If I were an advertiser I'd be interested in how to get my ads to the consumer most effectively. Paying to know how often my ad is blocked seems reasonable.
It depends on what you plan on doing with the information as to whether or not the data is valuable. Sadly, most advertisers seem to focus way too much on how, and way to little on why, people block ads.
I'm not saying that no-one does these things, but either your world is very different to mine (which is possible, of course) or it's nowhere near the kind of proportion you'd need to justify the claims in question.
Perhaps are worlds are very different. At the bars I go to it's pretty common for people to share copies of a movies or albums with each other, it's just the neighborly thing to do after all. This goes for the DJs and KJs also. Oh, and speaking of karaoke I've seen people record their "performances" which is probably a mechanical rights violation. Those who consider themselves musicians have been grumbling recently about some of the TAB sites shutting down. As for the ipod, according to this Wiki article Steve Jobs says they have sold 1.5 billion songs as of Sept. 2006. Dividing that by 650 million ipods gives less than 3 legally downloaded songs per player. Sure, I suppose it's possible that all those other tracks people put on their players came from legally bought CDs but I'm more like Thomas than you as I seriously doubt that is the case.
Can you explain this further? I don't see how is it sooo hard to not infringe. If you use P2P, only share things you know are allowable in the public domain.
Could you please a provide a link to a database that informs people what exactly is in the public domain and what exactly is not?
I rather doubt that the majority of people even understand basic copyright law. However, if they did, I'd be surprised if the majority objected to it. Contrary to popular culture around these parts, there is little if any evidence that today's widespread infringement has yet reached "majority" status, nor anywhere near it.
Apple claims to have sold 65,000,000 ipods. How many music tracks have they sold through itunes? How many other mp3 players have other brands sold that don't even have a legal distribution site? And that's just music. When you start considering burned CDs and DVDs, software, lyrics, guitar tabs, and everything else content producers figure only they should be be controlling that people are trading the evidence is overwhelming that the people just doesn't give a damn about copyright law anymore. But hey, whatever, you keep telling yourself what you want to believe on go on suing little old ladies.
Ain't gonna happen. Copyright law has become so ridiculously restrictive that it has become nearly impossible not to infringe. The majority of people just don't care about it anymore.
If anyone had a shot at knocking Microsoft its perch it was AOL right after they purchased Netscape. They had the distribution channels and a user base willing to install and reboot into just about anything they were told.
Fix the copy and paste? In both Windows and Linux it works fine for me.
I'm scratching my head too. Just to test things out I just copied and pasted from web page to location bar, web page to editor, web page to konsole session using either the mouse or keyboard shortcuts. Everything worked as expected, including shift-insert.
No one gets to legitimately obligate anyone else by fiat. That is based in English common law (and Roman law before that.) It predates US law and is still the basis for it. I can't sign you up for a loan, and you can't sign me up for slavery.
Interestingly enough English slave law (and Roman slave law before that) also predated US slave law.
The Japanese were on the verge of surrendering already. Go study WW2 history- it's patently obvious Japan was already losing AND that they knew it. The atomic bombs were almost completely unnecessary, except to establish US dominance in the world theater by demonstrating god-like firepower.
Out of curiosity where were your parents are grandparents during the war? Was it China, Korea, or any where else in Asia or the South Pacific where thousands of civilians and soldiers alike were dying everyday while the Japanese were on the "verge" of surrender?
movies in theater vs. your tiny tv = huge difference in screen size and sound quality
My 50 inch HDTV has a pretty good picture and I can adjust the audio of my 800 watt surround system to the levels that I prefer as I lounge on the couch sipping beers while enjoying my favorite flicks at the time of my choosing and gives me the ability to pause the film for the inevitable bladder emptying.
There's always Legaltorrents.com, started by Simon Carless!
I've been to that site but its index page is extermely slim particularly considering that 99.9% of human creations are in the public domain or under freely redistrubutable licenses, not to mention it lacks a search feature.
Which of these top 10 sites focus on non-copyrighted material? You know, the stuff that the torrent fans bring up as the reason they use bittorrent?
Since current law makes just about everything copyright by default I'm afraid you are going to have a hard time finding any site that does not have potentially infringing material. The thing that really bites though is that it is almost impossible to determine whether a particular file is being distributed against the creator's wishes until it is downloaded and examined. I recommend that you write your representatives and urge them to fix this situation by bringing back mandatory registration and the creation of a searchable online database of works which may not be freely shared by the general public without prior permission of the authors.
Yes they do flood the internet with junk files which look like song files but aren't. The only way to tell if it's a real song file is to listen to it from beginning to end. See Reply Memorandum of Law at pages 2-4. As you can see from the deposition testimony excerpted there, the company that 'investigates' for the lawsuits and the company that floods the internet with junk pseudo-song files is the same company.
