It's not about copying, it's about distribution. The uploader is distributing the file to others, which they don't have the legal right to do. Even if I have the right to make copies of a file for myself, I still don't have the right to distribute any of the files to other people, which is what uploading is.
Think of it in terms of a CD. If I buy a CD, I have the legal right to make a copy of that CD for myself. I can make an infinite number of copies for myself or even rip it to MP3 for myself legally. But I don't have the legal right to give one of those copies away, because that is distributing the music to other people, which I don't have the right to do.
It's not about who ends up with the file (or copy of the file) it is about who the file came from.
First, I understand that the case is about distribution, and not copying. I was responding to "I can't legally make a copy for anyone".
Second, how do you know that you "have the legal right to make a copy of that CD" for yourself, or "even rip it to MP3 for [your]self legally"? One of the things hotly talked about in this discussion is copying rights, and many people are trying to compare it to software backups or video, but audio is not software or video. While (of course) you should not automatically trust what anyone says, NYCL says that there is no case law or statues on this particular subject.
Third, are you in fact making a copy, not counting the exceptions in the law that say certain copies are legal (like copying to RAM for purposes to listening to the music)?
Fourth, it actually does matter who end up with a copy. If I ask you to copy a CD for me, then it is illegal if it is copyrighted and neither of us has permission from the copyright holders. However, if the copyright holders ask you to make a copy, it would seem to me that it would be legal -- after all, that is how the copyright holders manage to get them onto CDs in the first place.
With the proper forensics, most digital cheats are relatively easy to detect. You check for things like sharp edges in a blurry photo, or vice versa, or colors that do not have the proper gradient, etc. However, a good editor can make nearly undetectable changes, so your concern exists already. It's just that it really doesn't happen in comparison to the number of undoctored photos.
"Cops record you with their own video, they chemically test the air that emits from your car, and they have the authority to insist on a BAC test to verify that you are sufficiently sober to drive based on a randomly placed static checkpoint."
Well, you do still have the right to refuse to take said tests. When you do that, you are simply giving them evidence with which to convict you.
In California, you do not have to take a sobriety test in the field, but by applying for a license, you have agreed to take one at the police station, and if you don't, that is cause for revocation of your license.
Is a "private property" sign the same as a "no trespassing" sign in the U.S.? Here, it's pretty meaningless; It basically means "this is privately-owned property; you're here at the leasure of the owner(s) and may be asked to leave at any time".
Not in California, at least. Here, "private XXX" means "this XXX is not government owned", and that is it. That way, you know whether or not particular laws (like the CA Vehicle Code) apply. If you want to legally prevent people from entering, you must have a barrier or a "no trespassing" sign (better yet, both).
In cities, corporations constantly put up signs like "private property; permission to enter or pass over is revocable at any time". It protects the right of the land owner to say "Get off!" whenever he wants to. Otherwise, you can get into the position of implicitly giving an easement for passage to the public.
As for other states, I wouldn't know. Things like this have a tendency to vary by state.
Not enough in California, USA. Here, "private road" means "this road is not government owned", and that is it. That way, you know whether or not particular laws (like the CA Vehicle Code) apply. I lived on such a road a one point. If you want to legally prevent people from entering, you must have a barrier or a "no trespassing" sign.
Nope, it just assumes it is there, and breaks when it isn't. (Assuming that it is already installed; otherwise it does check for hardware during the install process.)
Note that the GP said "open-sourcing binge" (meaning the source was closed and now is not) vs. your "has so much open source" (which indicates origin, not current state). Apple did not have to reopen the source that got closed when NeXT took it. Had they wanted to, they could have left everything closed, but the chose to open some of it back up.
I'm confuse why anyone would dual-boot Vista. Dual booting Windows to have a game machine is simply practical, but Vista sucks vs XP as a game platform - it's slower and takes far more resources to run at all (and if you didn't have resource limits, you'd just have 2 boxes). Why would you do this?
Because you have a Mac and want to run the latest stuff that you are forced to use at work?
But who is making the copy? They are the ones writing stuff to disk. On the source computer, the bits only exist in the original file and in RAM. There are some exceptions for copies in RAM, but I do not know what they exactly are, so perhaps the only copies made are in fact legal ones.
Aside the difficulty of factoring out primes in big numbers, would trading the primes and frequency violate copyright?
