"If the original poster had something else in mind, he should have said so."
I did. It helps to read the comment before replying. I specifically said that this applies to broadcasters who are granted exclusive (protected, licensed) use of some portion of public spectrum. It does not apply to WiFi, which uses spectrum as an unlicensed shared public resource.
The same as always, advertising revenue. The fact that people were free to record original Seinfeld episodes (which made a profit the first time they were broadcast) doesn't stop them from being resyndicated - there is still a demand, and a profit to be made. Allowing them to redistribute such content because it's in the public domain would do little to change that. People are lazy that way.
"What happens when someone takes the "private controlled delivery method" and broadcasts that (e.g. buys a DVD then broadcasts it)?"
They would be in violation of the content owner's copyright, and subject to appropriate penalties. If the copyright holder had granted permission to place the content into the public domain, no problem. The more difficult question is whether an unapproved broadcast would still allow the content to become public domain. I would say no (same concept as "you can't own stolen goods"), but there must be protection from using this as a loophole (i.e. copyright holder sues broadcaster for $1 for each broadcast, with a wink and a nod). Perhaps immediate loss of the broadcast license after some very limited number of such violations (3 strikes and you're out).
"Are satellite communications also public domain? Cell phone calls? Can a broadcaster scramble the signal to prevent unauthorized interception?"
Yes. Yes. Yes. But the public is free to decipher to the extent they are able. I believe the US law preventing cell phone interception is a violation of free speech rights (free speech includes not only the right to say things, but to hear them, one is useless without the other).
And to the commenter who mentioned WiFi, read the comment again - I specifically stated that this should apply to broadcasters who have been granted exclusive use to use public airwaves. WiFi is non-licensed, non-exclusive.
Seriously, TV started and grew into a major industry based entirely upon the revenue of advertisements. There's a lot of early TV (and radio) content which is simply unavailable today, either because the technology didn't exist to record it, or because it was wasn't considered worth keeping. It had already been paid for, and generated profit, upon initial broadcast.
Anything broadcast over the public airwaves (_all_ spectra is a natural public resource, spectrum "auctions" be damned), should be considered to have been placed into the public domain (it has, quite literally, but it should apply legally, also).
That should be the price paid to the public for the licensed, exclusive use of that part of our resource by a private party. They want copyright, fine - just use some private, controlled delivery method.
Unlicensed WiMax isn't a competitor, because there can be no guarantees for range or bandwidth, which is the same problem WiFi has (the spectrum is openly shared, you must accept interference from other unlicensed users).
Licensed WiMax is likely to be end up being owned by existing cell providers (they recognize not only the threat, but the opportunity).
Only licensed WiMax which is owned by "outside" entities is a threat to existing cellular providers, and that's going to have a relatively small footprint.
They'll gladly accept your virtual money (charge card) as payment for their virtual auction services. They'd probably take a check (another form of virtual money) or money order (ditto), too.
the Far Side cartoon, where the 'rents are looking at the help wanted ads, with a kid playing games in the background, and all the ads are looking for experienced gamers? Seems that's what will be needed to implement this, if he wants the raters to play the games and see the entire game.
that if you're not merely being facetious (I suspect fatuous is more accurate) with " If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails." - you should immediately contact your local law inforcement and let them know that there are suspicious bomb-like things at the local Kmart, Target, Wal-Mart, etc.
Oh, lock your door and keep it locked. Don't come out, ever. The real world is a dangerous place, and you're simply not prepared to deal with it.
I make them work to my advantage. If it's legal to bind a unilateral contract to another party, when I encounter a EULA "acceptance" screen on my PC, I simply use a post-it note to replace the language with my own. Something like "By installing the software after the user clicks "I accept," the copyright owner grants full and unconditional rights to the user. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to copy, distribute, modify and reverse engineer the software without limitation."
"8. Account Inactivity. Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account if the users account has been inactive for thirty (30) days. "
It says nothing about logging in for 30 days, it says "inactivity."
Do you really thing a 2+ year old email account can go 30 days without at least receiving some spam? That's "activity."
As to the question "Why are consumers being denied the information they need to make a considered choice?," I answer: I have all the information I need. With the DRM constraints, I don't intend to buy discs of either format.
that 30 years of additional data is a sufficient basis to support diametrically opposed claims of millenia-scale, global climate change? HAW! HAW!
Quote: "While a few scientists expressed concern, most admitted they didn't have enough data, at the time, to make any real predictions." An honest scientist would say that they don't have enough data, NOW, to make any real predictions or claims of causality. After all, everyone knows that global warming is actually caused by a lack of pirates.
to stick you head in, when you want to ignore the facts. Your own cite says "Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent" and gives the quote "By 1972 a large majority of a group of leading glacial-epoch experts at a conference agreed that "the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near"." Ain't revisionist history fun to use when your worldview is upset?
