Linux was written from scratch, it isn't a fork of BSD in any sense other than in some cases it presents the same general Unix-y API
Well, the kernel was written from scratch, but the rest is just GNU tools, right? And those tools were designed to be upward compatible with Unix.
The capacity for multiple users is a security hole? Totally untrue; it's possible to set up a very secure multiuser box, and it probably would be even easier on a PDA since you're not going to want to run a bunch of daemons.
I think his point was that a PDA OS where processes run as users (daemons, etc.) seems counter-intuitive. I tend to agree. It's kind of silly to ship linux as the default OS for these little things. The abundance of tools that make *nix so powerful are small and compact. Maybe it's better to look at the Jornada as equivalent to a GNU tool, rather than a peer machine to your GNU/linux box. Just because it's hardware doesn't mean it needs a full linux install. Something like Palm OS or BeOS seems more appropriate, and more secure (these things are going to ship as networked by default soon).
Ok, you need to admit when you're wrong. It's O.K.
Basically, you're saying that akamai customizes content like the ny times does ad inserts. Right.
And you also left out a key quote from the akamai.com website.
Here's your quote--
"...accurately identifying the geographic location from which users access your Web site"
What the quote should have been, if not for foolish pride--
"...accurately identifying the geographic location from which users access your Web site and the network origin of the user's request. "
Your quote should have at least ended in three periods, acknowledging that there was more to the sentence. But that probably would still be a lie, because you would be implying that what came after the quoted section was unimportant to your argument.
What do you think "network origin" means?
To me it means IP address.
Keep in mind that the phrase is "network origin", not "network of origin", lest we endure further misquoting.
This is quite bogus, as evidenced by the #2 ranking of akamai; the fact that many high-traffic sites have their images served from akamai's network does not mean that akamai is tracking where people go.
What exactly do you think Akamai does, aside from providing infrastructure? Do you think any MBA in his right mind would go for such a one sided business model? As long as you're delivering content, you might as well track it, or so the thinking goes.
And now for a highlight from akaikai.com --
In today's fierce competition for Internet eyeballs, customized Web site content is big news. Customizing your content to individual end-users makes your site more relevant, enticing visitors to stick around longer-and come back more frequently. Akamai's EdgeScape service enables you to make customization a reality by accurately identifying the geographic location from which users access your Web site and the network origin of the user's request.
So, how do you "customize content" without "tracking where people go"?
"True the N64 crippled itself by being a cartrige based system.."
That only crippled the N64 in regards to full motion video, which does little to actually enhance a game. Plenty of games went over quite well on the Playstation without video clips.
It also crippled the N64 with regards to sound. The playstation supports cd quality audio, while N64 still has your bleeps and bloops. You'd never have something like Wipeout XL on the N64.
They'll make money on this one by replacing Solaris x86 machines. I used to work at the atmospheric science lab featured on the sun site. I had just graduated high school and they had me doing routine data manipulation. I did most of my work on a Solaris x86 machine, which sucked because of NUXI problems and rlogins and all that. Also, it sucked up CPU cycles from neighboring Sun boxen when I would number crunch on them, instead of waiting 10 minutes on my own machine.
Point being, it helps workflow to have everybody using the same OS and architecture. Even the work-study students and interns.
So, in short, the RIAA's claims about lost revenue are FUD, but they know that if Napster survives long enough, they won't be.
FUD their claims may be, but if Napster is victorious, we'll see even more massive consolidation of content/distribution and hardware/software.
We'll be awash in memory sticks, minidiscs, and other check-in-but-don't-check-out formats. There are only four big record companies now, and they will all be owned by hardware manufacturers soon enough.
Matsushita/AOL/Time-Warner... that's got a nice ring to it.
...unless someone can open an interdimensional portal to some alternate universe in which Napster doesn't exist, all of these claims of revenue being up or down in particular areas are meaningless...
Napster isn't much fun unless you have a broadband internet connection. Computer users with broadband internet connections are probably a fairly small subset of the music buying population.
