Server clauses are total bull. They're basically generic "prevent any activity we don't like or find remotely inconvenient" clauses. Why? Well, what exactly is a server? Something that listens on ports? Ooops, you just banned ICQ, AIM, and normal FTP, in addition to countless other programs. Something intended to provide data in response to remote requests? Oops, same problem, and you've also just banned web browsers.
No, I imagine it'd be more like "you're hosting MP3s for an indie music label that competes with us. Since we control all high-speed access in your region, we control your ability to do this. We have therefor capped your account to 2400 baud. Please enjoy your AOL-TW "Unlimited" service package."
Believe it or not, I agree with you that most p2p use is for theft. You don't have to "feel" sharing warez across p2p is theft, it IS by definition.
Then you're both wrong. It is not theft, legally or morally, no matter what the copyright cartel tells you. And if you believe their "theft of income" argument, then you should just send them your entire paycheque right now. Because by not spending that money on their products, you're reducing their income!
Trading of "warez" or non-sharable MP3s over a file trading protocol, like FTP or SMTP, is copyright infringement. Not "piracy", not theft, not terrorism. Copyright infringement.
Because the only CDs they promote are the 10% that make millions.
Think about it, when you walk into a record store, what do you see? No adds for SignedGarageBand#42, but posters everywhere for PopDiva#99's latest release. Well, what about payola and radio? PopDiva#99 again. Concerts? PopDiva#99. What exactly does all this money supposedly spent promoting SGB#42 pay for? CD cover art? Catalogue entries? Music videos?
Someone care to explain this to me? It looks like they're doing exactly what everyone accuses them of - dictating what we listen to.
Actually, I recall this being claimed on a few DVDs and CDs I've seen. See, the reason they can supposedly claim 'no lending' in an EULA is because some idiot Federal judge back in the 80s ruled that installing or running software involved making a copy. Not only that, but paying the software company for a copy of the software did not innately grant you a right to make this copy. So EULAs were supposedly legal because of this, despite violating practically every aspect of contract law. (No reference, sorry. Anyone care to provide one that proves/debunks this?)
Well, guess what? It can be argued, probably with a fair chance of success given the typical American ignorance of technology, that the same legal theory can be applied to digital media. As the player has to use a copy operation to read/process the data. So you're making a copy of a copyrighted work, which means you're an evil, child-raping pirate unless you've got a valid license. Which, incidentally, the friend you lent that Star Wars DVD to doesn't have!
Not that they'd ever enforce it. It looks bad, and this legal argument's on very shaky ground. A technically competent judge or lawyer could demolish it in minutes. Not that you'll ever find one (other than maybe Lawrence Lessig), or that the few there are would ever be allowed near a case involving this precedent.
Default-deny, remember? If its encrypted, it won't have the DRM bits set, won't be part of an Industry-Approved Connection, and so won't be let out. And if it does have the DRM bits set, you'll get thrown in jail for violating the DMCA, SSSCA (or whatever they call it next week), and Europe's inevitable alphabet-soup "we just gave control over your life to the media industry, enjoy!" law.
[Microsoft patches occasionally do] not play well with some applications (i.e. causing them to crash)
That's not a bug, its a feature! After all, we wouldn't want you to accidentally use that horrible Trillian or Jabber instead of MSN Messenger, would we? That could ruin your Windows Experience(TM)!
Err... Why is it not legally possible to place works in the public domain? I don't think the legal concept of a public domain has been disposed of (though its now impossible for a work to enter it naturally), so why can't I (as a copyright holder) just say "This work is in the public domain"? After all, I own the copyright, don't I? Or do large American media corporations wnat to take that away too?
You want more sites to display properly in Mozilla? Email the webmaster and ask him/her to write standard HTML.
While I agree with you, I'd like to defend the original poster by saying that this isn't always an option. Especially not when dealing with corporate web pages, even those of small companies.
Many web designers charge more, sometimes much more, to produce standards-compliant web pages without all their Javascript and IE-specific tricks. And a lot of companies, especially small ones, will fight tooth and nail against anything that makes their web page less flashy or "attractive" to users.
