The file your organization is claiming as infringing material, INFMapPacks123FULL-MAN.zip, is part of a Gentoo Linux distribution. It is not related to the Pac Man(tm) product in any way. This should be obvious by the path and nature of associated files and, indeed, the file name itself. A look inside the file could easily confirm this.
It is obvious that the ESA's claim to a "good faith belief" is a result of a computer matching strings within a filename. Such a match is obviously not being reviewed by people smart enough to weed out false positives. We have been required to follow up on each claim received to see if it is truely an infringement. As a result of this, we here at SmartISP, Inc. have instituted a new service and a claims processing policy to protect our customers from libelous claims and wrongful service denial.
Violation Claims Verification (VCV) Service: Fixed fee of $134.95 per claim.
Our new service is a solution to the needs of organizations like yours which do not have the knowledgable staff required to determine the validity of a computer generated name match. Since it involves real people, we employ real intelligence in determining the accuracy of an alleged infringement. Once a violation is verified using this service, the infringement will be corrected immediately at no further charge.
Summary of Violation Claims Handling Policy:
Effective immediately, all claims of infringing material must employ our VCV Service. Claims not accompanied by payment will be returned unprocessed with a bill. We insist on pre-payment of this service, and do not offer a credit option. Claims must be submitted individually, and cannot be combined, either by filename or by location.
Since you can see the value to our VCV service, we have assessed a charge for the verification of this particular claim. No further infringement claims will be processed until your account has been settled.
Regards,
Smaart Ayespi
3 encl:
Copy of original claim
Brochure: VCV Service
Invoice for VCV Service
Good observation. But what about my grandma? She doesn't have a computer.
This is a consumer appliance. Its not a fully functional PC, and it doesn't require it. I read the install instructions: unpackage, plug in and wait for the light to stop flashing. My grandma can do that!!
Its all about the target audience. They make several references to the fact that it may be able to communicate outside the network, but you're on your own trying to get that to work. If its easy enough to do, us technically savvy ones can do that and ship BOTH phones to our friends. Besides, who here buys MS products anyway?!?
The only thing I see as missing is a bridge that would allow you to use your existing phone. How about a "SIPswitch" box with four connections: power, broadband, telco, and phone. You pick up the phone and dial normally, you place a normal call as you would today. You pick up and press #, the box switches you from telco to SIPphone, perhaps giving you a different dialtone.
(Are you guys listening out there? Here's a profit opportunity..)
I know some cell phone companies have offers when calling within their network (no use of minutes, extra minutes, etc.), but not being able to call out of the network at all?
As someone said, the thing is dead already.
I disagree. The same could be said of FAX machines when they first came out. But, suddenly, there were several different manufacturers that made compatible FAX machines. Then you could get a FAX-MODEM for your PC. Fed-Ex even tried to offer FAX as a service.
Shirky has a great writing about the revolutionary nature of IP telephony. I think this phone is exactly the kind of thing that is needed to kick-start the process. If a few other manufacturers make compatible phones, and someone figures out how to emulate a SIPphone on a PC, the market is wide open. And the new telephone network is built out from the edges. Not as a service, but as a product.
FWIW, I'm in the telecom carrier business; we've been anticipating something like this for a while now..
... we had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat. -- Robert Bench, Chief Financial Officer, The SCO Group, Inc.
Take notice, all you that still believe that this is just a simple contract dispute between SCO and IBM. SCO's CFO is clearly stating that they have IP claims against the Linux kernel!
There should be no doubt of their intents after this...
I can only hope to have a chance to soon view a press conference where IBM announces its takeover of SCO, and fires everyone who still "works" there. The only bad thing about this is how much money McBride will make on the deal.
I'd much rather watch the press conference where IBM picks up the pithy remains of SCO for a song and dance after they go bankrupt!
He even goes on to say that since there is any proprietary code in the kernel, that the GPL itself is nullified as a valid license for the kernel.
Lets use Darl's words against him. Lets say there is proprietary code within the kernel. Lets say that, as a result, the GPL is not a valid license for the kernel. This simply means that SCO cannot distribute the kernel under the GPL, and must distribute it under some other license agreement. However, since:
1) There is bound to be much more code within the kernel that is not SCO-proprietary, and..
2) That code is copyrighted by the originating authors, and..
