Nonsense, the use of software or the support thereof is not an exclusive right under Copyright. You need no license to use an authorized copy of software any more than you need a license to read a legitimate book. The Alfresco partners entered into a contract where they agreed not to support the GPL licensed version. It has nothing at all to do with Copyright.
Regardless of personal views, doesn't the AG advance the position of the administration? You say what your client wants you to say or you find another job. Isn't that the case for all attorneys? So the real question is what will Obama's policy be?
So called "electronic" copies are physical. There is a physical embodiment of the work in the pattern of magnetic particles on the disk. Without being fixed in a tangible medium, the work would not be subject to Copyright!
If this copy of the work was authorized by the exclusive rights holders, such as having downloaded it from their site, then you are free to sell that physical copy it along with the HD. However, Copyright law doesn't allow you to make a new copy on another hard drive and sell that after deleting the original.
When you purchased and downloaded something, you may have separately agreed to not resell the work in a contract with the publisher. That is an issue wholly independent of Copyright. However, such a contract is usually a contract of adhesion. Since the Doctrine of First Sale, prior to being included in the statute, was first articulated in a case where books had contracts printed in the covers forbidding secondary sales, these antireselling provisions might not withstand legal challenge. Is an end run around the first sale provisions of Copyright law "unconsciable?"
If the game was too hard, most people would get frustrated and quit. Then Blizzard wouldn't make any money. Instead you get a regular reinforcement schedule that keeps you paying the bills. B. F. Skinner would have loved these things.
If you receive properly formatted DMCA takedown requests then you have to comply with them in the amount of time specified in the statute if you want to get safe harbor.
You're right about functional shape and appearance not being subject to trademark. However, is the Lego brick shape and appearance entirely functional? Couldn't competitors make equally functional, if incompatible, building blocks with square or hexagonal studs? Has not the image of the 2x4 block with round studs been used in Lego advertising for decades? Don't kids instantly recognize the brick as "Lego?" I don't think this case is necessarily so straightforward. Of course, the article is in Dutch and doesn't provide the Courts reasoning in this case anyway. I can't tell if they lost trademark protection from dilution or if the Court determined that the shape of the brick isn't trade dress.
BTW, Coke had a design patent on the bottle shape prior to registering it as a trademark.
It's not an end run around the law. It's perfectly legitimate to trademark the shape and appearance of your product if it is unique. The most famous example is the Coke hobble skirt bottle, which has been a registered trademark since 1960.
Patents are different from trademarks. If Coke had licensed their patents and allowed other companies to package soda other than Coke in the bottle, then it wouldn't have been exclusively associated with Coke and wouldn't have been eligible for trademark protection.
Trademarks are not perpetual. You can lose a trademark if you fail to enforce it. I believe this is what happened with the Lego brick. Knockoffs have been made for so long that it is no longer exclusively associated with Lego.
I don't think Banana Republic is quite right. John Perry Barlow, in an interview he gave about 15 years ago, described the NeXT software development contractors as "Unix Weenies by Armani."
It's not settled. I believe in one federal circuit there was decision where divulging a passphrase was protected by the 5th amendmendent. Even if all the circuits agree, the SCOTUS could still reverse.
Don't count on it because it is likely that the courts will find that the nature of passphrases, like that of combinations to a safe, is not testimonial. No, making your passphrase equal to "I committed the crime" won't cut it.
Bankers are smart about money...THEIR money. Why should they waste lots of their money on making fraud truly difficult when the risk can be so easily managed for a lot less.
About 1 million people in Iraq have died that wouldn't be dead had the US not invaded. The overall mortality rate since the invasion has DOUBLED. Prior to invasion, violent deaths were around 2% of the total. Now it is over half.
That's why invading a sovereign nation is the supreme crime against humanity and against the law. It always results in massive deaths.
But we're supposed to overlook all that, and 4 million refugees, because some of the killers pass out blankets.
Without the DMCA, those (media) companies would have had to file lawsuits that would have quickly and explicitly carved out the limits of fair use, which would be good for us and not for them.
Without the DMCA, there wouldn't be any photo or video sharing sites, for instance. Every time one of their users lost one of those lawsuits the site would be on the hook for secondary infringement. Nobody would take that kind of risk. Sites would only publish stuff from "content partners" they could trust or maybe a small set of users they could conservatively moderate. Anyone foolhardy enough to ignore the risks would be snuffed out as soon as they got big enough to attract attention.
