"Also, there's a big trademark dilution law getting ready to go through, that will increase the likelihood that trademark owners can succeed in suits for 'tarnishing' or 'blurring' of their mark, e.g. by associating it with pornography."
And the funny thing that is pushing this legislation is www.whitehouse.com (a porn site that has been the thorn of presidents since the creation of the web). The legislation is also beamed at cyber-squatters. It allows celeberty entities (white house included) to reclaim their domain. I don't know if it will ever pass or if it was already squeeked though on some other legislation (like most other bad laws get passed).
"About a year and a half ago, jobs I was interviewing for (in roughly the same area) were offering $75,000, and they weren't startups.
Note that these are "senior" positions though, which may account for some of the extra pay."
This goes to the typical American attitude. By that I mean that even entry level people (just out of school) EXPECT to make $75,000 or more or they don't take the job. Not everybody can be the CEO you know. I live in an area of the country where the cost of living is extreamly low but so are the wages. It is funny to see people from out of state interview here. Their jaw drops when the offer of $25,000 a year comes back...
"I agree that recommending linux to anyone who's clueless is an exercise in futility, but I have no problem recommending a mac to one of them."
I do not agree that Linux isn't for the clueless...Installing and administering it may be but hell, that is what you are doing in the first place no matter the OS with those folks. At least in Linux you can control it better if YOU are the admin. Hell, I have a close friend who is totally clueless in all things computer who lives in a different city. All I do is SSH in and update from time to time behind her back. She is a normal user without admin privs. She emails me if she wants something done out of the ordinary and that is that. Before I put Linux on I was having to reinstall every week because she did something stupid or landed on some exploit-du-jour meaning a trip down to do it. It has been a year now and she is going stronger than ever and I know she isn't messing the system up....It is impossible for her to do it...
Actually, it was Alexandar Hamilton in the Federalist Papers who argued against "factions".
"Given the nature of man, factions are inevitable. As long as men hold different opinions, have different amounts of wealth, and own different amount of property, they will continue to fraternize with people who are most similar to them. Both serious and trivial reasons account for the formation of factions but the most important source of faction is the unequal distribution of property. Men of greater ability and talent tend to possess more property than those of lesser ability, and since the first object of government is to protect and encourage ability, it follows that the rights of property owners must be protected. Property is divided unequally, and, in addition, there are many different kinds of property; men have different interests depending upon the kind of property they own. For example, the interests of landowners differ from those who own businesses. Government must not only protect the conflicting interests of property owners, it must, at the same time, successfully regulate the conflicts that result from those who own, and those who do not own, property."
Federalist papers 10
In other Papers he argues that factions are a dangerous thing when used to oppress the minority. So while it wasn't George to begin with it was Hamilton (one of the creators of the US Constitution). Next!
Most articles remain on our site for seven days; most columns remain online for a month, but they are available afterward for a fee in the online archives. If you're searching for a movie review by Roger Ebert, they can be found in the Review Archive.
If you feel you reached this message in error, please contact the webmaster. "
"This should result in a rejection of any patent related claims by Forgent Networks."
Good post there Mr. AC! The problem with the system is that it should have been rejected by the USPTO instead of being issued in the first place. That would have saved the other suckers that paid Forgent off instead of wasting even more money in our broken court system. The question I got is when it is found to be invalid does Forgent have to pay the extortion money back to those pigeons? That would be the way to fix this situation if you ask me.
"the argument but what if the browser does not suport javascript does not float, if it does not suport javascript it's not going to suport those fancy css properties either."
Sure it floats....You are forgetting those that turn off javascripting because they don't want to bog down their surfing with silly stuff like pop-ups, pop-unders, and other stupid shit javascripting is used for. CSS works fine but your code doesn't.
B.
Re:Hold on, I need to type a message to 911...
on
Microsoft's 911 Patent
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"That's why you sit down with your children and educate them about the 911 system."
"They are sending their grief to the wrong place. Their beef should not be with Microsoft for not opening their document format, it should be with their IT department or with software procurement. If you need to know how your data is stored, and don't want to rely on a third party to graciously provide you access to it, then Microsoft software is the wrong way to go. It's not like it was a big surprise."
And when Massachusetts decided on open standards as well as give open source a consideration, MS et. al. lobbied long and hard and are still fighting it. The grief they are getting in the EU over software patents is a clue Sherlock. MS doesn't want, and will fight, any large org or gov trying to open things up.You can bet your ass that if the US gov decided to go with OO instead MS would file suit for "unfair practices".
"So your idea of free and fair competition is that every product should float no matter if another product completely outperforms/outmarkets them? I still don't see how were they illegaly forced out of the markets."
They neither "outperformed" or "outmarketed" them. MS used their OS monopoly with manufacturers to leverage their Office suite when WordPerfect was the standard. MS "bundled" Word et. al. and offered "reduced" rates to orginizations that "upgraded" from there seriously undercutting WP and Lotus. MS was convicted of this type behavior but the watered down settlement (if you want to call it that) hasn't done a thing to correct it. They are now using their monopoly in the Office market to try to keep out Open Source with a cheesy license that is targeted directly at FOSS.
How is suing the end-users of their supposed product (music) going to endear those users into buying from them again? I argue that just the opposite is occuring and the RIAA will most likely blame that decline on more pirating. We all know they are full of shit when they claim "billions lost to pirating" and such.
"HOw can any such provisions really be ok and acceptable in a contract, especially in a consumer retaled situation?"
Because it is not a contract. It is a Policy. This is how it works; A law trumps a contract, a contract trumps a policy, a policy trumps an oral statement. The customers are held to their contract (that they signed when getting their service) and that trumps this policy. Now it depends if this clause is in the written contract but that can then be argued as uninforcable (law trumping contract) and the policy that was in place when the contract was signed will be the version used in court.
"Ever try to get support for Linux at all? Exactly who am I supposed to contact if I have problems?"
That answer would be yes! You have 5 choices on who to contact. 1.) the Distro maker OR 2.) the author of the program you are having problems with OR 3.) other Linux users (through a multitude of forums) OR 4.) If you are capable, FIX IT YOURSELF! Unlike Windows, the source code is given with GPL software. OR 5.) Pay someone who is technical to fix it. (See 4.)
"For them, design stability, consistency and suppport are way more important. Windows gives them that."
Ever tried to get support for Windows 2000, Windows 98, or Windows 95 lately? Their answer is of course, "Upgrade to XP". As for "stability, consistancy" I beg to differ with you on these items. The only thing consistant about it is the need to purchase more and more hardware to support the OS.
"Only if it were a work for hire, which is actually kind of rare. Normally music copyrights vest in the person who creates the music, and are assigned, which means life + 70 terms, and termination."
Which raises an interesting question...
Most (if not all) "artists" are under contract with the labels. Does that contract then throw it into the work for hire category? I think some brave attorney should explore that some day...
"if the artists that performed the live show agree to having thier performance made available in this way. What people around here just don't seem to get is that it is the performer that owns the performance and it is thier consent that is required to allow the copies to be made. In most venues the unauthorized recording of a live show is grounds for removal from the premesis and is a violation of the agreement you entered into when you purchased and used the ticket to the event. If the event takes place in a public venue then there can be no restrictions on the use of a recording. However, my guess is that most of these bittorrents were "boot-leg" recordings obtained in a clandestine manner."
No, it is the labels that have them under contract as in, "all your stuff is ours if you want published." It is the labels that control who can distribute not the artist. And since the label owns it don't expect that copyright to expire for 95 years.
"A great example of what I am talking about is the Greatful Dead. If my recollection of my GD days are clear they basiclly didn't care if you recorded a boot leg of their concerts. If they were touring today, my guess is that they would be happy to allow this sort of distribution."
The funny thing is there were still places where recording was forbidden even of the Dead. It was the policy of the arena they were at. This prevented any suits of "unfair treatment" arising in their eyes.
"Those that don't choose to allow it, whether you like it or not, have the right to defend their copyrights. If you don't like the fact that a performer decides to enforce their copyright, don't listen to their music. Just don't steal their music and then justify it by saying they are *ssh*les for not giving it to you for free in the first place."
I agree with you up to the point of the "*ssh*les" part because they are assholes for following along with the RIAA on this policy instead of using their clout to push the labels into a more constructive way to deal with it. Instead of embracing a new technology they would turn the clocks back and rather you go to the old model.
