I have patented a number of designs using Legos. Please ensure that your children do not infringe on my patents during their play time.
Seriously, computers, both hardware and software, are simply blocks just waiting to be connected together in the right way. Any patentable design should have to show exceptional creativity.
Please return the intellectual property taken
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
Throughout this last century large media companies have presented their one-sided arguments and convinced congress to extend copyright periods from a max of 28 years to well beyond my lifetime, essentially stealing millions of dollars worth of public domain content from the public.
Until this is returned they should receive no further special treatment. Why should we as consumers be concerned about Aunt Edna downloading mp3s and possibly not paying the artist for its use when huge amounts of our culture have been taken and sold back to us at a profit?
Public domain content serves the public in many ways, not the least of which is education. Classic literary works with expired copyrights can be purchased at a very low cost (basically the cost of printing). From that perspective our taxes are being taken and given to whoever owns the rights to the content whenever a school chooses to study nearly any work of art (music, movie, book, etc) that was created after 1923. (OK. some works created after 1923 are public domain but you pretty much need a team of lawyers to determine which ones)
Essentially art has stopped being about creating works and more about marketing, profit, and who owns the rights to it.
Under the original copyright laws Star Wars would be out from under copyright protection next year. Future filmmakers would be able to learn from it, re-edit it themselves (yes, some future film geniuses will be film editors who might not have access to resources to make their own movie). And, although IANAL, I believe that Star Wars: The Special Edition would still be covered by copyright protection for up to 28 years from its creation a few years ago.
One of the hugest fallacies the media companies have spread, are spreading, and will keep spreading is that they are the innocent content producers that everyone is stealing from.
Through some handy maneuvering they have convinced our congress to take huge amounts of content that would ordinarily been licensed for free use by the public and give to them so that they may continue to control it and use it as a cash cow instead of creating new art. They did this by convincing congress to take reasonable copyright limits and extend them into all eternity. Thanks to them no new works will become public domain in the remainder of my lifetime. In fact, the public domain is practically a forgotten concept.
We can't blame the congressmen. They're trying to do a good job but what can we expect when they are hearing one side of the story from some very convincing people it is natural they might be swayed. Heck, after I hear the media companies whine I almost feel sorry for them. Well we can blame them a little since, as our representatives they should have taken a "how will this hurt or help my constituents" instead of a "gee, that does sound bad. we'll pass a law and make it all better for you" approach.
We can thank the media companies for hijacking the public domain for their own profit. The original copyright length in the USA was 14 years plus a 14 year extension. There is a wealth of artistic creations that should have reached the public domain by now.
We can thank the media companies and their paranoid ramblings for attempting to kill the VCR, killing the DAT tape, and now they're attempting to kill the personal computer (good luck).
I understand they have concerns but they need to be addressed in the proper light. Sure, some people steal but handcuffing everyone is not the way to prevent it. And before calling all consumers thieves it should be noted just how much they have stolen from us, even if they did use "legal" means to do it.
Because the FBI is a little more serious about security than Sprint. Any time you hear "To my knowledge there's no way that a computer hacker could get into our systems" that means that their knowledge is lacking, not that their computers are safe.
And by watching westerns you trivialize the plight of the native americans, and by pointing fingers at the Nazis without acknowledging the genocide in Hiroshima and Nagasaki you trivialize the horrors there.
Lighten up. Many horrible things have happened throughout time and undoubtably many more will happen. All you can do is see to it that you are not the one doing them and do your best to prevent others from doing them.
Rather than a nuclear bomb I say we use an educational video. Barney and the teletubbies explain the dangers of exposing nuclear waste in a series of easy to understand songs and videos.
Everything open source costs money. RedHat, Mandrake, and Suse aren't volunteer organizations.
If the client wants a project built to their specifications they have to pay for it. If open source is acceptable to them they can pay me what it costs to take an open source project and tailor it to their needs.
Project from scratch: $100,000 Project from open-source with customization: $25,000
I still get paid for the work I do but in the 2nd case the customer gets a much better deal and I make a much better impression for creating a better working product at a lower cost.
