Ahh, you must be referring to patent 4,342,045 patent, otherwise known as the "Good Times" patent, invented by a Dr. J.J. Evans of Chicago, Ill in 1973. IMO the '045 patent is one of the few patents that have truly done enough to promote the progess of the useful arts and sciences to more than justify its existence.
He goes on to note that SBC is not a villian for doing this - it is after all a valid patent, and that what is needed now is prior art."
OIC. So if something is "legal" then you're not a villain for doing it. So like if it's legal to shove Jews into gas chambers then it's ok to do it and if somebody hauls you in for a trial years later, you can just bleat out. "But I was just doing my job..." and that makes everything ok. Bullshit.
BTW, if you're wondering...I use this example for all cases when people justify their actions by saying "well it's leeeegaaallll so it's ok", not just for patents.
Rofl. It's sarcasm. I am not sure if you're being serious or just trolling me, but if you look at my posts, like the current !sw-patent post, I am not !GPL. It's to poke fun at Microsoft FUD. Also note that I didn't mention the GPL...you did. I could have been talking about ANY IP-destroying Viral Pac-Man license for all you know.:)
I'll conjecture. Since all software is an expression of thought just like music and sounds and pictures and movies and text and books, and since abstract thought isn't patentable, if they're suing over software then of course they don't have a legal leg to stand on. =^D
The best bathtub cleaner in the world is to take liquid drain opener
Wow, I never thought about that. I've had nasty sinks and tubs that I've unclogged and noticed how shiny and white the area near the drain is...but it never occurred to me to do this over the whole thing. Just have to be really careful if I do it I guess.
It's time for FS/OS to move to licenses with that patent mutual termination clause that goes something like this:
If you ever threaten any legal action in part or in whole because of software patents against any software or program that has this clause in its license, then you and everyone at your company lose the right to ever use any software licensed with this clause.
That's the only way to do it...you ever mess with ANY FS/OS with this clause, then you and your employees can never use ANY FS/OS ever again.
poor troll attempt. YOU HAVE BEEN ANTI-TROLLED. YOU HAVE LOST.
It wasn't a troll I really believe that you shouldn't give the copyright industry any money and I really believe that you shouldn't steal their stuff, either. Shrug.
WTF dude. Not only are you giving them money to use to take away from computers, you're parroting that tired old line that "I wouldn't have bought/seen them anyway" to justify stealing. If you want to stop this, then stop giving them money so they can't implement these things, and also don't copy things illegally since you're just giving them reasons to take away computers. This isn't really about piracy anyway. It's about control. They're no different than the scribes who got the government to restrict the printing press a few hundred years ago (look up "Stationers Guild" and "printing press") and was the reason why freedom of speech and of the press are in the Bill of Rights. You're doing exactly what they want: giving them money and an excuse to fuck you and everyone else.
If there was an RIAE (Europe) in the 1450's, Gutenberg would have been shot and his press burned.
It came along later. It was called the "Stationer's Guild".
Here's a little story:
Once upon a time there were these entrenched powers that effectively controlled the creation and dissemination of information because it was so difficult to copy in large quantities. Then, this new technology came along and made it much easier for people to create and distribute information. This threatened the entrenched powers so they went to the government and made it illegal to use the technology except for a select few.
Now, the beauty of this little story is that you can replace "Technology" with "printing press" or "Internet and Computers" and come up with a true story. Or maybe it will be a true story. It isn't quite true for the Internet and Computers, but that's what they're trying to do. Remember that this isn't about piracy (although you shouldn't steal musing using P2P). It's about control and this battle has been fought before and the result before in this nation was the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the press. It's interesting that they didn't stop at freedom of speech. Why did they mention a technological method of creating and distributing information? My guess is that they understood that a government can make speech pointless if they restrict you to only being able to actually speak. You have to be able to use the technology that's available or else your freedom of speech is pointless. Nobody will ever hear you. I believe this principle will win in the end since politicians once people explain to them that this is the same battle that was fought over printing presses 400 yaers ago and was settled in the Constitution in the First Amendment.:)
The US bitches about China and other nations about censorship all the time.
