And that's assuming there's no third-party GPL code used in his project, because that would make the whole thing GPL regardless of who did it or who it belongs to.
So, I think the first two questions the OP need to answer are:
1) Did he use any third party GPL code in his project? 2) Was the project done 'for hire', and if it was, was the contract free of any licensing restrictions? (e.g. the company didn't ask for ownership of the code produced)
If the answer to any of the above questions is "yes", then he has a case, and he should seriously consider getting a lawyer (and/or the EFF?) to take a look at it. If the answer to both is "no", then he'd be hard pressed to prove the GPL license was legitimate to begin with, but that will depend on the fine print of local laws I'm not familiar with. Honestly, in any case he should seek advice from a lawyer, but answering those questions would give a better idea of how solid his case might be.
Well I haven't heard of those gadgets for a few years, but I think back then it was some of the people going through the accesses to the general part of the stadium (called 'popular' in argentina). Not 100% sure though, and they can change that procedure any time they like. I worked for the company that built, programmed and sold the stuff, not for the police (I've only talked to them so I know how it went, but not down to every last detail).
Sadly, the police usually knows who many hooligans are (which usually even brag about it and have connections with the clubs directives and usually go in groups). For the rest ftey profile on many things, and I'm sure you'd be able to get your own idea if you ever come see a match here.
In any case, the point I was trying to make was that first: nobody gets thrown in jail or his license cancelled automatically (but they do, as you pointed out, miss the match and spend a few hours at the station for a check), and second: it's an improvement over taking people *only* because they look suspicious.
Yeah, they take them to the station against their will (very few people go there voluntarily as you can imagine). They only miss the match as these checks are mostly done on hooligan groups and they all have club memberships (which many of them don't even pay) . Again, I didn't say I like it, but It's still better than picking people off because they look like the face on a wanted pic. or more-or-less match a wanted description.
Who said anything about imprisonment or fines? they just get their prints checked by an expert to confirm the match. It takes at most a couple of hours. I'm not saying I like it, but it's far from letting an automated system put you in jail or taking your license away.
Actually I got the number wrong, it was 99.99% accuracy. Still not 100%, though, and it'll probably never be. Haven't worked on that field for at least 5 years now, so I dunno how much those things have improved.
I used to work with fingerprint identification systems for some police forces, and that's how they do it. AFIS systems are only a tool to narrow down and (enormously) speed up the candidate search process. The decision to declare a match is ALWAYS up to a human expert, after careful review of the results from the system. The only kind-of-exception to this are from portable devices the police uses for example at football matches, on which they have loaded the patterns for wanted persons. They scan everyone going into the stadium, and if they got a match (automatic, 99.9% accurate, but false positives ARE possible), the person is taken into the nearest police station for a more serious AFIS check, with an expert determining if there's a match.
Instant revoking of licenses or serious decisions like that shouldn't be left to automatic systems, no matter how accurate they might be. This has to be always a human decision, and one of the main reasons is that humans have to take responsibility for their actions and can be held accountable. The identification system is just a tool to help people do their jobs better/faster (not to do it for them).
When I go to a store and buy a CD, I don't sign any lease (or any other kind of) contract. I BUY A COPY which I'm free to use as I see fit within the limits of copyright law (which in essence means: no public showings, no redistribution without permission). If they want to lease music under specific extra-copyright restrictions, they should clearly state so and not make everyone think they're buying something. Copyright doesn't give IP owners the right to impose conditions on usage other than those which are accounted for in copyright law. after a sale has been made. All this shenanigans about "licensing" is relatively new, and has been completely overdone in the software industry in particular.
Along with the standard computer warranty agreement which said that if the machine 1) didn't work, 2) didn't do what the expensive advertisement said, 3) electrocuted the immediate neighbourhood, 4) and in fact failed entirely to be inside the expensive box when you opened it, this was expressly, absolutely, implicitly and in no event the fault or responsibility of the manufacturer, that the purchaser should consider himself lucky to be allowed to give his money to the manufacturer, and that any attempt to treat what had just been paid for as the purchaser's own property would result in the attentions of serious men with menacing briefcases and very thin watches.
