Perhaps. But that isn't what the law suit says. I'm not debating people's personal experience, I'm going on what the article says and what the law suit claims. Sounds like you should start a suit for what you are claiming is the problem, which is something different.
There's lots of asshat things Microsoft has done, but this isn't one of them.
The motion says that Microsoft knew that when the Xbox 360 was reoriented with a disc playing inside, the disc could be damaged.
DUH! Don't do that! I wouldn't do that on my desktop PC, or my Playstation, or my laptop. And how often does that happen anyway? Why are people regularly rotating their XBoxes? I might do that, like, once when I set it up. And maybe when I transport it. Never while it is running!
A warning was also included in the product manual, telling customers to "remove discs before moving the console or tilting it between the horizontal and vertical positions."
This is a completely reasonable expectation. This is a case where a warning is appropriate.
Eventually, Microsoft did institute an Xbox 360 disc replacement program that sends out new discs to customers if their discs are damaged for any reason. The program only applies to Microsoft titles and costs $20 per disc.
Wow, AND they offered to replace discs. Obviously, they can only replace their own discs.
Holy crap -- Microsoft did everything absolutely right here and STILL got sued.
If I am reading this correctly, if someone makes a social networking site that asks for certain information, then that in itself could be illegal if someone under 13 registers on the site? That's absurd.
It would make sense to me that Sony would be liable if they distributed that information, or sold it off, or something like that. But the article makes no mention of that. It simply says that the mere action of collecting information someone voluntarily gives to them is illegal.
So if I put a form on a web site that says "Enter your name, dob, and address below and you get a cookie" then I've done something illegal if someone under 13 fills that form out? Even if I send them the cookie and throw out the information immediately?
Maybe I need to read COPPA because this makes no sense.
That's a good theory. But I propose an alternative: The first post looks like it was created by a Markov Generator. Like somebody was playing with a freely downloadable one, and pasted in some random newspaper page that had stuff about an actress and stuff about cloning.
Absolutely! No more allowing people just to connect to the Internet with any address they choose! Instead, I propose some sort of standard Internet Protocol address. And a central organization to assign everyone those addresses. Then, we can have some sort of header on every packet that will describe the source and destination address.
Perhaps we could have a central organization who would assign names to those addresses. And they could standardize the naming schemes, and the protocols the naming servers use!
In the U.S., #4 is incorrect. I'm not sure how things are in the UK. But in America, private schools pay less than public schools. Is that different from the UK? I believe the reasoning is that teaching in a private school is more desirable than teaching in a public school. Where I live, which has terrible terrible schools, teachers get paid higher. It's like hazard pay.
I, Robot was also a series of short stories. Why is it that I, Robot could be made into a movie (and I agree with your assessment of it) but Foundation cannot? (I have not read Foundation so I don't know what it is like)
"...because most computer programs have standardized button sizes, fonts, and layouts, which are designed for typical users."
Not for long. With OS X and WPF out, most applications will have custom widgets that look nothing like the widgets in other programs. Managers who love cool shading and alternate look and feel will be redirecting UI guidelines. Oh, and the little bit of keyboard support remaining in Windows and OS X - forget that too.
But just because something is a process, is it worth patenting? Someone replied to my post joking about patenting the process of getting off a soap box by starting with the right leg, then the left.
Isn't this patent kind of like that? Can I patent a particular funny walk just because I specified a process? Or a way to chew gum, or eat a sandwich - so long as a specify exactly how I chew?
I've worked with point-of-sale systems that allowed this at the register. Is it novel because it happens at the table? Gah! That's patentable?
Maybe if we stopped granted patents for these trivial things, people would be forced to innovate for real. And lots of lawyers would have to go out and do something productive in society.
If you are saying that they can't do it because it is illegal, you are about 7 years too late. Ever since 2001, nothing is illegal if the executive branch wants it badly enough. They passed the Telecom Immunity act a few months ago. We already knew that they were working outside of the law.
