Why not have encrypted movies that can only be played using an internet set top box or supply a pci card to end users that provides the decoding for the movie. Why force computers to encrypt all content just to support their subsription service.
This would be the same UPS that once told me it was illegal under FDA regulations to ship a laptop by air in order to cover up for their error in sending prepaid next-day air package by ground. I called the FDA they had no idea why UPS would think that.
Bear in mind this is not some kind of movie industry policing operation but merely an attempt by an inventor of a piece of technology to get paid by other manufacturers of that hardware.
This is the most blatent kind of infringement you could think of - on a par with trying to pass off your copied CD's as originals in a store.
I get very tired of watching events that happened on the west coast where I am three hours later than they actually happened just so they can keep the same schedule in all time zones.
So we pay the IOC $342 million in order to have the olympics happen here at all and then we get screwed on how we watch it - it seems for $342 million I should get a little more than that.
If the test uses a novel method to detect the presence of something fine patent it. But to allow a patent which basically describes itself as "A test for the presence of this sequence..." then you preclude any improvement in the technology because any new method would violate the patent - this isn't what patents are about.
I can see why patents should be granted on tests for paticular genetic problems but now why sequences of genes themselves are patentable as they weren't invented by the person that transcribed the sequence. The reasoning the corporations have for patenting the DNA itself is that they can prevent others testing for that gene at all - therefore preventing alternative inventions that have the same benefit.
oh yeah I missed the story a while back on how everybody who runs a home lan without paying $6.95 per computer on top of their existing cable internet fee is stealing cable service (yes the cable companies really said that) and so I'll pretend the author of this story is a moron to cover up for my own lack of information.
Get real - this is really happening - they've been threatening to go after anybody using nat for months - sure you can pay $40 a month for internet access but don't you dare use it.
It's time the FCC introduced a legal distinction between Internet access (ie you pay for bandwidth and your supplier doesn't care what you do with it) and the crap being sold by the cable companies.
Windows was a generic term before microsoft claimed it - I case you haven't noticed they've laid claim to Word, Access, Publisher, Windows,... all were perfectly normal english words until microsoft claimed them
Computers even had windowing systems long before microsoft windows came into existance. The term WIMPs was one thrown around in the early days of windowing systems - go look it up !
Disney on the other hand never was an English word - and if we follow your logic disney should have microsoft shutdown for selling the Microsoft Mouse.
hmmm audio CD-R's for $20 - last time I looked I could get like 20 of them for that. Sure they're more expensive than data CD-R's but not that much any more.
It's amazing how many stores try to treat a defective product return like a "I just didn't want it return".
In general the law regards the sale of a defective product as a breach of contract by the retailer. You are therefore entitled to your money back, (possibly damages for losses suffered as a result of the products being defective).
The whole act was about giving SCMS the force of law and providing for royalties on blank media - it follows therefore that within the meaning of the act they were talking about SCMS encoded recordings. I may be stretching it a bit but the whole act was concerned with empowering customers with the right to make a copy of an original and not a copy of a copy.
Oddly enough a digital music recording under the act is one which incorporates SCMS and is by definition copyable - see the sections on improper SCMS coding and the penalties.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not have encrypted movies that can only be played using an internet set top box or supply a pci card to end users that provides the decoding for the movie. Why force computers to encrypt all content just to support their subsription service.
Wouldn't it have made more sense for the product to contact an authentication server as a separate action to connecting to a game server ?
I doubt it - obscurity is not a copy protection system. Inventing a new media is not in itself copy protection.
A copying device does not circumvent protection unless there is some technological measure in place to prevent idle copying.
Are GBA cartridges encrypted or otherwise copy protected? if not 1201(b) does not apply.
This would be the same UPS that once told me it was illegal under FDA regulations to ship a laptop by air in order to cover up for their error in sending prepaid next-day air package by ground. I called the FDA they had no idea why UPS would think that.