(The biggest irritation here for me is the thousand-and-one nonstandard ways of using drop-down navigation menus. To say nothing about the horrible usability of said menus in the first place!)
I'm mainly looking at all the popular sites that've had to shut down or severely cripple their services due to unannounced bandwidth caps or utterly ludicrous traffic fees. This may have changed recently, as you said, due to Cogent's financial troubles, but that doesn't help all the sites that've had to shut down in the past six months when their ISPs started springing these fees (and "backpayments" for their use in the past) on them.
This is assuming that there are still independant and direct news sources on the Internet. The Powers that Be, including ICANN and the current crop of news companies, seem dead-set on trying to prevent that. Skyrocketing bandwidth costs, "cybersquatting" accusations, lack of affordable bandwidth for your ordinary citizen, gradual firewalling-off of non-corporate entities to prevent "copyright infringement"....
In case you haven't noticed, its getting harder and harder to run a small site of any sort without resorting to buying space from an established web host. Who can and will cut you off at the first sign of trouble, be it legal or simply "high" bandwidth use due to popularity. Yes, that's right. Do a good job of news reporting and get a lot of visitors, and you'll be slapped with huge fines for your troubles.
Its wonderful when the very companies who are most threatened by the power the Internet gives to the individual control its backbone, isn't it?
The problem in your logic is that the legal strength of the GPL is much greater than most EULAs. EULAs are forced on you after a sale, are not signed, and attempt to restrict what you can do with the software. The GPL places no restrictions on you. It does, however, say that if you want rights above and beyond what copyright law permits, you have to follow certant conditions.
Have you read anything about the BSA raids? I believe that it was standard policy to return with the cops and a warrant if you refused, based on the logic that your refusal proved you had something to hide. They may have decided to just skip the first step and move straight to the cops to prevent destruction of "evidence".
As a note, we have VERY affordable broadband in most of Canada for not much more than the cost of a cable hookup. So the equipment cost argument is mostly bunk.
Also note that the landline voice system was around since 1877 and is as widespread as it is due to government regulation. I seem to recall that AT&T was granted its monopoly by the government in exchange for limitations on pricing and behavior and such. Though I could, of course, be wrong.
Yeah, but its much more fun to blame the editors for not altering the submitter's words to be carefully inoffensive to everyone and contain no trace of bias or individuality whatsoever.
Of course, this would result in awfully boring (or totally absent) story postings, but that's not an issue. Much more important that people not be allowed to have Opinions or Views On Things that have not been approved at the glorious shrine of political correctness! As we all know, unrestrained thought is Dangerous!
Re:But what about the struggling artists...
on
RIAA Sues Audiogalaxy
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Whoever modded the above as insightful or interesting is an illiterate idiot.
Read the rest of the thread. Even on 4+, there's at least two comments talking about AudioGalaxy's promotion and review system for independant artists. The parent post seems to rather conveniently ignore this. If your friend wants to make money off music, maybe she should try contacting them and see what they can do. Or try one of the other sites that does stuff like this. (Allowing artists to sell albums directly to fans)
no, you cannot use your friend's novel [...], or any other existing licenced or copyrighted content for the basis of a module. This is prohibited by the EULA. Your friend can create a module based on his novel.
This seems rather silly. You're saying that, while my friend can grant me permission (as he is the copyright holder on the novel) to photocopy it ten thousand times and sell the copies, he cannot give me permission to produce a Neverwinter Nights module based on his book? I'm sure that any authors who'd been planning to hire programmers or skilled graphic artists to create modules for their settings will be very saddened by this restriction.
Yet another case of a large software company attempting to redefine law through an illegal contract, I guess. (No meeting of minds, revealed after the sale, no legally binding signature.... Even the judgements/laws that say that using software is copying are somewhat tenuous justifications)
Consistant, reliable support is a red herring dangled by proprietary software people. The support offered by almost every software company on the planet is, frankly, shit. Unless, that is, you're willing to give them thousands or tens of thousands for a support contract. For companies, yes, its an issue. For already cash-poor schools? The support is next to nonexistant. Most of the ones I've seen have had systems that're badly broken in some way (mostly irritants, but a few problems actually seriously impaired use of the machine) and had stayed that way for years. Why? Because they couldn't afford support!
