Maybe it's annoying that one has to write a perl script to harvest cookies when they could have given us their minimum price in the first place. In general, it makes shopping more time consuming, that's all. --
remember how easy it is to comparison shop on the web
Not if different customers get different prices-- the shopping bots will get whatever price they stumble on, and the price that you actually get may be better or worse than what the bot advertises. --
I think the patent also says something about using that data to insert keystrokes into the stream, getting advertiser info from a central server, and redirecting the web browser to the advertiser's web page.
But still, you're right, it seems awfully close to voice recognition, barcode scanner data going into the input stream, and browser redirection. I guess a new patent can be composed of previous patents and still be legit? --
Or... a company gets contracted by major ISP's to install proxy servers around the net to cache large streams of multimedia so the ISP's users have faster access to the digital movies.
Does this sound reminiscent of the my.mp3.com case? MP3.com made internal copies to make access more convenient for its users, for which it got sued for. --
1) I think they want to make money when people either scan product barcodes, or when they receive the audio "barcodes". Either way of hooking you is fine with them.
2) You can buy the cable at RadioShack or WalMart for $2-$5, there's nothing special about it. So go try it out yourself if you want. But watch out if you don't use their cable, I bet they'll try to sue ya.
3) My original point was that the patent itself doesn't seem to include the CueCat anywhere because the CueCat is for optical barcodes, not the audio ones. The patent might cover some of the software, but since most people just want to use the barcode for arbitrary reasons and not for scanning products and being taken to D:C's advertisers, then libcue shouldn't infringe on the patent. --
Heck if they put "CueCat" in the output somewhere, that would be copyrightable, and therefor protected under the DMCA
No, short phrases and names aren't copyrightable. Trademarkable though.
The ula states that, in more or less words everything about the cuecat is copyrighted
Yes, they'd like to control the CueCat as much as possible. Of course. But the consumer wants some control over their lives too, and the lines have to be drawn somewhere in between. In the end, democracy and capitalism were created to benefit the common citizen. Companies are a means to that end, not a roadblock keeping you from that end. --
Does this mean that if you have really good memory, you could break the law by watching digital TV?
As another poster pointed out, VCR's are just a memory-augmentation device. It's something we already do, and it's something that may eventually be incorporated into our bodies more intimately. What then? --
First off, it seems odd to have a separate copyright for every single CueCat they manufactured.
Also, it seems odd to copyright something so trivial and small. See the copyright office's circular "Copyright Basics : What is not protected by Copyright?". It mentions "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents" aren't copyrightable. Short strings of gobledygook are pretty close to "short phrases" or maybe a few other ones. --
No doubt. Do you want to see products from companies that have made a lot of money by screwing other people, or do you want to surf epinions to see what end-users actually find useful? --
Okay, there are a few laws about of a few specific things that you're not supposed to do. (also included: can't mix certain household chemicals without having an explosive maker's license).
But there's no law that says "if a manufacturer says that you can only do X with their product, then you must listen to them" for every X that a manufacturer could dream up. --
Though I don't get the audio signal part. The text of the patent seems pretty similar though. And the patent seems really trivial.
Also, the patent covers the whole application, not the specific encoding scheme that the CueCat uses to talk to the computer with. So if the linux driver only allows reading of barcodes, it should be okay and not get tangled in this patent...? --
A method for controlling a computer by inputting an analog signal into the computer to control a web browser software application. The analog signal contains a trigger signal which activates proprietary software, and a product identifier. The proprietary software launches the web browser application on the computer, extracts the product identifier, and creates an appended data string by appending server address (URL) routing information to the product identifier information. The appended data string is automatically inserted into the web browser as keystroke data and routed to an advertiser reference server. The appended routing information directs communication to the advertiser reference server which contains a cross-referenced database of advertiser product identifier information and associated advertiser server URLs. The advertiser server URL and a request for product information relevant to the product identifier is returned to the computer web browser where it is automatically redirected to the advertiser server containing the advertiser product information. The advertiser product information is then returned to the computer for display.
