I have the same printer. The ink level reading doesn't seem to work as advertised. There seems to be only two different levels of ink--full and empty. It won't tell me that I'm halfway or 3/4 way through a cartridge. It will just tell me when I need to replace it. Still better than my old HP. The only way I knew it was out of ink was that the printouts sucked.
It's called structured wiring and you can find a lot of information if you Google that phrase. Here is what Bob Vila has to say on Structured Wiring. Typical structured wiring contains two runs of RG-6 and two runs of Cat 6 (or 5e). One run of Cat 6 can be used for two phone lines. The other run can be used for a home network. As for the RG-6, some cable and satellite companies require two runs of cable. Otherwise, you can use one for a home monitoring system.
You can also run multiple wires to a room, to account for remodeling. For example, let's say your living room has north, south, east, and west walls. Due to the furniture location, you want to connect your TV to the south wall. But you pre-wire to all the walls, just leaving them unconnected. If you decide to move the couch to the other side of the room and move the TV to the north side, you merely go to the central wiring panel, disconnect the south wall from the Cable TV and connect the north wall to the Cable TV.
This is an old thread, so this question will probably go unnoticed. But can Brad Templeton be trusted? Here is what some people are saying about him. If you didn't know, Brad Templeton is the Chairman of the Board of EFF. He is founder of the newsgroup, rec.humor.funny. What did he do that some don't like? He compiled a book of jokes from r.h.f and got them published as The Internet Joke Book.
In other words, he took Internet jokes, jokes people made up or just saw on the Internet, and profited from them. He took what people believed to be in the public domain, and now makes money off of it. Do you think he would like it if you scanned his book and placed it on Kazaa? Or his software? Or would he be the first to sue you for copyright infringement? If he would sue, doesn't that mean P2P trading is wrong?
and that someone, in most cases, is either Michael Jackson or the last remaining living Beatle (other than Ringo). Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter who wrote the songs, either, as Michael Jackson owns the rights to songs written by Paul, and Paul owns the rights to songs he did not write.
Partially correct. Check out this Snopes page regarding ownership of the Beatles. First of all, to say that Paul owns
the rights to songs he did not write is untrue. John and Paul had an agreement and followed it--if either of them wrote a song for the Beatles, it would be credited to both of them. Whether or not Paul actually wrote the songs is just wrong, technically speaking, both John and Paul wrote those songs.
Second, Jackson only owns the publishing rights. He still splits royalties 50/50 with Paul and John's estate (presumably Yoko).
As long as the Beatles' original albums are still available in new formats (or at least in unprotected formats), and Paul is still alive, I'm ok with paying for those albums.
So I guess you want copyright terms to be only last the term of life of the author?
I hate this attitude that permeates/. Hey, if you don't like modern music. Don't buy it and don't download it. Don't make the sweeping generalization that every CD ever released is either crap or has just 2 good songs on it. I legally own a lot more CDs than most people. The number with just 2 good songs? 0. I'd say that of every CD I own, at least half of each of them are very good.
I recently bought a printer. The box says "USB 2.0 Full Speed".
What printer was it? It would be interesting to see what the web site says.
That said, the big concern with misuse of the phrase USB 2.0 isn't printers. They can't communicate at Hi Speed anyway. The big concern is with the controller. If you think you have a Hi Speed port on your computer and then you buy a Hi Speed hard drive, you would be incredibly disappointed. Realistically, storage (hard drive, burners, flash card readers) is the only product type that needs Hi Speed. Printers, scanners, keyboards, etc., only need full-speed or less.
I remember the first time (86 or 90) the soccer World Cup was shown "without commercials" It was such a big deal because the networks were so used to American sports, where they can force time outs so commercials can be shown. Now watching an entire half of soccer or rugby on Fox Sports World without commercials is commonplace.
certain programming tends to be watched live even by people with PVRs.
I can understand this with sports, as it is too easy to get spoilers for sports by just flipping through channels. Plus, you want the ability to call your buddy on the phone and say, "Did you see that play?"
