> The appeals court vacated the verdict because there could be the appearance
of bias in the matter.
Wrong. The appearance of bias merely lead to Jackson being disqualified
from re-hearing the case.
It was the remedy being vacated, not the "findings of fact"; they stand,
but have been reinterpreted.
The remedy was killed for many reasons... mostly lack of an evidentiary
hearing, and lack of a logical causal relationship showing how the remedy
would stop the practices (as far as the limited technical understanding
of these judges could see).
Most of the appellate courts problems with the "findings of fact" were
minor, with two exceptions:
1) The appellate judges did not find evidence submitted in the trail
that lead to Jackson's conclusion that IE prohibits entry into the browser
market (from page 63):
[The DOJ must] show that the browser market
can be monopolized,i.e.,that a hypothetical monopolist in that market could
enjoy market power.This,in turn,requires plaintiffs (1)to define the relevant
market and (2)to demonstrate that substantial barriers to entry protect
that market. Because plaintiffs have not carried their burden on either
prong,we reverse without remand.
During the appeal, the judges brow-beat the DOJ attorney concerning why
Jackson would refer to both the OS and the browser as a "platform".
The DOJ attorney just stared and stuttered. What an idiot!
I really wanted to answer the question for him: like an OS executes
programs, a browser renders web content; the dominant browser will have
web content tailored to it's idiosyncrasies, causing standards to become
obscure and proprietary, leaving competing browsers "chasing the tail"
of the dominant browser, trying to emulate it's idiosyncrasies perfectly
and follow the changing idiosyncrasies with every update of the browser.
At this point in the ubiquity of IE, if Microsoft comes out with a patch
or IE revision that causes web pages to not be rendered properly, everyone
will remake their pages to conform, and every competing browser must change
it's rendering procedures to follow the idiosyncrasy -- the same way MS
kept DRDOS from ever being compliant with DOS.
For evidence, look at all the comments by ASP's in slashdot articles
that have claimed that it's too cumbersome to maintain web pages that work
for both Netscape and IE... and they just test for IE compatibility because
of it's ubiquity. For further evidence, try different browsers that
are trying to emulate IE: for example, at my Fidelity Investments web account,
there are certain pages (news, graphs) that will not even allow my browser
to try to render -- even if the browser impersonates IE but says the OS
is Linux (as Opera will do), you get an error message instead that says
to "upgrade to IE for Windows". I have many email responses from
Fidelity Investments saying that they only support IE for Windows and MAC
and will disallow any browser from even trying to render certain content.
The judges go on to say that the browser wars can no longer be used
to prove anti-trust behavior (page 100, page 59 also explains this):
Of the three antitrust violations originally
identified by the District Court,one is no longer viable: attempted monopolization
of the browser market in violation of Sherman Act 2. One will
be remanded for liability proceedings under a different legal standard:unlawful
tying in violation of 1.
2) The appellate judges did not find conclusive evidence that "tying" was
ultimately helpful or harmful to the market (Page 85, following a long
diatribe of cases where tying was helpful and other cases where tying was
harmful):
These arguments all point to one conclusion:we
cannot comfortably say that bundling in platform software markets has so
little "redeeming virtue"... We do not have enough empirical evidence
regarding the effect of Microsoft 's practice on the amount of consumer
surplus created or consumer choice foreclosed by the integration of added
functionality into platform software to exercise sensible judgment regarding
that entire class of behavior.(For some issues we have no data.) We need
to know more than we do about the actual impact of these arrangements on
competition to decide whether they should be classified as per se violations
ofthe Sherman Act.
This is followed by carefully laid-out merits that must be achieved to
prove "tying" was detrimental to the market.
There were other minor logic "flaws" that were found... along the lines
of lack of evidence to backup a logical argument... as in if a,b,c,d, then
e... the appellate court found cases where some point had not been part
of the evidence given in the case. For example, Jackson said something
along the lines of "along with all the commonly acknowledged instances
of this behavior"... where the appellate judges said those commonly known
instances weren't part of the record so couldn't be part of the conclusion.
The judges said that "every OS bundles a browser" as a reason to allow
Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows. They also stated that the
anti-competative behavior was entirely in business arrangements, and not
proven to be embedded in the technology. They apparently do not understand
the role of API's and special hooks into the OS that only MS is privy,
as laid out in the "findings of fact".
