Hollywood believes that copy protection will spur the use of broadband.
Why do they think this? With copy protection, downmloading movies would require a purchase, and fee-based online music services are already not doing well.
I, for one would not base my conversion to broadband on the fact that I could purchase movies.
The problem with the dot com boom/bust is that it seemed like a grand experiment that failed. The Internet is still a fairly new idea, and business on it was never done before.
Everyone expected it to do well, people invested heavily, not realizing the risk involved.
Maybe all programming languages are becoming more similar because early programming languages were inefficient or lacking in some way. Everyone is striving for the same efficient design and structure.
Yes, the Net can provide access for filesharing, but more directly involved are the people who write the file-sharing software (like Napster).
But of course, it ultimately rests on the file sharers themselves. The problem is that there are simply too many sharers to go after. Enforcement on that level is nearly impossible.
So the authorities go after sites and software developers in order to halt file sharing. but it's ridiculous to blame the Internet itself. Besides, there are too many legal uses of the Net to merit any action against it.
It's the first two words in the subject line that makes censorship on the web difficult. It transcends state and country boundaries. You can access content from servers almost anywhere in the world from the comfort of your home or office.
Also note that the U.S. currently has the most stringent laws, especially in regards to IP and copyright, which seems to be the cause for most C & D letters.
That with all the technology (e-mail filters) and thought/legislation (recent anti-spam laws) on this matter, and it takes an almost 400-year-old law to get the protection from spam right?
Then again, to kill a fly, I just use a flyswatter.
They agreed to ten demands and even coughed up lawyer fees. Seems like one of the most powerful weapons one can use is public humiliation. If this went on, more and more of the public would learn about this.
The only problem is they're going to continue using this copy protection. How many other distributors will adopt this or similar protection schemes in the future?
I support disseminating Linux as freely as AOL does its CDs.
Perhaps that might be a good idea. The big advantage of free software is the fact that this could be done. You can't beat the price. However, people do not have the same awareness of Linux as they do AOL.
How about an ad-campaign a la IBM Infrastructure commercials to explain Linux in plain English? Without awareness, few would be likely to pick up the CD.
Like the article says, it's a tip o' the hat for Zelda fans. The Triforce (beat Ganon at the end of the game for it) was the ultimate goal in the early Zelda games, especially the first one and the SNES's "Link to the Past".
And it makes sense, for three developers (Nintendo, Sega and Namco) are involved.
Also clear is the ease and frequency of abuses by said entities.
Iamgine a world where news outlets are controlled by only a handful of companies. Competition is also good for news services as well as other industries.
In this fday and age of heightened anti-trust awareness (Microsoft, the failed GE/Honeywell merger, the troubled HP/Compaq proposed merger) and the media proclaiming it as a Bad Thing, why all this talk of consolidating media companies?
Note that the media companies aren't complaining about monopoly power here as well.
Though federal law only requires the consent of one person before a telephone call or Internet communication can be recorded, Pennsylvania and 11 other states require the consent of all parties.
I wonder if these 12 states consider a defendant giving permission to recording phone calls or releasing IM logs to be a sort of self-incrimination, thus violating the 5th Amendment?
It's interesting the some state do and do not allow this.
As one rock manager computes it, if a consumer buys the standard Gold Plan on Pressplay, paying $19.95 for 75 songs downloaded to a hard drive and 750 streamed so that they can be heard only once, an artist, after these deductions, gets $.0023 per song downloaded. To earn a penny, more than four songs must be downloaded.
Aren't the artists getting shortchanged? According to copyright law, the current statutory rate for a U.S. copyright is 7.1 per song. (See, 37 C.F.R. 255.3(h)) This minimum rate is effective until January 1, 2000, after which it will go up every two years until 2006, at which time it will remain at 9.1 per song until changed.
There's a lot more to royalty calculations as well. More info on Freeadvice.com.
It's called that because he helped write and sponsor the bill. It was lobbied heavily for by Disney, since their characters were approaching the public domain.
