Permission and limited, non-exclusive license to reproduce this web site, by any method including but not limited to magnetically, digitally, electronically or hard copy, may be purchased for $5,000 (five thousand dollars) per printed hard copy page per copy, in advance of printing.
So if you never print it, you would be charged $5k per printed page x 0 pages printed = $0?
(Yeah, feeling a little like a smart-ass this afternoon...this stinks of a money-grab to me)
Interesting view - shaft them, then they'll come to us!The Open Source movement adopt the Microsoft mantra?
It is an interesting viewpoint, but I don't think the poster is advocating "shafting" users. The viewpoint being advocated, even if it did seem to be seasoned with a little bit of sarcasm, is sound--the enforcement of copyright. The copyright laws that protect Microsoft code are the same laws that protect F/OSS.
By advocating the copyright of contributers to F/OSS, you are also advocating the copyright of Microsoft, media companies, etc. The METHODS or TERMS may be points of disagreement, but copyright is copyright.
I've got a wireless link (11g) set up between two Linksys routers. At one end, I've put a spider skimmer behind the antenna; it's one of those Chinese cooking tools used to pick items out of a deep fryer. Near-perfect parabola, wire mesh of 6-8mm, bamboo handle; ideal reflective surface for a 2.4GHz signal.
Maybe all these implements were originally designed as antenna components, then one day somebody noticed that you can use a wok to make a good stir-fry...
Your PC is talking back and forth with access point A, but your signal is reaching B and C as well, which are just acting as listening posts. Now, your packets arrive at A, B, and C, which talk to each other and figure out the time differential of your packets reaching each point. B and C know what to listen for, because A is telling them.
Based on the time differentials, your position is narrowed down.
your PC can only see one, but that's because the others aren't talking to you.
No, I don't know the details, but it seems feasible.
You will only profit if what people consider a reasonable price is high enough. By offereing direct download they will lose renvenue from TV stations. If they lose more than they earn from direct download then it doesn't make sense to do so. Things aren't as black and white as you are trying to make it out to be.
I agree that I made it a very simple argument--corporations hire people magnitudes smarter than I am in these areas to figure out these answers.
To counter your argument about lost station revenue; I don't see how a direct download can replace the broadcast. People who buy the downloads (or even the DVD collections) are they types who:
(a) Watched the broadcast and want their own copy for future viewing; or (b) Didn't watch it the first time around and want a copy for future viewing
I can't think of any other case so if you can, feel free to add to the list.
Now, the first group is contributing to the broadcast revenue (ratings, ad revenue, etc.) and the second group are contributing by buying the content directly. Direct downloads augment the broadcast, not replace it.
There will be those who will go for the free download only and not look for the direct download nor watch the actual broadcast. Those individuals weren't going to contribute to your revenue stream anyway, so they are a non-loss (you can't lose that which you never had).
If TV revenue is in fact adversely affected, then it shows that the demand is for the direct download; the product demanded has changed, so you change with them. If the demand for widgets changes from red and round to blue and triangular, you make them blue and triangular if you want to stay in business.
I can't formulate a better argument, but it's just a gut feeling that the profit gained from digital distribution (it's GOT to be high; it's not like you need more physical material to distribute more copies, except maybe server capacity and bandwidth) would be much higher than the lost revenue from the broadcast.
Now there is no technological reason you shouldn't be able to do the same, just some legal hurdles imposed by countries out to make a buck anywhere they can and media companies out to do the same. I don't know what the solution to the former is but in regards to the latter I would think this would be enough to show that there is a demand for the content and for them to find a way to distribute it.
I don't follow how you can say that the "countries" are out to make a buck...unless you are referring to government officials who will allow their influence to be, well, "influenced" by the industry that wants to make a buck then make another one without extra effort.
I would like an explanation from somebody in the industry as to why content is not made available to more viewers/listeners/etc. Demand is there; we see that in the amount of sales that come from online digital resources and transfers via other means such as BitTorrent. If there is demand for your product, you can do business and profit. If you don't do business, somebody else will.
People download from p2p nets because YOU (the content provider/copyright holder/whatever term you want to use) won't provide quality content and a reasonable price. Do that, and you will profit. Those who continue to use p2p weren't going to buy your product anyway, so you have lost nothing.
