Fuck me. They should really put more separatation bewteen the 'Submit' and 'Preview' buttons.
Sigh, my point was that this patent apparently covers "a post-session advertising system for use in a media" where television, radio, and telephone are covered by the term 'media' (claims 7 & 8). And that the triggering event that initiates the 'post-session' ad "is selected from a group consisting of: (a) clicking on an off-site link; (b) entering a new address; (c) load; (d) unload; (e) click; (f) resize; (g) submit; (h) focus; (i) blur; (j) move; (k) key press; (l) select; (m) change; (n) refresh; (o) open; (p) close; (q) redirect; (r) enter; (s) exit; (t) end of program; (u) beginning of program; (v) end of session; (w) change of service; (x) time; and (y) a combination of at least two of said load triggering events of (a)-(x)." (claim 11)
My point? I can't wait until I can "begin a program" and "blur" my phone or "exit" and "resize" my radio.
Stupid Fucks. I wish we could sue EE for wasting our tax money on this. Although I think fake patents are illegal, so maybe I can tell Ashcroft that the people at EE are terrorists since this will harm US companies.
Stupid Fucks, I hope they choke on their own spittle.
7. A post-session advertising system for use in a media having a background and a foreground, said system comprising: (a) a first platform for displaying a first display in said foreground of said media; (b) a post-session platform for displaying a post-session display in said background of said media in response to a load triggering event; (c) a Web server for providing a link to said post session display in response to said load triggering event; (d) said post-session platform coming to said foreground of said media in response to a viewer driven view triggering event.
8. The system of claim 7 wherein said media is selected from a group consisting of: (a) a communication device; (b) a computer; (c) personal digital assistant; (d) telephone; (e) television; and (f) radio.
9. The system of claim 7 wherein said first and post-session displays are selected from a group consisting of: (a) a Web site; (b) a Web page; (c) interactive media; (d) video broadcast content; and (e) audio broadcast content.
10. The system of claim 7 wherein said first and post-session platforms are selected from a group consisting of: (a) a Web browser; (b) a television channel; (c) a telephone line; (d) a radio station; (e) streaming media; (f) content delivery applications; (g) media viewing technology; and (h) interactive technology.
11. The system of claim 7 wherein said load triggering event is selected from a group consisting of: (a) clicking on an off-site link; (b) entering a new address; (c) load; (d) unload; (e) click; (f) resize; (g) submit; (h) focus; (i) blur; (j) move; (k) key press; (l) select; (m) change; (n) refresh; (o) open; (p) close; (q) redirect; (r) enter; (s) exit; (t) end of program; (u) beginning of program; (v) end of session; (w) change of service; (x) time; and (y) a combination of at least two of said load triggering events of (a)-(x).
Of course I don't own a Mac, but I still wanna piss on their ashes (or at least piss in the eye sockets of their dead skulls).
Yes, the RIAA ticks me off.
Oh, and this is hyperbole. I do not condone anybody actually harming Ms. Rosen, et al,...of course *God*, technically, isn't a person...so I won't cry if an asteroid takes out DC & Hollywood (but ideally just the RIAA and Industry offices).
The UK joined on January 1, 1973. They have yet to join the monetary join (ie, the euro). All euro-zone countries are in the EU, but not all EU countries are in the euro-zone (and the same applies to other directives and treaties).
-MKD
(more info on the Member States can be found here.
From the UK's Guardian:
A lawsuit filed in Manhattan accuses Columbia Pictures, producers of the new Spiderman movie, of digitally manipulating shots of Times Square to block out an advert for Samsung, arch-rivals of Sony, which owns Columbia.
So, this seems more like Columbia censoring daddy's rivals than just removing an ad because the director didn't like it's artistic qualities.
Now the question of whether the removal is warranted or ethical I will leave to the philosopher and lawyers; I'm just an engineer.
Secondly, and this is more about semantics, but in modern "creative" industries, the creator, per se, does not own the copyright; the copyright is owned by a company with which the creator has contracted. Granted the creator receives some money, but people in the industry (here the recording industry) like Courtney Love have stated [salon.com] the amount is nowhere near what Joe Sixpack believes it is.
I should have clarifies my point. The use of contracts is the Way Things Work, granted, and that in these contracts, the artist signs over copyright to the label. However, it seems that the RIAA trots out the Poor, Starving Artist (tm) and bemoans his/her plight while turning on them once out of the public spotlight and raping them with a whale (figurativly, of course). (Don't believe me? What about Don Henly, Courtney Love (yes, again), the Dixie Chicks, and LeAnn Rimes? They seem to agree that the labels have an unequal relationship with artists.) My point is that the RIAA cries about how piracy hurts the artist, yet they do as much or more to hurt the artist.
