Exactly. While the Constitution is NOT a perfect document/framework for a government (nothing created by man, not God ever can be), it IS by far the MOST perfect framework ever authored, much less implimented.
These rulings fly in defiance of it. And the judges imvolved, tread on thin ice that borders on treason.
"Maybe I'm just angry and misinformed, but isn't the whole concept of the free market based on supplying the best product at the lowest price? It used to be that if you lost a customer because of your service, you improved your service, you didn't sue them for switching."
This is very true, that is, if the USA were truly a free market. It isn't. In a free market, the best product wins, and anyone who wants to and can do it can create a better product. The USA is NOT CAPITALIST. Neither is it a Republic. Rather, it became the worst of all governments, a DEMOCRACY (mob rule) and the mob empowered the government to "make them happy" at the expense of freedom and individuality. Democracies don't last long and become dictatorships quickly. The USA is rapidly becoming the most insiduous of all tyrranies, one with all the "auspices" of a Republic, but none of the moderating influences "court diplomacy and honor" of a true outright monarchy.
What we have in the USA today could be best described as "Corporate Socialism", where we have a few corporations given exclusive rights to control certain industries. Unlike the USSR and China, where Marxist/Lenninism was imposed by the government taking over industry, here in the US it's happening backwards, with industry taking over the government...
"If so, will someone please tell me what I can do about it?"
Call and write your Representative and Senators. God knows your local corporations are. If that doesn't work, and crap like this is allowed to stand, then the ultimate recourse is to take up arms against what is a tyrranical (and according to the Constitution and Declaration of Independance), ILLEGAL government.
That may sound extreme, but it's a thought that MUST enter into the equation at this point. A government that doesn't fear revolutin is a fearless government, one that fears not to impose it's own tyranny on the citizens, and cares not about obeying the laws (Constitution) or even in accepting the outcomes of an election.
"Y'know, instead of pissing and moaning about how things SHOULD be, how about reading the facts in the decision of the court to understand why this guy is wrong? 99% of the comments in this thread are way off-topic when viewed with an elemental understanding of the law."
How? Even if the guy was a malicious skunk, the building codes are LAW, not "guidelines". The right to know and dissiminate verbatum and your opinions on law is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT when the Constitution is taken literally (as it was meant to be).
IMHO, a law you can't quote, publish, etc, as you see fit is NOT a law, and that's what the judge should have ruled.
If you can't dissiminate at your choice a law, how are you able to excercise your right to petition, and your right to due process? Both explicit Constitutional protections.
"The body charged with enforcing this particular code can't distribute copies of the code to its employees without paying extra fees to the copyright holder. Ignorance may not be an excuse, but it helps if the cops are just as clueless as you are."
That's not the point. The fact that the LAW that you are required to obey is copyrighted IP means that a PRIVATE corporation can charge or not charge, at what amounts and in what situations, at their own WHIM for access to a LAW...
"And because the DCMA makes it illegal to break a protection system, any part of this conversation about changing this copyrighted law is illegal."
When that starts happening, then the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment becomes obvious...
Judges making stupid rulings like this, in total contempt and defiance of the Constitution that makes this country a Republic, not a Monarchy, need to leard to FEAR and respect the People they serve. They are in office as servants of the Law, the highest Law being the Constutution. The Law is not THEIR servant.
"Scary indeed. Thanks for clearing that up.
I think I'm going to hide under my bed now, too. And they say you don't need to be paranoid..."
I feel the same. But there is another law passed by Congress in 1776 that has relevance for this kind of situation... I better post this now, before some anti-freedom 4 letter acronym copyrights it:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
"How can anyone prohibit the distribution of written law in a democratic republic?"
Simply, you can't. With that, is proof that the USA has already crossed the line and is no longer a democratic republic, but rather an Oligarchy with a "republic esque" structure.
I think I'll copyright the Constitution...
on
Is Law Copyrighted?
·
· Score: 1
And charge the government royalties for reprinting it, using it in court, etc...
