Manage updates with the Download AppAugust 10, 2005 5:08 PM PDT
U.S. Copyright Office poll: IE-only OK?
- Related Stories
-
Open season at Linux show
August 11, 2005 -
Opera Mini aims at cheaper phones
August 10, 2005 -
IE flaw opens door to infection on sight
August 9, 2005 -
A standards truce in the browser war?
August 4, 2005
The office, a division of the Library of Congress, invited comments through Aug. 22 on an upcoming Web service for prospective copyright owners that may launch with support for only limited browsers.
"At this point in the process of 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," the office said in its notice. "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."
The Copyright Office's request for comments goes to the heart of the battle over Web market share and Web standards. Web standards advocates have long argued that inconsistencies in the way browser makers implement standards--that is, W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) recommendations--force Web developers to write different pages for individual browsers. Another concern is that Web page and application developers have to perform quality assurance testing multiple times for different browsers.
The Copyright Office site in question is a preregistration system for unpublished, commercial works-in-progress. Scheduled to launch Oct. 24, the system would let a film studio preregister a movie, for example, so that the studio could prosecute copyright violations that resulted from scenes or copies prematurely distributed over the Net before the work was complete.
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.
Neither the Copyright Office nor Siebel said they planned to support other browsers like Opera or Apple Computer's Safari.
Siebel defended its selective support of Web browsers.
"We're running a business, and testing is extremely costly," said Stacey Schneider, director of technology product marketing. "We optimize against what our customers demand. For Siebel 7.8, it became clear, especially for the government sector, that there's demand for Mozilla. But there are hundreds of vendors out there with their own browsers. And not many applications support many more than what we do."
The Copyright Office said original comments and five copies should be mailed to Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, D.C. 20024-0400.
112 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
Open Standards and Open File Formats are way to guarantee that there is transparency in the Government processes with true competitive options.
Supporting only Microsoft proprietary standards and formats is an injustice to citizens everywhere.
business to dangle on the government teat since day one. What
ese would you expect from such a fascist regime? If Microsoft
can't convince people to use its browser on its merits (of which it
has none), then why not convince a government grunt to
mandate its use by cutting off anything else?
the citizens of this country. To force those of us who don't even
us Microsoft OS on our computers to dig up a 'compatible'
version of MSIE for this critical and public function is simply
insane. I don't expect the bureaucrats to be data experts, but I
do expect them to hire people who understand what a hidous
disservice they're proposing to implment. There IS NO
TECHNICAL benefit to demanding one particular browser over
another. NONE. What in heaven's name are these idiots
thinking? And what's going to happen one day when MS
decideds to no longer offer nor support a integrated browser?
Then what? The data is now "stuck" in there with no way to
access it? An extreme example but not a far fetched on by any
means.. Public syststems for governmental tasks must be based
on open standars and there is no place in that design scheme to
force a client to use one particular brower over another. Then to
make matters even worse - the browser they've chosen MSIE 5.1
or above is rated by nearly every software rating engine on the
internet as being the WORST browers in existence at this time!
And this is how they're spending my tax dollars? Once again
maddness has struck inside the beltway, IMHO!
M Issacs
Los Angeles, CA
I built an entire secure website from the ground up, and it runs on any browser.
As dreadful and as ugly as it might sound, government websites should be tested on Lynx and only Lynx.
Lowest common denominator should prevail. Should run on any browser running any operating system customized for any person with a disability.
If they want fancy, they should go work in the entertainment industry.
Open Standards and Open File Formats are way to guarantee that there is transparency in the Government processes with true competitive options.
Supporting only Microsoft proprietary standards and formats is an injustice to citizens everywhere.
business to dangle on the government teat since day one. What
ese would you expect from such a fascist regime? If Microsoft
can't convince people to use its browser on its merits (of which it
has none), then why not convince a government grunt to
mandate its use by cutting off anything else?
the citizens of this country. To force those of us who don't even
us Microsoft OS on our computers to dig up a 'compatible'
version of MSIE for this critical and public function is simply
insane. I don't expect the bureaucrats to be data experts, but I
do expect them to hire people who understand what a hidous
disservice they're proposing to implment. There IS NO
TECHNICAL benefit to demanding one particular browser over
another. NONE. What in heaven's name are these idiots
thinking? And what's going to happen one day when MS
decideds to no longer offer nor support a integrated browser?
