Unless of course the stupidity was in the election manifesto, when the Lords wont overrule it, or if the House of Commons decide they don't want the Lords to overrule it, when they will go and use the Parlament Act.
I think the 'replicators' over complicates the argument - if someone buys a table, then makes an exact identical copy of the table, manually, from a piece of wood they have - is that a problem? The law says yes, if the table was copyrighted. We're not allowed to make exact products of tangible products, so at least the argument agaisnt music piracy is consistant. The problem is the ease with which the music/data can be copied, which I think makes the argument one of 'Should we be allowed to do something which is incredibly easy to do?'.
Of course its legal - if you signed an agreement with your plumber to let him snoop about your house, copy your documents and report back to who ever he likes, he is perfectly entitled to do it. If you didn't like it, don't hire him. Blizzard seek permission in their Terms and Conditions. Not their problem if people don't actually bother to read it.
Hey, if you were a horse and didn't want to be in it, then surely you'd just 'not perform'? Not much you can do to stop a horse leaving if it wants to... Will dogs humping peoples legs when they're trying to watch TV be 'devient'? Its kind of bestiality...
At the risk of being well and truly flamed, why does this matter? A business is not, and never has been, an ethical concern. They make money for shareholders. Most shares end up being held by pension companies and other saving vehicles. We use said saving vehicles to get our % interest on our savings/pensions.
That is all these companies do. That is there only function. There is no moral or ethical purpose to them, and as such condemning them for compromising 'freedom' is irrelevant. The use a trite saying, the business of business is business. Freedom and ethics are for the politicans and the voters to decide on. Don't criticise Yahoo for maing money - that is there sole purpose. Criticise the governments, they are the ethical controllers. It never has and never will be the scope of business to be some kind of moral barometer.
So Yahoo sold a guy out who used their email systems? Just doing what they have to do to make money and fulfill their purpose. Blame rests on the country that forces companies to do this, not the companies that do it.
Surely there is a major risk the BBC is exposing itself to here... if the trial is successful, and the BBC decides to go 'on demand', who will need a TV anymore? If people can just download a program, then they don't need a TV to watch it. If people stop needing TV's, then no licence fee is payable in the UK, and the BBC stops receiving most of its money.
How would the BBC solve this? Argue for a PC Licence?!? This would be very untenable as a PC has so many more uses then a TV. Would the BBC website become a members only pay site, and then be in breach of its charter?
I think I can remember reading something about the use of the laser initially would not be to protect the 747 carrying it, but to protect other aircraft in the area. Sort of like how one AWAC covers a battlefield, one 747 could cover a battlefield destroying all enemy missiles.
Of course, with the increase in terrorist threats (and I'm from the UK where we keep having scares about missiles being fired at passenger planes flying out of London) there seems to be an increasingly valid non-military use.
But the technological leap required to make a movie is the ability to show those sequences of frames quickly and seamlessly - not the actual stills themselves.
How is this 'prior art'? Its a series of stills which were put together into movie form only very recently. The stills themselves do not make up a film, and never were a film at the date they were taken.
Now whether there are any copyright issues may be another question...
Re:Are the real logisitics of this being considere
on
Listen to the Sky
·
· Score: 1
(Apart from being a cynical money making exercise.)
And the event would be making money how? Its free for the public to attend, and is funded by The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology.
Surely the point is something is much more simple... its something which will look nice and intrigue people by being unusual.
The 60 minutes would probably be just the oral submission. There would be bucketloads of documents to back up their oral submission, as well as purely documentary evidence itself. Its this paperwork that really chews up the time getting through.
Isn't it British? If you want a good Australian movie, how about Priscilla Queen of the Desert? And as for Japanese films - anyone seen Tetsuo Iron Man? Didn't it scare the hell out of you?
Somehow I think the problem is that the ruling elite in India could give a shit less about poor people starving.
Which is exactly my point. If the ruling elite don't care, and the social welfare progams leave a lot to be desired, then surely one of the best solutions to the problem is the give decent jobs to the people so they're not reliant on goodwill from those in charge.
As far as I'm aware, solicitors and lawyers have yet to be outsourced to India from the UK - its only the support staff that are currently being shifted (I think the firm Allen & Overy were the latest to do this).
Whether actual laywers will be outsourced is tricky - a lot of contentious work means actually meeting clients and going to Court, so that will probably never be moved. But for simple drafting of documents? The future looks bleak.
Which is exactly what the people in India are doing - in a country with a much higher level of poverty and poor social security. Being unemployed in the USA doesn't mean that you're about to starve to death. In India it may well do. So the outsourcing of jobs to India is a method of injecting money and jobs into an economy that needs it more then the USA
Sounds like a very practical approach by the patent office to me.
If the Patent Office don't understand a patent (and the limited resources of the Patent Office coupled with the complexity of many patents means this can be expected to happen sometimes) then the best approach would be to allow a patent. It would only become contentious if there is a problem with it, where it will be examined by much more qualified experts before deciding its validity. Uncontentious patents would be granted without the time and expense of having to thoroughly research them. Refusing patents on the grounds of 'not understanding them' would be a massive blow to many industries by preventing all the valid but complex patents (which are often the most important) from being allowed.
