One is something that the providers of the information know that the recipients of the information sought out, the other is as well.
"He searches for Brazillian fart fetish porn to watch" and "he watches Brazilian fart fetish porn" carry much the same payload, data-mining-wise.
Yes, but one is covered by the claims while the other is explicitly not covered.
You see "search engines" and "television commercials" and we see the necessary table structures and SQL queries.
You see "necessary table structures and SQL queries" and I see the explicit language in the patent claims, which is the only part with any legal weight. They're not patenting SQL queries, and they couldn't. They're only patenting what's in the claims, and so, no, search engines aren't covered.
Your local grocery store tracks what television programs you watch that involve food and makes recommendations for produce based on what people watching the same programs have also watched and bought? That's a little creepy.
No, but my local grocery store tracks what I purchase and makes recommendations on that. I'm pretty sure those recommendations are based on purchases that other people have made who also purchased what I bought. I know that many on-line retailers do the same. The only novel thing is the television part. Even that isn't truly novel. I'm pretty sure P&G or Ford or Chevy are very aware of what people watch on tv and target their commercials accordingly. They just don't do it with a little button on a box.
Except that neither of those have anything to do with the patent. This is about offering products visible in a scene to viewers, based on purchases of products by other viewers of the same scene. Viewers of commercials are a different thing altogether... Ford isn't advertising to you while you watch a Chevy commercial, and if they were, Chevy would be pissed.
And similarly, your local grocery tracking what you purchase and making recommendations on it, even based on what others purchase, is the same thing Amazon and other retailers have been doing for years: the "people who bought this product also bought _____" field that shows up in every Amazon product. But again, that's shown to you based on you going to look at an ad for a product. When your grocery does it, they're doing it on a receipt, or in a mailer, but it's still part of an ad.
This patent, however, is about products that are displayed in a scene along with dozens of other products. Will Smith is wearing sunglasses, a tie, a shirt, a watch, a suit, shoes, etc. He's driving a certain type of car. He's drinking a Coke. He's talking into a Samsung phone and taking notes with a Montblanc pen. There's a bunch of product placements there, but how do you simultaneously advertise them for purchase, and more importantly, which ones? And to whom? And wouldn't it be useful to have an automated system that allows you to offer for sale, to a viewer, just the products in any scene that other viewers have bought? That's what this patent is about.
Of course they are not, but if I am broadcasting a TV show, the content of that show, audio, video, specific images, etc.is my IP. If I chose to show Rachel and Ross drinking coffee that is an artistic decision. I could have had them drink milk. Regardless, the entire contents of that show is my IP and can't be used without my permission. Just ask MLB or the NFL. If Amazon is then trying to use my IP to evaluate the viewer's purchasing habits, they still need my permission, do they not?
Nope. Your copyright over the show gives you the right to copy it (hence the name), as well as distribute it, create derivative works, publicly perform it, import it, etc. It doesn't give you an exclusive right you can use to prevent people from, say, discussing the show at the water cooler the next day. Or a right you can use to prevent people from, say, analyzing how many times Ross takes a sip and comparing that to the number of times Rachel takes a sip, and writing a scholarly treatise on gender and sip rate. Or a right you can use to prevent Amazon from noticing that you chose Charbucks Coffee, and contracting with Charbucks to offer coupons when that scene is broadcast.
Copyright is a right to make copies of a creative work fixed in a tangible article... not a right to exclusive control over the use of information.
What do you mean you have never seen anybody do that before. The actual patent isn't just about TV. Haven't you ever googled something and then the next thing you know you are seeing ads for products related to what you goodled? that is basically what Amazon is trying to patent.
From the patent claims:
... the media program comprising at least one of a plurality of television shows, a plurality of television commercials, a plurality of television infomercials, a plurality of movies, and a plurality of videos on demand;
Billy Mays here for BS Patents, Inc! Want to have a bunch of guaranteed revenue forever without doing anything useful? Then call now for a kit on how to create a nonsense patent! We'll include all the information you need to ignore silly rules like "prior art" by adding "with a computer" to the end of an existing patent, and how to pick something that everybody already uses so you'll have lots of people to sue! This kit can be yours for only $39.95 if you call now! But wait - order 2 and they'll go for $59.90, a $20 savings!
Typically for Slashdot, the patent has nothing to do with what the summary says. It's a good lesson in "don't believe everything you hear, go to the primary source." Had you learned that lesson previously, you'd find that there are no patents that add "with a computer" to the end of an existing patent.
