I have just tried the "Fax your MP" link, and it says that the service is suspended because the upcoming election.
Earlier this evening my (ex-)MP knocked on my door, campaigning for re-election. If I had seen this article earlier, I would have raised the point with him in person.
And the music/book clubs capitalise on this, knowing that most people will not be bothered to take the positive action to reject the book/DVD/CD of the month.
This highlights one problem from which Web publishing suffers compared to (tradional) Paper publishing. If a reference is made to a Web document (via URI) then if the publisher removes or changes the document the reference becomes invalid, or refers to the "wrong" thing. When the reference is made to a paper document, the book may go out of print (which in the case of journals is almost immediate), but this does not prevent you refering to the copy you already own or visiting the library to consult it.
So maybe the RIAA, instead of asking napster to block the listing of copyrighted files, should be asking to Napster for the identity of the users advertising files the sharing of which would violate copyright. So that these "publishers" can be informed (if in within its juristiction) under the terms of the DCMA.
Not necessarily. It would still be possible to address multiple sites within a single IP address, in the same way as multiple companies can have offices in the same building, or have multiple extensions on a common telephone number. The "internet" just has to route the packets to the host, it will still be possible for hosts to handle multiple sites, in the same was a company switchboard can put you through to the correct department. So if companies "alpha" and "beta" are both hosted by 10.1.2.3, they could be accessed as "http://10.1.2.3/alpha/..." and "http://10.1.2.3/beta/..."
Or even get rid of the current domain name system completely and replace it by using 'raw' IP addresses. An IPV4 address (especially if expressed as 8 hex digits rather than dotted quad), is no longer than a phone number and people are quite happy to use phone numbers rather type the person/company name into the phone dial.
For loookup you could have white and yellow pages, which could be indexed in many ways. Also companies and individual users could create their own private address books, in the same way that people do for telephone numbers.
While it might be different in other places, in my town we are suffering from the third teleco to lay fibre along the same route in the last 6 months. With the current one, the same contractor is digging up the same roads and paths which they themselves dug up for the previous teleco less than a month before. How much money could be saved if for the "popular routes" just one trench was dug and all of the telecos laid their fibre in it?
Hopefully the (standard compliant) webpage will include a pointer to the DTD of the HTML version it is using. The browser can then render the page according to that DTD.
What leglislation requires such a licence? Nowhere on any DVD which I own can I see any mention of only being allowed to play it on a licenced player. By purchasing a DVD I am purchasing (amongst other things) a licence to watch/listen to the content in my own home. So where does this licence preclude playing the DVD in a (legally puchased) DVD drive on a computer running any OS the owner chooses to use?
Ensure that symbol versioning is built into your glibc (which it is by default - it has to be actively disabled if you do not want it). Then any programs you link against it will use symbol versioning, and any binaries you run will automatically pull in the correct version from the runtime library.
That is assuming that there is a violation. Trademarks are issued within particular areas of trade, and I would be most surprised if the Pilsbury mark is in the same area(s) of trade as protocol testing sessions.
In which case, from what has already been posted, I do not think that the presence of CPRM on the drive will make any difference. If it only affects CPRM 'enabled' documents then if you do not use any such documents then will it not behave like a non-CPRM drive (except that you have "lost" a little capacity)?
Does CPRM not only affect files which have been 'protected' using it. So if the Windows (or other software) installation disks do not use CPRM then why cannot the mass-install techniques still be used?
Do not forget that RAID is an acronym for Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. So the whole idea of RAID is that you use low cost (and therefore lower reliability) drives and the array part provides the redundancy which makes the reliability of the whole much greater than that of an individual drive.
Where does the DCMA (or anything else) say that access to the media is illegal? What it says is that circumventing protection to access copyright works is illegal.
If I create data/program, to which I or my employer own the copyright, and write it to the hard disk then accessing this is not unauthorised. So access to the media will be required so as to gain access to this material.
Will this CPRM only affect access to "commercial" data or will it affect the storage of "ordinary" data? Also will it be possible for the user (as opposed to a large entertainment corporation) to make use of CPRM to 'protect' files which they create?
No, but as well as telling them how big, is it not also possible to specify "non copy protected HD"? Then either do not buy systems with copy protected HDs or if you find the drive is copy protected then return it as being "unfit for its purpose".
It is not just intellectual property that the corporations do not like free trade. Take the example of a UK supermarket chain that was importing (genuine) perfumes and designer jeans from other countries and undercutting the price cartel imposed by the 'official' importers. Corporations like Free Trade when it allows them to sell into other markets, but not when it allows other people to sell into "their" markets.
If it uses UTF8 then aren't codes 0-127 the same as ASCII, so mixed ASCII and CJK (or cyrilic, greek, hebrew, arabic or whatver) should not cause a problem.
Things may now be different (I have worked for very small companies, where there has been no separate IT department, for the last 10 years) but when I worked in the IT department of a large (mainframe) installation, most of the programmers were part of the IT department - because programming is an IT function.
Slashdot Mirror
I have just tried the "Fax your MP" link, and it says that the service is suspended because the upcoming election.
Earlier this evening my (ex-)MP knocked on my door, campaigning for re-election. If I had seen this article earlier, I would have raised the point with him in person.
