No it's not but you obviusly have no counter to it so you act childishly instead. Or perhaps "gibberish" is something you apply to any criticism of the mutated copyright laws that now protect the interests of an industry and not those of the public.
Others have pointed out to you that the Constitution's granting of rights to Congress is not the same as the copyright laws themselves. They are contained in USC Title 17 which you can find here. Maybe it is time you actually read them?
But if I do, in fact, delete the file after sending it then it's not a copy.
Yes it is, since you can only send copies; that is, a copy of the content is transferred and not the physical file, which is removed after the transfer. The real issue here is that classic copyright and the first sale doctrine apply to physical copies, and new laws have to come up with proper equivalents for purely electronic media.
The point is that the anti-consumer industries - that is, the industries trying to restrict more and more what someone who bought their products can do with them - forget that copyright is a government-granted monopoly and not a "natural right". Copyright stems from back in the day when "work" was stuff like smithing and tilling fields. Sitting around on your ass writing books or painting did not put food or tools into the community. But the lawmakers saw that cultural products had intrinsic value, and thus created an incentive for creators to make a living from their art but also ensured that those works would eventually enter the public domain and become part of the shared culture.
Then we got the industry (where "art" is replaced by "product") and the lobbyists (who fight to keep works out of the public domain) and now "the artists" have been superseded by organizations that cry their crocodile tears over the plight of the artist, while in reality representing soulless commercial entities who provide crappy contracts unless you are very smart or very famous and can dictate your own terms.
You are right that we "do not get to determine how someone else distributes their work" - but Congress (in the case of USA) does.
Before there was one product, Real One, RealPlayer and RealJukebox were separate - but interdependent - products. So I downloaded the free versions, decided I wanted the features of the $20 "full" RealPlayer. After buying that, I decided I also wanted the "full" RealJukebox. But when I installed that, it also installed an updated RealPlayer crippled, free edition which of course made my earlier $20 RealPlayer incestment a waste.
Gee, thanks a lot.
Safari is different though since it is gratis and not even mandatory.
At the end of the Safari license there is an offer to provide source on request; what more do you want? Just because many (L)GPL software has source more readily available than nevessary does not mean Apple have to provide the source online - only "on request", in their case on physical media.
*sigh* The need to register for updates is not a form of DRM, it's providing a service to paying customers. There is a vast difference you need to open your eyes to see.
So the CEO of one of the most successful minor game companies out there "doesn't know anything about business"? You are aware that software pirates have NEVER been deterred by DRM? And that it's whether to put in legit-user-annoying DRM or not that is the subject at hand?
Basically you make the consumer's choice into this:
1) Your legit copy, with various annoying hurdles due to the DRM which might even make the install not work because of the drive they uses to install it (some DRM solutions historically refused to install if the drive was a DVD burner for instance) or with this annoying "have to have CD in drive to start playing" crap, or...
2) The DRM-free, cheaper, possibly no-CD-patched pirate copy. Which is also cheaper.
Gee, what to choose...
The DRM does not prevent the bootleggers which often get their masters from shady individuals in the mass-production companies you use to make the legit copies anyway. DRM just annoys the legit user.
Good luck, you have to have defaults for setup purposes or a hardware reset.
Nah, just mandate that configuration is done through Ethernet or serial connection.
My Phillips wireless router came default with the wireless functionality switched off. That is also a good solution: You have to access the router to enable it, and the wizards you go through can advise you to turn on security.
Your router is constantly saying "Here I am! Connect to me! I am OPEN! I am AVAILABLE!"
As a complement to that, an active wireless network card in a PC will be constantly looking for these cries of availablilty and will attach to the strongest open network it can find with no interaction in the user's behalf...
It's NOT your money. You gave it away! You have no more (direct) say over how it is used than your employer has over how you use the paycheck he gives you.
What you CAN do is vote for politicans that might change the laws to suit your desired "STOP giving us your poor, your downtrodden" doctrine.
Well, seeing this is Slashdot, and we don't like software patents, and MP3 is encumbered with such while AAC is not, AAC wins by default.
AAC plays on every portable music device that isn't sucky and limited. Of course MP3 is going to play on "pure" MP3 players - hence their name. But you are entering "90% use Windows" kind of territory here...
Remember: You must count actual device numbers, not count each brand as equal. Some street-vendor cheapo model that sells 10,000 units dwindles to insignificance next to Creative, Sony and Apple's offerings.
In addition, it's not clear whether Apple would be even more successful if it licensed its operating system to other companies willing to make less expensive boxes.
Actually, that is clear - since they once did, and almost went under because of it. One of the first things Jobs did when Pepsi-Sculley was out and he was back was to cancel all deals with companies like Power Computing.
That entry does not explain when the word did start to be abused in such a manner though. Just that it has become so common as to enter the dictionary at some point.
Sure you can install whatever you want on it. Just don't expect - as far too many here do - that Apple will help you do so. If the license restrictions on the SDK are not to your liking, use something else (like GCC) instead. People seem to thing Apple have a duty to provide tools that do more than Apple want the tools to do - but they do not.
Slashdot Mirror
No it's not but you obviusly have no counter to it so you act childishly instead. Or perhaps "gibberish" is something you apply to any criticism of the mutated copyright laws that now protect the interests of an industry and not those of the public.