If they could get three or four committed volunteers to help maintain their systems for free...
Not only that, but Microsoft's supporters will claim gross incompetence and ignorance of the basic principles of software design on the part of Microsoft in their attempts to explain why Microsoft cannot be punished... And then turn around and tell you that this shoddily-designed, poorly-written, bloated mess of code that can't have any bits taken out without dire consequences is not only a viable operating system, but the only viable operating system.
Seems that they get away with a lack of compartmentalization in software by encouraging their supporters to compartmentalize their minds. =P
Fine. So, as an end user, I can download Linux, fuck around with the source, only release the binary, and claim that I never accepted the GPL? If one isn't required to accept the GPL, then the license is legally impotent.
Fundamental misunderstanding. Here, I'll try and straighten things out.
You, as you, can download Linux, "fuck around" with the source, and use it to your heart's content. Nothing in copyright law allows the original authors to stop you from doing this.
However, the instant you start giving copies to other people, you move into the realm of copyright infringement. The only thing that allows you to distribute copies is the GPL, which means you either distribute by its terms or don't distribute at all.
So anyone you give a binary of your modified code to can not only request a copy of the source, but redistribute both the source and binary under the terms of the GPL.
Hope that's cleared things up a little. Note also that derivative work, as used by the GPL (as in, what it applies to) isn't defined by the GPL or FSF. That's a copyright law issue. If you have problems with what is and isn't a derivative work, don't take them up with the FSF. Take them up with the government.
Because of the distinction between the paper and the words. I own the copy of the work. There is no legal distinction - I own both the paper and the words. However, because of copyright, I do not have the right to reproduce these words as is. An exclusive monopoly on that right (called copy right) is granted to the author.
Slashdot Mirror
Server clauses are total bull. They're basically generic "prevent any activity we don't like or find remotely inconvenient" clauses. Why? Well, what exactly is a server? Something that listens on ports? Ooops, you just banned ICQ, AIM, and normal FTP, in addition to countless other programs. Something intended to provide data in response to remote requests? Oops, same problem, and you've also just banned web browsers.
So, please, tell me. What exactly is a "server"?
No, I imagine it'd be more like "you're hosting MP3s for an indie music label that competes with us. Since we control all high-speed access in your region, we control your ability to do this. We have therefor capped your account to 2400 baud. Please enjoy your AOL-TW "Unlimited" service package."
Believe it or not, I agree with you that most p2p use is for theft. You don't have to "feel" sharing warez across p2p is theft, it IS by definition.
Then you're both wrong. It is not theft, legally or morally, no matter what the copyright cartel tells you. And if you believe their "theft of income" argument, then you should just send them your entire paycheque right now. Because by not spending that money on their products, you're reducing their income!
Trading of "warez" or non-sharable MP3s over a file trading protocol, like FTP or SMTP, is copyright infringement. Not "piracy", not theft, not terrorism. Copyright infringement.
Because the only CDs they promote are the 10% that make millions.
Think about it, when you walk into a record store, what do you see? No adds for SignedGarageBand#42, but posters everywhere for PopDiva#99's latest release. Well, what about payola and radio? PopDiva#99 again. Concerts? PopDiva#99. What exactly does all this money supposedly spent promoting SGB#42 pay for? CD cover art? Catalogue entries? Music videos?
Someone care to explain this to me? It looks like they're doing exactly what everyone accuses them of - dictating what we listen to.
What is this constitution of which you speak? I thought Ashcroft had it banned and all copies burned as terrorist propaganda.
Actually, I recall this being claimed on a few DVDs and CDs I've seen. See, the reason they can supposedly claim 'no lending' in an EULA is because some idiot Federal judge back in the 80s ruled that installing or running software involved making a copy. Not only that, but paying the software company for a copy of the software did not innately grant you a right to make this copy. So EULAs were supposedly legal because of this, despite violating practically every aspect of contract law. (No reference, sorry. Anyone care to provide one that proves/debunks this?)
