The big boys will stay in business because they know how to make money. The el-cheapo carriers, such as Sprint, will not stay in business if they don't figure out how to make money.
You're going to have to explain how not offering an exact product you want under the exact terms you want is 'abuse'. Do you even have any idea what the word means? Here is another word you should look up while you are at it: entitlement.
As for the arrangement between publishers and authors: that is between them. There is absolutely no reason people can't self-publish if they choose to do so. If they choose (and it is a choice) to sign with a publisher/studio etc that is entirely up to them. Who are you to decide what that relationship is or 'should be'?
When I log into Facebook, the first page I get to has recent posts made by friends and likes. I don't have to click on anything (except maybe to scroll). It is all right there in front of me. If the restaurant posted a description of tonight's special, I see it. If my friend posted a picture of his new baby, I see it.
You could do a similar thing with email, but then the recipient still has to take action to read it. For me, that wouldn't work. I get too much email already, so I just skim through the list an look for important stuff, with the intention of going back to other stuff later, but never actually doing it.
Text? NO! For one thing, they cost me money. For another, they are an interruption.
I think you have that exactly backwards. It would not be a huge boon to those companies, it would kill them (and also the used market). True, Amazon could churn out their own CDs at low cost, but who would buy them? The exact same lack of protection that lets them make cheap CDs, etc lets anyone else legally file share them, etc, for free.
That is some twisty logic there. If I care so little about something I am willing to wait five years I am likely to illegally obtain it? What sense does that make? The ones likely to illegally download are not the ones who are willing to wait, it is the 'oh-my-god-I-have-to-have-this-right-now' crowd.
You nicely demonstrate the pickle the shorter copyright term proponents find themselves in: you try to claim that shorter copyright would be oh-so-much better for society because everyone has free access to these valuable works, while at the same time you claim that the works are worthless at that point anyway and nobody wants them. Well, which is it? If they are at all valuable then why shouldn't the creator benefit from that value? And if they are worthless, what is the point of shortening the copyright term?
You don't seem to understand the difference between a derivative (in the copyright sense) and 'influenced by'. Hundreds of thousands of new copyrighted works are produced every year, and very few of them are derivatives. It is entirely possible to be influenced by Romeo and Juliet while making a new work that is not a derivative. On the other hand, there are some derivatives. For instance, the number one movie right now is 'The Avengers', a derivative of comic books. What possible reason is there for saying that the creators of those comic books should not get a piece of that pie?
The restaurant in question does have a web page, and often the Facebook posts are just links to their page, but that is not the point. The point is that by posting something on their wall all of their customers who are interested will see it when they look at Facebook. Instead of the (potential) customer having to actively seek out a reason to go there it puts it right in front of him. If there are several restaurants like I like equally, the one who makes me do the least amount of work is likely to win on any given night.
And that is the whole point of what I posted: there is a big difference between actively seeking something (a place to buy home-brew supplies), and passively getting information that may cause me to patronize your store again.
I don't know why you would automatically discount businesses on Facebook. I can think of absolutely no reason to assume that a restaurant (or any other similar business) that only has a Facebook presence is in any way inferior to one that has a glitzy web page of their own.
Maybe it depends on how you use Facebook. My 'friends' list is all actual friends and family, not the 2000 other people I went to high school with, or the friend-of-that-guy-that-was-at-the-bar-last-summer. My 'likes' are things I actually like. I guess if you are one of those people who wants to see how many friends they can collect or how many things they can 'like' then Facebook becomes pretty much useless for anything except narcissism.
I think to some extent the results depend on the nature of the business. Some businesses (like pizza joints) probably don't lend themselves to that kind of advertising as well as other kinds of businesses. Other than people new to the area (or visitors), does anybody go on-line to find a pizza place? You probably go to a new pizza place because you drove past it, you have heard about from someone else, or you have seen more traditional ads for it (ie the name and nature of the business has been drummed into your subconscious).
On the other hand, I recently went to a new home-brew supply shop, and the guy asked how I heard about the store. I said 'facebook' and he said that is where almost everyone who has come in has heard about it. He said he spent several thousand dollars on radio ads (on the most popular station in the area) and got zero response. People are actively looking for that kind of store, so an on-line presence makes sense.
Finally, my wife and I regularly eat at a local restaurant (the kind of place where most of the customers are regulars). They have a facebook page, and every so often they post some kind of 'todays special'. You can bet that on the nights they do that the place will be absolutely mobbed. Such a facebook presence may not do much to attract new customers, but it sure seems to bring existing customers back.
The intention of IP is to encourage NEW works to be created, not to enable people to get cheap stuff. If the 'intention' was to allow cheap stuff and derivative works there would not be IP laws, because the default state absent those laws is cheap stuff and derivatives.