How about an interdimensional portal to the alternate universe of being poor, black, and going to an underfunded public school?
WTF else could they do and still have the downloaded files play in an MP3 player?
Well, they could nurture a situation that appears to be similar to the "DeCSS situation". You know, whip up an equally weak.mpeg (layer 3) encryption format, then somehow leak the crack for it. Then they would be in a much more complex situation.
On the surface, it looks like they've "policed their premises" (a la Fonovisa), to the best of their ability. They've even attempted to control what the user does with the file after logging of Napster, after their knowledge of what goes on with the file is completely terminated. However, evil HaXoRs have somehow circumvented their efforts to ensure fair-use. So whose fault is it then?
Napster's best strategy is probably to push the idea of Napster being responsible for piracy to absurd extremes. This would mean that people would be applying clandestine third-party (open source?) patches to remove copy-protection. Isn't this like taping over the holes in a video-cassette, or ignoring an "FBI Warning"?
How many technological illegalities on the part of the user are required before it ceases to be Napster's fault? Isn't the critical step ripping from the CD-Audio? What if you have to apply 42 "patches" to make it work?
When will the courts recognize that those 42 patches could be automated into one?
How about acknowledging the agency behind all of the action on Napster?
The users choose what to download and what to offer. Now Napster is trying to police what happens to the file after the user logs off. Where is the line between Napster knowing if copyright is being broken and MCI/Worldcom/ATT/Qwest knowing? If I recite a Snoop Doggy Dog song to a friend on the phone and he writes down, is that a problem? What if he records it while I play over the phone? Do I have a right to broadcast the filenames on my computer?
Many watermarking technologies persist in analogue media (let alone perfect digital copies). I'll never forget the time I tried to scan the cover of Mondo 2000 (remember? that hippy tech mag:) and PhotoShop freaked out, upon detecting the watermark in the image.
The goal of these technologies is to make it impossible to remove the watermark, unless the copy is sufficiently low-quality. So maybe a 64kbps mp3 won't show the watermark, but a 44.1khz.wav certainly would.
Re:One thing bothers me...
on
Inside XML
·
· Score: 1
Have you looked at the parallel web that is Everything? It's a bulletin board that has both factual content and humor, and it's all text (except the ASCII art).
Everything is a great site. I node on occasion. But that's one site. The web has room for that, plus a universe of other types of content. Everything can be very satisfying, but it just doesn't do the trick sometimes. My main problem is that it's too self-referential. Surfing the web in "Lynx mode" is tunnel vision.
If I use my CD-R drive to backup my files on my computer, I have cost the music industry nothing.
I don't think you're getting it. It is true that you personally haven't cost the industry anything. But most users of CD-R drives do cost the music industry money. What I am saying is that it's better to accept some responsibility for the actions of your neighbor than to insist that you've done nothing wrong and you're being taxed for an activity that you don't participate in.
Why?
Because the alternative is what I call "big brother technology". If you're unwilling to settle for a low degree of specificity in taxation, what you'll get is a system with knowledge of highly specific personal information. Do you recognize that there is a need for balance between the two? American companies know so much about us because our culture is too petty about taxation. Taxes on blank media are just targeted sales taxes. No big deal. You know, some countries give artists money straight from income taxes. The horror!
So basically you want Usenet, telnet, and Lynx? You can have it.
I don't care about your Flash animation.
You have to use.SWFs or.SVGs to show animation. Don't watch the cartoons, eh?
I don't care about your Java "enhancements".
Sometimes content must be updated without reloading, many applications require real time data streaming. Java comes in handy, on the client and the server. Datek's stock streamer comes to mind.
I don't care about your exact positioning "needs". I don't care about your fancy layout.
Do you care about descriptive mark-up? Separating content from layout is a great thing, precise postioning and non-standard layout are just icing on the cake. If you're going to have separate stylesheets, they might as well do something.
The point of this campaign is that 4.0 browsers render pages written to W3C standards so badly that they are unusable. You're going to have to upgrade soon. Real soon. I find it humorous that everyone's blaming these web designers for balkanizing the web, when all they want to do is write to spec. The web can and should be more than HTML 3.0.
