Kempin said Microsoft should withhold technical information from Intel and "work underground" to promote its competitors in the computer chip industry, according to portions of the memo disclosed in the states' legal filing.
"I would further try to restrict source code deliveries where possible and be less gracious when interpreting agreements -- again without being obvious about it," Kempin wrote.
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said Kempin's memo was "irrelevant" because the company never acted on his ideas.
Yeah, it's the fine print on the bottom that's priceless:
CD audio discs that incorporate copyright protection technologies do not adhere to published Compact Disc standards. Apple designs its CD drives to support media that conforms to such standards. Apple computers are not designed to support copyright protected media that do not conform to such standards. Therefore, any attempt to use non standard discs with Apple CD drives will be considered a misapplication of the product. Under the terms of Apple's One-Year Limited Warranty, AppleCare Protection Plan, or other AppleCare agreement any misapplication of the product is excluded from Apple's repair coverage.
What the big Hollywood studios fear the most from technology isn't piracy (or at least, that isn't their main concern right now); I am rather certain they wake up each morning, wondering what they're going to do to keep their trust alive when everyone with a camera and a PC can be a movie studio.
I think you almost have it.
What is the "job" of the executives of these content companies? To keep the stock price up.
How do they keep their stock price up? Keep the company growing at a decent clip.
How can you keep the company growing if your business model is solely based on producing and distributing other people's content? Make sure that creators of content have no other options for production and distribution.
I don't think that Hollywood studios are afraid that garage directors will put them out of business. I do think they're afraid that the next Great American Director will be able to edit the next Great American film on his Powerbook, stream it himself on the Internet, and not have to use their distribution system to get known. There will be many other content creators that do use the studios. But their oligopoly will be broken, and their will be more competition. At least, you won't be able to see the next Great American Movie in theaters, and more people will associate the Internet with movies.
This won't put Hollyood out of business. But it will erode their control over the content distribution of the process, which will lead to reduced profits and no growth. Which, from the Executives' perspective, is just as bad.
I have yet to see a wireless adapater for a desktop that wasn't, in reality, a PCMCIA slot with a wireless card. It's a big cost savings to them to only have to manufacture one set of devices to fill their needs in laptops, PC's, and access points. Trying to do software drivers would totally screw up these possibilities.
You've got the idea, but there's more to this particular story. It is all about cost, but not just component cost... Since the wireless card is designed to be an active RF transmitter, each and every unique transmitter sold by a company needs to undergo FCC tests in the U.S., and comparable tests in other countries, and these tests ain't cheap.
If a company made a PCMCIA and a PCI version of the same transmitter, both would have to be tested. But when they sell a PCI version as a PCMCIA card with a PCI bridge, they don't have to have the combination re-tested, because the "transmitter" has already been tested. So, doing drviers in software really will screw up base stations, because you will have to use the crippled card in their base stations,and find a way to shoehorn the driver in there.
Of course, maybe this is Microsoft's bid to have all Access Points run XP Embedded in the future!
It's understandable that Gateway feels their profit margins are being threatened by this bill. The best way for them to fight it is to drum up public support, which means educating users about what they can do with digital music now (rip MP3s, burn CDs, download music) even if it means hinting to people that yes, you can do illegal stuff right now (but you won't be able to soon).
There's a fundamental difference between the Content Companies' position and the Tech Companies' position. The Tech companies just want to be able to make new technology without government intervention. The Content companies see technology as a threat, and want that threat to be legislated away. The Content companies want their "right to profit" protected by Congress, and they don't care what other industries' "right to profit" gets clobbered in the process. (never mind the fact that no company has a "right to profit" - a company that doesn't profit simply fails!)
The reason why I think Gateway's support is a good thing is that the entire Copyright debate has, up until now, been framed by the Content Companies in the Media. They frame the debate in terms of what we can't do with copyrighted material. Up until now, anyone who framed it in terma of what we can do has been dismissed as a Commie Pirate Hacker. Seeing Gateway do this almost makes me want to sell my Macs and home-built Linux boxen for a computer in a cow box. almost.
If Copyright is really supposed to be a two-way street, with the government (also known as the People in the USA) granting certain rights to copyright holders in exchange for public use of their works, then we really should outline what we can do with these works, because my idea of what I can do and Michael Eisner's idea are polar opposites. The role of legislation should be to clarify what we can and can't do, and it's obviously not doing a good enough job! The bill of rights at digitalconsumer.org does, though. The more I think about it, the more I realize that THAT needs to be our next copyright law.
Prof. Felton gets threatened with a lawsuit by the RIAA regarding DMCA violations, but the lawsuit never comes.
Bnetd gets threatened with a lawsuit by Vivendi regarding DMCA violations, but the lawsuit doesn't mention the DMCA.
Perhaps the media companies know that the DMCA goes too far, and will not bring an actual high-profile lawsuit out of fear the entire thing will be overturned on appeal? After all, as long as the law is still on the books, it can still be used as a threat, even if it will never get tested in a court of law.
I was thinking more about a pay-for-content (not necessarily pay-per-view) model without advertising. Obviously, many people, including the advertisers themselves, would fight this.
Ahh, now that's a different animal altogether. By pay-for-content I would be expecting to be paying the actual creators of content for the use of their work. Kind of like going back to a "partonage" system, except with a wider group of potential "partons". Art would be made for the "patrons" benefit, and not necessarily tuned for attracting the masses (which the audience that advertisers want to buy exposure to). A lot of people have said that's the way we need to go in the digital age. What's missing in this picture? The Content Distributors, of course. Advertisers may not necessarily fight this, but couls just find another medium to hawk their wares in. Or, advertisers would choose to "partonize" works of art that mesh well with the image they are trying to portray for whatever it is they're selling.
But pay-per-view implies that you are paying for the privledge of having a work of art shown to you once. The emphasis here is on the distribution mechanism and the act of viewing, not on the content itself. Hence, the content distributors can stay in business, preserving an american institution. heh.
Anyway, I'll shut up.:-)
Why? I'd love to see actual discussions on/. , and less whining about subscriptions, censorware, and stupid blackouts....
