Archivio dei testi con tag 'english'



Scam mail with bonus threat.

This is hilarious.

Not only the “FBI Security Branch” of Florida supposedly wants my $85.00, but they also have a guy in Cotonou, Benin, to collect this amount.
As a bonus, I get threatened: I will be “arrested” if I fail to comply with the contents of the scam mail.

Amazing. :D

———-

Instruction From FBI To Arrest You.

FBI Director sfi {at} cafe(.)tg

WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION YOU MADE SINCE LAST YEAR UNTIL THIS 2013, AND YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT WE ARE ALSO WORKING TO MAKE SURE YOUR FUNDS WHICH ARE SUPPOSE TO BE DELIVERED TO YOU, AND ALSO BEAR IN MIND WHAT EVER YOU EMAILING US WILL BE FORWARD TO THE COURT. WE ARE HEREBY TO NOTIFY YOU THAT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WASHINGTON DC AND REPUBLIC OF BENIN FBI DEPARTMENT, OF THE INSULT YOU IMPOSED ON THEM BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR REQUIREMENTS.

YOUR FULL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO US FOR YOUR IMMEDIATE ARREST TO FACE THE CHARGE, BUT I DEEMED IT TO GIVE YOU ONE MORE CHANCE TO SAVE YOURSELF FROM THIS MESS. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT YOU HAVE FAILED TO DANCE BY THE RULE OF THE FBI WHICH WILL WARRANT 2 YEARS
JAIL SENTENCE. NOW I MR.HACKETT JOHN ALVIN THE SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE OF THE FBI ALBANY DEPARTMENT, AM GIVING YOU 24 WORKING HOURS TO EFFECT THE PAYMENT OF THE $85.00 DOLLARS TO THE FBI BRANCH OFFICE IN FLORIDA USA, OR IN REPUBLIC OF BENIN (FBISECURITYBRANCHOFFICEFLORIDA) WITH THE INFORMATION WRITTEN BELOW:

RECEIVERS NAME:… JAMES PETER ONYEKWE
COUNTRY/… BENIN-REPUBLIC
CITY ADDRESS IS COTONOU
TEST QUESTION:.. WHAT CITY
ANSWER :.. COTONOU
AMOUNT: …$85.00 US DOLLARS.

YOU HAVE TO TRY AS MUCH AS YOU CAN AND MAKE THIS PAYMENT TODAY, SO THAT THE TWO PACKAGES CONTAINS YOUR $350,000.00, CASH AND FUNDS IN ATM MASTER CARD WILL BE DELIVERED IMMEDIATELY TO YOUR DESTINATION WITHIN 4 TO 5HRS AFTER CONFIRMATION OF THE REQUIRED $85.00 DOLLARS. YOU HAVE TO STOP EVERY TRANSACTION YOU ARE COMMUNICATING WITH OTHER ORGANIZATION TO AVOID DELAY ON THE PROCESSING OF YOUR FUNDS. NOTE IF YOU FAIL TO STICK WITH MY ADVICE OR ANY DELAY WILL LEAD TO US COMING DIRECTLY TO YOUR HOME ADDRESS AT ANY TIME, SO TRY AND DANCE BY THE RULE AND GET BACK TO ME WITH GOOD UNDERSTANDING ASAP. WAIT YOUR VITAL RESPONSE.

SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE;
MR.HACKETT JOHN ALVIN

New style of “Nigerian” type scam mail

Just received this one. New interesting variation on the 419 or “Nigerian scam”. They keep evolving. Ahem. Have fun.

from: El Nabil Nour remuelle {at} adjunct.eastcentral(.)edu
subject: Crude oil project partner needed.

Attn: Dear Friend,

My name is Nour El Deen Nabil a staff in the National petroleum agency of Sao Tome and Principe but originally from Arab Republic of Egypt; I secured a crude oil lifting license from the National Petroleum Agency (STP-NPA) where I work.

The license was for 5years at 24 million Barrels/12months. i.e., the license has an operating duration of five (5) years.

I am in need of a partner who wills partnership with me to make use of this allocation license; I will package you as the new allocation license beneficiary since my position in the agency doesn’t permit me to handle it alone.

Due to my position in the Petroleum Agency, I cannot handle this project alone; you have all the qualities needed for this project.

All we need do to are these:

1. We have to officially register a company with the Sao Tome and Principe Petroleum Agency, which shall serve as our lifting company as to enable us make use of this lifting license.

2. I will ensure that all lifting procedures are in place and buyers readily available.

3. You stand in as the license operator for all the lifting and sales transactions,

If accepted we can start working on this project, I know oil business may not be your line of business but I will handle and manage this project and also make sure that I guide you on what to do at any given time.

Don’t forget to furnish me with your private phone and fax numbers for easier communication amongst us.

I await your response.

Nour El Deen Nabil.

Gary Friedrich vs. Marvel: is Ghost Rider in the Public Domain?

In 2007 comic book writer Gary Friedrich sued Marvel, Columbia Pictures, Sony and a long list of other companies over ownership of “Ghost Rider”, comic book character he created, with art by Mike Ploog, that appeared first on Marvel Spotlight #5, in 1972.

marvelspotlight5

Ploog had been hired by Marvel to draw Friedrich’s creation: according to Friedrich, he gave Ploog indications on how the character should have looked, thus making Friedrich more than a “co-creator” of the character. This was reflected in the original comic book credits:

ghostrider01

Friedrich claimed ownership of the character that has supposedly “reverted” to him in 2001. This meant particularly getting a fair share of royalties from movie adaptations of the character. Marvel countersued in 2010 since Friedrich was selling Ghost Rider merchandising online and at comic book conventions.
Finally, Friedrich had to apparently surrender to Marvel last year, being ordered to pay $17,000 in damages to the publisher, renouncing to further advertising himself as Ghost Rider creator and stopping the sale of any related merchandise.

One year later, it seems Friedrich’s case will go back to trial: on June 11, 2013, Second Circuit Court of Appeals judge Denny Chin overturned the original decision:

The district court held as a matter of law that plaintiff-counter-defendant-appellant Gary Friedrich assigned any rights he retained in the renewal term of the 1972 Ghost Rider copyrights to the predecessor of defendant-counter-claimant-appellee Marvel Characters, Inc. in a 1978 form work-for-hire contract. We conclude that – 4 –the contract language is ambiguous and that genuine disputes of material fact, as to the parties’ intent and other issues, preclude the granting of judgment as a matter of law.

While judge Chin made interesting statements about the contract language and the fact that a 1978 work-for-hire contract could regulate something that had been created and published 6 years before, it seems something is still missing in all this absurd story.

Judge Chin also says:

The first Ghost Rider comic was published in Marvel Spotlight, Vol. 1, No. 5 (“Spotlight 5”) in April 1972, bearing a copyright notice in favor of “Magazine Management Co., Inc. Marvel Comics Group.”

Here is a scan of the copyright notice on the first page of the comic book:

ghostrider02

Before 1989, the U.S., a missing (or wrong) copyright notice would have meant instantly falling into the public domain.
All sorts of popular works, from “Night of the Living Dead” to adult movie “Debbie Does Dallas” suffered issues like that.
The comic book had a copyright notice, at least.

But in those days, before copyright law changed in 1978 and the old 28-years renewal system disappeared, Copyright Office registration was mandatory.

Searching for post-1978 copyrighted works today is easy: it just requires a visit to Copyright.gov’s search page.