Useful content comes in many forms, and there should be many options for presentation. IIRC, the saying isn't
Form follows HTML 3.0
And then there's this gem:
Most of all, if you respect me (the viewer), with clean and useful content, I will respect you for the effort you have spent in creating it.
So everytime I make a webpage, it has to be useful? Come off it. The web is more than a World Wide Reference Section.
I'm not saying that this phenomenon is good for consumers or innovation. You shouldn't support it.
However, you are making it a reality by refusing to acknowledge that content creators may still have rights once they've converted their product to digital form. In this type of environment, the only way for these companies to maintain the value of their assets is to market them in a closed loop.
The entire mp3/burner phenomenon exists because users have so far escaped responsibility for their actions. Admittedly, this is a humorous twist on the lack of corporate (collective) responsibility we find in modern capitalism. At some point, users will have to admit that technologies as open as the CD format often result in unforseen costs for their creators. Although you may only use your blank CDs to backup your HD, you must also realize that your ability to do so hurts the industry that made it possible.
Make no mistake, it hurts the music industry both financially and creatively. Although, CD sales are up this year, the increase is less than in previous years (slowing sales growth). The Nsync/Britney type stuff is doing well because it's marketed to people outside of the mp3 demographic. Same thing with rap/R&B, but thats an economics issue, with minorities having less access to the net and computers in general. When was the last time an album that appealed to 18-30 yr. old people was an eagerly anticipated hot seller?
With the Internet (especially broadband), consumers' awareness of music that they would enjoy increases exponentially, but the music industry does not benefit in the form of exponentially increasing sales. That's OK. But there does need to be a way to compensate the industry, without it resulting in unjust enrichment. A fee paid to ASCAP/BMI is on blank media is one of the more reasonable alternatives I've heard.
Get comfortable with paying a little extra for the results of the technology you use. If you don't want to do that, there are some alternatives:
Get comfortable with listening to music on memory sticks, flash ROM, and other "smart media".
Get comfortable with spending innordinate amounts of time circumventing encryption schemes. They'll never be able to prevent decryption, but they'll always be able to make it a hassle.
A quick review of the above posts should illlustrate to you why this kind of reasoning leads to corporate consolidation. AOL/Time-Warner, Sony, etc. are all attempting to control the entire chain of consumption... from the music to the network to the box that it plays on. Why? Because they've learned that they'll get "burned" otherwise. This is not comparable to the Rambus situation, the music publishers are not trying to enforce patents.
The revenue from this tax wouldn't go to the creators of CDs, it would go to music publishers who claim to be losing sales.
Sony and Philips have both been in the record label business. It's naive to separate the two businesses, because they drive each other's sales. Secondly, you could give the term "creators of CDs" a broader definition. It took support from all the major labels and hardware manufacturers for the format to take off. Once again, keep in mind that many companies are in both sides of the business.
Perhaps you'll understand the situation a little better if you read this.
Why is it a carpenter's right to use a screwdriver that someone else invented? I'm not talking about pirating music here, I'm talking about recording your *OWN* music.
So you can by super cheap CD-Rs to make your *OWN* music... who do you have to thank? Mind you, I'm not saying that Computers, hard drives, etc. should be taxed in this way. But burners and blank CDs, that's different. The open standard of CD Audio is the reason you can do this so cheaply, so you should be thanking Sony and Philips (who invented the cassette as well), and paying them a little extra for your media, because the same decision that created $.50 blank discs is causing the value of their investment in recorded music to be destroyed (both have owned record labels at various times). Do you understand that?
Regarding your 'carpenter' analogy:
That's inane. The two situations aren't really comparable.
I'll end this post as I did my last one, try to keep this next sentence in mind before you start spewing near-meaningless responses.
Stop making things simple when they're complicated.
You mean I have to pay record companies for the right to produce my own music instead of giving them all my rights?
