"2) Copyrights apply to specific versions or editions of works, rather than the work in general. To give an example, Version 2.0 of a piece of software is protected by a different copyright than Version 1.0 was."
Although I agree with this in theory, it's a huge loophole waiting to happen. If you don't very carefully define what qualifies as a separate edition of a work (something which may be impossible), then every bug fix, every patch, and every minor tweak will be a 'new version!!!' for the sake of resetting the copyright.
But the copyright wouldn't be reset. You could still get the pre-patch software after the copyright expiry limit. The patched version would have its own copyright duration as a separate entity.
Trying to be more reasonable about it: the decision for when a new entity under copyright is released would probably be decided by the copyright owner. A patch would then be rolled into the copyright period of the original product and be subject to the duration of copyright of the original. When a new release of the software is made (perhaps a +1 or +0.1 point version change) then a new copyright is applied. At the option of the owner the copyright can be shortened to that of a previous version.
This is talking about software where patching and incremental upgrading is a commonplace, and there is a readily identifiable version identification system in place. People might also be comfortable working with a known bug (because they don't use that particular feature). There may well be more complex definition issues when the fix has safety implications. IANAL.
Some very nice ideas in the grandparent article, with the largest loophole I can see in the mechanisms for release to public domain (as others have discussed in this thread). You end up either wondering "who watches the watchmen", or what happens when the gatekeeper and the lawmaker are identical.
Have you ever heard of a 'viral meme'? It's a meme that spreads quickly through a population. It IS infectious, but that's the point. However, there're no ill side effects from having carried and spread a meme around.
Unfortunately much of human history has been about the persecution between memes: restricting propagation, or the conflicts that arise when competing meme populations of a similar size meet and attempt to resolve their differences. Equally, the cooperation between carriers of compatible memes can lead to results that appear to be greater than the sum of the parts.
For an example that isn't contemporary: think about why the Christians were thrown to the lions in the pre-Christian Roman empire. That particular meme actually won out but, until it did, one possible side effect of spreading the Christian meme was loss of the meme carrier.
You follow a trajectory defined by the sum of your angular velocity at the moment you break contact with the surface (by virtue of your rotation with the surface you were standing on) and the velocity at which you jump away from the surface. As the former is much greater than the latter (assuming you want a one-g like environment), you follow a trajectory that looks like a chord and intersects with the surface again.
Now the point that you jumped from is rotating under you and, because the dominant component here is the magnitude of the angular velocity, its very very close to the point where you land.
Short answer: you'd land very close to the point where you jumped from. Close enough that it would probably be difficult to distinguish the separation distance by eye.
Higher order corrections are going to refine the trajectory further... but that's your first approximation.
2. I have little doubt that the problems that are occurring are because they're trying to -comply- with spec, not obliterate it -- namely, the problems some have noted with copy-protected compact discs are because the industry is trying to protect its content while remaining compatible with an obsolete standard.
I have to wonder if you're not just having a laugh with this one. Altering a specification, for whatever reason, is quite the opposite to complying with it. The proper method of adding functionality to a specification is to create a new one.
Today when consumers want to create their own digital media collections on CDs or other physical formats, there are a variety of inconsistent ways that CD and DVD players read this data. Each interface for finding media and the viewable information available like playlists, music metadata, and folders with photos or videos varies depending on what each device supports. In many cases this creates confusion for the user regarding how to find the music, photos or videos they want. In addition with large collections of music and videos it can sometimes take several minutes for the DVD or CD player to "read" what music or video is available.
HighM.A.T. solves these problems by creating a standard way for PCs to structure digital media on physical formats and for consumer devices to read these discs. This will make startup times for data CDs and other physical formats faster and give consumers a consistent, easy navigation experience across a broad range of consumer electronic devices.
While by definition you're storing digital media on a digital format, that combined with specially designed consumer devices hints that there is more than just data re-ordering on disc going on here. OK, it could just be a "special file format" for pointing to important data that should be pre-cached, but...
And finally the specifications:
The HighMAT Specification will also be available for easy licensing by other consumer electronics companies and software developers at
www.HighMAT.com
Nothing of interest at the site yet that I could see. I wonder if you've got to sign an NDA just to see the licensing agreement and the fees for using the specification...
Lots of questions and not too many answers at the moment. Make of it what you will.
(Unable to get a preview, so posting as is).
Slashdot Mirror
But the copyright wouldn't be reset. You could still get the pre-patch software after the copyright expiry limit. The patched version would have its own copyright duration as a separate entity.
Trying to be more reasonable about it: the decision for when a new entity under copyright is released would probably be decided by the copyright owner. A patch would then be rolled into the copyright period of the original product and be subject to the duration of copyright of the original. When a new release of the software is made (perhaps a +1 or +0.1 point version change) then a new copyright is applied. At the option of the owner the copyright can be shortened to that of a previous version.
This is talking about software where patching and incremental upgrading is a commonplace, and there is a readily identifiable version identification system in place. People might also be comfortable working with a known bug (because they don't use that particular feature). There may well be more complex definition issues when the fix has safety implications. IANAL.
Some very nice ideas in the grandparent article, with the largest loophole I can see in the mechanisms for release to public domain (as others have discussed in this thread). You end up either wondering "who watches the watchmen", or what happens when the gatekeeper and the lawmaker are identical.
Ian.
Unfortunately much of human history has been about the persecution between memes: restricting propagation, or the conflicts that arise when competing meme populations of a similar size meet and attempt to resolve their differences. Equally, the cooperation between carriers of compatible memes can lead to results that appear to be greater than the sum of the parts.
For an example that isn't contemporary: think about why the Christians were thrown to the lions in the pre-Christian Roman empire. That particular meme actually won out but, until it did, one possible side effect of spreading the Christian meme was loss of the meme carrier.
And you should be *real* careful about extended gaming using a laptop:
Hot laptop burns scientist's penis
Ian.
You follow a trajectory defined by the sum of your angular velocity at the moment you break contact with the surface (by virtue of your rotation with the surface you were standing on) and the velocity at which you jump away from the surface. As the former is much greater than the latter (assuming you want a one-g like environment), you follow a trajectory that looks like a chord and intersects with the surface again.
Now the point that you jumped from is rotating under you and, because the dominant component here is the magnitude of the angular velocity, its very very close to the point where you land.
Short answer: you'd land very close to the point where you jumped from. Close enough that it would probably be difficult to distinguish the separation distance by eye.
Higher order corrections are going to refine the trajectory further... but that's your first approximation.
Ian.
Conspiracy theory mode kicks in: Microsoft, Panasonic propose (another) CD standard
Microsoft HighMAT announcement
with this quote from the MS page:
While by definition you're storing digital media on a digital format, that combined with specially designed consumer devices hints that there is more than just data re-ordering on disc going on here. OK, it could just be a "special file format" for pointing to important data that should be pre-cached, but...
And finally the specifications:
Nothing of interest at the site yet that I could see. I wonder if you've got to sign an NDA just to see the licensing agreement and the fees for using the specification...
Lots of questions and not too many answers at the moment. Make of it what you will. (Unable to get a preview, so posting as is).
You might find Q305385 useful for checking and maintaining your system. Not built by Microsoft, but the database does appear to be maintained.
Q305385
Ian.