Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Copyright Office Considering MSIE-only website

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the well-duh dept.

United States 491

wikinerd writes "The United States Copyright Office asks whether you would have any problem if you were required to use Microsoft Internet Explorer in order to pre-register a work via their website. The Norwegian government recently said no to proprietary formats, but it seems that the US government sites should be informed about the existence of non-Microsoft Web browsers, such as Firefox, Konqueror, Opera, and Safari. I have written a letter about this issue, which is posted on my blog for everyone to copy and base on it their own response. If they see how many people use alternative browsers, they'll probably reconsider and stay within the W3C standards."

cancel ×

491 comments

d00p (-1)

mnemonic_ (164550) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320356)

Holy fucking dupes batman...

Problem? Of course! (1)

Puramoca (703835) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320375)

They should know that there are other browsers and OSes in existence ...

RFTA (2, Insightful)

soundman32 (147936) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320420)

If you actually read the article, you would see that they do know about Mozilla, Firefox etc because they will be writing stuff to allow these browsers at a later date.

This is just 'in the first instance'.

Re:RFTA (5, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320440)

they will be writing stuff to allow these browsers at a later date.

Without a deadline, it can easily get pushed back and back, until they can say it's working fine with IE only; why bother?

Re:d00p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320389)

2000 persons must kick them in the ass!

Re:d00p (0)

StupidStan (773027) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320512)

there is only one thing more annoying than dupes:

people wasting our screen space with complaning about dupes!!!

it doesnt do any good, just dont read them if you see a dupe. Also, i love the 6 different posts on this article claiming dupe... isnt duping a dupe message even more of a dupe? Idiots, shutup

Bah! (-1, Offtopic)

databyss (586137) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320360)

Another bungle of the USPTO.

Re:Bah! (2, Informative)

petabyte (238821) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320464)

Umm, the Copyright Office isn't the same thing as the Patent and Trademark Office. They're not even in the same state ...

Oh noes, more dupes! (0)

empaler (130732) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320367)



It took all of 30s

It's not a dupe (0)

Tune (17738) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320397)

It [slashdot.org] 's just the same news posted by a different /. editor!

But... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320368)

...how should I learn to care about copyrights of others when I can't access this site?

Excuse me, but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320371)

...blame it on the in-fucking-competent, microsoft-infested web developers!

Stacking the Deck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320372)

The United States Copyright Office asks whether you would have any problem if you were required [copyright.gov] to use Microsoft Internet Explorer in order to pre-register a work via their website.

The link only works with Internet Explorer!

PS - First Patent!!!

firefox (0)

Ghengis (73865) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320414)

Worked just fine in my firefox browser....

Re:firefox (1)

Orkie (899576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320438)

That's because they are only considering it.

Re:firefox (1)

kmmatthews (779425) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320485)

Uh, no, that's because:

1. That link isn't even what the blurb is talking about
2. RTFA, they're talking about IE + Netscape, not IE only
3. You ate troll bait.

Re:firefox (2, Informative)

niskel (805204) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320517)

Netscape can use the IE renderer... This is why they say they can support it. New Netscape is just IE in sheeps clothing. Therefor, as a result, the content in question would still be IE only.

Swings and Roundabouts (1, Insightful)

reality-bytes (119275) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320373)



If the USPTO are allowed to make such a mistake as this, it might reinforce the notion that the USPTO is no-longer doing anyone any good and maybe, by proxy, calls for patent reform may be answered.

....or not.

Re:Swings and Roundabouts (2)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320391)

USPTO?

Excuse me but isn't this not the US Patent Office page?, I think copyright and patents are two different things no?

If it is not, then I guess IBM will be kind of pissed off as they are the company that makes most more patents than everyone each year IIRC.

Quite right (1)

reality-bytes (119275) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320408)

Serves me right for not RingTFA - must be a slow-brain day for me ;)

Re:Swings and Roundabouts (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320417)

Don't let them make the mistake.

Write an intelligent and well-informed comment to:

Copyright GC/ I&R
P.O. Box 70400
Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400

And while you're at it... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320474)

...you might as well ask them to simply rename themselves from the "Unites States Copyright Office" to the "Microsoft Copyright Office".

Re:Swings and Roundabouts (3, Informative)

01dbs (696498) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320605)

When you write, remember to include five copies plus an original.

(For some reason, they require that "if sent by mail, an original and five copies of any comment should be addressed to...")