Why is it your right to use technology that they developed? You may have a legal right (they opened the standard), but what about a moral one? It's easy to vilify big evil record companies, but you're also talking about the two of the companies who made it possible for you to produce your own music. Philips invented the cassette, and the Sony and Philips invented the CD. They never envisioned lossless copying on a consumer scale. But who did? So now we say
"Too bad, you opened the standard. I can by a two hundred dollar burner from HP, and then copy whatever I want."
Does this encourage companies to open standards? Did ever occur to you that this phenomenon is why companies are combining manfacturing and distribtution systems? Sony and Philips make substantial R+D investments, and then we punish them by destroying the value of their back catalogs. I can see that you're probably the 'copyleft' type, so you'll probably dispute the entire concept of owning a catalog of music. But consider this... how much music would you even know about if it wasn't for the major labels? What about entire genres of music that have these companies to thank for creating the technology that makes their music? The music industry made a lot of contributions to 20th century music, some good... some not so good.
For example, the MiniDisk, also by Sony, is technically superior to the CD
It's MiniDisc. It failed because it didn't sound as good as CDs and cost more. Now that we're four years into the technology, it sounds nearly as good as a CD.
BETA wasn't guaranteed to succeed
...true statement.
Conventional wisdom says Betamax failed because there was no porn. It was also not the superior technology at that time. Beta picture quality in early generations was only marginally better than VHS, but VHS allowed for two hour tapes (versus betamax's 1 hour tapes, not enough for a movie). Beta picture quality became superior in later, more expenxive versions of the technology.
Perhaps you can clarify how CDs not being used for their original purpose constitutes a loss for Sony and Philips?
It's not that CDs are being used for data or any other purpose. That actually helps Philips and Sony by driving down the cost of CD manufacturing.
The point is that they made their technology available for a wide range of uses, assuming that CDs would only be made in pressing plants. The advent of affordable CD-R technology means that you can copy commercially produced discs for next to nothing. Both of these companies have (had) music divisions. They invented this technology to capitalise on their own back catalogs.
If you're buying products that have the capability to manufacture CD-DA discs, then maybe you should pay a royalty.
Sony and Philips did invent CDs for digital audio. While I'm not sure I agree with fees being levied on CDs and burners, there are some points to be made for that. Although the CD-ROM was standardized in an open format, it was still their innovation. I don't think they ever could've forseen being bitten in the ass this way. Everytime you copy an audio CD, you're basically punishing them for releasing their format to the world.
On the other hand, one can hardly hold computer manufacturers and consumers accountable for the choice of file format that the recording industry made.
My point was not that Napster would be able to maintain the status quo, but rather that record companies may choose to let it slide to some extent (radio singles, etc.), or that a subscription may be imposed. The likely outcome of this case is not all or nothing. It will be somewhere in between.
The 9th Circuit is basically trying to make sure that any injunction and/or ruling is sufficiently narrow, preventing its use as a precedent in a case against FTP, archie, etc.
RIAA's real goal is to squash the technology, something they won't succeed in.
Yet again Slashdot is a day late and a buck short. You guys should start reading memepool more often. They featured this story on January 16th -- where the hell were you?
Guess what? ZDnet featured this on December 11th. You know, the reading 'memepool' would imply that you understand why scooping isn't important. What is important is good discussion of, uh, memes. So maybe the more appropriate question is-- what the hell are you thinking?
(1) Affirmed finding of no fair use by users;
(2) Affirmed finding of no substantial noninfringing use
However, the Appeals Court did find that
the district court placed undue weight on the proportion of current infringing use as compared to current and future noninfringing use.
In otherwords, just because Napster is currently used mainly for music piracy, that does not preclude possible future uses that are legal and commercially viable. Current uses are not the definition of a system. Thus, a shutdown of the service is too drastic a remedy.
The court also rejected the district court's interpretation of the Fonovisa (bootleg cassette flea market stall case) precedent, in that Napster's ability to police it's "premises" are not as complete as the defendent's in Fonovisa. From the case:
The district court correctly determined that Napster had the right and ability to police its system and failed to exercise that right to prevent the exchange of copyrighted material. The district court, however, failed to recognize that the boundaries of the premises that Napster "controls and patrols" are limited.