Opps, the flaw in my strategy is the government doen't give a FLYING FUCK about what the Constitution says anymore...:)
"This is absolute bullshit. Legal codes, like unsealed court documents, are in the public domain. It is incredible that not one but two courts have upheld this foolishness."
"violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -Issac Asimov... Stuff like this being done by public officeholders who should know better, and swore OATHS to not do makes me doubt the wisdom of those words...
Clearly the courts are out of control. This is again an instance of a judge applying STATUTORY LAWS (like the DMCA) over Constitutional Law (which is supposed to supersede all statutory law).
Clearly, "private copyrighted laws" are a flagrant violation of the Constitution. It makes me wonder what ACME law school diploma company these judges bought their degrees from, or else, who is paying them?
This is a case where the only two rational explanations for the judge's behavior is:
1. Corruption
2. Stupidity
There is no third possibility.
The law in question may be Unconstitutional (and thus illegal), but if copyrighted, how do you take it to court to fight it without a license?
"Before the printing press and written law, people could claim ignorance of the law, and that was a defense. "
This has actually never been true. It would be too easy to claim ignorance, and thus be exempt from laws.
However, in the past, there were far fewer laws than today (some 65,000 state and federal laws are added each year to a total legal code that is now millions of laws in size).
Denying people the freedom to dissiminate in the manner of their choice the laws they live under is a FLAGRANT violation of at least half the Constitution. The 1st, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in particular. The freedom of petition to redress your "grievances" to the government is also in the Bill of Rights, but how do you do that if you have to get a license from the group that is likely your political opponent?
This madness is one reason why the powers of and durations of patents and copyrights were limited in the Constitution, but those limits have largely been ignored, particularly with the passage of the DMCA (which effectively turns a copyright into a perpetual secret patent), and the Sonny Bono copyright extension act, which makes the duration of copyrights practically forever.
Ignorance of a law is not a defense against it. Ok, now they are passing laws that are "copyrighted IP" which can be sold or published only at the discretion of the copyright holder...
Doesn't this seem to you like a great way for corps to get laws (like the DMCA) passed, then PREVENT the public from being able to even READ it without violating some inane IP law (like the DMCA)?
How would you, as an individual, DEFEND yourself against a law that you wouldn't even be allowed to READ except by license from your accuser?
How can you, as an iddividual citizen, excercise your Constitutionally protected right of PETITION to get a bad law overturned, if you couldn't even inform the public as to what your problems with that law were, except by getting a license from the very people you oppose?
I bet Valenti, et all are kicking themselves at this very moment for not thinking of this idea when they sent the DMCA to be rubber stamped by their bought congress and president...
I'm beginning to think maybe it's time to start thinking of emigrating to some other country that needs IT people.
"How can this type of thing be allowed to happen. If laws aren't published how would anyone ever know that this exist. It is so wrong to think that we as good citizens are suppose to follow laws that we can't even ready."
Not to mention that in a court, IGNORANCE of a law is not a defense...
"Any court that upholds this kind of thing must be funny in the head"
The court system in general these days is funny in the head. It's not just the laws that are coming from corporate lobby groups these days, the JUDGES do also. Most federal judges used to be private practice lawyers (in big swanky firms), and it's the corpers who mostly employ them.
What doesn't make sense to me is that a LAW can both be copyrighted AND be a LAW... It seems contradictory. If the law in question was the legally copyrighted IP of those clown, then the judge should have thrown it out.
"Stuff like that. Anyway, I'll reiterate how helplessly useless american laws are in other countries and congradulate you on such great election results. Yeesh."
Despite the flamebaiting, you DO have an interesting point... Since most corporations these days (especially software, media and entertainment) are international these days, what binding would such "waiver" have on you were you an American who saw it, thought it sucked, went back to the USA and banged out your column stating just that?
"I can see the studio's side of it -- they're not showing a movie, they're showing some raw material that they're going to use to make a movie. But it was a dumb thing to make people sign those agreements, because by all accounts they weren't necessary, and now there will be a cloud of doubt hanging over the initial buzz."
