As I understand it, an apt analogy would be:
J# to .Net is like
Java to Dalvik
In J# you are writing in a Javaish language with .Net classes/additions and the result gets translated to .Net byte codes run under the .Net VM.
In the Dalvik case you are writing in a Javaish language with some Dalvik classes/additions and the result gets translated (through Java byte codes) into Dalvik byte codes run under the DVM.
Instead of writing J# using Visual Studio (or a text editor) you are writing Harmony Java in Eclipse (or a text editor).
It's a lot closer to writing Java than to writing C#, even though C# is remarkably close to Java syntax wise. Both J# and Dalvik serve the same purpose, to leverage the Java coding skills of developers to write code that runs under the .Net VM or the Dalvik VM respectively. Admittedly using Eclipse and Harmony is more Java like than using Visual Studio, but at the end of the day it's basically the same thing.
Common misconception that Oracle is trying to exploit.
Google is not distributing a JVM (Java virtual machine). They are distributing a DVM (Dalvik virtual machine).
Google isn't claiming that Dalvik is Java. Therefore they aren't trying a Microsoft's embrace-extend-extinguish ploy. Since Dalvik isn't Java they didn't have to write a complete implementation of the Java specifications. Google doesn't have to worry about breaking a Google/Oracle Java licensing agreement because there isn't a Google/Oracle Java licensing agreement and one wasn't needed because they didn't write a JVM nor are they claiming that they did.
What Dalvik does is allow you to write programs using a Java syntax that gets compiled to Java byte codes using the Harmony project (Apache licensed). These Javaish program then get recompiled (the byte codes translated) into Dalvik byte codes. Dalvik is what runs on Android.
Therefore, unless they win based on bogus software patents (in my opinion all software patents are bogus), they don't ".. have a leg to stand in here, however evil."
This is just dumb. One more reason that software patents should have never been granted, but since they were, should be abolished as soon as possible.
Before we have the mistaken reference to the old Microsoft vs. Sun Java lawsuit, this isn't anything like that. MS vs Sun was about MS breaking their license agreement and corrupting Java with MS Java that only ran well on Windows. Google vs Oracle is about Google making a non Java virtual machine (not a JVM) that translates Java byte codes to Dalvik byte codes, that run in their own virtual machine. You can write code in a Java like syntax (the language) and have it converted to Dalvik to run under Android.
They don't call it Java, they don't have a license agreement with Oracle about Java, and their Java to Dalvik converter is all Google code. The Java/Dalvik editor is based off of the Apache licensed Harmony project (which neither Sun, nor Oracle is very happy even exists).
So in the end it's nothing like the Microsoft vs. Sun suit of yesteryear. It's Oracle upset that Google has routed around their lucrative Java Mobile licensing by out developing them. If you were unaware, Sun's official Java test suite comes with field of use restrictions that keep it limited to the desktop space. If you certified your open source Java JVM to comply, you can't use it on servers or mobile devices (or anything else for that matter like TV set top boxes). For anything else you have to pay Oracle a license fee. It's these field of use restrictions (among other reasons) that has kept the Harmony project from certifying their project as "Official Java".
As for Boies and company, at least Oracle should be able to afford their legal bills, unlike new SCO.
So, if we went back "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times [not forever minus a day] to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Then the hard line constitutionalists should be happy and we can send ASCAP, BMI, and the rest home empty handed. Much to their chagrin and the joy and cheering of the masses.
I find it interesting that you claim performance rights are "...(one of the few rights granted by the original framers of the Constitution)..."
If we go back to that hallowed document we can read;
"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." (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Copyright_Clause)
In fact it isn't until fairly recently that PRO organizations even existed:
"In the United States, The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) was founded in 1914; Society of European Stage Authors & Composers (SESAC) in 1930 and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) in 1939. (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Performance_rights_organisation#United_States)
Th ere is No constitutional basis what so ever for creative arts to be covered by any sort of copyright. It was expressly limited to the Useful arts. Rest assured that meant things like carpentry & gunsmithing, not singing, or performing theatrical pieces.
So now that I've demonstrated the utter lack of any constitutional basis for this form of modern legalized extortion, let's see what we can do about your willful and erroneous conflation or the limited with the unlimited.
My singing music doesn't diminish the supply of music in the world, in fact it adds to it. My grinding coffee beans to make a cup of joe, does diminish the supply of coffee beans in the world. Yep, I can see how the two are exactly the same... or not.
How do I hear music coming from my radio? I paid a company for the radio. A radio company paid for music CD-ROMS (or not, they may be using promotional music). They paid for antenna's and transmitters and all the other technology of a radio station. They broadcast over the public airwaves. The music was made by artists who were compensated enough to have made the music in the first place. So just what did any of these 'PRO' people do to enable any of that? What materials and supplies did the small shopkeeper steal from the 'PRO'?
To use your own words: seriousfun your lack of understanding on this issue is breathtaking and ignorant.
Re: ^7 Getting a law passed may make it leagal but it doesn't make it right
Personally, what they are doing shouldn't be legal. In some cases (ring tones anyone), it's been found to be down right illegal.
There should be no performance rights and therefore no collection societies. At any other time, excepting our own of course, the whole thought would seem ludicrous.
The thought that if you sing "happy birthday" to your child, sing songs around a campfire, sing to yourself while stocking grocery shelves, or play the radio, you owned some nebulous organization a fee. Why that's just stupid.
The thought of some character stopping over at your tavern, barber shop, or blacksmith demanding payment, because a mistral may walk by where you could hear him. That's just wrong. Just because he's got an edict from the sheriff/king/Congress doesn't make it any more right.
