FYI there has always been far more people defending Microsoft on Slashdot than attack it.
You must read a different Slashdot than I do. I see people bashing Microsoft just to bash them. There will be an article about Apple suing Google, and there is inevitably several posts about Evil MS.
You forgot the main reason that Dish will probably lose
They have a contract with Fox that probably says something to the effect that they will broadcast the commercials.
I would say 14 million of DISHs subscribers care.
Dish's 2011 profits were up last year, at 1.5B. Sounds like a pretty good sinking ship to me.
Just because you no longer subscribe, not everyone else does.
Hopefully this will remain purely a theoretical question, but seriously, what would happen if they won?
My guess is they will settle, but what will most likely happen. That feature will be removed. Then life will go one and not much else will have changed.
I understand why Fox and Friends wouldn't like this kind of feature, but what kind of legal ground do they have here?
My guess is enough for them to win, or to an extent anyways.
This is more about contract dispute than copyright issues.
FOX has an agreement with Dish. I don't know what that agreement is, but I'm sure it has something to do with rebroadcasting the commercials. They are arguing and Dish is giving their customers a way around that agreement.
this isn't about copyright or sueing the end user if they don't watch a commercial
When the hell did people stop creating art for the sake of creating art? That's what I want to know.
They didn't. There are still plenty of people who play music, just to play it. BUT When you are busy working for a living, it doesn't give you much time to work on your music. And typically, the more you practice the better you are. And yeah there are some people who are REAL good who don't do it for a living. But for the most part I'd rather listen to music generated by people who do it for a living, than those who do it in their spare time.
Yes, but then the music will be freely copied, and you won't make any money
So then you'll hire a company to help promote your band, and help protect your product
That company ism't the same thing as a label, but will be doing some very similar things.
Can you do the same and show that the software industry has stagnated because of patent disputes?
Actually, yes. For one obvious example, just look at the areas where interoperability has suffered due to Microsoft's FAT filesystem patents, or patents on media codecs, or lossless compression algorithms, or rendering techniques. Software patents are also inherently incompatible with free and open-source software; any license fee whatsoever will block legal free software development in that area. Driving people to reinvent the wheel, often in an inferior way, isn't progress. >
I want to start by saying I don't really believe in Software Patents. One is that MOST of them aren't novel. Second is that, because the code is closed source, it is difficult to tell what the actual patent is and whether you are violating it.
I'm not sure what your argument about Open-Source has to do with anything. The fact is an Open Source author wants to use closed source is the issue, not whether that closed source is patented or not.
But because you refuse to pay the inventor so you can use his invention doesn't mean progress has been stifled. Sometimes new and better ways are found, like.png. I will agree it is hard to innovate on the new concept, when the inventor won't give you permission. But that doesn't mean all innovation is stifled.
The question is, how much would NOT be invented if there wasn't patent protection? Well software has copyright protection, so we'd probably still get as much new software.
So he innovated, by coming up with another way to do something. Probably not as good as the patented batter way... But I fail to see how this "stifled" innovation. Perhaps you expect by now that we would have had superior steam engines? But because of patents, we don't?
No system is perfect. You can find flaws in any system, that doesn't mean it is the wrong system to use.
trollolololololol you dont want to debate, you want to argue. If you cant understand how the current patent situation can stifle innovation, then you arent paying attention. By their very nature, patents restrict, not enable.
Patents restrict someone else from using your invention without your permission (for a limited time)
But that doesn't necessarily mean innovation has stifled. Innovation has flourished, for example we have.png because of patents.
But what would NOT have been invented if patents didn't exist.
I don't understand how "the current patent situation" (which really hasn't changed much) can stifle innovation. Please tell us.
I will agree with you, patents are for a SOCIETAL benefit. The theory is a smart person who invents, will invent more. If he can make money off his first invention, he might be able to spend time to come up with a second (third, etc) invention which will benefit Society.
The original constitution states "physical inventions".
The "original" constitution? What does that mean? Are we using a different one?
As far as I know the Constitution says:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
It doesn't say "physical inventions" nor "physical science."
Although I do agree that ideas aren't patentable. If it were, pretty much every invention would be patented by sci fi writers.
I'm not saying they are, or aren't. But they are supposed to be. You know:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
I guess we could argue what it means by "promote the progress"
Ok, there's never going to be a hard drive big enough to suit everyone's needs - that's a given. But average joe consumer must have a limit of some kind - what is it?