While the Fonovisa precedent is still applicable, Napster's knowledge of their users' files is limited, in that they only know the name of the file, not the content. The Appeals court determined that Napster's "premises" extend only to the file names, thus they must police file names to the extent that copyright holders require, but cannot be required to determine a violation by analysing the contents of a file, since that is outside the bounds of their system. The Appeals court placed the burden of identifying copyright violations on the copyright holders, but also said that Napster possesses and must exercise the power to remove the offending files/users from the system. Blockquoth Appeals court:
The preliminary injunction which we stayed is overbroad because it places on Napster the entire burden of ensuring that no "copying, downloading, uploading, transmitting, or distributing" of plaintiffs' works occur on the system. As stated, we place the burden on plaintiffs to provide notice to Napster of copyrighted works and files containing such works available on the Napster system before Napster has the duty to disable access to the offending content. Napster, however, also bears the burden of policing the system within the limits of the system. Here, we recognize that this is not an exact science in that the files are user named.
That last sentence seems to require that any contributory infringement suit would need to show systematic and willful disregard of violation notices, which Napster has been complying with.
Napster did lose on many substantive issues, but they got off pretty easy on the most important one- the extent of their responsibility is to be balanced with the responsibilities of copyright holders and violators (users:).
GraphicsNerd asks:I have a very specific question about future capabilities of Nvidia hardware that will seriously affect the methodology and outcome of my current project. I need to know about the 2D, 3D, video, and multimedia reference specifications for scene graph management of dependent texture reads and DOT 3 bumpmapping for my PC-based manufacturing, science, e-business, entertainment, and education application.
NVIDIA: This will be possible in future NVIDIA implementations in a completely generalized fashion, using Open GL and Direct3D. Although we will not participate in API innovation, we will support any quality API that comes along and is handed to us. Also, we will incoporate any graphics technology containing the strings "rad", "direct", and/or "3D". Although your project will be required to specifically support our future products, we cannot comment on any specific future products. NVIDIA designs products to meet spec, so any hardware incompatibilities are the motherboard manufacturers' fault. Previously, NVIDIA's filter design circuit methodology led to low quality RAMDAC filter use by our partners. In the future, NVIDIA will implement your wildest dreams in a completely generalized fashion, using a sophisticated cross-bar architecture.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, you're saying that akamai customizes content like the ny times does ad inserts. Right.
And you also left out a key quote from the akamai.com website.
Here's your quote--
"...accurately identifying the geographic location from which users access your Web site"
What the quote should have been, if not for foolish pride--
"...accurately identifying the geographic location from which users access your Web site and the network origin of the user's request. "
Your quote should have at least ended in three periods, acknowledging that there was more to the sentence. But that probably would still be a lie, because you would be implying that what came after the quoted section was unimportant to your argument.
What do you think "network origin" means?
To me it means IP address.
Keep in mind that the phrase is "network origin", not "network of origin", lest we endure further misquoting.
And now for a highlight from akaikai.com -- In today's fierce competition for Internet eyeballs, customized Web site content is big news. Customizing your content to individual end-users makes your site more relevant, enticing visitors to stick around longer-and come back more frequently. Akamai's EdgeScape service enables you to make customization a reality by accurately identifying the geographic location from which users access your Web site and the network origin of the user's request. So, how do you "customize content" without "tracking where people go"?
Point being, it helps workflow to have everybody using the same OS and architecture. Even the work-study students and interns.
Nice troll d00d, extended analogy anyone?
FUD their claims may be, but if Napster is victorious, we'll see even more massive consolidation of content/distribution and hardware/software.
We'll be awash in memory sticks, minidiscs, and other check-in-but-don't-check-out formats. There are only four big record companies now, and they will all be owned by hardware manufacturers soon enough.
Matsushita/AOL/Time-Warner... that's got a nice ring to it.
