They specifically mentioned not taking Justice' view (ignoring Jackson's comments) nor MS' view (start all over) in their decision, hence the reason it was vacated.
Interestingly the decision does not really fault MS for it's tying of IE to the OS (the lower court will decide further), but rather what they did to java;
Some choice quotes from the ruling;
As explained above, however, a monopolist does not violate the
antitrust laws simply by developing a product that is incompatible
with those of its rivals........Because the cumulative effect of the deals is anticompetitive
and because Microsoft has no procompetitive justification for
them, we hold that the provisions in the First Wave Agreements
requiring use of Microsoft's JVM as the default are
exclusionary, in violation of the Sherman Act. As a result, even Java
''developers who were opting for portability over performance
TTT unwittingly [wrote] Java applications that [ran] only on
Windows.'' Conclusions of Law, at 43. That is, developers
who relied upon Microsoft's public commitment to cooperate
with Sun and who used Microsoft's tools to develop what
Microsoft led them to believe were cross-platform applications
ended up producing applications that would run only on
the Windows operating system.
On the IE tying;
There being no close parallel in prior antitrust cases, simplistic application of
per se tying rules carries a serious risk of harm. Accordingly,
we vacate the District Court's finding of a per se tying
violation and remand the case. Plaintiffs may on remand
pursue their tying claim under the rule of reason.
That's the long and short of it. Anyway, MS may not need victories in this case as clearly their strategy is to stall until the case is irrelevant.
There is a lesson to be learned here about giving in to loathing at an inappropiate time as Jackson did. As a consolation, it's fun to read the decision recanting Jackson's rants calling Microsoft a bunch of gansters.
according to the supreme court justices who wrote the opinion. They suggest compulsory licencing similar to what "music publishing" has. Songwriters get paid, don't they?
That being said, there is nothing stopping freelancers from being replaced by "working stiffs" who don't get royalties. They are going to have to "evolve" with more competive content.
Alternatively, they could call it GNu Instant Messenger (GNIM) and achieve the same result. This should be looked upon as an opportunity to achieve a unique identity, and not as a battle to wage. Personally, I think "GNIM" has a lot more character than "GAIM". Sure the AOL/Time guys are sucky for the harassment, but that doesn't mean that they have to get the better of them in this case.
When I installed linux last year I tried corel, SUSE, redhat, mandrake, and Caldera. The install was great and the tech support was the BEST bar none. It lived up to its advertisement. I think the price you pay is well worth it. That being said, they blew it here.
The problem is that they're bundling commercial apps with the distro. There is nothing wrong with that, but it's how they are presenting it and how it comes accross. They should have their free "bare bones" linux disc, and a "professional edition" like what mandrake does. That way it is more clear about what is commercial and what is not. As it stands, they deserve the flames that they are about to receive.
The justices draw upon a specific clause in the 1976 copyright act (201(c)) designed to prevent frelancers from losing all their rights to a work. From the decision here (pdf);
JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
This copyright case concerns the rights of freelance
authors and a presumptive privilege of their publishers.
The litigation was initiated by six freelance authors and
relates to articles they contributed to three print periodicals
(two newspapers and one magazine). Under agreements
with the periodicals' publishers, but without the
freelancers' consent, two computer database companies
placed copies of the freelancers' articles-- along with all
other articles from the periodicals in which the freelancers'
work appeared-- into three databases. Whether written
by a freelancer or staff member, each article is presented
to, and retrievable by, the user in isolation, clear of
the context the original print publication presented.
The freelance authors' complaint alleged that their
copyrights had been infringed by the inclusion of their
articles in the databases. The publishers, in response,
relied on the privilege of reproduction and distribution
accorded them by 201(c) of the Copyright Act, which
provides:
"Copyright in each separate contribution to a collec-
tive work is distinct from copyright in the collective
work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of
the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer
of the copyright or of any rights under it, the
owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed
to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and
distributing the contribution as part of that particular
collective work, any revision of that collective work,
and any later collective work in the same series." 17
U. S. C. 201(c).
Specifically, the publishers maintained that, as copyright
owners of collective works, i.e., the original print publications,
they had merely exercised "the privilege" 201(c)
accords them to "reproduc[e] and distribut[e]" the author's
discretely copyrighted contribution.
In agreement with the Second Circuit, we hold that
201(c) does not authorize the copying at issue here. The
publishers are not sheltered by 201(c), we conclude,
because the databases reproduce and distribute articles
standing alone and not in context, not "as part of that
particular collective work" to which the author contributed,
"as part of . . . any revision" thereof, or "as part of . . .
any later collective work in the same series." Both the
print publishers and the electronic publishers, we rule,
have infringed the copyrights of the freelance authors.