My question is, essentially, what's wrong with pay per view? I mean, is advertising really a better model for you and I? As viewers, sure we get loads of content for free, but doesn't advertising have it's own effect on the content?
I think the problem isn't necessarily with the pay-per-view concept in general. After all,/. is kind of going to a pay-per-page-wiew model, itself.
The problem is the fact that content distribution companies are using legislation to make pay-per-view the only option, and that legislation makes it illegal for private citizens to use content or technology not sanctioned by the content companies.
Right now, if you buy a DVD, you can watch it as many times as you like on your DVD player, yielding a very low price-per-view. If you don't want to shell out the cash to buy the DVD for a movie you'll only see once, you can rent it or watch it pay-per-view, for a much higher price-per-view, but less than you would have spent on the DVD. Right now, it's your choice. The future, according to these people, is that you will no longer have a choice - you pay for every viewing. If you protest, you are a Commie Pirate Hacker that wants to take money out of the pockets of Starving Artists, just because you think you have the right to record an episode of "The Simpsons" to watch later. And once pay-per-view becomes universal, do you think prices per view will drop to anywhere near DVD levels as a result? History says otherwise -- prices were supposed to drop on music CD's once they gained market acceptance, and we're all still waiting. The net result is more money out of the pockets of movie buffs, with no measurable benefit gained.
Pure capitalism doesn't need trademark laws. Nor patents. Pure competitive advantage based companies can survive and prosper without such ancient constructs!
Close, but no cigar. Trademarks are needed so consumers can be sure of what they're geting.
For instance, I work for a company which makes a product that you would instantly recognize by its packaging. It's known worldwide. My company has no problem with competition. But it would object if a competitor released a product in the exact same packaging that is (probably) inferior. People should know that if they buy a product with Company A's mark on it, that it really was authorized by Company A, and that company will stand behind any problems. That just seems fair.
However, this case goes way too far.In this case, "Intel" is the mark, and should be protected. "Inside" is just a word used to clarify the marketing campaign in people's minds. "Inside" is a common word, and does not warrant protection. It's not even the name of their product, like Microsoft "Windows" is. What's the problem here? This story is so absurd!
Does anyone else think this entire situation has "April Fools'" written all over it?
Bluetooth, a new (and real) technology that wirelessly connects gadgets within 30 feet of each other, could eliminate this kind of agony. Like the Japanese Lovegety toy for teenagers, the Blind Data would be a tiny transmitter, worn on a key ring or pendant. But instead of beeping when just anyone of the opposite sex came nearby, the Blind Data would be a far more discerning gizmo. You would program it with the vital statistics of both you and the kind of soul mate you're seeking. When your transmitter vibrates, it means that somebody else's is vibrating, too. Somebody less than 30 feet away is looking for someone just like you.
The sequel to lovegety has already been done, kinda.
This version of the bill does acknowledge that there are actually limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright owners, and that the content protection system must take these into account. To get acknowledgement that copyright is limited, I suppose, is a small victory in these times.
But then I looked closer at the actual text in that section (Page 9),
the content protection scheme should be"promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing as much infringement as possible".
Excuse me? What's this "As many lawful uses as possible" stuff? What happens to the lawful uses that are not possible to "promote" with the scheme? I'll tell you what happens -- they get flushed down the toilet, because actually exercising those uses would involve circumventing the content control mechanism, which this act would make illegal. And who wants to bet that the scheme picked will claim that many, many uses are not possible to prmote? This act should have to promote All lawful uses. But it won't, because that wouldn't be possible. And Senator Hollings insists this must be possible. He says it multiple times in his press release, after all!
It really is the DMCA all over again, this time with hardware.
Computers have to get easier to use while at the same time getting more complicated and doing more things. The only way to do this is to remove end-user control of the device. Fewer scary options, fewer things to screw up. For the most part this is a good thing. Most people using PCs today are basically helpless aside from a few well-known command sequences.
You're forgetting one big point here. Even if the end-user doesn't make the decisions, someone has to. How can we be sure that the decisions are made in the best interests of the consumer?
The answer, of course, is that they won't be. That special-purpose machine will still have to be maintained, but this time it will be maintained my Microsoft (or A0L), remotely, who could care less about your mom's access to recipies on a smart-pad in the kitchen, if they can't bill her each and every one. Or make her access to recipies "bundled" with all sorts of stuff she doesn't need.
If you can use Microsoft Windows that basically bends over for any cute-looking virus or trojan, or (e.g.) IBM Windows that flat-out refuses to install anything that isn't digitally-signed and verified (assume, for the minute, non-DRM verified), what would you pick? What would your mom pick? What would you want your mom to pick?
OK, so maybe your Mom can't make decisions about her computer for herself. But can she really trust MS, or AOL, or IBM?
I've found that a good way to keep a laptop from being stolen is to not put it in a bag that screams, "There's a laptop in this bag!"
My wife has a Pismo G3 from her employer, whose IT department bought her a Targus laptop bag with the order because "We do it for all Laptop orders". Never mind the fact that the bag was obviously made to fit a boxy PC laptop, not the curvy Pismo. Ultimately, she found a backpack with a laptop compartment built in, and bought it herself. She's willing to trade the fact that her laptop bag doesn't look "Professional" (read: pretentious) for the fact that nobody knows its a laptop bag. Nobody's stolen it yet....
And the Targus laptop bag is sitting somewhere on a spare desk in her department. Nobody else wants to use it, either.
Did anyone notice the correction?
on
Chained Melodies
·
· Score: 2
Apparently, the atricle originally said that Felton was the subject of a DMCA-inspired lawsuit. It was corrected to say that he was merely threatened with legal action, and not really "sued".
Does anyone else find it odd that the SDMI people (at least, I assume that's who it was) was able to get this correction put on Salon so quickly?
Ask any staunch patriotic working class American what they think hollywood suits should be paid. "I work in a fish gutting factory for minumum wage, what do they do? Make fancy pictures. I'd give me remaining 3 fingers to do what they do for half of what I make."
Heh, the truth be told is that the answer on how much someone should be compensated is simple. Aim to give them money equal to middle class people so they can make a living doing art.
