The "exceeding 2% of AGI" is the problem. Between my wife and I, we've never gotten above that, so keeping track of all the picky little business-related expenses turned out to be a big waste of time every single year. I no longer even bother
I don't mean to nitpick, but for all of the effort you went through, couldn't you just eat the additional cell minutes?
Unless you were in an area that charged by the broadband-data-unit, it doesn't cost any extra to use your home connection for work, I don't think. Also, by upping your cellphone plan another 10-20 bux per month, you could easily cover all of the work-related minutes.
Unless you were just doing it "for the principle of the thing," the $10-$20 per month additional should come out in the wash.
>>>if you can prove the technique was in use prior to someone else claiming to invent it, that they cannot patent it?
If in PUBLIC use, you're correct. If in use, but with the specifics secret from the public (i.e., a random observer wouldn't be able to discern that this was being done in the claimed manner), then it does not preclude patentability.
Good comment; I've had a hard time finding "unrated" versions of movies that were otherwise widely available.
Much like my local Hollywood Video, which only carries the theatrical release, rather than the "unrated" versions. (E.g., American Pie, Van Wilder, etc.)
>>> It's pretty standard for employees to rack up the frequent-flyer miles. I've actually never heard of a case where the employee had to give them back.
Actually, in government positions, it's very common for the government to "earn" the frequent flyer miles. There aren't any actual miles -- the agency in question just gets discounted fares, in lieu of miles.
An excellent point. In fact, the copyrights could well end up to be enforceable abroad, but not in the U.S.
I think Kazaa and its related web of companies is incorporated in so many different nations is in part to protect assets and/or to prevent being subjected to certain countries' jurisdiction.
"Anarchy" was a term I used to simply connote that there would be no rules governing the use of those otherwise-protectibly copyrighted songs.
I'm not saying it would be bad or good either way, but here are some of the consequences I can come up with if all of the majors' copyrights were rendered unenforceable (and that decision held up through all appeals, etc). Perhaps I should have said: "All hell would break loose."
1) Countless stars would immediately go bankrupt. Plenty would be fine, but some of the biggest musical stars would lose their income streams entirely. Think Michael Jackson, Elton John, etc. etc. This has ramifications that are much larger than you think: many stars have actually "pre-sold" their royalty streams through bond issuances... lots of Wall Street types lose everything on that deal.
2) The major record labels would all go bankrupt. Since most are combo music/movie houses, fewer big budget movies would be made until the financial shock was absorbed. All of the employees at the record labels would be out of work as well. Again, lots of bond and equity issues plummet, causing non-trivial effects on Wall Street. All of the creditors of the record labels are screwed, of course.
3) The standard music retailers, from Sam Goody and other B&M stores to Amazon, et al, would be severely hit financially, as on every corner store, people would legally be selling cheap copies of every concievable popular music album... think $1 to $2 each. (Side effect, huge profits for media manufacturers).
That's just off the top of my head... I can imagine that there are lots of other effects I haven't considered.
Re:I Am Not A Lawyer...
on
Kazaa Fights Back
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, I am a lawyer... and you'd be surprised how many lawsuits are filed without appropriate "thinking things through."
I'm not saying this one was or was not appropriately considered... many many lawsuits by major corporations are not, though.
--
Re:that makes no sense
on
Kazaa Fights Back
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You are actually missing the point. Let me see if I can do better than cnet.com.
Kazaa/Sharman (Kazaa, for simplicity), is *not* trying to argue that the RIAA's (and its members') illegal conduct justifies its own promotion of piracy. This is an entirely separate claim altogether. In essence, they are claiming that they and Altnet *tried* to get licenses to the majors' music catalogs (so that they could *sell* P2P access and/or copy-protected copies), but that they were illegally refused.
Assuming (accurately) that the majors control the vast vast majority of music copyrights, and that they illegally agreed (not yet proven) not to deal with Altnet/Kazaa, but instead only with their own online distribution arms, then a judge can find that they have thereby inhibited legal competition in the online distribution market.
That being said, one common consequence of copyright (or other intellectual property) -related antitrust conduct is that the copyrights are rendered "unenforceable." If that occurred, then even if Kazaa's actions constituted copyright infringement (actual or inducing), they cannot be held liable because the copyrights at issue would be unenforceable.
