Most companies would respond by removing Cnet from their search results and taking them to court. Cnet, run-of-the-mill crud reporters that they are don't deserve to talk to Google.
Yeah, the shuttle shouldn't be used at all unless they're bringing an orbiting satellite back to earth. That was its original advantage right? to bring stuff up... and back?
Supply-only missions don't need all these fancy wings, cargo bays and heat shields.
I would wager that the full model goes something like this:
Buy encryption technology under the threat of "sell to MS or compete with MS"
License encryption technology to hardware companies under threat of "use MS tech or be locked out of the PC market", profit.
License encryption technology to media companies under threat of "use MS tech or be locked out of the PC market", profit.
Demand that companies creating hardware compatible with Windows not create hardware which can be used with non-blessed hardware/software.
Use public resources (courts and federal police) to protect encryption technology through the DMCA, spend nothing.
Make encryption technology prohibitive for free software development, crush competition.
For the average shmoe watching their Disney videos on their MS Home Theatre, there won't be a problem.
The joe-blow with an old T.V. set might even see the "degraded" signal just fine on their old tube... i.e. it might only be degraded to old T.V. resolutions.
Home videos will work fine when produced with blessed hardware... but blessed hardware won't be able to even record content when pointed at blessed televisions (subliminal "do not record" signal through the flicker rate or something)
The only people who suffer are...... free software users and developers? Small media companies who can't afford the special "do not modify/copy" license keys to protect their products? Hardware hackers who like to play with stuff?
I think the only logical conclusion there is that an unstable government is worse for the leaders of the business world than losing their influence in the government offices. (although instability is not bad for new businesses who can take advantage of
movement of money, but they have no power until instability appears, then they become the leaders).
Either that or they have influence in all major political parties:-)
Naw, your country's military is there to apply force as your politicians deem in their best interest.
E.g. to bennefit the people who brought them to power and keep them in power, like the leaders of the politicial party, the lobby groups and the campaign sponsors.
Maybe we can get the Wayback machine to send a message into the past so that this can be implemented before the web takes off and this conversation will never happen:-)
You can't legally prevent the person who makes an archive for their own purposes from giving away the archived copy and deleting the original. It's just like giving somebody an old book.
You can't legally prevent the person from making multiple archives for their own purposes and giving away the archved copies, deleting the originals. It's just like having a crate of the same book.
What happened to archive.org's original copy of the document? Can't they legitimately answer questions about the document? Can't they legitimately "loan" their copy of the document out? How do they do that with an electronic document? Why is it so much harder to loan out an electronic document than a paper document?
Electronic documents made available to the public aren't quite like paper documents made available to the public.
Why is it reasonable to assume that all electronic copies in circulation are destroyed when a website takes a page down?
I'm not too concerned about the distribution of works, and I do see the harm in many scenarios. But is there any way to retain and make publically available a historical record of events as seen on the Internet without causing these problems?
Newspapers have old hardcopies which can't be refuted, books have the same, technical articles too. Without an independent archive, once a page is changed, all public record of its previous content is destroyed.
There's harm in not having an archive too.. e.g. by not having dated evidence of the abuse of your trademark:-)
Or... in the case of copyright, it can protect you from plagarists trying to steal your work... which is very, very common on the Internet.
"...with the consequent reduction of copyright to meaningless red tape for anything Internet-based."
To split hairs, I mean the web, but that's pretty much what I'm saying. You make it sound so evil though.
To put it another way, anything you publish publicly, electronically, with no EULA's or access controls can be republished electronically by anyone at any time with full credits attached in the future.
There must be some difference between hardcopy and softcopy. A hardcopy after all can be duplicated for personal use, and given away provided all other copies are destroyed.
If you obtain multiple hardcopies legitimately, you can redistribute those multiple copies, provided you don't create additional copies.
If Archive.org were to obtain 100 newspaper copies of the site, stockpile them, then distribute them upon request, would it be copyright violation?