3) They will not be allowing SCO to license their code under anything other than the GPL (which it was previously released under), then..
4) SCO cannot distribute the current Linux kernel without violating copyright law.
The solution, of course, is to identify the proprietary code and replace it. The obstacle, of course, is to identify the alleged proprietary code when SCO will only do so under a NDA. There's no point in rehashing those topics, as they're covered in depth in every/. thread with SCO in the title..
I think its time for the FSF to take a stand and notify SCO through legal channels that they are violating copyright by relicensing the OS community's code under a different license. Donate to the FSF now!
Re:Check your password files
on
Inkblot Passwords
·
· Score: 5, Funny
'Rorschach' would be a better password, but people can never remember how to spell it.
I prefer 'Pavlov' personally. For some reason it rings a bell...
Lets take Cynikal's post:
...the red pill was to "wake up" into the real world...
And then the quote from Morpheus:
You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
...Both meaning you want to exit the matrix. Staying in wonderland is a bit misleading, as it implies the made-up world that is the matrix, but I believe the Wachowski brothers did that intentionally. Morpheus can only show "how deep the rabbit hole goes" if neo steps out of the matrix. The next comparison should cement this point.
Cynikal's post:
...the blue one was to go back to the dream world...
And the quote from Morpheus:
You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
Once again, a bit misleading, since the story ending implies leaving the matrix. However, you can only believe whatever you want to believe if you're still in the matrix.
The clincher is that Neo swallows the red pill in order to exit the matrix.
I'll have to take your word that its snazzy. I refuse to load Flash. In fact, that's my favorite part about Mozilla over IE: Mozilla doesn't keep asking you if you want to install it at Every! Damn! Site! that has an Annoying! Animation!!!
Its easy to vote with your dollars if you dive to other sites as soon as you get a "Site Requirement: Macromedia Flash" message...
Most likely health risk is some slashdotter running this machine. Either he'd go blind when women go through, or he'd be beat to death when women go through.
Or blind because he's beating his.. uh.. to.. death.. Oh, never mind. I guess that's just something mothers say to try to discourage such behaviour.
When I was a young white male between the ages of 18 and 25 (I'm still male, just a bit older now..;^) , I had a chance to briefly date a policeman. She was a Sheriff's Deputy that was very adamant abount being called a "Policeman," not a "Policewoman" or "Policeperson" or "Person of Policehood" or any other such policitally correct crap.
He says right in his interview that he's "slow-growth vegetation." Don't be surprised about the delay... He probably rewrote some of his responses before releasing them!
Not to nitpick, but the SQL Slammer worm appeared to be written in assembly. It is quite interesting to read through
the source.[alt][alt]
While the PRNG isn't of the highest quality, its brevity is what allowed it to spread so quickly. An infected system was sending out packets as fast as the outbound pipe could handle it. A smaller virus, even by a few bytes, would mean that much faster of an infection rate.
By and large, you're right about VBScript making for simple virii, but this isn't the one to use as an example.
The argument of "what's out there isn't good enough" doesn't fly either. You have the source to fix it and make it better!
Quick show of hands please: How many people have tried to "fix" the X Window System?
Manypeoplefeel that X11 is a bloated, unmaintainable hack. It is absolutely full of cruft.
My hope is that this effort gains enough of a foothold that it attracts developers that can put a WINE-like layer on it to translate KDE or QT calls. Then, as people migrate from lower-level toolkit libraries (Athena Widgets, TCL/TK, etc.) to higher-level libraries, it becomes simple to port their apps to an O/S like Syllable that doesn't have all the cruft that comes with an underlying X11 layer. Now, I realize that's a bit far fetched, but it is a step in what I feel is the right direction.
Yes, it is extra work to develop a new O/S, but the GNU/Linux crowd is inextricably tied to X11. If it takes a new O/S to see the benefits of a simpler graphical subsystem, then I say its worth it. DirectFB could be the answer for Linux, but doesn't get the attention or support I feel it should. (Hey, Trolltech, how about a QT port?) For those of you with your favorite X11 apps that don't have a port yet, DirectFB even has a rootless X-server.
FWIW, I use X11, but I don't program with it. Everyone I know of that does program with it complains about it. They say its bloated, difficult to program at the lower levels, and generally complain about its cruftiness. Use of higher level libraries are making these types more and more scarce, which I think is a good thing.