Until people rise up and fight with their wallets nothing is going to change. Support needs to be given those artists that do distribute themselves instead of relying on a label.
Your problem wasn't with Linux per se but with the folk installing it being unfamiliar with it. Our shop is solidly Windows mainly because of the ludite MSCE's in there refusing to even consider invalidating their credentials...lol.
"3: a large list of phising techniques and how they spoof browsers is easily avaliable and could be use to create a few fixes (all browser makers should do this)..."
A better way would be to turn OFF HTML in email by default. Most of the phishing scams as well as spams I have recieved have goofy lines of trash text to fool the spam checkers. I always thought it was stupid to use HTML email anyway.
"Lets understand that, you know, rebates have traditionally been a way for the manufactures to lower thier price, when a merchant doesn't want to have a sale. Lower prices spur buying, and rebates are a way to lower prices (as they can't force merchants to do)."
Bullshit. Merchants ADVERTISE the rebates like dangling bait. In fact, most merchants advertise the REBATED price instead of the actual "you are paying this at the register" price.
"No, they are designed with the understanding that you pay full price, and the manufacturer will send you a check for the rebate amount, thus lowering you end price. I fail to see how saying 'buy this, and i'll send you a check for $10' is a scam. The fact is that it is unconditional."
It is mostly an advertising scam. If you fail to see that you are blind.
"Um, what exactly do you expect if your entry is illegible? How can they possibly send it out? They could guess at your name or address...but would that get it to you for sure? Mail can be damaged by water, and things do get lost in the mail. But its not only rebates that get hit."
See below...
"Yes, its a real hassel to fill out your name and address, and prove that you a) bought the proper item (by providing a upc) and b) buying it within the specified time period (by providing a copy of your reciept). It can't be much less info then that, or do you think companies should just take your word for it?"
And since they are the ones determining legibility, you have no say in the matter. And while we are at it, xerox copies aren't accepted, for obvious reasons, so how does one resubmit when they don't send back ALL the original documents (including the ORIGINAL reciept and UPC labels)?
It is more productive if the manufacturer's rebate is between the murchant and the manufacturer instead of the customer and manufacturer. This is called an "instant rebate" and the customer is out of the picture as soon as they leave the store.
It is an advertising scam in that you will see in large red letters "$PRICE*" and following the usual look at the bottom of the page in the smallest print known to man is *$PRICE after $X rebate". That is a scam when you boldly display one price and charge at the register another.
"Guess what, most rebate forms state they WON'T sell your data...and I didn't realize that name and address was ALL of my personal data. You're right though, I should expect them to magically teleport the check directly into my hand, without them even know who sent in the form!"
"Most rebate forms" say nothing of the sort. It is a trade off for the rebate that you will get put on a spam list. It is silly to not expect them to use it for marketing both mail and the selling of the data collected. They are a business after all and if that data becomes more valuable than it costs to produce bet your ass they will sell it.
Sorry. I should have clarified it a little. I meant State Governments.
"People would want a.us tld to identify themselves as being based in the US, same as.ca for Canada, etc."
But again, why would you want to do this? This is a silly issue to me. Use of a.net,.com,.org, etc.. is more common anyway. I just don't get why anyone would feel a driving need for a.US TLD anyway.
The argument is more basic than anyone has yet said. It isn't about "predominently used for infringement" more than it is about the ability for the industry to stop technology that it sees as harmful. The same thing happens every time a new technology displaces an older one.
Another place you are seeing this kind of thing going on is in the other case the Supreme Court is hearing today involving ISPs and cabel access.
Slashdot Mirror
"Also, there's a big trademark dilution law getting ready to go through, that will increase the likelihood that trademark owners can succeed in suits for 'tarnishing' or 'blurring' of their mark, e.g. by associating it with pornography."
And the funny thing that is pushing this legislation is www.whitehouse.com (a porn site that has been the thorn of presidents since the creation of the web). The legislation is also beamed at cyber-squatters. It allows celeberty entities (white house included) to reclaim their domain. I don't know if it will ever pass or if it was already squeeked though on some other legislation (like most other bad laws get passed).