How about an interdimensional portal to the alternate universe of being poor, black, and going to an underfunded public school?
Well, they could nurture a situation that appears to be similar to the "DeCSS situation". You know, whip up an equally weak .mpeg (layer 3) encryption format, then somehow leak the crack for it. Then they would be in a much more complex situation.
On the surface, it looks like they've "policed their premises" (a la Fonovisa), to the best of their ability. They've even attempted to control what the user does with the file after logging of Napster, after their knowledge of what goes on with the file is completely terminated. However, evil HaXoRs have somehow circumvented their efforts to ensure fair-use. So whose fault is it then?
Napster's best strategy is probably to push the idea of Napster being responsible for piracy to absurd extremes. This would mean that people would be applying clandestine third-party (open source?) patches to remove copy-protection. Isn't this like taping over the holes in a video-cassette, or ignoring an "FBI Warning"?
How many technological illegalities on the part of the user are required before it ceases to be Napster's fault? Isn't the critical step ripping from the CD-Audio? What if you have to apply 42 "patches" to make it work? When will the courts recognize that those 42 patches could be automated into one?
How about acknowledging the agency behind all of the action on Napster?
The users choose what to download and what to offer. Now Napster is trying to police what happens to the file after the user logs off. Where is the line between Napster knowing if copyright is being broken and MCI/Worldcom/ATT/Qwest knowing? If I recite a Snoop Doggy Dog song to a friend on the phone and he writes down, is that a problem? What if he records it while I play over the phone? Do I have a right to broadcast the filenames on my computer?
Many watermarking technologies persist in analogue media (let alone perfect digital copies). I'll never forget the time I tried to scan the cover of Mondo 2000 (remember? that hippy tech mag :) and PhotoShop freaked out, upon detecting the watermark in the image.
The goal of these technologies is to make it impossible to remove the watermark, unless the copy is sufficiently low-quality. So maybe a 64kbps mp3 won't show the watermark, but a 44.1khz .wav certainly would.
Ever hear the phrase "tongue in cheek"?
Everything is a great site. I node on occasion. But that's one site. The web has room for that, plus a universe of other types of content. Everything can be very satisfying, but it just doesn't do the trick sometimes. My main problem is that it's too self-referential. Surfing the web in "Lynx mode" is tunnel vision.
I don't think you're getting it. It is true that you personally haven't cost the industry anything. But most users of CD-R drives do cost the music industry money. What I am saying is that it's better to accept some responsibility for the actions of your neighbor than to insist that you've done nothing wrong and you're being taxed for an activity that you don't participate in. Why?
Because the alternative is what I call "big brother technology". If you're unwilling to settle for a low degree of specificity in taxation, what you'll get is a system with knowledge of highly specific personal information. Do you recognize that there is a need for balance between the two? American companies know so much about us because our culture is too petty about taxation. Taxes on blank media are just targeted sales taxes. No big deal. You know, some countries give artists money straight from income taxes. The horror!
Useful content comes in many forms, and there should be many options for presentation. IIRC, the saying isn't
Form follows HTML 3.0
And then there's this gem:
So everytime I make a webpage, it has to be useful? Come off it. The web is more than a World Wide Reference Section.However, you are making it a reality by refusing to acknowledge that content creators may still have rights once they've converted their product to digital form. In this type of environment, the only way for these companies to maintain the value of their assets is to market them in a closed loop.
The entire mp3/burner phenomenon exists because users have so far escaped responsibility for their actions. Admittedly, this is a humorous twist on the lack of corporate (collective) responsibility we find in modern capitalism. At some point, users will have to admit that technologies as open as the CD format often result in unforseen costs for their creators. Although you may only use your blank CDs to backup your HD, you must also realize that your ability to do so hurts the industry that made it possible.
Make no mistake, it hurts the music industry both financially and creatively. Although, CD sales are up this year, the increase is less than in previous years (slowing sales growth). The Nsync/Britney type stuff is doing well because it's marketed to people outside of the mp3 demographic. Same thing with rap/R&B, but thats an economics issue, with minorities having less access to the net and computers in general. When was the last time an album that appealed to 18-30 yr. old people was an eagerly anticipated hot seller?