Re:Swings and Roundabouts (1)

Shaper_pmp (825142) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320541)

So the solution is what... to let them fuck up again in the hope that a pathetically obscure technical browser issue is the wake-up call that suddenly gets the great unwashed masses picketing their local Copyright Office?

Wake up and smell the coffee - Joe Sixpack isn't remotely technical enough to give a two shits about this kind of thing, and won't be for another 5-10 years.

It's all very well saying "let's just sit back and give them enough rope to hang themselves", but that rather relies on:

1) The public ever considering the problem serious enough to address
2) The public coming to the same conclusion you do (i.e, "anarcho-hippy communist" standards - good, corporate Microsoft with a popular-opinion-influencing marketing budget of billions - bad)
3) The public actually realising (in 5-10 years, when they're ready for it) that there's even an issue to raise, as opposed to just accepting the fait accompli handed to it by the massive software and media companies, who've had that 5-10 years to squish upstart dissenters and consolidate their position as the only option.

Not being funny, but no-one ever won a fight by sitting back, taking no part and waiting for it to sort itself out - that's just laziness talking.

m$ domination (2, Funny)

joet3ch1 (907685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320383)

m$ is hogging all the patents anyways... so we might as well use their browser!

follow the standards (-1, Troll)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320385)

just like all the other websites out there, so firefox will work correctly and all the other standards-compliant browsers will too...oh, wait, that's right...I quit using firefox within a week because of the great number of sites that break with it, yet somehow miraculously render correctly in IE...because so many people out there code their sites for IE...because of how many people are using IE...man, that's a lot of ellipses...

Re:follow the standards (1)

kesler (576674) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320476)

What sites? All the important sites (read porn) work just fine for me.

Re:follow the standards (1)

jasongetsdown (890117) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320559)

I have yet to encounter one of these "broken sites" The only one I've seen not function first hand in firefox is lotus notes webmail. Maybe I don't even notice what I'm missing...

Dumb. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320387)

From TFA:
"Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect."

So support for other browsers is already planned. I imagine that if enough people complain about it starting out as only IE, they will just postpone this preregistration plan until they have the other browser support ready. All that does is make people who want to use IE wait longer.

Stupid.

Is there an echo in here? (-1, Redundant)

davmoo (63521) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320393)

If I patent the process of dupes, will that make them go away?

Re:Is there an echo in here? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320545)

Sorry, there's way too much prior art.

Slashdot Considers Dupe Free Website (5, Funny)

Quarters (18322) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320394)

Hahaha, I kid, I kid.

Re:Slashdot Considers Dupe Free Website (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320433)

Oh hahahaha snap, snap.

Interesting (5, Insightful)

Sierpinski (266120) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320395)

I find it extremely interesting that the government in the past has brought an anti-trust suit against Microsoft for being a monopoly, however they themselves would help to propagate this by using their software. Not to mention allowing ONLY their software, they are ensuring that any user who wants to visit their site also must "pay" Microsoft, thus even further contributing to the "monopoly".

I would have thought that if the government was under the impression that Microsoft was a monopoly (true or not), they would have taken steps to help prevent adding to that situation, and support a different browser for their site, or *gasp* don't require *ANY* browser, but rather just design it to be functionally usable by any W3C compliant browser. Add in the 508 compliance for web accessbility, and you can't go wrong.

Government, make up your mind.

Re:Interesting (-1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320442)

Yaaawn

iff (USA Government == Coprorations)
{
  AllMakesSense();
}

GWB WMD-Finder...

Re:Interesting (0, Troll)

ednopantz (467288) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320470)

You think this is a decision made at the highest levels? Give me a break. This is either some idiot web developer willing to put up with the bs of doing business with the Feds. Or perhaps it is one of those: $X for ie only $X * 1.5 if we have to deal with multiple browsers.

Getting the little stuff right between browsers takes time. Most of our customers think we are nuts when we suggest spending more time (their money) so we can get those 2-5% chunks of the browser market, each of which behaves a bit differently. Like it or not ie is the "standard-defying standard."

That said, I understand their impulse, but it is a dumb idea. Nice that they asked first, though.

Re:Interesting (3, Interesting)

Generic Guy (678542) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320481)

the government in the past has brought an anti-trust suit against Microsoft for being a monopoly, however they themselves would help to propagate this by using their software.

