In order to re-compress DVD data to fit on a single layer disc, you have to circumvent CSS encryption. But if you're just doing a raw sector copy, you don't. Arguably.
I suppose they'll just argue that by reading raw sectors, you're circumventing DRM. Then they'll lobby Congress to outlaw disk editors and undeleters, and require file system drivers to be digitally signed by the MPAA.
My reference was a web site that says Surveyor 1 "Made first fully controlled lunar soft-landing". I guess they think the Luna probe wasn't "fully controlled", despite soft-landing earlier.
First Earth-orbit rendezvous: USA, Gemini VI/VII, 1965 First Earth-orbit docking: USA, Gemini VIII, 1966 First lunar soft-landing: USA, Surveyor 1, 1966 First manned circumlunar flight: USA, Apollo 8, 1968 First lunar-orbit docking: USA, Apollo 10, 1969 First manned lunar landing: USA, Apollo 11, 1969
The USSR made an impressive first showing, no doubt, but they fell short when it came to reaching the moon...
The software patents are already here (30,000+ of them), they're just not yet enforceable. If the software patent directive comes through like the Commission/Council wants it, it will suddenly become quite easy to enforce them in courts.
So the EU really wants to make thousands of companies who are doing nothing wrong today suddenly become patent infringers tomorrow? That's nuts!
Big media companies are always moaning about thieves and freeloaders, when they themselves are guilty of the same thing.
Thieves, because they are stealing our culture from us by bribing Congress to ensure nothing ever again enters the public domain.
Freeloaders, because they are making money off works that were done decades ago by people who have long since been dead.
Copyrighted works should not be passed down from generation to generation like real estate. It's tantamount to a hereditary aristocracy, which is about as un-American idea as you can come up with.
Apple is most definitely in the right here... they have an obligation to protect their property, intellectual or physical, and they have a right to do with their products what they wish.
Would Microsoft be "in the right" if they sued the SAMBA team for "hacking" their network protocols? How is this different?
Does this mean that if Real wins their case, we have a HUGE loophole in the DMCA, whereby we'd be allowed to reverse engineer DRM, if the content is re-encoded with your own DRM ?
That's not what Real is doing. They're not stripping DRM from Apple's copyrighted content and applying their own DRM. All they're doing is applying Apple's DRM scheme to their own content. They're not violating any copyrights, so I think the law is on their side, Apple's name calling notwithstanding.
Previously, iPod would only play digitally protected songs that carry restrictions and were purchased from Apple's own iTunes music store.
I have never used an iPod, but I assumed they could play unencumbered MP3s as well as Apple's DRM'ed iTunes songs--and that the only new thing Real did was allow the iPod to play its own DRM'd files. Is that right?
Also--doesn't the DMCA explicitly allow reverse engineering for interoperability? (Disclaimer: I think the DMCA is a very bad law, but it's also the most likely legal mallet for Apple to use against Real.)
- When an eBook can be borrowed or sold used, like a dead tree book.
- When there is a standard format, so you don't need to be locked into a single program from a single vendor on a single platform.
- When your eBook can be backed up or survive an OS upgrade.
For me, the biggest disincentive to buying eBooks is that, with current DRM schemes, they're effectively printed on disappearing ink. At least a paper book isn't going to vanish if somebody reads it over my shoulder. And it will still be readable 50 years from now.
..or wasn't the D3 engine supposed to do all audio processing on the CPU rather than the soundcard?
Yes. That's the way it was supposed to be, until Creative pulled out their submarine patent on a shadowing technique like Carmack's and threatened to sue over it. Incorporating Creative EAX is sort of a cross-licensing deal. And IMHO, it was a very scummy move on Creative's part.
Why does the RIAA have such a strong voice?
on
Hatch Pushes INDUCE Act
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Consider this...
More than 40 trade associations and advocacy groups voiced similar sentiments in a letter to senators July 6. The Induce Act "would chill innovation and drive investment in technology" overseas, said the letter, signed by CNET Networks, eBay, Google, Intel, MCI, TiVo, Verizon Communications, Sun Microsystems and Yahoo.
This measure is supported by the RIAA but opposed by the tech industry at large. Why does Congress let the tail wag the dog when it comes to copyright legislation? Does Intel just not give enough money to politicians?
Look here, and you'll see that Windows Update has been around (at least) since December 1998, more than a year before the patent was filed. Sure looks like prior art to me.
The suit asks for unspecified damages for past infringing activity and an injunction against future use of the technology.
This is ludicrous. BTG shouldn't be allowed to wait for ten years to enforce their patent, and then sue for past damages. If BTG were being damaged, BTG should have filed suit earlier. This is nothing but a shakedown.