In the entire 125 page document, there are only 6 paragraphs that use
the term "API"; and none of those paragraphs show a good understanding
of what Judge Jackson was talking about in the "findings of fact" concerning
Microsoft's use of API's (and special proprietary hooks into the OS for
the advantage of their own applications) in blocking competition.
For example, IE was able to make a web page a users background -- that
wasn't in a defined API, and it immediately gave Microsoft a clear "gee
whiz" advantage over all other browsers.
"The appearance of bias" is a ruse. My opinion from reading the
document is that the appellate judges don't like Jackson, had a score to
settle, and were waiting for a reason to punish him with public humiliation.
He erred, but not as badly as they made it seem.
I think they are intimidated by Jackson's grasp of the technical issues,
that they can't begin to comprehend. They need more evidence for
what was "obvious" to Jackson and other technically competent folk.
They also seem quite adamant that Microsoft needs protection.
The remedy should not punish or hurt Microsoft, only allow future competition.
These judges truly don't understand the problem, and have just let Microsoft
off with murder (the millions of programmer lifetimes wasted trying to
compete with Microsoft).
Linux, and open source in general, provides the foundation for a paradigm shift from PC software as a product to software as a service.
IBM, throughout its history, has emphasized service; especially in it's high-end products. IBM has also become a formidable PC OEM vendor competing in the product-oriented PC paradigm. The last twenty years have kept IBM from showing its true strength, competing in a paradigm where the value of service is misunderstood.
Under the current paradigm, no OEM can offer complete business solutions: hardware, software, and service. The impediment has been the dependence on a closed-source operating system and applications that can be integrated by the OEM, but in the end, can only be supported by scattered vendors (with different approaches and levels of commitment to service).
Mixing Open Source with IBM software and hardware and experience in a service driven approach uniquely positions the company to offer complete, "soup-to-nuts", office solutions, and be a prime mover in the paradigm shift.
Using this approach, you can get that golden ring back from Microsoft.
Everybody I know with a TiVo no longer surfs realtime TV. At all.
When you sit down to watch TV, you look at the current list of what's recorded, and select from the list.
You get to see the shows you want, when you want; it's very convienient.
I know a few folks who are very disiplined with there VCR library. They're good at setting the schedules, shuffling the tapes in and out, and labeling them for their library. They don't need a TiVo. I'm not that disciplined. I've got hundreds of tapes, and haven't a clue what's on any of them, and I never watch them.
The TiVo makes it easy for the undisciplined viewer.
The owners of the AVS forum won't allow further posting of mpeg extraction questions. Given that the message will be deleted in 48 hours, I thought it might be good to post it somewhere where the record will remain:
After thinking this over and going through all this for the last 48 hours I would like to respectfully request the following. My reasons are also given.
1) I request their be NO LINKS to any extraction software on this site including NO LINKS to others sites that do nothing but offer the software for download. This does not include other hacking sites. But don't care to see just a post that does nothing but point to a site that offers nothing but the download. (I think you know what I mean.) The data extraction it is still a gray area to me and thus I care not to even take the chance at getting anyone upset. (Thanks for all the letters trying to help me understand it.)
2) I request their be NO POSTS on hacking the channel guide, the subscription service, or any other area that would cost revenue loss to any company. This I know really has been taboo and I thank you for that.
I really do not care about hardware hacks at all, or even the software ones, for it seems that no company that I have read about is upset by this. Just please, nothing that can effect a bottom line of any company, in any way. That is what starts to raise issues in my head.
You see, if we want TiVo (or other companies) to read and post on the site, then I need to take care that some lines are not crossed that will make them not want to be here or link to this site any longer. I for one like them here and I also think they like being here for the customers. I like that they choose to link to this site from theirs and feel proud they choose myself and this site for this purpose. Very Proud Indeed!!!
So, I respectfully ask that the above now be followed from this point forward and hope you can understand why. I have received a lot of mail that has been informative, helpful, and sometimes down right rude. But hey...People are people and we all have our own thoughts on different matters. That is what make us...well...us.
I thank you for your time and understanding in this matter. I am not stopping the talk of hacking, just trying to protect this site from the touchy areas. I think most of the underground community here enjoy the chats and the learning that take place here...I would like to protect that and still have the trust of the companies evolved.
Please, this is not up for debate for I feel good about this. Not to be rude, but I will not reply to posts or e-mail on this, for I am quite tired after all this. This post will be closed within 48 hours.
