I'd be interested to hear if they can and do pay for ad placements with Google -- but even if they don't, you'd expect a good search engine to yield all relevant results, not just sponsored results, just like Google is claiming in this court case.
Hmmm, Google should practice what they preach if they want to dodge this bullet. Google is a generic search term, yet when you Google google you don't find any of the competing search engines in the top 200 finds (more perhaps, but I stopped looking). How's that for giving consumer choices and promoting competition?
Let's all pitch in and tell these clerks who ask to see our receipts immediately after we've purchsed an item that we think the double-check process is invasive and offensive -- and ask them to report up to management. If you really feel strongly about it, ask for a refund every time you're asked to comply with the receipt check. That'll soon dampen their enthusiasm!
Banks are basically cowardly parasites ...
on
PCI Compliance
·
· Score: 1
PCI compliance is (a) a sensible set of rules to better protect the privacy and security of credit card transactions but, more importantly, it is (b) a new mechanism for banks to levy astronomical fees against non-compliant merchants and (c) build a self-serving governance consulting industry which will promote the rather profitable idea that banks are outside of the loop when bad things happen in the payment card industry.
First off, banks are parasitic business -- they do not typically kill the host. While they may threaten to cut merchants off, they are more about generating fees and mitigating risk. The threat of being cut off is simply to make the huge non-compliance fines seem like the more palatible alternative.
Next is: Since when is a bank blameless when somebody impersonates us and takes money out of our account? They've invented the "identity theft" thing to explain that what was stolen was our identity, not the money we entrust them with -- and which they disbursed to a third party without our proper authority. So we have to fix the fraud which was actually perpetrated against the bank by that third party, even though we were in now way involved in the fraudulent transaction. We should insist on calling this a monetary theft, to restore the notion of bank robbery, which it really is.
PCI compliance will further insulate banks from their responsibilities to account holders. All risk will, by additional agreements, be transferred to either the merchant and the cardholder when things go wrong. Nice business when you can get it, even if it takes a bit of PCI collusion to set it up!
Since Apple should easily prove via a simple google search that the majority of people have long thought Apple would be the SOURCE of the iPhone, well before Cisco came to market with their product, even though they owned the mark from way back. You win trademarks by proving who the publically percieved source of the product is. You also have to defend your TM, so I think Cisco is doing the right thing to retain some value in their mark while they negotiate a license to Apple. But since Apple isn't selling an iPhone yet, there is no actual source confusion yet. I'm wondering if Cisco can't do better by accusing Apple of diluting their brand, something they should be able to ask for an injunction now...
Could Apple be trying to take 1st, 2nd and 3rd gen iPod serial numbers out of circulation to reduce their liability under the recently announced iPod class action settlement?
&nbs I think that that putting 3rd party anti-viral companies out of business would tend to dampen the criticisim of MS's flagship OS -- and that's where their payoff will really come from.
I doubt that MS are shortsightedly looking at the profits of an antiviral operation when their cash cow is ailing. I think they have a longer, more profitable strategy in mind: The continued world domination of the OSs -- at a time they appear to be losing their grip on it!
Symantec have, in my opinion, been recklessly scaring up business to their own profit, so let's not cry too much over how much this will hurt them!
Having said that, let's hope they stay in business long enough to provide the checks and balances on Microsoft.
It's nuanced, I know, but a "right" trumps an "accommodation" any day. I'm cautiously optimistic your comprehension will improve each time you re-read this thread.
Please enjoy -- how ever long or short the accomodation -- RIPping and re-import your music. I, like many others, strive for a one-shot digitally improved life style. Those old ideas and redundant work-arounds, well, like this thread, they're just tired...
Restated, your anaolgy says: My right to change my $1 into quarters to feed that arcade game is but a temporary convenience that can be revoked by the government at any time, without notice? I think not!
Let me extract some choice sections of Apple's iTunes EULA that illustrate that your rights to burn/export music to different formats do not exist, they are merely accomodations at this time which Apple may at its sole discretion change at any time, without notice, and you agree retrospectively to any and all such changes, here and now, before you know what they might be.