I agree with you in principle, but I recognize that this view is simply not how the world works. What people are paid doing a given job has more to do with the available talent pool than what the task actually is, or whether or not is is 'enough' to support themselves.
Fish gutting is important to our society (without fish gutters, we would have no fish!), but I imagine that anyone with decent motor skills and a decent work ethic can be trained to be a good fish gutter, so the supply of potential workers is huge, and the replacement cost is small. Hence, their pay is small.
I work as an IC Designer. I always thought it was odd that I got paid more than the mechanic who works on my car, since without the mechanic I can't get to work. But in my job, there's a minimum requirement of a BS degree (And an MS is useful), training on EDA tools, and substantial on-the-job training in design techniques (read: dirty tricks) that the rest of the world doesn't have. There are fewer IC designers (especially in Western NY!) than there are mechanics, and being an IC designer requires more education, so I get paid more, since I'm harder to find a replacement for. (Heck, a decent work ethic may not be required, since I'm writing this on company time;) ) It does not reflect on the relative worth of our work.
Artists, Musicians, and Athletes are a special case, because you can't possibly teach the skills that are required. The talent pool worldwide might only be hundreds, if not dozens, of people, for a particular job. If you're not born with whatever it takes, you can not join that group, no matter how hard you study. I don't agree that the Texas Rangers should have given A-Rod $250 million to play for them, because I don't think anyone is worth that much to society. But the management wouldn't have done it if there was a cheaper player out there that they felt could do what he does. There wasn't, anywhere in the world.
That doesn't mean that nobody in these jobs deserves to be taken down a notch. What do the BackStreet Boys have that I don't (or wouldn't have even with Plastic Surgery), anyway? But the job market is fueled by supply and demand, pure and simple. Anyone who suggests otherwise will be called a 'Communist", even today. At least that's not as bad these days as being called a "Evil Hacker who copies Music and Movies"!
For exactly the same reason Congress never votes itself a pay raise or declares they don't have the power to do something, no court is going to declare that the US doesn't have jurisdiction over the 'net. Those in power almost universally refuse to castrate yourself.
Except that the Courts are constrained by this silly little thing called the Law. Any court decision has to be based on the law as it currently stands, and on precedent, which there is very little of regarding this matter. A court decision not based on these will be overturned at some point. The process will just proceed very slowly.
Congress, on the other hand, is constrained by nothing except their own largesse. They can make whatever laws they've been told to by their contributors, and if nobody is paying attention, have a good chance of being re-elected simply because they're an incumbent. In theory, there's a system of checks and balances with respect to the other branches, with elections being the ultimate check on a congressman's preformance. But the Congress acts like it is answerable to no one, especially on Internet issues. By the time the checks start working, the damage is already done.
I'm not saying that this case will definitely have a sane outcome. I'm simply saying I have more faith in the Courts than in Congress, and you shouldn't compare the two on the Clue Meter.
Re:Should I send this to my congressmen?
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
Your letter was a good starting point for me. Here's my version: (there might still be typos)
March 4, 2002
Senator Foo Bar 274 Russel Senate Office Building Washington, DC. 20510
Senator Bar:
I am writing to express my deep concerns over the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), which was recently the subject of Senate Commerce Committee hearings. From what I understand, this law will make it illegal to manufacture and/or sell an interactive digital device that does not have built in "content protection", where an interactive digital device is defined as any hardware or software capable of storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving or copying information in digital form. A broad array of technological devices will be affected, from computers to calculators, and everything in between. I strongly encourage you to vote against this act, should it ever come to the Senate floor, for several reasons. First, the concept of Copyright is written into our Constitution as an incentive for the creation of works to further the public interest. But it is also written quite clearly in the Constitution that this incentive should last for a limited time, after which time the work belongs to the public. The SSSCA, as currently written, keeps citizens from copying the work even after its protection has expired. Second, while the current draft bill that I have access to specifically protects the consumer's right to record material for viewing at a later date, the act will not protect the consumer'r right to re-record material in a different format. In the past, citizens have been able to make copies of copyrighted works for our own personal use, such as making a copy of a CD on a smaller cassette tape or minidisc for mobile use. This act will make it impossible for citizens to do that; their devices simply won't allow it. Perhaps most insidious, however, is the ramifications for who can publish content and who cannot. This "Content Protection" will take the form of some kind of identifying mark on content, which digital devices will need in order for the content to be played. The mark will have to remain secret; otherwise illegal copies could be distributed with a forged mark. Thus, only people with access to this marking method will be able to produce media viewable by the American public. As a private citizen, I would no longer be able distribute digital copies of a video I created with my current camera, because it does not hold the proper authenticating mark, and thus all SSSCA compliant hardware will treat it as a pirated copy. An entire generation of home movies would be unviewable on standard digital hardware. Unauthourized distribution of copyrighted works on the Internet, which is the problem that this act was designed to address, is a problem that needs to be dealt with. But I submit to you that it is a social problem that must be addressed through educating the public about the proper use of Intellectual Property, not a technological problem that must be addressed by restricting the public to view only "authorized" content through the force of law. I sincerely doubt that such a law would survive a constitutional test. I urge you to demonstrate that you really do work for us, and not for Hollywood. Vote down this legislation.
We bitch about the **AA all the time here at/. , saying things like "Why do CD's cost me $18 when they cost far less to make?" and listening to the **AA say "But it costs us a lot of money to develop the content and give the artists their fair share". Then we whine about how $.0023 per download is not a "fair share" for the artists, and we go around in circles.
Why do we do this? Because we don't REALLY know how much money is involved. We think the **AA is laughing at us all the way to the bank, but they insist there just one download away from poverty. We simply don't know the amounts of money that are involved.
Now, we have the same situation here. Taco and Hemos say "We need more annoying ads to pay the bills, and subscriptions to prevent people from being annoyed by the ads", and all the trolls are saying "How expensive can a web site that just has links to content be to maintain, we supply all the real content...",etc... There are only a handful of people on this planet that really KNOW how much money Slashdot is making. Or not making, as the case may be. As evil as some of us think profit is, the site has to at least break even to stay in business. And the editors have to eat.
