And where in this case did they do anything remotely like that? Do you read the case, or just the TechDirt hyperventilating drivel? Here is what actually happened:
The US is a signatory to the Berne convention. The Berne convention (1886) requires a country to provide copyright protection to preexisting foreign works, even if the work was previously in the public domain in that country. The original statute implementing the Berne convention in the US failed to do this.
In 1994 the US signed the TRIPS agreement, which required it to enforce the Berne convention. This 'restored' copyrights in foreign works that were in the public domain in the US for one of three reasons (failure to comply with formalities, lack of subject matter protection, or national ineligibility). Specifically EXCLUDED are works whose copyright terms have expired.
This law and ruling does NOT 'take the Venus de Milo and copyright it to MGM', it simply says that the EXISTING copyrights on Shostakovich's works (which is what this case was about) are valid in the US, even though those works may have been considered in the public domain in the US for one of the above reasons.
One of the rights granted by the Bill of Rights is to not have your rights limited to what is listed in the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights). That is the ninth amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people).
A bill is 'tabled' (put off until a later date) when either there are more pressing issues, or there are not enough votes to get it passed. They did not 'table' this bill, they introduced it.
Well yeah it's easy to beat, it's not playing. This is just a canned flash demo of answers (and possible answers) that it came up with. It gives you the opportunity to answer first every time, so it is never going to 'beat' you if you know the answer. Looking at the possible answers it considered is way more interesting than trying to beat this demo. For instance, one of the 'what me worry' answers was 'scratching' (which it did not get right), but one of the answers it considered (along with eczema) was 'A Bugs Life'. I wonder what triggered that possibility.
Where does it say that a library can make single copies and give them to users who request them? It specifically says a library can make 'no more than one copy' - it says nothing about making copies for any user. Furthermore, section (g) says that the protection is only 'for isolated and unrelated' reproduction, and specifically excludes 'systematic reproduction or distribution'.
The upfront costs are amortized across the entire expected lifetime of the product. Having a price structure that decreases over time just leads to customers delaying purchases until the price drops, which leads to no price drops because no-one is buying, which leads to no sales.
So your position is that closed software costs nothing to develop, market, etc and the only expense is actual distribution? The only way that could be true is if they get people to develop for free, but that isn't the closed source model, is it? Do you have anything to back up your statements? Here are some facts for you:
Microsoft (2009) had income of $14.5B on revenue of $58.5B, about a 25% margin.
IBM (2009) had income of $13.5B on revenue of $96B, about a 14% margin.
Oracle (2009) had income of $5.5B on revenue of $23B, about a 24% margin.
None of those appear to be 'close to 100%'. Which is the closed source vendor who has close to 100% margin?
Where do you see that in the law? According to the IRS website, the 1099-K will be issued by third-party payers (merchant cards, credit cards, etc) to the merchant saying how much they paid you during that year. So if you sell $1000 worth of stuff on eBay (in any number of transactions) and use PayPal to get paid, at the end of the year you will get a 1099-K from PayPal stating they paid you a total of $1000 dollars that year. No where does it say anything even remotely like individuals will be required to issue 1099-Ks.
Manufacturers use the proprietary codes because having more codes obviously gives more information. More information means quicker and more accurate repairs. Quicker and more accurate repairs means lower warranty costs, which can allow for longer warranty periods, which leads to beating the competition for sales. Since the cars are basically doing their own FA, the codes can also be reported back to the manufacturer so they know where improvements are needed. They keep the codes secret because publishing them means your competitors also see what you are doing to enable you to extend your warranties, so they can do the same thing, which negates the whole point of doing it in the first place. Because the number of people who are influenced to buy a car based on warranty period far outweigh the number of people who would chose a car based on availability of codes, there is no real pressure on them to release the codes. This is especially true when the perception of a long warranty is 'that means they don't expect problems', whereas the release of the codes is taken as 'they do expect problems'.
Where did I say you would be an accessory? I said you were responsible - as in your name is attached to it. The rest of that question is so far off topic it is not even worth discussing. However, let's take a scenario that is more on topic. You host a party and allow an unknown person to use your computer. They download child porn. Where are the police going to show up? Who's computer are they going to take (and find the child porn on)? Who's life are they going to turn upside down? Who will likely be sitting in jail for at least a while? How well do you think an alibi of 'an unknown person used my computer in my house' will hold up in court against the evidence of YOUR ip address and YOUR computer?
