I've had an ATI X1950 Pro for 3 years now and while the card works great, the newer games render it near obsolete. So yes, I can have a card forever but what good is that going to do me if I need to upgrade anyway?
Resale value would suck and why would anyone want to spend 50$ on a 3 year old card when they can get a 1 year old "better" card for 90$. (I pulled the numbers out of thin air but you get the idea).
Graphics cards have other uses besides games. I've spent over $100 a number of times for Radeon X850s in the last couple of years because they have been the best all around performing cards supported by open source drivers.
I know you were attempting to be sarcastic, but I wouldn't have any problem with that provided you didn't commit fraud by claiming medical credentials you don't have.
Licenses are creditionals.
If the kid's legal guardians want you to do the surgery despite your lack of formal approval by the state I see no reason to interfere.
To rephrase that, anti-copy is not the disease, it is the symptom. Like a fever, it is the unpleasant effect of a battle against a much deeper problem. (Sorry for a biological rather than automotive analogy.)
An interesting side effect of a fever is chilling. After a person's body temperature reaches a certain point it begins to perceive that it is cold and the natural response is to seek warmth, usually by blanketing heavily. This of course is exactly the wrong thing to do because it can drive the fever up to a lethal level. That's why it is quite common to treat an unpleasant side effect such as a fever with a cooling blanket instead of applying the heat that the patient desires.
Right now, SharePoint 2007 MOSS and WSS is literally exploding in the marketplace. Companies are taking their.NET programmers and sending them to SharePoint bootcamps, and other methods of training as fast as they can, because nobody anticipated the demand for people skilled in these tools.
But, once someone is up to speed in MOSS, they can write their ticket nationwide, leaving their former employer to pound sand, having just put out thousands in training fees.
You dont have to be very high up in a corporation, just have a marketable skill, and you can just bail.
Surely an employee would only bail if the company was not willing to pay him what his new skill set is worth, no? There are other ways to offset the cost of training such as scholarship agreements.
I really think they are missing the point of how this technology has made an impact on how we get our content from the internet.
No, they see the point perfectly clear. Their view is that people need to stop thinking that they can get free stuff from the internet. The last sentence of this BBC article sums up the industry's position pretty well:
"We don't believe that society can allow the free consumption of content to persist"
The *copyright* exists "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". That is, so that the owner of the copyright can make money on their invention. It's giving an incentive to create new things.
The Constitution says nothing about making money, it simply states that Congress may grant limited protection as a tool to advance science and art. If it can be proven that science and art can progress without protection then there would be no need for Congress to use the tool.
I think they meant things like Linux -- which is, of course, copy-written. The whole Free Software movement hinges on Copyright (Left?). So, presumably, they just meant crap like music and movies that someone is going to bitch about you copying as being copy-written.
It was a stupid remark on their part, I agree - but I think their intent was obvious.
Obvious or not it is still important to point out such errors because the RIAA/MPAA/BSA all want to create the illusion that it is illegal to share anything that is copyrighted.
Except for archive.org and a few other sites I've not seen much of it on the internet, and since just about everything is copyrighted by default I really doubt there is much copyright free content out there. There was a time when the US had much saner copyright laws, but that was before it went the way of Europe and signed on to the Berne Convention.
Nobody would put up with somebody following them around all the time taking notes on everywhere they go, what they look, and what they buy. In most places such actions are against the law. What makes Google, or any other company for that matter, so special that they can get away it?
as a content creator, maybe you can explain to me why if a potential customer gets my software and pays someone else for a pirate copy, that's bad, and if they just pirate it without paying thats ok?
Because in the first case someone is making money off of you while in the second the second they are simply sharing information.
This idea that non commercial theft is ok is just a pathetic justification people use for their own greed.
Sharing information is not greed, it's quite the opposite as a matter of fact. It is a natural human trait that enables people to pass knowledge and culture from one generation to the next.
Copyright violation. In the USA, a judge has ruled that you need a contract to legally run software, since when activated the computer loads portions of the code into memory, which is considered copying, and additionally, most software also must first be copied and extracted from archives on the CD, creating a derivative work on your hard-drive.
Please cite, because that makes no sense. Of course IANAL, but US copyright law seems to specifically say that installing and running a program is not infringement.
117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 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:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Copying files from CD/DVD to hard drive and into memory are essential steps to utilize most computer programs.
Now, let me ask you this....when people 'use' software that they haven't paid for....how do *you* think they typical get access to that software?
Hmmmm....
This is a tough one.....
Oh wait...I KNOW! THEY MAKE COPIES OF IT!!!!!
