If they broadcast it, I can exercise fair use rights.
Good point. As I mentioned above, are your fair use rights being infringed if you don't have access to a 100% digital source? If you really want to record the digital output, just record directly from the airwaves. The digital broadcast is really going through an analog medium, so you can still record it in analog and later reconstruct the digital signal from that.
You've nicely avoided answering the question of what makes recording analog broadcasts no big thing (actually, I think the RIAA has tried to object to radio stations broadcasting entire albums at one shot, but I'm not aware of anything having come of it), but recording digital broadcasts is somehow evil.
Fair use entitles you to make a recording for specific purposes. Where does fair use guarantee you the right to a 100% accurate copy? Despite playing one on the internet, I'm not a lawyer so maybe I missed the provision of the Copyright Act where it states that your right to fair use would be infringed if you were limited to an analog version.
I hate to play devil's advocate (ok, I lie, I love it, but I hate to do it for the RIAA) but it would seem that this would open you up to DMCA liability. The way I read the anticircumvention provisions [cornell.edu] this would be a "circumvent[ion of] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under" Title 17.
If the analog output of the radio were protected by a technological measure, then yes... you would be correct. However, to make use of a feature supplied by the radio can, in no sane court, be construed as a circumvention.
Consider someone listening to a radio show and writing an article about it. That would be fair use, no? Then if that someone happens to be a radio journalist, is it not also fair use for said radio journalist to include a snippet of the original broadcast?
It's no good to say you should make your own analogue recording. That's an artificial limit to fair use. What if said journalist is a poor starving student who does everything on a home computer? Are you saying students have to buy D/A and A/D converters to become journalists?
Your argument doesn't hold up. Fair use doesn't mean that you have all the equipment supplied for you to take advantage of that use. If you have the wrong equipment, then it's *your* responsibility to go out and acquire the equipment necessary to take advantage of your rights. What about the poor starving student who has *no* equipment? Would you argue their fair use rights are being denied because they have neither analog nor digital? Of course not. It's not a restriction of fair use just because the only available option is recording a 99% accurate analog version.
The only issue I see is that if the RIAA gets its way, it'll mean manufacturers have to research, develop, and produce solutions to the RIAA's "problem" and end up costing me money when I buy their broken equipment.
Why would you buy broken equipment then? Spend your money elsewhere. Nobody's forcing you to go out and buy a crippled digital receiver.
I believe if you have a right to access the analog version, you also have a right to access the clean digital version. You don't lose any rights just because it's 0s and 1s, instead of a variable voltage.
So now, it's apparently a crime to be a purist, and want direct access to high quality media? Sure, maybe the analog version might be good enough for you, but if you're a purist, then it's not.
I've been listening to analog acoustic waves all my life so, pray tell, where can I get a direct digital audio feed into my brain?
Seriously though... why else would you want a clean digital version unless it's to record to another medium? And given that such a recording is a copyright violation because you don't have a license to the copyrighted material, what makes you think that it's your sacred right?
If you don't like the fact that you don't have any rights to the material you listen to over a digital radio broadcast, don't listen to it. Go and purchase a CD and enjoy your fair use rights that you (still) have because of the purchase.
If your issue is that "copyright is evil", then fine... do something to reform the system. However, given current copyright law you're not losing any rights because you had no rights to the radio broadcast to begin with.
This may be an unpopular opinion here, but I don't see anything wrong with this. Radio is there for you to listen to and enjoy. The music is being broadcast to you at no charge (excepting commercial-free services like XM and Sirius) and the broadcaster sets the licensing terms. Naturally, the broadcaster needs to comply with the licensing terms of the copyright owner, represented typically by the RIAA.
So what rights are being infringed here? Unless you're paying a radio station to broadcast your own music to you, you are not in posession of a license to the music. So fair use in terms of copying to your computer, etc. doesn't apply as you haven't purchased anything. One could make the argument from a research standpoint and being able to record samples for the purposes of critique, etc. This would easily be fulfilled by plugging a jack into the headphone slot and recording the non-digital output to tape or via line-in on a computer and you'd still get better quality than any non-digital radio station that exists today.