I considered moderating this as overrated, but thought it would be better to explain why I thought so.
Being able to have two carriers worth of data can provide a geometric increase in capacity;...
The post makes it sound like it can double almost any existing signal, when in fact QAM (or other techniques combining amplitude with either phase or frequency such as OFDM) has existed in most modulation methods for a long time. Its a rare exception where data is being modulated strictly through AM or FM.
... it would only have to use one frequency for both left and right channels unlike our current analogue sterophonic FM that uses 2 channels).
Stereo FM doesn't use two separate frequencies. They modulate R+L as mono on the on the baseband. Then they modulate R-L above that. Then the modulate the baseband carrier using standard FM. A mono receiver works as normal, since it just cuts off the IF frequencies above a certain threshold. However, a stereo receiver regenerates the stereo separation by recovering those additional higher frequencies. Here's an explanation with graphics.
How's AES for serious encryption format? That's what the new WinZip 9 beta boasts.
AES what (how many bits)? And how do they collect entropy? How do they generate the IV? Are there password complexity rules, or at least warnings on insecure passwords?
The actual encryption algorithm is but one small factor in determining the security of a system. People who say thinngs like, "It uses AES, so its secure," are the ones that the NSA, CIA, and FBI encourage, because they're the ones that can be easily fooled.
If WinZip9 uses AES with 56 bits, no thanks. That's not secure. If they use 128 bits, kudos.. its adequate for most uses. If its configurable up to 256, even better. However, using a published and reviewed encryption product like PGP or GPG would still be my method of choice.
I'd like to suggest Bruce Schneier'sCryptogram as a good source of applied crypto knowledge. My favorite section of his newsletter is The Doghouse, where he debunks dubious claims and "cryptographic snake oil".
Anything labeled as "proprietary" is generally bad when it comes to cryptography. Peer review is the best way to verify a system can be trusted. And that's difficult to do on closed-source products.
This is a little misleading. The 1000 feet you refer to is VERTICAL seperation not horizontal.
True. I didn't point out that the separation is vertical until the explanation. As for takeoff/landing/taxi separation, that's what we rely on ATC for.. our lives are in their hands. Literally..
The increase in vertical separation above 30-some thousand feet is news to me, but my IFR training is in helicopters, so I never reached altitudes where I had to worry about that.. that and its a bit rusty; haven't flown in years.
But you don't have to worry about this while at 30,000 feet. Up there airplanes are separated by miles.
Not true. There can commonly be as little as1000' separation with a combined horizontal velocity of 1400mph or higher.
Flight levels above 18,000' alternate between easterly directions on the odd-thousands and westerly directions on the even-thousands. The altitudes are determined by pressure altitude and monitored carefully by radar. The altimeters are precision instruments and frequently calibrated.
So, a 767 flying at 250 degrees at flight level 280 (28,000 ft) can meet a 757 flying at 70 degrees at flight level 270 (1000 feet below) along a published airway, and it would not be unusual circumstances. ATC (and their onboard collision detection system) would keep them aware of each other.
This law would mean that GPL code would begin to go into public domain in 50 years, unless somebody like FSF ponies up the bux.
Ah, but I don't care if your release of hello.c version 1.23 goes into the PD in 2 years. Its useless to me. I've modified it slightly and released it as hello.c version 1.24. Presto! Change-o! Another 50 years!!!
Seriously, though.. If Windows 3.1 is released into the public domain in another 40 years, do you really think people are going to be pouring over the code and thinking, "Hey, I can turn this into a viable business?" And that's only 10 years.. Software has such a short lifespan that several generations will appear and die within a 50 year span. I'm not going to worry about the 2.4 kernel going into the public domain..
Most copywritten material ISN'T worth $1. Corporations can't afford to pay $1 for everything.
This is exactly the point. If a corporation can't make a single buck over the next five years on a copyrighted work, then they SHOULD let the copyright lapse and let the work pass into public domain. However, if the copyrighted work is still generating revenue, or they have plans to republish it, then they CAN afford the token fee of $1.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Sir:
The file your organization is claiming as infringing material, INFMapPacks123FULL-MAN.zip, is part of a Gentoo Linux distribution. It is not related to the Pac Man(tm) product in any way. This should be obvious by the path and nature of associated files and, indeed, the file name itself. A look inside the file could easily confirm this.
