The purpose of the DRM free argument that has been made time and time again here is that signed bands do not allow much of what should be considered fair-use. The solution is to eliminate (or restrict) some of the protection to make said music more usable on different devices, not to switch to unsigned bands.
This... "gentleman" acted like google is public domain and not a private company which it is. If there was any dissenting voice in that courtroom justice would not have been served.
To the tune of YMCA (this stolen from www.userfriendly.org):
Net geeks, There's no need to feel guilt I said, Net geeks For the software you built I said, Net geeks, Cause you're not in the wrong There's no need to feel unhappy
Net geeks, You can burn a CD. I said, Net Geeks, With your fave mp3's. You can Play them In your home or your car. Many ways to take them real far!
It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A You have everything you need to enjoy Your music with your toys!
It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A You can archive your tunes You can share over cable You can annoy the record labels!
The government response is not reassuring. Read the wording of the response again. They are careful not to deny the dangerous distinction that they have been maintaining between "pure" software and software which is implemented to achieve a "technical effect". It is the same sneaky "backdoor" that the UK and EU Patent Offices have been using to allow what most intelligent observers would call "software patents". Even worse, the response makes it clear they are proposing to implement the recommendations on patent law. That will be precisely the occasion for approving the "technical effect" ruse under the guise of an official scheme supposedly merely to "clarify" existing patent law and to "limit" the applicability of patenting.
I think you fail to see the point they are truly making. I am a US patent officer and fortunately the US is doing things a bit differently in this respect. What is meant by pure software is a patent on the physical code itself and not the means that it accomplishes. In this respect code that can undergo a simple or "obvious" change to accomplish an entirely different means can entitle the software company to litigate against a rival over something they were attempting to innovate. If the patent is instead granted on the means the software was accomplishing this eliminates much of the gray area as innovation can be seen from a high level. The point of this response is a push to patent what a piece of software accomplishes and not the code itself and to allow no legal backing to those patents which were wrongly granted under the old system.
Meh... the same users who show enough common sense to click on the "you've won a free ipod enter your credit card information here" will obviously be able to know the difference between a good system message and a bad system message
...but OU is usually one of the more consistantly ranked schools at the top of the #1 school to party at, get drunk at, and get knocked up on accident at, if I remember correctly.
And now it's the #1 place to get your bootleg "Buffy" collection going... why would you bother with anywhere else?!?
At first glance one would think this would open the door quite wide for the internet sale of tinfoil hats, but a savvy consumer would then "enter email address here" and realize...
For those with short memories, there's a legislator in California proposing the same idea, though over a five-year period instead of three.
I find the difference in approach interesting, though. The California proposal, judging by the press releases, seems to be about banning sale of incandescents. The Australian proposal is simply upping the energy efficiency standards to the point where incandescent bulbs no longer qualify.
Considering California actually has a higher population than Australia (estimated 36 million in 2005 vs. estimated 20 million in 2006), the California ban, if adopted, would actually have a greater effect.
But it would only have a slightly greater effect because to be fair we must measure the total effect in people/years. Therefore the Australian effect would be 20M/3 people per year or 6.66M people/years whereas the California ban would effect 36M/5 people per year or 7.02 people/years. meaning this is only a 5% increase...
In the end, according to the judge, "If anyone had a duty to protect Julie Doe, it was her parents, not MySpace."
It's really amazing what's passed off as someone else's fault when the blame should have been placed on the people passing it. Congrats to the judge for making a great call and boohiss to the parents for trying to close down our beloved myspace...
Slashdot Mirror
he way the headline reads, I thought they were closing the left half or the right half (or back/front) of each store.
In an effort to increase attendance, CompUSA closed the half of it's store with the exit
The purpose of the DRM free argument that has been made time and time again here is that signed bands do not allow much of what should be considered fair-use. The solution is to eliminate (or restrict) some of the protection to make said music more usable on different devices, not to switch to unsigned bands.
I still clunk away at my IBM model M keyboard every night...
Only problem is my neighbors complain of the noise
This... "gentleman" acted like google is public domain and not a private company which it is. If there was any dissenting voice in that courtroom justice would not have been served.