1 person capacity? How is that even remotely efficient?
90% of the cars on the road are one person vehicles anyway. From that standpoint, it's energy efficient. But people buy bigger cars for (ego stroking issues aside) the 1% of the time that they actually need to carry more passengers, go shopping, etc.
In addition to seating only one person and having its hubless wheels driven by electric motors, it incorporates wireless networking so that drivers could surrender control to another human-driven PM and relax as someone else drives them to work. And it reclines!
And what else seats only one person, reclines, and is driven by someone else? Why, you guessed it... it's the new joint venture between Toyota and Apple... the iStroller.
Congradulations users. They promised you life-time updates and they renegged, so you sued.
How do you define lifetime? Usually, the lifetime refers to the product itself. Versions 3 and 4 have essentially been end-of-lifed. This sounds like McAfee probably didn't specify fully enough what "lifetime" means in their EULA. As a result, the lawyers get a quarter million dollars in legal fees. (Pet peeve: the word is congratulate. Think "gratuity", not "graduity". Oh, and while I'm being a spelling Nazi here, "reneged" has one "g".)
And what did you "win"? A free upgrade to a product with only one year of free updates.
Check out the PDF for the settlement terms. Emphasis mine:
The parties have come to a settlement. Network Associates agrees to give each Class member a coupon for a free download of the perpetual version of one of the following: (i) McAfee VirusScan version 8, (ii) AntiSpyware version 1.0 or (iii) QuickClean version 4.01 (or the most recent versions at the time of download) software from mcafee.com.
Perpetual, ie: never ending.
If N.A. was nice, they'd give the customers a free upgrade and the free upgrades that they promissed.
Normally I don't think much of case mods, but this is very impressive. The attention to detail is amazing. I think Valve should reward this guy somehow... maybe buy the case from him and set him up with *the* very first copy of Half Life 2 made.
It's certainly not pretentious if you normally write that way for formal matters. I consider it anachronistic, however, as one can always write intelligently using modern phraseology without necessarily dumbing down the content to appease the anti-intellectuals. For example, if the Age of Reason were during Shakespearean times, I would find it exceedingly odd to see someone writing using the antiquated phrases common to the period.
"Allow for normal port 25 access to the ISP's email server (with the usual restrictions on volume and content) and, for external port 25 access, there's a number of possibilities:
1. Allow the client to setup a pre-determined list of specific hosts they want to connect to. This might be done using a web-based interface. 2. Only allow the first 10 hosts (per dialup connection, per DHCP lease, per hour, etc.) to be accessible via port 25. This should satisfy even power users as few need to send mail to over 10 different servers. Adjust number as appropriate. 3. Setup a proxy service which allows unlimited port 25 access. Any viruses which include their own SMTP delivery engines won't know about the proxy and will simply fail. There's no additional security risk to using your ISP's proxy than using the ISP's connection itself, as both can be logged with equal ease."
I pulled it straight out of the universal lexicon which has been prevelant for several hundred years and thus could have pulled it straight out of Roger Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, or an English translation of Voltaire. At the moment I am reading Gibbon, Umberto Eco and Sir Ricard Burton's translation of the Tales of a Thousand Nights and a Night, from which is also could have been pulled. It is the language of poetry and learned men, not the modern vulgar language of 'Corporate Speak."
There are many learned men of today who similarly do not use that same style of language. As you allude to, in 'Corporate Speak' it's a common practice to use grandiose sounding words in a pretentious manner to hide the true meaning and make the speaker sound more intelligent than they actually are, rather than using words properly as a means of explanation. It's good to know you are well read and are writing in the classic sense -- it's quite rare these days.
how do the benefits of weblog packages offset the disadvantages that are the raison d'etre of this Slashdot article, vis a vis, licensing issues (not to mention their attendant prices).
Wow, it sounds like you pulled that straight out of a Dilbert strip. Try and work in "synergistic" and "best practices" next time.:)
I wrote: "Genetic programming is the application of genetic algorithms to actual computer code to produce an optimal program."
