How is he stealing their bandwidth? Alexa is serving the images/data directly to the client. If they do not want this made available to then general public then they should have a website that only servers the content to registered users.
I think that you mean "the customer". You see, a lot of defense appropriations is not intended to buy stuff that the warfighter wants. It is to buy stuff that the senator/representative wants, and the reason that he wants it is because the contractor that makes the particular part happens to reside in his voting district.
Although I do not think these patents are novel in the sense that they deserve a patent. I think that VOIP could still work without them. In short they seem to describe a modified DNS that returns additional fields. So couldn't VOIP providers use an alternate database system that serves the same purpose but uses a protocol different than DNS? In the case of an established VOIP provider like Vonage, they would probably have to modify all of the existing client hardware which may be unrealistic because of cost, but for smaller/newer VOIP providers, I think they could use a different system. It would seem that this would fall out of the scope of the remaining upheld patent claims.
Try being a Muslim in the United States and voicing the opinion that 9/11 happened because of the U.S. foreign policy. See what happens.
Hopefully you are ridiculed and corrected for saying anything like this. If you hold the viewpoint that attacks on random civilians is justified because of "foreign policy" and you are Muslim, then you should consider yourself an extremist Muslim because this is not the viewpoint of most Muslims in the world.
As far as the t-shirt profiling, that type of stuff is the product of an individual stepping over the line in trying to silence this persons free speach. It can happen anywhere and this type of stuff does happen everywhere.
Then Apple can keep those customers. If users do not care that their stuff is defective by design, then they will not truly appreciate the value of open source and linux. Customers will come around when they are tired of vendor lock-in, DRM, and licensing restrictions. These are consumers who have yet to learn their lesson. So let them get screwed a few more times and, hopefully, they will learn.
They may piss off some of the customers but that won't matter because they will still have plenty of consumers. I see people angry about not being able to access their data from their old software on their old computer because it is locked into some proprietary format, yet when they buy new software they continue to get locked into the same vicious cycle.
I recall reading in the past that non-creative databases are protected under copyright in some countries, though not in the USA. I believe those countries are primarily European, but cannot say for sure. So I guess the GPL could apply, depending on where you live. In the USA, feel free to blatantly disregard copyright on any non-creative (fact based) database.
"moral relativism". Nice catch phrase, but I am not sure you understand what this means (It's quite comical). This would mean that I am okay with copying someone else's work, but not okay with someone else copying mine. Disagreeing about the definition and morality of "copyright infringement" is not moral relativism. It is just a different in opinion. It is perfectly acceptable to believe that copyright infringement is not morally wrong while theft is wrong. The beliefs do not conflict with each other.
I would be interested to hear your plan of how to build a road or computer network that went from city to city and house to house, covering the entire US without some sort of government intervention. You make a lot of assertions of how the government has failed us, but fail to show how things would have been better without the government involved.
Personally, I am convinced that completing something like the road networks in the US would be flat-out impossible without a government being involved. The US Government gets criticized a lot for their inefficiency, but most people fail to recognize the enormity of the tasks that the government needs to undertake. Aside from the obstacles such as land ownership, an entrepreneur could still never compete with a government on road networks simply due to the amount of risk that must be assumed and resources needed. A large organization can simply assume more risk.
Public education is a good example of where governments have generally been successful and privatization has not. Every developed country in the world has a public education system. It has been well recognized that education leads to innovation and a stronger economy for all, and the only way to make sure everybody gets an education is to have it provided by or subsidized by a government.
Why bother? they have found a great model for keeping themselves relevant: Have the laws rewritten globally so that everyone becomes a criminal or is assisting in criminal activity. Sue anything that moves. Demonize anyone that opposes you and start massive PR campaigns to convince society that you are right, eventhough it makes everyone else a criminal.
There is nothing illegal about transactions with AllofMP3. Where do you get your information. They give the best price for legal music. What is wrong with that?
Creating content does not give you the right to own the content. In fact, it is impossible to "own" content. Society can protect your work and give you a semblance of ownership. So in Russia's case, it is their society that has decided to "undercut" the supposed rights of the creators. Actually, they did not "undercut" any rights, they merely did not give them the protections which you choose to refer to as rights.
So, to answer your question. Yes, the creator has the right to ask for whatever compensation or protections that they want, but it is individually up to each society (or sovereign nation) to grant them the protections.
Is the Russian model the correct model for digital content rules? Probably not. But I think that it is better than the US or British system.
The patent acknowledges that other Object Relational methods exist. They are saying that they have a better one. So yes prior art for OR mappers exist, but that is not what they are patenting. Without any information as to which claim they believe to be violated, we can only speculate. I have seen OR mappers without many of the features discussed in the claims, so the idea that they were the first to implement some of these claims is not beyond belief.
What you said applies even more to the public universities in Ohio. Some of them have not lost their way yet, but things are getting worse. Hopefully the next governor can help to turn things around.
