"Not only was she stupid to not settle beforehand, she's stupid for appealing. What her boneheaded lawyer should now be doing is trying to find out if the record companies would settle for a smaller amount that they have reasonable amount of being able to collect. And maybe now she'll make sure she acquires her music legally, and does not make it available for mass distribution to others...but I doubt she's that smart."
Totally wrong. She is now free to actually share without limit.
If I were her, I would go on the news and state that I am sharing every song I
can get my hands on. Then let them sue as much as they want. As a pauper,
I would not have to pay a dime to them, not even show up in court.
This being a civil matter, they can only sue for money, something
a bankrupt person does not have to pay.
Libraries ARE illegal in Europe. No fair use laws. There is the equivalent of the *AA's trying to collect from the libraries for having books that the public can read,
The first polymorphic computer was built much earlier than that by RW (later TRW). I do not know when, but UCSB had one in 1974, when I was a student there.
"The conceptual design of this Polymorphic Computer, as they called it, was attributed to Sy Ramo, who had earlier helped lead Hughes Aircraft and Ramo-Wooldridge (later called TRW) to fame and fortune. The architecture of this new machine was an interesting bad idea. The basic idea was to use many small computers instead of one big one, so that the system could be scaled to meet various needs simply by adjusting the number of processors. The problem was that these units were rather loosely coupled and each computer had a ridiculously small memory -- just 1K words. Each processor could also sequentially access a 1K buffer. Consequently it was very awkward to program and had extremely poor performance."
Statistical techniques give usable results in many instances but have no relation to AI. This becomes obvious in their failures. in my field, speech recognition, HMM recpgnizers work rather well with the right speaker. When they fail though, they fail, well... unreasonably. You say "hello there" clearly, and they come back with "42" or sometthing totaly unrelated. They are a just clever engineering shortcut to the problem.
If you are serious about archiving, print your stuff
on thin (0.3-0.5 mm) high grade ceramic plates the size of A4 paper,
using a laser to remove ceramic material in order to form letters.
Then put the plates in large pyramids, with several copies in various
parts of the world.
Not every piece of digital info can be saved that way, or needs to
be saved as others have pointed out. Current college textbooks, some
history books, literature and music and an encyclopeadia will go a long
way to create a useful memory of our times for the future.
Some years ago, in California, they opened up an 100 year time capsule.
I do not remember the suff that was in it, but it was mostly useless junk
by our standards today. If we could send an e-mail back in time, we would ask
them to include totally different things. It is easy to make the same mistake now as
to content.
A normal corporation's purpose is to make money for its shareholders.
What Google is proposing, is a corporation whose purpose is to make contributions to the society.
This is a totally new concept about what to do with wealth accumulation. It solves a real problem of capitalism, the concntration of wealth to a small number of individuals who do not need it, but rather are addicted to accumulation.
Our greed driven economy is a dead end, and Google offers an innovative solution.
Your points are generally valid, but in the case of copyrights, the US government really thinks it does the right thing by strengthening and protecting them.
Most of the commercially viable copyrighted material is produced in the US and constitutes a vibrant "industry". Now that the physical goods industry has moved to Asia, what is the US producing? The intangible they call "IP".
Another important aspect of the curious stance of the US govt on copyrights is world intellectual domination. People in every corner of the planet are immersed in US culture, the music, the clothes, the value system, the capitalist dream. This is a great asset they want to protect tooth and nail.
They want Disney (and every "Disney") strong so as to sell to the kids of the world the desirability of the "American way of life".
To put it simple, copyrights are the heavy industry and propaganda machine of the US all rolled into one. Do not expect the lawmakers and judges to waeken them for the benefit of nebulous ideas like the digital commons or whatever arguments the file sharers may advance.
Not only Google can build their own ABE around Google print, they can also expand it to include individual sellers, ebay style. I have 10 books I no longer need, I log in to GooglesuperABE, list my books and the prices I want and forget about it. A year later perhaps, an e-mail informs that I have a buyer. A tree is saved, I make some money and somebody gets the book she is looking for at a great price.
It is rather obvious that Google is not trying to rip off authors. Rather, it is trying to send the publishers to the trash bin of history. Two years from now, if I have a book to publish, I can make a deal with Google to put it online and they will do on demand printing and shipping for me. Then I sit back and cash my royalties check every 6 months. Out of print books will generate revenue this way also. As it turns out, 99.8% of titles ever printed are currently out of print and unprofitable for another print run. The Authors Guild Backinprint.com has only 8,000 authors and is profitable, imagine the money to be made with millions of authors.
