The RIAA has already taken* music away from me. I do not want to support an industry that labels me a criminal for wanting to lawfully use their product, so I don't (for the most part) buy or listen to new music. I don't download it either.
The MPAA and broadcasters are now planning to block fair use access to movies and TV, so I'll have to stop supporting them, too.
Pretty soon the only thing left will be books. And, seriously, who wants to read?;)
I'm so tired of the US government being a battle between 2 political parties (and a bunch of others who can't get a break). And I'm even more tired of people blindly following "their" party.
Career politicians aren't necessarily doing what's best for their constituents, or even the country. That's being made abundantly clear by the impending passage of this law. Giving the media control of the medium is going too far.
Is this ruling saying that Safeway, for example, cannot buy and ad saying "Safeway sells Starbucks Coffee" or is it it merely saying that they can't have link text of just "Starbucks Coffee" linking to their site?
Its subtle, but I can see where the latter could be a trademark infringment. It is taking advantage of the brand recognition, and by only having the name could imply that its a link to Starbucks. That's kind of analogous to opening up a 12-pack labelled Coca-cola and finding 12 cans of Pepsi inside; the "wrapper" is misleading.
But if its an outright ban on using the trademarked term in an ad, then that is abso-friggin-lutely insane, and in fact seems to be anti-competitive.
Actually if there was a guy named "Ford" who opened a Toyota dealership named "Ford's Cars", that would very likely be a trademark infringement and would be banned by trademark law. Since in your example Ford (the guy) and Ford (the big company) are both in the same business, naming his car dealership "Ford" would most likely be found to be delibreately misleading.
On the other hand, if someone named "Bob" opened up a Ford dealership named "Bobs Totally-Awesome Car World", I can see no reason that he shouldn't be allowed to purchase an ad on Google when people search for "Ford" (the car, the man, whatever).
Uh, yeah. Cuz we all know how much MS worries about anti-trust punishments. Last time they had to "pay" their fines by giving free MS products to schools.
Maybe next time the judge will make bill go to his room without dinner.
Back when the "cool" thing was to register domains like "yaho.com" and "yhaoo.com" and "ecxite.com" and other typos, it was pretty annoying. Now VeriSign is trying to leverage their position to do the same thing for free (yeah, yeah... its not for free, because they'll probably claim they spent another $150m in infrastructure to run the SiteFinder servers).
as for walmart, there's no need to put one on every empty plot... a single walmart can shut down small shops for miles around.
In theory, an open source, auditable computer system should be hard to corrupt, too, and should be much quicker tallying votes than a (large) group of human volunteers.
But definitely less likely to be seen by the majority. I'm probably the only person in my immediate family (and probably a few more levels of indirection beyond that) who reads Wired, and I only occasionally read it. Its not exactly a mass market publication.
Political parties piss me off. There are the big 2 parties, then a whole bunch of "third" parties. That makes no sense to me.
Try explaining that to a first grader: "Here's how you count political parties: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3..., but only 1 and 2 really matter, and right now republicans are 1, so they run things. 1 and 2 can also get campaign funding from taxes so they can have much more elaborate campaigns than 3, to ensure that most elected officials are from 1 or 2." Insane.
Riiiight. Everyone's out to squash the conspiracy theorists. We've all heard that before. Get out from under your tinfoil hat, and stop being so paranoid.;)
I don't think that makes much of a difference to the open software community.
The people making free software know what they are doing. The people using free software know what they are doing (most of the time, anyway). If other people don't get it or are afraid of it, the only consequence is that THEY won't use it. They can't stop people from developing software under the GPL. They can just look for alternatives.
As time goes on, more and more companies will realize the benefits of free software. Or maybe not. I find it very hard to believe that people and companies who have already accepted the GPL and enjoy the benefits of free software will suddenly stop using it, especially if they've invested time and money developing their own GPL software.
"Common practice" and "obvious" are completely different things. 7 years ago the web was still very young. Yahoo! was still mainly a directory and search company, and had just begun serving Reuters news feeds to the public.
As I recall there wasn't much in the way of customization or personalization at the time, but EVERYONE was starting to implement it. As I recall, both Yahoo and Excite had personalizable pages by the summer of 1996. Yahoo unvelied My Yahoo, and Excite changed their homepage to be customizable. Those sites used the user's zip code to pre-populate local news, weather and sports sections of the page, and further customization was possible, with all settings stored on a server.
It wasn't common practice, but it was definitely becoming common practice. Certainly with the number of sites independantly launching customized pages around the same time, that practice was clearly obvious to people in the industry at the time.