Like it or not, your internet address is assigned and traceable to you. So when you give anonymous people access to your network, and one of them uses it to share copyrighted material, or make terror threats, or download child porn, it is YOU they are coming for first. And don't think that a simple 'I have an open wifi' is going to get them to go away. Once they have your IP address they have probable cause to search your house and computers and generally make your life hell. And if you DO have an open wifi, they now ask, "is the guy just clueless, or is he actively trying to obstruct justice". Any reasonable person would call someone who willfully does that 'irresponsible'.
It may not be a crime to fail to secure your property, but you are responsible for what happens on your property if it is not secured. One area where this frequently comes into play is with absentee landlords who don't protect their properties and they become, for example, crackhouses. The owner of the property can and will be charged with various offenses such as having a nuisance property.
You already HAVE a responsibility for what goes through your internet connection. It is, after all, YOUR connection. Sharing your connection means you are also accepting responsibility for what anyone else does with it. It is completely backwards to think that somehow sharing your connection absolves you of responsibility.
There don't need to be such laws. Nobody cares if you leave your property unlocked or your wifi open (well, the ISP might care about that one). However, if someone uses your unprotected property to commit a crime (say drug dealing from your unlocked property or copyright infringement from your open wifi) then you share some of the blame. It is simple negligence, no new laws needed.
Please point to the section of the GPL that authorizes that. The lawyers in this case said that the spin-off would amount to a redistribution (it is now a different company, same reason they would need new commercial licenses). The GPL (V2) explicitly says:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Notice that 'you may not impose any further restrictions' line. There goes your contract.
The BSA 'problem' is actually much easier for businesses to deal with. All they have to do is pay, and the problem goes away. With GPL you have the much more distasteful requirement to give up YOUR work, which may represent a significant investment and may contain things you consider trade secrets. Furthermore, the spun off company can do anything they want with that code, including release it to your competitors. I have been involved in a situation where the presence of GPL code was the deal breaker, as the spun off company required the application, and the parent was not willing to give up their IP. In that case, the solution was to remove all the GPL bits and use closed-source libraries. The lesson coming out of that was 'don't use GPL code period'.
It is the duty and responsibility of a lawyer to put forth the best possible case for their client, independent of their personal feelings. Saying otherwise is the same as saying it is OK to deny legal representation to some. Fortunately, the legal system doesn't work like that.
As you said, the schematics were there so repair men could fix the box when it was (frequently) broken. They were not there so the repair man could make design changes. Many (most) of those schematics had the word 'patented' on them, which specifically meant you could NOT use the schematic to create a clone, or even to make modifications. They also had the word 'copyright' on them, which meant no making copies for anyone else. TV development was full of patent fights and lawsuits. It is in no way correct to say that TVs were 'open source'.
The FDIC and NCUA do not insure banks against robbery, they insure the depositors (you) against the failure of the bank. Anyway, yes it would basically be the same thing, and the loss would be covered by the banks insurer.
If people are exploiting some hole and the banks are absorbing the loses (ie it is not affecting account balances), then they are not 'presenting an illusion of security', they are providing security.
On what grounds? If you have been the victim of a fraud, and the bank didn't correct it, you can probably sue them. If you haven't been the victim of a fraud, but you just think their security is too lax, then don't use them. Kind of hard to rail at someone else for not taking security seriously when by definition you yourself aren't taking security seriously if you trust someone you consider non-trustworthy.
There is a different between 'purchasing retail disks' and 'purchasing disks retail'. Purchasing retail disks means that they are getting the same disks you or I would get if we bought them - they are not making a special run of disks for Netflix or allowing Netflix to make their own. But purchasing retail disks says nothing about the price or terms of the purchase. Purchasing disks retail, on the other hand, means that they are paying retail price, same as you or I would. About half of the 'retail' price of a disk goes to the retailer. There is no way that Netflix is purchasing disks at retail.
