I really have no clue how to reply directly to the original article. Thus, I'm piggybacking:)
My SO is in the midst of creating a toy. Not the same route as games, but similar
Do not let yourself get conned into one of those invention promotion (for ex. Invent tech) companies. They are a waste of money and some of them are frauds.
Check out a few websites that will give you some basics of how to get going in this business
Inventor's Headquarters is a good place to start to explain the various processes involved in invention and common pitfalls. Randy, the website owner, also has a link to Mattel's toy scout and a few reputable agencies on his Toy Page
There are some aspects of game and toy inventing that are unique to that field. There is even a Toy Industry Association!
I found an introductory article by William Maclean, a board game inventor to be quite good advice!
About dot com has a game inventors area. She has an area specific to Board Games.
Lots of luck to ya!:)
I agree, in the sense that information overload is a bigger problem than "bad" or meaningless information on the Net.
However, the bigger problem is a lack of information litarcy. It never ceases to amaze me how many people do not know how to evaluate information sources. It is fine to use biased information, if one is aware that it is biased, and in what manner. I have come to the conclusion that there is very little information out there that is not biased in some way or another. Humans are fallible and spin is everywhere. A fairly good look at how both sides of US politics use spin, check out Spin Sanity. Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan have impressed me with their willingness to expose many figures, despite party affiliation.
Personally, I try to balance the situation by seeking information from both sides of the issue. For example, both Free Republic (a conservative US site) and Alternet (a progressive site) are politicaly biased. Neither one should be used without verifying facts and occurances from other sources.
More notable is the failure of the US media to cover international stories that are vital to our understanding of world events. Personally, whenever we are treated to a deluge of one story on every channel, station and newpaper, I think.."what aren't you telling me." That is why I go to the net and read news sources from international sources.
A worse situation is evidenced by the number of people, of all ages, who are unable to discern when someone is trying to sell them something, or persuade them of some idea; rather than truly inform them. A prime example is how many people will locate sites that claim to be offering great hhealth information, but are also trying to sell eeither pharmacauticals or herbal remedies. While the information may be "correct" they are far more likely to only present information supporting the use of their products.
Commercially supported sites can be great for gaining ideas and facts that one can then follow up by perusing other sites.
Colleges and Universities libraries in many US states are now offering information literacy classes. I know of several that have added this to required courses. However, this doesn't touch the large groups of credulous people who graduated years ago, who are not attending college and whose secondary schools do not include this skill in their curriculum.
Many people fall for scams, precisely because they do not realize that they ought to research this information-- much less do they know how to do such a thing! I think I reccomend Snopes at laest once a month in response to an email sent to me by friends and family!
Do not rely upon just one web search. No engine is able to scour the entire net, for a variety of reasons. There are information sources with primary sources of data on the Net. However, many of them are prohibitively expensive for an individual. This is where a local public and/or academic library can assist users.
Don't get me wrong, I've often gained additioanl ideas and insight from small weblogs and personal sites. These are especially good for comparing notes with others in similar situations. Sometimes I do not need authoritative data. For example if I want tips on refurbishing furniture Do it Yourself is a great source. On the other hand, if I was a carpentry apprentice, there are probably other sources better suited for a professional. Similarly, if I want to connect with others who are dealing with specific health problems, or simply want basic introductory information Web MD is good enough. However, if I'm making treatment decisions, I'd do better to go to a National or Internations association of folks dealing with the syndrome, as well as sites of doctors and researchers in
Interesting. I always thought that video stores had to purchase special licencing from the producers of said videos. Evidently, you do not!
I ran some searches and located
Video Software Dealers Association
Here is an excerpt from an article on VSDA's section on legal victories.
Videos and the "First Sale" Doctrine
Shortly after its founding, VSDA mobilized its grassroots power to successfully oppose congressional efforts to abolish the "first sale" doctrine of copyright law. The "first sale" doctrine is the legal underpinning of the home video retailing industry. It gives retailers the right to rent and sell prerecorded videos without the authorization of the copyright holder.
Legislative initiatives such as the "Consumer Video Sales/Rental Amendment of 1983" (H.R. 1029/S. 33, 98th Congress) sought to require anyone wishing to rent videotapes to obtain prior permission from the copyright owner. VSDA's success in defeating efforts to undermine the "first sale" doctrine ensured the phenomenal growth of the industry.
