Take deep breath and read between the lines. P2pnet is not known as an unbiased "news" source. I place news in quotes because it is questionable as to whether this kind of story even qualifies as journalism.
The blogger himself said there was nothing sinister going on, that this was a technical and traffic issue, probably caused by the blogger himself. The blog was not taken down by the RIAA. And no, I don't like their tactics either, but I'm not about to compromise my own integrity to "get them". TEHNC people (The emperor has no clothes.)
This is a non-story, other than the RIAA has asked a blogger to step out of the discussion. Big surprise there, eh?
Sorry, but I can't buy that.
Clearly he is permitted by previous rulings to make his personal copies and store them somewhere. If your argument is that he is a vicarious enabler of someone else being able to violate copyright, then you have to show that he has no other reason to perform the action of copying files into a public file space. However, he can assert that he placed them there for backup and for his own access. Your only counter-claim is his incompetence in not modding the files. There is a big difference between criminal intent and stupidity/ignorance.
This dude may have already told Apple what he did. From the license:
"3. Consent to Use of Data. You agree that Apple and its subsidiaries may collect and use technical and related information, including but not limited to technical information about your computer, system and application software, and peripherals..."
fnord.
Brian
A breakaway game system that provides the first real innovation in over five years does not lack staying power. Similarly, when the industry consists of three companies, you can't say that two of them aren't wired to keep up with the industry...no matter how advanced Sony likes to think of themselves, they are still not "the gaming industry".
The article pretty much tells me nothing more than the three companies like to throw stones at each other.
Brian
Whether you're OK or not does not matter. Myspace still has to conform to the law. If they have publicly labelled this woman as an offender and she can clearly show that she is not, then they've satisfied the conditions to have committed libel. I can think of no clearer example of why those laws exist. They are making a public statement about her that she has shown them not to be true. The statement has obvious impact to her life and livelihood. I don't see how it could be clearer.
Unfortunately, the woman now has to defend herself, but myspace has opened themselves up to some very real pain if they haven't tried to remedy this. The real miscarriage would be if myspace gets a pass on it because "its for the children."
Remember, we've only been transmitting signals for something like 100 years. Setting the question of life aside, the chance that there is life there that has developed the capability to transmit signals into space AND has survived long enough to sustain those signals is possibly more rare than an inhabitable planet.
Many game companies see the negative side - the quality of their game will be compromised by sub-par user content. Way back in the ancient times, this single fact stopped more MUDs than any other thing. And, it wasn't so long ago that I remember a DDO developer using the same arguement as to why they would never have user created content.
Personally, I like user-created and user-reviewed content, especially if its of a modular kind. The review process keeps the StN ratio high and much of it is even better than what companies put out. Very much like/.
Get over yourself. I had an offer, the pay sucked. If you really care, I wrote a tetris clone in Windows 95. One mistake I realized I made - the time was more than ten years ago, pre MMORPG.
My suggestion now comes as a consumer and businessman. Don't simultaneously complain about no workers and offer low wages. And, start accepting more experienced people without gaming experience so you can get some fresh ideas circulating into the industry. The fresh ideas might prevent us from having 15 different WWII FPS games where the biggest innovation is mouselook.
Gaming is stagnating unless you have a console named Wii. Everyone in the industry should know it. But most are too arrogant to acknowledge it.
I agree. The personality traits that make someone a good tester tend to inhibit them as a programmer and vice-versa. Most good programmers would pull their hair out if forced to work in a QA job and most good QAers would be paralyzed by indecision in a free form programming world.
If the industry needs more candidates, then simple economics says that the answer is to pay more. The gaming industry is notorious for low pay at starting positions. If you don't get in right after college, you'll have to take a huge pay cut to break into the industry. That pretty much keeps anyone with experience out of the industry. The arrogance of "you haven't put in your time" means that almost everyone has to come up from the bottom. Additionally, it stifles innovation because you have to be in the industry for so many years before you get a chance to contribute. I do not make these things up, they come from my own experience of trying to get hired into the industry about five years ago. After six months, I finally got an offer, only to realize there was no way I could afford to live with that salary.
Pay more. Open up experienced jobs to people without direct gaming experience. Provide training to new hires. Your candidate pool is small only because you place such severe restrictions on people who can be in it.
Suppose I have a puppy. The puppy pees on my carpet, chews up my shoes and digs up my yard. I keep telling the puppy not to, but never punish it. I'd like to, but after all, its a puppy and needs to be nurished. One day, I decide the puppy has turned 3 and is no longer a puppy, but an adult dog. So, I hold it responsible as an adult dog and take it outside and shoot it.
Who is at fault? I tried to nurish the puppy, but it didn't respond, so its the puppy's fault, right?
Coincidentally, this is almost the same as copyright. Remember that you cannot copyright information, even information that you generate. You copyright the presentation of that information. So, a chart is copyright to the maker of the chart. If I scan the image and present it as fair use, it might be too much, especially if the chart is good and conveys a large amount of information. If I make a similar chart based on the exact same information, I hold the copyright. I suspect there is a good chance that if you used Excel or another commercial tool to generate a standard chart, you could not claim infringment if someone else fed the same data to the same tool to generate the same chart because there's no creativity involved.
