The article presents a false dichotomy...[lot's of good stuff in here]...The point, which is totally missed by the author of this article, is that our legal system is groaning under the weight of regulations pandering to special interests, and that the good of the people comes off second best.
Damn straight! It's hard to argue for or against the points made in this article, since they really aren't valid or well researched arguments in the first place.
The article seems to blame the average technophilic Slashdotter type for what are really the views and actions of the good old fashioned special interests. You simply can't form a coherent argument when you agree with the points but they're being incorrectly used to attack you.
While most of us would agree that the internet and digital media create jurisdictional problems and other special legal issues, it's really the old guard (and their lawyers) who are trying to use "cyberspace" as an excuse to change the rules, either because:
A) they don't understand the new technology and competitive environment; B) they understand it but know it will put them out of business; or C) simply because they happen to see an opportunity to take advantage of the uninformed.
Instead, the people they attack are the very ones who would prefer to see the DMCA thrown out, freedom of speech upheld, public participation, fair-use, theft and damages to mean actual property stolen or broken (vs. just looked at), etc. - that is, the people blamed are instead the very one's who most want to see the old laws (and freedoms) apply to new technology.
New technology has always created new legal issues but the push for the most drastic and unreasonable new interpretations has and continues to come from the soon-to-be-extinct buggy whip manufacturers - not the technologists and visionaries. These lawyers need to check the facts and restate their arguments by correctly attributing ideas and motivations to the proper parties.
Although the first movie was enjoyable, why do they always make movies based on books we've all already read?
Because otherwise you'd be complaining about why they always make books based on movies we've already seen.
When I go to see it I already know what's going to happen at the end. No suspense.
I also know what's going to happen at the end when I re-read the LOTR or watch a good movie (or Simpsons episode for that matter) twice. Doesn't stop me from enjoying them the second time though.
I enjoy good movies with plenty of suspense, but I also worry that too many modern filmakers misinterpret or misapply the success of movies like the Sixth Sense and Pulp Fiction to create movies with trick endings while sacrificing the rest of the film.
Some of the best films have obvious or familiar plots and conclusions but distinguish themselves in other ways. And some are just plain silly and fun. LOTR (on film) is probably somewhere in the middle.
Huh? Says who? IP law did and does not materialize from the ether. Congress makes laws according to powers prescribed by the constitution.
I'm talking about IP law in conceptual and international terms, and not limiting the discussion to the US alone. For instance, under the "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works":
"Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."
This speaks to my point about IP law working to protect misrepresentation or misattribution of an author's work. In addition, from an earlier reply to my comment, the interesting article on Mickey Mouse being public domain suggests that US law has similar provisions to this clause.
Personally speaking, if any lawsuit does arise from this matter it will be another very sad comment on the state of artistic expression and the law. In acting as devil's advocate my point was to suggest that there might be some validity to any claim of infringement or misrepresentation, but in actuality this should only apply if we take a lowest common denominator view of the law (which happens far too often).
That being said, it seems a little premature to discuss lawsuits since it appears that the letter he received was a form letter sent out based on the credit to Cage (i.e. You've attributed us on your work but we haven't received a check yet. What's up?). Hopefully the lawyers won't get involved.
From the article: "They say they are claiming copyright on a piece of mine called 'One Minute's Silence' on the Planets' album, which I credit Batt/Cage just for a laugh. But my silence is original silence, not a quotation from his silence."
This sounds very silly, but maybe there is a valid point to be made. Mike Batt has a silent track on his album, apparently in something of an homage to avant-garde, experimentalist composer John Cage. To reinforce the connection he even co-credits Cage on the track (but presumably isn't giving out any royalties).
If he simply left a minute of silence on his album (without the credit) then I'd definitely think that there's nothing there. However, by crediting Cage (even as a joke or a tribute) he has opened himself up to charges of copyright infringement and/or misrepresentation.
Without even "listening", one would get the impression (from his liner notes) that his work either draws from Cage, or is co-authored by him. This goes beyond copyright - for instance, even if Mickey Mouse became public domain, no one using should ever be allowed to pretend to be either Disney or to be authorized by Disney (without their permission).
IANAL, but to me there are two valid reasons for IP laws. The first is to encourage dissemination of ideas by rewarding creativity. This is the one that is generally criticized, since the method of reward (monopoly etc.) is somewhat arbitrary and frequently abused. The other reason for IP protection is to prevent misrepresentation. This concept should always be upheld, even regardless of whether a copyright, patent, or trademark has expired.
I appreciate the subtle satire achieved by crediting Cage, but in this case it leaves the potential for confusion and the impression that Cage has contributed to and is getting reimbursed for the work. The lawyers might not agree, but Cage should either pay up, remove the credit only, or (my preferred choice) clearly identify the work (including the credit, which has artistic merit) as a non-derivative tribute/satire.
PS. Sorry about the pun's (unintentional, honest).
A2. You won't have much choice, the economics will have airlines snapping them up for certain routes.
(At least if the design can achieve the efficiencies and cost reductions they're talking about - plus whatever improvements are made between now and actual construction.)
Of course, for cheap, point-to-point travel, I'm still waiting for my $837,500 Eclipse Jet!
Prior art can't be just an idea described in, say, an SF novel with no details of how it works.
Obviously my comment was only meant as a light joke, so of course you're right, prior art needs to disclose sufficient detail to invalidate the novelty (or unobviousness) of a given claim.
For the most part Star Trek episodes don't provide a good enough description of the "enabling" technologies to prevent patents in teleportation, for instance. However, certain letters, memos, and works of fiction have prevented (or have been cited by) a number of patents over the years. Arthur C. Clake's famous letter on geosynchronous satellites, and a fictional procedure for raising sunken ships both come to mind.