Yeah, but only if XX is 17. Ask Unisys... that whole GIF thing a few years ago. Their patent was about to run out, so they made a last ditch effort to extract revenue from it. They never protected it until it had become a deeply intrenched internet "standard" for images.
I just hope it lasts long enough to get the PTO's poor application processing some air time.
Wouldn't it be neat if Microsoft took the opportunity to point out that the PTO is giving out absurd patents and start some massive reform of hte system?
I think the use of those words is quite appropriate. They list a series of cases involving PhD students, security researchers, and startups. By applying the DMCA to stifle such people, the plaintiffs are equating the defendants with pirates. As you implied in your post, that is completely absurd.
Using the industrys' own terms they show that the laws are being exploited to prosecute people who clearly are not "pirates". They're using DMCA supporters' own propaganda against them to demonstrate how ludicrous the DMCA is.
None of the clients did anything wrong. Yahoo changed the protocol all of a sudden, and it took them a couple of days to figure it out.
Kopete CVS credits Gaim with coming up with the fix. From kopete/protocols/yahoo/libyahoo2/libyahoo2.c:
1.15 (mattr 29-Sep-03):/* 1.15 (mattr 29-Sep-03): * New auth protocol cracked by Sean Egan from the Gaim team 1.15 (mattr 29-Sep-03): * Dude you Rock! 1.15 (mattr 29-Sep-03): * 1.15 (mattr 29-Sep-03): * I should say thanks again to gaim without which this library 1.15 (mattr 29-Sep-03): * would not have been possible 1.15 (mattr 29-Sep-03): */ 1.15 (mattr 29-Sep-03): static void yahoo_process_auth_0x0b(struct yahoo_input_data *yid, const char *seed, const char *sn)
When Yahoo made the update, any connected clients stayed connected, but new logins needed the new protocol. I'm not sure what your situation is, but Kopete definitely needed some sort of upgrade to stay be able to connect. Perhaps a shared library version of libyahoo2 got updated on your system?
GAIM got a fix from Cerulean, but they made some tweaks to make it work on Mac and other big-endian computers. the comments in the gaim code gives "uber-mad props" to Cerulean.
I'm just happy to be able to get back on Yahoo IM after a few days "off".
Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA has already taken* music away from me. I do not want to support an industry that labels me a criminal for wanting to lawfully use their product, so I don't (for the most part) buy or listen to new music. I don't download it either.
;)
The MPAA and broadcasters are now planning to block fair use access to movies and TV, so I'll have to stop supporting them, too.
Pretty soon the only thing left will be books. And, seriously, who wants to read?
Right f'ing on!
I'm so tired of the US government being a battle between 2 political parties (and a bunch of others who can't get a break). And I'm even more tired of people blindly following "their" party.
Career politicians aren't necessarily doing what's best for their constituents, or even the country. That's being made abundantly clear by the impending passage of this law. Giving the media control of the medium is going too far.
No he didn't. He just said there should be one.
(how long can we keep this going?)
As the article mentions, France turned Yahoo into a watchdog over auctions a few years ago. Fortunately Tim Koogle was acquitted of his "war crimes".
Is this ruling saying that Safeway, for example, cannot buy and ad saying "Safeway sells Starbucks Coffee" or is it it merely saying that they can't have link text of just "Starbucks Coffee" linking to their site?
Its subtle, but I can see where the latter could be a trademark infringment. It is taking advantage of the brand recognition, and by only having the name could imply that its a link to Starbucks. That's kind of analogous to opening up a 12-pack labelled Coca-cola and finding 12 cans of Pepsi inside; the "wrapper" is misleading.
But if its an outright ban on using the trademarked term in an ad, then that is abso-friggin-lutely insane, and in fact seems to be anti-competitive.
Can't they just claim to have Weapons of Mass Destruction like all the countries who beg for media attention?
Actually if there was a guy named "Ford" who opened a Toyota dealership named "Ford's Cars", that would very likely be a trademark infringement and would be banned by trademark law. Since in your example Ford (the guy) and Ford (the big company) are both in the same business, naming his car dealership "Ford" would most likely be found to be delibreately misleading.
On the other hand, if someone named "Bob" opened up a Ford dealership named "Bobs Totally-Awesome Car World", I can see no reason that he shouldn't be allowed to purchase an ad on Google when people search for "Ford" (the car, the man, whatever).
That is insane.
Uh, yeah. Cuz we all know how much MS worries about anti-trust punishments. Last time they had to "pay" their fines by giving free MS products to schools.
Maybe next time the judge will make bill go to his room without dinner.