At this point the question isn't "are they tapping?" The question is "how are they implementing the tapping?" A friend of mine in the security business told me that this is how they are doing it. Expensive? hell yeah. Illegal? probably.
That was what I thought when I heard it, but I no longer think it is impossible.
First of all, I agree, it is/would be very very expensive. As for people being "in on it" that cat is out of the bag after the AT&T whistle blower came out. So we now have the EFF -vs- AT&T and the ACLU -vs- the Bush administration cases going on. So we know they are listening, although I don't think the court will release the specifics of _how_ they are listening.
I first heard this from a friend of a friend, who is a grad student in network security. When he was explaining it to me, I didn't believe it was feasible. But after a while of arguing it started to make sense. I won't discount it as impossible just because it would be expensive. How many hard drives could be purchased for the billions of dollars we are spending in Iraq?
Some of the recent laws refer to getting secret/roving wiretaps after the fact. I see no way to implement this other than recording. And they wouldn't need to keep it for a long time. There are recent laws requiring ISPs to keep records for a short while, so obviously ISPs record stuff (although surely not the actual traffic). Then there are systems like Carnivore that are well-known now. It seems more and more likely.
Oh, and I recommend starting with tin foil earmuffs then working your way from there.:)
The individuals who joined the collective weren't really evil people. The Borg will assimilate anyone. But once they become part of the collective mindset, they have one goal, and that goal can really only be achieved in an evil way.
Corporations tend to work the same way. Most of the individuals are not evil, but they contribute toward a whole that is going in an evil direction. Some time it is tough to take a step back and go "if I do this, they could use it for something else..." I always wonder who was the jerk who wrote the "virus" that went on the Sony BMG music CD's that disabled the ability to burn CDs as a form of copy protection. Surely that person knew what he/she was doing was wrong. But in other cases it is more gray. The same tools can be used for good or evil. And if evil makes you more profit, well.. that is what happens.
My understanding is that the phone companies (or the government, on their behalf) now store all phone calls for a short period of time. Then, if there is reason to tap the phone call they can go back to the recording. It allows them to tap phone calls after they happen, so long as they decide to do so within the window of opportunity before the recording is recycled.
I got it! We need to put prisoners in a special "cell" where they are surrounded by metal bars that block cell phone transmissions. Also, such a cage does not require FCC approval. Put them over the windows too. That'll show 'em!
Because a Predator costs $15 million and requires a trained pilot to launch it and fly it. A webcam costs $30 and requires an IQ of 12 to operate. My guess is this device will be somewhere in between.
The difficulty here is that some of those wallpapers might have official Toyota photos that have been airbrushed or had something added. That would make them derivative works, and they would be under Toyota's copyright. But there is no way for the site owner to know that. And if Toyota won't tell him which ones, then he is kinda stuck.
Legal question here: Is the site owner safe under DMCA safe harbor? He hasn't received a DMCA request, and he isn't advertising or selling the images. He is just a content provider. What if the owner puts a check box during the upload process saying "[ ] I certify that this image is copyrighted by USERNAME and is not created from any copyrighted works" and someone lies?
I know Wikipedia handles this by having a big paragraph about copyright when images are uploaded, and when you click on the image you see that boilerplate.
Slashdot Mirror
you're assuming everyone who has had scratched discs did something to cause it and that's not the case.
I made no assumptions. I quoted the article exactly.
I've seen people complaining about problems with scratched discs while not moving the system
Perhaps, but that is not what this article is about, nor is it what the law suit claims.
Perhaps. But that isn't what the law suit says. I'm not debating people's personal experience, I'm going on what the article says and what the law suit claims. Sounds like you should start a suit for what you are claiming is the problem, which is something different.
There's lots of asshat things Microsoft has done, but this isn't one of them.
The motion says that Microsoft knew that when the Xbox 360 was reoriented with a disc playing inside, the disc could be damaged.
