I do the same job and I agree with everything you said. XP plus Server 2003 is practically bulletproof. If I'm willing to continue paying for XP I can't really see why Microsoft should have a problem with it.
However if Microsoft would make make an true upgrade for XP, not a new OS model, I could be tempted. Just gives us the couple things that would be useful -- like an updated backup utility -- I wouldn't mind shelling out for that.
However for a very long time I wasn't able to reply to any threads in IE7 and had a hard time reading many of them. I actually figured it was an intentional exploit of some IE incompatiblity designed to annoy and exclude IE users. I just learned to switch to a different browser when I wanted to read slashdot.
While publishing it, and making it prior art would be nice, the only way for you to totally place it into the public domain would be for you to patent it yourself.
If you actually patent the invention, then by definition it isn't public domain. A better answer that fits the requirements of the original question is to file a patent application, abandon it, then let the USPTO publish your application. That will put it into public domain.
I think it may even be simpler. I went to the site and, though I couldn't understand the language, it seemed as though you had to buy the iTMS certificate with a credit card! So all they have to do is use your card (or in the more elaborate scenario a previous idiot's card) to buy your gift certificate. And they buy whatever else they want with it.
Once upon a time, Apple used all Torx screws, and it was good. What is with these insanely tiny, fine, and easily stripped phillips screws on the newer machines?
They are just awful, and you still need a Torx driver if you want to replace the disk anyway.
Let's have a geek-off where brag about the Torx drivers are in our toolboxes! I got one that is so small it is invisible to the naked eye!
You know some people don't realize how easy it can be to change to a generic power adapter by just soldering a new power connector attachment to the motherboard. Ahh, convenience!
I don't think that's the case. I would guess any business large enough to have IT staff would buy site licenses direct from Microsoft and have their staff burn the images in house. Otherwise maintenance would become a monstrous problem, especially when you consider the difficulties of keeping MS OSs clean and protected from malware. . . .
But I don't know for sure. Still, I am pretty sure that very few businesses with a dozen computers or more are shopping for new ones at Staples, Office Depot, WalMart, or Dell's catalogs.
You'd be surprised. The average business only has about 16 employees, most actually have fewer. They don't have in-house IT. They buy from companies like Dell because they can also get the service plans to go with them. I guess there are more copies of Windows SBS out there than all the other versions combined. Those people still need the Business version.
It's not hard to understand. Even the cost of OEM Vista Business is a lot cheaper than Dell is claiming. And that doesn't include subtracting the cost of the Home OEM license. You are still back to a less than $20 difference. This isn't a scheme for MS, as much as a scheme for the vendors.
I'd bet the majority of downgrades are actually business users who are just plugging a new computer into an existing XP/Server2003 infrastructure. So no extra money at all there. The difference between a XP-MCE license and a Vista-Home license is only around $10-$20. So the vendor really shouldn't be sticking it to the end-user for much loot. I'd guess Microsoft doesn't see much money out of it. But it is very convenient for the vendor to make it appear as if that is MS's fault.
Not quite correct. FTA:"...when Dell was accused of gouging customers by charging $150 to downgrade a new computer to XP. Dell countered that although it did charge $20 to install XP on the machine, as well as to cover the cost of the additional media, the bulk -- $120 of the $150 -- was the price of upgrading the PC from the standard Home Premium to the more expensive Business edition . . . Well, if you want XP you're SOL, that'll be $120 to 'upgrade' the Vista you want to 'downgrade'.
The cheapest OEM version of XP only cost 109.99 for us mere mortals (you know Dell gets it cheaper)and the difference between that and Home Vista Premium is only 16 bucks. So I don't think Dell is really telling the truth here.
The Kindle text-to-speech software simply does not infringe on any of the rights of the copyright holder.
The Kindle doesn't simply do text-to-speech translation. Amazon doesn't have the right to sell these books in an open format. Nobody but the copy-holder does. What Amazon has done is, in effect, by way of it's special access to the encryption/decryption technology, made itself the exclusive source for electronic audio translation of the work. Don't you think the copy-holder should have some say about an exclusive arangement such as this?
One side of the argument that Amazon might take is that they are simply selling a reader. No different that selling a program that plays music based off of scanning sheet music. From a technical standpoint I'm sure we all see how that defense could be used.
Conversely, the publishing industry treats audio rights to books as a separate and wholly viable product to sell. Amazon sidestepping that and offering a device that produces much the same results is the issue at hand.
