There seems to be a rampant misconception here on Slashdot today, So I'm posting this a 3rd time.
For more clarity,
The actual cite USC Title17, Chapter 1, Section 109 describes the situation where the owner of a copy of a lawfully created work may dispose of it, without the consent of the copyright owner. "the owner of a particular copy... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy"
This is a clear exemption from the blanket rights granted to copyright holders, under section 106(c). Though 106(c) gives copyright owners "The exclusive rights to.... distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale... rental, lease, or lending" these rights have exemptions.
The rights granted to owners of a copy, but not the copyright, to dispose of a copy by sale or otherwise are established. Rental, leasing and loaning are implicit in the "or otherwise" The rights do not extend to renting, loaning, or leasing computer programs or sound recordings because of 109(a)(1)(A).
For more clarity,
The actual cite USC Title17, Chapter 1, Section 109 describes the situation where the owner of a copy of a lawfully created work may dispose of it, without the consent of the copyright owner. "the owner of a particular copy... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy"
This is a clear exemption from the blanket rights granted to copyright holders, under section 106(c). Though 106(c) gives copyright owners "The exclusive rights to.... distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale... rental, lease, or lending" these rights have exemptions.
The rights granted to owners of a copy, but not the copyright, to dispose of a copy by sale or otherwise are established. Rental, leasing and loaning are implicit in the "or otherwise" The rights do not extend to renting, loaning, or leasing computer programs or sound recordings because of 109(a)(1)(A).
IANAL, but that's the facts.
Rather than making a new refutation, I'm reposting the one I did from earlier in the thread. FSD extends to rentals of everything but sound recordings and computer programs.
For more clarity,
The actual cite USC Title17, Chapter 1, Section 109 describes the situation where the owner of a copy of a lawfully created work may dispose of it, without the consent of the copyright owner. "the owner of a particular copy... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy"
This is a clear exemption from the blanket rights granted to copyright holders, under section 106(c). Though 106(c) gives copyright owners "The exclusive rights to.... distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale... rental, lease, or lending" these rights have exemptions.
The rights granted to owners of a copy, but not the copyright, to dispose of a copy by sale or otherwise are established. Rental, leasing and loaning are implicit in the "or otherwise" The rights do not extend to renting, loaning, or leasing computer programs or sound recordings because of 109(a)(1)(A).
Usually, I'm on the same side as you when you say something, but you missed the mark on this one. Rentals of videos, even if they include sound, are not illegal. But rentals of audio are illegal unless performed by a nonprofit library or educational institution. First sale doctrine for the purposes of music rental does not apply, but it does for video rental.
Burning the flag and saying you are ashamed the President is from your home state are some very unpopular things to do (especially if you're a country music group), but neither are illegal.
The judge is saying that he may have made an error in his instructions to the jury. He told them that making available = distribution. The 8th circuit court had already ruled that distribution is required for infringement, and there is a growing consensus that making available does not equal distribution.
Basically, they might have to do it all over again, because the judge told the jury the wrong test to apply to determine if she broke the law.
Putting that Shai LaBuff (spelling) kid in this one is probably what did it in. The success formula for Indiana Jones movies is number of nazis > number of kids. Nazis are exciting and mysterious, kids are just obnoxious and don't belong in an adventure film anyway... except for Goonies. So you're saying they should have cast Corey Feldman in the new Indiana Jones?
Muslims in western and European nations are more secular and more moderate. But 36 percent of Muslims in the UK still support the death penalty for apostates. This is much lower than in countries where the death penalty for apostasy or proselytizing is simply accepted as a part of life, unquestioned. I didn't say western Muslims are more extreme, but that they are too extreme.
The economic stimulus checks are for those who paid a certain amount of income tax. You already got a break (a well deserved one) by gaining tax-free combat duty pay. It's understandable that you are upset because others are getting their taxes back, for something less well deserved. But you already got to eat your cake, and now you want to have it, too.
While other people gaining reduces the comparative value of your exemption, it does not undo the fact that you already got all that rebate and more, in the form of not having to pay it in the first place. Instead of being upset that others get to eat some more of their cake, try to be happy that you got to eat all your cake, instead.
Are you saying Pearl Harbor wasn't instigated by the US? Let's not forget the fact that we were helping to enforce an oil embargo on Japan at the time. While we had not declared a state of war, we knew which side we were on.
We did instigate Pearl Harbor. We were right to do so. It was in America's (and the world's) best interests to see that the Axis powers lost that war, and we knew it and acted on it long before we were attacked.
I think there's a gap in your implied logic that instigating an attack (at least in part) is the wrong course of action when we should be clearly opposed to the actions of those we are instigating an attack from.
Sorry if I'm just feeding the trolls, but what he said in his second sentence is true, and we are not always (or even most of the time) on the wrong side of our wars, even if we do pick them. There are some things that have to be decided by fighting, or by letting the other guy decide them. When something important enough comes up, you don't let the other guy decide. If that means instigating a conflict, then you instigate a conflict.