Will the US take steps to censor European websites? (Hey! Be like China and censor websites that conflict with the -ISM your country worships even if the content of those websites is perfectly legal within those other countries!)
Heck, if it's legal to import this music, then it's got to be legal to download it...Right? If you can sell records and sell downloadable music, how is downloading any different than making some copies and shipping them here?
I wonder if this also means that all those old Disney movies are no longer under copyright.
It also leads to an interesting question about a possible long term strategy. The **AA's could assert that it's illegal to link to sites legally loaded with content if the content is under copyright anywhere. They could then lobby for perpetual copyright in some other country and still effectively keep control over the Internet distribution of content forever...
Your GPS reading said you went 80 miles in 1 hour? Here's your speeding ticket. Your retroactive speeding tickets for all those times you ever sped during the time when you had the GPS in your car. Hey wait...you mean everybody's speeding all the fucking time?
A crime is committed and the GPS readings for the local area are checked thereby helping the police to narrow down their search. Isn't that good to know if you're a convicted sex offender and you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, they can know it. Nice.
:) OTOH if they do put this in place, at least we'll know where all of the terrorists and convicted felons (even pardoned ones) like John Poindexter are doing in their daily lives.
I thought Dmitry Sklyarov lived in the.ru, not US so why would an american law matter?
I guess he's ok if the UK never passes a law like the DMCA and never agrees to extradite people over the US DMCA and he never goes to any nation that will agree to extradite him for such a "crime".
But the set of "safe" locations can only shrink over time.:) Not good.
It's also about whether or not we can record our own things onto our own wafers without some giant corporation having a say.
This kind of reminds me of the whole problem a few years back when some pirate and thief invented something called a "printing press" that disrupted the information flow and control of the current powers and let people create their own independent information. The creation of the "stationers Guild" controlled use of the printing press so the powers that be (Church) didn't lose control of content creation and distribution.
I believe this is why the "freedom of the press" clause exists in the Bill of Rights. (Search for "licensing act" and "freedom of the press".) Not only can you "speak" with your voice, but you're allowed to use mechanical means to speak, as well. This is the same battle that was fought a few hundred years ago...:P
I don't see how non-web software is any of W3C's concern.
Hmm what is the Web anyway? If I have a 127.0.0.1 loopback on my computer am I a network of 1? If I am using a web browser and my link goes down can I still use the "patented technology" while I am not connected to the Internet?
Can I use the technology to do things using cell phones or PDA's which may not actually be connected to the Web sometimes or always?
Considering how transparent most network access is, I don't see how to draw a line between Web and non-Web software since the same piece of software could easily be used in both situations.
Reducto Ad Absurdum: Your k3wl browser with that neato (applet/script/program) running in it has to constantly check to make sure the Internet connection is up, and if the connection drops, it forces the (applet/script/program) to stop running for no other reason than it stopped being a "Web app"? OTOH, if it still is a "Web app" that can use this abstract thought patent, can I just hook my computer up to the Internet once then disconnect it forever and declare that all programs are "Web apps" and therefore ignore any Web-only restrictions on these abstract thought patents? How long does a "Web app" keep being protected after the connection drops?
Certainly Microsoft's recent patent litigation track record tends to support Smith's point: Since 1994, when it lost a $120 million verdict, the company has won nine straight patent cases litigated to conclusion. And it's won three more judgments now on appeal.
Interesting. Microsoft has quite a record of stopping abstract thought patent trolls. I hope they win this one, too.
Since everything you write and create is copyrighed and since they'll have to outlaw encryption on transmissions across the Internet, they will have to make it illegal to encrypt copyrighted material. Should make the DMCA !circumvention provisions pretty moot WRT Internet downloads....
(OK I know they'll set it up so the "little people" get fucked while "trusted" big businesses can do whatever they want, but at least I tried to present what is IMO the logical outcome of this...)
This would not work. Period. All they'll see is that there's a decline in sales. Where do you think they'll place the blame? Hint: Their first assumption won't be that they're being boycotted.
They aren't entitled to your money. They are businesses. If they threaten you because you refuse to give them money, that extortion and exactly the kinds of things that RICO laws are supposed to deal with. If anyone from the copyright industry ever threatens you if you tell them you don't want to give them money, do us all a favor and report them to your local A.G. and try to get them thrown in jail.
