However patents are also good for Microsoft's twilight years, when the only thing they will have left of any real controlling influence will be their software patent portfolio. Then they'll be hell bent on collecting any and all royalties from said portfolio just to bolster their waning proprietary business.
They'd better hire Daryl McBride now so they'll be prepared.
No. Microsoft will start opposing patents because by then they'll have theirs, and will not want anyone else to be on a level playing field.
And making sure the playing field is heavily slanted in their direction - by foul means more often than fair - is how Microsoft has always achieved success.
Ever since the AHRA (the DMCA's bastard grandfather), Hollywood has always threatened that if they didn't get their way that they would, basically, take their ball and go home.
I say it's about time that someone called their bluff. The studio's "boycott" of a market they don't utterly control would last, oh, about 5 minutes.
More correctly, presuming that the evidence shows to the trier-of-fact's satisfaction that a preponderance of the evidence support's the plaintiff's allegation, the defendant in question committed a tort.
Quite frankly, I think what is probably the best thing for everyone would be to add a provision to the criminal copyright code creating a class of misdemenor copyright violation. If the kid was file-sharing and it's her first offense, she should do a couple weekends of community service and be told not to do it again. The shift to criminal court actually has a bunch of advantages for everyone: The government would wind up footing the bill for the investigations, and the RIAA would have its pound of flesh not having spent any of its own money. It could save its pack of attack lawyers for the really big infringers, as should be the case. The burden of proof is higher, which is an advantage for the defense, but community service and jail time and (one would hope small) fines rather than bankrupcy are the remedies.
Spoken like a true Weatherman. Most corporate entities lease their office space. Is it's their landlord's fault that they're suing a 14 year old girl? The insurance companies who wind up paying to repair the building? The firefighters who risk their lives to stop the fire?
Re:Contract Infringement
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No. Copyright is based in law and is granted to the creator of the work by "the people." As such, infringing on a copyright is a violation of the law, not a contract tort. The law says you can't refuse to uphold your end of a contract (modulo exceptions), but it also says you can't copy copyrighted works to which you don't own the copyright (again, modulo exceptions).
14 year old defendant, please. This is not a criminal trial.
Still, Mom's victory put the extortionists between a rock and a hard place. Their choices were to drop the whole thing and show a great big chink in their armor, or sue a 14 year old girl and look like the rediculoous bullies they are.
It's not a bad concept. I personally like the OS X method better, since it (at least in theory) better compartmentalizes individual applications, but when you get down to it what sucks about the Registry has more to do with the fact that it's on Windows than the concept itself.
Im surprised the first amendment hasnt been invoked
on this. The first amendment clearly supersedes copyright
in the case of publications of a government owned entity.
YHGMTPOT 1st ammendment.
There is indeed tension between copyright and freedom of speech. But since both are present in the constitution, it is up to the courts to achieve a balance. Which, for the most part, they have. Your free-speech rights simply do not include publication of works whose copyright belong to someone else.
You are actually confusing two principles: The copyright / free speech dichotomy and the copyrightability of government-produced works. On the latter, works produced by a federal government employee in the ordinary course of his duties are not copyrightable. That does not, however, extend to state, regional or local government-produced works.
So because we're free to point out flaws, that means we shouldn't point out the flaws? Or that because we are free to make improvements, nothing can be improved?
Exactly where did I say (or even suggest) that?
Do whatever you like. All I'm saying is that if you think you'd have the freedom to do so had history taken a different turn, you're deluded.
The U.N. has been responsible for exactly one thing of any consequence in its entire history: Starting one war that to this day they still haven't finished.
Go re-read the grandparent. He said the world would be better off without the United States.
I suggest that without the United States and its present government, the big stick would wind up being waved around by Chinese communists.
And since when are the alternatives to love it or to leave? Can't we point out the flaws and make improvements?
And exactly how do you think you wound up with the freedom to point out flaws and make improvements? Would that still be the case had the American Revolution or any of the other conflicts since gone the other way?
You'd prefer the Chinese government to run things?
Let's compare, oh say, the Patriot Act - or better yet, Abu Grahib - to, oh say, Tienanmin Square.
