Yes, but it doesn't give you some mystical right to use the software on, say, medical equipment or anything.
What Valenti's basically saying is, 'we've always said that if you want to watch a DVD, you have to use a licensed player. This isn't a secret, this isn't a surprise, you're not finding this out after you've bought a DVD, we don't, and never have, claimed otherwise. Nobody wants to license a DVD player on Linux? That sucks, and is curious, but not our problem. If we say 'we'll sell this to you, if you agree to use a licensed player,' and you buy it, and turn around and use an unlicensed player, you're the bad guy. If you care about it that much, license a player; I believe it's 30 bucks a seat from the DVD Consortium.'
Yup, it was a throwaway line from a scrawny little guy nodding to the fact that Sorbo played Hercules for, what, almost ten years, including the made for TV movies that kicked it all off?
Andromeda started out a bit slow, but had a lot going for it; it was a story of the crew and their personal reactions. It had some interesting ideas about AI and what not. It had TREMENDOUS backstory and mythology.
Hell, the worst thing I found was that Tyr was this huge, hulking warrior-god, but every other Neitzchian they every showed was a balding, paunchy, middle aged man, or a scrawny little fucker. Maybe this was intended to be a subtle insinuation that they were corrupting themselves or that they were fooling themselves with their ideas of superiority.
Then, Sorbo fired Robert Wolfe, I believe his name was, the writer who had also worked on DS9, and turned the show into Hercules in Space. "Arcs are too hard, plots are too hard, we don't want people to think! This is television, man!" Well, bugger that.
Andromeda would make a good roleplaying game, too.
What if by broadcasting it at a concert, more people end up buying the CD for their own use? In fact, the benefits of such broadcasting is the reason behind radio payola.
Immaterial; it's their choice to make, they being the copyright holders. Yes, it might be in their best interests to allow end-consumers to do such advertising for them....
That particular theory is based upon the premise that given a choice, no one sees the benefit of rewarding an author for his work or for future potential creations.
No, that particular theory is based on the premise that the average human being, especially, forgive me, Americans, generally prefers, and often is interested, if not indoctrinated towards, only instant gratification, and not long-term benefit. Cynical, yet amply demonstrated.
I don't quite follow. You could still sell your work if copyright didn't exist, and the satisfaction of creation by definition exists independently from money. Whether many people would pay your prices is what is in question, but there is no guarantee even with copyright that people will buy your creative works. Without copyrights, certain categories of derivatives might even be more plentiful.
Sorry, I'll phrase differently. Every argument on/. and other fora advocating the rights to copy digital media, such as 'I wouldn't buy it anyway' and 'they charge too much' and 'I only want one song, I could copy it off of the radio' can be easily reworded to apply to GPL'd material. 'I'm not going to distribute changes anyway, so the GPL doesn't apply to me' or 'they should have just released it under the BSD license' or 'I bought it on a CD, and the outside box didn't say anything about this GPL thing, so I own the source code outright; Doctrine of First Sale and all that.'
The history of art and music and the modern Open-Source movement illustrates that people are willing to create without any direct monetary compensation for their creations.
You seem to be concentrating on monetary compensation; take the word 'monetary' out of the conversation. People are offering their works for compensation. That compensation might be as etherial as the warm fuzzy glow of having somebody say 'dude, that rocks!' or as cold and calculating as getting 85% mindshare for your brand name. There is no difference; people who create, *and want compensation* should be entitled to that compensation. There is no difference between offering for cash, or offering for the exchange of modifications made.
If it were the moral right of the author to control any copying of his creations, then the answer would be obvious -- never copy and share without permission; he deserves any money that could ever possibly be gleaned from his creation.
To copy his creations? To sell his creations? To derive inspiration from his creations? To reproduce his creations? To mimic his creations? So many possibilities.
Ultimately, though, it needs to be up to the creator. If Britney's record label doesn't want her fans swapping CDs; fine; it would be far more effective of them to protest or boycott than to break the law. Short term gain, however.
Agreed, in principle. The problem stems from the fact that current copyright/IP law is based on property law, which is based, in turn, on real estate law.
A piece of land can be owned, ultimately, by one person. (Yes, 'person' in this case might be a collective, corporation, yadda yadda.) That person can allocate the land as he sees fit, but when you get right down to it, that land can only be used or given exclusively. You can't build a house on a plot, and farm that same land.