Then what? The data is now "stuck" in there with no way to
access it? An extreme example but not a far fetched on by any
means.. Public syststems for governmental tasks must be based
on open standars and there is no place in that design scheme to
force a client to use one particular brower over another. Then to
make matters even worse - the browser they've chosen MSIE 5.1
or above is rated by nearly every software rating engine on the
internet as being the WORST browers in existence at this time!
And this is how they're spending my tax dollars? Once again
maddness has struck inside the beltway, IMHO!
M Issacs
Los Angeles, CA
I built an entire secure website from the ground up, and it runs on any browser.
As dreadful and as ugly as it might sound, government websites should be tested on Lynx and only Lynx.
Lowest common denominator should prevail. Should run on any browser running any operating system customized for any person with a disability.
If they want fancy, they should go work in the entertainment industry.
Furthermore, these guys only accept personal delivery, $$ courier or US Mail. Absolutely no expedited delivery via UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.
It's not like UPS/FedEx/DHL is the Opera/Safari of delivery services.
And why not just accept e-mails and simply forward them to the appropriate 5 other parties.
UGH!!!
Furthermore, these guys only accept personal delivery, $$ courier or US Mail. Absolutely no expedited delivery via UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.
It's not like UPS/FedEx/DHL is the Opera/Safari of delivery services.
And why not just accept e-mails and simply forward them to the appropriate 5 other parties.
UGH!!!
Anything that the site will be written in ASP instead of a platform indepdent format such as PHP or JSP.
So the question to I pose to the goverment is do you have the right resources in place? By limiting to just IE, I'm assuminig you don't. Simply choosing to go with IE is just alienating people like me who USE MAC OS X with no IE support as I use Firefox and Safari and on Linux and Unix, you just lost the whole community.
So is this a way to have microsoft corner the market with more copyrights and patents.
I got an IDEA for all the copyrights and patents out there. Why dont we just get rid of copyrights and patents all togeather so innovation can take place in the market place. Why not just give credit where its due for the person who came up with the IDEA and not stealing it can saying its mine. You can make money off royalties but let other companies have access to duplicate the method.
Innovation is at stake here and as a memeber of internet community, I will not stand for this injustice.
Where does it end? When does it end? Is the end of innovation as we know it just around the corner simply because you dont have the right resources in place to hire a PHP developer.
SALAM,
NAEL MOHAMMAD
Anything that the site will be written in ASP instead of a platform indepdent format such as PHP or JSP.
So the question to I pose to the goverment is do you have the right resources in place? By limiting to just IE, I'm assuminig you don't. Simply choosing to go with IE is just alienating people like me who USE MAC OS X with no IE support as I use Firefox and Safari and on Linux and Unix, you just lost the whole community.
So is this a way to have microsoft corner the market with more copyrights and patents.
I got an IDEA for all the copyrights and patents out there. Why dont we just get rid of copyrights and patents all togeather so innovation can take place in the market place. Why not just give credit where its due for the person who came up with the IDEA and not stealing it can saying its mine. You can make money off royalties but let other companies have access to duplicate the method.
Innovation is at stake here and as a memeber of internet community, I will not stand for this injustice.
Where does it end? When does it end? Is the end of innovation as we know it just around the corner simply because you dont have the right resources in place to hire a PHP developer.
SALAM,
NAEL MOHAMMAD
The article clearly states that the software will get an upgrade in the future making it cross-browser compatible.
Taxpayers would be foolish to suggest that the government build and test two versions now, when one version will reach over 85% of the population in their own homes.
The rest of the population, if they actually need this type of copyright before the software is upgraded, may have to borrow a computer or take a trip to the local library to apply online.