All joking aside (for a moment), with so many overly broad technology patents being issued these days, I do think that the example of communicators (along with a lot of other prior art) could bear on the novelty and unobviousness of certain broad claims for a wearable, wireless means for hand-free communication. Narrower claims of implementation would obviously be available, as would design patents for form factor.
This is analogous to Clarke's description of Comsats. Although technical (and not fiction), his letter was brief and his inability (in 1945, before orbital launches and transistors) to fully describe or enable his invention would have likely prevented him from receiving a patent on his scheme.
However, his short description was sufficient to prevent Hughes from obtaining broad patents on the geosychronous aspects of their working Comsats in the 1960's. I'm sure that they were able to get numerous patents on more specific details, but Clake's prior art denied them their broadest claim.
Likewise, while Star Trek or Dick Tracy may do little to describe the inner workings of their technologies, I'm sure that certain fictional ideas can (and do) act as limiting prior art, if only in a very broad sense.
IANAL either, but I do have some professional familiarity with the system, and I do not try to flame it at every opportunity (just point out flaws, concerns, and the occasional humour).
I just read this earlier today and thought about what a great perspective they have for aging musicians being labelled as a "nostalgia" act. They were planning to go back into the studio in October for the first time in 20 years. Would have been nice to see them prove the critics wrong by putting together a yet another classic album.
From the article I'm sure that Daltry and Townshend will continue to express themselves in one way or another, but without a third party, I doubt they'll overcome the still obvious tensions to work together very much.
Microsoft makes an annoucement that they're "investing" $750 Million somewhere, but what does that really mean?
I mean, where does that figure actually come from? I imagine it's the total retail price of products they're going to give away. Or it could be the total "discount" they're prepared to give off stand alone or bundled packages (50% off each product X expected volumes). With.NET is this just giving away the razor while charging for the blades (something they want to do anyway and are possibly just piloting in China)? Does the number also include promotion and advertising budgets (beyond any give-aways)? And how much is for "real" apps vs. silly "$700 of free Microsoft Software" packages with programs like Free-Cell having MSRP's of $25 or more?
The bottom line is, this is a pretty silly press release/story. They can pretty well choose an arbitarily high number if they base it on the suggested retail value of product, when in actual fact, their actual net investment (variable costs) might be next to nothing. They're not even giving up opportunity costs if they're just competing against pirated copies.
Linux distros should do the same thing by assigning an arbitrary retail value to every freely distributed copy and calling that the open source "investment" in each implementation/industry/country.
...all gator is doing is poping up its own window or own link which you "agreed" to view when you clicked on the EULA...
I've had the displeasure of inadvertantly having this trash installed on my computer. Now I'm pretty computer savvy (Computer Engineer) but I was probably either multi-tasking at the time and accidently hit something, or the EULA/accept may have been set up in an especially vile manner (automatic, opt-out, misleading buttons, I can't recall).
It will be interesting to see if this case aims at the validity of the Gator EULA and if any ruling might extend to EULA's in general. Since the parties filing suit are all publishers and not software companies, they might be more likely to attack the general premise and validity of an EULA that is misleading or unlikely to be read before acceptance. This could have interesting repercussions in software licensing.
As an aside, I found this quote from the article pretty funny:
"Gator ranked as the 15th most heavily trafficked Web property in April, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, with nearly 16 million people being exposed to its Web sites or software."
I wonder how much traffic is generated by those trying to figure out what the hell happened and remove the offending software (the key word is "exposed" - I bet the installation process and the redirected ads probably also count as "hits").
Need I break out browser market share statistics from 1996?
Not sure which point you're trying to make. Since 1996 the previousy dominant browser (Netscape) has been completely toppled by the "upstart" (IE).
Is Open Source the "upstart" this time, or is Microsoft (vs. Apache etc.), or are you just trying to show that Microsoft is a ruthless and successful competitor?
Browsers were an easy target for Microsoft: relatively simple applications, growing market, and they were already a user interface powerhouse. The same can't be said about security - sure they have lot's of money and brainpower to throw at it, but they've had these resources for years and still churn out crappy results.
Also, hardware solutions will require significant buy-in from hardware vendors - already cautious (and often outspoken) about being beholden to Microsoft. Again, Microsoft could use their cash reserves to enter this market themselves but they really don't know it, they would destroy the backward compatibility they build each new generation on (the lock-in effect that creates barriers to new competition), and hardware margins (a la XBox) would so severely alter their profit model that their stock multiple would be cut to absolute smithereens.
Such a strategy sounds like a last resort to salvage a sinking ship. If that's really the case (that they're going to take this course of action), I think we've underestimated how much of a threat they consider Open Source to be and just how uncertain their near-term future may be.
It's time for someone to setup a streaming radio app that works similar to P2P. Something that can't be shut down.
Not just another P2P app, but let's start seeing more P2P devices and infrastructure as well, like wireless multi-hop networks. That way even the physical network will be tough to regulate or shut down.
It might only work for densely populated local areas at first, but if you can get around the security issues this is the logical next step in the evolution of the internet.
The technology and the demand for streaming content is out there, if the RIAA and MPAA etc. kept shooting themselves in the foot, inventors and consumers will find another way to get what they want.
I think we've also taken out Slashdot, and we're probably on our way to taking out the whole damn history of the internet. It's one thing to knock out somebody's geocities account or web serving PDA, but the Slashdot effect has finally gone totally out of control!
I don't think "misuse of copyrights" is quite correct, but not being able to see under the hood is a standard argument against closed source. Surprisingly the article didn't directly discuss open source, but I thought the following part was pretty interesting:
"Not wanting errors to cause delay, coders -- who in the early days tended to be trained as mathematicians or physicists -- stayed late in their offices exhaustively checking their work. Writing software was much like writing scientific papers. Rigor, documentation and peer-review vetting were the custom."