(We recently had a customer select the first option because they wanted the product built from scratch and they wanted full rights to it. That's OK too. We'll take the money.)
I am in Nebraska, using Cox cable, and getting plenty of bandwidth. dslreports.com/stest reported me at 3000 kbps (375 kbytes/sec) download and 287 kpbs (36 kbytes/sec) upload.
Do you really think that computer companies like Gateway and Dell will sell "streamlined" Windows PC, given the chance?
Absolutely. Servers don't need all the crap they get loaded up with. I don't need a 3d graphics engine to serve web pages. Heck, I don't even need a graphical interface to do that.
Life is about balance. Business does many good things but it has to be kept in check. Left unchecked it becomes as bad or worse than communism with a few powerful people controlling the whole deal.
We have laws to try and keep them in check. Laws against abusing monopoly power, requiring companies to be responsible for their actions, and other things to keep them from being totally cut-throat, screw everyone as long as I get my money sort of entities.
I think we have every right to complain when they misbehave and a responsibility as voters and government to keep them in line.
As a small business owner I have other issues to contend with, such as big business making barriers to entry for small businesses and amateurs.
Of course the layoffs are the fault of big business capitalism but the existence of the jobs in the first place is also the fault of big business capitalism.
I'm not sure who or what you are arguing against but saying "if we were all communists like most of you/.ers want" is completely without foundation. My view is that/.ers are more open-minded about the benefits of different forms of government and are happy as long as it works, allows them freedom to create and allows them freedom to put food on the table. However, my view is as baseless is yours and we could both be completely wrong.
That won't happen. Before they'd let that happen they would move to a different sponsorship model.
Soccer uses a no commercial break model with product placement, vocal mentions of the sponsor, and the sponsor named displayed on-screen.
An interactive digital TV with no commercial break sponsorship could utilize the lower right hand corner for a small sponsor ad and a clickable link to their web page. If you are watching in your PVR and you see an ad that interests you then you can click the link and your show pauses and the appropriate page is displayed. Otherwise they just benefit from the added name recognition, which is the main point of most ads.
And, of course, they can always put more product placements in the shows. However that probably would inhibit the artistic qualities of the shows.
Umm, usually when road rage hits, you are in a car. You can just kill them with your car and not worry about potentially crashing and killing yourself while trying to get your gun out of the glove compartment.
They are not entitled to any further legal protection as this time. With the infinite copyright protection laws (we all know that if we made it to the point that a copyright would expire Disney, etc would get copyrights extended again) they have the legal power to control copying of their material for plenty of time.
I might be a little more accepting of DRM ideas for recent performances if copyrights were limited to 20 years. That way I could get unencumbered digital copies of works such as Star Wars: A New Hope, Saturday Night Fever, Emergency (the TV show), CHiPs, I Love Lucy, etc.
There is the another side to the issue though. Electronic media works by copying the data from one place to the other. It is not feasible to allow only the copying you approve of and deny all the rest of the copying.
Additionally legislative copy protection puts barriers in the way of amateur and/or poor (in money, not quality) content producers because software cannot distinguish between an independent film and an unauthorized copy of a copyright protected work.
I have enchanged some messages with my congressman about it and contemplated the ideas myself and I keep coming back to the idea that any laws requiring digital rights management and the like can only do harm and impede progress and creativity.
As both an amateur film-maker and a professional programmer, if a digital rights bill passes I will only be harmed and in no way will I benefit from it.
The MPAA/RIAA people need to look at their priorities. Microsoft is a nice example of what can happen when your "intellectual property" is copied and transferred willy-nilly all over the internet. Microsoft has still managed to turn a profit in spite of being a huge victim of software piracy. (One list I saw placed Microsoft at #1 and Disney at #37.)
They already managed to make digital audio tape (DAT) virtually useless. Now they want to make our computers and televisions useless as well. I'm sorry but they're not entitled to it.
Hardware can be hacked as well, but it probably wouldn't need to be. If the physical format of the protected work is in computer memory or dvd or similar accessible format then a software translation layer can be written.