There's the fact of evolution (species have evolved), and there's the theory of evolution (the mechanism by which evolution occurs, and where observed individuals fit on a geneology). Likewise, there's the fact of global warming (it's warmer now than at some point, x, in the past), and there's the theory of global warming (manmade, by popular account, but it could also be simply natural chaotic variation).
10,000 years ago, the spot where my house sits was covered by 1000 feet of ice. Then it got warmer, and not due to man.
400 years ago, there was a well documented "little ice age" in Europe. Then it got warmer, and not due to man.
30 years ago, climate scientists had their panties in a wad about "global cooling." Then it got warmer.
The verdict is still out on why, but it's obvious that one thing has changed. Starting in the early 1970's, hydrocarbons have become political (the rise of OPEC, the Arab oil embargo, the US "gas crisis," the "green" movement, etc.).
are self-incented to find climate change - it ensures more funding. 30 years ago, they were finding "global cooling." Now they're finding "global warming." Climate change pays if you're a climate scientist, especially if you can make a plausible connection to manmade influence. There's no money or career path in static or naturally changing climate.
"puts paid industry propagandists on the same credibility level as professional climate research scientists."
Wow, is that a loaded statement.
Somehow, scientists paid for by people with an interest on side "A" of the issue are "propagandists," while scientists paid for by people on side "B" of the issue aren't?
Exactly why aren't Greenpeace or Sierra Club or alternate energy industry funded studies "propaganda?"
Slashdot Mirror
Where's Hunt the Wumpus? Where's Lunar Lander? Where's Star Trek? Pong?
And most egregiously, where is Crowther and Woods' Colossal Cave Adventure, to which Zork owes everything?
more cowbell.
lots of time and expense.
The work has already been done.
"And you're missing the point. ...
As are you.
"If the original poster had something else in mind, he should have said so."
I did. It helps to read the comment before replying. I specifically said that this applies to broadcasters who are granted exclusive (protected, licensed) use of some portion of public spectrum. It does not apply to WiFi, which uses spectrum as an unlicensed shared public resource.
"What, then, is the incentive for broadcast?"
The same as always, advertising revenue. The fact that people were free to record original Seinfeld episodes (which made a profit the first time they were broadcast) doesn't stop them from being resyndicated - there is still a demand, and a profit to be made. Allowing them to redistribute such content because it's in the public domain would do little to change that. People are lazy that way.
"What happens when someone takes the "private controlled delivery method" and broadcasts that (e.g. buys a DVD then broadcasts it)?"
They would be in violation of the content owner's copyright, and subject to appropriate penalties. If the copyright holder had granted permission to place the content into the public domain, no problem. The more difficult question is whether an unapproved broadcast would still allow the content to become public domain. I would say no (same concept as "you can't own stolen goods"), but there must be protection from using this as a loophole (i.e. copyright holder sues broadcaster for $1 for each broadcast, with a wink and a nod). Perhaps immediate loss of the broadcast license after some very limited number of such violations (3 strikes and you're out).
"Are satellite communications also public domain? Cell phone calls? Can a broadcaster scramble the signal to prevent unauthorized interception?"
Yes. Yes. Yes. But the public is free to decipher to the extent they are able. I believe the US law preventing cell phone interception is a violation of free speech rights (free speech includes not only the right to say things, but to hear them, one is useless without the other).
And to the commenter who mentioned WiFi, read the comment again - I specifically stated that this should apply to broadcasters who have been granted exclusive use to use public airwaves. WiFi is non-licensed, non-exclusive.
"Congratulations, you just killed Television."
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Seriously, TV started and grew into a major industry based entirely upon the revenue of advertisements. There's a lot of early TV (and radio) content which is simply unavailable today, either because the technology didn't exist to record it, or because it was wasn't considered worth keeping. It had already been paid for, and generated profit, upon initial broadcast.
Your implied argument lacks merit.
"except the 'privite controlled method' would be putting more powerfull transmitters"
Uh, no, that would still be using the public airwaves. One example of private distribution would be via retail sale of DVDs.
Anything broadcast over the public airwaves (_all_ spectra is a natural public resource, spectrum "auctions" be damned), should be considered to have been placed into the public domain (it has, quite literally, but it should apply legally, also).
That should be the price paid to the public for the licensed, exclusive use of that part of our resource by a private party. They want copyright, fine - just use some private, controlled delivery method.
will be the new Patriot Act, which will require a similar system to be installed on all new automobiles.