This kind of stupidy pervades the whole entertainment industry these days. Rather than produce the best product they can, they'd rather produce schlock like Britney Spears, "The Mummy" etc, and then spend more money MARKETING them than they would have had to to produce a good product. But then, a good product in the world of entertainment requires creativity, and creativity is unpredictable. Unpredictability is bad for the bottom line.
Goes back to what I tell everyone about reading ANYTHING in the media... Don't believe them until you see it for yourself. If you go see the movie and you think it's great, then it's GREAT. If you go see it and you think it sucks, then it SUCKS (which is what I thought of Titanic and SW Episode I, despite how BADLY I wanted to love it.)
If the movie you go to SUCKS in your opinion, be more wary of going to the next movie made by that producer/writer/director/actors/movie company.
"Wrong country, the article fails to mention the US. Different laws in different countries, think about it. Although I think it is wrong though to make people sign such contracts, this didn't occur in the US. "
Yes, actually it does, all the time. When was the last time you ever saw benchmarks comparing the performance of Windows 2000 Server to NT Server? Microsoft uses such "agreements" to supress such information. Recently, there was a supressed test that showed that SQL server was faster under NT than 2000.
I wouldn't doubt that before long, Intel takes similar measures to pevent their processors from being accurately benchmarked against AMD chips without fear of legal harassment.
Tragic him going at 49... He still had so much more he could have done.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was and remains one of my VERY favorite series.. Adamns really pioneered a comedic style of science fiction... The story that began with the end of the world...
This is shocking. I feel as bad as when I found out Dr. Issac Asimov was dead, but that was a little easier to understand, given his age.
"Guess what sparky, money isn't everything.:) I would rather make my salary of ~$15,000/year and be very happy with what I do. Then make insaine ammounts of money and not be happy. I am pretty sure he likes what he does."
Know what you mean... I'm working as a R&D tester for a company that is a BIG Linux supporter, in an area (Raleigh, NC) where there are TONS of high paying IT jobs. I make less than I could, but I get to work with 4 different Linuxes (and both SCO Unixes), and it's really satisfying.
By the end of summer, I hope to achieve my RHCE and take a purely Liunux position as a network engineer/BOFH for someone.
AC wrote:
"You guys all have your panties in a knot because someone is trying to make some money?! Geezuz. Welcome to capatalist America you wusses. Get the hell out of here if you don't like it!"
What is capitalist about granting Gracenote the ability to be a monopoly? To extend contract law to the point that contracts NEVER expire? To set a precedent that you can't switch to using a compeditor's product after using one companies?
If you ask me, that sound a lot more like a state run COMMUNIST economy than capitalism... What does it matter, State endorsed corporate monopolies are no better, no more efficient, and no more beneficial to the consumer than a communist state monopoly...
"While Gracenote's behavior in general is pretty sleasy and just generally ugly, they did develop a cool technology and freeDB is just a rip off of that technology. That's still not much of an excuse for acting like this though."
CDDB was originally a GPL project... While the original authors can, and did, take the code and use a different license (even a closed one), they can't take back the code they released (which included the algorithm they have since patented).
So, FreeDB isn't a "rip off". They simply took GPL code and are running with it. Completely legal and legitimate. ANd as such, any other programs are not infringing on Gracenote by using FreeDB.
"If FreeDB is infringing on a CDDB patent, shouldn't CDDB be suing FreeDB instead of Roxio??
Probably, but I suspect that it wouldn't be worth their while to sue freeDB. Instead they waited for someone with a bit of money to start using the freeDB system and then sue them. That way they get to make an example out of someone and get a bit of cash to boot."
I disagree. They aren't going after FreeDB because they either know that they'd lose, or else don't want to take the chance on having their claims invalidated by a court precedent.