B.
"About a year and a half ago, jobs I was interviewing for (in roughly the same area) were offering $75,000, and they weren't startups.
Note that these are "senior" positions though, which may account for some of the extra pay."
This goes to the typical American attitude. By that I mean that even entry level people (just out of school) EXPECT to make $75,000 or more or they don't take the job. Not everybody can be the CEO you know. I live in an area of the country where the cost of living is extreamly low but so are the wages. It is funny to see people from out of state interview here. Their jaw drops when the offer of $25,000 a year comes back...
"I agree that recommending linux to anyone who's clueless is an exercise in futility, but I have no problem recommending a mac to one of them."
I do not agree that Linux isn't for the clueless...Installing and administering it may be but hell, that is what you are doing in the first place no matter the OS with those folks. At least in Linux you can control it better if YOU are the admin. Hell, I have a close friend who is totally clueless in all things computer who lives in a different city. All I do is SSH in and update from time to time behind her back. She is a normal user without admin privs. She emails me if she wants something done out of the ordinary and that is that. Before I put Linux on I was having to reinstall every week because she did something stupid or landed on some exploit-du-jour meaning a trip down to do it. It has been a year now and she is going stronger than ever and I know she isn't messing the system up....It is impossible for her to do it...
B.
Actually, it was Alexandar Hamilton in the Federalist Papers who argued against "factions".
"Given the nature of man, factions are inevitable. As long as men hold different opinions, have different amounts of wealth, and own different amount of property, they will continue to fraternize with people who are most similar to them. Both serious and trivial reasons account for the formation of factions but the most important source of faction is the unequal distribution of property. Men of greater ability and talent tend to possess more property than those of lesser ability, and since the first object of government is to protect and encourage ability, it follows that the rights of property owners must be protected. Property is divided unequally, and, in addition, there are many different kinds of property; men have different interests depending upon the kind of property they own. For example, the interests of landowners differ from those who own businesses. Government must not only protect the conflicting interests of property owners, it must, at the same time, successfully regulate the conflicts that result from those who own, and those who do not own, property."
Federalist papers 10
In other Papers he argues that factions are a dangerous thing when used to oppress the minority. So while it wasn't George to begin with it was Hamilton (one of the creators of the US Constitution).
Next!
B.
Umm....I did...
"The page you requested cannot be found.
Most articles remain on our site for seven days; most columns remain online for a month, but they are available afterward for a fee in the online archives.
If you're searching for a movie review by Roger Ebert, they can be found in the Review Archive.
If you feel you reached this message in error, please contact the webmaster. "
Don't see how it is flamebait though...
B
"This should result in a rejection of any patent related claims by Forgent Networks."
Good post there Mr. AC! The problem with the system is that it should have been rejected by the USPTO instead of being issued in the first place. That would have saved the other suckers that paid Forgent off instead of wasting even more money in our broken court system. The question I got is when it is found to be invalid does Forgent have to pay the extortion money back to those pigeons? That would be the way to fix this situation if you ask me.
B.
"the argument but what if the browser does not suport javascript does not float, if it does not suport javascript it's not going to suport those fancy css properties either."
Sure it floats....You are forgetting those that turn off javascripting because they don't want to bog down their surfing with silly stuff like pop-ups, pop-unders, and other stupid shit javascripting is used for. CSS works fine but your code doesn't.
B.
"That's why you sit down with your children and educate them about the 911 system."
And when your dog hits it?!?!
B.
"They are sending their grief to the wrong place. Their beef should not be with Microsoft for not opening their document format, it should be with their IT department or with software procurement. If you need to know how your data is stored, and don't want to rely on a third party to graciously provide you access to it, then Microsoft software is the wrong way to go. It's not like it was a big surprise."
And when Massachusetts decided on open standards as well as give open source a consideration, MS et. al. lobbied long and hard and are still fighting it. The grief they are getting in the EU over software patents is a clue Sherlock. MS doesn't want, and will fight, any large org or gov trying to open things up.You can bet your ass that if the US gov decided to go with OO instead MS would file suit for "unfair practices".
B.
"So your idea of free and fair competition is that every product should float no matter if another product completely outperforms/outmarkets them? I still don't see how were they illegaly forced out of the markets."