On another note, I agree with the boycott. Don't see LOTR tomorrow, k folx? Or, at least minimize the money you spend. Or try to donate money to the other side when you give money to them. Spread the word. It doesn't matter if the boycott fails. Every little bit helps. Just remember that this has to be a boycott (or a minimization) that lasts forever. They will never change and they will lie to get you to come back but don't listen to them. Just deny them the one thing they want: money.
the SmartRight group will incorporate features that not only detect watermarks at an A/D converter, but also generate watermarking at a D/A point.
Ok, everyone reading this. You all need to stop giving money to the copyright industry forever. That means no Star Trek and NO FUCKING HOBBITS EITHER!!! NO MONEY FOR THEM AT ALL!!!
Sitting around using my Linux computer has made me fat, pale, and unpopular. Nobody told me that being a computer geek would turn me into a loser. If only the FSF hadn't started on this whole "Free Software" thing I would be painfully using my annoying Windows machine only as much as I absolutely needed to. I would spend the rest of my time outside being sociable and doing fun activities. I'm suing because nobody told me that using a computer 24/7 turns you into a loser. I had no idea. I figured it was normal. Why don't they put warning labels on these things. Next thing you know, I'll be posting sarcastic self-referential messages on slashdot whoring for some cheap karma. Then my conversion will be complete.
Holy shit. Considering that all of these boxes will eventually "converge" to be one machine, what happens when some asshole makes a virus that makes it look like you're skipping tons of commercials?
Then what, you get a bill for 50000 dollars at the end of the month and have to pay up. This is not likely.
What is more likely is a company that makes commercials and then plants a virus on the computer that sends back "They skipped my commercial" messages to the central server and then makes a huge number of people pay a little tiny bit each month to this company.
Or what about a company that makes a fake commercial for a shitty product that nobody wants and then rakes in the money when people skip past their shitty commercial.
Or what about a company that just shows a blank screen for 30 seconds and then rakes in the money when people skip past it out of boredom?
I realize that the advertising rates will be eating into their profits. but if we get into a world where the cost per view to an advertiser is ever below the cost to a consumer to skip that commercial, expect bullshit, shenanigans and buffoonery to prevail.
Hell, I should patent this business method of making shitty or nonexistent commercials then making my money by getting those retarded ass 1 cent skip fees dorks like the guy here want people to pay for skipping commercials.
They clearly have no respect for IP law and the freedom to make money. Next thing you know, they'll start advising people to not come to the US to avoid our "draconian" security measures. And heck, while they're at it, maybe they'll nationalize their health care system and raise taxes and rip a huge amount of profit potential out of the economy. I blame Canada. Who's with me?
Wal Mart is pursuing litigation under the DMCA for copyright violations when there were none. There may have been trade secrets violations, but those aren't the same as copyright violations. The thing FatWallet is objecting to is the part of the DMCA that (AFAIK) lets you issue subpoenas asking for the identity of people BEFORE you actually sue them. They're trying to work around the requirement that they start a legal proceeding before they go out and violate someone's privacy. If they wanted to do this correctly, they should sue FatWallet claiming that they revealed trade secrets, then FatWallet could point out that the posts were made by person X from IP Y and let WalMart track it backwards to find out the poster's name.
Sounds cool. So I should start this dirt-rag gossip newspaper and print all of these lies about stars, and then encrypt it with ROT13 encryption. I tell people they can have a license to decrypt the content if they pay me 100 billion dollars. Then I distribute it and everyone and their brother decrypts it, but the only way the stars can ever get to me to sue me is if they admitted that they decrypted or trafficked in decrypted content. Viola. Legal protection for libel.
I like it. You could have an entire network where you talk shit about people you hate but make every message illegal, but very easy, to decrypt then get the complainers arrested. I'll bet they didn't think about that.
A picture of a big white ass taking a shit on the Constitution. His pants are down around his ankles and the pockets contain wads of money politicians with little price tags on them.
OR
That picture of the abacus->adding machine->computer, except backwards, since that's what these people want to do: take away computers to keep competition from hurting them.