Wouldn't it be great if we had a slashbox that told us how much it really cost to run the site from day to day? And how much of our subscription money went to keeping the site up, and how much went to Taco's bachelor party? It's probably impossible, because there are some details that need to be kept confidential. But they've said that open-source software would never work because some things would have to be kept proprietary, and yet it's been proven that it could work in many areas.
This way, when Slashdot raises their rates, the Management can reply by saying "We had no choice, Look at all those red numbers on the Cash-O-Meter!", and we can all see for ourselves what the need is.
Personally, since I have a high tolerance for being annoyed by ads (and even clicked on a few), if I want to improve life for the/. team, I'd be more likely to donate directly to a future Taquito's college fund than to subscribe. But that's just me.
According to the Wired article, Mickey Mouse turned into a Badger (and I don't mean he'r from Wisconsin) --
At one point, Eisner badgered Vadasz, asking him, "Can you protect open content on the Internet that's been stolen and now (is) sitting on a file. Is there a technological way?" After several half-answers, Vadasz eventually replied: "No." That exchange led to a letter that Intel sent to Hollings late Thursday. It accused Eisner and Chernin of injecting "a point of confusion" into the hearing.
Vadasz wrote in the letter: "It is important for the committee to understand that content, once captured in 'unprotected' form, can never be put back in the 'bottle' and protected against copying on the Internet. This is because this unprotected
media looks no different to digital devices than a home movie that you would send to a relative or friend."
This is the Fair Use point we should be talking about -- not that we should have the right to copy other people's work willy-nilly, but that if legislation like this gets passed, we won't have the right ot view our own home movies on our device (which was bought to play back that content) because our movies don't have Disney's blessing, and their device can't tell the difference between video of your kids and a bootleg copy of Snow Dogs, and will refuse to play either!
The Intel guy basically admitted that digital devices can't tell the difference between these types of legal and illegal content, so the Entertainment industry wants to ban both! Now, that has to be against the spirit of the Copyright law, and I plan on explaining this to my senators, although I doubt Hillary or Chuck will listen.
How about a market based approach. Eliminate the protections software gets from civil liability.
Software vendors want it both ways. They want full government protection of IP and copyright. But they don't want the legal system to be involved when they make crappy software.
There's are basic problems with the Market Based approach which make it unusable -- Since there are so many distinct parts of software (OS Kernel, OS Services, Applications, Libraries, Device Drivers) that may be made by different vendors, how can you pin the blame for a software problem on a particular vendor if you're not 100% sure where the problem is? Or what if the code from two vendors is technically correct in isolation, but creates a security problem when used together? Who gets sued then?
I'm not sure of there's a practical way to enforce civil liability for software products unless the acual code is examined in the trial. Which eliminates the whole concept of Proprietary software. Most/.ers would welcome that, but I guarantee their employers won't.
And given that these trials are decided by twelve people who couldn't get out of Jury Duty, how will they possibly be able to understand the technical merits of such a case? They'll probably be swayed by the lawyers in the better suits, which will belong to the big software companies. Or the class-action law firm that sues the small companies under this statute.
In short, eliminating civil liability protection for software will insure that only big companies that can afford to go to trial with the class-action lawyers will be able to write software. Forget about small companies. And forget about cooperative Open-Source development -- that just gives Class-action lawyers more people to sue.
The question should not be who is responsible for insecure code but rather what can be done to discourage people from vandalism and how to track down and punish those who choose to break the law.
If you leave your door unlocked and a thief steals your Tivo, is that any less of a crime than if your door was locked? Don't blame the locksmith, blane the thief!
The real question is what standards will we use to prosecute people who break the law, and will they be at all equal?
Consider these two stories, from The Reg and The Rochester, NY Newspaper. In both cases, web sites were broken into by guys in their twenties who said that the security on those sites is woefully inadequate, and claimed that they were practically "invited" in? The Library even mentioned that they were in the middle of revamping their security, so they knew they had problems.
Anyway, The guy who had access to Rush Limbaugh's social security number and made himself a NY Times employee in their database gets off scot-free, while the guy who did not access any sensitive information at a county library and "merely" changed their web page is facing up to seven years in prison.
Granted, the guy who broke into the Times was Adrian Lamo, who is apparently considered a "white-hat" hacker and has a track record of playing nice with the corporations he hacks into. (He may even read/., for all I know). But why is he going to get off the hook for his vandalism, while the other guy is facing a long sentence? Didn't they essentially do the same thing? Maybe I need more coffee this morning, but something doesn't sound right...
I started writing a letter to the Post, but I didn't like how it turned out. All my arguments are crap. I hereby release it under the Dork Public License: if you decide to use it (either in relation to this article or something else), please don't sign my name to it (since I didn't have the balls to send it, I don't deserve any credit), and please post your version. ---
I am writing in reponse to a letter you published on Monday, February 25th, by Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association of America. In it, he states that movie distributors are eager to utilize the Internet as a medium to distribute movies, but will not do so until computer and video-device companies "agree on the ingredients for strong protection of copyrighted films" in their products. If there is no agreement, Valenti argues that Congress should step in and mandate this strong protection in consumer products, limiting the types of access the consumer has to these products in these devices.
I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Valenti. I support the right of copyright holders to protect their works from being used without their consent. However, I believe that their proposals (especially trying to get Congress to make new laws for them) go way beyond what is intended in the law regarding the balance of rights between copyright holders and the general public.
Valenti makes the claim that over 350,000 movies are being downloaded illegally every day, and implies that it is easy even for people who do not have fast, broadband connections to the Internet. But what he fails to mention is that the same technology that created this phenomenon has benefits to the distributor as well. Technology is a two-way street, and frequently alters or even invalidates business models. The Internet has changed such diverse industries as Retailing, Photography, Communications, and countless others. All of these industries had to adapt to the good parts and the bad parts of changing technologies. Valenti seems content to take the good parts for his industry, while lobbying Congress to make the bad parts not apply to his business.
What he also fails to mention, and what is at the crux of the matter, is that Copyright Infringement is already crime, no matter what medium it is in. Do we really need more legislation to protect access to copyrighted works? If the movie industry and device industry cannot agree on a way to limit consumers' access to copyrighted works, we should come to the conclusion that the public does not want their access to these works limited, and we should trust them to act in accordance with existing law, and prosecute them if they do not. But new laws to protect the Movie Industry at the expense of the General Public is not the answer.
