Secondly, the DirecTivos are crippled, in that you buy the device, but you can only record from DirecTV (and not cable, over the air, a VCR or DVD player, etc) which is stupid.
Umm, no, DirecTivo isn't "crippled". DirecTivo doesn't have an mpeg encoder, so it is not capable of encoding a signal. It can, however, record the pre-encoded signal directly from the satellite.
Certainly, this could be viewed as a disadvantage. On the other hand, DirecTivo does give you the ability to record two seperate programs at the same time, so I think this is a fair trade-off.
I own a Tivo, and am building a MythTV box (though I'll probably switch to Freevo once it's a little more mature). Some things you can't do on Tivo that you can (or will be able to soon) on Myth:
Two (or more) tuners
Archive to CD or DVD
Play DVD's
Watch recorded programs in any room in the house *
Browse the web**
Send & recieve email**
Schedule recordings from the internet-- potentially even by phone.
More...
My MythTV box will probably end up costing me about $800, but that's only because I bought pretty much top-of-the-line gear, and am overbuilding quite a bit. One could easily build a fast, two-tuner MythTV box for $500, assuming they are buying everything-- if you already have some of the components, you can knock quite a bit off that. Keep in mind, this price is for a fast (~2100+ Athlon) two-tuner unit- you can record two seperate programs while at the same time watching a recording. This is not possible on any current Tivo, with the exception of the DirecTivo-- which of course locks you into DirecTV. If you don't want to be able to do all that at once, or if you are willing to sacrifice some picture quality, you can easily get by with slower computer. There are several people happily running MythTV on 700Mhz or slower machines.
Now, there are still some disadvantages. Mainly, the software is still considerably less userfriendly then Tivo. But that should improve greatly over time. Considering that the project has only been around since April 2002, I think any lack of friendliness can be forgiven.
Finally, building your own system has the additional value of being, well, your own. Sure Tivo is great. I still tell everyone I talk to about it to buy one. But personally, I'll be very happy when the day comes that I can ditch the Tivo for my own, homebrewed system.
* Requires a computer with a TV out card-- doesn't need to be fast, though.
** Granted, a TV is not the best internet environment, but for many people, this would be handy.
Damn, no moderator points. KEXP is unquestionably one of the best possible sources for new music. The broad range of music you will hear on KEXP is virtually unmatched. To get an idea of the breadth of music played, check out there live performance archive at www.kexp.org. All of the following artists played live on the air n the last six months of 2002:, Ozomatli, Rhett Miller, Pete Krebs, Visqueen, Ms. Led, Soundtrack Of Our Lives, Pure Joy, The Ruby Doe, Parker & Lily, Dolour, Tommy Womack, Bobby Bare Jr., Dear John Letters, Tahiti 80, Carissa's Wierd, Low, Dismemberment Plan, Neko Case, McLusky, Djelimady Tounkara, The Derailers, The Soft Boys, John Doe, Jason Lowenstein, Rilo Kiley, The Chameleons, Enon, Super Furry Animals, Joseph Arthur, Imperial Teen, The Forty Fives, Rusty Willoughby, Doves, Sahara Hotnights, The Lawnmowers, The Go Getters, Iron and Wine, Waxwing, Lo Jo, Interpol, Monica Salmaso, Otis Taylor, The Mekons, Thurston Moore, Zuco 103, John Dee Graham, Christy McWilson, Jenny Toomey, Brad, Hem, The Swains, Los Halos, Sarah Shannon, Champale, Kepa Junkera, Kings of Convenience, Deke Dickerson, The Damnations, The Briefs, The Flaming Lips, The Meat Purveyors, Black Angel, D'Gary, Mark Olson, Richard Buckner, Jim White, Rokia Traore, Lonesome Bob, Cato Salsa Experience, Calvin Johnson, Cousteau, Tuatara, Ed Harcourt, Aveo, Treasure State, Halou, and Dolly Varden (all performances (and lots more) are archived at the site).
In case you hadn't noticed, CABLE WIRES aren't publicly owned resources. They are the resources of the companies who paid to lay the cable. In such a case, there is no "civic" obligation to the public.