Slashdot Mirror
And where in this case did they do anything remotely like that? Do you read the case, or just the TechDirt hyperventilating drivel? Here is what actually happened:
The US is a signatory to the Berne convention. The Berne convention (1886) requires a country to provide copyright protection to preexisting foreign works, even if the work was previously in the public domain in that country. The original statute implementing the Berne convention in the US failed to do this.
In 1994 the US signed the TRIPS agreement, which required it to enforce the Berne convention. This 'restored' copyrights in foreign works that were in the public domain in the US for one of three reasons (failure to comply with formalities, lack of subject matter protection, or national ineligibility). Specifically EXCLUDED are works whose copyright terms have expired.
This law and ruling does NOT 'take the Venus de Milo and copyright it to MGM', it simply says that the EXISTING copyrights on Shostakovich's works (which is what this case was about) are valid in the US, even though those works may have been considered in the public domain in the US for one of the above reasons.
One of the rights granted by the Bill of Rights is to not have your rights limited to what is listed in the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights). That is the ninth amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people).
Thanks, I didn't know that.
A bill is 'tabled' (put off until a later date) when either there are more pressing issues, or there are not enough votes to get it passed. They did not 'table' this bill, they introduced it.
Well yeah it's easy to beat, it's not playing. This is just a canned flash demo of answers (and possible answers) that it came up with. It gives you the opportunity to answer first every time, so it is never going to 'beat' you if you know the answer. Looking at the possible answers it considered is way more interesting than trying to beat this demo. For instance, one of the 'what me worry' answers was 'scratching' (which it did not get right), but one of the answers it considered (along with eczema) was 'A Bugs Life'. I wonder what triggered that possibility.
Where does it say that a library can make single copies and give them to users who request them? It specifically says a library can make 'no more than one copy' - it says nothing about making copies for any user. Furthermore, section (g) says that the protection is only 'for isolated and unrelated' reproduction, and specifically excludes 'systematic reproduction or distribution'.
The upfront costs are amortized across the entire expected lifetime of the product. Having a price structure that decreases over time just leads to customers delaying purchases until the price drops, which leads to no price drops because no-one is buying, which leads to no sales.
So your position is that closed software costs nothing to develop, market, etc and the only expense is actual distribution? The only way that could be true is if they get people to develop for free, but that isn't the closed source model, is it? Do you have anything to back up your statements? Here are some facts for you:
Microsoft (2009) had income of $14.5B on revenue of $58.5B, about a 25% margin.
IBM (2009) had income of $13.5B on revenue of $96B, about a 14% margin.
Oracle (2009) had income of $5.5B on revenue of $23B, about a 24% margin.
None of those appear to be 'close to 100%'. Which is the closed source vendor who has close to 100% margin?
Where do you see that in the law? According to the IRS website, the 1099-K will be issued by third-party payers (merchant cards, credit cards, etc) to the merchant saying how much they paid you during that year. So if you sell $1000 worth of stuff on eBay (in any number of transactions) and use PayPal to get paid, at the end of the year you will get a 1099-K from PayPal stating they paid you a total of $1000 dollars that year. No where does it say anything even remotely like individuals will be required to issue 1099-Ks.
Exactly what property rights are not 'a monopoly granted by the state'? Should we abolish them all?
Manufacturers use the proprietary codes because having more codes obviously gives more information. More information means quicker and more accurate repairs. Quicker and more accurate repairs means lower warranty costs, which can allow for longer warranty periods, which leads to beating the competition for sales. Since the cars are basically doing their own FA, the codes can also be reported back to the manufacturer so they know where improvements are needed. They keep the codes secret because publishing them means your competitors also see what you are doing to enable you to extend your warranties, so they can do the same thing, which negates the whole point of doing it in the first place. Because the number of people who are influenced to buy a car based on warranty period far outweigh the number of people who would chose a car based on availability of codes, there is no real pressure on them to release the codes. This is especially true when the perception of a long warranty is 'that means they don't expect problems', whereas the release of the codes is taken as 'they do expect problems'.