But reality TV? What is the urgency in watching it NOW as opposed to waiting 15 minutes so you can watch it delayed? Do you call your buddies and say, "I can't believe they voted her off the island." Even if you did, if you start the show at 8:15 instead of 8:00, you still get to finish the show at about the same time it happens "live.
And news? I think that would be the perfect program for TiVo. I can skip the stories I think are stupid fluff and watch the news that is important to me.
The USB article never should have been printed. The article was based on a source of dubious accuracy, not seconded by any respectable source and was refuted by many in the comments. Yet/.ers still thought it was true.
" ''Distribute'' means to sell, lease, or assign a product to consumers in the United States, or to sell, lease, or assign a product in the United States for ultimate transfer to consumers in the United States."
While you provided the source for that definition, you neglect to mention an important fact. That definition is from 17 U.S.C. Â 1001. The definitions under that section only apply to "this chapter", that is, Chapter 10, Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media (commonly known as the Audio Home Recording Act or the AHRA). When they talk about distributing in that chapter, they are talking about distributing recording devices.
In contrast, the exclusive right to distribute is contained in 17 U.S.C. Â 106, Chapter 1 of the Copyright Act. The definition you provided earlier does not apply to section 106.
Let's look to the text of section 106 itself:
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
[snip]
to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
The definition of distribute is fairly clear in that context. It is the common meaning of the word distribute, to deliver. You may be able to argue that only distributions made by the methods mentioned in 106 are exclusive to the owner, but I doubt any court in the US would consider allowing anybody in the world to create a copy of a file for himself to be anything but distributing.
If so, how do I go about retrieving the music I bought? Is it any different than restoring them from a personal backup, or is it the principle of the thing?
Possible solutions to scratched CDs.
Try to salvage the disc. Products like the Data Doctor (also known as the Game Doctor) lightly buff the surface of the CDs. If the scratches are light, you should be able to rip them.
There are many more similar products and services listed on Google.
Exact Audio Copy--this is well known as the best way to extract audio from CDs. It does a decent job on scratched CDs. I had some CDs that would skip on every player I had, but I was able to get the data with no problem. It's not perfect though and will not work for severe scratches.
Now, since I like to listen to my CDs at home, work, and in the car, I was also going to burn a second copy to a CD full of mp3s to leave at work for my own person use only.
Pretty sure this type of usage was covered in the suit against portable MP3 players. It is space shifting, which is Fair Use.
Not everything that is d/led from a p2p network is illegal.
Which is why RIAA is going after individuals instead of the services. The services have the non-infringing uses argument. Individuals don't. If you are sharing 1000 files, and only 900 of the are illegal. Guess what? They will sue you beacuse of the 900, instead of the 100.
And get real, I would guess that over 99% of the files being traded are copyrighted.
I had a monitor at work that had the energy saving feature wherein, if there is no video signal, it turns off automatically. So, at the end of the day, I would start the power off sequence and leave, under the impression that the monitor would automatically shut off. They switched monitors on me and I had to manually turn off the monitor. Unfortunately, I'm sometimes in a rush to leave the office, and I forget to manually shut it off. The price I have to pay? Permanently burned in my screen are the words "Check Video Cable," burned in from a weekend of continous usage.
No, most people don't give a crap about how Netflix will enforce their patent. If they raise prices, people will make up their own mind as to whether it's worth it or not instead of reflexively boycotting a company for merely obtaining a patent. It's not a patent in and of itself that is "evil". It is patent misuse that is wrong.
What I am currently doing is writing a nice little email to Netflix...basically saying that if I so much as smell enforcement of this bullshit patent, I will immediately cancel my subscription to their business.
Hmm, $20 per month from you or a million plus for a license from Wal Mart. That'll be a tough choice for Netflix.
The only inventions made after that point were just improvements or changes to existing inventions.
Every invention since 1899 is an improvement to an existing invention? What century were you born in? Off the top of my head, I can think of things like lasers, transistors, integrated circuits, refrigeration, computers, televisions, radios, color photography, digital photography, video tape recorders, audio tape recorders, compact disc, dvd, microwave ovens, flat cooktops, garage door openers, velcro, public-key crytpography, basketballs with a built in air pump, and millions of other inventions. Do you honestly think those were all just improvements on things that were in existence in 1899?