Nothing that hasn't been said before, but probably something that isn't said enough. Open source, collaboration, and peer review are not new ideas and sometimes proponents do disservice to them by acting as though they are new and revolutionary. They're not - they're a throwback to a time when software was simpler and more robust.
As programs became increasingly large and complex it became near impossible to take advantage of peer review - you couldn't ask a fellow professional to check your million lines of code. Without a good way to peer review large projects, it makes sense that software became increasingly reliant on a proprietary closed source approach and also became increasingly buggy.
Using the communicating power of the Internet, along with the growing open source community, programmers (and managers) can now apply peer review and collaboration to these much larger and complex projects. This development should be embraced (and promoted) as a return to the roots of effective programming, rather than as a whole new paradigm. While there are some fundamental constraints to testing programs, we should expect that the proper application of engineering techniques along with this somewhat unique ability to use peer review and collaboration could actually make software more robust than other technologies.
quote: "The focus on the used-CD market comes at a time when new-CD sales continue to stagnate in the United States. Total sales last year were about $13 billion, unchanged from 2000."
You know that's a really interesting piece of information considering that Napster was released to the public in 1999.So cd sales have not been effected at all by music "piracy",the music industry says so, and the sales figures prove it.By the way cd sales in 1999 were 12.8 billion, and in 1998 cd sales were 11.4 billion.
Ah, but you forget that the article also says that they estimate the total impact of piracy to be "$4.2 billion in lost revenue last year".
So obviously, although sales have been flat since at least 1998, the industry expected to have the most bang-up year of all time if it wasn't for Napster and its ilk.
Of course this phenomenal growth would have been due to last year's strong economy, aggressive pricing, the industry's keen committment to customer satifaction, and the best crop of new releases in music history...or something like that.
I know this simplifying things a bit, but they try to use these simplistic arguments all the time...
Either IP *is* property, or it *isn't*.
The RIAA and MPAA go to great lengths to equate IP with physical property. Like any other normal kind of property, if they sell it to me, then I now own it and should be able to sell it freely to who ever I choose. On the other hand, they are saying the IP is *not* like physical property - that they never actually sold me the CD and they can dicate use and profit from any resale. (As an aside, in this second scenario, if someone steals a CD, but doesn't listen to it, is it only theft of the actual plastic and packaging, but not of the IP?)
They shouldn't get to have it both ways...
Yes, IP *is* a different animal from actual "property". And if they want to attach a limited use agreement/contract to each CD then that should be within their rights, no matter how stupid that is -- but only if it's made very clear at the original time of purchase that I'm just borrowing the content and the CD is just a delivery device.
Go ahead, put a EULA into each of your CD's, but you have absolutely no right to try grandfathering any of the ones I've already bought. That would be theft - straight forward property theft in the old fashioned sense. And don't expect me to ever "rent" out one of your new fangled CD's unless (and only maybe) you considerably reduce the cost.
Silly business case for a promising technology
on
Peer-to-Peer Cell Phones?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
According to the article it seems that their only real selling feature is to increase the robustness of a cell network without having to add additional towers. There might be other reasons to have P2P enabled phones but this one is just plain silly.
First, this would only really work in well-populated areas with high densities of regular cell phone users. But these cities are already very likely to have a strong saturation of cell coverage, and it is probably relatively economical to install new network towers in such high density areas.
Second, if an emergency occured, a la 911, where the load is exceptionally high, I can't imagine this system of low powered devices holding up anywhere near as well as a decently saturated network of towers (that also have a lot more power). The decentralized network might be theoretically more robust, but not if everybody's trying to make a call at the same time and not when the device range only allows for a very limited number of localized connections to form.
Wireless P2P and multi-hop) systems are really cool, but it's not going work for everything or solve every problem. One day they may become ubiquitous, but are likely to be first employed for niche applications only. Cell phone applications and benefits will probably be limited to local network communications.
Maybe such a system could one day be used to help improve coverage deep within buildings, or for very localized load balancing, but I doubt that they will or should be trusted technically as an alternative to building an independently robust network of towers etc. And, if they are only proposing the technology as an adjunct for increased reliability, then I just don't see a very strong business case.
For Wal-Mart to be using their power and credibility to position Lindows like this - as a direct alternative to a "commoditized" Windows OS - should be making MS shake in their boots. This is really big. I hope that this is more than just an experiment but a whole-hearted effort to introduce and market these systems to the average shopper.
Previously, Linux and other alternatives have been positioned as being too disimilar to Windows for the average consumer to take notice. While early adopters and niche users may see the differences as the key selling points, the average consumer is looking for compatibility and familiarity FIRST, then other advantages SECOND (price, stability, and misc. features).
Wal-Mart's actions not only position alternative operating systems in a different light, they also serve to re-position Windows itself by making the Windows Operating System appear to be a commodity like the PC has long been. When advertising the compatibility of Lindows, their enormous market power allow them to be more liberal with their use of the Microsoft and Windows brandnames than your average software developer or computer retailer could ever chance.
This is may be very analogous to what happened to the IBM PC vs. the clones as well as the situation with generic drugs. Many continue to buy the "genuine" branded article, but others will take personal pride in buying the "same" product for less - and maybe even with some different or better features thrown in for free.
This might be a first step in fragmenting the market around a common Windows compatible "standard" offered by multiple vendors at competitive prices. Also, it could result in opening more people's eyes to the advantages of using non-Windows based systems to meet their individual needs. I imagine that the reality will be somewhere in the middle, and that this will be a good thing for both consumers and business.
Looks like AC's out for sure. If the top poster's not showing up I don't see it happening.
Personally, it would be interesting to see how some Slashdotter's do without a preview button and karma bonus. Also, in the tradition of Slashdot consuming so many working hours for so many nerds, it would have to held during the work week and promoted in such a way that it can be fully expensed to one's employer.