>Big difference here, the DirecTiVo units store the pure, original, never-converted-to-analog, mpeg2
Agreed. The MPAA will go nuts if DVD quality bootlegs are marketed or distributed.
My point is: the problem occurs if someone distributes. DirecTV/MPAA is not going to take people to court who view the extracted mpegs on their computer, or make VCD's for personal use, ore any other "fair use" application... They're only concerned about distribution.
TiVo can keep it's hackers and DirectTV/MPAA happy at the same time by spying. It's easier to implement (than shutting hacking down entirely), and harder for the hackers to detect, and the only ones that will care are those very few with distribution in mind.
TiVo can, for example, randomly pepper the mpegs with your encrypted serial number -- no effect to video quality, impossible to differentiate from mpeg data. If a bootleg mpeg is being distributed with your serial number... you're busted.
I can think of many ways for them to implement similar schemes. Low overhead (for their CPU) and impossible to detect.
If they clobber the hack altogether, then you immediately realize it, download your backup, and you're back in business. Then, sombody will hack the program guide... which is illegal because it is encrypted... and TiVo will loose the revenue stream they've been enjoying from their hackers.
Which method do you think TiVo & DireTV will prefer?
I changed my mind. That hinking doesn't make sense.
Tivo as Napster doesn't fit. They are not the medium of exchange, they're the capture device.
There are a lot of capture devices, including Hauppauge's PVR which also captures mpeg. Nobody's going after them.
TiVo loves it's hackers. They bring in money... not much but they need all they can get.
DirectTV's DSS hackers steal service, TiVo's hackers pay for service -- I don't think TiVo want's to change that arrangement and make it hostile.
If DirectTV has a problem with DirectTiVo's (which the ethernet hardware and software don't work on, anyway), then I think TiVo will be able to convince them there's more value in "spying" on their customers (which is legal by the DirecTiVo eula) than there is in shutting them down.
Shut the hackers down, and they'll find a way around the service altogether, and still be extracting mpegs.
Spy on the hackers, and you'll be able to pinpoint who's distributing MPEGS from DirecTiVo's -- if anyone does.
Plus, there is no DMCA-style encryption for the MPAA to claim "beyond fair use".
I've changed my mind from that post.
Logically, this will be a win-win situation.
Look how many folks responded in slashdot that they're going to buy a TiVo today!
On May 30th, "The Register" had the same article with the same problem of confusing "1" with "2". The Register has since pulled the article alltogether (this distribution has been available for more than a month -- not big news).
I downloaded the kernel -- it's for the PlayStation I only. The PS2 version should be available in a month.
What you say is true (I think), but the question delt with needing clarification concerning the EEF's lawyer (in the link) saying "Open Source" is one way to insulate yourself from this liability.
Posting source capable of infringement (whether intentional or not -- even if modification of the code is required), by your definition of "contributory", would aid and abet an infringing activity.
Fred von Lohmann
wrote a White Paper for the EEF concerning avoidance of "contributory
and vicarious copyright infringement" (being liable for writing
software that promotes "fair use", but can be used for copyright infringement).
In that, he states guidelines for developers. One of the guidelines
is: "Be open source".
I would think Open Source would set you up for liability in such matters:
anybody who modified your code, making it able to infringe on copyrights,
would make you vicariously liable for opening the code in the first place.
Or, take for example, TiVo. Their systems are open source, they've
posted their kernel and tool modifications on their web site (as per the
GPL). Now they're worried that someone could use that to
easily create code that will allow MPEG extraction from the unit (and
widespread distribution of copyrighted materials).
I'm not sure how being open source can protect a software developer from
such litigation.
Worse, the MPAA fervently fights the DeCSS, while there's little actual harm,
and little potential harm (how much does illegal copies of video tapes hurt
the motion picture industry?). From the article:
Actual harm, the judge asked? "Yes. Actual harm," he replied. "Well, actual
threat of harm." That got a laugh from the audience,...
Yet, the MPAA does nearly nothing about
theft of DSS satellite signals -- which could be shown to decrease
actual royalty revenues. Not potential, but actual.
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but it seems to me the MPAA's fervor
is misplaced, if you take their arguments at face value, and therefore: they
must have some other underlying vendetta against Open Source.
