|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 104 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 13 of 104:
| 
Jul 15 16:46 UTC 2002 |
As sad as it is, stories like Kan's help me when I am feeling like a
failure. It helps to know that even people I consider successful get
those feelings and get depressed and whatnot. It helps me to remember
that one doesnt have an objective view when one is depressed.
|
krj
|
|
response 14 of 104:
|
Jul 18 23:03 UTC 2002 |
From the last few days, mostly via slashdot:
The RIAA is pushing for a legal mandate to require a "do not copy" flag
in future digital audio standards, and to require that everything
in the world honor that flag.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-944640.html
-----
The US Commerce Department held hearings on digital rights management
this week. This was a big business meeting, and the views of the
public were not wanted. In protest, some of
the free software people are now taking to a small bit of ruckusing.
Many stories:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-944668.html
(Note that the MPAA's Jack Valenti now denies trying to "abolish"
the VCR 20-some-odd years ago.)
http://newsforge.com/newsforge/02/07/18/0155208.shtml
http://features.slashdot.org/features/02/07/18/1219257.shtml?tid=99
(takes the position that the ruckus was not helping things)
|
gull
|
|
response 15 of 104:
|
Jul 22 13:40 UTC 2002 |
The Register is reporting that a videoconferencing company in Austin,
Texas is claiming patent rights to technology used in the JPEG standard,
and is demanding royalties on pretty much everything that decodes them.
Sony has apparently already ponied up $15 million:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26272.html
The JPEG committee seems confident they can get the patent overturned
with evidence of prior art:
http://www.theregus.com/content/6/25676.html
Also, fair use advocates apparently weren't welcome at a U.S. Department
of Commerce public workshop on digital rights management:
http://www.theregus.com/content/6/25660.html
|
oval
|
|
response 16 of 104:
|
Jul 22 15:25 UTC 2002 |
let's all switch to png. right now.
|
gull
|
|
response 17 of 104:
|
Jul 22 15:42 UTC 2002 |
PNG isn't really a good replacement for JPEG, because it's a lossless
compression -- it just can't match the file size reductions you can get
with a lossy compression like JPEG. An 800x600 color photograph ends up
huge as a PNG file. PNG is an excellent replacement for GIF, though.
|
gull
|
|
response 18 of 104:
|
Jul 22 15:52 UTC 2002 |
To give you an idea of the difference, a 640x953 truecolor photograph,
compressed at 9.0 compression with PNG (the most aggressive setting)
gave an 814,516 byte file. The same image, as a 75% quality JPEG, was
60,037 bytes. Obviously this makes a *huge* difference for web browsing.
If you're curious, a long time ago I worked up a web page comparing GIF,
PNG, and JPEG on a few different types of images. I did this as a quick
way to educate people who annoyed me by using the wrong image format for
something. ;) (Like using GIF for photographs, or JPEG for line art.)
The page is here:
http://www.gull.us/imageformats/
The example above is taken directly from it. BTW, I've noticed
Photoshop 4.0's PNG compressor isn't very good, I seem to get smaller
files with GIMP or NetPBM. The files on that page were created with
GIMP 1.0.4.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 19 of 104:
|
Jul 23 01:30 UTC 2002 |
gull, how did you get "gull.us"? I didn't think anything but the fifty states
and DC had been created under .us.
|
other
|
|
response 20 of 104:
|
Jul 23 02:34 UTC 2002 |
try girls-r.us
|
gelinas
|
|
response 21 of 104:
|
Jul 23 03:30 UTC 2002 |
And once again I mourn the loss of Mr. Postel.
|
gull
|
|
response 22 of 104:
|
Jul 23 12:30 UTC 2002 |
Re #19: They opened it up for all U.S. citizens, legal residents, and U.S.
corporations to register names in April.
|
krj
|
|
response 23 of 104:
|
Jul 23 16:06 UTC 2002 |
Slashdot points to the EFF blog on digital TV issues.
In separate letters, Sen. Hollings and Rep. Tauzin urge Federal
Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell to move forward
immediately on requiring equipment to respect the "do-not-copy" flag/
"broadcast flag" in all digitial television applications.
The legislators says the FCC already has the authority to do this.
Rep Tauzin's letter is co-signed by Rep John Dingell (D-Mich),
who will shortly be appearing on a primary ballot for many of you. :)
|
krj
|
|
response 24 of 104:
|
Jul 23 16:08 UTC 2002 |
(oops:)
http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/07/23/1241245.shtml?tid=129
|
gull
|
|
response 25 of 104:
|
Jul 24 13:20 UTC 2002 |
More on the JPEG patent issue:
http://www.theregus.com/content/4/25713.html
The ISO standards body has said they'll no longer list JPEG as a formal
standard if Fogent continues to demand royalties on it. The patent
expires in 2004 anyway, though, so I suspect a lot of companies will
just wait this one out. There's also some comments by JPEG committee
member Richard Clark on the flaws in current patent law:
'"It's becoming impossible to set standards in multimedia; huge numbers
of patents are granted. In Japan there are 4,000 patents on image and
wavelet technology in Japan alone. It's followed the US model, where for
many, many years, the US has allowed patents on very small changes to
very detailed technical terms and where the benefits are few," said Clark.'
...
'And there aren't any safe havens, he warns.'
'"You can't create a standard that doesn't infringe patents - PNG or Ogg
Vorbis could equally be challenged. So it's no good saying something is
patent free: you have to persuade a US jury of that, and it's a crapshoot."'