It all seems so simple, I must be missing something somewhere.
Actually there is no such law at all. Everyone just assumes there is one! And the IRS goons come after you if you don't pay taxes, but in actual fact the IRS is constitutionally ILLEGAL! If you think I'm kidding, check this out:
No, I have not read it yet, other than a glossing over. It deserves closer examination, but it looks pretty much like the law that the income tax burdern is in fact written into law.
Now, as far as it being constitutional, you may want to take a look at the 16th Amendment . That one is pretty clear; an income tax is, in fact, constitutional.
My point is: Before you go off making a wild conspiracy argument, you may want to have some authoritative proof to back your claim. I hardly claim some YouTube clip as such.
Perfectly true, but mostly irrelevent; since compact flourescent lamps don't run on AC. The ballast boosts the frequency to the region of 25 to 40 kHz. True, some of the older 'tube'-style florescent lamps do run on AC, but the ones that are being sold as light-bulb replacements are CFLs.
I think you were referring to "AC" as the type of power that comes from a typical wall socket. To nitpick a little: AC is AC, whether it's 60 Hz or 400 Hz or 20 kHz. As long as it's not zero, the frequency is irrelevant when determining if a current is AC or DC. If the direction of electron current reverses during the cycle, it is AC. If the electron flow is in the same direction throughout the cycle, it is DC.
Quality free and open source software drastically lowers the cost of new PCs, and helps prevent software piracy. For example OpenOffice.org, the Microsoft Office alternative, can shave hundreds of dollars off the price of a new PC.
With PCs starting from $360 to $650, can you really expect to shave "hundreds" off the price of a new PC? The $650 machine doesn't come with Office, and Dell probably only pays $60 or so per Windows license (anybody got firmer numbers?)
The savings may be modest at best, but at least there would be an option (and I didn't see anyplace that said Dell IS GOING TO offer Linux, just that it is wanted by the respondents).
If the recording industry execs show signs of wanting to dump DRM if it would boost sales...what is stopping them from doing so? Are these not the same executive officers that run the labels?
FTA:
Despite these feelings, said Mr Mulligan, record labels are committed to using DRM because their digital music strategies revolve around these technologies.
Well hell, that's easy...CHANGE YOUR STRATEGY. If you think a strategy will get you more business, then you try it out. Can the Marketing Dept. not come up with a good campaign that would get listeners to buy downloaded tracks without spreading them hither and yon?
Sounds like lazy marketing to me..."We can't think of a way of compelling listeners to pay for unencumbered downloads they can get somewhere else for free, so we'll keep them encumbered so we don't need to do better marketing."
If you got a notice right now saying you were undercharged 10,000 dollars for your car, would you pay?
Another scenario: you order the DVD box sets from Amazon but a few weeks later (after the return window), you realize that you got charged too much for the purchase. Amazon refuses to refund the overcharge. Is Amazon right or wrong? After all, at the end of the transaction, you agreed to a price for the delivered goods.
It works both ways; if you expect Amazon (or any business or individual) to correct an error after the transaction that works in your favor, then you don't have any room to complain when the entity tries to correct an error after the fact in their favor.
There is a similar lawsuit in Wisconsin and the vouchers, while not the biggest payout in history, aren't peanuts for the average user either.
Look at page 22 of the settlement agreement pdf: the vouchers range from $15 for EACH OS installation to $23 for each Office installation. Now, when I got my settlement forms in the mail, Microsoft had me down for eight Win98 installations, Win98 SE, WinME, several Office installations, and I think a Win2K installation; I can't remember the details, but I have copies at home somewhere. Apparently, all those reinstallations where I sent in a new registration weren't completely useless:)
Not willing to submit a form with errors (the claim forms warned of perjury if the claims made were known to be false) I corrected the form for what I knew to be accurate; I think the total amount of hardware/software vouchers I'm entitled to came to about $100.
The lawyers' cut: $33 million. (Page 8 of the detailed notice)
So compared to the REAL winner, yes, the vouchers are a pittance. Still, if I can use the vouchers towards some neat accessory for my MacBook, I won't complain too much.