What the apologists here don't seem to grasp, is that having a member of an organization, that you may have never heard of nor should you have, stop over demand payment because music can be heard in your place of business reeks of extortion. The "you better license your place of work for $x or we'll take you to the cleaners for $xxxxxxx" sounds just like the stereotypical mobster coming over and asking for protection money, otherwise something bad might happen.
The fact that the monied interests have managed to get laws passed making their racket legal doesn't make it better, if anything it makes it worse.
Re: (Calling a horse a horse, and extortion extortion)
Just because a particular method of extortion is currently legal, doesn't mean it's not extortion.
"Perhaps activities such as these could be labeled extortion, [yep, it looks like extortion from here] but to suggest [who's suggesting the author was documenting it] BMI, ASCAP, etc. are doing much the same is simply wrong [huh?] and terribly misleading to your readership."
Actually, I find it terribly helpful to be documenting actual cases of legal extortion lest apologists like yourself claim that while the laws could be used that way, there isn't any proof that they have been.
People that don't make taking money from people who do...
Once again we have a case of people who don't make anything using the _law_ to take money from people who do.
That's what the world has devolved into. When I say world, just look at the recent "New Zealand Authors Demanding Compulsory Blanket..." article.
Why bother to actually produce anything, just pass a law to force other people to give you their money.
Before people get on their high horses, artists should get paid for their work, once, if they can find someone to buy it. Until the advent of 'intellectual property' you had to actually do something, then convince someone else to pay you for it in order to make money. If you paint a picture and you convince someone to buy it from you. Good for you. You don't get the right to charge someone for taking a picture of it. You don't get a cut, if the first person resells it to someone else for even more money. They might have been a lousy painter, but a really good salesman. Good for them.
You compose a song and get someone to pay you for it, good for you. You don't get the right to charge for everyone that's hears it, or that _might_ be inspired by it.
If you won't write/sing/paint/compose without some guarantee of income, that's your choice. People have been creating/sharing art and culture for hundreds of years without the advent of 'intellectual property'. I'm fairly confident that people still will.
Of course, without the legalized extortion that is 'intellectual property' perhaps the non-art companies can get back to making things. Just think how much more productive we would be without the forced transfer of assets from companies that make things to companies that don't. As an added bonus we wouldn't need quite so many lawyers.
As I have hopefully illustrated, our current government isn't doing what it should. If it was, then our economy, our society, wouldn't be in half the mess it's currently in.
That doesn't mean that the government should just give up. The only way we can get the good government we need is to take it back. The only way we can take it back is to get more people upset over how things are currently run.
We need to poke, prod, embarrass our congress critters, our judges into doing the _right_ thing.
How's that old saying go;
The soap box, the ballot box, the ammo box. Use in that order.
Gov. regulation needed to keep capitalism from running amuck.
As much as people like to think that capitalism and the 'free market' are such wonderful things, taken to their logical conclusion would be disastrous for everyone. The end result of any truly successful capitalistic system is for one man to own everything and everyone else to be his slave. We have seen that in Standard Oil, in bad old IBM, in pre-breakup 'Ma Bell' and we are seeing it again.
As Lord Acton, expressed in 1887:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
People and by extension the companies they run have a tendency to degenerate into vehicles for extracting the maximum profit in the minimum amount of time and to hell with the consequences. While ultimately an unsustainable proposition, the collateral damage can be substantial. We've been reminded of this with the recent 'crash and burn' of our financial markets and the current depression in the States.
One of the primary purposes of the government is to regulate, to temper, the worst excesses of capitalism. To provide a basic level of protection for its people. In other words to provide the rules for the game of economic activity and enforce them to the betterment of society as a whole. If that means that a small number of people at the top have a little less so that the rest of the people suffer a little less, then they are doing their job.
Unfortunately America has joined many other countries in forgetting this. Of course the ironic part is that the current state of affairs is ultimately self defeating. In the drive for just a couple of million more _this_ quarter we've completely destroyed the virtuous cycle.
Virtuous Cycle:
Workers make decent money ->
Money available to spend ->
More things bought ->
More factories, etc, needed to make more stuff ->
Workers making even more money ....
and round and round it goes. The people who run the companies make a tidy sum through out. A little less in the short term, but sustainable and so total profits are much higher over time.
What we are stuck in is the vicious cycle.
Vicious cycle:
Workers make less money ->
Less money available to spend ->
Less things bought ->
Less factories, etc, needed ->
Workers make even less money, or laid off ....
and round and round it goes. The people who run the companies may make a larger amount in the short term, but it's unsustainable and so the entire economy sinks into recession, depression and collapse.
What I find sadly amusing is that the people in charge know this, even if it's on a subconscious level. We gotten to the point that we aren't even involved in actually making things anymore. That's the fiction that is intellectual property. We are buying and selling 'ideas'. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the people in power are using the law to force other people to pay them for imaginary things. What's a patent but the right to use an idea. What's copyright, the right to make a copy of something yourself. It's not like people are fighting for the right to have someone else make them more copies of something for free. They just want to be left alone to use what they have as they see fit, without hurting others. As if that isn't bad enough, but now they want you to pay them if you want to sing a song that you composed based on another song you heard. They want to get paid for things you've built or created yourself.
Intellectual property is about transferring money from people who do stuff, who make stuff, into the pockets of people who don't.
But enough about the larger problems, the view of what happens when government regulation runs amuck.
In this particular instance, Net neutrality legislation is needed, desperately. Not the false, short sighted, let those in power strangle the golden goose just a little tighter, mess we'll probably end up with, but real long term forward looking play field leveling legislation.