Thus, an individual in the US *can* rent DVDs under the "first sale" doctrine of the copyright law.
Copyright only prevents the consumer from copying the entire work and renting, selling them. Video stores pay extra to be able to have permissions to produce X nbr of copies to rent.
When you buy a book, you own it. You can do whatever you want to that book, including being able to read the last page first!
The content producers are trying to gain increasing amounts of control. There is no law that says I *must* watch every bit of that show. Nothing in the copyright law prevents me from skipping parts of a work, cutting a work up, burning it reading aloud, lending it or giving it away.
If the trailers and ads are boring -- that is *their* problem. Just as they cannot *force* you to watch tv commercials, nor to read the back of the paperback advertising similar books, they should not be allowed to force the public to watch any part of the dvd.
It is *their* job to make the trailers so interesting that the consumer will voluntarily watch it. They quickly become dated, at any rate. Have you ever watched an old movie and watched the trailers for movies that came out 2 years ago? It's annoying, and in VHS I always skipped them.
Why should a DVD be any different?
You can purchase these items from other vendors. They may not be out of stock everywhere.
Here is what PA had to say about this:
-If you would rather purchase the games or toys someplace else you are welcome to do so. Simply send them to the address listed below.
ATTN: Brad Walker
18303 Bothell Everett Hwy
Suite 140
Mill Creek, Wa 98012
I ran a search on US Supreme Court Opinions. This is the only one I could locate (since 2001) that had anything to do with copyright and patent law:
I'm headed home, so I'm doing this quick n dirty.
Here is the url for further exploration of this case: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZO. html
(you can also find much useful legal info at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ -- The legal Information Institute
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 01--618
ERIC ELDRED, et al., PETITIONERS v. JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
[January 15, 2003]
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the authority the Constitution assigns to Congress to prescribe the duration of copyrights. The Copyright and Patent Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, 8, cl. 8, provides as to copyrights: "Congress shall have Power... [t]o promote the Progress of Science... by securing [to Authors] for limited Times... the exclusive Right to their... Writings." In 1998, in the measure here under inspection, Congress enlarged the duration of copyrights by 20 years. Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Pub. L. 105--298, 102(b) and (d), 112 Stat. 2827--2828 (amending 17 U.S.C. 302 304). As in the case of prior extensions, principally in 1831, 1909, and 1976, Congress provided for application of the enlarged terms to existing and future copyrights alike.
Petitioners are individuals and businesses whose products or services build on copyrighted works that have gone into the public domain. They seek a determination that the CTEA fails constitutional review under both the Copyright Clause's "limited Times" prescription and the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. Under the 1976 Copyright Act, copyright protection generally lasted from the work's creation until 50 years after the author's death. Pub. L. 94--553, 302(a), 90 Stat. 2572 (1976 Act). Under the CTEA, most copyrights now run from creation until 70 years after the author's death. 17 U.S.C. 302(a). Petitioners do not challenge the "life-plus-70-years" time span itself. "Whether 50 years is enough, or 70 years too much," they acknowledge, "is not a judgment meet for this Court." Brief for Petitioners 14.1 Congress went awry, petitioners maintain, not with respect to newly created works, but in enlarging the term for published works with existing copyrights. The "limited Tim[e]" in effect when a copyright is secured, petitioners urge, becomes the con-
stitutional boundary, a clear line beyond the power of Congress to extend. See ibid. As to the First Amendment, petitioners contend that the CTEA is a content-neutral regulation of speech that fails inspection under the heightened judicial scrutiny appropriate for such regulations.
In accord with the District Court and the Court of Appeals, we reject petitioners' challenges to the CTEA. In that 1998 legislation, as in all previous copyright term extensions, Congress placed existing and future copyrights in parity. In prescribing that alignment, we hold, Congress acted within its authority and did not transgress constitutional limitations
Many stores no longer accept software returns if they've been opened.
Some will allow you to exchange it for another copy of *the same* title.
So, this really doesn't work.
Too many people were playing the return the system and screwing honest retail owners. (remember, they are not the ones who applied those protections that are causing problems).
Re:Attorney ads have done this for years
on
Recycling TV Ads
·
· Score: 1
This was actually mentioned up further in the threads, one the first page.
