Dear god, you actually trust the media to report the news? Maybe 30 years ago, yeah, but today? Most newswires are in too much of a hurry to be first to bother with being accurate.
I'd sooner trust an AC slashdot posting than most of the slanted, innacurate, or outright fabricated crap that comes out of the media these days. I guess that if you have the time to google for a couple hundred sources for a given story, you might get something approximating the whole picture, and a fair rendition of the news...
Hey, I have nothing against ditching the CIA (as it currently exists), but what would you replace it with...what should that kind of agency actually *do* day-to-day?
Very interesting quote: "There's a lot that goes into the retail price - VAT, retailer's cut, distribution costs, advertising and other marketing costs, producers' fees and studio time, not to mention the artists and songwriters who need to be paid" - so apart from the non-negotiable VAT, Mr Munn fully accepts that the record industry's current business model is unsustainable, with (I am left to assume)inflated fees and profit margins. And, of course, he would like the consumer to subsidise this clearly flawed business structure.
Ant K, GB
So what about a "look ahead carry" algorithm in a microcontroller?
Not algorithm, circuit...
That was a pure algorithm embedded within circuitry. It was tied to a physical device. It was patentable. It was not considered software at the time of its development.
That was an implementation of a circuit in hardware...the circuit is the reason for the patent, not the algorithm by itself. Yes, patentable (the circuit makes it so).
What about the whole realm of likewise "logic" (alogorithms) in the semiconductor industry?
Again, it's the circuits and the particular implementations that are special, not the logic behind them, otherwise we'd only have intel making chipsets for Pentiums (for example). Yes, particular circuits are patentable, although there may be other implementations of the same circuit that do the same task, but do not infringe on the patent.
What about a different algorithm in a chemical process producing a different material? What if only the algorithm is changed? no changes elsewhere?
Manufacturing processes for chemicals are pretty obviously not related to software. Software may control a piece of machinery, and a particular process may be coded into some software, but the software is not the process. Yes, patentable (the entire process is).
What about differing an algorithm (no physical change to rest of device) for an MRI that produces a different image (different chemicals on a piece of film)?
In this case, there might be an original patent for the MRI equipment/software covering generation of a specific type of image (or a number of types), but unless something fundamental changed about the machine, an enhancement is just an enhancement. You have no new output, just a new interpretation of that output. No, not patentable (the new algorithm).
They sould not be patentable because they are expressions and not utility?
They should not be patentable because on their own, they add nothing of value. You and I could both (probably) create a piece of software to calculate the value of 2+2...obviousness comes into play here. Do you think our implementations would be radically different? Should I be allowed to patent a piece of C code for that bit of math?
One or both of us might also be able to create a small machine that could calculate the value of 2+2. Do you think our implementations would be radically different?
They are not patentable unless the logic is burned into circuitry instead of stored in ram as charged particles?
They are not patentable unless they represent a physical solution to a problem. Software has copyright, hardware has patent (basically...I know there are nits to pick there).
Are you saying they are not patentable because they were trivial at the time of conception?
Their triviality has nothing to do with it, unless you take my 2+2 example. Software has no physical substance by itself. Can't patent an idea, only a process or machine.
Are you saying that innovation in any sort of machine that does not consist of algorithm refinement of its controller/processing software should be encourage via IP protection but any sort otherwise should not? If you are saying this then you are excluding then bulk of potential innovation in these technologies from patent protection.
patents are not the ONLY form of IP protection. Intellectual Property is a catchall used to refer to ideas, methods, procedures, and machines. Trade secrets, copyright, and patents are all different ways of protecting different kinds of "IP". Saying this DEFINITELY excludes a lot of innovative ideas from patent protection, and rightly so. There are better ways to protect them that make more sense.
It IS simple to distinguish between patentable and unpatentable innovations. You just don't throw a patent blanket over all of them.
Well, them not knowing doesn't make it legal any more than downloading MP3's that you don't already own in another form is legal. I would say search and seizure and a quick listening to your copied CD's would tell them...a bit too much work to be worth it, I imagine, though.
Not to mention the fact that this same method can be easily applied to the small-time artists you mentioned, too. Taking a bite out of their wallets seems pretty low, IMHO.