It is obvious that the ESA's claim to a "good faith belief" is a result of a computer matching strings within a filename. Such a match is obviously not being reviewed by people smart enough to weed out false positives. We have been required to follow up on each claim received to see if it is truely an infringement. As a result of this, we here at SmartISP, Inc. have instituted a new service and a claims processing policy to protect our customers from libelous claims and wrongful service denial.
Violation Claims Verification (VCV) Service: Fixed fee of $134.95 per claim.
Our new service is a solution to the needs of organizations like yours which do not have the knowledgable staff required to determine the validity of a computer generated name match. Since it involves real people, we employ real intelligence in determining the accuracy of an alleged infringement. Once a violation is verified using this service, the infringement will be corrected immediately at no further charge.
Summary of Violation Claims Handling Policy:
Effective immediately, all claims of infringing material must employ our VCV Service. Claims not accompanied by payment will be returned unprocessed with a bill. We insist on pre-payment of this service, and do not offer a credit option. Claims must be submitted individually, and cannot be combined, either by filename or by location.
Since you can see the value to our VCV service, we have assessed a charge for the verification of this particular claim. No further infringement claims will be processed until your account has been settled.
Regards,
Smaart Ayespi
3 encl:
Copy of original claim
Brochure: VCV Service
Invoice for VCV Service
For her SIPphone, of course!
Good observation. But what about my grandma? She doesn't have a computer.
This is a consumer appliance. Its not a fully functional PC, and it doesn't require it. I read the install instructions: unpackage, plug in and wait for the light to stop flashing. My grandma can do that!!
Its all about the target audience. They make several references to the fact that it may be able to communicate outside the network, but you're on your own trying to get that to work. If its easy enough to do, us technically savvy ones can do that and ship BOTH phones to our friends. Besides, who here buys MS products anyway?!?
The only thing I see as missing is a bridge that would allow you to use your existing phone. How about a "SIPswitch" box with four connections: power, broadband, telco, and phone. You pick up the phone and dial normally, you place a normal call as you would today. You pick up and press #, the box switches you from telco to SIPphone, perhaps giving you a different dialtone.
(Are you guys listening out there? Here's a profit opportunity..)
I know some cell phone companies have offers when calling within their network (no use of minutes, extra minutes, etc.), but not being able to call out of the network at all?
As someone said, the thing is dead already.
I disagree. The same could be said of FAX machines when they first came out. But, suddenly, there were several different manufacturers that made compatible FAX machines. Then you could get a FAX-MODEM for your PC. Fed-Ex even tried to offer FAX as a service.
Shirky has a great writing about the revolutionary nature of IP telephony. I think this phone is exactly the kind of thing that is needed to kick-start the process. If a few other manufacturers make compatible phones, and someone figures out how to emulate a SIPphone on a PC, the market is wide open. And the new telephone network is built out from the edges. Not as a service, but as a product.
FWIW, I'm in the telecom carrier business; we've been anticipating something like this for a while now..
next we put a "gun" on the moon and claim 1 million dollar or we will blow up new york.
[said in my best Dr. Evil voice] Mini-McB, stop humping the "Kernel!"
-- Robert Bench, Chief Financial Officer, The SCO Group, Inc.
Take notice, all you that still believe that this is just a simple contract dispute between SCO and IBM. SCO's CFO is clearly stating that they have IP claims against the Linux kernel!
There should be no doubt of their intents after this...
Be careful what you wish for.. The last case of a competitor contributing to Linux isn't going very well.
Advise is like assholes; everyone has one and most of them stink.
Not to mention that they're inclined to use them often as well...
I can only hope to have a chance to soon view a press conference where IBM announces its takeover of SCO, and fires everyone who still "works" there. The only bad thing about this is how much money McBride will make on the deal.
I'd much rather watch the press conference where IBM picks up the pithy remains of SCO for a song and dance after they go bankrupt!
He even goes on to say that since there is any proprietary code in the kernel, that the GPL itself is nullified as a valid license for the kernel.
/. thread with SCO in the title..
Lets use Darl's words against him. Lets say there is proprietary code within the kernel. Lets say that, as a result, the GPL is not a valid license for the kernel. This simply means that SCO cannot distribute the kernel under the GPL, and must distribute it under some other license agreement. However, since:
1) There is bound to be much more code within the kernel that is not SCO-proprietary, and..