Copyright Office Offers Low-Cost Solution:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=84e78f4e-60e6-4e9f-9233-9457dbe196b8" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=84e78f4e-60e6-4e9f-9233-9457dbe196b8</a>
testing and reduce costs, then that browser should be FireFox.
FireFox works on Windows, Macintosh and Linux.
That is IF THE GOAL IS TO REDUCE COSTS -- otherwise it is plain
laziness of the developers at hand. Only supporting one browser
(and the IE to boot) is usually the sign of poor web development
skills.
As a Macintosh user (where IE is even more non-standard than
the Windows version and doesn't support), I am put at an
immediate disadvantage to interact with my government. That is
unacceptable.
The article clearly states that the software will get an upgrade in the future making it cross-browser compatible.
Taxpayers would be foolish to suggest that the government build and test two versions now, when one version will reach over 85% of the population in their own homes.
The rest of the population, if they actually need this type of copyright before the software is upgraded, may have to borrow a computer or take a trip to the local library to apply online.
Copyright Office Offers Low-Cost Solution:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=84e78f4e-60e6-4e9f-9233-9457dbe196b8" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=84e78f4e-60e6-4e9f-9233-9457dbe196b8</a>
testing and reduce costs, then that browser should be FireFox.
FireFox works on Windows, Macintosh and Linux.
That is IF THE GOAL IS TO REDUCE COSTS -- otherwise it is plain
laziness of the developers at hand. Only supporting one browser
(and the IE to boot) is usually the sign of poor web development
skills.
As a Macintosh user (where IE is even more non-standard than
the Windows version and doesn't support), I am put at an
immediate disadvantage to interact with my government. That is
unacceptable.
about working with different browser!
about working with different browser!
the only browser allowed. Is Bill Gates paying someome off?
the only browser allowed. Is Bill Gates paying someome off?
trying to use COTS (commercial off the shelf) CRM (customer
relationship management) software (Siebel 7.7) to perform the
function of applying for preregistration of copyrights.
Apparently, Siebel's web interface was coded by people that
believed that a temporary market share number was indication
of an "industry standard", so they used MS IE specific tags and
hooks to Exchange and Outlook to help increase that
dominance. Based on what I have learned over the years about
business software alliances and deal-making, I would not be
surprised if I found out that Siebel is a Microsoft Partner who
purposely designed their product to require a certain platform.
Never forget that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. It is quite
ironic that the same government that prosecuted the company
made a lot of purchasing decisions that helped MS establish that
monopoly in the first place.
Siebel will offer expanded support for some other browsers in its
version 7.8, but it will still not adhere to W3C standards.
trying to use COTS (commercial off the shelf) CRM (customer
relationship management) software (Siebel 7.7) to perform the
function of applying for preregistration of copyrights.
Apparently, Siebel's web interface was coded by people that
believed that a temporary market share number was indication
of an "industry standard", so they used MS IE specific tags and
hooks to Exchange and Outlook to help increase that
dominance. Based on what I have learned over the years about
business software alliances and deal-making, I would not be
surprised if I found out that Siebel is a Microsoft Partner who
purposely designed their product to require a certain platform.
Never forget that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. It is quite
ironic that the same government that prosecuted the company
made a lot of purchasing decisions that helped MS establish that
monopoly in the first place.
Siebel will offer expanded support for some other browsers in its
version 7.8, but it will still not adhere to W3C standards.
Another way which could make the entire system IE-specific is that they are using a client-side ActiveX control that sends the registration info to the server. The development of such a control is probably more expensive than if they just used PHP, which is freely available and with many scripts that can be found premade on the Internet.
Another way which could make the entire system IE-specific is that they are using a client-side ActiveX control that sends the registration info to the server. The development of such a control is probably more expensive than if they just used PHP, which is freely available and with many scripts that can be found premade on the Internet.
Sorry folks, sometimes the fastest/cheapest/most flexible solutions are NOT open standards. Too bad, get overt it.
they should be targeting FireFox and not IE, as it supports ALL
the various major platforms. It is a sign of poor web
development skills to not be able to target anything but IE.
