BSA targets particular cities and/or business types and sends out blanket letters to companies that meet the requirements. You can get a list of targeted cities on BSA's web site:
http://www.bsa.org/usa/events/
Any sales increase in the city immediately after mailing of the letters gets BSA money. Now the letters don't really have an affect if they can't show they sometimes follow through.
The BSA will then go after certain targets either ones they think are particularly egriegous or they have pretty good proof of violations (the BSA has registration/purchase info from their member organizations plus any public informaion about companies so they can see a company with 1000 employees appears to only own 100 copies of Office -- this may be legit).
So, the BSA will ask for proof of purchase for software from their member organizations (their ability to do this given in the license agreement for most software). Note SERIAL NUMBERS AND CD'S ARE NOT PROOF OF PURCHASE. You MUST HAVE RECEIPTS!
If you refuse they can file an civil copyright infringement lawsuit against you and can ask the court to impound the computers as evidence. They can also ask the prosecuting attny's to bring criminal actions against you.
Details of why the BSA has the law on their side: http://www.bsa.org/usa/antipiracy/law/
I'd say for a small organization you're probably safe -- unless you had somebody get pissed off at you and reported you to the BSA and raised their awareness of your company from mailing address to red light.
Under current US law the BSA acts legally. If you disagree with this you can choose software that has no such problems (i.e. open source, free software) or you can work to change the law while obeying it or you can start some kind of civil disobedience (just remember -- if you break the law you still have to pay the price for breaking it, even for good intentions. many civil rights fighters ended up in jail to prove their point, if you can't afford the price don't use this method).
I prefer a mix of 1 and 2. I don't think the right to copy other people's software is worth jail time to go the disobedence route.
i think the only people that target home computers are those that want to use the machine in a distributed denial of service attack, or as a stepping stone to make the real attack on another box appear to come from somewhere other than the cracker's home machine.
why should this be an unpatenable idea? I don't have a problem with the concepts of patents, i just think the current implementation of the patent system has a) too long a duration for computer technolog, b) allows software/algorythm/business patents, c) too easy to patent obvious or already implemented ideas.
I don't see this as being any of those (except the too long a duration) assuming it's very different from mood ring technology. The applications range far outside the computer domain -- i'd love to have a car i could change color at will.
try resetting the ipod by holding down the menu and play/pause button simultaneously for about 10 seconds. that fixed my charging problem.
what i really want is an ogg encoder in itunes, not just a player.
Re:How About Permitting _Real_ Competition?
on
DSL Amidst Phone Wars
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
and of course the gov't subsidies most phone companies recieved (in direct payments and via grants of monopoly status) to run those lines doesn't entitle the tax payers that funded them to anything.
Mac OS X was not designed so Windows users could switch to a Mac more easily (Mac OS 9 is closer to the way Windows works for that but since that interface was developed prior to Windows it couldn't have been developed to be close to Windows UI. In fact the other way around would be more correct.)
There are other differences from Windows in Mac, the single menu bar at the top of the screen is probably a bigger change for users coming from windows.
Probably still not a "significant" change. But IMO the sum of all the minor differences between OS X and Windows make OS X more enjoyable (in most respects). Haven't used Linux GUI's enough to really get a good feel (I'm a command line guy on Linux).
the question then becomes -- does IBM (or HP or Red Hat) need additional help in commericalizing the server market? Commericialization of the server market is already occuring because the kernel is capable in that area. Sure more work needs to be done, but it's already being done by those companies.
The desktop development area needs help, but because there isn't the incentive for immediate money by those companies they don't put as many people or money into it.
KDE and GNOME are seperate products from the linux kernel and GNU software (well KDE, GNOME is the official GNU desktop I belive -- but it isn't a GNU product). Eventually they'll get to the point where commercialization is possible and it'll take off like the server area. but to shutdown development in that area now would simply slow down the possiblity of that ever occurring.
