Slashdot Mirror

I just killed my Wordpress install over at Etherplex in favor of Emacs Muse. If you are an Emacs user already, Muse is a snap to use, and is a general document generator that can output to LaTeX, HTML, RDF, RSS and something called journal-html, which is designed specifically for blogs and is designed to be styled by a custom CSS. You can see the results over at my site.

If you want to see the source file in emacs that generated that, check out the muse source for my site. Keep in mind that when using it in Emacs, the markup doesn't actually appear - it is converted to the proper fonts on-the-fly in Emacs.

In this context, the use of htmlize is perfect for generating an HTML form of your code buffer from emacs. Whatever your color scheme, htmlize will pick up the colors and use them to generate the HTML. If you're not publishing an entire page, I suggest you set htmlize to use the "font" method for generating html that can be used without corresponding matching CSS. If you use Emacs color-theme package, the theme "BlippBlopp" produces good results for publishing on the web.

The only thing this system lack that I care about is comments, but since no one reads my blog, its not that big of an issue. I installed SimpleMachine's SMF for blog comments and other forum needs. Vanilla may also be a good choice.

Finally, it's worth mentioning that I can then edit my site from anywhere via Tramp mode in Emacs, which allows seamless file editting on remote servers over SSH. This way, I can edit my site from my laptop on the road, or my deskktop at home without worrying about having the code with me. Muse will then publish remotely as well (though there seems to be a bug with RSS generation and Tramp that I need to work out).

I suspect you're posting was of good intent, and not a troll. I will therefore do my best to address you seriously.

First, I believe you are mistaken with respect to the bnetd case. I direct you to the judge's finding.

This case touches on many aspects of intellectual property law, and that is the reason I have written at least two articles on the topic. To briefly summarize for the impatient:

Without discussing other aspects of the case, the judge ruled on two very important topics: enforceability of EULAs, and first sale doctrine.

First, in pages 17-19, the court found the EULAs were indeed enforceable. This finding hinges on two facts:

1. The defendents clicked on "I Agree"
2. Under UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), "a contract for the sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existance of such a contract."

Let's focus for a moment on what has just happened. They have found that because of (1), the UCC binds them to the EULA because a sale took place.

Next, regarding the first sale doctrine on pages 19 and 20, the judge then argues that no sale has taken place, and therefore the first sale doctrine is not applicable:
"The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement."
...
The EULAs and TOU in this case explicitly state that the title and ownership of the games and Battle.net remain with Blizzard. Defendents do not produce sufficient evidence demonstrating that title and ownership of the games passed to them. Therefore the Court finds that the first sale doctrine is inapplicable here. [Emphasis mine]

This is incredible on a few levels. First, the court finds that EULAs are enforceable once you click "I Agree" because the software is sold, and that the first sale doctrine does not apply to software (of any kind!) because it is not a sale. Not only does this case touch on these points, but makes findings so broad as to affect all of software, and does so in a way that is self contradictory! This finding would even affect the ability for game buy-back stores to continue operation legally, since practically NO software is "sold", it is rather "licensed".

Anyone who is interested in a more detailed discussion are free to read the articles I wrote available on etherplex.

I suspect you're posting was of good intent, and not a troll. I will therefore do my best to address you seriously.

First, I believe you are mistaken with respect to the bnetd case. I direct you to the judge's finding.

This case touches on many aspects of intellectual property law, and that is the reason I have written at least two articles on the topic. To briefly summarize for the impatient:

Without discussing other aspects of the case, the judge ruled on two very important topics: enforceability of EULAs, and first sale doctrine.

First, in pages 17-19, the court found the EULAs were indeed enforceable. This finding hinges on two facts:

1. The defendents clicked on "I Agree"
2. Under UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), "a contract for the sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existance of such a contract."

Let's focus for a moment on what has just happened. They have found that because of (1), the UCC binds them to the EULA because a sale took place.

Next, regarding the first sale doctrine on pages 19 and 20, the judge then argues that no sale has taken place, and therefore the first sale doctrine is not applicable:
"The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement."
...
The EULAs and TOU in this case explicitly state that the title and ownership of the games and Battle.net remain with Blizzard. Defendents do not produce sufficient evidence demonstrating that title and ownership of the games passed to them. Therefore the Court finds that the first sale doctrine is inapplicable here. [Emphasis mine]

This is incredible on a few levels. First, the court finds that EULAs are enforceable once you click "I Agree" because the software is sold, and that the first sale doctrine does not apply to software (of any kind!) because it is not a sale. Not only does this case touch on these points, but makes findings so broad as to affect all of software, and does so in a way that is self contradictory! This finding would even affect the ability for game buy-back stores to continue operation legally, since practically NO software is "sold", it is rather "licensed".

Anyone who is interested in a more detailed discussion are free to read the articles I wrote available on etherplex.

I suspect you're posting was of good intent, and not a troll. I will therefore do my best to address you seriously.