In any case, here in Richmond, VA it is Marks and Harrison;)
Also, I saw it while on conference in Seattle, WA. But I don't remember the law firm's name.
Marks and Harrison uses that commercial in the Richmond, VA area. I know I saw it being used on TV in Seattle, WA. But, I can't remember the name of the law firm.
You know it would be really interesting to find out how many different areas use this one?
There is actually a patent that some guy got for the manner in which he combed his hair. I've seen some others that looked as though they would be more cumbersome that the current methods available.
The PTO does not evaluate whether a patent is defensible, only that prior art has been referenced and that yours doesn't infringe upon a current patent.
I've been running some searches for prior art for my S/O who has some ideas and it's been educational!;)
Ugh, if they did this, people like me would be screwed!
I'm deaf, although I can hear *some* with my hearing aids, I sure won't be able to understand where the shopping cart is telling me to go.
Not to mention that if they did randomize everything, depending upon the shopping cart to guide customers to the items, they'd be in violation of ADA for several groups of people.
So, I don't think they will go quite this far.
They sure do make you walk passed as much as possible though!
Yanno,
I agree with the don't be lazy concept. However, there are some people are are not *able* to do college level work. Some of these people are not *able* to even do office work. What do you want them to do? To say "just go get another unskilled job" is telling me that you are clueless.
The number of unskilled jobs are shrinking. I had a roommate who was going to college. However all he had that the time was a HS education. He quit trucking to better himself. However, he needed money to get through school. He has child support, car all those grown up bills that 18/19 yr olds don't have. He wound up in a factory job.
There aren't many jobs he could do (due to lack of qualifications) and go to school (which you are recommending) and pay his bills. As it was, he was constantly whining about his lack of fundage...but that's another story:)
Here is the link to NewDotNet's uninstall instructions.
They sure do look like they do a thorough job of CYA in their "you want to uninstall, don't listen to third parties and our program is not making your computer unstable" spiel.
I'm curious to know if those who have said that the program won't uninstall have tried this uninstaller of NewDotNet's or just did the Add/Remove of MS? I'm curious to know whether these directions are pretty much useless.
Also, they threw in that third party software that removes this program may do more damage. Is this the utter BS that I perceive it to be?
Slashdot Mirror
I really have no clue how to reply directly to the original article. Thus, I'm piggybacking :)
:)
My SO is in the midst of creating a toy. Not the same route as games, but similar
Do not let yourself get conned into one of those invention promotion (for ex. Invent tech) companies. They are a waste of money and some of them are frauds. Check out a few websites that will give you some basics of how to get going in this business
Inventor's Headquarters is a good place to start to explain the various processes involved in invention and common pitfalls.
Randy, the website owner, also has a link to Mattel's toy scout and a few reputable agencies on his Toy Page
There are some aspects of game and toy inventing that are unique to that field. There is even a Toy Industry Association!
I found an introductory article by William Maclean, a board game inventor to be quite good advice!
About dot com has a game inventors area. She has an area specific to Board Games. Lots of luck to ya!
I agree, in the sense that information overload is a bigger problem than "bad" or meaningless information on the Net.
However, the bigger problem is a lack of information litarcy. It never ceases to amaze me how many people do not know how to evaluate information sources. It is fine to use biased information, if one is aware that it is biased, and in what manner. I have come to the conclusion that there is very little information out there that is not biased in some way or another. Humans are fallible and spin is everywhere. A fairly good look at how both sides of US politics use spin, check out Spin Sanity. Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan have impressed me with their willingness to expose many figures, despite party affiliation.
Personally, I try to balance the situation by seeking information from both sides of the issue. For example, both Free Republic (a conservative US site) and Alternet (a progressive site) are politicaly biased. Neither one should be used without verifying facts and occurances from other sources.
More notable is the failure of the US media to cover international stories that are vital to our understanding of world events. Personally, whenever we are treated to a deluge of one story on every channel, station and newpaper, I think.."what aren't you telling me." That is why I go to the net and read news sources from international sources.
A worse situation is evidenced by the number of people, of all ages, who are unable to discern when someone is trying to sell them something, or persuade them of some idea; rather than truly inform them. A prime example is how many people will locate sites that claim to be offering great hhealth information, but are also trying to sell eeither pharmacauticals or herbal remedies. While the information may be "correct" they are far more likely to only present information supporting the use of their products. Commercially supported sites can be great for gaining ideas and facts that one can then follow up by perusing other sites.