Right. It's not a scam because you know everything in advance. I don't rent 20 movies per month, but I can easily rent 6-10 per month, even though I only watch on weekends. That's $3.33 to $2.00 per rental. Not only is it cheaper than Blockbuster, but I get a better selection.
If it's cheap you want, try your public library. Mine has a decent selection of new movies, and the rental is free.
Don't be silly, large corporations don't get hurt by patents - sheesh.
You need to read this Slashdot post which links to this Fortune article. Lemelson has "earned" over $1.5 BILLION in licensing fees for stuff he didn't even really invent.
Agreed. Netflix has an incredible selection, quick turnaround, and reasonable rental fees. The fact that they have a patent changes none of that, yet. Why don't you wait to see if Netflix actually does anything bad with it. Maybe this is purely a way for them to show that they had the idea in 2000, to prevent others from suing them.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you ever watch the news? There have been many terrorist attacks all around the world. Including Bali and the Philippines.
I have the same printer. The ink level reading doesn't seem to work as advertised. There seems to be only two different levels of ink--full and empty. It won't tell me that I'm halfway or 3/4 way through a cartridge. It will just tell me when I need to replace it. Still better than my old HP. The only way I knew it was out of ink was that the printouts sucked.
Since this thread is about trials held by trial judges, what appellate judges have at their disposal is irrelevant.
The vast majority of law suits are settled. Most likely, this lawsuit is just a step in the negotiation process, to show that Corbis is serious.
You would typically run the cables in a home run, or star topology. All cables run from a central location (at a Central Wiring Panel to the intended location. But you don't need to connect each outlet.
You can also run multiple wires to a room, to account for remodeling. For example, let's say your living room has north, south, east, and west walls. Due to the furniture location, you want to connect your TV to the south wall. But you pre-wire to all the walls, just leaving them unconnected. If you decide to move the couch to the other side of the room and move the TV to the north side, you merely go to the central wiring panel, disconnect the south wall from the Cable TV and connect the north wall to the Cable TV.
In other words, he took Internet jokes, jokes people made up or just saw on the Internet, and profited from them. He took what people believed to be in the public domain, and now makes money off of it. Do you think he would like it if you scanned his book and placed it on Kazaa? Or his software? Or would he be the first to sue you for copyright infringement? If he would sue, doesn't that mean P2P trading is wrong?
How hard is it to type the words 'royalty free video' into Google?
Partially correct. Check out this Snopes page regarding ownership of the Beatles. First of all, to say that Paul owns the rights to songs he did not write is untrue. John and Paul had an agreement and followed it--if either of them wrote a song for the Beatles, it would be credited to both of them. Whether or not Paul actually wrote the songs is just wrong, technically speaking, both John and Paul wrote those songs.
Second, Jackson only owns the publishing rights. He still splits royalties 50/50 with Paul and John's estate (presumably Yoko).
As long as the Beatles' original albums are still available in new formats (or at least in unprotected formats), and Paul is still alive, I'm ok with paying for those albums.
So I guess you want copyright terms to be only last the term of life of the author?
I hate this attitude that permeates /. Hey, if you don't like modern music. Don't buy it and don't download it. Don't make the sweeping generalization that every CD ever released is either crap or has just 2 good songs on it. I legally own a lot more CDs than most people. The number with just 2 good songs? 0. I'd say that of every CD I own, at least half of each of them are very good.
What printer was it? It would be interesting to see what the web site says.
That said, the big concern with misuse of the phrase USB 2.0 isn't printers. They can't communicate at Hi Speed anyway. The big concern is with the controller. If you think you have a Hi Speed port on your computer and then you buy a Hi Speed hard drive, you would be incredibly disappointed. Realistically, storage (hard drive, burners, flash card readers) is the only product type that needs Hi Speed. Printers, scanners, keyboards, etc., only need full-speed or less.
I remember the first time (86 or 90) the soccer World Cup was shown "without commercials" It was such a big deal because the networks were so used to American sports, where they can force time outs so commercials can be shown. Now watching an entire half of soccer or rugby on Fox Sports World without commercials is commonplace.