If you have IP laws preventing you from simply using someone else's stuff you must create your own new stuff. That is the purpose of them.
"The issues are too complex" is a complete cop-out. All that means is "we can't articulate what we want, you figure it out".
Occupy is like a crying baby. If you are the child's parents you will try to figure out what the baby wants to make it happy. That is your job. If you are a bad parent, you will just try to get the child to shut up by any means necessary. If you are a neighbor of the child you just want it to stop crying, but will not take any action because there is really nothing you can do. However, eventually that baby will grow up and be able to say what it wants/needs. At that point the neighbors can get involved. If the child comes and says 'I need to raise some money to support my Little League team', you can decide whether that is something you want to support or not.
When Occupy grows up and learns to use it's words then maybe the neighbors will get involved. Until then, just shut up already.
OK, if you want to continue with your little fantasy here is something for you to do. Exercise your rights of ownership. Make, advertise, and sell thousands of copies of 'your' game. When the lawyers/FBI come, wave that little receipt at them. You will have plenty of lawyers (including your own) and judges to explain exactly what it is you 'bought'.
The only thing you 'own' is the physical media the game came on.
Can with stop with this idiotic comparison already? Bobbs-Merrill tried to restrict the resale of a particular physical object (a book) with copyright laws. Since copyright laws do not cover physical objects (such as books) they were not allowed to do this.
This case is NOT about someone trying to resell a physical object. It is about someone making COPIES of the CONTENT of the physical object, modifying the copy, and selling THAT. That is not a resale.
Making a copy of the software on a master disk, then making a copy of that master on the system to be sold, and also including a CD in a box is in no way a 'resale'.
That case was about an attempt to restrict the resale of a physical item (a book). Books (the physical paper) are not covered by copyright law, so you can't use copyright to prevent their resale. This case was not about the resale of a physical item.
When you purchase software, you are actually purchasing a license to use the software rather than purchasing the software itself. Software licenses purchased at the Microsoft Store are subject to the license agreement that accompanies the software product. You will be required to agree to the terms and conditions of the license agreement at the time you install the software. Please read the Microsoft Store Information on Terms of Use for more information. BECAUSE SOFTWARE PRODUCTS GENERALLY CANNOT BE RETURNED ONCE OPENED, PLEASE CONTACT THE MICROSOFT STORE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ A COPY OF THE APPLICABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU OPEN THE SOFTWARE.
A book (the physical object) is not covered by copyright, therefore attempting to restrict sales of books can not be done by using copyright. The copyright holder would however be perfectly within their rights to say to a publisher 'you may not give reproduction rights to anyone for less than $1 a copy.
This however has nothing to do with this case, as Pystar was not simply reselling the CD the software came on, they were installing it.
They did NOT sell you the software, they sold you access to the software and a license to use it. The software itself (but not the media it is contained on) is still 100% the property of Apple.
A license does not compel you to do anything. Software is not sold, it is licensed. Even with FOSS you do not 'own' the software, you just have a license to use it. The license gives you (limited) permission to use something that otherwise you have no rights to at all. Stop claiming that you 'buy' a software product - you don't.
You do get something when you click "Accept", you get the ability to use the software.
A license is not a contract. A license is pretty much a one-way document from one party granting certain permissions to a second party that otherwise they would not have. The license people are most familiar with of course is your driver license. Did you get to negotiate the rules of the road with the state when you got your driver license? Of course not - the license is a one-way document given to you by the state. Without such a license you have no permission to drive on public roads. With the license (which comes with a whole bunch of restrictions and ways the license can be revoked) you can drive on public roads.
With software, you do not own the software (even with FOSS). Since it is not 'yours' you have no permission to do anything with it by default. If you want to use the software, you can get a license to do so. That is not a contract.
Monopoly (actually abuse of a dominant position) has everything to do with it. Things that are perfectly legal become illegal if you have a significant dominant position.
Uh, no. Where did you get that idea? One vote does not an acquittal make, it just makes a hung jury, which means they (prosecution and defense, not jury) get to go through the whole thing again.
No-one on this thread made any absolute but factually incorrect statement except you. YOU are the one who flatly said 'surveyors don't use GPS'. That is a false statement. Some surveyors DO in fact use GPS. A simple Google search shows many examples. Since that time you have been trying to weasel out of your statement by making it sound as if 'urban settings' or 'doing a quick survey to lay out the foundations of a building' or 'working in a large unfinished metal warehouse' are the ONLY types of surveying done.
Slashdot Mirror
The big boys will stay in business because they know how to make money. The el-cheapo carriers, such as Sprint, will not stay in business if they don't figure out how to make money.