I'm not sure how valid time shifting a rented video would be, as there is no need to time shift.
Just thinking out loud really but I thought that it might come into play in a scenario where you're renting out and then immediately reusing each individual "bit" rather than renting out and locking up one video stream at a time for the entire 2 hours. Since there would be some buffering on the user's end I would categorize that cached user copy as sort of micro time shifting so the supplier could go on to immediately re-rent out that same "bit" without knowing for sure if the first user has actually finished viewing it yet.
That's probably stretching things a bit, but IMO I agree with you that, at the very least, renting out a dedicated stream of a movie that I own should be as legal as renting out a video that I own. I just think that you can take this further to rent out smaller portions of the movie at a time to increase your capacity. Especially in this case, without using a time shifting analogy the MPAA etc. could argue that the seller does not know whether the user has actually finished viewing the buffered segment to free it up for the next user.
I hope that makes sense. Man, I should get to sleep.
...They rent the movie for 90 minutes. Then they can rent it again. A 90 minute movie can be let upto 16 times a day, providing the times its let out are right (note this doesnt mean they can let 16 copys of the movie out at once for each copy they own)...
...I agreee that this site may not have a copy of the movie for each copy it streams out at once, but it doesnt mean the principal is wrong.
Actually, assuming that the rest of your logic about video rentals is right, you might not really have to assume that the site has a copy for each stream.
As long as they aren't sending out the same bit of data at the same time for each copy they own, then your logic still holds up (although the analogy to the physical example is slightly more abstract). It would be as though the customer was renting, then using, then returning every second of movie they watch as they watch it - therefore making it immediately available to the next user to rent.
Furthermore, by buffering the stream correctly (slightly in advance of the user watching it) and maybe treating the user's cache similarly to the "time shifting" effect of VCR's, you could probably "rent" a *very* large number of movies simultaneously to multiple users without ever actually sending any of them the same bit at the same time. It should actually be pretty straightforward to calculate this number, based on the quality of the movie, the available bandwidth, the number of users, the distribution of starting times, and perhaps some adjustments for network, buffering, and caching delays.
Like perfect copies without degradation, this is obviously another difference between the traditional and networked/digital mediums that changes all the old rules (or put a different way, this is why the MPAA etc. wants the old rules to apply differently for this new medium).
How many of us read this headline and thought, "YEAH! FORTY-TWO BABY!!! +5 Funny Karma, here I come! WOO!!!"
...and how many of us braced ourselves for about a dozen "imagine a beowolf cluster of these" comments (while *secretly* thinking it might actually be *kinda* funny this time -- errr, of course not me, mind you:).
It might not be a direct analogy, but the Open Source movement certainly inspired their actions to pursue this type of open bidding process.
So while they might not be equivalent, I think that it's really cool that non-conventional approaches in other industries are being inspired by the growing success and profile of Open Source solutions in software.
If other industries begin to seriously experiment with various types of peer collaboration models some of the new approaches might stick. If they point to Open Source and Free Software as inspiration for whatever success they achieve, I think that the community should accept that as a good reflection and recognition of the real impact this way of thinking is starting to make. It's also great advertising for Open Source -- I'm sure this story has exposed a bunch of mining executives and analysts to Linux etc. for the first time, and in a positive light at that.
The Open Source movement is as much (or more) about thinking outside of the box as it is about code, copyrights, and collaboration.
I'd love to see more stories like this on Slashdot, even if the direct links are sometimes tenuous.
IANAM, but I wonder what would have happened if who ever actually bound and transcribed the first copies of the Qur'an had declared publishing rights and refused to allow the distribution of low cost copies or even public prayer.
If they had today's laws then the words might have passed into the public domain some 75 years or so after the Prophet rode to heaven, but presumably the actual author (Allah) isn't dead (Nietzsche aside) so they could try to hold on to it indefinitely.
Okay, that may be a silly way of looking at things, and I guess you could say that Allah or Muhammed would'nt have allowed this, but seriously, shouldn't religous scholars and men of god be more aware that ideas are not really property (or at least not the property of man)?
The concept of intellectual property is a (useful if done right) legal fiction constructed to encourage innovation (patents, copyrights) and reduce deception (trademarks). Even if you send people to jail I don't understand how breaking such artificial and clearly secular laws can be considered so fundamentally sinful.
With economies of scale, the cost of production approach zero with an increase of output--e.g. it costs less to produce 10,000 than it does 100.
Not exactly. Economies of scale generally decrease the unit cost of production. Producing 10,000 units probably doesn't cost less than 100, but each individual unit does cost less at the higher volume.
In other words, it costs many times more to distribute 100GB per month than it does to distribute 10GB per month.
Again, just like conventional economies of scale, 100GB may cost more per month in total, but the higher volume will likely cost less per GB than the lower volume. Even this may be debatable though (as another reply pointed out) depending on the mix between upfront capital costs and ongoing service costs. Also you'll probably see some significant step costs - e.g., 100GB might cost the same as 10GB while 101GB might be twice as much (in total, but probably still much less per unit). I doubt that these kind of "logarithmic" increases would hold true when averaged over the whole curve.
Eventually, the peer-to-peer networks will be the proverbial victims of their own success. People will stop using them when the ISP bill runs into the triple digits.
...expect the implicit cost to transform into explicit costs (in terms of higher ISP bills) in the near future.
You are right that the dynamics are more complex than the simple "unlimited distribution" theory, and that some costs will undoubtably shift from one place to another. However, there are definitely huge advantages and cost savings related to digital media and internet distribution and the middle men will have to adapt or die...
Slashdot Mirror
The article presents a false dichotomy...[lot's of good stuff in here]...The point, which is totally missed by the author of this article, is that our legal system is groaning under the weight of regulations pandering to special interests, and that the good of the people comes off second best.