More curiosity than anything else since I believe our copyright laws are totally fubar'd anyway but since everything is copyrighted by default wouldn't even sharing junk pseudo-song files be an infringement?
I still think it is strange that you could pose for porn at 18, but, can't go buy a beer when the days work there is over.....
Growing up in the era when the voting age was changed to match the drafting age I totally agree with you but after prohibition the control of alchohol sales was left to the individual states. Of course the feds "encourage" the 21 rule when doling out highway funds.
Or what about porn that involves some 17 year old? If it's totally OK to have an 18 year old in porn then why is having a 17 year old in pron the one thing that will justify taking away civil liberties.
And if 17 is okay, why not 16? If 16 okay why not 15? They had to make a cutoff somewhere and since 18 is legal adulthood it is as good of an age as any.
I don't personally feel its right to be gay nor do I think people are "born that way".
You do know that some people are born with the organs of both sexes at birth though, don't you? Usually a physician and their parents choose the gender with which they will live the rest of their lives. It only makes sense that when the wrong choice is made the child will grow up being attracted to partners who are the same sex that it was assigned which would indeed mean that there are people who are "born that way."
You can use the vanilla software/code personally in whatever way you wish, but if you modify and/or redistribute it, then a whole bunch of restrictions come into play to define under what conditions you may do this.
Those restrictions make GPL'd software very profitable for anyone who uses more software than they write. It's an awesome deal if you really think about it...for the mere price of distributing a few lines of your own code you gain the rights to distribute millions of lines written by others.
I usually relate it to something people are familiar with since grade school, creating a montage, which most digital restrictions schemes make impossible.
Not being a lawyer I'm not sure but I would think Stanley vs. Georgia is more applicable here.
"We hold that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a crime. Roth and the cases following that decision are not impaired by today's holding. As we have said, the States retain broad power to regulate obscenity; that power simply does not extend to mere possession by the individual in the privacy of his own home. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."
Thanks for the info. But do you know if bypassing the TMP (by removing the kext, presumably) is illegal under the DMCA? And can one get in trouble for that?
That would depend on whether you live in a country where the DMCA was applicable and enforced.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were an advertiser I'd be interested in how to get my ads to the consumer most effectively. Paying to know how often my ad is blocked seems reasonable.
It depends on what you plan on doing with the information as to whether or not the data is valuable. Sadly, most advertisers seem to focus way too much on how, and way to little on why, people block ads.
Untrue. It is quite common for users to have personal scripts and programs.
Maybe not because MAPI is a PROPRIETARY protocol... So maybe you don't find it as what you are asking for is illegal...
It is not illegal to reverse engineer a protocol, except possibly in a handful of countries if encryption is involved.
I'm not saying that no-one does these things, but either your world is very different to mine (which is possible, of course) or it's nowhere near the kind of proportion you'd need to justify the claims in question.
Perhaps are worlds are very different. At the bars I go to it's pretty common for people to share copies of a movies or albums with each other, it's just the neighborly thing to do after all. This goes for the DJs and KJs also. Oh, and speaking of karaoke I've seen people record their "performances" which is probably a mechanical rights violation. Those who consider themselves musicians have been grumbling recently about some of the TAB sites shutting down. As for the ipod, according to this Wiki article Steve Jobs says they have sold 1.5 billion songs as of Sept. 2006. Dividing that by 650 million ipods gives less than 3 legally downloaded songs per player. Sure, I suppose it's possible that all those other tracks people put on their players came from legally bought CDs but I'm more like Thomas than you as I seriously doubt that is the case.
Can you explain this further? I don't see how is it sooo hard to not infringe. If you use P2P, only share things you know are allowable in the public domain.
Could you please a provide a link to a database that informs people what exactly is in the public domain and what exactly is not?
I rather doubt that the majority of people even understand basic copyright law. However, if they did, I'd be surprised if the majority objected to it. Contrary to popular culture around these parts, there is little if any evidence that today's widespread infringement has yet reached "majority" status, nor anywhere near it.
Apple claims to have sold 65,000,000 ipods. How many music tracks have they sold through itunes? How many other mp3 players have other brands sold that don't even have a legal distribution site? And that's just music. When you start considering burned CDs and DVDs, software, lyrics, guitar tabs, and everything else content producers figure only they should be be controlling that people are trading the evidence is overwhelming that the people just doesn't give a damn about copyright law anymore. But hey, whatever, you keep telling yourself what you want to believe on go on suing little old ladies.
Stop committing copyright infringement maybe?
Ain't gonna happen. Copyright law has become so ridiculously restrictive that it has become nearly impossible not to infringe. The majority of people just don't care about it anymore.
If anyone had a shot at knocking Microsoft its perch it was AOL right after they purchased Netscape. They had the distribution channels and a user base willing to install and reboot into just about anything they were told.
wxWidgets: supports more platforms and it is TRUE open source in that they don't charge you if you use it commercially. Enough said.