Manufacturing / importing & selling of conterfeit products is a crime - that is exactly what is going on here.
If philips wanted an IP war for the heck of it they'd try enforcing their trademark on the term VCR - but they don't.
Bear in mind this is not some kind of movie industry policing operation but merely an attempt by an inventor of a piece of technology to get paid by other manufacturers of that hardware.
This is the most blatent kind of infringement you could think of - on a par with trying to pass off your copied CD's as originals in a store.
I get very tired of watching events that happened on the west coast where I am three hours later than they actually happened just so they can keep the same schedule in all time zones.
*This message recorded live earlier*
not to mention that right now my local NBC station has like car racing instead of the olympics on anyway.
So we pay the IOC $342 million in order to have the olympics happen here at all and then we get screwed on how we watch it - it seems for $342 million I should get a little more than that.
No you missed the point ....
..." then you preclude any improvement in the technology because any new method would violate the patent - this isn't what patents are about.
If the test uses a novel method to detect the presence of something fine patent it. But to allow a patent which basically describes itself as "A test for the presence of this sequence
I can see why patents should be granted on tests for paticular genetic problems but now why sequences of genes themselves are patentable as they weren't invented by the person that transcribed the sequence. The reasoning the corporations have for patenting the DNA itself is that they can prevent others testing for that gene at all - therefore preventing alternative inventions that have the same benefit.
Ok - so now we can RBL microsoft / doubleclick etc. for actively promoting spamming !!
oh yeah I missed the story a while back on how everybody who runs a home lan without paying $6.95 per computer on top of their existing cable internet fee is stealing cable service (yes the cable companies really said that) and so I'll pretend the author of this story is a moron to cover up for my own lack of information.
Get real - this is really happening - they've been threatening to go after anybody using nat for months - sure you can pay $40 a month for internet access but don't you dare use it.
It's time the FCC introduced a legal distinction between Internet access (ie you pay for bandwidth and your supplier doesn't care what you do with it) and the crap being sold by the cable companies.
But you are buying the license which oddly enough the courts do regard as transferable with the CD. Ask adobe about that one :-)
Windows was a generic term before microsoft claimed it - I case you haven't noticed they've laid claim to Word, Access, Publisher, Windows,... all were perfectly normal english words until microsoft claimed them
Computers even had windowing systems long before microsoft windows came into existance. The term WIMPs was one thrown around in the early days of windowing systems - go look it up !
Disney on the other hand never was an English word - and if we follow your logic disney should have microsoft shutdown for selling the Microsoft Mouse.
oh yeah - maybe you should read one of their old oem contracts (before they were forced by the current litigation to change them)
If you bought a computer from a manufacturer with Linux installed on it - they still had to charge you for a copy of windows.
If you buy a computer with windows installed on it and don't use it then you still have to pay for it.
This seems like being overcharged to me - you have to pay for it whether you want it or not.
Remember that the Electronics industry is worth a lot more than the record industry.
Yes but the CD-DA trademark doesn't expire - and licensing of the mark required adherence to the standards set by Philips.
hmmm audio CD-R's for $20 - last time I looked I could get like 20 of them for that. Sure they're more expensive than data CD-R's but not that much any more.
It's amazing how many stores try to treat a defective product return like a "I just didn't want it return".
In general the law regards the sale of a defective product as a breach of contract by the retailer. You are therefore entitled to your money back, (possibly damages for losses suffered as a result of the products being defective).
The whole act was about giving SCMS the force of law and providing for royalties on blank media - it follows therefore that within the meaning of the act they were talking about SCMS encoded recordings. I may be stretching it a bit but the whole act was concerned with empowering customers with the right to make a copy of an original and not a copy of a copy.
I particularly like the 33 and 1/3 split - was somebody getting sentimental about their turntable there ?
Oddly enough a digital music recording under the act is one which incorporates SCMS and is by definition copyable - see the sections on improper SCMS coding and the penalties.