I shouldn't be forced to purchase a Windows machine to use
services of a government that is supposed to service me. Those
are my tax dollars being used to promote a single-vendor
solution.
If you want cheaper options, FireFox would have insured support
for all major platforms without full-blown testing on each
platform. The cost over IE-only is minimal and the results are
accessibility by EVERYONE.
The funny part is that if it was THEIR money, they'd be doing the same darn thing! (after, of course, losing their shirts a few times doing it the other way).
know that anything which affects so many people as an Internet
browser needds standards for it's control, and those standards
cannot be left in the hands of anyone who financial future is
dependent upon the application of those standards.
Microsoft may have captured the majority of the browser market,
legally or illegally, it makes no difference now. But now, simply
because of that, MS is the worst possible 'holder' or definer of
browser standards - If MS does achieve that position, it's a
guaranteed fact that MS will warp the standards to eliminate the
competition. MS has already done that to Netscape and MS brags
about it. Any bureaucratic nonsense like requiring IE only just
plays into MS open hands and wallet.
If there is anyone at the U.S. Copyright Office who still has any
intelligence left, they should see that it is obvious that there
proposed Web service should launch with ANY browser meeting
W3C standards. From that point on, it's the browser's problem.
Any other course of action clearly established the core stupidity
of CO managers, the incompetence of Siebel, and of other
programmers used by the CO, and perhaps various less well
publicized leverages.
It may not make much difference to me. I have no intentions of
any significant amount of web operations with the CO, or with
Siebel. I have already eliminated IE (and OE and ActtiveX) from
my PC's and Mac's. And if a web site won't work with FireFox,
Opera, andor Safari, I don't go back to that web site again.
But I do find it less than amusing that an official Government
facility would even consider locking their public access into a
form provided by one very-much-for-profit corporation.
Sorry folks, sometimes the fastest/cheapest/most flexible solutions are NOT open standards. Too bad, get overt it.
they should be targeting FireFox and not IE, as it supports ALL
the various major platforms. It is a sign of poor web
development skills to not be able to target anything but IE.
I shouldn't be forced to purchase a Windows machine to use
services of a government that is supposed to service me. Those
are my tax dollars being used to promote a single-vendor
solution.
If you want cheaper options, FireFox would have insured support
for all major platforms without full-blown testing on each
platform. The cost over IE-only is minimal and the results are
accessibility by EVERYONE.
The funny part is that if it was THEIR money, they'd be doing the same darn thing! (after, of course, losing their shirts a few times doing it the other way).
know that anything which affects so many people as an Internet
browser needds standards for it's control, and those standards
cannot be left in the hands of anyone who financial future is
dependent upon the application of those standards.
Microsoft may have captured the majority of the browser market,
legally or illegally, it makes no difference now. But now, simply
because of that, MS is the worst possible 'holder' or definer of
browser standards - If MS does achieve that position, it's a
guaranteed fact that MS will warp the standards to eliminate the
competition. MS has already done that to Netscape and MS brags
about it. Any bureaucratic nonsense like requiring IE only just
plays into MS open hands and wallet.
If there is anyone at the U.S. Copyright Office who still has any
intelligence left, they should see that it is obvious that there
proposed Web service should launch with ANY browser meeting
W3C standards. From that point on, it's the browser's problem.
Any other course of action clearly established the core stupidity
of CO managers, the incompetence of Siebel, and of other
programmers used by the CO, and perhaps various less well
publicized leverages.
It may not make much difference to me. I have no intentions of
any significant amount of web operations with the CO, or with
Siebel. I have already eliminated IE (and OE and ActtiveX) from
my PC's and Mac's. And if a web site won't work with FireFox,
Opera, andor Safari, I don't go back to that web site again.
But I do find it less than amusing that an official Government
facility would even consider locking their public access into a
form provided by one very-much-for-profit corporation.
What they should have done was create a Catch-22 situation where the only way to submit comments is through IE.
What they should have done was create a Catch-22 situation where the only way to submit comments is through IE.