Searching for older works or their renewal notices is often more difficult. But it does not require physically visiting some office in the U.S.; many of the records are carefully scanned and archived at Archive.org.
By searching the catalogues at Internet Archive, what we get is the “Catalog of Copyright Entries: Third Series, Volume 26, Part 2” containing records about “Periodicals, January—December 1972”.

Here is the relevant info about Marvel Spotlight:

MARVEL SPOTLIGHT. © Magazine Management
Co., Inc., Marvel Comics Group,
v.l, no .

3, May72. © 23Nov71; B718327-

4, Jun72. © 29Feb; B739641.

6, 0ct72. © 27Jun; B767424.

7, Dec72. © 22Aug; B779223-

Marvel Spotlight #5 was never properly filed with the Copyright Office, and thus never properly copyrighted.

Let’s move onto the previously mentioned Copyright.gov.

In 2007, Gary Friedrich tried to file a renewal to the Ghost Rider issue:

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000929199 / 2007-02-26
Renewal registration for: Not reg.; addedendum submitted under PL
102-307. / PUB 1972-04-30
Title: Ghost rider.
Series: Marvel spotlight ; vol. 1, no. 5
Copyright Claimant: Gary E. Friedrich (A)
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.
Names: Friedrich, Gary E.

Normally, a renewal request carries the number of a previous copyright registration: it basically says you are applying to extend copyright of a certain work.
Note the absurd line: “Renewal registration for: Not reg.”. There is no number here.
How could one “renew” something that was never registered in first place? And why “renew” it since no renewal was necessary under the current American copyright law?

Three years later, in 2010, even Marvel tried to “renew” something that could not be renewed, filing this:

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000931110 / 2010-12-13
Renewal registration for: Not reg.; Addendum submitted under PL
102-307. / PUB 1972-04-25
Title: Marvel Spotlight. Vol. 1, no. 5, Aug. 1972 / Artwork & text
for cover and interior story pages, including the Ghost Rider logo on
the cover by Magazine Management Company, Inc.
Copyright Claimant: Marvel Characters, Inc. (PWH)
Names: Magazine Management Company, Inc.
Marvel Characters, Inc.

They don’t even seem to agree on the date of publication. Both renewal requests mention “PL 102-307”. It stands for Public Law 102-307, Copyright Amendments Act of 1992.

Among other provisions, this law says:

Any copyright, the first term of which is subsisting on January 1, 1978, shall endure for 28 years from the date it was originally secured.

This means no renewal is needed, provided you have “secured” a copyright, originally, and it was still effective on January 1, 1978. But nowhere it says you could recreate a copyright for something that was not properly registered.
Finally, the fact that the work-for-hire contract between Marvel and Friedrich was signed AFTER January 1, 1978 might create further argument for a funny “legal short circuit”.

Let’s go back for a moment to the attempts Friedrich and Marvel did at registering the work with the Copyright Office. Let’s say their lawyers might argue: okay, if we could not renew, we could still be registering a new copyright.

Good idea. But the timeframe to do so, according to the current U.S. copyright law, ended in year 2000.

As we saw, Marvel Spotlight #5 appeared in 1972 and had a copyright notice in favor of Magazine Management co.; according to Circular 22 (“How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work”, rev.02/2013, page 3) issued by the Copyright Office,

Works published with notice prior to 1978 may be registered at any time within the first 28-year term“.

A couple other facts on the “Ghost Rider” copyright and trademark:

Marvel recycled a public domain character that originally belonged to Magazine Enterprises, after the original copyright and trademark had lapsed. The Marvel version, later renamed “Phantom Rider” after the appearance of Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider in 1972, was co-created by Gary Friedrich, Roy Thomas and Dick Ayers. The name Phantom Rider wasn’t exactly original, too.
– In 1971, Gary Friedrich created a vigilante motorcyclist character called Hell-Rider, that appeared in two 64-page issues for defunct Skywald Publications. it also seems nobody registered it with the Copyright Office. Neither before 1978, nor within the following 28 years timeframe. Oh well.

hell-rider

Confused? I am too.

In conclusion, Marvel, Sony, Columbia and others may not have to pay millions in royalties to Mr. Friedrich. But surely I don’t see why he should be paying damages to anyone for reusing a Public Domain character.

p.s.: free legal advice. In a somewhat similar case, porn movie distributors VCX and Arrow settled out of Court, before a judge could state what the rest of the world already knows (and another judge actually stated in part at the end of the 1980s). That the works they were fighting for, had fallen in the Public Domain.

Apple’s “iShoes” patent application

United States Patent Application 20130021152
Kind Code A1
Vock; Curtis A. ; et al. January 24, 2013
SHOE WEAR-OUT SENSOR, BODY-BAR SENSING SYSTEM, UNITLESS ACTIVITY ASSESSMENT AND ASSOCIATED METHODS

Abstract
A body bar sensing system for sensing movement of a body bar may be provided. The body bar sensing system may include a housing having a coupling mechanism operative to couple to the body bar, a detector disposed within the housing and operative to sense movement of the body bar when the housing is coupled to the body bar, and a processor operative to determine a number of repetitions of the movement based on the sensed movement. The body bar sensing system may also include a display operative to display the determined number of repetitions of the movement to a user.

Inventors: Vock; Curtis A.; (Boulder, CO) ; Youngs; Perry; (Longmont, CO)
Assignee: APPLE INC.
Cupertino
CA

Serial No.: 544733
Series Code: 13
Filed: July 9, 2012
Current U.S. Class: 340/539.11; 340/540
Class at Publication: 340/539.11; 340/540
International Class: G08B 21/00 20060101 G08B021/00; G08B 1/08 20060101 G08B001/08
Claims

1-25. (canceled)

26. A body bar sensing system, comprising: a housing having at least one detector for sensing a physical metric that indicates repeated movement of the housing when attached to the body bar; a processor configured to process the physical metric, over time, to determine repetitions thereof; and a display for informing a user of the repetitions.

27. The system of claim 26, further comprising a wireless transmitter with the housing and a watch, with a wireless receiver, remote from the housing, wherein the user views repetition information at the watch.

28. The system of claim 26, further comprising a wireless transmitter with the housing and one of a MP3 player and cell phone, with a wireless receiver, remote from the housing, wherein the user views repetition information at the MP3 player or cell phone.

29. The system of claim 26, further comprising a clamp, integrated with the housing, to retain weights on the body bar.

30-43. (canceled)

44. A body bar sensing system for sensing movement of a body bar, the body bar sensing system comprising: a housing having a coupling mechanism operative to couple to the body bar; a detector disposed within the housing and operative to sense movement of the body bar when the housing is coupled to the body bar; and a processor operative to determine a number of repetitions of the movement based on the sensed movement.

45. The body bar sensing system of claim 44, wherein the detector comprises an accelerometer.

46. The body bar sensing system of claim 44, wherein the detector is further operative to output the sensed movement as an acceleration value.

47. The body bar sensing system of claim 44, wherein the detector comprises a Hall effect sensor.

48. The body bar sensing system of claim 44, wherein the detector is operative to sense the movement by detecting inversion of the body bar.

49. The body bar sensing system of claim 44 further comprising a display operative to display the determined number of repetitions of the movement.

50. The body bar sensing system of claim 49, wherein the display is remote from the housing.

51. The body bar sensing system of claim 44 further comprising a speaker operative to output at least one sound based on the determined number of repetitions of the movement.

