Slashdot Mirror

Not to be a grammar-Nazi, but this is one of my pet peeves. It's a moot point, not a mute point. I have a co-worker that talks about "mute points" all the time, and it drives me nuts!

Impact.

Well, generally past enforcement patterns (i.e. non-enforcement and selective enforcement) has nothing to do with the patent rights. AFAIK, if you've paid the patent fees, it's still your patent and you can still sue over infringment. This is unlike trademarks, where all sorts of things can affect the validity of your trademark (for example, if a trademark holder users their mark as a verb rather than a proper noun, it might not stand up in court).

However, there is the legal concept of laches, which MIGHT provide protection against past damages. If it applied to patents, then if a company was aware of a particular infringment, showed negligance by failing to enforce their patent (i.e. sue the infringer), then comes back much later and decides to sue, the infringer couldn't be held responsible for past damages (although they could still be ordered to stop infringing, etc.). This is all in theory though, I'm not sure if this has been tested in court with regard to patents. And IANAL.

If anyone knows more about this, feel free to enlighten me.

Effect is a noun. Affect is a verb.

That's not strictly true. It's also a transitive verb.

See also the usage note at affect.

Effect is a noun. Affect is a verb.

That's not strictly true. It's also a transitive verb.

See also the usage note at affect.

You are thinking of agnosticism, which asserts that the knowledge of the supernatural that would be required to choose either theism or atheism cannot be known by humans, e.g., both positions are bogus.

Atheism is the paradoxical doctrine that implies that atheists can and have investigated the supernatural realm which they believe to not exist, and the knowledge they found as a result of their investigation of this non-existent realm is that God isn't there.

Indubitably.

While I appreciate the attempt at expanding the vocabulary here on slashdot, next time kindly include a dictionary.com link for the rest of us inarticulate folks. Thank you!

They're searching for a more clinical term which also has the cathartic effect of being a euphemism, similar to how many alcoholics prefer the word "dependency."

...

So, let's all pick the word that makes us feel good, while we download away.

Like "illegal copying" (one of the examples I specifically gave). Or "copyright violation." Heck, I'm even willing to stand by "immoral copying." Exactly how are those, "mild, indirect, or vague term[s]"? Does saying that I engage in illegal and immoral copying make me feel good? I'm not trying to say that copyright infringement is all good and happy. I'm trying to put forth a neutral term. The nature of copyright is something we should rationally discuss. There are many groups, primarily copyright based industries, that want to avoid rational discussion. Thus, they like words like piracy, they want people thinking this is a Copyright Is Good, Everything Else Is Bad.

At which point in my post did I suggest that I was or wanted to be a pirate or a downloader? Where did I say that I should be free to download anything I want without repercussions? I didn't. I think we need a middle ground, that warez groups are wrong and industries seeking copyrights that last two lifespans are also wrong. Unfortunately the debate has turned into a "you're for law and copyright, or your a filthy pirate." If you advocate that perhaps the situation is more complex you get lumped in with the pirates. You did this yourself, you selected my post as representative of people "who still see nothing wrong with helping themselves to all the MP3s they can 'share.'" I wasn't arguing for that at all! I specifically said I believe copyright law is a good idea nd that enforcement should continue. Apparently simply for arguing that the language is being abused is grounds to convict me and others with similar viewpoints as pirates. This is exactly why we need to be more careful about the use of language. I'm arguing for such crazy ideas as accurate language, the language used in the laws in question. Many in copyright industries are actively attempting to confuse the issues and slander anyone who disagrees, even about small issues.

You spelled posters wrong.

(It's funny. Laugh.)

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

Don't you also love slashdot's auto- href captions?

First off, from a practical matter of the US DoD, this discussion is irrelevant. The military is so dependent on civilians and outside contractors for their software development needs that any requirement to "keep it inside" would be crippling. If they can't pass it back and forth to MITRE and TRW, then they may as well not have it.

They have a number of attorneys in their organization. When it comes to interpreting the GPL, I'll take their word over yours.

I might too, if there was any indication that an attorney had actually written that FAQ. Unfortunately, I don't see a name like "Eben Moglen" signed to the bottom of it.

I also might grant that answer some credibility if it actually tried to explain the reasoning behind its position, instead of just tossing it out there unsupported.

If they're part of the organization, they're not contractors. That's the definition of "contractor."

