I'm going to take a pretty educated guess (since I don't feel like looking up the US Code). Since the credit reporting system is regulated at the federal level, me thinks that Congress shut that door long ago.
It's not a big deal to you. It's a big deal to those making a living distributing/selling software. Copyright holders are entitled to treble damages for infringement.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence," and Occam's razor.
Unfortunately, copyright infringement is often strict liability; in other words, no finding of intent is required.
Copps argument is that, in certain respects, the entire area of the United States should not be considered. No one should expect Topeka to have the same type of service, but one think that Manhattan should be better than Seoul.
Obviously, I'll start with two caveats: 1. contract law is pretty much dependent on the jurisdiction (state) in which residing. 2. eBay is a not a party to the auction or sale. As such, the terms of the contract/auction are dependent upon those contained in listing, seller's SOP, and generally recognized industry customs among others. Therefore, if the listing states very conspicuously that the listing is subject to anything (e.g. availability, reasonable shipping costs, etc), then most courts would honor that restriction. Obviously, the danger occurs when the listing is silent, hence the copious amounts of fine print.
1. Unfortunately, per the GPL, the internet is not considered a customary medium when distributing the binaries physically, which you're doing when you distribute the phone. Obviously, if the binary is downloaded, then the source can also be downloaded. 2. Once again, a URL is not a written offer. The basis for the GPL obligation is derived from contract law.
This is a great example of terrible reporting. The article begins by relaying a post from the WSJ about a Google-phone prototype, then an email commentary by a Google rep regarding an industry need for personalized mobile advertisement. Then some industry shill talks about consumer uneasiness regarding an supported calling. Ummm... where the hell did he full that feature out of? Google has made billions by developing an non-intrusive advertising platform; they're advertising is going to more primarily based on GPS and other personalized features. More FUD from an "industry analyst". Regarding splitting revenue, I say screw it; sell it direct like some of the Nokia models with quad-band GSM. Sure, you'll be ignoring some customers, but so be it.
Believe it or not, some DVDs are published without encryption. Therefore, in that case you have not violated the DMCA by making a back up copy.
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Two important reasons for DRM.
1. Price discrimination. Some people have the ability to pay when told that they must, regardless of the actual legal status. Also, the time value of money plays a factor.
2. But the more important one. Without DRM, then the DMCA can't be enforced. The whole, "yes you have fair use, but you broke the law to exercise it.
Under GPLv2, since the phone contains the covered binaries, Skype would have had to include: 1. the source code on "a medium customarily used for software interchange" (section 3a) or 2. a written offer to provide the source code (section 3b). A URL to the source code does not suffice when the work is distributed physically.
Hear, Hear!! I think that's the point that most people here are forgetting; the average user doesn't know/care about PCI slots, memory management, etc. The demand for that type of use will always be there; much like some people will always need an SGI-type box. But then again, this is slashdot, which hardly counts as the target demographic that FB is seeking with this purchase. Whether people realize it or not, but the future of CONSUMER computing is the thin/dumb client with the internet as the central server. It's an interesting race to see which device gets their first, the PC or the smartphone. Hopefully, it is the PC because if the smartphone, for an intents and purposes, is a closed platform. Which if you start connecting the dots, is why GOOG is trying to purchase the block of airwaves.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could have just sprung a little bit more, bought the DVD burner, and then do it yourself.
I'm going to take a pretty educated guess (since I don't feel like looking up the US Code). Since the credit reporting system is regulated at the federal level, me thinks that Congress shut that door long ago.
This sentiment obviously matters to the FSF. In GPLv3, they include an explicit 30 day cure period for first time offenders.
It's not a big deal to you. It's a big deal to those making a living distributing/selling software. Copyright holders are entitled to treble damages for infringement.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence," and Occam's razor. Unfortunately, copyright infringement is often strict liability; in other words, no finding of intent is required.
Copps argument is that, in certain respects, the entire area of the United States should not be considered. No one should expect Topeka to have the same type of service, but one think that Manhattan should be better than Seoul.
Obviously, I'll start with two caveats: 1. contract law is pretty much dependent on the jurisdiction (state) in which residing. 2. eBay is a not a party to the auction or sale. As such, the terms of the contract/auction are dependent upon those contained in listing, seller's SOP, and generally recognized industry customs among others. Therefore, if the listing states very conspicuously that the listing is subject to anything (e.g. availability, reasonable shipping costs, etc), then most courts would honor that restriction. Obviously, the danger occurs when the listing is silent, hence the copious amounts of fine print.
1. Unfortunately, per the GPL, the internet is not considered a customary medium when distributing the binaries physically, which you're doing when you distribute the phone. Obviously, if the binary is downloaded, then the source can also be downloaded. 2. Once again, a URL is not a written offer. The basis for the GPL obligation is derived from contract law.
This is a great example of terrible reporting. The article begins by relaying a post from the WSJ about a Google-phone prototype, then an email commentary by a Google rep regarding an industry need for personalized mobile advertisement. Then some industry shill talks about consumer uneasiness regarding an supported calling. Ummm... where the hell did he full that feature out of? Google has made billions by developing an non-intrusive advertising platform; they're advertising is going to more primarily based on GPS and other personalized features. More FUD from an "industry analyst". Regarding splitting revenue, I say screw it; sell it direct like some of the Nokia models with quad-band GSM. Sure, you'll be ignoring some customers, but so be it.
Believe it or not, some DVDs are published without encryption. Therefore, in that case you have not violated the DMCA by making a back up copy.
Two important reasons for DRM. 1. Price discrimination. Some people have the ability to pay when told that they must, regardless of the actual legal status. Also, the time value of money plays a factor. 2. But the more important one. Without DRM, then the DMCA can't be enforced. The whole, "yes you have fair use, but you broke the law to exercise it.
Under GPLv2, since the phone contains the covered binaries, Skype would have had to include: 1. the source code on "a medium customarily used for software interchange" (section 3a) or 2. a written offer to provide the source code (section 3b). A URL to the source code does not suffice when the work is distributed physically.
Hear, Hear!! I think that's the point that most people here are forgetting; the average user doesn't know/care about PCI slots, memory management, etc. The demand for that type of use will always be there; much like some people will always need an SGI-type box. But then again, this is slashdot, which hardly counts as the target demographic that FB is seeking with this purchase. Whether people realize it or not, but the future of CONSUMER computing is the thin/dumb client with the internet as the central server. It's an interesting race to see which device gets their first, the PC or the smartphone. Hopefully, it is the PC because if the smartphone, for an intents and purposes, is a closed platform. Which if you start connecting the dots, is why GOOG is trying to purchase the block of airwaves.