Slashdot Mirror

or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here.

Bzzt. Wrong.

A monopoly is "the power to fix prices or exclude competition, coupled with policies designed to use or preserve that power."

Google demonstrably does not have this power. Just because it is popular -- even to the point where you imagine it's used exclusively by everyone -- doesn't make it a monopoly, because competitors have no artificial barriers to market entry raised to them and consumers have low, or zero, switching costs.

If even if, somehow, Google did become a monoply, there are legal and illegal monopolies. Microsoft was shown to be an illegal monoply, while no credible evidence has been offered to show Google would fulfil the criteria established under the Sherman act, even if their monoply status was granted as a given.

And who told you that 'you cannot legally consent to be physically assaulted'?

First- the definition of 'assault' threat or use of force on another that reasonably makes that person fear bodily harm.

Now I can think up a LOT of other examples, but let's just take the sport of boxing into consideration here. Boxing IS assault- force on another that reasonably makes that person fear bodily harm. Now, read a typical waiver for a boxing match.

There are thousands and thousands of other examples that could be used. But you don't see the cops arresting the winner of a boxing match- because both 'parties' have agreed that everything is cool. They have consented to be assaulted.

It happens in the military, it happens with police (training) it happens in other sports- stunt men, etc. Damn, even porn stars agree to be abused/assaulted to make movies. No- that woman really doesn't like a dick being shoved down her throat so she can't breathe...but, I'm sure she signed a waiver saying it was okay. Otherwise, she would have the best courtroom evidence ever...a videotape of the assault.

In the US too, to some extent, at least for the visual arts.

The legal term is "moral rights" and you can read more here: http://www.legal-definitions.com/IP/moral-rights.h tm

That is the US version.

Yes, the GPL does require you to waive certain moral rights (provided that the work is distributed under the GPL).

Contracts 101. If the CD doesn't play in a device it should, you have the right to rescind the contract i.e., a right to a refund. Where did YOU get YOUR law degree?

-truth

You're trying to define stealing as getting something of value without paying for it. The dictionary, and the law, disagree with that definition.

A more accepted definition can be found here: "the taking of someone else's property with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it."

Webster's adds that, "To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."

When it comes to "stealing" music, copyright has everything to do with it. You're just copying data, which doesn't meet the definition of theft, above. No part of any property has been removed from its former position; no one will be deprived, permanently or otherwise, of the property; and you are not in the complete possession of the property. The only reason you might be committing a crime is if copyright forbids you from copying that data because an exclusive right to do so has been granted to its author.

The act of copyright infringement is fundamentally different from that of stealing. The use of the word "theft" to describe it is propaganda, pushed by special interests who would like to tie down and "own" every thought, idea, and piece of information possible. I reject it.

Finally, a very relevant plug for a some very valuable information that you may access for free: Lawrence Lessig's new book, Free Culture. I downloaded the PDF, but after reading the introduction, I bought the hard-cover.

In court you'd have to prove negligence or deliberate behavior. You'd have to prove Sony designed the TV to electrocute you

negligence: n. failure to do what a person exercising ordinary care would do under similar circumstances.

Either you don't know the definition of negligence, or you're deliberately contradicting yourself. Either way, it shows a decided lack of knowledge on the subject.

You'd have to prove no such thing, just that Sony made a mistake, which caused an accident.

How is this any different?

By now, hasn't SCO contradicted themselves so many times on so many issues they're estoppeled from any course of action whatsoever?

Maybe just a non-lawyer's wishful thinking...