Bill Gates comment is interesting in that MS' purpose in acquiring Yahoo is primarily for Yahoo's technical people, and not for any particular technologies/IP held by Yahoo. That is, MS values Yahoo only for its technical people.
In a sense MS is fighting a war against Google on two fronts: 1) the search engine business, and 2) attracting the sharpest technical people. MS is losing on both fronts. Instead of MS changing its corporate environment so as to again be attractive in recruiting sharp people, MS is simply trying to buy these people from other companies. It's sad really, and reflects the real problem with MS: its employee environment. Who wants to work for MS these days? (Just read Mini-Microsoft's blog for interesting insights into how MS has evolved -- it is a pretty brutal work environment that no longer sufficiently rewards those who excel.)
It'd get real interesting if a significant number of Yahoo staff come out and publicly say they will move to other companies (e.g. Google) should MS buy out Yahoo. In fact, Google could get the word out essentially rolling out the red carpet for any Yahoo employee who decides to leave Yahoo should the MS takeover come to pass. Imagine if 1000 of the top Yahoo staff said "we will not work for MS." I can't think of a better "poison pill."
Re:I posted this idea to Usenet back in 1992
on
Hypoallergenic Cats
·
· Score: 1
I wonder if you could've independently achieved the same results if you had started your breeding program back in '92.
Laugh. Probably not. I'm very allergic to cats, so I can't even be near most of them, which is probably a requirement for being involved with a breeding program. Also, I don't have any experience breeding animals.
I did note back in 1992 that my idea is being cast to the "public domain" for someone to make into a reality. Allerca definitely made it a reality, but the founders may have come up with the idea unawares of my Usenet post. As noted before, I wish them good luck...
I posted this idea to Usenet back in 1992
on
Hypoallergenic Cats
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As noted in a prior comment to Slashdot, I proposed this idea to Usenet in 1992 (link to Google archive of my original article included in my prior comment.) Of course, I'm tooting my horn, but Allerca actually did it. Good luck to Allerca.
Back in 1992, on Usenet, I proposed to sci.med the idea for a business to breed a hypoallergenic cat. It looks like someone took the idea (can’t say they got the idea from me, though) and built a business on it.
Since submitting this SlashDot item, I discovered in the cylinder collection an even jazzier recording (from 1924) that some may enjoy: "Why Did you Do It?" by the Georgia Melodians.
By the 1920's, Edison was mastering onto vertical cut disc masters (and issued as "Diamond Discs"), and then producing cylinder masters by dubbing master disc pressings. So the sound quality of the cylinders issued in the 1920's was lower than the comparable discs, such as the above recording. It should be noted that disc records pretty much took over the market by 1915, so by the end of World War I cylinders became almost like the "8-track" of its day. Edison still issued cylinders until it went under in 1929, but the 1920's cylinders are quite rare compared to the Edison discs (as a side note, in 1928 Edison released lateral cut records to play on regular phonographs, and they sounded quite good. Edison was also late to switch to electrical recording, strangely enough.)
Yes, they could have "stomped" down harder on the CEDAR processor they were using. But the problem they faced is having so many recordings to restore, where the optimum noise-reduction settings for each recording will vary. If you set things wrong, you will remove a lot of the hiss (which usually is more like pink noise rather than white noise, thus a little harder to deal with), but then introduce a lot of annoying artifacts in the sound. Most afficionados of the early sound prefer to hear some hiss than to distort the sound any more than it already is. So long as the hiss is clean and free from pumping), it is acceptable.
The important thing is that the project has placed the original raw transfers online in lossless format, so anyone may restore the recordings themselves. This is a major shift from other early recorded sound archives where the raw transfers are not preserved or made available. As I've noted elsewhere, UCSB has raised the bar in what early sound archives should do.
Actually, in this case, had there been Federal Copyright law applied to sound recordings as it was to other types of creative works (like books), the pre-1923 sound recordings would all be public domain.
But they are not the kind of example you are talking about. It is worse than that! Why? Because pre-1972 American sound recordings are NOT covered by Federal Copyright Law. Yes, you heard me right, Federal copyright law does NOT apply to pre-1972 sound recordings, and according to Title 17 of the U.S. code won't apply until 2067. In the meanwhile, then, sound recordings are covered by a patchwork of state copyright laws (both statutory and common law), plus other mechanisms. The Capitol vs. Naxos case was filed in the State of New York under New York copyright law, for example (Google that for more information).