Next, you have property. Your book example is a good one; is it theft if I loan a buddy my copy of Starship Troopers? Read it aloud to him? Let him read it over my shoulder? Generally, common sense rules here; my buddy can listen to a CD I'm playing in my living room; broadcasting it at a concert, however, is verboten.
What of a digital music file, though? If I have a DRM'd copy, and I relicense it to a buddy, removing my own access, it's like selling him a CD. Handing him an analog copy, even, isn't so bad; it's not a perfect copy, and any copies it produces will be degraded. But perfect digital copies? In theory, the artist will, ultimately, sell one copy, and the rest will be copies of copies.
One needs, however, to have the option of selling, in some way, the fruits of their labour. Saying that one shouldn't be able to sell their creative works for money is also saying one shouldn't be able to sell their creative works for the satisfaction of creation, and for the fruits of other people's derivations of said work. In other words, if I can't sell my music, and prosecute people who copy it, you can't GPL your code, and prosecute people who mod it without distributing changes.
Then, you get into metaproblems; is it wrong of me to copy a CD available only in Japan, when I have no reasonable way of purchasing it? Is it wrong of me to copy material which is no longer available for sale? Is it wrong of me to copy material which is kept artifically out of the market (such as Disney putting it's titles on ten year hiatus)?
The parent post is a bit poorly worded. It's not that the devs refuse to debug non-free software, so much as, if the source isn't available, there's nothing *to* debug, so why waste time even looking at it?
How do you think MS would react if I wrote software that played around with their license or lied to their subsystems?
It's called a compatibility layer. Hell, Windows itself will lie to stupid program "why...yes, I *am* only Windows 95! Go ahead and run! You know you want to !"
Or Konquerer claiming to be IE 5 so that websites will display content....
Yes, but what does this have to do with the primary concept of 'person X is trying to sell this song for this amount of money. Therefore, getting a full, perfect, 'retail' copy of that song, without giving person X money, is depriving person X of a sale?'
Doctrine of first sale does state that once you purchase a thing, you can do what you want with that thing, more or less. But unlike a digital copy of a song, or a computer game, giving your buddy that book you're finished with results in you being bookless. A subtle point, but an important one.
Re:A great game, but sometimes dangerous.
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
While I would not go so far as to blame D&D for these boys problems, there seemed to be something there that triggered a predisposition to some sort of madness.
Does a game of Fantasy lead to a loss of reality, or are people who have a tenuous grip on reality drawn to games of Fantasy?
Me, I say number 2. Much like violent games don't create violent people, but violent people are probably drawn to violent games....
Worse, say the program's detractors, is that it rewards those students who parrot the industry line with trips and free DVDs.
But, if you didn't pay for it...it's stolen...and they're giving it to you for free...which means you stole it...which means..that...even if...you do as you're told...you're still stealing...AAAAAAAAARGH!
Annihilation had exactly three things going for it.
1: Johnny Cage gets killed in the opening scene. And I'm not talking a heroic battle where he dies with his opponent's heart in his fist; he takes a shot at the big bad guy, who just snaps him and throws him aside. Boom, done. And he doesn't come back.
2: A much nicer looking woman playing Sonja Blade...
You are being offered something in exchange for something. You are taking the something, without giving the something in exchange. That's wrong. Maybe we need a new word/term for it, but it's not right.
'Oh, well, I wouldn't buy it, so it's not like they're losing money.' Maybe so, but nevertheless, you're still getting their product without their consent.
One would think Tivo could code in a very simple set of options to deal with overlaps:
Option 1: Go by user rating (if show A overlaps with show B, and user has given show A more thumbs up, record all of show A, and what's left of show B)
Option 2: First come, first serve. (If show A ends at 10, but show B starts at 9:59, and both are set to be recorded, record all of show A, and join show B in progress)
Option 3: First in, first out (as above, but stop recording show A when show B starts)
When you release a binary for source under the GPL, you can put whatever restrictions on that binary you'd like. You must also, however, release the source on request, and cannot put any restrictions other than the GPL itself upon that source code./P
Actually, it was pre; when they went MS, the joke was that it became an Xbox exclusive. Then, next year, it got, as I recall, a Steel Batallion style massive joystick. Then, the year after, it got Xbox Live capability, with a Live-enabled pimp hat.
In your example, one would have to say 'we contacted so and so and asked the following questions, receiving the following answers...we did not contact anybody else.'
Actually, don't recount it immediately. Cock you head a bit, close your eyes, put your hands onto an invisible keyboard, type it in while muttering the letters/numbers, then shrug and say 'I'm just so used to typing it in, I can't actually remember it. And they make us use this stupid jumble of letters and numbers....'
