In the case of a copyright violation it isn't your speech, is it? It is the copyright holders speech, and they are free to do whatever they want with it, including not having it heard. You are right that if congress made a law that the NRA could take down gun-control billboards it may be a violation of free speech. However, if the gun control lobby takes down their own billboard they have not violated anyone's free speech, no matter how many other parties wish the billboard was still up.
How can YouTube (or any other corporation) abridge your right to free speech? They may not publish your speech, but that is their right (free press). If YouTube won't accept your speech, take it somewhere else. If no-one will take it, publish it yourself.
So if someone uses a computer to transfer the money in your bank account to theirs they haven't actually stolen your property? Even if they take it as cash, what have they actually stolen? According to your thinking, just paper (the only thing that is tangible). Any value it has is only because of some ink on it, and that isn't worth very much. The first definition of property in the dictionary is: the right to process, use, and dispose of something; ownership. I see nothing in that phrase that precludes the right to own, use, and dispose of sounds and images.
Where do you get the idea that copyright means you are the one who created it? The very word itself is self explanatory: rights to copy. There are other words to describe who created it (author, composer, creator, etc). Certainly copyright is originally held by the creator, but there should be no reason he can't sell that right, just like anything else he owns.
Besides, you completely missed the point of the statement. The property he is referring to is the infrastructure owned by YouTube.
If, as suspected, the problem is that a BCD value is interpreted as binary, then you can expect 2010, 2014, and 2018 to be treated as leap years, and 2012 and 2016 to not be counted as leap years. Once we reach 2020 the problem will go away for 10 years, only to return in 2030.
You completely missed my point. If you put a watt-hour meter on the server, and note the reading when your job started and ended, you will find that you saved %99.7 of the energy needed to run that job (which is obvious, since the job uses the same amount of power, but saves %99.7 of the time). Now for the second part of the equation: workload management. Let's say that report was the only thing running on that server for the 8 hours - you could now turn the server off for 8 hours, and realize an actual energy savings. Or, since that server is now not busy running the report, you could move more workload to it, potentially allowing the elimination of a complete server somewhere else. Or you could add new jobs and get more work done for the same energy, which is at least an improvement in efficiency. Or, you could just let the server sit there and idle, which wastes all the energy you saved.
But certainly you did save %99.7 of the energy required to run that report. Whether or not your workload management allows you to realize those savings is a separate issue.
The law might be old, but it specifically says the exclusive right to make remixes stays with the copyright owner. U.S. Copyright Title 17, Section 114
Why would selling course packs fall under fair use? Certainly a teacher giving handouts of a graph from a paper could claim fair use, but selling them? And there is no such thing as 'absolutely covered by fair use'. You can claim fair use, but it is up to a court to decide whether or not your particular use is in fact fair.
It doesn't cost anything to copyright anything. As soon as you create it, it is copyrighted. If you want to register the copyright with the US Copyright office it costs $35 if you register online.
Well it certainly executes 100 million lines of code (that is quite a silly metric) during the life of the car. Just the where's the crankshaft-fire a sparkplug loop has to be executed thousands of times a second. At highway speeds you will hit 100 million in a few hundred miles, and that is assume 1 line for that whole loop.
Maybe I worded it wrong. This is in New York. What happens is you go to a dealer and select the car you want. Then you sign a contract to buy the car at an agreed on price. You do not hand over any money at this point. This is when the 3 days starts, so you have three days to back out of the sale with no penalty (by law). However, the dealer will not actually take your money or give you the car until the three days has passed (during this time is when they are doing dealer prep, etc). Once you take possession it is yours, and depreciation starts. There are lemon laws that may require a refund of the full price or a replacement if the car is terminally defective, but the definition of defective does not include 'I don't like it'.
Why would the NYT care if they lost 'people like you' who aren't paying anyway? Their on-line ad revenue is a pittance ($36M out of a total $262M ad revenue last quarter), and they are the #1 on-line newspaper for page hits. Losing all of their on-line ad revenue would hardly make their situation any worse.
Also, can we please stop repeating this trite 'the articles are from the AP anyway' line? The AP IS the newspapers, as in they own it and provide the content for it. When the papers are gone, the AP is gone, and there will be no AP articles, free or not.
Any manufacturer who wants to make his TVs attractive to the millions of people who already use component video inputs from their existing DVD/Blu-ray players, cable boxes, Wii's etc. In other words, all of them.
Do you know how to read a financial report? Have you read the NYT's financial report? I guess you have not done this, so here is some info for you.