Going after Roxio is purely an intimidation and extortion move. If the DMCA can be applied in this manner, that law is FAR worse than we ever feared... I hope to GOD "so-called" "judge" Kaplan doesn't get this case... He seems to LOVE to add to the DMCA powers that weren't even written into it (such as the ability to override the first amendment and ban links)
On the positive side, IF Gracenote's DMCA claims hold, it may finally open people's eyes to what is happening in the IP "concentration camps" under the reign of terror known as the DMCA "final solution". Even better, every buisness outside RAMFRAUD and the MPAA/RIAA conglomerates may see their vey existance threatened by the potential liabilities to the IP cartels under this horrendous law.
This suit completely defies logic and reason. According to the story, the contract has expired, which is why Roxio decided to go with freeDB.
A victory by Gracenote would have a chilling effect on business... The precedent set would be this: Once you sign a contract with some company for a license/service, et, it lasts FOREVER... you can't get the service from the best priced (free) alternative.
Hopefully, this case will go for Gracenote like the Infineon case went for RAMBUS, the convicted fradulent IP lawfirm, they open a can of worms and end up THEMSELVES being penalized.
Far too many bad lawsuits are being filed by companies looking to get rich, or prevent competition on the back of the legal system. That in and of itself is completely contrary to the intent of the civil legal system, which is to settle disputes between parties on the perponderance of the evidence and the law.
There need to be harsh penalties, and harsh consequences for filing such suits, which are in effect, little different from blatantly illegal acts such as extortion, fraud, slander, etc.
"Simple fix: the PTO shoud not get any money from granting patens, the fee shoud be the same no mather if it was granted or not."
I like that idea ALOT... I'm all in favor of government services, IF, the users bear the brunt of the costs. Though doing this might in fact, end up lowering the average cost of a granted patent, it would take away any incentive for the USPTO to be biased towards granting patents because they'd make more money.
Ergo, the middle-management deskbound chairwarming paper pusher types would be less inclined to pressure the worker drones to grant such-and-such number of patents so as to make the budget...
Slashdot Mirror
"and every right thinking citizen of the USA"
Exactly. While the Constitution is NOT a perfect document/framework for a government (nothing created by man, not God ever can be), it IS by far the MOST perfect framework ever authored, much less implimented.
These rulings fly in defiance of it. And the judges imvolved, tread on thin ice that borders on treason.
So, to (badly) quote the much missed departed Douglas Adams, this moronic judge ruled that the only access to LAW we are entitled to is:
"On Display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinent in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"
EXCELLENT POST!
Let me reply to some of your well made points:
"Maybe I'm just angry and misinformed, but isn't the whole concept of the free market based on supplying the best product at the lowest price? It used to be that if you lost a customer because of your service, you improved your service, you didn't sue them for switching."
This is very true, that is, if the USA were truly a free market. It isn't. In a free market, the best product wins, and anyone who wants to and can do it can create a better product. The USA is NOT CAPITALIST. Neither is it a Republic. Rather, it became the worst of all governments, a DEMOCRACY (mob rule) and the mob empowered the government to "make them happy" at the expense of freedom and individuality. Democracies don't last long and become dictatorships quickly. The USA is rapidly becoming the most insiduous of all tyrranies, one with all the "auspices" of a Republic, but none of the moderating influences "court diplomacy and honor" of a true outright monarchy.
What we have in the USA today could be best described as "Corporate Socialism", where we have a few corporations given exclusive rights to control certain industries. Unlike the USSR and China, where Marxist/Lenninism was imposed by the government taking over industry, here in the US it's happening backwards, with industry taking over the government...
"If so, will someone please tell me what I can do about it?"
Call and write your Representative and Senators. God knows your local corporations are. If that doesn't work, and crap like this is allowed to stand, then the ultimate recourse is to take up arms against what is a tyrranical (and according to the Constitution and Declaration of Independance), ILLEGAL government.
That may sound extreme, but it's a thought that MUST enter into the equation at this point. A government that doesn't fear revolutin is a fearless government, one that fears not to impose it's own tyranny on the citizens, and cares not about obeying the laws (Constitution) or even in accepting the outcomes of an election.
"Y'know, instead of pissing and moaning about how things SHOULD be, how about reading the facts in the decision of the court to understand why this guy is wrong? 99% of the comments in this thread are way off-topic when viewed with an elemental understanding of the law."
