It does; search for an 'autoRPM' daemon. It's not exactly an MS creation (although it MIGHT be to promote e-mail clients that execute everything in sight with minimal concept of permissions...)
Is it actually possible (for somebody without an industrial-grade pressing machine...) to burn a movie-length DVD?
I was under the impression that there were some consumer-targetted RW DVD methods, but that they didn't have the full capacity of the pressed ones for whatever reason... and that thus, the industry doesn't (yet) have to worry about people distributing unlicensed DVD disks so much as online methods...
That's a bit of a false analogy, unless you include the idea that you can buy the ability to read Navajo.
After all, if you have a licensed player, they'll let you play DVDs; it's *not* that they've made the product impossible or illegal to use, which is what you're disingenuously implying.
What it *is* similar to are things like using colored paper to inhibit copying (been done, but not that lately AFAIK; perhaps copying tech has made this obsolete?), and burning a sector 15 on a floppy to make DISKCOPY.EXE fail. In neither case is it impossible, using their licensed method, to actually *use* the product.
Hmmm. Most of the *old* software licenses I remember (especially for products that came out on a single 5.25"...) specified that the user had the right to make *one* copy for archival purposes only. Those that were copy-protected, like "GATO" and "Silent Service", often included a "coupon" for ordering a backup/replacement, usually to the tune of $10.
OTOH, I don't remember that on any recent software licenses... so that may have only been a custom. I certainly don't remember it popping up in, say, the MS WinNT EULA...
A Stanford site seems to imply that "fair use" doctrine only covers educational and research purposes. There are also special provisions for libraries...
Judging from that, the "right" to make a backup may only have been a privilege granted explicitly by the licensing terms -- one which may be increasingly rare nowadays.
The present invention is directed to user defined assembly and manufacture of a product, particularly electronic media, wherein each component of the manufacturing process and system can be remotely located to decentralize the manufacturing process. The invention relies on a communications infrastructure, for example the Internet (based upon the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, TCP/IP), wherein each component of the system is able to pass relevant data to a subsequent component until a complete user defined product is created.
It's mentioned. Not required (only 'preferred'), but it's definitely mentioned.
If you want to do it in volume, and take orders from, say, 'Frisco, Capetown, Chicago, and Auckland, and minimizing things like production and shipping cost/time, than arguably it's going to be a tad tricky.
Well, we've had an actor for president (and arguably another one right now...), so it's possible -- not that the idea of, say, Mr. Gere determining foreign policy or Ms. Streisand being Speaker o' the House appeals to me in the slightest. But if an entertainer can get that seat...
Mr. Nader is none of the above (unless you consider his occasional rant as entertainment), and may be running for the Green nomination (if only in CA). Mr. Bush should deliver a thank-you note if Nader does actually try...
You've also got the occasional former general (although not for a while; perhaps Eisenhower being the most recent case at the Presidential level)...
Read the thing and judge for yourself -- then, if you actually want to do anything resembling it and make money, consider getting a patent lawyer.
But unless it's a fully automated system that can shunt requests to any appropriate site, and do everything from burn it to package it, it wouldn't seem likely.
So, how many of you actually looked at the patent before denouncing it and making lame "I patented this" jokes?
See the actual patent for details, and note that it was filed over 3.5 years ago...
This also apparently deals with controlling the manufacturing itself instead of, say, faxing a list of songs you want in what order and having some poor schmo burn it for you. The packaging is included within the process -- it looks like it's meant to be completely automated *and* distributed (think: multiple manufacturing sites).
Re:Who owns the copyright to "MP3"?
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
If the middle class actually believed in investments and occasionally saving money instead of lottery tickets, frequently eating out, and having the latest clothing, perhaps they'd do better.
It's not coincidental that excess consumption is not a common trait about the self-made wealthy; folks like the late Mr. Walton, for instance.
Re:Greedy Corporate Scumfucks
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
So, how many collective farms did Mr. Fuller work on, for free?
Ever here of things like the GPL? Copyright does not force an artist's hand; if a creator *wishes* to allow everybody to use that work without restrictions, they're free too.
*Disallowing* copyrights, on the other hand, is making anybody creative an involuntary slave of society. That's not anybody's choice to make.
Re:God this section of Slashdot gets old quick...
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 2
...which is bull, regardless of how often that argument comes up.
Things like identity theft and plagiarism are still, frankly, theft. Things like a reputation, or the ability to be the sole provider of a new service or product, have value despite being intangible.
The situation in Northern Ireland, with his friend Mr. Mitchell, is tenuous at best; his first lady seriously botches a trip to Israel; his personally-driven mission in the Balkans has been marked by retribution from destruction of homes to outright murder and theft; he's mildly chided Russia, but refuses it to significantly condemn it for actions in Chechnya that are arguably far worse than anything that happened in Somalia...