I recieved this from a former employee desiring to remain anonymous:
Johnathan Clark has hit the nail on the head (post #292). While
Worlds' PR and legal departments may claim otherwise, the core of the patent
is a way for the system to keep the frame rate up: draw only the N people
closest to you. And the system did exactly what he expects.
People blinked in and out of the scene as they entered or left the magical
group of N. Remember, this was for a 3-D *chat* company. You
were expected to find 1-2 interesting people, then park yourself in front
of them while you typed back and forth. If you are only a couple
of "feet" from them, there's little risk that they'll pop out of your screen
graph. (And remember that this was back in 1995/1996; we wanted to
support 200 people in a room with only a Pentium on the client box.
It was a reasonable solution.)
None of this would apply to an FPS like Quake because there are an order
of magnitude fewer players in a given space, and you have to see *all*
of them for the game to be playable.
It may apply to games like Everquest, however, if they do some sort
of N-closest culling scheme. (Sorry, never played them, so I can't
say.) If they do distance based culling, then, well, how fine do you want
your hairs split? I do remember seeing a very early (free? shareware?)
3-D networked FRPG back in 1996 that might help prove prior art, but I
can't for the life of me remember what it was called.
Claim 5 on the patent is a mish-mash of items. Some of them would
never stand up to any challenge, being a mish-mash of MUD and FPS technology.
(``[R]endering a 3-D view from a viewpoint of the location of the particular
user''? Puh-leeze.) HOWEVER, note that the patent describes
a system that goes up to *worlds* running on different servers an connecting
to their own particular set of clients (see section (g)). This sounds
a lot like Everquest or Diablo, and I don't know of any MUDs that scaled
to that level.
Sombody mod Derek's explanation up (it seems to be the only good non-legalese interpretation of the patent).
If they're patenting "scalability through only showing the nearest avatars" -- then that is quite broad. To not require a license means you'd have to always display every player.
Anyway, Netrek did this back in the 80's -- no need to show players fighting at a planet you're not on!
Anyway, when you read the patent... 3D is used very generically, and seems to be vaugely described as any game where player positions need to be determined in three dimensions.
It definitely says nothing about "3D hardware" or some of the techie uses of "3D".
This pretty much leaves out checkers, backgammon, and solitair -- but you could make a case for 3D there too (i.e. z-order of partially visable cards in solitair stacks).
It does not exclude MUD's.
Furthermore, it doesn't describe the "chat" capability as having to be "3D"... it talks of a typewritten conversation. I don't know what D that is;) -- sounds pretty linear.
The point is, while the term "3D" is used heavily in this patent, it is not specifically defined, and we shouldn't be reading our own conseption of "3D game" into it -- the lawyers won't!
>Wireless internet? Oh wait, you can't use cellphones for that....
I'm guessing your just trolling, and fully aware of CDPD and GSM modems.
Anyway, this X10 thread is about a remote camera. The computer can be land based with a video capture card recieving signals from the boat -- it hopefully wouldn't need wireless internet.
Especially given the theft problem (they could only steal half the camera) and the remote location, the X10 remote cameras sound good, but there's no "brightness" control on the CCD's -- it needs extremely good illumination. Most of my interior rooms aren't sufficiently lit to discern objects using the X10 remote cameras -- you have to open curtains, and then you can only see outside.
Worse, they claim you can use it on a telescope -- buloney. I tried it on an 8" Meade (which makes the moon look as bright as a powerful flashlight coming off the focal point), and you can barely see the moon using this camera.
Just don't let the vandels steal things at night if you're goung to use the X10 remote cameras.
I've seen this problem reported a lot, so it's not just the unit I bought.
>This poster pretty much embodies everything that is wrong with the U.S. justice system and the American mentality of "Sue, Sue, Sue! I don't care what it's about, just let me Sue!"
You're wrong (about me anyway). I agree class action suits suck, the lawyers are the only winners, etc...
I've recieved 6 letters in the past two years saying I was part of the class that was suing... I didn't join any of the suits, and on two occasions offered to help the companies being sued.
But, this case is different. This is Microsoft. Before giving up Windows entirely, Bill made my life miserable. I'd like to pay him back!
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. The appearance of bias merely lead to Jackson being disqualified from re-hearing the case.
It was the remedy being vacated, not the "findings of fact"; they stand, but have been reinterpreted.
