I fail to see how slick Japanese gadgetry would improve the experience. Perhaps they could have used genuine bull snot? No, thank you. Maybe they could improve on the smells, but I don't know that I want super-realistic Iron Man sweat smell after he spends a while in that suit. Overall, it just felt gimmicky and obnoxious. It was fine for a one-time outing to show the kids something different, but I'm not going to consistently pay $20 per ticket or whatever to see summer blockbusters that way. (Assuming I would even pay $12 to $14 to see summer blockbusters on a normal screen, which I don't.)
There's a theater at the Tower of the Americas in San Antonio that does this with a little 30-minute show about Texas. I took my kids to it. The 3-D gave me a headache. And there was a part where a big bull snorts and it sprays a bit of water in your face, which was just gross and off-putting. And the smells all smelled like artificial scents out of a Glade air freshener (which is more or less what they are). And the hallway outside of the theater stunk from leftover artificial smells. And despite the advertisement that it would be "4-D," there was no actual time travel, except for shifting me forward in time about 30 minutes so that I was about 30 minutes and about $30 poorer. And get off my lawn.
If it's "sold" then re-selling it is a required feature of using it (otherwise it wasn't a sale), so copying it to sell is necessary for the work to be used as sold.
If it's "sold," then certainly you can sell the physical disk on which the authorized copy you received resides. The right to make an additional copy is not necessary to re-sell. It just makes re-selling more convenient to you, and unless and until there is a copyright exception for this, it's a violation. Maybe the law would be better if it permitted copying to re-sell, but that's not the way it is now, and I'm not sure it would be better that way anyway. A primary feature of "reselling" is that the original owner gives up the goods he is reselling. That's hard to police without very strong DRM, which I'm pretty sure Slashdotters adamantly oppose. As Slashdotters are fond of parroting, digital is a new world that needs new rules. If you want DRM-free media, giving up resell rights may be the cost. I personally think it's a fair tradeoff. Give me inexpensive, easily-accessible and unencumbered media that I can use without hassle (like plain MP3s at 256k for $0.99 to $1.29), and I'm willing to give up the right to resell them. On the other hand, I don't buy digital books because I want a physical thing on my shelf that I can pass on to my children if I choose. So for me at least, the tradeoff isn't worth it for books.
So you are asserting it is illegal to download an MP3 from Amazon, then copy it onto their MP3 player to listen to it.
Yes, unless an exception applies. Moving it to a portable device is now a pretty well-established exception, but it wasn't always so.
"Copyright" was the name assigned to exclusive distribution.
No, "Copyright" was the name assigned to the exclusive right to copy. Please read 17 U.S.C. 106. The very first exclusive right enumerated is the exclusive right to make copies. Distribution is third. At its core, copyright is about copying. I'm not sure how serious to take the rest of your comments when you have this fundamental misunderstanding of the underpinnings of copyright law.
technically nothing that anyone purchases should be allowed to be resold as the original design was copied and replicated en masse for resale in the same way as an MP3 is, albeit with much more work involved and typically a much lower profit margin.
All of those copies were authorized by the copyright holder. Once a copy is delivered to you, you are not authorized to make additional copies.
Technically you can argue that the physical structure at the molecular level is different in each of the physical products, but if the molecular structure of the product is the key, then I can replicate and resell anything on the market without fear of repercussions. Ultimately just because MP3s are more easy to copy doesn't make them ineligible for First Sale protections.
Sure, if you sell the physical disk that the MP3 was originally delivered to. But if you make a copy from that disk to another disk, you have copied without authorization. It's the same as if I buy sheet music. I can sell that sheet music if I want, but I'm not entitled to photocopy it and deliver the photocopy to another person, even if I destroy the original. There are some exceptions like fair use, which is why libraries have copiers, but the baseline rule of copyright is that you cannot make any copies without authorization.
You're thinking of 17 U.S.C. 117(a), which I already mentioned. It's limited to computer programs. And I don't see how making a copy to sell to other people is "required for the use of the work."
I haven't read the decision, but I can see a clear distinction between an MP3 and a CD. Copyright law is all about the act of copying something. Under copyright law, even loading a program into RAM from a disk constitutes "copying" (there is a special statutory exception that explicitly allows this if you are the legitimate owner of a copy of a program). The problem with MP3s is that you can't re-sell them without copying them, unless you purchased a physical disk of MP3s or something, in which case you could resell that disk.