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but it doesn't give you some mystical right to use the software on, say, medical equipment or anything.
What Valenti's basically saying is, 'we've always said that if you want to watch a DVD, you have to use a licensed player. This isn't a secret, this isn't a surprise, you're not finding this out after you've bought a DVD, we don't, and never have, claimed otherwise. Nobody wants to license a DVD player on Linux? That sucks, and is curious, but not our problem. If we say 'we'll sell this to you, if you agree to use a licensed player,' and you buy it, and turn around and use an unlicensed player, you're the bad guy. If you care about it that much, license a player; I believe it's 30 bucks a seat from the DVD Consortium.'
Yup, it was a throwaway line from a scrawny little guy nodding to the fact that Sorbo played Hercules for, what, almost ten years, including the made for TV movies that kicked it all off?
Andromeda started out a bit slow, but had a lot going for it; it was a story of the crew and their personal reactions. It had some interesting ideas about AI and what not. It had TREMENDOUS backstory and mythology.
Hell, the worst thing I found was that Tyr was this huge, hulking warrior-god, but every other Neitzchian they every showed was a balding, paunchy, middle aged man, or a scrawny little fucker. Maybe this was intended to be a subtle insinuation that they were corrupting themselves or that they were fooling themselves with their ideas of superiority.
Then, Sorbo fired Robert Wolfe, I believe his name was, the writer who had also worked on DS9, and turned the show into Hercules in Space. "Arcs are too hard, plots are too hard, we don't want people to think! This is television, man!" Well, bugger that.
Andromeda would make a good roleplaying game, too.
Immaterial; it's their choice to make, they being the copyright holders. Yes, it might be in their best interests to allow end-consumers to do such advertising for them....
No, that particular theory is based on the premise that the average human being, especially, forgive me, Americans, generally prefers, and often is interested, if not indoctrinated towards, only instant gratification, and not long-term benefit. Cynical, yet amply demonstrated.
Sorry, I'll phrase differently. Every argument on /. and other fora advocating the rights to copy digital media, such as 'I wouldn't buy it anyway' and 'they charge too much' and 'I only want one song, I could copy it off of the radio' can be easily reworded to apply to GPL'd material. 'I'm not going to distribute changes anyway, so the GPL doesn't apply to me' or 'they should have just released it under the BSD license' or 'I bought it on a CD, and the outside box didn't say anything about this GPL thing, so I own the source code outright; Doctrine of First Sale and all that.'
You seem to be concentrating on monetary compensation; take the word 'monetary' out of the conversation. People are offering their works for compensation. That compensation might be as etherial as the warm fuzzy glow of having somebody say 'dude, that rocks!' or as cold and calculating as getting 85% mindshare for your brand name. There is no difference; people who create, *and want compensation* should be entitled to that compensation. There is no difference between offering for cash, or offering for the exchange of modifications made.
To copy his creations? To sell his creations? To derive inspiration from his creations? To reproduce his creations? To mimic his creations? So many possibilities.
Ultimately, though, it needs to be up to the creator. If Britney's record label doesn't want her fans swapping CDs; fine; it would be far more effective of them to protest or boycott than to break the law. Short term gain, however.
Agreed, in principle. The problem stems from the fact that current copyright/IP law is based on property law, which is based, in turn, on real estate law.
A piece of land can be owned, ultimately, by one person. (Yes, 'person' in this case might be a collective, corporation, yadda yadda.) That person can allocate the land as he sees fit, but when you get right down to it, that land can only be used or given exclusively. You can't build a house on a plot, and farm that same land.
Next, you have property. Your book example is a good one; is it theft if I loan a buddy my copy of Starship Troopers? Read it aloud to him? Let him read it over my shoulder? Generally, common sense rules here; my buddy can listen to a CD I'm playing in my living room; broadcasting it at a concert, however, is verboten.
What of a digital music file, though? If I have a DRM'd copy, and I relicense it to a buddy, removing my own access, it's like selling him a CD. Handing him an analog copy, even, isn't so bad; it's not a perfect copy, and any copies it produces will be degraded. But perfect digital copies? In theory, the artist will, ultimately, sell one copy, and the rest will be copies of copies.
One needs, however, to have the option of selling, in some way, the fruits of their labour. Saying that one shouldn't be able to sell their creative works for money is also saying one shouldn't be able to sell their creative works for the satisfaction of creation, and for the fruits of other people's derivations of said work. In other words, if I can't sell my music, and prosecute people who copy it, you can't GPL your code, and prosecute people who mod it without distributing changes.