In all my years here in Canada, I've never heard anyone ever say 'aboot'.
It's precisely because you've lived for so long in Canada, and don't think it sounds odd. As for myself, after living near the border for close to nine years now and occasionally talking with plenty of Canadians, I can definitely hear the "aboot"s.
On the other hand, it took me a few years after leaving the NYC area to realize that people from da city (and lawnguyland) really do tawk funny!
I've found it interesting how patents and other `intellectual property' tend to get pooled by a handful of major companies.... This is really annoying to me, as these companies kind of turn the idea of a patent on it's back.
On the contrary, patent pooling can be just the thing to get a good technology into the mainstream.
Even though this is slashdot, let's assume that Patents are a good thing, because it gives patent holders the right to make money for a limited time off of a truly novel invention (i.e. NOT one-click or hyperlinking) while the Public eventually gets the invention in the Public Domain when the patent expires. It's a stretch, I know, but bear with me.
It just makes sense that if different companies are in the same business, they may obtain different patents on different aspects of a particular product. They're simply looking at different aspects of the problem at the same time. Without patent pooling, anyone that wanted to build that widget would have to negotiate with each patent holder individually. With patent pooling, you just fork over the money once, and the patent holders worry about how to divvy it up. This way, it becomes much easier for a technically-superior, non-free technology to become widely used. (Firewire/iLink/1394 is a good example, at least for DV camcorders).
Of course, this only works then the patent holders come up with a reasonable formula for payment. Go back a few stories in the Queue to see what I mean.
Slashdot Mirror
"I would further try to restrict source code deliveries where possible and be less gracious when interpreting agreements -- again without being obvious about it," Kempin wrote.
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said Kempin's memo was "irrelevant" because the company never acted on his ideas.
Nope, if Microsoft would have acted on those ideas, they would have done something like promise to provide support in Windows for AMD's 64-bit architecture instead of a comparable Intel architecture.
Aren't you glad we have Microsoft Spokesmen to set the record straight?
CD audio discs that incorporate copyright protection technologies do not adhere to published Compact Disc standards. Apple designs its CD drives to support media that conforms to such standards. Apple computers are not designed to support copyright protected media that do not conform to such standards. Therefore, any attempt to use non standard discs with Apple CD drives will be considered a misapplication of the product. Under the terms of Apple's One-Year Limited Warranty, AppleCare Protection Plan, or other AppleCare agreement any misapplication of the product is excluded from Apple's repair coverage.
How do you like them apples?
I think you almost have it.
What is the "job" of the executives of these content companies? To keep the stock price up.
How do they keep their stock price up? Keep the company growing at a decent clip.
How can you keep the company growing if your business model is solely based on producing and distributing other people's content? Make sure that creators of content have no other options for production and distribution.
I don't think that Hollywood studios are afraid that garage directors will put them out of business. I do think they're afraid that the next Great American Director will be able to edit the next Great American film on his Powerbook, stream it himself on the Internet, and not have to use their distribution system to get known. There will be many other content creators that do use the studios. But their oligopoly will be broken, and their will be more competition. At least, you won't be able to see the next Great American Movie in theaters, and more people will associate the Internet with movies.
This won't put Hollyood out of business. But it will erode their control over the content distribution of the process, which will lead to reduced profits and no growth. Which, from the Executives' perspective, is just as bad.
You've got the idea, but there's more to this particular story. It is all about cost, but not just component cost... Since the wireless card is designed to be an active RF transmitter, each and every unique transmitter sold by a company needs to undergo FCC tests in the U.S., and comparable tests in other countries, and these tests ain't cheap.
If a company made a PCMCIA and a PCI version of the same transmitter, both would have to be tested. But when they sell a PCI version as a PCMCIA card with a PCI bridge, they don't have to have the combination re-tested, because the "transmitter" has already been tested. So, doing drviers in software really will screw up base stations, because you will have to use the crippled card in their base stations,and find a way to shoehorn the driver in there.
Of course, maybe this is Microsoft's bid to have all Access Points run XP Embedded in the future!
There's a fundamental difference between the Content Companies' position and the Tech Companies' position. The Tech companies just want to be able to make new technology without government intervention. The Content companies see technology as a threat, and want that threat to be legislated away. The Content companies want their "right to profit" protected by Congress, and they don't care what other industries' "right to profit" gets clobbered in the process. (never mind the fact that no company has a "right to profit" - a company that doesn't profit simply fails!)
The reason why I think Gateway's support is a good thing is that the entire Copyright debate has, up until now, been framed by the Content Companies in the Media. They frame the debate in terms of what we can't do with copyrighted material. Up until now, anyone who framed it in terma of what we can do has been dismissed as a Commie Pirate Hacker. Seeing Gateway do this almost makes me want to sell my Macs and home-built Linux boxen for a computer in a cow box. almost.
If Copyright is really supposed to be a two-way street, with the government (also known as the People in the USA) granting certain rights to copyright holders in exchange for public use of their works, then we really should outline what we can do with these works, because my idea of what I can do and Michael Eisner's idea are polar opposites. The role of legislation should be to clarify what we can and can't do, and it's obviously not doing a good enough job! The bill of rights at digitalconsumer.org does, though. The more I think about it, the more I realize that THAT needs to be our next copyright law.
Bnetd gets threatened with a lawsuit by Vivendi regarding DMCA violations, but the lawsuit doesn't mention the DMCA.
Perhaps the media companies know that the DMCA goes too far, and will not bring an actual high-profile lawsuit out of fear the entire thing will be overturned on appeal? After all, as long as the law is still on the books, it can still be used as a threat, even if it will never get tested in a court of law.
Ahh, now that's a different animal altogether. By pay-for-content I would be expecting to be paying the actual creators of content for the use of their work. Kind of like going back to a "partonage" system, except with a wider group of potential "partons". Art would be made for the "patrons" benefit, and not necessarily tuned for attracting the masses (which the audience that advertisers want to buy exposure to). A lot of people have said that's the way we need to go in the digital age. What's missing in this picture? The Content Distributors, of course. Advertisers may not necessarily fight this, but couls just find another medium to hawk their wares in. Or, advertisers would choose to "partonize" works of art that mesh well with the image they are trying to portray for whatever it is they're selling.