How do you return DOWNLOADED MUSIC?!?!?!? To return something usually means you give that thing back and no longer posess it in exchange for a refund, store credit, or replacement item. How do you return a digital file? It's not like they can check to see if you have it anymore. Even if you delete the file, it can be recovered. You will always have that file unless all your digital media has been confiscated upon "return".
You can return it the same way I returned a downloaded copy of Norton Antivirus several years ago. I contacted Symantec and told them that it didn't work with my PC, so I wanted to exercise their 30-day refund policy. I downloaded a form saying that I deleted all copies of the software from my possession, signed it, and mailed it back to them. I got my refund either when I got the form or after I returned it signed, I can't remember which.
The nuclear missile submarines do 3 months straight submerged -- every single patrol (my personal longest was 87 days) -- and many submarines have done extended tours, though admittedly usually for PR reasons, like the early Nautilus cruises.
My personal record was 59 days at sea on a SSN, surfacing twice to evacuate personnel for medical reasons. Had we not had these reasons, we would have been under for the whole 59 days.
Now, what you mean by "outside of human contact" changes the answer completely. Did the SSBNs still get regular radio dispatches (or maybe yo can't say:) ) We still had regular radio contact with the outside world so technically we weren't outside of human contact, even though we didn't touch land for two months.
I looked at the Tor website and while I followed the basic description, I can't see how packets can get from point A to point B without having the full route indicated somewhere.
Here's how I understand it; please correct as necessary.
(1) The client decides on a route to get a packet from point A to point B, by knowing where several Tor servers are located.
(2) The packet goes to the first location encrypted and determines where it goes next.
This is where I get confused. Once the packet gets from node 1 to node 2, how does node 2 know where to send it next? Is the route encrypted in the packet somewhere? Are there several layers of encryption, so that as each node peels away a layer of encryption, the next destination is exposed, leaving the remainder of the packet still encrypted?
If this is the case, then at some point the client must have negotiated keys with each node in the selected path. Can't these negotiations be watched to see what path the packet takes?
I see how each node individually may not know the source AND destination of the packet at the same time, but there must be a full path somewhere at some point. Otherwise how does the final node know where to send the unencrypted packet?
No, Viacom can do this. You can't afford to go to court over bogus takedown notices every week.
The law, of course, favors the megalithic entity, because they're the ones who pay for it.
Maybe that's the point.
If the big media companies keep doing this to quality, independent content producers, then the independents won't be so inclined to use sites like YouTube to distribute their content, since there's a good chance that it will be mistakenly taken down, and restoration takes a while and more effort than the content is worth.
Thus, Big Media poisons a new outlet that is outside their control, for media that is also outside their control.
(Not trying to be a tinfoil-hat-conspiracy-theorist, but raising a point of discussion.)
The man(?) is ridiculing the GPL and the people that elect to use it.
I'm not calling him a moron (his choice of words!) for preferring BSD licensing but for disrespecting the choice of others for the GPL.
(1) How is the poster ridiculing the GPL and those who use it? Clarification please.
(2) What drives you to say that "moron" was the poster's choice of words? I read the post several times and not once did I see the poster refer to anybody as a "moron."
The case, RAM, DVDROM, power supply, TV card and sound card are all original.
So, in other words, you replaced it, one component at a time instead of all at once. IMHO, if you replace the motherboard, you have replaced the computer.
What you did is like replacing the block, pistons, pumps, and belts on an engine but claiming it's only an upgrade because you kept the spark plugs and radiator.
Slashdot Mirror
So if you never print it, you would be charged $5k per printed page x 0 pages printed = $0?
(Yeah, feeling a little like a smart-ass this afternoon...this stinks of a money-grab to me)
RTFA...it will answer your questions.
From what I gathered from the story, the data was on the LOCAL computers. MSN and Google searches were barely mentioned in the article.
There is NO mention of ANY data being obtained directly from Google or MSN. It was all cached data left on various local devices used by the suspect.
It is an interesting viewpoint, but I don't think the poster is advocating "shafting" users. The viewpoint being advocated, even if it did seem to be seasoned with a little bit of sarcasm, is sound--the enforcement of copyright. The copyright laws that protect Microsoft code are the same laws that protect F/OSS.
By advocating the copyright of contributers to F/OSS, you are also advocating the copyright of Microsoft, media companies, etc. The METHODS or TERMS may be points of disagreement, but copyright is copyright.