I have a big problem with MPAA and RIAA leveraging their monopoly control over the entertainment industry to create barriers to entry for amateur artists and new artists. (If a player can only play "official" content then amateurs are excluded.)
They already killed one format (DAT) with their paranoid ramblings over unauthorized copying.
I don't want to sacrifice all forward movement of technology just so I can hear the latest Britney Spears "song" on my DRM-enabled, otherwise disabled computer.
I understand they have concerns and I might be willing to listen to them if they were to shorten the copyright length to 20 years instead having copyrights last into all eternity (I'll be dead, my children will be dead, my grandchildren will be dead, close enough to eternity in my book.)
The problem with targeted ads isn't seeing the ad. It is the database containing my interests for any user to see. I like my privacy and don't want random strangers knowing that much about me.
Most of my letters get a response. My senator's office has called me to explain an issue and my representative has replied via postal mail to some of my concerns.
Lobbyists are paid to be convincing. We have to do our part to make sure the congressmen have to other side of the story. Not every congressman out there is a cut-throat anything for the money type of person. They need to know that we as citizens are concerned about losing our rights to privacy, free expression, or the fact that under current copyright laws no material will enter the public domain until my children are dead.
Start with writing/calling your congressman. Either they or their staff do read what you send them.
There will always be lobbyists as long as there are causes to lobby for.
They're like lawyers. Your only defense against a lawyer or a lobbyist is another of the same.
Bully's son, "My daddy can beat up your daddy." Lawyer's son, "My daddy can sue your daddy for everything he owns and have him locked up for 10 years."
What if, instead of disrupting the supply, they corrupt it by building back doors into the network cards giving themselves fairly complete remote control over the machine?
(A network card with a computer on it would have access to the whole system via the PCI bus.)
Slashdot Mirror
I have patented a number of designs using Legos. Please ensure that your children do not infringe on my patents during their play time.
Seriously, computers, both hardware and software, are simply blocks just waiting to be connected together in the right way. Any patentable design should have to show exceptional creativity.
Throughout this last century large media companies have presented their one-sided arguments and convinced congress to extend copyright periods from a max of 28 years to well beyond my lifetime, essentially stealing millions of dollars worth of public domain content from the public.
Until this is returned they should receive no further special treatment. Why should we as consumers be concerned about Aunt Edna downloading mp3s and possibly not paying the artist for its use when huge amounts of our culture have been taken and sold back to us at a profit?
Public domain content serves the public in many ways, not the least of which is education. Classic literary works with expired copyrights can be purchased at a very low cost (basically the cost of printing). From that perspective our taxes are being taken and given to whoever owns the rights to the content whenever a school chooses to study nearly any work of art (music, movie, book, etc) that was created after 1923. (OK. some works created after 1923 are public domain but you pretty much need a team of lawyers to determine which ones)
Essentially art has stopped being about creating works and more about marketing, profit, and who owns the rights to it.
Under the original copyright laws Star Wars would be out from under copyright protection next year. Future filmmakers would be able to learn from it, re-edit it themselves (yes, some future film geniuses will be film editors who might not have access to resources to make their own movie). And, although IANAL, I believe that Star Wars: The Special Edition would still be covered by copyright protection for up to 28 years from its creation a few years ago.
There are tons of alternatives to slashdot. But most of them won't let you post a complaint about them on their site.
That's only logical though considering the fact that recent films are much easier to remember.
One of the hugest fallacies the media companies have spread, are spreading, and will keep spreading is that they are the innocent content producers that everyone is stealing from.
Through some handy maneuvering they have convinced our congress to take huge amounts of content that would ordinarily been licensed for free use by the public and give to them so that they may continue to control it and use it as a cash cow instead of creating new art. They did this by convincing congress to take reasonable copyright limits and extend them into all eternity. Thanks to them no new works will become public domain in the remainder of my lifetime. In fact, the public domain is practically a forgotten concept.
We can't blame the congressmen. They're trying to do a good job but what can we expect when they are hearing one side of the story from some very convincing people it is natural they might be swayed. Heck, after I hear the media companies whine I almost feel sorry for them. Well we can blame them a little since, as our representatives they should have taken a "how will this hurt or help my constituents" instead of a "gee, that does sound bad. we'll pass a law and make it all better for you" approach.