You're going to have to explain how not offering an exact product you want under the exact terms you want is 'abuse'. Do you even have any idea what the word means? Here is another word you should look up while you are at it: entitlement.
As for the arrangement between publishers and authors: that is between them. There is absolutely no reason people can't self-publish if they choose to do so. If they choose (and it is a choice) to sign with a publisher/studio etc that is entirely up to them. Who are you to decide what that relationship is or 'should be'?
When I log into Facebook, the first page I get to has recent posts made by friends and likes. I don't have to click on anything (except maybe to scroll). It is all right there in front of me. If the restaurant posted a description of tonight's special, I see it. If my friend posted a picture of his new baby, I see it.
You could do a similar thing with email, but then the recipient still has to take action to read it. For me, that wouldn't work. I get too much email already, so I just skim through the list an look for important stuff, with the intention of going back to other stuff later, but never actually doing it.
Text? NO! For one thing, they cost me money. For another, they are an interruption.
But isn't the point of using x-rays for diagnostic purposes is that they only penetrate stuff that isn't dense? Things like walls tend to be dense.
I think you have that exactly backwards. It would not be a huge boon to those companies, it would kill them (and also the used market). True, Amazon could churn out their own CDs at low cost, but who would buy them? The exact same lack of protection that lets them make cheap CDs, etc lets anyone else legally file share them, etc, for free.
That is some twisty logic there. If I care so little about something I am willing to wait five years I am likely to illegally obtain it? What sense does that make? The ones likely to illegally download are not the ones who are willing to wait, it is the 'oh-my-god-I-have-to-have-this-right-now' crowd.
You nicely demonstrate the pickle the shorter copyright term proponents find themselves in: you try to claim that shorter copyright would be oh-so-much better for society because everyone has free access to these valuable works, while at the same time you claim that the works are worthless at that point anyway and nobody wants them. Well, which is it? If they are at all valuable then why shouldn't the creator benefit from that value? And if they are worthless, what is the point of shortening the copyright term?
You don't seem to understand the difference between a derivative (in the copyright sense) and 'influenced by'. Hundreds of thousands of new copyrighted works are produced every year, and very few of them are derivatives. It is entirely possible to be influenced by Romeo and Juliet while making a new work that is not a derivative. On the other hand, there are some derivatives. For instance, the number one movie right now is 'The Avengers', a derivative of comic books. What possible reason is there for saying that the creators of those comic books should not get a piece of that pie?
The restaurant in question does have a web page, and often the Facebook posts are just links to their page, but that is not the point. The point is that by posting something on their wall all of their customers who are interested will see it when they look at Facebook. Instead of the (potential) customer having to actively seek out a reason to go there it puts it right in front of him. If there are several restaurants like I like equally, the one who makes me do the least amount of work is likely to win on any given night.
And that is the whole point of what I posted: there is a big difference between actively seeking something (a place to buy home-brew supplies), and passively getting information that may cause me to patronize your store again.
I don't know why you would automatically discount businesses on Facebook. I can think of absolutely no reason to assume that a restaurant (or any other similar business) that only has a Facebook presence is in any way inferior to one that has a glitzy web page of their own.
Maybe it depends on how you use Facebook. My 'friends' list is all actual friends and family, not the 2000 other people I went to high school with, or the friend-of-that-guy-that-was-at-the-bar-last-summer. My 'likes' are things I actually like. I guess if you are one of those people who wants to see how many friends they can collect or how many things they can 'like' then Facebook becomes pretty much useless for anything except narcissism.
I think to some extent the results depend on the nature of the business. Some businesses (like pizza joints) probably don't lend themselves to that kind of advertising as well as other kinds of businesses. Other than people new to the area (or visitors), does anybody go on-line to find a pizza place? You probably go to a new pizza place because you drove past it, you have heard about from someone else, or you have seen more traditional ads for it (ie the name and nature of the business has been drummed into your subconscious).
On the other hand, I recently went to a new home-brew supply shop, and the guy asked how I heard about the store. I said 'facebook' and he said that is where almost everyone who has come in has heard about it. He said he spent several thousand dollars on radio ads (on the most popular station in the area) and got zero response. People are actively looking for that kind of store, so an on-line presence makes sense.
Finally, my wife and I regularly eat at a local restaurant (the kind of place where most of the customers are regulars). They have a facebook page, and every so often they post some kind of 'todays special'. You can bet that on the nights they do that the place will be absolutely mobbed. Such a facebook presence may not do much to attract new customers, but it sure seems to bring existing customers back.
The intention of IP is to encourage NEW works to be created, not to enable people to get cheap stuff. If the 'intention' was to allow cheap stuff and derivative works there would not be IP laws, because the default state absent those laws is cheap stuff and derivatives.