Because seven years ago when I and my coworkers were discussing it we thought it was obvious. You don't patent what you think is obvious. You patent what you think you can persuade the patent office is an invention.
You and your coworkers thought it was obvious... after you came up with it. It's all obvious in hindsight. The question is, was it obvious to someone who hadn't yet heard your idea... and considering it was apparently 5 more years before Amazon filed the patent application, the answer would be no.
I read the patent and I don't see why. While the patent in question has nothing to do with "as seen on tv" as the summary suggests, it is all about electronically analyzing purchasing habits to make recommendations for other purchases. My local grocery store has been doing this for years.
Your local grocery store tracks what television programs you watch that involve food and makes recommendations for produce based on what people watching the same programs have also watched and bought? That's a little creepy.
a Microsoft patent on 'generating meeting requests' from a mobile device
Roll that around in your brain for a second.
I really wonder why anyone would have one bit of respect for any intellectual property laws when they are being perverted in this way.
Because people who have respect for IP laws realize that someone's description of the patent may not actually be what the patent claims? Consider, Toyota has a patent (several, actually) on the Prius hybrid engine. But if I just said "a Toyota patent on 'a vehicle engine'," people who didn't realize that there's more to it would think it was insane. Why, there's more than a century of prior art! Disgusting, huh?
There are issues with the patent system, but basing your evidence for those issues on someone's description of a patent is misplaced.
I would have thought a ruling by a judge would be needed to render something banned from import. So the power to regulate allows government agencies the ability to make profound and legally binding decisions without need for court systems or due process? I was not aware the ITC were experts on IP.
Actually, they are, and it involves due process and a court system. The ITC has administrative law judges, who are tech experts because that's all they do, who exclusively do IP infringement importation actions. The parties get to argue and brief and file motions and do discovery, but it's a super accelerated docket because the ITC isn't handling terrorism or interstate commerce stuff.
an object store;
an application program configured to maintain objects on the object store;
a user input mechanism configured to receive user input information;
a synchronization component configured to synchronize individual objects stored on the object store with remote objects stored on a remote object store;
a communications component configured to communicate with a remote device containing the remote object store; and
wherein the application program is further configured to generate a meeting object and an electronic mail scheduling request object based on the user input information.
Claim 1: A mobile device.
Not necessarily. It would have to be a mobile device that has those additional features, including synchronizing data with a remote server and generating a synchronized meeting object and an email scheduling request. My iPod, for example, is a mobile device that synchronizes objects (mp3s) with a remote object store (my media server), but it doesn't generate emails or meeting requests.
In order to have a distribution under copyright law there has to be a sale, or other transfer of ownership, or a rental, lease, or lending, to the public, none of which occurred here, so that's not an issue.
But thanks for asking.
Love
The Supremes
Send our regards to Theaetetus
Dear Supreme Court,
As much as it pains us, considering that it destroys our last hope for salvation, in the interests of fulfilling our duty of candor, we must respectfully point out that you may be confusing "distribution" with "publication," which is defined as you note (and includes the term "distribution" within its definition, creating a circular definition in your reading). "Distribution" is not as limited as you state. As noted by the D. Minn. court in Capitol v. Thomas, "distribution" is not synonymous with "publication". In fact, as you yourselves noted in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, "to publish" and "to distribute" are distinct rights.
Rather, as noted by the D. Minn. court, the plain meaning of "distribution" includes a transfer of ownership or possession from one person to another.
We understand that this obviates the issues raised in our prior letter, of course, and so we are withdrawing our appeal and returning to our day jobs in hopes of raising enough money to pay the judgment.
Your servants,
Prof. Neeson and Mr. Tenenbaum
P.S.: You should consider asking that New York Country Lawyer guy to clerk for you. He seems quite intelligent, but could use the additional training and tutelage you could provide.
As far as I can tell, he admitted to uploading, but not how many times each file was uploaded. I really doubt that the record shows anything related his uploading his activity except for his admission of an indeterminate number of uploads.
Ah, sorry, didn't realize that's the part you were quibbling with - not whether he uploaded, but how many times. The latter is irrelevant - a single act of uploading gets the same statutory damages as ten thousand, because damages are per work infringed, not per copy.
It's that he gave that $1 item away for free a multitude of times.
This should help his case, if anything. If he had setup a music downloading site a-la iTunes store, and had taken this music and SOLD it repeatedly without the proper authorization steps, then the fine would be just. As it stands, he did not sell the items, and it is entirely unfair that they charge him an amount based on profit margins from music stores and copyright licensing fees for multimillion dollar companies.