Anonymous Genius wrote: You are wrong. GP is the application of Evolutionary Strategies to LISP like structures as outlined by Koza.
And what do those "LISP like structures" define? Wait for it... yes, a program! You can do Genetic Programming using C, Assembler, BASIC, Javascript... whatever! It doesn't *have* to be LISP, contrary to what your stunning intellect told you.
Mods on crack again? Someone please enlighten me why the parent is a troll. Honestly, what does 24 hours matter in getting your grades? Very cool use of technology, but the end result isn't all that technologically cool, except from the perspective of volume of messages handled.
If they can evoluate, why not try to show them how to find the best solution on a given computer program?
It's already been done. Genetic algorithms is the evolution of a particular solution to achieve the best results, such as finding the best solution to the travelling salesman problem. Travelling to 100 cities in the best possible order to minimize the distance travelled, this would take 100! (that's factorial, not just an exclamation) calculations to search through the entire solution space. Using a genetic algorithm, you can evolve solutions -- in effect, borrowing snippets of cities from one solution and breeding them with another solution and seeing if it's more fit than the others.
Genetic programming is the application of genetic algorithms to actual computer code to produce an optimal program.
Alpacas, along with related llamas, vicunas and guanacos, are native to South America but are increasingly popular in other parts of the world - not only for their fleeces.
I tried googling for this without success, but there was an article on Slashdot about this very subject a while back, where a company developed a highway billboard which would detect what radio station you're listening to and track the results. It does this using the method you've described -- detect the base frequency that radios are emitting.
No kidding. This friend of mine Igor said that with nothing more than a couple of propellors and an engine that he would someday get a big one ton cage of metal and glass to fly and carry people! Yeah, right. I wonder what ever happened to that Sikorsky guy anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
If they broadcast it, I can exercise fair use rights.
Good point. As I mentioned above, are your fair use rights being infringed if you don't have access to a 100% digital source? If you really want to record the digital output, just record directly from the airwaves. The digital broadcast is really going through an analog medium, so you can still record it in analog and later reconstruct the digital signal from that.
You've nicely avoided answering the question of what makes recording analog broadcasts no big thing (actually, I think the RIAA has tried to object to radio stations broadcasting entire albums at one shot, but I'm not aware of anything having come of it), but recording digital broadcasts is somehow evil.
Fair use entitles you to make a recording for specific purposes. Where does fair use guarantee you the right to a 100% accurate copy? Despite playing one on the internet, I'm not a lawyer so maybe I missed the provision of the Copyright Act where it states that your right to fair use would be infringed if you were limited to an analog version.
I hate to play devil's advocate (ok, I lie, I love it, but I hate to do it for the RIAA) but it would seem that this would open you up to DMCA liability. The way I read the anticircumvention provisions [cornell.edu] this would be a "circumvent[ion of] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under" Title 17.
If the analog output of the radio were protected by a technological measure, then yes... you would be correct. However, to make use of a feature supplied by the radio can, in no sane court, be construed as a circumvention.
Consider someone listening to a radio show and writing an article about it. That would be fair use, no? Then if that someone happens to be a radio journalist, is it not also fair use for said radio journalist to include a snippet of the original broadcast?
It's no good to say you should make your own analogue recording. That's an artificial limit to fair use. What if said journalist is a poor starving student who does everything on a home computer? Are you saying students have to buy D/A and A/D converters to become journalists?
Your argument doesn't hold up. Fair use doesn't mean that you have all the equipment supplied for you to take advantage of that use. If you have the wrong equipment, then it's *your* responsibility to go out and acquire the equipment necessary to take advantage of your rights. What about the poor starving student who has *no* equipment? Would you argue their fair use rights are being denied because they have neither analog nor digital? Of course not. It's not a restriction of fair use just because the only available option is recording a 99% accurate analog version.
The only issue I see is that if the RIAA gets its way, it'll mean manufacturers have to research, develop, and produce solutions to the RIAA's "problem" and end up costing me money when I buy their broken equipment.