The greatest problem with patents at the moment is not necessarily how the work or are administered, but the length of time they are valid. 20 years is an especially inappropiate length of time for a patent in IT and other rapidly developing areas. A much reduced length of time (1 to 2 years) would solve many of these problems - i.e. provide enough incentive to get a head start in a market, yet the information would enter the public domain to prevent many of the crazy and disproportionate actions that keep popping up.
For years, Ford had to pay a different company for a patent on the internal combustion engine. They literally had to wait for the patent to run out!
I think that highlights perhaps the great advantage and biggest problem with patents - at least the information eventually became freely available instead of remaining a trade secret... the problem with patents is that their time periods are grossly inappropriate in many circumstances. Would there be such a problem with software patents if they were allowed for only 1 year? Probably not, and I would argue that a year is still long enough to get a sizeable profit/advantage over the competition with them.
One solution to the problem with patents, as far as I'm concerned, is a modification in how long certain media/material can be patented, rather then radical reform of what can be patented.
Let's see, inventors in the third world working to try and develop new ways of purifying water or meeting other basic human needs; Open source developers (ok, I know there are problems with software patents...); I could list more, but the reasons people invent is much greater then just for financial returns.
There is still a very large majority of people who are happy to work on things for the sense of improving others lives or simply the sense of achievment a creative act brings.
It would probably depend on the terms of the agreement with the marketing companies. If the agreement was simply to 'promote the company' then the seller should be fine, as the contract would be subject to an implied term that it should 'promote the company legally'. If the agreement made express reference to the use of spam, then presumably the selling company would be liable.
The problem would be that the Do Not Spam List would only apply in the country that implemented it, and would presumably have to be public so people know who not to spam.
Anyone outside that particular country would then have a readily available list of valid email address to use for whatever purposes they like.
It would only seem to work if it was a global measure (never going to happen) or was a secret list.
All I want to know is... when is Sonique V.2 going to be finished, and is it going to suffer from the horrible syndrome of trying to be a general video/media player instead of simply an audioplayer which killed Winamp for me?
And its immune to the latest crop of worms that are flying about at the moment. On the network I use everyone with newer versions of Windows is infected about every 2 minutes until they manage to get patched, while I sit happy with old 98:)
Re:To me, "ISP" is much more narrower.
on
Who Is An ISP?
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Unless of course the stupidity was in the election manifesto, when the Lords wont overrule it, or if the House of Commons decide they don't want the Lords to overrule it, when they will go and use the Parlament Act.
The design can be, and often is - and that is what you're copying if you are making an identical copy.
I think the 'replicators' over complicates the argument - if someone buys a table, then makes an exact identical copy of the table, manually, from a piece of wood they have - is that a problem? The law says yes, if the table was copyrighted. We're not allowed to make exact products of tangible products, so at least the argument agaisnt music piracy is consistant. The problem is the ease with which the music/data can be copied, which I think makes the argument one of 'Should we be allowed to do something which is incredibly easy to do?'.
Of course its legal - if you signed an agreement with your plumber to let him snoop about your house, copy your documents and report back to who ever he likes, he is perfectly entitled to do it. If you didn't like it, don't hire him. Blizzard seek permission in their Terms and Conditions. Not their problem if people don't actually bother to read it.
Hey, if you were a horse and didn't want to be in it, then surely you'd just 'not perform'? Not much you can do to stop a horse leaving if it wants to...
Will dogs humping peoples legs when they're trying to watch TV be 'devient'? Its kind of bestiality...
At the risk of being well and truly flamed, why does this matter? A business is not, and never has been, an ethical concern. They make money for shareholders. Most shares end up being held by pension companies and other saving vehicles. We use said saving vehicles to get our % interest on our savings/pensions. That is all these companies do. That is there only function. There is no moral or ethical purpose to them, and as such condemning them for compromising 'freedom' is irrelevant. The use a trite saying, the business of business is business. Freedom and ethics are for the politicans and the voters to decide on. Don't criticise Yahoo for maing money - that is there sole purpose. Criticise the governments, they are the ethical controllers. It never has and never will be the scope of business to be some kind of moral barometer. So Yahoo sold a guy out who used their email systems? Just doing what they have to do to make money and fulfill their purpose. Blame rests on the country that forces companies to do this, not the companies that do it.
Surely there is a major risk the BBC is exposing itself to here... if the trial is successful, and the BBC decides to go 'on demand', who will need a TV anymore? If people can just download a program, then they don't need a TV to watch it. If people stop needing TV's, then no licence fee is payable in the UK, and the BBC stops receiving most of its money.
How would the BBC solve this? Argue for a PC Licence?!? This would be very untenable as a PC has so many more uses then a TV.
Would the BBC website become a members only pay site, and then be in breach of its charter?