52. The body bar sensing system of claim 51, wherein the at least one sound comprises at least one voice annunciation.

53. The body bar sensing system of claim 52, wherein the coupling mechanism is further operative to retain at least one weight to the body bar when the body bar sensing system is coupled to the body bar.

54. A method for detecting repetitive movements of a body bar using a motion sensing system, the method comprising: detecting a physical metric associated with the body bar; processing the detected physical metric to determine whether the detected physical metric indicates a repetitive motion of the body bar; determining a current number of repetitive movements of the body bar based on the processing; and providing the determined current number of repetitive movements to a user.

55. The method of claim 54, wherein the detecting comprises detecting an acceleration of the body bar.

56. The method of claim 54, wherein the processing comprises detecting when the body bar is at least one of raised and lowered within a predefined time interval.

57. The method of claim 54, wherein the detecting comprises detecting an inversion of the body bar.

58. The method of claim 54, wherein the providing comprises displaying the determined current number of repetitive movements.

59. The method of claim 54, wherein the providing comprises transmitting the determined current number of repetitive movements to an external device.
Description

RELATED APPLICATIONS

[0001] This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional application No. 60/728,031, incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND

[0002] Shoes (including sneakers or boots, for example) provide comfort and protection for feet. More importantly, shoes provide physical support for feet to reduce risk of foot injuries. A shoe is often necessary to provide support during intense physical activity, such as running, soccer and American football. As a shoe wears, physical support provided by the shoe decreases, thereby reducing associated protection from injury. When a critical wear level is reached, even if the shoe looks like it is not particularly worn, the shoe may not provide adequate support and may, in fact, cause damage to feet.

SUMMARY

[0003] In one embodiment, a shoe wear out sensor includes at least one detector for sensing a physical metric that changes as a shoe wears out, a processor configured to process the physical metric, over time, to determine if the shoe is worn out, and an alarm for informing a user of the shoe when the sole is worn out.

[0004] In another embodiment, a system determines the end of a shoe’s life. Use of the shoe is sensed by at least one detector. A processor is configured to measure the use of the shoe and to determine if the shoe is worn out. An alarm informs a user of the shoe when the shoe is worn out.

[0005] In another embodiment, a body bar sensing system includes a housing with at least one detector for sensing a physical metric that indicates repeated movement of the housing when attached to the body bar, a processor configured to process the physical metric, over time, to determine repetitions thereof, and a display for informing a user of the repetitions.

[0006] In another embodiment, a system assesses activity and displaying a unitless activity value and includes a detector for sensing activity of a user of the system, a processor for processing sensed activity data from the detector, a display for displaying the unitless activity value, and an enclosure for housing the detector and the processor. The processor periodically reads the sensed activity data from the detector and processes the data to generate an activity number, the number being used to generate the unitless activity value based upon a maximum number and a display range.

[0007] In another embodiment, a method determines a unitless activity value for a desired period of activity. A period accumulator is cleared prior to the start of the activity period. A detector is periodically sampled to obtain data that is processed to determine a number representative of the sampling period. The number is added to the period accumulator. The unitless activity value is then determined based upon the period accumulator, a maximum activity number and a display range. The unitless activity value is then displayed. The sampling, processing and adding are repeated until data is sampled for the desired period of activity.

[0008] In another embodiment, a method assesses activity unitlessly by detecting motion of a user, processing the detected motion, over time, to determine an activity value, ratioing the activity value to a maximum activity value, and reporting a scaled unitless activity value to the user based upon the ratio and a scale.

[0009] A software product has instructions, stored on computer-readable media, that, when executed by a computer, perform steps for determining a unitless activity value for a desired period of activity, including instructions for: detecting motion of a user, processing detected motion, over time, to determine an activity value, ratioing the activity value to a maximum activity value, and reporting a scaled unitless activity value to the user based upon the ratio and a scale.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

[0010] FIG. 1 shows one exemplary embodiment of a shoe wear-out sensor.

[0011] FIG. 2 shows one exemplary embodiment of a shoe with a shoe wear out sensor.

[0012] FIG. 3 shows another exemplary embodiment of a shoe with a shoe wear out sensor.

[0013] FIG. 4A shows one exemplary process for determining shoe wear out.

[0014] FIG. 4B shown one exemplary process for determining shoe wear out.

[0015] FIG. 4C shows one exemplary process for determining shoe wear out.

[0016] FIG. 4D shown one exemplary process for determining shoe wear out.

[0017] FIG. 5 shows one body bar sensing system embodiment.

[0018] FIG. 6 shows one part of an exemplary body bar with a body bar sensing system embodiment attached.

[0019] FIG. 7 shows one part of a body bar in an embodiment showing a weight and a body bar sensing system that secures the weight onto the body bar.

[0020] FIG. 8 shows one exemplary process for reporting body bar usage.

[0021] FIG. 9 shows an embodiment of a sensor that unitlessly assesses activity.

[0022] FIG. 10 shows a process for unitlessly determining activity.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

[0023] FIG. 1 shows one shoe-wear out sensor 100. Sensor 100 includes a processor 102, a detector 104 and an alarm 106. A battery 108 may be used to power processor 102, detector 104 and alarm 106; alternatively, a magnetic coil generator (not shown) or other mechanical motion-to-electricity conversion device may be employed with sensor 100 to power these elements. Detector 104 is for example an accelerometer and/or a force sensing resistor (FSR). Alarm 106 is for example a light emitting diode (LED) and/or a small speaker and/or a small sound actuator (e.g., a buzzer, piezoelectric beeper etc).

[0024] FIG. 2 shows a shoe 200 with a shoe-wear out sensor 210. Shoe 200 is for example a running or sport shoe, boot (e.g., a snowboard or hiking boot), slipper, dress shoe or flip-flop; shoe 200 may alternatively be an orthopedic shoe for providing special foot support. Sensor 210 may represent sensor 100, FIG. 1. In the illustrated embodiment, shoe 200 has a sole 202 and an upper part 204. Sole 202 has an outsole 206 and a heel 208. Sensor 210 is shown contained within heel 208; however sensor 210 may be placed elsewhere within or on the shoe to function similarly.

[0025] FIG. 3 shows one exemplary embodiment of a shoe with a shoe-wear out sensor 310. Sensor 310 may again represent sensor 100, FIG. 1. Shoe 300 is shown with a sole 302 and an upper part 304. Sole 302 has an outsole 306 and a heel 308. Shoe 300 may again represent, for example, a running shoe, sports shoe or orthopedic shoe (or other type of shoe or boot). Electronics 310a of sensor 310 are shown contained within heel 308; but detector 312 is shown located within outer sole 306, illustrating that the elements of sensor 100 (FIG. 1) may be dispersed to various locations of the shoe while providing similar functionality. Detector 312 is for example detector 104, FIG. 1; it may thereby be a force sensing resistor and/or a piezoelectric foil that is electrically connected, via connection 314, to electronics 310 of sensor 310. If detector 312 is a piezoelectric foil (or other piezoelectric device), use of shoe 300 results in flexing of detector 312 which may generate sufficient electricity to power electronics of sensor 310, avoiding the need for battery 108.

[0026] FIGS. 1, 2 and 3 are best viewed together with the following description. Sensor 100 may be embedded in a shoe (e.g., sensors 210, 310 within shoes 200, 300) and configured to determine when that shoe has “worn out”. It then informs the user, via alarm 106, that it is time to buy a new shoe (usually a new pair of shoes). In an embodiment, alarm 106 is an LED 217 that is positioned at the outside of the shoe such that it may be seen, when activated, by the user of the shoe, as illustratively shown in FIG. 2.