Not quite true. The cable companies agree to certain conditions in order to be granted the monopoly that allows them to make money. So while the wire may not be a publically owned resource, the civic obligation still exists. This is the reason that Public Access TV exists, for example.
I've been using Spry.com. Unquestionably the best web host I've ever used. Their main offering is the "Root Server", a FreeBSD-jail based shared platform. This gives the flexibility of full root access on a less expensive server-- starting at $60/month. And unlike some other companies, Spry has OUTSTANDING support. Extremely fast, and you'll get a response from someone who actually has a clue.
I believe they also offer colo's, and I'd highly recommend them for anyone needing a rock-solid ISP at a reasonable price.
No, but if MS held the patent you'd be screaming for free technology. You're another hypocritical/. reader.
I hate reading this double standard bullshit ad nauseam.
I rarely reply to trolls, but I will this time.
When I first read the article, I came away with the same opinion-- This is a very bad abuse of the patent system. However after reading a few other comments, I realized that it's actually a very GOOD abuse of the patent system.
Here's the thing-- Microsoft has no problem using the current patent law against others. So, by facing this suit, Microsoft is forced to either a) stop making IE, or b) activley oppose the patent system. As others have stated, either outcome is acceptable. Either way, the long term result will probably be a massive reform of the patent system.
So, if you think about it, there is no double standard. Just a nice bit of "what goes around comes around".
Great comment. Other people said basically the sam thing-- some of them sooner-- but your analysis is right on the money. Too bad I don't have any mod points.
The real problem is that a well-designed PDA shouldn't require a backpack.
But the Zaurus isn't a PDA, it's a PMT (Personal Mobile Tool). Ok, Granted PMT is Sharp's Marketingspeak, but it it's also a accurate description.
The capabilities of a Zaurus are far superior to those of a Palm, so many people will be willing to trade the larger size for further improvements. And for those who aren't, there's always the SL-A300 introduced a month ago.
I do admit to having the benefit of hindsight - I certainly hadn't thought of this "idea" before - but hindsight only addresses novelty, not obviousness. If you had asked me (or better yet, someone with more experience in the art of database architecturing and e-mail) to come up with half a dozen ways of forwarding e-mail then I have no doubt I would have considered something close to their method in a matter of minutes. Their first claim covers what is clearly and obviously one of only a very finite number of ways you can do this using standard methods.
In reality, many patents are obvious. It doesn't matter whether you could have thought of the same thing had you been asked. You weren't & you didn't. Legally, that's irrelevant. (see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/# whatpat for the legal definition of obvious).
I'll concede, though, that patents like this piss me off too. Not because they're invalid, but because-- you're right-- it's obvious. I wish I'd thought of it first, then I'd be making that $20 a year from everyone who's ever changed ISPs.
Umm... If this patent is so obvious, why hasn't anyone thought of it before?
Yes, the specific steps taken to implement this technology are simple. But, why should that prevent getting a patent? Say I invent a new mousetrap, the basic compopnents (levers, springs) have been used elsewhere, but I combine them into a new & unique design. By your reasoning, I should not be eligible for a patent.
I am all for revising the patent system. There are numerous problems with it, and "obvious" patents are certainly one of them. But calling a patent obvious just because it uses obvious technologies in novel ways is very flawed reasoning. The test of obviousness should be the novelty of the overall task, not the steps taken to get there. On that ground, this seems to me to be a sound patent.
As far as I can tell, MOST of the problems caused for consumers by DRM plans involve the **AA's focus on preventing "copying" (indeed, it's even called "COPYright")...despite the fact that the Fair Use doctrine seems to imply that COPYING is not the "cause" of a copyright violation - DISTRIBUTION is.
This is a great point, but I suspect it will be very hard to get anyone to listen to it. That's because DRM does NOTHING to prevent organized piracy. People trying to profit from piracy will do so with or without DRM. What DRM does is force people like me to replace all my CD's with new ones when my CD case is stolen from my car (rather then just burning new CDR's). It makes me replace old CD's when they get scratched. Etc. DRM does more to encourage multiple purchases then it does to prevent piracy. The RIAA knows this, but you'll never get them to admit it in public.