And I'm glad that other people are starting to realize that this isn't about piracy. It's about comptetition. I have been bleating about this for a year and most people ignore me.:) But just remember: the piracy debate is a big lie to cover up the fact that it's about taking away the machines that can compete with the industries. They want to use copyright to suppress speech and freedom. That's why you need to really limit the amount of money you give them or stop giving them money altogether. This whole P2P/Napster thing isn't really about and they won't stop until they have total control and you aren't allowed to express your thoughts and share them with other people without their consent.
Slashdot Mirror
like the manufacture of dynomite
Ahh, you must be referring to patent 4,342,045 patent, otherwise known as the "Good Times" patent, invented by a Dr. J.J. Evans of Chicago, Ill in 1973. IMO the '045 patent is one of the few patents that have truly done enough to promote the progess of the useful arts and sciences to more than justify its existence.
He goes on to note that SBC is not a villian for doing this - it is after all a valid patent, and that what is needed now is prior art."
OIC. So if something is "legal" then you're not a villain for doing it. So like if it's legal to shove Jews into gas chambers then it's ok to do it and if somebody hauls you in for a trial years later, you can just bleat out. "But I was just doing my job..." and that makes everything ok. Bullshit.
BTW, if you're wondering...I use this example for all cases when people justify their actions by saying "well it's leeeegaaallll so it's ok", not just for patents.
Rofl. It's sarcasm. I am not sure if you're being serious or just trolling me, but if you look at my posts, like the current !sw-patent post, I am not !GPL. It's to poke fun at Microsoft FUD. Also note that I didn't mention the GPL...you did. I could have been talking about ANY IP-destroying Viral Pac-Man license for all you know. :)
I'll conjecture. Since all software is an expression of thought just like music and sounds and pictures and movies and text and books, and since abstract thought isn't patentable, if they're suing over software then of course they don't have a legal leg to stand on. =^D
The best bathtub cleaner in the world is to take liquid drain opener
Wow, I never thought about that. I've had nasty sinks and tubs that I've unclogged and noticed how shiny and white the area near the drain is...but it never occurred to me to do this over the whole thing. Just have to be really careful if I do it I guess.
It's time for FS/OS to move to licenses with that patent mutual termination clause that goes something like this:
If you ever threaten any legal action in part or in whole because of software patents against any software or program that has this clause in its license, then you and everyone at your company lose the right to ever use any software licensed with this clause.
That's the only way to do it...you ever mess with ANY FS/OS with this clause, then you and your employees can never use ANY FS/OS ever again.
poor troll attempt. YOU HAVE BEEN ANTI-TROLLED. YOU HAVE LOST.
It wasn't a troll I really believe that you shouldn't give the copyright industry any money and I really believe that you shouldn't steal their stuff, either. Shrug.
WTF dude. Not only are you giving them money to use to take away from computers, you're parroting that tired old line that "I wouldn't have bought/seen them anyway" to justify stealing. If you want to stop this, then stop giving them money so they can't implement these things, and also don't copy things illegally since you're just giving them reasons to take away computers. This isn't really about piracy anyway. It's about control. They're no different than the scribes who got the government to restrict the printing press a few hundred years ago (look up "Stationers Guild" and "printing press") and was the reason why freedom of speech and of the press are in the Bill of Rights. You're doing exactly what they want: giving them money and an excuse to fuck you and everyone else.
If there was an RIAE (Europe) in the 1450's, Gutenberg would have been shot and his press burned.
:)
It came along later. It was called the "Stationer's Guild".
Here's a little story:
Once upon a time there were these entrenched powers that effectively controlled the creation and dissemination of information because it was so difficult to copy in large quantities. Then, this new technology came along and made it much easier for people to create and distribute information. This threatened the entrenched powers so they went to the government and made it illegal to use the technology except for a select few.