To many of us there really is a fundamental difference between a right and an accommodation.
The italic emphasis is the following extracts are mine: "9. Purchase of Apple Content...
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules, and you agree to use Products in compliance with such Usage Rules.
Usage Rules.
... Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners in any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition, or artwork embodied in any Product...
d. You acknowledge that some aspects of the Service, Products, and administering of the Usage Rules entails the ongoing involvement of Apple. Accordingly, in the event that Apple changes any part of the Service or discontinues the Service, which Apple may do at its election, you acknowledge that you may no longer be able to use Products to the same extent as prior to such change or discontinuation, and that Apple shall have no liability to you in such case
13. Intellectual Property...
b. Removal of Apple Content or Other Materials. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for the removal of or disabling of access to any such Products, content or materials under this Agreement. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the Service, in any case and without notice or liability...
14. Termination...
a. Termination by Apple. If you fail, or Apple suspects that you have failed, to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, including but not limited to failure to make payment of fees due, failure to provide Apple with a valid credit card or with accurate and complete Registration Data, failure to safeguard your Account information, or violation of the Usage Rules or any license to the software, Apple, at its sole discretion, without notice to you may: (i) terminate this Agreement and/or your Account, and you will remain liable for all amounts due under your Account up to and including the date of termination; and/or (ii) terminate the license to the software; and/or (iii) preclude access to the Service (or any part thereof)...
20. Changes. Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. Such updates, revisions, supplements, modifications, and additional rules, policies, terms, and conditions (collectively referred to in this Agreement as "Additional Terms") will be effective immediately and incorporated into this Agreement. Your continued use of the iTunes Music Store following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance
That's a really bad anaolgy to my mind. You shouldn't reproduce the dollar bill, sure (and that's what Copyright tries to achieve), but you can trade it for coin, exchange it for another currency, deposit in in your account to write cheques against, pay it into your credit card to charge against -- you certainly can use your dollar in many different ways/formats -- but you only get $1. So now tell me how to get my iTunes song to play on my TiVo or on my Treo?
As things stand in US Copyright law "fair use" is a defence, not a right. Increasingly Copyright is being superceded by restrictive EULA contracts. If Copyright law was amened to give us an unalienable right to the fair use of the whole work we paid for (the media, not the medium) then we may be able to feel more comfortable with sensible fair use in a hostile DCMA, EULA, DRM world.
If you can prove payment for, or have an explicit user license to, or have posession of the original media and thereby an implied user license -- let the duty be on the plaintif to have to argue against fair use when you enjoy the work in the form (albeit not necessarily in the same format) you bought it.
For a truly novel, if not 3 dimensional, experience with converging input technologies -- balance your tilt sensing PowerBook on top of your track ball. Now if only they could reinforce the keyboard so one could stand up and surf on it! Toe tapping function keys optional...
Assuming this is a genuine product design, I'd say that Apple figured out that many people happily use their iPod remote control, most of the time, to manage their way through a few favourite playlists. That being so, why not bring to market a smaller, cheaper, microPod that has all the music in the rmote itself?
Well, for one, you're not selling me your encrypted email and I'm not buying it. Next you'll tell me that your car's electronic lock is DRM. Well it is, but not in the context I'm arguing against it. Did I browse iTunes and tell myself I'm going to buy a piece of DRM today, or did I go in there to buy Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony -- which I'd like to play on my iPod, when it's convenient, but would also like to stream to my Tivo and download to my Treo. When I buy music, why should I be thinking about the encrytion and where and how I may or may not enjoy the performance of it?
In the interests of putting an end to encryption based DRM I'm quite happy that Virgin Records sues Apple Computer (although I think their case isn't strong) -- even though I don't want Virgin selling DRM'd files either. Similarly, while I don't think much of Real, I'm happy they've reverse engineered FairPlay.
The bigger the DRM mess becomes, the less likely it is to survive.