I don't see much in this article.
My first thought too. There's always a way to argue that Google doesn't meet some requirement. For example, can they be an access provider if they encourage content?
Any arguement that Viacom has is weak. If their real interest was to "protect" their copyrighted material, they'd also have identified it and asked Google immediately. Oops, if they did that, they'd be following the DMCA, so it would be kinda hard to argue against your own actions...
Actually, the $200-$250 is the cost of the Google solution, there was never an estimate as to the cost of Office. Additionally, there are multiple different ways to purchase Office. Annual renewals is not the only method, although for most businesses, it is less expensive to pay annually than to purchase once, unless you do not intend to upgrade frequently.
From a marketing standpoint, this initially looks to be pretty strong. Google is hitting the white space, but I still have to question it - is the white space there because nobody moved into it or is there because it represents a non-viable product mix?
I once heard networking defined as being in a room, having your data located 200 feet down the hallway and believing that it is a good thing. I think the ASP model is flawed in providing the needs for large organizations. There are issues surrounding security of data and uptime availability that probably outweigh the cost savings. Security is huge, especially given Google's stated mission to make ALL information available to the world. Do I want to give them my confidential sales information? Not.
The cost savings isn't what its cracked up to be either, since the cost is $50 per employee, per year. It seems like Microsoft is about 4-5 years between major releases, so your cost is $200-$250 per seat for 4-5 years.
Actually (in the US), he probably can sue the users, but not hosting companies, which are mercifully protected by the DMCA.
Regardless, this is probably Balmer blowing smoke. Exactly what a software patent covers in the US is getting weaker and he certainly doesn't want to risk a landmark case that goes against Microsoft (or maybe he is that stupid). I think eventually, we'll reach a point that software per se isn't patentable, the functional ideas that the software expresses will be the patentable aspect.
This is just "free shipping for members" where the only perk of membership is free shipping. There's nothing at all novel about it. The patent is absurd. The idea of patenting a transaction is absurd. My only concern is that the PTO has shown the judgemet of a very small fungus, so they might actually allow this.
If this continues, the cooperation required for international IP treaties to work will collaspe. What must other countries think of the US?
Slashdot Mirror
Take deep breath and read between the lines. P2pnet is not known as an unbiased "news" source. I place news in quotes because it is questionable as to whether this kind of story even qualifies as journalism.
The blogger himself said there was nothing sinister going on, that this was a technical and traffic issue, probably caused by the blogger himself. The blog was not taken down by the RIAA. And no, I don't like their tactics either, but I'm not about to compromise my own integrity to "get them". TEHNC people (The emperor has no clothes.)
This is a non-story, other than the RIAA has asked a blogger to step out of the discussion. Big surprise there, eh?
Brian
Sorry, but I can't buy that. Clearly he is permitted by previous rulings to make his personal copies and store them somewhere. If your argument is that he is a vicarious enabler of someone else being able to violate copyright, then you have to show that he has no other reason to perform the action of copying files into a public file space. However, he can assert that he placed them there for backup and for his own access. Your only counter-claim is his incompetence in not modding the files. There is a big difference between criminal intent and stupidity/ignorance.
Thought just occurred to me - is the anti-apple crowd really this desperate? They have to knock Apple because beta software has bugs?
It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
This dude may have already told Apple what he did. From the license: "3. Consent to Use of Data. You agree that Apple and its subsidiaries may collect and use technical and related information, including but not limited to technical information about your computer, system and application software, and peripherals..." fnord. Brian
Eroom's Law: Every 18 months, computer software requires twice the computing power to operate.
This is the counter to Moore's law and explains why the testing achieved the results they did.
Brian
A breakaway game system that provides the first real innovation in over five years does not lack staying power. Similarly, when the industry consists of three companies, you can't say that two of them aren't wired to keep up with the industry...no matter how advanced Sony likes to think of themselves, they are still not "the gaming industry". The article pretty much tells me nothing more than the three companies like to throw stones at each other. Brian
Whether you're OK or not does not matter. Myspace still has to conform to the law. If they have publicly labelled this woman as an offender and she can clearly show that she is not, then they've satisfied the conditions to have committed libel. I can think of no clearer example of why those laws exist. They are making a public statement about her that she has shown them not to be true. The statement has obvious impact to her life and livelihood. I don't see how it could be clearer.
Unfortunately, the woman now has to defend herself, but myspace has opened themselves up to some very real pain if they haven't tried to remedy this. The real miscarriage would be if myspace gets a pass on it because "its for the children."
Remember, we've only been transmitting signals for something like 100 years. Setting the question of life aside, the chance that there is life there that has developed the capability to transmit signals into space AND has survived long enough to sustain those signals is possibly more rare than an inhabitable planet.
Many game companies see the negative side - the quality of their game will be compromised by sub-par user content. Way back in the ancient times, this single fact stopped more MUDs than any other thing. And, it wasn't so long ago that I remember a DDO developer using the same arguement as to why they would never have user created content. Personally, I like user-created and user-reviewed content, especially if its of a modular kind. The review process keeps the StN ratio high and much of it is even better than what companies put out. Very much like /.