First, I believe you are mistaken with respect to the bnetd case. I direct you to the judge's finding.

This case touches on many aspects of intellectual property law, and that is the reason I have written at least two articles on the topic. To briefly summarize for the impatient:

Without discussing other aspects of the case, the judge ruled on two very important topics: enforceability of EULAs, and first sale doctrine.

First, in pages 17-19, the court found the EULAs were indeed enforceable. This finding hinges on two facts:

1. The defendents clicked on "I Agree"
2. Under UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), "a contract for the sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existance of such a contract."

Let's focus for a moment on what has just happened. They have found that because of (1), the UCC binds them to the EULA because a sale took place.

Next, regarding the first sale doctrine on pages 19 and 20, the judge then argues that no sale has taken place, and therefore the first sale doctrine is not applicable:
"The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement."
...
The EULAs and TOU in this case explicitly state that the title and ownership of the games and Battle.net remain with Blizzard. Defendents do not produce sufficient evidence demonstrating that title and ownership of the games passed to them. Therefore the Court finds that the first sale doctrine is inapplicable here. [Emphasis mine]

This is incredible on a few levels. First, the court finds that EULAs are enforceable once you click "I Agree" because the software is sold, and that the first sale doctrine does not apply to software (of any kind!) because it is not a sale. Not only does this case touch on these points, but makes findings so broad as to affect all of software, and does so in a way that is self contradictory! This finding would even affect the ability for game buy-back stores to continue operation legally, since practically NO software is "sold", it is rather "licensed".

Anyone who is interested in a more detailed discussion are free to read the articles I wrote available on etherplex.

Actually, courts are upholding EULAs (even those undisclosed at point of sale) as enforcable. I would love to back you and say "Screw EULAs!", but recent events like those on 30 Sept. are reminding us that courts are increasingly siding with the big companies on this one.

More disturbing, it is extremely important to understand what the EULAs say more than ever before, because companies like Blizzard are injecting clauses into the EULA that explicity say that by clicking "OK" and using the software, you are giving up specific rights like your right to reverse engineer for interoperability, and your rights protected under the first sale doctrine. This came out in the recent decision in the Bnetd case.

In fact, multiple provisions protected under copyright law and the DMCA that allowed certain actions are being specifically forbidden in EULAs because companies don't want you to reverse engineer their products, no matter what. Courts are allowing you to "sign" away these protections allowed for in federal law in EULAs, even if the EULA was not available at point of sale.

This isn't a great forum to discuss this type of thing because it is really quite intricate, but I did write two pieces on this in my blog over at Etherplex that treat it in more detail. If you're not in touch with what the courts have been doing recently, it may be of interest.

Actually, courts are upholding EULAs (even those undisclosed at point of sale) as enforcable. I would love to back you and say "Screw EULAs!", but recent events like those on 30 Sept. are reminding us that courts are increasingly siding with the big companies on this one.

More disturbing, it is extremely important to understand what the EULAs say more than ever before, because companies like Blizzard are injecting clauses into the EULA that explicity say that by clicking "OK" and using the software, you are giving up specific rights like your right to reverse engineer for interoperability, and your rights protected under the first sale doctrine. This came out in the recent decision in the Bnetd case.

In fact, multiple provisions protected under copyright law and the DMCA that allowed certain actions are being specifically forbidden in EULAs because companies don't want you to reverse engineer their products, no matter what. Courts are allowing you to "sign" away these protections allowed for in federal law in EULAs, even if the EULA was not available at point of sale.

This isn't a great forum to discuss this type of thing because it is really quite intricate, but I did write two pieces on this in my blog over at Etherplex that treat it in more detail. If you're not in touch with what the courts have been doing recently, it may be of interest.

Whether grandparent knows it or not, he's right, even in the face of all your arguments.

You keep asking "why?" - well, I'll tell you. Because copyright was not designed with the benefit of the artist as its primary concern. The REAL purpose of copyright is to motivate the artist enough to release his work, and encourage him to keep producing other artistic works.

It is NOT the primary interest of copyright to make people millionaires so they *don't* have to continue working, it is the exact opposite. Believe it or not, copyright is primarily intended as a benefit to the general public, and a motivator to encourage the copyright holder to release his work for the public good.

For reference on th above, check the US Constitution, the 1908 (I think) copyright convention documents, and the "Betamax" case in the early 80s.

For an in depth article relating to this and how it was mis-used in the "bnetd" case, check my blog, where I cite those sources in a bit more informative way.

Maybe you should do research on what the law actually says about EULA enforcement. I wrote a good intro on my blog about it, including links to the state-of-the-art cases regarding EULAs. I did talk to a lawyer in the course of my research, and he mentioned that courts most everywhere are tending towards enforcement of EULAs. My research has confirmed that statement.

I don't know where you're getting your inofrmation, but you might want to check it.