Crowley had been extremely impressed with the warranties offered by the computer industry, and had in fact sent a bundle Below to the department that drew up the Immortal Soul agreements, with a yellow memo form attached just saying: "Learn, guys."
-- Crowley is a demon, in case you don't know (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
Funny how, depending on what's more convenient at the moment, they argue that they actually "license" the content (say, a song) to you, so you don't own a copy, you're just paying for the right to listen to the song, yet when you say "ok, then I'll just copy it to every player I have so I can listen to it on my car, my mp3 player, my home HiFi setup, my computer, etc" they go "no, wait! you actually bought one copy! on CD! if you want an mp3 you have to buy it again!"
It's not about good graphics but nostalgia, I think. Sadly, I don't have my spectrum nor my MSX around anymore but I got a compaq presario cds 524, still working with win95, but I'm planning on installing either some DOS (if I can get some floppys to get the images on) or (if I can manage it) some very small linux distro. On win95 it's already running carmen sandiego and some other oldies:D
You know, there are a lot of other types of "worth", not just monetary. A pacemaker literally saves someone's life. Does that mean the price should be everything the patient has and/or can manage to cough up?
Just because someone gets a copy of something without paying the official price for it doesn't mean it's devoid of any kind of value.
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
You work at IBM? we had Symantec AV running on the ubuntu image when I worked there. I guess that could be a good solution for these people, they seem to be looking for that kind of corporate 'I-feel-safer-and-dont-mind-to-pay" av solution.
Persons who buy the new versions that don't explode, work quite sliently, flash them to play pirated games (sorry, you meant that as a downside??), and use their own DX-bought hard drives on it, for half the price of a ps3.
Also, I didn't see the video but there's a difference between subduing a person and cuffing him to take him in, and beating the crap out of said person even when he's already on the floor, which happens far more often than it should. If you see the first case, you might ask what the guy did. If you see the 2nd case, then it's harder to think it's really justified.
Hah, I'll just ignore that last phrase, we'd consume/.'s storage just arguing about it:)
As for the government fighting clarin, so far they haven't done anything outside the law. In fact, they've gone to the justice to litigate, and some cases they won, some they lost (and many are still unresolved). But it's true that they are more expeditive treating that issue than with any other media. I'd say it's to be expected anyway, seeing the level of crap they make up and how they attack the government in turn.
As for printing the cds locally I meant to get a relatively low price. Even if there were no taxes, U$D50 = AR$200. if you compare to the average salary in argentina vs the average in the US, it's as if in US they were paying 200 dollars for a game. I bet there would be a lot more piracy (or a LOT less game sales).
Agreed about the judicial system stability. Just be careful when and how you measure that. It's no secret that in Argentina (and many other latin american countries, to be honest) we have a lot of room to improve in that regard, but also this has been taken as one of the things the political opposition chose to fight the government with on the media, along with insecurity and inflation. While these issues do exist and must be addressed, always be aware that the opposition will most likely exaggerate them enormously.
I'm visiting your country in a couple of weeks, my sister lives in SP, so I'm going to see her and then off to Angra with my uncle, my brother and a couple of friends. Can't wait:D
It's funny the relationship we have between Argentinians and Brazilians:) we make fun of each other but generally in a brother/friend spirit.. I love Brazil and Brazilians... except when we're talking about football, then it's war:D
High import taxes driving up import costs would also be solved if discs were pressed locally, and it would also generate a few local jobs. I'm not against import taxes in general, and I really REALLY dislike Clarin Group. It may have its cons, but they have way too much power and them being fought is in general a good thing. But I guess at that point we'll be entering a personal/moral/ideological debate which probably wouldn't be of any use. Sticking to the technical/legal discussion, I'd rather have IP laws somewhat like those of Canada, than those of the US.
The problems explained by hjf exist since WAY before this government and WAY before any government had any problems with Clarin. I'd like to be able to buy original games for my xbox (imported of course, as it's not officially sold by MS here) but they cost a ton of money, because we need to buy them imported too. So, the thing goes like this:
- We don't buy original games because they're prohibitively expensive, because they have to be imported, not being any publishers pressing dvds here. - Publishers won't press dvds here because they think we're not an interesting market for them, and because there's rampant piracy.