-MKD
Poor, Starving Artist is a register trademark of the Recording Industry Association of America and is used without permission
Reasonable people agree that the creator of a work should compensated for his efforts, hence copyright - but it has no basis in the constitution. The real question deals with practical issues surrounding the rise of the internet.
Wrong on two accounts. First, copyright (and patents) does have its basis in the Constitution. Article I, sect 8, paragraph 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; i.e., copyright and patents.
Secondly, and this is more about semantics, but in modern "creative" industries, the creator, per se, does not own the copyright; the copyright is owned by a company with which the creator has contracted. Granted the creator receives some money, but people in the industry (here the recording industry) like Courtney Love have stated the amount is nowhere near what Joe Sixpack believes it is.
So until someone finds a decent way of paying artists aside from CDs, books, etc. people are going to keep stealing digital things because it is a better way to distribute.
And that is the problem. Market forces should determine that way. My belief is that current "rampant" (according to the RIAA & MPAA) piracy is because they held a near monopoly on the distribution of music and movies. Specifically regarding the music industry, once Napster, et al, showed up, the consumer was able to exercise his/her market force by turning away from over-priced CDs. The music industry has been milking consumers with an incredibly over-priced product for over a decade (probably more, but I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that CDs originally were expensive to produce and a risky venture, c.f. the Betamax format). The industry cries about how much it costs to market and produce a CD, especially from an unknown artist; however, look at most of the music that the industry puts out. It's crap (IMNSHO). If the RIAA spent less time and money polishing turds (c.f., shit, c.f. most music, turn on your radio fer christ's sake) and actually trying to find and promote good artist, in addition to pricing their product more reasonably, I am sure they would have better fortunes. (And needless to say, if the content industries didn't waste so much money buying politicians, I am sure they would have more profits.)
<rant type="personal_anecdote">
The problem is that the industry didn't embrace the new technology. A personal anecdote: A few years ago when I was a sophomore at Uni, a friend introduced me to the British group Portishead, which I believe he discovered via mp3s. I downloaded all their tracks I could find and enjoyed them enough that I shelled out the money for all their CDs that I could find. (Since they seem to be somewhat of an underground group in the US, they didn't have many albums; however, I bought what I could find.) Similar events occurred when I rediscovered Weezer (my roommate liked them, but I wasn't really into them at that time). I have since purchased their three albums, plus some (due to CD damage). Granted, I may be in the minority; however, I really fucking hate the stupidity that is evident in the industry by ignoring people like myself, people who used tools available to them to discover new music and try to give back to artist, and instead promote Corporate Fascism (hmmm, Nazi = National Socialism, how about Cozi for Corporate Socialism?).
</rant>
-MKD
Ok, this may seem a bit naive, but what about people from the above states? How should we go about swaying the opinions of the Filthy Five who are sponsoring this bill? Or are we resigned to simply register our disgust with them? Perhaps some tactics other than the standard letter suggesting how s/he should vote?
That said, I do plan to let the Honorable Sen. Boxer (D-CA) know how I feel about this...
Also, I don't recall seeing a good list posted of what to do and what to avoid when contacting government, so here is the EFF's list of Dos & Don'ts. Read it. Know it. Live it.
This bill, if voted into law, would prohibit the sale of of kind of electronic device....
double "of"
This bill will quite possibly be the most important vote you will cast in my consideration for voting to continue your incumbency in your next election.
So many prepositional phrases in a row makes this a bit awkward.
How about something like:
"How you vote on this bill will quite possibly be the most influential factor for me when considering to reelect you." (got rid of "possibly" since s/he may think that despite a yes vote, there is something s/he could do to win your vote) or
"How you vote on this bill will greatly influence my decision and recommendations to reelect you in the next election."
Even if you don't prefer my suggestions, please consider a rewording in order to reduce the prepositional phrases and to be more concise.
As is consistent with the soft-money problems the Congress and Senate have been facing, this bill has been created solely to protect the copyright holders, and to prevent consumers from utilizing all the rights given to them in the numerous copyright laws that have been pastover our nation's history.
Either just "Congress" or "House and Senate" (the Senate is a part of Congress).
Your argument may be more effective if "copyright holders" is replaced by "media conglomerates", "large media companies", etc. (since (c) holders may invoke images of starving musicians, novelist working on the next Great American Novel (tm), etc.)
"past" -> "passed"
"over" -> "throughout" (else you get "passed over" as in "passed over for a promotion")
I am a firm believer in a copyright holder's right to protect their works, but no law should prevent copyright purchasers from exercising their rights.
Either make (c) holder plural or change their to "his or her". (in addition to the suggestions of others)
The CBDTPA goes too far in condemning piracy -- it prevents MANY of the rights given to the purchasers of a copywritten material.