In other words, whether or not you agree with current copyright laws, I believe the judge made the right decision under the laws as they exist. First sale applies to a physical object, but can't apply to digital stuff because reselling digital stuff necessarily requires making a copy.
It also seems a bit odd to split a totally flexible periods of time into defined parts. On the first totally arbitrary and flexible period of time God did this. On the second totally flexible and arbitrary period he did this. Exactly when the first became the second is totally flexible, as there is no obvious reason to split the two, The first could cover the period of the second, being totally of a totally flexible length.
I don't see any problem with this. It's just dividing a big event we call "creation" into a discrete set of tasks, like you would do if you were writing:
World Create(ingredient matter, ingredient energy, String name)
{
LetThereBeLight();
Divide(light, darkness);
Gather(waters, dry_land);
BringForth(plants);
Create(animals);
Create(man); ... (and so on)
I am a devoutly religious person. But I don't confuse the Bible with a science textbook. A person can believe the Bible without believing that it contains a detailed blueprint of the Universe. If God is a God of truth, then scientific investigation---which is a search for truth---bring us closer to him, not farther away. Science is only a problem for people who believe that the Bible contains all the truth that there ever is or will be; that if something is not explicitly in the Bible it must be false. I am not one of those people. I accept the Bible for what it claims to be: a testament of Christ that is more focused on our relationship with God than with specifically how we got zebras. I do not believe that God wants his children to be idiots. He wants us to explore the world around us and see all the cool stuff there is to figure out. If he spoon fed us every detail through religious texts, we wouldn't learn anything, just like you don't learn algebra by copying answers out of the teacher's manual.
I have never seen a unicorn. I will happily admit to that. But it would take a huge leap of faith for me to affirmatively deny that a horse-like creature with a horn on its head has ever existed here or anywhere else in the universe. The best I can say about unicorns is I don't know. Much less would I form an entire secular religion around the fact that I have never seen a unicorn and therefore affirmatively deny their existence.
has nothing to say about the origin of the universe beyond rejecting the absurdity of supernatural beings bring involved.
And where is your observational proof that there is no God? What is your repeatable experiment? Affirmatively believing in an absence is at least as much an article of faith as believing in a presence. Far from being an oxymoron, "atheist myth" is a tautology.
You almost believed what? That this is what Genesis 1 says? I was copying from a text that had footnote references, and I missed taking one out. But feel free to otherwise compare it to any KJV text.
Except I literally mean that "day" in the sense of a 24-hour period is not the best translation for this word. The Old Testament wasn't written in English. It was written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word "yom" does not have an identical meaning to the English "day," and can be used to refer to lots of different spans of time.
As far as "myth," I don't know that the atheist myth of the universe simply creating itself spontaneously and purely by accident is any more credible than believing that a really smart person was directing those same natural processes to achieve an intended result.
I'd say that the Book of Genesis was part of Christian tradition, and that explicitly states that God created animals and man from scratch, in direct contradiction to the Theory of Evolution.
What Bible are you reading? From Genesis 1:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth abrought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
I'm missing the part where it "explicitly" says "from scratch with no evolution involved." It just says God said, "Make it so," all Captain Picard like, and then it was carried out through some unspecified agency.There are literally no details about how it was done. Likewise with the animals:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Even the word "day" could better be rendered "time period." A "day" might be 1 billion years. In any case, evolutionary theory neither proves nor disproves God. In fact, if you read Origin of Species, you'll find that Charles Darwin was not the atheist demigod smarmy atheists like to make him out to be. He speaks quite openly about God and pontificates that "Hey, maybe this is how God speciates animals." (Also, he wasn't particularly concerned with the ultimate origin of life. He was specifically concerned with speciation.)
No, it is about awareness. Just like wearing a pink ribbon does not stop cancer.
The fact that it works is shown here right on/. We are talking about it.
Except I'm not aware of many issues that have been solved by trolling, flaming, bickering, and name-calling on Slashdot. Unless it's boredom. A good troll can be quite entertaining.
Which wars would those be? I don't recall us attacking Canada
Dude, pipe down! The Canada Annexation Protocol (along with Addendum Q, "Continued Access to Inexpensive Strategic Hydrocarbon Resereves") was supposed to be a top secret memo. We don't want those Canucks sending their Mounties to line the border before the invasion force even gets to the secret underground bunker in Wyoming.