If you have IP laws preventing you from simply using someone else's stuff you must create your own new stuff. That is the purpose of them.
"The issues are too complex" is a complete cop-out. All that means is "we can't articulate what we want, you figure it out".
Occupy is like a crying baby. If you are the child's parents you will try to figure out what the baby wants to make it happy. That is your job. If you are a bad parent, you will just try to get the child to shut up by any means necessary. If you are a neighbor of the child you just want it to stop crying, but will not take any action because there is really nothing you can do. However, eventually that baby will grow up and be able to say what it wants/needs. At that point the neighbors can get involved. If the child comes and says 'I need to raise some money to support my Little League team', you can decide whether that is something you want to support or not.
When Occupy grows up and learns to use it's words then maybe the neighbors will get involved. Until then, just shut up already.
OK, if you want to continue with your little fantasy here is something for you to do. Exercise your rights of ownership. Make, advertise, and sell thousands of copies of 'your' game. When the lawyers/FBI come, wave that little receipt at them. You will have plenty of lawyers (including your own) and judges to explain exactly what it is you 'bought'.
The only thing you 'own' is the physical media the game came on.
Can with stop with this idiotic comparison already? Bobbs-Merrill tried to restrict the resale of a particular physical object (a book) with copyright laws. Since copyright laws do not cover physical objects (such as books) they were not allowed to do this.
This case is NOT about someone trying to resell a physical object. It is about someone making COPIES of the CONTENT of the physical object, modifying the copy, and selling THAT. That is not a resale.
Making a copy of the software on a master disk, then making a copy of that master on the system to be sold, and also including a CD in a box is in no way a 'resale'.
That case was about an attempt to restrict the resale of a physical item (a book). Books (the physical paper) are not covered by copyright law, so you can't use copyright to prevent their resale. This case was not about the resale of a physical item.
Yes, you bought something - the license. You did NOT buy the software.
From that page (thanks for providing the link):
When you purchase software, you are actually purchasing a license to use the software rather than purchasing the software itself. Software licenses purchased at the Microsoft Store are subject to the license agreement that accompanies the software product. You will be required to agree to the terms and conditions of the license agreement at the time you install the software. Please read the Microsoft Store Information on Terms of Use for more information. BECAUSE SOFTWARE PRODUCTS GENERALLY CANNOT BE RETURNED ONCE OPENED, PLEASE CONTACT THE MICROSOFT STORE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ A COPY OF THE APPLICABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU OPEN THE SOFTWARE.
A book (the physical object) is not covered by copyright, therefore attempting to restrict sales of books can not be done by using copyright. The copyright holder would however be perfectly within their rights to say to a publisher 'you may not give reproduction rights to anyone for less than $1 a copy.
This however has nothing to do with this case, as Pystar was not simply reselling the CD the software came on, they were installing it.
They did NOT sell you the software, they sold you access to the software and a license to use it. The software itself (but not the media it is contained on) is still 100% the property of Apple.
Because software is never sold, only a license to use it is sold.
A license does not compel you to do anything. Software is not sold, it is licensed. Even with FOSS you do not 'own' the software, you just have a license to use it. The license gives you (limited) permission to use something that otherwise you have no rights to at all. Stop claiming that you 'buy' a software product - you don't.
You do get something when you click "Accept", you get the ability to use the software.
A license is not a contract. A license is pretty much a one-way document from one party granting certain permissions to a second party that otherwise they would not have. The license people are most familiar with of course is your driver license. Did you get to negotiate the rules of the road with the state when you got your driver license? Of course not - the license is a one-way document given to you by the state. Without such a license you have no permission to drive on public roads. With the license (which comes with a whole bunch of restrictions and ways the license can be revoked) you can drive on public roads.
With software, you do not own the software (even with FOSS). Since it is not 'yours' you have no permission to do anything with it by default. If you want to use the software, you can get a license to do so. That is not a contract.
For someone who already has a felony conviction and is a repeat offender? Not a chance in hell.
Monopoly (actually abuse of a dominant position) has everything to do with it. Things that are perfectly legal become illegal if you have a significant dominant position.
Uh, no. Where did you get that idea? One vote does not an acquittal make, it just makes a hung jury, which means they (prosecution and defense, not jury) get to go through the whole thing again.
No-one on this thread made any absolute but factually incorrect statement except you. YOU are the one who flatly said 'surveyors don't use GPS'. That is a false statement. Some surveyors DO in fact use GPS. A simple Google search shows many examples. Since that time you have been trying to weasel out of your statement by making it sound as if 'urban settings' or 'doing a quick survey to lay out the foundations of a building' or 'working in a large unfinished metal warehouse' are the ONLY types of surveying done.