Also, browse through r.g.p. if you like, though the spam/noise content is high these days. Unfortunately, due to the garbage on Usenet, a lot of the poker geek stuff that formerly centered around RGP has gone offline to BARGE and BARGE-like events (ATLARGE, FARGO, etc.), informal gatherings at various poker tournaments, private mailing lists, etc.
At this point, I guaran-damn-tee someone will bring up the "radio stations pay royalties" point.
Why do they pay royalties?
Radio stations do not pay royalties for musical recordings. They pay royalties (via BMI/ASCAP) to songwriters and composers, not recording owners. And guess what? So does MP3.COM!
Why don't radio stations pay royalties to recording owners? Because Congress decided not to grant an exclusive right of performance for these particular works. Why? Just because.
Copyright is about an arbitrary compromise between creators, users, and society, and in particular, radio stations have lobbyists such as those which work for the NAB.
Copyright is not about what is morally right and wrong. Anyone who claims it is is trying to sell you something.
Bottom line: Radio stations have juice in Congress, and Internet companies like MP3.COM don't, at least not yet.
Streambox allowed access to work that was never purchased. This makes a big difference in the fair use analysis.
According to Sony, the fact that the work is being made available for the public to view without charge argues strongly in favor of fair use when it comes to, for example, using a VCR for time shifting:
time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact [464 U.S. 417, 450] that the entire work is reproduced, see 107(3), does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use.
Real's case depending on the DMCA overriding fair use, not on Streambox's product failing to qualify as having a substantial non-infringing use (i.e. time shifting) under existing law.
Charge Backs. The Buyer Protection Guarantee does not obviate any other consumer rights Users may have, including charge back rights that may be granted by the User's credit card issuer.
Office 6 for the Mac (the last version prior to Office 98) was one of the worst Microsoft products ever released, as well as one of the worst Mac products. I can't prove this of course, but I suspect that the atrocious quality of Office 6 had something to do with the precipitous decline of Apple several years ago (not that Apple didn't do plenty itself).
Anyway, Office 6 was not updated for years. It appeared that Microsoft had completely abandoned Office development for the Mac.
Until Microsoft made a deal to invest in Apple, have Apple drop its patent lawsuit against Microsoft, and have Apple adopt IE and marginalize Netscape. Then, as if by magic, Office 98 appeared on the scene as a generally superb Macintosh application (not that it doesn't have some warts).
After doing some more research I must reluctantly conclude that you are correct with regard to Section 117.
I seems that Section 117 has been vitiated by some rather questionable reasoning in the courts. It is quite remarkable that Congress has not corrected this rather drastic rewriting of the copyright law in the courts, but it has not.
I would encourage all those with misconceptions similar to my own to consider the following quote from MAI:
This conclusion is consistent with its finding, in granting the preliminary injunction, that: "the loading of copyrighted computer software from a storage medium (hard disk, floppy disk, or read only memory) into the memory of a central processing unit causes a copy to be made.
In the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by license such acts constitute copyright infringement., " We find that this conclusion is supported by the record and by the law. (emphesis added)
Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
Slashdot Mirror
Also, browse through r.g.p. if you like, though the spam/noise content is high these days. Unfortunately, due to the garbage on Usenet, a lot of the poker geek stuff that formerly centered around RGP has gone offline to BARGE and BARGE-like events (ATLARGE, FARGO, etc.), informal gatherings at various poker tournaments, private mailing lists, etc.
Check out BARGE
Just transmit it over the 429 THz EM band!
read this. It explains things pretty well.
Radio stations do not pay royalties for musical recordings. They pay royalties (via BMI/ASCAP) to songwriters and composers, not recording owners. And guess what? So does MP3.COM!
Why don't radio stations pay royalties to recording owners? Because Congress decided not to grant an exclusive right of performance for these particular works. Why? Just because.
Copyright is about an arbitrary compromise between creators, users, and society, and in particular, radio stations have lobbyists such as those which work for the NAB.
Copyright is not about what is morally right and wrong. Anyone who claims it is is trying to sell you something.
Bottom line: Radio stations have juice in Congress, and Internet companies like MP3.COM don't, at least not yet.
Real's case depending on the DMCA overriding fair use, not on Streambox's product failing to qualify as having a substantial non-infringing use (i.e. time shifting) under existing law.
Office 6 for the Mac (the last version prior to Office 98) was one of the worst Microsoft products ever released, as well as one of the worst Mac products. I can't prove this of course, but I suspect that the atrocious quality of Office 6 had something to do with the precipitous decline of Apple several years ago (not that Apple didn't do plenty itself).
Anyway, Office 6 was not updated for years. It appeared that Microsoft had completely abandoned Office development for the Mac.
Until Microsoft made a deal to invest in Apple, have Apple drop its patent lawsuit against Microsoft, and have Apple adopt IE and marginalize Netscape. Then, as if by magic, Office 98 appeared on the scene as a generally superb Macintosh application (not that it doesn't have some warts).
Coincidence? What do you think?
I seems that Section 117 has been vitiated by some rather questionable reasoning in the courts. It is quite remarkable that Congress has not corrected this rather drastic rewriting of the copyright law in the courts, but it has not.
I would encourage all those with misconceptions similar to my own to consider the following quote from MAI:
Thank you for the education.Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner