what makes software processes so different from physical processes that they shouldn't be allowed the same IP protection ?
the Amazon one-click thing is not bad because it's a software patent, right? it's bad because it's a patent on something that a lot of people here think is too simple to do, or already too common to be patent-worthy. right? the same with the LZW patent. people are more upset about the way Compuserve and Unisys handled the situation, not because LZW compression is somehow unworthy of IP protection. right?
people put thought into developing various processes; wether that process is physical or software-based should not matter, to IP laws.
of course i'm not talking about the moral validity of IP laws here. i'm only saying i see no reason why software should be any different than hardware under the current IP laws.
It's much more sinister than corporations "pushing" crap legislation; the media industry, by Congress's invitation, wrote the DMCA, just like they've written all of the other copyright laws this century.
Because the issues are complex and have so much financial consequence, Congress feels it's best if the affected parties (the various businesses who have a financial interest in copyright law) work out the law themselves. Congress just rubber stamps whatever they come up with. The current copyright law (the DMCA) is over 150 pages of lawyer-speak, far too much for everyone in Congress to read, comprehend and have an opinion on - just the way the media companies want it. The media companies understand it (or their lawyers do) because they wrote it. To hell with the people.
goverment agencies are restricted as to what they can do with it. private orginizations aren't restriceted. they can ask for it, even require it. but, you're not required to give it to them.
1. no, he wrote and sold a program to crack documents ecrypted by Adobe's software. then he came to the US to tell people how he did it. this is illegal under the DMCA. Adobe did not make the DMCA into law, the US Government did.
2. see 1.
3. Adobe didn't arrest anyone, the US Govt. did. Adobe didn't pass the DMCA into law (though they may have helped write it), the US Govt. did.
4. You could easily argue that the DMCA protects innovation - it gives IP creators protections that allow them to profit from their innovations. Of course the DMCA does a whole lot more than that.
5. See 1.
6. The US Govt. passed a law that the FBI is now required to uphold. The FBI isn't necessarily beholden to Adobe by simply doing their job. Just as your local police dept responding to any credible report of a burglary being committed doesn't necessarily mean the're beholden to whoever's house they goes to.
Now of course I don't agree with his arrest. But this is only a symptom of what's wrong with the DMCA, not with Adobe. They're merely protecting their work, using the law, that the US Govt. passed (not Adobe!). Blame your local congressman, if you're a US citizen.
Remember, the public only gets to speak once every two years (when they elect new representatives). The "public" in this case is represented by Congress, who has given media companies permission (via the DMCA) to do all kinds of crazy things.
Does this mean they are above the law, or do they merely get to change them at will?
The latter. US Copyright law, in this century, has been written by the companies who have the biggest stake in IP. The relevant parties are invited every few decades, by Congress, to get together and hammer out an agreement that pleases all parties. It is assumed that the companies understand the issues involved better than the congressmen.
Unfortunately, nobody from the public is invited and the congressmen themselves (who's job description is to represent the public interest) don't get involved until the very end, when the text of the law has been decided, to apply their rubber stamp.
So, the IP companies have, this time, written themselves a law that goes far beyond anything the public (or even the worst sell-out of a congressman) could dream of.
We had our opportunity to tell our representatives "vote No to the DMCA", but we apparently didn't take it.
the FBI will not do _anything_ unless the damages exceed a certain amount. $5,000 was the limit my particular situation (re-routed domain info). unfortunately, they just don't have the resources to track down all of the assholes in the world.
MS (and all of the other IP heavies) know that most people grow without ever having spent much time thinking about copyright. This leads to situations like the present, where IP is treated rather casually (when compared to the strict rights and limitations described in the copyright laws). Bill has to change that; he has to get people to take copyright law seriously. If he doesn't, there's no way he can keep innovating - the commoners will just keep stealing his precious IP.
Luckily, as everybody knows, it's easy to train kids to believe whatever you want; just repeat your message in a song or with a cartoon - it will sink in.
the atricle does not say "Motorola sues because spam is bad". it says "Motorola Sues Over Pager Spam". this is accurate - they are because the spam is misleading.
The best part about having the.NET source is so that you know what the hell is going on under the covers. It's not about changing it or re-selling new versions, it's about being able to write better code.
can you explain to me how the GPL stops someone from taking my source and creating a new but slightly different application from it? the GPL just means that the new app is also GPL'd, not that it has any relation to or interoperability with the old one.
nonsense. i use Opera specifically because it's MDI. why on earth would i want a half-dozen web page windows cluttering my desktop? MDI coralls all those child windows into a nice safe, out of the way place.
defaults *all* wrong
change them
...and configuration is confusing
confusing? it looks exactly like netscape's tree+property pages setup.
Holy fuck. That must be some slick tech. They deserve a patent on that. They're gonna rule the world, what with all that time warping crap. They'll be popping around space-time getting tomorrow's stock prices, basketball game winners, etc.. They're gonna be Gods! We should all send them our first born sons to appease them, too.
every 2nd episode is... The Ultimate Anthropomorphic Evil form the Sewer! It drinks blood and can read your mind, but it looks just like you and me until night falls!
could they be more predictable?
even with mulder back, they can't do anything but Evil Lizard Man or Spooky Indian Death Eater Man.
fuckin retards. (them for writing, me for watching)
Slashdot Mirror
the Amazon one-click thing is not bad because it's a software patent, right? it's bad because it's a patent on something that a lot of people here think is too simple to do, or already too common to be patent-worthy. right? the same with the LZW patent. people are more upset about the way Compuserve and Unisys handled the situation, not because LZW compression is somehow unworthy of IP protection. right?
people put thought into developing various processes; wether that process is physical or software-based should not matter, to IP laws.
of course i'm not talking about the moral validity of IP laws here. i'm only saying i see no reason why software should be any different than hardware under the current IP laws.
