What about an office in either USPTO or LOC that registers copyright holders?
Berne.
Does anyone see a reason why this wouldn't work?
Berne.
More specifically: "Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration"
The idea has been voiced several times by copyright scholars and others, and it isn't such a bad idea (would fix the orphan works problem, works not making money anymore would enter public domain sooner). The largest stumbling block to make it a reality is that it would require changing international copyright treaties.
Qt went GPL in 2000, wasn't it? My memory might be failing me, I remember there was a lot of noise from Stallman before Qt went GPL but not after - at least not directed at Trolltech. He made a statement regarding the KDE developers and repentance, but that was iirc directed at KDE devs, not TT.
Then again, Stallman is not exactly known for his diplomatic skills.
But I would expect liquid water to have a continuous absorption spectrum, with no sharp peaks in it
RF absorption of water generally increase with higher frequencies. H2O has rotational frequencies at (ok, I googled it) 22.235 GHz and 183.31 GHz, so you have absorption peaks around those. http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/atm_ab sorption.htm
There's nothing magical about 2.4GHz when it comes to heating water and other dipoles (microwave ovens work by dielectric heating, not by rotational resonance. You need 10+GHz to get resonance with water molecules). Industrial ovens often use 900MHz and they work just as well.
Why 2.4GHz? Because it one of very few frequency bands that are internationally available for unlicensed use. Which is also the reason why microwave ovens, some cordless phones, bluetooth and lots of other stuff use it.
CC is designed to only work in the twisted DRM all the way to the output device mindset that we see in Windows Vista. You can't plunk a CableCard into an existing computer. The PC has to be certified by CableLabs, which means that you have to buy a pre-packaged HTPC or a 'CableCard ready' PC. And no futzing around with the OS, hardware or drivers inside that machine, or you risk decertifying the box. So certified, pre-built Vista PCs only.
A PC with CableCard will have more in common with the locked-down cable box you have today than a regular PC.
The only good thing about this is that the next couple of years should provide fertile ground for recruiting copyfighters. Imagine the cries and howls we'll hear when audiophiles discover that analog audio outputs are quality downgraded, and digital outputs that don't support DRM (i.e. everything except audio over HDMI-HDCP) are either disabled or quality downgraded. The same with people that paid a lot for HDMI monitors and TVs that don't support HDCP.
Wait, you expect AMD to bootstrap an entirely different concept of computing? The history of technology is littered with the corpses of early birds which starved because the new fields they went looking in didn't have any worms.
Also, the CSS contract was the only thing preventing legal personal DVD ripping tools
As far as I can tell, not quite. The DMCA anti-circumvention rule is what is preventing legal ripping tools.
According to the DMCA it is illegal to circumvent (or provide tools to circumvent) a TPM without the authorization of the copyright holder. MPAA's view is that unless you signed the DVDCCA license, you are not authorized to make devices that can access/play back CSS-scrambled DVDs.
I think a more sane rule would be that you gain authorization when you buy a DVD, and that legal ownership of the DVD would give you the right to 'circumvent' a TPM as long as the purpose is a non-infringing use. I doubt MPAA would like to see this question argued in court, so they have been going after people providing circumvention tools (DeCSS) instead of going after people watching DVD movies on Linux machines.
Quoting wikipedia, mandatory precedent is set when: "A judicial precedent attaches a specific legal consequence to a detailed set of facts in an adjudged case or judicial decision, which is then considered as furnishing the rule for the determination of a subsequent case involving identical or similar material facts and arising in the same court or a lower court in the judicial hierarchy"
As far as I understand, non-precedent decisions are 'can look at if you want' in that judges can look at other decisions in order to guide their own ruling. They are however not required to do so unless the other decisions is a mandatory precedent.
Fair Use is not a slam-dunk free for all when it comes to making private copies for personal use, fair use can be more accurately described as 'the right to hire a lawyer and spend lots of money in an attempt to argue that your particular use is a fair use'. Some times, the courts make precedent which has somewhat bright lines (sony betamax, substantial non-infringing) but that doesn't mean that you won't have to spend money in court even if it is fairly obvious that the use is fair (diamond rio pmp 300).
Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement. It is not a defense to circumvention.
That's one of the thing that really bothers me about the dmca. The anti-circumvention rules have a larger footprint than copyright law itself. The result being that if we enter a world saturated with DRM, we effectively replace copyright law with private enforcement of what the DRM makers think copyright law should look like.
If you unauthorizedly decrypt a DVD
That's number two on the list. What does 'authorized' mean? According to Hollywood, 'authorized' means 'device is produced by someone who signed the DVDCCA license'. The thing is, how is the user supposed to know whether the far east manufacturer of a DVD player signed the license or not. The result is that authorization is used as a stick to enforce a licensing cartel.
I'd really like a court to take a serious look at that question - exactly what 'authorized' means, and how that authorization is conveyed(sp?) from the copyright holder to the end user.
I wonder what the common denominator is amongst old/. geezers. Perhaps a disdain for the/. editors and an itch in the reply button when we see the name Jon Katz.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget Padme, I want to see Pink Five as a kid.
What about an office in either USPTO or LOC that registers copyright holders?
Berne.
Does anyone see a reason why this wouldn't work?
Berne.
More specifically:
"Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration"
The idea has been voiced several times by copyright scholars and others, and it isn't such a bad idea (would fix the orphan works problem, works not making money anymore would enter public domain sooner). The largest stumbling block to make it a reality is that it would require changing international copyright treaties.
I find that there's so much news that it is too slow to read web pages. My RSS reader is absolutely necessary.
I believe every important tech news feed I read has been mentioned here already, except for GMSV.
Qt went GPL in 2000, wasn't it? My memory might be failing me, I remember there was a lot of noise from Stallman before Qt went GPL but not after - at least not directed at Trolltech. He made a statement regarding the KDE developers and repentance, but that was iirc directed at KDE devs, not TT.
Then again, Stallman is not exactly known for his diplomatic skills.
Given the history of emacs
Of which emacs do you speak? There have been many. Gosmacs?
and the trolltech bashing
Well, RMS was right on that one. You can't build a free desktop on top of non-free software.
Dashed red line is Oxygen (O2).
RMS has never been opposed to people making money writing software, what he's opposed to is people making non-GPL'd software.
i emans.html
If you are interested, look into Cygnus Solutions and how they made a business out of developing, maintaining and providing support for GCC. http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/t
..as exemplified in the famous Torvalds - Tanenbaum debate? ;-)
*ducks and runs*
But I would expect liquid water to have a continuous absorption spectrum, with no sharp peaks in it
b sorption.htm
RF absorption of water generally increase with higher frequencies. H2O has rotational frequencies at (ok, I googled it) 22.235 GHz and 183.31 GHz, so you have absorption peaks around those. http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/atm_a
There's nothing magical about 2.4GHz when it comes to heating water and other dipoles (microwave ovens work by dielectric heating, not by rotational resonance. You need 10+GHz to get resonance with water molecules). Industrial ovens often use 900MHz and they work just as well.
Why 2.4GHz? Because it one of very few frequency bands that are internationally available for unlicensed use. Which is also the reason why microwave ovens, some cordless phones, bluetooth and lots of other stuff use it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band
I was thinking more in the direction of CSI - WAN
- This is /.
- The topic is MitM attacks
- Someone posts a link to anus.com
Any decent content filter would mark that one as suspect.
http://www.pchdtv.com/faq.php#faq0000008
That's for non-premium/unencrypted cable. CableCard is for encrypted cable.
CableCard is even more of a PITA than that.
1 .html
See f.ex. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060131-608
CC is designed to only work in the twisted DRM all the way to the output device mindset that we see in Windows Vista. You can't plunk a CableCard into an existing computer. The PC has to be certified by CableLabs, which means that you have to buy a pre-packaged HTPC or a 'CableCard ready' PC. And no futzing around with the OS, hardware or drivers inside that machine, or you risk decertifying the box. So certified, pre-built Vista PCs only.