But pay-per-view implies that you are paying for the privledge of having a work of art shown to you once. The emphasis here is on the distribution mechanism and the act of viewing, not on the content itself. Hence, the content distributors can stay in business, preserving an american institution. heh.
Anyway, I'll shut up. :-)
Why? I'd love to see actual discussions on /. , and less whining about subscriptions, censorware, and stupid blackouts....
I think the problem isn't necessarily with the pay-per-view concept in general. After all, /. is kind of going to a pay-per-page-wiew model, itself.
The problem is the fact that content distribution companies are using legislation to make pay-per-view the only option, and that legislation makes it illegal for private citizens to use content or technology not sanctioned by the content companies.
Right now, if you buy a DVD, you can watch it as many times as you like on your DVD player, yielding a very low price-per-view. If you don't want to shell out the cash to buy the DVD for a movie you'll only see once, you can rent it or watch it pay-per-view, for a much higher price-per-view, but less than you would have spent on the DVD. Right now, it's your choice. The future, according to these people, is that you will no longer have a choice - you pay for every viewing. If you protest, you are a Commie Pirate Hacker that wants to take money out of the pockets of Starving Artists, just because you think you have the right to record an episode of "The Simpsons" to watch later. And once pay-per-view becomes universal, do you think prices per view will drop to anywhere near DVD levels as a result? History says otherwise -- prices were supposed to drop on music CD's once they gained market acceptance, and we're all still waiting. The net result is more money out of the pockets of movie buffs, with no measurable benefit gained.
Close, but no cigar. Trademarks are needed so consumers can be sure of what they're geting.
For instance, I work for a company which makes a product that you would instantly recognize by its packaging. It's known worldwide. My company has no problem with competition. But it would object if a competitor released a product in the exact same packaging that is (probably) inferior. People should know that if they buy a product with Company A's mark on it, that it really was authorized by Company A, and that company will stand behind any problems. That just seems fair.
However, this case goes way too far.In this case, "Intel" is the mark, and should be protected. "Inside" is just a word used to clarify the marketing campaign in people's minds. "Inside" is a common word, and does not warrant protection. It's not even the name of their product, like Microsoft "Windows" is. What's the problem here? This story is so absurd!
Does anyone else think this entire situation has "April Fools'" written all over it?
The sequel to lovegety has already been done, kinda.
the content protection scheme should be"promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing as much infringement as possible".
Excuse me? What's this "As many lawful uses as possible" stuff? What happens to the lawful uses that are not possible to "promote" with the scheme? I'll tell you what happens -- they get flushed down the toilet, because actually exercising those uses would involve circumventing the content control mechanism, which this act would make illegal. And who wants to bet that the scheme picked will claim that many, many uses are not possible to prmote? This act should have to promote All lawful uses. But it won't, because that wouldn't be possible. And Senator Hollings insists this must be possible. He says it multiple times in his press release, after all!
It really is the DMCA all over again, this time with hardware.
You're forgetting one big point here. Even if the end-user doesn't make the decisions, someone has to. How can we be sure that the decisions are made in the best interests of the consumer?
The answer, of course, is that they won't be. That special-purpose machine will still have to be maintained, but this time it will be maintained my Microsoft (or A0L), remotely, who could care less about your mom's access to recipies on a smart-pad in the kitchen, if they can't bill her each and every one. Or make her access to recipies "bundled" with all sorts of stuff she doesn't need.
If you can use Microsoft Windows that basically bends over for any cute-looking virus or trojan, or (e.g.) IBM Windows that flat-out refuses to install anything that isn't digitally-signed and verified (assume, for the minute, non-DRM verified), what would you pick? What would your mom pick? What would you want your mom to pick?
OK, so maybe your Mom can't make decisions about her computer for herself. But can she really trust MS, or AOL, or IBM?
My wife has a Pismo G3 from her employer, whose IT department bought her a Targus laptop bag with the order because "We do it for all Laptop orders". Never mind the fact that the bag was obviously made to fit a boxy PC laptop, not the curvy Pismo. Ultimately, she found a backpack with a laptop compartment built in, and bought it herself. She's willing to trade the fact that her laptop bag doesn't look "Professional" (read: pretentious) for the fact that nobody knows its a laptop bag. Nobody's stolen it yet....
And the Targus laptop bag is sitting somewhere on a spare desk in her department. Nobody else wants to use it, either.
Apparently, the atricle originally said that Felton was the subject of a DMCA-inspired lawsuit. It was corrected to say that he was merely threatened with legal action, and not really "sued".
Does anyone else find it odd that the SDMI people (at least, I assume that's who it was) was able to get this correction put on Salon so quickly?
Heh, the truth be told is that the answer on how much someone should be compensated is simple. Aim to give them money equal to middle class people so they can make a living doing art.
I agree with you in principle, but I recognize that this view is simply not how the world works. What people are paid doing a given job has more to do with the available talent pool than what the task actually is, or whether or not is is 'enough' to support themselves.
Fish gutting is important to our society (without fish gutters, we would have no fish!), but I imagine that anyone with decent motor skills and a decent work ethic can be trained to be a good fish gutter, so the supply of potential workers is huge, and the replacement cost is small. Hence, their pay is small.
I work as an IC Designer. I always thought it was odd that I got paid more than the mechanic who works on my car, since without the mechanic I can't get to work. But in my job, there's a minimum requirement of a BS degree (And an MS is useful), training on EDA tools, and substantial on-the-job training in design techniques (read: dirty tricks) that the rest of the world doesn't have. There are fewer IC designers (especially in Western NY!) than there are mechanics, and being an IC designer requires more education, so I get paid more, since I'm harder to find a replacement for. (Heck, a decent work ethic may not be required, since I'm writing this on company time ;) ) It does not reflect on the relative worth of our work.