[0027] Processor 102 may operate under control of algorithmic software 103 (which is illustratively shown within processor 102, though it may reside elsewhere within sensor 100, for example as stand alone memory of sensor 100). Algorithmic software 103 for example includes algorithms for processing data from detector 104 to determine when a shoe is worn out.

[0028] FIG. 4A for example illustrates one process 400 performed by processor 102 of FIG. 1. In step 402, processor 102 samples detector 104 to determine a physical metric associated with the shoe. In an example of step 402, detector 104 is an accelerometer and thereby provides acceleration data resulting from movement of the shoe upon a surface as the physical metric. For example, as the shoe strikes the ground when in use, processor 102 takes a plurality of samples using detector 104 to form an impact profile. In step 404, processor 102 processes the physical metric and compares it against a predetermined threshold, response curve or other data reference. In an example of step 404, processor 102 compares the impact profile determined from the accelerometer against an impact profile of a “new” shoe. In another example of steps 402, 404, the physical metric is power spectral density corresponding to certain frequencies of interest; and the power spectral density is compared, during use of the shoe, to a data reference containing power spectral density of a new or acceptably performing shoe. If the current data (i.e., physical metric) is too large or exceeds the data reference, for example, then processor 102 sets off alarm 106 (e.g., lights LED 217) in step 406. In one embodiment, upon first use of the shoe, processor 102 determines an impact profile of the new shoe that is then used (e.g., as the threshold or data reference) in comparison against subsequently determined impact profiles. Or, upon first use of the shoe, for example, processor 102 may store the appropriate data reference (e.g., power spectral density or threshold) for comparison against data captured in latter uses of the shoe. In this way, therefore, process 400 may be efficiently used to inform a user of shoe wear out.

[0029] As noted, data from detector 104 may be processed in the frequency domain (e.g., using Fourier transforms of data from detector 104) so as to evaluate, for example, power spectral density of the physical metric (e.g., acceleration or force), in step 404. In this manner, therefore, a range of frequencies may be evaluated (e.g., an area under the curve for certain frequencies may be integrated) from detector 104 and then compared to similar data (as the threshold) of a new shoe. As a shoe wears, the elasticity of the material from which it is made changes; thus the ability of the material to absorb the shock of the shoe contacting the ground deteriorates, resulting in more shock force being transferred to the foot within the shoe. By determining the increase of the shock force above the threshold, in this embodiment, the wear on the shoe may be determined.

[0030] We now specifically incorporate by reference the teachings and disclosure of: U.S. Pat. No. 6,539,336; U.S. Pat. No. 6,266,623; U.S. Pat. No. 6,885,971; U.S. Pat No. 6,856,934; U.S. Pat. No. 6,8963,818; U.S. Pat. No. 6,499,000; and U.S. application Ser. No. 10/297,270. These patents and applications provide useful background, power sensing and weight/movement monitoring techniques suitable for use with the teachings of this present application.

[0031] In an embodiment, similar to the embodiment of FIG. 3, processor 102 determines wear of shoe 300 based upon weight of the user of shoe 300. By using signals from detector 312 to determine an approximate weight of the user of shoe 300 (for example by using a pressure sensor and fluid-filled cavity as detector 104), processor 102 may determine a life expectancy of shoe 300. Since the wear on the shoe is roughly proportional to the weight applied by the wearer, during activity, by determining the weight of the wearer and the amount the shoe is used (e.g., how often and how long the shoe is used), processor 102 may thus determine shoe wear with increased accuracy. That is, a shoe used by someone who spends most of their time sitting at a desk receives less wear that a shoe used by someone who spends most of the day standing on their feet.

[0032] In another embodiment, by sensing when the shoe is used–or for how long–the teachings herein may instead be applied so as to set off the alarm after a term or time of use has expired. For example, if a shoe is specified for use to at least 100 hours or 500 miles (or other similar metric specified by the shoe manufacturer), then by sensing weight or acceleration (or other physical metric, via detector 104) that use may be determined; processor 102 then activates alarm 106 when the use is exceeded. For example, using one or more accelerometers as detector 104, speed of the shoe may be determined through operation of processor 102 using an appropriate algorithm within software 103; this processor 102 then uses the speed information to determine distance traveled and sets off alarm 106 when, for example, the manufacturer’s specified distance use is met. Illustratively, in another example, if the manufacturer specifies that the shoe may be used under normal conditions for 500 hours (or some other time), then detector 104 in the form of an accelerometer may determine when the shoe is in use; processor 106 then determines the period of use, over time (e.g., weeks and months) and sets off alarm 106 when the accumulated use exceeds the specified limit.

[0033] FIG. 4B for example illustrates one process 450 performed by processor 102 of FIG. 1 for determining shoe wear out. In step 452, processor 102 samples detector 104 to determine one or more physical metrics associated with the shoe. In an example of step 402, detector 104 includes a fluid filled cavity and a pressure sensor and thereby provides a signal representative of force upon the shoe (e.g., a value representative of the weight of the user of the shoe). For example, as the shoe is used, processor 102 takes a plurality of pressure reading from detector 104. In step 454, processor 102 determines an approximate weight upon the shoe based upon samples of step 452. In one example of step 454, processor 102 utilizes algorithms of software 103 to determine an approximate weight of the user of the shoe based upon pressure values sensed by detector 104. In step 456, process 102 determines the duration of the shoe’s use. In one example of step 456, processor 102 utilizes algorithms of software 103 to measure the duration that the shoe is used based upon readings from detector 104 and an internal timer of processor 102. In step 458, processor 102 determines the shoe use for the sample period of step 452. In one example of step 458, processor utilizes algorithms of software 103 to determine a use factor based upon the determined weight of step 454 and the duration of use of step 458. In step 460, processor 102 determines remaining life of the shoe based upon the determined shoe use of step 458. In one example of step 460, processor 102 maintains a cumulative value of usage determined in step 458 for comparison against a manufacturer’s expected usage of the shoe. In step 462, processor 102 enables alarm 106 if the shoe’s life is exceeded. Steps 452 through 462 repeat periodically throughout the life of the shoe to monitor shoe usage based upon wear determined from the weight of the user and the duration of use.

[0034] In the above description of process 450, it is not necessary that weight be determined. Rather, in an embodiment, it may instead be determined that the shoe is in “use” based on an algorithm using the pressure or force based detector 104; and then this use is accumulated time-wise to determine when the shoe’s life expectancy is exceeded. For example, once a user puts weight onto this detector (in this embodiment), then processor 102 detects (through use of an algorithm as software 103) that the shoe is in use due to the presence of weight onto detector 104.

[0035] FIG. 4C for example illustrates one process 470 performed by processor 102 of FIG. 1 for determining shoe wear out. In step 471, processor 102 samples detector 104 periodically over a defined period. In one example of step 471, detector 104 is an accelerometer that is sampled periodically by processor 102 over a period of ten seconds. In step 472, processor 102 determines if the shoe is in use. In one example of step 472, processor 102 utilizes algorithms of software 103 to process the samples of step 471 to determine if the shoe is in use. Step 473 is a decision. If, in step 473, processor 102 determines that the shoe is in use, process 470 continues with step 474; otherwise process 470 continues with step 475. In step 474, processor 102 adds a value representative of the defined period of step 471 to an accumulator. In one example of step 474, a non-volatile accumulator is incremented by one, where the one represents a period of ten seconds. Step 475 is a decision. If, in step 475, processor 102 determines that the shoe is worn out, process 470 continues with step 476; otherwise process 470 continues with step 471. In one example of the decision of step 475, processor 102 compares the use accumulator of step 474 against a value representative of the expected life of the shoe. Steps 471 through 475 repeat throughout the lifetime of the shoe. As appreciated, power saving measures may be used within sensor 100 when it is determined that the shoe in which sensor 100 is installed is not in use. In step 476, processor 102 enables alarm 106. In one example of step 476, processor 102 may periodically activate LED 217, FIG. 2, until battery 108 is exhausted.