What does this mean? State copyright laws, by and large, have no limits. So, for example, Columbia cylinders recorded back in 1890 (technically owned today by Sony-BMG) are still copyright protected (at the state level), and won't revert to Federal protection until 2067 (if the copyright terms remain the same as today, all pre-1972 sound recordings will then revert to the Public Domain in 2067). This means that these earliest cylinders will, unless Congress acts, have at least 177 years of copyright protection.
Most of the UCSB collection is from Edison cylinders. Edison is a unique case in that the ownership of the Edison recordings is the U.S. Federal Government (via the National Park Service), and I believe they are not claiming any state copyright protection of them (but they might be able to). So UCSB felt free to go ahead at least with the Edisons. There are a few other early labels whose ownership is totally unknown and likely abandoned, such as the Grey Gull "group" of labels of the 1920's. These are very interesting to transfer as well. There are some really oddball stuff from before World War I, too, that are probably abandoned.
Note that the original raw transfers (lossless wav) are also downloadable for each song. It would not surprise me (but I have not checked), that the restored version (using CEDAR) in lossless format is also available in the directory of the archive (but there's no public link to it from the discography page.)
It's the high-quality transfers that are the most critical to do right, and UCSB did do them right. Save those in lossless format, and they'll always be around for anyone to restore. Algorithms and applications to restore old recording will continue to improve, and these raw transfers can be re-restored at a future time to improve the sound even more.
Fortunately, the U.S. Government, via the National Park Service (I believe) are the owners of the Edison masters, and so the recordings appear to be public domain. Or at least the U.S. Government won't attempt to claim state-level copyright on the recordings (which I suppose they could.) Note that sound recordings made before 1972 are NOT covered by Federal Copyright Law, rather they are covered by a patchwork of state copyright laws (both common and statutory), anti-competitive laws, etc. It's a mess. Pre-1972 recordings (other than those whose ownership is lost) will not come under Federal Copyright protection (and thus, hopefully, public domain status) until 2067! There are some early Columbia cylinder recordings from 1890 (technically owned by Sony-BMG) which will not become public domain until 2067, a whopping 177 years after they were 'waxed'.
Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates comment is interesting in that MS' purpose in acquiring Yahoo is primarily for Yahoo's technical people, and not for any particular technologies/IP held by Yahoo. That is, MS values Yahoo only for its technical people. In a sense MS is fighting a war against Google on two fronts: 1) the search engine business, and 2) attracting the sharpest technical people. MS is losing on both fronts. Instead of MS changing its corporate environment so as to again be attractive in recruiting sharp people, MS is simply trying to buy these people from other companies. It's sad really, and reflects the real problem with MS: its employee environment. Who wants to work for MS these days? (Just read Mini-Microsoft's blog for interesting insights into how MS has evolved -- it is a pretty brutal work environment that no longer sufficiently rewards those who excel.) It'd get real interesting if a significant number of Yahoo staff come out and publicly say they will move to other companies (e.g. Google) should MS buy out Yahoo. In fact, Google could get the word out essentially rolling out the red carpet for any Yahoo employee who decides to leave Yahoo should the MS takeover come to pass. Imagine if 1000 of the top Yahoo staff said "we will not work for MS." I can't think of a better "poison pill."
Laugh. Probably not. I'm very allergic to cats, so I can't even be near most of them, which is probably a requirement for being involved with a breeding program. Also, I don't have any experience breeding animals.
I did note back in 1992 that my idea is being cast to the "public domain" for someone to make into a reality. Allerca definitely made it a reality, but the founders may have come up with the idea unawares of my Usenet post. As noted before, I wish them good luck...
As noted in a prior comment to Slashdot, I proposed this idea to Usenet in 1992 (link to Google archive of my original article included in my prior comment.) Of course, I'm tooting my horn, but Allerca actually did it. Good luck to Allerca.
Back in 1992, on Usenet, I proposed to sci.med the idea for a business to breed a hypoallergenic cat. It looks like someone took the idea (can’t say they got the idea from me, though) and built a business on it.
Good luck to Allerca!
Since submitting this SlashDot item, I discovered in the cylinder collection an even jazzier recording (from 1924) that some may enjoy: "Why Did you Do It?" by the Georgia Melodians.