In other, more simple words, the counterclaim doesn't attempt to justify Kazaa'a purported wrongs based on bad conduct by the record companies... it's just a really lovely side effect.
In all likelihood, such a draconian remedy would never be issued by a judge (imagine if all of the copyrights of all the majors were summarily rendered unenforceable.... anarchy!). Having worked for the lawyer in question, though, the likely intent is to gain negotiating leverage by the simple possibility of a "death sentence," however remote.
Actually, it's a number of different places, for those that are interested.
I found it online at www.neimanmarcus.com (metal band only), and at www.globalproducts.com (resin band only). Also, I just saw it in person at a sunglass hut/watch store in the local mall in DC/NoVa.
Not bad, but it is pretty thick... quite light, however.
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution guarantees four freedoms: freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. Since that time, those freedoms have been discussed, debated, fought and died for. Since that time, millions of immigrants have come to America to secure those freedoms. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. They believed in the power of ideas and debate, not censorship.
The freedom of speech concept came from England. During the Glorious Revolution of 1688, King James II was overthrown, then William and Mary were installed as joint monarchs. The following year, the English Parliament secured a Bill of Rights from William and Mary that granted "freedom of speech in Parliament." One hundred years later our founding fathers were wise enough to expand that principle to everyone, not just members of Parliament.
In his 1801 inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed the principle of free speech saying, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Reason is the tool to use to change opinions--not censorship.
During World War II, addressing Congress, FDR expressed the hope that the four freedoms would be embraced the world over. He said, "We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world." Clearly we are not there yet. Freedom of speech is not a right in every country in the world. Yet, just as clearly, it is a freedom desired in every corner of the world.
Most students recognize Voltaire's defense of free speech...
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
The underlying premise is, if the government censors you today, I could be next tomorrow, perhaps for an entirely different reason. That's why it is so important to uphold the principle, even when in practice it is difficult to do so. There's no challenge involved in defending someone you agree with; the stretch is standing up for your opponent--so that everyone's rights are preserved.
For as long as the First Amendment has protected our right to free speech and expression, elements have tried to undermine that right. Censorship often raises its ugly head during trying times when our nation faces difficult, seemingly insoluble problems. That is why Justice Louis Brandeis opined in Whitney v. California in 1927, "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." Brandeis knew what Jefferson knew--reason and free speech, not fear and censorship, should prevail.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed this position in its 1997 decision on the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that sought to limit material placed on the Internet. RIAA was active in a broad coalition of industry and civil liberties groups that opposed the CDA. The high court struck down the law. In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the high court decided, "Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge district court that the statute abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."
You're absolutely right. The question isn't whether MC would *win* the case in court. The question instead is, do they have enough of a case to bring the case without sanctions. Since there is a reasonable dispute as to whether it's a parody or fair use, or whether it constitutes trademark dilution, tarnishment, infringement; or copyright infringement; MC could bring the case and not face any sanctions or costs from doing so (aside from the high billable rates of BakerBotts).
Thus, they can achieve their desired result because the putative defendant doesn't have the $10-50k necessary to defend themselves (or if they have it, they certainly don't want to blow it on this).
I certainly wasn't arguing that you shouldn't try to take steps to protect your trade secrets. On the contrary! If you as an individual or an organization have trade secret design information, you should take every legitimate technical effort to protect its secrecy.
Know, however, that once you release a product containing that trade secret, it is unprotected, and you have only those defenses that you implemented to protect your trade secret. Knowing that just about anything can and will be reverse engineered, patent protection is the better option, of course.
My entire point was simply that reverse engineering is not theft, particularly in the context of trade secrets. (As an aside, reverse engineering of a patented device can, in some circumstances, be actionable). It is the legitimate pursuit of understanding of the operation of a product.
As an intellectual property attorney, I am appalled by the stance taken by the author of that article. Below please find the letter I just e-mailed him to briefly correct his misperceptions:
In reference to your article, "Cunning Circuits Confound Crooks," found at: http://www.ednmag.com/ednmag/reg/2000/10122000/21d f2.htm , I find it particularly disturbing that you refer to reverse engineering as "theft." In particular, the following text gives me tremendous pause:
"The other harder but possibly even more damaging form of theft is "reverse-engineering." In that scenario, someone uses the information stored in the programmable-logic device to reconstruct the original circuit details and then alters and incorporates those details in part or whole into other designs."