The remedy was killed for many reasons... mostly lack of an evidentiary hearing, and lack of a logical causal relationship showing how the remedy would stop the practices (as far as the limited technical understanding of these judges could see).
Most of the appellate courts problems with the "findings of fact" were minor, with two exceptions:
1) The appellate judges did not find evidence submitted in the trail that lead to Jackson's conclusion that IE prohibits entry into the browser market (from page 63):
During the appeal, the judges brow-beat the DOJ attorney concerning why Jackson would refer to both the OS and the browser as a "platform". The DOJ attorney just stared and stuttered. What an idiot!I really wanted to answer the question for him: like an OS executes programs, a browser renders web content; the dominant browser will have web content tailored to it's idiosyncrasies, causing standards to become obscure and proprietary, leaving competing browsers "chasing the tail" of the dominant browser, trying to emulate it's idiosyncrasies perfectly and follow the changing idiosyncrasies with every update of the browser. At this point in the ubiquity of IE, if Microsoft comes out with a patch or IE revision that causes web pages to not be rendered properly, everyone will remake their pages to conform, and every competing browser must change it's rendering procedures to follow the idiosyncrasy -- the same way MS kept DRDOS from ever being compliant with DOS.
For evidence, look at all the comments by ASP's in slashdot articles that have claimed that it's too cumbersome to maintain web pages that work for both Netscape and IE... and they just test for IE compatibility because of it's ubiquity. For further evidence, try different browsers that are trying to emulate IE: for example, at my Fidelity Investments web account, there are certain pages (news, graphs) that will not even allow my browser to try to render -- even if the browser impersonates IE but says the OS is Linux (as Opera will do), you get an error message instead that says to "upgrade to IE for Windows". I have many email responses from Fidelity Investments saying that they only support IE for Windows and MAC and will disallow any browser from even trying to render certain content.
The judges go on to say that the browser wars can no longer be used to prove anti-trust behavior (page 100, page 59 also explains this):
2) The appellate judges did not find conclusive evidence that "tying" was ultimately helpful or harmful to the market (Page 85, following a long diatribe of cases where tying was helpful and other cases where tying was harmful): This is followed by carefully laid-out merits that must be achieved to prove "tying" was detrimental to the market.There were other minor logic "flaws" that were found... along the lines of lack of evidence to backup a logical argument... as in if a,b,c,d, then e... the appellate court found cases where some point had not been part of the evidence given in the case. For example, Jackson said something along the lines of "along with all the commonly acknowledged instances of this behavior"... where the appellate judges said those commonly known instances weren't part of the record so couldn't be part of the conclusion.
The judges said that "every OS bundles a browser" as a reason to allow Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows. They also stated that the anti-competative behavior was entirely in business arrangements, and not proven to be embedded in the technology. They apparently do not understand the role of API's and special hooks into the OS that only MS is privy, as laid out in the "findings of fact".
In the entire 125 page document, there are only 6 paragraphs that use the term "API"; and none of those paragraphs show a good understanding of what Judge Jackson was talking about in the "findings of fact" concerning Microsoft's use of API's (and special proprietary hooks into the OS for the advantage of their own applications) in blocking competition. For example, IE was able to make a web page a users background -- that wasn't in a defined API, and it immediately gave Microsoft a clear "gee whiz" advantage over all other browsers.
"The appearance of bias" is a ruse. My opinion from reading the document is that the appellate judges don't like Jackson, had a score to settle, and were waiting for a reason to punish him with public humiliation. He erred, but not as badly as they made it seem.
I think they are intimidated by Jackson's grasp of the technical issues, that they can't begin to comprehend. They need more evidence for what was "obvious" to Jackson and other technically competent folk.
They also seem quite adamant that Microsoft needs protection. The remedy should not punish or hurt Microsoft, only allow future competition. These judges truly don't understand the problem, and have just let Microsoft off with murder (the millions of programmer lifetimes wasted trying to compete with Microsoft).
Linux, and open source in general, provides the foundation for a paradigm shift from PC software as a product to software as a service.
IBM, throughout its history, has emphasized service; especially in it's high-end products. IBM has also become a formidable PC OEM vendor competing in the product-oriented PC paradigm. The last twenty years have kept IBM from showing its true strength, competing in a paradigm where the value of service is misunderstood.
Under the current paradigm, no OEM can offer complete business solutions: hardware, software, and service. The impediment has been the dependence on a closed-source operating system and applications that can be integrated by the OEM, but in the end, can only be supported by scattered vendors (with different approaches and levels of commitment to service).
