windows user does something ... erm .. strike that ;)
1 11 21 1211 111221 312211 13112221 ...
> [I don't even understand the next line in Dutch but I'll
> try: ] Moreover Lindows distinguishes itself [huh?] from
> Windows because of its name [and] Lindows takes
> unjustified advantage from the [fuck knows:
> undistinguishablility?] and reputation of the brand
> Windows.
The Dutch sentence is grammatically flawed to begin with, but the (similarly flawed) translation should read:
Moreover Lindows.com pushes against Windows by the naming of the product Lindows.com draws unjustified advantage of the distinguishing capacity and the reputation of the brand Windows.
Actually, I consider myself to be a geek, but I do have Dutch politicians getting in touch with me to hear my opinion on copyright...
I couldn't disagree with Lomet more to be honest. This is SOFTWARE we're talking about. If research in a field would take too much time, the problem most likely wouldn't exist anymore. Therefore the cost involved in researching a problem doesn't give cause for a 17 year monopoloy. On top of that: as multiple companies try to solve a problem at one time, why should only the first runner to the patent office deserve protection?
It's simple: if you don't research in software, by the time you have the needed knowledge it's irrelevant already. Copyright protection is more than enough needed to keep the software industry running smoothly.
Good luck! :) Just send me an email (phulshof@xs4all.nl) if you run into any trouble.
I'm running mame through DGA, using proper modelines, and it actually runs faster (but not much) than on windows.
I fear that you might be right in this. As I had a look at the site (I was actually interested, much like you) I was baffled by the setup. Why not get a complete team together immediately? You'll need the artists' input on the gamedesign and gamestory. Probably even before you're thinking about getting your programmers on board (although one or two to indicate what is possible, and what isn't, might not be so bad:).
:)
Also: I've noticed that there's enough programmers willing to work on projects like these. It's the artists that are lacking! Even if you somehow manage to get the greatest game idea ever; if you can't get your artists together, you'll have nothing!
Oh well, let's see how this will end up. Perhaps I'll give it an email anyway. After all: next to being a musician I'm also a programmer.
*rofl* no, though I do know the man. :) He didn't seem too happy with the endresult he helped create.
Your description sums up my problems with part 4 pretty well though: By the time this has been through all the procedures the actual circumvention tool will probably be next to worthless. The entertainment industry will slow this down as much as they can.
*nod*, the copyright cartel has managed to claim all the right words for political debates like this one. These kinds of debates are not won on arguments, but on rethorics (unfortunately). It's hard to win against 'theft', 'pirates', etc. The entertainment lobby was huge during the creation of this directive. Unfortunately I got involved a tad too late (I learned about the directive on Slashdot), but the national anti-directive lobbies have gotten off pretty well. Both the UK and the Netherlands have seen a flood of comments on the law proposals. Let's hope they'll have some success.
A very simple example? MOD chips. The processes in the US around MOD chips were based around copyright infringement, not circumvention. This is because the protective measure in MOD chips does not control access to a copyrighted work, and as such circumventing it is not illegal under the DMCA. Under the EU Directive however this would be illegal as circumvention of a 'non authorized act'.
And no, I don't believe US law applies outside the US, though not for lack of trying on the US side. There's some very interesting stories on pressure from the US on other countries to adopt this kind of legislation.
*nod*, I'm very familiar with Article VI part 4. It does not give any indication as to when this should be made available, nor how it should be made available (price, location, proof of ownership required, etc.). If the Dutch implementation is any indication of how this part is viewed I don't have any faith in this part of Article VI.
:)
On a brighter note though: The explanation of the Dutch proposals sofar show reasonably clearly what this law should not do. In Dutch courts these explanations actually carry a lot of weight. There's still hope.
At least the DMCA stopped at circumventing a 'technological measure' that controls access to a work. The EU directive defines a 'technological measure' as anything that stops you from unauthorized acts. Yes, that's unauthorized acts! That goes quite beyond 'mere' access to a work.
Can you please point out the part where it establishes a 'right' to exercise the equivalent of 'fair-use'?
As far as I remember this EU directive does not apply to software. In fact: software has had a non-circumvention clause in Dutch law for quite some time already.
Well, one of the reasons for the delay has been the crisis in (read: fall of) the Dutch government. The Dutch implementation has already been through several rounds of review though, and it'll probably be up for discussion in the 2nd Chamber pretty soon after the elections in January. As I'm very much involved in these discussions I'll keep you posted on the progress...
Not too long ago we've been seeing these VHS tapes that would only be usable as an empty recordable tape after 2 times viewing. They were a complete failure, since noone was interested in buying them. It's probably where this idea will end up as well: the trashbin.
I bought an XBOX, and since the agreement wasn't on the outside of the box, Buying it is not an implicit agreement of any kind.
True perhaps, but EULA's are not on the outside of the box either. As said: their legality is questionable.
Also, Several of the chips that Lik-Sang sold didn't include any BIOS software... So it literally was just a collection of parts, and a method of connecting those 'parts' to an XBOX...
I don't know if the XBox MOD contained copyrighted material or if it violated the DMCA. The article was very silent about the reason(s) MS objected to these MODs being available. As long as no Cease and Decist letter, or even a lawsuit has been filed, it's hard to figure out the exact details.
The answers to the questions are IMHO:
1. No, you don't sign an agreement when you buy an XBox. Even if such an agreement was included, it is questionable if this holds any legal value.
2. Profit is not truly an issue in this conflict.
3. There are a few reasons why a MOD chip (and/or its sale) can be illegal:
- The MOD chip contains copyrighted code from the original.
- The MOD chip qualifies as a circumvention device under the DMCA or similar non-US law.
These are usually the reasons a MOD chip is pulled off the market by a court order.
From what I understood from the consumer electronics companies, those tuners are not exactly cheap at this time. To force placing those tuners in all TVs, while most people will probably never need one, places a high unneeded cost on the American customers. To do such at an economic time like this is questionable to say the least.
I've actually been involved in the requirements process of the BPDG, and in my opinion the Slashdot standpoint is a correct one. I'm sure you're enjoying your current HDTV, but under those requirements your current HDTV would not exist.
Please have a look at http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/, and read through the final document. It'll give you a good idea why so many people here are truly against these proposals.
"Copying copyrighted material is indeed a violation, certainly here in the US, and that's where USC is, after all."
I don't claim to fully know US copyright law, but I do believe home copies fall under fair use, even in the US. Dutch law is slightly easier in that matter, since this exception to copyright is actually written down in law. US law however is more flexible.
"Actually, my understanding is that the price factored into blank cassettes was basically a concession granted to the entertainment companies to keep them from fighting the introduction of tape decks that could record."
Government needs no such concession. Home copies are considered fair use (US: through the courts, elsewhere: written in law). As it was impossible to check if people owned the original, or if a copy came from e.g. TV/radio, government felt that based on enforcibility problems, home copies of audio/video should not fall under copyright, but compensation for those copies would be available through an extra price on recordable media.
Interesting question though: as movies get written on CD, should the price hikes for CDs be distributed between RIAA and MPAA now, i.s.o. just falling to the RIAA?