It's worth noting that the current high-bidder in the eBay auction linked above, "jsider22," has an "About Me" page on the auction site which lists Slashdot as one of his three favorite sites.
...proving once again that the idiots of the world are closer than you think.
The briefs should certainly make for interesting reading. I would have to say that I'd come down on the other side, though: I think that Sony, etc. are probably within their rights.
The question that you have to ask is: Legally speaking, what are these players selling? Their experiences in the game may have made for unique characters, but you have to decide whether those experiences can be separated from the intellectual property that *is* the game -- in other words, the programming that directed those experiences.
It's one thing to sell your "experiences" -- in the sense of selling the rights to the story of your life, for instance. Here, though, it seems to me that the players are selling data; and I would guess that, legally, the company retains ownership of the data.
Consider it another way: Could you, as a Dreamcast owner, legally sell a Visual Memory Unit containing game files to another Dreamcast user? You purchased the VMU, after all, and you played the games to generate those files. Yet you don't own the games; you simply own the discs on which those games are stored, and the right to use those discs. You don't have the right to use those discs to produce copies of the discs, so it's conceivable that neither do you have the right to use those discs to create VMU files to sell to other people.
This sounds like a very interesting case. If it proceeds, I hope that Slashdot will follow it.
For every additional use commercial advertisers can devise for "Santa Claus," the criminal element will devise three new ways to manifest "Ebenezer Scrooge."
The music business is coming to terms with something that law enforcement -- particularly those branches concerned with organized crime -- has been confronted with for some time: Transactions which traverse not only jurisdiction, but also sovereignties, can complicate issues of legal procedure to the point where enforced regulation is all but impossible.
The general level of security-awareness in this industry is frightening -- both for its paucity and for its endurance.
These companies simply aren't sufficiently motivated to clean up their acts. The bad press lasts less than fifteen minutes, and usually never makes it off the internet. The average e-tail customer doesn't get his/her news from internet sources. Security breaches are considered to be the norm; there's no shock felt when a new one is discovered.
Eventually, perhaps, victimized customers will band together and file a class-action lawsuit against these credit companies. It's going to take something that drastic for these folks to sit up and apply the optimal remedies. Unfortunately, it's up to the customers to make it "cost-effective" for the company to do so.
I don't know who the heck is in charge of this recount process; but personally, I suggest we go back to the original count of nine. The scientific community simply can't take this kind of indecision.
When Yahoo! can manage to keep their email system from being hacked by fourteen-year-olds for more than six months, maybe I'll trust them to handle my encryption.
...And just for the record: I know what you're thinking, Hotmail, and that goes doubly for you.
I enjoy the "Jukyard Wars" programs, and optimistically think that they signal good things for the current state of television. Sure, people are finding entertainment in bottom-feeding reality-TV shows which dress up soap operas as "adventurous social experiments"; but there has also been a growth in recent years in the popularity of other reality (i.e. non-scripted) television programs.
In short: If reality-TV amounts only to a second-rate step toward turning off the set and walking outdoors, that's a good thing. If reality-TV indicates a trend toward a decreasing social interest in fiction, and a greater awareness of "real life" (as the Learning, History and Discovery Channels grow -- not to mention MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News), then that's a great thing.
An important question is, "Why is Microsoft doing this?" Who are they targeting with this offer: individuals, or corporations?
Individuals will be unlikely to see a subscription program as beneficial. However, we must remember that the average computer user isn't familiar with the concept of software licensing. Most people who purchase Microsoft Office believe that they are doing just that: purchasing Microsoft Office. Of course, these people aren't going to like the idea of subscriptions, because they will see it as 'renting' that which they can just as easily buy.
Corporations, however, understand the concept of licensing. They are quite familiar with exactly who owns Microsoft software, just as they are familiar with the fact that "bigger and better" is, in the software industry, rarely very far off.
