You must answer the specific questions posed in the request for comments, or your letter will have no effect. I've copied the questions to this post to facilitate ease of discussion. 5. Specific Questions
The Office seeks comment on the following specific questions. Persons submitting comments need not address all questions, but are encouraged to respond to those as to which they have particular knowledge or information. Persons submitting comments are encouraged to submit concrete evidence, examples and data supporting their responses to these questions. Such submissions will carry greater weight than unsupported allegations and predictions. In response to each question, persons submitting comments are requested to distinguish between (a) their response with respect to the current state of affairs, and (b) their response with respect to the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. For example, in responding to Question No. 3, persons submitting comments are requested to state (a) what technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works exist today, and (b) what new technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works are likely to be introduced between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. In discussing the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003, persons submitting comments should explain the basis for their projections.
A. Technological Measures
1. What technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works exist today? 2. Do different technological measures have different effects on the ability of users to make noninfringing uses? Can and should the Librarian take account of those different effects in determining whether to exempt any classes of works from the anticircumvention provisions of section 1201? If so, how? In determining what constitutes a class of works?
B. Availability of Works
3. How has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works to persons who are or desire to be lawful users of such works? 4. Are there specific works or classes of works that, because of the implementation of such technological measures, have become unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If so, identify those works or classes of works and explain how they have become unavailable. 5. Are there specific works or classes of works which, because of the implementation of such technological measures, have become less available to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If so, identify those works or classes of works, explain the ways in which they have become less available, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 6. If there are works that are available both in formats to which technological measures have been applied and in formats to which technological measures have not been applied, to what extent can the works in the latter formats substitute for the works in the formats to which technological measures have been applied? 7. Are there works or classes of works that are available only electronically and only in formats to which such technological measures have been applied? If so, what are they?
C. Availability of Works for Nonprofit Archival, Preservation, and Educational Purposes
8. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for nonprofit archival purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so, identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 9. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works created problems with respect to the preservation of such works? If so, how? Are there specific works or classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so, identify them and explain how they have been affected. 10. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for nonprofit educational purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so, identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 11. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access, should any classes of works be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for nonprofit archival, preservation, and/or educational purposes? (E.g., ``new broadcasts'' may not be an exempted class of works, but ``news broadcasts used in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place of instruction,'' may be an exempted class.) Explain why or why not.
D. Impact on Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship, or Research
12. What impact has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news
[[Page 66143]]
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research? 13. What impact has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses of such works, including fair use and activities permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? 14. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to which the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 15. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to which the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 16. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access, should any classes of works be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research? Explain why or why not. 17. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access, should any classes of works be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used in ways that do not constitute copyright infringement, e.g., as fair use or in a manner permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? Explain why or why not.
E. Effect of Circumvention on the Market for or Value of Copyrighted Works
18. In what ways can technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works be circumvented? How widespread is such circumvention? 19. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had any impact on the price of copyrighted works? Please explain. 20. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had any impact on the availability of copyrighted works? In particular formats or in all formats? Please explain. 21. Has such circumvention had any other impact on the marketing of copyrighted works? If so, please explain the impact and which works or classes of works have been affected. 22. Do the answers to any of these questions relating to the effect of circumvention on the market for or value of copyrighted works depend upon the class of work? Please explain.
F. Other Factors and Questions
23. For purposes of this rulemaking, what criteria should be used in determining what is a ``class'' of copyrighted works? 24. With respect to any adverse effect on use of or access to copyrighted works that has been identified in response to any of the preceding questions, is there an explanation for the adverse effect other than the presence of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works? 25. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works resulted in making copyrighted works more widely available? Please explain. 26. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works resulted in facilitating lawful uses of copyrighted works? 27. Are there other factors that should be taken into account? If so, please identify and address those factors. 28. What other comments, if any, do you have? 29. Do you wish to testify at a hearing to be conducted by the Copyright Office in connection with this rulemaking?
You must answer some or all of the questions posed in the request for comments or your letter will not have any effect. Also, the questions will help focus your letters on the issues that are relevent to this situation. Here are the questions::
5. Specific Questions
The Office seeks comment on the following specific questions. Persons submitting comments need not address all questions, but are encouraged to respond to those as to which they have particular knowledge or information. Persons submitting comments are encouraged to submit concrete evidence, examples and data supporting their responses to these questions. Such submissions will carry greater weight than unsupported allegations and predictions. In response to each question, persons submitting comments are requested to distinguish between (a) their response with respect to the current state of affairs, and (b) their response with respect to the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. For example, in responding to Question No. 3, persons submitting comments are requested to state (a) what technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works exist today, and (b) what new technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works are likely to be introduced between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. In discussing the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003, persons submitting comments should explain the basis for their projections.
A. Technological Measures
1. What technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works exist today? 2. Do different technological measures have different effects on the ability of users to make noninfringing uses? Can and should the Librarian take account of those different effects in determining whether to exempt any classes of works from the anticircumvention provisions of section 1201? If so, how? In determining what constitutes a class of works?
B. Availability of Works
3. How has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works to persons who are or desire to be lawful users of such works? 4. Are there specific works or classes of works that, because of the implementation of such technological measures, have become unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If so, identify those works or classes of works and explain how they have become unavailable. 5. Are there specific works or classes of works which, because of the implementation of such technological measures, have become less available to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If so, identify those works or classes of works, explain the ways in which they have become less available, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 6. If there are works that are available both in formats to which technological measures have been applied and in formats to which technological measures have not been applied, to what extent can the works in the latter formats substitute for the works in the formats to which technological measures have been applied? 7. Are there works or classes of works that are available only electronically and only in formats to which such technological measures have been applied? If so, what are they?
C. Availability of Works for Nonprofit Archival, Preservation, and Educational Purposes
8. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for nonprofit archival purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so, identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 9. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works created problems with respect to the preservation of such works? If so, how? Are there specific works or classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so, identify them and explain how they have been affected. 10. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for nonprofit educational purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so, identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 11. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access, should any classes of works be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for nonprofit archival, preservation, and/or educational purposes? (E.g., ``new broadcasts'' may not be an exempted class of works, but ``news broadcasts used in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place of instruction,'' may be an exempted class.) Explain why or why not.
