Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - $105 To Protect You From Copyright Trolls? (wired.com)

no1home writes: Wired has a story about a little-known feature of the DMCA- a $105 fee and a form to fill out and send in that gives your site a point of contact, based on the idea that a copyright holder shouldn't have to go looking for you to ask you to take something down.

Call it ingenious, call it evil or call it a little of both: Copyright troll Righthaven is exploiting a loophole in intellectual property law, suing websites that might have avoided any trace of civil liability had they spent a mere $105.
...
But to dock in that legal safe harbor, a site has to register an official contact point for DMCA takedown notices, a process that involves filling out a form and mailing a check to the government.

This raises a question: How do we know what's protected when it no longer needs to be sent to the Library of Congress? I don't blame copyright holders for wanting to have instant protection of their work, but why do we have to pay for our presumption of innocence? Here's my solution (though IANAL): a nice, easy to see, link in the footer of your website: "Click here to submit a DMCA Take-Down Notice". Problem solved without a fee or government agency.

Google

Submission + - Google Sued Over Street View (pasadenastarnews.com)

no1home writes: The Pasadena Star News has a story from Thursday, 21 Oct 2010, on two engineers who are suing Google over patent infringement for technology used in Google Street View.

Enrico Di Bernardo and Luis Goncalves, in a complaint filed in federal court Friday, accuse Google of infringing on patents held by their Pasadena company, Vederi LLC, for a "System and Method for Creating, Storing and Utilizing Images of a Geographic Location."
That is, for an early version of Google's Street View.
Di Bernardo and Goncalves say they developed technology for their "StreetBrowser" system a decade ago, launched a beta version that mapped Pasadena on the city's website in 2001 — and came up with estimates for the next phase, which they thought might be mapping business regions throughout the entire U.S.
They also filed their first provisional patent application in 2000.

What makes this particularly interesting is that I was there! While I never met the gentlemen, I had been in the office where the server was running many, many times. I saw the server, looked at the web site it was running, played with their StreetBrowser setup. When Google's Street View went live, the similarity was so clear, I truly thought these guys had made the big-time, that Google bought their product, maybe even hired them. And, just to round out the small-world-theme here, I also used to work for Christie-Parker-Hale a long, long time ago.

More links:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101019007468/en/Christie-Parker-Hale-Behalf-Client-Vederi-LLC
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/10/google_sued_by_pasadena_techie.php

Comment Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong (Score 1) 1193

So many people griping about companies (and rich people) using loopholes, blaming them for their problems. Well, CLOSE THE FAFFING LOOPHOLES. If there are no loopholes to take advantage of, then they will be forced to pat their fair share. Right now, they pay their fair share, which is lower than many would like but still fair due to the fact that these loopholes exist for them to use. Any company NOT taking advantage of them is likely to fail because it become economically disadvantaged compared to its competitors who are taking advantage.

Simplify the tax system. Close the loopholes.

Comment Re:Uhh ohh (Score 1) 231

Sure they could-
Assumption: They have the ability to cloak an entire planet.
*Secondary assumption: With that level of technology, they likely have FTL communications and FTL travel.
Therefore: They have spies here who passed our discovery of them to their home, thus causing their leaders to hide the planet.

*It is true, of course, that the secondary assumption does not necessarily follow from the first assumption, but we're guessing here anyway and it's a pretty reasonable assumption.

Comment Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score 1) 554

those people who don't protect their name, their reputation, as they would protect their company -1.

Even many educated, intelligent, digitally-connected people don't know to do this. Even many who have considered it don't have any idea HOW to do it. There is no crime in having a similar, or even identical, name on-line as someone else. For example, someone posts here as Squigly. Who or what stops someone else from posting elsewhere as Squigly and possibly tarnishing the original's rep, or maybe making it better accidentally? There are a lot of names that are quite popular as well, leading to easy confusion. So how, exactly, does one 'protect their reputation' on-line?

Comment Re:The Nook already does this in the US. (Score 1) 374

That's who we use at our libraries in Pasadena & Glendale (Ca). I agree with others that this is the one good use for DRM. Self-returning library books is pretty cool. Sometimes, though, we have to 'clear' an account when the download doesn't work and the book gets locked in limbo.

The issue with DRM is interesting- The original files were PDF, but with DRM built-in. Then they switched over to a new file name extension just for this. Because of this DRM, you have to have Adobe Digital Editions. This can get weird when you try to open a PDF with Reader and get told it isn't compatible! This happens with some of the free-to-download-and-keep books from Google, depending on who the actual source is. So, with those, even though their labeled as PDFs, you have to open them in Digital Editions. Odd little pain in the butt. Found this out recently while doing some heraldry research.

Comment Video Out (Score 1) 316

I'd be happiest if they had video out. As I see these, I could replace all of the public PCs at my work with these and run terminal/remote desktop sessions from the server. I just need these to have video, mouse, keyboard connections for the idea to pan out. We're headed this route anyway, so this type of setup removes more of the power waste and space usage than other thin-client systems we're looking at.

Comment Re:oh man (Score 1) 316

Unless you're on Charter- They seem to hate CableCards. I have a TiVo HD that requires a cable card (no way for it to control a set top box- supposedly) and Charter, which is a nasty cable provider anyway, has really SUCKED in this department. I'm constantly having to reboot, being told by TiVo that I have a new device plugged in (which is an external device required so that the cable cards can work with Charter's system- so a set top box of a different sort). That device, the cable cards, the cabling have all been tested, replaced, retested, ad infinitum, with no help. The TiVo works great, except for the cable stuff, then it's hit-n-miss. Most of the techs have said all the equipment is solid. But then, most of them have been idiots. And the main tech office the techs call for support is just as bad. Many of the issues have verifiably been due to billing codes being input wrong. Of course, it's not all about the cable cards. My roomies have regular digital set top boxes that fail at the same time as mine, but not every time mine does.

So no, if you're on Charter, avoid cable cards. Or do what I plan on doing- move! Anybody in Verizon FIOS territory have a nice room to let?

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...