A PC with CableCard will have more in common with the locked-down cable box you have today than a regular PC.
The only good thing about this is that the next couple of years should provide fertile ground for recruiting copyfighters. Imagine the cries and howls we'll hear when audiophiles discover that analog audio outputs are quality downgraded, and digital outputs that don't support DRM (i.e. everything except audio over HDMI-HDCP) are either disabled or quality downgraded. The same with people that paid a lot for HDMI monitors and TVs that don't support HDCP.
Silly me. I thought the problem with IE was that it didn't hold the web back, but instead let all those pesky crawlies infest your PC.
Exactly the same was said about AI. That is, before they actually tried to use it to solve real world problems.
Is the current state of COSA a web-page with some ideas, or is tools and a VM available so that people can actually play with it?
Wait, you expect AMD to bootstrap an entirely different concept of computing? The history of technology is littered with the corpses of early birds which starved because the new fields they went looking in didn't have any worms.
Our U3 technology was crap
What I don't get is why they thought enabling autorun on USB sticks was a good idea. Makes me remember the good old days of boot block viruses.
Also, the CSS contract was the only thing preventing legal personal DVD ripping tools
As far as I can tell, not quite. The DMCA anti-circumvention rule is what is preventing legal ripping tools.
According to the DMCA it is illegal to circumvent (or provide tools to circumvent) a TPM without the authorization of the copyright holder. MPAA's view is that unless you signed the DVDCCA license, you are not authorized to make devices that can access/play back CSS-scrambled DVDs.
I think a more sane rule would be that you gain authorization when you buy a DVD, and that legal ownership of the DVD would give you the right to 'circumvent' a TPM as long as the purpose is a non-infringing use. I doubt MPAA would like to see this question argued in court, so they have been going after people providing circumvention tools (DeCSS) instead of going after people watching DVD movies on Linux machines.
Quoting wikipedia, mandatory precedent is set when: "A judicial precedent attaches a specific legal consequence to a detailed set of facts in an adjudged case or judicial decision, which is then considered as furnishing the rule for the determination of a subsequent case involving identical or similar material facts and arising in the same court or a lower court in the judicial hierarchy"
As far as I understand, non-precedent decisions are 'can look at if you want' in that judges can look at other decisions in order to guide their own ruling. They are however not required to do so unless the other decisions is a mandatory precedent.
IANAL, etc.
Exactly.
Fair Use is not a slam-dunk free for all when it comes to making private copies for personal use, fair use can be more accurately described as 'the right to hire a lawyer and spend lots of money in an attempt to argue that your particular use is a fair use'. Some times, the courts make precedent which has somewhat bright lines (sony betamax, substantial non-infringing) but that doesn't mean that you won't have to spend money in court even if it is fairly obvious that the use is fair (diamond rio pmp 300).
Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement. It is not a defense to circumvention.
That's one of the thing that really bothers me about the dmca. The anti-circumvention rules have a larger footprint than copyright law itself. The result being that if we enter a world saturated with DRM, we effectively replace copyright law with private enforcement of what the DRM makers think copyright law should look like.
If you unauthorizedly decrypt a DVD
That's number two on the list. What does 'authorized' mean? According to Hollywood, 'authorized' means 'device is produced by someone who signed the DVDCCA license'. The thing is, how is the user supposed to know whether the far east manufacturer of a DVD player signed the license or not. The result is that authorization is used as a stick to enforce a licensing cartel.
I'd really like a court to take a serious look at that question - exactly what 'authorized' means, and how that authorization is conveyed(sp?) from the copyright holder to the end user.
Contract? What contract?
The contract that DVD player manufacturers enter with the DVDCCA. RTFA?
"Written down many years later", seems to have been the contemporary standard.
I wonder what the common denominator is amongst old /. geezers. Perhaps a disdain for the /. editors and an itch in the reply button when we see the name Jon Katz.