It's even worse. I work at a small law office, undergoing ECF (electronic case filing) training and conversion right now. The federal courts, you know the ones which convicted Microsoft of being a monopoly in the browser market, have issued system specs which require Internet Explorer. The mind reels.

Re:Interesting (1)

Sierpinski (266120) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320525)

It's even worse. I work at a small law office, undergoing ECF (electronic case filing) training and conversion right now. The federal courts, you know the ones which convicted Microsoft of being a monopoly in the browser market, have issued system specs which require Internet Explorer. The mind reels.

This was exactly my point.

Luckily some browsers can spoof IE in their browser type settings, although I don't know how well it works since I've never tried it. I'm lucky enough to be in a position to not use sites that require IE for a browser. Instead what I like to do is click reload as many times as I can to try to get Firefox a couple more percentage points (or fractions of such) in their web stats. It might be a waste, but it makes me feel better, and thats enough for me.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320569)

That kind of browser dependency can only mean that they've gotten into little Javascript pop-ups, cutesy non-URL using pages, and other sins of Microsoft web design tools that break being able to send someone a link or browse the page with a magnifier or text-speech synthesizer, in direct violation of Americans with Disability Act guidelines for web design.

Re:Interesting (2, Interesting)

joschm0 (858723) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320584)

I would have thought that if the government was under the impression that Microsoft was a monopoly (true or not), they would have taken steps to help prevent adding to that situation

You're confusing the Bush Administration with the Clinton Administration. Janet Reno, under the Clinton Adminstration, spent years trying to convict Microsoft. Then Bush gets elected and John Ashcroft refuses to impose any penalties. It's as if no trial every took place.

cloister (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320396)

Sigh, just another example of how stupid the people within our government are. Feeling the need to ask shows just how far out of touch with many things, they are.

Gah! Why would I want to use a decrepit, cancer ridden POS like IE. Unless steps beyond what a normal user would take are employed to not just secure the OS it runs on you STILL have to be very careful of what websites are visited. As none of MIcrosoft's patches fully ensure you won't get owned in one way or another.

The need for them to ask just shows how little interest they really have in making things my tax dollars paid for readily and easily available.

Standards (5, Funny)

alnapp (321260) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320399)

Just stick to the standards, then all browsers will be able to access it.

Haha aHahaHaha HahaHaha
HahaHahaHa
haHahaHahaHahaHah
aHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha

etc.

Re:Standards (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320593)

Just stick to the standards, then all browsers will be able to access it.

Yes, standards like the ones Slashcode uses. I can access Slashdot from IE, Konq, Mozilla and Dillo. No web bugs here. Nor are there many to be found at most sites worth reading.

The only problems I ever have are from sites offering non free crap. They are almost never worth dealing with anyway. Opps, I just let you know what I think of IE only sites.

At least the USPTO has people checking for dupes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320400)

I'd happily read a MSIE-only slashdot if I knew I wasn't going to see the same story over and over and over again.

Not to mention the eleventy billion posts crying "dupe!", and making jokes about it.

Like this one.

Stop. Supporting. Browsers. (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320403)

Browsers should support HTML. Websites should be written in HTML.

These are not fundamentally architecturally different pieces of equipment. If you can't create a website that works adeqautely with all browsers, then you don't deserve to be employed as a web designer.

Re:Stop. Supporting. Browsers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320427)

Tune in tomorrow when the professor sets the world straight on genetically modified organisms, the unified theory of matter and the one true God.

Re:Stop. Supporting. Browsers. (1)

Ga_101 (755815) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320448)

Nice idea.

Shame about losing 85% of your viewers/cutomers/income.

Re:Stop. Supporting. Browsers. (0)

utexaspunk (527541) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320495)

Shame about losing 85% of your viewers/cutomers/income.

I don't buy that. There's nothing about well-written HTML that excludes IE people. Besides, I somehow don't think the US Copyright Office is worried about losing "viewers/customers/income" as they sort of have a local monopoly on their given subject...

Re:Stop. Supporting. Browsers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320509)

You are thinking in the past. CSS, XHTML etc is constantly evolving. Therefore so are the browsers - IE in a non standards compliant way, Firefox the opposite.

HTML is a bad way of creating websites - FONT, TABLE etc...

It is obvious that you have no experience of website design...

Re:Stop. Supporting. Browsers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320468)

There is more to it than that.

It is ok saying 'code to standards' but what if browsers don't do that? We as designers have to create something that works most of the time - even if it does mean working to buggy browser specs.