The Constitution authorizes Congress to give authors and inventors the exclusive right to their works for a "limited" time. In 1790, copyrights lasted 14 years. Now it's 70 years after the death of the inventor, if the person is known.
Lawrence Lessig, attorney for the challengers, said the latest 20-year extension approved by Congress in 1998 is ill-timed and unconstitutional.
Key to this is limited times. The current copyright laws are nigh limitless, as far as human lifetimes are concerned. And it only takes an act of Congress to extend terms again, 20 years at a time. (Thanks, Sonny Bono!)
I do believe that authors and artist should profit from their works. But there should be a balance struck between the rights of producers of IP, and the consumers. Reverting to shorter terms (perhaps the original) would fill the bill nicely.
The Net is populated with the "Average Joe"
on
Disinformation.com
·
· Score: 1
But not always. Yes, the Net was for the exchange of ideas, but when it became available for mass consumption, the average user didn't want to exchange ideas, but to put up pics from their last vacation for their family to see,or host their N'SYNC fansite.
There are areas for information and areas for pop culture. Now that's why we have Google, to separate the truly informative stuff from the drivel.
Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood believes that copy protection will spur the use of broadband.
Why do they think this? With copy protection, downmloading movies would require a purchase, and fee-based online music services are already not doing well.
I, for one would not base my conversion to broadband on the fact that I could purchase movies.
The problem with the dot com boom/bust is that it seemed like a grand experiment that failed. The Internet is still a fairly new idea, and business on it was never done before.
Everyone expected it to do well, people invested heavily, not realizing the risk involved.
Maybe all programming languages are becoming more similar because early programming languages were inefficient or lacking in some way. Everyone is striving for the same efficient design and structure.
Yes, the Net can provide access for filesharing, but more directly involved are the people who write the file-sharing software (like Napster).
But of course, it ultimately rests on the file sharers themselves. The problem is that there are simply too many sharers to go after. Enforcement on that level is nearly impossible.
So the authorities go after sites and software developers in order to halt file sharing. but it's ridiculous to blame the Internet itself. Besides, there are too many legal uses of the Net to merit any action against it.
It's the first two words in the subject line that makes censorship on the web difficult. It transcends state and country boundaries. You can access content from servers almost anywhere in the world from the comfort of your home or office.
Also note that the U.S. currently has the most stringent laws, especially in regards to IP and copyright, which seems to be the cause for most C & D letters.
Not everyone running a Slash site has the time or desire or ability to read mountains of Perl code.
It also takes a little heat of the people who run Slashcode, since a lot of the questions they answer are likely handled in the book.
That with all the technology (e-mail filters) and thought/legislation (recent anti-spam laws) on this matter, and it takes an almost 400-year-old law to get the protection from spam right?
Then again, to kill a fly, I just use a flyswatter.
Also, they found the most networked of all Marvel heroes was Steve Rogers, Captain America himself
Why not? He was the first major character (March 1941) that put Marvel, then known as Timely Comics on the map. He's simply had more time to network.
Only Human Torch (October 1939) and Sub-Mariner are older.
More info here (Google cache only)
They agreed to ten demands and even coughed up lawyer fees. Seems like one of the most powerful weapons one can use is public humiliation. If this went on, more and more of the public would learn about this.
The only problem is they're going to continue using this copy protection. How many other distributors will adopt this or similar protection schemes in the future?
I agree with of Lomborg completely.
In the NYC area, the reverse is essentially true.
Cormorant Population Boom
The 1998 State of the Environment Report shows declines in pollution across the board.
NY State spending billions for environment
I support disseminating Linux as freely as AOL does its CDs.
Perhaps that might be a good idea. The big advantage of free software is the fact that this could be done. You can't beat the price. However, people do not have the same awareness of Linux as they do AOL.
How about an ad-campaign a la IBM Infrastructure commercials to explain Linux in plain English? Without awareness, few would be likely to pick up the CD.