If Microsoft really wants to push a subscription idea, they'll start at the corporate level, and consider what they want the model to be. If they're going to institute a subscription program, they have to think beyond the initial payment. They have to consider what will keep the subscriber paying. When Individual X rents an apartment, that individual's rent entitles him/her not simply to use of the apartment space for the allotted time, but also to certain duties on the part of the landlord. If Microsoft is prepared to provide subscribers with additional support -- if that subscription fee entitles the subscriber to more than simply use of the program -- then corporations may very well decide to participate in such a program.
Microsoft should, for instance, keep track of subscriptions and renewal deadlines itself. Leaving this burden in the lap of the customer does introduce an added difficulty, especially for companies purchasing multiple subscriptions. Microsoft should also not set a schedule for updates; instead, it should focus on maintaining operability for its subscribers, and simply provide updates and support when they become available. A magazine needs to interact little with its subscribers, who use its product once per month; a subscription for something which is used on a daily basis, however, requires regular attention. Microsoft cannot sit back and hope to collect fees once per year, but with a bit of effort they could present a subscription program that would look very attractive to some customers.
Executed prudently, a subscription model such as this can work.
We in the technology forefront may, during the next four years, find ourselves quickly thrown into a very important role in American politics.
At 517AM EST, it seems that Vice President Al Gore has won the national popular vote, while Texas Governor George W. Bush has won the electoral college.
It's difficult to guess exactly how many questions of constitutional law may be raised as a result of this election. Florida seems to have given a margin of victory of just over two hundred votes to Bush. There will, of course, be a recount. Florida's Governor is Bush's brother; Florida's Attorney General has worked closely for Gore's campaign. One could argue that there are conflicts of interest present. There is also some question as to the method of some balloting; apparently at least one district in Florida conducted their voting in such a way that led Gore voters to mistakenly vote for Buchanan. The Buchanan vote does indeed seem to be disproportionately large in those areas, and Gore may contest these votes.
An electoral election of a candidate who loses the popular vote will, obviously, be a great motivation for consideration of a Constitutional Amendment to reform, or abolish, the electoral college.
Also, the state of Washington has required only that ballots be postmarked by November 7. This makes projections in close-call cases such as this very difficult.
The result of all this hullabaloo will be that a great deal of attention will be focused on the processes of election. There will be an open discussion, and the technology community will be looked to for explanations of how a "cyber-vote" might work. Would the responsibility for such a process continue to reside with the states? If so, exactly how would the state databases interact with a federal tallying system? What types of security measures would be required? Whose proper responsibility would be such security measures -- the FBI? The Secret Service?
I think there's little doubt that the electoral process is going to be the center of many discussions in the immediate future. And in this technological age, the technological community will be looked to to provide serious input. We should be ready with some hard answers...because we could be responsible for influencing Constitutional law, and have a hand in building the system which elects future Presidents.
this discussion seems to span a wide range of political issues. if i may, i'd like to add a couple of points.
1.) i feel that it is my responsibility as a citizen to vote, and i choose to be a "responsible citizen." i choose my candidate by deciding which, among the names on the ballot in my state, i would most like to see elected. i do not look for someone who identically matches my ideology; if i did, i would probably never be able to vote.
2.) i am registered as an independent, in order to receive a ballot with every candidate's name. i do not think voters should have the option of registering with one party or another and receiving only that party's ballot.
3.) on november 7, i plan to cast my vote for george w. bush. i would like to vote for libertarian harry browne. if bush were leading gore by a fifteen- or twenty-point margin, i would vote for browne. i do not think "because browne won't win" is a valid reason not to vote for browne; however, i do feel that "because gore might win" is a valid reason to vote for bush over browne. in other words: in my case, gore is actually the one taking a vote away from browne.
4.) right now, i want, more than anything else, an effective leader as president. i regret that neither bush nor gore appears to have this trait. i think the republican party, with whom i usually align, erred greatly in nominating bush, rather than senator john mccain, for candidacy. i speculate that mccain would have easily defeated gore; and whatever mccain may lack, he certainly possesses the trait of leadership which i feel our country is so desperately lacking.