So it's the chicken and egg thing. And honestly, I don't see why it should be for us to start buying originals at huge prices, just to show these companies that they can sell stuff here, so we, maybe, someday, can get reasonably priced originals and services. After all, it's them whining and the ones who supposedly want to make money by selling stuff here, right? So they can do the first step. In the meantime, i'll just keep my copies, thankyouverymuch. The only thing they'll achieve if they only focus on erradicating piracy without addressing the above issues is getting guys like me to simply not buy any games anymore.
Well,, I'm from Argentina, and I disagree. I know TONS of people (even non-geeks) that use ubuntu or some other flavor of linux on the desktop willingly, and the cost of a copy of windows here is absolutely irrelevant, as almost everyone pirates it, unless it came preloaded with a notebook or a brand pc (and even then, many notebooks come with win7 home or starter and it gets replaced with a pirated copy of win7 pro or ultimate).
Also while I agree there must be a few, I haven't seen any jobs where you're forced to use linux on the desktop, but so far I've worked on 3 companies that either let me install it on my desktop, or already had a corporate approved image with all the corresponding software to use at the workplace (i.e. with lotus notes etc)
Completely wrong. You don't need to license at all to restrict redistribution. Any original work of yours is automatically copyrighted (though registration is encouraged and can save you a headache), and you hold the exclusive right to (re)distribution. Even if there's no license, no one obtaining a copy is allowed to distribute any further copies without your permission. That is your right under copyright law. Licenses have absolutely nothing to do with that.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's assuming there's no third-party GPL code used in his project, because that would make the whole thing GPL regardless of who did it or who it belongs to.
So, I think the first two questions the OP need to answer are:
1) Did he use any third party GPL code in his project?
2) Was the project done 'for hire', and if it was, was the contract free of any licensing restrictions? (e.g. the company didn't ask for ownership of the code produced)
If the answer to any of the above questions is "yes", then he has a case, and he should seriously consider getting a lawyer (and/or the EFF?) to take a look at it.
If the answer to both is "no", then he'd be hard pressed to prove the GPL license was legitimate to begin with, but that will depend on the fine print of local laws I'm not familiar with.
Honestly, in any case he should seek advice from a lawyer, but answering those questions would give a better idea of how solid his case might be.
(of course, this is just an opinion, IANAL)
Well I haven't heard of those gadgets for a few years, but I think back then it was some of the people going through the accesses to the general part of the stadium (called 'popular' in argentina). Not 100% sure though, and they can change that procedure any time they like. I worked for the company that built, programmed and sold the stuff, not for the police (I've only talked to them so I know how it went, but not down to every last detail).
Sadly, the police usually knows who many hooligans are (which usually even brag about it and have connections with the clubs directives and usually go in groups). For the rest ftey profile on many things, and I'm sure you'd be able to get your own idea if you ever come see a match here.
In any case, the point I was trying to make was that first: nobody gets thrown in jail or his license cancelled automatically (but they do, as you pointed out, miss the match and spend a few hours at the station for a check), and second: it's an improvement over taking people *only* because they look suspicious.
Yeah, they take them to the station against their will (very few people go there voluntarily as you can imagine). They only miss the match as these checks are mostly done on hooligan groups and they all have club memberships (which many of them don't even pay) . Again, I didn't say I like it, but It's still better than picking people off because they look like the face on a wanted pic. or more-or-less match a wanted description.
Who said anything about imprisonment or fines? they just get their prints checked by an expert to confirm the match. It takes at most a couple of hours.
I'm not saying I like it, but it's far from letting an automated system put you in jail or taking your license away.
Actually I got the number wrong, it was 99.99% accuracy. Still not 100%, though, and it'll probably never be. Haven't worked on that field for at least 5 years now, so I dunno how much those things have improved.
I used to work with fingerprint identification systems for some police forces, and that's how they do it. AFIS systems are only a tool to narrow down and (enormously) speed up the candidate search process. The decision to declare a match is ALWAYS up to a human expert, after careful review of the results from the system.