He's not a good foreign policy leader -- never was and never will be.
He didn't say "difficult => real"; he said "!difficult => !real", which implies "real => difficult" but not the other way around.
The reason is that you absolutely need a way to both get more details and change them. Why?
I've seen a freshly unpacked PC with remarkably vanilla hardware die during a similarly vanilla NT4 install, deterministically, before any user decisions, while a machine with an almost identical configuration (perhaps a different IDE drive and keyboard) sailed through.
Hitting random keys during a check for a non-existent SCSI card let it survive -- but there was no way of determining what *actually* was going on, nor no meaningful, reasonable solution. That's illogical.
I've also seen point-and-click systems decide, repeatedly on boot, that it knows what network card you have instead of the actual one, undoing the user's (correct) settings, and switching drivers followed by requiring a reboot. The interface *really* needed a way to bypass it. On a Linux box, OTOH, if your driver is, say, detecting the wrong card, you can simply force the choice...
Computers are inherently complicated -- especially when hardware comes from a variety of vendors. Ergo, either the interface allows complexity, or you lose necessary flexibility.
So don't recompile and live with what you've got -- I'm sure there are still boxes running 1.2.13 and earlier, and they're still going.
You don't *have* to touch a compiler, in the same way that you shouldn't have to mangle the Win9X registries just to get anything done. You might have to in the latter case, but...
A grocery store owner could seek a restraining order nominally barring me from being within a certain distance, if I'd been harrassing it -- such as by attacking customers, or otherwise trying to ruin their business by destructive interference. For instance, protesters are sometimes barred from coming within a certain distance of businesses or clinics they are protesting, due to past behavior.
As for calling France, if I had a habit of calling up random French people at odd hours of the night (for them) and berating them about their cuisine, quite possibly. I don't doubt that stranger things have happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the infamous RTM worm?
I'm sure it's been written up, and IIRC there were some charges that actually stuck...
It does; search for an 'autoRPM' daemon. It's not exactly an MS creation (although it MIGHT be to promote e-mail clients that execute everything in sight with minimal concept of permissions...)
Is it actually possible (for somebody without an industrial-grade pressing machine...) to burn a movie-length DVD?
I was under the impression that there were some consumer-targetted RW DVD methods, but that they didn't have the full capacity of the pressed ones for whatever reason... and that thus, the industry doesn't (yet) have to worry about people distributing unlicensed DVD disks so much as online methods...
?
Is your computer TEMPEST shielded, perchance?
Do you always speak in code on the phone? Or, if not, would it be fair to say that's an invitation for a wiretap?
I don't think that's an argument that it's in anyone's long-term interest to use, unless the phrase "Welcome to the fishbowl" excites you.
That's a bit of a false analogy, unless you include the idea that you can buy the ability to read Navajo.
After all, if you have a licensed player, they'll let you play DVDs; it's *not* that they've made the product impossible or illegal to use, which is what you're disingenuously implying.
What it *is* similar to are things like using colored paper to inhibit copying (been done, but not that lately AFAIK; perhaps copying tech has made this obsolete?), and burning a sector 15 on a floppy to make DISKCOPY.EXE fail. In neither case is it impossible, using their licensed method, to actually *use* the product.
Hmmm. Most of the *old* software licenses I remember (especially for products that came out on a single 5.25"...) specified that the user had the right to make *one* copy for archival purposes only. Those that were copy-protected, like "GATO" and "Silent Service", often included a "coupon" for ordering a backup/replacement, usually to the tune of $10.
OTOH, I don't remember that on any recent software licenses... so that may have only been a custom. I certainly don't remember it popping up in, say, the MS WinNT EULA...
A Stanford site seems to imply that "fair use" doctrine only covers educational and research purposes. There are also special provisions for libraries...
Judging from that, the "right" to make a backup may only have been a privilege granted explicitly by the licensing terms -- one which may be increasingly rare nowadays.
If you were paid by the hour to write, and also wanted to impress your client with dense prose... would you simply write:
"Defining 'user interface', yadda yadda, as per the 1998 Merriam-Webster Dictionary..." ?
Strange, isn't it? Especially in light of the last paragraph of the patent, which notes that it isn't restricted to digital media.
Makes one vaguely wonder if they're interested in branching out into other areas ala Amazon.
The present invention is directed to user defined assembly and manufacture of a product, particularly electronic media, wherein each component of the manufacturing process and system can be remotely located to decentralize the manufacturing process. The invention relies on a communications infrastructure, for example the Internet (based upon the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, TCP/IP), wherein each component of the system is able to pass relevant data to a subsequent component until a complete user defined product is created.
It's mentioned. Not required (only 'preferred'), but it's definitely mentioned.