The correct action is to market the information to the users of the software. Advertise (e-mail, other)to the users that you have valuable information for them for a small consulting fee. Once you are hired by the user of the software to check it, you do not have any problem with the company that sells it. Armed with your report, the paying customer every right to demand from the vendor his money's worth. You are not involved further, and you have mae a legal and deserved buck.
The 1974 movie Zardoz (starring Sean Connery in his youth) deals with that question. The immortals chose to die, but not by commiting suicide. From imdb, "In the far future, a savage trained only to kill finds a way into the community of bored immortals that alone preserves humanity's achievements"
I got the opposite problem: I was employed by the UC system and when I wanted to get a copy of my employment records they said all records before 1984 were destroyed.
So there go my rights (and retirement money I would receive in my case if they kept their records properly)
Re:It's the right way...
on
MIT Roofnet
·
· Score: 1
This is inevitably the future of all telecoms. There is no real need for telcos anymore. Wireless networks, where each node is owned by an individual like P2P, are very technically possible. However not with "toy" WiFi radios. A GSM cell phone for example has a 5 Watt transmitter and it adjusts power output from.25W to 5W in steps of.25W until it gets a good signal. Imagine higher RF power available to wireless networking at a good exclusive band with intelligent radios with smart antennas (space time concept http://www.avalonrf.com/literature/presentations.h tm) that would self organize into a network with maximum node-to-node distance of lets say 20 miles for fixed stations with rooftop antennas.
They could transfer all voice, TV and data for large regions. Fiber optics would be necessary only for very sparsely populated areas diving two heavily populated regions, like the midwest and the coasts.
But being technically feasible does not mean it will happen overnight either. The telcos will fight tooth and nail to keep what they have.
Same story with RIAA, with the extra twist that the government has to free up and assign a good frequency band for P2P RF networking. Hopefully, the fight of we the people vs RIAA will build the required political awareness and political machine to tackle this next.
If they could only free a TV channel for experimentation (http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=program&Pr ogID=3), amazing things could be developed.
The reason we have juries and not sentencing algorithms is because juries can JUDGE the situation and determine what is right and what is not.
They could say the patent was frivolous, or they could award a $1 for damages. There is no law that effectively binds a jury. All they have to say is why they think the law should be applied as they believe. In cases like patents, any belief can be justified easily.
If I was on the jury, I would say that, based on the proceedings, the patented idea was obvious. My judgement. Case dismissed. End of story.
"Don't think of ISPs protecting file-sharers, shift it to protecting distributers of child pornography."
This is precisely the reasson RIAA should be stopped from any messings with p2p. The "crime" of sharing an mp3 is nothing compared to child abuse. Any law that breaches on-line anonymity must be limited to few very serious felonies that affect directly life in a reprehensible way. Never ever should on-line anonymity be breached for financial interests.
Anonymity is a very sensitive political issue that affects the core of democracy and in no way should we let the RIAA anywhere near this.
Be political! the RIAA in their mindless pursuit of their corporate survival are sawing at the pillars of democracy. It is our duty as citizens to fight this.
What you people do not get is that bandwidth is mostly wasted by its nature. As a provider, I buy bandwidth by the month, not by traffic. If my customers use 80% of that banwidth at any given time, the rest 20% is WASTED by definition. If we look at the load on an ISP connection in a 24 hour period we will see wild variations. Around 4 am there is hardly any traffic. The problem, if any, arises at peak hours.
Throttling file transfers during peak hours so that other traffic does not get bogged down is the win-win situation. It is certainly technically possible to build routers nowdays that analyze traffic to find out what is going on and then adjust things according to the policy of the ISP. Is anyone building them? I do not know. However I doubt it, seems to me that Cisco et al want to put a few chips on a board and charge $3000 for them while an intelligent router that analyzes high speed traffic and acts accordingly will have a lot of expensive silicon in it. Using their existing profits they would have to price it out of the market.