Why would you buy broken equipment then? Spend your money elsewhere. Nobody's forcing you to go out and buy a crippled digital receiver.
I believe if you have a right to access the analog version, you also have a right to access the clean digital version. You don't lose any rights just because it's 0s and 1s, instead of a variable voltage.
So now, it's apparently a crime to be a purist, and want direct access to high quality media? Sure, maybe the analog version might be good enough for you, but if you're a purist, then it's not.
I've been listening to analog acoustic waves all my life so, pray tell, where can I get a direct digital audio feed into my brain?
Seriously though... why else would you want a clean digital version unless it's to record to another medium? And given that such a recording is a copyright violation because you don't have a license to the copyrighted material, what makes you think that it's your sacred right?
If you don't like the fact that you don't have any rights to the material you listen to over a digital radio broadcast, don't listen to it. Go and purchase a CD and enjoy your fair use rights that you (still) have because of the purchase.
If your issue is that "copyright is evil", then fine... do something to reform the system. However, given current copyright law you're not losing any rights because you had no rights to the radio broadcast to begin with.
This may be an unpopular opinion here, but I don't see anything wrong with this. Radio is there for you to listen to and enjoy. The music is being broadcast to you at no charge (excepting commercial-free services like XM and Sirius) and the broadcaster sets the licensing terms. Naturally, the broadcaster needs to comply with the licensing terms of the copyright owner, represented typically by the RIAA.
So what rights are being infringed here? Unless you're paying a radio station to broadcast your own music to you, you are not in posession of a license to the music. So fair use in terms of copying to your computer, etc. doesn't apply as you haven't purchased anything. One could make the argument from a research standpoint and being able to record samples for the purposes of critique, etc. This would easily be fulfilled by plugging a jack into the headphone slot and recording the non-digital output to tape or via line-in on a computer and you'd still get better quality than any non-digital radio station that exists today.
Honestly, I don't see an issue here.
It must be a slooooow news day.
At least the speed of the site matches!
1 person capacity? How is that even remotely efficient?
90% of the cars on the road are one person vehicles anyway. From that standpoint, it's energy efficient. But people buy bigger cars for (ego stroking issues aside) the 1% of the time that they actually need to carry more passengers, go shopping, etc.
In addition to seating only one person and having its hubless wheels driven by electric motors, it incorporates wireless networking so that drivers could surrender control to another human-driven PM and relax as someone else drives them to work. And it reclines!
And what else seats only one person, reclines, and is driven by someone else? Why, you guessed it... it's the new joint venture between Toyota and Apple... the iStroller.
Congradulations users. They promised you life-time updates and they renegged, so you sued.
How do you define lifetime? Usually, the lifetime refers to the product itself. Versions 3 and 4 have essentially been end-of-lifed. This sounds like McAfee probably didn't specify fully enough what "lifetime" means in their EULA. As a result, the lawyers get a quarter million dollars in legal fees. (Pet peeve: the word is congratulate. Think "gratuity", not "graduity". Oh, and while I'm being a spelling Nazi here, "reneged" has one "g".)
And what did you "win"? A free upgrade to a product with only one year of free updates.
Check out the PDF for the settlement terms. Emphasis mine:
The parties have come to a settlement. Network Associates agrees to give each Class member a coupon for a free download of the perpetual version of one of the following: (i) McAfee VirusScan version 8, (ii) AntiSpyware version 1.0 or (iii) QuickClean version 4.01 (or the most recent versions at the time of download) software from mcafee.com.
Perpetual, ie: never ending.
If N.A. was nice, they'd give the customers a free upgrade and the free upgrades that they promissed.
They did, if you'd RTFA.
Internet Explorer will have a hard time keeping up with the great folks at Mozilla. In my book, the browser war has already been won.
:)
Ah, yes... the war has been won! Could you remind me again which side occupies 95% of the land?
Normally I don't think much of case mods, but this is very impressive. The attention to detail is amazing. I think Valve should reward this guy somehow... maybe buy the case from him and set him up with *the* very first copy of Half Life 2 made.