Sorry for any confusion. I am not trying to advocate any specific determination, as I am quite torn on this one myself. But I would like to say that there are many reasonable and differing interpretations, but I think absolutism can safely be ruled out.
The Rev. ref was more to show that a priori violence is not wrong. It was NOT meant as an example of what Christians should do. Violence may just be wrong in certain situations. That could include a wide range of possibilities, and of those there is legitimate room for disagreement, and the legitimate disagreement is really all I intended to be arguing for.
How does this not make sense? If you didn't pay income taxes enough to qualify, then you don't get a rebate. That's like saying "I got EITC, but no rebate." You don't pay in, you don't draw out.
Lets look at a New Testament example then. Here is proof that not all killing is wrong. Read what Jesus and his army do in Rev 19:11-19
That having been said, there's definite disagreement between groups of Christians on the interpretation of the role of killing in society. For instance the bible clearly gives the state the authority to execute (Romans 13), and no where are soldiers who convert to Christianity told to find a new profession. This, to me, shows that the expectation that a Christian may kill in the service of the state is clear.
A bit of extrapolation here, in that if God's law is higher than the law of man, which is instituted by God, for there is no authority except that which God has established, and it is right for our rulers to wield the sword, it must not be against God to wield the sword. Though God may say when the use of the sword is acceptable (e.g. only in the service of the state, only when defending life, only when defending others) I think it is a hard point to argue that love and justice are incompatible with a role that may require the wielding of the sword.
For any non-christians out there who may have read through all that, the sword is shorthand for the authority to take someone's life. While it is clear that Christians shouldn't seek retribution (Matthew 5:38-42), or survive by violence, it is considerably less clear in the situations where violence is acceptable, except to say that it is clear that both never and every situation are not the right answer./offtopic
I wasn't alive for the Korean or Vietnam wars, but Iraq has seen the first wide-scale deployment of UAVs as well as the most technologically integrated fighting force ever.
Battlefield communications and coordination is still on the leading edge of networking, as there is no substitute for having an EWACS 300 miles away relay your communication to a command post 30 miles away. They to get that kind of service from your cell phone provider.
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be a rampant misconception here on Slashdot today, So I'm posting this a 3rd time.
... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy"
.... distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale ... rental, lease, or lending" these rights have exemptions.
For more clarity, The actual cite USC Title17, Chapter 1, Section 109 describes the situation where the owner of a copy of a lawfully created work may dispose of it, without the consent of the copyright owner. "the owner of a particular copy
This is a clear exemption from the blanket rights granted to copyright holders, under section 106(c). Though 106(c) gives copyright owners "The exclusive rights to
The rights granted to owners of a copy, but not the copyright, to dispose of a copy by sale or otherwise are established. Rental, leasing and loaning are implicit in the "or otherwise" The rights do not extend to renting, loaning, or leasing computer programs or sound recordings because of 109(a)(1)(A).
IANAL, but that's the facts.
For more clarity, The actual cite USC Title17, Chapter 1, Section 109 describes the situation where the owner of a copy of a lawfully created work may dispose of it, without the consent of the copyright owner. "the owner of a particular copy ... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy"
.... distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale ... rental, lease, or lending" these rights have exemptions.
This is a clear exemption from the blanket rights granted to copyright holders, under section 106(c). Though 106(c) gives copyright owners "The exclusive rights to
The rights granted to owners of a copy, but not the copyright, to dispose of a copy by sale or otherwise are established. Rental, leasing and loaning are implicit in the "or otherwise" The rights do not extend to renting, loaning, or leasing computer programs or sound recordings because of 109(a)(1)(A).
IANAL, but that's the facts.
Rather than making a new refutation, I'm reposting the one I did from earlier in the thread. FSD extends to rentals of everything but sound recordings and computer programs.
For more clarity, The actual cite USC Title17, Chapter 1, Section 109 describes the situation where the owner of a copy of a lawfully created work may dispose of it, without the consent of the copyright owner. "the owner of a particular copy ... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy"
.... distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale ... rental, lease, or lending" these rights have exemptions.
This is a clear exemption from the blanket rights granted to copyright holders, under section 106(c). Though 106(c) gives copyright owners "The exclusive rights to
The rights granted to owners of a copy, but not the copyright, to dispose of a copy by sale or otherwise are established. Rental, leasing and loaning are implicit in the "or otherwise" The rights do not extend to renting, loaning, or leasing computer programs or sound recordings because of 109(a)(1)(A).
IANAL, but that's the facts.
jcr,
Usually, I'm on the same side as you when you say something, but you missed the mark on this one. Rentals of videos, even if they include sound, are not illegal. But rentals of audio are illegal unless performed by a nonprofit library or educational institution. First sale doctrine for the purposes of music rental does not apply, but it does for video rental.
They'd be forced to pay the legal consequences for following a moral law higher than the law of the state in which they choose to operate, I think.
