At the Gap, photographers were told they couldn't take pictures because the Gap didn't want competitors to study and copy its clothing displays.
Good laugh. All they need to do it walk in and LOOK at it. Duh.
in any event, I don't think malls are the best place to start - I think public cameras, being monitored by government agencies, or cameras placed in locations where we live would be a more justified target. Malls have a right to protect their assets from shoplifters. On the other hand, I'd argue that a property manager or government agency doesn't necessarily have the right to watch me as I come and go, who I'm with, or anything else of that nature.
Not the issue. How many patents does Microsoft hold? The distinction is important- the reason Microsoft hasn't initiated any patent suits (that we know of anyway), is because it hasn't needed to. Put the company in a position of financial stress, and you can bet they'll be looking at every possible way to take advantage of this massive portfolio.
Well, let me speak for myself. I don't think they are a good idea...at all. The best thing about *this* case is that it could easily become a thorn in the side of one of the biggest patent whores in the US. I find it particularly amusing that the patent holder is under no obligation whatsoever to ensure that the terms are "agreeable" to whomever wants to license them.
Seems like this is the academic form of "mine's bigger than yours." Funny how all this needless mind bending can be boiled down to some pretty basic behavior.
Then this is a cost of doing business. People don't like being treated like little children. Protect yourself, but don't piss everyone off in the process- it could easily gain you some adversaries that you wouldn't have had otherwise.
I can't wait for a tilt/pan feature, where you can move the image so that you're looking at it sideways (and much closer, of course). The satellite feature is nice, but it seems like the only thing you can use it for is to verify your location if you happen to be flying in a plane..."Yep, this is the right place, I recognize the top of the building!" Or, if you happen to be on foot, I suppose you could walk in and ask the building manager if he/she could take you to the roof for a minute to make sure it's the right one.
That's hilarious. If they believe this, have them read through the EULA they probably don't know about. When has Microsoft, or ANY mass-market software company, EVER been held "accountable" for something that went wrong? Generally, that just doesn't happen.
..or even better. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are dedicated to their jobs, and want to do well, but if you draw some correlation between the attitudes of those in college toward their education (largely pathetic), and the kind of employee that emerges as a result, it seems that it's more about being "entitled" to a paycheck than it is about engaging in something with passion. I realize that there are a number of contributing factors (like the havoc that inept management can cause), but the attitude and motivation of employees can't help matters.
The DMCA gave everyone exactly what they deserve. I'm not a fan of the media companies, nor do like that the DMCA and similar laws have done. But the people who unlawfully aquire copyrighted material have brought this upon themselves....As in: not free - for something of value. Bartered, sold, traded - not just given away.
If this is the legal criterion by which it is decided that someone has unlawfully acquired or distributed copyrighted material, then the law NEEDS to be changed. The implication is absurd...that I could produce something that cost me a bundle, that provides good value to a sufficient number of people, and yet, I have no control over it, as long as people are giving it away - giving my property away - for free. That makes ZERO sense.
Oh...you might want to check this out...it supports much of what I have been saying, and it is, what most would consider, the "horse's mouth."
Mere copying is not piracy. If you derive any kind of value from said copying, it is piracy, unless it falls within the domain of fair use. I'm willing to bet that a minority of the P2P file sharing falls within the commonly accepted LEGAL definition.
Let's not, please, think that morals have changed due to digitization. That is to say, copying a tape for a friend to use is fair use.
They apparently have changed, and for one reason...because technology has made it both easy to copy something, and difficult to detect. As for fair use, fair use is what the law says is fair use. The unlawful reproduction of someone else's property (copying it without permission) and giving it to a friend so that this person doesn't have to buy it, is NOT fair use.
Piracy is copying and selling.
According to dictionary.com, piracy is The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material:.
Websters has it slightly differently, but it says nothing of selling as a requirement: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
It appears that you are incorrect on this point.
The **AAs are the ones who are saying they are losing sales. That is a practical argument. So we respond with a practical rebuttal.
It is not a practical rebuttal - it is an attempt to rationalize behavior that is wrong. Even if the RIAA weren't losing a single sale, it wouldn't matter - it's STILL their property, and people STILL need to respect their copyright.
Why is it now a heinous "crime against humanity" if I get it from a different source? In fact, if it is digital radio, I may even be getting the exact same bits that I might get off the internet. So on the one hand, I am morally okay, and on the other, I am morally reprehensible?