Linux isn't a business. Linux is used by businesses, some are in the business of re-selling it, a lot aren't, and linux is used by individuals. You focus businesses to either open new markets (a la microsoft's refocusing on the internet not too many years ago) or to shed un-profitable areas that aren't part of the "core" business. But linux doesn't require profit centers or new markets to make money, it doesn't even need to make money. It has more developers (not necessarily a good thing) when it's making money but that isn't an absolute requirement for development to continue.
Many people think that "refocusing" on the server would have the result of increased developers working in that area. But each developer has his or her reason for being there and working on what they are working on. some are paid by a company to do what they are doing, others are scratching an itch, still others are sticking it to microsoft, and some are probably wanting to stick it to apple.
to assume those developers would switch to a "server" focus simply because everyone else says they should denies the reason they are doing what they are doing already (after all everyone already says if you're interested in desktop development you should only focus on Windows, it's got the bigger market share.) If you take away those developers projects, some will probably move to server focused projects, but many more will probably just find another desktop development project.
The tower macs and the Titanium PowerBooks both come with gigabit ethernet already. now i just need a gigabit card in my linux server (and i wouldn't mind a gigabit switch while i'm at it).
I want iPod support more than iTunes. I haven't listened to music via iTunes in months, I play everything through the iPod.
Re:Whats the big problem with putting ogg everywhe
on
Ogg Support For iTunes
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
With proprietary software (i.e. MP3 encoders like iTunes has) there may have been all kinds of backroom deals we may never know about. For example Apple may have gotten a super cut-rate deal on the encoder license in exchange for promising thomson to not include Ogg support for encoding or playback.
I could be blowing smoke out my ass too and apple is just really slow to respond to new formats and the next version will include Ogg support.
one thing that has already been done is to substitute the old 3.0 code SHA1 into the comparison string of the password checking routine.
this works (which means the alg. hasn't changed from 3.0).
your route would work also.
however there isn't currently a known way to get to a BASH shell (or any shell) on the series 2 (which is the only model with 3.2 code to date). This means chaning the routines or the hash codes invovles dismounting the hd, mounting into another system, hand editing (until a patch is developed) the drive, then mounting back in the tivo.
kind of sucky thing to have to do to get the backdoors enabled -- which don't really hide that much functionality (all the shortcuts i use such as 30 second jump and the time code and the now playing sort order changes are available without backdoors)
i don't think a dollar a track is cheap enough for online delivery. that's still $15 for 15 tracks which is pretty typical for most CD's. I'm paying for the CD and my part of the bandwidth and my burn time....
that was probably 70mm too. that's seems to be the standard size in US film houses these days. Film distributors usually make 35mm's available to colleges and such.
Imax also has a 70mm width, but is signicantly taller.
yep. that's the nature of patents. they have a monopoly on it and can charge whatever and however they want to (even worse it's a patent on this particular method of encoding/decoding sound -- so it isn't possible to make a clean room version). If the license fee was in place when you downloaded the player the writer of the software owes Thompson $.75 for that player -- even if they didn't charge you.
actually they could institute a per decode (i.e. per song) fee and then start charging you for that.
I don't think they can change their policy retroactively (i.e. try to charge you for songs played in the past), but they could change it in the future.
Makes Ogg look better and better doesn't it? Now if only my iPod would support Ogg.
mp3 Software Decoders/Players distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users
No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users.
192 Kbps. Roughly 4700 tracks, all from CDs I own (some of my classical CD's are like 5 tracks on an hour CD). Not quite done converting all I own yet. I don't download too much at the moment.
Yes, I am a CD buying junkie. One of those people the RIAA refuses to believe exists.
Slashdot Mirror
BSA targets particular cities and/or business types and sends out blanket letters to companies that meet the requirements. You can get a list of targeted cities on BSA's web site:
http://www.bsa.org/usa/events/
Any sales increase in the city immediately after mailing of the letters gets BSA money. Now the letters don't really have an affect if they can't show they sometimes follow through.
The BSA will then go after certain targets either ones they think are particularly egriegous or they have pretty good proof of violations (the BSA has registration/purchase info from their member organizations plus any public informaion about companies so they can see a company with 1000 employees appears to only own 100 copies of Office -- this may be legit).