It doesn't look like it has anything to do with the CueCat. --
They should feel free to ask us not to use their hardware, but when they try to force us not to, I refuse to cooperate with their impolite request.
Actually, according to their EULA, they claim that they're only loaning the CueCat to you, therefore, it's their property and they can control how you use it.
Counter-examples abound... renters can't completely control how you use their apartment... bankers can't completely control how you use their money they loan to you. --
Right. If you kill someone with a product, it's the illegal act of killing that's a problem, not that you did something unauthorized with the product. --
I'm assuming you mean that the:C:C is protecting copyrighted data in barcodes,
What I meant was that I was making an assumption about what the previous poster meant because I didn't understand them. Not an assumption about what the:C:C actually does.
This is what IS protected, and the DMCA states if you try to go around this scrambling you are "circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title [DMCA]."
What copyrighted work are you claiming to be protected by the:C:C? Some copyrighted barcodes? The DMCA states, in the introduction:
The DMCA prohibits gaining unauthorized access to a work by circumventing a technological protection measure put in place by the copyright owner where such protection measure otherwise effectively controls access to a copyrighted work
In other words, if there are thousands of other barcode readers, then the:C:C doesn't effectively prevent copying the barcode data.
Or are you claiming that the DMCA covers the:C:C in some other bizarre way? No other data is being copied with the Linux driver, so I don't see how it could be anything else. --
EULAs on physical property. How far does this go? If every physical object that we buy has a EULA like this and the EULAs are upheld, then we might as well throw away the fair use laws right now. --
I'm assuming you mean that the:C:C is protecting copyrighted data in barcodes, because the DMCA only covers copyrighted data.
Decoding the output of the:C:C isn't accessing protected works, it's descrambling data that could be gotten by merely using a normal barcode scanner. The scrambling is being done in the:C:C, not in the barcode. --
It has a PS2 connector passthru for the keyboard, but the data doesn't go into the keyboard stream (it's slightly obfuscated), but is used to contact D:C's servers and display the info that they want to give you.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's annoying that one has to write a perl script to harvest cookies when they could have given us their minimum price in the first place. In general, it makes shopping more time consuming, that's all.
--
Yeah, it could gather up all the cookies it gets, save the one with the best price, and post it to a web site.
--
So then we'd need a distributed bot such that each client would look like a normal person browsing.
--
And then the store that just give you their lowest price will get the sales because it's easier to just shop there?
--
Not if different customers get different prices-- the shopping bots will get whatever price they stumble on, and the price that you actually get may be better or worse than what the bot advertises.
--
But still, you're right, it seems awfully close to voice recognition, barcode scanner data going into the input stream, and browser redirection. I guess a new patent can be composed of previous patents and still be legit?
--
Does this sound reminiscent of the my.mp3.com case? MP3.com made internal copies to make access more convenient for its users, for which it got sued for.
--
1) I think they want to make money when people either scan product barcodes, or when they receive the audio "barcodes". Either way of hooking you is fine with them.
2) You can buy the cable at RadioShack or WalMart for $2-$5, there's nothing special about it. So go try it out yourself if you want. But watch out if you don't use their cable, I bet they'll try to sue ya.
3) My original point was that the patent itself doesn't seem to include the CueCat anywhere because the CueCat is for optical barcodes, not the audio ones. The patent might cover some of the software, but since most people just want to use the barcode for arbitrary reasons and not for scanning products and being taken to D:C's advertisers, then libcue shouldn't infringe on the patent.
--
Heck if they put "CueCat" in the output somewhere, that would be copyrightable, and therefor protected under the DMCA
No, short phrases and names aren't copyrightable. Trademarkable though.
The ula states that, in more or less words everything about the cuecat is copyrighted
Yes, they'd like to control the CueCat as much as possible. Of course. But the consumer wants some control over their lives too, and the lines have to be drawn somewhere in between. In the end, democracy and capitalism were created to benefit the common citizen. Companies are a means to that end, not a roadblock keeping you from that end.