In the last quarter, NYT had ad revenues of $261M. 86% percent of that was from print, leaving a whopping $36.5M income from online ads (and they already are the #1 online newpaper, so there is not much room for improvement there)
During the same period, they had subscription (print) revenues of $241M
Costs during this period were $525M, of which $32M were for raw materials (paper, ink, etc)
The total profit (which you snidely claim they are trying to increase) was -$25M (yes, negative, ie. a loss)
So, let's do some math. Let's say they drop print altogether. If we assume the cost of actually printing and distributing is 4x the cost of raw materials (which seems pretty high), they can save $128M dollars. However, by doing this they also lose $241M from circulation revenue, and $224M in print ad revenue. That leaves them with costs of $397M and revenue of $36M. Do you see a problem here? If they keep the same number of subscribers online as they had with print they would have to increase the subscription cost more than 50% over the print subscription cost just to break even.
So pretty much their choices are: continue bleeding money and go out of business (darwin award winner), slash their costs by of 90% at which point they cease being the NYT lose what little ad revenue they have and go out out business (darwin award winner), or get their customers to actually pay for the product and stay in business.
The problem they have is that they have (today) two major expenses: content and printing. They also have (today) three sources of revenue: print advertising, print subscription, and online advertising. As I understand it, the print subscription revenue basically pays the printing costs/delivery. The print advertising revenue pays for the collecting and writing of the news. The online advertising revenue is tiny, even though they are one of the most visited sites. So, as print goes away, they basically lose all of their revenue that is used to pay for content. People look at it (like you) and saying online is supporting print, but the reality is print supports online. As print goes away, online needs to pay for all the content, and that is likely to make a subscription cost more.
The states with 3-day rules that I am familiar with do not allow you to return the car within three days. They allow you to cancel the sale within three days, but you don't get the car until that period is up. The rule is not there in case you don't like the car, the rule is there to protect you from high-pressure sales tactics causing you to buy something you really don't want.
Three people rob a bank: one gives the teller the note, one disables the security camera, and one drives the getaway car. Which one is going to be charged with bank robbery? All three, and they are not each going to get 1/3 of the sentence. In fact, since they acted together, each one may receive MORE of a sentence than if he had acted alone.
As much as people like to pretend otherwise, courts are not stupid. Seeing through bullshit is pretty much what a judge does. Trying to reduce your culpability by saying you only committed part of the infringement is not going to fly.
Depends on your point of view, doesn't it? Certainly, based on performance to date, no music critics would present such an award. However, there is no reason record companies, music retailers, and concert promoters would not give such an award.
Plus all the costs of actually running a business - leases, mortgages, taxes, equipment, utilities, admin, IT, maintenance, cleaning, legal, talent scouting, etc. Plus the cost of investing in acts/songs that for whatever reason don't sell (it is a creative business after all, there is no magic formula for 'hit song', and when they do attempt such formula everyone complains about that). Plus the whole reason the business exists at all - they must make a profit.
What is this supposed to mean? Do you think that the GPL is somehow working around copyright laws? It is most definitely not. It's very existence depends on copyright law, and without copyright law there could be no such requirements as 'you must distribute the source', etc. Without copyright you have two choices - release your code without restrictions of any sort, or keep it secret.
Well if what you are dealing with is weapon systems (which is what these restrictions are about), then preventing your enemy from avoiding death is exactly what you want to do. Security by obscurity is only bad if you are counting on your enemy never figuring out a particular thing. However, it is very valuable as a way keeping your enemy off guard, by having him constantly have to figure out what you already know while you move on to the next thing.
You are 100% wrong. First, the export controls are not simply 'ok to export freely and not ok to export to country x'. The controls are 'export license required' and 'no license required'. If you are developing something that is export controlled, and you wish to export it (including putting on an open server), you must obtain a license. That license will state the terms under which it may be exported, and who it may be exported to. If your license says it is OK to export to Germany, it will probably also require you to get a statement from the receiver that says they will not re-export it. If your licensed export finds it's way somewhere it shouldn't, YOU are who they are coming after, and you better have all your documentation when they do.
Also, don't delude yourself into thinking that they have to 'prove' anyone from a restricted country downloaded it to prosecute you. Just putting it on an open server is exporting it.
Having said all that, the list of restricted types of software is very small, and not likely to be something you would find on SourceForge. This mostly involves things that could be used for real-time control of weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
In the case of a copyright violation it isn't your speech, is it? It is the copyright holders speech, and they are free to do whatever they want with it, including not having it heard. You are right that if congress made a law that the NRA could take down gun-control billboards it may be a violation of free speech. However, if the gun control lobby takes down their own billboard they have not violated anyone's free speech, no matter how many other parties wish the billboard was still up.