They neither "outperformed" or "outmarketed" them. MS used their OS monopoly with manufacturers to leverage their Office suite when WordPerfect was the standard. MS "bundled" Word et. al. and offered "reduced" rates to orginizations that "upgraded" from there seriously undercutting WP and Lotus. MS was convicted of this type behavior but the watered down settlement (if you want to call it that) hasn't done a thing to correct it. They are now using their monopoly in the Office market to try to keep out Open Source with a cheesy license that is targeted directly at FOSS.
B.
How is suing the end-users of their supposed product (music) going to endear those users into buying from them again? I argue that just the opposite is occuring and the RIAA will most likely blame that decline on more pirating. We all know they are full of shit when they claim "billions lost to pirating" and such.
B.
Too late. They've already sued the dead..
d _Grandmother/1107532260
http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA_Sues_Decease
B.
"HOw can any such provisions really be ok and acceptable in a contract, especially in a consumer retaled situation?"
Because it is not a contract. It is a Policy. This is how it works; A law trumps a contract, a contract trumps a policy, a policy trumps an oral statement. The customers are held to their contract (that they signed when getting their service) and that trumps this policy. Now it depends if this clause is in the written contract but that can then be argued as uninforcable (law trumping contract) and the policy that was in place when the contract was signed will be the version used in court.
B.
"Ever try to get support for Linux at all? Exactly who am I supposed to contact if I have problems?"
That answer would be yes! You have 5 choices on who to contact. 1.) the Distro maker OR 2.) the author of the program you are having problems with OR 3.) other Linux users (through a multitude of forums) OR 4.) If you are capable, FIX IT YOURSELF! Unlike Windows, the source code is given with GPL software. OR 5.) Pay someone who is technical to fix it. (See 4.)
B.
"For them, design stability, consistency and suppport are way more important. Windows gives them that."
Ever tried to get support for Windows 2000, Windows 98, or Windows 95 lately? Their answer is of course, "Upgrade to XP". As for "stability, consistancy" I beg to differ with you on these items. The only thing consistant about it is the need to purchase more and more hardware to support the OS.
B.
Well I thank you for clearing that up for me. You are OK for a lawyer even if you aren't my lawyer...;-)
B.
"Only if it were a work for hire, which is actually kind of rare. Normally music copyrights vest in the person who creates the music, and are assigned, which means life + 70 terms, and termination."
Which raises an interesting question...
Most (if not all) "artists" are under contract with the labels. Does that contract then throw it into the work for hire category? I think some brave attorney should explore that some day...
B.
"if the artists that performed the live show agree to having thier performance made available in this way. What people around here just don't seem to get is that it is the performer that owns the performance and it is thier consent that is required to allow the copies to be made. In most venues the unauthorized recording of a live show is grounds for removal from the premesis and is a violation of the agreement you entered into when you purchased and used the ticket to the event. If the event takes place in a public venue then there can be no restrictions on the use of a recording. However, my guess is that most of these bittorrents were "boot-leg" recordings obtained in a clandestine manner."
No, it is the labels that have them under contract as in, "all your stuff is ours if you want published." It is the labels that control who can distribute not the artist. And since the label owns it don't expect that copyright to expire for 95 years.
"A great example of what I am talking about is the Greatful Dead. If my recollection of my GD days are clear they basiclly didn't care if you recorded a boot leg of their concerts. If they were touring today, my guess is that they would be happy to allow this sort of distribution."
The funny thing is there were still places where recording was forbidden even of the Dead. It was the policy of the arena they were at. This prevented any suits of "unfair treatment" arising in their eyes.
"Those that don't choose to allow it, whether you like it or not, have the right to defend their copyrights. If you don't like the fact that a performer decides to enforce their copyright, don't listen to their music. Just don't steal their music and then justify it by saying they are *ssh*les for not giving it to you for free in the first place."
I agree with you up to the point of the "*ssh*les" part because they are assholes for following along with the RIAA on this policy instead of using their clout to push the labels into a more constructive way to deal with it. Instead of embracing a new technology they would turn the clocks back and rather you go to the old model.
Until people rise up and fight with their wallets nothing is going to change. Support needs to be given those artists that do distribute themselves instead of relying on a label.