[0036] Process 470 thus determines the wear on a shoe by measuring the amount of use and comparing it against the expected use defined by a manufacturer, for example. In an embodiment, the use accumulator of step 474 is a timer within processor 102. This timer is started when step 473 determines that the shoe is in use and is stopped when step 473 determines that the shoe is not in use. This timer thus accumulates, in real time, the use of the shoe for comparison against a manufacturer’s expected use. In another embodiment, step 472 may determine the number of steps a shoe has taken such that the use accumulator of step 474 accumulates the total number of steps taken by the shoe. This total number of steps is then compared to the manufacturer’s recommended number of steps expected in the shoes life time.

[0037] FIG. 4D illustrates one process 480 performed by processor 102 of FIG. 1 for determining shoe wear out. In step 481, processor 102 samples detector 104 periodically over a defined period. In one example of step 481, detector 104 is an accelerometer and processor 102 samples acceleration values over a period of 1 second. In step 482, processor 102 determines if the shoe is in use. In one example of step 482, processor 102 utilizes algorithms of software 103 to determine if characteristics of samples values of step 481 indicate that the shoe is in use. Step 483 is a decision. If, in step 483, processor 102 determines that the shoe is in use, process 480 continues with step 484; otherwise process 480 continues with step 486. In step 484, processor 102 determines a distance traveled over the defined period of step 481. In one example of step 484, processor 102 utilizes algorithms of software 103 to first determine speed of the shoe, and then determines distance covered in one second. In step 485, processor 102 accumulates the distance traveled. In one example of step 485, processor 102 adds the distance determined in step 484 to a total distance traveled accumulator. In one example, this accumulator is stored in non-volatile memory. Step 486 is a decision. If, in step 486, processor 102 determines that the shoe is worn out, process 480 continues with step 487; otherwise process 480 continues with step 481. In one example of step 486, processor 102 compares the total accumulated distance of step 485 against the manufacturer’s recommended maximum distance for the shoe. Steps 481 through 486 repeat throughout the lifetime of the shoe. As appreciated, power saving measures may be used within sensor 100 when it is determined that the shoe is not in use. In step 487, processor 102 enables alarm 106. In one example of step 487, processor 102 may periodically activate LED 217, FIG. 2, until battery 108 is exhausted. Process 480 thus determines shoe wear by measuring the distance traveled by the shoe, using one or more accelerometers, and compares that distance to a manufacturer’s recommended maximum distance for the shoe.

[0038] FIG. 5 shows a body bar sensing system 500. System 500 includes a housing 502, a processor 504, a detector 506 and either an internal display 508 or an external display 512. A battery 510 may be used to power processor 504, detector 506 and display 508/512. Detector 506 is for example an accelerometer or a Hall Effect sensor. Display 508/512 is for example a liquid crystal display and/or a small speaker (e.g., that emits voice annunciations or other sounds generated by processor 504).

[0039] FIG. 6 shows one part of an exemplary body bar 602 with body bar sensing system 500 attached; a weight 604 and a retaining clip 606 are also shown to secure weight 604 onto body bar 602 (note, some body bars use no weights but weight is shown in FIG. 6 for illustrative purposes). Body bar 602 may represent a work out bar used by people in the gym, or a barbell, or other similar apparatus that requires a number of repetitions in exercise. FIG. 7 shows body bar 602 in an embodiment with another body bar sensing system 500 that secures weight 604 onto body bar 602. That is, sensing system 500 in addition operates as retaining clip 606, FIG. 6.

[0040] FIGS. 5, 6 and 7 are best viewed together with the following description. Housing 502 attaches to body bar 602 as shown in FIG. 6 or as shown in FIG. 7. Processor 504 utilizes detector 506 to determine when system 500 (as attached to body bar 602) has performed one repetition; it then informs the user, via display 508/512 for example, of a number of repetitions (or whether the user has performed the right number or any other number of planned repetitions as programmed into processor 504).

[0041] Where display 512 is used (i.e., remote from housing 502), a wireless transmitter (not shown) may be included within housing 502 to remotely provide data from processor 504 to remote display 512 (as shown in dotted outline). Where display 508 is integral with housing 502, then display 508 provides a visual display for a user when housing 502 attaches to the body bar. In one embodiment, display 512 (shown in dotted outline) is part of a watch (or a MP3 player or a cell phone) that may be seen when worn or used by the user when performing exercises; and measurements determined by processor 504 are transmitted to the watch (or to the MP3 player or cell phone) for display upon display 512.

[0042] Processor 504 may operate under control of algorithmic software 505 (which is illustratively shown within processor 504 although it may reside elsewhere within housing 502, such as stand alone memory within housing 502). Algorithmic software 505 for example includes algorithms for processing data from detector 506 to determine the repetitions performed by a user of body bar 602.

[0043] FIG. 8 shown one exemplary process 800 performed by processor 504. In step 802, detector 506 samples a physical metric associated with body bar 602. In an example of step 802, detector 506 is an accelerometer and thereby provides acceleration as the physical metric. In another example of step 802, detector is a Hall effect sensor which detects inversion (and thus repetition) of bar 602. In step 804, processor 504 processes the physical metric to assess whether the metric indicates a repetition of body bar 602. In an example of step 804, processor 504 evaluates the acceleration to determine if body bar 602 has been raised or lowered within a certain time interval. In step 806, repetition information is displayed to the user. In an example of step 806, the number of repetitions is relayed remotely (wirelessly) to a watch that includes display 512. That watch may also include a processor to store data and inform the user of repetitions for workouts, over time.

[0044] FIG. 9 shows one exemplary system 900 for unitlessly assessing activity of a user. System 900 has a processor 904, a detector 906 and a battery 908 within an enclosure 902 (e.g., a plastic housing). System 900 may include a display 910 for displaying unitless units to the user. Alternatively (or in addition), a remote display 912 is used to display the unitless units; in this case, enclosure 902 includes a wireless transmitter 913 in communication with, and controlled by, processor 904, so that transmitted unitless assessment numbers are sent to remote display 912.

[0045] In an embodiment, detector 906 is an accelerometer and processor 904 determines a value representing an activity level of the user of system 900 for display on display 910 or display 912. The accelerometer is for example positioned within housing 902 so that, when housing 902 is attached to a user, accelerometer 906 senses motion perpendicular to a surface (e.g., ground or a road or a floor) upon which the user moves (e.g., runs, dances, bounces). Data from the accelerometer is for example processed in the frequency domain as power spectral density (e.g., by frequency binning of the data). Multiple accelerometers (e.g., a triaxial accelerometer) may also be used as detector 906–for example to sense motion in other axes in addition to one perpendicular to the surface–and then processed together (e.g., in power spectral density domain) to arrive at a unitless value (as described below).