Look at the list of compliancy issues in Firefox, IE, Safari or in fact any browser.

Also, who actually codes their site in HTML now? Most use XHTML and then most don't have static sites - instead having dynamic sites that do wonderous things...

Re:Stop. Supporting. Browsers. (4, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320529)

Why is it web designers aren't expected to achieve the same level of competency as any other professional? All I ever hear is how hard it would be to make a site cross compatible.

Well, you know what? Tough shit. Life's hard all around. Let me tell you some day about the vpn solution I had to implement across a dialup link. Oh yeah, and it had to support a full sql application. Any other professional is expected to show, you know, *professionalism* in their field.

Not web designers tho. They expect to be coddled, and allowed to half ass it.

MODERATION GONE TO HELL (-1, Troll)

BarryNorton (778694) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320469)

What?

This is insightful?!? (Currently rated Score 5, Insightful)

This is my last post on Slashdot. I'm not some angry loser - I leave with excellent karma and having frequently moderated.

All the same, moderation and meta-moderation have just stopped working here, and the editing is nil.

What a waste of time...

Re:MODERATION GONE TO HELL (-1, Flamebait)

vinohradska (713189) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320538)

I have to agree - this is a waste of time... I'm done too.

Re:Stop. Supporting. Browsers. (1)

Itchy Rich (818896) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320527)

If you can't create a website that works adeqautely with all browsers, then you don't deserve to be employed as a web designer.

Absolutely right.

It's not as if the site in question needs pixel-perfect layout or complicated Javascript (if any).

Re:Stop. Supporting. Browsers. (2, Insightful)

hotspotbloc (767418) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320590)

Browsers should support HTML.

Yes, browsers change faster than the archived information. I'm tired of playing this "cat and mouse" game with browser updates causing one to reedit html files. The US Copyright Office should consider adopting html standards. If MS doesn't want to play along then they can't go screw themselves. Here's the standard I think they should use:

For reference:

XHTML 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition) [w3.org]

XHTML [wikipedia.org]

If you can't create a website that works adeqautely with all browsers, then you don't deserve to be employed as a web designer.

If you understand how to correctly use html and css then your site should work with all properly written browsers. The parent is bang on the mark.

Have an opinion? Express it (5, Interesting)

ReformedExCon (897248) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320406)

I have a big problem with "protest form letters". On the surface it seems like a pretty good idea. Get a lot of people mobilized using an easy to duplicate form and get your collective voice heard by those in power. However, the reality is more likely to favor individually written letters that express original sentiment, or at the very least an original statement of a widely-held sentiment.

Yes, it's bad that the copyright office wants to make the website IE-only. But look at their reasons, try to address their reasons without sounding condescending and elitist or like a victim of some huge crime. Better yet, get involved in your local politics and make a real difference in your government.

There are many ways to make political hay. Sending form letters to your representatives is, in my opinion, one of the least productive methods of making your voice heard.

Re:Have an opinion? Express it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320515)

How do you want to be heard, then? Face it, this country only works through lobbyism...

Re:Have an opinion? Express it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320589)

You assume that your letter is actually read. In many cases they are sorted, tallied, and shredded by a part-time intern. If your letter is clear in its opinion and from a registered voter, it will carry some weight.

The well-written arguments produced with writing flair and subtlety may help if you're writing in support of the already favored side (good quote fodder), but unless your argument offers evidence of major influence (in newspaper pages, campaign contributions, or whatever) even elegant, well-reasoned prose will just result in a simple tally mark on the intern's scratch pad.

Still, those tally marks are important and one of the closest things we have to a voice of the people left in this country. Please add yours to the Anti-Microsoft side. (and check out the groklaw article, since it mentioned some additional submission requirements I didn't see here).

Patents and such (1)

dame4jc (811440) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320416)

How about patenting the process of "publishing" duplicate submissions to web sites?

Re:Patents and such (1)

StupidStan (773027) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320459)

how about patenting the ability to punch people in the face who whine every day about dupes... just dont read them, oh yeah, and SHUTUP!!!

How long will the situation last? (4, Informative)

Deslock (86955) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320418)

According to their website: "Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect."

It'd be easier to respond to their question if they posted an estimated date for when other browsers will be supported.

Re:How long will the situation last? (1)

droptone (798379) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320460)

It'd be even easier if they explained why support for those browsers had to be "added". Who knew HTML could be so fickle?