Is it legal to retain a fair-use copy if you sell the original? I'm not trying to get a rise out of you, I just haven't ever heard this scenario discussed before. It sounds obvious, but it had never occurred to me as something to do before you mentioned it
And I fully support that. The thing is, you can't buy a used copy of a new CD (in most cases), and that's what the RIAA makes money on (duh).
Using the internet to hype musicians that haven't made it yet is a great thing too, but it has a problem. The RIAA's members spend unbelievable sums of money to promote the artists that they think they can make the most money off of. They're good at it, and they have managed to stack the deck pretty well in their favor (just investigate who controls the top-40 stations in any given city).
They promote the artists, advertise them, merchandise them, overplay their music until people get used to it and decide it's good, and then send them on tour so they can squeeze a bit more money out in ticket sales.
THAT is a pretty efficient money-making scheme, and it helps to keep most small labels and most talented but unknown artists (at least those that aren't a sure bet) off the air and away from the money.
Buying used CD's is a good step, albeit a small one in fighting this. Figure out how to battle the big Labels' advertising machines, and we might make some real headway.
The main problem about these discussions (and I'm as guilty in this as any other slashdotter) is that we get so caught up in being (rightfully) pissed at the price-gouging bee-atches at the RIAA, that we forget that most people don't do the following:
a) read slashdot and have the benefit of all this occasionally thoughtful discussion
b)think about much other than "DAMN!!! Christina Aguilera is HOT!"
(feel free to substitute the pop idol of your choice in b. above...christina does it for me, personally)
That said, there appears to be a market for overpriced CD's. Probably not as much of a market as there once was, but a market nonetheless.
In my personal perfect world, I'd hope for the following: If they knocked, say, $5.00 off the price of the average CD (make 'em an even $10.00 and I'd be happy) and went to a higher-quality, more data-hungry format, they might accomplish something.
They'd make average consumers happy on price, and audiophiles happy on quality, while making it more of a pain in the ass to download your favorite song in all of its nice, high-quality, multichannel, holographic, blah, features, glory.
They're not doing that now, which is irritating a lot of people, but that doesn't mean they're not making plenty of money, just that they're not making as much as they'd like. Don't count on the RIAA going away while there's a commercial radio station in your neighborhood that plays top 40 "hits".
I guess they should have called it the "Thunder Road"...although, from last year's commercials, it looks like at least they got to meet the aliens (these are all references to the movie "Explorers" for those who didn't note the similarities...)
Yeah, NTFS permissions are *really* handy...unless you mount an NTFS partition (read-only, of course) on Linux (or something else) and copy the files.
We're talking about file security when the document specifically *can* be copied, and the only way to accomplish that is to use a proprietary (ugh), non-human-readable (ugh, at least to me for documents), application-bound, centrally-authenticated document management system. All of which sucks, IMHO.
If it's supposed to be distributable and secret or subject to "rights" management then it probably shouldn't be in electronic format.
IIRC, Gartner said that we'd all be using NT now, and Linux would be nowhere.
Well, they're about half right, depending on how many people using Windows XP qualifies as "all" in that statement.
They evidently didn't anticipate the vast improvements that happened in Windows *or* linux (hey, windows XP crashes less than windows 95, that's an improvement).
Not always. America Online has a transparent caching proxy in place that handles all outgoing port 80 connections. I don't know if it's been fixed, but it used to have extremely stale pages in its cache.
...and probably doesn't cache.rdf,.rss,.asp, or.php files (since they're dynamic), one of which is the likely extension of your newsfeed. If you are stuck with AOL, and you notice that it is caching dynamic content, your most obvious recourse is to choose an ISP that doesn't do so.
Actually, it is a defense, for the same reason that, if I came on to your land, passed all the no trespassing signs, broke into your house, and then hurt myself, I could still sue you for having an unsafe environment. My having read the signs, and even committing an illegal act, does not remove your liability in this case.
That is a statement that I really, really, really wish wasn't true. I believe (this is from overhearing bits of conversation with people older than myself) that there was a time when personal responsibility trumped litigation and criminal stupidity...<sigh>...sometimes the good old days seem like they may, in fact, have been as good as they seemed (sorry, Mr. Joel...had to borrow that one).