Damn straight! It's hard to argue for or against the points made in this article, since they really aren't valid or well researched arguments in the first place.
The article seems to blame the average technophilic Slashdotter type for what are really the views and actions of the good old fashioned special interests. You simply can't form a coherent argument when you agree with the points but they're being incorrectly used to attack you.
While most of us would agree that the internet and digital media create jurisdictional problems and other special legal issues, it's really the old guard (and their lawyers) who are trying to use "cyberspace" as an excuse to change the rules, either because:
A) they don't understand the new technology and competitive environment;
B) they understand it but know it will put them out of business; or
C) simply because they happen to see an opportunity to take advantage of the uninformed.
Instead, the people they attack are the very ones who would prefer to see the DMCA thrown out, freedom of speech upheld, public participation, fair-use, theft and damages to mean actual property stolen or broken (vs. just looked at), etc. - that is, the people blamed are instead the very one's who most want to see the old laws (and freedoms) apply to new technology.
New technology has always created new legal issues but the push for the most drastic and unreasonable new interpretations has and continues to come from the soon-to-be-extinct buggy whip manufacturers - not the technologists and visionaries. These lawyers need to check the facts and restate their arguments by correctly attributing ideas and motivations to the proper parties.
Although the first movie was enjoyable, why do they always make movies based on books we've all already read?
Because otherwise you'd be complaining about why they always make books based on movies we've already seen.
When I go to see it I already know what's going to happen at the end. No suspense.
I also know what's going to happen at the end when I re-read the LOTR or watch a good movie (or Simpsons episode for that matter) twice. Doesn't stop me from enjoying them the second time though.
I enjoy good movies with plenty of suspense, but I also worry that too many modern filmakers misinterpret or misapply the success of movies like the Sixth Sense and Pulp Fiction to create movies with trick endings while sacrificing the rest of the film.
Some of the best films have obvious or familiar plots and conclusions but distinguish themselves in other ways. And some are just plain silly and fun. LOTR (on film) is probably somewhere in the middle.
Huh? Says who? IP law did and does not materialize from the ether. Congress makes laws according to powers prescribed by the constitution.
I'm talking about IP law in conceptual and international terms, and not limiting the discussion to the US alone. For instance, under the "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works":
"Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."
This speaks to my point about IP law working to protect misrepresentation or misattribution of an author's work. In addition, from an earlier reply to my comment, the interesting article on Mickey Mouse being public domain suggests that US law has similar provisions to this clause.
Personally speaking, if any lawsuit does arise from this matter it will be another very sad comment on the state of artistic expression and the law. In acting as devil's advocate my point was to suggest that there might be some validity to any claim of infringement or misrepresentation, but in actuality this should only apply if we take a lowest common denominator view of the law (which happens far too often).
That being said, it seems a little premature to discuss lawsuits since it appears that the letter he received was a form letter sent out based on the credit to Cage (i.e. You've attributed us on your work but we haven't received a check yet. What's up?). Hopefully the lawyers won't get involved.
From the article: "They say they are claiming copyright on a piece of mine called 'One Minute's Silence' on the Planets' album, which I credit Batt/Cage just for a laugh. But my silence is original silence, not a quotation from his silence."
This sounds very silly, but maybe there is a valid point to be made. Mike Batt has a silent track on his album, apparently in something of an homage to avant-garde, experimentalist composer John Cage. To reinforce the connection he even co-credits Cage on the track (but presumably isn't giving out any royalties).
If he simply left a minute of silence on his album (without the credit) then I'd definitely think that there's nothing there. However, by crediting Cage (even as a joke or a tribute) he has opened himself up to charges of copyright infringement and/or misrepresentation.
Without even "listening", one would get the impression (from his liner notes) that his work either draws from Cage, or is co-authored by him. This goes beyond copyright - for instance, even if Mickey Mouse became public domain, no one using should ever be allowed to pretend to be either Disney or to be authorized by Disney (without their permission).
IANAL, but to me there are two valid reasons for IP laws. The first is to encourage dissemination of ideas by rewarding creativity. This is the one that is generally criticized, since the method of reward (monopoly etc.) is somewhat arbitrary and frequently abused. The other reason for IP protection is to prevent misrepresentation. This concept should always be upheld, even regardless of whether a copyright, patent, or trademark has expired.
I appreciate the subtle satire achieved by crediting Cage, but in this case it leaves the potential for confusion and the impression that Cage has contributed to and is getting reimbursed for the work. The lawyers might not agree, but Cage should either pay up, remove the credit only, or (my preferred choice) clearly identify the work (including the credit, which has artistic merit) as a non-derivative tribute/satire.
PS. Sorry about the pun's (unintentional, honest).
Q. Who would fly on it?
A1. Anyone looking to pay 25-50% less to fly.
A2. You won't have much choice, the economics will have airlines snapping them up for certain routes.
(At least if the design can achieve the efficiencies and cost reductions they're talking about - plus whatever improvements are made between now and actual construction.)
Of course, for cheap, point-to-point travel, I'm still waiting for my $837,500 Eclipse Jet!
Prior art can't be just an idea described in, say, an SF novel with no details of how it works.
Obviously my comment was only meant as a light joke, so of course you're right, prior art needs to disclose sufficient detail to invalidate the novelty (or unobviousness) of a given claim.
For the most part Star Trek episodes don't provide a good enough description of the "enabling" technologies to prevent patents in teleportation, for instance. However, certain letters, memos, and works of fiction have prevented (or have been cited by) a number of patents over the years. Arthur C. Clake's famous letter on geosynchronous satellites, and a fictional procedure for raising sunken ships both come to mind.
All joking aside (for a moment), with so many overly broad technology patents being issued these days, I do think that the example of communicators (along with a lot of other prior art) could bear on the novelty and unobviousness of certain broad claims for a wearable, wireless means for hand-free communication. Narrower claims of implementation would obviously be available, as would design patents for form factor.