B.
Your problem wasn't with Linux per se but with the folk installing it being unfamiliar with it. Our shop is solidly Windows mainly because of the ludite MSCE's in there refusing to even consider invalidating their credentials...lol.
B.
"3: a large list of phising techniques and how they spoof browsers is easily avaliable and could be use to create a few fixes (all browser makers should do this). .."
A better way would be to turn OFF HTML in email by default. Most of the phishing scams as well as spams I have recieved have goofy lines of trash text to fool the spam checkers. I always thought it was stupid to use HTML email anyway.
B.
"Lets understand that, you know, rebates have traditionally been a way for the manufactures to lower thier price, when a merchant doesn't want to have a sale. Lower prices spur buying, and rebates are a way to lower prices (as they can't force merchants to do)."
Bullshit. Merchants ADVERTISE the rebates like dangling bait. In fact, most merchants advertise the REBATED price instead of the actual "you are paying this at the register" price.
"No, they are designed with the understanding that you pay full price, and the manufacturer will send you a check for the rebate amount, thus lowering you end price. I fail to see how saying 'buy this, and i'll send you a check for $10' is a scam. The fact is that it is unconditional."
It is mostly an advertising scam. If you fail to see that you are blind.
"Um, what exactly do you expect if your entry is illegible? How can they possibly send it out? They could guess at your name or address...but would that get it to you for sure? Mail can be damaged by water, and things do get lost in the mail. But its not only rebates that get hit."
See below...
"Yes, its a real hassel to fill out your name and address, and prove that you a) bought the proper item (by providing a upc) and b) buying it within the specified time period (by providing a copy of your reciept). It can't be much less info then that, or do you think companies should just take your word for it?"
And since they are the ones determining legibility, you have no say in the matter. And while we are at it, xerox copies aren't accepted, for obvious reasons, so how does one resubmit when they don't send back ALL the original documents (including the ORIGINAL reciept and UPC labels)?
It is more productive if the manufacturer's rebate is between the murchant and the manufacturer instead of the customer and manufacturer. This is called an "instant rebate" and the customer is out of the picture as soon as they leave the store.
It is an advertising scam in that you will see in large red letters "$PRICE*" and following the usual look at the bottom of the page in the smallest print known to man is *$PRICE after $X rebate". That is a scam when you boldly display one price and charge at the register another.
"Guess what, most rebate forms state they WON'T sell your data...and I didn't realize that name and address was ALL of my personal data. You're right though, I should expect them to magically teleport the check directly into my hand, without them even know who sent in the form!"
"Most rebate forms" say nothing of the sort. It is a trade off for the rebate that you will get put on a spam list. It is silly to not expect them to use it for marketing both mail and the selling of the data collected. They are a business after all and if that data becomes more valuable than it costs to produce bet your ass they will sell it.
B.
Now that was funny! Hope someone mods it up +5 funny....
B.
"Government agencies use the .gov tld."
.us tld to identify themselves as being based in the US, same as .ca for Canada, etc."
.net, .com, .org, etc.. is more common anyway. I just don't get why anyone would feel a driving need for a .US TLD anyway.
Sorry. I should have clarified it a little. I meant State Governments.
"People would want a
But again, why would you want to do this? This is a silly issue to me. Use of a
B.
"The ones most likely to be "tracked down" are the spammers who would want to be completely anonymous."
.us TLD?
Or anyone opposing the government. Or anyone opposing the Patriot Act. Or anyone opposing ANY US secret policy....The list goes on and on.
I am kind of mixed on this one since the US TLD is usually used BY government agancies. What says you have to have a
B.
"Howeer, when a technology is predonominantly used for infringing purposes, maybe it is inherently bad."
c ourt=us&vol=464&invol=417 for the Sony Vs Universal City Studios case).
And the movie industry said the same thing about VCRs (See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
The argument is more basic than anyone has yet said. It isn't about "predominently used for infringement" more than it is about the ability for the industry to stop technology that it sees as harmful. The same thing happens every time a new technology displaces an older one.
Another place you are seeing this kind of thing going on is in the other case the Supreme Court is hearing today involving ISPs and cabel access.
B.