Is it just me, or does anyone else occasionally feel like running to Utah and twisting Darl's balls off after reading some of the articles that he's quoted in?
"The linux community is splitting hairs"
For the love of god, please, somebody give him a solid-gold 5-iron and point him towards a lightning-prone golf course.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, so there are...I've gotten so used to ignoring them (the sponsored links), that Terminix didn't even come up on my radar.
I'd sooner trust an AC slashdot posting than most of the slanted, innacurate, or outright fabricated crap that comes out of the media these days. I guess that if you have the time to google for a couple hundred sources for a given story, you might get something approximating the whole picture, and a fair rendition of the news...
Hey, I have nothing against ditching the CIA (as it currently exists), but what would you replace it with...what should that kind of agency actually *do* day-to-day?
need to change your tagline...that search returns no results now.
Stranger wasn't sci-fi, it was political satire, but it was a damn good book anyway. I've always been partial to Friday, myself. She kicked ass.
Hmm...somehow your remark didn't get modded "Troll"... ;)
Thay says it all, for me.
Not algorithm, circuit...
That was a pure algorithm embedded within circuitry. It was tied to a physical device. It was patentable. It was not considered software at the time of its development.
That was an implementation of a circuit in hardware...the circuit is the reason for the patent, not the algorithm by itself. Yes, patentable (the circuit makes it so).
What about the whole realm of likewise "logic" (alogorithms) in the semiconductor industry?
Again, it's the circuits and the particular implementations that are special, not the logic behind them, otherwise we'd only have intel making chipsets for Pentiums (for example). Yes, particular circuits are patentable, although there may be other implementations of the same circuit that do the same task, but do not infringe on the patent.
What about a different algorithm in a chemical process producing a different material? What if only the algorithm is changed? no changes elsewhere?
Manufacturing processes for chemicals are pretty obviously not related to software. Software may control a piece of machinery, and a particular process may be coded into some software, but the software is not the process. Yes, patentable (the entire process is).
What about differing an algorithm (no physical change to rest of device) for an MRI that produces a different image (different chemicals on a piece of film)?
In this case, there might be an original patent for the MRI equipment/software covering generation of a specific type of image (or a number of types), but unless something fundamental changed about the machine, an enhancement is just an enhancement. You have no new output, just a new interpretation of that output. No, not patentable (the new algorithm).
They sould not be patentable because they are expressions and not utility?
They should not be patentable because on their own, they add nothing of value. You and I could both (probably) create a piece of software to calculate the value of 2+2...obviousness comes into play here. Do you think our implementations would be radically different? Should I be allowed to patent a piece of C code for that bit of math?
One or both of us might also be able to create a small machine that could calculate the value of 2+2. Do you think our implementations would be radically different?
They are not patentable unless the logic is burned into circuitry instead of stored in ram as charged particles?
They are not patentable unless they represent a physical solution to a problem. Software has copyright, hardware has patent (basically...I know there are nits to pick there).
Are you saying they are not patentable because they were trivial at the time of conception?
Their triviality has nothing to do with it, unless you take my 2+2 example. Software has no physical substance by itself. Can't patent an idea, only a process or machine.
Are you saying that innovation in any sort of machine that does not consist of algorithm refinement of its controller/processing software should be encourage via IP protection but any sort otherwise should not? If you are saying this then you are excluding then bulk of potential innovation in these technologies from patent protection.
patents are not the ONLY form of IP protection. Intellectual Property is a catchall used to refer to ideas, methods, procedures, and machines. Trade secrets, copyright, and patents are all different ways of protecting different kinds of "IP". Saying this DEFINITELY excludes a lot of innovative ideas from patent protection, and rightly so. There are better ways to protect them that make more sense.
It IS simple to distinguish between patentable and unpatentable innovations. You just don't throw a patent blanket over all of them.
Actually, hughes knows plenty about maintaining their network, it's just that non-military communications aren't all that high-priority.
She's 4, and not easily swayed by long arguments, but she does agree that occasionally it's reddish-orange, and at night it's black.
Just thought I'd mention, 128K ISDN doesn't qualify as broadband (pretty sure the article said "200K in at least one direction" about 8 times).