D. Impact on Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship, or Research
12. What impact has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news
[[Page 66143]]
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research? 13. What impact has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses of such works, including fair use and activities permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? 14. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to which the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 15. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to which the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 16. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access, should any classes of works be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research? Explain why or why not. 17. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access, should any classes of works be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used in ways that do not constitute copyright infringement, e.g., as fair use or in a manner permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? Explain why or why not.
E. Effect of Circumvention on the Market for or Value of Copyrighted Works
18. In what ways can technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works be circumvented? How widespread is such circumvention? 19. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had any impact on the price of copyrighted works? Please explain. 20. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had any impact on the availability of copyrighted works? In particular formats or in all formats? Please explain. 21. Has such circumvention had any other impact on the marketing of copyrighted works? If so, please explain the impact and which works or classes of works have been affected. 22. Do the answers to any of these questions relating to the effect of circumvention on the market for or value of copyrighted works depend upon the class of work? Please explain.
F. Other Factors and Questions
23. For purposes of this rulemaking, what criteria should be used in determining what is a ``class'' of copyrighted works? 24. With respect to any adverse effect on use of or access to copyrighted works that has been identified in response to any of the preceding questions, is there an explanation for the adverse effect other than the presence of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works? 25. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works resulted in making copyrighted works more widely available? Please explain. 26. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works resulted in facilitating lawful uses of copyrighted works? 27. Are there other factors that should be taken into account? If so, please identify and address those factors. 28. What other comments, if any, do you have? 29. Do you wish to testify at a hearing to be conducted by the Copyright Office in connection with this rulemaking?
You must answer some or all of the questions posed in the request for comments for your letter to have any effect. Also, the questions will help focus your letters on the issues that are relevent to this situation. Here are the questions::
5. Specific Questions
The Office seeks comment on the following specific questions. Persons submitting comments need not address all questions, but are encouraged to respond to those as to which they have particular knowledge or information. Persons submitting comments are encouraged to submit concrete evidence, examples and data supporting their responses to these questions. Such submissions will carry greater weight than unsupported allegations and predictions. In response to each question, persons submitting comments are requested to distinguish between (a) their response with respect to the current state of affairs, and (b) their response with respect to the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. For example, in responding to Question No. 3, persons submitting comments are requested to state (a) what technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works exist today, and (b) what new technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works are likely to be introduced between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. In discussing the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003, persons submitting comments should explain the basis for their projections.
A. Technological Measures
1. What technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works exist today? 2. Do different technological measures have different effects on the ability of users to make noninfringing uses? Can and should the Librarian take account of those different effects in determining whether to exempt any classes of works from the anticircumvention provisions of section 1201? If so, how? In determining what constitutes a class of works?
B. Availability of Works
3. How has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works to persons who are or desire to be lawful users of such works? 4. Are there specific works or classes of works that, because of the implementation of such technological measures, have become unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If so, identify those works or classes of works and explain how they have become unavailable. 5. Are there specific works or classes of works which, because of the implementation of such technological measures, have become less available to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If so, identify those works or classes of works, explain the ways in which they have become less available, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 6. If there are works that are available both in formats to which technological measures have been applied and in formats to which technological measures have not been applied, to what extent can the works in the latter formats substitute for the works in the formats to which technological measures have been applied? 7. Are there works or classes of works that are available only electronically and only in formats to which such technological measures have been applied? If so, what are they?
C. Availability of Works for Nonprofit Archival, Preservation, and Educational Purposes
8. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for nonprofit archival purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so, identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 9. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works created problems with respect to the preservation of such works? If so, how? Are there specific works or classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so, identify them and explain how they have been affected. 10. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for nonprofit educational purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so, identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 11. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access, should any classes of works be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for nonprofit archival, preservation, and/or educational purposes? (E.g., ``new broadcasts'' may not be an exempted class of works, but ``news broadcasts used in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place of instruction,'' may be an exempted class.) Explain why or why not.
D. Impact on Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship, or Research
12. What impact has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news
[[Page 66143]]
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research? 13. What impact has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses of such works, including fair use and activities permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? 14. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to which the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 15. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to which the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to which such technological measures have not been applied. 16. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access, should any classes of works be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research? Explain why or why not. 17. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access, should any classes of works be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used in ways that do not constitute copyright infringement, e.g., as fair use or in a manner permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? Explain why or why not.
E. Effect of Circumvention on the Market for or Value of Copyrighted Works
18. In what ways can technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works be circumvented? How widespread is such circumvention? 19. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had any impact on the price of copyrighted works? Please explain. 20. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had any impact on the availability of copyrighted works? In particular formats or in all formats? Please explain. 21. Has such circumvention had any other impact on the marketing of copyrighted works? If so, please explain the impact and which works or classes of works have been affected. 22. Do the answers to any of these questions relating to the effect of circumvention on the market for or value of copyrighted works depend upon the class of work? Please explain.
F. Other Factors and Questions
23. For purposes of this rulemaking, what criteria should be used in determining what is a ``class'' of copyrighted works? 24. With respect to any adverse effect on use of or access to copyrighted works that has been identified in response to any of the preceding questions, is there an explanation for the adverse effect other than the presence of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works? 25. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works resulted in making copyrighted works more widely available? Please explain. 26. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works resulted in facilitating lawful uses of copyrighted works? 27. Are there other factors that should be taken into account? If so, please identify and address those factors. 28. What other comments, if any, do you have? 29. Do you wish to testify at a hearing to be conducted by the Copyright Office in connection with this rulemaking?
... they are still emulating the x86 instruction set. Even with all their fancy technology a 700mhz processor will only perform, at best equivalent, to a 500mhz Pentium
That was a quote from a Transmeta employee. I do realize that Intel and AMD processors don't execute x86 instructions. However their vector units (MMX or 3DNow) are executed natively. The MMX unit is highly optomized hardware that takes advantage of all the latest hardware techniques. Therefore, even if MMX emulation was easy (I don't think that it is), it would still be slower because it would be emulated in software. You don't see as much of a penalty while emulating x86 instructions because CISC instructions are relatively quick to translate, and both the Athlon and Pentium are also emulating the x86 instruction set.
