The don't have to be 100% effective to be effective. If they can say we are stopping 99%, then they can claim victory. Protecting the childern just means doing something 99% of the children find too difficult to circumvent. No law or technology is ever 100% effective in achieving its purpose.

The whole point of In re Bilski is that this court, which had several years ago expanded the definition of what was patentable and lead to the mess the USPTO is now in, has now stated that they were wrong in doing so and that they were now adhering to an earlier definition that did not expand upon those decissions that SCOTUS had handed down. Software was not originally patentable (believe me, I've been programming since 1968). If they adhere to an earlier definition, it follows that it is not patentable. The exception they make is for firmware or other software necessary to the functioning of a particular machine - such as a milling machine, plotter, etc. Computers simply don't qualify as a particular machine although I know this is being debated. But I think those who believe computers become specific machines just by running a specific program on them are dreaming - it will never pass the courts.

Yes, but only if that is its ONLY function.

Oops, have to reply to my own post. Not only would the software need to run on only one make and model of computer, it would have to be included with every instance of that computer. Think embedded firmware.

A computer is not a "specific machine". A washing machine, Westinghouse Model 293DQ, is. So, unless your software runs on only one make and model of computer, it isn't patentable.

I think people fail to remember that the law REQUIRES them to defend their copyrights or lose them.

As an ISP, under the DMCA, we receive notices all the time and we call the "offender" and ask them to stop doing whatever. It's just extra work and expense for us that we don't appreciate. The only difference between the letters we had been receiving and this one is that this one is talking to the offender rather than us. I suspect the RIAA hopes it will be scarier than one telling us someone on our network is violating their copyright. I have no problem with forwarding it to the offender as we really hate arguing with them about whether P2P is legal and how did we know what they were doing (violating their privacy, I guess).

H20

"what would entice an ISP to follow the RIAA's 'suggestions'?"

Very simple. ISP's put up with P2P users if they have lots of unused bandwidth because the extra money helps. But when things become congested, cutting of the P2P users increases profits and customer satisfaction. This is because the cost of the bandwidth used by a P2P user exceeds the amount they are paying and satisfied customers reduces churn (and therefore increases profits).

Net neutrallity will probably pass under Obama preventing ISP's from kicking P2P users off, so a more likely response from ISP's will be to use bandwidth quotas and charge for going over the quota. That will turn P2P users into a attractive profit center. It has the added benefit of indirectly making money off high bandwith services like NetFlixs. Most major ISP's are already testing this model in limited areas of the country. It's coming.