Mixing Open Source with IBM software and hardware and experience in a service driven approach uniquely positions the company to offer complete, "soup-to-nuts", office solutions, and be a prime mover in the paradigm shift.
Using this approach, you can get that golden ring back from Microsoft.
What are you waiting for?
Everybody I know with a TiVo no longer surfs realtime TV. At all.
When you sit down to watch TV, you look at the current list of what's recorded, and select from the list.
You get to see the shows you want, when you want; it's very convienient.
I know a few folks who are very disiplined with there VCR library. They're good at setting the schedules, shuffling the tapes in and out, and labeling them for their library. They don't need a TiVo. I'm not that disciplined. I've got hundreds of tapes, and haven't a clue what's on any of them, and I never watch them.
The TiVo makes it easy for the undisciplined viewer.
The owners of the AVS forum won't allow further posting of mpeg extraction questions. Given that the message will be deleted in 48 hours, I thought it might be good to post it somewhere where the record will remain:
4 98 .html
U lt raBoard.pl?Action=ShowBoard&Board=tivohacks&Idle=& Sort=&Order=&Session=
http://www.avsforum.com/ubbtivo/Forum6/HTML/005
Ok...I will try to make this a plain as I can.
After thinking this over and going through all this for the last 48 hours I would like to respectfully request the following. My reasons are also given.
1) I request their be NO LINKS to any extraction software on this site including NO LINKS to others sites that do nothing but offer the software for download. This does not include other hacking sites. But don't care to see just a post that does nothing but point to a site that offers nothing but the download. (I think you know what I mean.) The data extraction it is still a gray area to me and thus I care not to even take the chance at getting anyone upset. (Thanks for all the letters trying to help me understand it.)
2) I request their be NO POSTS on hacking the channel guide, the subscription service, or any other area that would cost revenue loss to any company. This I know really has been taboo and I thank you for that.
I really do not care about hardware hacks at all, or even the software ones, for it seems that no company that I have read about is upset by this. Just please, nothing that can effect a bottom line of any company, in any way. That is what starts to raise issues in my head.
You see, if we want TiVo (or other companies) to read and post on the site, then I need to take care that some lines are not crossed that will make them not want to be here or link to this site any longer. I for one like them here and I also think they like being here for the customers. I like that they choose to link to this site from theirs and feel proud they choose myself and this site for this purpose. Very Proud Indeed!!!
So, I respectfully ask that the above now be followed from this point forward and hope you can understand why. I have received a lot of mail that has been informative, helpful, and sometimes down right rude. But hey...People are people and we all have our own thoughts on different matters. That is what make us...well...us.
I thank you for your time and understanding in this matter. I am not stopping the talk of hacking, just trying to protect this site from the touchy areas. I think most of the underground community here enjoy the chats and the learning that take place here...I would like to protect that and still have the trust of the companies evolved.
Please, this is not up for debate for I feel good about this. Not to be rude, but I will not reply to posts or e-mail on this, for I am quite tired after all this. This post will be closed within 48 hours.
Respectfully
Submitted,
David Bott
Note:
The TiVoNet questions might be moving to:
http://www.linux-hacker.net/cgi-bin/UltraBoard/
This is absurd (so, I agree with you): Open source causing things to be used for unintended purposes is not a plauge!
This IS innovation, this IS evolution... Open Source just does it at a faster rate than we've seen before.
When man started using his opposible thumb for holding a pencil and writing... did god set a court date for IP violation!!!
When did building atop existing ideas become wrong? (i.e. what date was the DMCA passed?)
Note that Borin' Orin Hatch is no longer in charge of the Senate Judiciary commitee!!!
>Big difference here, the DirecTiVo units store the pure, original, never-converted-to-analog, mpeg2
Agreed. The MPAA will go nuts if DVD quality bootlegs are marketed or distributed.
My point is: the problem occurs if someone distributes. DirecTV/MPAA is not going to take people to court who view the extracted mpegs on their computer, or make VCD's for personal use, ore any other "fair use" application... They're only concerned about distribution.
TiVo can keep it's hackers and DirectTV/MPAA happy at the same time by spying. It's easier to implement (than shutting hacking down entirely), and harder for the hackers to detect, and the only ones that will care are those very few with distribution in mind.