2) That code is copyrighted by the originating authors, and..
3) They will not be allowing SCO to license their code under anything other than the GPL (which it was previously released under), then..
4) SCO cannot distribute the current Linux kernel without violating copyright law.
The solution, of course, is to identify the proprietary code and replace it. The obstacle, of course, is to identify the alleged proprietary code when SCO will only do so under a NDA. There's no point in rehashing those topics, as they're covered in depth in every
I think its time for the FSF to take a stand and notify SCO through legal channels that they are violating copyright by relicensing the OS community's code under a different license. Donate to the FSF now!
'Rorschach' would be a better password, but people can never remember how to spell it.
I prefer 'Pavlov' personally. For some reason it rings a bell...
Lets take Cynikal's post:
...the red pill was to "wake up" into the real world...
...the blue one was to go back to the dream world...
And then the quote from Morpheus:
You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
...Both meaning you want to exit the matrix. Staying in wonderland is a bit misleading, as it implies the made-up world that is the matrix, but I believe the Wachowski brothers did that intentionally. Morpheus can only show "how deep the rabbit hole goes" if neo steps out of the matrix. The next comparison should cement this point.
Cynikal's post:
And the quote from Morpheus:
You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
Once again, a bit misleading, since the story ending implies leaving the matrix. However, you can only believe whatever you want to believe if you're still in the matrix.
The clincher is that Neo swallows the red pill in order to exit the matrix.
I'll have to take your word that its snazzy. I refuse to load Flash. In fact, that's my favorite part about Mozilla over IE: Mozilla doesn't keep asking you if you want to install it at Every! Damn! Site! that has an Annoying! Animation!!!
Its easy to vote with your dollars if you dive to other sites as soon as you get a "Site Requirement: Macromedia Flash" message...
*sigh* When will they learn...
Most likely health risk is some slashdotter running this machine. Either he'd go blind when women go through, or he'd be beat to death when women go through.
Or blind because he's beating his.. uh.. to.. death.. Oh, never mind. I guess that's just something mothers say to try to discourage such behaviour.
True, true.
;^) , I had a chance to briefly date a policeman. She was a Sheriff's Deputy that was very adamant abount being called a "Policeman," not a "Policewoman" or "Policeperson" or "Person of Policehood" or any other such policitally correct crap.
When I was a young white male between the ages of 18 and 25 (I'm still male, just a bit older now..
He says right in his interview that he's "slow-growth vegetation." Don't be surprised about the delay... He probably rewrote some of his responses before releasing them!
Not to nitpick, but the SQL Slammer worm appeared to be written in assembly. It is quite interesting to read through the source. [alt] [alt]
While the PRNG isn't of the highest quality, its brevity is what allowed it to spread so quickly. An infected system was sending out packets as fast as the outbound pipe could handle it. A smaller virus, even by a few bytes, would mean that much faster of an infection rate.
By and large, you're right about VBScript making for simple virii, but this isn't the one to use as an example.
Not to mention that, as has been pointed out numerous times all over the place, that was a different SCO.
Pay attention now... class is about to begin.
The argument of "what's out there isn't good enough" doesn't fly either. You have the source to fix it and make it better!
Quick show of hands please: How many people have tried to "fix" the X Window System?
Many people feel that X11 is a bloated, unmaintainable hack. It is absolutely full of cruft.
My hope is that this effort gains enough of a foothold that it attracts developers that can put a WINE-like layer on it to translate KDE or QT calls. Then, as people migrate from lower-level toolkit libraries (Athena Widgets, TCL/TK, etc.) to higher-level libraries, it becomes simple to port their apps to an O/S like Syllable that doesn't have all the cruft that comes with an underlying X11 layer. Now, I realize that's a bit far fetched, but it is a step in what I feel is the right direction.
Yes, it is extra work to develop a new O/S, but the GNU/Linux crowd is inextricably tied to X11. If it takes a new O/S to see the benefits of a simpler graphical subsystem, then I say its worth it. DirectFB could be the answer for Linux, but doesn't get the attention or support I feel it should. (Hey, Trolltech, how about a QT port?) For those of you with your favorite X11 apps that don't have a port yet, DirectFB even has a rootless X-server.
