"In the summer of 2001, The MoMI was hit with a cease-and-desist letter from the RIAA for copyright infringement, alleging damages of $150 million to their members. Upon further investigation it was discovered that Microsoft had circumvented The MoMI's copy protection, exposing hidden music files in an "upgrade" to the Windows Media Player, turning secure MoMI performances into downloads."
After which they invented a magic "anti-Stream Ripping provision" which others did not implement, and since:
"The basis for the rate hikes was primarily a result of the webcasting community failing to adopt content control technology that would maintain the integrity of the streamed performance."
It seems that what they are essentially trying to do it to get somebody else to compensate them for the rate hike that they will have to pay "If the Internet Radio Equality Act is to pass", or pressure others to influence the content of the act.
This is really a non-story, and since their issue seems to be with internet radio and stream rippers the inclusion of Apple may be due to their misunderstanding of the technology involved.
And their actual goal:
"The message is clear and simple: if webcasting royalty rates are to be equalized with Satellite or Digital FM broadcasts by passage of The Internet Radio Equality Act, Stream Ripping protection provisions must be added to the Bill before the CRB rates go into effect May 15, 2007."
Making their position no less bizzare, they don't want anyone to buy their technology, just illogical in a different way.
It is the people who run the program that are accessing the Google Earths database, not the author.
It would seem the author is free to do whatever he wants, and it would not matter much if 'you' had a problem with that - he is based in Russia, hence the nice letter from Michael Jones rather than legal threats:)
Having said that, I fully agree that this probably puts Google in breach of their licensing agreements with the data providers, which can only adversely affect the users as well as Google.
It would seem that it's libgefetch that Google have a problem with - specifically the 'authentication' part:/**
* Internal function to authenticate at Google server
*
* Mimics Google Earth's behavior (and uses data actually copypasted
* from tcpdump) - does two HTTP requests and awaits second one to
* contain 80 byte session ID. This SID is stored in gefetch handle
* and used in later requests, giving access to imagery and other data.
*/
However, the 'authentication' (as far as I can see) is not something that would fall under the definition of a secure connection (I accept that it's more 'secure' than the encoded keyhole URLs in maps.google.com) as you would have a hard time arguing that something that is provided over unencrypted HTTP is not a freely accessible resource.
Think of this as Firefox's user agent switcher mimicking IE6's behavior to make IE only sites reply with their content.
Google's licensing agreements are their own, and have nothing to do with third parties - either their agreements say that they can provide unrestricted access to the imagery or they say that the imagery needs to be DRMed to only be accessible inside Google's applications. If the second scenario is in fact the case, then Google solves nothing by having Gaia pulled while keeping their existing connection setup.
45.--(1) Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of parliamentary or judicial proceedings.
(2) Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of reporting such proceedings; but this shall not be construed as authorising the copying of a work which is itself a published report of the proceedings.
I wonder how KDE gets away with a K in their logo then. For different languages the letters are just part of the graphic if they can not interpret them, so it's not a problem.
They were bought by SGI in 1996, then spun off and sold to somebody else, who then renamed themselves Cray once again - so Cray is indeed the supercomputer business. Somewhere along the way their not-so-super computer business was sold off to someone else. And no, it is more than name and reputation, they sell the Cray X1 and had some clustering product coming out, which could be hurt by this departure I guess.
And that's some very interesting logic - if you are not no1, just give up.
"articles from the Onion regularly get picked up and passed along as "real" news stories" - isn't that the problem of those who pick them up and pass them off a real news stories? And wouldn't they be the ones liable since they would no longer be protected by the parody clause?
Your logic is equivalent to saying "images from entertainment being picked up and passed off as actual events", oh, but that does happen (see: Boston Globe). So it's clear where the blame should lie - with anybody except the idiots.
Like a good American he will fully comply with his government's new policy. I mean who would oppose such a measure? By cataloguing those who may be interested in pornography you create a database of potential future offenders - and would you oppose a measure that could protect so many children in the future?
www.booble.com seems to be doing ok though. The laws are there to prevent using a similar name to attempt to 'borrow' from the existing product (Lindows is not OK) but similarities based on a commonly used term are OK (X-Windows (System) is fine).
no, more like "The neigbour can accidently walk across the property line because i have no fence?"
That is the case in the UK - you have the right to roam if there is no fence and/or sign (and sometimes even then) as long as you do not set up camp - your analogy is crap Right to Roam Bill
Somebody should probably mod the parent up - if the background is indeed the same colour yellow as the dots they will either become invisible. Or the printer will leave a circle of white around them - at least making them easier to detect and find out if your printer leaves the watermark.