Let's get back to basics. Piracy is the unlawful acquisition of material that doesn't belong to you. Copying it without permission qualfies as unlawful acquisition. Nobody makes a big deal about taping the radio because it's commonly known that this doesn't provide sufficient quality. It doesn't mean it's not wrong, it just means that the quality will motivate most people to either buy something of higher quality(most notably a CD), or copy someone else's.
Hey, sometimes I get pretty damn good sights down at the beach in august.
Who owns them?
The same information can have huge amounts of value to some, and little to none for others. Also, the "it has value" argument fails because there is currently no practical way to show what one does value as a customer.
Totally incorrect. If I offer something for sale, you either decide that it's worth paying the price I'm asking, or you simply forgo the purchase. Simple. If it has enough value to you, you buy it. If it doesn't, you spend your money on something else. At what point does my "it has value" argument fail?
You speak of the pro-p2p side as having "no inherent right to benefit from this value".
I believe it's most often referred to as property. No, it's not a car, or a lawnmower, but it is something of value, and it IS, like it or not, owned by someone. You have no inherent right to unlawfully benefit from someone else's property- that is to say, to take it without permission, nor do you have the right to give it to anyone else- unless it falls wiithin the definition of fair use.
mutual trade to mutual benefit without force or fraud.
Did you happen to notice the word mutual? Incidentally, Rand was a strong proponent of property rights.
Calling 12 year old girls "pirates" because they like to listen to cool music is certainly a moral fraud,
Not exactly. This 12-year-old needs to understand her civic responsibility, and that the internet is not an on-ramp to a free-for-all when it comes to copyrighted material.
Why is it that most people who try to justify piracy try to rationalize it through this kind of reasoning? If someone who pirates music (or software) wouldn't buy it anyway, so what? What does that have to do with anything? The fact is that these materials provide something people actually want. In other words, it has value. No logic that I can justify would suggest that someone has an inherent right to benefit from this value whether or not they intend to pay for it.
What exactly is the difference between software patents, and patents on other trivial and completely obvious processes...or is this level of abstraction a little too difficult for you?
The can only mean that there's a huge potential market for those offering administrative or other support services. As the number of adopters continues to grow, the lower TCO might eventually be perceived as a competitive advantage, and thus, provide more incentive for people to look a Linux as an option.
Exactly. Show me a "novel" software process that doesn't rely in some way on countless other processes. There are some, but they are in the extreme minority. Patents are for those who invent. Sorry, but repackaging something that is common knowledge and claiming that it's novel because it's "on the internet" doesn't qualify.
I always heard that a one-dollar bill has a big "1" on it, the five-dollar bill has a big "5" on it, the ten-dollar bill has a big "10" on it, and so on.
...link information such as credit card purchases, Internet chat room messages and arrest records.
This leaves may more questions than it does answers. Under what circumstances will they acquire the credit card information? Will they have it before they suspect someone, or will they acquire it because they suspect someone- because someone is actually under investigation? How are the chat messages acquired and under what circumstances? Is it an active process (requiring the involvement of an agent), or a passive one? Does it target a specific person, or is it a fishing expedition?
That's correct. But you're overlooking the real problem here. The tool is being used to "catch criminals" - in other words there is a preponderance that people are doing something illegal. "We'll assume that anyone has the potential to commit a crime, so we'll watch everyone, and catch those that do." This is entirely backward.
I don't understand your point. Fingerprints are what they are. They don't require or entail constant monitoring, surveilance, or profiling. You can't watch someone with a fingerprint, nor can you use it to infer the potential of certain behavior. There are many circumvention devices - gloves being the most obvious. With my own fingerprints, I am in complete control - if I don't leave any, there are none for you to look at. Even if I did happen to leave fingerprints behind, if I haven't done anything that gives you (a government agent) probable cause to look at them, you have no business looking at them.
You could make the same argument: don't do anything that would leave a trail, since all this information being tracked by the government are but mere digital fingerprints. But if that's the case, I'd argue that I'm not living in a free society. The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution exists for a reason, you know.
Slashdot Mirror
At the Gap, photographers were told they couldn't take pictures because the Gap didn't want competitors to study and copy its clothing displays.
Good laugh. All they need to do it walk in and LOOK at it. Duh.
in any event, I don't think malls are the best place to start - I think public cameras, being monitored by government agencies, or cameras placed in locations where we live would be a more justified target. Malls have a right to protect their assets from shoplifters. On the other hand, I'd argue that a property manager or government agency doesn't necessarily have the right to watch me as I come and go, who I'm with, or anything else of that nature.