If Amazon was selling the device, but wasn't selling the books, there wouldn't seem to be an issue. But the Kindle isn't just a device, it is also a bookstore. Can you separate the book-selling nature of the device from it's intended uses? I think that is a legit issue.
But an even bigger issue specially for Amazon is that it already has agreements to sell audio versions of books, so it has contractual duties that go beyond normal copyright. It has to demonstrate good faith in executing those duties. Aren't they interfering with those contracts by, in a sense, going behind the author's back and cutting a deal directly with the readers to get essentially a very similar product?
The audio right covers reading the book out loud _and recording said reading, and reproducing and distributing the recording_. Without the recording, no derivative work is produced, and it's just a performance.
You are saying if Amazon did the text to speech translation and put it in an mp3 file, then downloaded it to the Kindle and replayed it, it would be copyright violation. But in this specific situation there is no meaningful difference between the two. If courts find that Amazon's intent is to profit from an audio version of the work for which knows it hasn't obtained proper rights, the technique Amazon uses to get around the law will not matter.
The law is practical. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
In the case where the performance is a book read out loud, you can sell a phonorecord (the term copyright law uses for sound recordings) of a performance; ordinarily, the performer would hold a copyright over the recording, but the recording would be a derivative work of the book.
Text to speech software is not a performance, any more than a DVD player is. It can be used to perform a work, but since the act of performing a work privately is not restricted, it passes the "substantial non-infringing use" test.
The argument here isn't about text-to-speech software. It is about selling an audio version of a work. Clearly Amazon is saying that a benefit of buying books through Kindle is that you get an audio version of the book too. Amazon has a contract with the copyright holder that, we both know, specifically forbids selling an audio version under the same terms.
If I am given the right to sell sheet music by a copyright holder, do I then have the right to give out recordings of my band playing the songs to people who buy the sheet music as an inducement to buy the sheet music? Doesn't that deprive the copyright holder of the right to assign that right separately?
You are missing the point that Amazon is selling the works as both text and audio when they have a contract to only sell text. That Amazon is touting the Kindles ability to translate text to audio as a reason to buy the Kindle demonstrates that Amazon thinks they are selling you something in addition to text. The authors do not a problem with the reader translating a book aloud, but they have a problem with someone they have a contract with to sell text-only versions of a work (and with whom they have separate audio version contracts) selling text plus audio versions. It is a contract issue.
So while the author has no contract with Amazon, there is a chain of legal rights for the book itself and additional rights could not typically be inserted without some type of negotiation with someone in that chain.
I would go further and say Amazon does have a contract with the author, just one sold to them through another agent. Amazon can be conveyed no more rights than the publisher had to sell.
The key words here are "sell" and "Amazon." The article doesn't say, and the Author's Guild certainly wouldn't say, that you don't have a right to read a book out loud. They are arguing that Amazon doesn't have that right to sell one without contracting with the owner first. Does anybody here think they have a right to sell an audio performance of a book for which they don't own the copyright without the copy-holder's permission?
Amazon is clearly touting Kindles ability to turn a text book into an audio book. They obviously think they will be paid more money for that ability. Add to that the fact that Amazon already contracts with many of these authors to sell audio performances of their works. You have an established business practice between two parties to sell a valuable commodity and now one of the parties is finding a way to violate the agreement.
Remember the author is the one that owns the copyright, not Amazon, and is the own with the right to profit by their work. If Amazon finds a new way to make more money from those works they are obligated to negotiate for permission first.
An example of this, was that I was not going to finish this post because this stuff is dumb, and people would come back saying that Apples UI is not that great, so I closed the tab. Safari asked if I wanted to close the tab because I was in the middle of filling in this form, with the default being Close (not OK, Cancel, or whatever).
I just want to jump in and say "me too." Seriously, using verbs on buttons instead okay OK/Cancel is such an obvious interface improvement, and yet probably 90% of dialog boxes I see are OK/Cancel or Yes/No. I say death to whoever thought of the dialog box UI paradigm of "throw a paragraph of meandering text which mentions several different actions at the user, and then OK and Cancel." I think some of the philosophy of OO programming leaked out and rotted the brains of UI designers and convinced them computers should be built of objects instead of actions. The bastards.
Probably would have been a more powerful example if IE's tab dialog didn't also default to the verb "close."
I am the only one who noticed this story isn't even accurate anymore????
Maybe the editors could just cut and replace the company names in the headline.
Slashdot Mirror
I think her really meant, "emails to a hooker, naked photos some random teenager, that kind of thing"
Alright, a little worse than I thought. More just annoying really, unless you don't keep your software up-to-date.