If the publishers were to distibute a "pdf" doucument (which would be like a microfilm-the opinion specifically mentions that) of their original publication, I don't think the freelancers could do anything about that though (IANAL).
Another very interesting thing is that the decision cites the original congressional record when the 1976 copyright law was being drafted to help determine its intennt.
I don't want to my washing machine to be connected to the internet. What I want is to press three buttons and have it do the wash. Why should I have to pay extra for features that are neither needed or wanted for my major appliances???
Yoou might be the one responsible for busting their patent. You may not get any money for doing so, but you will have made a contributionn to open source. I was in discussions with real estate agents in 1997 about doing this very thing, but other pursuits tied me up. I never thought about patenting it, as it seemed obvious to me at the time that others were doing it already. I feel bad this guy felt like he had to fold, because I don't think they have a leg to stand on even with a granted patent.
My thoughts exactly! - now we now how they were able to unload all that excess i-opener hardware.
Seriously, these machines are going to be beat on hard - they need the cheapest solution available, which the i opener is.
In related news, TUX the penguin received
on
Mandrake Shakeup
·
· Score: 2
news that he was being let go effective immediately. When asked about it he said "It was difficult for them to keep me on posing for pictures and drawings, because it just looks like that I sit around all the time."
"Perhaps things would be better if there was a more viable business model or something" he continued, "but I hope to continue on in a voluntary role."
'Tis true. I'm coming to the acceptance that people are gonna "eat what they are fed." It's interesting that Real was one of the companies that was demonstrating a "pay per listen" scheme in front of congress yesterday.
I'm not happpy with NPR on how they helped kill low power FM, and I'm not happy with the pacifica network takeover by corporate Nazis.
That aside, there really isn't a reason why NPR couldn't use MP3s or Vorbis for that matter. But I would be willing to bet that they got a sweetheart deal with Real (maybe they're an underwriter) to use their encoding tools so real could increase the use and distribution to their player spamware that you seem to need to upgrade every four weeks. They probably also like the fact that you can't save to your hard disk what your listening to.
However, I listened to it when it aired on my FM radio today.
I'm planning a couple of websites that will deal with all these issues (hopefully in a couple of months)
The had the chair of the SDMI working group on, Talal Shamoon. Also, Jessica Litman, author of Digital Copyright : Protecting Intellectual Property on the Internet, and Lawrence Lessig.
It covered topics that have already being milled over here, but it was still interesting to listen to. The conversation was polite, but the SDMI guy was noticeably squirming at a couple of points (they did mention the Felton story). Ms. Litman really argued the need for fair use/public representation well. It ended on a caller saying the music industry is "greedy." All in all a good listen.
I really don't get it when people think that Senator Hatch is representing the public interest when it comes to tech issues. It's irrelevant whether Senator Hatch is tech savvy, because he sure is special interest savvy. The reality is he sides with special interests (including the RIAA) where it matters - legislation. But he blows a lot of worthless hot air at PR stunts (like when he invites Napster's Shawn Fanning to testify at hearings) to throw people off track and make it sound like he is doing a grand ol' job. Actions really do speaak louder than words though;
He is responsible for the copyright tem extionsion act or CTEA (written by Hatch). More here.
This is not a Republican vs. Demoocrat issue either. What it is though is one congressman who has managed to single-handedly rape the public interest on tech issues. The public needs to be made aware of Senator Hatch's dismal record and he needs to be held accountable for his loathsome representation of the public interest.
I'm glad that somebody else noticed that. Also, my gut tells me "web services" actually means "rental software". Maybe that's why MS rolled out Craig "attack dog" Mundie.
about the next large asteroid to hit the earth as we looked up and saw it streaking across the sky. So any effort at prevention should start with stepped up methods to detect earth crossing asteroids first. With funding being cut at NASA so we all can get a tax cut, this is not likely.
I was sorry to learn that Gene Shoemaker had passed away
I would say "unregulated corporations" that has more rights than an ordinary citizen is what's wrong. Of course the DMCA is some whore of a law that the corporations can sink their teeth into, that my own Senator Hatch is responsible for.
Because the only video cards that will be available are the ones with encrypted output to feed the digital monitors, which won't work with your old style analog monitors.
You and I can tell why this technology is bad, but Joe Scmoe going to an Office Depot isn't going to care as long as what ever system he buys works reasonably well (copy protection or not).