Here is quote from your own citation: Both the Athlon and the P6 run the CISC x86 ISA in what amounts to hardware emulation, but they translate the x86 instructions into smaller, RISC-like operations that fed into a fully post-RISC core. Their cores have a number of RISC features (LOAD/STORE memory access, pipelined execution, reduced instructions, expanded register count via register renaming), to which are added all of the post-RISC features we've discussed. The Athlon muddies the waters even further in that it uses both direct execution and a microcode engine for instruction decoding. A crucial difference between the Athlon (and P6) and the G4 is that, as already noted, the Athlon must translate x86 instructions into smaller RISC ops.
The Pentium does this in hardware too. Both are emulating x86 instruction with RISC instructions. This is exactly how the Transmeta chip does it, except the translation happens in highly optimized software. In both cases, it's a CISC-RISC translation.
Ease of translation into native machine code for JITs was not one of the primary concerns when the bytecode format was selected.
You're wrong; Sun did care about performance. Here's a quote regarding SUN's Java, nee Oak, compiler from Sun's Java site:
The Java compiler does this by generating bytecode instructions which have nothing to do with a particular computer architecture. Rather, they are designed to be both easy to interpret on any machine and easily translated into native machine code on the fly... The bytecode format was designed with generating machine codes in mind, so the actual process of generating machine code is generally simple. Efficient code is produced: the compiler does automatic register allocation and some optimization when it produces the bytecodes.
Basically, nothing you've said has convinced me or anyone else that RISC translation is nearly as efficient as CISC translation.. Please provide an example of software or hardware that does RISC-CISC translation or even does RISC-RISC translation to support your claims that, "adequate performance could probably be achieved."
RISC code is extremely optimized for a specific processor architecture, and optimizing RISC code is a very processor intensive job. Taking highly optimized RISC code (most of the time significantly reorded to exploit parrel and pipelining efficiencies), and trying to generate equivelent instructions in another architecutre would be very slow. The Crusoe architecure is a lot better at taking a few correctly ordered CISC instructions, expanding them to Crusoe's instruction set and highly optomizing them, rather than trying to convert and optomize 8 or 16 out of order optomized RISC instructions.
If RISC code was indeed easier to emulate, then JAVA would compile to RISC instructions, not CISC bytecodes. It compiles down to CISC bite codes so that the JIT on a particular platform can take one or two bite codes and expand them into the native instruction set of the operating system, and optomize them from there.
Another reason, there has never been a RISC emulator that has performed at anywhere close to a resonable speed. Any emulation of the Mac done on the PC only handles 68k CISC code. The reason for this is that RISC emulation is just too slow.
Their emulation tricks will not work on MMX or other instructions nearly so well. Curose can't make up the time it takes to emulate the instruction set by having better hardware. MMX and the G4 vector processing units utilize many of the same tricks that the entire Cursoe processor utilizes such as long word instructions, parallel processing and other optimization techniques. Also, the hardware of these multimedia units are explicitly optimized to process these special instructions. This means emulating these instructions would drastically slow down the chip.
I do realize that Transmeta does an excellent job in translating x86 instructions. Probably the best job that has ever been done. But they are still emulating the x86 instruction set. Even with all their fancy technology a 700mhz processor will only perform, at best equivalent, to a 500mhz Pentium. Java's developers have spent years trying to optimize their JIT, and it still is a lot slower than running native compiled C code.
Their emulation tricks will not work on MMX or other instructions nearly so well. Curose can't make up the time it takes to emulate the instruction set by having better hardware. MMX and the G4 vector processing units utilize many of the same tricks that the entire Cursoe processor utilizes such as long word instructions, parallel processing and other optimization techniques. Also, the hardware of these multimedia units are explicitly optimized to process these special instructions. This means to emulate these instructions would drastically slow down the chip.
You are right, a few specialized users will love the ability to go a few days without plugging their laptop in and without carring extra batteries, but this is a pretty small market. If a Pentium based laptop could achieve 8-12 hours of batter life while in constant use, and a few days of battery life while mostly sleeping, 99.9% of users are going to be happy. Crusoe will not be able to be viable company if it is only marketing its products to.1% of the market.
You're kidding right? Remember that a Transmeta processor needs to translate EVERY instruction to an equivalent sent of 128bit instructions. This carries a significant performance penalty. Also, the Transmeta chip doesn't have any of the multimedia enhancements that Petium's, Athlon's, and G4's carry with it. Software does not beat hardware when doing extremely optimized vector based instructions that can run in parallel inside the native processor.
Emulating CISC based hardware is vastly easier than achieving acceptable performance emulating RISC based hardware. With CISC based hardware, each instruction does a lot, and might take several clock ticks to execute. The Transmeta emulator can come along and translate the instruction into equivalent Crusoe instructions, and achieve roughly comparable performance. This is why PC emulators can be run on PowerPC hardware, and why the MacOS's 68k CISC emulator was so successful for running old applications on PowerPC based Macintosh's.
RISC emulation is vastly different. Each instruction doesn't do a whole lot, but runs extremely fast. So, basically, to emulate a RISC processor, you have to translate each instruction into one or more Curose instructions that don't benefit from RISC hardware's pipelining and other efficiencies. You're going to end up with a vastly slower PC.
Also, this chip will not be able to emulate multimedia enhancements like 3DNow or the G4's velocity engine as fast as the native version. These chips are optimized to run the special instructions in a highly efficient and parallel manner. The multimedia enhancements in hardware basically utilize almost all the hardware technology that Transmeta has in their chip, and tehy don't have the overhead of translating intructions before being able to execute them. The Transmeta chip's software layer simply won't do as good a job as dedicated vector processing units.
Please remember that 700mhz doesn't mean shit. You need to know how fast the processor actually runs x86 software, not how fast it runs the Crusoe transcoding software. Its the same with all emulators. Would you rush out and buy a Macintosh with a hypothetical G4 chip running at 1GHZ that only emulated x86 software? Of course not! You'd know that a x86 native processor running at 700mhz would probably be faster.
You do realize that a copyright is not the same as a patent right? Do you really believe that the entire gaiming industry is using a charecter you created, a portion of your source code, or graphics you created illegaly in all modern games? You've got to be kidding!
You realize you can buy the CD for something like $5. You don't need to shell out $50 for the Linux operating system even if you dohn't have access to a fast Internet connection and CD burner. Amazing how the big Linux companies have brainwashed people into thinking that paying $50 gives you more than just a nice box, support and a printed manual.
The phone costs saved are enormous. At 10p per unit, peak time, (which is when schools operate), you're talking around 4,740 GBP for the download, which is about $7,870. In short, Red Hat is donating the equivalent of nearly $8,000 to every school in England. In my books, that's a substantial sum of money.