When there are only a handful of people with a printing press, it is reasonable to expect them to be cognizant of each other's "property" and avoid infringement. However, every computer is the equivalent of a printing press. With hundreds of millions of presses out there, all turning out copyrighted works (by the Berne Convention, everything is copyrighted upon creation), it is mathematically impossible to be aware of and avoid infringement of every other article.
This argument is just wrong. I don't disagree with your motives, but your argument is fundamentally flawed. The only time you could possibly make such an argument is if you somehow independently created a work that someone else had created previously. While this is possible, it's quite unlikely. As a publisher, you only need to know the copyright status of what you publish. Everything else is irrelavent. SInce you will know the origin of each piece, it's very "mathematically possible" to be aware of the copyright status of what you publish. Of course the submittor of a piece could be lying, either about it's provenance or it's legal status, but if you act in good faith you will be clear of most legal responsibility.
With DRM, we ensure artists get *something*, even if it is a nickel. Without it, there's a much better chance they'll get screwed totally
That's exactly the argument the RIAA uses. Of course it's absolute bullshit, but obviously people still believe it, otherwise you wouldn't have repeated it.
Consider that the average high-end artist makes about $.35 per CD sold (most earn less). So, after selling 1 million CD's, they have made $350,000. Now, consider if the artist put their CD on the web, DRM free, for $3.50. Now, instead of selling 1 million, they only have to sell 100,000 copies to make the same amount of money. Are some people going to pirate the CD then would otherwise? Probably. But not 90% more. And Far more people will shell out $3.50 for a CD then would pay $18 for the same CD. Even those pirated copies aren't that bad since people will be telling each other about it (Maybe put a short blurb before the first song: "Like this? Go to www.artist.com to support the artist.")
In the long run, record companies are doomed. They know this, but they are trying to put off the inevitable for as long as possible with pointless technological tricks like this. Most of their artists buy into the party line simply because they are not technologically savvy enough to know better. But once a few big name artists try it & do well, the whole house of cards will come down.
One more quick comment about this scheme (in case anybody is thinking about trying it): DON'T GET GREEDY! This ONLY works if the downloadable copy is priced as an impulse buy. $3.50 is about the highest you can go. More then that, and people WILL start to think "Why buy it when I can pirate it?". But at $3.50 (better yet, $3) or less, it's easier to just pay for it then to deal with the hassle of finding a copy of it. Remember, $3.50 is at least 10 times more then the record companies pay, so be happy with it!
Re:"Original" Copyright law and Patent law
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
In fields other than software, we are bound by international treaty to the current term (20 years from the date of the APPLICATION, which translates to approximately 17 years of effective term).
In fields other then software, there is usually real R&D invested. When Ford invents a new, more fuel efficient engine, they are truly creating an innovation, and have invested probably millions of dollars to do so. Because of this, I have no problem with a 20 year term on this sort of patent. Software patents, on the otherhand, are almost always much more trivial. While I'm sure there are occasional exceptional examples, I think the industry would be much better served by erring on the short side here.
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
Actually then the book will never go out of print.
But you're ignoring the first part of my statement. Copyrights should apply for 20 years -or- 5 years after going out of print. I would not be opposed to one 20 year renewal -by the original author-, and only on works that are in print, but more then 40 years is nonsense. I have a problem with someone writing one book when they are 20 & living off it for the next 70 years.
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
Again, enforcement of this would be problematic. It would be the utmost in trivialities for an author to keep up a webpage that offers for sale through his own shell publishing company his book, keeping some small token number of copies around, indefinitely extending the print period. This is why some finite number of years is better. It's an absolute. "X years from file date". End of story.
This is exactly what I said. 20 years -or- 5 years after going out of print, whichever comes sooner.
Re:There ARE other ways
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
with the possible exception of Van Gogh who did suffer problems with copy cats and poorly made copies
Umm.... If I remember my high school art history class correctly, Van Gogh didn't sell a single painting during his lifetime... Not exactly the best artist to be pirating.