To the tune of YMCA (this stolen from www.userfriendly.org):
Net geeks,
There's no need to feel guilt
I said, Net geeks
For the software you built
I said, Net geeks,
Cause you're not in the wrong
There's no need to feel unhappy
Net geeks,
You can burn a CD.
I said, Net Geeks,
With your fave mp3's.
You can Play them
In your home or your car.
Many ways to take them real far!
It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A
It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A
You have everything you need to enjoy
Your music with your toys!
It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A
It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A
You can archive your tunes
You can share over cable
You can annoy the record labels!
Is this a genuine first post?
I'd put it in the "not sure" category
They have a patent. Therefore, no one can break their security. It would be illegal.
It's also ironic that the US Patent & Trademark Office uses HID cards on their doors...
A circular protection that can not be broken
The government response is not reassuring. Read the wording of the response again. They are careful not to deny the dangerous distinction that they have been maintaining between "pure" software and software which is implemented to achieve a "technical effect". It is the same sneaky "backdoor" that the UK and EU Patent Offices have been using to allow what most intelligent observers would call "software patents". Even worse, the response makes it clear they are proposing to implement the recommendations on patent law. That will be precisely the occasion for approving the "technical effect" ruse under the guise of an official scheme supposedly merely to "clarify" existing patent law and to "limit" the applicability of patenting.
I think you fail to see the point they are truly making. I am a US patent officer and fortunately the US is doing things a bit differently in this respect. What is meant by pure software is a patent on the physical code itself and not the means that it accomplishes. In this respect code that can undergo a simple or "obvious" change to accomplish an entirely different means can entitle the software company to litigate against a rival over something they were attempting to innovate. If the patent is instead granted on the means the software was accomplishing this eliminates much of the gray area as innovation can be seen from a high level. The point of this response is a push to patent what a piece of software accomplishes and not the code itself and to allow no legal backing to those patents which were wrongly granted under the old system.
I love Microsoft's response:
Meh... the same users who show enough common sense to click on the "you've won a free ipod enter your credit card information here" will obviously be able to know the difference between a good system message and a bad system message
Hooray for apathy!
With a name like "Fuzzy" wouldn't you drink too?!
It appears that Vista isn't supported by Vista either.
...but OU is usually one of the more consistantly ranked schools at the top of the #1 school to party at, get drunk at, and get knocked up on accident at, if I remember correctly.And now it's the #1 place to get your bootleg "Buffy" collection going... why would you bother with anywhere else?!?
There really isn't a king in Nigeria that left his fortune to you, so just don't bother.
At first glance one would think this would open the door quite wide for the internet sale of tinfoil hats, but a savvy consumer would then "enter email address here" and realize...
They know you know!
For those with short memories, there's a legislator in California proposing the same idea, though over a five-year period instead of three.
I find the difference in approach interesting, though. The California proposal, judging by the press releases, seems to be about banning sale of incandescents. The Australian proposal is simply upping the energy efficiency standards to the point where incandescent bulbs no longer qualify.
Considering California actually has a higher population than Australia (estimated 36 million in 2005 vs. estimated 20 million in 2006), the California ban, if adopted, would actually have a greater effect.
But it would only have a slightly greater effect because to be fair we must measure the total effect in people/years. Therefore the Australian effect would be 20M/3 people per year or 6.66M people/years whereas the California ban would effect 36M/5 people per year or 7.02 people/years. meaning this is only a 5% increase...
not to split hairs or anything
True... I don't think that even an MSN search could turn up an MSN search user!
Google learns today
new OS will thrill us all
Slashdotters rejoice
Microsoft didn't loose the tapes, it's just that the backup server was being run by Vista!
or better yet...
"up, down, up, down, left, right, left, right, A, B, A, B, Select, Start"
Can't they just search for what they want to see?
and in the spirit of the KC school board trials...
ramen to that!
We'll chase off the Pharmers with our phlaming torches and pitchphorks!
It's really amazing what's passed off as someone else's fault when the blame should have been placed on the people passing it. Congrats to the judge for making a great call and boohiss to the parents for trying to close down our beloved myspace...
home of over a million unread emo thoughts.
Astronauts covered in proteins! that sounds like it could be a new pay website!
Then the house said...
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid can't do that"