I think using DNA as evidence in court would become problematic. What if the clone was a psycho? Conversely, what if the clone were a sane upstanding person and the DNA donor were a serial killer?
What if your identical twin is a psyco serial killer and you're an upstanding citizen? It just means that the DNA comes from one of the two of you.
Last purchase is a really good (but badly named) English prog rock band called Kingbathmat.
The first time I read that, it looked like "King Bat Math," and I was thinking, "What do you mean badly named! That's an awesome name." Then I read it again, and I was like, "Oh, yeah. You're right."
I guess now I need to go file an intent-to-use TM application on "King Bat Math" and start up a garage band.
For most of the populace, FM radio is still a player.
Really? I know approximately zero people who still listen to FM radio regularly. Even for commuting, they plug an MP3 player into the radio and listen to that.
There is little precedent, but it all uniformly against copyrighting APIs. The judge didn't make some new law. He, in fact, refused to make a new law declaring APIs copyrightable, which would have been completely without precedent. Not just mostly.
I don't know what law you're referring to, but whatever it is, the judge didn't cite it in his opinion, nor does it appear in any of the legal articles I've read on the case. There was case law that the judge referred back to, but none of it was specifically about copying an API. It was about things like replicating menu hierarchies and overall functionality. And there's nothing wrong with judges making new law. They do it all the time. It's part of their job. What people have a problem with (including me) is when judges make law contrary to written statutes or constitutions. New law consistent with those is not a problem.
Actually, he did say quite explicitly that the name, arguments, and behavior of individual methods are not copyrightable. Oracle argued that their organization of 6,000 methods into 300 classes in 37 packages was a copyrightable "taxonomy." It wasn't a silly argument. It really could have gone either way. But in this case, the judge ruled that that taxonomy was an essential part of the Java language itself, and so anybody making an implementation of Java needed to be free to replicate it. I did a white paper on the case. May as well link whore while we're discussing it.
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see how slick Japanese gadgetry would improve the experience. Perhaps they could have used genuine bull snot? No, thank you. Maybe they could improve on the smells, but I don't know that I want super-realistic Iron Man sweat smell after he spends a while in that suit. Overall, it just felt gimmicky and obnoxious. It was fine for a one-time outing to show the kids something different, but I'm not going to consistently pay $20 per ticket or whatever to see summer blockbusters that way. (Assuming I would even pay $12 to $14 to see summer blockbusters on a normal screen, which I don't.)
There's a theater at the Tower of the Americas in San Antonio that does this with a little 30-minute show about Texas. I took my kids to it. The 3-D gave me a headache. And there was a part where a big bull snorts and it sprays a bit of water in your face, which was just gross and off-putting. And the smells all smelled like artificial scents out of a Glade air freshener (which is more or less what they are). And the hallway outside of the theater stunk from leftover artificial smells. And despite the advertisement that it would be "4-D," there was no actual time travel, except for shifting me forward in time about 30 minutes so that I was about 30 minutes and about $30 poorer. And get off my lawn.
Blink and you’re dead. Don’t turn your back. Don’t look away. And don’t blink. Good Luck.
who said that
Yes.
If it's "sold" then re-selling it is a required feature of using it (otherwise it wasn't a sale), so copying it to sell is necessary for the work to be used as sold.
If it's "sold," then certainly you can sell the physical disk on which the authorized copy you received resides. The right to make an additional copy is not necessary to re-sell. It just makes re-selling more convenient to you, and unless and until there is a copyright exception for this, it's a violation. Maybe the law would be better if it permitted copying to re-sell, but that's not the way it is now, and I'm not sure it would be better that way anyway. A primary feature of "reselling" is that the original owner gives up the goods he is reselling. That's hard to police without very strong DRM, which I'm pretty sure Slashdotters adamantly oppose. As Slashdotters are fond of parroting, digital is a new world that needs new rules. If you want DRM-free media, giving up resell rights may be the cost. I personally think it's a fair tradeoff. Give me inexpensive, easily-accessible and unencumbered media that I can use without hassle (like plain MP3s at 256k for $0.99 to $1.29), and I'm willing to give up the right to resell them. On the other hand, I don't buy digital books because I want a physical thing on my shelf that I can pass on to my children if I choose. So for me at least, the tradeoff isn't worth it for books.
So you are asserting it is illegal to download an MP3 from Amazon, then copy it onto their MP3 player to listen to it.