5.) neither the death penalty nor abortion concern me as issues regarding the presidency. both are ultimately handled by state governments. i am pro-choice, but find justice scalia's arguments persuasive, and would probably favor overturning roe v. wade -- not because i seek to outlaw abortion, but because i believe that the court overstepped its bounds. if the people wish to preserve the "right" to abortion, i believe that they should campaign accordingly in their states. remember: roe v. wade would never have been an issue but for a state [texas] law. as to the issue of capital punishment, i am currently undecided. philosophically, i do not favor granting any government -- particularly ones as bureaucratic and disorganized as our states' -- the power to take a life; however, i recognize that there may be certain crimes for which society requires an extreme psychological remedy to counter the resulting feelings of impotence.
6.) i find many americans' pride in the mantra "i don't care," regarding the clintons' scandals (lewinsky, whitewater, fundraising, etc.) to be a disturbing indicator of the level of apathy in this country. while i do not care about the clintons' marital issues, i do care whether or not the office of the president and several branches of our government are occupied for great lengths of time by soap opera-esque issues. i would prefer that office be held by someone who would, by his/her behavior, not permit such things to occur.
7.) although i do plan to vote for him, i am troubled by bush's recent declaration: "i don't trust the federal government." i want a government minimalist who is so by philosophy, and seeks to achieve same constructively -- but one who inspires both confidence and trust in that resulting federal government. i don't support federal controls in certain areas of my life because i am philosophically opposed to that, not because i "distrust those dirtbag politicians." i want a president who favors strong state government, but who absolutely trusts and exemplifies optimism for the federal government.
as a frequent slashdot reader, i'll add my voice to the fire: i don't think of/. as just a "computers-n-such" site, and i found the lain discussion to be very interesting.
this site may be viewed by some as computer-specific, but the fact is that it also tends to pick up some of the more interesting -- and oftentimes elsewhere-neglected -- stories from across the spectrum that tend to be of interest to those of us involved in the "tech" side of life. lain may not have the social importance of linux or MPAA v. 2600; but if, to some degree, "lain" and slashdot share an audience, then that community is all the 'relevance' that the story needs to belong on this site.
cmdrtaco: thanks for the post. i wouldn't have read the transcript otherwise, and i'm glad that i did.
"what the mpaa needs to focus on is having dvd permeate the media universe: removal of region codes...[etc.]" This is an excellent point. I don't think that it serves the long-term best interests of the MPAA to be trying to maintain such a stranglehold on the software associated with DVDs. The money raked in via licensing of players simply isn't worth the foot-dragging that the DVD industry has gone, and is going, through. Strict licensing policies have never served new technologies well (if the Mac doesn't serve as a clear enough analogy, take a look at Sony's MiniDisc). The goal of the MPAA should be not this "protection" of DVDs, but rather their proliferation. The transition from VHS to DVD holds both pro's and con's for the movie industry; but since they've obviously adopted this as their goal and DVD as their chosen medium, their primary focus right now should be on overcoming consumer doubt in the technology's staying power. Creating such publicized legal issues as this trial has serves only to undermine the faith of the average consumer. One of the first rumors to come out of the DeCSS story, before 2600 got involved, was that the cracking of CSS could lead to widespread piracy and the resultant quick abandonment of DVD by the movie studios. Publicity like this does nothing to further the MPAA's vision of "a DVD player in every home" -- or their probably-more-optimistic-vision of "VHS, DVD, and LaserDisc players connected to every TV in every home." crib
Slashdot Mirror
It's worth noting that the current high-bidder in the eBay auction linked above, "jsider22," has an "About Me" page on the auction site which lists Slashdot as one of his three favorite sites.
...proving once again that the idiots of the world are closer than you think.
crib
What a fantastic way to combine two of Americans' favorite driving activities: talking on cellphones, and littering.