Not the issue. How many patents does Microsoft hold? The distinction is important- the reason Microsoft hasn't initiated any patent suits (that we know of anyway), is because it hasn't needed to. Put the company in a position of financial stress, and you can bet they'll be looking at every possible way to take advantage of this massive portfolio.
Well, let me speak for myself. I don't think they are a good idea...at all. The best thing about *this* case is that it could easily become a thorn in the side of one of the biggest patent whores in the US. I find it particularly amusing that the patent holder is under no obligation whatsoever to ensure that the terms are "agreeable" to whomever wants to license them.
EAT PATENT, MICROSOFT!
Seems like this is the academic form of "mine's bigger than yours." Funny how all this needless mind bending can be boiled down to some pretty basic behavior.
Then this is a cost of doing business. People don't like being treated like little children. Protect yourself, but don't piss everyone off in the process- it could easily gain you some adversaries that you wouldn't have had otherwise.
Quite interesting - I had no idea this was available. : )
Someone else who sees the light...I haven't bought anything for about 4 years or so. I find that I can easily recycle what I already legally own.
Some companies tried to fight this. Some tried to point out the flaws in home-made ice.
Funny- I can just see it...
"But it's not as cold!"
"...and ours is bigger!"
I can't wait for a tilt/pan feature, where you can move the image so that you're looking at it sideways (and much closer, of course). The satellite feature is nice, but it seems like the only thing you can use it for is to verify your location if you happen to be flying in a plane..."Yep, this is the right place, I recognize the top of the building!" Or, if you happen to be on foot, I suppose you could walk in and ask the building manager if he/she could take you to the roof for a minute to make sure it's the right one.
That's true. If it were me, I'd still try to offer them an opportunity to see it from a more pragmatic perspective.
How to turn 250 million potential victims into a cash cow. What I'd like to see is a legally-mandated opt-out.
That's hilarious. If they believe this, have them read through the EULA they probably don't know about. When has Microsoft, or ANY mass-market software company, EVER been held "accountable" for something that went wrong? Generally, that just doesn't happen.
When I attempted to upgrade my workplace to OpenOffice after fielding complaints about Microsoft Office -- suffice to say we are back to Microsoft.
Why? What tripped the users up so bad that you had to go back?
..or even better. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are dedicated to their jobs, and want to do well, but if you draw some correlation between the attitudes of those in college toward their education (largely pathetic), and the kind of employee that emerges as a result, it seems that it's more about being "entitled" to a paycheck than it is about engaging in something with passion. I realize that there are a number of contributing factors (like the havoc that inept management can cause), but the attitude and motivation of employees can't help matters.
The DMCA gave everyone exactly what they deserve. I'm not a fan of the media companies, nor do like that the DMCA and similar laws have done. But the people who unlawfully aquire copyrighted material have brought this upon themselves. ...As in: not free - for something of value. Bartered, sold, traded - not just given away.
If this is the legal criterion by which it is decided that someone has unlawfully acquired or distributed copyrighted material, then the law NEEDS to be changed. The implication is absurd...that I could produce something that cost me a bundle, that provides good value to a sufficient number of people, and yet, I have no control over it, as long as people are giving it away - giving my property away - for free. That makes ZERO sense.
Oh...you might want to check this out...it supports much of what I have been saying, and it is, what most would consider, the "horse's mouth."
Mere copying is not piracy.
If you derive any kind of value from said copying, it is piracy, unless it falls within the domain of fair use. I'm willing to bet that a minority of the P2P file sharing falls within the commonly accepted LEGAL definition.
Let's not, please, think that morals have changed due to digitization. That is to say, copying a tape for a friend to use is fair use.
They apparently have changed, and for one reason...because technology has made it both easy to copy something, and difficult to detect. As for fair use, fair use is what the law says is fair use. The unlawful reproduction of someone else's property (copying it without permission) and giving it to a friend so that this person doesn't have to buy it, is NOT fair use.
Piracy is copying and selling.
According to dictionary.com, piracy is The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material:.
Websters has it slightly differently, but it says nothing of selling as a requirement: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
It appears that you are incorrect on this point.
The **AAs are the ones who are saying they are losing sales. That is a practical argument. So we respond with a practical rebuttal.
It is not a practical rebuttal - it is an attempt to rationalize behavior that is wrong. Even if the RIAA weren't losing a single sale, it wouldn't matter - it's STILL their property, and people STILL need to respect their copyright.