If Archive.org were to visit the site 100 times, and print 100 copies (for personal use), then destroy those electronic copies and, when asked, mail a hardcopy to a requester, then copyright law is not broken... right?
How about it if they visit 100 times, don't print the copies, but store them electronically (for personal use) and when asked, serve an electronic copy of the document to the requester (deleting one of the original softcopies)?
I think you see where this is going.
I know, it's all hypothetical, but I don't think the current copyright laws make sense for public softcopies.
I think there is a difference. In most cases the copyright holder never posted a free copy of their MP3 or warez on the Internet which could be spidered or archived.
"unfortunately for your argument, the legal truth is that copyright protection is the DEFAULT, so robots.txt has it backwards. the fact of the matter is that to be (more) compatible with existing law, there should be an allowcache.txt, not a robots.txt."
I would agree, but I'm arguing that archiving and redistribution is part of the medium that the copyrighted work was published in. The webmaster of the site certainly knew that the site would be archived. They would also know that robots.txt is a voluntary process.
In other words... if they wanted to make sure it wouldn't be archived, they shouldn't have put it on the web.
Oddly, the Internet Archive honours robots.txt, so if you don't want people to surf your archive, you can just post their robots.txt file and it will block everything, even into the past.
I would say that caching and archiving are so well understood to be part of the Internet that posting a web page and not expecting it to be archived or spidered is absurd. In other words, by posting their site to the web without a robots.txt, they knowingly published it in a medium which contains facilities for archiving and later redistribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Most companies would respond by removing Cnet from their search results and taking them to court. Cnet, run-of-the-mill crud reporters that they are don't deserve to talk to Google.
Yeah, the shuttle shouldn't be used at all unless they're bringing an orbiting satellite back to earth. That was its original advantage right? to bring stuff up... and back?
Supply-only missions don't need all these fancy wings, cargo bays and heat shields.
Since Bush is in public service to the citizenry, I suppose he should not be fraternizing with his employers on or off duty.
A lot changes in 40 minutes.
Wow, a true test of Bittorent, 1.4% done and I'm uploading 5x as fast as I download. 1 hour estimated download :-)
In 2002, it was the ultimate video game platform.
Absolutely. I despise this stuff.
I would wager that the full model goes something like this:
For the average shmoe watching their Disney videos on their MS Home Theatre, there won't be a problem.
The joe-blow with an old T.V. set might even see the "degraded" signal just fine on their old tube... i.e. it might only be degraded to old T.V. resolutions.
Home videos will work fine when produced with blessed hardware... but blessed hardware won't be able to even record content when pointed at blessed televisions (subliminal "do not record" signal through the flicker rate or something)
The only people who suffer are... ... free software users and developers? Small media companies who can't afford the special "do not modify/copy" license keys to protect their products? Hardware hackers who like to play with stuff?
I think the idea is to have your livingroom flatpanel HD TV support this so that it just doesn't matter.
I think the only logical conclusion there is that an unstable government is worse for the leaders of the business world than losing their influence in the government offices. (although instability is not bad for new businesses who can take advantage of movement of money, but they have no power until instability appears, then they become the leaders).
Either that or they have influence in all major political parties :-)
POS terminals with LCD touchscreens are pretty common and seem to work well enough.
Somebody beat you to the idea :-)
Naw, your country's military is there to apply force as your politicians deem in their best interest.
E.g. to bennefit the people who brought them to power and keep them in power, like the leaders of the politicial party, the lobby groups and the campaign sponsors.
It bugs me when people talk about "their" military like a sports team.
We'll kick your butt!
Blegh.
It's just wrong on so many levels. Sorry to pick on you. I know everyone does it.
"What you are arguing is..."
And one by one the straw men are all blown away!
That's a good ideal, it's sensible.
Maybe we can get the Wayback machine to send a message into the past so that this can be implemented before the web takes off and this conversation will never happen :-)
You can't legally prevent the person who makes an archive for their own purposes from giving away the archived copy and deleting the original. It's just like giving somebody an old book.