The problem here is that of a very poor metaphor with colors and photons etc. What Reed wants to say is that if we look at the radio spectrum at anyone place at anyone time, it is MOSTLY EMPTY. With current practice, we assign let's say in Athens, GA the frequency of 423.456MHz to police radios. Police has a duty cycle (using radio) of perhaps less than 0.1% of the time, thus wasting the frequency. The other way of doing things is to have intelligent radios that constantly monitor lets say the spectrum form 50 to 1000Mhz. When they want to transmit, they do so in a frequency that is empty at that moment. This scheme will not work with TV and Broadcast Radio stations that are constantly on. However, this type of service has no real business using the airwaves anymore. It can be handled via land infrastructure, digitally (think Internnet radio). Alternatively, TV and Radio stations if made digital and compressed can fit in a very small portion of their original spectrum. A V90 modem in 3Khz sends 56kbps. If we scale this 50 times to 150 KHz we can send a TV channel mpeg encoded at 2.8Mbits. Compare 150Khz to 5000KHz a TV channel occupies now. The other way to increase the number of radios is to divide up physical space, as cellular phones do (the cells use the same frequencies all over town but each cell has a small range). The combination of all these techniques leads to the clainm of unlimited and thus unlicensed spectrum.
In order to comply with the EULA you must save the cartridge until a box is supplied. However, you can charge storage fees for this service. After a few months, sent them a letter stating your storage fee per month, invoice them and demand payment. See what happens. After a year sue them in the local small claims court. They'll have to send in a lawyer to defend themselves. Think of their cost. If enough people did this there will be no further problems with Lexmark, it will go bankrupt.
By the way, selling under cost for whatever reason (unless liquidating the company) is illegal under laws that protect competition. EU regulations are based on the basic premise of competition which is the heart of EU. EU started as and is is mostly a
common market agreement between nations.
I had a Sony car radio, a portable CD player and a VCR that went bad with very light use. The post mortem analysis showed bad engineering. For example, the VCR had a plastic main pulley that would break under the stress of long tapes. Common problem I found out. Needed to replace the motor to fix it at the cost of a new VCR.
Incompetent engineers (basically the chief product engineer) is the source of most if not all problems with electronics these days. If your equipment was designed by a competent product engineer and a good team, it works fine regardless of the company or place of manufacture. In most cases, an engineer who knows his stuff can make it cheaper and better at the same time. In electronics, materials cost is not material in price differentiation. Good machines require engineering talent, a resource in short supply if we are to judge by the abundance of crap that fills store shelves.
I saw a news item on this exact technique a couple of years ago. It was used to monitor traffic in an interstate highway, in the NE US, maybe PA. I do not remember exactly where. Anyway, since I have not heard any followup on the story it either has failed or it has become an everyday tool for highway monitoring that nobody mentions any more. Except of course when it gets rediscoverd some place else.
Slashdot Mirror
Totally wrong. She is now free to actually share without limit. If I were her, I would go on the news and state that I am sharing every song I can get my hands on. Then let them sue as much as they want. As a pauper, I would not have to pay a dime to them, not even show up in court. This being a civil matter, they can only sue for money, something a bankrupt person does not have to pay.
Libraries ARE illegal in Europe. No fair use laws.
s &culture=en
There is the equivalent of the *AA's trying to collect from
the libraries for having books that the public can read,
http://www.ifrro.org/show.aspx?pageid=about/whati
not very forceful or succesful yet.
The first polymorphic computer was built much earlier than
that by RW (later TRW). I do not know when, but UCSB had one
in 1974, when I was a student there.
Quote from:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/9.80.html#subj8.1
"The conceptual design of this Polymorphic Computer, as they called it, was
attributed to Sy Ramo, who had earlier helped lead Hughes Aircraft and
Ramo-Wooldridge (later called TRW) to fame and fortune. The architecture of
this new machine was an interesting bad idea. The basic idea was to use many
small computers instead of one big one, so that the system could be scaled to
meet various needs simply by adjusting the number of processors. The problem
was that these units were rather loosely coupled and each computer had a
ridiculously small memory -- just 1K words. Each processor could also
sequentially access a 1K buffer. Consequently it was very awkward to program
and had extremely poor performance."
Statistical techniques give usable results in many instances ...
but have no relation to AI. This becomes obvious in their
failures. in my field, speech recognition, HMM recpgnizers work rather well
with the right speaker. When they fail though, they fail, well
unreasonably. You say "hello there" clearly, and they come
back with "42" or sometthing totaly unrelated.
They are a just clever engineering shortcut to the problem.