Re:"Original" Copyright law and Patent law
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
As I have posted before, the problem is not software patents but bad software patents. Patents on software which is not novel, or which is obvious should not have been granted in the first place, and this is where alot of work has to be done. Not by passing new laws or repealing old ones but by enforcing the ones we have.
I pretty much agree with you, but I have one other point. Software patents should not last for 20 years. Whether the one-click ordering process is novel enough to deserve a patent or not, it does not deserve 20 years worth of protection. The software industry by it's very nature moves faster then traditional "industrial" industries. I think three to five years is more then enough time for for software patents.
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
You clearly don't know the difference between a trademark, copyright, and patent. A trade mark is a word, short phrase, or image used to identify a company. Some examples of trademarks are "IBM", "We Make it Your Way", and the Apple Logo. Trademark protection does not prevent others from using your mark against your will. It only prevents people from using your mark fraudulently. I can compare my cola in my ads to Coca-Cola, but trying to sell it as Coco-Cola would probably get me sued.
If you want to use your 40-line method as your company trademark, feel free. Not only will it be the worst comapny name in history, it will give all of your competitors easy access top your "secrets", and there would be absolutely nothing you could do to stop them.
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
With a blanket alteration to law, one can simply set software to 15 year terms and patents to 7.
I think these terms are way off. I would like to see binary software have a copyright based on how long it's publisher supports it. 1 year after MS stops supporting Windows 98, its copyright expires. This accomplishes one of two goals: either companies will continue to provide support for software for longer, or they will be fforced to see them in the public domain. Either way, the end user wins. Source code is trickier, but I think a 10 year term is probably reasonable. Perhaps one 5 year renewal on top of that if the software is still marketed. There are few programs written more then 10 years ago that are still sold as-is.
I'm dead set against screwing over an author, (of books, etc) however. These guys aren't so creative when they get older, and really need to be able to generate the income.
I think a number of "Old Guys" would disagree with you on this. Either way, 90+ year copyrights don't help anyone except corporations and people with dead meal-tickets, err, relatives. Again, I would like to see copyright tied to publication. As long as a book, record, etc. remains in print, it should be copywritten for 20 years. If it goes out of print, its copyright should expire within 5 years. This gives companies an incentive to make older, more controversial, and less commercial works available. In print can include offering works in electronic form as long as the work is accessible, and offered at a reasonable price (say something like no more the 150% of the original price adjusted for inflation). Obviously these ideas are just off the cuff & probably have holes...
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
The way I understand it, they don't want to sell the drugs cheaply to third world countries because they fear that if they do, it will create a much larger black market for the drugs where they are bought cheaply and then sold to places where the drugs normally sell for more, namely the US and EU.
This is absolutely true, but I think it illustrates the original poster's point: The drug companies profit desire outweighs the right of the third-world countries to modern medications. While I'm not willing to go so far as to get rid of IP laws (Shorter terms are a much better solution), he does have a point here. While I can't offer a specific solution to the problem, it is an excellent example of the flaws in IP laws.
I used to work for a large computer mail-order house. We had a customer who worked for NEC in Japan, in the PC division. Regardless of this, in order to get a NEC PC, he had to order it from us & have it shipped from the US. Apparently at the time, NEC didn't offer Windows-based PC's in Japan, and though he was just around the corner from the factory, company policy forbid him from getting one there.
Some will cry "but you can't SELL GPLed software!" This is a fallacy. There is nothing in the GPL that prohibits you from selling your software. If you are really worried about losing profits, just sell the binaries - and release the source code to paying customers who ask. By the rules of the GPL, this is completely allowable. You only have to give the source to people that you gave the binaries to.