I can't see how an average person will use more than about 1TB of space any time soon and even then that's probably overkill.
I'm not married, and I don't have a kid. But if I did I bet I could easily fill up that much space with home movies and pics. I'm close to 1TB of pictures just from my vacations. HD cameras, and digital cameras use up more and more space.
. You must specifically log in to so.cl and perform a search. It is only these searches which are made public and (if you allow it) to your social networks.
It doesn't share searches. It shares search results... the search results you tell it to share.
As far as i can tell, this shares search results... and allows video chat... Can't I already do that fairly easily? You know... copy link, paste into facebook wall?
My, albeit limited, experience with MySpace is that it is a completely different animal. It is designed as a simple personal website with extras to allow you to interact with your "fans"..
Yep, you pretty much described Facebook.
The differences between MySpace and Facebook? Facebook did a better job of limiting outside spam. Facebook did a better job of limiting annoying style sheets... Facebook pretty much did a better job with everything. But at the heart of the matter MySpace and Facebook provided the same service.
I would agree with you, except I have a much, much bigger problem with corporations sending UNDERCOVER FUCKING AGENTS into people's homes under false pretenses.
Do you have a problem with a spouse hiring a PI to investigate the significant other for divorce issues?
Do you have a problem with the government spending tax payers money to do the investigation?
I believe that an ordinary person should not have to be encumbered with copyright law
Why?
The constitution talks about "promoting arts." I assume it means promoting the arts for everyone, not just corporations. If it is ok for the average person to copy content... It makes it difficult to make content for the masses. The whole point behind copyright is to encourage people to create.
Slashdot Mirror
. So now everyone needs to jump through legal hoops to share things? Ridiculous.
If they don't own them, then yes.
As the article says, there are now dedicated companies who chase copyright issues.
Yes, and doesn't that strike you as just plain sick?
Yes, it just goes to show how greedy the average public is.
FYI there has always been far more people defending Microsoft on Slashdot than attack it.
You must read a different Slashdot than I do. I see people bashing Microsoft just to bash them. There will be an article about Apple suing Google, and there is inevitably several posts about Evil MS.
You forgot the main reason that Dish will probably lose
They have a contract with Fox that probably says something to the effect that they will broadcast the commercials.
I would say 14 million of DISHs subscribers care.
Dish's 2011 profits were up last year, at 1.5B. Sounds like a pretty good sinking ship to me.
Just because you no longer subscribe, not everyone else does.
Hopefully this will remain purely a theoretical question, but seriously, what would happen if they won?
My guess is they will settle, but what will most likely happen. That feature will be removed. Then life will go one and not much else will have changed.
says Dish's service is unauthorized and violates a licensing agreement between the two companies.
And then everyone jumped on the copyright bandwagon. This is mostly about the agreements, not copyright.
I understand why Fox and Friends wouldn't like this kind of feature, but what kind of legal ground do they have here?
My guess is enough for them to win, or to an extent anyways.
This is more about contract dispute than copyright issues.
FOX has an agreement with Dish. I don't know what that agreement is, but I'm sure it has something to do with rebroadcasting the commercials. They are arguing and Dish is giving their customers a way around that agreement.
this isn't about copyright or sueing the end user if they don't watch a commercial
When the hell did people stop creating art for the sake of creating art? That's what I want to know.
They didn't. There are still plenty of people who play music, just to play it. BUT When you are busy working for a living, it doesn't give you much time to work on your music. And typically, the more you practice the better you are. And yeah there are some people who are REAL good who don't do it for a living. But for the most part I'd rather listen to music generated by people who do it for a living, than those who do it in their spare time.
Yes, but then the music will be freely copied, and you won't make any money
So then you'll hire a company to help promote your band, and help protect your product
That company ism't the same thing as a label, but will be doing some very similar things.
Can you do the same and show that the software industry has stagnated because of patent disputes?
Actually, yes. For one obvious example, just look at the areas where interoperability has suffered due to Microsoft's FAT filesystem patents, or patents on media codecs, or lossless compression algorithms, or rendering techniques. Software patents are also inherently incompatible with free and open-source software; any license fee whatsoever will block legal free software development in that area. Driving people to reinvent the wheel, often in an inferior way, isn't progress. >
I want to start by saying I don't really believe in Software Patents. One is that MOST of them aren't novel. Second is that, because the code is closed source, it is difficult to tell what the actual patent is and whether you are violating it. .png. I will agree it is hard to innovate on the new concept, when the inventor won't give you permission. But that doesn't mean all innovation is stifled.