But, for better or for worse, the copyright statute makes no distinction between those who infringe copyright for funsies and those who do it for commercial profit, except in the area of criminal liability. Tenenbaum didn't sell the music, so he won't go to jail... but he doesn't magically get to avoid all of the infringement damages as a result.
And, again, for better or for worse, the Supreme Court doesn't get to change that... Congress can change the statute to exempt infringement-for-funsies or reduce the damages, but only Congress can do that, not the "activist" judges... They simply lack the power.
But instead, you distributed the song to thousands of people.
You seed every download until you hit the thousands of uploads mark? Must have a lot of upload capacity. Even small downloads won't hit that because the smaller the download the more seeders there tends to be so less likelihood of your machine distributing.
Dear Mr. Tenebaum and Counselor Neeson,
So you're admitting you distributed the file, rather than merely "just downloading and listening" as you originally suggested, but instead are merely quibbling over the number of recipients? Why exactly are you wasting our time if you can't even get the facts of your own case straight?
Sincerely,
The Supremes
As I understand it, he didn't charge to download these copied files on his end. This should mean he is not subject to the corporate music store licensing, but he should be held accountable by the Copyright notice that is at the beginning of every movie saying "Hey! $10,000 fine and up to 5 years in the slammer!".
That's a great theory... Why don't you look in the copyright act and find where there's support for that theory that he's not subject to licensing fees since he didn't charge? We'll wait.
And unfortunately, that argument misses half of the infringement. You're right, Mr. T could have downloaded a track for $1. But he also was uploading copies.
You suppose that he uploaded it multiple times. What evidence exists to prove this? Without such evidence, the uploading damages should be zero.
He admitted it. And in fact, Neeson did it again during the trial, placing all of the songs on a website for free download. A confession is sufficient evidence. The only issue at trial was damages, and thus, the only issue that can be up before the Supreme Court is damages.
Dear Supreme Court:
When an mp3 file sells at retail for 99 cents, and the record company is out about 5 cents from an unauthorized download, it's beyond the pale to allow me to be penalized more than a few dollars for it, especially since I was not making any money on it, I was just listening to the music.
So please rule on this issue to take the insanity out of present day copyright law.
Thank you
Your friend
Joel Tenenbaum (& his lawyer Prof. Charlie Nesson)
Dear Mr. Tenebaum and Counselor Neeson,
That would be a very reasonable point, if all you had ever done was download the song and "just listen to it."
But instead, you distributed the song to thousands of people. We asked Capitol Records if a distribution license was also only 99 cents, and their accountant collapsed. When he recovered, he asked if we had meant 99 thousand dollars.
So, can you clarify whether we're supposed to be ruling on the mere "just downloading and listening" that you claimed, or on the "sharing to lots of people" that you actually did? We'd be happy to rule on the former, but it's not going to help the contents of your bank account.
Your besties,
The Supremes
The argument put forth by Mr. T is that those are fair punishments if the infringer is a business, and that's when those laws were drafted. They didn't think that an individual would be on the business end of commercial copyright theft. (Which by definition they cannot be, since they aren't a commercial entity)
The problem with that argument is that the copyright act was updated 14 years ago, with provisions included specifically to address copyright infringement in the internet era - the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. So, any argument that the copyright act is simply too out of date and they never considered file sharing is doomed at the outset.
So Mr. T's argument is: come on, now it's $1 a song for an MP3. It's cruel and unusual punishment (thus the constitutionality of it) to subject someone to a lifetime of indebtured service for stealing something that's worth $1. If he stole 500 pies and then burned down the bakery with five people inside, he'd be out of prison in 10 years. For taking a photo of those pies and putting them up on his website so other people could see what those pies looked like, he's being put to financial death.
And unfortunately, that argument misses half of the infringement. You're right, Mr. T could have downloaded a track for $1. But he also was uploading copies... How much is a distribution license? Do you think that Apple, for example, pays a single dollar, once, in exchange for getting to distribute millions of copies of the latest pop song? Heck no... Distribution licenses are usually based on royalty percentages with established distributors, or flat fees (potentially plus a lower royalty) for unestablished distributors where the royalties may be questionable. If Mr. T approached Capitol Records and said "I'd like a license to distribute ten thousand copies of this song," do you think they would say "sure, that'll be $1", or would they more likely say something like, "sure, that'll be $100,000"?