Give them a call... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320421)

In *addition to* writing a letter (as requested on the site, I'd suggest calling them too:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David O. Carson, General Counsel, or Charlotte Douglass, Principal Legal Advisor, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024-0400, Telephone (202) 707-8380.

Stupid rules by stupid people or bribery? (2)

cornelius1729 (857214) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320423)

Do you think that Microsoft have given them some sort of incentive for this new rule, or is it just a case of a bureaucratic organisation randomly generating rules just for the hell of it?

99 out of 100 websites (2, Informative)

Snaller (147050) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320424)

If they use a webboard, set the scrollbar to be the same color as the background of the board - ie, impossible to see for a lot of people. This stylesheet command is *ignored* by Firefox, but is rendered by MSIE - don't tell me that isn't harassment of MSIE users. So it goes both ways.

Re:99 out of 100 websites (1)

BiggyP (466507) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320477)

it's not just a case of firefox not rendering the scrollbar in such a stupid way, it's most browsers which aren't IE. IE only sites are often the result of laziness or a lack of web design capability and use of frontpage (those last 2 are pretty much 1 point), phpBB2 boards with black on black scrollbars are a protest against users who continue to allow these idiot site 'designers' to get away with their awful code.

Re:99 out of 100 websites (1)

BiggyP (466507) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320487)

i should add that it doesn't make it right to do this to the unsuspecting IE users.

Re:99 out of 100 websites (3, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320573)

don't tell me that isn't harassment of MSIE users.

Unbelievably, it's not. Have ever talked to these developers? They do it on purpose, because they think it looks good. Not because it causes problems. They like the scrollbar colours to match the colour scheme they have for the website. The fact that it's hard to spot the scrollbars is irrelevant - same as using microscopic font sizes - they just tell you to "get glasses, grandpa".

Anyway, Konqueror applies those scrollbar styles as well, so it doesn't just affect Internet Explorer.

Re:99 out of 100 websites (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320574)

99 out of 100 webboards?

Frankly, I have not seen this issue. I really have yet to see a web site designed for Firefox or other alternative program such that it tries to shut out MSIE.

"and if so, why" (4, Interesting)

DingerX (847589) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320431)

First, this is the Copyright Office, not the Patent Office.
Second, they're not looking for, nor will they likely accept, arguments along the lines of "single-standards are dangerous". And they claim that Firefox and Safari standards are planned for the future. So you need to give them a good reason, now, not to do this.
What are such good reasons?

Well, for one, preregistration is for copyrighted works that "have a history of pre-release infringement". And, as a publisher in such a field, there's no way in hell you're going to expose that information to known security risks, such as MSIE. It's like starting an antitheft service for cars likely to be stolen, then requiring the owners to leave the cars in an unguarded lot with the keys in the ignition.

Likewise, you can argue that no ultra-secure, enterprise-critical information, such as copyright pre-registration data, resides on any machine capable of running MSIE. Again, it's an issue of security. Denying this service to all but MSIE users effectively removes it from all except those who really need it.

Now all you need is someone willing to fire off a letter in sextuplicate.

Gartner advises against IE-Only development (4, Informative)

grandmofftarkin (49366) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320432)

Since big buisness and governments seem to take Gartner's advise with more enthusisum than the average slashdotter you might want to point them to this Gartner piece, should you choose to write to them:

ID Number: G00125170, "Design Web Applications for Standards, Not for Browsers", (2 March 2005) [gartner.com]

Retaliation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320437)

Tomorrow's News: The W3C, the otherwise friendly organization, is in the process of creating a Firefox-only website in retaliation of the USPTO's consideration of making an IE-only website.

One little detail missing... (2, Informative)

SolidGround (883883) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320439)

In addition to being a dupe and a rather obvious attempt to self-promote, it's also a non-story.

"In its request for comments, the office made clear that it plans to support other browsers in the future. In an interview, an attorney with the office said that the sticking point was Siebel software that guaranteed compatibility with only selected browsers--including both IE and Netscape 7.02, a browser with negligible market share--in the current Siebel 7.7 software.

The Copyright Office said it planned to upgrade to Siebel 7.8, which supports Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3 and Mozilla 1.7.7, but not in time for the Oct. 24 launch."
(http://news.com.com/U.S.+Copyright+Office+poll+IE -only+OK/2100-1038_3-5827627.html [com.com] )

Assuming they're sincere about their intent to support other browsers in the future it's better to have a limited site now rather than no site at all. (Demographically IE does still cater to the largest audience)
It would also be a pointless waste of tax dollars to come up with an interim solution for other browsers when it's already slated to happen for the next revision anyway.