The fundamental genetic algorithm and neural net research is quite interesting and has great potential. Most applications, like this, probably do not - it is very easy to get results out of a genetic algorithm (like already mentioned it's like brute force, but a bit 'smarter'). This is probably the reason we keep on hearing about the applications - it sounds good.
The way a lot of genetic algorithm applications are approached it also seems that there is great potential for overfitting - remember that since it's non linear you will be a lot more likely to overfit.
"3. See/Hear - View and control up to five unique BMW playlists and virtually endless miles of music. Your iPod adapter simulates the CD changer function in your audio system, allowing you to move between and view track numbers in up to five BMW playlists."
And specific playlists are required as well, from the description on the Apple page it seems to be a hack of the CD changer, as somebody already pointed out this has already been done by a 3rd party product, rather than new functionality (more coming in revision 2 if this catches on?).
Overall seems like the two companies testing the waters, nice to see Apple and BMW working together though - both great products.
Yep, and this will also give the name to the next video format that's going to be used extensively for video piracy (remember DivX anyone?)
Actually I'm surprised, no-one has mentioned Circuit City's DivX, which was essentially the same, and went nowhere (maybe they should have learned?)...
Yes, they are, since it's been said numerous times by the RIAA (the only ones likely to bring up an argument like that) that it's the LICENSE that you are buying, not the physical object (CD, otherwise there couldn't be the broadcast/use restrictions attached could there?). From that it's clear that it doesn't truly matter what the license is attached to, and so the bits (again, if you want to bring up the argument that it's not the 'exact' same bits, then there is a similar quantum physics argument for the CD) I import are the same as importing a physical CD.
Actually it is. RIAA is not a world wide organization (...of America will point you to this), it only has ANY relevance in the US, what gives them their 'legal' status is a Russian RIAA (you can read the legal international agreements from the 80's/90's, after USSR's fall, which do actually give them the right to represent western artists). So yes it is legal in Russia (else it would have been shut down THERE, no? - there are laws and even traces of civilization in other places than the US, as hard as that may be to believe).
RIAA only governs music in the US, if you buy the music elsewhere and then import it for personal use it's all ok as long as you acquired it legally (and you have, according to Russian law, which is what's relevant here).
First: and read this carefully, it is NOT illegal, it's as legal as me going to Russia buying legal CD's there and bringing them back (want to bring up that it's a copy? fine, it's encoded for you specifically and so isn't. want to bring up that it's not the same bits? fine, do you want to discuss the quantum physics of a physical CD as well then?).
Second: immoral, well it's globalization for the consumer's benefit, and don't tell me about the artists getting screwed, I'll worry about that when all artists worry about me getting screwed by an organization a lot of them fund.
Maybe we should have 'fair trade' CD's, like the coffee, which are sold by the artists directly:)
Better yet, for some reason some artist's pages have the prices in dollars. Which poses the question of whether the same catalogue will ultimately be available everywhere, and if not how (if at all) will the tracks not available to you locally show up.
Also, I'm seeing a lot of 99 pence tracks out there... just saying.
Re:HOW expensive again? Check out allofmp3.com
on
iTunes Europe Goes Live
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Seriously, don't worry so much. If you are afraid that "men in dark suits" will visit you after "downloading 100 songs" you clearly have problems and should probably seek professional help...
It seems it's a legal loophole project which relies on the fact that you can broadcast (since they got the license) music that you legally own (so what happens when I transfer over my collection from Kazzaa? - who is liable?). There seems to be little useful technology as such. And it's not anonymous, so basically 1st (can't really do multiple sources for broadcasting of things you own and so ripped yourself, can you?) p2p with a an IM/etc. layer tagged on.
And if it catches on there will likely be a patch so save the streams... bringing on a lawsuit or continuos updates/kracks.
Slashdot Mirror
From http://ewatch.prnewswire.com/rs/display.jsp?a=3070 2-309198409-850566157&key=D|136206|S|0|x|309198409 (linked to from http://www.mediarightstech.com/ ), the issue is BlueBeat.com an internet radio station (which is owned by the same people as MRT), and the increase in fees due to the Internet Radio Equality Act (which they think should not apply to them).
It all started when:
"In the summer of 2001, The MoMI was hit with a cease-and-desist letter
from the RIAA for copyright infringement, alleging damages of $150 million
to their members. Upon further investigation it was discovered that
Microsoft had circumvented The MoMI's copy protection, exposing hidden
music files in an "upgrade" to the Windows Media Player, turning secure
MoMI performances into downloads."