The DMCA did not give us, the end users, any benefit that I can see.
Sites like YouTube, Flickr, MySpace, WordPress, Google, and hosting providers all rely on the safe harbors provided by the DMCA. That's an undeniable benefit for end users.
They aren't talking about interactive technology, they are talking about sites where users interact with each other by uploading content. If a site was on the hook for infringing material uploaded by their users then no site would be able to publish something without first vetting it. A site like YouTube couldn't exist, there is no possible way to clear hundreds of thousands of videos uploaded daily by people all over the world. All you would have are sites that publish exclusively from "content partners" like iTunes and Hulu.
Maybe in the military or in geek super spook krad fantasy land. In the real world of business there is little to no impact to a business as a whole over any security breaches. The public record is replete with examples of businesses who seriously dropped the security ball but the effect was about as dramatic as a bug getting squished on the corporate windshield. Sure there's some goo to wipe off but the car doesn't slow down.
Microsoft, Netscape, credit card processors, insurance companies, civil administrations, many companies have slacked in their security but the worst that happened was a few negative articles in the press that were soon forgotten.
Find just one company that was shut down or went out of business because of a security breach. You just can't do it. Execs rarely even get fired over this stuff.
That's why businesses continue to have poor security. It's just not worth it. You just have to manage it, like everything else.
That's kind of messed up. Maybe you've worked in some really dysfunctional places
You mean, there are places in the security business that aren't dysfunctional?
That's why I stopped working in IT security. Employees punished for trying to help, incredible amounts of snake oil, kickbacks for purchasing snake oil, totally clueless people attracted to the "spook" aspect, people and vendors acting "spooky" for no good reason, and did I mention the spook wannabes?
I'm not disagreeing with you but Python has had an API for embedding it in larger programs for as long as I can remember (13 years.) The game Civilization IV uses it as a scripting language to great effect and I am sure there are others.
It's just a very powerful and flexible language that's good in a great many situations. Just like most of the "scripting languages."
With Groovy you can extend existing Java classes, or you can extend existing Groovy classes with Java.
Yeah but with Scala you get all of that plus you get one big thing that Groovy lacks, performance.
I used to be the enemy of strong typing and did all of my development in obj-c and python. Then I discovered that there are languages with much more powerful and easy to use type systems than C++/Java. Now I have seen the light!
I think the term "scripting language" has drifted so far from it's original meaning (whatever that was) that it is now an entirely new term. Best I can gather, for some time now the term has been used to indicate a new language that the writer believes, either consciously or subconsciously, is inferior to their own language of choice.
Lots of reason it could be inferior; it's just some hackers toy project, nobody uses it, it has weird syntax, whitespace is significant, or the reference implementation doesn't have a separate "compilation" step.
Basically, the people using these scripting languages (most of whom think of them as real languages) are off getting work done and having fun, which makes the people who don't use them jealous.
That's my theory, anyway.
p.s. scala positively rocks and is ready for prime-time while clojure looks promising if you're into that sort of thing!
They actually have these, they're called "bass shakers" among other things. It's basically a speaker voice coil that is affixed to the bottom of your chair instead of a paper cone. It's connected to the subwoofer channel and thumps the bottom of the chair. The sound is conducted through your body into your ears so you can both hear and feel it. It's real popular with drummers who use in-ear monitors. I think some gamers use them too. Not too useful for people walking down the street or riding the bus though.
These might protect your eardrum but from what I understand, most of the damage suffered by headphone wearers is to the cilia in the cochlea. Whether the energy is transmitted through your skull or the drum/hammer/anvil/staple doesn't matter. If there is enough energy it will damage the cochlea. Most people use headphones in noisy environments. Since the bone conducting phones you linked to don't attenuate any ambient noise at all, the effective energy in cochlea will be even greater than headphones for the same signal-to-noise ratio.
Note that the site is careful to say that they are only protecting the eardrum. Those things are not at all safer for your hearing than regular headphones. The way to protect hearing is to attenuate ambient noise so the music doesn't have to be turned up to drown it out.