[0046] Processor 904 may utilize one or more algorithms, shown as software 905 within processor 904, for processing information obtained from detector 906 to assess the activity of the user. For example, processor 904 may periodically sample detector 906 to measure acceleration forces experienced by the user (when enclosure 902 is attached to the user, e.g., at the user’s belt or shoe). Processor 904 may then process these forces to assess the activity level of the user. This activity level may represent effort exerted by the user when skiing.

[0047] The following represents a typical use of system 900, in an embodiment. In this example, detector 906 is one or more accelerometers. First, processor 904 determines when system 900 is in use, for example by sensing movement of housing 902 that corresponds to known activity (e.g., skiing or running). Alternatively, system 900 includes a button 915 that starts processing (in which case, separate determination of a known activity is not necessary). In an embodiment, button 915 is located proximate to display 912, and communicated wirelessly with processor 904. In this case, wireless transmitter 913 is a transceiver and button 915 includes a transmitter or a transceiver.

[0048] Once processor 904 knows (by sensing motion) or is notified (by button 915) that system 900 is operating in the desired activity, then it collects data over a period of that activity–for example over 1 hour (a typical aerobic hour), 4 hours (a typical long run), 8 hours (a typical “ski” day) or over one full day, each of these being typical sport activity periods; however any time may be used and/or programmed in system 900. In an example, processor 904 integrates power spectral density of acceleration over this period of time to generate a number. This number in fact is a function of g’s, frequency units and time, which does not make intuitive sense to the user. For example, consider a professional athlete who snowboards down difficult, double diamond terrain for eight hours. When system 900 measures his activity over this period, his number will be high (e.g., 500 “units” of power spectral density) because of his extreme physical capabilities. Then, when a less capable user uses system 900, a number of, e.g., 250 units may be generated because the user is not as capable (physically and skilled) as the professional. Therefore, in this example, an expected maximum number, shown as MAX 914 within processor 904, may be set at 500. A display range, shown as RNG 916 within processor 904, may also be defined such that system 900 may display a unitless value that is relative to the maximum number. Continuing with the above example, if RNG 916 is set to 100, system 900 displays a unitless value of 100 for the professional athlete and a unitless value of 50 for the less capable user (i.e., the less capable user has a 50% value of the professional athlete). By setting RNG 916 to other values, the displayed output range of system 900 may be modified.

[0049] In one example of use, system 900 is formed as a wrist watch to facilitate attachment to a child’s wrist. System 900, when worn by the child, may then determine the child’s activity level for the day. In another example of use, system 900 may be attached to a person’s limb that is recuperating from injury (e.g., sporting injury, accident and/or operation etc.) such that system 900 may determine if the limb is receiving the right amount of activity to expedite recovery.

[0050] In another example of use, two skiers each use a system 900 when skiing for a day. The first skier, who is experienced and athletic, skis difficult ski runs (e.g., black double diamonds) all day, whereas the second skier is less experienced and skis easy runs (e.g., green runs) all day. At the end of the day, the first skier has a unitless activity value of 87 and the second skier has a unitless activity value of 12. Thus, these unitless activity values indicate the relative activity levels of each skier.

[0051] FIG. 10 shows a flowchart illustrating one process 1000 for determining and displaying a unitless value representative of a users activity. Process 1000 may represent algorithms within software 905 of FIG. 9, for example, to be executed by processor 904. In step 1002, process 1000 clears a period accumulator. In one example of step 1002, processor 904, under control of software 905, clears period accumulator 918. In step 1004, process 1000 samples the detector to obtain data. In one example of step 1004, processor 904 periodically samples detector 906 over a sample period to determine data representative of the user’s activity for that period. In step 1006, process 1000 processes the data of step 1004 to determine a number. In one example of step 1006, processor 904 integrates power spectral density of acceleration sampled in step 1004 over the sample period of step 1004 to generate a number. In step 1008, the number determined in step 1004 is added to the period accumulator. In one example of step 1006, processor 904 adds the number determined in step 1004 to period accumulator 918. In step 1010, process 1000 determines a unitless activity value from the accumulator. In one example of step 1010, processor 904 converts the accumulated value to a display value based upon MAX 914 and RNG 916. In step 1012, process 1000 displays the determined unitless activity value. In one example of step 1012, processor 904 sends the determined unitless activity value to display 912 via wireless transmitter 913. Step 1014 is a decision. If, in step 1014, the activity period for display has ended, process 1000 terminates; otherwise process 1000 continues with step 1004. Steps 1004 through 1014 thus repeat until the desired activity period is over.

[0052] Changes may be made to this application without departing from the scope hereof. It should thus be noted that the matter contained in the above description or shown in the accompanying drawings should be interpreted as illustrative and not in a limiting sense. The following claims are intended to cover all generic and specific features described herein, as well as all statements of the scope of the present method and system, which, as a matter of language, might be said to fall there between.

Stay Hungry, Stay Choosy.


Sciopero Generale / General Strike
14.11.2012
photo: Copyright 2012 Anna Battista

No Bling-Death-Skulls in 2013, thanks.

I seriously hope that once you all realize that the World is not going to end in December 2012, you all stop wearing skull-bling, skulls on your shirt, jeans, skirt, shoes, hat, bra, panties, iPhone, iPad, Samsung Galaxy, bracelets, headphones, cats, dogs, cars and toilet paper rolls.

I also seriously hope Bruce Sterling will stop taking and posting pictures of badly printed chinese clothes with rainbow-colored skulls and try to define those as “new aesthetic“.

Thanks everyone.

DjB.

ReTweet, no grazie / ReTweet, no thanks

for all my Twitter friends: the more unwanted shit you retweet onto my stream, the faster I will block you :)

per tutti gli amici di Twitter: più retweet di cagate altrui fate, e prima mi convincete a bloccarvi. :D

Is EntroPay legitimate? What about their FSA number?



Today I was looking for info about EntroPay.com, a company that issues virtual Visa credit cards. despite the vaguely scary name ;) of the company, I planned to use one of those one an American site that would not allow me to pay with my normal Italian credit card.

I thought to look for info about the status of the company that owns the site, since scams are always out there on the Internet… I also had found at least a couple messages of people claiming that the “FSA number” for EntroPay is “false”.
EntroPay seems popular in UK but is actually based in Malta. Anyway the FSA registration is real and this can be easily checked.

Here is some info at the bottom of EntroPay‘s webpage:

EntroPay is operated by Ixaris Systems Ltd.
Ixaris Systems Ltd is authorised by the Financial Services Authority under the Payment Service Regulations 2009 for the provision of payment services. Registration number 540990.
EntroPay VISA cards are issued by Bank of Valletta or Transact Network Limited, pursuant to a license from VISA Europe.
EntroPay MasterCard cards are issued by Transact Network Limited pursuant to licence by MasterCard International Incorporated. MasterCard is a registered trademark of MasterCard International Incorporated.

FSA – UK’s Financial Services Authority – can be reached at www.fsa.gov.uk and they allow to verify this kind of info.

On the FSA site, various types of search can be performed; the one you need is “Payment Services Firm Search” and once there you need to type the “Firm reference number“: 540990.

Here are the results:

Basic details for:
540990 – Ixaris System Limited
Payment Institution status: Authorised Payment Institution
Effective Date: 27/04/2011
Agent Status:
Effective Date:
Address:
1 Berkeley Street
London W1J 8DJ
Phone: 44 020 7025 5473
Fax: 44 020 7099 8904
Email: WILLIAM.LORENZ {at} IXARIS(.)COM
Notices: Payment services are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

I still don’t know if I will get an EntroPay Virtual Visa, but I thought to share this little bit of info.