TiVo can, for example, randomly pepper the mpegs with your encrypted serial number -- no effect to video quality, impossible to differentiate from mpeg data. If a bootleg mpeg is being distributed with your serial number... you're busted.
I can think of many ways for them to implement similar schemes. Low overhead (for their CPU) and impossible to detect.
If they clobber the hack altogether, then you immediately realize it, download your backup, and you're back in business. Then, sombody will hack the program guide... which is illegal because it is encrypted... and TiVo will loose the revenue stream they've been enjoying from their hackers.
Which method do you think TiVo & DireTV will prefer?
It's a no-brainer...
I changed my mind. That hinking doesn't make sense.
Tivo as Napster doesn't fit. They are not the medium of exchange, they're the capture device.
There are a lot of capture devices, including Hauppauge's PVR which also captures mpeg. Nobody's going after them.
TiVo loves it's hackers. They bring in money... not much but they need all they can get.
DirectTV's DSS hackers steal service, TiVo's hackers pay for service -- I don't think TiVo want's to change that arrangement and make it hostile.
If DirectTV has a problem with DirectTiVo's (which the ethernet hardware and software don't work on, anyway), then I think TiVo will be able to convince them there's more value in "spying" on their customers (which is legal by the DirecTiVo eula) than there is in shutting them down.
Shut the hackers down, and they'll find a way around the service altogether, and still be extracting mpegs.
Spy on the hackers, and you'll be able to pinpoint who's distributing MPEGS from DirecTiVo's -- if anyone does.
Plus, there is no DMCA-style encryption for the MPAA to claim "beyond fair use".
I've changed my mind from that post.
Logically, this will be a win-win situation.
Look how many folks responded in slashdot that they're going to buy a TiVo today!
On May 30th, "The Register" had the same article with the same problem of confusing "1" with "2". The Register has since pulled the article alltogether (this distribution has been available for more than a month -- not big news).
I downloaded the kernel -- it's for the PlayStation I only. The PS2 version should be available in a month.
IANAL either,
What you say is true (I think), but the question delt with needing clarification concerning the EEF's lawyer (in the link) saying "Open Source" is one way to insulate yourself from this liability.
Posting source capable of infringement (whether intentional or not -- even if modification of the code is required), by your definition of "contributory", would aid and abet an infringing activity.
Fred von Lohmann wrote a White Paper for the EEF concerning avoidance of "contributory and vicarious copyright infringement" (being liable for writing software that promotes "fair use", but can be used for copyright infringement).
In that, he states guidelines for developers. One of the guidelines is: "Be open source".
I would think Open Source would set you up for liability in such matters: anybody who modified your code, making it able to infringe on copyrights, would make you vicariously liable for opening the code in the first place.
Or, take for example, TiVo. Their systems are open source, they've posted their kernel and tool modifications on their web site (as per the GPL). Now they're worried that someone could use that to easily create code that will allow MPEG extraction from the unit (and widespread distribution of copyrighted materials).
I'm not sure how being open source can protect a software developer from such litigation.
Can you explain this?
Worse, the MPAA fervently fights the DeCSS, while there's little actual harm, and little potential harm (how much does illegal copies of video tapes hurt the motion picture industry?). From the article:
Actual harm, the judge asked? "Yes. Actual harm," he replied. "Well, actual threat of harm." That got a laugh from the audience,...
Yet, the MPAA does nearly nothing about theft of DSS satellite signals -- which could be shown to decrease actual royalty revenues. Not potential, but actual.
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but it seems to me the MPAA's fervor is misplaced, if you take their arguments at face value, and therefore: they must have some other underlying vendetta against Open Source.
Johnathan Clark has hit the nail on the head (post #292). While Worlds' PR and legal departments may claim otherwise, the core of the patent is a way for the system to keep the frame rate up: draw only the N people closest to you. And the system did exactly what he expects. People blinked in and out of the scene as they entered or left the magical group of N. Remember, this was for a 3-D *chat* company. You were expected to find 1-2 interesting people, then park yourself in front of them while you typed back and forth. If you are only a couple of "feet" from them, there's little risk that they'll pop out of your screen graph. (And remember that this was back in 1995/1996; we wanted to support 200 people in a room with only a Pentium on the client box. It was a reasonable solution.)
None of this would apply to an FPS like Quake because there are an order of magnitude fewer players in a given space, and you have to see *all* of them for the game to be playable.