Things it needs to contain;
1. Networks are a natural monopoly, anyone should be able to compete over the same wires. If you don't want to be in the moving bits business then get out of it. Compete by offering the most reliable, fasted network at the most reasonable price.
2. People should get what they are paying for. No 'up to' language, no fuzzy 'acceptable use policy', no talk of 'bandwidth hogs'. You should expect that people will use what you are selling them. If you sell them a 6MB connection then don't complain if they actually use 6MB.
3. Treat every destination equally. Everyone's a server, everyone's a client. The reason the internet's been such a boon is the availability of practically anyone to be seen, to develop innovative applications, to speak and be heard.
4. If you are going to 'prioritize' certain types of packets over others, then that has to be the user's choice _not_ the company that's providing access. No Comcast favoring their video over some other internet video site. No AT&T favoring their VOIP over a third party VOIP. Especially no favoring company A's content over company B's just because company A's giving the ISP a bucket of money.
5. If you're an ISP, your customer's data is just that, their data. No snooping, deep packet inspection, or other sleazy manipulations to _monetize_ their information. You want to do something, it's strictly _opt_in_. If you can't convince people to sign up then it probably isn't important enough to them.
That would be true beneficial Net Neutrality legislation.
Personally I think that there is a bigger problem than 'us vs them' or 'art vs toasters'. It's "...and prevent unauthorized uses of their art."
Art and culture are like children, once we bring them into the world they are going to do what they want, regardless of what their parents would have wanted for them.
You create art, you share, sell, display said art, the rest of the planet should have the right to do what they want with it. It doesn't matter if the restriction is to maximize the artists (or the middleman's) income, or their innate sense of taste. They shouldn't be allowed to dictate what other people do with it.
If you sell a copy of a novel, the recipient should be able to read it, base another novel on it, write songs about it, or line their bird cage with it.
If you sing a song, then other should be able to sing it, remix it, paint a picture about it, or use it to psychologically torment fundamentalist cult members hold up in their rural compound.
If you paint a picture, then people should be able to film a movie about it, sing a song inspired by it, and if you sell it, use it as a dart board.
I think there are two motivations for DCM and 'control freakery' that we're seeing. The first is the well understood 'maximize the money I can get' economic incentive. The other, perhaps more pernicious, is the desire to dictate what other people can do with your creation.
As an artist of any type, once you have created your work, let it go. Only by letting it go can your art go on to have a life of its own.
Basically, this attorney believes that the courts are ruling against Congress' intentions and disregarding the entire purpose of the 'red flag' provisions of the DMCA.
Not that I agree, but I thought it provided a better counterpoint than Perfect 10's admittedly deficient filings.
There may not be a copyright on the 'idea' of a chicken (though I wouldn't be surprised if some company's got a patent) but the moment someone 'fixes an expression in a tangible medium' it automatically copyrighted.
So as silly as it sounds, if you had a fictitious "chicken printer" any chicken that you printed (unless it's an original expression of a chicken) would most likely violate someone's copyright.
Good luck finding an "expression of a chicken" suitable for printing in the public domain....
An XBox360 suffers from some of the same problems as an iPhone (except the holding the controllers thing), but not all of them.
Similarities:
XBox Live == AT&T
XBox360 peripherals (memory, hard drives) you can only use over priced Microsoft components rather than perfectly good 3rd party parts.
XBox360 arbitrary changes by Microsoft after the fact.
With the second one I believe that Microsoft is, or is about to be sued for. We'll have to await the Sony suit over the third.
Differences:
The XBox360 is a machine for playing XBox360 games. You can play games without buying them from Microsoft or through XBox Live.
The iPhone is ostensibly a mobile phone. You can't legally use it to make phone calls without going through AT&T.
If the XBox360 _required_ purchasing XBox Live and only allowed you to play games purchased from XBox Live then it would be a closer analogy.
Just like you can't expect to play PS3 titles on an XBox360 doesn't mean that you should expect a GSM iPhone to work on a CDMA network. You should be able to use the GSM iPhone on any GSM network.
In the iPhone's case you should be able to install any compatible software (i.e. written to work on the iPhone)
without forcing you to go through the iStore. It shouldn't void your warranty, to install compatible aftermarket software. Just like the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act prohibits Ford from voiding your warranty if you install compatible aftermarket parts, it should prohibit Apple from doing the same thing with aftermarket software.
"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[2] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions[3], and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives." ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act )
sysadmin: "You have alternatives, if you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract."
JD: "You know, no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. If you don't like the deal, go someplace else..."
Can the Apple/AT&T defenders come up with anything other than "if you don't like it then don't buy it"?
Just because you can purchase a car/tv/computer/shoes/mobile phone from more than one company doesn't make it legal for them to dictate what or how you can use your purchase after the fact. Nor does it justify forcing you to make other related purchases on their terms.
Just because they can doesn't mean they should be allowed to.
Apple/AT&T is wrong, and just because they can technically do so doesn't mean they should.
When you purchase something it should be yours to do with as you like. The company shouldn't be able to retroactively force you do use it a certain way, nor should they be able to change the rules, or remove functionality after the fact.
For those of you who would say "If you don't like it, then don't buy an iPone." That isn't an answer, or at least not one we would accept in any other aspect of our lives.
If you buy a Ford you have to use only Exxon gas. You can only get parts at the Ford dealership, and any 'aftermarket' enhancements (say a new surround sound stereo or GPS) can only be bought through the Ford store. Ford reserves the right, solely at its own discretion to remove or disable functionality after the fact. [And the latest model stalls if you hold the steering wheel a certain way, but don't worry they'll happily sell you a custom steering wheel cover for only $29.99 {sorry I couldn't resist}].