The signal goes the other way...FROM satellite TO surface.
No, this is the dupe. The original will be posted tomorrow.
Out of curiosity...what about the Dock do you find to be an example of a poorly designed interface?
Maybe all these implements were originally designed as antenna components, then one day somebody noticed that you can use a wok to make a good stir-fry...
Your PC is talking back and forth with access point A, but your signal is reaching B and C as well, which are just acting as listening posts. Now, your packets arrive at A, B, and C, which talk to each other and figure out the time differential of your packets reaching each point. B and C know what to listen for, because A is telling them.
Based on the time differentials, your position is narrowed down.
your PC can only see one, but that's because the others aren't talking to you.
No, I don't know the details, but it seems feasible.
I agree that I made it a very simple argument--corporations hire people magnitudes smarter than I am in these areas to figure out these answers.
To counter your argument about lost station revenue; I don't see how a direct download can replace the broadcast. People who buy the downloads (or even the DVD collections) are they types who:
(a) Watched the broadcast and want their own copy for future viewing; or
(b) Didn't watch it the first time around and want a copy for future viewing
I can't think of any other case so if you can, feel free to add to the list.
Now, the first group is contributing to the broadcast revenue (ratings, ad revenue, etc.) and the second group are contributing by buying the content directly. Direct downloads augment the broadcast, not replace it.
There will be those who will go for the free download only and not look for the direct download nor watch the actual broadcast. Those individuals weren't going to contribute to your revenue stream anyway, so they are a non-loss (you can't lose that which you never had).
If TV revenue is in fact adversely affected, then it shows that the demand is for the direct download; the product demanded has changed, so you change with them. If the demand for widgets changes from red and round to blue and triangular, you make them blue and triangular if you want to stay in business.
I can't formulate a better argument, but it's just a gut feeling that the profit gained from digital distribution (it's GOT to be high; it's not like you need more physical material to distribute more copies, except maybe server capacity and bandwidth) would be much higher than the lost revenue from the broadcast.
I don't follow how you can say that the "countries" are out to make a buck...unless you are referring to government officials who will allow their influence to be, well, "influenced" by the industry that wants to make a buck then make another one without extra effort.
I would like an explanation from somebody in the industry as to why content is not made available to more viewers/listeners/etc. Demand is there; we see that in the amount of sales that come from online digital resources and transfers via other means such as BitTorrent. If there is demand for your product, you can do business and profit. If you don't do business, somebody else will.
People download from p2p nets because YOU (the content provider/copyright holder/whatever term you want to use) won't provide quality content and a reasonable price. Do that, and you will profit. Those who continue to use p2p weren't going to buy your product anyway, so you have lost nothing.
It all seems so simple, I must be missing something somewhere.
Before you go making such a claim, you may want to read Title 26 USC Internal Revenue Code
No, I have not read it yet, other than a glossing over. It deserves closer examination, but it looks pretty much like the law that the income tax burdern is in fact written into law.
Now, as far as it being constitutional, you may want to take a look at the 16th Amendment . That one is pretty clear; an income tax is, in fact, constitutional.
My point is: Before you go off making a wild conspiracy argument, you may want to have some authoritative proof to back your claim. I hardly claim some YouTube clip as such.
I think you were referring to "AC" as the type of power that comes from a typical wall socket. To nitpick a little: AC is AC, whether it's 60 Hz or 400 Hz or 20 kHz. As long as it's not zero, the frequency is irrelevant when determining if a current is AC or DC. If the direction of electron current reverses during the cycle, it is AC. If the electron flow is in the same direction throughout the cycle, it is DC.
With PCs starting from $360 to $650, can you really expect to shave "hundreds" off the price of a new PC? The $650 machine doesn't come with Office, and Dell probably only pays $60 or so per Windows license (anybody got firmer numbers?)
The savings may be modest at best, but at least there would be an option (and I didn't see anyplace that said Dell IS GOING TO offer Linux, just that it is wanted by the respondents).
If the recording industry execs show signs of wanting to dump DRM if it would boost sales...what is stopping them from doing so? Are these not the same executive officers that run the labels?
FTA:
Well hell, that's easy...CHANGE YOUR STRATEGY. If you think a strategy will get you more business, then you try it out. Can the Marketing Dept. not come up with a good campaign that would get listeners to buy downloaded tracks without spreading them hither and yon?