No it isn't. But the definition of "organization" is the one that actually matters here. And the word "organization" has a very broad meaning. Almost any group of people qualifies as an organization. For example, can you deny that the previously mentioned
Unitied Space Alliance is an organization? They sure act organized! But look at the membership: all contractors, who keep wandering off-site and back.

I should note that corporations are just one kind of organization. The legal boundary to becoming a corporation is higher than for forming an organization, but it's easily met with a few $100 in fees. Other kinds of organizations include schools, clubs, associations, and even countries.

However, if you give them a copy to take off your site and back to their site, that's a distribution.

If you give them a copy at all, for any reason, and they carry it 2 meters away, that's distribution.

But let's suppose for a minute that you were right; that one programmer in an organization can modify a GPL program for use by all the other members, and that the leader of the group can order them not to share it with outsiders.

If that were true, then a loophole would be created sufficient to deprive the GPL of all its strength. A company wishing to sell a modified GPL program with typical for-profit licensing could simply require prospective customers to join a club before making a purchase. From then on, they're members of an organization, so they can be sent binary software with no right to request the source code.

"Distribution for internal use only" would be a fatal loophole in the GPL- if it actually worked.

Check my profile.

C++ skills, eh? I hope you put those for use in your job... it'll save taxpayer money from high-priced defense contractors who do most DoD coding.

First off, from a practical matter of the US DoD, this discussion is irrelevant. The military is so dependent on civilians and outside contractors for their software development needs that any requirement to "keep it inside" would be crippling. If they can't pass it back and forth to MITRE and TRW, then they may as well not have it.

They have a number of attorneys in their organization. When it comes to interpreting the GPL, I'll take their word over yours.

I might too, if there was any indication that an attorney had actually written that FAQ. Unfortunately, I don't see a name like "Eben Moglen" signed to the bottom of it.

I also might grant that answer some credibility if it actually tried to explain the reasoning behind its position, instead of just tossing it out there unsupported.

If they're part of the organization, they're not contractors. That's the definition of "contractor."

No it isn't. But the definition of "organization" is the one that actually matters here. And the word "organization" has a very broad meaning. Almost any group of people qualifies as an organization. For example, can you deny that the previously mentioned
Unitied Space Alliance is an organization? They sure act organized! But look at the membership: all contractors, who keep wandering off-site and back.

I should note that corporations are just one kind of organization. The legal boundary to becoming a corporation is higher than for forming an organization, but it's easily met with a few $100 in fees. Other kinds of organizations include schools, clubs, associations, and even countries.

However, if you give them a copy to take off your site and back to their site, that's a distribution.

If you give them a copy at all, for any reason, and they carry it 2 meters away, that's distribution.

But let's suppose for a minute that you were right; that one programmer in an organization can modify a GPL program for use by all the other members, and that the leader of the group can order them not to share it with outsiders.

If that were true, then a loophole would be created sufficient to deprive the GPL of all its strength. A company wishing to sell a modified GPL program with typical for-profit licensing could simply require prospective customers to join a club before making a purchase. From then on, they're members of an organization, so they can be sent binary software with no right to request the source code.

"Distribution for internal use only" would be a fatal loophole in the GPL- if it actually worked.

Check my profile.

C++ skills, eh? I hope you put those for use in your job... it'll save taxpayer money from high-priced defense contractors who do most DoD coding.

What did you add?

I'll at least say that theft is defined as: 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Since you are not depriving anybody of anything, there is no theft. That's not to say it's legal - there may be some copyright infringements or trespassing issues in some of the examples given.

Okay, that's an amusing list of arguments, many of which are actually made by some of the kids online. I get the feeling that your intention is to suggest that these are the only arguments for widespread distribution (a straw man argument), but *shrug*, maybe I'm just misinterpreting. However, one of the arguments you're mocking isn't quite as obviously wrong as you suggest.

(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.

I've never heard of a parking infringement, but I suppose. I do hear "illegally parked" or "parking violation" (which was what my last parking ticket read). Those are perfectly reasonable terms, after all, one is illegally parked and one has violated parking laws. I'm perfectly fine with copyright violation or illegal copying. Both are accurate descriptions of the crime. Copyright infringment is arguably more accurate (since you're infringing on exclusivity granted to someone else), but violation or illegal is certainly nice and accurate.