Umberto I says: your Hipster moustache is so 1879.

I am not fond of Italy’s former royal family, but this is for all those so called hipsters who think their moustache is so cool and fashionable.

You look like a very unfashionable guy who was born in 1844 and was eliminated by an anarchist in 1900.
It’s almost 2013 here.

Copyright note found onto an Amy Winehouse bootleg cd

Surreal note on the back cover of “Summer Sundae Festival” (cd-r, MS Productions):
“The copyright in the recording is owned by anybody out there. Made somewhere in some place. Probably this cd-audio arrived to your hands magically. It’s a mystery… just enjoy.”

Weird IMVU Chats #5: A Love Letter for Lady Wallace

This is not a proper chat log, but a message that my friend Lady Wallace (IMVU: LadyWallace) got in her IMVU mailbox.

She entered a room and without a reason was kicked out twice by a person she didn’t know and who was apparently a friend of an IMVU staffer.

The person (avatar name: LeCorpse) who kicked her seemed vaguely envious of her status as a popular music artist in the virtual world, so he kindly emailed her the following love letter (courtesy LadyWallace):

yes. wallace, you are right.. Thank you for showing me the way.. and for allowing me the privilege of seeing exactly how BUTT HURT someone can get when they realize that just because they are friends with people who have more power than them, that doesn’t mean they can ride their coat tails to get what they want ;) get over yourself girl. you aren’t hot shit. you are nothing. you have always been nothing
since I first ever met you and with your “better than thou” attitude, you will always be nothing. nothing more than a little cling on who has to throw big names around to other people, just so she can feel special, feared, appreciated, for having just KNOWN these people. I am curious.. Do you take time to get to know these Dev’s and staff? or do you just befriend them to get ahead on IMVU? I’m guessing you’re so pathetic and unloved RL, that the only way you can get love is by throwing on a mask, and allowing other people to see you for what you aren’t I have no use for your kind.. go rampage elsewhere.

Love is in the air, huh?

It has to be noted that the person this gentleman (?) is referring to, is in her own words “doing very well for myself; I have a 100 acre country estate and 7 cars and unlike him, my entire existence does NOT revolve around IMVU. And the reason for my friendship/liasons with staffers and top developers is purely to promote my music.”

Lady Wallace is a UK based artist who topped the IMVU Music Store charts between 2008 and 2009 and since then remained popular in the virtual world and outside, releasing a digital single and video (Lady Wallace Sings) and later an 8-tracks EP (Music to Watch Avatars By).

(Note: The guy was obviously reported) ;)

Weird IMVU chats #4: The scared n00b.

Guest_iiayookandieeii has joined the chat
Guest_iiayookandieeii: AAAAAAAH
djbatmanRuizN: hi?
Guest_iiayookandieeii: hi bye
djbatmanRuizN: lol
Guest_iiayookandieeii has left the chat

(note: my avatar was dressed in a Batman costume and didn’t say or do anything in particular to scare this person)

Federal Law Protection on pre-1972 Recorded Music Masters in the United States?

I have read that the US Copyright Office is asking for opinions on the subject of Federal Law protection for recorded music masters. While this may just result in copyright owners lobbying trying to just a way for further copyright extensions, I thought to express some ideas about it.

I am a copyright owner myself, both of musical compositions and recorded masters.

First of all, I will never fully understand why in the American system it is allowed that for a banal mistake (forgetting to write “©” and the correct year in the credits, or similar issues) a 1968 or even 1998 can fall entirely out of copyright protection, while according to the results of the Capitol v. Naxos case, some pre-1972 recorded masters that originated outside USA, despite entirely public domain in the country of origin, may have a “common law” protection in the US and hence be protected eternally. Technically, under this presumed “common law” protection, even Edison Records’s early audio recordings (the oldest dating back to 1888) would still be protected (no other work made in 1888 is protected in the US: actually anything pre-1923 already fell into the Public Domain). Edison, luckily, falls out of this because the masters were acquired by a state agency: being the property of the US Government, they entered the Public Domain, just like the NASA picture of an astronaut or a photo taken by a soldier while in service.
Again, many movies have fallen into the Public Domain because of not being properly registered with the Copyright Office and issued before 1976. Since this applies to extremely popular works such as horror movie “Night of the Living Dead” and adult movie “Deep Throat”, I don’t see what would be so scandalous if it also applied to a Beatles album from the 1960s.

I have just read that the Copyright Office is accepting proposals about the introduction of Federal Law for pre-1972 music recordings. In the US law there has been a gap for a long time: since Federal Law protection never existed until 1972 for recorded music masters, you can easily see how many musical milestones (which are also the basis of some music majors’ businesses) would have gone entirely unprotected in America – namely the whole discography of the Beatles and a large chunk of discographies by the Rolling Stones, to make the most evident examples.

The infamous “Sonny Bono Copyright Extension” law of 1998 was basically drawn more by the movie industry than by other sectors of copyright owners.
Mostly, Disney needed protection on Mickey Mouse (it is still debated anyway what was the first published output incorporating Mickey Mouse; and since some of those were released without Copyright notice, Mickey Mouse itself – as a character – might still already be in the public domain, whatever Sonny Bono and friends did to the US legal system to save Disney properties).

In 2006, United Kingdom decided to confirm 50 years as a term for sound recordings to enter public domain: early Beatles recordings will start expiring January 1, 2012. This seems fair.

There are three points in the American copyright law that could be attacked relatively easily in my opinion:

1) it is unfair for someone who produced a recording prior to 1972 to enjoy a longer term of protection just because this “exception” set up the 2067 date without regard to the year in which the recording was made. This could mean that something recorded in 1930 would last 137 years, more than 40 years longer than something recorded in 2000 (95
years of protection).

2) the exception applies to foreign recordings too: an italian recording made in 1955 is now in the public domain in Italy or UK and I think all of Europe. The same identical recording could be claimed as “copyrighted” in the US since in the american territories the 95 year term applies and in this case the year 2067 term (!) since we are talking of a pre-1972 recording.

3) how do you consider a remastered 50+ years old recording that originated in the US and was remastered in Europe after the 50 years term expired, and then rereleased on cd and even exported to America?
– If you just consider the European term, the master is public domain and anyone can reprint or remaster that without licensing the sound recording (but probably licensing the compositions and paying for mechanical rights)
– If you consider the Sonny Bono exception, shouldn’t this be considered as a foreign product that of course has to be “protected” for 95 years, but it happens that the new copyright is controlled by the European company who produced the remaster?

The 2005 Capitol v. Naxos case has enough ground for a Supreme Court case. First of all, can “common law” be applied to Intellectual Property at all?
A song, a book, a poem, and so on are not like a material good. You can pass on a house to your heirs through the centuries. It is physical. In Europe, some ancient buildings, castles, palaces and so on have been in the hands of the same families for several centuries.
But we are not paying royalties to the (how many?) descendants of Dante Alighieri for his “Inferno”. Nor anyone is paying royalties to the eventual descendants of those who wrote sacred texts included in the Bible. If you apply that “common law” principle to Intellectual Property, be prepared to pay some person in Israel next time you print a Bible.