Personally, I think it's particularly egregious when a company waits
until a standard has been firmly entrenched for over a decade, then pops
up to make a claim.
|
brighn
|
|
response 26 of 104:
|
Jul 24 13:42 UTC 2002 |
I agree with the last paragraph of #25. I believe the courts have ruled as
much with trademarks: Companies can lose some of their trademark rights if
their product name becomes so ubiquitous it's a de facto synonym for the
product itself (examples include Kleenex, Coke, and Xerox... how many
companies have a Minolta Xerox machine, and how many people blow their noses
on Puffs Kleenex?). Unfortunately, that's trademark law, not patent law,
although I'd think some of the concepts would be extended.
I haven't read the details on this. Is this any different than the GIF flak?
It was ultimately decided that end-users couldn't be held responsible for GIF
trademark violation, only programmers of graphics packages (more detail than
that, but that was the basic gist).
|
gull
|
|
response 27 of 104:
|
Jul 24 14:27 UTC 2002 |
That's pretty much what Fogent is claiming -- that if you create a
program or device that decodes JPEGs, you're using their patented
technology and have to cough up a royalty.
|
brighn
|
|
response 28 of 104:
|
Jul 24 15:07 UTC 2002 |
Bah, that's as bullshit as the GIF argument, but they're probably assuming
that because the GIF suit went that way, they can go there with JPG too.
*sigh*
"Henry Ford announced today that, since the automobile is popular, all
manufacturers of the automobile are infringing upon a patent that he would
have filed had he known how popular the automobile would be, and they all have
to pay him money fore very car they build."
bullshitbullshitbullshit
|
tsty
|
|
response 29 of 104:
|
Jul 25 09:58 UTC 2002 |
gull, #18, that's a really nice images page. but, uh, the smtpe
color bars are, ummm 'off.' he left-=most bar is supposed to be 70% white
adn teh absolute (100%) black and white bars are the squares on
the bottom.
also, that looks WAY oversaturated, and the green and purple tint
seems a bit 'off' to my eyes.
are teh smpte color bars and the ntsc color bars supposed to be the same?
notice that my observations are based onthe ntsc bars, please.
(yes, i'm using a calibrated ibm p260 monitor, fwiw)
|
gull
|
|
response 30 of 104:
|
Jul 25 13:20 UTC 2002 |
Re #29: I'm sure they are. They're not my color bars, I snagged them
from another site. IIRC, the site did note that they didn't imitate the
proper brightness levels because there's no way to ensure that in a
digital image. Dunno if the 'blue filter trick' for adjusting
saturation and tint would still work with them. Probably not, which
makes them sort of useless for monitor adjustment purposes, but I just
wanted an image with some sharp edges and areas of solid color.
|
gull
|
|
response 31 of 104:
|
Jul 26 20:32 UTC 2002 |
Re #16: The Register ran some reader letters recently about the JPEG
patent problem. They noted that several readers have suggested, as you
did, that switching to PNG might be a solution. They pointed out
something I'd forgotten -- that PNG also has a patent encumbering it.
Apple has a patent on alpha blending that appears to cover technology
used in PNG. So far they haven't tried to enforce it, but there's
nothing to prevent them from deciding to in the future. Reference:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/22898.html
So, you're pretty much going to run afoul of *someone's* patent claims
no matter what format you try to work with.
|
gull
|
|
response 32 of 104:
|
Jul 29 14:21 UTC 2002 |
An Australian Federal Court has ruled that Playstation mod chips are not
illegal when used to play legally purchased disks from other countries:
http://www.theregus.com/content/54/25764.html
|
gull
|
|
response 33 of 104:
|
Jul 31 15:11 UTC 2002 |
http://www.theregus.com/content/55/25813.html
Remeber those fears that the DMCA would be used to quash legitimate security
research? It looks like they're coming true. HP's threatening to sue a
group of researches who found a buffer overflow in the 'su' command of
Tru64.
|
krj
|
|
response 34 of 104:
|
Aug 14 21:50 UTC 2002 |
Cnet carries a story from Declan McCullagh on the looming possibility
of criminal prosecutions for file sharing users.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-949533.html
The actual hard news in the story is that a group of leading
Senators and Congressmen from both parties, including Sens. Biden
and Feinstein for the Democrats, have written to the Justice Department
urging that such prosecutions begin. The Cnet story contains a link
to the letter. Under the NET act, I have written before, such
prosecutions would be a slam dunk. It would be sort of like a lottery.
|
tsty
|
|
response 35 of 104:
|
Aug 16 07:16 UTC 2002 |
of course democrats want convictions - this is not news.
|
krj
|
|
response 36 of 104:
|
Aug 20 19:56 UTC 2002 |
Business Week runs an overview story reporting that the music industry
is finally starting to look seriously at Internet distribution models
which might work. The industry is driven by the continued collapse
of physical CD sales, with sales figures down 12.8% from a year ago
through August 3, following the 2001 decline of 10%. (I think those
are dollar value figures, not units.)
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2002/tc20020812_4809.htm
-----
Somebody called Forrester Research releases a study claiming that MP3
trading has not been the cause of the crash in music sales; Forrester's
study blames the recession, and competition from videogames and DVDs
for entertainment dollars.
http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20020813/gtmusic
/Front/homeBN/breakingnews
http://www.forrester.com/ER/Research/Report/Summary/0,1338,14854,00.html
(above from the forest of links following a Christian Science Monitor
overview story, which does contain the news that I missed, that the FCC
has mandated anticopying technology in "the next generation of
televisions."; you can find that story from wired.com)
|
krj
|
|
response 37 of 104:
|
Aug 21 03:23 UTC 2002 |
resp:34 :: another Cnet story from Declan McCullagh. At a conference
in Aspen Colorado, a deputy assistant attorney general states flatly
that the Justice Department is prepared to begin prosecuting
users sharing copyrighted files over the Internet; he would not, however,
set a date when such prosecutions would begin.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954591.html?tag=fd_top
|