Yeah, when I saw Web Start I knew it was nothing serious. Just another anti-Java Slashdot article.
I do the same job and I agree with everything you said. XP plus Server 2003 is practically bulletproof. If I'm willing to continue paying for XP I can't really see why Microsoft should have a problem with it. However if Microsoft would make make an true upgrade for XP, not a new OS model, I could be tempted. Just gives us the couple things that would be useful -- like an updated backup utility -- I wouldn't mind shelling out for that.
However for a very long time I wasn't able to reply to any threads in IE7 and had a hard time reading many of them. I actually figured it was an intentional exploit of some IE incompatiblity designed to annoy and exclude IE users. I just learned to switch to a different browser when I wanted to read slashdot.
While publishing it, and making it prior art would be nice, the only way for you to totally place it into the public domain would be for you to patent it yourself.
If you actually patent the invention, then by definition it isn't public domain. A better answer that fits the requirements of the original question is to file a patent application, abandon it, then let the USPTO publish your application. That will put it into public domain.
I would really think twice about using your credit card!
http://search1.taobao.com/browse/0/n-g,nf2hk3tfom-------2-------b--40--commend-0-all-0.htm?at_topsearch=1&ssid=e-s1
I think it may even be simpler. I went to the site and, though I couldn't understand the language, it seemed as though you had to buy the iTMS certificate with a credit card! So all they have to do is use your card (or in the more elaborate scenario a previous idiot's card) to buy your gift certificate. And they buy whatever else they want with it.
While Android may have an app store, you are not required to buy your apps from it. Despite what the TFA says, you can still actually use it.
Once upon a time, Apple used all Torx screws, and it was good. What is with these insanely tiny, fine, and easily stripped phillips screws on the newer machines?
They are just awful, and you still need a Torx driver if you want to replace the disk anyway.
Let's have a geek-off where brag about the Torx drivers are in our toolboxes! I got one that is so small it is invisible to the naked eye!
Just 16 screws? How does Jobs do it?
You know some people don't realize how easy it can be to change to a generic power adapter by just soldering a new power connector attachment to the motherboard. Ahh, convenience!
I don't think that's the case. I would guess any business large enough to have IT staff would buy site licenses direct from Microsoft and have their staff burn the images in house. Otherwise maintenance would become a monstrous problem, especially when you consider the difficulties of keeping MS OSs clean and protected from malware. . . .
But I don't know for sure. Still, I am pretty sure that very few businesses with a dozen computers or more are shopping for new ones at Staples, Office Depot, WalMart, or Dell's catalogs.
You'd be surprised. The average business only has about 16 employees, most actually have fewer. They don't have in-house IT. They buy from companies like Dell because they can also get the service plans to go with them. I guess there are more copies of Windows SBS out there than all the other versions combined. Those people still need the Business version.
Why is this so hard to understand?
It's not hard to understand. Even the cost of OEM Vista Business is a lot cheaper than Dell is claiming. And that doesn't include subtracting the cost of the Home OEM license. You are still back to a less than $20 difference. This isn't a scheme for MS, as much as a scheme for the vendors.
I'd bet the majority of downgrades are actually business users who are just plugging a new computer into an existing XP/Server2003 infrastructure. So no extra money at all there. The difference between a XP-MCE license and a Vista-Home license is only around $10-$20. So the vendor really shouldn't be sticking it to the end-user for much loot. I'd guess Microsoft doesn't see much money out of it. But it is very convenient for the vendor to make it appear as if that is MS's fault.
Not quite correct. FTA:"...when Dell was accused of gouging customers by charging $150 to downgrade a new computer to XP. Dell countered that although it did charge $20 to install XP on the machine, as well as to cover the cost of the additional media, the bulk -- $120 of the $150 -- was the price of upgrading the PC from the standard Home Premium to the more expensive Business edition . . . Well, if you want XP you're SOL, that'll be $120 to 'upgrade' the Vista you want to 'downgrade'.
The cheapest OEM version of XP only cost 109.99 for us mere mortals (you know Dell gets it cheaper)and the difference between that and Home Vista Premium is only 16 bucks. So I don't think Dell is really telling the truth here.
The Kindle text-to-speech software simply does not infringe on any of the rights of the copyright holder.
The Kindle doesn't simply do text-to-speech translation. Amazon doesn't have the right to sell these books in an open format. Nobody but the copy-holder does. What Amazon has done is, in effect, by way of it's special access to the encryption/decryption technology, made itself the exclusive source for electronic audio translation of the work. Don't you think the copy-holder should have some say about an exclusive arangement such as this?