This is analogous to Clarke's description of Comsats. Although technical (and not fiction), his letter was brief and his inability (in 1945, before orbital launches and transistors) to fully describe or enable his invention would have likely prevented him from receiving a patent on his scheme.
However, his short description was sufficient to prevent Hughes from obtaining broad patents on the geosychronous aspects of their working Comsats in the 1960's. I'm sure that they were able to get numerous patents on more specific details, but Clake's prior art denied them their broadest claim.
Likewise, while Star Trek or Dick Tracy may do little to describe the inner workings of their technologies, I'm sure that certain fictional ideas can (and do) act as limiting prior art, if only in a very broad sense.
IANAL either, but I do have some professional familiarity with the system, and I do not try to flame it at every opportunity (just point out flaws, concerns, and the occasional humour).
I think this is finally it, but FYI, here's yesterday's interesting Reuters story on the tour, "The Who take a bow for a new generation".
I just read this earlier today and thought about what a great perspective they have for aging musicians being labelled as a "nostalgia" act. They were planning to go back into the studio in October for the first time in 20 years. Would have been nice to see them prove the critics wrong by putting together a yet another classic album.
From the article I'm sure that Daltry and Townshend will continue to express themselves in one way or another, but without a third party, I doubt they'll overcome the still obvious tensions to work together very much.
...at least if the examiner is a trekkie!
I'd love to see the prior art discovery they'd send back to the applicant...
What's the correct format to quote a TV pilot episode?
And would you use a stardate?
Microsoft makes an annoucement that they're "investing" $750 Million somewhere, but what does that really mean?
.NET is this just giving away the razor while charging for the blades (something they want to do anyway and are possibly just piloting in China)? Does the number also include promotion and advertising budgets (beyond any give-aways)? And how much is for "real" apps vs. silly "$700 of free Microsoft Software" packages with programs like Free-Cell having MSRP's of $25 or more?
I mean, where does that figure actually come from? I imagine it's the total retail price of products they're going to give away. Or it could be the total "discount" they're prepared to give off stand alone or bundled packages (50% off each product X expected volumes). With
The bottom line is, this is a pretty silly press release/story. They can pretty well choose an arbitarily high number if they base it on the suggested retail value of product, when in actual fact, their actual net investment (variable costs) might be next to nothing. They're not even giving up opportunity costs if they're just competing against pirated copies.
Linux distros should do the same thing by assigning an arbitrary retail value to every freely distributed copy and calling that the open source "investment" in each implementation/industry/country.
...all gator is doing is poping up its own window or own link which you "agreed" to view when you clicked on the EULA...
I've had the displeasure of inadvertantly having this trash installed on my computer. Now I'm pretty computer savvy (Computer Engineer) but I was probably either multi-tasking at the time and accidently hit something, or the EULA/accept may have been set up in an especially vile manner (automatic, opt-out, misleading buttons, I can't recall).
It will be interesting to see if this case aims at the validity of the Gator EULA and if any ruling might extend to EULA's in general. Since the parties filing suit are all publishers and not software companies, they might be more likely to attack the general premise and validity of an EULA that is misleading or unlikely to be read before acceptance. This could have interesting repercussions in software licensing.
As an aside, I found this quote from the article pretty funny:
"Gator ranked as the 15th most heavily trafficked Web property in April, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, with nearly 16 million people being exposed to its Web sites or software."
I wonder how much traffic is generated by those trying to figure out what the hell happened and remove the offending software (the key word is "exposed" - I bet the installation process and the redirected ads probably also count as "hits").
Need I break out browser market share statistics from 1996?
Not sure which point you're trying to make. Since 1996 the previousy dominant browser (Netscape) has been completely toppled by the "upstart" (IE).
Is Open Source the "upstart" this time, or is Microsoft (vs. Apache etc.), or are you just trying to show that Microsoft is a ruthless and successful competitor?
Browsers were an easy target for Microsoft: relatively simple applications, growing market, and they were already a user interface powerhouse. The same can't be said about security - sure they have lot's of money and brainpower to throw at it, but they've had these resources for years and still churn out crappy results.
Also, hardware solutions will require significant buy-in from hardware vendors - already cautious (and often outspoken) about being beholden to Microsoft. Again, Microsoft could use their cash reserves to enter this market themselves but they really don't know it, they would destroy the backward compatibility they build each new generation on (the lock-in effect that creates barriers to new competition), and hardware margins (a la XBox) would so severely alter their profit model that their stock multiple would be cut to absolute smithereens.
Such a strategy sounds like a last resort to salvage a sinking ship. If that's really the case (that they're going to take this course of action), I think we've underestimated how much of a threat they consider Open Source to be and just how uncertain their near-term future may be.
It's time for civil disobedience.
It's time for someone to setup a streaming radio app that works similar to P2P. Something that can't be shut down.
Not just another P2P app, but let's start seeing more P2P devices and infrastructure as well, like wireless multi-hop networks. That way even the physical network will be tough to regulate or shut down.
It might only work for densely populated local areas at first, but if you can get around the security issues this is the logical next step in the evolution of the internet.
The technology and the demand for streaming content is out there, if the RIAA and MPAA etc. kept shooting themselves in the foot, inventors and consumers will find another way to get what they want.
This is just....mind blowing. Look at Ebay from 1997 [archive.org].
You fool! You've just Slashdotted Ebay!
I think we've also taken out Slashdot, and we're probably on our way to taking out the whole damn history of the internet. It's one thing to knock out somebody's geocities account or web serving PDA, but the Slashdot effect has finally gone totally out of control!