So, the BSA will ask for proof of purchase for software from their member organizations (their ability to do this given in the license agreement for most software). Note SERIAL NUMBERS AND CD'S ARE NOT PROOF OF PURCHASE. You MUST HAVE RECEIPTS!
If you refuse they can file an civil copyright infringement lawsuit against you and can ask the court to impound the computers as evidence. They can also ask the prosecuting attny's to bring criminal actions against you.
Details of why the BSA has the law on their side:
http://www.bsa.org/usa/antipiracy/law/
I'd say for a small organization you're probably safe -- unless you had somebody get pissed off at you and reported you to the BSA and raised their awareness of your company from mailing address to red light.
Under current US law the BSA acts legally. If you disagree with this you can choose software that has no such problems (i.e. open source, free software) or you can work to change the law while obeying it or you can start some kind of civil disobedience (just remember -- if you break the law you still have to pay the price for breaking it, even for good intentions. many civil rights fighters ended up in jail to prove their point, if you can't afford the price don't use this method).
I prefer a mix of 1 and 2. I don't think the right to copy other people's software is worth jail time to go the disobedence route.
i think the only people that target home computers are those that want to use the machine in a distributed denial of service attack, or as a stepping stone to make the real attack on another box appear to come from somewhere other than the cracker's home machine.
why should this be an unpatenable idea? I don't have a problem with the concepts of patents, i just think the current implementation of the patent system has a) too long a duration for computer technolog, b) allows software/algorythm/business patents, c) too easy to patent obvious or already implemented ideas.
I don't see this as being any of those (except the too long a duration) assuming it's very different from mood ring technology. The applications range far outside the computer domain -- i'd love to have a car i could change color at will.
try resetting the ipod by holding down the menu and play/pause button simultaneously for about 10 seconds. that fixed my charging problem.
what i really want is an ogg encoder in itunes, not just a player.
and of course the gov't subsidies most phone companies recieved (in direct payments and via grants of monopoly status) to run those lines doesn't entitle the tax payers that funded them to anything.
Mac OS X was not designed so Windows users could switch to a Mac more easily (Mac OS 9 is closer to the way Windows works for that but since that interface was developed prior to Windows it couldn't have been developed to be close to Windows UI. In fact the other way around would be more correct.)
There are other differences from Windows in Mac,
the single menu bar at the top of the screen is probably a bigger change for users coming from windows.
Probably still not a "significant" change. But IMO the sum of all the minor differences between OS X and Windows make OS X more enjoyable (in most respects). Haven't used Linux GUI's enough to really get a good feel (I'm a command line guy on Linux).
won't happen. too much of the code was shared with Microsoft and is held in joint copyright.
the question then becomes -- does IBM (or HP or Red Hat) need additional help in commericalizing the server market? Commericialization of the server market is already occuring because the kernel is capable in that area. Sure more work needs to be done, but it's already being done by those companies.
The desktop development area needs help, but because there isn't the incentive for immediate money by those companies they don't put as many people or money into it.
KDE and GNOME are seperate products from the linux kernel and GNU software (well KDE, GNOME is the official GNU desktop I belive -- but it isn't a GNU product). Eventually they'll get to the point where commercialization is possible and it'll take off like the server area. but to shutdown development in that area now would simply slow down the possiblity of that ever occurring.
Linux isn't a business. Linux is used by businesses, some are in the business of re-selling it, a lot aren't, and linux is used by individuals. You focus businesses to either open new markets (a la microsoft's refocusing on the internet not too many years ago) or to shed un-profitable areas that aren't part of the "core" business. But linux doesn't require profit centers or new markets to make money, it doesn't even need to make money. It has more developers (not necessarily a good thing) when it's making money but that isn't an absolute requirement for development to continue.