By the 1920's, Edison was mastering onto vertical cut disc masters (and issued as "Diamond Discs"), and then producing cylinder masters by dubbing master disc pressings. So the sound quality of the cylinders issued in the 1920's was lower than the comparable discs, such as the above recording. It should be noted that disc records pretty much took over the market by 1915, so by the end of World War I cylinders became almost like the "8-track" of its day. Edison still issued cylinders until it went under in 1929, but the 1920's cylinders are quite rare compared to the Edison discs (as a side note, in 1928 Edison released lateral cut records to play on regular phonographs, and they sounded quite good. Edison was also late to switch to electrical recording, strangely enough.)
Yes, they could have "stomped" down harder on the CEDAR processor they were using. But the problem they faced is having so many recordings to restore, where the optimum noise-reduction settings for each recording will vary. If you set things wrong, you will remove a lot of the hiss (which usually is more like pink noise rather than white noise, thus a little harder to deal with), but then introduce a lot of annoying artifacts in the sound. Most afficionados of the early sound prefer to hear some hiss than to distort the sound any more than it already is. So long as the hiss is clean and free from pumping), it is acceptable.
The important thing is that the project has placed the original raw transfers online in lossless format, so anyone may restore the recordings themselves. This is a major shift from other early recorded sound archives where the raw transfers are not preserved or made available. As I've noted elsewhere, UCSB has raised the bar in what early sound archives should do.
Actually, in this case, had there been Federal Copyright law applied to sound recordings as it was to other types of creative works (like books), the pre-1923 sound recordings would all be public domain.
But they are not the kind of example you are talking about. It is worse than that! Why? Because pre-1972 American sound recordings are NOT covered by Federal Copyright Law. Yes, you heard me right, Federal copyright law does NOT apply to pre-1972 sound recordings, and according to Title 17 of the U.S. code won't apply until 2067. In the meanwhile, then, sound recordings are covered by a patchwork of state copyright laws (both statutory and common law), plus other mechanisms. The Capitol vs. Naxos case was filed in the State of New York under New York copyright law, for example (Google that for more information).
What does this mean? State copyright laws, by and large, have no limits. So, for example, Columbia cylinders recorded back in 1890 (technically owned today by Sony-BMG) are still copyright protected (at the state level), and won't revert to Federal protection until 2067 (if the copyright terms remain the same as today, all pre-1972 sound recordings will then revert to the Public Domain in 2067). This means that these earliest cylinders will, unless Congress acts, have at least 177 years of copyright protection.
Most of the UCSB collection is from Edison cylinders. Edison is a unique case in that the ownership of the Edison recordings is the U.S. Federal Government (via the National Park Service), and I believe they are not claiming any state copyright protection of them (but they might be able to). So UCSB felt free to go ahead at least with the Edisons. There are a few other early labels whose ownership is totally unknown and likely abandoned, such as the Grey Gull "group" of labels of the 1920's. These are very interesting to transfer as well. There are some really oddball stuff from before World War I, too, that are probably abandoned.
Note that the original raw transfers (lossless wav) are also downloadable for each song. It would not surprise me (but I have not checked), that the restored version (using CEDAR) in lossless format is also available in the directory of the archive (but there's no public link to it from the discography page.) It's the high-quality transfers that are the most critical to do right, and UCSB did do them right. Save those in lossless format, and they'll always be around for anyone to restore. Algorithms and applications to restore old recording will continue to improve, and these raw transfers can be re-restored at a future time to improve the sound even more.
Fortunately, the U.S. Government, via the National Park Service (I believe) are the owners of the Edison masters, and so the recordings appear to be public domain. Or at least the U.S. Government won't attempt to claim state-level copyright on the recordings (which I suppose they could.) Note that sound recordings made before 1972 are NOT covered by Federal Copyright Law, rather they are covered by a patchwork of state copyright laws (both common and statutory), anti-competitive laws, etc. It's a mess. Pre-1972 recordings (other than those whose ownership is lost) will not come under Federal Copyright protection (and thus, hopefully, public domain status) until 2067! There are some early Columbia cylinder recordings from 1890 (technically owned by Sony-BMG) which will not become public domain until 2067, a whopping 177 years after they were 'waxed'.