Well, the issue is not the amount of data (although if allowed AT&T would happily charge extra for this as well), but the type of data. If Google decides to get in the business of real-time high definition video without the lag caused by buffering (think video conferencing), not only will they need a lot of bandwidth, they will need to make sure that their traffic has priority so that the end user does not get lots of skips and jumps in their video.
My take on it is that if your content is ill-suited for the internet, do not use the internet to distribute it. The internet is good at everything, great at nothing. Networks that are great at certain things end up being degraded for other uses.
Part of this problem has arisen due to the FCC being highly politicized and corrupt and failing to carry out their mandate. Congress already gave the FCC power to enforce neutrality, but they reclassified services and such so that they do not have to. Now the fight is being escalated. It would be better if the FCC would just do their damn job.
Get over yourself. Stop pretending that you are not a pirate because we all know that you are. Everyone pirates. Everyone has freinds and family that are pirates. I have yet to hear of anyone ever turning themselves in or a freind for copyright infringement. So get off your soap-box because everyone knows that you are a hypocrite.
It is a great name. The term 'piracy' has been used to create a stigma against copying media. By proudly and mockingly describing yourself as a pirate, you take away the words power.
The way I see it, the contractors have to play politics far more than a gov employee. A contractor's engineer is going to be pressured to lie or hide the truth in some situations when it could potentially cost the shareholders money to fix the problem. The government employee has their paycheck signed by the public, so they do not have as much incentive to mislead the public.
A certain amount of regulation is necessary in all of those industries to maintain certain standards and architectures. And I do not see how you can imply that telecom companies are not being paid for use of their lines. I have to pay for internet access. Do you?
They are already being paid for internet access. The question is should they be allowed to provide teired access at different prices. Teiring will be a process that gives internet traffic higher or lower priority based on who pays. Furthermore, what are the limitation of tiering? Should Verizon be allowed to slow Google down to the point that it is unuseable? Should they be allowed to just plain block Google? or redirect their traffic to Yahoo? Afterall, by your reasoning, it is their network.
The answer to these questions is the internet protocol itself. The internet is defined by the protocol. The architecture for the internet just happens to be one of network neutral. Since teiring changes the protocol for handling internet traffic, it is considered re-engineering of the internet. Therefore, what Verizon would be selling their customers is not internet access. Rather it is access to some other network altogether and they should not be allowed to sell it as "internet".
The supporters of network neutrality made a fatal error, IMO. That is selling this an idealogical issue pitting the big bad telecom against the little guy versus selling this as the purely technical issue that it is.
Well, if as a license the EULA is valid, what is to prevent the maker from creating a license that says "you can only use this product on August 12, 2007 between the hours of 1 and 2 PM GMT"? Distribution of the software will already be restricted by copyright, so what is it about me opening a box or installing the disk that gives the maker the approval to further restrict my use of the software? If there are no clear rules that determine at what point it is okay for the maker to restrict the use of the software, what is to stop them from sending a new license 2 years after the fact?
It does not remove injunction as a tool. It merely asks that judges consider the affects of an injunction (on both the companies and their customers) and use discretion in granting them. It is still possible to get an injunction.
Slashdot Mirror
How is he stealing their bandwidth? Alexa is serving the images/data directly to the client. If they do not want this made available to then general public then they should have a website that only servers the content to registered users.
I think that you mean "the customer". You see, a lot of defense appropriations is not intended to buy stuff that the warfighter wants. It is to buy stuff that the senator/representative wants, and the reason that he wants it is because the contractor that makes the particular part happens to reside in his voting district.
I hear that the AK47 is the absolute best for firing bullets straight up in the air during celebrations and protests.
Although I do not think these patents are novel in the sense that they deserve a patent. I think that VOIP could still work without them. In short they seem to describe a modified DNS that returns additional fields. So couldn't VOIP providers use an alternate database system that serves the same purpose but uses a protocol different than DNS? In the case of an established VOIP provider like Vonage, they would probably have to modify all of the existing client hardware which may be unrealistic because of cost, but for smaller/newer VOIP providers, I think they could use a different system. It would seem that this would fall out of the scope of the remaining upheld patent claims.
I do not believe that anything you said is even remotely accurate.
As far as the t-shirt profiling, that type of stuff is the product of an individual stepping over the line in trying to silence this persons free speach. It can happen anywhere and this type of stuff does happen everywhere.
Then Apple can keep those customers. If users do not care that their stuff is defective by design, then they will not truly appreciate the value of open source and linux. Customers will come around when they are tired of vendor lock-in, DRM, and licensing restrictions. These are consumers who have yet to learn their lesson. So let them get screwed a few more times and, hopefully, they will learn.
They may piss off some of the customers but that won't matter because they will still have plenty of consumers. I see people angry about not being able to access their data from their old software on their old computer because it is locked into some proprietary format, yet when they buy new software they continue to get locked into the same vicious cycle.
I recall reading in the past that non-creative databases are protected under copyright in some countries, though not in the USA. I believe those countries are primarily European, but cannot say for sure. So I guess the GPL could apply, depending on where you live. In the USA, feel free to blatantly disregard copyright on any non-creative (fact based) database.