Even this is overstating it. Under the GPL, there is nothing preventing the copyright holder from selling Microsoft the right to use the GPLed code in a commercial product & not give away the code. This is truly the best of both worlds since it allows Freedom for those who desire it and allows the author to profit from those who don't. The BSD license doesn't accomplish either of these goals half as well as the GPL. There are occasions when the BSD license is better, but it is clearly weaker in many respects.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly, the DirecTivos are crippled, in that you buy the device, but you can only record from DirecTV (and not cable, over the air, a VCR or DVD player, etc) which is stupid.
Umm, no, DirecTivo isn't "crippled". DirecTivo doesn't have an mpeg encoder, so it is not capable of encoding a signal. It can, however, record the pre-encoded signal directly from the satellite.
Certainly, this could be viewed as a disadvantage. On the other hand, DirecTivo does give you the ability to record two seperate programs at the same time, so I think this is a fair trade-off.
My MythTV box will probably end up costing me about $800, but that's only because I bought pretty much top-of-the-line gear, and am overbuilding quite a bit. One could easily build a fast, two-tuner MythTV box for $500, assuming they are buying everything-- if you already have some of the components, you can knock quite a bit off that. Keep in mind, this price is for a fast (~2100+ Athlon) two-tuner unit- you can record two seperate programs while at the same time watching a recording. This is not possible on any current Tivo, with the exception of the DirecTivo-- which of course locks you into DirecTV. If you don't want to be able to do all that at once, or if you are willing to sacrifice some picture quality, you can easily get by with slower computer. There are several people happily running MythTV on 700Mhz or slower machines.
Now, there are still some disadvantages. Mainly, the software is still considerably less userfriendly then Tivo. But that should improve greatly over time. Considering that the project has only been around since April 2002, I think any lack of friendliness can be forgiven.
Finally, building your own system has the additional value of being, well, your own. Sure Tivo is great. I still tell everyone I talk to about it to buy one. But personally, I'll be very happy when the day comes that I can ditch the Tivo for my own, homebrewed system.
* Requires a computer with a TV out card-- doesn't need to be fast, though.
** Granted, a TV is not the best internet environment, but for many people, this would be handy.
Damn, no moderator points. KEXP is unquestionably one of the best possible sources for new music. The broad range of music you will hear on KEXP is virtually unmatched. To get an idea of the breadth of music played, check out there live performance archive at www.kexp.org. All of the following artists played live on the air n the last six months of 2002:, Ozomatli, Rhett Miller, Pete Krebs, Visqueen, Ms. Led, Soundtrack Of Our Lives, Pure Joy, The Ruby Doe, Parker & Lily, Dolour, Tommy Womack, Bobby Bare Jr., Dear John Letters, Tahiti 80, Carissa's Wierd, Low, Dismemberment Plan, Neko Case, McLusky, Djelimady Tounkara, The Derailers, The Soft Boys, John Doe, Jason Lowenstein, Rilo Kiley, The Chameleons, Enon, Super Furry Animals, Joseph Arthur, Imperial Teen, The Forty Fives, Rusty Willoughby, Doves, Sahara Hotnights, The Lawnmowers, The Go Getters, Iron and Wine, Waxwing, Lo Jo, Interpol, Monica Salmaso, Otis Taylor, The Mekons, Thurston Moore, Zuco 103, John Dee Graham, Christy McWilson, Jenny Toomey, Brad, Hem, The Swains, Los Halos, Sarah Shannon, Champale, Kepa Junkera, Kings of Convenience, Deke Dickerson, The Damnations, The Briefs, The Flaming Lips, The Meat Purveyors, Black Angel, D'Gary, Mark Olson, Richard Buckner, Jim White, Rokia Traore, Lonesome Bob, Cato Salsa Experience, Calvin Johnson, Cousteau, Tuatara, Ed Harcourt, Aveo, Treasure State, Halou, and Dolly Varden (all performances (and lots more) are archived at the site).
In case you hadn't noticed, CABLE WIRES aren't publicly owned resources. They are the resources of the companies who paid to lay the cable. In such a case, there is no "civic" obligation to the public.
Not quite true. The cable companies agree to certain conditions in order to be granted the monopoly that allows them to make money. So while the wire may not be a publically owned resource, the civic obligation still exists. This is the reason that Public Access TV exists, for example.