Not every piece of digital info can be saved that way, or needs to be saved as others have pointed out. Current college textbooks, some history books, literature and music and an encyclopeadia will go a long way to create a useful memory of our times for the future.
Some years ago, in California, they opened up an 100 year time capsule. I do not remember the suff that was in it, but it was mostly useless junk by our standards today. If we could send an e-mail back in time, we would ask them to include totally different things. It is easy to make the same mistake now as to content.
A normal corporation's purpose is to make money for its
shareholders.
What Google is proposing, is a corporation whose purpose is to
make contributions to the society.
This is a totally new concept about what to do with wealth
accumulation. It solves a real problem of capitalism, the
concntration of wealth to a small number of individuals who
do not need it, but rather are addicted to accumulation.
Our greed driven economy is a dead end, and Google
offers an innovative solution.
Your points are generally valid, but in the case of copyrights,
the US government really thinks it does the right thing by strengthening
and protecting them.
Most of the commercially viable copyrighted material is produced
in the US and constitutes a vibrant "industry". Now that the
physical goods industry has moved to Asia, what is the US producing?
The intangible they call "IP".
Another important aspect of the curious stance of the US govt on
copyrights is world intellectual domination. People in every corner of the
planet are immersed in US culture, the music, the clothes, the
value system, the capitalist dream. This is a great asset they want to
protect tooth and nail.
They want Disney (and every "Disney") strong so as to sell to the kids of the
world the desirability of the "American way of life".
To put it simple, copyrights are the heavy industry and propaganda machine
of the US all rolled into one. Do not expect the lawmakers and judges to
waeken them for the benefit of nebulous ideas like the digital commons or
whatever arguments the file sharers may advance.
The word is "torrentistas".
We are talking about a guerrila group here
(like, for example, "Sadinistas"),
not a political sect (like "lefists").
Not only Google can build their own ABE around Google print,
they can also expand it to include individual sellers, ebay style.
I have 10 books I no longer need, I log in to GooglesuperABE,
list my books and the prices I want and forget about it.
A year later perhaps, an e-mail informs that I have a buyer.
A tree is saved, I make some money and somebody gets the book
she is looking for at a great price.
It is rather obvious that Google is not trying to rip off authors.
Rather, it is trying to send the publishers to the trash bin of
history. Two years from now, if I have a book to publish, I can make a deal
with Google to put it online and they will do on demand printing and shipping for me.
Then I sit back and cash my royalties check every 6 months.
Out of print books will generate revenue this way also. As it
turns out, 99.8% of titles ever printed are currently out of print and
unprofitable for another print run. The Authors Guild Backinprint.com
has only 8,000 authors and is profitable, imagine the money to be made with
millions of authors.
None of the above.
The correct action is to market the information to the users of the software. Advertise (e-mail, other)to the users that you have valuable information for them for a small consulting fee. Once you are hired by the user of the software to check it, you do not have any problem with the company that sells it. Armed with your report, the paying customer every right to demand from the vendor his money's worth. You are not involved further, and you have mae a legal and deserved buck.
The 1974 movie Zardoz (starring Sean Connery in his youth)
deals with that question. The immortals chose to die,
but not by commiting suicide. From imdb,
"In the far future, a savage trained only to kill finds a way into the community of bored immortals that alone preserves humanity's achievements"
I got the opposite problem: I was employed by the UC system and when I wanted to get a copy of my employment records they said all records before 1984 were destroyed.
So there go my rights (and retirement money I would receive in my case if they kept their records properly)
But being technically feasible does not mean it will happen overnight either. The telcos will fight tooth and nail to keep what they have. Same story with RIAA, with the extra twist that the government has to free up and assign a good frequency band for P2P RF networking. Hopefully, the fight of we the people vs RIAA will build the required political awareness and political machine to tackle this next.
If they could only free a TV channel for experimentation (http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=program&Pr ogID=3), amazing things could be developed.
The reason we have juries and not sentencing algorithms is because juries can JUDGE the situation and determine what is right and what is not. They could say the patent was frivolous, or they could award a $1 for damages. There is no law that effectively binds a jury. All they have to say is why they think the law should be applied as they believe. In cases like patents, any belief can be justified easily. If I was on the jury, I would say that, based on the proceedings, the patented idea was obvious. My judgement. Case dismissed. End of story.
"Don't think of ISPs protecting file-sharers, shift it to protecting distributers of child pornography."