You're kidding right? Please tell me you're kidding. RedHat is not giving the equivalent of nearly $8,000 to every school in England. There are numerous companies that specialize in selling Linux CD's at very reasonable costs. Also, once the school has one CD, a burner can duplicate it for the entire district (or UK equivalent). So please do not think RedHat is giving away $8,000 to every school in England. They arenot even giving away any support, so basically, this whole deal is a crock! RedHat is looking to lock UK schools into their version of Linux, and charge for support later on.
The phone costs saved are enormous. At 10p per unit, peak time, (which is when schools operate), you're talking around 4,740 GBP for the download, which is about $7,870. In short, Red Hat is donating the equivalent of nearly $8,000 to every school in England. In my books, that's a substantial sum of money.
You're kidding right? Please tell me you're kidding. RedHat is not giving the equivalent of nearly $8,000 to every school in England. There are numerous companies that specialize in selling Linux CD's at very reasonable costs. Also, once the school has one CD, a burner can duplicate it for the entire district (or UK equivalent). So please do not think RedHat is giving away $8,000 to every school in England. They arenot even giving away any support, so basically, this whole deal is a crock! RedHat is looking to long UK schools into their version of Linux, and charge for support later on.
Reverse engineering copy protection schemes for the sake of "compatibility" needs to be stopped. This loophole will always be able to be exploited because there always is some platform mainstream media will always leave out. This means that all schemes will be cracked, and with this loophole the crack could be legal. A new law is necessary. Copy protection schemes are necessary in order for artists and companies to protect their work in the age of high speed internet connections.
It doesn't matter if you think software and entertainment companies are absolute scum or even if you think $3.00 is too much to pay for a CD, nothing justifies piracy. If DVD's cost $1000 each, you still do not have the right to obtain them without paying for them. If you don't agree with the system, don't purchase the goods. Piracy is the antithesis to our capitalist system. If enough people stopped buying CD's and DVD's, the media companies will lower the price. Piracy is not the answer. Copy protection schemes are inherently necessary when a single user can distribute an unprotected song or movie to thousands of users. Please tell me what else will prevent the duplication of illegal material?
The bottom line is new restrictions need to be in place to protect companies property. We as citizens can acquiesce and purchase goods from these companies, or vote with our wallets and let the media companies know that we don't agree with their policies. Piracy, however, is wrong and should not be practiced, and because it is wrong, new laws need to be enacted so that it is harder for it to be practiced.
Don't you think Apple deserves to be able to protect Aqua's GUI? Apple has spent thousands of man-hours creating this look for the future OS, and these themes authors have simply lifted it. Unfortunately, the courts don't seem to agree that Apple deserves any protection. It's funny how Apple can sue over the look of their computers, but not their OS? Perhaps Apple can look closely at the themes on these sites, and see if there are any instances where the authors lifted elements from the QuickTime movies on Apple's MacOS X site.
Luckily for Apple, Aqua is a lot more then just a theme. It adds transparency to the entire interface and other refinements that a theme simply cannot duplicate. No one can claim that adding a Window's theme to a Mac or Mac theme to a Windows machine, in anyway duplicates the GUI of the other platform. The GUI is a lot more than a simple theme.
This is not how it works at all. Because their is a patent on the cancer-killer drug, the company will know that the billions they spent developing the drug will be protected since they will be the only ones able to sell the drug for a certain number of years. Without the patent, the drug company would have no incentive to invest the money in researching the cancer-killer, and noone's live would be saved. Which is a better scenario?
Remeber, without a patent or when a patent expires, other companies can manufacture a copy of the drug and sell it to the public at a very low cost since they are only woried about making a temporary profit, not recouping their R&D expenses. If drug companies where not granted the temporary monopoly on being the only ones able to sell the drug for a specific period of time, they would never be able to recoup their R&D costs, and research into new life-saving drugs would cease. Is this really what you are advocating?
You really don't seem to be too unsatisfied. It sounds like @Home is the best service for the money. You are getting everything you want for a fraction of the cost of any other solutions. Plus you are even breaking @Home's user contract of running an in home lan, and getting away with it to. So you should really not be complaining! Just remember the old addage, "You get what you pay for."
How do you calculate that 1906 minutes is 15% downtime? Aren't their 60*24*30=43200 minutes in a month. 1906/43200=.04. This means that your service was only down 4% of the time. Could you please tell me how you came up with your 15% figure? Also, @Home could argue that intermittent downtime is a lot more forgivable than long periods of downtime.
Obviously the issue of whether Graffiti is older than this patent has already been decided, or there would be no case, no news, and 3Com would not be reporting this court case on their Securities and Exchange filings.
My question is that since Graffiti seemed to clearly come out before the patent was filed [1] [2], why is there still a case? Maybe it has to do with the related application section. It says that there was an earlier filing in 1993[3]. Does anyone know what the significance of this earlier filing is? Is this the important date?
You make a very good point. For some people like students, working part time as a temp for a significant period of time is desirable. It WOULD be a shame if these types of jobs to made illegal, and cause companies to not be able to retain employees on a part time basis after an intitial summer internship over. BR> -EJ
I feel if a company is going to hire someone for a significant amount of time and treat them like an employee in every way, he or she should be compensated like an employee. Too many companies label their workers as "temporary" for the sole reason of depriving them of employee benefits. In the long run, forcing companies to hire more workers as full employees could eventually benefit these companies. An employee with a vested interest in a company will probably work harder, and in the long run, the expense of more full employees could be mitigated by the increase in productivity.
In California companies are already prevented from hiring workers on a temporary basis for a significant amount of time. After the time period expires, the company either has to hire the person as a full employee or release them. It sounds like Washington has the same types of laws. Hopefully, this ruling and similar laws in other states will help increase the compensation CS and IT professionals receive, and encourage more people to enter these fields.
Slashdot Mirror
You must answer the specific questions posed in the request for comments, or your letter will have no effect. I've copied the questions to this post to facilitate ease of discussion.
5. Specific Questions
The Office seeks comment on the following specific questions.
Persons submitting comments need not address all questions, but are
encouraged to respond to those as to which they have particular
knowledge or information. Persons submitting comments are encouraged to
submit concrete evidence, examples and data supporting their responses
to these questions. Such submissions will carry greater weight than
unsupported allegations and predictions.