FWIW, I use X11, but I don't program with it. Everyone I know of that does program with it complains about it. They say its bloated, difficult to program at the lower levels, and generally complain about its cruftiness. Use of higher level libraries are making these types more and more scarce, which I think is a good thing.
I considered moderating this as overrated, but thought it would be better to explain why I thought so.
...
... it would only have to use one frequency for both left and right channels unlike our current analogue sterophonic FM that uses 2 channels).
Being able to have two carriers worth of data can provide a geometric increase in capacity;
The post makes it sound like it can double almost any existing signal, when in fact QAM (or other techniques combining amplitude with either phase or frequency such as OFDM) has existed in most modulation methods for a long time. Its a rare exception where data is being modulated strictly through AM or FM.
Stereo FM doesn't use two separate frequencies. They modulate R+L as mono on the on the baseband. Then they modulate R-L above that. Then the modulate the baseband carrier using standard FM. A mono receiver works as normal, since it just cuts off the IF frequencies above a certain threshold. However, a stereo receiver regenerates the stereo separation by recovering those additional higher frequencies. Here's an explanation with graphics.
How's AES for serious encryption format? That's what the new WinZip 9 beta boasts.
AES what (how many bits)? And how do they collect entropy? How do they generate the IV? Are there password complexity rules, or at least warnings on insecure passwords?
The actual encryption algorithm is but one small factor in determining the security of a system. People who say thinngs like, "It uses AES, so its secure," are the ones that the NSA, CIA, and FBI encourage, because they're the ones that can be easily fooled.
If WinZip9 uses AES with 56 bits, no thanks. That's not secure. If they use 128 bits, kudos.. its adequate for most uses. If its configurable up to 256, even better. However, using a published and reviewed encryption product like PGP or GPG would still be my method of choice.
I'd like to suggest Bruce Schneier's Cryptogram as a good source of applied crypto knowledge. My favorite section of his newsletter is The Doghouse, where he debunks dubious claims and "cryptographic snake oil".
Anything labeled as "proprietary" is generally bad when it comes to cryptography. Peer review is the best way to verify a system can be trusted. And that's difficult to do on closed-source products.
This is a little misleading. The 1000 feet you refer to is VERTICAL seperation not horizontal.
True. I didn't point out that the separation is vertical until the explanation. As for takeoff/landing/taxi separation, that's what we rely on ATC for.. our lives are in their hands. Literally..
The increase in vertical separation above 30-some thousand feet is news to me, but my IFR training is in helicopters, so I never reached altitudes where I had to worry about that.. that and its a bit rusty; haven't flown in years.
But you don't have to worry about this while at 30,000 feet. Up there airplanes are separated by miles.
Not true. There can commonly be as little as1000' separation with a combined horizontal velocity of 1400mph or higher.
Flight levels above 18,000' alternate between easterly directions on the odd-thousands and westerly directions on the even-thousands. The altitudes are determined by pressure altitude and monitored carefully by radar. The altimeters are precision instruments and frequently calibrated.
So, a 767 flying at 250 degrees at flight level 280 (28,000 ft) can meet a 757 flying at 70 degrees at flight level 270 (1000 feet below) along a published airway, and it would not be unusual circumstances. ATC (and their onboard collision detection system) would keep them aware of each other.
This law would mean that GPL code would begin to go into public domain in 50 years, unless somebody like FSF ponies up the bux.
Ah, but I don't care if your release of hello.c version 1.23 goes into the PD in 2 years. Its useless to me. I've modified it slightly and released it as hello.c version 1.24. Presto! Change-o! Another 50 years!!!
Seriously, though.. If Windows 3.1 is released into the public domain in another 40 years, do you really think people are going to be pouring over the code and thinking, "Hey, I can turn this into a viable business?" And that's only 10 years.. Software has such a short lifespan that several generations will appear and die within a 50 year span. I'm not going to worry about the 2.4 kernel going into the public domain..
Most copywritten material ISN'T worth $1. Corporations can't afford to pay $1 for everything.
This is exactly the point. If a corporation can't make a single buck over the next five years on a copyrighted work, then they SHOULD let the copyright lapse and let the work pass into public domain. However, if the copyrighted work is still generating revenue, or they have plans to republish it, then they CAN afford the token fee of $1.
Brilliant!