Re:It's a single-use, non-transferrable license ..
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 2
Well to be fair, this is being filtered as you say through a media organizations lackeys... so who can really tell by this report exactly what the problem is with the creation of their database.
I'm willing to bet its not really the *Creation* of the database that's the problem, but the distribution of items from that database to 3rd parties (thus violating the non-transferrable single-use backup copy provision of copyright law).
This is definitely an interesting study in heuristics, if nothing else...:)
MP3 is, by nature, a modification of the original content. RIAA can argue that taking the latest Britney song and encoding it at 56kbit/s, 16-bit stereo is a *modification* of their original material, and thus constitutes a copyright violation.
About the only workaround I see for this is if MP3.COM made ISO's of their CD database for people to download, but that's ludicrous.
Ironic, isn't it, that the very same thing that is *keeping* the majors from entering the online distribution arena (high-bit depth, large quantities of data in their existing PCM-based audio encoding scheme used for CD's) is also now being used as a *defense* against other's taking that material and putting it on the 'net in compressed, highly workable form (MP3).
The license which allows you to make a single copy of a piece of music for your own uses is a double-edged sword. You can make your own copy, but you can't give that copy to anyone else - *EVEN IF* they also have the same CD. The license is non-transferrable.
So MP3.COM's massive database of songs is cool and kosher, and they're allowed to build it - they're just not allowed to let anyone else access it, under the single-use non-transfer license clause by which most commercial music is covered.
I think that's the crux of the issue. It sucks, but it's going to be interesting to see how this one progresses...
(Please note, I'm not a proponent of the RIAA - I'm all for free music, I'm just trying to get my head around the differing viewpoints in this case)
Re:Ask yourself this: Where did the MP3 come from?
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 2
That's interesting. I was under the impression they weren't ASCAP licensed, for some reason.
If that's the case, then my argument has no value, unless their ASCAP license only permits radio wave-transmission, not Internet.
The crux of this case (I believe) is not whether or not its legal for an end-user to listen to an MP3 of a CD that they own, but whether its legal for a company (such as MP3.COM) to *make* MP3's for redistribution to end-users, from original CD's.
It's not a case over whether or not you have a right to listen to MP3's of your own CD's. You *do* have a right to do that.
It's a case over whether or not MP3.COM can 'steal' (RIAA's terms, not mine) music from other CD manufacturers, for re-distribution. When you sign up for their service you are downloading MP3's of CD's you already own, but which were *made* by MP3.COM. This is the crux of the legal wrangling that RIAA is using to try to bring down the bull of MP3.COM, so to speak...
What this is more similar to, as a case, is radio stations. RIAA's clientele already have vast quantities of precedent for radio stations retransmitting their material, and there's a thing called a 'license agreement' that a radio network must agree to before it can broadcast the latest Britney song... RIAA is arguing that MP3.COM have violated copyrights, much the same way that a Pirate Radio station would have done, by broadcasting material for which they (MP3) haven't obtained a right to use from RIAA's clientele...
Now, it could be that after all of this, MP3 and RIAA go into some sort of licensing agreement which allows MP3 to make MP3's of RIAA's clientele's CD's, but more than likely this won't happen - RIAA is too bloodthirsty, and the music industry already full of hyena's, that this will probably just result in MP3.COM's downfall, sadly. It could be a simple matter, but alas - greedy pigs in the music industry don't see it that way, if they can't control it.
That's just my understanding of this lawsuit, so don't quote me, and please correct me if I'm wrong in assessing this.
Thanks for pointing all this out - I'm familiar with fstab, just not familiar with shm use in Linux... reading the Documentation/Changes file now, which also appears to answer my other questions related to how to find out more about the new features in the new kernel.
For the longest time (been a Linux *user* since 1994, the days of Yggdrasil, pre-RedHat), I've never even bothered to really read the kernel docs, I'm ashamed to admit. Most of the time, for me anyway, it's been a matter of build the kernel, install the kernel, run the kernel (for a year or so), then upgrade a year later...:) And I'm happy to say, it's been totally worth it all along.
Can you provide more details about how to set up/etc/fstab, or point me (us) in the direction of a web page that has a reference for how to use these new features in the Kernel?
I'd be really happy to get into using 2.3.99, but I don't really have a lot of time to wade through the sources looking for details on how to use the new features. I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but maybe there's a page out there that contains a guideline for the new features and more importantly - how they might be used?