It's about time we gave morons something besides their cigarette butts to throw out the window.
crib
...says the genius who apparently can't work slashdot's ultra-complex "older articles" search function.
crib
The briefs should certainly make for interesting reading. I would have to say that I'd come down on the other side, though: I think that Sony, etc. are probably within their rights.
The question that you have to ask is: Legally speaking, what are these players selling? Their experiences in the game may have made for unique characters, but you have to decide whether those experiences can be separated from the intellectual property that *is* the game -- in other words, the programming that directed those experiences.
It's one thing to sell your "experiences" -- in the sense of selling the rights to the story of your life, for instance. Here, though, it seems to me that the players are selling data; and I would guess that, legally, the company retains ownership of the data.
Consider it another way: Could you, as a Dreamcast owner, legally sell a Visual Memory Unit containing game files to another Dreamcast user? You purchased the VMU, after all, and you played the games to generate those files. Yet you don't own the games; you simply own the discs on which those games are stored, and the right to use those discs. You don't have the right to use those discs to produce copies of the discs, so it's conceivable that neither do you have the right to use those discs to create VMU files to sell to other people.
This sounds like a very interesting case. If it proceeds, I hope that Slashdot will follow it.
crib
For every additional use commercial advertisers can devise for "Santa Claus," the criminal element will devise three new ways to manifest "Ebenezer Scrooge."
crib
The music business is coming to terms with something that law enforcement -- particularly those branches concerned with organized crime -- has been confronted with for some time: Transactions which traverse not only jurisdiction, but also sovereignties, can complicate issues of legal procedure to the point where enforced regulation is all but impossible.
crib
The general level of security-awareness in this industry is frightening -- both for its paucity and for its endurance.
These companies simply aren't sufficiently motivated to clean up their acts. The bad press lasts less than fifteen minutes, and usually never makes it off the internet. The average e-tail customer doesn't get his/her news from internet sources. Security breaches are considered to be the norm; there's no shock felt when a new one is discovered.
Eventually, perhaps, victimized customers will band together and file a class-action lawsuit against these credit companies. It's going to take something that drastic for these folks to sit up and apply the optimal remedies. Unfortunately, it's up to the customers to make it "cost-effective" for the company to do so.
crib
What?! A new planet? ANOTHER new planet?
I don't know who the heck is in charge of this recount process; but personally, I suggest we go back to the original count of nine. The scientific community simply can't take this kind of indecision.
crib
When Yahoo! can manage to keep their email system from being hacked by fourteen-year-olds for more than six months, maybe I'll trust them to handle my encryption.
...And just for the record: I know what you're thinking, Hotmail, and that goes doubly for you.
crib
I enjoy the "Jukyard Wars" programs, and optimistically think that they signal good things for the current state of television. Sure, people are finding entertainment in bottom-feeding reality-TV shows which dress up soap operas as "adventurous social experiments"; but there has also been a growth in recent years in the popularity of other reality (i.e. non-scripted) television programs.
In short: If reality-TV amounts only to a second-rate step toward turning off the set and walking outdoors, that's a good thing. If reality-TV indicates a trend toward a decreasing social interest in fiction, and a greater awareness of "real life" (as the Learning, History and Discovery Channels grow -- not to mention MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News), then that's a great thing.
crib
An important question is, "Why is Microsoft doing this?" Who are they targeting with this offer: individuals, or corporations?
Individuals will be unlikely to see a subscription program as beneficial. However, we must remember that the average computer user isn't familiar with the concept of software licensing. Most people who purchase Microsoft Office believe that they are doing just that: purchasing Microsoft Office. Of course, these people aren't going to like the idea of subscriptions, because they will see it as 'renting' that which they can just as easily buy.
Corporations, however, understand the concept of licensing. They are quite familiar with exactly who owns Microsoft software, just as they are familiar with the fact that "bigger and better" is, in the software industry, rarely very far off.