I don't think "misuse of copyrights" is quite correct, but not being able to see under the hood is a standard argument against closed source. Surprisingly the article didn't directly discuss open source, but I thought the following part was pretty interesting:
"Not wanting errors to cause delay, coders -- who in the early days tended to be trained as mathematicians or physicists -- stayed late in their offices exhaustively checking their work. Writing software was much like writing scientific papers. Rigor, documentation and peer-review vetting were the custom."
Nothing that hasn't been said before, but probably something that isn't said enough. Open source, collaboration, and peer review are not new ideas and sometimes proponents do disservice to them by acting as though they are new and revolutionary. They're not - they're a throwback to a time when software was simpler and more robust.
As programs became increasingly large and complex it became near impossible to take advantage of peer review - you couldn't ask a fellow professional to check your million lines of code. Without a good way to peer review large projects, it makes sense that software became increasingly reliant on a proprietary closed source approach and also became increasingly buggy.
Using the communicating power of the Internet, along with the growing open source community, programmers (and managers) can now apply peer review and collaboration to these much larger and complex projects. This development should be embraced (and promoted) as a return to the roots of effective programming, rather than as a whole new paradigm. While there are some fundamental constraints to testing programs, we should expect that the proper application of engineering techniques along with this somewhat unique ability to use peer review and collaboration could actually make software more robust than other technologies.
quote: "The focus on the used-CD market comes at a time when new-CD sales continue to stagnate in the United States. Total sales last year were about $13 billion, unchanged from 2000."
,the music industry says so, and the sales figures prove it.By the way cd sales in 1999 were 12.8 billion, and in 1998 cd sales were 11.4 billion.
You know that's a really interesting piece of information considering that Napster was released to the public in 1999.So cd sales have not been effected at all by music "piracy"
Ah, but you forget that the article also says that they estimate the total impact of piracy to be "$4.2 billion in lost revenue last year".
So obviously, although sales have been flat since at least 1998, the industry expected to have the most bang-up year of all time if it wasn't for Napster and its ilk.
Of course this phenomenal growth would have been due to last year's strong economy, aggressive pricing, the industry's keen committment to customer satifaction, and the best crop of new releases in music history...or something like that.
I know this simplifying things a bit, but they try to use these simplistic arguments all the time...
Either IP *is* property, or it *isn't*.
The RIAA and MPAA go to great lengths to equate IP with physical property. Like any other normal kind of property, if they sell it to me, then I now own it and should be able to sell it freely to who ever I choose. On the other hand, they are saying the IP is *not* like physical property - that they never actually sold me the CD and they can dicate use and profit from any resale. (As an aside, in this second scenario, if someone steals a CD, but doesn't listen to it, is it only theft of the actual plastic and packaging, but not of the IP?)
They shouldn't get to have it both ways...
Yes, IP *is* a different animal from actual "property". And if they want to attach a limited use agreement/contract to each CD then that should be within their rights, no matter how stupid that is -- but only if it's made very clear at the original time of purchase that I'm just borrowing the content and the CD is just a delivery device.
Go ahead, put a EULA into each of your CD's, but you have absolutely no right to try grandfathering any of the ones I've already bought. That would be theft - straight forward property theft in the old fashioned sense. And don't expect me to ever "rent" out one of your new fangled CD's unless (and only maybe) you considerably reduce the cost.
According to the article it seems that their only real selling feature is to increase the robustness of a cell network without having to add additional towers. There might be other reasons to have P2P enabled phones but this one is just plain silly.
First, this would only really work in well-populated areas with high densities of regular cell phone users. But these cities are already very likely to have a strong saturation of cell coverage, and it is probably relatively economical to install new network towers in such high density areas.
Second, if an emergency occured, a la 911, where the load is exceptionally high, I can't imagine this system of low powered devices holding up anywhere near as well as a decently saturated network of towers (that also have a lot more power). The decentralized network might be theoretically more robust, but not if everybody's trying to make a call at the same time and not when the device range only allows for a very limited number of localized connections to form.
Wireless P2P and multi-hop) systems are really cool, but it's not going work for everything or solve every problem. One day they may become ubiquitous, but are likely to be first employed for niche applications only. Cell phone applications and benefits will probably be limited to local network communications.
Maybe such a system could one day be used to help improve coverage deep within buildings, or for very localized load balancing, but I doubt that they will or should be trusted technically as an alternative to building an independently robust network of towers etc. And, if they are only proposing the technology as an adjunct for increased reliability, then I just don't see a very strong business case.
For Wal-Mart to be using their power and credibility to position Lindows like this - as a direct alternative to a "commoditized" Windows OS - should be making MS shake in their boots. This is really big. I hope that this is more than just an experiment but a whole-hearted effort to introduce and market these systems to the average shopper.
Previously, Linux and other alternatives have been positioned as being too disimilar to Windows for the average consumer to take notice. While early adopters and niche users may see the differences as the key selling points, the average consumer is looking for compatibility and familiarity FIRST, then other advantages SECOND (price, stability, and misc. features).
Wal-Mart's actions not only position alternative operating systems in a different light, they also serve to re-position Windows itself by making the Windows Operating System appear to be a commodity like the PC has long been. When advertising the compatibility of Lindows, their enormous market power allow them to be more liberal with their use of the Microsoft and Windows brandnames than your average software developer or computer retailer could ever chance.
This is may be very analogous to what happened to the IBM PC vs. the clones as well as the situation with generic drugs. Many continue to buy the "genuine" branded article, but others will take personal pride in buying the "same" product for less - and maybe even with some different or better features thrown in for free.
This might be a first step in fragmenting the market around a common Windows compatible "standard" offered by multiple vendors at competitive prices. Also, it could result in opening more people's eyes to the advantages of using non-Windows based systems to meet their individual needs. I imagine that the reality will be somewhere in the middle, and that this will be a good thing for both consumers and business.
No.
No. No nono no. [and it goes on like this...]
Looks like AC's out for sure. If the top poster's not showing up I don't see it happening.