Actually, it was less than $640,000, and it's not *quite* the story you've been led to believe, but there are plenty of bogus lawsuits around.
Not to mention the fact that this same method can be easily applied to the small-time artists you mentioned, too. Taking a bite out of their wallets seems pretty low, IMHO.
Is it legal to retain a fair-use copy if you sell the original? I'm not trying to get a rise out of you, I just haven't ever heard this scenario discussed before. It sounds obvious, but it had never occurred to me as something to do before you mentioned it
Read it already (I'm one of the rare few who refuses to post before reading), which comments?
How does renting factor into it? Buying and then selling a CD is not a rental arrangement.
Using the internet to hype musicians that haven't made it yet is a great thing too, but it has a problem. The RIAA's members spend unbelievable sums of money to promote the artists that they think they can make the most money off of. They're good at it, and they have managed to stack the deck pretty well in their favor (just investigate who controls the top-40 stations in any given city).
They promote the artists, advertise them, merchandise them, overplay their music until people get used to it and decide it's good, and then send them on tour so they can squeeze a bit more money out in ticket sales.
THAT is a pretty efficient money-making scheme, and it helps to keep most small labels and most talented but unknown artists (at least those that aren't a sure bet) off the air and away from the money.
Buying used CD's is a good step, albeit a small one in fighting this. Figure out how to battle the big Labels' advertising machines, and we might make some real headway.
a) read slashdot and have the benefit of all this occasionally thoughtful discussion
b)think about much other than "DAMN!!! Christina Aguilera is HOT!"
(feel free to substitute the pop idol of your choice in b. above...christina does it for me, personally)
That said, there appears to be a market for overpriced CD's. Probably not as much of a market as there once was, but a market nonetheless.
In my personal perfect world, I'd hope for the following: If they knocked, say, $5.00 off the price of the average CD (make 'em an even $10.00 and I'd be happy) and went to a higher-quality, more data-hungry format, they might accomplish something.
They'd make average consumers happy on price, and audiophiles happy on quality, while making it more of a pain in the ass to download your favorite song in all of its nice, high-quality, multichannel, holographic, blah, features, glory.
They're not doing that now, which is irritating a lot of people, but that doesn't mean they're not making plenty of money, just that they're not making as much as they'd like. Don't count on the RIAA going away while there's a commercial radio station in your neighborhood that plays top 40 "hits".
I guess they should have called it the "Thunder Road"...although, from last year's commercials, it looks like at least they got to meet the aliens (these are all references to the movie "Explorers" for those who didn't note the similarities...)
Nice Ad... ;)
We're talking about file security when the document specifically *can* be copied, and the only way to accomplish that is to use a proprietary (ugh), non-human-readable (ugh, at least to me for documents), application-bound, centrally-authenticated document management system. All of which sucks, IMHO.
If it's supposed to be distributable and secret or subject to "rights" management then it probably shouldn't be in electronic format.
Well, they're about half right, depending on how many people using Windows XP qualifies as "all" in that statement.
They evidently didn't anticipate the vast improvements that happened in Windows *or* linux (hey, windows XP crashes less than windows 95, that's an improvement).
...and probably doesn't cache .rdf, .rss, .asp, or .php files (since they're dynamic), one of which is the likely extension of your newsfeed. If you are stuck with AOL, and you notice that it is caching dynamic content, your most obvious recourse is to choose an ISP that doesn't do so.
Actually, it is a defense, for the same reason that, if I came on to your land, passed all the no trespassing signs, broke into your house, and then hurt myself, I could still sue you for having an unsafe environment. My having read the signs, and even committing an illegal act, does not remove your liability in this case.
That is a statement that I really, really, really wish wasn't true. I believe (this is from overhearing bits of conversation with people older than myself) that there was a time when personal responsibility trumped litigation and criminal stupidity...<sigh>...sometimes the good old days seem like they may, in fact, have been as good as they seemed (sorry, Mr. Joel...had to borrow that one).
sleep(86400) while (($signedupdate - $todaysdate)
See if that helps ;)
"The linux community is splitting hairs"
For the love of god, please, somebody give him a solid-gold 5-iron and point him towards a lightning-prone golf course.