I imagine that would depend on the color of the primes. If those primes were derived from from the music, then yes, there is infringement; otherwise no. If you do not understand the reference, read the linked article. It is excellent reading.
This is a misconception that floats around too often. Pure size does not automatically mean it is fair use. Rather, it is simply one prong of many that are used to determine fair use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
He was not a customer; he did not purhase the ad he placed.
Just because no money changes hands does not mean you are not a customer. You are simply a customer that received something at a cost of zero.
At my old school, there was a bagel place that gave a "one free bagel" coupon with all school bookstore receipts. You take the coupon to the bagel shop and get a bagel. You are then a customer of that business.
Spending time and resources on a system to FORCE obedience to the rule is inherently wrong, and is DEFINITELY Orwellian.
Lets start focusing on teaching our kids to NOT CHEAT instead of expending so much time and so many resources in an effort to force them to comply.
For those who still do cheat, life will ultimately expose them for the stupid jackass they are.
So would you consider cops enforcing legal compliance with your local legal code to be Orwellian?
Laws generally only work correctly when everyone buys into the system. Do you drive with flat tires? Do you drive at night with your lights off? Do you burn other people's houses down for fun? No? Why? Because it is illegal? Probably not. Rather, it is bad for the car, dangerous, and ethically wrong, respectively. On the other hand, have you driven above the speed limit? Have you ever bought a candy bar from a kid without paying sales tax? Have you ever thrown away a (battery-powered) watch into the trash? Probably, even though they are all illegal. And putting in measures to always enforce these restrictions, or worse, only enforcing them for capricious reasons, is Orwellian. I actually am of the opinion that some of our local legal code and some of the enforcement thereof to be Orwellian. If there is a legal system that it is not possible to avoid offending, even with the best of intentions, you give power to the police force that they should not have. Sorry, not the best example.
That said, I do not know if I would consider legally requiring anti-cheating measures for online courses to be Orwellian. But I would say requiring cameras as the implementing method (which I did not get out of the article) would be.
He admits he was wrong. Look at what is now in the blog:
Update: So I decided to run my own Flash ad. I gave it a $25/day budget and bid the $0.10 minimum. It immediately showed up, and appeared every time I refreshed for at least several hours. According to Google, it was shown 6,607 times. But here's the interesting thing (which, frankly, completely demolishes my whole theory): it was pulled, despite it only costing me $0.40 (ie, with tons of budget remaining). Why? Because clickthrough was too low -- 0.06%, to be precise. So now I'm changing my theory. The reason there are so few Flash ads isn't that Google has priced the keyword out of the market. Rather, it's because it's difficult to make an ad that achieves sufficient clickthrough on such a general term as Flash. Even if you're willing to pay the minimum, Google isn't willing to show it unless it performs. Whether or not that's a problem (and I'm not sure it is), it's entirely different than what I initially was guessing, and completely undermines my theory of Google using monopolistic pressure to sustain noncompetitive pricing. So... never mind.
It is nice to see that he finally went through with actually conducting an experiment that could falsify his hypothesis. Now he thinks it is because people can not come up with ads with a high enough clickthrough rate.
There are people who do believe that the King James version is the "inspired" Word of God. I don't fully understand why would they consider a translation the "inspired" one.
From a religious point of view, if there is anything inspired, it would be the first version in its original language. So the closer you get to the original ones, theoretically would be the better.
Many people do not trust later editions, because they claim that those translators were pushing agendas. They say that the KJV was done by a group of scholars that can be trusted as much as if not more than any group that followed, and so that translation is the most trustworthy. Further, since many branches reject one or another translation for whatever reason, the KJV is the one easily accessible English translation that all branches of English-speaking Christianity accept.
Some Christians do not understand the above, and then translate the acceptance of only the KJV as dogma that the KJV is the "inspired" version. Dolts.
Take Paul for example. Great guy, has a lot of good things to say. But when in 1st Corinthians 14, he says that women shouldn't speak in church because it's a disgrace, the average Christian should be able to say, "Whoa, that's fucked up".
The fact that some biblical authors/heroes/characters got things wrong doesn't need to be disheartening, it should be reassuring. "Look, Paul screwed up, we're all human, phew."
I tend to read Paul as a man of his times. He says that a lot of things "are a disgrace" or "are shameful". That does not equate to "are sinful". Rather, it is simply saying, in effect, do not be disruptive to society. It is also like when he says, "slaves respect your masters; masters be kind to your slaves" -- in other words "this is life, deal with it, and be true to the principles of Christianity meanwhile".