Good thing that is a myth because we have one anyway. Deep breaths people. Relax...go to a calm, peaceful...errr warmer...place.
Get over yourself. I had an offer, the pay sucked. If you really care, I wrote a tetris clone in Windows 95. One mistake I realized I made - the time was more than ten years ago, pre MMORPG.
My suggestion now comes as a consumer and businessman. Don't simultaneously complain about no workers and offer low wages. And, start accepting more experienced people without gaming experience so you can get some fresh ideas circulating into the industry. The fresh ideas might prevent us from having 15 different WWII FPS games where the biggest innovation is mouselook.
Gaming is stagnating unless you have a console named Wii. Everyone in the industry should know it. But most are too arrogant to acknowledge it.
I agree. The personality traits that make someone a good tester tend to inhibit them as a programmer and vice-versa. Most good programmers would pull their hair out if forced to work in a QA job and most good QAers would be paralyzed by indecision in a free form programming world.
If the industry needs more candidates, then simple economics says that the answer is to pay more. The gaming industry is notorious for low pay at starting positions. If you don't get in right after college, you'll have to take a huge pay cut to break into the industry. That pretty much keeps anyone with experience out of the industry. The arrogance of "you haven't put in your time" means that almost everyone has to come up from the bottom. Additionally, it stifles innovation because you have to be in the industry for so many years before you get a chance to contribute. I do not make these things up, they come from my own experience of trying to get hired into the industry about five years ago. After six months, I finally got an offer, only to realize there was no way I could afford to live with that salary.
Pay more. Open up experienced jobs to people without direct gaming experience. Provide training to new hires. Your candidate pool is small only because you place such severe restrictions on people who can be in it.
Suppose I have a puppy. The puppy pees on my carpet, chews up my shoes and digs up my yard. I keep telling the puppy not to, but never punish it. I'd like to, but after all, its a puppy and needs to be nurished. One day, I decide the puppy has turned 3 and is no longer a puppy, but an adult dog. So, I hold it responsible as an adult dog and take it outside and shoot it. Who is at fault? I tried to nurish the puppy, but it didn't respond, so its the puppy's fault, right?
Coincidentally, this is almost the same as copyright. Remember that you cannot copyright information, even information that you generate. You copyright the presentation of that information. So, a chart is copyright to the maker of the chart. If I scan the image and present it as fair use, it might be too much, especially if the chart is good and conveys a large amount of information. If I make a similar chart based on the exact same information, I hold the copyright. I suspect there is a good chance that if you used Excel or another commercial tool to generate a standard chart, you could not claim infringment if someone else fed the same data to the same tool to generate the same chart because there's no creativity involved. I don't see much in this article.
My first thought too. There's always a way to argue that Google doesn't meet some requirement. For example, can they be an access provider if they encourage content? Any arguement that Viacom has is weak. If their real interest was to "protect" their copyrighted material, they'd also have identified it and asked Google immediately. Oops, if they did that, they'd be following the DMCA, so it would be kinda hard to argue against your own actions...
Actually, the $200-$250 is the cost of the Google solution, there was never an estimate as to the cost of Office. Additionally, there are multiple different ways to purchase Office. Annual renewals is not the only method, although for most businesses, it is less expensive to pay annually than to purchase once, unless you do not intend to upgrade frequently.
From a marketing standpoint, this initially looks to be pretty strong. Google is hitting the white space, but I still have to question it - is the white space there because nobody moved into it or is there because it represents a non-viable product mix?
I once heard networking defined as being in a room, having your data located 200 feet down the hallway and believing that it is a good thing. I think the ASP model is flawed in providing the needs for large organizations. There are issues surrounding security of data and uptime availability that probably outweigh the cost savings. Security is huge, especially given Google's stated mission to make ALL information available to the world. Do I want to give them my confidential sales information? Not.
The cost savings isn't what its cracked up to be either, since the cost is $50 per employee, per year. It seems like Microsoft is about 4-5 years between major releases, so your cost is $200-$250 per seat for 4-5 years.
Overall, I'll pass for now.
Oops, my bad. You're correct. Thank you for the correction. I don't know where my brain was.
Actually (in the US), he probably can sue the users, but not hosting companies, which are mercifully protected by the DMCA. Regardless, this is probably Balmer blowing smoke. Exactly what a software patent covers in the US is getting weaker and he certainly doesn't want to risk a landmark case that goes against Microsoft (or maybe he is that stupid). I think eventually, we'll reach a point that software per se isn't patentable, the functional ideas that the software expresses will be the patentable aspect.
This is just "free shipping for members" where the only perk of membership is free shipping. There's nothing at all novel about it. The patent is absurd. The idea of patenting a transaction is absurd. My only concern is that the PTO has shown the judgemet of a very small fungus, so they might actually allow this.
If this continues, the cooperation required for international IP treaties to work will collaspe. What must other countries think of the US?