-c
Because the issues are complex and have so much financial consequence, Congress feels it's best if the affected parties (the various businesses who have a financial interest in copyright law) work out the law themselves. Congress just rubber stamps whatever they come up with. The current copyright law (the DMCA) is over 150 pages of lawyer-speak, far too much for everyone in Congress to read, comprehend and have an opinion on - just the way the media companies want it. The media companies understand it (or their lawyers do) because they wrote it. To hell with the people.
Read this -c
I've *never* had an app kill either of my NT boxes. An app will occasionally lock up but I can always kill it with the Task Manager.
-c
goverment agencies are restricted as to what they can do with it. private orginizations aren't restriceted. they can ask for it, even require it. but, you're not required to give it to them.
-c
http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/ssn/ssn.faq.html -c
1. no, he wrote and sold a program to crack documents ecrypted by Adobe's software. then he came to the US to tell people how he did it. this is illegal under the DMCA. Adobe did not make the DMCA into law, the US Government did.
2. see 1.
3. Adobe didn't arrest anyone, the US Govt. did. Adobe didn't pass the DMCA into law (though they may have helped write it), the US Govt. did.
4. You could easily argue that the DMCA protects innovation - it gives IP creators protections that allow them to profit from their innovations. Of course the DMCA does a whole lot more than that.
5. See 1.
6. The US Govt. passed a law that the FBI is now required to uphold. The FBI isn't necessarily beholden to Adobe by simply doing their job. Just as your local police dept responding to any credible report of a burglary being committed doesn't necessarily mean the're beholden to whoever's house they goes to.
Now of course I don't agree with his arrest. But this is only a symptom of what's wrong with the DMCA, not with Adobe. They're merely protecting their work, using the law, that the US Govt. passed (not Adobe!). Blame your local congressman, if you're a US citizen.
-c
it's not how much money you have. it's how much damage (in $$) the offense caused.
-c
Remember, the public only gets to speak once every two years (when they elect new representatives). The "public" in this case is represented by Congress, who has given media companies permission (via the DMCA) to do all kinds of crazy things.
And, as always, you get what you pay for...
-c
The latter. US Copyright law, in this century, has been written by the companies who have the biggest stake in IP. The relevant parties are invited every few decades, by Congress, to get together and hammer out an agreement that pleases all parties. It is assumed that the companies understand the issues involved better than the congressmen.
Unfortunately, nobody from the public is invited and the congressmen themselves (who's job description is to represent the public interest) don't get involved until the very end, when the text of the law has been decided, to apply their rubber stamp.
So, the IP companies have, this time, written themselves a law that goes far beyond anything the public (or even the worst sell-out of a congressman) could dream of.
We had our opportunity to tell our representatives "vote No to the DMCA", but we apparently didn't take it.
Read this book.
-c
the FBI isn't interested in tracking down people who cause less than $X in damage.
-c
the FBI will not do _anything_ unless the damages exceed a certain amount. $5,000 was the limit my particular situation (re-routed domain info). unfortunately, they just don't have the resources to track down all of the assholes in the world.
-c
MS (and all of the other IP heavies) know that most people grow without ever having spent much time thinking about copyright. This leads to situations like the present, where IP is treated rather casually (when compared to the strict rights and limitations described in the copyright laws). Bill has to change that; he has to get people to take copyright law seriously. If he doesn't, there's no way he can keep innovating - the commoners will just keep stealing his precious IP.
Luckily, as everybody knows, it's easy to train kids to believe whatever you want; just repeat your message in a song or with a cartoon - it will sink in.
-c
the atricle does not say "Motorola sues because spam is bad". it says "Motorola Sues Over Pager Spam". this is accurate - they are because the spam is misleading.
no more coffee for you
-c
unstable ? i never, not once, ever, have had IE crash on me. bloated ? pot? this is kettle.. -c
The best part about having the .NET source is so that you know what the hell is going on under the covers. It's not about changing it or re-selling new versions, it's about being able to write better code.
GPL snobs...
-c
YES
-c
can you explain to me how the GPL stops someone from taking my source and creating a new but slightly different application from it? the GPL just means that the new app is also GPL'd, not that it has any relation to or interoperability with the old one.
just got back from Belize on Wednesday. And, while I didn't bring back any CD-eating fungi, I did bring back a nasty intestinal critter. Gotta run...
-c
Linux is already there.
nonsense. i use Opera specifically because it's MDI. why on earth would i want a half-dozen web page windows cluttering my desktop? MDI coralls all those child windows into a nice safe, out of the way place.
defaults *all* wrong
change them
confusing? it looks exactly like netscape's tree+property pages setup.
- oh, and that banner renders me insane!)
pay for it. no more banner.
-c
Holy fuck. That must be some slick tech. They deserve a patent on that. They're gonna rule the world, what with all that time warping crap. They'll be popping around space-time getting tomorrow's stock prices, basketball game winners, etc.. They're gonna be Gods! We should all send them our first born sons to appease them, too.
well, maybe not Microsoft, but Apple, yes.
-c
-1 offtopic.
-c
err... you iron out wrinkles, not headaches.
ouch!
-c
every 2nd episode is... The Ultimate Anthropomorphic Evil form the Sewer! It drinks blood and can read your mind, but it looks just like you and me until night falls!
could they be more predictable?
even with mulder back, they can't do anything but Evil Lizard Man or Spooky Indian Death Eater Man.
fuckin retards. (them for writing, me for watching)
-c