The problem is that idiots think voicemail should be used for "Hi, I just called you. Call me back." as if my phone doesn't keep track of incoming calls.
Three problems with this.
(1) I do not call back people that do not request a call back, since otherwise I will assume that they have judged the call inconsequential if they need to wait for a reply. Examples might be, "I want to chat if you are available," or "I would like your input for a decision I am making, but the input is not required," or "I was hoping you could tell me something, but if you can't I will call someone else."
(2) Both my wife and I have had the experience that our phones do not in fact track every incoming call. For example, when the phone is off or has no connectivity, the calls are often not tracked. Also, at seemingly random times an occasional call is not logged.
I find it irritating when people call me back when I have not left a message. If I had wanted a call back, I would have said so. Just like in the old days, with land lines and answering machines. Mobile phones are no different to me.
I'll always admire T.S. Elliot for saying, "I'd have written you a shorter letter, but I didn't have time."
This is the first time that I have seen this quote attributed to T. S. Elliot. Usually I see it attributed to Mark Twain, who did in fact use it. However, it comes from before him. It has been attributed to Samuel Johnson as well, but it is not his either. Instead, it comes from Blaise Pascal's "Lettres Provinciales", Letter XVI in 1657:
Mes Reverends Peres, mes lettres n'avaient pas accoutume de se suivre
de si pres, ni d'etre si etendues. Le peu de temps que j'ai eu a ete
cause de l'un et de l'autre. Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que
parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.
My Reverend Fathers, my letters are not accustomed to follow so closely, nor to be so extensive. The limited time that I had was because of one thing and another. I made it longer because I have not had the opportunity to make it shorter.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about copying, it's about distribution. The uploader is distributing the file to others, which they don't have the legal right to do. Even if I have the right to make copies of a file for myself, I still don't have the right to distribute any of the files to other people, which is what uploading is.
Think of it in terms of a CD. If I buy a CD, I have the legal right to make a copy of that CD for myself. I can make an infinite number of copies for myself or even rip it to MP3 for myself legally. But I don't have the legal right to give one of those copies away, because that is distributing the music to other people, which I don't have the right to do.
It's not about who ends up with the file (or copy of the file) it is about who the file came from.
First, I understand that the case is about distribution, and not copying. I was responding to "I can't legally make a copy for anyone".
Second, how do you know that you "have the legal right to make a copy of that CD" for yourself, or "even rip it to MP3 for [your]self legally"? One of the things hotly talked about in this discussion is copying rights, and many people are trying to compare it to software backups or video, but audio is not software or video. While (of course) you should not automatically trust what anyone says, NYCL says that there is no case law or statues on this particular subject.
Third, are you in fact making a copy, not counting the exceptions in the law that say certain copies are legal (like copying to RAM for purposes to listening to the music)?
Fourth, it actually does matter who end up with a copy. If I ask you to copy a CD for me, then it is illegal if it is copyrighted and neither of us has permission from the copyright holders. However, if the copyright holders ask you to make a copy, it would seem to me that it would be legal -- after all, that is how the copyright holders manage to get them onto CDs in the first place.
With the proper forensics, most digital cheats are relatively easy to detect. You check for things like sharp edges in a blurry photo, or vice versa, or colors that do not have the proper gradient, etc. However, a good editor can make nearly undetectable changes, so your concern exists already. It's just that it really doesn't happen in comparison to the number of undoctored photos.
"Cops record you with their own video, they chemically test the air that emits from your car, and they have the authority to insist on a BAC test to verify that you are sufficiently sober to drive based on a randomly placed static checkpoint."
Well, you do still have the right to refuse to take said tests. When you do that, you are simply giving them evidence with which to convict you.
In California, you do not have to take a sobriety test in the field, but by applying for a license, you have agreed to take one at the police station, and if you don't, that is cause for revocation of your license.
You most certainly do not have the right to roam on to my driveway, for example, which is clearly private property.
Only if it says "no trespassing".
Is a "private property" sign the same as a "no trespassing" sign in the U.S.? Here, it's pretty meaningless; It basically means "this is privately-owned property; you're here at the leasure of the owner(s) and may be asked to leave at any time".
Not in California, at least. Here, "private XXX" means "this XXX is not government owned", and that is it. That way, you know whether or not particular laws (like the CA Vehicle Code) apply. If you want to legally prevent people from entering, you must have a barrier or a "no trespassing" sign (better yet, both).