Your analysis is woefully misguided.
Intellectual property protections in the United States exist for copyright, trademark, patent and trade secret information, and each of these areas includes its own particular set of limitations. These limitations are present for very good reasons, ranging from free speech to the encouragement of innovation. For any truly new, useful and unobvious circuit, patent protection can be obtained -- protection that gives the inventor the exclusive right to manufacture, use and sell the patented invention for a limited time. However, that protection comes at a price: the inventor must disclose to the world precisely how to make and use the invention, so that others may build upon it and so that further innovation may be encouraged.
Similarly, trade secret protection also has limitations. Trade secrets are protected only while they are precisely that: secret. Since trade secret protection (a) gives unlimited time-duration protection, and (b) fails to educate the rest of the world and thereby foster further innovation, it is extremely limited. Once a given technology is no longer secret, it may be used by anyone freely.
If a circuit designer decides to forego the greater protections afforded by patent, he or she cannot complain about reverse engineering under the law. So long as someone is not directly infringing a copyright (or mask work) by literally copying a chip design, they are free to use the underlying ideas to improve their own devices.
Reverse engineering is not theft, either legally or ethically, and I suggest that you consider my comments in your journalistic pursuits.
Like it has already been said a hundred times, what's the point?
You can always brute-force rip it once it passes unencoded to the sound card anyway.
If playback is expected to be a problem, never fear, there will be plenty of non-SDMI compliant players out there, protected by the Sony Betamax decision. What's more, there will be tons of simple easy ways to modify SDMI compliant players to play non-SDMI music.
Interesting game of cat and mouse, I suppose, but that's about it.
Slashdot Mirror
The "exceeding 2% of AGI" is the problem. Between my wife and I, we've never gotten above that, so keeping track of all the picky little business-related expenses turned out to be a big waste of time every single year. I no longer even bother
I don't mean to nitpick, but for all of the effort you went through, couldn't you just eat the additional cell minutes?
Unless you were in an area that charged by the broadband-data-unit, it doesn't cost any extra to use your home connection for work, I don't think. Also, by upping your cellphone plan another 10-20 bux per month, you could easily cover all of the work-related minutes.
Unless you were just doing it "for the principle of the thing," the $10-$20 per month additional should come out in the wash.
>>>if you can prove the technique was in use prior to someone else claiming to invent it, that they cannot patent it?
If in PUBLIC use, you're correct. If in use, but with the specifics secret from the public (i.e., a random observer wouldn't be able to discern that this was being done in the claimed manner), then it does not preclude patentability.
Actually, that's incorrect. You can only enforce a patent once it's issued, and damages are not retroactive prior to issuance.
You're thinking of the rule that your priority date is effective as of the date of application.
Good comment; I've had a hard time finding "unrated" versions of movies that were otherwise widely available.
Much like my local Hollywood Video, which only carries the theatrical release, rather than the "unrated" versions. (E.g., American Pie, Van Wilder, etc.)
>>> It's pretty standard for employees to rack up the frequent-flyer miles. I've actually never heard of a case where the employee had to give them back.
Actually, in government positions, it's very common for the government to "earn" the frequent flyer miles. There aren't any actual miles -- the agency in question just gets discounted fares, in lieu of miles.
An excellent point. In fact, the copyrights could well end up to be enforceable abroad, but not in the U.S.
I think Kazaa and its related web of companies is incorporated in so many different nations is in part to protect assets and/or to prevent being subjected to certain countries' jurisdiction.
"Anarchy" was a term I used to simply connote that there would be no rules governing the use of those otherwise-protectibly copyrighted songs.
I'm not saying it would be bad or good either way, but here are some of the consequences I can come up with if all of the majors' copyrights were rendered unenforceable (and that decision held up through all appeals, etc). Perhaps I should have said: "All hell would break loose."