If Microsoft really wants to push a subscription idea, they'll start at the corporate level, and consider what they want the model to be. If they're going to institute a subscription program, they have to think beyond the initial payment. They have to consider what will keep the subscriber paying. When Individual X rents an apartment, that individual's rent entitles him/her not simply to use of the apartment space for the allotted time, but also to certain duties on the part of the landlord. If Microsoft is prepared to provide subscribers with additional support -- if that subscription fee entitles the subscriber to more than simply use of the program -- then corporations may very well decide to participate in such a program.
Microsoft should, for instance, keep track of subscriptions and renewal deadlines itself. Leaving this burden in the lap of the customer does introduce an added difficulty, especially for companies purchasing multiple subscriptions. Microsoft should also not set a schedule for updates; instead, it should focus on maintaining operability for its subscribers, and simply provide updates and support when they become available. A magazine needs to interact little with its subscribers, who use its product once per month; a subscription for something which is used on a daily basis, however, requires regular attention. Microsoft cannot sit back and hope to collect fees once per year, but with a bit of effort they could present a subscription program that would look very attractive to some customers.
Executed prudently, a subscription model such as this can work.
crib
We in the technology forefront may, during the next four years, find ourselves quickly thrown into a very important role in American politics.
At 517AM EST, it seems that Vice President Al Gore has won the national popular vote, while Texas Governor George W. Bush has won the electoral college.
It's difficult to guess exactly how many questions of constitutional law may be raised as a result of this election. Florida seems to have given a margin of victory of just over two hundred votes to Bush. There will, of course, be a recount. Florida's Governor is Bush's brother; Florida's Attorney General has worked closely for Gore's campaign. One could argue that there are conflicts of interest present. There is also some question as to the method of some balloting; apparently at least one district in Florida conducted their voting in such a way that led Gore voters to mistakenly vote for Buchanan. The Buchanan vote does indeed seem to be disproportionately large in those areas, and Gore may contest these votes.
An electoral election of a candidate who loses the popular vote will, obviously, be a great motivation for consideration of a Constitutional Amendment to reform, or abolish, the electoral college.
Also, the state of Washington has required only that ballots be postmarked by November 7. This makes projections in close-call cases such as this very difficult.
The result of all this hullabaloo will be that a great deal of attention will be focused on the processes of election. There will be an open discussion, and the technology community will be looked to for explanations of how a "cyber-vote" might work. Would the responsibility for such a process continue to reside with the states? If so, exactly how would the state databases interact with a federal tallying system? What types of security measures would be required? Whose proper responsibility would be such security measures -- the FBI? The Secret Service?
I think there's little doubt that the electoral process is going to be the center of many discussions in the immediate future. And in this technological age, the technological community will be looked to to provide serious input. We should be ready with some hard answers...because we could be responsible for influencing Constitutional law, and have a hand in building the system which elects future Presidents.
crib
if i may add a small [but significant] point: the game boy beat not only sega's game gear, but also nec's turbo express -- which far surpassed both.
crib
this discussion seems to span a wide range of political issues. if i may, i'd like to add a couple of points.
1.) i feel that it is my responsibility as a citizen to vote, and i choose to be a "responsible citizen." i choose my candidate by deciding which, among the names on the ballot in my state, i would most like to see elected. i do not look for someone who identically matches my ideology; if i did, i would probably never be able to vote.
2.) i am registered as an independent, in order to receive a ballot with every candidate's name. i do not think voters should have the option of registering with one party or another and receiving only that party's ballot.
3.) on november 7, i plan to cast my vote for george w. bush. i would like to vote for libertarian harry browne. if bush were leading gore by a fifteen- or twenty-point margin, i would vote for browne. i do not think "because browne won't win" is a valid reason not to vote for browne; however, i do feel that "because gore might win" is a valid reason to vote for bush over browne. in other words: in my case, gore is actually the one taking a vote away from browne.