DUH! Don't do that! I wouldn't do that on my desktop PC, or my Playstation, or my laptop. And how often does that happen anyway? Why are people regularly rotating their XBoxes? I might do that, like, once when I set it up. And maybe when I transport it. Never while it is running!
A warning was also included in the product manual, telling customers to "remove discs before moving the console or tilting it between the horizontal and vertical positions."
This is a completely reasonable expectation. This is a case where a warning is appropriate.
Eventually, Microsoft did institute an Xbox 360 disc replacement program that sends out new discs to customers if their discs are damaged for any reason. The program only applies to Microsoft titles and costs $20 per disc.
Wow, AND they offered to replace discs. Obviously, they can only replace their own discs.
Holy crap -- Microsoft did everything absolutely right here and STILL got sued.
If I am reading this correctly, if someone makes a social networking site that asks for certain information, then that in itself could be illegal if someone under 13 registers on the site? That's absurd.
It would make sense to me that Sony would be liable if they distributed that information, or sold it off, or something like that. But the article makes no mention of that. It simply says that the mere action of collecting information someone voluntarily gives to them is illegal.
So if I put a form on a web site that says "Enter your name, dob, and address below and you get a cookie" then I've done something illegal if someone under 13 fills that form out? Even if I send them the cookie and throw out the information immediately?
Maybe I need to read COPPA because this makes no sense.
That's a good theory. But I propose an alternative: The first post looks like it was created by a Markov Generator. Like somebody was playing with a freely downloadable one, and pasted in some random newspaper page that had stuff about an actress and stuff about cloning.
Absolutely! No more allowing people just to connect to the Internet with any address they choose! Instead, I propose some sort of standard Internet Protocol address. And a central organization to assign everyone those addresses. Then, we can have some sort of header on every packet that will describe the source and destination address.
Perhaps we could have a central organization who would assign names to those addresses. And they could standardize the naming schemes, and the protocols the naming servers use!
nahh... that's just too much regulation :)
Profit isn't the problem. If you say that, then people could duplicate copyrighted works and give them away for free.
Computer geeks probably use correct computer terms.
Legal geeks probably use correct legal terms.
Also, this only applies to educated geeks.
Wouldn't a libertarian simply say that we need to end the "oil subsidies and allow electric cars to come to market naturally?
By loaning money to Tesla, it seems like we subsidies oil, then subsidies the competitors to oil. That seems silly.
The term "natural monopoly" was pioneered by John Stuart Mill, who died in 1873. Bell patented his invention in 1877. AT&T was formed in 1983.
All of this can be found within 1 link of the Wikipedia articles already posted. I'll repeat what the original poster said:
"Read them, then see if you can still say that with a straight face."
In the U.S., #4 is incorrect. I'm not sure how things are in the UK. But in America, private schools pay less than public schools. Is that different from the UK? I believe the reasoning is that teaching in a private school is more desirable than teaching in a public school. Where I live, which has terrible terrible schools, teachers get paid higher. It's like hazard pay.
I, Robot was also a series of short stories. Why is it that I, Robot could be made into a movie (and I agree with your assessment of it) but Foundation cannot? (I have not read Foundation so I don't know what it is like)
"...because most computer programs have standardized button sizes, fonts, and layouts, which are designed for typical users."
Not for long. With OS X and WPF out, most applications will have custom widgets that look nothing like the widgets in other programs. Managers who love cool shading and alternate look and feel will be redirecting UI guidelines. Oh, and the little bit of keyboard support remaining in Windows and OS X - forget that too.
I wonder if this means they will provide OS X support as well?
It takes as much energy to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as you get from burning the fossil fuels it came from.
Granted.
But just because something is a process, is it worth patenting? Someone replied to my post joking about patenting the process of getting off a soap box by starting with the right leg, then the left.
Isn't this patent kind of like that? Can I patent a particular funny walk just because I specified a process? Or a way to chew gum, or eat a sandwich - so long as a specify exactly how I chew?