Well, guess what? It can be argued, probably with a fair chance of success given the typical American ignorance of technology, that the same legal theory can be applied to digital media. As the player has to use a copy operation to read/process the data. So you're making a copy of a copyrighted work, which means you're an evil, child-raping pirate unless you've got a valid license. Which, incidentally, the friend you lent that Star Wars DVD to doesn't have!
Not that they'd ever enforce it. It looks bad, and this legal argument's on very shaky ground. A technically competent judge or lawyer could demolish it in minutes. Not that you'll ever find one (other than maybe Lawrence Lessig), or that the few there are would ever be allowed near a case involving this precedent.
Default-deny, remember? If its encrypted, it won't have the DRM bits set, won't be part of an Industry-Approved Connection, and so won't be let out. And if it does have the DRM bits set, you'll get thrown in jail for violating the DMCA, SSSCA (or whatever they call it next week), and Europe's inevitable alphabet-soup "we just gave control over your life to the media industry, enjoy!" law.
[Microsoft patches occasionally do] not play well with some applications (i.e. causing them to crash)
That's not a bug, its a feature! After all, we wouldn't want you to accidentally use that horrible Trillian or Jabber instead of MSN Messenger, would we? That could ruin your Windows Experience(TM)!
Err... Why is it not legally possible to place works in the public domain? I don't think the legal concept of a public domain has been disposed of (though its now impossible for a work to enter it naturally), so why can't I (as a copyright holder) just say "This work is in the public domain"? After all, I own the copyright, don't I? Or do large American media corporations wnat to take that away too?
You want more sites to display properly in Mozilla? Email the webmaster and ask him/her to write standard HTML.
While I agree with you, I'd like to defend the original poster by saying that this isn't always an option. Especially not when dealing with corporate web pages, even those of small companies.
Many web designers charge more, sometimes much more, to produce standards-compliant web pages without all their Javascript and IE-specific tricks. And a lot of companies, especially small ones, will fight tooth and nail against anything that makes their web page less flashy or "attractive" to users.
(The biggest irritation here for me is the thousand-and-one nonstandard ways of using drop-down navigation menus. To say nothing about the horrible usability of said menus in the first place!)
Heh. Not that the law matters much when a BSA goon squad comes knocking at your door.
Being paid to troll has been around for decades now.
Its called "marketing".
I'm mainly looking at all the popular sites that've had to shut down or severely cripple their services due to unannounced bandwidth caps or utterly ludicrous traffic fees. This may have changed recently, as you said, due to Cogent's financial troubles, but that doesn't help all the sites that've had to shut down in the past six months when their ISPs started springing these fees (and "backpayments" for their use in the past) on them.
This is assuming that there are still independant and direct news sources on the Internet. The Powers that Be, including ICANN and the current crop of news companies, seem dead-set on trying to prevent that. Skyrocketing bandwidth costs, "cybersquatting" accusations, lack of affordable bandwidth for your ordinary citizen, gradual firewalling-off of non-corporate entities to prevent "copyright infringement"....
In case you haven't noticed, its getting harder and harder to run a small site of any sort without resorting to buying space from an established web host. Who can and will cut you off at the first sign of trouble, be it legal or simply "high" bandwidth use due to popularity. Yes, that's right. Do a good job of news reporting and get a lot of visitors, and you'll be slapped with huge fines for your troubles.
Its wonderful when the very companies who are most threatened by the power the Internet gives to the individual control its backbone, isn't it?
The problem in your logic is that the legal strength of the GPL is much greater than most EULAs. EULAs are forced on you after a sale, are not signed, and attempt to restrict what you can do with the software. The GPL places no restrictions on you. It does, however, say that if you want rights above and beyond what copyright law permits, you have to follow certant conditions.
Have you read anything about the BSA raids? I believe that it was standard policy to return with the cops and a warrant if you refused, based on the logic that your refusal proved you had something to hide. They may have decided to just skip the first step and move straight to the cops to prevent destruction of "evidence".
As a note, we have VERY affordable broadband in most of Canada for not much more than the cost of a cable hookup. So the equipment cost argument is mostly bunk.