In cities, corporations constantly put up signs like "private property; permission to enter or pass over is revocable at any time". It protects the right of the land owner to say "Get off!" whenever he wants to. Otherwise, you can get into the position of implicitly giving an easement for passage to the public.
As for other states, I wouldn't know. Things like this have a tendency to vary by state.
Not enough in California, USA. Here, "private road" means "this road is not government owned", and that is it. That way, you know whether or not particular laws (like the CA Vehicle Code) apply. I lived on such a road a one point. If you want to legally prevent people from entering, you must have a barrier or a "no trespassing" sign.
MacOSX as a guest OS is not supported. Further, I am virtually certain that it will not work as is, as it requires EFI instead of a standard BIOS.
OSX doesn't check for any Apple hardware
Nope, it just assumes it is there, and breaks when it isn't. (Assuming that it is already installed; otherwise it does check for hardware during the install process.)
Note that the GP said "open-sourcing binge" (meaning the source was closed and now is not) vs. your "has so much open source" (which indicates origin, not current state). Apple did not have to reopen the source that got closed when NeXT took it. Had they wanted to, they could have left everything closed, but the chose to open some of it back up.
I'm confuse why anyone would dual-boot Vista. Dual booting Windows to have a game machine is simply practical, but Vista sucks vs XP as a game platform - it's slower and takes far more resources to run at all (and if you didn't have resource limits, you'd just have 2 boxes). Why would you do this?
Because you have a Mac and want to run the latest stuff that you are forced to use at work?
[...] so my thanks are based on principal.
Since we were pointing out typos. ;-)
But who is making the copy? They are the ones writing stuff to disk. On the source computer, the bits only exist in the original file and in RAM. There are some exceptions for copies in RAM, but I do not know what they exactly are, so perhaps the only copies made are in fact legal ones.
Aside the difficulty of factoring out primes in big numbers, would trading the primes and frequency violate copyright?
I imagine that would depend on the color of the primes. If those primes were derived from from the music, then yes, there is infringement; otherwise no. If you do not understand the reference, read the linked article. It is excellent reading.
This is a misconception that floats around too often. Pure size does not automatically mean it is fair use. Rather, it is simply one prong of many that are used to determine fair use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
No, it's correct. Do a google search.
He was not a customer; he did not purhase the ad he placed.
Just because no money changes hands does not mean you are not a customer. You are simply a customer that received something at a cost of zero.
At my old school, there was a bagel place that gave a "one free bagel" coupon with all school bookstore receipts. You take the coupon to the bagel shop and get a bagel. You are then a customer of that business.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/customer
But only in specific markets, and also for some apartments. This is the official list of Posting Fees.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=624513&cid=24317949
People were not actually supposed to ACT on the suggestion!
(P.S.: The above is my poor attempt at a bit of black humor, and is not a troll or flamebait.)
Spending time and resources on a system to FORCE obedience to the rule is inherently wrong, and is DEFINITELY Orwellian. Lets start focusing on teaching our kids to NOT CHEAT instead of expending so much time and so many resources in an effort to force them to comply. For those who still do cheat, life will ultimately expose them for the stupid jackass they are.
So would you consider cops enforcing legal compliance with your local legal code to be Orwellian?
Laws generally only work correctly when everyone buys into the system. Do you drive with flat tires? Do you drive at night with your lights off? Do you burn other people's houses down for fun? No? Why? Because it is illegal? Probably not. Rather, it is bad for the car, dangerous, and ethically wrong, respectively. On the other hand, have you driven above the speed limit? Have you ever bought a candy bar from a kid without paying sales tax? Have you ever thrown away a (battery-powered) watch into the trash? Probably, even though they are all illegal. And putting in measures to always enforce these restrictions, or worse, only enforcing them for capricious reasons, is Orwellian. I actually am of the opinion that some of our local legal code and some of the enforcement thereof to be Orwellian. If there is a legal system that it is not possible to avoid offending, even with the best of intentions, you give power to the police force that they should not have. Sorry, not the best example.
That said, I do not know if I would consider legally requiring anti-cheating measures for online courses to be Orwellian. But I would say requiring cameras as the implementing method (which I did not get out of the article) would be.