It's absolutely not right that we're buying file formats instead of content. Anything that muddies the DRM waters, as they currently exist, works for me.
About that signature "Please put this in your sig if you think/. should stop posting NYTimes articles." Okay, I'm curious: What's wrong with linking to NYT articles?
Sweat of the brow doesn't hack it when qualifying for copyright -- creativity is all that counts. The format and layout of someone's collections of facts can be copyright, just not the facts themselves. Databases are best protected by limited access and usage contracts and further supported by Trade Mark protections (such as The New York Times Best Sellers List). Let's not go messing with a new type of indefinite copyright for something that isn't creative. That's what contract law is for...
This works well. Use a freebie tool called DVDBackup to rip the DVDs to folders you create, one folder for each movie. Launch DVD Player to "File>Open Video_TS folder..." and navigate to the holding folder. Hit the play button. I haven't scripted open and play since I only time shift one or two of my DVDs at a time to watch on the train home when my work is done -- something I think is both fair and legal to do. DVDs ripped this way are typically 5 to 7Gb in size, so your terabyte won't go that far if you aim to keep them spinning.
Tog writes "The same problem is plaguing the Safari browser. You can't elect to import bookmarks into Safari..." There is a hidden Safari feature which allows you to import bookmarks. Quit Safari. Enter the following command in Terminal...
defaults write com.apple.safari IncludeDebugMenu 1 Launch Safari -- you'll have a Debug menu added to the application's bar. Amongst the Debug menu options are two ways to import bookmarks. To get rid of Debug, quit Safari and enter the following command in Terminal...
defaults write com.apple.safari IncludeDebugMenu 0
I'm enjoying the discussion but I'm conflicted about whether slashdotting a promising biotech company's products it really a wise thing to do.
What think you?
I can't find a patent invented by a "Vanderhook", let alone this one -- anyone got the patent number so's we can look it up? The article quoted mentions that they, the Vanderhooks, were "one of the first" to be doing this, which implies there is prior art -- so I'm dubious about this being a patent infringement case. Are there more articles on this case out there?
Slashdot Mirror
Afetr successfully installing, configuring and testing the CyberDuck server I've started blogging about it here: http://slapphappe.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/turn-your-iphone-into-a-webserver-with-serversman/ You're welcome to leap-frog off my efforts and help figure out some of the remaining mysteries.
I'd be interested to hear if they can and do pay for ad placements with Google -- but even if they don't, you'd expect a good search engine to yield all relevant results, not just sponsored results, just like Google is claiming in this court case.
Hmmm, Google should practice what they preach if they want to dodge this bullet. Google is a generic search term, yet when you Google google you don't find any of the competing search engines in the top 200 finds (more perhaps, but I stopped looking). How's that for giving consumer choices and promoting competition?
Let's all pitch in and tell these clerks who ask to see our receipts immediately after we've purchsed an item that we think the double-check process is invasive and offensive -- and ask them to report up to management. If you really feel strongly about it, ask for a refund every time you're asked to comply with the receipt check. That'll soon dampen their enthusiasm!
PCI compliance is (a) a sensible set of rules to better protect the privacy and security of credit card transactions but, more importantly, it is (b) a new mechanism for banks to levy astronomical fees against non-compliant merchants and (c) build a self-serving governance consulting industry which will promote the rather profitable idea that banks are outside of the loop when bad things happen in the payment card industry.
First off, banks are parasitic business -- they do not typically kill the host. While they may threaten to cut merchants off, they are more about generating fees and mitigating risk. The threat of being cut off is simply to make the huge non-compliance fines seem like the more palatible alternative.
Next is: Since when is a bank blameless when somebody impersonates us and takes money out of our account? They've invented the "identity theft" thing to explain that what was stolen was our identity, not the money we entrust them with -- and which they disbursed to a third party without our proper authority. So we have to fix the fraud which was actually perpetrated against the bank by that third party, even though we were in now way involved in the fraudulent transaction. We should insist on calling this a monetary theft, to restore the notion of bank robbery, which it really is. PCI compliance will further insulate banks from their responsibilities to account holders. All risk will, by additional agreements, be transferred to either the merchant and the cardholder when things go wrong. Nice business when you can get it, even if it takes a bit of PCI collusion to set it up!
