As I pointed out a bit ago on my blog, Stowell's quote "Our interpretation of this is that we have the copyrights for Unix and UnixWare technologies," betrays how clueless these folks are.
The difference is that private property and the rights that accompany it (my hat, my toothbrush, my car, my underwear) preceed the existence of government--or even the concept of government. Governments enforce this right through laws that establish penalties for theft. Stealing is a crime against the person, according to nature of man.
Copyright, however, and the right of exclusivity that accompanies it, was created by the government, though the enactment of a law. There is no precedent right that is being enforced by the law. Even though the law provides remedy to the copyright holder in cases of infringement, the crime is a crime against copyright law, rather than against the person.
The problem with this is that it attempts to hide a mere symptom of a situation that hasn't sunk in for most people, yet: That the record label industry, as it exists, is obsolete. The RIAA (even though they don't realize it) isn't fighting a battle against falling profits. It's fighting a battle against extinction.
Remedies that set up systems (especially legally-mandated ones) to collect and funnel money back to the record labels are just prolonging an inevitable death.
Actually, the decision, as written, has a whole host of bad logic. For the right logic, you can see my own take on it.
One thing that Edelman might have started out with is the idea that the provisions of the DMCA do not establish copyright rights, in terms of redressable grievences. What I mean is that they don't require that an injured party bring suit and maintain charges in order for somebody to be prosecuted under it. The Elcomsoft trial established this.
Thus, even while there is no immediate apprehension of being sued by N2H2, Edelman could have argued, by referring to the feds' treatment of the Elcomsoft case, that he has significant apprehension of being arrested and tried for crimes under the DMCA.
In fact, I wondered "why the deadline?" Just publish everybody's future invention ideas, ongoingly, and maybe some of the more inappropriate patents can be prevented.
The problem here isn't that the market won't work--it's that the market is likely to be prevented from working, through the DMCA.
If work-arounds to such technologies were not hampered in the legal system, then those who make a business selling cartridge refills would do the work of educating the masses.
I think more attention needs to be given to this key phrase in the Act. Skimming over the briefs, it seems that the EFF's appeal is the only one that comes right out and says that the circumvention in question does not even intersect the Act because by selling a copy of a DVD the copyright owner is giving the purchaser the authority to access its content.
This should be made into a firm component of judicial doctrine regarding copyright--that even when the content is digital and protected, the legal owner of a copy is always deemed to have the copyright owner's authority to access the copy, and that this presumption of authority is part and parcel of copy ownernship.
I noticed a strong, consistent assumption that plays throughout the essay: "Internet industry" == "advertising industry" (or rather, "Internet industry" belongs to the set "advertising industries".
Consider this quote: Advertisers, whom the entire Internet is funded by, . . .
And, down on the page a bit, the heading How can the Internet survive with the first sentence beginning If the advertising market is going to last. . .
Is this a true assumption? I don't know the answer, but it seems a question worth asking. In other words, if online advertising just went away, would the Internet therefore disappear?
I noticed that, too. Actually, an attributed quote contained the "32-bit" claim, while WND's summary of PS2 features referred to the 128-bit CPU.
Is it possible that both are correct? I know that it has a 128-bit graphics engine (Emotion, I think it's called). Might it also have another 32-bit CPU for non-graphic purposes such as handling I/O?
Actually, it's not clear-cut that this is a states rights issue.
Since the state's highest judicial body over-ruled (in the name of equity) what is the clear will and intent of that same state's legislative body (which is the official "voice of the people"), it could be argued that the question at hand is whether a state is to be directed by the people's representatives (its congress) or by an elite few (its judges).
That seems to be at the basis of the US Court's decision: If the FSC was issuing a ruling based on what it viewed as a proper interpretation of Florida law, then the US Supreme Court doesn't have a right to interfere. However, if the FSC has appealed in its decision to either the US Constitution, or to no higher law in particular (just "this is the way we feel") then the US Court can overturn that ruling, based on that ruling's own grounds.
Reading the patent text, it seems that the patent only applies in processes where the code itself is specifically created to contain a "file location pointer." So, it sounds like the use of already existing barcode standards that don't encode a "file location pointer," are specifically excluded from coverage by the patent.
Therefore, software that automatically uses such an excluded barcode (ISBN) to launch and and find a information related to the indexed product falls way outside of NeoMedia's patent space.
Unless the meaning of "encoding a symbol data string comprising a file location pointer" is so broad that it applies to any type of indexing scheme. . .
There's no legitimacy in making a business out of trying to harass folks away from doing what is clearly their right--in this case, reverse-engineering a piece of hardware so that they can use it to their own ends.
If a business (small or large) attempted to squash, via impotent threats, some legal activity in which Amazon.com was engaged, I would expect Amazon.com to respond in like manner--that is, point out the impotence of the threat and continue the activity. If the business happened to be doing something illegal, then I would expect Amazon.com to point that out as well.
Also I hope that by "little loopholes in some law," you're not including the reverse-engineering and publishing of driver software. This right is far more than some loophole!