1) Countless stars would immediately go bankrupt. Plenty would be fine, but some of the biggest musical stars would lose their income streams entirely. Think Michael Jackson, Elton John, etc. etc. This has ramifications that are much larger than you think: many stars have actually "pre-sold" their royalty streams through bond issuances... lots of Wall Street types lose everything on that deal.
2) The major record labels would all go bankrupt. Since most are combo music/movie houses, fewer big budget movies would be made until the financial shock was absorbed. All of the employees at the record labels would be out of work as well. Again, lots of bond and equity issues plummet, causing non-trivial effects on Wall Street. All of the creditors of the record labels are screwed, of course.
3) The standard music retailers, from Sam Goody and other B&M stores to Amazon, et al, would be severely hit financially, as on every corner store, people would legally be selling cheap copies of every concievable popular music album... think $1 to $2 each. (Side effect, huge profits for media manufacturers).
That's just off the top of my head... I can imagine that there are lots of other effects I haven't considered.
Well, I am a lawyer... and you'd be surprised how many lawsuits are filed without appropriate "thinking things through."
I'm not saying this one was or was not appropriately considered... many many lawsuits by major corporations are not, though.
--
You are actually missing the point. Let me see if I can do better than cnet.com.
Kazaa/Sharman (Kazaa, for simplicity), is *not* trying to argue that the RIAA's (and its members') illegal conduct justifies its own promotion of piracy. This is an entirely separate claim altogether. In essence, they are claiming that they and Altnet *tried* to get licenses to the majors' music catalogs (so that they could *sell* P2P access and/or copy-protected copies), but that they were illegally refused.
Assuming (accurately) that the majors control the vast vast majority of music copyrights, and that they illegally agreed (not yet proven) not to deal with Altnet/Kazaa, but instead only with their own online distribution arms, then a judge can find that they have thereby inhibited legal competition in the online distribution market.
That being said, one common consequence of copyright (or other intellectual property) -related antitrust conduct is that the copyrights are rendered "unenforceable." If that occurred, then even if Kazaa's actions constituted copyright infringement (actual or inducing), they cannot be held liable because the copyrights at issue would be unenforceable.
In other, more simple words, the counterclaim doesn't attempt to justify Kazaa'a purported wrongs based on bad conduct by the record companies... it's just a really lovely side effect.
In all likelihood, such a draconian remedy would never be issued by a judge (imagine if all of the copyrights of all the majors were summarily rendered unenforceable.... anarchy!). Having worked for the lawyer in question, though, the likely intent is to gain negotiating leverage by the simple possibility of a "death sentence," however remote.
Glad to see them fighting back.
Actually, it's a number of different places, for those that are interested.
I found it online at www.neimanmarcus.com (metal band only), and at www.globalproducts.com (resin band only). Also, I just saw it in person at a sunglass hut/watch store in the local mall in DC/NoVa.
Not bad, but it is pretty thick... quite light, however.
With a marker-printed sign attached: "Will process bits for food."
The irony here is that the RIAA claims to support freedom of speech. What hypocrites.
From the RIAA's site: RIAA's Freedom of Speech Page
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution guarantees four freedoms: freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. Since that time, those freedoms have been discussed, debated, fought and died for. Since that time, millions of immigrants have come to America to secure those freedoms. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. They believed in the power of ideas and debate, not censorship.
The freedom of speech concept came from England. During the Glorious Revolution of 1688, King James II was overthrown, then William and Mary were installed as joint monarchs. The following year, the English Parliament secured a Bill of Rights from William and Mary that granted "freedom of speech in Parliament." One hundred years later our founding fathers were wise enough to expand that principle to everyone, not just members of Parliament.
In his 1801 inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed the principle of free speech saying, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Reason is the tool to use to change opinions--not censorship.
During World War II, addressing Congress, FDR expressed the hope that the four freedoms would be embraced the world over. He said, "We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world." Clearly we are not there yet. Freedom of speech is not a right in every country in the world. Yet, just as clearly, it is a freedom desired in every corner of the world.
Most students recognize Voltaire's defense of free speech...
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
The underlying premise is, if the government censors you today, I could be next tomorrow, perhaps for an entirely different reason. That's why it is so important to uphold the principle, even when in practice it is difficult to do so. There's no challenge involved in defending someone you agree with; the stretch is standing up for your opponent--so that everyone's rights are preserved.