I can understand this with sports, as it is too easy to get spoilers for sports by just flipping through channels. Plus, you want the ability to call your buddy on the phone and say, "Did you see that play?"
But reality TV? What is the urgency in watching it NOW as opposed to waiting 15 minutes so you can watch it delayed? Do you call your buddies and say, "I can't believe they voted her off the island." Even if you did, if you start the show at 8:15 instead of 8:00, you still get to finish the show at about the same time it happens "live.
And news? I think that would be the perfect program for TiVo. I can skip the stories I think are stupid fluff and watch the news that is important to me.
The USB article never should have been printed. The article was based on a source of dubious accuracy, not seconded by any respectable source and was refuted by many in the comments. Yet /.ers still thought it was true.
It should be a requirement for /. to post the uspto.gov link to the patents being discussed.
While you provided the source for that definition, you neglect to mention an important fact. That definition is from 17 U.S.C. Â 1001. The definitions under that section only apply to "this chapter", that is, Chapter 10, Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media (commonly known as the Audio Home Recording Act or the AHRA). When they talk about distributing in that chapter, they are talking about distributing recording devices.
In contrast, the exclusive right to distribute is contained in 17 U.S.C. Â 106, Chapter 1 of the Copyright Act. The definition you provided earlier does not apply to section 106.
Let's look to the text of section 106 itself:
The definition of distribute is fairly clear in that context. It is the common meaning of the word distribute, to deliver. You may be able to argue that only distributions made by the methods mentioned in 106 are exclusive to the owner, but I doubt any court in the US would consider allowing anybody in the world to create a copy of a file for himself to be anything but distributing.Possible solutions to scratched CDs.
Now, since I like to listen to my CDs at home, work, and in the car, I was also going to burn a second copy to a CD full of mp3s to leave at work for my own person use only.
Pretty sure this type of usage was covered in the suit against portable MP3 players. It is space shifting, which is Fair Use.
Which is why RIAA is going after individuals instead of the services. The services have the non-infringing uses argument. Individuals don't. If you are sharing 1000 files, and only 900 of the are illegal. Guess what? They will sue you beacuse of the 900, instead of the 100.
And get real, I would guess that over 99% of the files being traded are copyrighted.
I had a monitor at work that had the energy saving feature wherein, if there is no video signal, it turns off automatically. So, at the end of the day, I would start the power off sequence and leave, under the impression that the monitor would automatically shut off. They switched monitors on me and I had to manually turn off the monitor. Unfortunately, I'm sometimes in a rush to leave the office, and I forget to manually shut it off. The price I have to pay? Permanently burned in my screen are the words "Check Video Cable," burned in from a weekend of continous usage.
No, most people don't give a crap about how Netflix will enforce their patent. If they raise prices, people will make up their own mind as to whether it's worth it or not instead of reflexively boycotting a company for merely obtaining a patent. It's not a patent in and of itself that is "evil". It is patent misuse that is wrong.
You can't be serious.
Hmm, $20 per month from you or a million plus for a license from Wal Mart. That'll be a tough choice for Netflix.
Every invention since 1899 is an improvement to an existing invention? What century were you born in? Off the top of my head, I can think of things like lasers, transistors, integrated circuits, refrigeration, computers, televisions, radios, color photography, digital photography, video tape recorders, audio tape recorders, compact disc, dvd, microwave ovens, flat cooktops, garage door openers, velcro, public-key crytpography, basketballs with a built in air pump, and millions of other inventions. Do you honestly think those were all just improvements on things that were in existence in 1899?
If it's cheap you want, try your public library. Mine has a decent selection of new movies, and the rental is free.
You need to read this Slashdot post which links to this Fortune article. Lemelson has "earned" over $1.5 BILLION in licensing fees for stuff he didn't even really invent.
Agreed. Netflix has an incredible selection, quick turnaround, and reasonable rental fees. The fact that they have a patent changes none of that, yet. Why don't you wait to see if Netflix actually does anything bad with it. Maybe this is purely a way for them to show that they had the idea in 2000, to prevent others from suing them.