A better comparison, would be a coupon with your purchase. You can get a discount, if you buy Brand X milk to go with your Oreo's. But you still have the option to buy whatever milk you want, instead.
In this case, the chip is only there, to enforce the "license/terms of use" of the particular type of cartridge from Lexmark. They sell 2 models. One is cheaper, and chipped so that it can only be used once. They call it a "prebate". The other kind is unlimited use, and refillable etc. But costs more up front.
One thing to consider. The cartridges in question, are *not* necessary for the printer.
Lexmark makes 2 different kinds of catridges for that printer. One kind, is sold at a higher price, and is yours. Free and clear. Once you buy it, you can refill to your hearts content.
The catridges, that have the chip embedded, are sold under a separate program. And they are referred to as "prebate" cartriges. You pay less for them up front. And are obligated to return the cartridge to Lexmark (at their expense) after one use.
The chips that are the basis of the lawsuit, are a way of reusing the "prebate" cartridges, rather than sending them back as you agreed when you bought it from Lexmark.
Lexmark VERY clearly says, all over their website. That if you want to refill catridges, just buy the "full price" product, and go at it.
Basically what this all boils down to, is SCC is selling a chip that allows the circumvention of an agreement that consumers made with Lexmark. And on that basis, I really don't see what the big fuss is about.
I'm in charge of the phones, among other things here at the office. And our Nortel switch can already transmit whatever the owner wants, for CID info, according to the company that handles our maitenance contract. The tech told me that it's childishly simple to change it to almost anything.
How is it "pathetic, and lazy" to provide an opposing viewpoint/counterpoint to a competitors direct attack on you? Seems like good business sense to me, personally.
Modems - There's still far from a guarantee that you'll find a high speed connection everywhere you go, with your laptop. Modems are going to be around for quite awhile still.
Wired I/O devices - Hmmm. First of all, managing a compact office area, with lots of users in it, would be a nightmare if everyone was wireless. They work ok, if everyone's spread out. But in a very dense working environment, logistically, they would totally suck. And further more, while a wireless mouse *may* almost be worth the trouble. I don't see the point of a wireless keyboard, at all. It just doesn't move that much on a given day. And even if you did want to move around, how far can you get from the screen before you can't see what you're doing anyhow.
A couple years ago I went to an intel sales seminar for retail salespeople (amazing how you can dummy a paystub with photoshop, and a scanner) and halfway through the presentation the trainer threw out "Who knows what iComp is?"
The entire room lost it when I yelled back "A cheesy marketing ploy!"
Did it cross your mind that once the large corporations were fully funding ICANN, they would likely assume that if they aren't financially dependent on public funding, then they should be allowed carte blanche to arrange things entirely to their convenience, without any lip service towards the public.
Because god knows the UN has proven to be a wise organization, capable of managing almost all the worlds affairs. Preserving peace, etc. And nobody would ever dare to do things that would go against UN decisions, or would sidestep the UN entirely.
When large numbers of people are commiting heinous crimes against media companies (Napster, Kazaa, MP'3 swapping in general, Software Piracy, etc) then those people are no longer worthy of wide open "fair use" rights. They have proven that they are children who are incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions, and are incapable of following the generous rules that were previously deeped sufficient, so sterner measures are in order.
Was the inherent bias of the average slashdot audience.
In general the audience here believes that copyrights are evil, and horrible. And that it's absolutely unconscionable for anyone to restrict what happens to their creations, once they are released to the public.
Unless those creations are GPL. In that case the license should be completely inviolate, and absolute.
You can't have your cake, and eat it too guys. The same laws that state that the GPL is valid, and that you can control what is done with your source code, are the same laws that allow a commercial concern to limit what you can do with their creation.
It's irrelevant that the people end up buying the albums they like anyhow. And it's also irrelevant whether or not the MP3's are downloaded for profit.
Technically swapping MP3's that you don't own the copyright to, is a violation of the copyright law. By design, most laws are set up in a very black and white manner. Intent is or at least should be totally irrelevant generally. This is allowed, that isn't is cut and dried, once you start letting the intent of actions be subject to interpretation, the law is basically meaningless.
It's still a valid address that can be sold off to someone else. Lists are sold at a price based on how many are on the list. Not how many want to be on the list.
Isn't this the same story that was up last week? Some AT&T researcher figured out how to make master keys. So now they're just using them to open your door, and count your machines, right?
I read a "rationale" for why the contest existed. If I recall, it was something along the lines of "program X was so mangled that we said WTF, let's have a contest..."
I searched pretty thoroughly on the IOCCC site, and didn't see the story anymore. Anyone know where I can find it?