Re:One little detail missing... (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320479)

"Assuming they're sincere about their intent to support other browsers in the future it's better to have a limited site now rather than no site at all. (Demographically IE does still cater to the largest audience)
It would also be a pointless waste of tax dollars to come up with an interim solution for other browsers when it's already slated to happen for the next revision anyway."

They may well be breaking international trade rules or indeed, various local competition laws.

 

Re:One little detail missing... (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320503)

Or they could just make their site using Amish HTML, plain, simple, and easy to use. It's more difficult to code a site that doesn't render across all browsers than one that does, unless you're using a package like MS Frontpage. Government is, and should be, boring. They don't need flash and fancy whizbangs.

Um, requiring a specific browser or office suite? (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320449)

Couldn't that be considered government subsidy, isn't that also how corrupt third world governments work? By requiring a specific company's products you are driving business their way.

By requiring Word doc format, they are requiring that you purchase Microsoft Word, requiring that you use Internet Explorer they are requiring that you use Microsoft Windows.

Wonder what the WTO would have to say.
 

Re:Um, requiring a specific browser or office suit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320461)

Funny, I coulda sworn i saw the 'blue e' on a mac before...

Poor Copyright Office! (2, Funny)

OwlWhacker (758974) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320450)

Perhaps the Copyright Office doesn't have enough cash to pay a competent Web developer to create its site?

I need to patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320454)

"Process for posting again a submission that has already been posted with little to no chanes"

Accessibility (1)

sehryan (412731) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320455)

There is no way this can fly, as it will more than likely mean less accessibility, and thus less adhearence to 508. While that isn't a big deal in the corporate world, it is in the government. Certain things are exempt (maps in an IMS, for instance), but I can't imagine this sort of thing, which is more than likely just a simple form with f'ed up javascript, gaining an exemption.

Requirements for commenting (1)

drdanny_orig (585847) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320463)

In trying to figure out who and how to submit my comments, I'm finding it pretty tough to decode all the loopy instructions. (In my defense, it's too early for me to be typing anything.)
It appears that email isn't an option; and that hardcopies have to be submitted in sextuplicate(!). Even more confusing to me:
The Office requests that responses to this supplemental notice of inquiry be made part of the responders' comments on the July 22nd Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
That's from the last paragraph at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.htm l [copyright.gov]
WTF?!?
Apologies in advance if I've overlooked the obvious.

From TFA... (5, Funny)

jpellino (202698) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320466)

"If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401 of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of any comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Copyright Office General Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If sent by mail, an original and five copies of any comment should be addressed to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Comments may not be delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays in processing receipt of such deliveries."

Which is French for...

      "But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
      "Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything."
      "But the plans were on display ..."
      "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
      "That's the display department."
      "With a torch."
      "Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
      "So had the stairs."
      "But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
      "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."

Required plug (1)

Council (514577) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320484)

Safari, Firefox, Opera, and Maxthon [maxthon.com] .

Frontend for IE core that can also use the Gecko engine for rendering. I don't know too much about how these things work, but I'm a heavy web browser who's used Firefox extensively and I prefer Maxthon. Much faster UI response, doesn't crash/freeze for [me and group] as much as FF, and comes with all the basic important extensions built in. I hate proselytizing, so this is hard for me -- I just want to make people aware of it. Reject it at your leisure.

You should use a browser that does precisely what you want, and ignore all else. If Maxthon's not it, don't use it. But it does what I want, and I figure what I want isn't different from a lot of people.

Affecting around 29 million Linux/BSD users. (2, Informative)

delire (809063) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320488)

You say on your website:
Of course, any Apple Macintosh, GNU/Linux, and BSD user will have a problem with a only-MSIE policy, so I think it would be a good idea to inform them about this issue.
AFAIK MSIE does run on Apple's OSX, or is my little fox holding the wrong lightbulb.

A reasonable number [li.org] to shun, a sizeable chunk being American. Regardless, I'm increasingly seeing browser/OS statistics that look more and more like this site's [w3schools.com] . On my own site Firefox useage is twice that of MSIE. Linux useage has grown a great amount in the last year and our audience is largely comprised artists, those perhaps interested in registering a copyrighted work.