Burning the flag and saying you are ashamed the President is from your home state are some very unpopular things to do (especially if you're a country music group), but neither are illegal.
His actions might not be so protected in Canada as you may think. Mark Steyn is up for a hate crime for denigrating Muslims.
Concealing is a tool, just like violence.
Truth never lies!
Conan will crush it's enemies, see WoW driven before it, and to hear the lamentations of its (very few) women.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
--Margaret Mead
Ahhh!!! The British have invaded Slashdot! One if by land, two if by sea, three if by Internets. The British are coming, the British are coming!
Try drums on expert. It is just as hard as Through the Fire and the Flames when you get to try and play Run to the Hills.
The judge is saying that he may have made an error in his instructions to the jury. He told them that making available = distribution. The 8th circuit court had already ruled that distribution is required for infringement, and there is a growing consensus that making available does not equal distribution.
Basically, they might have to do it all over again, because the judge told the jury the wrong test to apply to determine if she broke the law.
Muslims in western and European nations are more secular and more moderate. But 36 percent of Muslims in the UK still support the death penalty for apostates. This is much lower than in countries where the death penalty for apostasy or proselytizing is simply accepted as a part of life, unquestioned. I didn't say western Muslims are more extreme, but that they are too extreme.
You're right. I didn't need that. But you can't unring a bell.
The economic stimulus checks are for those who paid a certain amount of income tax. You already got a break (a well deserved one) by gaining tax-free combat duty pay. It's understandable that you are upset because others are getting their taxes back, for something less well deserved. But you already got to eat your cake, and now you want to have it, too.
While other people gaining reduces the comparative value of your exemption, it does not undo the fact that you already got all that rebate and more, in the form of not having to pay it in the first place. Instead of being upset that others get to eat some more of their cake, try to be happy that you got to eat all your cake, instead.
P.S. The cake is a lie.
Are you saying Pearl Harbor wasn't instigated by the US? Let's not forget the fact that we were helping to enforce an oil embargo on Japan at the time. While we had not declared a state of war, we knew which side we were on.
We did instigate Pearl Harbor. We were right to do so. It was in America's (and the world's) best interests to see that the Axis powers lost that war, and we knew it and acted on it long before we were attacked.
I think there's a gap in your implied logic that instigating an attack (at least in part) is the wrong course of action when we should be clearly opposed to the actions of those we are instigating an attack from. Sorry if I'm just feeding the trolls, but what he said in his second sentence is true, and we are not always (or even most of the time) on the wrong side of our wars, even if we do pick them. There are some things that have to be decided by fighting, or by letting the other guy decide them. When something important enough comes up, you don't let the other guy decide. If that means instigating a conflict, then you instigate a conflict.
Sorry for any confusion. I am not trying to advocate any specific determination, as I am quite torn on this one myself. But I would like to say that there are many reasonable and differing interpretations, but I think absolutism can safely be ruled out.
The Rev. ref was more to show that a priori violence is not wrong. It was NOT meant as an example of what Christians should do. Violence may just be wrong in certain situations. That could include a wide range of possibilities, and of those there is legitimate room for disagreement, and the legitimate disagreement is really all I intended to be arguing for.
How does this not make sense? If you didn't pay income taxes enough to qualify, then you don't get a rebate. That's like saying "I got EITC, but no rebate." You don't pay in, you don't draw out.
Lets look at a New Testament example then. Here is proof that not all killing is wrong. Read what Jesus and his army do in Rev 19:11-19
/offtopic
That having been said, there's definite disagreement between groups of Christians on the interpretation of the role of killing in society. For instance the bible clearly gives the state the authority to execute (Romans 13), and no where are soldiers who convert to Christianity told to find a new profession. This, to me, shows that the expectation that a Christian may kill in the service of the state is clear.
A bit of extrapolation here, in that if God's law is higher than the law of man, which is instituted by God, for there is no authority except that which God has established, and it is right for our rulers to wield the sword, it must not be against God to wield the sword. Though God may say when the use of the sword is acceptable (e.g. only in the service of the state, only when defending life, only when defending others) I think it is a hard point to argue that love and justice are incompatible with a role that may require the wielding of the sword.
For any non-christians out there who may have read through all that, the sword is shorthand for the authority to take someone's life. While it is clear that Christians shouldn't seek retribution (Matthew 5:38-42), or survive by violence, it is considerably less clear in the situations where violence is acceptable, except to say that it is clear that both never and every situation are not the right answer.
I wasn't alive for the Korean or Vietnam wars, but Iraq has seen the first wide-scale deployment of UAVs as well as the most technologically integrated fighting force ever.
Battlefield communications and coordination is still on the leading edge of networking, as there is no substitute for having an EWACS 300 miles away relay your communication to a command post 30 miles away. They to get that kind of service from your cell phone provider.
I attend a crowded fundamentalist church and Jesus does love gays. It won't get you beat up by saying it either.