... Get the Japanese government to enforce a weapons order on the export of >=2 PS2's, and you effectively cut out *all* foreign importer shops who would be willing to buy a bunch in Japan and sell them for $600 here in the US. In other words, only individuals can buy 'em directly from Japan, one at a time.
I bet we won't see this one get sorted out any time soon - at least not until after the US launch of the PSX2.
It shouldn't *MATTER* to the games programmer whether or not they are doing their network code over a Modem line, or using the local LAN port.
This is what device drivers are for.
And this is *far* more important an issue than whether or not the PSX2 ships with a LAN card or modem out of the box... yet nobody is really looking at this, because the OS part of these consoles is not subject to the same sort of review that OS's like Windows or Linux are.
Microsoft's X-Box presumably is designed around the same concepts of modern OS technology, with a driver layer between the API and the wire. This may in fact be to their advantage, because it means that developers can write software without having to worry about whether or not a particular peripheral is installed - this task should be a function of the OS, not the App (Game).
So in my opinion, its more relevant to investigate whether or not the PSX2 gaming API's are device-agnostic due to a well written (and well supported) device driver layer from Sony... because if this is *not the case* (as in the past, with the PSX2), then X-Box has a leg up on PSX2...
... as a hobby, and I agree with you. It is a matter of pride.
But it's also, for a lot of programmers (such as myself) a way of getting *outside* the box, yet still applying similar modes of thought.
Designing a desk or shelf system, or working out how to scale a particular design to your own environment, then going ahead and building it out of wood with your own tools is a form of 'programming' - at least, similar faculties are being applied.
And in my case, I find it to be extremely rewarding to kick back in the wood shop after a long night of cutting and carving, and seeing the results of my handiwork in front of me. It's 2am, I could've been coding, but I've been applying similar modes of operation and I've got something that is *tangible*, that I can show my non-computer-literate friends (who "get it" with my wood working more so than they do with my software), and that is instantly usable.
Perhaps a similar situation is occuring with the overclockers of the world - it is a way to apply the same sorts of thought modes to a realworld situation and achieve a tangible product.
BTW, for any burned-out programmer types out there, I really can't recommend getting into carpentry or metalwork strongly enough. After a week of code grind, it's really quite relieving to hack around in the workshop over the weekend, design and build a bunch of furniture. Very refreshing way of preparing yourself for another week of code burn...
On the one hand they complain about the incredible flexibility that XUL gives a GUI designer.
Then they complain that it won't make the usability of the product any better, only worse.
Then they preach on and on about how GUI design is a fine art.
Well, to that I have to say:
1. GUI designers need good tools. With XUL, GUI designers actually *have* good tools.
2. If the program is unusable, people won't use it, and the program won't survive. It's that simple. If it is very user friendly ('usable'), then it'll stick around, and the GUI will have worked properly.
What they should have written this article about was the total flexibility that Mozilla gives in terms of user interface design, and what effect that will have on Explorer...
I mean, I *never* in my wildest dreams imagined Lara Croft to be an incestuous brother-lovin' goth wannabe. Shee-it.
That's a real stretch.
But oh well, things change, you move on, you know? I mean, I'm no longer droolin' over Lara like I used to - nowadays its the chicks from DOA2 that are keeping my thumbs sore...
Guess I was too lazy when I posted that earlier today... so thanks for doing my web browsing for me.
And I guess I'll also just go get my question ("Is the 4-wire adapter compatible with the 6-wire one, and are there convertors so I can use the i.link port on my Sony laptop?") answered when I have some free time to read the IEEE1394 trade association web site...
:)
Sure, put it in simpsons.dtd.
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 2
I thought that Apple designed and patented the *connectors* that are used in the Firewire specification, but only *participated* in the working group consisting of a number of companies (Sony, Phillips, Yamaha, etc) that actually invented the Firewire spec.
In other words, its incorrect to say that Apple invented Firewire... but they did invent the *connectors*.
Could someone with a better working knowledge of how the IEEE-1394 spec was presented clear this up? Or, point me in the direction of details about where this technology actually came from...
Slashdot Mirror
Well to be fair, this is being filtered as you say through a media organizations lackeys... so who can really tell by this report exactly what the problem is with the creation of their database.
:)
I'm willing to bet its not really the *Creation* of the database that's the problem, but the distribution of items from that database to 3rd parties (thus violating the non-transferrable single-use backup copy provision of copyright law).