Let's get a grip, folks. Even if you think our government sucks, would ANY of you prefer any of the alternatives currently on offer (I'll dispense with the customary "don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out" phraseology)?
In another post you said that a 70+ (or so) contest ballot would take too long to count.
My answer?
Same process, more polling places. That way each one will have fewer to count, ergo it will go faster.
Unless you're suggesting that it is not possible to staff enough polling places to make them have small enough balloting rolls to make it work. I'll admit that I have no data to suggest that that is not, in fact, the case. But I do sort of doubt that it is.
They crack open the boxes at the precinct level. Anyone who wants to sit around and watch the counting is welcome to do so. Once the counters and witnesses sign off on a count, it's done and over with. All that remains is to transmit the precinct numbers, which could be easily done over the phone, with confirmation by transmitting the signed count document.
What's so hard about doing it that way and having the ballots just be big squares of newsprint with boxes you put an X inside?
From Apple. It's a powerbook. My reply was designed to be slightly humorous. Keychain is a facility built-in to the OS to allow any application to store sensitive information in a secure password-protected store. The user has control over when and/or how often he is prompted for his keychain password. Since the prompts come from the system they are resiliant against spoofing (at least so long as you don't ignore the warning signs of a spoofed window). Additionally, keychain access allows you store things like secure notes, so you can safely store things like safe combinations or non-computer passwords or website passwords that don't allow saving. It's also the certificate and CA manager.
There clearly are limits to this. Technically speaking, any purchase or employment is a contract. So when a kid walks in to the pharmacy (chemists) and plunks down a dollar (50p) for a cookie (biscuit), that's a contract.
IANAL, of course, but have watched an excellent telecourse called "Business and the Law" (I was going to put a handy link here, but it looks like the link to its page inside pbs.org/als is now dead). I remember specifically that at least in the US the law concerning minors and contract is a bit more flexible. It generally attempts to limit the liability of a minor, but to the extent that it is possible, it will attempt to return the parties to a status quo ante, should a contract fall apart.
The example they used in the telecourse was a minor who made an agreement to buy a bicycle from a store on credit. After making two payments, the kid reneged. The court said that the minor was not liable to keep making payments, but made the kid give the bike back and made the store return the money collected. The store got a new bike turned into a used bike for nothing and was out court costs, which was the moral of the story.
U.S. law also recognizes contracts entered into by minors for "necessaries," but in fact in ordinary commerce there are very few items that a minor is going to be buying without a parent/guardian that would qualify.
because the goal would not be worth the expense. This effectively makes such a proposition impossible.
Go find a dictionary and look up "impossible." I'll help you: "impossible" means not possible regardless of expenditure. The word you're looking for is "impractical."
If you use strong encryption that is well-implemented and uses hardware, it will not be possible to crack.
Minor quibble: You meant to say "it will not be easy to crack". Your point was that it would cost millions of dollars to hack the hardware. Fine. The cost of cracking DirecTV is a million bucks. That makes it expensive and unlikely that someone would go to the expense, but not impossible.
If it is possible Alice to encrypt a message so that Bob can decrypt it, then it is possible for anyone to decrypt it - even if they have to take a rubber hose over to Bob's house.
If a broadcast is restricted in some way, including by a "copy protection flag", is it still "public" (meaning freely available to anyone who cares to listen)?
It's a matter of semantics. If it is a broadcast, it is by definition public. The mere transmission of information encoded with RF is not itself broadcasting. It is broadcasting if it is intended to be received by the public (public implies a lack of contract or subscription or any other sort of pre-arrangement).
In the past, the FCC has used type acceptance as a means to enforce its will on receiver manufacturers. In the 50s, they mandated that all TVs come equipped with UHF as well as VHF tuners to protect UHF broadcasters. More recently, they have added requirements for the V chip and closed captioning decoders.
The only reason this failed (last time) with the broadcast flag was that once the receiving of the RF signal was done, the FCC no longer had any jurisdiction. That is, they could not force a recording and playback device to comply with broadcast flag requirements, only a receiving device. No tuner? No FCC control.