I've been using Spry.com. Unquestionably the best web host I've ever used. Their main offering is the "Root Server", a FreeBSD-jail based shared platform. This gives the flexibility of full root access on a less expensive server-- starting at $60/month. And unlike some other companies, Spry has OUTSTANDING support. Extremely fast, and you'll get a response from someone who actually has a clue.
I believe they also offer colo's, and I'd highly recommend them for anyone needing a rock-solid ISP at a reasonable price.
No, but if MS held the patent you'd be screaming for free technology. You're another hypocritical /. reader.
I hate reading this double standard bullshit ad nauseam.
I rarely reply to trolls, but I will this time.
When I first read the article, I came away with the same opinion-- This is a very bad abuse of the patent system. However after reading a few other comments, I realized that it's actually a very GOOD abuse of the patent system.
Here's the thing-- Microsoft has no problem using the current patent law against others. So, by facing this suit, Microsoft is forced to either a) stop making IE, or b) activley oppose the patent system. As others have stated, either outcome is acceptable. Either way, the long term result will probably be a massive reform of the patent system.
So, if you think about it, there is no double standard. Just a nice bit of "what goes around comes around".
Great comment. Other people said basically the sam thing-- some of them sooner-- but your analysis is right on the money. Too bad I don't have any mod points.
The real problem is that a well-designed PDA shouldn't require a backpack.
But the Zaurus isn't a PDA, it's a PMT (Personal Mobile Tool). Ok, Granted PMT is Sharp's Marketingspeak, but it it's also a accurate description.
The capabilities of a Zaurus are far superior to those of a Palm, so many people will be willing to trade the larger size for further improvements. And for those who aren't, there's always the SL-A300 introduced a month ago.
I do admit to having the benefit of hindsight - I certainly hadn't thought of this "idea" before - but hindsight only addresses novelty, not obviousness. If you had asked me (or better yet, someone with more experience in the art of database architecturing and e-mail) to come up with half a dozen ways of forwarding e-mail then I have no doubt I would have considered something close to their method in a matter of minutes. Their first claim covers what is clearly and obviously one of only a very finite number of ways you can do this using standard methods.
# whatpat for the legal definition of obvious).
In reality, many patents are obvious. It doesn't matter whether you could have thought of the same thing had you been asked. You weren't & you didn't. Legally, that's irrelevant. (see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/
I'll concede, though, that patents like this piss me off too. Not because they're invalid, but because-- you're right-- it's obvious. I wish I'd thought of it first, then I'd be making that $20 a year from everyone who's ever changed ISPs.
Umm... If this patent is so obvious, why hasn't anyone thought of it before?
Yes, the specific steps taken to implement this technology are simple. But, why should that prevent getting a patent? Say I invent a new mousetrap, the basic compopnents (levers, springs) have been used elsewhere, but I combine them into a new & unique design. By your reasoning, I should not be eligible for a patent.
I am all for revising the patent system. There are numerous problems with it, and "obvious" patents are certainly one of them. But calling a patent obvious just because it uses obvious technologies in novel ways is very flawed reasoning. The test of obviousness should be the novelty of the overall task, not the steps taken to get there. On that ground, this seems to me to be a sound patent.
This was moderated as Flamebait? Get a fucking sense of humor man!
As far as I can tell, MOST of the problems caused for consumers by DRM plans involve the **AA's focus on preventing "copying" (indeed, it's even called "COPYright")...despite the fact that the Fair Use doctrine seems to imply that COPYING is not the "cause" of a copyright violation - DISTRIBUTION is.
This is a great point, but I suspect it will be very hard to get anyone to listen to it. That's because DRM does NOTHING to prevent organized piracy. People trying to profit from piracy will do so with or without DRM. What DRM does is force people like me to replace all my CD's with new ones when my CD case is stolen from my car (rather then just burning new CDR's). It makes me replace old CD's when they get scratched. Etc. DRM does more to encourage multiple purchases then it does to prevent piracy. The RIAA knows this, but you'll never get them to admit it in public.