The good thing about it is that if Microsoft gets pissed off about submarine patents, they have the money and political influence to do something about it, like lobby Congress to reform patents. Unless, of course, the perceived benefits of their patent arsenal outweigh the occasional nuisance lawsuit.
Lots of mainstream PCs have been sold with 256 MB of RAM, so upgrades will be in order
Not to mention the ubiquitous yet entirely inadequate Intel "Extreme Graphics" found in nearly all big-name desktops. Even "high-end" systems ship with the barely adequate FX5200. Video card upgrades will be required of almost all stock brand name desktops.
SAPPHIRE ATI RADEON 9200SE Video Card, 128MB DDR, 64-bit, TV-Out, 8X AGP -BULK OEM - $47, free shipping
Bad idea. Don't get an SE card for gaming--they have a crippled 64-bit memory bus. At the very least, splurge the extra $6 to get the full 9200, or better yet, get a DX9 compliant board like a Radeon 9600 (about $100) or FX5700 (about $110).
A content owner should just pay a fee and extend one copyright, rather than stealing infinity minus one works from the public domain.
Don't get me wrong--I think the idea that content owners should be able to milk profits from decades-old work done by a deceased person is ludicrous. But it's not nearly as damaging to society and culture as a whole as keeping everything else out of the public domain just to satisfy a few copyright-holding freeloaders.
http-equiv has posted a PoC (Proof of Concept), which combined with the inherently insecure Windows "shell:" functionality, can be exploited to compromise a vulnerable system.
So it looks like Internet Explorer 6 has the same vulnerability that Mozilla fixed last week!
No kidding. The fact that Firefox doesn't copy Internet Explorer's bugs can hardly be considered a flaw in Firefox.
In other news, Sun's Java SDK isn't perfect, because it doesn't compile J# code properly. But we're not going to fault Internet Explorer for not rendering CSS1 and PNG files properly; nobody uses those anyway.
Reminds me of my experience at CompUSSR. I bought a cheap ($800 after rebates) laptop there, but the salesdroid wouldn't stop badgering me about the $300 extended service/accidental damage plan. I might be interested in one of those, but certainly not for an almost 40% markup.
Still, the salesman was insistent. It started out with discussions like "It'll more than pay for itself if you crack the screen." "That's okay," I replied. "I'll be careful with it."
When the salesman realized he wasn't going to win with that route, he told me it would cover software problems too. "No thanks, I think I can handle those on my own," I said.
He replied, "So what do you do for a living
that makes you think you can handle any software problem?"
"Well, I'm a computer programmer, and I worked in tech support for a few years." (I didn't say, although I thought it really loud, that I wouldn't trust their support clowns with a software problem anyway; I can format and restore on my own.)
Anyway, that shut him up. He called in reinforcements, and soon his manager was upon me, repeating the same old arguments. At length I was able to dissuade him, but I had to be rather blunt about it. "Obviously this service plan must be very profitable for you," I said, "or you wouldn't be harassing me about it so much." "No, I don't get a commission." "Then stop bothering me about it. I don't want it."
When they finally managed to dig up the laptop (I swear, it took fifteen minutes) and ring it up, the sales clerk asked me again if I wanted the extended warranty. I told her no, and that was the end of it. Good for them, because if she had bothered me about it, I would have stormed out of the store.
Slashdot Mirror
... you're on to something there.
In order to re-compress DVD data to fit on a single layer disc, you have to circumvent CSS encryption. But if you're just doing a raw sector copy, you don't. Arguably.
I suppose they'll just argue that by reading raw sectors, you're circumventing DRM. Then they'll lobby Congress to outlaw disk editors and undeleters, and require file system drivers to be digitally signed by the MPAA.
You're right. Thanks for pointing that out.
My reference was a web site that says Surveyor 1 "Made first fully controlled lunar soft-landing". I guess they think the Luna probe wasn't "fully controlled", despite soft-landing earlier.
First Earth-orbit rendezvous: USA, Gemini VI/VII, 1965
First Earth-orbit docking: USA, Gemini VIII, 1966
First lunar soft-landing: USA, Surveyor 1, 1966
First manned circumlunar flight: USA, Apollo 8, 1968
First lunar-orbit docking: USA, Apollo 10, 1969
First manned lunar landing: USA, Apollo 11, 1969
The USSR made an impressive first showing, no doubt, but they fell short when it came to reaching the moon...
The software patents are already here (30,000+ of them), they're just not yet enforceable. If the software patent directive comes through like the Commission/Council wants it, it will suddenly become quite easy to enforce them in courts.
So the EU really wants to make thousands of companies who are doing nothing wrong today suddenly become patent infringers tomorrow? That's nuts!
I agree with you 100%.
Big media companies are always moaning about thieves and freeloaders, when they themselves are guilty of the same thing.
Thieves, because they are stealing our culture from us by bribing Congress to ensure nothing ever again enters the public domain.