In response to each question, persons submitting comments are
requested to distinguish between (a) their response with respect to the
current state of affairs, and (b) their response with respect to the
state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. For example, in responding to
Question No. 3, persons submitting comments are requested to state (a)
what technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today, and (b) what new technological measures
that effectively control access to copyrighted works are likely to be
introduced between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. In discussing
the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003, persons submitting comments
should explain the basis for their projections.
A. Technological Measures
1. What technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today?
2. Do different technological measures have different effects on
the ability of users to make noninfringing uses? Can and should the
Librarian take account of those different effects in determining
whether to exempt any classes of works from the anticircumvention
provisions of section 1201? If so, how? In determining what constitutes
a class of works?
B. Availability of Works
3. How has the use of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such
works to persons who are or desire to be lawful users of such works?
4. Are there specific works or classes of works that, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become
unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works and explain how they have
become unavailable.
5. Are there specific works or classes of works which, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become less
available to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works, explain the ways in which
they have become less available, and explain whether those works or
classes of works are also available in other formats to which such
technological measures have not been applied.
6. If there are works that are available both in formats to which
technological measures have been applied and in formats to which
technological measures have not been applied, to what extent can the
works in the latter formats substitute for the works in the formats to
which technological measures have been applied?
7. Are there works or classes of works that are available only
electronically and only in formats to which such technological measures
have been applied? If so, what are they?
C. Availability of Works for Nonprofit Archival, Preservation, and
Educational Purposes
8. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit archival purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
9. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works created problems with respect to the
preservation of such works? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them and explain how they have been affected.
10. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit educational purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
11. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
nonprofit archival, preservation, and/or educational purposes? (E.g.,
``new broadcasts'' may not be an exempted class of works, but ``news
broadcasts used in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a
nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place of
instruction,'' may be an exempted class.) Explain why or why not.
D. Impact on Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship,
or Research
12. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news
[[Page 66143]]
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research?
13. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses of such works,
including fair use and activities permitted by exemptions prescribed by
law?
14. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research has been
hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures?
If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered,
and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available
in other formats to which such technological measures have not been
applied.
15. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses
has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological
measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been
hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also
available in other formats to which such technological measures have
not been applied.
16. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,
or research? Explain why or why not.
17. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used in ways
that do not constitute copyright infringement, e.g., as fair use or in
a manner permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? Explain why or why
not.
E. Effect of Circumvention on the Market for or Value of Copyrighted
Works
18. In what ways can technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works be circumvented? How widespread is
such circumvention?
19. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the price of copyrighted works? Please explain.
20. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the availability of copyrighted works? In particular
formats or in all formats? Please explain.
21. Has such circumvention had any other impact on the marketing of
copyrighted works? If so, please explain the impact and which works or
classes of works have been affected.
22. Do the answers to any of these questions relating to the effect
of circumvention on the market for or value of copyrighted works depend
upon the class of work? Please explain.
F. Other Factors and Questions
23. For purposes of this rulemaking, what criteria should be used
in determining what is a ``class'' of copyrighted works?
24. With respect to any adverse effect on use of or access to
copyrighted works that has been identified in response to any of the
preceding questions, is there an explanation for the adverse effect
other than the presence of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works?
25. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in making copyrighted works more
widely available? Please explain.
26. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in facilitating lawful uses of
copyrighted works?
27. Are there other factors that should be taken into account? If
so, please identify and address those factors.
28. What other comments, if any, do you have?
29. Do you wish to testify at a hearing to be conducted by the
Copyright Office in connection with this rulemaking?
You must answer some or all of the questions posed in the request for comments or your letter will not have any effect. Also, the questions will help focus your letters on the issues that are relevent to this situation. Here are the questions::
5. Specific Questions
The Office seeks comment on the following specific questions.
Persons submitting comments need not address all questions, but are
encouraged to respond to those as to which they have particular
knowledge or information. Persons submitting comments are encouraged to
submit concrete evidence, examples and data supporting their responses
to these questions. Such submissions will carry greater weight than
unsupported allegations and predictions.
In response to each question, persons submitting comments are
requested to distinguish between (a) their response with respect to the
current state of affairs, and (b) their response with respect to the
state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. For example, in responding to
Question No. 3, persons submitting comments are requested to state (a)
what technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today, and (b) what new technological measures
that effectively control access to copyrighted works are likely to be
introduced between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. In discussing
the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003, persons submitting comments
should explain the basis for their projections.
A. Technological Measures
1. What technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today?
2. Do different technological measures have different effects on
the ability of users to make noninfringing uses? Can and should the
Librarian take account of those different effects in determining
whether to exempt any classes of works from the anticircumvention
provisions of section 1201? If so, how? In determining what constitutes
a class of works?
B. Availability of Works
3. How has the use of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such
works to persons who are or desire to be lawful users of such works?
4. Are there specific works or classes of works that, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become
unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works and explain how they have
become unavailable.
5. Are there specific works or classes of works which, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become less
available to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works, explain the ways in which
they have become less available, and explain whether those works or
classes of works are also available in other formats to which such
technological measures have not been applied.
6. If there are works that are available both in formats to which
technological measures have been applied and in formats to which
technological measures have not been applied, to what extent can the
works in the latter formats substitute for the works in the formats to
which technological measures have been applied?
7. Are there works or classes of works that are available only
electronically and only in formats to which such technological measures
have been applied? If so, what are they?
C. Availability of Works for Nonprofit Archival, Preservation, and
Educational Purposes
8. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit archival purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
9. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works created problems with respect to the
preservation of such works? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them and explain how they have been affected.
10. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit educational purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
11. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
nonprofit archival, preservation, and/or educational purposes? (E.g.,
``new broadcasts'' may not be an exempted class of works, but ``news
broadcasts used in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a
nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place of
instruction,'' may be an exempted class.) Explain why or why not.
D. Impact on Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship,
or Research
12. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news
[[Page 66143]]
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research?
13. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses of such works,
including fair use and activities permitted by exemptions prescribed by
law?
14. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research has been
hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures?
If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered,
and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available
in other formats to which such technological measures have not been
applied.
15. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses
has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological
measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been
hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also
available in other formats to which such technological measures have
not been applied.
16. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,
or research? Explain why or why not.
17. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used in ways
that do not constitute copyright infringement, e.g., as fair use or in
a manner permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? Explain why or why
not.
E. Effect of Circumvention on the Market for or Value of Copyrighted
Works
18. In what ways can technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works be circumvented? How widespread is
such circumvention?
19. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the price of copyrighted works? Please explain.
20. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the availability of copyrighted works? In particular
formats or in all formats? Please explain.
21. Has such circumvention had any other impact on the marketing of
copyrighted works? If so, please explain the impact and which works or
classes of works have been affected.
22. Do the answers to any of these questions relating to the effect
of circumvention on the market for or value of copyrighted works depend
upon the class of work? Please explain.
F. Other Factors and Questions
23. For purposes of this rulemaking, what criteria should be used
in determining what is a ``class'' of copyrighted works?
24. With respect to any adverse effect on use of or access to
copyrighted works that has been identified in response to any of the
preceding questions, is there an explanation for the adverse effect
other than the presence of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works?
25. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in making copyrighted works more
widely available? Please explain.
26. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in facilitating lawful uses of
copyrighted works?
27. Are there other factors that should be taken into account? If
so, please identify and address those factors.
28. What other comments, if any, do you have?
29. Do you wish to testify at a hearing to be conducted by the
Copyright Office in connection with this rulemaking?
You must answer some or all of the questions posed in the request for comments for your letter to have any effect. Also, the questions will help focus your letters on the issues that are relevent to this situation. Here are the questions::
5. Specific Questions
The Office seeks comment on the following specific questions.
Persons submitting comments need not address all questions, but are
encouraged to respond to those as to which they have particular
knowledge or information. Persons submitting comments are encouraged to
submit concrete evidence, examples and data supporting their responses
to these questions. Such submissions will carry greater weight than
unsupported allegations and predictions.
In response to each question, persons submitting comments are
requested to distinguish between (a) their response with respect to the
current state of affairs, and (b) their response with respect to the
state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. For example, in responding to
Question No. 3, persons submitting comments are requested to state (a)
what technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today, and (b) what new technological measures
that effectively control access to copyrighted works are likely to be
introduced between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. In discussing
the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003, persons submitting comments
should explain the basis for their projections.
A. Technological Measures
1. What technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today?
2. Do different technological measures have different effects on
the ability of users to make noninfringing uses? Can and should the
Librarian take account of those different effects in determining
whether to exempt any classes of works from the anticircumvention
provisions of section 1201? If so, how? In determining what constitutes
a class of works?
B. Availability of Works
3. How has the use of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such
works to persons who are or desire to be lawful users of such works?
4. Are there specific works or classes of works that, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become
unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works and explain how they have
become unavailable.
5. Are there specific works or classes of works which, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become less
available to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works, explain the ways in which
they have become less available, and explain whether those works or
classes of works are also available in other formats to which such
technological measures have not been applied.
6. If there are works that are available both in formats to which
technological measures have been applied and in formats to which
technological measures have not been applied, to what extent can the
works in the latter formats substitute for the works in the formats to
which technological measures have been applied?
7. Are there works or classes of works that are available only
electronically and only in formats to which such technological measures
have been applied? If so, what are they?
C. Availability of Works for Nonprofit Archival, Preservation, and
Educational Purposes
8. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit archival purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
9. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works created problems with respect to the
preservation of such works? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them and explain how they have been affected.
10. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit educational purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
11. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
nonprofit archival, preservation, and/or educational purposes? (E.g.,
``new broadcasts'' may not be an exempted class of works, but ``news
broadcasts used in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a
nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place of
instruction,'' may be an exempted class.) Explain why or why not.
D. Impact on Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship,
or Research
12. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news
[[Page 66143]]
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research?
13. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses of such works,
including fair use and activities permitted by exemptions prescribed by
law?
14. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research has been
hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures?
If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered,
and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available
in other formats to which such technological measures have not been
applied.
15. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses
has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological
measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been
hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also
available in other formats to which such technological measures have
not been applied.
16. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,
or research? Explain why or why not.
17. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used in ways
that do not constitute copyright infringement, e.g., as fair use or in
a manner permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? Explain why or why
not.
E. Effect of Circumvention on the Market for or Value of Copyrighted
Works
18. In what ways can technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works be circumvented? How widespread is
such circumvention?
19. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the price of copyrighted works? Please explain.
20. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the availability of copyrighted works? In particular
formats or in all formats? Please explain.
21. Has such circumvention had any other impact on the marketing of
copyrighted works? If so, please explain the impact and which works or
classes of works have been affected.
22. Do the answers to any of these questions relating to the effect
of circumvention on the market for or value of copyrighted works depend
upon the class of work? Please explain.
F. Other Factors and Questions
23. For purposes of this rulemaking, what criteria should be used
in determining what is a ``class'' of copyrighted works?
24. With respect to any adverse effect on use of or access to
copyrighted works that has been identified in response to any of the
preceding questions, is there an explanation for the adverse effect
other than the presence of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works?
25. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in making copyrighted works more
widely available? Please explain.
26. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in facilitating lawful uses of
copyrighted works?
27. Are there other factors that should be taken into account? If
so, please identify and address those factors.
28. What other comments, if any, do you have?
29. Do you wish to testify at a hearing to be conducted by the
Copyright Office in connection with this rulemaking?
... they are still emulating the x86 instruction set. Even with all their fancy technology a 700mhz processor will only perform, at best equivalent, to a 500mhz Pentium
That was a quote from a Transmeta employee. I do realize that Intel and AMD processors don't execute x86 instructions. However their vector units (MMX or 3DNow) are executed natively. The MMX unit is highly optomized hardware that takes advantage of all the latest hardware techniques. Therefore, even if MMX emulation was easy (I don't think that it is), it would still be slower because it would be emulated in software. You don't see as much of a penalty while emulating x86 instructions because CISC instructions are relatively quick to translate, and both the Athlon and Pentium are also emulating the x86 instruction set.
Here is quote from your own citation:
Both the Athlon and the P6 run the CISC x86 ISA in what amounts to hardware emulation, but they translate the x86 instructions into smaller, RISC-like operations that fed into a fully post-RISC core. Their cores have a number of RISC features (LOAD/STORE memory access, pipelined execution, reduced instructions, expanded register count via register renaming), to which are added all of the post-RISC features we've discussed. The Athlon muddies the waters even further in that it uses both direct execution and a microcode engine for instruction decoding. A crucial difference between the Athlon (and P6) and the G4 is that, as already noted, the Athlon must translate x86 instructions into smaller RISC ops.