Yes, unless an exception applies. Moving it to a portable device is now a pretty well-established exception, but it wasn't always so.
"Copyright" was the name assigned to exclusive distribution.
No, "Copyright" was the name assigned to the exclusive right to copy. Please read 17 U.S.C. 106. The very first exclusive right enumerated is the exclusive right to make copies. Distribution is third. At its core, copyright is about copying. I'm not sure how serious to take the rest of your comments when you have this fundamental misunderstanding of the underpinnings of copyright law.
technically nothing that anyone purchases should be allowed to be resold as the original design was copied and replicated en masse for resale in the same way as an MP3 is, albeit with much more work involved and typically a much lower profit margin.
All of those copies were authorized by the copyright holder. Once a copy is delivered to you, you are not authorized to make additional copies.
Technically you can argue that the physical structure at the molecular level is different in each of the physical products, but if the molecular structure of the product is the key, then I can replicate and resell anything on the market without fear of repercussions. Ultimately just because MP3s are more easy to copy doesn't make them ineligible for First Sale protections.
Sure, if you sell the physical disk that the MP3 was originally delivered to. But if you make a copy from that disk to another disk, you have copied without authorization. It's the same as if I buy sheet music. I can sell that sheet music if I want, but I'm not entitled to photocopy it and deliver the photocopy to another person, even if I destroy the original. There are some exceptions like fair use, which is why libraries have copiers, but the baseline rule of copyright is that you cannot make any copies without authorization.
You're thinking of 17 U.S.C. 117(a), which I already mentioned. It's limited to computer programs. And I don't see how making a copy to sell to other people is "required for the use of the work."
I haven't read the decision, but I can see a clear distinction between an MP3 and a CD. Copyright law is all about the act of copying something. Under copyright law, even loading a program into RAM from a disk constitutes "copying" (there is a special statutory exception that explicitly allows this if you are the legitimate owner of a copy of a program). The problem with MP3s is that you can't re-sell them without copying them, unless you purchased a physical disk of MP3s or something, in which case you could resell that disk.
In other words, whether or not you agree with current copyright laws, I believe the judge made the right decision under the laws as they exist. First sale applies to a physical object, but can't apply to digital stuff because reselling digital stuff necessarily requires making a copy.
But we usually call them by their Greek name instead of their Latin name, and that might confuse you.
Actually, no, because that's what they call a rhino in the Bible too.
It also seems a bit odd to split a totally flexible periods of time into defined parts. On the first totally arbitrary and flexible period of time God did this. On the second totally flexible and arbitrary period he did this. Exactly when the first became the second is totally flexible, as there is no obvious reason to split the two, The first could cover the period of the second, being totally of a totally flexible length.
I don't see any problem with this. It's just dividing a big event we call "creation" into a discrete set of tasks, like you would do if you were writing:
World Create(ingredient matter, ingredient energy, String name)
... (and so on)
{
LetThereBeLight();
Divide(light, darkness);
Gather(waters, dry_land);
BringForth(plants); Create(animals);
Create(man);
I am a devoutly religious person. But I don't confuse the Bible with a science textbook. A person can believe the Bible without believing that it contains a detailed blueprint of the Universe. If God is a God of truth, then scientific investigation---which is a search for truth---bring us closer to him, not farther away. Science is only a problem for people who believe that the Bible contains all the truth that there ever is or will be; that if something is not explicitly in the Bible it must be false. I am not one of those people. I accept the Bible for what it claims to be: a testament of Christ that is more focused on our relationship with God than with specifically how we got zebras. I do not believe that God wants his children to be idiots. He wants us to explore the world around us and see all the cool stuff there is to figure out. If he spoon fed us every detail through religious texts, we wouldn't learn anything, just like you don't learn algebra by copying answers out of the teacher's manual.
I have never seen a unicorn. I will happily admit to that. But it would take a huge leap of faith for me to affirmatively deny that a horse-like creature with a horn on its head has ever existed here or anywhere else in the universe. The best I can say about unicorns is I don't know. Much less would I form an entire secular religion around the fact that I have never seen a unicorn and therefore affirmatively deny their existence.
has nothing to say about the origin of the universe beyond rejecting the absurdity of supernatural beings bring involved.
And where is your observational proof that there is no God? What is your repeatable experiment? Affirmatively believing in an absence is at least as much an article of faith as believing in a presence. Far from being an oxymoron, "atheist myth" is a tautology.