Sounds like lazy marketing to me..."We can't think of a way of compelling listeners to pay for unencumbered downloads they can get somewhere else for free, so we'll keep them encumbered so we don't need to do better marketing."
Something about not seeing the forest with all these damn trees in the way comes to mind...
Another scenario: you order the DVD box sets from Amazon but a few weeks later (after the return window), you realize that you got charged too much for the purchase. Amazon refuses to refund the overcharge. Is Amazon right or wrong? After all, at the end of the transaction, you agreed to a price for the delivered goods.
It works both ways; if you expect Amazon (or any business or individual) to correct an error after the transaction that works in your favor, then you don't have any room to complain when the entity tries to correct an error after the fact in their favor.
I'm not ready to agree with that just yet.
:)
There is a similar lawsuit in Wisconsin and the vouchers, while not the biggest payout in history, aren't peanuts for the average user either.
Look at page 22 of the settlement agreement pdf: the vouchers range from $15 for EACH OS installation to $23 for each Office installation. Now, when I got my settlement forms in the mail, Microsoft had me down for eight Win98 installations, Win98 SE, WinME, several Office installations, and I think a Win2K installation; I can't remember the details, but I have copies at home somewhere. Apparently, all those reinstallations where I sent in a new registration weren't completely useless
Not willing to submit a form with errors (the claim forms warned of perjury if the claims made were known to be false) I corrected the form for what I knew to be accurate; I think the total amount of hardware/software vouchers I'm entitled to came to about $100.
The lawyers' cut: $33 million. (Page 8 of the detailed notice)
So compared to the REAL winner, yes, the vouchers are a pittance. Still, if I can use the vouchers towards some neat accessory for my MacBook, I won't complain too much.
You can return it the same way I returned a downloaded copy of Norton Antivirus several years ago. I contacted Symantec and told them that it didn't work with my PC, so I wanted to exercise their 30-day refund policy. I downloaded a form saying that I deleted all copies of the software from my possession, signed it, and mailed it back to them. I got my refund either when I got the form or after I returned it signed, I can't remember which.
It used to be pre-installed, yes. My iBook G4 had IE 5.2 preinstalled. My MacBook did not come with IE at all.
My personal record was 59 days at sea on a SSN, surfacing twice to evacuate personnel for medical reasons. Had we not had these reasons, we would have been under for the whole 59 days.
Now, what you mean by "outside of human contact" changes the answer completely. Did the SSBNs still get regular radio dispatches (or maybe yo can't say
I looked at the Tor website and while I followed the basic description, I can't see how packets can get from point A to point B without having the full route indicated somewhere.
Here's how I understand it; please correct as necessary.
(1) The client decides on a route to get a packet from point A to point B, by knowing where several Tor servers are located.
(2) The packet goes to the first location encrypted and determines where it goes next.
This is where I get confused. Once the packet gets from node 1 to node 2, how does node 2 know where to send it next? Is the route encrypted in the packet somewhere? Are there several layers of encryption, so that as each node peels away a layer of encryption, the next destination is exposed, leaving the remainder of the packet still encrypted?
If this is the case, then at some point the client must have negotiated keys with each node in the selected path. Can't these negotiations be watched to see what path the packet takes?
I see how each node individually may not know the source AND destination of the packet at the same time, but there must be a full path somewhere at some point. Otherwise how does the final node know where to send the unencrypted packet?
If the big media companies keep doing this to quality, independent content producers, then the independents won't be so inclined to use sites like YouTube to distribute their content, since there's a good chance that it will be mistakenly taken down, and restoration takes a while and more effort than the content is worth.
Thus, Big Media poisons a new outlet that is outside their control, for media that is also outside their control.
(Not trying to be a tinfoil-hat-conspiracy-theorist, but raising a point of discussion.)
OK, I may have misunderstood the parent post. I thought it was stating that NOT including all recipients was illegal.
(2) What drives you to say that "moron" was the poster's choice of words? I read the post several times and not once did I see the poster refer to anybody as a "moron."
What you did is like replacing the block, pistons, pumps, and belts on an engine but claiming it's only an upgrade because you kept the spark plugs and radiator.