The only kind-of-exception to this are from portable devices the police uses for example at football matches, on which they have loaded the patterns for wanted persons. They scan everyone going into the stadium, and if they got a match (automatic, 99.9% accurate, but false positives ARE possible), the person is taken into the nearest police station for a more serious AFIS check, with an expert determining if there's a match.
Instant revoking of licenses or serious decisions like that shouldn't be left to automatic systems, no matter how accurate they might be. This has to be always a human decision, and one of the main reasons is that humans have to take responsibility for their actions and can be held accountable. The identification system is just a tool to help people do their jobs better/faster (not to do it for them).
Light-sensitive genes... ok.
However, I'll start worrying if tomorrow they come up with something that provokes serious mutations when fed after midnight.
which is pretty sad :(
I mean, whatever judge (or whoever) decided that streaming something to -one- person is broadcasting clearly has a few concepts mixed up.
When I go to a store and buy a CD, I don't sign any lease (or any other kind of) contract. I BUY A COPY which I'm free to use as I see fit within the limits of copyright law (which in essence means: no public showings, no redistribution without permission).
If they want to lease music under specific extra-copyright restrictions, they should clearly state so and not make everyone think they're buying something. Copyright doesn't give IP owners the right to impose conditions on usage other than those which are accounted for in copyright law. after a sale has been made. All this shenanigans about "licensing" is relatively new, and has been completely overdone in the software industry in particular.
Along with the standard computer warranty agreement which said that if the machine 1) didn't work, 2) didn't do what the expensive advertisement said, 3) electrocuted the immediate neighbourhood, 4) and in fact failed entirely to be inside the expensive box when you opened it, this was expressly, absolutely, implicitly and in no event the fault or responsibility of the manufacturer, that the purchaser should consider himself lucky to be allowed to give his money to the manufacturer, and that any attempt to treat what had just been paid for as the purchaser's own property would result in the attentions of serious men with menacing briefcases and very thin watches.
Crowley had been extremely impressed with the warranties offered by the computer industry, and had in fact sent a bundle Below to the department that drew up the Immortal Soul agreements, with a yellow memo form attached just saying: "Learn, guys."
-- Crowley is a demon, in case you don't know (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
yeah, I like PTerry's work :D
Funny how, depending on what's more convenient at the moment, they argue that they actually "license" the content (say, a song) to you, so you don't own a copy, you're just paying for the right to listen to the song, yet when you say "ok, then I'll just copy it to every player I have so I can listen to it on my car, my mp3 player, my home HiFi setup, my computer, etc" they go "no, wait! you actually bought one copy! on CD! if you want an mp3 you have to buy it again!"
Fuck them
Rather sounds like a job for Neil Gaiman =P
Also, it kinda makes me think of the movie "pirates of silicon valley"
The best solution for the interest groups involved would perhaps be to declare all of the US a jail (with some islands for the rich).
This would be a rather elegant way to get rid of the 'constitution' 'legally'.
CC.
FTFY
Now something must be done about vengeance, a badge and a gun.
great song :)
It's not about good graphics but nostalgia, I think. Sadly, I don't have my spectrum nor my MSX around anymore but I got a compaq presario cds 524, still working with win95, but I'm planning on installing either some DOS (if I can get some floppys to get the images on) or (if I can manage it) some very small linux distro. On win95 it's already running carmen sandiego and some other oldies :D
So you're agreeing that the parent is right: that student's copy of 3DSMax is NOT a lost sale?
You know, there are a lot of other types of "worth", not just monetary.
A pacemaker literally saves someone's life. Does that mean the price should be everything the patient has and/or can manage to cough up?
Just because someone gets a copy of something without paying the official price for it doesn't mean it's devoid of any kind of value.
As Stephen J. Gould put it:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
You work at IBM? we had Symantec AV running on the ubuntu image when I worked there. I guess that could be a good solution for these people, they seem to be looking for that kind of corporate 'I-feel-safer-and-dont-mind-to-pay" av solution.
Persons who buy the new versions that don't explode, work quite sliently, flash them to play pirated games (sorry, you meant that as a downside??), and use their own DX-bought hard drives on it, for half the price of a ps3.
