First sale doctrine covers buying a copy, and then subsequently selling that copy. E.g., I buy a book. I read it. I sell it to a used bookstore. Covered by first sale. If I bought a book, read it, and then made 100 photocopies, and tried to sell THOSE to the used bookstore, of course first sale doctrine would not apply.
No surprise that Psystar lost trying to use first sale to justify what they did.
Lesson to any future company that tries to sell Hackintosh computers. Buy a boxed copy of OS X for each computer you ship. Do not even open the box--just ship it with your computer, which should come with some flavor of Linux installed. You'll be fine on first sale then. (You'll still find yourself on the wrong end of an Apple lawsuit over contract issues, but at least you'll be OK on copyright).
firstly, its not all cookies, just those that are not directly related to the operation of the site the user went to
That's not correct. The exception is for cookies that are strictly necessary. That effectively means almost all cookies, since almost all uses of cookies can be eliminated, albeit painfully and expensively.
They should have said this only applies to cookies that are stored between browser sessions. That way, sites that are just using cookies to hold a session ID between pages could set those cookies to be just kept for that browser session.
Pretty much any patent analysis by people who have not read the claims and specification is worthless. Slashdot should just ban all articles about patents, since said articles are uniformly worthless.
Eh, being a Microsoft Certified Partner means next to nothing. Almost all the development firms I have worked for (from five employees to tens of thousands) are certified partners, it just means you get a discount on MSDN purchases and a nice little glass trophy
It means a lot if you ever sue Microsoft. I was involved in a lawsuit against Microsoft, and their lawyers made a big deal of the fact that we were "partners" with Microsoft. The painted a picture of Microsoft working in partnership with us to help us, and then we turned on them, and filed a lawsuit, rather than working it out like partners should.
We explained that it just meant we got MSDN from them, but I don't think the jury believed that. They are ordinary people--they don't think of the people they buy things from as "partners", and so are not going to think that's all being an MS partner means. I'm pretty sure they bought Microsoft's version, that partners have a special relationship with Microsoft, and what we were doing was a backstabbing.
You need to think about that some more. Unless the user is required to enter their password every time they access the data (which would get very annoying real fast), there will have to be some kind of key caching, with safeguards to prevent the wrong applications from using it. What's to stop a bad application from bypassing those safeguards?
What you are describing are the kind of measures you take against outside attackers. The problem here is that the attacker is an invited guest. Locked doors don't do much against people you've invited in.
You need to think about that some more. Unless the user is required to enter their password every time they access the data (which would get very annoying real fast), there will have to be some kind of key caching, with safeguards to prevent the wrong applications from using it. What's to stop a bad application from bypassing those safeguards?
Why would anyone want to test Spybot? It's crap. I've seen false positives remain in Spybot that every other vendor fixed 5 years ago. It was once pretty good, but those days are long past.
It's too late for them to publish the full source under the GPLv2. The GPLv2 termination clauses have already triggered, so they can't ever distribute (parts of) ImageMaster under the GPLv2
This is not clear at all. What's to stop them from building a new version of ImageMaster, with the code in question copied from a new download of the code they allegedly pinched from, and distributing with source under a new instance of the license?
It was these kind of issues, and the lame responses to them, that won the Linux kernel developers the 2009 Pwnie in the "Lamest Vendor Response" category.
Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share. I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.
The clones didn't expand the Mac market because Apple would not let them. The clone maker's designs had to be approved by Apple. At least some were required to use Apple motherboards. PowerComputing showed at trade shows several models in development that would have taken the Mac to new markets--but they could not get permission from Apple to sell them.
The net effect of Apple's restrictions was the all the clone makers really were licensed to do was put Macs in different cases.
Why aren't you using current iMacs for comparison?
For A$2199 (price straight from the online Australian Apple store):
3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo
4 GB RAM
1TB disk
27" IPS LED backlit 2560x1440 display (can be used as monitor)
Radeon HD 4670 graphics
Up your PC to match that, and you'll find the price difference is pretty much gone--it might even favor that Mac. Just upping your monitor to the quality, number of pixels, and pixel density of the iMac monitor will go a long way toward erasing the price difference.
There's a copy of Red October on my retina too for a couple of nanoseconds too - I suppose the lawyers will be knocking on my door pretty soon
That's not a copy. See 17 USC 101.
Here are the relevant definitions:
“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
and
A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.
The embodiment of "Red October" on your retina for a couple of couple of nanoseconds fails to meet the definition of being fixed in a tangible medium of expression, and hence fails to meet the definition of a copy.
Making of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 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:
(emphasis added). The word "owner" is significant. When 17 USC 117 was originally written, it said something like possessor rather than owner, but during the ratification of this law, that was changed in Congress to owner, indicating that Congress really does intend this to apply to owners, not mere possessors.
If the purported sale of the copy that ended up in Psystar's possession was conditioned on acceptance of contractual terms that Psystar is failing to honor, it is possible they are possessor of that copy, but not owner, and thus do not get to use 17 USC 117.