You almost believed what? That this is what Genesis 1 says? I was copying from a text that had footnote references, and I missed taking one out. But feel free to otherwise compare it to any KJV text.
Except I literally mean that "day" in the sense of a 24-hour period is not the best translation for this word. The Old Testament wasn't written in English. It was written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word "yom" does not have an identical meaning to the English "day," and can be used to refer to lots of different spans of time.
As far as "myth," I don't know that the atheist myth of the universe simply creating itself spontaneously and purely by accident is any more credible than believing that a really smart person was directing those same natural processes to achieve an intended result.
I'd say that the Book of Genesis was part of Christian tradition, and that explicitly states that God created animals and man from scratch, in direct contradiction to the Theory of Evolution.
What Bible are you reading? From Genesis 1:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth abrought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
I'm missing the part where it "explicitly" says "from scratch with no evolution involved." It just says God said, "Make it so," all Captain Picard like, and then it was carried out through some unspecified agency.There are literally no details about how it was done. Likewise with the animals:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Even the word "day" could better be rendered "time period." A "day" might be 1 billion years. In any case, evolutionary theory neither proves nor disproves God. In fact, if you read Origin of Species, you'll find that Charles Darwin was not the atheist demigod smarmy atheists like to make him out to be. He speaks quite openly about God and pontificates that "Hey, maybe this is how God speciates animals." (Also, he wasn't particularly concerned with the ultimate origin of life. He was specifically concerned with speciation.)
No, it is about awareness. Just like wearing a pink ribbon does not stop cancer.
The fact that it works is shown here right on /. We are talking about it.
Except I'm not aware of many issues that have been solved by trolling, flaming, bickering, and name-calling on Slashdot. Unless it's boredom. A good troll can be quite entertaining.
Which wars would those be? I don't recall us attacking Canada
Dude, pipe down! The Canada Annexation Protocol (along with Addendum Q, "Continued Access to Inexpensive Strategic Hydrocarbon Resereves") was supposed to be a top secret memo. We don't want those Canucks sending their Mounties to line the border before the invasion force even gets to the secret underground bunker in Wyoming.
Yo dawg! I heard you like blending, so we put Blender on the Linux on your Blend-Tec Blender so you Blender while you blend!
But does it run Linux?
I think using DNA as evidence in court would become problematic. What if the clone was a psycho? Conversely, what if the clone were a sane upstanding person and the DNA donor were a serial killer?
What if your identical twin is a psyco serial killer and you're an upstanding citizen? It just means that the DNA comes from one of the two of you.
Last purchase is a really good (but badly named) English prog rock band called Kingbathmat.
The first time I read that, it looked like "King Bat Math," and I was thinking, "What do you mean badly named! That's an awesome name." Then I read it again, and I was like, "Oh, yeah. You're right."
I guess now I need to go file an intent-to-use TM application on "King Bat Math" and start up a garage band.
For most of the populace, FM radio is still a player.
Really? I know approximately zero people who still listen to FM radio regularly. Even for commuting, they plug an MP3 player into the radio and listen to that.
will have the jarring effect of sounding like Mariah Carey and Bob Dylan singing a duet.
Apparently you haven't read the Mariah Carey clause of the Geneva Convention.
There is little precedent, but it all uniformly against copyrighting APIs. The judge didn't make some new law. He, in fact, refused to make a new law declaring APIs copyrightable, which would have been completely without precedent. Not just mostly.
I don't know what law you're referring to, but whatever it is, the judge didn't cite it in his opinion, nor does it appear in any of the legal articles I've read on the case. There was case law that the judge referred back to, but none of it was specifically about copying an API. It was about things like replicating menu hierarchies and overall functionality. And there's nothing wrong with judges making new law. They do it all the time. It's part of their job. What people have a problem with (including me) is when judges make law contrary to written statutes or constitutions. New law consistent with those is not a problem.
Actually, he did say quite explicitly that the name, arguments, and behavior of individual methods are not copyrightable. Oracle argued that their organization of 6,000 methods into 300 classes in 37 packages was a copyrightable "taxonomy." It wasn't a silly argument. It really could have gone either way. But in this case, the judge ruled that that taxonomy was an essential part of the Java language itself, and so anybody making an implementation of Java needed to be free to replicate it. I did a white paper on the case. May as well link whore while we're discussing it.