Kind of reminds me about the Catholic joke--touring Heaven, but be quiet going past the Catholic Church 'cause "they think they're the only ones here."
I think one of the appealing aspects of such an idea is that the anti-patent need not be for an idea reduced to practice.
The basis for the antipatent would not be that you have a new idea and you're donating it to the public, but rather that you've thought of the idea independently, and think that it's obvious enough that nobody should be able to patent it in the first place.
Yeah, but the ULA only applies to readers "distributed under this license."
Unless the license (or, at least the existence of one) was explicitly made obvious to you when you were handed the thing, or when you opened it or installed it, then it was not distributed to you under the license, and therefore the license doesn't apply.
This applies in my case. Note, I'm talking about the hardware itself. The fact is, I never opened or installed the software--threw it away since I knew I wouldn't have any use for it.
You can check out the license here. It says that "the CueCat reader distributed under this license is covered by this license."
Well, I got my reader at RS, and no license agreement or coverage was implicitly or explicitly stated, requested, or alluded to regarding opening, installing, or using the device itself. I have not installed or opened the software. (In fact, I've thrown it away, since I had no use for it.) So I would have to say that my device was not distributed under the license, and therefore is not covered by the license.
Does anybody know whether this is sound legal reasoning?
I would use it, except for the service charge. Heck, a bank pays you interest to keep your money there, I would expect such a system to at least be free. (After all, where are they going to put my money order? In a bank!)
Actually, I was thinking earlier this year about how to set up such a system--not only anonymous, but one in which you could make a digital withdrawal that you could simply email to someone, who could then deposit it in their digital account.
This is different than paypal. With paypal, you get an email from paypal informing you of money waiting for you. With digital cash, you get an email from me that contains money.
I even envision a system of several digital cash standards--all anonymous and private--each native to one or more digital "banks," but where the banks actually support deposits of any of the formats. This would allow continuous advancements in digital cash technology. Of course, ideally none of those banks would be directly associated with traditional bank institutions.
I've been thinking that a group of volunteers could set up a site (digitalcash.org? - probably already exists), work out all the workflow bugs, rent a PO Box, and then just see if it gets used.
Correct me if I'm mis-remembering, but doesn't the DMCA target software whose "primary purpose or use" is to bypass. . . ? Why not embed the code as a menu selection in an open source word processor?
Well, yeah. Maybe he counts word processors as one application, spreadsheets as one more application application, file compression utilities as one more . . .
Slashdot Mirror
As I pointed out a bit ago on my blog, Stowell's quote "Our interpretation of this is that we have the copyrights for Unix and UnixWare technologies," betrays how clueless these folks are.
Everyone knows you can't copyright a technology.
The difference is that private property and the rights that accompany it (my hat, my toothbrush, my car, my underwear) preceed the existence of government--or even the concept of government. Governments enforce this right through laws that establish penalties for theft. Stealing is a crime against the person, according to nature of man.
Copyright, however, and the right of exclusivity that accompanies it, was created by the government, though the enactment of a law. There is no precedent right that is being enforced by the law. Even though the law provides remedy to the copyright holder in cases of infringement, the crime is a crime against copyright law, rather than against the person.
Remedies that set up systems (especially legally-mandated ones) to collect and funnel money back to the record labels are just prolonging an inevitable death.
One thing that Edelman might have started out with is the idea that the provisions of the DMCA do not establish copyright rights, in terms of redressable grievences. What I mean is that they don't require that an injured party bring suit and maintain charges in order for somebody to be prosecuted under it. The Elcomsoft trial established this.
Thus, even while there is no immediate apprehension of being sued by N2H2, Edelman could have argued, by referring to the feds' treatment of the Elcomsoft case, that he has significant apprehension of being arrested and tried for crimes under the DMCA.
Exactly.
In fact, I wondered "why the deadline?" Just publish everybody's future invention ideas, ongoingly, and maybe some of the more inappropriate patents can be prevented.
Uh, looks like you only read SECTION 1 of the bill. Go back and read the rest.
The problem here isn't that the market won't work--it's that the market is likely to be prevented from working, through the DMCA.
If work-arounds to such technologies were not hampered in the legal system, then those who make a business selling cartridge refills would do the work of educating the masses.
I think more attention needs to be given to this key phrase in the Act. Skimming over the briefs, it seems that the EFF's appeal is the only one that comes right out and says that the circumvention in question does not even intersect the Act because by selling a copy of a DVD the copyright owner is giving the purchaser the authority to access its content.
This should be made into a firm component of judicial doctrine regarding copyright--that even when the content is digital and protected, the legal owner of a copy is always deemed to have the copyright owner's authority to access the copy, and that this presumption of authority is part and parcel of copy ownernship.
-----------------------------------
Consider this quote: Advertisers, whom the entire Internet is funded by, . . .
And, down on the page a bit, the heading How can the Internet survive with the first sentence beginning If the advertising market is going to last. . .
Is this a true assumption? I don't know the answer, but it seems a question worth asking. In other words, if online advertising just went away, would the Internet therefore disappear?