Please ask your doc and reply, I'd love to be wrong but I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense, the use of software or the support thereof is not an exclusive right under Copyright. You need no license to use an authorized copy of software any more than you need a license to read a legitimate book. The Alfresco partners entered into a contract where they agreed not to support the GPL licensed version. It has nothing at all to do with Copyright.
Regardless of personal views, doesn't the AG advance the position of the administration? You say what your client wants you to say or you find another job. Isn't that the case for all attorneys? So the real question is what will Obama's policy be?
Endless litigation is better than cement overshoes and drive by shootings. That's what businesses who can't use the legal system must resort to.
So called "electronic" copies are physical. There is a physical embodiment of the work in the pattern of magnetic particles on the disk. Without being fixed in a tangible medium, the work would not be subject to Copyright!
If this copy of the work was authorized by the exclusive rights holders, such as having downloaded it from their site, then you are free to sell that physical copy it along with the HD. However, Copyright law doesn't allow you to make a new copy on another hard drive and sell that after deleting the original.
When you purchased and downloaded something, you may have separately agreed to not resell the work in a contract with the publisher. That is an issue wholly independent of Copyright. However, such a contract is usually a contract of adhesion. Since the Doctrine of First Sale, prior to being included in the statute, was first articulated in a case where books had contracts printed in the covers forbidding secondary sales, these antireselling provisions might not withstand legal challenge. Is an end run around the first sale provisions of Copyright law "unconsciable?"
If the game was too hard, most people would get frustrated and quit. Then Blizzard wouldn't make any money. Instead you get a regular reinforcement schedule that keeps you paying the bills. B. F. Skinner would have loved these things.
If you receive properly formatted DMCA takedown requests then you have to comply with them in the amount of time specified in the statute if you want to get safe harbor.
I believe that's "*Hobbit*" ...
(jan '97)
s/dilution/infringement/
You're right about functional shape and appearance not being subject to trademark. However, is the Lego brick shape and appearance entirely functional? Couldn't competitors make equally functional, if incompatible, building blocks with square or hexagonal studs? Has not the image of the 2x4 block with round studs been used in Lego advertising for decades? Don't kids instantly recognize the brick as "Lego?" I don't think this case is necessarily so straightforward. Of course, the article is in Dutch and doesn't provide the Courts reasoning in this case anyway. I can't tell if they lost trademark protection from dilution or if the Court determined that the shape of the brick isn't trade dress.
BTW, Coke had a design patent on the bottle shape prior to registering it as a trademark.
It's not an end run around the law. It's perfectly legitimate to trademark the shape and appearance of your product if it is unique. The most famous example is the Coke hobble skirt bottle, which has been a registered trademark since 1960.
Patents are different from trademarks. If Coke had licensed their patents and allowed other companies to package soda other than Coke in the bottle, then it wouldn't have been exclusively associated with Coke and wouldn't have been eligible for trademark protection.
Trademarks are not perpetual. You can lose a trademark if you fail to enforce it. I believe this is what happened with the Lego brick. Knockoffs have been made for so long that it is no longer exclusively associated with Lego.
Everyone knows an extra arm does wonders for your ski-boxing.
I don't think Banana Republic is quite right. John Perry Barlow, in an interview he gave about 15 years ago, described the NeXT software development contractors as "Unix Weenies by Armani."
It's not settled. I believe in one federal circuit there was decision where divulging a passphrase was protected by the 5th amendmendent. Even if all the circuits agree, the SCOTUS could still reverse.
Don't count on it because it is likely that the courts will find that the nature of passphrases, like that of combinations to a safe, is not testimonial. No, making your passphrase equal to "I committed the crime" won't cut it.
Bankers are smart about money...THEIR money. Why should they waste lots of their money on making fraud truly difficult when the risk can be so easily managed for a lot less.
About 1 million people in Iraq have died that wouldn't be dead had the US not invaded. The overall mortality rate since the invasion has DOUBLED. Prior to invasion, violent deaths were around 2% of the total. Now it is over half.
That's why invading a sovereign nation is the supreme crime against humanity and against the law. It always results in massive deaths.
But we're supposed to overlook all that, and 4 million refugees, because some of the killers pass out blankets.