It has nothing to do with "Force", really.
Like the article says, it's a tip o' the hat for Zelda fans. The Triforce (beat Ganon at the end of the game for it) was the ultimate goal in the early Zelda games, especially the first one and the SNES's "Link to the Past".
And it makes sense, for three developers (Nintendo, Sega and Namco) are involved.
Therefore, Triforce.
Also clear is the ease and frequency of abuses by said entities.
Iamgine a world where news outlets are controlled by only a handful of companies. Competition is also good for news services as well as other industries.
In this fday and age of heightened anti-trust awareness (Microsoft, the failed GE/Honeywell merger, the troubled HP/Compaq proposed merger) and the media proclaiming it as a Bad Thing, why all this talk of consolidating media companies?
Note that the media companies aren't complaining about monopoly power here as well.
Though federal law only requires the consent of one person before a telephone call or Internet communication can be recorded, Pennsylvania and 11 other states require the consent of all parties.
I wonder if these 12 states consider a defendant giving permission to recording phone calls or releasing IM logs to be a sort of self-incrimination, thus violating the 5th Amendment?
It's interesting the some state do and do not allow this.
Spyware seems to fit this definition as a less-appreciated form of leech computing.
As one rock manager computes it, if a consumer buys the standard Gold Plan on Pressplay, paying $19.95 for 75 songs downloaded to a hard drive and 750 streamed so that they can be heard only once, an artist, after these deductions, gets $.0023 per song downloaded. To earn a penny, more than four songs must be downloaded.
Aren't the artists getting shortchanged? According to copyright law, the current statutory rate for a U.S. copyright is 7.1 per song. (See, 37 C.F.R. 255.3(h)) This minimum rate is effective until January 1, 2000, after which it will go up every two years until 2006, at which time it will remain at 9.1 per song until changed.
There's a lot more to royalty calculations as well. More info on Freeadvice.com.
Then again, the original law did provide for 14 years, with the copyright owner's option for doubling the term to 28 years.
28 years seems quite reasonable. Remember, one resting on their laurels for past creations have less incentive to create again.
It's called that because he helped write and sponsor the bill. It was lobbied heavily for by Disney, since their characters were approaching the public domain.
More info here.
The Constitution authorizes Congress to give authors and inventors the exclusive right to their works for a "limited" time. In 1790, copyrights lasted 14 years. Now it's 70 years after the death of the inventor, if the person is known.
Lawrence Lessig, attorney for the challengers, said the latest 20-year extension approved by Congress in 1998 is ill-timed and unconstitutional.
Key to this is limited times. The current copyright laws are nigh limitless, as far as human lifetimes are concerned. And it only takes an act of Congress to extend terms again, 20 years at a time. (Thanks, Sonny Bono!)
I do believe that authors and artist should profit from their works. But there should be a balance struck between the rights of producers of IP, and the consumers. Reverting to shorter terms (perhaps the original) would fill the bill nicely.
But not always. Yes, the Net was for the exchange of ideas, but when it became available for mass consumption, the average user didn't want to exchange ideas, but to put up pics from their last vacation for their family to see,or host their N'SYNC fansite.
There are areas for information and areas for pop culture. Now that's why we have Google, to separate the truly informative stuff from the drivel.
The teen was also charged with possession of a Molotov cocktail, which is considered an "unregistered firearm" by the FBI.
I can see the other charges being dropped, considering the somewhat shaky grounds they stood on, but he still had a makeshift bomb.
I'm all for 1st amendment rights, but a Molotov cocktail is just plain wrong.
Does this mean that Judge Kollar-Kotelly will rely on only these 47 to make her decision?
It might help sway her against the settlement, but a two-thirds majority overall is a fairly strong case for vacating the settlement.
Any way you crack it, the public has shown that the settlement was inappropriate given the charges.
You are correct. It's 94.9 WZTA. They broadcast in Miramar, FL, and play a lot of hard rock.
Funny I made that blunder since I used to live in NYC.