I mean, if you don't like it, then you could always not buy a Ford right?
You can only use analog phones on AT&T's network that are manufactured by AT&T.
You can only read you set of encyclopedias at a kitchen table [and the printer reserves the right to delete pages at it's sole discretion].
You can only wear your Nike sneakers with socks purchased at the Nike store. You can only run on streets that Nike has pre-approved. You can only wear them to Gold's Gym (use in Planet Fitness, Curves, or your local YMCA is strictly prohibited). You can only purchase laces or insoles from authorized partners from the Nike Store. Nike at it sole discretion reserves the right to change the places you can wear you Nike's or remove your laces or insoles.
Microsoft Windows can only be run on approved Microsoft devices. All applications must be bought at the Microsoft app store. Microsoft reserves the right to delete purchased applications or otherwise remove functionality at its sole discretion.
None of the above would be tolerated, so why it it 'O.K.' for Apple and AT&T?
If 'just don't buy a ' isn't a legal answer, why should it be when we are talking about an iPhone?
I think the lousy piece of corporate 'bought and paid for' legislation that RD and others are looking for is the 'No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 (a.k.a. the Net Act)
[ https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/NET_Act ]
Previous to this dreadful piece of legislation the RIAA and it's like couldn't go after non-commercial, not for profit, infringers.
For those in the audience that like to pester our congress critters, this would definitely be a bad law to repeal.
(from the above mentioned link)
"Prior to the enactment of the NET Act in 1997, criminal copyright infringement required that the infringement was for the purpose of "commercial advantage or private financial gain." Merely uploading and downloading files on the internet did not fulfill this requirement, meaning that even large-scale online infringement could not be prosecuted criminally.[1] This state of affairs was underscored by the unsuccessful 1994 prosecution of David LaMacchia, then a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for allegedly facilitating massive copyright infringement as a hobby, without any commercial motive. The court's dismissal of United States v. LaMacchia suggested that then-existing criminal law simply did not apply to non-commercial infringements (a state of affairs which became known as the "LaMacchia Loophole"). The court suggested that Congress could act to make some non-commercial infringements a crime, and Congress acted on that suggestion in the NET Act."
An anonymous coward wrote:
"Also, the purpose of making circumvention of DRM illegal is to prevent piracy, it is absolutely not to prevent legitimate use of content[emphasis mine] (or to give a new revenue stream to a studio). "
The purpose of DRM is absolutely about preventing legitimate uses of content. Copyright gives copyright holders a limited set of rights, supposedly for a limited time (just how limited limited is, is the subject for another post). Everything else is legal.
Copyright holders, and some of the posters here, think that any use against their wishes is piracy. DRM + DMCA = more control. When they couldn't legally go after people who:
time shifted content
place shifted content
excerpted for education, research, parody, etc.
resold
They got this nifty little law called the No Electronic Theft Act. That got rid of that pesky, it's not illegal for personal use problem. Then they got the Digital Millennium Copyright Act passed. Now all they have to do is put the most pathetic token digital lock on their content. All of the above listed activities are still just as legal for DRM'd digital content as they were for their analog or non DRM'd digital equivalent. It just now illegal to actually exercise any of those rights.
Format shift your CD/Tape to Ogg Vorbis? Legal
Exercising that right? Legal
Format shift your DRM'ed AAC file to Ogg Vorbis? Legal
Exercising that right? Illegal.
you would have to 'break the DRM' against DMCA
Excerpt a portion of that 8mm film for your documentary? Legal
Exercising that right? Legal
Excerpt a portion of that DVD for your documentary? Legal
Exercising that right? Illegal.
you would have to 'break the DRM' against DMCA
Resell your CD's or DVD's Legal
Exercising that right? Legal
Resell your DRM'd music and video files? Legal
Exercising that right? Illegal.
you would have to 'break the DRM' to make them useful to someone else. That's against DMCA
Of course that leads to perverse situations such as your CD/VHS/Books last until the media wears out. Your DRM'd video and audio files only last until the company that sold them to you turns off the servers that authenticate the DRM. You could break the DRM to let you keep enjoying what you paid good money for, but then you would run afoul of the DMCA anti-circumvention clause.
So no, the purpose of DRM is absolutely about preventing legitimate uses of content.
An anonymous coward remarked:
"I have a question: How do we prove that we came up with a scientific discovery on our own, independently of anyone else?"
I have a better question:
"How can a scientific discovery get a patent in the first place?"
I mean aren't ideas, life forms, and laws of nature supposed to be unpatentable?
We all came from Africa if you go back far enough....
iamtheky there's nothing racist about;
"...taking small amounts of an item for free, getting loaned some items, and jumbling those items up..."
(I'm not so sure about the "...and selling the end product" especially when we are talking about true jazz musicians)
Since, if you go back far enough, we all come from Africa. Calling that activity African-American traditions is just pointing out how old that behavior is.
I mean, if early homo sapiens, probably early hominids, were already engaging in that practice, why are we trying to make it illegal now? [que the "to make lots of ill-gotten profit" choir]
It's not ridiculously incorrect and it's only borderline racist if you're looking for racist comments.
On the post: Oracle's First Big Move With Sun? Use Sun's Patents To Sue Google
Think less C# more like J#
J# to .Net is like
Java to Dalvik
In J# you are writing in a Javaish language with .Net classes/additions and the result gets translated to .Net byte codes run under the .Net VM.