With the Internet (especially broadband), consumers' awareness of music that they would enjoy increases exponentially, but the music industry does not benefit in the form of exponentially increasing sales. That's OK. But there does need to be a way to compensate the industry, without it resulting in unjust enrichment. A fee paid to ASCAP/BMI is on blank media is one of the more reasonable alternatives I've heard.
Get comfortable with paying a little extra for the results of the technology you use. If you don't want to do that, there are some alternatives:
Regarding your 'carpenter' analogy:
That's inane. The two situations aren't really comparable.
I'll end this post as I did my last one, try to keep this next sentence in mind before you start spewing near-meaningless responses.
Stop making things simple when they're complicated.
"Too bad, you opened the standard. I can by a two hundred dollar burner from HP, and then copy whatever I want."
Does this encourage companies to open standards? Did ever occur to you that this phenomenon is why companies are combining manfacturing and distribtution systems? Sony and Philips make substantial R+D investments, and then we punish them by destroying the value of their back catalogs. I can see that you're probably the 'copyleft' type, so you'll probably dispute the entire concept of owning a catalog of music. But consider this... how much music would you even know about if it wasn't for the major labels? What about entire genres of music that have these companies to thank for creating the technology that makes their music? The music industry made a lot of contributions to 20th century music, some good... some not so good.
Quit making it simple when its complicated.
Conventional wisdom says Betamax failed because there was no porn. It was also not the superior technology at that time. Beta picture quality in early generations was only marginally better than VHS, but VHS allowed for two hour tapes (versus betamax's 1 hour tapes, not enough for a movie). Beta picture quality became superior in later, more expenxive versions of the technology.
The point is that they made their technology available for a wide range of uses, assuming that CDs would only be made in pressing plants. The advent of affordable CD-R technology means that you can copy commercially produced discs for next to nothing. Both of these companies have (had) music divisions. They invented this technology to capitalise on their own back catalogs.
If you're buying products that have the capability to manufacture CD-DA discs, then maybe you should pay a royalty.
On the other hand, one can hardly hold computer manufacturers and consumers accountable for the choice of file format that the recording industry made.
The 9th Circuit is basically trying to make sure that any injunction and/or ruling is sufficiently narrow, preventing its use as a precedent in a case against FTP, archie, etc.
RIAA's real goal is to squash the technology, something they won't succeed in.
Guess what? ZDnet featured this on December 11th. You know, the reading 'memepool' would imply that you understand why scooping isn't important. What is important is good discussion of, uh, memes. So maybe the more appropriate question is-- what the hell are you thinking?
However, the Appeals Court did find that
In otherwords, just because Napster is currently used mainly for music piracy, that does not preclude possible future uses that are legal and commercially viable. Current uses are not the definition of a system. Thus, a shutdown of the service is too drastic a remedy.
The court also rejected the district court's interpretation of the Fonovisa (bootleg cassette flea market stall case) precedent, in that Napster's ability to police it's "premises" are not as complete as the defendent's in Fonovisa. From the case:
While the Fonovisa precedent is still applicable, Napster's knowledge of their users' files is limited, in that they only know the name of the file, not the content. The Appeals court determined that Napster's "premises" extend only to the file names, thus they must police file names to the extent that copyright holders require, but cannot be required to determine a violation by analysing the contents of a file, since that is outside the bounds of their system. The Appeals court placed the burden of identifying copyright violations on the copyright holders, but also said that Napster possesses and must exercise the power to remove the offending files/users from the system. Blockquoth Appeals court:
That last sentence seems to require that any contributory infringement suit would need to show systematic and willful disregard of violation notices, which Napster has been complying with.
Napster did lose on many substantive issues, but they got off pretty easy on the most important one- the extent of their responsibility is to be balanced with the responsibilities of copyright holders and violators (users :).