You can't legally prevent the person from making multiple archives for their own purposes and giving away the archved copies, deleting the originals. It's just like having a crate of the same book.
What happened to archive.org's original copy of the document? Can't they legitimately answer questions about the document? Can't they legitimately "loan" their copy of the document out? How do they do that with an electronic document? Why is it so much harder to loan out an electronic document than a paper document?
Electronic documents made available to the public aren't quite like paper documents made available to the public.
Why is it reasonable to assume that all electronic copies in circulation are destroyed when a website takes a page down?
I'm not too concerned about the distribution of works, and I do see the harm in many scenarios. But is there any way to retain and make publically available a historical record of events as seen on the Internet without causing these problems?
Newspapers have old hardcopies which can't be refuted, books have the same, technical articles too. Without an independent archive, once a page is changed, all public record of its previous content is destroyed.
There's harm in not having an archive too.. e.g. by not having dated evidence of the abuse of your trademark :-)
Or... in the case of copyright, it can protect you from plagarists trying to steal your work... which is very, very common on the Internet.
"...with the consequent reduction of copyright to meaningless red tape for anything Internet-based."
To split hairs, I mean the web, but that's pretty much what I'm saying. You make it sound so evil though.
To put it another way, anything you publish publicly, electronically, with no EULA's or access controls can be republished electronically by anyone at any time with full credits attached in the future.
There must be some difference between hardcopy and softcopy. A hardcopy after all can be duplicated for personal use, and given away provided all other copies are destroyed.
If you obtain multiple hardcopies legitimately, you can redistribute those multiple copies, provided you don't create additional copies.
If Archive.org were to obtain 100 newspaper copies of the site, stockpile them, then distribute them upon request, would it be copyright violation?
If Archive.org were to visit the site 100 times, and print 100 copies (for personal use), then destroy those electronic copies and, when asked, mail a hardcopy to a requester, then copyright law is not broken... right?
How about it if they visit 100 times, don't print the copies, but store them electronically (for personal use) and when asked, serve an electronic copy of the document to the requester (deleting one of the original softcopies)?
I think you see where this is going.
I know, it's all hypothetical, but I don't think the current copyright laws make sense for public softcopies.
Of course not, it was slashdotted.
I think there is a difference. In most cases the copyright holder never posted a free copy of their MP3 or warez on the Internet which could be spidered or archived.
"unfortunately for your argument, the legal truth is that copyright protection is the DEFAULT, so robots.txt has it backwards. the fact of the matter is that to be (more) compatible with existing law, there should be an allowcache.txt, not a robots.txt."
I would agree, but I'm arguing that archiving and redistribution is part of the medium that the copyrighted work was published in. The webmaster of the site certainly knew that the site would be archived. They would also know that robots.txt is a voluntary process.
In other words... if they wanted to make sure it wouldn't be archived, they shouldn't have put it on the web.
Oddly, the Internet Archive honours robots.txt, so if you don't want people to surf your archive, you can just post their robots.txt file and it will block everything, even into the past.
I would say that caching and archiving are so well understood to be part of the Internet that posting a web page and not expecting it to be archived or spidered is absurd. In other words, by posting their site to the web without a robots.txt, they knowingly published it in a medium which contains facilities for archiving and later redistribution.
The new tech is called "Canon"
Clippy: "Hey! You didn't agree to the terms of your license agreement!
User: "Cancel"
Clippy: "You've just committed a capital offense!"
User: "Cancel"
Clippy: "Would you like to write a note to your family"
User: "Cancel"
Clippy "MS Death Squad(TM) has been dispatched. Are you sure you wouldn't like to write a note to your family?"
User: "Cancel"
I'm sure they'll still charge $200, only now it will be for a 1 year license rather than this year's edition.
I have to wonder what you do when you do detect something?
The way these guys seem to work, as soon as they get a hint that they might have been spotted they'll just detonate the thing.