Personally I think its a moral mistake to enforce their beliefs on others when they offer a free service, but that is their choice.
By the same token, you fully support companies that take OSS code, make changes, and lock it down tight?
You're all for Microsoft coming out with their own Linux Distro, that has changes, that are totally closed source, etc?
Personally I think it's a moral mistake for Stallman et al, to enforce their beliefs on others when they offer a free product, but that is their choice.
that's never lived in an apartment building at least.
No apartment building I've ever lived in, has had "do not duplicate" keys. I've always been able to go to OSH, and get copis of the door key, the apartment key, and the mailbox key as well.
At that time, someone will throw back in the judges faces that the previous extension was a "one-time" thing, to bring things in balance. And that it should not, can not, continue to happen.
Actually if you read the majority opinion, you'll see that the court quite clearly recognized that they don't want to allow eternal coprights. And that this was just a measure to bring US law in synch with the EU.
If 20 years from now, this comes up again, guarantee that someone will point back on the earlier decision.
If you actually read through the finding, you'll discover something interesting.
Seemingly a large part of the reason that this law is being upheld as legal, is that Congress has extended copyright terms before, successfully.
So it would seem, that we're being victimized in this case, because in 1790 nobody successfully fought the terms of the original copyright law, being enacted to cover both existing, and new creations.
The next time this comes up, there's some ammo built into the current decision.
Concerning petitioners' assertion that Congress might evade the limitation on its authority by stringing together "an unlimited number of 'limited times,'" the Court of Appeals stated that such legislative misbehavior is "clearly not the situation before us."
It continues on to point out that the extension is merely designed to bring the US laws in synch with the norms in the EU, due to the multinational nature of modern communications, etc.
I'd read this as being solid grounds for fighting something like this the next time it cmes up. Hopefully 20 years from now, someone will catch stuff like that in the current opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason higher levels of prohibition make the prices go up, is that the dealers are MORE exposed to the law. And more likely to get busted, etc.
Where you get the notion that their chances of avoiding the law get better, is beyond me.
A better comparison, would be a coupon with your purchase. You can get a discount, if you buy Brand X milk to go with your Oreo's. But you still have the option to buy whatever milk you want, instead.
In this case, the chip is only there, to enforce the "license/terms of use" of the particular type of cartridge from Lexmark. They sell 2 models. One is cheaper, and chipped so that it can only be used once. They call it a "prebate". The other kind is unlimited use, and refillable etc. But costs more up front.
One thing to consider. The cartridges in question, are *not* necessary for the printer.
Lexmark makes 2 different kinds of catridges for that printer. One kind, is sold at a higher price, and is yours. Free and clear. Once you buy it, you can refill to your hearts content.
The catridges, that have the chip embedded, are sold under a separate program. And they are referred to as "prebate" cartriges. You pay less for them up front. And are obligated to return the cartridge to Lexmark (at their expense) after one use.
The chips that are the basis of the lawsuit, are a way of reusing the "prebate" cartridges, rather than sending them back as you agreed when you bought it from Lexmark.
Lexmark VERY clearly says, all over their website. That if you want to refill catridges, just buy the "full price" product, and go at it.
Basically what this all boils down to, is SCC is selling a chip that allows the circumvention of an agreement that consumers made with Lexmark. And on that basis, I really don't see what the big fuss is about.
I'm in charge of the phones, among other things here at the office. And our Nortel switch can already transmit whatever the owner wants, for CID info, according to the company that handles our maitenance contract. The tech told me that it's childishly simple to change it to almost anything.
And this system, is several years old.
slightly off topic. But there doesn't seem to be an OGG player, for WinCE units? Surprising, that there is a player for the Zaurus, but not WinCE.
if you look anything like a stereotypical "nerd?
There's typically a fairly limited market for rotund, gigolo's with bad complexions.
How is it "pathetic, and lazy" to provide an opposing viewpoint/counterpoint to a competitors direct attack on you? Seems like good business sense to me, personally.
Modems - There's still far from a guarantee that you'll find a high speed connection everywhere you go, with your laptop. Modems are going to be around for quite awhile still.
Wired I/O devices - Hmmm. First of all, managing a compact office area, with lots of users in it, would be a nightmare if everyone was wireless. They work ok, if everyone's spread out. But in a very dense working environment, logistically, they would totally suck. And further more, while a wireless mouse *may* almost be worth the trouble. I don't see the point of a wireless keyboard, at all. It just doesn't move that much on a given day. And even if you did want to move around, how far can you get from the screen before you can't see what you're doing anyhow.