Why is it now a heinous "crime against humanity" if I get it from a different source? In fact, if it is digital radio, I may even be getting the exact same bits that I might get off the internet. So on the one hand, I am morally okay, and on the other, I am morally reprehensible?
Let's get back to basics. Piracy is the unlawful acquisition of material that doesn't belong to you. Copying it without permission qualfies as unlawful acquisition. Nobody makes a big deal about taping the radio because it's commonly known that this doesn't provide sufficient quality. It doesn't mean it's not wrong, it just means that the quality will motivate most people to either buy something of higher quality(most notably a CD), or copy someone else's.
Hey, sometimes I get pretty damn good sights down at the beach in august
Who owns them?
The same information can have huge amounts of value to some, and little to none for others. Also, the "it has value" argument fails because there is currently no practical way to show what one does value as a customer.
Totally incorrect. If I offer something for sale, you either decide that it's worth paying the price I'm asking, or you simply forgo the purchase. Simple. If it has enough value to you, you buy it. If it doesn't, you spend your money on something else. At what point does my "it has value" argument fail?
You speak of the pro-p2p side as having "no inherent right to benefit from this value".
I believe it's most often referred to as property. No, it's not a car, or a lawnmower, but it is something of value, and it IS, like it or not, owned by someone. You have no inherent right to unlawfully benefit from someone else's property- that is to say, to take it without permission, nor do you have the right to give it to anyone else- unless it falls wiithin the definition of fair use.
mutual trade to mutual benefit without force or fraud.
Did you happen to notice the word mutual? Incidentally, Rand was a strong proponent of property rights.
Calling 12 year old girls "pirates" because they like to listen to cool music is certainly a moral fraud,
Not exactly. This 12-year-old needs to understand her civic responsibility, and that the internet is not an on-ramp to a free-for-all when it comes to copyrighted material.
Why is it that most people who try to justify piracy try to rationalize it through this kind of reasoning? If someone who pirates music (or software) wouldn't buy it anyway, so what? What does that have to do with anything? The fact is that these materials provide something people actually want. In other words, it has value. No logic that I can justify would suggest that someone has an inherent right to benefit from this value whether or not they intend to pay for it.
That's actually quite interesting. I stand enlightened. : )
What exactly is the difference between software patents, and patents on other trivial and completely obvious processes...or is this level of abstraction a little too difficult for you?
The can only mean that there's a huge potential market for those offering administrative or other support services. As the number of adopters continues to grow, the lower TCO might eventually be perceived as a competitive advantage, and thus, provide more incentive for people to look a Linux as an option.
you should be able to patent a novel process
Exactly. Show me a "novel" software process that doesn't rely in some way on countless other processes. There are some, but they are in the extreme minority. Patents are for those who invent. Sorry, but repackaging something that is common knowledge and claiming that it's novel because it's "on the internet" doesn't qualify.
I always heard that a one-dollar bill has a big "1" on it, the five-dollar bill has a big "5" on it, the ten-dollar bill has a big "10" on it, and so on.
...link information such as credit card purchases, Internet chat room messages and arrest records.
This leaves may more questions than it does answers. Under what circumstances will they acquire the credit card information? Will they have it before they suspect someone, or will they acquire it because they suspect someone- because someone is actually under investigation? How are the chat messages acquired and under what circumstances? Is it an active process (requiring the involvement of an agent), or a passive one? Does it target a specific person, or is it a fishing expedition?
That's correct. But you're overlooking the real problem here. The tool is being used to "catch criminals" - in other words there is a preponderance that people are doing something illegal. "We'll assume that anyone has the potential to commit a crime, so we'll watch everyone, and catch those that do." This is entirely backward.
I don't understand your point. Fingerprints are what they are. They don't require or entail constant monitoring, surveilance, or profiling. You can't watch someone with a fingerprint, nor can you use it to infer the potential of certain behavior. There are many circumvention devices - gloves being the most obvious. With my own fingerprints, I am in complete control - if I don't leave any, there are none for you to look at. Even if I did happen to leave fingerprints behind, if I haven't done anything that gives you (a government agent) probable cause to look at them, you have no business looking at them.
You could make the same argument: don't do anything that would leave a trail, since all this information being tracked by the government are but mere digital fingerprints. But if that's the case, I'd argue that I'm not living in a free society. The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution exists for a reason, you know.