Have you used any recent versions of Linux (within the last several years at least)? Login to the GUI as a regular user, click on something that needs root permissions, you get a popup box warning you and also requesting the root password. It's basically the exact same thing as this patent.
Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about
It comes from the music industry executives.
the thinking behind it?
There isn't any.
Well, other than the fact that taking people to court, not to mention the whole annoying thing about having to come up with evidence/proof, is too difficult. So they thought it would be a good idea if they could just bypass the legal system. All that "due process" stuff is too much trouble. It's much easier if they can just kick people off based on accusations.
Yes, DRM on eBooks is pointless. That doesn't stop them from doing it anyway. Most copyrighted commercial eBooks have DRM (and most of them have already been broken).
Usually, it means the eBook store is browser based. You go online, buy, and download the eBook via your browser. After that you can open and read the file on any device that supports the format (generally with DRM). They probably know what books you've bought from them since it's tied to your account, but I don't think they're going to be monitoring where or how long you read a particular eBook for. I don't see how they could, since they don't control the devices.
This is of course, only possible if the writers of P2P software actually give two hoots about the bill.....
Bingo!
As we all know, the authors of P2P software are generally very conscientious about following the law. Not to mention the fact that they all fall under US jurisdiction.
The same users that are dumb/ignorant enough to share their tax and medical records are the same ones that won't bother to read any "clear and conspicuous" warnings. They'll either not understand it or hit "OK" without reading it. You can't write laws that eliminate stupidity.
They're doing it for all of the "self publish" submissions. The reason is that people were uploading copyrighted works that they didn't have rights to, and trying to sell them through Amazon. Because Amazon is financially benefiting from the sale, they are also liable for any copyright infringement. The policy change to require a review process is to cover their butts.
IMO, it's a good thing and should have been done from the beginning. What they were originally doing, letting anyone put items up for sale on their store with no oversight, was a really bad idea.
I thought the government wasn't allowed to hold a copyright. Content that is created by the government (IE, with public funding) is automatically public domain. That's spelled out in copyright law, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Have you used any recent versions of Linux (within the last several years at least)? Login to the GUI as a regular user, click on something that needs root permissions, you get a popup box warning you and also requesting the root password. It's basically the exact same thing as this patent.
Well, first they have to invent it, which means it has to be new and nonobvious
Really? Since when?
Yeah, that's the theory, but in reality it doesn't work that way.
I was talking about the filesharing version, not "3 strikes" laws in general.
You're correct. I was talking about the variation of it that is specifically applied to filesharing.
Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about
It comes from the music industry executives.
the thinking behind it?
There isn't any.
Well, other than the fact that taking people to court, not to mention the whole annoying thing about having to come up with evidence/proof, is too difficult. So they thought it would be a good idea if they could just bypass the legal system. All that "due process" stuff is too much trouble. It's much easier if they can just kick people off based on accusations.
Most of the eBook DRM formats have already been defeated. It's trivial these days to strip the DRM off of eBooks that you've purchased.
You're asking Slashdot what is the point of getting on a device and tweaking/adding your own code? Seriously?
Sounds like every version of Windows to me.
Yes, DRM on eBooks is pointless. That doesn't stop them from doing it anyway. Most copyrighted commercial eBooks have DRM (and most of them have already been broken).
Usually, it means the eBook store is browser based. You go online, buy, and download the eBook via your browser. After that you can open and read the file on any device that supports the format (generally with DRM). They probably know what books you've bought from them since it's tied to your account, but I don't think they're going to be monitoring where or how long you read a particular eBook for. I don't see how they could, since they don't control the devices.
Performing is not "creating music". All of the "creation" is
being done by the guy that wrote the original bit of sheet
music.
I take it you don't perform any music. Otherwise you would know better.
Really, Microsoft could just rebrand Vista as Windows 7 and release it today to great acclaim: in fact, that's precisely what they did.
Exactly. Windows 7 is just Vista SP3.
Actually, they're being accused of NOT committing a crime. How dare they!
This is of course, only possible if the writers of P2P software actually give two hoots about the bill.....
Bingo!
As we all know, the authors of P2P software are generally very conscientious about following the law. Not to mention the fact that they all fall under US jurisdiction.
I've got a laserjet 5 that I've had for about 10 years. Still going strong, never had any problems.
The same users that are dumb/ignorant enough to share their tax and medical records are the same ones that won't bother to read any "clear and conspicuous" warnings. They'll either not understand it or hit "OK" without reading it. You can't write laws that eliminate stupidity.
If you can't move 47lbs, you're in serious trouble. My 6 year old could probably move 47lbs.
That is what copyright is about
No. That is not what copyright is about, that's the problem. Copyright has never been about guaranteeing control.
It looks like they are doing both.
They're doing it for all of the "self publish" submissions. The reason is that people were uploading copyrighted works that they didn't have rights to, and trying to sell them through Amazon. Because Amazon is financially benefiting from the sale, they are also liable for any copyright infringement. The policy change to require a review process is to cover their butts.
IMO, it's a good thing and should have been done from the beginning. What they were originally doing, letting anyone put items up for sale on their store with no oversight, was a really bad idea.
...then perhaps linking to material which infringes copyright would not constitute an infringement of copyright...
As far as I know, it doesn't. But I guess that depends on what country you're in.
You're probably right. I think it'd Fed only.
IMO, it should apply to states as well though.
I thought the government wasn't allowed to hold a copyright. Content that is created by the government (IE, with public funding) is automatically public domain. That's spelled out in copyright law, isn't it?
"Yes dear, every time I use a Mac."
No, but it's a good indication that birth control isn't something that you really need to worry about.