Piracy, on the other hand, isn't terribly accurate. Piracy's has multiple definitions and those different definitions are governed by different laws and punishments. Many people (myself included) feel that we need to reconsider our intellectual property laws, that perhaps they've become unbalanced and no longer serve the common good. It's important to have accurate language in such a discussion; colorful terms and phrases like piracy cloud the issue. Those people and businesses interested in maximizing the power of copyright deliberately chose words like piracy and theft because they know they have emotion impact, it's easier to get people to agree with ideas like "theft is wrong" without having them consider the details of what they are agreeing too. If they used words and phrases like illegal copying they know that some people will step back and ask, "why is the illegal? What is the real harm?" This sort of misdirection is unnecessary. I certainly believe that copyright law is a good thing. I would be against abolishing copyright law or eliminating enforcement. However I arrived at those conclusions through reason and the facts, not through emotional arguments and colorful phrases. Shoplifting a CD is a very different action from downloading an illegal copy online, trying to confuse the two is a false analogy. If copyright really is right why not defend it without descending into logical fallacies?

Or are you just illiterate? Why not educate yourself? Please take notice of definitions 2 & 3

YHBT

You aparently do not know what the word draconian means.

Doesn't anyone know how to look beyond their screen?

Dictionary Reference for Poured
v. intr.


1. To stream or flow continuously or profusely.
2. To rain hard or heavily.
3. To pass or proceed in large numbers or quantity: Students poured into the auditorium.
4. To serve a beverage, such as tea or coffee, to a gathering: We need someone to pour.

So, if they poured through the data, they passed through the data in large numbers; meaning either many agents looking at a small amount of data, or a large amout of data being looked at by a few agents.

NeoThermic

Wow, the radiant splendor of ignorance. Perhaps he means "virtual" as in precisely what it means?

"Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo."

Shady business practices, yes. Illegal, yes. And with an overwhelming marketshare (over 80%?) on the desktop OS and office suites, it's by definition a virtual monopoly. Slowly: Not. Literally. 100%, But. In. Essence.

It's kind of a word:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Luser%20

Yeah, but my dictionary does have a link for Whoa

The OED, good book, requires subscription though :(

Fiction propels fact in the barrent wasteland that is Mans' inspirational landscape.

If it weren't for the sci-fi authors of the 30's, 40's and 50's, we wouldn't nearly be as motivated a technological culture as we currently are.

I'm amazed that you are unable to see this connection, honestly. Maybe you don't know what the word 'inspiration' means?

We even labelled the contents of her drawers!

Of course you are aware of the dictionary meaning of the word "drawers" ?

sarcasm

I think perhaps the RIAA is more of a cartel. I don't see any way you could shoehorn the RIAA in to the definition of monopoly.

The grandparent referred the RIAA as an oligopoly and not a monopoly. If you look up oligopoly up in a thesaurus, I'm almost absolutely sure you'll see cartel as a synonym. Hell, I'll do it for you. Here you go.

The grandparent did explain all this, but I can see how people might have missed that.

Yes, clearly that is true. You can tell from the hundreds of thousands of new Linux users.

People need to stop trying to pass the blame onto Windows here. This was a problem. It happened and it happened in Linux. BSOD's happen so much it's in the dictionary yet Linux is still a very distant second (maybe even thrid) in the OS race and this "it's not Linux's fault" attitude is the reason.

I'm not acquiesing on my argument (which contained synonyms, not analogies), BUT for the record:

I apologize for my "don't be dense" comment. I was immature and rude. It turns out that our little debate on this topic is not unique :^) See: unique and read the usage notes, if you're interested.

Since more practiced writers than me are arguing about it, I'm just going to lay down my saber here.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

wetback

If so, then it's completely lost on me.

Unfortunately, if the reader has "Display Link Domains" set to on (as I do), it interferes with the readability of the sentence. I originally only had "Cartman" linked, but didn't like the way it looked (so close to the end of the sentence), so linked the whole thing, not expecting some pompous ass to make snide remarks.

Insofar as the "sopho" reference that both of you so painfully missed, here's a link you two might find illuminating...

> Are they defending human rights, or simply trying
> to impose their own beliefs on people from other
> cultures?

Both. BTW - to Impose or to Persuade and convince? See Fallacy of Prejudicial Language