How can YouTube (or any other corporation) abridge your right to free speech? They may not publish your speech, but that is their right (free press). If YouTube won't accept your speech, take it somewhere else. If no-one will take it, publish it yourself.
So if someone uses a computer to transfer the money in your bank account to theirs they haven't actually stolen your property? Even if they take it as cash, what have they actually stolen? According to your thinking, just paper (the only thing that is tangible). Any value it has is only because of some ink on it, and that isn't worth very much. The first definition of property in the dictionary is: the right to process, use, and dispose of something; ownership. I see nothing in that phrase that precludes the right to own, use, and dispose of sounds and images.
Where do you get the idea that copyright means you are the one who created it? The very word itself is self explanatory: rights to copy. There are other words to describe who created it (author, composer, creator, etc). Certainly copyright is originally held by the creator, but there should be no reason he can't sell that right, just like anything else he owns.
Besides, you completely missed the point of the statement. The property he is referring to is the infrastructure owned by YouTube.
If, as suspected, the problem is that a BCD value is interpreted as binary, then you can expect 2010, 2014, and 2018 to be treated as leap years, and 2012 and 2016 to not be counted as leap years. Once we reach 2020 the problem will go away for 10 years, only to return in 2030.
You completely missed my point. If you put a watt-hour meter on the server, and note the reading when your job started and ended, you will find that you saved %99.7 of the energy needed to run that job (which is obvious, since the job uses the same amount of power, but saves %99.7 of the time). Now for the second part of the equation: workload management. Let's say that report was the only thing running on that server for the 8 hours - you could now turn the server off for 8 hours, and realize an actual energy savings. Or, since that server is now not busy running the report, you could move more workload to it, potentially allowing the elimination of a complete server somewhere else. Or you could add new jobs and get more work done for the same energy, which is at least an improvement in efficiency. Or, you could just let the server sit there and idle, which wastes all the energy you saved.
But certainly you did save %99.7 of the energy required to run that report. Whether or not your workload management allows you to realize those savings is a separate issue.
The law might be old, but it specifically says the exclusive right to make remixes stays with the copyright owner. U.S. Copyright Title 17, Section 114
Why would selling course packs fall under fair use? Certainly a teacher giving handouts of a graph from a paper could claim fair use, but selling them? And there is no such thing as 'absolutely covered by fair use'. You can claim fair use, but it is up to a court to decide whether or not your particular use is in fact fair.
It doesn't cost anything to copyright anything. As soon as you create it, it is copyrighted. If you want to register the copyright with the US Copyright office it costs $35 if you register online.
Well it certainly executes 100 million lines of code (that is quite a silly metric) during the life of the car. Just the where's the crankshaft-fire a sparkplug loop has to be executed thousands of times a second. At highway speeds you will hit 100 million in a few hundred miles, and that is assume 1 line for that whole loop.
Why does it matter how much profit he makes? If the thing is worth $700,000 to you, for whatever reason, buy it. If it isn't worth it, don't.
Maybe I worded it wrong. This is in New York. What happens is you go to a dealer and select the car you want. Then you sign a contract to buy the car at an agreed on price. You do not hand over any money at this point. This is when the 3 days starts, so you have three days to back out of the sale with no penalty (by law). However, the dealer will not actually take your money or give you the car until the three days has passed (during this time is when they are doing dealer prep, etc). Once you take possession it is yours, and depreciation starts. There are lemon laws that may require a refund of the full price or a replacement if the car is terminally defective, but the definition of defective does not include 'I don't like it'.
Why would the NYT care if they lost 'people like you' who aren't paying anyway? Their on-line ad revenue is a pittance ($36M out of a total $262M ad revenue last quarter), and they are the #1 on-line newspaper for page hits. Losing all of their on-line ad revenue would hardly make their situation any worse.
Also, can we please stop repeating this trite 'the articles are from the AP anyway' line? The AP IS the newspapers, as in they own it and provide the content for it. When the papers are gone, the AP is gone, and there will be no AP articles, free or not.
Any manufacturer who wants to make his TVs attractive to the millions of people who already use component video inputs from their existing DVD/Blu-ray players, cable boxes, Wii's etc. In other words, all of them.
Do you know how to read a financial report? Have you read the NYT's financial report? I guess you have not done this, so here is some info for you.