For example, Michael Jackson bought the distribution rights to a bunch of Beatles songs - specifically, 4,000 songs at $47.5 million, or about $12k per song... Much more than $1.
So, any argument that Mr. T's damages should be only $1 is also doomed to fail.
Fortunately, there's another argument, but it's one that only a judge or an amici would raise since neither Tenenbaum nor the RIAA would like it (which may be an indicator that it's correct)... Specifically, it has to do with the "willful" infringement standard which expands the damage range from $750-30,000 per work to "up to $150,000". The RIAA has argued in the past that "willful" means "known or should have known the song was copyrighted" (which is why they slap a copyright label on everything)... but that effectively removes the regular damage range, and it also disregards some of the specific legislative history of the act and congressional reports. However, no defendant - including Tenenbaum - has ever tried to argue that, no, they should only be liable for up to $30k, because that's still way too high for them. They're too busy arguing the doomed "it should only be $1," so they miss this point: the "willful" standard was intended to be a "malicious" infringement standard, for either commercial profit or to commercially destroy the publisher by giving away their works.
And this is actually quite important... juries select damages near the geometric mean of a range, unless there's egregious behavior that pisses them off. If you give a jury an instruction that they should find damages between $750-150000, they'll end up picking something in the $30k-40k range. If you tell them they should find damages between $750-30000, they'll end up picking something in the $7k-10k range. It's pure psychology - if you go from $750 to $1500, you've doubled the fee... but if you go from $149250 to $150000, you've barely changed it, even though it's the same difference. So, juries pick round numbers, a
That's okay, if he's not on the ballot come November I'll write in his name anyway.
I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot of stances, including most of his core ones. However, of all the politicians I've followed for any kind of time (which is only a few dozen), he has been the most steadfast in his ideals (i.e. he doesn't change with the direction of the wind) and he'll tell it like it is. I also completely agree with his States' Rights stance.
You mean, anti-States' Rights?
Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes “efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.”... He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996... The act also prohibits the U.S. Government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage.
In other words, the States' right to define marriage for citizens of those states? He's opposed.
He's also disingenuous about his hypocrisy:
In February 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration's Justice Department had determined that a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and, as a result, the administration would no longer argue in support of the act's constitutionality in court. Paul issued a statement to Iowa Republicans criticizing the Obama administration's position, saying: "Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state."
Note that the "key provision" of DoMA that Holder and the Justice department determined was unconstitutional was DoMA's third clause, defining marriage at the federal level. The second clause, which defines the effect of the full faith and credit clause, was not at issue in that case. Either he was intentionally trying to mislead the Iowa Republicans, or he's ignorant of a topic he's issuing a statement about. Of course, maybe someone else wrote that statement for him...
Think of all the ways that we could make laws neat. To paraphrase the judge "We know that the statutory rape law is sometimes misused and that's a shame. But I think that broad polemical exclusion of all cases where the couple are married is not the way to go".
Sometimes you need exemption to a law.
It's funny you say that... Marriage was an exemption to rape for years, and years, resulting in a lot of raped, abused wives. Sometimes, your exemption has unforeseen and horrible consequences.
In this case, saying "software is exempt from patent law" would result in large companies copying projects from small inventors and never paying them back. And they wouldn't be doing this to each other, either, because all of those big companies' software would go closed source, black-box implementations. Trade secrets for everyone... everyone without an espionage budget, that is.
Kinect detects the position of objects, while this system can only detect movement.
Not necessarily.
If two slightly different frequencies are used (one from each stereo speaker), then with some complex math and comparisons against previous frames a simulated environment can be built with only one microphone.
It may need to be calibrated each use (as different laptops have speakers/microphones in different physical locations across different models), but it can be approximated.
I think you missed GP's legitimate complaint... Contrary to the article, the Doppler effect has nothing to do with position, but changes in relative velocity. There's no change in frequency in the reflected ultrasonic tone if your hands are 1 inch, 1 foot, or 10 feet from the microphone... if they stay there. Only when you move can it detect the gesture, because that's the only time the reflection would be Doppler shifted.
Now, that's just according to the article's description of how the system works, but since the journalist got the Doppler effect wrong, it's highly likely he also got Soundwave wrong. If the system uses pulses, then it could use time-domain reflectivity to measure distance to stationary objects.
If it's just the Doppler effect, however, you don't need different frequencies or a pair of mics, as you said, because it's not simulating the environment... it's just looking for a change in a detected frequency from a known baseline, thus indicating something approaching or receding.