The S/PDIF digital audio protocol does include serial copy management bits, so there could be a type acceptance mandate for digital radio receivers to enforce passing along SCM bits to any digital output. The AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act) provides the mandate for standalone components to respect SCM bits (it is also the reason that CD-Rs for your computer don't work in your standalone stereo's CD recorder - they don't have the "we paid the stupid copyright tax" bit set).
The AHRA is the DMCA's grandfather. It's a shame there was not more screaming when it was passed. We could have nipped all of this nonsense in the bud.
Slashdot Mirror
They'd better hire Daryl McBride now so they'll be prepared.
And making sure the playing field is heavily slanted in their direction - by foul means more often than fair - is how Microsoft has always achieved success.
Ever since the AHRA (the DMCA's bastard grandfather), Hollywood has always threatened that if they didn't get their way that they would, basically, take their ball and go home.
I say it's about time that someone called their bluff. The studio's "boycott" of a market they don't utterly control would last, oh, about 5 minutes.
Call them! They're bluffing!
Quite frankly, I think what is probably the best thing for everyone would be to add a provision to the criminal copyright code creating a class of misdemenor copyright violation. If the kid was file-sharing and it's her first offense, she should do a couple weekends of community service and be told not to do it again. The shift to criminal court actually has a bunch of advantages for everyone: The government would wind up footing the bill for the investigations, and the RIAA would have its pound of flesh not having spent any of its own money. It could save its pack of attack lawyers for the really big infringers, as should be the case. The burden of proof is higher, which is an advantage for the defense, but community service and jail time and (one would hope small) fines rather than bankrupcy are the remedies.
No. Copyright is based in law and is granted to the creator of the work by "the people." As such, infringing on a copyright is a violation of the law, not a contract tort. The law says you can't refuse to uphold your end of a contract (modulo exceptions), but it also says you can't copy copyrighted works to which you don't own the copyright (again, modulo exceptions).
14 year old defendant, please. This is not a criminal trial.
Still, Mom's victory put the extortionists between a rock and a hard place. Their choices were to drop the whole thing and show a great big chink in their armor, or sue a 14 year old girl and look like the rediculoous bullies they are.
It's not a bad concept. I personally like the OS X method better, since it (at least in theory) better compartmentalizes individual applications, but when you get down to it what sucks about the Registry has more to do with the fact that it's on Windows than the concept itself.
YHGMTPOT 1st ammendment.
There is indeed tension between copyright and freedom of speech. But since both are present in the constitution, it is up to the courts to achieve a balance. Which, for the most part, they have. Your free-speech rights simply do not include publication of works whose copyright belong to someone else.
You are actually confusing two principles: The copyright / free speech dichotomy and the copyrightability of government-produced works. On the latter, works produced by a federal government employee in the ordinary course of his duties are not copyrightable. That does not, however, extend to state, regional or local government-produced works.
I have nothing but bullshit to back this up, but what I have always heard was that the costs of fuel dominate the cost of vehicle ownership.
:)
Maybe that's not quite the question you asked, and maybe someone else could chime in with more specifics.
Or maybe not. This is Slashdot, after all.
Exactly where did I say (or even suggest) that?
Do whatever you like. All I'm saying is that if you think you'd have the freedom to do so had history taken a different turn, you're deluded.
I suggest that without the United States and its present government, the big stick would wind up being waved around by Chinese communists.
And since when are the alternatives to love it or to leave? Can't we point out the flaws and make improvements?
And exactly how do you think you wound up with the freedom to point out flaws and make improvements? Would that still be the case had the American Revolution or any of the other conflicts since gone the other way?
You'd prefer the Chinese government to run things?
Let's compare, oh say, the Patriot Act - or better yet, Abu Grahib - to, oh say, Tienanmin Square.
Let's get a grip, folks. Even if you think our government sucks, would ANY of you prefer any of the alternatives currently on offer (I'll dispense with the customary "don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out" phraseology)?
I see a difference, but not a problem.
In another post you said that a 70+ (or so) contest ballot would take too long to count.
My answer?
Same process, more polling places. That way each one will have fewer to count, ergo it will go faster.