How? Even if the guy was a malicious skunk, the building codes are LAW, not "guidelines". The right to know and dissiminate verbatum and your opinions on law is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT when the Constitution is taken literally (as it was meant to be).
IMHO, a law you can't quote, publish, etc, as you see fit is NOT a law, and that's what the judge should have ruled.
If you can't dissiminate at your choice a law, how are you able to excercise your right to petition, and your right to due process? Both explicit Constitutional protections.
"The body charged with enforcing this particular code can't distribute copies of the code to its employees without paying extra fees to the copyright holder. Ignorance may not be an excuse, but it helps if the cops are just as clueless as you are."
That's not the point. The fact that the LAW that you are required to obey is copyrighted IP means that a PRIVATE corporation can charge or not charge, at what amounts and in what situations, at their own WHIM for access to a LAW...
That's scary stuff.
"And because the DCMA makes it illegal to break a protection system, any part of this conversation about changing this copyrighted law is illegal."
When that starts happening, then the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment becomes obvious...
Judges making stupid rulings like this, in total contempt and defiance of the Constitution that makes this country a Republic, not a Monarchy, need to leard to FEAR and respect the People they serve. They are in office as servants of the Law, the highest Law being the Constutution. The Law is not THEIR servant.
"Scary indeed. Thanks for clearing that up.
I think I'm going to hide under my bed now, too. And they say you don't need to be paranoid..."
I feel the same. But there is another law passed by Congress in 1776 that has relevance for this kind of situation... I better post this now, before some anti-freedom 4 letter acronym copyrights it:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
"How can anyone prohibit the distribution of written law in a democratic republic?"
Simply, you can't. With that, is proof that the USA has already crossed the line and is no longer a democratic republic, but rather an Oligarchy with a "republic esque" structure.
And charge the government royalties for reprinting it, using it in court, etc...
:)
Opps, the flaw in my strategy is the government doen't give a FLYING FUCK about what the Constitution says anymore...
"This is absolute bullshit. Legal codes, like unsealed court documents, are in the public domain. It is incredible that not one but two courts have upheld this foolishness."
"violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -Issac Asimov... Stuff like this being done by public officeholders who should know better, and swore OATHS to not do makes me doubt the wisdom of those words...
Clearly the courts are out of control. This is again an instance of a judge applying STATUTORY LAWS (like the DMCA) over Constitutional Law (which is supposed to supersede all statutory law).
Clearly, "private copyrighted laws" are a flagrant violation of the Constitution. It makes me wonder what ACME law school diploma company these judges bought their degrees from, or else, who is paying them?
This is a case where the only two rational explanations for the judge's behavior is:
1. Corruption
2. Stupidity
There is no third possibility.
The law in question may be Unconstitutional (and thus illegal), but if copyrighted, how do you take it to court to fight it without a license?
"Before the printing press and written law, people could claim ignorance of the law, and that was a defense. "
This has actually never been true. It would be too easy to claim ignorance, and thus be exempt from laws.
However, in the past, there were far fewer laws than today (some 65,000 state and federal laws are added each year to a total legal code that is now millions of laws in size).
Denying people the freedom to dissiminate in the manner of their choice the laws they live under is a FLAGRANT violation of at least half the Constitution. The 1st, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in particular. The freedom of petition to redress your "grievances" to the government is also in the Bill of Rights, but how do you do that if you have to get a license from the group that is likely your political opponent?
This madness is one reason why the powers of and durations of patents and copyrights were limited in the Constitution, but those limits have largely been ignored, particularly with the passage of the DMCA (which effectively turns a copyright into a perpetual secret patent), and the Sonny Bono copyright extension act, which makes the duration of copyrights practically forever.
Ignorance of a law is not a defense against it. Ok, now they are passing laws that are "copyrighted IP" which can be sold or published only at the discretion of the copyright holder...
Doesn't this seem to you like a great way for corps to get laws (like the DMCA) passed, then PREVENT the public from being able to even READ it without violating some inane IP law (like the DMCA)?