In the Dalvik case you are writing in a Javaish language with some Dalvik classes/additions and the result gets translated (through Java byte codes) into Dalvik byte codes run under the DVM.
Instead of writing J# using Visual Studio (or a text editor) you are writing Harmony Java in Eclipse (or a text editor).
It's a lot closer to writing Java than to writing C#, even though C# is remarkably close to Java syntax wise. Both J# and Dalvik serve the same purpose, to leverage the Java coding skills of developers to write code that runs under the .Net VM or the Dalvik VM respectively. Admittedly using Eclipse and Harmony is more Java like than using Visual Studio, but at the end of the day it's basically the same thing.
On the post: Oracle's First Big Move With Sun? Use Sun's Patents To Sue Google
Re: Re: Future JAVA developement
Google is not distributing a JVM (Java virtual machine). They are distributing a DVM (Dalvik virtual machine).
Google isn't claiming that Dalvik is Java. Therefore they aren't trying a Microsoft's embrace-extend-extinguish ploy. Since Dalvik isn't Java they didn't have to write a complete implementation of the Java specifications. Google doesn't have to worry about breaking a Google/Oracle Java licensing agreement because there isn't a Google/Oracle Java licensing agreement and one wasn't needed because they didn't write a JVM nor are they claiming that they did.
Repeat after me: "Dalvik isn't Java, Dalvik isn't Java, Dalvik isn't Java"
What Dalvik does is allow you to write programs using a Java syntax that gets compiled to Java byte codes using the Harmony project (Apache licensed). These Javaish program then get recompiled (the byte codes translated) into Dalvik byte codes. Dalvik is what runs on Android.
Therefore, unless they win based on bogus software patents (in my opinion all software patents are bogus), they don't ".. have a leg to stand in here, however evil."
On the post: Oracle's First Big Move With Sun? Use Sun's Patents To Sue Google
Dumb on so many levels
Before we have the mistaken reference to the old Microsoft vs. Sun Java lawsuit, this isn't anything like that. MS vs Sun was about MS breaking their license agreement and corrupting Java with MS Java that only ran well on Windows. Google vs Oracle is about Google making a non Java virtual machine (not a JVM) that translates Java byte codes to Dalvik byte codes, that run in their own virtual machine. You can write code in a Java like syntax (the language) and have it converted to Dalvik to run under Android.
They don't call it Java, they don't have a license agreement with Oracle about Java, and their Java to Dalvik converter is all Google code. The Java/Dalvik editor is based off of the Apache licensed Harmony project (which neither Sun, nor Oracle is very happy even exists).
So in the end it's nothing like the Microsoft vs. Sun suit of yesteryear. It's Oracle upset that Google has routed around their lucrative Java Mobile licensing by out developing them. If you were unaware, Sun's official Java test suite comes with field of use restrictions that keep it limited to the desktop space. If you certified your open source Java JVM to comply, you can't use it on servers or mobile devices (or anything else for that matter like TV set top boxes). For anything else you have to pay Oracle a license fee. It's these field of use restrictions (among other reasons) that has kept the Harmony project from certifying their project as "Official Java".
As for Boies and company, at least Oracle should be able to afford their legal bills, unlike new SCO.
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
Thanks for the clarification...
Thanks for that wee bit O' clarification.
So, if we went back "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times [not forever minus a day] to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Then the hard line constitutionalists should be happy and we can send ASCAP, BMI, and the rest home empty handed. Much to their chagrin and the joy and cheering of the masses.
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
Re: Performance Rights Organizations
I find it interesting that you claim performance rights are "...(one of the few rights granted by the original framers of the Constitution)..."
If we go back to that hallowed document we can read;
"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." (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Copyright_Clause)
In fact it isn't until fairly recently that PRO organizations even existed:
"In the United States, The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) was founded in 1914; Society of European Stage Authors & Composers (SESAC) in 1930 and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) in 1939. (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Performance_rights_organisation#United_States)
Th ere is No constitutional basis what so ever for creative arts to be covered by any sort of copyright. It was expressly limited to the Useful arts. Rest assured that meant things like carpentry & gunsmithing, not singing, or performing theatrical pieces.
So now that I've demonstrated the utter lack of any constitutional basis for this form of modern legalized extortion, let's see what we can do about your willful and erroneous conflation or the limited with the unlimited.
My singing music doesn't diminish the supply of music in the world, in fact it adds to it. My grinding coffee beans to make a cup of joe, does diminish the supply of coffee beans in the world. Yep, I can see how the two are exactly the same... or not.
How do I hear music coming from my radio? I paid a company for the radio. A radio company paid for music CD-ROMS (or not, they may be using promotional music). They paid for antenna's and transmitters and all the other technology of a radio station. They broadcast over the public airwaves. The music was made by artists who were compensated enough to have made the music in the first place. So just what did any of these 'PRO' people do to enable any of that? What materials and supplies did the small shopkeeper steal from the 'PRO'?
To use your own words:
seriousfun your lack of understanding on this issue is breathtaking and ignorant.
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
Re: ^7 Getting a law passed may make it leagal but it doesn't make it right
There should be no performance rights and therefore no collection societies. At any other time, excepting our own of course, the whole thought would seem ludicrous.
The thought that if you sing "happy birthday" to your child, sing songs around a campfire, sing to yourself while stocking grocery shelves, or play the radio, you owned some nebulous organization a fee. Why that's just stupid.
The thought of some character stopping over at your tavern, barber shop, or blacksmith demanding payment, because a mistral may walk by where you could hear him. That's just wrong. Just because he's got an edict from the sheriff/king/Congress doesn't make it any more right.