Artists, Musicians, and Athletes are a special case, because you can't possibly teach the skills that are required. The talent pool worldwide might only be hundreds, if not dozens, of people, for a particular job. If you're not born with whatever it takes, you can not join that group, no matter how hard you study. I don't agree that the Texas Rangers should have given A-Rod $250 million to play for them, because I don't think anyone is worth that much to society. But the management wouldn't have done it if there was a cheaper player out there that they felt could do what he does. There wasn't, anywhere in the world.
That doesn't mean that nobody in these jobs deserves to be taken down a notch. What do the BackStreet Boys have that I don't (or wouldn't have even with Plastic Surgery), anyway? But the job market is fueled by supply and demand, pure and simple. Anyone who suggests otherwise will be called a 'Communist", even today. At least that's not as bad these days as being called a "Evil Hacker who copies Music and Movies"!
Except that the Courts are constrained by this silly little thing called the Law. Any court decision has to be based on the law as it currently stands, and on precedent, which there is very little of regarding this matter. A court decision not based on these will be overturned at some point. The process will just proceed very slowly.
Congress, on the other hand, is constrained by nothing except their own largesse. They can make whatever laws they've been told to by their contributors, and if nobody is paying attention, have a good chance of being re-elected simply because they're an incumbent. In theory, there's a system of checks and balances with respect to the other branches, with elections being the ultimate check on a congressman's preformance. But the Congress acts like it is answerable to no one, especially on Internet issues. By the time the checks start working, the damage is already done.
I'm not saying that this case will definitely have a sane outcome. I'm simply saying I have more faith in the Courts than in Congress, and you shouldn't compare the two on the Clue Meter.
Your letter was a good starting point for me. Here's my version: (there might still be typos)
March 4, 2002
Senator Foo Bar
274 Russel Senate Office Building
Washington, DC. 20510
Senator Bar:
I am writing to express my deep concerns over the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), which was recently the subject of Senate Commerce Committee hearings. From what I understand, this law will make it illegal to manufacture and/or sell an interactive digital device that does not have built in "content protection", where an interactive digital device is defined as any hardware or software capable of storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving or copying information in digital form. A broad array of technological devices will be affected, from computers to calculators, and everything in between.
I strongly encourage you to vote against this act, should it ever come to the Senate floor, for several reasons. First, the concept of Copyright is written into our Constitution as an incentive for the creation of works to further the public interest. But it is also written quite clearly in the Constitution that this incentive should last for a limited time, after which time the work belongs to the public. The SSSCA, as currently written, keeps citizens from copying the work even after its protection has expired.
Second, while the current draft bill that I have access to specifically protects the consumer's right to record material for viewing at a later date, the act will not protect the consumer'r right to re-record material in a different format. In the past, citizens have been able to make copies of copyrighted works for our own personal use, such as making a copy of a CD on a smaller cassette tape or minidisc for mobile use. This act will make it impossible for citizens to do that; their devices simply won't allow it.
Perhaps most insidious, however, is the ramifications for who can publish content and who cannot. This "Content Protection" will take the form of some kind of identifying mark on content, which digital devices will need in order for the content to be played. The mark will have to remain secret; otherwise illegal copies could be distributed with a forged mark. Thus, only people with access to this marking method will be able to produce media viewable by the American public. As a private citizen, I would no longer be able distribute digital copies of a video I created with my current camera, because it does not hold the proper authenticating mark, and thus all SSSCA compliant hardware will treat it as a pirated copy. An entire generation of home movies would be unviewable on standard digital hardware.
Unauthourized distribution of copyrighted works on the Internet, which is the problem that this act was designed to address, is a problem that needs to be dealt with. But I submit to you that it is a social problem that must be addressed through educating the public about the proper use of Intellectual Property, not a technological problem that must be addressed by restricting the public to view only "authorized" content through the force of law. I sincerely doubt that such a law would survive a constitutional test. I urge you to demonstrate that you really do work for us, and not for Hollywood. Vote down this legislation.
Sincerely,
Joe Citizen
Yeah. I stopped reading right there. I don't want to know how to access the bear's ports, thank you very much!
We bitch about the **AA all the time here at /. , saying things like "Why do CD's cost me $18 when they cost far less to make?" and listening to the **AA say "But it costs us a lot of money to develop the content and give the artists their fair share". Then we whine about how $.0023 per download is not a "fair share" for the artists, and we go around in circles.
/. team, I'd be more likely to donate directly to a future Taquito's college fund than to subscribe. But that's just me.
Why do we do this? Because we don't REALLY know how much money is involved. We think the **AA is laughing at us all the way to the bank, but they insist there just one download away from poverty. We simply don't know the amounts of money that are involved.
Now, we have the same situation here. Taco and Hemos say "We need more annoying ads to pay the bills, and subscriptions to prevent people from being annoyed by the ads", and all the trolls are saying "How expensive can a web site that just has links to content be to maintain, we supply all the real content...",etc... There are only a handful of people on this planet that really KNOW how much money Slashdot is making. Or not making, as the case may be. As evil as some of us think profit is, the site has to at least break even to stay in business. And the editors have to eat.
Wouldn't it be great if we had a slashbox that told us how much it really cost to run the site from day to day? And how much of our subscription money went to keeping the site up, and how much went to Taco's bachelor party? It's probably impossible, because there are some details that need to be kept confidential. But they've said that open-source software would never work because some things would have to be kept proprietary, and yet it's been proven that it could work in many areas.
This way, when Slashdot raises their rates, the Management can reply by saying "We had no choice, Look at all those red numbers on the Cash-O-Meter!", and we can all see for ourselves what the need is.
Personally, since I have a high tolerance for being annoyed by ads (and even clicked on a few), if I want to improve life for the
At one point, Eisner badgered Vadasz, asking him, "Can you protect open content on the Internet that's been stolen and now (is) sitting on a file. Is there a technological way?" After several half-answers, Vadasz eventually replied: "No."
That exchange led to a letter that Intel sent to Hollings late Thursday. It accused Eisner and Chernin of injecting "a point of confusion" into the hearing.
Vadasz wrote in the letter: "It is important for the committee to understand that content, once captured in 'unprotected' form, can never be put back in the 'bottle' and protected against copying on the Internet. This is because this unprotected media looks no different to digital devices than a home movie that you would send to a relative or friend."