If I loan you my laptop you are legally using the software installed on it as you have not made a copy. It works much the same way as if I loaned you a book.
Why don't you go ahead and explain to all of us what copyright law DOES prohibit?
Short answer: Making copies of covered works for purposes other than criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research without permission.
Simply 'wanting' something doesn't give you the right to have it. As a full-time software developer, and as someone who isn't rich or a giant faceless company; I offer you two choices....
It's funny how the U.S., where the PC and the Internet first became big, seems less and less on the digital frontier. When in much of the EU...
Yes are current laws are draconian, but all this stupidity started when we signed on the Europe's Berne Convention. For the first two hundred years of our existence our copyright laws were much more sane.
Re:Why do I want a giant clock or battery widget
on
KDE 4.0 RC 1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Because when I sit down at a desktop, I like having to resize every little detail because the default is GIANT
It is probably a lot easier for you to downsize details that seem tiny to you than it is for people who have to upsize details that seem tiny to them.
How about 'get an operating system that works with my hardware?' People shouldn't need to buy something new just to get it work with Linux, so this is a lame "pro tip."
No, it's actually a very good "pro tip". When you buy hardware that does not work with Linux you are telling the manufacturer that it is okay to make hardware that does not work with Linux.
So what is your solution? If you accept that Windows is the most used OS in the world, equating to 100's of millions of installations and that Microsoft loses a lot of revenue due to software piracy, you would expect that they would want to do something to curb what is a big problem.
What I have found, though, is astounding. Acacia has sued hundreds of defendants in 213 different patent lawsuits brought by 36 different Acacia subsidiaries. That's right - they have sued in 36 different names! By doing so, Acacia, a publicly traded company, has increased its market cap by tenfold, going from a 35M company in early 2003 to a 350M company today.
This company doesn't make anything, it is a patent troll pure and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had an ATI X1950 Pro for 3 years now and while the card works great, the newer games render it near obsolete. So yes, I can have a card forever but what good is that going to do me if I need to upgrade anyway?
Resale value would suck and why would anyone want to spend 50$ on a 3 year old card when they can get a 1 year old "better" card for 90$. (I pulled the numbers out of thin air but you get the idea).
Graphics cards have other uses besides games. I've spent over $100 a number of times for Radeon X850s in the last couple of years because they have been the best all around performing cards supported by open source drivers.
Free music has been making people happy since the dawn of civilization, that is why there are so many who pursue it.
I know you were attempting to be sarcastic, but I wouldn't have any problem with that provided you didn't commit fraud by claiming medical credentials you don't have.
Licenses are creditionals.
If the kid's legal guardians want you to do the surgery despite your lack of formal approval by the state I see no reason to interfere.
Does that hold true even if that kid were you?
To rephrase that, anti-copy is not the disease, it is the symptom. Like a fever, it is the unpleasant effect of a battle against a much deeper problem. (Sorry for a biological rather than automotive analogy.)
An interesting side effect of a fever is chilling. After a person's body temperature reaches a certain point it begins to perceive that it is cold and the natural response is to seek warmth, usually by blanketing heavily. This of course is exactly the wrong thing to do because it can drive the fever up to a lethal level. That's why it is quite common to treat an unpleasant side effect such as a fever with a cooling blanket instead of applying the heat that the patient desires.
Right now, SharePoint 2007 MOSS and WSS is literally exploding in the marketplace. Companies are taking their
But, once someone is up to speed in MOSS, they can write their ticket nationwide, leaving their former employer to pound sand, having just put out thousands in training fees.
You dont have to be very high up in a corporation, just have a marketable skill, and you can just bail.
Surely an employee would only bail if the company was not willing to pay him what his new skill set is worth, no? There are other ways to offset the cost of training such as scholarship agreements.
I really think they are missing the point of how this technology has made an impact on how we get our content from the internet.
No, they see the point perfectly clear. Their view is that people need to stop thinking that they can get free stuff from the internet. The last sentence of this BBC article sums up the industry's position pretty well:
"We don't believe that society can allow the free consumption of content to persist"
What?
The *copyright* exists "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". That is, so that the owner of the copyright can make money on their invention. It's giving an incentive to create new things.
The Constitution says nothing about making money, it simply states that Congress may grant limited protection as a tool to advance science and art. If it can be proven that science and art can progress without protection then there would be no need for Congress to use the tool.
This argument would be more persuasive if traffic on the P2P nets wasn't dominated by titles less than one year old.
Perhaps if the length of protection was a more reasonable seven years then they wouldn't be.