I think I can remember reading something about the use of the laser initially would not be to protect the 747 carrying it, but to protect other aircraft in the area. Sort of like how one AWAC covers a battlefield, one 747 could cover a battlefield destroying all enemy missiles.
Of course, with the increase in terrorist threats (and I'm from the UK where we keep having scares about missiles being fired at passenger planes flying out of London) there seems to be an increasingly valid non-military use.
But the technological leap required to make a movie is the ability to show those sequences of frames quickly and seamlessly - not the actual stills themselves.
How is this 'prior art'? Its a series of stills which were put together into movie form only very recently. The stills themselves do not make up a film, and never were a film at the date they were taken.
Now whether there are any copyright issues may be another question...
(Apart from being a cynical money making exercise.)
And the event would be making money how? Its free for the public to attend, and is funded by The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology.
Surely the point is something is much more simple... its something which will look nice and intrigue people by being unusual.
The 60 minutes would probably be just the oral submission. There would be bucketloads of documents to back up their oral submission, as well as purely documentary evidence itself. Its this paperwork that really chews up the time getting through.
Aussie: lock stock and two smoking barrels
Isn't it British? If you want a good Australian movie, how about Priscilla Queen of the Desert?
And as for Japanese films - anyone seen Tetsuo Iron Man? Didn't it scare the hell out of you?
Somehow I think the problem is that the ruling elite in India could give a shit less about poor people starving.
Which is exactly my point. If the ruling elite don't care, and the social welfare progams leave a lot to be desired, then surely one of the best solutions to the problem is the give decent jobs to the people so they're not reliant on goodwill from those in charge.
As far as I'm aware, solicitors and lawyers have yet to be outsourced to India from the UK - its only the support staff that are currently being shifted (I think the firm Allen & Overy were the latest to do this). Whether actual laywers will be outsourced is tricky - a lot of contentious work means actually meeting clients and going to Court, so that will probably never be moved. But for simple drafting of documents? The future looks bleak.
We're trying to feed our kids right now.
Which is exactly what the people in India are doing - in a country with a much higher level of poverty and poor social security.
Being unemployed in the USA doesn't mean that you're about to starve to death. In India it may well do. So the outsourcing of jobs to India is a method of injecting money and jobs into an economy that needs it more then the USA
Sounds like a very practical approach by the patent office to me.
If the Patent Office don't understand a patent (and the limited resources of the Patent Office coupled with the complexity of many patents means this can be expected to happen sometimes) then the best approach would be to allow a patent.
It would only become contentious if there is a problem with it, where it will be examined by much more qualified experts before deciding its validity. Uncontentious patents would be granted without the time and expense of having to thoroughly research them.
Refusing patents on the grounds of 'not understanding them' would be a massive blow to many industries by preventing all the valid but complex patents (which are often the most important) from being allowed.
The greatest problem with patents at the moment is not necessarily how the work or are administered, but the length of time they are valid. 20 years is an especially inappropiate length of time for a patent in IT and other rapidly developing areas. A much reduced length of time (1 to 2 years) would solve many of these problems - i.e. provide enough incentive to get a head start in a market, yet the information would enter the public domain to prevent many of the crazy and disproportionate actions that keep popping up.
For years, Ford had to pay a different company for a patent on the internal combustion engine. They literally had to wait for the patent to run out!
I think that highlights perhaps the great advantage and biggest problem with patents - at least the information eventually became freely available instead of remaining a trade secret... the problem with patents is that their time periods are grossly inappropriate in many circumstances. Would there be such a problem with software patents if they were allowed for only 1 year? Probably not, and I would argue that a year is still long enough to get a sizeable profit/advantage over the competition with them.
One solution to the problem with patents, as far as I'm concerned, is a modification in how long certain media/material can be patented, rather then radical reform of what can be patented.
Let's see, inventors in the third world working to try and develop new ways of purifying water or meeting other basic human needs; Open source developers (ok, I know there are problems with software patents...); I could list more, but the reasons people invent is much greater then just for financial returns.
There is still a very large majority of people who are happy to work on things for the sense of improving others lives or simply the sense of achievment a creative act brings.
It would probably depend on the terms of the agreement with the marketing companies. If the agreement was simply to 'promote the company' then the seller should be fine, as the contract would be subject to an implied term that it should 'promote the company legally'. If the agreement made express reference to the use of spam, then presumably the selling company would be liable.
The problem would be that the Do Not Spam List would only apply in the country that implemented it, and would presumably have to be public so people know who not to spam.
Anyone outside that particular country would then have a readily available list of valid email address to use for whatever purposes they like.
It would only seem to work if it was a global measure (never going to happen) or was a secret list.
Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a prostitute? A: A prostitute will stop screwing you when you're dead
All I want to know is... when is Sonique V.2 going to be finished, and is it going to suffer from the horrible syndrome of trying to be a general video/media player instead of simply an audioplayer which killed Winamp for me?
And its immune to the latest crop of worms that are flying about at the moment. On the network I use everyone with newer versions of Windows is infected about every 2 minutes until they manage to get patched, while I sit happy with old 98 :)
that's definitly a good point but you have to