-----------------------------------
Psychology, business models, software quality, development process?
Whatever your answer is, it's possible that whatever research you do will be 'original' in the field.
After all, if academic research was always based on prior academic research, then we really wouldn't have a lot of academic research, would we?
-----------------------------------
I noticed that, too. Actually, an attributed quote contained the "32-bit" claim, while WND's summary of PS2 features referred to the 128-bit CPU.
Is it possible that both are correct? I know that it has a 128-bit graphics engine (Emotion, I think it's called). Might it also have another 32-bit CPU for non-graphic purposes such as handling I/O?
-----------------------------------
Actually, it's not clear-cut that this is a states rights issue.
Since the state's highest judicial body over-ruled (in the name of equity) what is the clear will and intent of that same state's legislative body (which is the official "voice of the people"), it could be argued that the question at hand is whether a state is to be directed by the people's representatives (its congress) or by an elite few (its judges).
That seems to be at the basis of the US Court's decision: If the FSC was issuing a ruling based on what it viewed as a proper interpretation of Florida law, then the US Supreme Court doesn't have a right to interfere. However, if the FSC has appealed in its decision to either the US Constitution, or to no higher law in particular (just "this is the way we feel") then the US Court can overturn that ruling, based on that ruling's own grounds.
-----------------------------------
How does the description of the injunction in the MPAA letter compare with the actual wording of the injunction?
-----------------------------------
Reading the patent text, it seems that the patent only applies in processes where the code itself is specifically created to contain a "file location pointer." So, it sounds like the use of already existing barcode standards that don't encode a "file location pointer," are specifically excluded from coverage by the patent.
Therefore, software that automatically uses such an excluded barcode (ISBN) to launch and and find a information related to the indexed product falls way outside of NeoMedia's patent space.
Unless the meaning of "encoding a symbol data string comprising a file location pointer" is so broad that it applies to any type of indexing scheme. . .
-----------------------------------
Last I checked, the drivers are still available.
There's no legitimacy in making a business out of trying to harass folks away from doing what is clearly their right--in this case, reverse-engineering a piece of hardware so that they can use it to their own ends.
If a business (small or large) attempted to squash, via impotent threats, some legal activity in which Amazon.com was engaged, I would expect Amazon.com to respond in like manner--that is, point out the impotence of the threat and continue the activity. If the business happened to be doing something illegal, then I would expect Amazon.com to point that out as well.
Also I hope that by "little loopholes in some law," you're not including the reverse-engineering and publishing of driver software. This right is far more than some loophole!
And now, flyingbuttmonkeys has their code back up.
What a hoot!
Kind of reminds me about the Catholic joke--touring Heaven, but be quiet going past the Catholic Church 'cause "they think they're the only ones here."
I think one of the appealing aspects of such an idea is that the anti-patent need not be for an idea reduced to practice.
The basis for the antipatent would not be that you have a new idea and you're donating it to the public, but rather that you've thought of the idea independently, and think that it's obvious enough that nobody should be able to patent it in the first place.
Yeah, but the ULA only applies to readers "distributed under this license."
Unless the license (or, at least the existence of one) was explicitly made obvious to you when you were handed the thing, or when you opened it or installed it, then it was not distributed to you under the license, and therefore the license doesn't apply.
This applies in my case. Note, I'm talking about the hardware itself. The fact is, I never opened or installed the software--threw it away since I knew I wouldn't have any use for it.
You can check out the license here. It says that "the CueCat reader distributed under this license is covered by this license."
Well, I got my reader at RS, and no license agreement or coverage was implicitly or explicitly stated, requested, or alluded to regarding opening, installing, or using the device itself. I have not installed or opened the software. (In fact, I've thrown it away, since I had no use for it.) So I would have to say that my device was not distributed under the license, and therefore is not covered by the license.
Does anybody know whether this is sound legal reasoning?
I would use it, except for the service charge. Heck, a bank pays you interest to keep your money there, I would expect such a system to at least be free. (After all, where are they going to put my money order? In a bank!) Actually, I was thinking earlier this year about how to set up such a system--not only anonymous, but one in which you could make a digital withdrawal that you could simply email to someone, who could then deposit it in their digital account. This is different than paypal. With paypal, you get an email from paypal informing you of money waiting for you. With digital cash, you get an email from me that contains money. I even envision a system of several digital cash standards--all anonymous and private--each native to one or more digital "banks," but where the banks actually support deposits of any of the formats. This would allow continuous advancements in digital cash technology. Of course, ideally none of those banks would be directly associated with traditional bank institutions. I've been thinking that a group of volunteers could set up a site (digitalcash.org? - probably already exists), work out all the workflow bugs, rent a PO Box, and then just see if it gets used.
Correct me if I'm mis-remembering, but doesn't the DMCA target software whose "primary purpose or use" is to bypass. . . ? Why not embed the code as a menu selection in an open source word processor?
Well, yeah. Maybe he counts word processors as one application, spreadsheets as one more application application, file compression utilities as one more . . .