How would you, as an individual, DEFEND yourself against a law that you wouldn't even be allowed to READ except by license from your accuser?
How can you, as an iddividual citizen, excercise your Constitutionally protected right of PETITION to get a bad law overturned, if you couldn't even inform the public as to what your problems with that law were, except by getting a license from the very people you oppose?
I bet Valenti, et all are kicking themselves at this very moment for not thinking of this idea when they sent the DMCA to be rubber stamped by their bought congress and president...
I'm beginning to think maybe it's time to start thinking of emigrating to some other country that needs IT people.
"How can this type of thing be allowed to happen. If laws aren't published how would anyone ever know that this exist. It is so wrong to think that we as good citizens are suppose to follow laws that we can't even ready."
Not to mention that in a court, IGNORANCE of a law is not a defense...
"Any court that upholds this kind of thing must be funny in the head"
The court system in general these days is funny in the head. It's not just the laws that are coming from corporate lobby groups these days, the JUDGES do also. Most federal judges used to be private practice lawyers (in big swanky firms), and it's the corpers who mostly employ them.
What doesn't make sense to me is that a LAW can both be copyrighted AND be a LAW... It seems contradictory. If the law in question was the legally copyrighted IP of those clown, then the judge should have thrown it out.
"Stuff like that. Anyway, I'll reiterate how helplessly useless american laws are in other countries and congradulate you on such great election results. Yeesh."
Despite the flamebaiting, you DO have an interesting point... Since most corporations these days (especially software, media and entertainment) are international these days, what binding would such "waiver" have on you were you an American who saw it, thought it sucked, went back to the USA and banged out your column stating just that?
"I can see the studio's side of it -- they're not showing a movie, they're showing some raw material that they're going to use to make a movie. But it was a dumb thing to make people sign those agreements, because by all accounts they weren't necessary, and now there will be a cloud of doubt hanging over the initial buzz."
This kind of stupidy pervades the whole entertainment industry these days. Rather than produce the best product they can, they'd rather produce schlock like Britney Spears, "The Mummy" etc, and then spend more money MARKETING them than they would have had to to produce a good product. But then, a good product in the world of entertainment requires creativity, and creativity is unpredictable. Unpredictability is bad for the bottom line.
Goes back to what I tell everyone about reading ANYTHING in the media... Don't believe them until you see it for yourself. If you go see the movie and you think it's great, then it's GREAT. If you go see it and you think it sucks, then it SUCKS (which is what I thought of Titanic and SW Episode I, despite how BADLY I wanted to love it.)
If the movie you go to SUCKS in your opinion, be more wary of going to the next movie made by that producer/writer/director/actors/movie company.
"Wrong country, the article fails to mention the US. Different laws in different countries, think about it. Although I think it is wrong though to make people sign such contracts, this didn't occur in the US. "
Yes, actually it does, all the time. When was the last time you ever saw benchmarks comparing the performance of Windows 2000 Server to NT Server? Microsoft uses such "agreements" to supress such information. Recently, there was a supressed test that showed that SQL server was faster under NT than 2000.
I wouldn't doubt that before long, Intel takes similar measures to pevent their processors from being accurately benchmarked against AMD chips without fear of legal harassment.
To somehow encode DeCSS so that the number 42 somehow decodes into DeCSS...
Don't know if it COULD be done, but what a thought!
"Douglas Adams is dead. But Jack Valenti goes on and on and on..."
I know... Oolon Coluphid could write a new book on that subject "How God is an Unfair Bastard"
Tragic him going at 49... He still had so much more he could have done.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was and remains one of my VERY favorite series.. Adamns really pioneered a comedic style of science fiction... The story that began with the end of the world...
This is shocking. I feel as bad as when I found out Dr. Issac Asimov was dead, but that was a little easier to understand, given his age.
"Guess what sparky, money isn't everything. :) I would rather make my salary of ~$15,000/year and be very happy with what I do. Then make insaine ammounts of money and not be happy. I am pretty sure he likes what he does."
