Wouldn't it be nice if a court were to decide that copyright owners only have the right to control the copying of works to tangible media? And that once an authorised copy has been made that the owners of the physical media can do whatever they like with it, except create another copy of the work on a physical medium (except as allowed by fair use, for study review etc). So, once you have purchased a music or software CD, Video Casette, DVD, eBook etc, you would be free to sell it, lend it to your friends, enjoy it in any country (subject to national laws, eg decency, governing the legality of the work) etc.
Is it not "obvious" that the contents of a DVD are "data". Maybe the problem is with the law treating "data" and "instructions" (software) differently. When it comes down to it, all it is a sequence of 0s and 1s.
I think that it is one set of corporations, the media content producers, who want to introduce restrictions and others, the technology producers, who do not want it.
Why is this allowed? If you buy a new computer and wish to transfer your sound or video card from the old one, you are allowed to sell the one which came "bundled" with the new computer. So why should you not be allowed to do the same with the software (either OS or application)? As long as you do not keep a copy for yourself.
Free and Open Source software is used a lot in web applications. So in order to meet the conditions of the RAND licence, the royalties will have to be set at a level (eg zero) which does not discriminate against the use in Free (as in beer) and Open Source products.
Is the purpose of patents not to encourage inventions to be disclosed rather than hidden as trade secrets? In which case, an invention which is incorporated into a published standard is disclosed and therefore should not need to be patented.
Should Windows (at least 9x) not either also be banned or be forced to improve its security? As this is supposed to mandate a minimum level of security, is Windows not the least likely OS to be approved?
The cable remote may not, but the satellite remote does. It is possible to set a parental 'PIN' on the decoder box, and require this to be entered on the remote in order to select certain channels.
What is to stop someone creating email addresses which are only used for one supplier? Not only does this provide more privacy, but it makes it easier to track the source of Spam.
If all the information has to be held in one place (as in Passport), why not store it on the local computer? Mozilla will remember passwords and certificates for you, all being protected by the master password. Is it not better to have all the information stored on your system and for you (the user) to decide who is allowed to access what information? So that in order for a site to acccess any particular information, a dialog box could be displayed which allows the user to select one of
Always reject the request (for this site)
Reject it this time but ask me again next time
Always grant the (particular) request
Grant it this time but ask me again next time.
Also users could choose what information they want to store in their local (encrypted) database. This could include, usernames/passwords, credit card numbers, (snail mail) address details etc.
Instead of claiming to be selling the software code plus a licence, could you not have just said that you were selling the physical CD (ie medium) plus a piece of paper?
If the rule is "X may not be done because Y" and Y is False then the reasons for not allowing X are false, therefore the rule should be null and void and X should be allowed.
Or even just make copyrights and patents "non-transferable" rights. So that the original author or inventor (whether a "real live" person or coroporation) obtains these rights, may licence patentable inventions or grant (or withhold) permission to make copies of copyrightable works, but may not sell or otherwise dispose of the patent or copyright.
Alternatively remove the right of copyright and patent holders to prevent publication or licencing . So that if a "mass market" copyright work (eg book, DVD, music CD) goes "out of print" then the copyright owner loses the right to prevent copying and the work enters the public domain. Different rules would have to apply to "one off" creations such as paintings. Similarly with patents, it would not be possible for a company to buy (or otherwise obtain) a patent for the purpose of preventing the invention from being implemented (eg because the implementation of the invention would impact on their business.)
Just because applications come bundled with the operating system does not make them part of it. Maybe my ideas are rather old-fashioned, but I consider that the operating system is there to manage the hardware and provide services to application programs, and to allow users to run applications. Anything else, whether bundled or obtained separately, is an application.
Investment is always a risk. In whatever area a corporation operates, whether it be manufacturing or a service, there is always a risk that
People may cease to require its product/service
A superior technology emerges
(Patents not withstanding) Someone else may produce a better or cheaper version
So a corporation should always be prepared for any investments to either be unsucessful from the start or for revenue from an investment to decrease or cease.
Does the DCMA not only prohibit circumvention without the copyright owner's (presumably the owner of the copyright on the "protected" material) permission? In which case, why not simply demonstrate the technique on an encrypted PDF of material to which he owns the copyright?
But does it mean "FREE for life", or does it mean "You have paid up-front for lifetime service, so there will be no further charges?" Think of societies and clubs. Many of these offer "life" membership for a one-off fee and promise no further subscription charges while offering the publications and benefits. Would it be unreasonable to expect the "free for life" internet offers to be of the same nature?
Is it possible to use the "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" argument in respect of laws? On one hand the "law" allows (in the US) software to patented, so it must be a "machine or device". So if the law in one place says "X is a Y", how can it in another place say "Z does not apply to X, because X is not a Y"?
If the lawyers want to be paid, they should be paid by their clients (ie whoever engaged them to do the work.) If anyone (lawyer or otherwise) performs unsolicited work then they should accept the risk that nobody is going to pay for it. In the same way as the charities which send out unsolicited Christmas Cards/Calendars etc accept that many people will keep them without sending payment (donation).