What the apologists here don't seem to grasp, is that having a member of an organization, that you may have never heard of nor should you have, stop over demand payment because music can be heard in your place of business reeks of extortion. The "you better license your place of work for $x or we'll take you to the cleaners for $xxxxxxx" sounds just like the stereotypical mobster coming over and asking for protection money, otherwise something bad might happen.
The fact that the monied interests have managed to get laws passed making their racket legal doesn't make it better, if anything it makes it worse.
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
Re: (Calling a horse a horse, and extortion extortion)
"Perhaps activities such as these could be labeled extortion, [yep, it looks like extortion from here] but to suggest [who's suggesting the author was documenting it] BMI, ASCAP, etc. are doing much the same is simply wrong [huh?] and terribly misleading to your readership."
Actually, I find it terribly helpful to be documenting actual cases of legal extortion lest apologists like yourself claim that while the laws could be used that way, there isn't any proof that they have been.
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
People that don't make taking money from people who do...
That's what the world has devolved into. When I say world, just look at the recent "New Zealand Authors Demanding Compulsory Blanket..." article.
Why bother to actually produce anything, just pass a law to force other people to give you their money.
Before people get on their high horses, artists should get paid for their work, once, if they can find someone to buy it. Until the advent of 'intellectual property' you had to actually do something, then convince someone else to pay you for it in order to make money. If you paint a picture and you convince someone to buy it from you. Good for you. You don't get the right to charge someone for taking a picture of it. You don't get a cut, if the first person resells it to someone else for even more money. They might have been a lousy painter, but a really good salesman. Good for them.
You compose a song and get someone to pay you for it, good for you. You don't get the right to charge for everyone that's hears it, or that _might_ be inspired by it.
If you won't write/sing/paint/compose without some guarantee of income, that's your choice. People have been creating/sharing art and culture for hundreds of years without the advent of 'intellectual property'. I'm fairly confident that people still will.
Of course, without the legalized extortion that is 'intellectual property' perhaps the non-art companies can get back to making things. Just think how much more productive we would be without the forced transfer of assets from companies that make things to companies that don't. As an added bonus we wouldn't need quite so many lawyers.
On the post: Shocker: FCC Says Closed Door Meetings Failed In Creating Transparency
Then we need to 'fix' the government.
Then we need to fix the government.
As I have hopefully illustrated, our current government isn't doing what it should. If it was, then our economy, our society, wouldn't be in half the mess it's currently in.
That doesn't mean that the government should just give up. The only way we can get the good government we need is to take it back. The only way we can take it back is to get more people upset over how things are currently run.
We need to poke, prod, embarrass our congress critters, our judges into doing the _right_ thing.
How's that old saying go;
The soap box, the ballot box, the ammo box. Use in that order.
On the post: Shocker: FCC Says Closed Door Meetings Failed In Creating Transparency
Gov. regulation needed to keep capitalism from running amuck.
As Lord Acton, expressed in 1887:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
People and by extension the companies they run have a tendency to degenerate into vehicles for extracting the maximum profit in the minimum amount of time and to hell with the consequences. While ultimately an unsustainable proposition, the collateral damage can be substantial. We've been reminded of this with the recent 'crash and burn' of our financial markets and the current depression in the States.
One of the primary purposes of the government is to regulate, to temper, the worst excesses of capitalism. To provide a basic level of protection for its people. In other words to provide the rules for the game of economic activity and enforce them to the betterment of society as a whole. If that means that a small number of people at the top have a little less so that the rest of the people suffer a little less, then they are doing their job.
Unfortunately America has joined many other countries in forgetting this. Of course the ironic part is that the current state of affairs is ultimately self defeating. In the drive for just a couple of million more _this_ quarter we've completely destroyed the virtuous cycle.
Virtuous Cycle:
Workers make decent money ->
Money available to spend ->
More things bought ->
More factories, etc, needed to make more stuff ->
Workers making even more money ....
and round and round it goes. The people who run the companies make a tidy sum through out. A little less in the short term, but sustainable and so total profits are much higher over time.
What we are stuck in is the vicious cycle.
Vicious cycle:
Workers make less money ->
Less money available to spend ->
Less things bought ->
Less factories, etc, needed ->
Workers make even less money, or laid off ....
and round and round it goes. The people who run the companies may make a larger amount in the short term, but it's unsustainable and so the entire economy sinks into recession, depression and collapse.
What I find sadly amusing is that the people in charge know this, even if it's on a subconscious level. We gotten to the point that we aren't even involved in actually making things anymore. That's the fiction that is intellectual property. We are buying and selling 'ideas'. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the people in power are using the law to force other people to pay them for imaginary things. What's a patent but the right to use an idea. What's copyright, the right to make a copy of something yourself. It's not like people are fighting for the right to have someone else make them more copies of something for free. They just want to be left alone to use what they have as they see fit, without hurting others. As if that isn't bad enough, but now they want you to pay them if you want to sing a song that you composed based on another song you heard. They want to get paid for things you've built or created yourself.
Intellectual property is about transferring money from people who do stuff, who make stuff, into the pockets of people who don't.
But enough about the larger problems, the view of what happens when government regulation runs amuck.
In this particular instance, Net neutrality legislation is needed, desperately. Not the false, short sighted, let those in power strangle the golden goose just a little tighter, mess we'll probably end up with, but real long term forward looking play field leveling legislation.
Things it needs to contain;
1. Networks are a natural monopoly, anyone should be able to compete over the same wires. If you don't want to be in the moving bits business then get out of it. Compete by offering the most reliable, fasted network at the most reasonable price.