Slashdot Mirror
One is something that the providers of the information know that the recipients of the information sought out, the other is as well. "He searches for Brazillian fart fetish porn to watch" and "he watches Brazilian fart fetish porn" carry much the same payload, data-mining-wise.
Yes, but one is covered by the claims while the other is explicitly not covered.
You see "search engines" and "television commercials" and we see the necessary table structures and SQL queries.
You see "necessary table structures and SQL queries" and I see the explicit language in the patent claims, which is the only part with any legal weight. They're not patenting SQL queries, and they couldn't. They're only patenting what's in the claims, and so, no, search engines aren't covered.
Your local grocery store tracks what television programs you watch that involve food and makes recommendations for produce based on what people watching the same programs have also watched and bought? That's a little creepy.
No, but my local grocery store tracks what I purchase and makes recommendations on that. I'm pretty sure those recommendations are based on purchases that other people have made who also purchased what I bought. I know that many on-line retailers do the same. The only novel thing is the television part. Even that isn't truly novel. I'm pretty sure P&G or Ford or Chevy are very aware of what people watch on tv and target their commercials accordingly. They just don't do it with a little button on a box.
Except that neither of those have anything to do with the patent. This is about offering products visible in a scene to viewers, based on purchases of products by other viewers of the same scene. Viewers of commercials are a different thing altogether... Ford isn't advertising to you while you watch a Chevy commercial, and if they were, Chevy would be pissed.
And similarly, your local grocery tracking what you purchase and making recommendations on it, even based on what others purchase, is the same thing Amazon and other retailers have been doing for years: the "people who bought this product also bought _____" field that shows up in every Amazon product. But again, that's shown to you based on you going to look at an ad for a product. When your grocery does it, they're doing it on a receipt, or in a mailer, but it's still part of an ad.
This patent, however, is about products that are displayed in a scene along with dozens of other products. Will Smith is wearing sunglasses, a tie, a shirt, a watch, a suit, shoes, etc. He's driving a certain type of car. He's drinking a Coke. He's talking into a Samsung phone and taking notes with a Montblanc pen. There's a bunch of product placements there, but how do you simultaneously advertise them for purchase, and more importantly, which ones? And to whom? And wouldn't it be useful to have an automated system that allows you to offer for sale, to a viewer, just the products in any scene that other viewers have bought? That's what this patent is about.
Of course they are not, but if I am broadcasting a TV show, the content of that show, audio, video, specific images, etc.is my IP. If I chose to show Rachel and Ross drinking coffee that is an artistic decision. I could have had them drink milk. Regardless, the entire contents of that show is my IP and can't be used without my permission. Just ask MLB or the NFL. If Amazon is then trying to use my IP to evaluate the viewer's purchasing habits, they still need my permission, do they not?
Nope. Your copyright over the show gives you the right to copy it (hence the name), as well as distribute it, create derivative works, publicly perform it, import it, etc. It doesn't give you an exclusive right you can use to prevent people from, say, discussing the show at the water cooler the next day. Or a right you can use to prevent people from, say, analyzing how many times Ross takes a sip and comparing that to the number of times Rachel takes a sip, and writing a scholarly treatise on gender and sip rate. Or a right you can use to prevent Amazon from noticing that you chose Charbucks Coffee, and contracting with Charbucks to offer coupons when that scene is broadcast.
Copyright is a right to make copies of a creative work fixed in a tangible article... not a right to exclusive control over the use of information.
What do you mean you have never seen anybody do that before. The actual patent isn't just about TV. Haven't you ever googled something and then the next thing you know you are seeing ads for products related to what you goodled? that is basically what Amazon is trying to patent.
From the patent claims:
... the media program comprising at least one of a plurality of television shows, a plurality of television commercials, a plurality of television infomercials, a plurality of movies, and a plurality of videos on demand;
Yeah, you're right... It's totally trying to cover search engine results.
Billy Mays here for BS Patents, Inc! Want to have a bunch of guaranteed revenue forever without doing anything useful? Then call now for a kit on how to create a nonsense patent! We'll include all the information you need to ignore silly rules like "prior art" by adding "with a computer" to the end of an existing patent, and how to pick something that everybody already uses so you'll have lots of people to sue! This kit can be yours for only $39.95 if you call now! But wait - order 2 and they'll go for $59.90, a $20 savings!
Typically for Slashdot, the patent has nothing to do with what the summary says. It's a good lesson in "don't believe everything you hear, go to the primary source." Had you learned that lesson previously, you'd find that there are no patents that add "with a computer" to the end of an existing patent.