Since Apple should easily prove via a simple google search that the majority of people have long thought Apple would be the SOURCE of the iPhone, well before Cisco came to market with their product, even though they owned the mark from way back. You win trademarks by proving who the publically percieved source of the product is. You also have to defend your TM, so I think Cisco is doing the right thing to retain some value in their mark while they negotiate a license to Apple. But since Apple isn't selling an iPhone yet, there is no actual source confusion yet. I'm wondering if Cisco can't do better by accusing Apple of diluting their brand, something they should be able to ask for an injunction now ...
... you might even consider the model with a DVD burner in.
Could Apple be trying to take 1st, 2nd and 3rd gen iPod serial numbers out of circulation to reduce their liability under the recently announced iPod class action settlement?
http://www.appleipodsettlement.com/
&nbs
I think that that putting 3rd party anti-viral companies out of business would tend to dampen the criticisim of MS's flagship OS -- and that's where their payoff will really come from.
I doubt that MS are shortsightedly looking at the profits of an antiviral operation when their cash cow is ailing. I think they have a longer, more profitable strategy in mind: The continued world domination of the OSs -- at a time they appear to be losing their grip on it!
Symantec have, in my opinion, been recklessly scaring up business to their own profit, so let's not cry too much over how much this will hurt them!
Having said that, let's hope they stay in business long enough to provide the checks and balances on Microsoft.
It's nuanced, I know, but a "right" trumps an "accommodation" any day. I'm cautiously optimistic your comprehension will improve each time you re-read this thread.
Please enjoy -- how ever long or short the accomodation -- RIPping and re-import your music. I, like many others, strive for a one-shot digitally improved life style. Those old ideas and redundant work-arounds, well, like this thread, they're just tired ...
Restated, your anaolgy says: My right to change my $1 into quarters to feed that arcade game is but a temporary convenience that can be revoked by the government at any time, without notice? I think not!
Let me extract some choice sections of Apple's iTunes EULA that illustrate that your rights to burn/export music to different formats do not exist, they are merely accomodations at this time which Apple may at its sole discretion change at any time, without notice, and you agree retrospectively to any and all such changes, here and now, before you know what they might be.
To many of us there really is a fundamental difference between a right and an accommodation.
The italic emphasis is the following extracts are mine: "9. Purchase of Apple Content ...
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules, and you agree to use Products in compliance with such Usage Rules.
Usage Rules.
... Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners in any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition, or artwork embodied in any Product ...
d. You acknowledge that some aspects of the Service, Products, and administering of the Usage Rules entails the ongoing involvement of Apple. Accordingly, in the event that Apple changes any part of the Service or discontinues the Service, which Apple may do at its election, you acknowledge that you may no longer be able to use Products to the same extent as prior to such change or discontinuation, and that Apple shall have no liability to you in such case
13. Intellectual Property ...
b. Removal of Apple Content or Other Materials. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for the removal of or disabling of access to any such Products, content or materials under this Agreement. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the Service, in any case and without notice or liability ...
14. Termination ...
a. Termination by Apple. If you fail, or Apple suspects that you have failed, to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, including but not limited to failure to make payment of fees due, failure to provide Apple with a valid credit card or with accurate and complete Registration Data, failure to safeguard your Account information, or violation of the Usage Rules or any license to the software, Apple, at its sole discretion, without notice to you may: (i) terminate this Agreement and/or your Account, and you will remain liable for all amounts due under your Account up to and including the date of termination; and/or (ii) terminate the license to the software; and/or (iii) preclude access to the Service (or any part thereof) ...