Colleges and Universities libraries in many US states are now offering information literacy classes. I know of several that have added this to required courses. However, this doesn't touch the large groups of credulous people who graduated years ago, who are not attending college and whose secondary schools do not include this skill in their curriculum.
Many people fall for scams, precisely because they do not realize that they ought to research this information-- much less do they know how to do such a thing! I think I reccomend Snopes at laest once a month in response to an email sent to me by friends and family!
Do not rely upon just one web search. No engine is able to scour the entire net, for a variety of reasons. There are information sources with primary sources of data on the Net. However, many of them are prohibitively expensive for an individual. This is where a local public and/or academic library can assist users.
Don't get me wrong, I've often gained additioanl ideas and insight from small weblogs and personal sites. These are especially good for comparing notes with others in similar situations. Sometimes I do not need authoritative data. For example if I want tips on refurbishing furniture Do it Yourself is a great source. On the other hand, if I was a carpentry apprentice, there are probably other sources better suited for a professional. Similarly, if I want to connect with others who are dealing with specific health problems, or simply want basic introductory information Web MD is good enough. However, if I'm making treatment decisions, I'd do better to go to a National or Internations association of folks dealing with the syndrome, as well as sites of doctors and researchers in
Interesting. I always thought that video stores had to purchase special licencing from the producers of said videos. Evidently, you do not! I ran some searches and located Video Software Dealers Association
Here is an excerpt from an article on VSDA's section on legal victories.
Videos and the "First Sale" Doctrine Shortly after its founding, VSDA mobilized its grassroots power to successfully oppose congressional efforts to abolish the "first sale" doctrine of copyright law. The "first sale" doctrine is the legal underpinning of the home video retailing industry. It gives retailers the right to rent and sell prerecorded videos without the authorization of the copyright holder.
Legislative initiatives such as the "Consumer Video Sales/Rental Amendment of 1983" (H.R. 1029/S. 33, 98th Congress) sought to require anyone wishing to rent videotapes to obtain prior permission from the copyright owner. VSDA's success in defeating efforts to undermine the "first sale" doctrine ensured the phenomenal growth of the industry.
Thus, an individual in the US *can* rent DVDs under the "first sale" doctrine of the copyright law.
Copyright only prevents the consumer from copying the entire work and renting, selling them. Video stores pay extra to be able to have permissions to produce X nbr of copies to rent. When you buy a book, you own it. You can do whatever you want to that book, including being able to read the last page first! The content producers are trying to gain increasing amounts of control. There is no law that says I *must* watch every bit of that show. Nothing in the copyright law prevents me from skipping parts of a work, cutting a work up, burning it reading aloud, lending it or giving it away. If the trailers and ads are boring -- that is *their* problem. Just as they cannot *force* you to watch tv commercials, nor to read the back of the paperback advertising similar books, they should not be allowed to force the public to watch any part of the dvd. It is *their* job to make the trailers so interesting that the consumer will voluntarily watch it. They quickly become dated, at any rate. Have you ever watched an old movie and watched the trailers for movies that came out 2 years ago? It's annoying, and in VHS I always skipped them. Why should a DVD be any different?
You can purchase these items from other vendors. They may not be out of stock everywhere.
Here is what PA had to say about this:
-If you would rather purchase the games or toys someplace else you are welcome to do so. Simply send them to the address listed below. ATTN: Brad Walker 18303 Bothell Everett Hwy Suite 140 Mill Creek, Wa 98012
I ran a search on US Supreme Court Opinions. This is the only one I could locate (since 2001) that had anything to do with copyright and patent law: I'm headed home, so I'm doing this quick n dirty. Here is the url for further exploration of this case: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZO. html
(you can also find much useful legal info at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ -- The legal Information Institute
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 01--618
ERIC ELDRED, et al., PETITIONERS v. JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
[January 15, 2003]
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the authority the Constitution assigns to Congress to prescribe the duration of copyrights. The Copyright and Patent Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, 8, cl. 8, provides as to copyrights: "Congress shall have Power ... [t]o promote the Progress of Science ... by securing [to Authors] for limited Times ... the exclusive Right to their ... Writings." In 1998, in the measure here under inspection, Congress enlarged the duration of copyrights by 20 years. Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Pub. L. 105--298, 102(b) and (d), 112 Stat. 2827--2828 (amending 17 U.S.C. 302 304). As in the case of prior extensions, principally in 1831, 1909, and 1976, Congress provided for application of the enlarged terms to existing and future copyrights alike.