For as long as the First Amendment has protected our right to free speech and expression, elements have tried to undermine that right. Censorship often raises its ugly head during trying times when our nation faces difficult, seemingly insoluble problems. That is why Justice Louis Brandeis opined in Whitney v. California in 1927, "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." Brandeis knew what Jefferson knew--reason and free speech, not fear and censorship, should prevail.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed this position in its 1997 decision on the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that sought to limit material placed on the Internet. RIAA was active in a broad coalition of industry and civil liberties groups that opposed the CDA. The high court struck down the law. In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the high court decided, "Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge district court that the statute abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."
eean,
You're absolutely right. The question isn't whether MC would *win* the case in court. The question instead is, do they have enough of a case to bring the case without sanctions. Since there is a reasonable dispute as to whether it's a parody or fair use, or whether it constitutes trademark dilution, tarnishment, infringement; or copyright infringement; MC could bring the case and not face any sanctions or costs from doing so (aside from the high billable rates of BakerBotts).
Thus, they can achieve their desired result because the putative defendant doesn't have the $10-50k necessary to defend themselves (or if they have it, they certainly don't want to blow it on this).
I certainly wasn't arguing that you shouldn't try to take steps to protect your trade secrets. On the contrary! If you as an individual or an organization have trade secret design information, you should take every legitimate technical effort to protect its secrecy.
Know, however, that once you release a product containing that trade secret, it is unprotected, and you have only those defenses that you implemented to protect your trade secret. Knowing that just about anything can and will be reverse engineered, patent protection is the better option, of course.
My entire point was simply that reverse engineering is not theft, particularly in the context of trade secrets. (As an aside, reverse engineering of a patented device can, in some circumstances, be actionable). It is the legitimate pursuit of understanding of the operation of a product.
As an intellectual property attorney, I am appalled by the stance taken by the author of that article. Below please find the letter I just e-mailed him to briefly correct his misperceptions:
d f2.htm , I find it particularly disturbing that you refer to reverse engineering as "theft." In particular, the following text gives me tremendous pause:
In reference to your article, "Cunning Circuits Confound Crooks," found at: http://www.ednmag.com/ednmag/reg/2000/10122000/21
"The other harder but possibly even more damaging form of theft is "reverse-engineering." In that scenario, someone uses the information stored in the programmable-logic device to reconstruct the original circuit details and then alters and incorporates those details in part or whole into other designs." Your analysis is woefully misguided.
Intellectual property protections in the United States exist for copyright, trademark, patent and trade secret information, and each of these areas includes its own particular set of limitations. These limitations are present for very good reasons, ranging from free speech to the encouragement of innovation. For any truly new, useful and unobvious circuit, patent protection can be obtained -- protection that gives the inventor the exclusive right to manufacture, use and sell the patented invention for a limited time. However, that protection comes at a price: the inventor must disclose to the world precisely how to make and use the invention, so that others may build upon it and so that further innovation may be encouraged.
Similarly, trade secret protection also has limitations. Trade secrets are protected only while they are precisely that: secret. Since trade secret protection (a) gives unlimited time-duration protection, and (b) fails to educate the rest of the world and thereby foster further innovation, it is extremely limited. Once a given technology is no longer secret, it may be used by anyone freely.
If a circuit designer decides to forego the greater protections afforded by patent, he or she cannot complain about reverse engineering under the law. So long as someone is not directly infringing a copyright (or mask work) by literally copying a chip design, they are free to use the underlying ideas to improve their own devices.
Reverse engineering is not theft, either legally or ethically, and I suggest that you consider my comments in your journalistic pursuits.
Joffrey X. XXXXXXXX
xxxxx & xxxxx, LLP
Like it has already been said a hundred times, what's the point? You can always brute-force rip it once it passes unencoded to the sound card anyway. If playback is expected to be a problem, never fear, there will be plenty of non-SDMI compliant players out there, protected by the Sony Betamax decision. What's more, there will be tons of simple easy ways to modify SDMI compliant players to play non-SDMI music. Interesting game of cat and mouse, I suppose, but that's about it.