We can thank the media companies for hijacking the public domain for their own profit. The original copyright length in the USA was 14 years plus a 14 year extension. There is a wealth of artistic creations that should have reached the public domain by now.
We can thank the media companies and their paranoid ramblings for attempting to kill the VCR, killing the DAT tape, and now they're attempting to kill the personal computer (good luck).
I understand they have concerns but they need to be addressed in the proper light. Sure, some people steal but handcuffing everyone is not the way to prevent it. And before calling all consumers thieves it should be noted just how much they have stolen from us, even if they did use "legal" means to do it.
See also this link
I think it is entirely possible that only 35,000 will file claims.
Why would I bill myself for working on my own computer?
Because your time is worth money and you need a receipt to collect.
Have yourself, or your grandaughter, give you a receipt for their time spent. Charge $50-$100/hour.
Because the FBI is a little more serious about security than Sprint. Any time you hear "To my knowledge there's no way that a computer hacker could get into our systems" that means that their knowledge is lacking, not that their computers are safe.
And by watching westerns you trivialize the plight of the native americans, and by pointing fingers at the Nazis without acknowledging the genocide in Hiroshima and Nagasaki you trivialize the horrors there.
Lighten up. Many horrible things have happened throughout time and undoubtably many more will happen. All you can do is see to it that you are not the one doing them and do your best to prevent others from doing them.
Rather than a nuclear bomb I say we use an educational video. Barney and the teletubbies explain the dangers of exposing nuclear waste in a series of easy to understand songs and videos.
Everything open source costs money. RedHat, Mandrake, and Suse aren't volunteer organizations.
If the client wants a project built to their specifications they have to pay for it. If open source is acceptable to them they can pay me what it costs to take an open source project and tailor it to their needs.
Project from scratch: $100,000
Project from open-source with customization: $25,000
I still get paid for the work I do but in the 2nd case the customer gets a much better deal and I make a much better impression for creating a better working product at a lower cost.
(We recently had a customer select the first option because they wanted the product built from scratch and they wanted full rights to it. That's OK too. We'll take the money.)
I am in Nebraska, using Cox cable, and getting plenty of bandwidth. dslreports.com/stest reported me at 3000 kbps (375 kbytes/sec) download and 287 kpbs (36 kbytes/sec) upload.
You're free to do whatever you like to your cable modem. And they're free to disconnect their cable from your modem.
This isn't like stealing cable or descrambling the movie channel. If one person uses more than their share of bandwidth there is less for the rest.
Do you really think that computer companies like Gateway and Dell will sell "streamlined" Windows PC, given the chance?
Absolutely. Servers don't need all the crap they get loaded up with. I don't need a 3d graphics engine to serve web pages. Heck, I don't even need a graphical interface to do that.
Life is about balance. Business does many good things but it has to be kept in check. Left unchecked it becomes as bad or worse than communism with a few powerful people controlling the whole deal.
/.ers want" is completely without foundation. My view is that /.ers are more open-minded about the benefits of different forms of government and are happy as long as it works, allows them freedom to create and allows them freedom to put food on the table. However, my view is as baseless is yours and we could both be completely wrong.
We have laws to try and keep them in check. Laws against abusing monopoly power, requiring companies to be responsible for their actions, and other things to keep them from being totally cut-throat, screw everyone as long as I get my money sort of entities.
I think we have every right to complain when they misbehave and a responsibility as voters and government to keep them in line.
As a small business owner I have other issues to contend with, such as big business making barriers to entry for small businesses and amateurs.
Of course the layoffs are the fault of big business capitalism but the existence of the jobs in the first place is also the fault of big business capitalism.
I'm not sure who or what you are arguing against but saying "if we were all communists like most of you
Well I can sympathize then.
That won't happen. Before they'd let that happen they would move to a different sponsorship model.
Soccer uses a no commercial break model with product placement, vocal mentions of the sponsor, and the sponsor named displayed on-screen.