A couple years ago I went to an intel sales seminar for retail salespeople (amazing how you can dummy a paystub with photoshop, and a scanner) and halfway through the presentation the trainer threw out "Who knows what iComp is?"
The entire room lost it when I yelled back "A cheesy marketing ploy!"
Did it cross your mind that once the large corporations were fully funding ICANN, they would likely assume that if they aren't financially dependent on public funding, then they should be allowed carte blanche to arrange things entirely to their convenience, without any lip service towards the public.
Because god knows the UN has proven to be a wise organization, capable of managing almost all the worlds affairs. Preserving peace, etc. And nobody would ever dare to do things that would go against UN decisions, or would sidestep the UN entirely.
The law doesn't say anywhere that you're allowed to acquire copyrighted material without paying for it, as long as it's not for commercial purposes.
The law says that it's a violation of copyright law to participate (as sender or recipient) in copying the property of another entity.
When large numbers of people are commiting heinous crimes against media companies (Napster, Kazaa, MP'3 swapping in general, Software Piracy, etc) then those people are no longer worthy of wide open "fair use" rights. They have proven that they are children who are incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions, and are incapable of following the generous rules that were previously deeped sufficient, so sterner measures are in order.
Was the inherent bias of the average slashdot audience.
In general the audience here believes that copyrights are evil, and horrible. And that it's absolutely unconscionable for anyone to restrict what happens to their creations, once they are released to the public.
Unless those creations are GPL. In that case the license should be completely inviolate, and absolute.
You can't have your cake, and eat it too guys. The same laws that state that the GPL is valid, and that you can control what is done with your source code, are the same laws that allow a commercial concern to limit what you can do with their creation.
It's irrelevant that the people end up buying the albums they like anyhow. And it's also irrelevant whether or not the MP3's are downloaded for profit.
Technically swapping MP3's that you don't own the copyright to, is a violation of the copyright law. By design, most laws are set up in a very black and white manner. Intent is or at least should be totally irrelevant generally. This is allowed, that isn't is cut and dried, once you start letting the intent of actions be subject to interpretation, the law is basically meaningless.
It's still a valid address that can be sold off to someone else. Lists are sold at a price based on how many are on the list. Not how many want to be on the list.
Isn't this the same story that was up last week? Some AT&T researcher figured out how to make master keys. So now they're just using them to open your door, and count your machines, right?
I read a "rationale" for why the contest existed. If I recall, it was something along the lines of "program X was so mangled that we said WTF, let's have a contest..."
I searched pretty thoroughly on the IOCCC site, and didn't see the story anymore. Anyone know where I can find it?
Personally I think its a moral mistake to enforce their beliefs on others when they offer a free service, but that is their choice.
By the same token, you fully support companies that take OSS code, make changes, and lock it down tight?
You're all for Microsoft coming out with their own Linux Distro, that has changes, that are totally closed source, etc?
Personally I think it's a moral mistake for Stallman et al, to enforce their beliefs on others when they offer a free product, but that is their choice.
isn't an original. It's basically an emulation as well. Just a very slick hardware one, rather than a software emulator.
There's nothing original about it tho.
that's never lived in an apartment building at least.
No apartment building I've ever lived in, has had "do not duplicate" keys. I've always been able to go to OSH, and get copis of the door key, the apartment key, and the mailbox key as well.
At that time, someone will throw back in the judges faces that the previous extension was a "one-time" thing, to bring things in balance. And that it should not, can not, continue to happen.
Actually if you read the majority opinion, you'll see that the court quite clearly recognized that they don't want to allow eternal coprights. And that this was just a measure to bring US law in synch with the EU.
If 20 years from now, this comes up again, guarantee that someone will point back on the earlier decision.
If you actually read through the finding, you'll discover something interesting.
Seemingly a large part of the reason that this law is being upheld as legal, is that Congress has extended copyright terms before, successfully.
So it would seem, that we're being victimized in this case, because in 1790 nobody successfully fought the terms of the original copyright law, being enacted to cover both existing, and new creations.
The next time this comes up, there's some ammo built into the current decision.
Concerning petitioners' assertion that Congress might evade the limitation on its authority by stringing together "an unlimited number of 'limited times,'" the Court of Appeals stated that such legislative misbehavior is "clearly not the situation before us."
It continues on to point out that the extension is merely designed to bring the US laws in synch with the norms in the EU, due to the multinational nature of modern communications, etc.
I'd read this as being solid grounds for fighting something like this the next time it cmes up. Hopefully 20 years from now, someone will catch stuff like that in the current opinion.