This is definitely an interesting study in heuristics, if nothing else...
MP3 is, by nature, a modification of the original content. RIAA can argue that taking the latest Britney song and encoding it at 56kbit/s, 16-bit stereo is a *modification* of their original material, and thus constitutes a copyright violation.
About the only workaround I see for this is if MP3.COM made ISO's of their CD database for people to download, but that's ludicrous.
Ironic, isn't it, that the very same thing that is *keeping* the majors from entering the online distribution arena (high-bit depth, large quantities of data in their existing PCM-based audio encoding scheme used for CD's) is also now being used as a *defense* against other's taking that material and putting it on the 'net in compressed, highly workable form (MP3).
Drats.
How bizaare.
... which is where MP3.COM is getting in trouble.
...
The license which allows you to make a single copy of a piece of music for your own uses is a double-edged sword. You can make your own copy, but you can't give that copy to anyone else - *EVEN IF* they also have the same CD. The license is non-transferrable.
So MP3.COM's massive database of songs is cool and kosher, and they're allowed to build it - they're just not allowed to let anyone else access it, under the single-use non-transfer license clause by which most commercial music is covered.
I think that's the crux of the issue. It sucks, but it's going to be interesting to see how this one progresses
(Please note, I'm not a proponent of the RIAA - I'm all for free music, I'm just trying to get my head around the differing viewpoints in this case)
That's interesting. I was under the impression they weren't ASCAP licensed, for some reason.
If that's the case, then my argument has no value, unless their ASCAP license only permits radio wave-transmission, not Internet.
The crux of this case (I believe) is not whether or not its legal for an end-user to listen to an MP3 of a CD that they own, but whether its legal for a company (such as MP3.COM) to *make* MP3's for redistribution to end-users, from original CD's.
It's not a case over whether or not you have a right to listen to MP3's of your own CD's. You *do* have a right to do that.
It's a case over whether or not MP3.COM can 'steal' (RIAA's terms, not mine) music from other CD manufacturers, for re-distribution. When you sign up for their service you are downloading MP3's of CD's you already own, but which were *made* by MP3.COM. This is the crux of the legal wrangling that RIAA is using to try to bring down the bull of MP3.COM, so to speak...
What this is more similar to, as a case, is radio stations. RIAA's clientele already have vast quantities of precedent for radio stations retransmitting their material, and there's a thing called a 'license agreement' that a radio network must agree to before it can broadcast the latest Britney song... RIAA is arguing that MP3.COM have violated copyrights, much the same way that a Pirate Radio station would have done, by broadcasting material for which they (MP3) haven't obtained a right to use from RIAA's clientele...
Now, it could be that after all of this, MP3 and RIAA go into some sort of licensing agreement which allows MP3 to make MP3's of RIAA's clientele's CD's, but more than likely this won't happen - RIAA is too bloodthirsty, and the music industry already full of hyena's, that this will probably just result in MP3.COM's downfall, sadly. It could be a simple matter, but alas - greedy pigs in the music industry don't see it that way, if they can't control it.
That's just my understanding of this lawsuit, so don't quote me, and please correct me if I'm wrong in assessing this.
Anyone see it? Can orders be placed?
I want to build this thing, but it'd be nice if the company that's making the kit had a URL...
http://www.paia.com are perfectly positioned to make kits like this available, I think.
It'd rock.
I'm off to spec out components.
Dufus.
Amazing!
;)
Thanks for pointing all this out - I'm familiar with fstab, just not familiar with shm use in Linux... reading the Documentation/Changes file now, which also appears to answer my other questions related to how to find out more about the new features in the new kernel.
:) And I'm happy to say, it's been totally worth it all along.
For the longest time (been a Linux *user* since 1994, the days of Yggdrasil, pre-RedHat), I've never even bothered to really read the kernel docs, I'm ashamed to admit. Most of the time, for me anyway, it's been a matter of build the kernel, install the kernel, run the kernel (for a year or so), then upgrade a year later...
Thanks... now to work out how to put some of the other nifty features of the 2.3.99'ish kernel to use...
Can you provide more details about how to set up /etc/fstab, or point me (us) in the direction of a web page that has a reference for how to use these new features in the Kernel?
I'd be really happy to get into using 2.3.99, but I don't really have a lot of time to wade through the sources looking for details on how to use the new features. I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but maybe there's a page out there that contains a guideline for the new features and more importantly - how they might be used?