Surely, Amazon is not trying to patent other people's copyrights
Even though you've heard the words "patent" and "copyright" in the context of intellectual property, they're not the same thing.
Because seven years ago when I and my coworkers were discussing it we thought it was obvious. You don't patent what you think is obvious. You patent what you think you can persuade the patent office is an invention.
You and your coworkers thought it was obvious... after you came up with it. It's all obvious in hindsight. The question is, was it obvious to someone who hadn't yet heard your idea... and considering it was apparently 5 more years before Amazon filed the patent application, the answer would be no.
I read the patent and I don't see why. While the patent in question has nothing to do with "as seen on tv" as the summary suggests, it is all about electronically analyzing purchasing habits to make recommendations for other purchases. My local grocery store has been doing this for years.
Your local grocery store tracks what television programs you watch that involve food and makes recommendations for produce based on what people watching the same programs have also watched and bought? That's a little creepy.
Roll that around in your brain for a second.
I really wonder why anyone would have one bit of respect for any intellectual property laws when they are being perverted in this way.
Because people who have respect for IP laws realize that someone's description of the patent may not actually be what the patent claims? Consider, Toyota has a patent (several, actually) on the Prius hybrid engine. But if I just said "a Toyota patent on 'a vehicle engine'," people who didn't realize that there's more to it would think it was insane. Why, there's more than a century of prior art! Disgusting, huh?
There are issues with the patent system, but basing your evidence for those issues on someone's description of a patent is misplaced.
I would have thought a ruling by a judge would be needed to render something banned from import. So the power to regulate allows government agencies the ability to make profound and legally binding decisions without need for court systems or due process? I was not aware the ITC were experts on IP.
Actually, they are, and it involves due process and a court system. The ITC has administrative law judges, who are tech experts because that's all they do, who exclusively do IP infringement importation actions. The parties get to argue and brief and file motions and do discovery, but it's a super accelerated docket because the ITC isn't handling terrorism or interstate commerce stuff.
Claim 1: A mobile device.
Not necessarily. It would have to be a mobile device that has those additional features, including synchronizing data with a remote server and generating a synchronized meeting object and an email scheduling request. My iPod, for example, is a mobile device that synchronizes objects (mp3s) with a remote object store (my media server), but it doesn't generate emails or meeting requests.
Dear Prof. Nesson, and Mr. Tenenbaum
In order to have a distribution under copyright law there has to be a sale, or other transfer of ownership, or a rental, lease, or lending, to the public, none of which occurred here, so that's not an issue.
But thanks for asking.
Love
The Supremes
Send our regards to Theaetetus
Dear Supreme Court,
As much as it pains us, considering that it destroys our last hope for salvation, in the interests of fulfilling our duty of candor, we must respectfully point out that you may be confusing "distribution" with "publication," which is defined as you note (and includes the term "distribution" within its definition, creating a circular definition in your reading). "Distribution" is not as limited as you state. As noted by the D. Minn. court in Capitol v. Thomas, "distribution" is not synonymous with "publication". In fact, as you yourselves noted in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, "to publish" and "to distribute" are distinct rights.
Rather, as noted by the D. Minn. court, the plain meaning of "distribution" includes a transfer of ownership or possession from one person to another.
We understand that this obviates the issues raised in our prior letter, of course, and so we are withdrawing our appeal and returning to our day jobs in hopes of raising enough money to pay the judgment.
Your servants,
Prof. Neeson and Mr. Tenenbaum
P.S.: You should consider asking that New York Country Lawyer guy to clerk for you. He seems quite intelligent, but could use the additional training and tutelage you could provide.
As far as I can tell, he admitted to uploading, but not how many times each file was uploaded. I really doubt that the record shows anything related his uploading his activity except for his admission of an indeterminate number of uploads.
Ah, sorry, didn't realize that's the part you were quibbling with - not whether he uploaded, but how many times. The latter is irrelevant - a single act of uploading gets the same statutory damages as ten thousand, because damages are per work infringed, not per copy.
It's that he gave that $1 item away for free a multitude of times.
This should help his case, if anything. If he had setup a music downloading site a-la iTunes store, and had taken this music and SOLD it repeatedly without the proper authorization steps, then the fine would be just. As it stands, he did not sell the items, and it is entirely unfair that they charge him an amount based on profit margins from music stores and copyright licensing fees for multimillion dollar companies.