Freeloaders, because they are making money off works that were done decades ago by people who have long since been dead.
Copyrighted works should not be passed down from generation to generation like real estate. It's tantamount to a hereditary aristocracy, which is about as un-American idea as you can come up with.
Would Microsoft be "in the right" if they sued the SAMBA team for "hacking" their network protocols? How is this different?
Does this mean that if Real wins their case, we have a HUGE loophole in the DMCA, whereby we'd be allowed to reverse engineer DRM, if the content is re-encoded with your own DRM ?
That's not what Real is doing. They're not stripping DRM from Apple's copyrighted content and applying their own DRM. All they're doing is applying Apple's DRM scheme to their own content. They're not violating any copyrights, so I think the law is on their side, Apple's name calling notwithstanding.
That's because it's too easy for the manufacturer to go back on that lifetime warranty.
The lifetime warranty would be the perfect way to sell one of these! Automatically expires when it fails!
I have never used an iPod, but I assumed they could play unencumbered MP3s as well as Apple's DRM'ed iTunes songs--and that the only new thing Real did was allow the iPod to play its own DRM'd files. Is that right?
Also--doesn't the DMCA explicitly allow reverse engineering for interoperability? (Disclaimer: I think the DMCA is a very bad law, but it's also the most likely legal mallet for Apple to use against Real.)
I'd like to add a few:
- When an eBook can be borrowed or sold used, like a dead tree book.
- When there is a standard format, so you don't need to be locked into a single program from a single vendor on a single platform.
- When your eBook can be backed up or survive an OS upgrade.
For me, the biggest disincentive to buying eBooks is that, with current DRM schemes, they're effectively printed on disappearing ink. At least a paper book isn't going to vanish if somebody reads it over my shoulder. And it will still be readable 50 years from now.
Yes. That's the way it was supposed to be, until Creative pulled out their submarine patent on a shadowing technique like Carmack's and threatened to sue over it. Incorporating Creative EAX is sort of a cross-licensing deal. And IMHO, it was a very scummy move on Creative's part.
... dialed into my ISP with Qmodem 4.5, over the 2400-baud internal modem, using lynx.
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020320
This measure is supported by the RIAA but opposed by the tech industry at large. Why does Congress let the tail wag the dog when it comes to copyright legislation? Does Intel just not give enough money to politicians?
Look here, and you'll see that Windows Update has been around (at least) since December 1998, more than a year before the patent was filed. Sure looks like prior art to me.
This is ludicrous. BTG shouldn't be allowed to wait for ten years to enforce their patent, and then sue for past damages. If BTG were being damaged, BTG should have filed suit earlier. This is nothing but a shakedown.
The good thing about it is that if Microsoft gets pissed off about submarine patents, they have the money and political influence to do something about it, like lobby Congress to reform patents. Unless, of course, the perceived benefits of their patent arsenal outweigh the occasional nuisance lawsuit.
Not to mention the ubiquitous yet entirely inadequate Intel "Extreme Graphics" found in nearly all big-name desktops. Even "high-end" systems ship with the barely adequate FX5200. Video card upgrades will be required of almost all stock brand name desktops.
Don't get me wrong--I think the idea that content owners should be able to milk profits from decades-old work done by a deceased person is ludicrous. But it's not nearly as damaging to society and culture as a whole as keeping everything else out of the public domain just to satisfy a few copyright-holding freeloaders.
In other news, Sun's Java SDK isn't perfect, because it doesn't compile J# code properly. But we're not going to fault Internet Explorer for not rendering CSS1 and PNG files properly; nobody uses those anyway.
You can type about:config in Firefox's URL bar to change these preferences while the browser is running.
Still, the salesman was insistent. It started out with discussions like "It'll more than pay for itself if you crack the screen." "That's okay," I replied. "I'll be careful with it."
When the salesman realized he wasn't going to win with that route, he told me it would cover software problems too. "No thanks, I think I can handle those on my own," I said.
He replied, "So what do you do for a living that makes you think you can handle any software problem?"
"Well, I'm a computer programmer, and I worked in tech support for a few years." (I didn't say, although I thought it really loud, that I wouldn't trust their support clowns with a software problem anyway; I can format and restore on my own.)
Anyway, that shut him up. He called in reinforcements, and soon his manager was upon me, repeating the same old arguments. At length I was able to dissuade him, but I had to be rather blunt about it. "Obviously this service plan must be very profitable for you," I said, "or you wouldn't be harassing me about it so much." "No, I don't get a commission." "Then stop bothering me about it. I don't want it."
When they finally managed to dig up the laptop (I swear, it took fifteen minutes) and ring it up, the sales clerk asked me again if I wanted the extended warranty. I told her no, and that was the end of it. Good for them, because if she had bothered me about it, I would have stormed out of the store.