... Get the Japanese government to enforce a weapons order on the export of >=2 PS2's, and you effectively cut out *all* foreign importer shops who would be willing to buy a bunch in Japan and sell them for $600 here in the US. In other words, only individuals can buy 'em directly from Japan, one at a time.
I bet we won't see this one get sorted out any time soon - at least not until after the US launch of the PSX2.
It shouldn't *MATTER* to the games programmer whether or not they are doing their network code over a Modem line, or using the local LAN port.
This is what device drivers are for.
And this is *far* more important an issue than whether or not the PSX2 ships with a LAN card or modem out of the box... yet nobody is really looking at this, because the OS part of these consoles is not subject to the same sort of review that OS's like Windows or Linux are.
Microsoft's X-Box presumably is designed around the same concepts of modern OS technology, with a driver layer between the API and the wire. This may in fact be to their advantage, because it means that developers can write software without having to worry about whether or not a particular peripheral is installed - this task should be a function of the OS, not the App (Game).
So in my opinion, its more relevant to investigate whether or not the PSX2 gaming API's are device-agnostic due to a well written (and well supported) device driver layer from Sony... because if this is *not the case* (as in the past, with the PSX2), then X-Box has a leg up on PSX2...
... as a hobby, and I agree with you. It is a matter of pride.
But it's also, for a lot of programmers (such as myself) a way of getting *outside* the box, yet still applying similar modes of thought.
Designing a desk or shelf system, or working out how to scale a particular design to your own environment, then going ahead and building it out of wood with your own tools is a form of 'programming' - at least, similar faculties are being applied.
And in my case, I find it to be extremely rewarding to kick back in the wood shop after a long night of cutting and carving, and seeing the results of my handiwork in front of me. It's 2am, I could've been coding, but I've been applying similar modes of operation and I've got something that is *tangible*, that I can show my non-computer-literate friends (who "get it" with my wood working more so than they do with my software), and that is instantly usable.
Perhaps a similar situation is occuring with the overclockers of the world - it is a way to apply the same sorts of thought modes to a realworld situation and achieve a tangible product.
BTW, for any burned-out programmer types out there, I really can't recommend getting into carpentry or metalwork strongly enough. After a week of code grind, it's really quite relieving to hack around in the workshop over the weekend, design and build a bunch of furniture. Very refreshing way of preparing yourself for another week of code burn...
On the one hand they complain about the incredible flexibility that XUL gives a GUI designer.
...
Then they complain that it won't make the usability of the product any better, only worse.
Then they preach on and on about how GUI design is a fine art.
Well, to that I have to say:
1. GUI designers need good tools. With XUL, GUI designers actually *have* good tools.
2. If the program is unusable, people won't use it, and the program won't survive. It's that simple. If it is very user friendly ('usable'), then it'll stick around, and the GUI will have worked properly.
What they should have written this article about was the total flexibility that Mozilla gives in terms of user interface design, and what effect that will have on Explorer
I mean, I *never* in my wildest dreams imagined Lara Croft to be an incestuous brother-lovin' goth wannabe. Shee-it.
That's a real stretch.
But oh well, things change, you move on, you know? I mean, I'm no longer droolin' over Lara like I used to - nowadays its the chicks from DOA2 that are keeping my thumbs sore...
;)
Guess I was too lazy when I posted that earlier today... so thanks for doing my web browsing for me.
And I guess I'll also just go get my question ("Is the 4-wire adapter compatible with the 6-wire one, and are there convertors so I can use the i.link port on my Sony laptop?") answered when I have some free time to read the IEEE1394 trade association web site...
:)
Heh heh.
Didn't these games pre-date Delphi? i.e. weren't they written in Turbo Pascal or something?
In which case, a port to Linux can begin right away - there's already a TP-compatible pascal compiler on Linux...
Hah hah!
I thought that Apple designed and patented the *connectors* that are used in the Firewire specification, but only *participated* in the working group consisting of a number of companies (Sony, Phillips, Yamaha, etc) that actually invented the Firewire spec.
...
In other words, its incorrect to say that Apple invented Firewire... but they did invent the *connectors*.
Could someone with a better working knowledge of how the IEEE-1394 spec was presented clear this up? Or, point me in the direction of details about where this technology actually came from
That is totally bizaare. Excellent, actually.
Bummer.
C'mon, it was knee jerk, but right as I hit Post I realized this was a joke.