Re:Affecting around 29 million Linux/BSD users. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320579)

AFAIK MSIE does run on Apple's OSX, or is my little fox holding the wrong lightbulb.

The version of MSIE on OS X is IE 5.2 and is very different from IE 5.0 or IE 6.0 on Microsoft Windows. I'm not even sure it's being shipped with MacOS X 10.4. I have it on my Tiger system, but it was upgraded from 10.3.9. I haven't see any work put in to upgrading IE 5.2 on the Mac in years and I'm pretty sure they've dropped all support for it since Safari is the standard Mac web browser.

Browser stats (1)

Vadim Makarov (529622) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320491)

Don't they have a webserver log to have a peek at the browser statistics? For my site, it's 16.5% Mozilla and growing. It wouldn't be fair if any government service excluded such a significant fraction of visitors.

meaning? (1)

moviepig.com (745183) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320508)

The United States Copyright Office asks whether you would have any problem if you were required to use Microsoft Internet Explorer in order to pre-register a work via their website.

Would that be MSIE as of some freeze-date? Or does the USCO mean to hitch its wagon to Microsoft's development path, so that, e.g., playwrights and composers must also master the art of frequent software-upgrading?

I herewith patent .. (1)

RedLaggedTeut (216304) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320511)

claim 1. A way and method of registering a patent via HTTP.

claim 2. The method of claim 1, where the preferred HTTP access method is using Internet Explorer, version 6, or any later version

claim 3. The method of claim 2, where the submitted document holding the patent application is in the patented Adobe document format.

THINK OF THE WEB STANDARDS, PEOPLE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320513)

I love XHTML and CSS The formats in which sites go best Your site has tables? IMG tag lacks ALT labels? Keep it away from me With Mozilla Firefox I want to be free.

In case of slashing (-1, Redundant)

amcdiarmid (856796) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320520)

[Federal Register: August 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 149)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44878-44879]
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 202
[Docket No. RM 2005-9]
Preregistration of Certain Unpublished Copyright Claims

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
SUMMARY:

The Copyright Office is supplementing its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on preregistration of copyright claims, issued July 22, 2005. That notice proposed procedures to preregister any unpublished work being prepared for commercial distribution that is in a class of works determined by the Register of Copyrights to have had a history of pre-release infringement. Today's notice seeks information as to whether persons filing the electronic-only preregistration form prescribed by the Copyright Office will experience difficulties if it is necessary to use Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser in order to preregister a work.
DATES:

Comments are due no later than August 22, 2005. Reply comments are due no later than September 7, 2005.
ADDRESSES:

If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401 of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of any comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Copyright Office General Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If sent by mail, an original and five copies of any comment should be addressed to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Comments may not be delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays in processing receipt of such deliveries.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David O. Carson, General Counsel, or Charlotte Douglass, Principal Legal Advisor, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024-0400, Telephone (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005 (the ART Act), Title I of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 109-9, 119 Stat. 218, the Copyright Office recently proposed implementing regulations for preregistration of eligible copyright claims. 70 FR 42286 (July 22, 2005). To be eligible for preregistration, a work must be unpublished, in the process of being prepared for commercial distribution, and in a class of works that the Register of Copyrights determines has had a history of copyright infringement.

Section 104 of the ART Act directs that preregistration procedures must be in place by October 24, 2005. 17 U.S.C. 408(f)(1). To comply with this time frame and to facilitate efficient processing of preregistration claims, inter alia, the proposed rule calls for filing such claims by electronic means only. At this point in the process of

[[Page 44879]]

developing the Copyright Office's system for online preregistration, it is not entirely clear whether the system will be compatible with web browsers other than Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.1 and higher. Filers of preregistration applications will be able to employ these Internet Explorer browsers successfully. Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect. Present users of these browsers may experience problems when filing claims.

In order to ensure that preregistration can be implemented in a smoothly functioning and timely manner, the Office now seeks comments that will assist it in determining whether any eligible parties will be prevented from preregistering a claim due to browser requirements of the preregistration system. Therefore, this notice seeks information whether any potential preregistration filers would have difficulties using Internet Explorer (version 5.1 or higher) to file preregistration claims, and if so, why. More generally, in the interest of achieving support for browsers in the Office's preregistration processing environment, this notice inquires whether (and why) an eligible party who anticipates preregistering a claim on the electronic-only form will not be able to use Internet Explorer to do so, or will choose not to preregister if it is necessary to use Internet Explorer.