Personally, it would be interesting to see how some Slashdotter's do without a preview button and karma bonus. Also, in the tradition of Slashdot consuming so many working hours for so many nerds, it would have to held during the work week and promoted in such a way that it can be fully expensed to one's employer.
I'm not sure how valid time shifting a rented video would be, as there is no need to time shift.
Just thinking out loud really but I thought that it might come into play in a scenario where you're renting out and then immediately reusing each individual "bit" rather than renting out and locking up one video stream at a time for the entire 2 hours. Since there would be some buffering on the user's end I would categorize that cached user copy as sort of micro time shifting so the supplier could go on to immediately re-rent out that same "bit" without knowing for sure if the first user has actually finished viewing it yet.
That's probably stretching things a bit, but IMO I agree with you that, at the very least, renting out a dedicated stream of a movie that I own should be as legal as renting out a video that I own. I just think that you can take this further to rent out smaller portions of the movie at a time to increase your capacity. Especially in this case, without using a time shifting analogy the MPAA etc. could argue that the seller does not know whether the user has actually finished viewing the buffered segment to free it up for the next user.
I hope that makes sense. Man, I should get to sleep.
...They rent the movie for 90 minutes. Then they can rent it again. A 90 minute movie can be let upto 16 times a day, providing the times its let out are right (note this doesnt mean they can let 16 copys of the movie out at once for each copy they own)...
...I agreee that this site may not have a copy of the movie for each copy it streams out at once, but it doesnt mean the principal is wrong.
Actually, assuming that the rest of your logic about video rentals is right, you might not really have to assume that the site has a copy for each stream.
As long as they aren't sending out the same bit of data at the same time for each copy they own, then your logic still holds up (although the analogy to the physical example is slightly more abstract). It would be as though the customer was renting, then using, then returning every second of movie they watch as they watch it - therefore making it immediately available to the next user to rent.
Furthermore, by buffering the stream correctly (slightly in advance of the user watching it) and maybe treating the user's cache similarly to the "time shifting" effect of VCR's, you could probably "rent" a *very* large number of movies simultaneously to multiple users without ever actually sending any of them the same bit at the same time. It should actually be pretty straightforward to calculate this number, based on the quality of the movie, the available bandwidth, the number of users, the distribution of starting times, and perhaps some adjustments for network, buffering, and caching delays.
Like perfect copies without degradation, this is obviously another difference between the traditional and networked/digital mediums that changes all the old rules (or put a different way, this is why the MPAA etc. wants the old rules to apply differently for this new medium).
How many of us read this headline and thought, "YEAH! FORTY-TWO BABY!!! +5 Funny Karma, here I come! WOO!!!"
:).
...and how many of us braced ourselves for about a dozen "imagine a beowolf cluster of these" comments (while *secretly* thinking it might actually be *kinda* funny this time -- errr, of course not me, mind you
It might not be a direct analogy, but the Open Source movement certainly inspired their actions to pursue this type of open bidding process.
So while they might not be equivalent, I think that it's really cool that non-conventional approaches in other industries are being inspired by the growing success and profile of Open Source solutions in software.
If other industries begin to seriously experiment with various types of peer collaboration models some of the new approaches might stick. If they point to Open Source and Free Software as inspiration for whatever success they achieve, I think that the community should accept that as a good reflection and recognition of the real impact this way of thinking is starting to make. It's also great advertising for Open Source -- I'm sure this story has exposed a bunch of mining executives and analysts to Linux etc. for the first time, and in a positive light at that.
The Open Source movement is as much (or more) about thinking outside of the box as it is about code, copyrights, and collaboration.
I'd love to see more stories like this on Slashdot, even if the direct links are sometimes tenuous.
IANAM, but I wonder what would have happened if who ever actually bound and transcribed the first copies of the Qur'an had declared publishing rights and refused to allow the distribution of low cost copies or even public prayer.
If they had today's laws then the words might have passed into the public domain some 75 years or so after the Prophet rode to heaven, but presumably the actual author (Allah) isn't dead (Nietzsche aside) so they could try to hold on to it indefinitely.
Okay, that may be a silly way of looking at things, and I guess you could say that Allah or Muhammed would'nt have allowed this, but seriously, shouldn't religous scholars and men of god be more aware that ideas are not really property (or at least not the property of man)?
The concept of intellectual property is a (useful if done right) legal fiction constructed to encourage innovation (patents, copyrights) and reduce deception (trademarks). Even if you send people to jail I don't understand how breaking such artificial and clearly secular laws can be considered so fundamentally sinful.
With economies of scale, the cost of production approach zero with an increase of output--e.g. it costs less to produce 10,000 than it does 100.
Not exactly. Economies of scale generally decrease the unit cost of production. Producing 10,000 units probably doesn't cost less than 100, but each individual unit does cost less at the higher volume.
In other words, it costs many times more to distribute 100GB per month than it does to distribute 10GB per month.
Again, just like conventional economies of scale, 100GB may cost more per month in total, but the higher volume will likely cost less per GB than the lower volume. Even this may be debatable though (as another reply pointed out) depending on the mix between upfront capital costs and ongoing service costs. Also you'll probably see some significant step costs - e.g., 100GB might cost the same as 10GB while 101GB might be twice as much (in total, but probably still much less per unit). I doubt that these kind of "logarithmic" increases would hold true when averaged over the whole curve.
Eventually, the peer-to-peer networks will be the proverbial victims of their own success. People will stop using them when the ISP bill runs into the triple digits.
...expect the implicit cost to transform into explicit costs (in terms of higher ISP bills) in the near future.
You are right that the dynamics are more complex than the simple "unlimited distribution" theory, and that some costs will undoubtably shift from one place to another. However, there are definitely huge advantages and cost savings related to digital media and internet distribution and the middle men will have to adapt or die...