--
As another poster pointed out, VCR's are just a memory-augmentation device. It's something we already do, and it's something that may eventually be incorporated into our bodies more intimately. What then?
--
First off, it seems odd to have a separate copyright for every single CueCat they manufactured.
Also, it seems odd to copyright something so trivial and small. See the copyright office's circular "Copyright Basics : What is not protected by Copyright?". It mentions "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents" aren't copyrightable. Short strings of gobledygook are pretty close to "short phrases" or maybe a few other ones.
--
No doubt. Do you want to see products from companies that have made a lot of money by screwing other people, or do you want to surf epinions to see what end-users actually find useful?
--
But there's no law that says "if a manufacturer says that you can only do X with their product, then you must listen to them" for every X that a manufacturer could dream up.
--
It seems to have a lot more to do with their "Convergence Cable" than with CueCat.
--
Exactly. If you go into Radio Shack, they try to shove it into your bag, they don't try to warn you that it could be taken away later.
--
Especially when many other barcode readers were out there allowing access before the CueCat came out.
--
US6098106: Method for controlling a computer with an audio signal
Though I don't get the audio signal part. The text of the patent seems pretty similar though. And the patent seems really trivial.
Also, the patent covers the whole application, not the specific encoding scheme that the CueCat uses to talk to the computer with. So if the linux driver only allows reading of barcodes, it should be okay and not get tangled in this patent...?
--
Well, maybe it's similar, but "audio"??
--
- 6,098,106 Method for controlling a computer with an audio signal
It doesn't look like it has anything to do with the CueCat.A method for controlling a computer by inputting an analog signal into the computer to control a web browser software application. The analog signal contains a trigger signal which activates proprietary software, and a product identifier. The proprietary software launches the web browser application on the computer, extracts the product identifier, and creates an appended data string by appending server address (URL) routing information to the product identifier information. The appended data string is automatically inserted into the web browser as keystroke data and routed to an advertiser reference server. The appended routing information directs communication to the advertiser reference server which contains a cross-referenced database of advertiser product identifier information and associated advertiser server URLs. The advertiser server URL and a request for product information relevant to the product identifier is returned to the computer web browser where it is automatically redirected to the advertiser server containing the advertiser product information. The advertiser product information is then returned to the computer for display.
--
Actually, according to their EULA, they claim that they're only loaning the CueCat to you, therefore, it's their property and they can control how you use it.
Counter-examples abound... renters can't completely control how you use their apartment... bankers can't completely control how you use their money they loan to you.
--
Right. If you kill someone with a product, it's the illegal act of killing that's a problem, not that you did something unauthorized with the product.
--
What I meant was that I was making an assumption about what the previous poster meant because I didn't understand them. Not an assumption about what the :C:C actually does.
This is what IS protected, and the DMCA states if you try to go around this scrambling you are "circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title [DMCA]."
What copyrighted work are you claiming to be protected by the :C:C? Some copyrighted barcodes? The DMCA states, in the introduction:
In other words, if there are thousands of other barcode readers, then the :C:C doesn't effectively prevent copying the barcode data.
Or are you claiming that the DMCA covers the :C:C in some other bizarre way? No other data is being copied with the Linux driver, so I don't see how it could be anything else.
--
EULAs on physical property. How far does this go? If every physical object that we buy has a EULA like this and the EULAs are upheld, then we might as well throw away the fair use laws right now.
--
Decoding the output of the :C:C isn't accessing protected works, it's descrambling data that could be gotten by merely using a normal barcode scanner. The scrambling is being done in the :C:C, not in the barcode.
--
It has a PS2 connector passthru for the keyboard, but the data doesn't go into the keyboard stream (it's slightly obfuscated), but is used to contact D:C's servers and display the info that they want to give you.
I don't know of any advances in the reader.
--