And the music/book clubs capitalise on this, knowing that most people will not be bothered to take the positive action to reject the book/DVD/CD of the month.
What about those bands who can play by ear (ie do not write down the tablature, but play what they hear)?
This highlights one problem from which Web publishing suffers compared to (tradional) Paper publishing. If a reference is made to a Web document (via URI) then if the publisher removes or changes the document the reference becomes invalid, or refers to the "wrong" thing. When the reference is made to a paper document, the book may go out of print (which in the case of journals is almost immediate), but this does not prevent you refering to the copy you already own or visiting the library to consult it.
So maybe the RIAA, instead of asking napster to block the listing of copyrighted files, should be asking to Napster for the identity of the users advertising files the sharing of which would violate copyright. So that these "publishers" can be informed (if in within its juristiction) under the terms of the DCMA.
Not necessarily. It would still be possible to address multiple sites within a single IP address, in the same way as multiple companies can have offices in the same building, or have multiple extensions on a common telephone number. The "internet" just has to route the packets to the host, it will still be possible for hosts to handle multiple sites, in the same was a company switchboard can put you through to the correct department. So if companies "alpha" and "beta" are both hosted by 10.1.2.3, they could be accessed as "http://10.1.2.3/alpha/..." and "http://10.1.2.3/beta/..."
Or even get rid of the current domain name system completely and replace it by using 'raw' IP addresses. An IPV4 address (especially if expressed as 8 hex digits rather than dotted quad), is no longer than a phone number and people are quite happy to use phone numbers rather type the person/company name into the phone dial.
For loookup you could have white and yellow pages, which could be indexed in many ways. Also companies and individual users could create their own private address books, in the same way that people do for telephone numbers.
While it might be different in other places, in my town we are suffering from the third teleco to lay fibre along the same route in the last 6 months. With the current one, the same contractor is digging up the same roads and paths which they themselves dug up for the previous teleco less than a month before. How much money could be saved if for the "popular routes" just one trench was dug and all of the telecos laid their fibre in it?
Why should someone receiving such a demand have to prove themselves innocent? Is "demanding money with menaces" not still a crime?
Hopefully the (standard compliant) webpage will include a pointer to the DTD of the HTML version it is using. The browser can then render the page according to that DTD.
What leglislation requires such a licence? Nowhere on any DVD which I own can I see any mention of only being allowed to play it on a licenced player. By purchasing a DVD I am purchasing (amongst other things) a licence to watch/listen to the content in my own home. So where does this licence preclude playing the DVD in a (legally puchased) DVD drive on a computer running any OS the owner chooses to use?
Ensure that symbol versioning is built into your glibc (which it is by default - it has to be actively disabled if you do not want it). Then any programs you link against it will use symbol versioning, and any binaries you run will automatically pull in the correct version from the runtime library.
That is assuming that there is a violation. Trademarks are issued within particular areas of trade, and I would be most surprised if the Pilsbury mark is in the same area(s) of trade as protocol testing sessions.
So why do trademark holders go after people using the "mark" outside of commerce?
In his announcement Linus says not.
In which case, from what has already been posted, I do not think that the presence of CPRM on the drive will make any difference. If it only affects CPRM 'enabled' documents then if you do not use any such documents then will it not behave like a non-CPRM drive (except that you have "lost" a little capacity)?
Does CPRM not only affect files which have been 'protected' using it. So if the Windows (or other software) installation disks do not use CPRM then why cannot the mass-install techniques still be used?
Do not forget that RAID is an acronym for Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. So the whole idea of RAID is that you use low cost (and therefore lower reliability) drives and the array part provides the redundancy which makes the reliability of the whole much greater than that of an individual drive.
Where does the DCMA (or anything else) say that access to the media is illegal? What it says is that circumventing protection to access copyright works is illegal.
If I create data/program, to which I or my employer own the copyright, and write it to the hard disk then accessing this is not unauthorised. So access to the media will be required so as to gain access to this material.
Will this CPRM only affect access to "commercial" data or will it affect the storage of "ordinary" data? Also will it be possible for the user (as opposed to a large entertainment corporation) to make use of CPRM to 'protect' files which they create?
No, but as well as telling them how big, is it not also possible to specify "non copy protected HD"? Then either do not buy systems with copy protected HDs or if you find the drive is copy protected then return it as being "unfit for its purpose".
It is not just intellectual property that the corporations do not like free trade. Take the example of a UK supermarket chain that was importing (genuine) perfumes and designer jeans from other countries and undercutting the price cartel imposed by the 'official' importers. Corporations like Free Trade when it allows them to sell into other markets, but not when it allows other people to sell into "their" markets.
So maybe ISPs should do what CompuServe used (I don't know if they still do) to do and restrict the capabilities of newly created accounts.
If it uses UTF8 then aren't codes 0-127 the same as ASCII, so mixed ASCII and CJK (or cyrilic, greek, hebrew, arabic or whatver) should not cause a problem.
Things may now be different (I have worked for very small companies, where there has been no separate IT department, for the last 10 years) but when I worked in the IT department of a large (mainframe) installation, most of the programmers were part of the IT department - because programming is an IT function.