I think they meant things like Linux -- which is, of course, copy-written. The whole Free Software movement hinges on Copyright (Left?). So, presumably, they just meant crap like music and movies that someone is going to bitch about you copying as being copy-written.
It was a stupid remark on their part, I agree - but I think their intent was obvious.
Obvious or not it is still important to point out such errors because the RIAA/MPAA/BSA all want to create the illusion that it is illegal to share anything that is copyrighted.
Except for archive.org and a few other sites I've not seen much of it on the internet, and since just about everything is copyrighted by default I really doubt there is much copyright free content out there. There was a time when the US had much saner copyright laws, but that was before it went the way of Europe and signed on to the Berne Convention.
If I have been granted the power by the Constitution of the United States to have sole discretion over the manner in which my works are distributed...
The Constitution does not grant you any such power, it only gives Congress the option of offering you limited protection.
Nobody would put up with somebody following them around all the time taking notes on everywhere they go, what they look, and what they buy. In most places such actions are against the law. What makes Google, or any other company for that matter, so special that they can get away it?
as a content creator, maybe you can explain to me why if a potential customer gets my software and pays someone else for a pirate copy, that's bad, and if they just pirate it without paying thats ok?
Because in the first case someone is making money off of you while in the second the second they are simply sharing information.
This idea that non commercial theft is ok is just a pathetic justification people use for their own greed.
Sharing information is not greed, it's quite the opposite as a matter of fact. It is a natural human trait that enables people to pass knowledge and culture from one generation to the next.
Copyright violation. In the USA, a judge has ruled that you need a contract to legally run software, since when activated the computer loads portions of the code into memory, which is considered copying, and additionally, most software also must first be copied and extracted from archives on the CD, creating a derivative work on your hard-drive.
Please cite, because that makes no sense. Of course IANAL, but US copyright law seems to specifically say that installing and running a program is not infringement.
117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 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:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Copying files from CD/DVD to hard drive and into memory are essential steps to utilize most computer programs.
Now, let me ask you this....when people 'use' software that they haven't paid for....how do *you* think they typical get access to that software?
Hmmmm....
This is a tough one.....
Oh wait...I KNOW! THEY MAKE COPIES OF IT!!!!!
If I loan you my laptop you are legally using the software installed on it as you have not made a copy. It works much the same way as if I loaned you a book.
Dude, you are a jackass.
Perhaps, but I'm not wrong.
Why don't you go ahead and explain to all of us what copyright law DOES prohibit?
Short answer: Making copies of covered works for purposes other than criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research without permission.
Long answer can be found here.
Simply 'wanting' something doesn't give you the right to have it. As a full-time software developer, and as someone who isn't rich or a giant faceless company; I offer you two choices....
1.) Don't use my software.
Copyright law does not prohibit use.
You would think this would already be the case as current copyright law stomps all over the first amendment.
It's funny how the U.S., where the PC and the Internet first became big, seems less and less on the digital frontier. When in much of the EU...
Yes are current laws are draconian, but all this stupidity started when we signed on the Europe's Berne Convention. For the first two hundred years of our existence our copyright laws were much more sane.
Because when I sit down at a desktop, I like having to resize every little detail because the default is GIANT
It is probably a lot easier for you to downsize details that seem tiny to you than it is for people who have to upsize details that seem tiny to them.
At least you guys have a choice. Voting is compulsory in Australia, and every time there is a local election we are requited to turn out.
Wow, you would think that everyone who was against compulsory voting would have voted against a law like that.
Now all we need is to vote in candidates who are willing to enact a retroactive 200% tax on vote selling and we can pay off the national debt.
How about 'get an operating system that works with my hardware?' People shouldn't need to buy something new just to get it work with Linux, so this is a lame "pro tip."
No, it's actually a very good "pro tip". When you buy hardware that does not work with Linux you are telling the manufacturer that it is okay to make hardware that does not work with Linux.
So what is your solution? If you accept that Windows is the most used OS in the world, equating to 100's of millions of installations and that Microsoft loses a lot of revenue due to software piracy, you would expect that they would want to do something to curb what is a big problem.
A big problem? If only all businesses had Microsoft's problems:
Revenue In Millions:
From a link provided in the Groklaw article:
What I have found, though, is astounding. Acacia has sued hundreds of defendants in 213 different patent lawsuits brought by 36 different Acacia subsidiaries. That's right - they have sued in 36 different names! By doing so, Acacia, a publicly traded company, has increased its market cap by tenfold, going from a 35M company in early 2003 to a 350M company today.
This company doesn't make anything, it is a patent troll pure and simple.