When there are only a handful of people with a printing press, it is reasonable to expect them to be cognizant of each other's "property" and avoid infringement. However, every computer is the equivalent of a printing press. With hundreds of millions of presses out there, all turning out copyrighted works (by the Berne Convention, everything is copyrighted upon creation), it is mathematically impossible to be aware of and avoid infringement of every other article.
This argument is just wrong. I don't disagree with your motives, but your argument is fundamentally flawed. The only time you could possibly make such an argument is if you somehow independently created a work that someone else had created previously. While this is possible, it's quite unlikely. As a publisher, you only need to know the copyright status of what you publish. Everything else is irrelavent. SInce you will know the origin of each piece, it's very "mathematically possible" to be aware of the copyright status of what you publish. Of course the submittor of a piece could be lying, either about it's provenance or it's legal status, but if you act in good faith you will be clear of most legal responsibility.
With DRM, we ensure artists get *something*, even if it is a nickel. Without it, there's a much better chance they'll get screwed totally
That's exactly the argument the RIAA uses. Of course it's absolute bullshit, but obviously people still believe it, otherwise you wouldn't have repeated it.
In the long run, artists gain nothing from DRM (Hell, even movie studios don't put much faith into it).
Consider that the average high-end artist makes about $.35 per CD sold (most earn less). So, after selling 1 million CD's, they have made $350,000. Now, consider if the artist put their CD on the web, DRM free, for $3.50. Now, instead of selling 1 million, they only have to sell 100,000 copies to make the same amount of money. Are some people going to pirate the CD then would otherwise? Probably. But not 90% more. And Far more people will shell out $3.50 for a CD then would pay $18 for the same CD. Even those pirated copies aren't that bad since people will be telling each other about it (Maybe put a short blurb before the first song: "Like this? Go to www.artist.com to support the artist.")
In the long run, record companies are doomed. They know this, but they are trying to put off the inevitable for as long as possible with pointless technological tricks like this. Most of their artists buy into the party line simply because they are not technologically savvy enough to know better. But once a few big name artists try it & do well, the whole house of cards will come down.
One more quick comment about this scheme (in case anybody is thinking about trying it): DON'T GET GREEDY! This ONLY works if the downloadable copy is priced as an impulse buy. $3.50 is about the highest you can go. More then that, and people WILL start to think "Why buy it when I can pirate it?". But at $3.50 (better yet, $3) or less, it's easier to just pay for it then to deal with the hassle of finding a copy of it. Remember, $3.50 is at least 10 times more then the record companies pay, so be happy with it!
In fields other than software, we are bound by international treaty to the current term (20 years from the date of the APPLICATION, which translates to approximately 17 years of effective term).
In fields other then software, there is usually real R&D invested. When Ford invents a new, more fuel efficient engine, they are truly creating an innovation, and have invested probably millions of dollars to do so. Because of this, I have no problem with a 20 year term on this sort of patent. Software patents, on the otherhand, are almost always much more trivial. While I'm sure there are occasional exceptional examples, I think the industry would be much better served by erring on the short side here.
Actually then the book will never go out of print.
But you're ignoring the first part of my statement. Copyrights should apply for 20 years -or- 5 years after going out of print. I would not be opposed to one 20 year renewal -by the original author-, and only on works that are in print, but more then 40 years is nonsense. I have a problem with someone writing one book when they are 20 & living off it for the next 70 years.
Again, enforcement of this would be problematic. It would be the utmost in trivialities for an author to keep up a webpage that offers for sale through his own shell publishing company his book, keeping some small token number of copies around, indefinitely extending the print period. This is why some finite number of years is better. It's an absolute. "X years from file date". End of story.
This is exactly what I said. 20 years -or- 5 years after going out of print, whichever comes sooner.
with the possible exception of Van Gogh who did suffer problems with copy cats and poorly made copies
Umm.... If I remember my high school art history class correctly, Van Gogh didn't sell a single painting during his lifetime... Not exactly the best artist to be pirating.