2. People should get what they are paying for. No 'up to' language, no fuzzy 'acceptable use policy', no talk of 'bandwidth hogs'. You should expect that people will use what you are selling them. If you sell them a 6MB connection then don't complain if they actually use 6MB.
3. Treat every destination equally. Everyone's a server, everyone's a client. The reason the internet's been such a boon is the availability of practically anyone to be seen, to develop innovative applications, to speak and be heard.
4. If you are going to 'prioritize' certain types of packets over others, then that has to be the user's choice _not_ the company that's providing access. No Comcast favoring their video over some other internet video site. No AT&T favoring their VOIP over a third party VOIP. Especially no favoring company A's content over company B's just because company A's giving the ISP a bucket of money.
5. If you're an ISP, your customer's data is just that, their data. No snooping, deep packet inspection, or other sleazy manipulations to _monetize_ their information. You want to do something, it's strictly _opt_in_. If you can't convince people to sign up then it probably isn't important enough to them.
That would be true beneficial Net Neutrality legislation.
On the post: Can We Please Stop The False Dichotomy Of 'Creators' vs 'Consumers' When It Comes To Copyright?
Bigger problem..... unauthorized uses
Art and culture are like children, once we bring them into the world they are going to do what they want, regardless of what their parents would have wanted for them.
You create art, you share, sell, display said art, the rest of the planet should have the right to do what they want with it. It doesn't matter if the restriction is to maximize the artists (or the middleman's) income, or their innate sense of taste. They shouldn't be allowed to dictate what other people do with it.
If you sell a copy of a novel, the recipient should be able to read it, base another novel on it, write songs about it, or line their bird cage with it.
If you sing a song, then other should be able to sing it, remix it, paint a picture about it, or use it to psychologically torment fundamentalist cult members hold up in their rural compound.
If you paint a picture, then people should be able to film a movie about it, sing a song inspired by it, and if you sell it, use it as a dart board.
I think there are two motivations for DCM and 'control freakery' that we're seeing. The first is the well understood 'maximize the money I can get' economic incentive. The other, perhaps more pernicious, is the desire to dictate what other people can do with your creation.
As an artist of any type, once you have created your work, let it go. Only by letting it go can your art go on to have a life of its own.
On the post: Perfect 10 Loses Again, As Court Says DMCA Notices Need To Be Properly Filed
An RIAA's lawyers thoughts on 'red flag knowledge'
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202463839409&iViacom_v_YouTubei_a_miss ed_opportunity&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Basically, this attorney believes that the courts are ruling against Congress' intentions and disregarding the entire purpose of the 'red flag' provisions of the DMCA.
Not that I agree, but I thought it provided a better counterpoint than Perfect 10's admittedly deficient filings.
On the post: Composer Jason Robert Brown Still Standing By His Position That Kids Sharing His Music Are Immoral
The chicken may not be copyritten but.....
So as silly as it sounds, if you had a fictitious "chicken printer" any chicken that you printed (unless it's an original expression of a chicken) would most likely violate someone's copyright.
Good luck finding an "expression of a chicken" suitable for printing in the public domain....
On the post: Class Action Against Apple & AT&T Over iPhone Moves Forward
an XBox360.......
An XBox360 suffers from some of the same problems as an iPhone (except the holding the controllers thing), but not all of them.
Similarities:
XBox Live == AT&T
XBox360 peripherals (memory, hard drives) you can only use over priced Microsoft components rather than perfectly good 3rd party parts.
XBox360 arbitrary changes by Microsoft after the fact.
With the second one I believe that Microsoft is, or is about to be sued for. We'll have to await the Sony suit over the third.
Differences:
The XBox360 is a machine for playing XBox360 games. You can play games without buying them from Microsoft or through XBox Live.
The iPhone is ostensibly a mobile phone. You can't legally use it to make phone calls without going through AT&T.
If the XBox360 _required_ purchasing XBox Live and only allowed you to play games purchased from XBox Live then it would be a closer analogy.
Just like you can't expect to play PS3 titles on an XBox360 doesn't mean that you should expect a GSM iPhone to work on a CDMA network. You should be able to use the GSM iPhone on any GSM network.
In the iPhone's case you should be able to install any compatible software (i.e. written to work on the iPhone)
without forcing you to go through the iStore. It shouldn't void your warranty, to install compatible aftermarket software. Just like the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act prohibits Ford from voiding your warranty if you install compatible aftermarket parts, it should prohibit Apple from doing the same thing with aftermarket software.
"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[2] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions[3], and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives." ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act )
On the post: Class Action Against Apple & AT&T Over iPhone Moves Forward
Is there any other defense than 'don't buy it'?
JD: "You know, no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. If you don't like the deal, go someplace else..."
Can the Apple/AT&T defenders come up with anything other than "if you don't like it then don't buy it"?
Just because you can purchase a car/tv/computer/shoes/mobile phone from more than one company doesn't make it legal for them to dictate what or how you can use your purchase after the fact. Nor does it justify forcing you to make other related purchases on their terms.
On the post: Class Action Against Apple & AT&T Over iPhone Moves Forward
Just because they can doesn't mean they should be allowed to.
When you purchase something it should be yours to do with as you like. The company shouldn't be able to retroactively force you do use it a certain way, nor should they be able to change the rules, or remove functionality after the fact.
For those of you who would say "If you don't like it, then don't buy an iPone." That isn't an answer, or at least not one we would accept in any other aspect of our lives.