I was trying to be funny, hence the smilie at the end. i thought it was pretty blatant.
guess i failed.
You got it...
Back when the "cool" thing was to register domains like "yaho.com" and "yhaoo.com" and "ecxite.com" and other typos, it was pretty annoying. Now VeriSign is trying to leverage their position to do the same thing for free (yeah, yeah... its not for free, because they'll probably claim they spent another $150m in infrastructure to run the SiteFinder servers).
as for walmart, there's no need to put one on every empty plot... a single walmart can shut down small shops for miles around.
In theory, an open source, auditable computer system should be hard to corrupt, too, and should be much quicker tallying votes than a (large) group of human volunteers.
Maybe, maybe not.
But definitely less likely to be seen by the majority. I'm probably the only person in my immediate family (and probably a few more levels of indirection beyond that) who reads Wired, and I only occasionally read it. Its not exactly a mass market publication.
Political parties piss me off. There are the big 2 parties, then a whole bunch of "third" parties. That makes no sense to me.
Try explaining that to a first grader: "Here's how you count political parties: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3..., but only 1 and 2 really matter, and right now republicans are 1, so they run things. 1 and 2 can also get campaign funding from taxes so they can have much more elaborate campaigns than 3, to ensure that most elected officials are from 1 or 2." Insane.
Riiiight. Everyone's out to squash the conspiracy theorists. We've all heard that before. Get out from under your tinfoil hat, and stop being so paranoid. ;)
I don't think that makes much of a difference to the open software community.
The people making free software know what they are doing. The people using free software know what they are doing (most of the time, anyway). If other people don't get it or are afraid of it, the only consequence is that THEY won't use it. They can't stop people from developing software under the GPL. They can just look for alternatives.
As time goes on, more and more companies will realize the benefits of free software. Or maybe not. I find it very hard to believe that people and companies who have already accepted the GPL and enjoy the benefits of free software will suddenly stop using it, especially if they've invested time and money developing their own GPL software.
"Common practice" and "obvious" are completely different things. 7 years ago the web was still very young. Yahoo! was still mainly a directory and search company, and had just begun serving Reuters news feeds to the public.
As I recall there wasn't much in the way of customization or personalization at the time, but EVERYONE was starting to implement it. As I recall, both Yahoo and Excite had personalizable pages by the summer of 1996. Yahoo unvelied My Yahoo, and Excite changed their homepage to be customizable. Those sites used the user's zip code to pre-populate local news, weather and sports sections of the page, and further customization was possible, with all settings stored on a server.
It wasn't common practice, but it was definitely becoming common practice. Certainly with the number of sites independantly launching customized pages around the same time, that practice was clearly obvious to people in the industry at the time.
No, the ultimate fate of every computing device is to become a mail reader.
Maybe SunnComm should sue BMG for violating the DMCA.
Yeah, but only if XX is 17. Ask Unisys... that whole GIF thing a few years ago. Their patent was about to run out, so they made a last ditch effort to extract revenue from it. They never protected it until it had become a deeply intrenched internet "standard" for images.
I just hope it lasts long enough to get the PTO's poor application processing some air time.
Wouldn't it be neat if Microsoft took the opportunity to point out that the PTO is giving out absurd patents and start some massive reform of hte system?
Somehow I doubt it.
I think the use of those words is quite appropriate. They list a series of cases involving PhD students, security researchers, and startups. By applying the DMCA to stifle such people, the plaintiffs are equating the defendants with pirates. As you implied in your post, that is completely absurd.
Using the industrys' own terms they show that the laws are being exploited to prosecute people who clearly are not "pirates". They're using DMCA supporters' own propaganda against them to demonstrate how ludicrous the DMCA is.
'What legal theory can we claim that will result in what we want
Hey, if it works for the US government (see recent posts about the USA PATRIOT Act), surely it will work for SCO!
Apple has an article about it. Its an old article, and its on Apple's site, so make your own conclusions. But it is a reference :)
Kopete CVS credits Gaim with coming up with the fix. From kopete/protocols/yahoo/libyahoo2/libyahoo2.c:When Yahoo made the update, any connected clients stayed connected, but new logins needed the new protocol. I'm not sure what your situation is, but Kopete definitely needed some sort of upgrade to stay be able to connect. Perhaps a shared library version of libyahoo2 got updated on your system?
GAIM got a fix from Cerulean, but they made some tweaks to make it work on Mac and other big-endian computers. the comments in the gaim code gives "uber-mad props" to Cerulean.
I'm just happy to be able to get back on Yahoo IM after a few days "off".