It's certainly not pretentious if you normally write that way for formal matters. I consider it anachronistic, however, as one can always write intelligently using modern phraseology without necessarily dumbing down the content to appease the anti-intellectuals. For example, if the Age of Reason were during Shakespearean times, I would find it exceedingly odd to see someone writing using the antiquated phrases common to the period.
I posted a potential solution for this half a year ago:
6 111
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=78099&cid=693
"Allow for normal port 25 access to the ISP's email server (with the usual restrictions on volume and content) and, for external port 25 access, there's a number of possibilities:
1. Allow the client to setup a pre-determined list of specific hosts they want to connect to. This might be done using a web-based interface.
2. Only allow the first 10 hosts (per dialup connection, per DHCP lease, per hour, etc.) to be accessible via port 25. This should satisfy even power users as few need to send mail to over 10 different servers. Adjust number as appropriate.
3. Setup a proxy service which allows unlimited port 25 access. Any viruses which include their own SMTP delivery engines won't know about the proxy and will simply fail. There's no additional security risk to using your ISP's proxy than using the ISP's connection itself, as both can be logged with equal ease."
I pulled it straight out of the universal lexicon which has been prevelant for several hundred years and thus could have pulled it straight out of Roger Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, or an English translation of Voltaire. At the moment I am reading Gibbon, Umberto Eco and Sir Ricard Burton's translation of the Tales of a Thousand Nights and a Night, from which is also could have been pulled. It is the language of poetry and learned men, not the modern vulgar language of 'Corporate Speak."
There are many learned men of today who similarly do not use that same style of language. As you allude to, in 'Corporate Speak' it's a common practice to use grandiose sounding words in a pretentious manner to hide the true meaning and make the speaker sound more intelligent than they actually are, rather than using words properly as a means of explanation. It's good to know you are well read and are writing in the classic sense -- it's quite rare these days.
how do the benefits of weblog packages offset the disadvantages that are the raison d'etre of this Slashdot article, vis a vis, licensing issues (not to mention their attendant prices).
:)
Wow, it sounds like you pulled that straight out of a Dilbert strip. Try and work in "synergistic" and "best practices" next time.
I wrote: "Genetic programming is the application of genetic algorithms to actual computer code to produce an optimal program."
Anonymous Genius wrote: You are wrong. GP is the application of Evolutionary Strategies to LISP like structures as outlined by Koza.
And what do those "LISP like structures" define? Wait for it... yes, a program! You can do Genetic Programming using C, Assembler, BASIC, Javascript... whatever! It doesn't *have* to be LISP, contrary to what your stunning intellect told you.
Mods on crack again? Someone please enlighten me why the parent is a troll. Honestly, what does 24 hours matter in getting your grades? Very cool use of technology, but the end result isn't all that technologically cool, except from the perspective of volume of messages handled.
Now I'm going to finally get Bill Gates and tons of other companies to finally pay up!
If they can evoluate, why not try to show them how to find the best solution on a given computer program?
It's already been done. Genetic algorithms is the evolution of a particular solution to achieve the best results, such as finding the best solution to the travelling salesman problem. Travelling to 100 cities in the best possible order to minimize the distance travelled, this would take 100! (that's factorial, not just an exclamation) calculations to search through the entire solution space. Using a genetic algorithm, you can evolve solutions -- in effect, borrowing snippets of cities from one solution and breeding them with another solution and seeing if it's more fit than the others.
Genetic programming is the application of genetic algorithms to actual computer code to produce an optimal program.
I tried googling for this without success, but there was an article on Slashdot about this very subject a while back, where a company developed a highway billboard which would detect what radio station you're listening to and track the results. It does this using the method you've described -- detect the base frequency that radios are emitting.
No kidding. This friend of mine Igor said that with nothing more than a couple of propellors and an engine that he would someday get a big one ton cage of metal and glass to fly and carry people! Yeah, right. I wonder what ever happened to that Sikorsky guy anyway...
... and drunk!