The Pentium does this in hardware too. Both are emulating x86 instruction with RISC instructions. This is exactly how the Transmeta chip does it, except the translation happens in highly optimized software. In both cases, it's a CISC-RISC translation.
Ease of translation into native machine code for JITs was not one of the primary concerns when the bytecode format was selected.
You're wrong; Sun did care about performance. Here's a quote regarding SUN's Java, nee Oak, compiler from Sun's Java site:
The Java compiler does this by generating bytecode instructions which have nothing to do with a particular computer architecture. Rather, they are designed to be both easy to interpret on any machine and easily translated into native machine code on the fly... The bytecode format was designed with generating machine codes in mind, so the actual process of generating machine code is generally simple. Efficient code is produced: the compiler does automatic register allocation and some optimization when it produces the bytecodes.
Basically, nothing you've said has convinced me or anyone else that RISC translation is nearly as efficient as CISC translation.. Please provide an example of software or hardware that does RISC-CISC translation or even does RISC-RISC translation to support your claims that, "adequate performance could probably be achieved."
RISC code is extremely optimized for a specific processor architecture, and optimizing RISC code is a very processor intensive job. Taking highly optimized RISC code (most of the time significantly reorded to exploit parrel and pipelining efficiencies), and trying to generate equivelent instructions in another architecutre would be very slow. The Crusoe architecure is a lot better at taking a few correctly ordered CISC instructions, expanding them to Crusoe's instruction set and highly optomizing them, rather than trying to convert and optomize 8 or 16 out of order optomized RISC instructions.
If RISC code was indeed easier to emulate, then JAVA would compile to RISC instructions, not CISC bytecodes. It compiles down to CISC bite codes so that the JIT on a particular platform can take one or two bite codes and expand them into the native instruction set of the operating system, and optomize them from there.
Another reason, there has never been a RISC emulator that has performed at anywhere close to a resonable speed. Any emulation of the Mac done on the PC only handles 68k CISC code. The reason for this is that RISC emulation is just too slow.
Their emulation tricks will not work on MMX or other instructions nearly so well. Curose can't make up the time it takes to emulate the instruction set by having better hardware. MMX and the G4 vector processing units utilize many of the same tricks that the entire Cursoe processor utilizes such as long word instructions, parallel processing and other optimization techniques. Also, the hardware of these multimedia units are explicitly optimized to process these special instructions. This means emulating these instructions would drastically slow down the chip.
Hear, Hear! Great post. Thanks!
I do realize that Transmeta does an excellent job in translating x86 instructions. Probably the best job that has ever been done. But they are still emulating the x86 instruction set. Even with all their fancy technology a 700mhz processor will only perform, at best equivalent, to a 500mhz Pentium. Java's developers have spent years trying to optimize their JIT, and it still is a lot slower than running native compiled C code.
Their emulation tricks will not work on MMX or other instructions nearly so well. Curose can't make up the time it takes to emulate the instruction set by having better hardware. MMX and the G4 vector processing units utilize many of the same tricks that the entire Cursoe processor utilizes such as long word instructions, parallel processing and other optimization techniques. Also, the hardware of these multimedia units are explicitly optimized to process these special instructions. This means to emulate these instructions would drastically slow down the chip.
You are right, a few specialized users will love the ability to go a few days without plugging their laptop in and without carring extra batteries, but this is a pretty small market. If a Pentium based laptop could achieve 8-12 hours of batter life while in constant use, and a few days of battery life while mostly sleeping, 99.9% of users are going to be happy. Crusoe will not be able to be viable company if it is only marketing its products to .1% of the market.
You're kidding right? Remember that a Transmeta processor needs to translate EVERY instruction to an equivalent sent of 128bit instructions. This carries a significant performance penalty. Also, the Transmeta chip doesn't have any of the multimedia enhancements that Petium's, Athlon's, and G4's carry with it. Software does not beat hardware when doing extremely optimized vector based instructions that can run in parallel inside the native processor.
Emulating CISC based hardware is vastly easier than achieving acceptable performance emulating RISC based hardware. With CISC based hardware, each instruction does a lot, and might take several clock ticks to execute. The Transmeta emulator can come along and translate the instruction into equivalent Crusoe instructions, and achieve roughly comparable performance. This is why PC emulators can be run on PowerPC hardware, and why the MacOS's 68k CISC emulator was so successful for running old applications on PowerPC based Macintosh's.
RISC emulation is vastly different. Each instruction doesn't do a whole lot, but runs extremely fast. So, basically, to emulate a RISC processor, you have to translate each instruction into one or more Curose instructions that don't benefit from RISC hardware's pipelining and other efficiencies. You're going to end up with a vastly slower PC.
Also, this chip will not be able to emulate multimedia enhancements like 3DNow or the G4's velocity engine as fast as the native version. These chips are optimized to run the special instructions in a highly efficient and parallel manner. The multimedia enhancements in hardware basically utilize almost all the hardware technology that Transmeta has in their chip, and tehy don't have the overhead of translating intructions before being able to execute them. The Transmeta chip's software layer simply won't do as good a job as dedicated vector processing units.
Please remember that 700mhz doesn't mean shit. You need to know how fast the processor actually runs x86 software, not how fast it runs the Crusoe transcoding software. Its the same with all emulators. Would you rush out and buy a Macintosh with a hypothetical G4 chip running at 1GHZ that only emulated x86 software? Of course not! You'd know that a x86 native processor running at 700mhz would probably be faster.
You do realize that a copyright is not the same as a patent right? Do you really believe that the entire gaiming industry is using a charecter you created, a portion of your source code, or graphics you created illegaly in all modern games? You've got to be kidding!
The shiny box comes with support
Not this shiny box. RedHat is going to charge for support.
You realize you can buy the CD for something like $5. You don't need to shell out $50 for the Linux operating system even if you dohn't have access to a fast Internet connection and CD burner. Amazing how the big Linux companies have brainwashed people into thinking that paying $50 gives you more than just a nice box, support and a printed manual.
The phone costs saved are enormous. At 10p per unit, peak time, (which is when schools operate), you're talking around 4,740 GBP for the download, which is about $7,870. In short, Red Hat is donating the equivalent of nearly $8,000 to every school in England. In my books, that's a substantial sum of money.