When you think about it, there isn't a PC subsystem that isn't under attack by an encryption standard. Firewire, USB, hard drives, video, and sound all need to be placed under lock and key.
Bruce Schneier of Counterpane puts it well - "As long as there is a general purpose computer, their is going to be a way around encryption methods." So it's the manufacturers' job (they're all pretty much as a cartel in this respect) to "subtract" functionality from a PC so you and I can't do things we shouldn't be. Things are looking bleak More here.
I suppose that their will be ways for some of us to build general purpose computers from a box of ICs like the good ol' days. Who knows, maybe we can have a little niche market selling boards to fellow slashdotters. The only problem is that with the way the courts are thinking, that may be considered a circumvention device.....
Agreed. The Red Hat guys are great, and I appreciate them. There's a couple of other thank-you posts. It's nice to know that slashdot hasn't been completely run-over by the trolls.
The problem is that the WIPO is filling a vacuum that was made by the growth of the internet. It is entirely possible that the WIPO could be cut out of the loop.
It could be done through an alternative TLD service like http://www.new.net/. Also, with the shrinkage of.com tld, all those country tlds are becoming more acceptable as time goes on. With the growth of the internet, chances are somebody will be finding your site through a search engine anyway, making domain names less important.
The bad news is a big corporation can outspend most citizens. The good news is that it doesn't neccessarily have to stop you from having a website.
There needs to be a name for this activity
on
AI Movie Promo
·
· Score: 2
May I suggest "movie pimping" ???
Why the DMCA makes big sucking sound
on
CPRM Voted Down
·
· Score: 1
With the DMCA and copyright violations now a federal criminal offense, asking such questions and posting the result to your website could land you in jail.
So yes, it would be against the law to tamper with your computer.
Slashdot Mirror
They specifically mentioned not taking Justice' view (ignoring Jackson's comments) nor MS' view (start all over) in their decision, hence the reason it was vacated.
Interestingly the decision does not really fault MS for it's tying of IE to the OS (the lower court will decide further), but rather what they did to java;
Some choice quotes from the ruling;
As explained above, however, a monopolist does not violate the
antitrust laws simply by developing a product that is incompatible
with those of its rivals........Because the cumulative effect of the deals is anticompetitive
and because Microsoft has no procompetitive justification for
them, we hold that the provisions in the First Wave Agreements
requiring use of Microsoft's JVM as the default are
exclusionary, in violation of the Sherman Act. As a result, even Java
''developers who were opting for portability over performance
TTT unwittingly [wrote] Java applications that [ran] only on
Windows.'' Conclusions of Law, at 43. That is, developers
who relied upon Microsoft's public commitment to cooperate
with Sun and who used Microsoft's tools to develop what
Microsoft led them to believe were cross-platform applications
ended up producing applications that would run only on
the Windows operating system.
On the IE tying;
There being no close parallel in prior antitrust cases, simplistic application of
per se tying rules carries a serious risk of harm. Accordingly,
we vacate the District Court's finding of a per se tying
violation and remand the case. Plaintiffs may on remand
pursue their tying claim under the rule of reason.
That's the long and short of it. Anyway, MS may not need victories in this case as clearly their strategy is to stall until the case is irrelevant.
There is a lesson to be learned here about giving in to loathing at an inappropiate time as Jackson did. As a consolation, it's fun to read the decision recanting Jackson's rants calling Microsoft a bunch of gansters.
according to the supreme court justices who wrote the opinion. They suggest compulsory licencing similar to what "music publishing" has. Songwriters get paid, don't they?
That being said, there is nothing stopping freelancers from being replaced by "working stiffs" who don't get royalties. They are going to have to "evolve" with more competive content.
Alternatively, they could call it GNu Instant Messenger (GNIM) and achieve the same result. This should be looked upon as an opportunity to achieve a unique identity, and not as a battle to wage. Personally, I think "GNIM" has a lot more character than "GAIM". Sure the AOL/Time guys are sucky for the harassment, but that doesn't mean that they have to get the better of them in this case.
When I installed linux last year I tried corel, SUSE, redhat, mandrake, and Caldera. The install was great and the tech support was the BEST bar none. It lived up to its advertisement. I think the price you pay is well worth it. That being said, they blew it here.
The problem is that they're bundling commercial apps with the distro. There is nothing wrong with that, but it's how they are presenting it and how it comes accross. They should have their free "bare bones" linux disc, and a "professional edition" like what mandrake does. That way it is more clear about what is commercial and what is not. As it stands, they deserve the flames that they are about to receive.