But, for better or for worse, the copyright statute makes no distinction between those who infringe copyright for funsies and those who do it for commercial profit, except in the area of criminal liability. Tenenbaum didn't sell the music, so he won't go to jail... but he doesn't magically get to avoid all of the infringement damages as a result.
And, again, for better or for worse, the Supreme Court doesn't get to change that... Congress can change the statute to exempt infringement-for-funsies or reduce the damages, but only Congress can do that, not the "activist" judges... They simply lack the power.
What evidence that he gave it away more than once (or even once) was presented to the court?
His own statements of admission.
Are you saying that Tenenbaum shouldn't be liable for infringement, but that both he and Neeson should instead face criminal trials for perjury?
But instead, you distributed the song to thousands of people.
You seed every download until you hit the thousands of uploads mark? Must have a lot of upload capacity. Even small downloads won't hit that because the smaller the download the more seeders there tends to be so less likelihood of your machine distributing.
Dear Mr. Tenebaum and Counselor Neeson,
So you're admitting you distributed the file, rather than merely "just downloading and listening" as you originally suggested, but instead are merely quibbling over the number of recipients? Why exactly are you wasting our time if you can't even get the facts of your own case straight?
Sincerely,
The Supremes
As I understand it, he didn't charge to download these copied files on his end. This should mean he is not subject to the corporate music store licensing, but he should be held accountable by the Copyright notice that is at the beginning of every movie saying "Hey! $10,000 fine and up to 5 years in the slammer!".
That's a great theory... Why don't you look in the copyright act and find where there's support for that theory that he's not subject to licensing fees since he didn't charge? We'll wait.
You suppose that he uploaded it multiple times. What evidence exists to prove this? Without such evidence, the uploading damages should be zero.
He admitted it. And in fact, Neeson did it again during the trial, placing all of the songs on a website for free download. A confession is sufficient evidence. The only issue at trial was damages, and thus, the only issue that can be up before the Supreme Court is damages.
Dear Supreme Court:
When an mp3 file sells at retail for 99 cents, and the record company is out about 5 cents from an unauthorized download, it's beyond the pale to allow me to be penalized more than a few dollars for it, especially since I was not making any money on it, I was just listening to the music.
So please rule on this issue to take the insanity out of present day copyright law.
Thank you
Your friend
Joel Tenenbaum (& his lawyer Prof. Charlie Nesson)
Dear Mr. Tenebaum and Counselor Neeson,
That would be a very reasonable point, if all you had ever done was download the song and "just listen to it."
But instead, you distributed the song to thousands of people. We asked Capitol Records if a distribution license was also only 99 cents, and their accountant collapsed. When he recovered, he asked if we had meant 99 thousand dollars.
So, can you clarify whether we're supposed to be ruling on the mere "just downloading and listening" that you claimed, or on the "sharing to lots of people" that you actually did? We'd be happy to rule on the former, but it's not going to help the contents of your bank account.
Your besties,
The Supremes
The argument put forth by Mr. T is that those are fair punishments if the infringer is a business, and that's when those laws were drafted. They didn't think that an individual would be on the business end of commercial copyright theft. (Which by definition they cannot be, since they aren't a commercial entity)
The problem with that argument is that the copyright act was updated 14 years ago, with provisions included specifically to address copyright infringement in the internet era - the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. So, any argument that the copyright act is simply too out of date and they never considered file sharing is doomed at the outset.
So Mr. T's argument is: come on, now it's $1 a song for an MP3. It's cruel and unusual punishment (thus the constitutionality of it) to subject someone to a lifetime of indebtured service for stealing something that's worth $1. If he stole 500 pies and then burned down the bakery with five people inside, he'd be out of prison in 10 years. For taking a photo of those pies and putting them up on his website so other people could see what those pies looked like, he's being put to financial death.
And unfortunately, that argument misses half of the infringement. You're right, Mr. T could have downloaded a track for $1. But he also was uploading copies... How much is a distribution license? Do you think that Apple, for example, pays a single dollar, once, in exchange for getting to distribute millions of copies of the latest pop song? Heck no... Distribution licenses are usually based on royalty percentages with established distributors, or flat fees (potentially plus a lower royalty) for unestablished distributors where the royalties may be questionable. If Mr. T approached Capitol Records and said "I'd like a license to distribute ten thousand copies of this song," do you think they would say "sure, that'll be $1", or would they more likely say something like, "sure, that'll be $100,000"?
For example, Michael Jackson bought the distribution rights to a bunch of Beatles songs - specifically, 4,000 songs at $47.5 million, or about $12k per song... Much more than $1.