20. Changes. Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. Such updates, revisions, supplements, modifications, and additional rules, policies, terms, and conditions (collectively referred to in this Agreement as "Additional Terms") will be effective immediately and incorporated into this Agreement. Your continued use of the iTunes Music Store following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance
That's a really bad anaolgy to my mind. You shouldn't reproduce the dollar bill, sure (and that's what Copyright tries to achieve), but you can trade it for coin, exchange it for another currency, deposit in in your account to write cheques against, pay it into your credit card to charge against -- you certainly can use your dollar in many different ways/formats -- but you only get $1. So now tell me how to get my iTunes song to play on my TiVo or on my Treo?
If you can prove payment for, or have an explicit user license to, or have posession of the original media and thereby an implied user license -- let the duty be on the plaintif to have to argue against fair use when you enjoy the work in the form (albeit not necessarily in the same format) you bought it.
For a truly novel, if not 3 dimensional, experience with converging input technologies -- balance your tilt sensing PowerBook on top of your track ball. Now if only they could reinforce the keyboard so one could stand up and surf on it! Toe tapping function keys optional ...
Assuming this is a genuine product design, I'd say that Apple figured out that many people happily use their iPod remote control, most of the time, to manage their way through a few favourite playlists. That being so, why not bring to market a smaller, cheaper, microPod that has all the music in the rmote itself?
Well, for one, you're not selling me your encrypted email and I'm not buying it. Next you'll tell me that your car's electronic lock is DRM. Well it is, but not in the context I'm arguing against it. Did I browse iTunes and tell myself I'm going to buy a piece of DRM today, or did I go in there to buy Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony -- which I'd like to play on my iPod, when it's convenient, but would also like to stream to my Tivo and download to my Treo. When I buy music, why should I be thinking about the encrytion and where and how I may or may not enjoy the performance of it?
The bigger the DRM mess becomes, the less likely it is to survive.
It's absolutely not right that we're buying file formats instead of content. Anything that muddies the DRM waters, as they currently exist, works for me.
There being usually only ONE big winner in every lottery, perhaps we were it, right?
About that signature "Please put this in your sig if you think
Okay, I'm curious: What's wrong with linking to NYT articles?
Sweat of the brow doesn't hack it when qualifying for copyright -- creativity is all that counts. The format and layout of someone's collections of facts can be copyright, just not the facts themselves. Databases are best protected by limited access and usage contracts and further supported by Trade Mark protections (such as The New York Times Best Sellers List). Let's not go messing with a new type of indefinite copyright for something that isn't creative. That's what contract law is for ...
This works well. Use a freebie tool called DVDBackup to rip the DVDs to folders you create, one folder for each movie. Launch DVD Player to "File>Open Video_TS folder ..." and navigate to the holding folder. Hit the play button. I haven't scripted open and play since I only time shift one or two of my DVDs at a time to watch on the train home when my work is done -- something I think is both fair and legal to do. DVDs ripped this way are typically 5 to 7Gb in size, so your terabyte won't go that far if you aim to keep them spinning.
Tog writes "The same problem is plaguing the Safari browser. You can't elect to import bookmarks into Safari ..." There is a hidden Safari feature which allows you to import bookmarks. Quit Safari. Enter the following command in Terminal ...
...
defaults write com.apple.safari IncludeDebugMenu 1
Launch Safari -- you'll have a Debug menu added to the application's bar. Amongst the Debug menu options are two ways to import bookmarks. To get rid of Debug, quit Safari and enter the following command in Terminal
defaults write com.apple.safari IncludeDebugMenu 0
I'm enjoying the discussion but I'm conflicted about whether slashdotting a promising biotech company's products it really a wise thing to do. What think you?
Okay. I see much earlier replies already pointed out that this was a contractual breach not a patent infringement ...
I can't find a patent invented by a "Vanderhook", let alone this one -- anyone got the patent number so's we can look it up? The article quoted mentions that they, the Vanderhooks, were "one of the first" to be doing this, which implies there is prior art -- so I'm dubious about this being a patent infringement case. Are there more articles on this case out there?