As I have posted before, the problem is not software patents but bad software patents. Patents on software which is not novel, or which is obvious should not have been granted in the first place, and this is where alot of work has to be done. Not by passing new laws or repealing old ones but by enforcing the ones we have.
I pretty much agree with you, but I have one other point. Software patents should not last for 20 years. Whether the one-click ordering process is novel enough to deserve a patent or not, it does not deserve 20 years worth of protection. The software industry by it's very nature moves faster then traditional "industrial" industries. I think three to five years is more then enough time for for software patents.
You clearly don't know the difference between a trademark, copyright, and patent. A trade mark is a word, short phrase, or image used to identify a company. Some examples of trademarks are "IBM", "We Make it Your Way", and the Apple Logo. Trademark protection does not prevent others from using your mark against your will. It only prevents people from using your mark fraudulently. I can compare my cola in my ads to Coca-Cola, but trying to sell it as Coco-Cola would probably get me sued.
If you want to use your 40-line method as your company trademark, feel free. Not only will it be the worst comapny name in history, it will give all of your competitors easy access top your "secrets", and there would be absolutely nothing you could do to stop them.
With a blanket alteration to law, one can simply set software to 15 year terms and patents to 7.
I think these terms are way off. I would like to see binary software have a copyright based on how long it's publisher supports it. 1 year after MS stops supporting Windows 98, its copyright expires. This accomplishes one of two goals: either companies will continue to provide support for software for longer, or they will be fforced to see them in the public domain. Either way, the end user wins. Source code is trickier, but I think a 10 year term is probably reasonable. Perhaps one 5 year renewal on top of that if the software is still marketed. There are few programs written more then 10 years ago that are still sold as-is.
I'm dead set against screwing over an author, (of books, etc) however. These guys aren't so creative when they get older, and really need to be able to generate the income.
I think a number of "Old Guys" would disagree with you on this. Either way, 90+ year copyrights don't help anyone except corporations and people with dead meal-tickets, err, relatives. Again, I would like to see copyright tied to publication. As long as a book, record, etc. remains in print, it should be copywritten for 20 years. If it goes out of print, its copyright should expire within 5 years. This gives companies an incentive to make older, more controversial, and less commercial works available. In print can include offering works in electronic form as long as the work is accessible, and offered at a reasonable price (say something like no more the 150% of the original price adjusted for inflation). Obviously these ideas are just off the cuff & probably have holes...
The way I understand it, they don't want to sell the drugs cheaply to third world countries because they fear that if they do, it will create a much larger black market for the drugs where they are bought cheaply and then sold to places where the drugs normally sell for more, namely the US and EU.
This is absolutely true, but I think it illustrates the original poster's point: The drug companies profit desire outweighs the right of the third-world countries to modern medications. While I'm not willing to go so far as to get rid of IP laws (Shorter terms are a much better solution), he does have a point here. While I can't offer a specific solution to the problem, it is an excellent example of the flaws in IP laws.
There's a lot to be learned about user-friendliness from the etch-a-sketch.
Man I wish I had mod points. Undoubtedly the most insightful comment I've heard all day.
I used to work for a large computer mail-order house. We had a customer who worked for NEC in Japan, in the PC division. Regardless of this, in order to get a NEC PC, he had to order it from us & have it shipped from the US. Apparently at the time, NEC didn't offer Windows-based PC's in Japan, and though he was just around the corner from the factory, company policy forbid him from getting one there.
Some will cry "but you can't SELL GPLed software!" This is a fallacy. There is nothing in the GPL that prohibits you from selling your software. If you are really worried about losing profits, just sell the binaries - and release the source code to paying customers who ask. By the rules of the GPL, this is completely allowable. You only have to give the source to people that you gave the binaries to.
Even this is overstating it. Under the GPL, there is nothing preventing the copyright holder from selling Microsoft the right to use the GPLed code in a commercial product & not give away the code. This is truly the best of both worlds since it allows Freedom for those who desire it and allows the author to profit from those who don't. The BSD license doesn't accomplish either of these goals half as well as the GPL. There are occasions when the BSD license is better, but it is clearly weaker in many respects.