So, any argument that Mr. T's damages should be only $1 is also doomed to fail.
Fortunately, there's another argument, but it's one that only a judge or an amici would raise since neither Tenenbaum nor the RIAA would like it (which may be an indicator that it's correct)... Specifically, it has to do with the "willful" infringement standard which expands the damage range from $750-30,000 per work to "up to $150,000". The RIAA has argued in the past that "willful" means "known or should have known the song was copyrighted" (which is why they slap a copyright label on everything)... but that effectively removes the regular damage range, and it also disregards some of the specific legislative history of the act and congressional reports. However, no defendant - including Tenenbaum - has ever tried to argue that, no, they should only be liable for up to $30k, because that's still way too high for them. They're too busy arguing the doomed "it should only be $1," so they miss this point: the "willful" standard was intended to be a "malicious" infringement standard, for either commercial profit or to commercially destroy the publisher by giving away their works.
And this is actually quite important... juries select damages near the geometric mean of a range, unless there's egregious behavior that pisses them off. If you give a jury an instruction that they should find damages between $750-150000, they'll end up picking something in the $30k-40k range. If you tell them they should find damages between $750-30000, they'll end up picking something in the $7k-10k range. It's pure psychology - if you go from $750 to $1500, you've doubled the fee... but if you go from $149250 to $150000, you've barely changed it, even though it's the same difference. So, juries pick round numbers, a
How good of a test case is Tenenbaum?
Considering Tenenbaum's lawyer has already faced sanctions and had to pay fees for the other side, probably not a great one.
That's okay, if he's not on the ballot come November I'll write in his name anyway.
I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot of stances, including most of his core ones. However, of all the politicians I've followed for any kind of time (which is only a few dozen), he has been the most steadfast in his ideals (i.e. he doesn't change with the direction of the wind) and he'll tell it like it is. I also completely agree with his States' Rights stance.
You mean, anti-States' Rights?
Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes “efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” ... He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996... The act also prohibits the U.S. Government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage.
In other words, the States' right to define marriage for citizens of those states? He's opposed.
He's also disingenuous about his hypocrisy:
In February 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration's Justice Department had determined that a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and, as a result, the administration would no longer argue in support of the act's constitutionality in court. Paul issued a statement to Iowa Republicans criticizing the Obama administration's position, saying: "Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state."
Note that the "key provision" of DoMA that Holder and the Justice department determined was unconstitutional was DoMA's third clause, defining marriage at the federal level. The second clause, which defines the effect of the full faith and credit clause, was not at issue in that case. Either he was intentionally trying to mislead the Iowa Republicans, or he's ignorant of a topic he's issuing a statement about. Of course, maybe someone else wrote that statement for him...
Think of all the ways that we could make laws neat. To paraphrase the judge "We know that the statutory rape law is sometimes misused and that's a shame. But I think that broad polemical exclusion of all cases where the couple are married is not the way to go".
Sometimes you need exemption to a law.
It's funny you say that... Marriage was an exemption to rape for years, and years, resulting in a lot of raped, abused wives. Sometimes, your exemption has unforeseen and horrible consequences.
In this case, saying "software is exempt from patent law" would result in large companies copying projects from small inventors and never paying them back. And they wouldn't be doing this to each other, either, because all of those big companies' software would go closed source, black-box implementations. Trade secrets for everyone... everyone without an espionage budget, that is.
Kinect detects the position of objects, while this system can only detect movement.
Not necessarily. If two slightly different frequencies are used (one from each stereo speaker), then with some complex math and comparisons against previous frames a simulated environment can be built with only one microphone. It may need to be calibrated each use (as different laptops have speakers/microphones in different physical locations across different models), but it can be approximated.
I think you missed GP's legitimate complaint... Contrary to the article, the Doppler effect has nothing to do with position, but changes in relative velocity. There's no change in frequency in the reflected ultrasonic tone if your hands are 1 inch, 1 foot, or 10 feet from the microphone... if they stay there. Only when you move can it detect the gesture, because that's the only time the reflection would be Doppler shifted.
Now, that's just according to the article's description of how the system works, but since the journalist got the Doppler effect wrong, it's highly likely he also got Soundwave wrong. If the system uses pulses, then it could use time-domain reflectivity to measure distance to stationary objects.
If it's just the Doppler effect, however, you don't need different frequencies or a pair of mics, as you said, because it's not simulating the environment... it's just looking for a change in a detected frequency from a known baseline, thus indicating something approaching or receding.