4.) right now, i want, more than anything else, an effective leader as president. i regret that neither bush nor gore appears to have this trait. i think the republican party, with whom i usually align, erred greatly in nominating bush, rather than senator john mccain, for candidacy. i speculate that mccain would have easily defeated gore; and whatever mccain may lack, he certainly possesses the trait of leadership which i feel our country is so desperately lacking.
5.) neither the death penalty nor abortion concern me as issues regarding the presidency. both are ultimately handled by state governments. i am pro-choice, but find justice scalia's arguments persuasive, and would probably favor overturning roe v. wade -- not because i seek to outlaw abortion, but because i believe that the court overstepped its bounds. if the people wish to preserve the "right" to abortion, i believe that they should campaign accordingly in their states. remember: roe v. wade would never have been an issue but for a state [texas] law. as to the issue of capital punishment, i am currently undecided. philosophically, i do not favor granting any government -- particularly ones as bureaucratic and disorganized as our states' -- the power to take a life; however, i recognize that there may be certain crimes for which society requires an extreme psychological remedy to counter the resulting feelings of impotence.
6.) i find many americans' pride in the mantra "i don't care," regarding the clintons' scandals (lewinsky, whitewater, fundraising, etc.) to be a disturbing indicator of the level of apathy in this country. while i do not care about the clintons' marital issues, i do care whether or not the office of the president and several branches of our government are occupied for great lengths of time by soap opera-esque issues. i would prefer that office be held by someone who would, by his/her behavior, not permit such things to occur.
7.) although i do plan to vote for him, i am troubled by bush's recent declaration: "i don't trust the federal government." i want a government minimalist who is so by philosophy, and seeks to achieve same constructively -- but one who inspires both confidence and trust in that resulting federal government. i don't support federal controls in certain areas of my life because i am philosophically opposed to that, not because i "distrust those dirtbag politicians." i want a president who favors strong state government, but who absolutely trusts and exemplifies optimism for the federal government.
...my seven cents.
crib
as a frequent slashdot reader, i'll add my voice to the fire: i don't think of /. as just a "computers-n-such" site, and i found the lain discussion to be very interesting.
this site may be viewed by some as computer-specific, but the fact is that it also tends to pick up some of the more interesting -- and oftentimes elsewhere-neglected -- stories from across the spectrum that tend to be of interest to those of us involved in the "tech" side of life. lain may not have the social importance of linux or MPAA v. 2600; but if, to some degree, "lain" and slashdot share an audience, then that community is all the 'relevance' that the story needs to belong on this site.
cmdrtaco: thanks for the post. i wouldn't have read the transcript otherwise, and i'm glad that i did.
crib
"what the mpaa needs to focus on is having dvd permeate the media universe: removal of region codes...[etc.]" This is an excellent point. I don't think that it serves the long-term best interests of the MPAA to be trying to maintain such a stranglehold on the software associated with DVDs. The money raked in via licensing of players simply isn't worth the foot-dragging that the DVD industry has gone, and is going, through. Strict licensing policies have never served new technologies well (if the Mac doesn't serve as a clear enough analogy, take a look at Sony's MiniDisc). The goal of the MPAA should be not this "protection" of DVDs, but rather their proliferation. The transition from VHS to DVD holds both pro's and con's for the movie industry; but since they've obviously adopted this as their goal and DVD as their chosen medium, their primary focus right now should be on overcoming consumer doubt in the technology's staying power. Creating such publicized legal issues as this trial has serves only to undermine the faith of the average consumer. One of the first rumors to come out of the DeCSS story, before 2600 got involved, was that the cracking of CSS could lead to widespread piracy and the resultant quick abandonment of DVD by the movie studios. Publicity like this does nothing to further the MPAA's vision of "a DVD player in every home" -- or their probably-more-optimistic-vision of "VHS, DVD, and LaserDisc players connected to every TV in every home." crib