If you want to do it in volume, and take orders from, say, 'Frisco, Capetown, Chicago, and Auckland, and minimizing things like production and shipping cost/time, than arguably it's going to be a tad tricky.
Well, we've had an actor for president (and arguably another one right now...), so it's possible -- not that the idea of, say, Mr. Gere determining foreign policy or Ms. Streisand being Speaker o' the House appeals to me in the slightest. But if an entertainer can get that seat...
Mr. Nader is none of the above (unless you consider his occasional rant as entertainment), and may be running for the Green nomination (if only in CA). Mr. Bush should deliver a thank-you note if Nader does actually try...
You've also got the occasional former general (although not for a while; perhaps Eisenhower being the most recent case at the Presidential level)...
Read the thing and judge for yourself -- then, if you actually want to do anything resembling it and make money, consider getting a patent lawyer.
But unless it's a fully automated system that can shunt requests to any appropriate site, and do everything from burn it to package it, it wouldn't seem likely.
So, how many of you actually looked at the patent before denouncing it and making lame "I patented this" jokes?
See the actual patent for details, and note that it was filed over 3.5 years ago...
This also apparently deals with controlling the manufacturing itself instead of, say, faxing a list of songs you want in what order and having some poor schmo burn it for you. The packaging is included within the process -- it looks like it's meant to be completely automated *and* distributed (think: multiple manufacturing sites).
Since when can you copyright terms?
If the middle class actually believed in investments and occasionally saving money instead of lottery tickets, frequently eating out, and having the latest clothing, perhaps they'd do better.
It's not coincidental that excess consumption is not a common trait about the self-made wealthy; folks like the late Mr. Walton, for instance.
So, how many collective farms did Mr. Fuller work on, for free?
Ever here of things like the GPL? Copyright does not force an artist's hand; if a creator *wishes* to allow everybody to use that work without restrictions, they're free too.
*Disallowing* copyrights, on the other hand, is making anybody creative an involuntary slave of society. That's not anybody's choice to make.
...which is bull, regardless of how often that argument comes up.
Things like identity theft and plagiarism are still, frankly, theft. Things like a reputation, or the ability to be the sole provider of a new service or product, have value despite being intangible.
He's still blundering about.
The situation in Northern Ireland, with his friend Mr. Mitchell, is tenuous at best; his first lady seriously botches a trip to Israel; his personally-driven mission in the Balkans has been marked by retribution from destruction of homes to outright murder and theft; he's mildly chided Russia, but refuses it to significantly condemn it for actions in Chechnya that are arguably far worse than anything that happened in Somalia...
He's not a good foreign policy leader -- never was and never will be.
Some are incredibly unclued.
Remember the WTC bombers? At least one of 'em went back to claim that the truck was stolen, and to get his deposit back. *Not* smart...
So, it almost certainly does happen.
He didn't say "difficult => real"; he said "!difficult => !real", which implies "real => difficult" but not the other way around.
The reason is that you absolutely need a way to both get more details and change them. Why?
I've seen a freshly unpacked PC with remarkably vanilla hardware die during a similarly vanilla NT4 install, deterministically, before any user decisions, while a machine with an almost identical configuration (perhaps a different IDE drive and keyboard) sailed through.
Hitting random keys during a check for a non-existent SCSI card let it survive -- but there was no way of determining what *actually* was going on, nor no meaningful, reasonable solution. That's illogical.
I've also seen point-and-click systems decide, repeatedly on boot, that it knows what network card you have instead of the actual one, undoing the user's (correct) settings, and switching drivers followed by requiring a reboot. The interface *really* needed a way to bypass it. On a Linux box, OTOH, if your driver is, say, detecting the wrong card, you can simply force the choice...
Computers are inherently complicated -- especially when hardware comes from a variety of vendors. Ergo, either the interface allows complexity, or you lose necessary flexibility.
Obviously the Hubble must have been about to aim at an alien world.
Those buggers *really* value their privacy.
So don't recompile and live with what you've got -- I'm sure there are still boxes running 1.2.13 and earlier, and they're still going.
You don't *have* to touch a compiler, in the same way that you shouldn't have to mangle the Win9X registries just to get anything done. You might have to in the latter case, but...
Truly, truly bizarre.
And that's over just four days...
It depends in each case on my behavior.
A grocery store owner could seek a restraining order nominally barring me from being within a certain distance, if I'd been harrassing it -- such as by attacking customers, or otherwise trying to ruin their business by destructive interference. For instance, protesters are sometimes barred from coming within a certain distance of businesses or clinics they are protesting, due to past behavior.
As for calling France, if I had a habit of calling up random French people at odd hours of the night (for them) and berating them about their cuisine, quite possibly. I don't doubt that stranger things have happened.
Posting, likewise. *shrug*