I've worked with point-of-sale systems that allowed this at the register. Is it novel because it happens at the table? Gah! That's patentable?
Maybe if we stopped granted patents for these trivial things, people would be forced to innovate for real. And lots of lawyers would have to go out and do something productive in society.
(Sorry, getting down from the soap box)
That's exactly what Steve Jobs said about the Segway before it came out.
If you are saying that they can't do it because it is illegal, you are about 7 years too late. Ever since 2001, nothing is illegal if the executive branch wants it badly enough. They passed the Telecom Immunity act a few months ago. We already knew that they were working outside of the law.
At this point the question isn't "are they tapping?" The question is "how are they implementing the tapping?" A friend of mine in the security business told me that this is how they are doing it. Expensive? hell yeah. Illegal? probably.
That was what I thought when I heard it, but I no longer think it is impossible.
First of all, I agree, it is/would be very very expensive. As for people being "in on it" that cat is out of the bag after the AT&T whistle blower came out. So we now have the EFF -vs- AT&T and the ACLU -vs- the Bush administration cases going on. So we know they are listening, although I don't think the court will release the specifics of _how_ they are listening.
I first heard this from a friend of a friend, who is a grad student in network security. When he was explaining it to me, I didn't believe it was feasible. But after a while of arguing it started to make sense. I won't discount it as impossible just because it would be expensive. How many hard drives could be purchased for the billions of dollars we are spending in Iraq?
Some of the recent laws refer to getting secret/roving wiretaps after the fact. I see no way to implement this other than recording. And they wouldn't need to keep it for a long time. There are recent laws requiring ISPs to keep records for a short while, so obviously ISPs record stuff (although surely not the actual traffic). Then there are systems like Carnivore that are well-known now. It seems more and more likely.
Oh, and I recommend starting with tin foil earmuffs then working your way from there. :)
It's kind of like the Borg:
The individuals who joined the collective weren't really evil people. The Borg will assimilate anyone. But once they become part of the collective mindset, they have one goal, and that goal can really only be achieved in an evil way.
Corporations tend to work the same way. Most of the individuals are not evil, but they contribute toward a whole that is going in an evil direction. Some time it is tough to take a step back and go "if I do this, they could use it for something else..." I always wonder who was the jerk who wrote the "virus" that went on the Sony BMG music CD's that disabled the ability to burn CDs as a form of copy protection. Surely that person knew what he/she was doing was wrong. But in other cases it is more gray. The same tools can be used for good or evil. And if evil makes you more profit, well.. that is what happens.
My understanding is that the phone companies (or the government, on their behalf) now store all phone calls for a short period of time. Then, if there is reason to tap the phone call they can go back to the recording. It allows them to tap phone calls after they happen, so long as they decide to do so within the window of opportunity before the recording is recycled.
I got it! We need to put prisoners in a special "cell" where they are surrounded by metal bars that block cell phone transmissions. Also, such a cage does not require FCC approval. Put them over the windows too. That'll show 'em!
Because a Predator costs $15 million and requires a trained pilot to launch it and fly it. A webcam costs $30 and requires an IQ of 12 to operate. My guess is this device will be somewhere in between.
The difficulty here is that some of those wallpapers might have official Toyota photos that have been airbrushed or had something added. That would make them derivative works, and they would be under Toyota's copyright. But there is no way for the site owner to know that. And if Toyota won't tell him which ones, then he is kinda stuck.
Legal question here: Is the site owner safe under DMCA safe harbor? He hasn't received a DMCA request, and he isn't advertising or selling the images. He is just a content provider. What if the owner puts a check box during the upload process saying "[ ] I certify that this image is copyrighted by USERNAME and is not created from any copyrighted works" and someone lies?
I know Wikipedia handles this by having a big paragraph about copyright when images are uploaded, and when you click on the image you see that boilerplate.