After which they invented a magic "anti-Stream Ripping provision" which others did not implement, and since:
"The basis for the rate hikes was primarily a result of the webcasting
community failing to adopt content control technology that would maintain
the integrity of the streamed performance."
It seems that what they are essentially trying to do it to get somebody else to compensate them for the rate hike that they will have to pay "If the Internet Radio Equality Act is to pass", or pressure others to influence the content of the act.
This is really a non-story, and since their issue seems to be with internet radio and stream rippers the inclusion of Apple may be due to their misunderstanding of the technology involved.
And their actual goal:
"The message is clear and simple: if webcasting royalty rates are to be
equalized with Satellite or Digital FM broadcasts by passage of The
Internet Radio Equality Act, Stream Ripping protection provisions must be
added to the Bill before the CRB rates go into effect May 15, 2007."
Making their position no less bizzare, they don't want anyone to buy their technology, just illogical in a different way.
It is the people who run the program that are accessing the Google Earths database, not the author. It would seem the author is free to do whatever he wants, and it would not matter much if 'you' had a problem with that - he is based in Russia, hence the nice letter from Michael Jones rather than legal threats :)
Having said that, I fully agree that this probably puts Google in breach of their licensing agreements with the data providers, which can only adversely affect the users as well as Google.
It would seem that it's libgefetch that Google have a problem with - specifically the 'authentication' part: /**
* Internal function to authenticate at Google server
*
* Mimics Google Earth's behavior (and uses data actually copypasted
* from tcpdump) - does two HTTP requests and awaits second one to
* contain 80 byte session ID. This SID is stored in gefetch handle
* and used in later requests, giving access to imagery and other data.
*/
However, the 'authentication' (as far as I can see) is not something that would fall under the definition of a secure connection (I accept that it's more 'secure' than the encoded keyhole URLs in maps.google.com) as you would have a hard time arguing that something that is provided over unencrypted HTTP is not a freely accessible resource.
Think of this as Firefox's user agent switcher mimicking IE6's behavior to make IE only sites reply with their content.
Google's licensing agreements are their own, and have nothing to do with third parties - either their agreements say that they can provide unrestricted access to the imagery or they say that the imagery needs to be DRMed to only be accessible inside Google's applications. If the second scenario is in fact the case, then Google solves nothing by having Gaia pulled while keeping their existing connection setup.
Not can it only be played to the court, but a recording of the court proceedings, with the song in the background, can be re-broadcast:
4 8_en_1.htm
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_198800
Parliamentary and judicial proceedings.
45.--(1) Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of parliamentary or judicial proceedings.
(2) Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of reporting such proceedings; but this shall not be construed as authorising the copying of a work which is itself a published report of the proceedings.
I wonder how KDE gets away with a K in their logo then. For different languages the letters are just part of the graphic if they can not interpret them, so it's not a problem.
They were bought by SGI in 1996, then spun off and sold to somebody else, who then renamed themselves Cray once again - so Cray is indeed the supercomputer business. Somewhere along the way their not-so-super computer business was sold off to someone else. And no, it is more than name and reputation, they sell the Cray X1 and had some clustering product coming out, which could be hurt by this departure I guess.
And that's some very interesting logic - if you are not no1, just give up.
And by your logic if you live for longer than 70 years you are likely to be murdered twice!
1 - (1 - 0.007)^70 = 38.8% is the figure you are looking for assults which can reoccur.
and less than 0.279% for murders (which can't)
And that's over your 70 year lifetime
IRC: Where men are men, women are men and children are FBI agents
"articles from the Onion regularly get picked up and passed along as "real" news stories" - isn't that the problem of those who pick them up and pass them off a real news stories? And wouldn't they be the ones liable since they would no longer be protected by the parody clause?
Your logic is equivalent to saying "images from entertainment being picked up and passed off as actual events", oh, but that does happen (see: Boston Globe). So it's clear where the blame should lie - with anybody except the idiots.
Like a good American he will fully comply with his government's new policy. I mean who would oppose such a measure? By cataloguing those who may be interested in pornography you create a database of potential future offenders - and would you oppose a measure that could protect so many children in the future?
www.booble.com seems to be doing ok though. The laws are there to prevent using a similar name to attempt to 'borrow' from the existing product (Lindows is not OK) but similarities based on a commonly used term are OK (X-Windows (System) is fine).
