W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > October 2001

RAND arguments...

From: Golden Tiger <goldentiger24@bigfoot.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:06:15 -0400
Message-ID: <002901c14c46$dfcc1480$d8078c18@eohio.net>
To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
All I can say about that topic is that I disklike it, and do not want it
passed.  I cannot propose any significant arguments against RAND at this
time, due to the fact that the comments will not be that noteworthy, yet.

The general arguments that I am going to propose may be weak, and may lack
significant reference points.  Things would be easier on such a
controversial topic as RAND if you put the entire proposial into a PDF file
for download, which can be read completely at anybody's leasure.  I will say
a few things, though.  First off, how will the W3C be able to impose this
royality?  Let me guess, you will make a CGI program that monitors things
and reports to you.  Also, this means that every website must pay extra to
get CGI access on their servers?  The general idea here is simple, it will
take money and work to impliment.  Also, what will you put a royality on?
Will I have to pay a few cents to load this HTM file, or a few more cents to
load this JPG file, which just happens to be a background image?
This idea can be represented in the real world, easily.  You borrow a photo
from this friend named Bill, and photocopy it so you can remember this image
forever.  However, Bill didn't exactly want you to do that, he doesn't mind
that much that youdid, but he generally didn't want the photo copied.  Now,
look out, the W3C is looking over your shoulder, and conviently took a few
cents out of your credit card and gave it to Bill because you saw that photo
once.  Every time you see it, you will be charged a few more cents!  Every
time you listen to your favorite song, you pay a few more cents.
Oh, and I LOVE this one.  A pop up ad appears, the famous "Pop-Under" ads
which are behind everything on your screen.  Guess what, it has 97 small jpg
files on it.  You are charged 3 cent royalities per jpg file.  Guess where
the royalities go...  I don't even want to imagine the abuse possible.
Where does this stop?  Better yet, how will you know what you can and cannot
see on the internet?  Ok, forget that, lets say that a genie comes up and
makes a ingeneous program to tell you what you can and cannot see on the
internet.  Ok, how will you protect jpg files?  I see it on my screen, I hit
the famous "Print Screen" button, and I got that image on my image program.
Somebody could create a website that has a protected file from another
website on there, without the protection!  Is the W3C going to stop that
action, and how so?  What will be done?  Will the old copyright rules of
$50,000 fine per attempted copy going to be imposed, and if it is then which
court oversees the case?
This "non-sense" will not make the internet a safe place.  Companies will
most likely not adopt the policy, because it will turn away the entire
internet.  I don't want some bit of code, I want physical goods.  Companies
on the internet sell physical goods, not this techno-gibberish that can be
destroyed by a single hard drive format.  If they want to sell digital goods
to you, then I EXPECT that software to be on a CD for the protection of
those files.

I can go on and on and on rambling and making no sense out of this RAND.  I
don't know all the details, I don't know all the arguments, all I know is
that I know little.  What I do know is not good.  If RAND gets widespread,
it could KILL the internet.  I certainly will not browse a network of sites
which can rip money away from people, right out of their credit cards, with
little security.  I cannot see a royality system that would have security.
If you want royalities per file, then ask for a credit card number on your
site, have secured aceess to a directory, and charge per file loaded by a
program.  No W3C, No Global Act, just a CGI program and that company's idea.
I BET that company will not earn money this way.  My feelings, trust me, I
would never give any money for that.   I can live without an image.  The
only companies that will benefit from your RAND argument, from what I know
right now, is SPAM organizations, organizations that sell pornogrophy (which
I do not support either), and any group that intends to fraud people out of
money.

The W3C will have to try EXTREMELY HARD to get my support for RAND.  In
fact, I don't think you can get my support.  I believe most of the internet
feels the same way I do.

Whatever happens, tell me what your final decision is on RAND is, keep the
internet informed.
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 16:06:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:41 GMT