This is the Fair Use point we should be talking about -- not that we should have the right to copy other people's work willy-nilly, but that if legislation like this gets passed, we won't have the right ot view our own home movies on our device (which was bought to play back that content) because our movies don't have Disney's blessing, and their device can't tell the difference between video of your kids and a bootleg copy of Snow Dogs, and will refuse to play either!
The Intel guy basically admitted that digital devices can't tell the difference between these types of legal and illegal content, so the Entertainment industry wants to ban both! Now, that has to be against the spirit of the Copyright law, and I plan on explaining this to my senators, although I doubt Hillary or Chuck will listen.
Software vendors want it both ways. They want full government protection of IP and copyright. But they don't want the legal system to be involved when they make crappy software.
There's are basic problems with the Market Based approach which make it unusable -- Since there are so many distinct parts of software (OS Kernel, OS Services, Applications, Libraries, Device Drivers) that may be made by different vendors, how can you pin the blame for a software problem on a particular vendor if you're not 100% sure where the problem is? Or what if the code from two vendors is technically correct in isolation, but creates a security problem when used together? Who gets sued then?
I'm not sure of there's a practical way to enforce civil liability for software products unless the acual code is examined in the trial. Which eliminates the whole concept of Proprietary software. Most /.ers would welcome that, but I guarantee their employers won't.
And given that these trials are decided by twelve people who couldn't get out of Jury Duty, how will they possibly be able to understand the technical merits of such a case? They'll probably be swayed by the lawyers in the better suits, which will belong to the big software companies. Or the class-action law firm that sues the small companies under this statute.
In short, eliminating civil liability protection for software will insure that only big companies that can afford to go to trial with the class-action lawyers will be able to write software. Forget about small companies. And forget about cooperative Open-Source development -- that just gives Class-action lawyers more people to sue.
If you leave your door unlocked and a thief steals your Tivo, is that any less of a crime than if your door was locked? Don't blame the locksmith, blane the thief!
The real question is what standards will we use to prosecute people who break the law, and will they be at all equal?
Consider these two stories, from The Reg and The Rochester, NY Newspaper. In both cases, web sites were broken into by guys in their twenties who said that the security on those sites is woefully inadequate, and claimed that they were practically "invited" in? The Library even mentioned that they were in the middle of revamping their security, so they knew they had problems.
Anyway, The guy who had access to Rush Limbaugh's social security number and made himself a NY Times employee in their database gets off scot-free, while the guy who did not access any sensitive information at a county library and "merely" changed their web page is facing up to seven years in prison.
Granted, the guy who broke into the Times was Adrian Lamo, who is apparently considered a "white-hat" hacker and has a track record of playing nice with the corporations he hacks into. (He may even read /., for all I know). But why is he going to get off the hook for his vandalism, while the other guy is facing a long sentence? Didn't they essentially do the same thing? Maybe I need more coffee this morning, but something doesn't sound right...
I started writing a letter to the Post, but I didn't like how it turned out. All my arguments are crap. I hereby release it under the Dork Public License: if you decide to use it (either in relation to this article or something else), please don't sign my name to it (since I didn't have the balls to send it, I don't deserve any credit), and please post your version.
---
I am writing in reponse to a letter you published on Monday, February 25th, by Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association of America. In it, he states that movie distributors are eager to utilize the Internet as a medium to distribute movies, but will not do so until computer and video-device companies "agree on the ingredients for strong protection of copyrighted films" in their products. If there is no agreement, Valenti argues that Congress should step in and mandate this strong protection in consumer products, limiting the types of access the consumer has to these products in these devices.
I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Valenti. I support the right of copyright holders to protect their works from being used without their consent. However, I believe that their proposals (especially trying to get Congress to make new laws for them) go way beyond what is intended in the law regarding the balance of rights between copyright holders and the general public.
Valenti makes the claim that over 350,000 movies are being downloaded illegally every day, and implies that it is easy even for people who do not have fast, broadband connections to the Internet. But what he fails to mention is that the same technology that created this phenomenon has benefits to the distributor as well. Technology is a two-way street, and frequently alters or even invalidates business models. The Internet has changed such diverse industries as Retailing, Photography, Communications, and countless others. All of these industries had to adapt to the good parts and the bad parts of changing technologies. Valenti seems content to take the good parts for his industry, while lobbying Congress to make the bad parts not apply to his business.
What he also fails to mention, and what is at the crux of the matter, is that Copyright Infringement is already crime, no matter what medium it is in. Do we really need more legislation to protect access to copyrighted works? If the movie industry and device industry cannot agree on a way to limit consumers' access to copyrighted works, we should come to the conclusion that the public does not want their access to these works limited, and we should trust them to act in accordance with existing law, and prosecute them if they do not. But new laws to protect the Movie Industry at the expense of the General Public is not the answer.
It's precisely because you've lived for so long in Canada, and don't think it sounds odd. As for myself, after living near the border for close to nine years now and occasionally talking with plenty of Canadians, I can definitely hear the "aboot"s.
On the other hand, it took me a few years after leaving the NYC area to realize that people from da city (and lawnguyland) really do tawk funny!
On the contrary, patent pooling can be just the thing to get a good technology into the mainstream.
Even though this is slashdot, let's assume that Patents are a good thing, because it gives patent holders the right to make money for a limited time off of a truly novel invention (i.e. NOT one-click or hyperlinking) while the Public eventually gets the invention in the Public Domain when the patent expires. It's a stretch, I know, but bear with me.
It just makes sense that if different companies are in the same business, they may obtain different patents on different aspects of a particular product. They're simply looking at different aspects of the problem at the same time. Without patent pooling, anyone that wanted to build that widget would have to negotiate with each patent holder individually. With patent pooling, you just fork over the money once, and the patent holders worry about how to divvy it up. This way, it becomes much easier for a technically-superior, non-free technology to become widely used. (Firewire/iLink/1394 is a good example, at least for DV camcorders).
Of course, this only works then the patent holders come up with a reasonable formula for payment. Go back a few stories in the Queue to see what I mean.