The justices draw upon a specific clause in the 1976 copyright act (201(c)) designed to prevent frelancers from losing all their rights to a work. From the decision here (pdf);
JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
This copyright case concerns the rights of freelance
authors and a presumptive privilege of their publishers.
The litigation was initiated by six freelance authors and
relates to articles they contributed to three print periodicals
(two newspapers and one magazine). Under agreements
with the periodicals' publishers, but without the
freelancers' consent, two computer database companies
placed copies of the freelancers' articles-- along with all
other articles from the periodicals in which the freelancers'
work appeared-- into three databases. Whether written
by a freelancer or staff member, each article is presented
to, and retrievable by, the user in isolation, clear of
the context the original print publication presented.
The freelance authors' complaint alleged that their
copyrights had been infringed by the inclusion of their
articles in the databases. The publishers, in response,
relied on the privilege of reproduction and distribution
accorded them by 201(c) of the Copyright Act, which
provides:
"Copyright in each separate contribution to a collec-
tive work is distinct from copyright in the collective
work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of
the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer
of the copyright or of any rights under it, the
owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed
to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and
distributing the contribution as part of that particular
collective work, any revision of that collective work,
and any later collective work in the same series." 17
U. S. C. 201(c).
Specifically, the publishers maintained that, as copyright
owners of collective works, i.e., the original print publications,
they had merely exercised "the privilege" 201(c)
accords them to "reproduc[e] and distribut[e]" the author's
discretely copyrighted contribution.
In agreement with the Second Circuit, we hold that
201(c) does not authorize the copying at issue here. The
publishers are not sheltered by 201(c), we conclude,
because the databases reproduce and distribute articles
standing alone and not in context, not "as part of that
particular collective work" to which the author contributed,
"as part of . . . any revision" thereof, or "as part of . . .
any later collective work in the same series." Both the
print publishers and the electronic publishers, we rule,
have infringed the copyrights of the freelance authors.
If the publishers were to distibute a "pdf" doucument (which would be like a microfilm-the opinion specifically mentions that) of their original publication, I don't think the freelancers could do anything about that though (IANAL).
Another very interesting thing is that the decision cites the original congressional record when the 1976 copyright law was being drafted to help determine its intennt.
I don't want to my washing machine to be connected to the internet. What I want is to press three buttons and have it do the wash. Why should I have to pay extra for features that are neither needed or wanted for my major appliances???
Yoou might be the one responsible for busting their patent. You may not get any money for doing so, but you will have made a contributionn to open source. I was in discussions with real estate agents in 1997 about doing this very thing, but other pursuits tied me up. I never thought about patenting it, as it seemed obvious to me at the time that others were doing it already. I feel bad this guy felt like he had to fold, because I don't think they have a leg to stand on even with a granted patent.
My thoughts exactly! - now we now how they were able to unload all that excess i-opener hardware.
Seriously, these machines are going to be beat on hard - they need the cheapest solution available, which the i opener is.
news that he was being let go effective immediately. When asked about it he said "It was difficult for them to keep me on posing for pictures and drawings, because it just looks like that I sit around all the time."
"Perhaps things would be better if there was a more viable business model or something" he continued, "but I hope to continue on in a voluntary role."
There is a FAQ that covers some (but not all) of those questions. Perhaps the message boards could help you with the rest.
'Tis true. I'm coming to the acceptance that people are gonna "eat what they are fed." It's interesting that Real was one of the companies that was demonstrating a "pay per listen" scheme in front of congress yesterday.
I'm not happpy with NPR on how they helped kill low power FM, and I'm not happy with the pacifica network takeover by corporate Nazis.
That aside, there really isn't a reason why NPR couldn't use MP3s or Vorbis for that matter. But I would be willing to bet that they got a sweetheart deal with Real (maybe they're an underwriter) to use their encoding tools so real could increase the use and distribution to their player spamware that you seem to need to upgrade every four weeks. They probably also like the fact that you can't save to your hard disk what your listening to.
However, I listened to it when it aired on my FM radio today.
I'm planning a couple of websites that will deal with all these issues (hopefully in a couple of months)
hour two had a really good show on "digital" copyright today;
e =05/18/2001&PrgID=5
http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDat
The had the chair of the SDMI working group on, Talal Shamoon. Also, Jessica Litman, author of Digital Copyright : Protecting Intellectual Property on the Internet, and Lawrence Lessig.