Also note that the landline voice system was around since 1877 and is as widespread as it is due to government regulation. I seem to recall that AT&T was granted its monopoly by the government in exchange for limitations on pricing and behavior and such. Though I could, of course, be wrong.
Yeah, but its much more fun to blame the editors for not altering the submitter's words to be carefully inoffensive to everyone and contain no trace of bias or individuality whatsoever.
Of course, this would result in awfully boring (or totally absent) story postings, but that's not an issue. Much more important that people not be allowed to have Opinions or Views On Things that have not been approved at the glorious shrine of political correctness! As we all know, unrestrained thought is Dangerous!
Whoever modded the above as insightful or interesting is an illiterate idiot.
Read the rest of the thread. Even on 4+, there's at least two comments talking about AudioGalaxy's promotion and review system for independant artists. The parent post seems to rather conveniently ignore this. If your friend wants to make money off music, maybe she should try contacting them and see what they can do. Or try one of the other sites that does stuff like this. (Allowing artists to sell albums directly to fans)
no, you cannot use your friend's novel [...], or any other existing licenced or copyrighted content for the basis of a module. This is prohibited by the EULA. Your friend can create a module based on his novel.
This seems rather silly. You're saying that, while my friend can grant me permission (as he is the copyright holder on the novel) to photocopy it ten thousand times and sell the copies, he cannot give me permission to produce a Neverwinter Nights module based on his book? I'm sure that any authors who'd been planning to hire programmers or skilled graphic artists to create modules for their settings will be very saddened by this restriction.
Yet another case of a large software company attempting to redefine law through an illegal contract, I guess. (No meeting of minds, revealed after the sale, no legally binding signature.... Even the judgements/laws that say that using software is copying are somewhat tenuous justifications)
Consistant, reliable support is a red herring dangled by proprietary software people. The support offered by almost every software company on the planet is, frankly, shit. Unless, that is, you're willing to give them thousands or tens of thousands for a support contract. For companies, yes, its an issue. For already cash-poor schools? The support is next to nonexistant. Most of the ones I've seen have had systems that're badly broken in some way (mostly irritants, but a few problems actually seriously impaired use of the machine) and had stayed that way for years. Why? Because they couldn't afford support!
If they could get three or four committed volunteers to help maintain their systems for free...
Not only that, but Microsoft's supporters will claim gross incompetence and ignorance of the basic principles of software design on the part of Microsoft in their attempts to explain why Microsoft cannot be punished... And then turn around and tell you that this shoddily-designed, poorly-written, bloated mess of code that can't have any bits taken out without dire consequences is not only a viable operating system, but the only viable operating system.
Seems that they get away with a lack of compartmentalization in software by encouraging their supporters to compartmentalize their minds. =P
Fine. So, as an end user, I can download Linux, fuck around with the source, only release the binary, and claim that I never accepted the GPL? If one isn't required to accept the GPL, then the license is legally impotent.
Fundamental misunderstanding. Here, I'll try and straighten things out.
You, as you, can download Linux, "fuck around" with the source, and use it to your heart's content. Nothing in copyright law allows the original authors to stop you from doing this.
However, the instant you start giving copies to other people, you move into the realm of copyright infringement. The only thing that allows you to distribute copies is the GPL, which means you either distribute by its terms or don't distribute at all.
So anyone you give a binary of your modified code to can not only request a copy of the source, but redistribute both the source and binary under the terms of the GPL.
Hope that's cleared things up a little. Note also that derivative work, as used by the GPL (as in, what it applies to) isn't defined by the GPL or FSF. That's a copyright law issue. If you have problems with what is and isn't a derivative work, don't take them up with the FSF. Take them up with the government.
So something like public domain software, which can be sublicensed as BSD, GPL etc. is out as well.
Question: Does this mean that software which has had this license forced on it can never become public domain software?
Because of the distinction between the paper and the words. I own the copy of the work. There is no legal distinction - I own both the paper and the words. However, because of copyright, I do not have the right to reproduce these words as is. An exclusive monopoly on that right (called copy right) is granted to the author.