This is precisely the reasson RIAA should be stopped from any messings with p2p. The "crime" of sharing an mp3 is nothing compared to child abuse. Any law that breaches on-line anonymity must be limited to few very serious felonies that affect directly life in a reprehensible way. Never ever should on-line anonymity be breached for financial interests.
Anonymity is a very sensitive political issue that affects the core of democracy and in no way should we let the RIAA anywhere near this.
Be political! the RIAA in their mindless pursuit of their corporate survival are sawing at the pillars of democracy. It is our duty as citizens to fight this.
What you people do not get is that bandwidth is mostly wasted by its nature. As a provider, I buy bandwidth by the month, not by traffic. If my customers use 80% of that banwidth at any given time, the rest 20% is WASTED by definition. If we look at the load on an ISP connection in a 24 hour period we will see wild variations. Around 4 am there is hardly any traffic. The problem, if any, arises at peak hours.
Throttling file transfers during peak hours so that other traffic does not get bogged down is the win-win situation. It is certainly technically possible to build routers nowdays that analyze traffic to find out what is going on and then adjust things according to the policy of the ISP. Is anyone building them? I do not know. However I doubt it, seems to me that Cisco et al want to put a few chips on a board and charge $3000 for them while an intelligent router that analyzes high speed traffic and acts accordingly will have a lot of expensive silicon in it. Using their existing profits they would have to price it out of the market.
The problem here is that of a very poor metaphor with colors and photons etc. What Reed wants to say is that if we look at the radio spectrum at anyone place at anyone time, it is MOSTLY EMPTY. With current practice, we assign let's say in Athens, GA the frequency of 423.456MHz to police radios. Police has a duty cycle (using radio) of perhaps less than 0.1% of the time, thus wasting the frequency. The other way of doing things is to have intelligent radios that constantly monitor lets say the spectrum form 50 to 1000Mhz. When they want to transmit, they do so in a frequency that is empty at that moment. This scheme will not work with TV and Broadcast Radio stations that are constantly on. However, this type of service has no real business using the airwaves anymore. It can be handled via land infrastructure, digitally (think Internnet radio).
Alternatively, TV and Radio stations if made digital and compressed can fit in a very small portion of their original spectrum. A V90 modem in 3Khz sends 56kbps. If we scale this 50 times to 150 KHz we can send a TV
channel mpeg encoded at 2.8Mbits. Compare 150Khz to 5000KHz a TV channel occupies now.
The other way to increase the number of radios is to divide up physical space, as cellular phones do (the cells use the same frequencies all over town but each cell has a small range). The combination
of all these techniques leads to the clainm of unlimited and thus unlicensed spectrum.
First such traffic on internet thingy was
in the San diego metro Area, circa 1993.
In order to comply with the EULA you must save the cartridge until a box is supplied. However, you can charge storage fees for this service. After a few months, sent them a letter stating your storage fee per month, invoice them and demand payment. See what happens. After a year sue them in the local small claims court. They'll have to send in a lawyer to defend themselves. Think of their cost. If enough people did this there will be no further problems with Lexmark, it will go bankrupt. By the way, selling under cost for whatever reason (unless liquidating the company) is illegal under laws that protect competition. EU regulations are based on the basic premise of competition which is the heart of EU. EU started as and is is mostly a common market agreement between nations.
I had a Sony car radio, a portable CD player and a VCR that went bad with very light use. The post mortem analysis showed bad engineering. For example, the VCR had a plastic main pulley that would break under the stress of long tapes. Common problem I found out. Needed to replace the motor to fix it at the cost of a new VCR.
Incompetent engineers (basically the chief product engineer) is the source of most if not all problems with electronics these days. If your equipment was designed by a competent product engineer and a good team, it works fine regardless of the company or place of manufacture. In most cases, an engineer who knows his stuff can make it cheaper and better at the same time. In electronics, materials cost is not material in price differentiation. Good machines require engineering talent, a resource in short supply if we are to judge by the abundance of crap that fills store shelves.
I saw a news item on this exact technique a couple of years ago. It was used to monitor traffic in an interstate highway, in the NE US, maybe PA. I do not remember exactly where. Anyway, since I have not heard any followup on the story it either has failed or it has become an everyday tool for highway monitoring that nobody mentions any more. Except of course when it gets rediscoverd some place else.