Perhaps "condemning" -> "preventing" for parallel structure, and also since the bill is attempting to prevent piracy.
This is a good letter, and please don't take the suggestions personally. Most of them are totally subjective and are meant to help you refine your letter. (just trying to protect myself from possible flames )
The allegations? Microsoft not only sabotaged other companies programs, but also copied and embedded other companies code (DoubleSpace, from STAC--MSFT was found liable, btw).
Despite the rationalizations of/.'ers, stealing is a crime. MSFT stole code (and committed other crimes). (Also, from the 2nd article: MSFT didn't create a DOS, it bought one for $15k).
As to your point about sounding like a 7 year old: Our society is based on rules (ie, laws) and continues because people rely on most of those rules to be followed most of the time. Yes, that explanation leaves out some of the finer details (like, of crime and rule bending), but what would a/. post be without a generalization?
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh, my point was that this patent apparently covers "a post-session advertising system for use in a media" where television, radio, and telephone are covered by the term 'media' (claims 7 & 8). And that the triggering event that initiates the 'post-session' ad "is selected from a group consisting of: (a) clicking on an off-site link; (b) entering a new address; (c) load; (d) unload; (e) click; (f) resize; (g) submit; (h) focus; (i) blur; (j) move; (k) key press; (l) select; (m) change; (n) refresh; (o) open; (p) close; (q) redirect; (r) enter; (s) exit; (t) end of program; (u) beginning of program; (v) end of session; (w) change of service; (x) time; and (y) a combination of at least two of said load triggering events of (a)-(x)." (claim 11)
My point? I can't wait until I can "begin a program" and "blur" my phone or "exit" and "resize" my radio.
Stupid Fucks. I wish we could sue EE for wasting our tax money on this. Although I think fake patents are illegal, so maybe I can tell Ashcroft that the people at EE are terrorists since this will harm US companies.
Stupid Fucks, I hope they choke on their own spittle.
-MKD
Hello, my name is Mike.
Hola, me llamo Miguel
O. la. may. yam. mo. mee. gal.
I don't like MS.
No me gusta MS.
No. may. goo. sta. em. may. es. say.
<g> -MKD
Of course I don't own a Mac, but I still wanna piss on their ashes (or at least piss in the eye sockets of their dead skulls).
Yes, the RIAA ticks me off.
Oh, and this is hyperbole. I do not condone anybody actually harming Ms. Rosen, et al,...of course *God*, technically, isn't a person...so I won't cry if an asteroid takes out DC & Hollywood (but ideally just the RIAA and Industry offices).
-MKD
-MKD
(more info on the Member States can be found here.
Since God is omnipotent and not bound by the laws of physics, that answer is L
D'oh. I should have followed the given link. I had read about this earlier and was a bit too eager to share.
From the UK's Guardian: A lawsuit filed in Manhattan accuses Columbia Pictures, producers of the new Spiderman movie, of digitally manipulating shots of Times Square to block out an advert for Samsung, arch-rivals of Sony, which owns Columbia. So, this seems more like Columbia censoring daddy's rivals than just removing an ad because the director didn't like it's artistic qualities. Now the question of whether the removal is warranted or ethical I will leave to the philosopher and lawyers; I'm just an engineer.
Secondly, and this is more about semantics, but in modern "creative" industries, the creator, per se, does not own the copyright; the copyright is owned by a company with which the creator has contracted. Granted the creator receives some money, but people in the industry (here the recording industry) like Courtney Love have stated [salon.com] the amount is nowhere near what Joe Sixpack believes it is. I should have clarifies my point. The use of contracts is the Way Things Work, granted, and that in these contracts, the artist signs over copyright to the label. However, it seems that the RIAA trots out the Poor, Starving Artist (tm) and bemoans his/her plight while turning on them once out of the public spotlight and raping them with a whale (figurativly, of course). (Don't believe me? What about Don Henly, Courtney Love (yes, again), the Dixie Chicks, and LeAnn Rimes? They seem to agree that the labels have an unequal relationship with artists.) My point is that the RIAA cries about how piracy hurts the artist, yet they do as much or more to hurt the artist. -MKD Poor, Starving Artist is a register trademark of the Recording Industry Association of America and is used without permission
Wrong on two accounts. First, copyright (and patents) does have its basis in the Constitution. Article I, sect 8, paragraph 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; i.e., copyright and patents. Secondly, and this is more about semantics, but in modern "creative" industries, the creator, per se, does not own the copyright; the copyright is owned by a company with which the creator has contracted. Granted the creator receives some money, but people in the industry (here the recording industry) like Courtney Love have stated the amount is nowhere near what Joe Sixpack believes it is. So until someone finds a decent way of paying artists aside from CDs, books, etc. people are going to keep stealing digital things because it is a better way to distribute. And that is the problem. Market forces should determine that way. My belief is that current "rampant" (according to the RIAA & MPAA) piracy is because they held a near monopoly on the distribution of music and movies. Specifically regarding the music industry, once Napster, et al, showed up, the consumer was able to exercise his/her market force by turning away from over-priced CDs. The music industry has been milking consumers with an incredibly over-priced product for over a decade (probably more, but I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that CDs originally were expensive to produce and a risky venture, c.f. the Betamax format). The industry cries about how much it costs to market and produce a CD, especially from an unknown artist; however, look at most of the music that the industry puts out. It's crap (IMNSHO). If the RIAA spent less time and money polishing turds (c.f., shit, c.f. most music, turn on your radio fer christ's sake) and actually trying to find and promote good artist, in addition to pricing their product more reasonably, I am sure they would have better fortunes. (And needless to say, if the content industries didn't waste so much money buying politicians, I am sure they would have more profits.) <rant type="personal_anecdote"> The problem is that the industry didn't embrace the new technology. A personal anecdote: A few years ago when I was a sophomore at Uni, a friend introduced me to the British group Portishead, which I believe he discovered via mp3s. I downloaded all their tracks I could find and enjoyed them enough that I shelled out the money for all their CDs that I could find. (Since they seem to be somewhat of an underground group in the US, they didn't have many albums; however, I bought what I could find.) Similar events occurred when I rediscovered Weezer (my roommate liked them, but I wasn't really into them at that time). I have since purchased their three albums, plus some (due to CD damage). Granted, I may be in the minority; however, I really fucking hate the stupidity that is evident in the industry by ignoring people like myself, people who used tools available to them to discover new music and try to give back to artist, and instead promote Corporate Fascism (hmmm, Nazi = National Socialism, how about Cozi for Corporate Socialism?). </rant> -MKDThat said, I do plan to let the Honorable Sen. Boxer (D-CA) know how I feel about this...
Also, I don't recall seeing a good list posted of what to do and what to avoid when contacting government, so here is the EFF's list of Dos & Don'ts. Read it. Know it. Live it.
-MKD
Just some tips....
This bill, if voted into law, would prohibit the sale of of kind of electronic device....
double "of"
This bill will quite possibly be the most important vote you will cast in my consideration for voting to continue your incumbency in your next election.
So many prepositional phrases in a row makes this a bit awkward.
How about something like: "How you vote on this bill will quite possibly be the most influential factor for me when considering to reelect you." (got rid of "possibly" since s/he may think that despite a yes vote, there is something s/he could do to win your vote)
or "How you vote on this bill will greatly influence my decision and recommendations to reelect you in the next election."
Even if you don't prefer my suggestions, please consider a rewording in order to reduce the prepositional phrases and to be more concise.
As is consistent with the soft-money problems the Congress and Senate have been facing, this bill has been created solely to protect the copyright holders, and to prevent consumers from utilizing all the rights given to them in the numerous copyright laws that have been past over our nation's history.
Either just "Congress" or "House and Senate" (the Senate is a part of Congress).
Your argument may be more effective if "copyright holders" is replaced by "media conglomerates", "large media companies", etc. (since (c) holders may invoke images of starving musicians, novelist working on the next Great American Novel (tm), etc.)
"past" -> "passed"
"over" -> "throughout" (else you get "passed over" as in "passed over for a promotion")
I am a firm believer in a copyright holder's right to protect their works, but no law should prevent copyright purchasers from exercising their rights.
Either make (c) holder plural or change their to "his or her". (in addition to the suggestions of others)
The CBDTPA goes too far in condemning piracy -- it prevents MANY of the rights given to the purchasers of a copywritten material.
Perhaps "condemning" -> "preventing" for parallel structure, and also since the bill is attempting to prevent piracy.
This is a good letter, and please don't take the suggestions personally. Most of them are totally subjective and are meant to help you refine your letter. (just trying to protect myself from possible flames )
-MKD
No, read this article and this one on osOpion.
The allegations? Microsoft not only sabotaged other companies programs, but also copied and embedded other companies code (DoubleSpace, from STAC--MSFT was found liable, btw).
Despite the rationalizations of /.'ers, stealing is a crime. MSFT stole code (and committed other crimes). (Also, from the 2nd article: MSFT didn't create a DOS, it bought one for $15k).
As to your point about sounding like a 7 year old: Our society is based on rules (ie, laws) and continues because people rely on most of those rules to be followed most of the time. Yes, that explanation leaves out some of the finer details (like, of crime and rule bending), but what would a /. post be without a generalization?
-MD