Then, you get into metaproblems; is it wrong of me to copy a CD available only in Japan, when I have no reasonable way of purchasing it? Is it wrong of me to copy material which is no longer available for sale? Is it wrong of me to copy material which is kept artifically out of the market (such as Disney putting it's titles on ten year hiatus)?
The parent post is a bit poorly worded. It's not that the devs refuse to debug non-free software, so much as, if the source isn't available, there's nothing *to* debug, so why waste time even looking at it?
It's called a compatibility layer. Hell, Windows itself will lie to stupid program "why...yes, I *am* only Windows 95! Go ahead and run! You know you want to !"
Or Konquerer claiming to be IE 5 so that websites will display content....
What, like the Ngage?
Actually, it's a reference to Little Orphan Annie; the full expression is 'he/she was smacked around like a red-headed stepchild.'
Yes, but what does this have to do with the primary concept of 'person X is trying to sell this song for this amount of money. Therefore, getting a full, perfect, 'retail' copy of that song, without giving person X money, is depriving person X of a sale?'
Doctrine of first sale does state that once you purchase a thing, you can do what you want with that thing, more or less. But unlike a digital copy of a song, or a computer game, giving your buddy that book you're finished with results in you being bookless. A subtle point, but an important one.
'Nuff said.
Does a game of Fantasy lead to a loss of reality, or are people who have a tenuous grip on reality drawn to games of Fantasy?
Me, I say number 2. Much like violent games don't create violent people, but violent people are probably drawn to violent games....
But, if you didn't pay for it...it's stolen...and they're giving it to you for free...which means you stole it...which means..that...even if...you do as you're told...you're still stealing...AAAAAAAAARGH!
How is this crying uncle? This is Microsoft making a sound tactical decision, and flipping off Sony in the process.
Annihilation had exactly three things going for it.
1: Johnny Cage gets killed in the opening scene. And I'm not talking a heroic battle where he dies with his opponent's heart in his fist; he takes a shot at the big bad guy, who just snaps him and throws him aside. Boom, done. And he doesn't come back.
2: A much nicer looking woman playing Sonja Blade...
3: ...who gets into a mudfight.
Yes, but not necessarily something tangible.
You are being offered something in exchange for something. You are taking the something, without giving the something in exchange. That's wrong. Maybe we need a new word/term for it, but it's not right.
'Oh, well, I wouldn't buy it, so it's not like they're losing money.' Maybe so, but nevertheless, you're still getting their product without their consent.
HD, yes, cpu, no, not really. After all, it's not encoding anything, it's just saving the pre-encoded HDTV stream to the hard drive.
One would think Tivo could code in a very simple set of options to deal with overlaps:
Option 1: Go by user rating (if show A overlaps with show B, and user has given show A more thumbs up, record all of show A, and what's left of show B)
Option 2: First come, first serve. (If show A ends at 10, but show B starts at 9:59, and both are set to be recorded, record all of show A, and join show B in progress)
Option 3: First in, first out (as above, but stop recording show A when show B starts)
Get thee over to http://www.avsforum.com and you'll find your answers.
I seem to recall that Legend of Dragoon was actually a first party Sony title...
That being said, I found the only way I could pull off Albert's level five combo repeatedly was to close my eyes and use the sound cues....
Ah, it's been years since I've heard the sublime philosophy of Tae Kwon Leap.
When you release a binary for source under the GPL, you can put whatever restrictions on that binary you'd like. You must also, however, release the source on request, and cannot put any restrictions other than the GPL itself upon that source code./P
Tends to imply that the joke is older than the April 2001 posting date. I seem to recall that it's older than that.
Actually, it was pre; when they went MS, the joke was that it became an Xbox exclusive. Then, next year, it got, as I recall, a Steel Batallion style massive joystick. Then, the year after, it got Xbox Live capability, with a Live-enabled pimp hat.
It's comedy gold.
That's not neutral point of view, though.
In your example, one would have to say 'we contacted so and so and asked the following questions, receiving the following answers...we did not contact anybody else.'
Actually, don't recount it immediately. Cock you head a bit, close your eyes, put your hands onto an invisible keyboard, type it in while muttering the letters/numbers, then shrug and say 'I'm just so used to typing it in, I can't actually remember it. And they make us use this stupid jumble of letters and numbers....'