An interactive digital TV with no commercial break sponsorship could utilize the lower right hand corner for a small sponsor ad and a clickable link to their web page. If you are watching in your PVR and you see an ad that interests you then you can click the link and your show pauses and the appropriate page is displayed. Otherwise they just benefit from the added name recognition, which is the main point of most ads.
And, of course, they can always put more product placements in the shows. However that probably would inhibit the artistic qualities of the shows.
When road rage hits
Umm, usually when road rage hits, you are in a car. You can just kill them with your car and not worry about potentially crashing and killing yourself while trying to get your gun out of the glove compartment.
They are not entitled to any further legal protection as this time. With the infinite copyright protection laws (we all know that if we made it to the point that a copyright would expire Disney, etc would get copyrights extended again) they have the legal power to control copying of their material for plenty of time.
I might be a little more accepting of DRM ideas for recent performances if copyrights were limited to 20 years.
That way I could get unencumbered digital copies of works such as Star Wars: A New Hope, Saturday Night Fever, Emergency (the TV show), CHiPs, I Love Lucy, etc.
There is the another side to the issue though. Electronic media works by copying the data from one place to the other. It is not feasible to allow only the copying you approve of and deny all the rest of the copying.
Additionally legislative copy protection puts barriers in the way of amateur and/or poor (in money, not quality) content producers because software cannot distinguish between an independent film and an unauthorized copy of a copyright protected work.
I have enchanged some messages with my congressman about it and contemplated the ideas myself and I keep coming back to the idea that any laws requiring digital rights management and the like can only do harm and impede progress and creativity.
As both an amateur film-maker and a professional programmer, if a digital rights bill passes I will only be harmed and in no way will I benefit from it.
The MPAA/RIAA people need to look at their priorities. Microsoft is a nice example of what can happen when your "intellectual property" is copied and transferred willy-nilly all over the internet. Microsoft has still managed to turn a profit in spite of being a huge victim of software piracy. (One list I saw placed Microsoft at #1 and Disney at #37.)
They already managed to make digital audio tape (DAT) virtually useless. Now they want to make our computers and televisions useless as well. I'm sorry but they're not entitled to it.
Hardware can be hacked as well, but it probably wouldn't need to be. If the physical format of the protected work is in computer memory or dvd or similar accessible format then a software translation layer can be written.
I have a big problem with MPAA and RIAA leveraging their monopoly control over the entertainment industry to create barriers to entry for amateur artists and new artists. (If a player can only play "official" content then amateurs are excluded.)
They already killed one format (DAT) with their paranoid ramblings over unauthorized copying.
I don't want to sacrifice all forward movement of technology just so I can hear the latest Britney Spears "song" on my DRM-enabled, otherwise disabled computer.
I understand they have concerns and I might be willing to listen to them if they were to shorten the copyright length to 20 years instead having copyrights last into all eternity (I'll be dead, my children will be dead, my grandchildren will be dead, close enough to eternity in my book.)
There is more to life than making purchases.
The problem with targeted ads isn't seeing the ad. It is the database containing my interests for any user to see. I like my privacy and don't want random strangers knowing that much about me.
Most of my letters get a response.
My senator's office has called me to explain an issue and my representative has replied via postal mail to some of my concerns.
Lobbyists are paid to be convincing. We have to do our part to make sure the congressmen have to other side of the story. Not every congressman out there is a cut-throat anything for the money type of person. They need to know that we as citizens are concerned about losing our rights to privacy, free expression, or the fact that under current copyright laws no material will enter the public domain until my children are dead.
Start with writing/calling your congressman. Either they or their staff do read what you send them.
There will always be lobbyists as long as there are causes to lobby for.
They're like lawyers. Your only defense against a lawyer or a lobbyist is another of the same.
Bully's son, "My daddy can beat up your daddy." Lawyer's son, "My daddy can sue your daddy for everything he owns and have him locked up for 10 years."
What if, instead of disrupting the supply, they corrupt it by building back doors into the network cards giving themselves fairly complete remote control over the machine?
(A network card with a computer on it would have access to the whole system via the PCI bus.)