"and I'm pretty damn sure that such a thing is impossible.
I was actually joking more than being paranoid, but I think that such a thing is possible.
They key to this would be something that would digitize what is being played, analyze the patterns, and compare it to existing song parameters.
"setup there has to be some point where the computer red-flags what you're playing, compares it to a staggeringly huge database of known melodies, markes it as copyrighted and cuts off all signal to your speakers."
Do these new microchip-embedded musical instruments comply with the DMCA by including technology that prevents them from being used to play copyrighted music works without proper permission of the copyright owners?
Do we look forward to the day when the recording industry has intervened with guitar manufacturers and the only guitars you can buy are MIDI guitars that have embedded technology to prevent playing of copyrighted music?
Of course they are invalid; they did not contain the phrase I was looking for. Flat out erroneous? Certainly. If I had wanted "2bee..." I would have searched for it. Also, the be.com page does not even contain a variation of the phrase at all. Thus, I looked for a phrase and two of the first set of results shown did not even show this phrase. Error. error.
I did not go into the other 950 results. I thought that the first page of links were supposed to be more relevant; instead of the least relevant.
I didn't mention the more recent Google downgrading of their service of where it damages my search strings when I attempt to do them; if I search for a certain word and it is not found, I often get this mispelling change and results I never wanted come up (of course, since Google decided to search for something I did not ask for in the first place).
I certainly did not intend this as flame bait. The accuracy problem I mentioned is easy to verify: 2 out of the 10 results on the first Google result page are flat out erroneous. That's a 20% error rate.
It used to be a lot worse; a couple of years ago I'd be lucky to get any acccurate results on this search at all. It is an improvement that the majority of results are accurate.
Compared to other "patent the fork" icon'ed items, this one is not that outrageous.
Google's way of doing thing was certainly not the first way to search, it is not the most obvious way to search, it is not the only way to search, and it might not be the best way to search (something better likely will come along). In other words, I don't think this patent will harass many others at all.
This is nothing near as bad as Amazon patenting message boards attached to sale items, or "one-click shopping" being patented.
And Google still cannot do accurate phrase searches!
The 2nd and 4th result of searching on "to be or not to be" produces is erroneous. I won't give up on Altavista until Google can do accurate searches reliably.
"C. S. Lewis in an insightful essay intitled "The Inner Ring".....You cannot really tell whether you're in or out, but once you're in (or out, for that matter) you can surely affirm it"
"Make Make" by Mike Oldfield
There's no way out no way in
To the hallowed halls
The inner ring
You're just a face
In the crowd
You got no place when you're down and out
"All part of the Satellite Home Viewers Protection Act... More like the Big 4 Network protection Act!"
It has nothing to do with networks. It has everything to do with protecting local affiliates.
This "protection" should not be allowed, anyway. It is like passing a law to get rid of USA Today newspaper boxes in town to protect the local newspaper.
Since the local affiliates refuse to grant waivers, and we are not in one of the few markets that have networks on the satellite, i will not get Simpsons at all if I switch.
"With DirectTV you do get the networks (often you get their broadcasts from both the east and west coasts, which is kind of cool if you miss something)."
Only if you fall into three limited categories:
you are in the market for it
you can get a waiver
you hacked it.
I am not in any of the categories.
"What you don't get is your local TV station's programming. So you miss your local news, and things like local information on the Weather Channel, as well as independent stations in your area. That's a long way from saying you don't get the Simpsons."
If I went to DirectTV, I would not get ANY fox, abc, cbs, nbc. I ask them every month or two, and they confirm it. I'd rather get these east-west feeds anyway, as the local affiliates use bad equipment and pre-empt shows willy-nilly.
Slashdot Mirror
I was actually joking more than being paranoid, but I think that such a thing is possible.
They key to this would be something that would digitize what is being played, analyze the patterns, and compare it to existing song parameters.
"setup there has to be some point where the computer red-flags what you're playing, compares it to a staggeringly huge database of known melodies, markes it as copyrighted and cuts off all signal to your speakers."
Looking forward to the chip-embedded kazoo that won't let me play Mary Had a Little Lamb :)
Do we look forward to the day when the recording industry has intervened with guitar manufacturers and the only guitars you can buy are MIDI guitars that have embedded technology to prevent playing of copyrighted music?
Of course, it is not that obvious since I have encrypted it with a tripple-transversal Fournier encryption algorithm so it shows as something else.
Don't worry about it. In fact, if you even think about this algorithm and the real ID, it might be taken as a violation of the DMCA.
Of course they are invalid; they did not contain the phrase I was looking for. Flat out erroneous? Certainly. If I had wanted "2bee..." I would have searched for it. Also, the be.com page does not even contain a variation of the phrase at all. Thus, I looked for a phrase and two of the first set of results shown did not even show this phrase. Error. error.
I did not go into the other 950 results. I thought that the first page of links were supposed to be more relevant; instead of the least relevant. I didn't mention the more recent Google downgrading of their service of where it damages my search strings when I attempt to do them; if I search for a certain word and it is not found, I often get this mispelling change and results I never wanted come up (of course, since Google decided to search for something I did not ask for in the first place).
Isn't Safari the name of Apple's new browser? I predict legal clashes if both of these expand in the tech world.
It used to be a lot worse; a couple of years ago I'd be lucky to get any acccurate results on this search at all. It is an improvement that the majority of results are accurate.
Google's way of doing thing was certainly not the first way to search, it is not the most obvious way to search, it is not the only way to search, and it might not be the best way to search (something better likely will come along). In other words, I don't think this patent will harass many others at all.
This is nothing near as bad as Amazon patenting message boards attached to sale items, or "one-click shopping" being patented.
And Google still cannot do accurate phrase searches! The 2nd and 4th result of searching on "to be or not to be" produces is erroneous. I won't give up on Altavista until Google can do accurate searches reliably.
Enron had to sell off the famed "Crooked E" to raise funds. Dell bought the symbol, which is now found on the side of their computer boxes.
For Microsoft, the symbol right now is a fat guy in a skintight butterfly suit.
Now, which mascot is more appealing?
Does this mean they will be like "Netscape", making each generation of their product worse and worse until it becomes unusable?
"C. S. Lewis in an insightful essay intitled "The Inner Ring".....You cannot really tell whether you're in or out, but once you're in (or out, for that matter) you can surely affirm it" "Make Make" by Mike Oldfield
There's no way out no way in
To the hallowed halls
The inner ring
You're just a face
In the crowd
You got no place when you're down and out
"All part of the Satellite Home Viewers Protection Act... More like the Big 4 Network protection Act!" It has nothing to do with networks. It has everything to do with protecting local affiliates. This "protection" should not be allowed, anyway. It is like passing a law to get rid of USA Today newspaper boxes in town to protect the local newspaper.
Since the local affiliates refuse to grant waivers, and we are not in one of the few markets that have networks on the satellite, i will not get Simpsons at all if I switch.
you are in the market for it
you can get a waiver
you hacked it. I am not in any of the categories. "What you don't get is your local TV station's programming. So you miss your local news, and things like local information on the Weather Channel, as well as independent stations in your area. That's a long way from saying you don't get the Simpsons." If I went to DirectTV, I would not get ANY fox, abc, cbs, nbc. I ask them every month or two, and they confirm it. I'd rather get these east-west feeds anyway, as the local affiliates use bad equipment and pre-empt shows willy-nilly.