Seems the differences can be pretty subtle. I'm fairly happy that contract the work I do for my current client belongs to them. If I bring in some code that I've written independently though, I'll make it clear that I have the copyright on it even if I do grant them a license to do whatever they want with it.
Patents are cheap. There's no way Sony are going to actually go ahead with this (unless some market research actually tells them it's actually a good idea), but someone might work out a way to make it work and licence the patent from Sony.
Firstly, because it does a different thing (this is about watching a recording while recording, not watching live TV while recording), secondly it does it in a different way. Patents are for implementations. The title is just a description.
British copyright law does predate the web. The basic principles predate electronic communication. You can't really blame them for failing to predict that there would be a vast freely available store of information and the means to archive it all.
Re:Jon Katz, is that you?
on
Window Pain
·
· Score: 1
ie the Commodore 64 in Afghanistan, remember that?
The correspondent said he had an "ancient commodore computer". Commodore did make a few machines with enough juice to play movies. There was even an MPEG decoder for the Amiga, so it's not out of the question entirely.
I'm just pointing out his moral responsibility. He should allow access to the network to its rightful owners in a manner that doesn't put it at risk from those without the right to access it.
Laws made to that effect are either communist (enforcing a community good over personal freedom)
That's not what communism is about! If it was communist, the government would insist that everybody has lawns and maintain them itself.
or they are authoritarian (I'm gonna tell you how to live, and you better like it).
That's how an absolute democracy works.
If these were put to a public vote, do you think the public would vote against it? Most of these people want nice lawns, and want their neighbours to have nice lawns. It keeps their property values up.
But YouTube wants to display the content. They just don't want to be held liable for alleged copyright infringement that they have no reasonable way of determining whether it's being violated.
If YouTube don't want this video that's fine but they're not making an unbiased decision here. WMG is pressuring the decision, backed by the government.
So, I tried the search problems suggested in those articles. The result order was different but didn't notice Google giving substantially better results than Bing. Bing told me about Eisnteins wife, Franklins inventions, and the top selling album of all time. "Alternatives To Windows" only gave 3 relevant links (Assuming I want to replace the OS) but if I am after information on transparent panels, a search for "Windows" on Bing gives me more relevant results. "OpenOffice" gave me a long list of links to download and find more about openoffice. Vista doesn't give the FSF page bout why Vista is evil until page 2, but does this make Google "right" and Bing "wrong"? "why is microsoft word so expensive?" gives the page that raised the question and several pages discussing exactly this from Bing.
Honestly, people seem to be ragging on Bing because it's Microsoft and it's cool to hate Microsoft.
I'll happily switch to Bing based on the search results. As far as I can tell it's currently improving. Google has actually gone downhill with its results in recent years in my experience. If the trend continues, Bing will be much better than Google shortly.
I see... Since it's a search engine, that much could be deduced from context. Could you perhaps provide an example of a search query that Google does substantially better than Bing?
True. And while it's irritating to search through a long form to find all the fields that are mandatory it does seem to be pretty robust at preventing people from clicking through without thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
I have absolutely no idea how specific the patent is but the patent is freely available online, so if you are that interested, you can look it up.
As another person pointed out, if it was prior art, I'm sure the lawyers would have found it and one of the two courts would have agreed with them.
Seems the differences can be pretty subtle. I'm fairly happy that contract the work I do for my current client belongs to them. If I bring in some code that I've written independently though, I'll make it clear that I have the copyright on it even if I do grant them a license to do whatever they want with it.
I'm sure they could, but they achieved this in a completely different way. The patent is on the implementation, not the problem.
Patents are cheap. There's no way Sony are going to actually go ahead with this (unless some market research actually tells them it's actually a good idea), but someone might work out a way to make it work and licence the patent from Sony.
Because every time that happens the safety protocols fail, and Echostar don't want to be held liable for people getting shot by gangsters.
Firstly, because it does a different thing (this is about watching a recording while recording, not watching live TV while recording), secondly it does it in a different way. Patents are for implementations. The title is just a description.
British copyright law does predate the web. The basic principles predate electronic communication. You can't really blame them for failing to predict that there would be a vast freely available store of information and the means to archive it all.
ie the Commodore 64 in Afghanistan, remember that?
The correspondent said he had an "ancient commodore computer". Commodore did make a few machines with enough juice to play movies. There was even an MPEG decoder for the Amiga, so it's not out of the question entirely.
Not just a description of the what's needed but why it's needed.
As a result there is a lot of advice for alternative solutions that have nothing to do with throttling but may solve the problem.
Yes, but having low overhead, low latency with efficient random access are still beneficial in a container format. Ogg doesn't have these.
Why should he do that? Once he's no longer an employee the internal structure of the department is none of his concern.
I'm just pointing out his moral responsibility. He should allow access to the network to its rightful owners in a manner that doesn't put it at risk from those without the right to access it.
Remove the control hardware. Build your own.
If that's beyond your skill then you're attempting to do a project beyond your skillset.
And since it was not his job, he should be expected to grant access to anyone he could be reasonably certain was a city official.
Laws made to that effect are either communist (enforcing a community good over personal freedom)
That's not what communism is about! If it was communist, the government would insist that everybody has lawns and maintain them itself.
or they are authoritarian (I'm gonna tell you how to live, and you better like it).
That's how an absolute democracy works.
If these were put to a public vote, do you think the public would vote against it? Most of these people want nice lawns, and want their neighbours to have nice lawns. It keeps their property values up.
But YouTube wants to display the content. They just don't want to be held liable for alleged copyright infringement that they have no reasonable way of determining whether it's being violated.
If YouTube don't want this video that's fine but they're not making an unbiased decision here. WMG is pressuring the decision, backed by the government.
I very much doubt their estimate was accurate tot the pint.
About 2 and a half billion hogsheads.
Yes, although this does seem to be an exception for Google. Usually Bing is a lot more varied than Google.
You can. The problem is that the jury is allowed to draw conclusions from the fact that you didn't mention it.
So, I tried the search problems suggested in those articles. The result order was different but didn't notice Google giving substantially better results than Bing. Bing told me about Eisnteins wife, Franklins inventions, and the top selling album of all time. "Alternatives To Windows" only gave 3 relevant links (Assuming I want to replace the OS) but if I am after information on transparent panels, a search for "Windows" on Bing gives me more relevant results. "OpenOffice" gave me a long list of links to download and find more about openoffice. Vista doesn't give the FSF page bout why Vista is evil until page 2, but does this make Google "right" and Bing "wrong"? "why is microsoft word so expensive?" gives the page that raised the question and several pages discussing exactly this from Bing.
Honestly, people seem to be ragging on Bing because it's Microsoft and it's cool to hate Microsoft.
I'll happily switch to Bing based on the search results. As far as I can tell it's currently improving. Google has actually gone downhill with its results in recent years in my experience. If the trend continues, Bing will be much better than Google shortly.
I see... Since it's a search engine, that much could be deduced from context. Could you perhaps provide an example of a search query that Google does substantially better than Bing?
True. And while it's irritating to search through a long form to find all the fields that are mandatory it does seem to be pretty robust at preventing people from clicking through without thinking.
Google is hard to compete with because they have a search monopoly. Microsoft were punished for their monopolistic behaviour. Why shouldn't Google be?
In what way does Bing suck?
As for trustworthy - Bing has a much better privacy policy than Google.