It may apply to games like Everquest, however, if they do some sort of N-closest culling scheme. (Sorry, never played them, so I can't say.) If they do distance based culling, then, well, how fine do you want your hairs split? I do remember seeing a very early (free? shareware?) 3-D networked FRPG back in 1996 that might help prove prior art, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was called.
Claim 5 on the patent is a mish-mash of items. Some of them would never stand up to any challenge, being a mish-mash of MUD and FPS technology. (``[R]endering a 3-D view from a viewpoint of the location of the particular user''? Puh-leeze.) HOWEVER, note that the patent describes a system that goes up to *worlds* running on different servers an connecting to their own particular set of clients (see section (g)). This sounds a lot like Everquest or Diablo, and I don't know of any MUDs that scaled to that level.
See post #120 for a bit more info.
Sombody mod Derek's explanation up (it seems to be the only good non-legalese interpretation of the patent).
If they're patenting "scalability through only showing the nearest avatars" -- then that is quite broad. To not require a license means you'd have to always display every player.
Anyway, Netrek did this back in the 80's -- no need to show players fighting at a planet you're not on!
Phosphors on the display have thickness ;)
;) -- sounds pretty linear.
Anyway, when you read the patent... 3D is used very generically, and seems to be vaugely described as any game where player positions need to be determined in three dimensions.
It definitely says nothing about "3D hardware" or some of the techie uses of "3D".
This pretty much leaves out checkers, backgammon, and solitair -- but you could make a case for 3D there too (i.e. z-order of partially visable cards in solitair stacks).
It does not exclude MUD's.
Furthermore, it doesn't describe the "chat" capability as having to be "3D"... it talks of a typewritten conversation. I don't know what D that is
The point is, while the term "3D" is used heavily in this patent, it is not specifically defined, and we shouldn't be reading our own conseption of "3D game" into it -- the lawyers won't!
Best date I could find on their web site was version 1.3 circa '95.
Looks like it has forerunners that precede its 1986 X version, with an curses version in '82.
I remember playing Netrek, or maybe one of it's predecssors, back in the 80's: it was networked with a "chat" interface.
Best date I could find on their web site was version 1.3 circa '95.
>Wireless internet? Oh wait, you can't use cellphones for that....
I'm guessing your just trolling, and fully aware of CDPD and GSM modems.
Anyway, this X10 thread is about a remote camera. The computer can be land based with a video capture card recieving signals from the boat -- it hopefully wouldn't need wireless internet.
Especially given the theft problem (they could only steal half the camera) and the remote location, the X10 remote cameras sound good, but there's no "brightness" control on the CCD's -- it needs extremely good illumination. Most of my interior rooms aren't sufficiently lit to discern objects using the X10 remote cameras -- you have to open curtains, and then you can only see outside.
Worse, they claim you can use it on a telescope -- buloney. I tried it on an 8" Meade (which makes the moon look as bright as a powerful flashlight coming off the focal point), and you can barely see the moon using this camera.
Just don't let the vandels steal things at night if you're goung to use the X10 remote cameras.
I've seen this problem reported a lot, so it's not just the unit I bought.
Prior art has to beat their filing date: February 18, 1999.
Forgot to check the link... it's here: PhD thesis
See Tridge's PhD thesison page 102, section5.4 on "rsync in http".
He talked two years ago how "diffs", served by html embedded rsync, would be better than checksums, and has proposed this to the W3C,
In standard Tridge fashion, he didn't patent it.
Between the China incident and backing out of the Kyoto agreement, it's obvious we hired a businessman for a job that needed a politician.
>This poster pretty much embodies everything that is wrong with the U.S. justice system and the American mentality of "Sue, Sue, Sue! I don't care what it's about, just let me Sue!"
You're wrong (about me anyway). I agree class action suits suck, the lawyers are the only winners, etc...
I've recieved 6 letters in the past two years saying I was part of the class that was suing... I didn't join any of the suits, and on two occasions offered to help the companies being sued.
But, this case is different. This is Microsoft. Before giving up Windows entirely, Bill made my life miserable. I'd like to pay him back!
I read the article a couple of times... it didn't say what specifically Microsoft was being sued for. Does anybody know?
It really doesn't matter. I want to join.
How do I join the suit?
There's an old Irish saying:
If you want to know what god thinks of money, look at those he gives it to.