Second, let’s admit “common law” covers Capitol’s rights on recordings that are in the Public Domain elsewhere. Naxos is not based in US. In another country, in which the original masters are now in the Public Domain, Naxos created their own remaster. A remaster requires work: recovering a copy of the original (from tapes, 78 RPM vinyls or other media), cleaning, restoration, and so on.
Remasters are generally new copyrights. Record labels and movie producers often remaster and edit their materials; sometimes to create a better, cleaner version of some artist’s discography; some other time, for simple copyright purposes. Otherwise, certain operations conducted by Disney (adding new dubbing and soundtrack to some movies, even drawing new material into a classic movie like Pinocchio) would really have no “artistic” justification.
But if a remaster is copyrighted – even if just outside the USA – if the US don’t enforce these new copyrights coming from abroad, aren’t they in open violation of GATT/WTO principles and particularly the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellecual Property Rights) Agreement of 1994?
In other words, by saving the (weak) rights of the owners of old master recordings by means of “Common Law” of dubious application, the USA – after Capitol v. Naxos – is openly not respecting foreign copyrights on remasters.

Third, Capitol never owned those recordings in the first place, but just a license to release them in the US; they originated in UK on the Gramophone label which is part of EMI UK. If the original copyright doesn’t exist anymore, how can I still be the licensee for it?

I don’t know in which direction the Copyright Office might be working now, and I imagine many other suggestions and proposals will be coming in at the moment. I can imagine a lot of RIAA action and pressure also and in very creative ways. I remember Jack Valenti’s crazy idea from some years ago about copyright lasting “Forever minus one day” (since “forever” was not usable in the American law wording). I expect such type of display of creativity in this case too.

The request to extend terms to send opinions to the Copyright Office, also means their lawyers are at work (and they are late as usual).

But whatever the intention is, I think the US law should be reworked to get rid of elements of confusion such as the outcome of Capitol v. Naxos. If Federal Law has to be brought in for recorded masters made before 1972, this has has to result in shorter terms compared to those in use now not in further extensions that are negative both for creativity and for the business. In Europe, the very same label group that brought Capitol v. Naxos (EMI) through the subsidiary Disky released Elvis Presley and other 50+ years old recorded masters they never owned, because master recording copyrights have expired in Europe. They also sell these in the USA as imports in places like Amazon.

Basically, if Sonny Bono’s purpose ended being “you cannot do to Disney what Disney did to Collodi, Andersen and the Brothers Grimm”, the message of Capitol v. Naxos is “don’t do to EMI in USA what EMI is already doing to everyone else in Europe”.

In other words, with regard to Recorded Music Masters, Federal Law pre-emption will only be a good thing if:

– pre-1972 works not registered with the Copyright Office or published before 1989 but released without a (P) notice fall automatically in the public domain as recorded masters. After all, none of them could be copyrighted in the old system and certainly they could not be renewed on time before 1972, too.
– Common Law is kept out of scope.
– GATT/TRIPS principles are enforced and foreign Copyright on remasters too, hence removing the injustice perpetrated through Capitol v. Naxos.

The Founding Fathers never wanted an eternal copyright. In a world in which the request for a new vision in this area, more rights for the consumers and also more creative freedom for the artists (in regards to incorporating/rearranging elements of old works, orphan works and similar) are so high, a further extension of copyrights to a Federal level, without serious limitations, would basically result in just protecting the interests of a dying industry: the major beneficiary of such an extension – just like the major beneficiary of Capitol v. Naxos – would be the EMI group, through their control on Beatles’ masters. And – without any changes in their property and financial assets – EMI is a company that will be probably bankrupt within the first months of the current year.

Nicola Battista, journalist, music producer, author, Intellectual Property Consultant
Pescara, Italy, January 13, 2011.

(Document submitted electronically to the US Copyright Office in response to the “Notice of Inquiry requesting public input on the desirability and means of bringing sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 under Federal jurisdiction”; partially based on a message posted in 2006 onto the Rumori Mailing List)

Weird IMVU chats #3: John Google’s nephew, in person.

djbatmanRuizN: has joined the chat
Ch1st0pher: hey
Ch1st0pher: wanna make a deal
djbatmanRuizN: hello
djbatmanRuizN: who are you
djbatmanRuizN: and what kind of deal?
Ch1st0pher: I make you famouse and i get paid (credits)
Ch1st0pher: you in
Ch1st0pher: HELLO
djbatmanRuizN: ?
djbatmanRuizN: uhm.
djbatmanRuizN: sorry
Ch1st0pher: you in
djbatmanRuizN: how could you make me “famous” and for what.
djbatmanRuizN: how can I say yes, I have no idea who are you and what the hell are you referring to.
djbatmanRuizN: :)
Ch1st0pher: your a Dj my uncle owns youtube so i cna post one of you mixes and my uncle takes care of every thing
djbatmanRuizN: HELLO
djbatmanRuizN: your uncle owns youtube. wow
Ch1st0pher: yes he does
djbatmanRuizN: you’re Mr.John Google’s nephew?
Ch1st0pher: yes
djbatmanRuizN: and your uncle takes care of what?
djbatmanRuizN : in which way.
djbatmanRuizN: details please, I may be interested (I have music in YouTube).
Ch1st0pher: makikng your mixes a big hit
Ch1st0pher: anyone
djbatmanRuizN: yes but HOW.
djbatmanRuizN: lol
Ch1st0pher: just give me the link of one ill show it to him
Ch1st0pher Whisper: but you gotta give me credits
djbatmanRuizN: in which way.
Ch1st0pher: (15,000)
Ch1st0pher Whisper: huh
djbatmanRuizN: let me figure this correctly.
djbatmanRuizN: I show you a link.
Ch1st0pher: i give it to myu uncle
djbatmanRuizN : You show it to your uncle Mr. John Google, is this the person, right?
Ch1st0pher: he makes it a hit and you get money
djbatmanRuizN: then I send you credits?
Ch1st0pherCh1st0pher Whisper: yes
djbatmanRuizN : are you sure you’re 31 and from the US?
Ch1st0pher Whisper: well you send me the credits now when you give me the link
Ch1st0pher Whisper: yes
djbatmanRuizN: you sound more like 14 and from Philippines.
Ch1st0pher: im a mature 31 year old man
djbatmanRuizN: oh yes I send you 15000 and you make me famous.
Ch1st0pher: jsut that im in a hurry
djbatmanRuizN: and youtube is owned by Mr. John Google.
djbatmanRuizN: amazing.
Ch1st0pher: yes
djbatmanRuizN: if you’re in a hurry you better go then.
djbatmanRuizN : cya.
Ch1st0pher: no
Ch1st0pher: is that i gotta pick up a package out side
Ch1st0pher: thats all
Ch1st0pher: you cna stay
Ch1st0pher: my uncle is right next to me he said Hi,
djbatmanRuizN: hi John.
djbatmanRuizN: I’m blocking and reporting your scammer nephew john
djbatmanRuizN: you both have a nice day.
djbatmanRuizN: :)
Ch1st0pher: why
Ch1st0pher: what did we do

(Note: even before the chat was closed, user was reported and then blocked)

a poetic interlude:
“Cancioncilla del primer deseo” by Federico García Lorca (1898-1936)

En la mañana verde,
quería ser corazón.
Corazón.

Y en la tarde madura
quería ser ruiseñor.
Ruiseñor.

(Alma,
ponte color de naranja.
Alma,
ponte color de amor.)

En la mañana viva,
yo quería ser yo.
Corazón.

Y en la tarde caída
quería ser mi voz.
Ruiseñor.

¡Alma,
ponte color naranja!
¡Alma,
ponte color de amor!