Others have pointed out to you that the Constitution's granting of rights to Congress is not the same as the copyright laws themselves. They are contained in USC Title 17 which you can find here. Maybe it is time you actually read them?
To buy music on the iTunes Store, duh.
Nice how your lame derail fails to see the difference between criminal law and civil law.
But if serial killers had the same lobbying power as the industries, I am sure serial killers would NOT be put in jail.
The point is that the anti-consumer industries - that is, the industries trying to restrict more and more what someone who bought their products can do with them - forget that copyright is a government-granted monopoly and not a "natural right". Copyright stems from back in the day when "work" was stuff like smithing and tilling fields. Sitting around on your ass writing books or painting did not put food or tools into the community. But the lawmakers saw that cultural products had intrinsic value, and thus created an incentive for creators to make a living from their art but also ensured that those works would eventually enter the public domain and become part of the shared culture.
Then we got the industry (where "art" is replaced by "product") and the lobbyists (who fight to keep works out of the public domain) and now "the artists" have been superseded by organizations that cry their crocodile tears over the plight of the artist, while in reality representing soulless commercial entities who provide crappy contracts unless you are very smart or very famous and can dictate your own terms.
You are right that we "do not get to determine how someone else distributes their work" - but Congress (in the case of USA) does.
Ah. Real.
Before there was one product, Real One, RealPlayer and RealJukebox were separate - but interdependent - products. So I downloaded the free versions, decided I wanted the features of the $20 "full" RealPlayer. After buying that, I decided I also wanted the "full" RealJukebox. But when I installed that, it also installed an updated RealPlayer crippled, free edition which of course made my earlier $20 RealPlayer incestment a waste.
Gee, thanks a lot.
Safari is different though since it is gratis and not even mandatory.
At the end of the Safari license there is an offer to provide source on request; what more do you want? Just because many (L)GPL software has source more readily available than nevessary does not mean Apple have to provide the source online - only "on request", in their case on physical media.
"run-of-the-particle-accelerator particles"?
*sigh* The need to register for updates is not a form of DRM, it's providing a service to paying customers. There is a vast difference you need to open your eyes to see.
So the CEO of one of the most successful minor game companies out there "doesn't know anything about business"? You are aware that software pirates have NEVER been deterred by DRM? And that it's whether to put in legit-user-annoying DRM or not that is the subject at hand?
Sooo...
Basically you make the consumer's choice into this:
1) Your legit copy, with various annoying hurdles due to the DRM which might even make the install not work because of the drive they uses to install it (some DRM solutions historically refused to install if the drive was a DVD burner for instance) or with this annoying "have to have CD in drive to start playing" crap, or...
2) The DRM-free, cheaper, possibly no-CD-patched pirate copy. Which is also cheaper.
Gee, what to choose...
The DRM does not prevent the bootleggers which often get their masters from shady individuals in the mass-production companies you use to make the legit copies anyway. DRM just annoys the legit user.
WoW? Hardly. For Ultima Online, yes, and seem to be generally accepted.
As opposed to, I dunno, using somebody else's product?
Please provide a list of other Windows manufacturers than Microsoft. I mean, as an "industry standard" there must be competing implementations, right?
Nah, just mandate that configuration is done through Ethernet or serial connection.
My Phillips wireless router came default with the wireless functionality switched off. That is also a good solution: You have to access the router to enable it, and the wizards you go through can advise you to turn on security.
As a complement to that, an active wireless network card in a PC will be constantly looking for these cries of availablilty and will attach to the strongest open network it can find with no interaction in the user's behalf...
It's NOT your money. You gave it away! You have no more (direct) say over how it is used than your employer has over how you use the paycheck he gives you.
What you CAN do is vote for politicans that might change the laws to suit your desired "STOP giving us your poor, your downtrodden" doctrine.
Well, seeing this is Slashdot, and we don't like software patents, and MP3 is encumbered with such while AAC is not, AAC wins by default.
AAC plays on every portable music device that isn't sucky and limited. Of course MP3 is going to play on "pure" MP3 players - hence their name. But you are entering "90% use Windows" kind of territory here...
Remember: You must count actual device numbers, not count each brand as equal. Some street-vendor cheapo model that sells 10,000 units dwindles to insignificance next to Creative, Sony and Apple's offerings.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#Hardware for a nice list. Which contains fra more than iPod.
Actually, that is clear - since they once did, and almost went under because of it. One of the first things Jobs did when Pepsi-Sculley was out and he was back was to cancel all deals with companies like Power Computing.
Language/runtime environment snob much?
At least you are doing something very expensive... :)
Reproduction of electronic content has near-zero cost, though, so there is far more of that.
That entry does not explain when the word did start to be abused in such a manner though. Just that it has become so common as to enter the dictionary at some point.
Yes, since that removes him from the CoS "soldiers" who appear to have moderated down various posts in the thread...
Perhaps widgets?
http://widgets.opera.com/
They have made it legally impossible ... to use their SDK and their infrastructure...
to run Java, alternative browsers, and other applications
Now go hug Emacs and see if someone has made a GCC extension to target the iPhone.
Sure you can install whatever you want on it. Just don't expect - as far too many here do - that Apple will help you do so. If the license restrictions on the SDK are not to your liking, use something else (like GCC) instead. People seem to thing Apple have a duty to provide tools that do more than Apple want the tools to do - but they do not.