One side of the argument that Amazon might take is that they are simply selling a reader. No different that selling a program that plays music based off of scanning sheet music. From a technical standpoint I'm sure we all see how that defense could be used. Conversely, the publishing industry treats audio rights to books as a separate and wholly viable product to sell. Amazon sidestepping that and offering a device that produces much the same results is the issue at hand.
If Amazon was selling the device, but wasn't selling the books, there wouldn't seem to be an issue. But the Kindle isn't just a device, it is also a bookstore. Can you separate the book-selling nature of the device from it's intended uses? I think that is a legit issue. But an even bigger issue specially for Amazon is that it already has agreements to sell audio versions of books, so it has contractual duties that go beyond normal copyright. It has to demonstrate good faith in executing those duties. Aren't they interfering with those contracts by, in a sense, going behind the author's back and cutting a deal directly with the readers to get essentially a very similar product?
The audio right covers reading the book out loud _and recording said reading, and reproducing and distributing the recording_. Without the recording, no derivative work is produced, and it's just a performance.
You are saying if Amazon did the text to speech translation and put it in an mp3 file, then downloaded it to the Kindle and replayed it, it would be copyright violation. But in this specific situation there is no meaningful difference between the two. If courts find that Amazon's intent is to profit from an audio version of the work for which knows it hasn't obtained proper rights, the technique Amazon uses to get around the law will not matter.
The law is practical. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Yes they are, that's the problem.
In the case where the performance is a book read out loud, you can sell a phonorecord (the term copyright law uses for sound recordings) of a performance; ordinarily, the performer would hold a copyright over the recording, but the recording would be a derivative work of the book.
Text to speech software is not a performance, any more than a DVD player is. It can be used to perform a work, but since the act of performing a work privately is not restricted, it passes the "substantial non-infringing use" test.
The argument here isn't about text-to-speech software. It is about selling an audio version of a work. Clearly Amazon is saying that a benefit of buying books through Kindle is that you get an audio version of the book too. Amazon has a contract with the copyright holder that, we both know, specifically forbids selling an audio version under the same terms.
If I am given the right to sell sheet music by a copyright holder, do I then have the right to give out recordings of my band playing the songs to people who buy the sheet music as an inducement to buy the sheet music? Doesn't that deprive the copyright holder of the right to assign that right separately?
You are missing the point that Amazon is selling the works as both text and audio when they have a contract to only sell text. That Amazon is touting the Kindles ability to translate text to audio as a reason to buy the Kindle demonstrates that Amazon thinks they are selling you something in addition to text. The authors do not a problem with the reader translating a book aloud, but they have a problem with someone they have a contract with to sell text-only versions of a work (and with whom they have separate audio version contracts) selling text plus audio versions. It is a contract issue.
So while the author has no contract with Amazon, there is a chain of legal rights for the book itself and additional rights could not typically be inserted without some type of negotiation with someone in that chain.
I would go further and say Amazon does have a contract with the author, just one sold to them through another agent. Amazon can be conveyed no more rights than the publisher had to sell.
The key words here are "sell" and "Amazon." The article doesn't say, and the Author's Guild certainly wouldn't say, that you don't have a right to read a book out loud. They are arguing that Amazon doesn't have that right to sell one without contracting with the owner first. Does anybody here think they have a right to sell an audio performance of a book for which they don't own the copyright without the copy-holder's permission?
Amazon is clearly touting Kindles ability to turn a text book into an audio book. They obviously think they will be paid more money for that ability. Add to that the fact that Amazon already contracts with many of these authors to sell audio performances of their works. You have an established business practice between two parties to sell a valuable commodity and now one of the parties is finding a way to violate the agreement.
Remember the author is the one that owns the copyright, not Amazon, and is the own with the right to profit by their work. If Amazon finds a new way to make more money from those works they are obligated to negotiate for permission first.
I just want to jump in and say "me too." Seriously, using verbs on buttons instead okay OK/Cancel is such an obvious interface improvement, and yet probably 90% of dialog boxes I see are OK/Cancel or Yes/No. I say death to whoever thought of the dialog box UI paradigm of "throw a paragraph of meandering text which mentions several different actions at the user, and then OK and Cancel." I think some of the philosophy of OO programming leaked out and rotted the brains of UI designers and convinced them computers should be built of objects instead of actions. The bastards.
Probably would have been a more powerful example if IE's tab dialog didn't also default to the verb "close."
I am the only one who noticed this story isn't even accurate anymore???? Maybe the editors could just cut and replace the company names in the headline.