Now, the beauty of this little story is that you can replace "Technology" with "printing press" or "Internet and Computers" and come up with a true story. Or maybe it will be a true story. It isn't quite true for the Internet and Computers, but that's what they're trying to do. Remember that this isn't about piracy (although you shouldn't steal musing using P2P). It's about control and this battle has been fought before and the result before in this nation was the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the press. It's interesting that they didn't stop at freedom of speech. Why did they mention a technological method of creating and distributing information? My guess is that they understood that a government can make speech pointless if they restrict you to only being able to actually speak. You have to be able to use the technology that's available or else your freedom of speech is pointless. Nobody will ever hear you. I believe this principle will win in the end since politicians once people explain to them that this is the same battle that was fought over printing presses 400 yaers ago and was settled in the Constitution in the First Amendment.
The US bitches about China and other nations about censorship all the time.
Will the US take steps to censor European websites? (Hey! Be like China and censor websites that conflict with the -ISM your country worships even if the content of those websites is perfectly legal within those other countries!)
Heck, if it's legal to import this music, then it's got to be legal to download it...Right? If you can sell records and sell downloadable music, how is downloading any different than making some copies and shipping them here?
I wonder if this also means that all those old Disney movies are no longer under copyright.
It also leads to an interesting question about a possible long term strategy. The **AA's could assert that it's illegal to link to sites legally loaded with content if the content is under copyright anywhere. They could then lobby for perpetual copyright in some other country and still effectively keep control over the Internet distribution of content forever...
I thought Dmitry Sklyarov lived in the .ru, not US so why would an american law matter?
:) Not good.
I guess he's ok if the UK never passes a law like the DMCA and never agrees to extradite people over the US DMCA and he never goes to any nation that will agree to extradite him for such a "crime".
But the set of "safe" locations can only shrink over time.
Betting pool. I predict that the DMCA takedown notice will occur 34 hours from the first posting of this story on ./
It's also about whether or not we can record our own things onto our own wafers without some giant corporation having a say.
:P
This kind of reminds me of the whole problem a few years back when some pirate and thief invented something called a "printing press" that disrupted the information flow and control of the current powers and let people create their own independent information. The creation of the "stationers Guild" controlled use of the printing press so the powers that be (Church) didn't lose control of content creation and distribution.
I believe this is why the "freedom of the press" clause exists in the Bill of Rights. (Search for "licensing act" and "freedom of the press".) Not only can you "speak" with your voice, but you're allowed to use mechanical means to speak, as well. This is the same battle that was fought a few hundred years ago...
I don't see how non-web software is any of W3C's concern.
Hmm what is the Web anyway? If I have a 127.0.0.1 loopback on my computer am I a network of 1? If I am using a web browser and my link goes down can I still use the "patented technology" while I am not connected to the Internet?
Can I use the technology to do things using cell phones or PDA's which may not actually be connected to the Web sometimes or always?
Considering how transparent most network access is, I don't see how to draw a line between Web and non-Web software since the same piece of software could easily be used in both situations.
Reducto Ad Absurdum: Your k3wl browser with that neato (applet/script/program) running in it has to constantly check to make sure the Internet connection is up, and if the connection drops, it forces the (applet/script/program) to stop running for no other reason than it stopped being a "Web app"? OTOH, if it still is a "Web app" that can use this abstract thought patent, can I just hook my computer up to the Internet once then disconnect it forever and declare that all programs are "Web apps" and therefore ignore any Web-only restrictions on these abstract thought patents? How long does a "Web app" keep being protected after the connection drops?
Certainly Microsoft's recent patent litigation track record tends to support Smith's point: Since 1994, when it lost a $120 million verdict, the company has won nine straight patent cases litigated to conclusion. And it's won three more judgments now on appeal.
Interesting. Microsoft has quite a record of stopping abstract thought patent trolls. I hope they win this one, too.
Since everything you write and create is copyrighed and since they'll have to outlaw encryption on transmissions across the Internet, they will have to make it illegal to encrypt copyrighted material. Should make the DMCA !circumvention provisions pretty moot WRT Internet downloads....
(OK I know they'll set it up so the "little people" get fucked while "trusted" big businesses can do whatever they want, but at least I tried to present what is IMO the logical outcome of this...)
This would not work. Period. All they'll see is that there's a decline in sales. Where do you think they'll place the blame? Hint: Their first assumption won't be that they're being boycotted.