In the last quarter, NYT had ad revenues of $261M. 86% percent of that was from print, leaving a whopping $36.5M income from online ads (and they already are the #1 online newpaper, so there is not much room for improvement there)
During the same period, they had subscription (print) revenues of $241M
Costs during this period were $525M, of which $32M were for raw materials (paper, ink, etc)
The total profit (which you snidely claim they are trying to increase) was -$25M (yes, negative, ie. a loss)
So, let's do some math. Let's say they drop print altogether. If we assume the cost of actually printing and distributing is 4x the cost of raw materials (which seems pretty high), they can save $128M dollars. However, by doing this they also lose $241M from circulation revenue, and $224M in print ad revenue. That leaves them with costs of $397M and revenue of $36M. Do you see a problem here? If they keep the same number of subscribers online as they had with print they would have to increase the subscription cost more than 50% over the print subscription cost just to break even.
So pretty much their choices are: continue bleeding money and go out of business (darwin award winner), slash their costs by of 90% at which point they cease being the NYT lose what little ad revenue they have and go out out business (darwin award winner), or get their customers to actually pay for the product and stay in business.
The problem they have is that they have (today) two major expenses: content and printing. They also have (today) three sources of revenue: print advertising, print subscription, and online advertising. As I understand it, the print subscription revenue basically pays the printing costs/delivery. The print advertising revenue pays for the collecting and writing of the news. The online advertising revenue is tiny, even though they are one of the most visited sites. So, as print goes away, they basically lose all of their revenue that is used to pay for content. People look at it (like you) and saying online is supporting print, but the reality is print supports online. As print goes away, online needs to pay for all the content, and that is likely to make a subscription cost more.
The states with 3-day rules that I am familiar with do not allow you to return the car within three days. They allow you to cancel the sale within three days, but you don't get the car until that period is up. The rule is not there in case you don't like the car, the rule is there to protect you from high-pressure sales tactics causing you to buy something you really don't want.
Gee, if only there were a legal way to get the opinions of others before you bought something. Nah, that'll never happen.
Three people rob a bank: one gives the teller the note, one disables the security camera, and one drives the getaway car. Which one is going to be charged with bank robbery? All three, and they are not each going to get 1/3 of the sentence. In fact, since they acted together, each one may receive MORE of a sentence than if he had acted alone.
As much as people like to pretend otherwise, courts are not stupid. Seeing through bullshit is pretty much what a judge does. Trying to reduce your culpability by saying you only committed part of the infringement is not going to fly.
Depends on your point of view, doesn't it? Certainly, based on performance to date, no music critics would present such an award. However, there is no reason record companies, music retailers, and concert promoters would not give such an award.
Plus all the costs of actually running a business - leases, mortgages, taxes, equipment, utilities, admin, IT, maintenance, cleaning, legal, talent scouting, etc. Plus the cost of investing in acts/songs that for whatever reason don't sell (it is a creative business after all, there is no magic formula for 'hit song', and when they do attempt such formula everyone complains about that). Plus the whole reason the business exists at all - they must make a profit.
Are you actually suggesting someone should use 'I was part of a conspiracy' as a defense?
What is this supposed to mean? Do you think that the GPL is somehow working around copyright laws? It is most definitely not. It's very existence depends on copyright law, and without copyright law there could be no such requirements as 'you must distribute the source', etc. Without copyright you have two choices - release your code without restrictions of any sort, or keep it secret.
Well if what you are dealing with is weapon systems (which is what these restrictions are about), then preventing your enemy from avoiding death is exactly what you want to do. Security by obscurity is only bad if you are counting on your enemy never figuring out a particular thing. However, it is very valuable as a way keeping your enemy off guard, by having him constantly have to figure out what you already know while you move on to the next thing.
You are 100% wrong. First, the export controls are not simply 'ok to export freely and not ok to export to country x'. The controls are 'export license required' and 'no license required'. If you are developing something that is export controlled, and you wish to export it (including putting on an open server), you must obtain a license. That license will state the terms under which it may be exported, and who it may be exported to. If your license says it is OK to export to Germany, it will probably also require you to get a statement from the receiver that says they will not re-export it. If your licensed export finds it's way somewhere it shouldn't, YOU are who they are coming after, and you better have all your documentation when they do.
Also, don't delude yourself into thinking that they have to 'prove' anyone from a restricted country downloaded it to prosecute you. Just putting it on an open server is exporting it.
Having said all that, the list of restricted types of software is very small, and not likely to be something you would find on SourceForge. This mostly involves things that could be used for real-time control of weapons.