Trade schools should not be teaching how to use a specific (brand) tool. They should either, as the "old" trade (carpentry, etc) schools did, teach how to make (and care for) your own tools or they should teach how to use "generic" tools (eg how to drive a car, not specifically how to drive a 1968 Chevy)
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be nice if a court were to decide that copyright owners only have the right to control the copying of works to tangible media? And that once an authorised copy has been made that the owners of the physical media can do whatever they like with it, except create another copy of the work on a physical medium (except as allowed by fair use, for study review etc). So, once you have purchased a music or software CD, Video Casette, DVD, eBook etc, you would be free to sell it, lend it to your friends, enjoy it in any country (subject to national laws, eg decency, governing the legality of the work) etc.
Is it not "obvious" that the contents of a DVD are "data". Maybe the problem is with the law treating "data" and "instructions" (software) differently. When it comes down to it, all it is a sequence of 0s and 1s.
I think that it is one set of corporations, the media content producers, who want to introduce restrictions and others, the technology producers, who do not want it.
Why is this allowed? If you buy a new computer and wish to transfer your sound or video card from the old one, you are allowed to sell the one which came "bundled" with the new computer. So why should you not be allowed to do the same with the software (either OS or application)? As long as you do not keep a copy for yourself.
Or even transfer your Windows 98 to the new computer and give away the XP.
Free and Open Source software is used a lot in web applications. So in order to meet the conditions of the RAND licence, the royalties will have to be set at a level (eg zero) which does not discriminate against the use in Free (as in beer) and Open Source products.
Is the purpose of patents not to encourage inventions to be disclosed rather than hidden as trade secrets? In which case, an invention which is incorporated into a published standard is disclosed and therefore should not need to be patented.
If they make more on old stuff then why do they "delete" albums?
Should Windows (at least 9x) not either also be banned or be forced to improve its security? As this is supposed to mandate a minimum level of security, is Windows not the least likely OS to be approved?
The cable remote may not, but the satellite remote does. It is possible to set a parental 'PIN' on the decoder box, and require this to be entered on the remote in order to select certain channels.
If the track directory information is not readable, does this not also make the CD unplayable in a computer CD drive?
What is to stop someone creating email addresses which are only used for one supplier? Not only does this provide more privacy, but it makes it easier to track the source of Spam.
- Always reject the request (for this site)
- Reject it this time but ask me again next time
- Always grant the (particular) request
- Grant it this time but ask me again next time.
Also users could choose what information they want to store in their local (encrypted) database. This could include, usernames/passwords, credit card numbers, (snail mail) address details etc.Instead of claiming to be selling the software code plus a licence, could you not have just said that you were selling the physical CD (ie medium) plus a piece of paper?
If the rule is "X may not be done because Y" and Y is False then the reasons for not allowing X are false, therefore the rule should be null and void and X should be allowed.
As there is never a sale, there will be no royalties to pay.
Or even just make copyrights and patents "non-transferable" rights. So that the original author or inventor (whether a "real live" person or coroporation) obtains these rights, may licence patentable inventions or grant (or withhold) permission to make copies of copyrightable works, but may not sell or otherwise dispose of the patent or copyright.
Alternatively remove the right of copyright and patent holders to prevent publication or licencing . So that if a "mass market" copyright work (eg book, DVD, music CD) goes "out of print" then the copyright owner loses the right to prevent copying and the work enters the public domain. Different rules would have to apply to "one off" creations such as paintings. Similarly with patents, it would not be possible for a company to buy (or otherwise obtain) a patent for the purpose of preventing the invention from being implemented (eg because the implementation of the invention would impact on their business.)
Just because applications come bundled with the operating system does not make them part of it. Maybe my ideas are rather old-fashioned, but I consider that the operating system is there to manage the hardware and provide services to application programs, and to allow users to run applications. Anything else, whether bundled or obtained separately, is an application.
Is that Java programs or applets?
- People may cease to require its product/service
- A superior technology emerges
- (Patents not withstanding) Someone else may produce a better or cheaper version
So a corporation should always be prepared for any investments to either be unsucessful from the start or for revenue from an investment to decrease or cease.Does the DCMA not only prohibit circumvention without the copyright owner's (presumably the owner of the copyright on the "protected" material) permission? In which case, why not simply demonstrate the technique on an encrypted PDF of material to which he owns the copyright?
But does it mean "FREE for life", or does it mean "You have paid up-front for lifetime service, so there will be no further charges?"
Think of societies and clubs. Many of these offer "life" membership for a one-off fee and promise no further subscription charges while offering the publications and benefits. Would it be unreasonable to expect the "free for life" internet offers to be of the same nature?
Is it possible to use the "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" argument in respect of laws? On one hand the "law" allows (in the US) software to patented, so it must be a "machine or device". So if the law in one place says "X is a Y", how can it in another place say "Z does not apply to X, because X is not a Y"?
If the lawyers want to be paid, they should be paid by their clients (ie whoever engaged them to do the work.) If anyone (lawyer or otherwise) performs unsolicited work then they should accept the risk that nobody is going to pay for it. In the same way as the charities which send out unsolicited Christmas Cards/Calendars etc accept that many people will keep them without sending payment (donation).
Trade schools should not be teaching how to use a specific (brand) tool. They should either, as the "old" trade (carpentry, etc) schools did, teach how to make (and care for) your own tools or they should teach how to use "generic" tools (eg how to drive a car, not specifically how to drive a 1968 Chevy)