They aren't entitled to your money. They are businesses. If they threaten you because you refuse to give them money, that extortion and exactly the kinds of things that RICO laws are supposed to deal with. If anyone from the copyright industry ever threatens you if you tell them you don't want to give them money, do us all a favor and report them to your local A.G. and try to get them thrown in jail.
On another note, I agree with the boycott. Don't see LOTR tomorrow, k folx? Or, at least minimize the money you spend. Or try to donate money to the other side when you give money to them. Spread the word. It doesn't matter if the boycott fails. Every little bit helps. Just remember that this has to be a boycott (or a minimization) that lasts forever. They will never change and they will lie to get you to come back but don't listen to them. Just deny them the one thing they want: money.
the SmartRight group will incorporate features that not only detect watermarks at an A/D converter, but also generate watermarking at a D/A point.
Ok, everyone reading this. You all need to stop giving money to the copyright industry forever. That means no Star Trek and NO FUCKING HOBBITS EITHER!!! NO MONEY FOR THEM AT ALL!!!
Sitting around using my Linux computer has made me fat, pale, and unpopular. Nobody told me that being a computer geek would turn me into a loser. If only the FSF hadn't started on this whole "Free Software" thing I would be painfully using my annoying Windows machine only as much as I absolutely needed to. I would spend the rest of my time outside being sociable and doing fun activities. I'm suing because nobody told me that using a computer 24/7 turns you into a loser. I had no idea. I figured it was normal. Why don't they put warning labels on these things. Next thing you know, I'll be posting sarcastic self-referential messages on slashdot whoring for some cheap karma. Then my conversion will be complete.
Holy shit. Considering that all of these boxes will eventually "converge" to be one machine, what happens when some asshole makes a virus that makes it look like you're skipping tons of commercials?
Then what, you get a bill for 50000 dollars at the end of the month and have to pay up. This is not likely.
What is more likely is a company that makes commercials and then plants a virus on the computer that sends back "They skipped my commercial" messages to the central server and then makes a huge number of people pay a little tiny bit each month to this company.
Or what about a company that makes a fake commercial for a shitty product that nobody wants and then rakes in the money when people skip past their shitty commercial.
Or what about a company that just shows a blank screen for 30 seconds and then rakes in the money when people skip past it out of boredom?
I realize that the advertising rates will be eating into their profits. but if we get into a world where the cost per view to an advertiser is ever below the cost to a consumer to skip that commercial, expect bullshit, shenanigans and buffoonery to prevail.
Hell, I should patent this business method of making shitty or nonexistent commercials then making my money by getting those retarded ass 1 cent skip fees dorks like the guy here want people to pay for skipping commercials.
They clearly have no respect for IP law and the freedom to make money. Next thing you know, they'll start advising people to not come to the US to avoid our "draconian" security measures. And heck, while they're at it, maybe they'll nationalize their health care system and raise taxes and rip a huge amount of profit potential out of the economy. I blame Canada. Who's with me?
Wal Mart is pursuing litigation under the DMCA for copyright violations when there were none. There may have been trade secrets violations, but those aren't the same as copyright violations. The thing FatWallet is objecting to is the part of the DMCA that (AFAIK) lets you issue subpoenas asking for the identity of people BEFORE you actually sue them. They're trying to work around the requirement that they start a legal proceeding before they go out and violate someone's privacy. If they wanted to do this correctly, they should sue FatWallet claiming that they revealed trade secrets, then FatWallet could point out that the posts were made by person X from IP Y and let WalMart track it backwards to find out the poster's name.
Sounds cool. So I should start this dirt-rag gossip newspaper and print all of these lies about stars, and then encrypt it with ROT13 encryption. I tell people they can have a license to decrypt the content if they pay me 100 billion dollars. Then I distribute it and everyone and their brother decrypts it, but the only way the stars can ever get to me to sue me is if they admitted that they decrypted or trafficked in decrypted content. Viola. Legal protection for libel.
I like it. You could have an entire network where you talk shit about people you hate but make every message illegal, but very easy, to decrypt then get the complainers arrested. I'll bet they didn't think about that.
OR
And I'm glad that other people are starting to realize that this isn't about piracy. It's about comptetition. I have been bleating about this for a year and most people ignore me.