You're kidding right? Please tell me you're kidding. RedHat is not giving the equivalent of nearly $8,000 to every school in England. There are numerous companies that specialize in selling Linux CD's at very reasonable costs. Also, once the school has one CD, a burner can duplicate it for the entire district (or UK equivalent). So please do not think RedHat is giving away $8,000 to every school in England. They arenot even giving away any support, so basically, this whole deal is a crock! RedHat is looking to lock UK schools into their version of Linux, and charge for support later on.
The phone costs saved are enormous. At 10p per unit, peak time, (which is when schools operate), you're talking around 4,740 GBP for the download, which is about $7,870. In short, Red Hat is donating the equivalent of nearly $8,000 to every school in England. In my books, that's a substantial sum of money.
You're kidding right? Please tell me you're kidding. RedHat is not giving the equivalent of nearly $8,000 to every school in England. There are numerous companies that specialize in selling Linux CD's at very reasonable costs. Also, once the school has one CD, a burner can duplicate it for the entire district (or UK equivalent). So please do not think RedHat is giving away $8,000 to every school in England. They arenot even giving away any support, so basically, this whole deal is a crock! RedHat is looking to long UK schools into their version of Linux, and charge for support later on.
Reverse engineering copy protection schemes for the sake of "compatibility" needs to be stopped. This loophole will always be able to be exploited because there always is some platform mainstream media will always leave out. This means that all schemes will be cracked, and with this loophole the crack could be legal. A new law is necessary. Copy protection schemes are necessary in order for artists and companies to protect their work in the age of high speed internet connections.
It doesn't matter if you think software and entertainment companies are absolute scum or even if you think $3.00 is too much to pay for a CD, nothing justifies piracy. If DVD's cost $1000 each, you still do not have the right to obtain them without paying for them. If you don't agree with the system, don't purchase the goods. Piracy is the antithesis to our capitalist system. If enough people stopped buying CD's and DVD's, the media companies will lower the price. Piracy is not the answer. Copy protection schemes are inherently necessary when a single user can distribute an unprotected song or movie to thousands of users. Please tell me what else will prevent the duplication of illegal material?
The bottom line is new restrictions need to be in place to protect companies property. We as citizens can acquiesce and purchase goods from these companies, or vote with our wallets and let the media companies know that we don't agree with their policies. Piracy, however, is wrong and should not be practiced, and because it is wrong, new laws need to be enacted so that it is harder for it to be practiced.
Don't you think Apple deserves to be able to protect Aqua's GUI? Apple has spent thousands of man-hours creating this look for the future OS, and these themes authors have simply lifted it. Unfortunately, the courts don't seem to agree that Apple deserves any protection. It's funny how Apple can sue over the look of their computers, but not their OS? Perhaps Apple can look closely at the themes on these sites, and see if there are any instances where the authors lifted elements from the QuickTime movies on Apple's MacOS X site.
Luckily for Apple, Aqua is a lot more then just a theme. It adds transparency to the entire interface and other refinements that a theme simply cannot duplicate. No one can claim that adding a Window's theme to a Mac or Mac theme to a Windows machine, in anyway duplicates the GUI of the other platform. The GUI is a lot more than a simple theme.
Slashdot needs more readers like you! Thank you for the response to my question, and please keep posting when patent issues come up!
This is not how it works at all. Because their is a patent on the cancer-killer drug, the company will know that the billions they spent developing the drug will be protected since they will be the only ones able to sell the drug for a certain number of years. Without the patent, the drug company would have no incentive to invest the money in researching the cancer-killer, and noone's live would be saved. Which is a better scenario?
Remeber, without a patent or when a patent expires, other companies can manufacture a copy of the drug and sell it to the public at a very low cost since they are only woried about making a temporary profit, not recouping their R&D expenses. If drug companies where not granted the temporary monopoly on being the only ones able to sell the drug for a specific period of time, they would never be able to recoup their R&D costs, and research into new life-saving drugs would cease. Is this really what you are advocating?
You really don't seem to be too unsatisfied. It sounds like @Home is the best service for the money. You are getting everything you want for a fraction of the cost of any other solutions. Plus you are even breaking @Home's user contract of running an in home lan, and getting away with it to. So you should really not be complaining! Just remember the old addage, "You get what you pay for."
How do you calculate that 1906 minutes is 15% downtime? Aren't their 60*24*30=43200 minutes in a month. 1906/43200=.04. This means that your service was only down 4% of the time. Could you please tell me how you came up with your 15% figure? Also, @Home could argue that intermittent downtime is a lot more forgivable than long periods of downtime.
Obviously the issue of whether Graffiti is older than this patent has already been decided, or there would be no case, no news, and 3Com would not be reporting this court case on their Securities and Exchange filings.
My question is that since Graffiti seemed to clearly come out before the patent was filed [1] [2], why is there still a case? Maybe it has to do with the related application section. It says that there was an earlier filing in 1993[3]. Does anyone know what the significance of this earlier filing is? Is this the important date?
[1] Rick Boyd-Merritt. Electronic Engineering Times, Sept 26, '94. PDA app sorts out scribbles. [This article reviews Palm's Graffity application].
[2] Xerox Patent's Issued/Filed Dates: Jan. 21, 1997 / Oct. 26, 1995
[3] Related Applications: US1993000132401 1993-10-06
You make a very good point. For some people like students, working part time as a temp for a significant period of time is desirable. It WOULD be a shame if these types of jobs to made illegal, and cause companies to not be able to retain employees on a part time basis after an intitial summer internship over. BR>
-EJ
I feel if a company is going to hire someone for a significant amount of time and treat them like an employee in every way, he or she should be compensated like an employee. Too many companies label their workers as "temporary" for the sole reason of depriving them of employee benefits. In the long run, forcing companies to hire more workers as full employees could eventually benefit these companies. An employee with a vested interest in a company will probably work harder, and in the long run, the expense of more full employees could be mitigated by the increase in productivity.
In California companies are already prevented from hiring workers on a temporary basis for a significant amount of time. After the time period expires, the company either has to hire the person as a full employee or release them. It sounds like Washington has the same types of laws. Hopefully, this ruling and similar laws in other states will help increase the compensation CS and IT professionals receive, and encourage more people to enter these fields.