I have a similar laptop, although mine only has 16 MB or RAM. I've got a better processor, though. Anyway, I see several people have suggested run a distro from that era. Indeed that works--sort of. My old laptop runs fine with a Redhat from that era, or a Slackware (or whatever Windows it came with, for that matter).
The reason I say it works "sort of" is that if you just run a distro from that era, you have a browser of that era. I had hoped to use my old laptop as basically a terminal for configuring routers and other things like that which have web interfaces.
The problem is, all my routers have web interfaces that assume browser features that are too new for that era. I was not able to find a browser that was new enough to actually work with my typical consumer home router and still run acceptably on the old system. I think I got Konqueror to work once--but it took something like an hour for it to start.
I think the browser is going to be the determining factor as to whether or not this is feasible for you.
Dear content producers, on behalf of most of the world could you please do us a favor and release things globally
Dear World. Could you please all learn to speak fluent English, and could you all agree to use the same contract and tax laws, so that content providers didn't have to go through intermediaries in each region that deal with localization of the content and handling dealing with the local legal and regulatory systems? Thanks!
Most of you who are recommending plain paper are missing a very important point: The ability to search through digital data (in stark contrast to analog).
You don't need to be able to search the notes for a given lecture DURING the lecture. During the lecture, you can type your notes into the computer, but where an equation or series of equations is needed, write those on paper, label them, and insert the label into the notes. Later, after the lecture, the equations can be transcribed into the digital lecture notes.
Take a photo of the equation on the black or white board, and on your computer, invoke the command that puts a timestamp in the file. Later, at your leisure, you can pull up the timestamps, and match them to the photo timestamps, and transcribe the equations.
Because you own the disk and not the content on it.
That's wrong. You own the disk, AND you own the copy of the copyrighted work on that disk. Copyright law says that you are prohibited from doing certain things with that copy, though. Copyright law says renting it out is not prohibited.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to use any Microsoft-controlled parts of Mono to write Linux apps. You can stick to the ECMA parts and use GTK# for your GUI.
First sale doctrine covers buying a copy, and then subsequently selling that copy. E.g., I buy a book. I read it. I sell it to a used bookstore. Covered by first sale. If I bought a book, read it, and then made 100 photocopies, and tried to sell THOSE to the used bookstore, of course first sale doctrine would not apply.
No surprise that Psystar lost trying to use first sale to justify what they did.
Lesson to any future company that tries to sell Hackintosh computers. Buy a boxed copy of OS X for each computer you ship. Do not even open the box--just ship it with your computer, which should come with some flavor of Linux installed. You'll be fine on first sale then. (You'll still find yourself on the wrong end of an Apple lawsuit over contract issues, but at least you'll be OK on copyright).
firstly, its not all cookies, just those that are not directly related to the operation of the site the user went to
That's not correct. The exception is for cookies that are strictly necessary. That effectively means almost all cookies, since almost all uses of cookies can be eliminated, albeit painfully and expensively.
They should have said this only applies to cookies that are stored between browser sessions. That way, sites that are just using cookies to hold a session ID between pages could set those cookies to be just kept for that browser session.
Pretty much any patent analysis by people who have not read the claims and specification is worthless. Slashdot should just ban all articles about patents, since said articles are uniformly worthless.
Eh, being a Microsoft Certified Partner means next to nothing. Almost all the development firms I have worked for (from five employees to tens of thousands) are certified partners, it just means you get a discount on MSDN purchases and a nice little glass trophy
It means a lot if you ever sue Microsoft. I was involved in a lawsuit against Microsoft, and their lawyers made a big deal of the fact that we were "partners" with Microsoft. The painted a picture of Microsoft working in partnership with us to help us, and then we turned on them, and filed a lawsuit, rather than working it out like partners should.
We explained that it just meant we got MSDN from them, but I don't think the jury believed that. They are ordinary people--they don't think of the people they buy things from as "partners", and so are not going to think that's all being an MS partner means. I'm pretty sure they bought Microsoft's version, that partners have a special relationship with Microsoft, and what we were doing was a backstabbing.
You need to think about that some more. Unless the user is required to enter their password every time they access the data (which would get very annoying real fast), there will have to be some kind of key caching, with safeguards to prevent the wrong applications from using it. What's to stop a bad application from bypassing those safeguards?
What you are describing are the kind of measures you take against outside attackers. The problem here is that the attacker is an invited guest. Locked doors don't do much against people you've invited in.
You need to think about that some more. Unless the user is required to enter their password every time they access the data (which would get very annoying real fast), there will have to be some kind of key caching, with safeguards to prevent the wrong applications from using it. What's to stop a bad application from bypassing those safeguards?
Why would anyone want to test Spybot? It's crap. I've seen false positives remain in Spybot that every other vendor fixed 5 years ago. It was once pretty good, but those days are long past.
It's too late for them to publish the full source under the GPLv2. The GPLv2 termination clauses have already triggered, so they can't ever distribute (parts of) ImageMaster under the GPLv2
This is not clear at all. What's to stop them from building a new version of ImageMaster, with the code in question copied from a new download of the code they allegedly pinched from, and distributing with source under a new instance of the license?
So if I'm watching video or using VoIP for more than 15 minutes I'll get put in the lower priority queue? And I'll lose frames or drop calls?
Since neither of those will come near hitting 70% of you max, you won't have a problem.
It was these kind of issues, and the lame responses to them, that won the Linux kernel developers the 2009 Pwnie in the "Lamest Vendor Response" category.
And your excuse making is worthy of comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Why is this in the "your rights online" section? It has nothing to do with rights.
Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share. I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.
The clones didn't expand the Mac market because Apple would not let them. The clone maker's designs had to be approved by Apple. At least some were required to use Apple motherboards. PowerComputing showed at trade shows several models in development that would have taken the Mac to new markets--but they could not get permission from Apple to sell them.
The net effect of Apple's restrictions was the all the clone makers really were licensed to do was put Macs in different cases.
Why aren't you using current iMacs for comparison?
For A$2199 (price straight from the online Australian Apple store):
3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo
4 GB RAM
1TB disk
27" IPS LED backlit 2560x1440 display (can be used as monitor) Radeon HD 4670 graphics
Up your PC to match that, and you'll find the price difference is pretty much gone--it might even favor that Mac. Just upping your monitor to the quality, number of pixels, and pixel density of the iMac monitor will go a long way toward erasing the price difference.
They call it the "first sale doctrine" for a reason
Why do you think first sale is relevant here? First sale covers disposing of possession of a copies, not making more copies.
There's a copy of Red October on my retina too for a couple of nanoseconds too - I suppose the lawyers will be knocking on my door pretty soon
That's not a copy. See 17 USC 101.
Here are the relevant definitions:
“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
and
A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.
The embodiment of "Red October" on your retina for a couple of couple of nanoseconds fails to meet the definition of being fixed in a tangible medium of expression, and hence fails to meet the definition of a copy.
No, what they're clearly saying from their brief is that you're making an additional copy of the program by loading it into RAM
You are making an additional copy. This is well settled, both in law and in computer engineering.
If Apple wins can MS successfully sue it's customers for having two copies of Windows or Office but license for only one?
No, because that second copy in RAM is allowed both by Microsoft's EULA and by copyright law itself (see 17 USC 117).
17 USC 117 starts out thusly:
Making of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 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:
(emphasis added). The word "owner" is significant. When 17 USC 117 was originally written, it said something like possessor rather than owner, but during the ratification of this law, that was changed in Congress to owner, indicating that Congress really does intend this to apply to owners, not mere possessors.
If the purported sale of the copy that ended up in Psystar's possession was conditioned on acceptance of contractual terms that Psystar is failing to honor, it is possible they are possessor of that copy, but not owner, and thus do not get to use 17 USC 117.
I have a similar laptop, although mine only has 16 MB or RAM. I've got a better processor, though. Anyway, I see several people have suggested run a distro from that era. Indeed that works--sort of. My old laptop runs fine with a Redhat from that era, or a Slackware (or whatever Windows it came with, for that matter).
The reason I say it works "sort of" is that if you just run a distro from that era, you have a browser of that era. I had hoped to use my old laptop as basically a terminal for configuring routers and other things like that which have web interfaces.
The problem is, all my routers have web interfaces that assume browser features that are too new for that era. I was not able to find a browser that was new enough to actually work with my typical consumer home router and still run acceptably on the old system. I think I got Konqueror to work once--but it took something like an hour for it to start.
I think the browser is going to be the determining factor as to whether or not this is feasible for you.
Dear content producers, on behalf of most of the world could you please do us a favor and release things globally
Dear World. Could you please all learn to speak fluent English, and could you all agree to use the same contract and tax laws, so that content providers didn't have to go through intermediaries in each region that deal with localization of the content and handling dealing with the local legal and regulatory systems? Thanks!
Most of you who are recommending plain paper are missing a very important point: The ability to search through digital data (in stark contrast to analog).
You don't need to be able to search the notes for a given lecture DURING the lecture. During the lecture, you can type your notes into the computer, but where an equation or series of equations is needed, write those on paper, label them, and insert the label into the notes. Later, after the lecture, the equations can be transcribed into the digital lecture notes.
Take a photo of the equation on the black or white board, and on your computer, invoke the command that puts a timestamp in the file. Later, at your leisure, you can pull up the timestamps, and match them to the photo timestamps, and transcribe the equations.
Because you own the disk and not the content on it.
That's wrong. You own the disk, AND you own the copy of the copyrighted work on that disk. Copyright law says that you are prohibited from doing certain things with that copy, though. Copyright law says renting it out is not prohibited.