No, could use somehting like this Kinetic watch
no, more like "The neigbour can accidently walk across the property line because i have no fence?"
That is the case in the UK - you have the right to roam if there is no fence and/or sign (and sometimes even then) as long as you do not set up camp - your analogy is crap Right to Roam Bill
Somebody should probably mod the parent up - if the background is indeed the same colour yellow as the dots they will either become invisible. Or the printer will leave a circle of white around them - at least making them easier to detect and find out if your printer leaves the watermark.
The fundamental genetic algorithm and neural net research is quite interesting and has great potential. Most applications, like this, probably do not - it is very easy to get results out of a genetic algorithm (like already mentioned it's like brute force, but a bit 'smarter'). This is probably the reason we keep on hearing about the applications - it sounds good.
The way a lot of genetic algorithm applications are approached it also seems that there is great potential for overfitting - remember that since it's non linear you will be a lot more likely to overfit.
No, just the track number:
"3. See/Hear - View and control up to five unique BMW playlists and virtually endless miles of music. Your iPod adapter simulates the CD changer function in your audio system, allowing you to move between and view track numbers in up to five BMW playlists."
And specific playlists are required as well, from the description on the Apple page it seems to be a hack of the CD changer, as somebody already pointed out this has already been done by a 3rd party product, rather than new functionality (more coming in revision 2 if this catches on?).
Overall seems like the two companies testing the waters, nice to see Apple and BMW working together though - both great products.
Hmm, racing games on the cell phone...
:)
better yet GTA
Yep, and this will also give the name to the next video format that's going to be used extensively for video piracy (remember DivX anyone?)
Actually I'm surprised, no-one has mentioned Circuit City's DivX, which was essentially the same, and went nowhere (maybe they should have learned?)...
Yes, they are, since it's been said numerous times by the RIAA (the only ones likely to bring up an argument like that) that it's the LICENSE that you are buying, not the physical object (CD, otherwise there couldn't be the broadcast/use restrictions attached could there?). From that it's clear that it doesn't truly matter what the license is attached to, and so the bits (again, if you want to bring up the argument that it's not the 'exact' same bits, then there is a similar quantum physics argument for the CD) I import are the same as importing a physical CD.
Actually it is. RIAA is not a world wide organization (...of America will point you to this), it only has ANY relevance in the US, what gives them their 'legal' status is a Russian RIAA (you can read the legal international agreements from the 80's/90's, after USSR's fall, which do actually give them the right to represent western artists). So yes it is legal in Russia (else it would have been shut down THERE, no? - there are laws and even traces of civilization in other places than the US, as hard as that may be to believe).
RIAA only governs music in the US, if you buy the music elsewhere and then import it for personal use it's all ok as long as you acquired it legally (and you have, according to Russian law, which is what's relevant here).
Please, get off your moral high horse.
:)
First: and read this carefully, it is NOT illegal, it's as legal as me going to Russia buying legal CD's there and bringing them back (want to bring up that it's a copy? fine, it's encoded for you specifically and so isn't. want to bring up that it's not the same bits? fine, do you want to discuss the quantum physics of a physical CD as well then?).
Second: immoral, well it's globalization for the consumer's benefit, and don't tell me about the artists getting screwed, I'll worry about that when all artists worry about me getting screwed by an organization a lot of them fund.
Maybe we should have 'fair trade' CD's, like the coffee, which are sold by the artists directly
Better yet, for some reason some artist's pages have the prices in dollars. Which poses the question of whether the same catalogue will ultimately be available everywhere, and if not how (if at all) will the tracks not available to you locally show up.
Also, I'm seeing a lot of 99 pence tracks out there... just saying.
Seriously, don't worry so much. If you are afraid that "men in dark suits" will visit you after "downloading 100 songs" you clearly have problems and should probably seek professional help...
It seems it's a legal loophole project which relies on the fact that you can broadcast (since they got the license) music that you legally own (so what happens when I transfer over my collection from Kazzaa? - who is liable?). There seems to be little useful technology as such. And it's not anonymous, so basically 1st (can't really do multiple sources for broadcasting of things you own and so ripped yourself, can you?) p2p with a an IM/etc. layer tagged on.
And if it catches on there will likely be a patch so save the streams... bringing on a lawsuit or continuos updates/kracks.
Did anybody (rio guy, poster?) at least bother to google this? iPods CAN play ogg: (ok under Linux) and not far out of alpha it seems.
So if somebody managed to get ogg to decode after loading up linux on an iPod, which is not exactly well documented hardware, Apple would not be?