No, it's really not enough said. If you want to get paid for your work then they should get paid for theirs.
Fix the copy and paste? In both Windows and Linux it works fine for me.
I'm scratching my head too. Just to test things out I just copied and pasted from web page to location bar, web page to editor, web page to konsole session using either the mouse or keyboard shortcuts. Everything worked as expected, including shift-insert.
No one gets to legitimately obligate anyone else by fiat. That is based in English common law (and Roman law before that.) It predates US law and is still the basis for it. I can't sign you up for a loan, and you can't sign me up for slavery.
Interestingly enough English slave law (and Roman slave law before that) also predated US slave law.
The Japanese were on the verge of surrendering already. Go study WW2 history- it's patently obvious Japan was already losing AND that they knew it. The atomic bombs were almost completely unnecessary, except to establish US dominance in the world theater by demonstrating god-like firepower.
Out of curiosity where were your parents are grandparents during the war? Was it China, Korea, or any where else in Asia or the South Pacific where thousands of civilians and soldiers alike were dying everyday while the Japanese were on the "verge" of surrender?
movies in theater vs. your tiny tv = huge difference in screen size and sound quality
My 50 inch HDTV has a pretty good picture and I can adjust the audio of my 800 watt surround system to the levels that I prefer as I lounge on the couch sipping beers while enjoying my favorite flicks at the time of my choosing and gives me the ability to pause the film for the inevitable bladder emptying.
There's always Legaltorrents.com, started by Simon Carless!
I've been to that site but its index page is extermely slim particularly considering that 99.9% of human creations are in the public domain or under freely redistrubutable licenses, not to mention it lacks a search feature.
Which of these top 10 sites focus on non-copyrighted material? You know, the stuff that the torrent fans bring up as the reason they use bittorrent?
Since current law makes just about everything copyright by default I'm afraid you are going to have a hard time finding any site that does not have potentially infringing material. The thing that really bites though is that it is almost impossible to determine whether a particular file is being distributed against the creator's wishes until it is downloaded and examined. I recommend that you write your representatives and urge them to fix this situation by bringing back mandatory registration and the creation of a searchable online database of works which may not be freely shared by the general public without prior permission of the authors.
Yes they do flood the internet with junk files which look like song files but aren't. The only way to tell if it's a real song file is to listen to it from beginning to end. See Reply Memorandum of Law at pages 2-4. As you can see from the deposition testimony excerpted there, the company that 'investigates' for the lawsuits and the company that floods the internet with junk pseudo-song files is the same company.
More curiosity than anything else since I believe our copyright laws are totally fubar'd anyway but since everything is copyrighted by default wouldn't even sharing junk pseudo-song files be an infringement?
I still think it is strange that you could pose for porn at 18, but, can't go buy a beer when the days work there is over.....
Growing up in the era when the voting age was changed to match the drafting age I totally agree with you but after prohibition the control of alchohol sales was left to the individual states. Of course the feds "encourage" the 21 rule when doling out highway funds.
Or what about porn that involves some 17 year old? If it's totally OK to have an 18 year old in porn then why is having a 17 year old in pron the one thing that will justify taking away civil liberties.
And if 17 is okay, why not 16? If 16 okay why not 15? They had to make a cutoff somewhere and since 18 is legal adulthood it is as good of an age as any.
I don't personally feel its right to be gay nor do I think people are "born that way".
You do know that some people are born with the organs of both sexes at birth though, don't you? Usually a physician and their parents choose the gender with which they will live the rest of their lives. It only makes sense that when the wrong choice is made the child will grow up being attracted to partners who are the same sex that it was assigned which would indeed mean that there are people who are "born that way."
You mean he institutes a legal terrorist surveillance program that both sides of Congress approved of?
Is this the same Congress that of which only 30% of Americans approve?
You can use the vanilla software/code personally in whatever way you wish, but if you modify and/or redistribute it, then a whole bunch of restrictions come into play to define under what conditions you may do this.
Those restrictions make GPL'd software very profitable for anyone who uses more software than they write. It's an awesome deal if you really think about it...for the mere price of distributing a few lines of your own code you gain the rights to distribute millions of lines written by others.
No that's not really all. DRM also restricts sampling, education, and criticism.
I usually relate it to something people are familiar with since grade school, creating a montage, which most digital restrictions schemes make impossible.
Not being a lawyer I'm not sure but I would think Stanley vs. Georgia is more applicable here.
"We hold that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a crime. Roth and the cases following that decision are not impaired by today's holding. As we have said, the States retain broad power to regulate obscenity; that power simply does not extend to mere possession by the individual in the privacy of his own home. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."
Thanks for the info. But do you know if bypassing the TMP (by removing the kext, presumably) is illegal under the DMCA? And can one get in trouble for that?
That would depend on whether you live in a country where the DMCA was applicable and enforced.