Run a red light, get driven to the police station. Can't have terrorists exceeding the speed limit.
Unlicensed WiMax isn't a competitor, because there can be no guarantees for range or bandwidth, which is the same problem WiFi has (the spectrum is openly shared, you must accept interference from other unlicensed users).
Licensed WiMax is likely to be end up being owned by existing cell providers (they recognize not only the threat, but the opportunity).
Only licensed WiMax which is owned by "outside" entities is a threat to existing cellular providers, and that's going to have a relatively small footprint.
They'll gladly accept your virtual money (charge card) as payment for their virtual auction services. They'd probably take a check (another form of virtual money) or money order (ditto), too.
the Far Side cartoon, where the 'rents are looking at the help wanted ads, with a kid playing games in the background, and all the ads are looking for experienced gamers? Seems that's what will be needed to implement this, if he wants the raters to play the games and see the entire game.
Providing information in response to a court subpeona is very different than doing so "after a request from Fox."
that if you're not merely being facetious (I suspect fatuous is more accurate) with " If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails." - you should immediately contact your local law inforcement and let them know that there are suspicious bomb-like things at the local Kmart, Target, Wal-Mart, etc.
Oh, lock your door and keep it locked. Don't come out, ever. The real world is a dangerous place, and you're simply not prepared to deal with it.
if you believe that shrink wrap licenses are valid.
All modern x86 processors emulate the x86 instruction set in microcode - i.e. they're prohibited "emulated hardware" systems.
I make them work to my advantage. If it's legal to bind a unilateral contract to another party, when I encounter a EULA "acceptance" screen on my PC, I simply use a post-it note to replace the language with my own. Something like "By installing the software after the user clicks "I accept," the copyright owner grants full and unconditional rights to the user. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to copy, distribute, modify and reverse engineer the software without limitation."
Fair is fair.
Their TOS states:
"8. Account Inactivity. Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account if the users account has been inactive for thirty (30) days. "
It says nothing about logging in for 30 days, it says "inactivity."
Do you really thing a 2+ year old email account can go 30 days without at least receiving some spam? That's "activity."
I'll be patient, and TiVo it when it's on cable.
As to the question "Why are consumers being denied the information they need to make a considered choice?," I answer: I have all the information I need. With the DRM constraints, I don't intend to buy discs of either format.
that 30 years of additional data is a sufficient basis to support diametrically opposed claims of millenia-scale, global climate change? HAW! HAW!
Quote: "While a few scientists expressed concern, most admitted they didn't have enough data, at the time, to make any real predictions." An honest scientist would say that they don't have enough data, NOW, to make any real predictions or claims of causality. After all, everyone knows that global warming is actually caused by a lack of pirates.
to stick you head in, when you want to ignore the facts. Your own cite says "Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent" and gives the quote "By 1972 a large majority of a group of leading glacial-epoch experts at a conference agreed that "the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near"." Ain't revisionist history fun to use when your worldview is upset?
my mod points when I need them? +1
There's the fact of evolution (species have evolved), and there's the theory of evolution (the mechanism by which evolution occurs, and where observed individuals fit on a geneology). Likewise, there's the fact of global warming (it's warmer now than at some point, x, in the past), and there's the theory of global warming (manmade, by popular account, but it could also be simply natural chaotic variation).
10,000 years ago, the spot where my house sits was covered by 1000 feet of ice. Then it got warmer, and not due to man.
400 years ago, there was a well documented "little ice age" in Europe. Then it got warmer, and not due to man.
30 years ago, climate scientists had their panties in a wad about "global cooling." Then it got warmer.
The verdict is still out on why, but it's obvious that one thing has changed. Starting in the early 1970's, hydrocarbons have become political (the rise of OPEC, the Arab oil embargo, the US "gas crisis," the "green" movement, etc.).
are self-incented to find climate change - it ensures more funding. 30 years ago, they were finding "global cooling." Now they're finding "global warming." Climate change pays if you're a climate scientist, especially if you can make a plausible connection to manmade influence. There's no money or career path in static or naturally changing climate.
"puts paid industry propagandists on the same credibility level as professional climate research scientists."
Wow, is that a loaded statement.
Somehow, scientists paid for by people with an interest on side "A" of the issue are "propagandists," while scientists paid for by people on side "B" of the issue aren't?
Exactly why aren't Greenpeace or Sierra Club or alternate energy industry funded studies "propaganda?"
"There is no expectation of privacy in a public place."
Try putting a recording camera in the stall of a public restroom, and watch what the government does to you.