If you buy a Ford you have to use only Exxon gas. You can only get parts at the Ford dealership, and any 'aftermarket' enhancements (say a new surround sound stereo or GPS) can only be bought through the Ford store. Ford reserves the right, solely at its own discretion to remove or disable functionality after the fact. [And the latest model stalls if you hold the steering wheel a certain way, but don't worry they'll happily sell you a custom steering wheel cover for only $29.99 {sorry I couldn't resist}].
I mean, if you don't like it, then you could always not buy a Ford right?
You can only use analog phones on AT&T's network that are manufactured by AT&T.
You can only read you set of encyclopedias at a kitchen table [and the printer reserves the right to delete pages at it's sole discretion].
You can only wear your Nike sneakers with socks purchased at the Nike store. You can only run on streets that Nike has pre-approved. You can only wear them to Gold's Gym (use in Planet Fitness, Curves, or your local YMCA is strictly prohibited). You can only purchase laces or insoles from authorized partners from the Nike Store. Nike at it sole discretion reserves the right to change the places you can wear you Nike's or remove your laces or insoles.
Microsoft Windows can only be run on approved Microsoft devices. All applications must be bought at the Microsoft app store. Microsoft reserves the right to delete purchased applications or otherwise remove functionality at its sole discretion.
None of the above would be tolerated, so why it it 'O.K.' for Apple and AT&T?
If 'just don't buy a ' isn't a legal answer, why should it be when we are talking about an iPhone?
On the post: Judge Says Damages In Tenenbaum Case Were 'Unconstitutionally Excessive'
No Electronic Theft Act 1997
[ https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/NET_Act ]
Previous to this dreadful piece of legislation the RIAA and it's like couldn't go after non-commercial, not for profit, infringers.
For those in the audience that like to pester our congress critters, this would definitely be a bad law to repeal.
(from the above mentioned link)
"Prior to the enactment of the NET Act in 1997, criminal copyright infringement required that the infringement was for the purpose of "commercial advantage or private financial gain." Merely uploading and downloading files on the internet did not fulfill this requirement, meaning that even large-scale online infringement could not be prosecuted criminally.[1] This state of affairs was underscored by the unsuccessful 1994 prosecution of David LaMacchia, then a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for allegedly facilitating massive copyright infringement as a hobby, without any commercial motive. The court's dismissal of United States v. LaMacchia suggested that then-existing criminal law simply did not apply to non-commercial infringements (a state of affairs which became known as the "LaMacchia Loophole"). The court suggested that Congress could act to make some non-commercial infringements a crime, and Congress acted on that suggestion in the NET Act."
On the post: Documentary Filmmakers Want DMCA Exemption; But Almost Definitely Won't Get It
Someone's not been paying attention....
"Also, the purpose of making circumvention of DRM illegal is to prevent piracy, it is absolutely not to prevent legitimate use of content[emphasis mine] (or to give a new revenue stream to a studio). "
The purpose of DRM is absolutely about preventing legitimate uses of content. Copyright gives copyright holders a limited set of rights, supposedly for a limited time (just how limited limited is, is the subject for another post). Everything else is legal.
Copyright holders, and some of the posters here, think that any use against their wishes is piracy. DRM + DMCA = more control. When they couldn't legally go after people who:
time shifted content
place shifted content
excerpted for education, research, parody, etc.
resold
They got this nifty little law called the No Electronic Theft Act. That got rid of that pesky, it's not illegal for personal use problem. Then they got the Digital Millennium Copyright Act passed. Now all they have to do is put the most pathetic token digital lock on their content. All of the above listed activities are still just as legal for DRM'd digital content as they were for their analog or non DRM'd digital equivalent. It just now illegal to actually exercise any of those rights.
Format shift your CD/Tape to Ogg Vorbis? Legal
Exercising that right? Legal
Format shift your DRM'ed AAC file to Ogg Vorbis? Legal
Exercising that right? Illegal.
you would have to 'break the DRM' against DMCA
Excerpt a portion of that 8mm film for your documentary? Legal
Exercising that right? Legal
Excerpt a portion of that DVD for your documentary? Legal
Exercising that right? Illegal.
you would have to 'break the DRM' against DMCA
Resell your CD's or DVD's Legal
Exercising that right? Legal
Resell your DRM'd music and video files? Legal
Exercising that right? Illegal.
you would have to 'break the DRM' to make them useful to someone else. That's against DMCA
Of course that leads to perverse situations such as your CD/VHS/Books last until the media wears out. Your DRM'd video and audio files only last until the company that sold them to you turns off the servers that authenticate the DRM. You could break the DRM to let you keep enjoying what you paid good money for, but then you would run afoul of the DMCA anti-circumvention clause.
So no, the purpose of DRM is absolutely about preventing legitimate uses of content.
On the post: Children's Hospital 'Allowed' To Continue Research Using System It Developed After Patent Fight
I have a better question...
"I have a question: How do we prove that we came up with a scientific discovery on our own, independently of anyone else?"
I have a better question:
"How can a scientific discovery get a patent in the first place?"
I mean aren't ideas, life forms, and laws of nature supposed to be unpatentable?
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
We all came from Africa if you go back far enough....
"...taking small amounts of an item for free, getting loaned some items, and jumbling those items up..."
(I'm not so sure about the "...and selling the end product" especially when we are talking about true jazz musicians)
Since, if you go back far enough, we all come from Africa. Calling that activity African-American traditions is just pointing out how old that behavior is.
I mean, if early homo sapiens, probably early hominids, were already engaging in that practice, why are we trying to make it illegal now? [que the "to make lots of ill-gotten profit" choir]
It's not ridiculously incorrect and it's only borderline racist if you're looking for racist comments.
Next >>