Many people think that "refocusing" on the server would have the result of increased developers working in that area. But each developer has his or her reason for being there and working on what they are working on. some are paid by a company to do what they are doing, others are scratching an itch, still others are sticking it to microsoft, and some are probably wanting to stick it to apple.
to assume those developers would switch to a "server" focus simply because everyone else says they should denies the reason they are doing what they are doing already (after all everyone already says if you're interested in desktop development you should only focus on Windows, it's got the bigger market share.) If you take away those developers projects, some will probably move to server focused projects, but many more will probably just find another desktop development project.
The end result would be a loss to linux.
The tower macs and the Titanium PowerBooks both come with gigabit ethernet already. now i just need a gigabit card in my linux server (and i wouldn't mind a gigabit switch while i'm at it).
not open source. has a click thru license, plus distributed as binary only.
I want iPod support more than iTunes. I haven't listened to music via iTunes in months, I play everything through the iPod.
With proprietary software (i.e. MP3 encoders like iTunes has) there may have been all kinds of backroom deals we may never know about. For example Apple may have gotten a super cut-rate deal on the encoder license in exchange for promising thomson to not include Ogg support for encoding or playback.
I could be blowing smoke out my ass too and apple is just really slow to respond to new formats and the next version will include Ogg support.
that was for an 8 character password. the stats are now for an 9 character password.
48% complete
one thing that has already been done is to substitute the old 3.0 code SHA1 into the comparison string of the password checking routine.
this works (which means the alg. hasn't changed from 3.0).
your route would work also.
however there isn't currently a known way to get to a BASH shell (or any shell) on the series 2 (which is the only model with 3.2 code to date). This means chaning the routines or the hash codes invovles dismounting the hd, mounting into another system, hand editing (until a patch is developed) the drive, then mounting back in the tivo.
kind of sucky thing to have to do to get the backdoors enabled -- which don't really hide that much functionality (all the shortcuts i use such as 30 second jump and the time code and the now playing sort order changes are available without backdoors)
kevin
that's who i use too. It's not unusual for me to download 10 albums in a weekend (not every weekend)
i don't think a dollar a track is cheap enough for online delivery. that's still $15 for 15 tracks which is pretty typical for most CD's. I'm paying for the CD and my part of the bandwidth and my burn time....
good start though.
I've got 3 locations:
Auto-wired
Auto-wireless
No Network
All use DHCP, I just use location manager to shut off unused nic cards to give me more battery life.
minor nit-picking detail: they have a patent. patent and trademark are completely different.
that was probably 70mm too. that's seems to be the standard size in US film houses these days. Film distributors usually make 35mm's available to colleges and such.
Imax also has a 70mm width, but is signicantly taller.
good comparison here:
http://www.1570films.com/
Scroll down a bit to see the size comparison.
yep. that's the nature of patents. they have a monopoly on it and can charge whatever and however they want to (even worse it's a patent on this particular method of encoding/decoding sound -- so it isn't possible to make a clean room version). If the license fee was in place when you downloaded the player the writer of the software owes Thompson $.75 for that player -- even if they didn't charge you.
actually they could institute a per decode (i.e. per song) fee and then start charging you for that.
I don't think they can change their policy retroactively (i.e. try to charge you for songs played in the past), but they could change it in the future.
Makes Ogg look better and better doesn't it? Now if only my iPod would support Ogg.
this was never a charge against end users, it's a charge against distributors or producers.
they can charge whoever wrote the decoder you have for that decoder.
According to the Way Back Machine:
n sing.com/royalty/swdec.html
m p3licensing.com/royalty/software.html
Feburary 8, 2001:
http://web.archive.org/web/20001212023000/mp3lice
mp3 Software Decoders/Players distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users
No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users.
Then in August 2001 no mention is made of the no mention of exemption for freely distributed players (and the rate is only 50 cents per player):
http://web.archive.org/web/20010820181631/http://
Looks like the rate was increased to $.75 in November 2001.
That's an urban legend.
http://www.tafkac.org/misc/patent_office_ul.html
192 Kbps. Roughly 4700 tracks, all from CDs I own (some of my classical CD's are like 5 tracks on an hour CD). Not quite done converting all I own yet. I don't download too much at the moment.
Yes, I am a CD buying junkie. One of those people the RIAA refuses to believe exists.