Where did I say you would be an accessory? I said you were responsible - as in your name is attached to it. The rest of that question is so far off topic it is not even worth discussing. However, let's take a scenario that is more on topic. You host a party and allow an unknown person to use your computer. They download child porn. Where are the police going to show up? Who's computer are they going to take (and find the child porn on)? Who's life are they going to turn upside down? Who will likely be sitting in jail for at least a while? How well do you think an alibi of 'an unknown person used my computer in my house' will hold up in court against the evidence of YOUR ip address and YOUR computer?
Like it or not, your internet address is assigned and traceable to you. So when you give anonymous people access to your network, and one of them uses it to share copyrighted material, or make terror threats, or download child porn, it is YOU they are coming for first. And don't think that a simple 'I have an open wifi' is going to get them to go away. Once they have your IP address they have probable cause to search your house and computers and generally make your life hell. And if you DO have an open wifi, they now ask, "is the guy just clueless, or is he actively trying to obstruct justice". Any reasonable person would call someone who willfully does that 'irresponsible'.
It may not be a crime to fail to secure your property, but you are responsible for what happens on your property if it is not secured. One area where this frequently comes into play is with absentee landlords who don't protect their properties and they become, for example, crackhouses. The owner of the property can and will be charged with various offenses such as having a nuisance property.
You already HAVE a responsibility for what goes through your internet connection. It is, after all, YOUR connection. Sharing your connection means you are also accepting responsibility for what anyone else does with it. It is completely backwards to think that somehow sharing your connection absolves you of responsibility.
There don't need to be such laws. Nobody cares if you leave your property unlocked or your wifi open (well, the ISP might care about that one). However, if someone uses your unprotected property to commit a crime (say drug dealing from your unlocked property or copyright infringement from your open wifi) then you share some of the blame. It is simple negligence, no new laws needed.
Please point to the section of the GPL that authorizes that. The lawyers in this case said that the spin-off would amount to a redistribution (it is now a different company, same reason they would need new commercial licenses). The GPL (V2) explicitly says:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Notice that 'you may not impose any further restrictions' line. There goes your contract.
The BSA 'problem' is actually much easier for businesses to deal with. All they have to do is pay, and the problem goes away. With GPL you have the much more distasteful requirement to give up YOUR work, which may represent a significant investment and may contain things you consider trade secrets. Furthermore, the spun off company can do anything they want with that code, including release it to your competitors. I have been involved in a situation where the presence of GPL code was the deal breaker, as the spun off company required the application, and the parent was not willing to give up their IP. In that case, the solution was to remove all the GPL bits and use closed-source libraries. The lesson coming out of that was 'don't use GPL code period'.
So you usually support views and laws that benefit someone else to your detriment?
It is the duty and responsibility of a lawyer to put forth the best possible case for their client, independent of their personal feelings. Saying otherwise is the same as saying it is OK to deny legal representation to some. Fortunately, the legal system doesn't work like that.
As you said, the schematics were there so repair men could fix the box when it was (frequently) broken. They were not there so the repair man could make design changes. Many (most) of those schematics had the word 'patented' on them, which specifically meant you could NOT use the schematic to create a clone, or even to make modifications. They also had the word 'copyright' on them, which meant no making copies for anyone else. TV development was full of patent fights and lawsuits. It is in no way correct to say that TVs were 'open source'.
The FDIC and NCUA do not insure banks against robbery, they insure the depositors (you) against the failure of the bank. Anyway, yes it would basically be the same thing, and the loss would be covered by the banks insurer.
If people are exploiting some hole and the banks are absorbing the loses (ie it is not affecting account balances), then they are not 'presenting an illusion of security', they are providing security.
On what grounds? If you have been the victim of a fraud, and the bank didn't correct it, you can probably sue them. If you haven't been the victim of a fraud, but you just think their security is too lax, then don't use them. Kind of hard to rail at someone else for not taking security seriously when by definition you yourself aren't taking security seriously if you trust someone you consider non-trustworthy.
There is a different between 'purchasing retail disks' and 'purchasing disks retail'. Purchasing retail disks means that they are getting the same disks you or I would get if we bought them - they are not making a special run of disks for Netflix or allowing Netflix to make their own. But purchasing retail disks says nothing about the price or terms of the purchase. Purchasing disks retail, on the other hand, means that they are paying retail price, same as you or I would. About half of the 'retail' price of a disk goes to the retailer. There is no way that Netflix is purchasing disks at retail.