The Office requests that responses to this supplemental notice of inquiry be made part of the responders' comments on the July 22nd Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Whether or not accompanied by comments on the proposed rule, the response to this notice of inquiry should be submitted by the due dates for comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, i.e., no later than August 22, 2005, with reply comments due no later than September 7, 2005.

Dated: August 1, 2005.
Tanya Sandros,
Associate General Counsel.

One nation under borg (1)

MasterLordSatan (817089) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320526)

From the top: "The United States Copyright Office asks whether you would have any problem if you were required to use Microsoft Internet Explorer in order to" IMO We shouldn't be required to use Microsoft anything! IMO Once we are required to depend upon one company's A for B, the slippery slope will have been put down for all to slide down. All of this won't matter in a few years, however, because by then the distracted masses will have accepted the mandatory RFID microchip implants in every living thing (required!) and we will all be enslaved as we're forced to pledge the M$ flag.

Look... (1)

webphenom (868874) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320531)

...at all the Linux/Firefox cockroaches scurry. I love it.

It is funny to see you all wince in pain and come up with lame posts to this topic.

Oh, and the asshole claiming 16+% non IE traffic to his website needs to consider the content and the audience (tech content, geek audience). I run a website with 8000+ registered users and 94+% of my traffic is IE.

Mmmmkay....

Microsoft might have threathened USPTO (1)

jurt1235 (834677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320532)

To take their business elsewhere, that way cutting the income of USPTO by so much, that they would not be able to keep providing their services. To prevent that from happening, they came to the conclusion that it is best for everybody, including those people using non standard named browsers (The standard names being: IE, Internet Exlorer). Luckily MS is not a monopoly, so it is just about keeping the internal revenue stream at a sufficient level by providing the services to the companies which desperately need this to be able to be competitive in nowadays america and the big bad global market filled with (software) pirates.

IE 7 Feature enhancement. (1)

cheezemonkhai (638797) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320537)

IE 7 will analyse your internet connection and automatically detect patents which may be of use to Microsoft. There are then two possible actions which the user can choose:
  • Submit the web-form direct to redmond.
  • Submit the form with the assignemnt changed to a random Microsoft employeee of the day
This way we can rip you off and patent your invention without resorting to bankrupting you via legal fees.

Microsft cares for you too ;)

Firefox's Market Share Slips; IE Rises (1)

webphenom (868874) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320554)

Firefox's share of the web browser market slipped a bit in July, while Internet Explorer gained by an equal amount, a website analysis firm said Friday.

Market share for the Mozilla Foundation's open-source browser dipped to 8.07 percent in July from a high of 8.71 percent in June, according to NetApplications, which gathered the data from the 40,000 websites it monitors.

Credit: TECHWEB
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/168601321 [techweb.com]

Get your pen out (1)

vdammer (796081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320557)

I've written my thoughts and mailed them out. It takes five minutes to write a short but sweet letter, so take five minutes and get your reasoned thoughts out to the right people.
Show them what open standards are all about!

There are degrees of compatibility... (1)

mogrify (828588) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320565)

"This site looks ugly in Firefox because the layout is b0rked"

"This site won't work in Firefox because of browser detection scripts that disable it on purpose"

"This site won't work in Firefox because it uses IE-only JavaScript objects"

"This site won't work in Firefox because it depends on an ActiveX object"

So I wonder which it is... I can accept #1 with some grumbling about shoddy design, since it's really not that hard to lay out a site in a compatible way, but I can deal with it. The others are less excusable, IMO. I guess one would expect 508 compliance, since it's a government website... so my guess is it'll be usable, but ugly.

Lynx time.

Don't write the copyright office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320568)

There is a metric ton of bureaucracy to get through, and in the end nobody who matters will ever see the six letters and dozen hoops you have to jump through.

Instead, call your congresscritter. If just a dozen out of the over 500 Senators and Congresspeople call the copyright office this nonsense will stop.

You know they mean Windows MSIE (1)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320594)

... and probably version 6 at that. I saw someone else's post that "MSIE runs on OSX." Sure it does, but generally when people are doing browser detection or just putting in IE-only stuff, it's WINDOWS IE they're doing that for. OSX MSIE hasn't been updated in a long time, AFAICT, and even when it was 'current' it wasn't compatible with many "IE only" sites.

When people go the trouble of specifying "IE only" they almost alwasy mean "Windows IE only".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...