It covered topics that have already being milled over here, but it was still interesting to listen to. The conversation was polite, but the SDMI guy was noticeably squirming at a couple of points (they did mention the Felton story). Ms. Litman really argued the need for fair use/public representation well. It ended on a caller saying the music industry is "greedy." All in all a good listen.
I really don't get it when people think that Senator Hatch is representing the public interest when it comes to tech issues. It's irrelevant whether Senator Hatch is tech savvy, because he sure is special interest savvy. The reality is he sides with special interests (including the RIAA) where it matters - legislation. But he blows a lot of worthless hot air at PR stunts (like when he invites Napster's Shawn Fanning to testify at hearings) to throw people off track and make it sound like he is doing a grand ol' job. Actions really do speaak louder than words though;
He is responsible for the copyright tem extionsion act or CTEA (written by Hatch). More here.
He co-authored the DMCA. More here.
He got caught trying to extend the patent on Claritin for the drug maker Schering-Plough, whose private jet he used when running for president.
He's also responsible for this juicy piece
This is not a Republican vs. Demoocrat issue either. What it is though is one congressman who has managed to single-handedly rape the public interest on tech issues. The public needs to be made aware of Senator Hatch's dismal record and he needs to be held accountable for his loathsome representation of the public interest.
I'm glad that somebody else noticed that. Also, my gut tells me "web services" actually means "rental software". Maybe that's why MS rolled out Craig "attack dog" Mundie.
about the next large asteroid to hit the earth as we looked up and saw it streaking across the sky. So any effort at prevention should start with stepped up methods to detect earth crossing asteroids first. With funding being cut at NASA so we all can get a tax cut, this is not likely.
I was sorry to learn that Gene Shoemaker had passed away
I would say "unregulated corporations" that has more rights than an ordinary citizen is what's wrong. Of course the DMCA is some whore of a law that the corporations can sink their teeth into, that my own Senator Hatch is responsible for.
Because the only video cards that will be available are the ones with encrypted output to feed the digital monitors, which won't work with your old style analog monitors.
You and I can tell why this technology is bad, but Joe Scmoe going to an Office Depot isn't going to care as long as what ever system he buys works reasonably well (copy protection or not).
When you think about it, there isn't a PC subsystem that isn't under attack by an encryption standard. Firewire, USB, hard drives, video, and sound all need to be placed under lock and key.
Bruce Schneier of Counterpane puts it well - "As long as there is a general purpose computer, their is going to be a way around encryption methods." So it's the manufacturers' job (they're all pretty much as a cartel in this respect) to "subtract" functionality from a PC so you and I can't do things we shouldn't be. Things are looking bleak More here.
I suppose that their will be ways for some of us to build general purpose computers from a box of ICs like the good ol' days. Who knows, maybe we can have a little niche market selling boards to fellow slashdotters. The only problem is that with the way the courts are thinking, that may be considered a circumvention device.....
Here's a picture of Cassiopa and Sheba (from Battlestar Galactica)
5 45.html
;-))
Here's a picture of Athena (from Battlestar Galactica)
Here's a picture of colonel Wilma Deering (from Buck Rogers)
Compare the Buck Rogers one with this photo of Natalie (on the right) and this one from above.
The similarities have not been lost on a lot of people;
http://www.chud.com/board/ubbhtml/Forum1/HTML/001
IMHO - Natalie still seems much like a girl, compared to the others above that seem like women. Maybe it's because I grew up with them
Also it seems Battlestar Galactica is making a comeback;
http://www.kobol.com/revival/index.html
The best theft device ever is the remote control - you just skip to another channel during commercails. Awesome technology.
Agreed. The Red Hat guys are great, and I appreciate them. There's a couple of other thank-you posts. It's nice to know that slashdot hasn't been completely run-over by the trolls.
The problem is that the WIPO is filling a vacuum that was made by the growth of the internet. It is entirely possible that the WIPO could be cut out of the loop.
.com tld, all those country tlds are becoming more acceptable as time goes on. With the growth of the internet, chances are somebody will be finding your site through a search engine anyway, making domain names less important.
It could be done through an alternative TLD service like http://www.new.net/. Also, with the shrinkage of
The bad news is a big corporation can outspend most citizens. The good news is that it doesn't neccessarily have to stop you from having a website.
May I suggest "movie pimping" ???
With the DMCA and copyright violations now a federal criminal offense, asking such questions and posting the result to your website could land you in jail.
So yes, it would be against the law to tamper with your computer.
This one belongs in the hall of fame!!
unfortunately "limited" can mean anything including infinity - 1 day, and the way Eldred vs. Reno is going, judges are buying it.