Without the DMCA, there wouldn't be any photo or video sharing sites, for instance. Every time one of their users lost one of those lawsuits the site would be on the hook for secondary infringement. Nobody would take that kind of risk. Sites would only publish stuff from "content partners" they could trust or maybe a small set of users they could conservatively moderate. Anyone foolhardy enough to ignore the risks would be snuffed out as soon as they got big enough to attract attention.
Sites like YouTube, Flickr, MySpace, WordPress, Google, and hosting providers all rely on the safe harbors provided by the DMCA. That's an undeniable benefit for end users.
They aren't talking about interactive technology, they are talking about sites where users interact with each other by uploading content. If a site was on the hook for infringing material uploaded by their users then no site would be able to publish something without first vetting it. A site like YouTube couldn't exist, there is no possible way to clear hundreds of thousands of videos uploaded daily by people all over the world. All you would have are sites that publish exclusively from "content partners" like iTunes and Hulu.
Maybe in the military or in geek super spook krad fantasy land. In the real world of business there is little to no impact to a business as a whole over any security breaches. The public record is replete with examples of businesses who seriously dropped the security ball but the effect was about as dramatic as a bug getting squished on the corporate windshield. Sure there's some goo to wipe off but the car doesn't slow down.
Microsoft, Netscape, credit card processors, insurance companies, civil administrations, many companies have slacked in their security but the worst that happened was a few negative articles in the press that were soon forgotten.
Find just one company that was shut down or went out of business because of a security breach. You just can't do it. Execs rarely even get fired over this stuff.
That's why businesses continue to have poor security. It's just not worth it. You just have to manage it, like everything else.
You mean, there are places in the security business that aren't dysfunctional?
That's why I stopped working in IT security. Employees punished for trying to help, incredible amounts of snake oil, kickbacks for purchasing snake oil, totally clueless people attracted to the "spook" aspect, people and vendors acting "spooky" for no good reason, and did I mention the spook wannabes?
I'm not disagreeing with you but Python has had an API for embedding it in larger programs for as long as I can remember (13 years.) The game Civilization IV uses it as a scripting language to great effect and I am sure there are others.
It's just a very powerful and flexible language that's good in a great many situations. Just like most of the "scripting languages."
Yeah but with Scala you get all of that plus you get one big thing that Groovy lacks, performance.
I used to be the enemy of strong typing and did all of my development in obj-c and python. Then I discovered that there are languages with much more powerful and easy to use type systems than C++/Java. Now I have seen the light!
scala and f# are both statically typed
I think the term "scripting language" has drifted so far from it's original meaning (whatever that was) that it is now an entirely new term. Best I can gather, for some time now the term has been used to indicate a new language that the writer believes, either consciously or subconsciously, is inferior to their own language of choice.
Lots of reason it could be inferior; it's just some hackers toy project, nobody uses it, it has weird syntax, whitespace is significant, or the reference implementation doesn't have a separate "compilation" step.
Basically, the people using these scripting languages (most of whom think of them as real languages) are off getting work done and having fun, which makes the people who don't use them jealous.
That's my theory, anyway.
p.s. scala positively rocks and is ready for prime-time while clojure looks promising if you're into that sort of thing!
They actually have these, they're called "bass shakers" among other things. It's basically a speaker voice coil that is affixed to the bottom of your chair instead of a paper cone. It's connected to the subwoofer channel and thumps the bottom of the chair. The sound is conducted through your body into your ears so you can both hear and feel it. It's real popular with drummers who use in-ear monitors. I think some gamers use them too. Not too useful for people walking down the street or riding the bus though.
These might protect your eardrum but from what I understand, most of the damage suffered by headphone wearers is to the cilia in the cochlea. Whether the energy is transmitted through your skull or the drum/hammer/anvil/staple doesn't matter. If there is enough energy it will damage the cochlea. Most people use headphones in noisy environments. Since the bone conducting phones you linked to don't attenuate any ambient noise at all, the effective energy in cochlea will be even greater than headphones for the same signal-to-noise ratio.
Note that the site is careful to say that they are only protecting the eardrum. Those things are not at all safer for your hearing than regular headphones. The way to protect hearing is to attenuate ambient noise so the music doesn't have to be turned up to drown it out.
Please ask your doc and reply, I'd love to be wrong but I'm pretty sure I'm right.