Know what you mean... I'm working as a R&D tester for a company that is a BIG Linux supporter, in an area (Raleigh, NC) where there are TONS of high paying IT jobs. I make less than I could, but I get to work with 4 different Linuxes (and both SCO Unixes), and it's really satisfying.
By the end of summer, I hope to achieve my RHCE and take a purely Liunux position as a network engineer/BOFH for someone.
AC wrote:
"You guys all have your panties in a knot because someone is trying to make some money?! Geezuz. Welcome to capatalist America you wusses. Get the hell out of here if you don't like it!"
What is capitalist about granting Gracenote the ability to be a monopoly? To extend contract law to the point that contracts NEVER expire? To set a precedent that you can't switch to using a compeditor's product after using one companies?
If you ask me, that sound a lot more like a state run COMMUNIST economy than capitalism... What does it matter, State endorsed corporate monopolies are no better, no more efficient, and no more beneficial to the consumer than a communist state monopoly...
"While Gracenote's behavior in general is pretty sleasy and just generally ugly, they did develop a cool technology and freeDB is just a rip off of that technology. That's still not much of an excuse for acting like this though."
CDDB was originally a GPL project... While the original authors can, and did, take the code and use a different license (even a closed one), they can't take back the code they released (which included the algorithm they have since patented).
So, FreeDB isn't a "rip off". They simply took GPL code and are running with it. Completely legal and legitimate. ANd as such, any other programs are not infringing on Gracenote by using FreeDB.
"If FreeDB is infringing on a CDDB patent, shouldn't CDDB be suing FreeDB instead of Roxio??
Probably, but I suspect that it wouldn't be worth their while to sue freeDB. Instead they waited for someone with a bit of money to start using the freeDB system and then sue them. That way they get to make an example out of someone and get a bit of cash to boot."
I disagree. They aren't going after FreeDB because they either know that they'd lose, or else don't want to take the chance on having their claims invalidated by a court precedent.
Going after Roxio is purely an intimidation and extortion move. If the DMCA can be applied in this manner, that law is FAR worse than we ever feared... I hope to GOD "so-called" "judge" Kaplan doesn't get this case... He seems to LOVE to add to the DMCA powers that weren't even written into it (such as the ability to override the first amendment and ban links)
On the positive side, IF Gracenote's DMCA claims hold, it may finally open people's eyes to what is happening in the IP "concentration camps" under the reign of terror known as the DMCA "final solution". Even better, every buisness outside RAMFRAUD and the MPAA/RIAA conglomerates may see their vey existance threatened by the potential liabilities to the IP cartels under this horrendous law.
This suit completely defies logic and reason. According to the story, the contract has expired, which is why Roxio decided to go with freeDB.
A victory by Gracenote would have a chilling effect on business... The precedent set would be this: Once you sign a contract with some company for a license/service, et, it lasts FOREVER... you can't get the service from the best priced (free) alternative.
Hopefully, this case will go for Gracenote like the Infineon case went for RAMBUS, the convicted fradulent IP lawfirm, they open a can of worms and end up THEMSELVES being penalized.
Far too many bad lawsuits are being filed by companies looking to get rich, or prevent competition on the back of the legal system. That in and of itself is completely contrary to the intent of the civil legal system, which is to settle disputes between parties on the perponderance of the evidence and the law.
There need to be harsh penalties, and harsh consequences for filing such suits, which are in effect, little different from blatantly illegal acts such as extortion, fraud, slander, etc.
"Simple fix: the PTO shoud not get any money from granting patens, the fee shoud be the same no mather if it was granted or not."
I like that idea ALOT... I'm all in favor of government services, IF, the users bear the brunt of the costs. Though doing this might in fact, end up lowering the average cost of a granted patent, it would take away any incentive for the USPTO to be biased towards granting patents because they'd make more money.
Ergo, the middle-management deskbound chairwarming paper pusher types would be less inclined to pressure the worker drones to grant such-and-such number of patents so as to make the budget...