Oh, and don't care about online gaming :)
Here you go
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Have fun :)
Also, I didn't see the video but there's a difference between subduing a person and cuffing him to take him in, and beating the crap out of said person even when he's already on the floor, which happens far more often than it should.
If you see the first case, you might ask what the guy did. If you see the 2nd case, then it's harder to think it's really justified.
Hah, I'll just ignore that last phrase, we'd consume /.'s storage just arguing about it :)
As for the government fighting clarin, so far they haven't done anything outside the law. In fact, they've gone to the justice to litigate, and some cases they won, some they lost (and many are still unresolved). But it's true that they are more expeditive treating that issue than with any other media. I'd say it's to be expected anyway, seeing the level of crap they make up and how they attack the government in turn.
As for printing the cds locally I meant to get a relatively low price. Even if there were no taxes, U$D50 = AR$200. if you compare to the average salary in argentina vs the average in the US, it's as if in US they were paying 200 dollars for a game. I bet there would be a lot more piracy (or a LOT less game sales).
Agreed about the judicial system stability. Just be careful when and how you measure that. It's no secret that in Argentina (and many other latin american countries, to be honest) we have a lot of room to improve in that regard, but also this has been taken as one of the things the political opposition chose to fight the government with on the media, along with insecurity and inflation. While these issues do exist and must be addressed, always be aware that the opposition will most likely exaggerate them enormously.
I'm visiting your country in a couple of weeks, my sister lives in SP, so I'm going to see her and then off to Angra with my uncle, my brother and a couple of friends. Can't wait :D
It's funny the relationship we have between Argentinians and Brazilians :) we make fun of each other but generally in a brother/friend spirit.. I love Brazil and Brazilians... except when we're talking about football, then it's war :D
High import taxes driving up import costs would also be solved if discs were pressed locally, and it would also generate a few local jobs. I'm not against import taxes in general, and I really REALLY dislike Clarin Group. It may have its cons, but they have way too much power and them being fought is in general a good thing. But I guess at that point we'll be entering a personal/moral/ideological debate which probably wouldn't be of any use. Sticking to the technical/legal discussion, I'd rather have IP laws somewhat like those of Canada, than those of the US.
The problems explained by hjf exist since WAY before this government and WAY before any government had any problems with Clarin. I'd like to be able to buy original games for my xbox (imported of course, as it's not officially sold by MS here) but they cost a ton of money, because we need to buy them imported too.
So, the thing goes like this:
- We don't buy original games because they're prohibitively expensive, because they have to be imported, not being any publishers pressing dvds here.
- Publishers won't press dvds here because they think we're not an interesting market for them, and because there's rampant piracy.
So it's the chicken and egg thing. And honestly, I don't see why it should be for us to start buying originals at huge prices, just to show these companies that they can sell stuff here, so we, maybe, someday, can get reasonably priced originals and services. After all, it's them whining and the ones who supposedly want to make money by selling stuff here, right?
So they can do the first step. In the meantime, i'll just keep my copies, thankyouverymuch.
The only thing they'll achieve if they only focus on erradicating piracy without addressing the above issues is getting guys like me to simply not buy any games anymore.
Well,, I'm from Argentina, and I disagree. I know TONS of people (even non-geeks) that use ubuntu or some other flavor of linux on the desktop willingly, and the cost of a copy of windows here is absolutely irrelevant, as almost everyone pirates it, unless it came preloaded with a notebook or a brand pc (and even then, many notebooks come with win7 home or starter and it gets replaced with a pirated copy of win7 pro or ultimate).
Also while I agree there must be a few, I haven't seen any jobs where you're forced to use linux on the desktop, but so far I've worked on 3 companies that either let me install it on my desktop, or already had a corporate approved image with all the corresponding software to use at the workplace (i.e. with lotus notes etc)
Completely wrong. You don't need to license at all to restrict redistribution. Any original work of yours is automatically copyrighted (though registration is encouraged and can save you a headache), and you hold the exclusive right to (re)distribution. Even if there's no license, no one obtaining a copy is allowed to distribute any further copies without your permission. That is your right under copyright law. Licenses have absolutely nothing to do with that.