I'm not sure what your argument about Open-Source has to do with anything. The fact is an Open Source author wants to use closed source is the issue, not whether that closed source is patented or not.
But because you refuse to pay the inventor so you can use his invention doesn't mean progress has been stifled. Sometimes new and better ways are found, like
The question is, how much would NOT be invented if there wasn't patent protection? Well software has copyright protection, so we'd probably still get as much new software.
So he innovated, by coming up with another way to do something. Probably not as good as the patented batter way... But I fail to see how this "stifled" innovation. Perhaps you expect by now that we would have had superior steam engines? But because of patents, we don't?
No system is perfect. You can find flaws in any system, that doesn't mean it is the wrong system to use.
trollolololololol you dont want to debate, you want to argue. If you cant understand how the current patent situation can stifle innovation, then you arent paying attention. By their very nature, patents restrict, not enable.
Patents restrict someone else from using your invention without your permission (for a limited time) .png because of patents.
But that doesn't necessarily mean innovation has stifled. Innovation has flourished, for example we have
But what would NOT have been invented if patents didn't exist.
I don't understand how "the current patent situation" (which really hasn't changed much) can stifle innovation. Please tell us.
I will agree with you, patents are for a SOCIETAL benefit. The theory is a smart person who invents, will invent more. If he can make money off his first invention, he might be able to spend time to come up with a second (third, etc) invention which will benefit Society.
That is a new law.
The original constitution states "physical inventions".
The "original" constitution? What does that mean? Are we using a different one?
As far as I know the Constitution says:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
It doesn't say "physical inventions" nor "physical science."
Although I do agree that ideas aren't patentable. If it were, pretty much every invention would be patented by sci fi writers.
Patents have never been an innovation incentive,
I'm not saying they are, or aren't. But they are supposed to be. You know:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
I guess we could argue what it means by "promote the progress"
Well, when the first amendment was written, pretty much all speech was not anonymous.
Yeah I agree... I'm pretty sure the printing press of the time embedded your DNA into each leaflet, so everyone knew who printed the pamphlets...
What average joe doesn't take pictures, or home movies?
Ok, there's never going to be a hard drive big enough to suit everyone's needs - that's a given. But average joe consumer must have a limit of some kind - what is it? I can't see how an average person will use more than about 1TB of space any time soon and even then that's probably overkill.
I'm not married, and I don't have a kid. But if I did I bet I could easily fill up that much space with home movies and pics. I'm close to 1TB of pictures just from my vacations. HD cameras, and digital cameras use up more and more space.
NOT a sci-fi writer.
Ok, I'm going to bite. How is "Science Fiction" != "Sci-Fi?"
. You must specifically log in to so.cl and perform a search. It is only these searches which are made public and (if you allow it) to your social networks.
It doesn't share searches. It shares search results... the search results you tell it to share.
As far as i can tell, this shares search results... and allows video chat... Can't I already do that fairly easily? You know... copy link, paste into facebook wall?
My, albeit limited, experience with MySpace is that it is a completely different animal. It is designed as a simple personal website with extras to allow you to interact with your "fans"..
Yep, you pretty much described Facebook.
The differences between MySpace and Facebook? Facebook did a better job of limiting outside spam. Facebook did a better job of limiting annoying style sheets... Facebook pretty much did a better job with everything. But at the heart of the matter MySpace and Facebook provided the same service.
Well they hired a Private Investigator. I am assuming the PI had the proper licenses to practice PIing in the country he was practicing in.
I would agree with you, except I have a much, much bigger problem with corporations sending UNDERCOVER FUCKING AGENTS into people's homes under false pretenses.
Do you have a problem with a spouse hiring a PI to investigate the significant other for divorce issues?
Do you have a problem with the government spending tax payers money to do the investigation?
I believe that an ordinary person should not have to be encumbered with copyright law
Why?
The constitution talks about "promoting arts." I assume it means promoting the arts for everyone, not just corporations. If it is ok for the average person to copy content... It makes it difficult to make content for the masses. The whole point behind copyright is to encourage people to create.
Should they have the power to break-into your private home w/ false pretenses? Absolutely not.
Ideas are not the same thing as artistic works.
And no one broke into anyone's home.