Unless you're suggesting that it is not possible to staff enough polling places to make them have small enough balloting rolls to make it work. I'll admit that I have no data to suggest that that is not, in fact, the case. But I do sort of doubt that it is.
Canada does elections right.
They crack open the boxes at the precinct level. Anyone who wants to sit around and watch the counting is welcome to do so. Once the counters and witnesses sign off on a count, it's done and over with. All that remains is to transmit the precinct numbers, which could be easily done over the phone, with confirmation by transmitting the signed count document.
What's so hard about doing it that way and having the ballots just be big squares of newsprint with boxes you put an X inside?
From Apple. It's a powerbook. My reply was designed to be slightly humorous. Keychain is a facility built-in to the OS to allow any application to store sensitive information in a secure password-protected store. The user has control over when and/or how often he is prompted for his keychain password. Since the prompts come from the system they are resiliant against spoofing (at least so long as you don't ignore the warning signs of a spoofed window). Additionally, keychain access allows you store things like secure notes, so you can safely store things like safe combinations or non-computer passwords or website passwords that don't allow saving. It's also the certificate and CA manager.
There is one: the iPod. Well, at least so long as you're willing to put up with a read-only contact / calendar / notes viewer.
I use a free program to do this called Keychain Access. Not only is it free, but it came with my computer. No download required.
IANAL, of course, but have watched an excellent telecourse called "Business and the Law" (I was going to put a handy link here, but it looks like the link to its page inside pbs.org/als is now dead). I remember specifically that at least in the US the law concerning minors and contract is a bit more flexible. It generally attempts to limit the liability of a minor, but to the extent that it is possible, it will attempt to return the parties to a status quo ante, should a contract fall apart.
The example they used in the telecourse was a minor who made an agreement to buy a bicycle from a store on credit. After making two payments, the kid reneged. The court said that the minor was not liable to keep making payments, but made the kid give the bike back and made the store return the money collected. The store got a new bike turned into a used bike for nothing and was out court costs, which was the moral of the story.
U.S. law also recognizes contracts entered into by minors for "necessaries," but in fact in ordinary commerce there are very few items that a minor is going to be buying without a parent/guardian that would qualify.
Yup.
And I rather suspect that HARMs are not limited to air defense radar systems...
Go find a dictionary and look up "impossible." I'll help you: "impossible" means not possible regardless of expenditure. The word you're looking for is "impractical."
Minor quibble: You meant to say "it will not be easy to crack". Your point was that it would cost millions of dollars to hack the hardware. Fine. The cost of cracking DirecTV is a million bucks. That makes it expensive and unlikely that someone would go to the expense, but not impossible.
If it is possible Alice to encrypt a message so that Bob can decrypt it, then it is possible for anyone to decrypt it - even if they have to take a rubber hose over to Bob's house.
If you buy Microsoft Office, you get worthless support. What's the difference?
It's a matter of semantics. If it is a broadcast, it is by definition public. The mere transmission of information encoded with RF is not itself broadcasting. It is broadcasting if it is intended to be received by the public (public implies a lack of contract or subscription or any other sort of pre-arrangement).
In the past, the FCC has used type acceptance as a means to enforce its will on receiver manufacturers. In the 50s, they mandated that all TVs come equipped with UHF as well as VHF tuners to protect UHF broadcasters. More recently, they have added requirements for the V chip and closed captioning decoders.
The only reason this failed (last time) with the broadcast flag was that once the receiving of the RF signal was done, the FCC no longer had any jurisdiction. That is, they could not force a recording and playback device to comply with broadcast flag requirements, only a receiving device. No tuner? No FCC control.
The S/PDIF digital audio protocol does include serial copy management bits, so there could be a type acceptance mandate for digital radio receivers to enforce passing along SCM bits to any digital output. The AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act) provides the mandate for standalone components to respect SCM bits (it is also the reason that CD-Rs for your computer don't work in your standalone stereo's CD recorder - they don't have the "we paid the stupid copyright tax" bit set).
The AHRA is the DMCA's grandfather. It's a shame there was not more screaming when it was passed. We could have nipped all of this nonsense in the bud.