Petitioners are individuals and businesses whose products or services build on copyrighted works that have gone into the public domain. They seek a determination that the CTEA fails constitutional review under both the Copyright Clause's "limited Times" prescription and the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. Under the 1976 Copyright Act, copyright protection generally lasted from the work's creation until 50 years after the author's death. Pub. L. 94--553, 302(a), 90 Stat. 2572 (1976 Act). Under the CTEA, most copyrights now run from creation until 70 years after the author's death. 17 U.S.C. 302(a). Petitioners do not challenge the "life-plus-70-years" time span itself. "Whether 50 years is enough, or 70 years too much," they acknowledge, "is not a judgment meet for this Court." Brief for Petitioners 14.1 Congress went awry, petitioners maintain, not with respect to newly created works, but in enlarging the term for published works with existing copyrights. The "limited Tim[e]" in effect when a copyright is secured, petitioners urge, becomes the con-
stitutional boundary, a clear line beyond the power of Congress to extend. See ibid. As to the First Amendment, petitioners contend that the CTEA is a content-neutral regulation of speech that fails inspection under the heightened judicial scrutiny appropriate for such regulations.
In accord with the District Court and the Court of Appeals, we reject petitioners' challenges to the CTEA. In that 1998 legislation, as in all previous copyright term extensions, Congress placed existing and future copyrights in parity. In prescribing that alignment, we hold, Congress acted within its authority and did not transgress constitutional limitations
Many stores no longer accept software returns if they've been opened. Some will allow you to exchange it for another copy of *the same* title. So, this really doesn't work. Too many people were playing the return the system and screwing honest retail owners. (remember, they are not the ones who applied those protections that are causing problems).
This was actually mentioned up further in the threads, one the first page. In any case, here in Richmond, VA it is Marks and Harrison ;)
Also, I saw it while on conference in Seattle, WA. But I don't remember the law firm's name.
Marks and Harrison uses that commercial in the Richmond, VA area. I know I saw it being used on TV in Seattle, WA. But, I can't remember the name of the law firm. You know it would be really interesting to find out how many different areas use this one?
There is actually a patent that some guy got for the manner in which he combed his hair. I've seen some others that looked as though they would be more cumbersome that the current methods available. The PTO does not evaluate whether a patent is defensible, only that prior art has been referenced and that yours doesn't infringe upon a current patent. I've been running some searches for prior art for my S/O who has some ideas and it's been educational! ;)
Ugh, if they did this, people like me would be screwed! I'm deaf, although I can hear *some* with my hearing aids, I sure won't be able to understand where the shopping cart is telling me to go. Not to mention that if they did randomize everything, depending upon the shopping cart to guide customers to the items, they'd be in violation of ADA for several groups of people. So, I don't think they will go quite this far. They sure do make you walk passed as much as possible though!
Yanno, I agree with the don't be lazy concept. However, there are some people are are not *able* to do college level work. Some of these people are not *able* to even do office work. What do you want them to do? To say "just go get another unskilled job" is telling me that you are clueless. The number of unskilled jobs are shrinking. I had a roommate who was going to college. However all he had that the time was a HS education. He quit trucking to better himself. However, he needed money to get through school. He has child support, car all those grown up bills that 18/19 yr olds don't have. He wound up in a factory job. There aren't many jobs he could do (due to lack of qualifications) and go to school (which you are recommending) and pay his bills. As it was, he was constantly whining about his lack of fundage...but that's another story :)
Here is the link to NewDotNet's uninstall instructions. They sure do look like they do a thorough job of CYA in their "you want to uninstall, don't listen to third parties and our program is not making your computer unstable" spiel. I'm curious to know if those who have said that the program won't uninstall have tried this uninstaller of NewDotNet's or just did the Add/Remove of MS? I'm curious to know whether these directions are pretty much useless. Also, they threw in that third party software that removes this program may do more damage. Is this the utter BS that I perceive it to be?