Update: So I decided to run my own Flash ad. I gave it a $25/day budget and bid the $0.10 minimum. It immediately showed up, and appeared every time I refreshed for at least several hours. According to Google, it was shown 6,607 times. But here's the interesting thing (which, frankly, completely demolishes my whole theory): it was pulled, despite it only costing me $0.40 (ie, with tons of budget remaining). Why? Because clickthrough was too low -- 0.06%, to be precise. So now I'm changing my theory. The reason there are so few Flash ads isn't that Google has priced the keyword out of the market. Rather, it's because it's difficult to make an ad that achieves sufficient clickthrough on such a general term as Flash. Even if you're willing to pay the minimum, Google isn't willing to show it unless it performs. Whether or not that's a problem (and I'm not sure it is), it's entirely different than what I initially was guessing, and completely undermines my theory of Google using monopolistic pressure to sustain noncompetitive pricing. So... never mind.
It is nice to see that he finally went through with actually conducting an experiment that could falsify his hypothesis. Now he thinks it is because people can not come up with ads with a high enough clickthrough rate.
There are people who do believe that the King James version is the "inspired" Word of God. I don't fully understand why would they consider a translation the "inspired" one.
From a religious point of view, if there is anything inspired, it would be the first version in its original language. So the closer you get to the original ones, theoretically would be the better.
Many people do not trust later editions, because they claim that those translators were pushing agendas. They say that the KJV was done by a group of scholars that can be trusted as much as if not more than any group that followed, and so that translation is the most trustworthy. Further, since many branches reject one or another translation for whatever reason, the KJV is the one easily accessible English translation that all branches of English-speaking Christianity accept.
Some Christians do not understand the above, and then translate the acceptance of only the KJV as dogma that the KJV is the "inspired" version. Dolts.
Take Paul for example. Great guy, has a lot of good things to say. But when in 1st Corinthians 14, he says that women shouldn't speak in church because it's a disgrace, the average Christian should be able to say, "Whoa, that's fucked up".
The fact that some biblical authors/heroes/characters got things wrong doesn't need to be disheartening, it should be reassuring. "Look, Paul screwed up, we're all human, phew."
I tend to read Paul as a man of his times. He says that a lot of things "are a disgrace" or "are shameful". That does not equate to "are sinful". Rather, it is simply saying, in effect, do not be disruptive to society. It is also like when he says, "slaves respect your masters; masters be kind to your slaves" -- in other words "this is life, deal with it, and be true to the principles of Christianity meanwhile".
The problem is that idiots think voicemail should be used for "Hi, I just called you. Call me back." as if my phone doesn't keep track of incoming calls.
Three problems with this.
(1) I do not call back people that do not request a call back, since otherwise I will assume that they have judged the call inconsequential if they need to wait for a reply. Examples might be, "I want to chat if you are available," or "I would like your input for a decision I am making, but the input is not required," or "I was hoping you could tell me something, but if you can't I will call someone else."
(2) Both my wife and I have had the experience that our phones do not in fact track every incoming call. For example, when the phone is off or has no connectivity, the calls are often not tracked. Also, at seemingly random times an occasional call is not logged.
I find it irritating when people call me back when I have not left a message. If I had wanted a call back, I would have said so. Just like in the old days, with land lines and answering machines. Mobile phones are no different to me.
I'll always admire T.S. Elliot for saying, "I'd have written you a shorter letter, but I didn't have time."
This is the first time that I have seen this quote attributed to T. S. Elliot. Usually I see it attributed to Mark Twain, who did in fact use it. However, it comes from before him. It has been attributed to Samuel Johnson as well, but it is not his either. Instead, it comes from Blaise Pascal's "Lettres Provinciales", Letter XVI in 1657:
Mes Reverends Peres, mes lettres n'avaient pas accoutume de se suivre de si pres, ni d'etre si etendues. Le peu de temps que j'ai eu a ete cause de l'un et de l'autre. Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.
http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Les_Provinciales_-_Seizi%C3%A8me_lettre_aux_r%C3%A9v%C3%A9rends_p%C3%A8res_j%C3%A9suites
My Reverend Fathers, my letters are not accustomed to follow so closely, nor to be so extensive. The limited time that I had was because of one thing and another. I made it longer because I have not had the opportunity to make it shorter.
Please forgive my poor translation.
http://www.samueljohnson.com/apocryph.html
http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/454-why-most-copywriting-on-the-web-sucks
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TimeToMakeItShort
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/Humanist/v05/0444.html