"moral relativism". Nice catch phrase, but I am not sure you understand what this means (It's quite comical). This would mean that I am okay with copying someone else's work, but not okay with someone else copying mine. Disagreeing about the definition and morality of "copyright infringement" is not moral relativism. It is just a different in opinion. It is perfectly acceptable to believe that copyright infringement is not morally wrong while theft is wrong. The beliefs do not conflict with each other.
Personally, I am convinced that completing something like the road networks in the US would be flat-out impossible without a government being involved. The US Government gets criticized a lot for their inefficiency, but most people fail to recognize the enormity of the tasks that the government needs to undertake. Aside from the obstacles such as land ownership, an entrepreneur could still never compete with a government on road networks simply due to the amount of risk that must be assumed and resources needed. A large organization can simply assume more risk.
Public education is a good example of where governments have generally been successful and privatization has not. Every developed country in the world has a public education system. It has been well recognized that education leads to innovation and a stronger economy for all, and the only way to make sure everybody gets an education is to have it provided by or subsidized by a government.
Why bother? they have found a great model for keeping themselves relevant: Have the laws rewritten globally so that everyone becomes a criminal or is assisting in criminal activity. Sue anything that moves. Demonize anyone that opposes you and start massive PR campaigns to convince society that you are right, eventhough it makes everyone else a criminal.
There is nothing illegal about transactions with AllofMP3. Where do you get your information. They give the best price for legal music. What is wrong with that?
So, to answer your question. Yes, the creator has the right to ask for whatever compensation or protections that they want, but it is individually up to each society (or sovereign nation) to grant them the protections.
Is the Russian model the correct model for digital content rules? Probably not. But I think that it is better than the US or British system.
The patent acknowledges that other Object Relational methods exist. They are saying that they have a better one. So yes prior art for OR mappers exist, but that is not what they are patenting. Without any information as to which claim they believe to be violated, we can only speculate. I have seen OR mappers without many of the features discussed in the claims, so the idea that they were the first to implement some of these claims is not beyond belief.
What you said applies even more to the public universities in Ohio. Some of them have not lost their way yet, but things are getting worse. Hopefully the next governor can help to turn things around.
My take on it is that if your content is ill-suited for the internet, do not use the internet to distribute it. The internet is good at everything, great at nothing. Networks that are great at certain things end up being degraded for other uses.
Part of this problem has arisen due to the FCC being highly politicized and corrupt and failing to carry out their mandate. Congress already gave the FCC power to enforce neutrality, but they reclassified services and such so that they do not have to. Now the fight is being escalated. It would be better if the FCC would just do their damn job.
Get over yourself. Stop pretending that you are not a pirate because we all know that you are. Everyone pirates. Everyone has freinds and family that are pirates. I have yet to hear of anyone ever turning themselves in or a freind for copyright infringement. So get off your soap-box because everyone knows that you are a hypocrite.
It is a great name. The term 'piracy' has been used to create a stigma against copying media. By proudly and mockingly describing yourself as a pirate, you take away the words power.
The way I see it, the contractors have to play politics far more than a gov employee. A contractor's engineer is going to be pressured to lie or hide the truth in some situations when it could potentially cost the shareholders money to fix the problem. The government employee has their paycheck signed by the public, so they do not have as much incentive to mislead the public.
They are already being paid for internet access. The question is should they be allowed to provide teired access at different prices. Teiring will be a process that gives internet traffic higher or lower priority based on who pays. Furthermore, what are the limitation of tiering? Should Verizon be allowed to slow Google down to the point that it is unuseable? Should they be allowed to just plain block Google? or redirect their traffic to Yahoo? Afterall, by your reasoning, it is their network.
The answer to these questions is the internet protocol itself. The internet is defined by the protocol. The architecture for the internet just happens to be one of network neutral. Since teiring changes the protocol for handling internet traffic, it is considered re-engineering of the internet. Therefore, what Verizon would be selling their customers is not internet access. Rather it is access to some other network altogether and they should not be allowed to sell it as "internet".
The supporters of network neutrality made a fatal error, IMO. That is selling this an idealogical issue pitting the big bad telecom against the little guy versus selling this as the purely technical issue that it is.
Well, if as a license the EULA is valid, what is to prevent the maker from creating a license that says "you can only use this product on August 12, 2007 between the hours of 1 and 2 PM GMT"? Distribution of the software will already be restricted by copyright, so what is it about me opening a box or installing the disk that gives the maker the approval to further restrict my use of the software? If there are no clear rules that determine at what point it is okay for the maker to restrict the use of the software, what is to stop them from sending a new license 2 years after the fact?
Fine, but then do not sell your product as internet service if you are going to re-engineer the internet.
It does not remove injunction as a tool. It merely asks that judges consider the affects of an injunction (on both the companies and their customers) and use discretion in granting them. It is still possible to get an injunction.