I'm not sure if fair use law says you must make your own backup for it to be a valid backup
this makes me wonder. in a sane world, anything you can do on your own, you should also be able to have someone else do for you (even for money). it'd be a sweet job making back-ups of people's legally owned goods for them, but, of course, that will never happen.
and then only available through ms or linus' stores. that will be the future unless the app store gets busted wide open (or allow 3rd party stores). same thing with all consoles. they should all be open dev/open stores.
their standard chickens, all of which come from the same farm (owned by fridge-maker), only come deep fried, because the fridge-maker thinks its the best eating experience. even though many types of chicken and other poultry could be kept cold. they are too scared of putting a magneted note on it that says "we suggest you only keep fried chicken in here, but if you want some patties or nuggets, that's okay, but you have to blame whoever cooked them if they rot in here or don't taste good."
There is a lightyear of difference between wanting to offer the developer options vs Apple wanting to lock down much of the platform and control what you can and can't create for it.
no kidding. i don't see how anyone can be for the openness of some platforms while being for the lock-down on others. its only going to get worse. wait till windows and macos are like this. add contracts with hardware makers to keep out linux, then eula the shit out of it. all in time for internet 2.0.
i'd like to see how first sale doctrine would go with purchased mp3s. or better, ones given away for free. awhile back, amazon gave away like 11 mojo nixon albums. can i sell those (and delete originals) for whatever i want? i mean, if they were cds, i could, so...
But even non-commercial use can be a problem for the original artist. Say a song is used for a parody/satire, it takes off, gets a bajillion hits on youtube, and people equate the song with the satire/parody.
What happens when a song people used to want to pay an artist to play live is no longer interesting in it's original context?
it is completely irrelevant. it'd be like arguing "movie x is still making us money, so we will do everything we can to keep it from the public domain." in both situations, the owners don't want to live up to their ends of the bargain. if they don't like the fair use parody exemptions, maybe they can pay their congress people bribes like everyone else.
i'm sure they meant emotionally, which rarely counts. while i would say that emotional damage can often be worse than physical or financial, should we allow pain and suffering damages from getting dumped or teased?
Apple doesn't want you to stop watching porn, they just don't want to distribute it. Apple restricts apps more than they should, but their goal has nothing to do with controlling the user, but in controlling the quality of the iPhone experience itself.
the argument is retarded at best. its like saying, "we don't want your new car to smell but we don't want you using the other guy's air-feshener, because, though it won't hurt the car, we don't like the smell. also, you can only buy car accessories from us, and we no longer sell air-fresheners. never mind that magic glove-box that we made and installed (factory default) with which you can buy any scent air-fresheners you'd like, as well as nearly anything else." they could open it up to other distributors, but it has everything to do with controlling the user. if it didn't, anyone could write apps and put them on their property without any barriers. why can't they have their official store, then let third parties do what they want? a pop-up saying "this is an unlicensed iPhone experience"?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure if fair use law says you must make your own backup for it to be a valid backup
this makes me wonder. in a sane world, anything you can do on your own, you should also be able to have someone else do for you (even for money). it'd be a sweet job making back-ups of people's legally owned goods for them, but, of course, that will never happen.
of course, they could just let people re-sell their download-only purchases.
neither are ok
good idea, as long as the following are met:
1. all fair use rights are able to be met
2. the secondary market remains intact
it's already fairly hard to get those on from within the us, so its a bit of overkill and a waste of money at this point.
since i can't sell them when done, they will be cheaper, right?
maybe a 10-year-old shouldn't be online unsupervised?
methinks the quote tag was not fully closed...
Make it difficult enough to pirate and eventually people will come around and start buying entertainment "legally".
maybe some would, but i suspect that is when they would stop consuming.
can this guy sue the tsa for sexual harassment?
and then only available through ms or linus' stores. that will be the future unless the app store gets busted wide open (or allow 3rd party stores). same thing with all consoles. they should all be open dev/open stores.
this makes too much sense. so it all comes back to where they can and can't get paid.
their standard chickens, all of which come from the same farm (owned by fridge-maker), only come deep fried, because the fridge-maker thinks its the best eating experience. even though many types of chicken and other poultry could be kept cold. they are too scared of putting a magneted note on it that says "we suggest you only keep fried chicken in here, but if you want some patties or nuggets, that's okay, but you have to blame whoever cooked them if they rot in here or don't taste good."
in an ideal world, if you own the cartrdge, you should be able to play it on whatever you want.
There is a lightyear of difference between wanting to offer the developer options vs Apple wanting to lock down much of the platform and control what you can and can't create for it.
no kidding. i don't see how anyone can be for the openness of some platforms while being for the lock-down on others. its only going to get worse. wait till windows and macos are like this. add contracts with hardware makers to keep out linux, then eula the shit out of it. all in time for internet 2.0.
i'd like to see how first sale doctrine would go with purchased mp3s. or better, ones given away for free. awhile back, amazon gave away like 11 mojo nixon albums. can i sell those (and delete originals) for whatever i want? i mean, if they were cds, i could, so...
iran will be much, much tougher than those 2 combined.
i'd like to know if "accidental" gun deaths have gone up.
But even non-commercial use can be a problem for the original artist. Say a song is used for a parody/satire, it takes off, gets a bajillion hits on youtube, and people equate the song with the satire/parody.
What happens when a song people used to want to pay an artist to play live is no longer interesting in it's original context?
it is completely irrelevant. it'd be like arguing "movie x is still making us money, so we will do everything we can to keep it from the public domain." in both situations, the owners don't want to live up to their ends of the bargain. if they don't like the fair use parody exemptions, maybe they can pay their congress people bribes like everyone else.
i'm sure they meant emotionally, which rarely counts. while i would say that emotional damage can often be worse than physical or financial, should we allow pain and suffering damages from getting dumped or teased?
Apple doesn't want you to stop watching porn, they just don't want to distribute it. Apple restricts apps more than they should, but their goal has nothing to do with controlling the user, but in controlling the quality of the iPhone experience itself.
the argument is retarded at best. its like saying, "we don't want your new car to smell but we don't want you using the other guy's air-feshener, because, though it won't hurt the car, we don't like the smell. also, you can only buy car accessories from us, and we no longer sell air-fresheners. never mind that magic glove-box that we made and installed (factory default) with which you can buy any scent air-fresheners you'd like, as well as nearly anything else." they could open it up to other distributors, but it has everything to do with controlling the user. if it didn't, anyone could write apps and put them on their property without any barriers. why can't they have their official store, then let third parties do what they want? a pop-up saying "this is an unlicensed iPhone experience"?
i claim ownership of the term Over-Coring
or cyber-athletes, even