CDs are luxury items, and as such they're worth whatever people are willing to pay for them. Obviously however much you've been paying for CDs is all right for you, otherwise you wouldn't be buying the CDs.
It's one thing for a company to say "Hey, let's charge more for our product... that way, we'll make more money!"
But it's illegal for an organization that comprises most of an industry to *all* decide together that they're going to fix their prices.
That's all there is to it. What they did was illegal. It doesn't matter if they're luxury goods or life-and-death items... our free-market capitalist system is driven by competition, and things like price-fixing are against the rules. If you have a problem with that, then argue that the law should be different, but don't just say "This is stupid" because you don't understand how the laws work or why they exist.
I think it's more complicated than that. You cannot take your copy, that you purchased and legally own, and play it for a large audience though there is no further copying involved.
It's even more complicated, because in many cases, you can do exactly that.
For example, you can throw a party, and as far as I know, no one's ever been convicted of music piracy for playing music at a party.
Radio stations have a special agreement with the RIAA etc. to play music royalty-free, so long as they credit it (since the music folks long ago worked out that they sold more albums if they got airplay).
I used to work in a record store, where we played music non-stop all day. Every time we put on a CD, at least one person asked what it was and then went to find it. This is why one of the guys from Capitol who came in now and then to sell off promo discs once brought us t-shirts that said "If you play them, they will sell" (Yes, it was the "Field of Dreams" era of sloganizing).
But there are cases where you can't play music for a large audience without special permission. I'm not sure what the limitations are, though.
If you read page 20 of the settlement, you will find the amount awarded to over 3.5 million people is $143,075,000.
So, for each of the 8 parent companies named as respondents, that's $17,884,375.00.
Sony Corp. earned $875 million in the last quarter of 2003. Universal Music recorded $510 million *profit* in 2002. EMI made (profitted) about $64.5 million in the first half of 2003, before swallowing Warner music. And I'm guessing the companies involved are not going to split the burden equally, either.
Although the total amount is non-trivial, by the time it's parceled out, it becomes a slap on the wrist for the respondents. It doesn't do damage to the cause against the RIAA to point out that these companies still wield a huge advantage, regardless of this victory. It *definitely* doesn't hurt the cause to point out that the settlement hasn't particularly injured them; many companies go for the beleaguered "oh, no, now we'll not be as economically *viable* after these evil anti-capitalists have taken advantage of us through the courts!" tactic after something like this.
You agreed to pay the price. Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to buy those CDs.
I'd agree they'd owe us more if they were selling something necessary like food or fuel products.
But they're not. They're selling luxeries. Things you don't need.
The free-market capitalist economy does not apply only to "necessaries." When you break the rules, it doesn't matter if what you were selling is life-and-death or totally frivolous; you still broke the rules by which the system works.
Granted, I'd prefer a much more socialistic world, where this comparison isn't valid because those life-and-death items are available to everyone regardless of ability to pay. But that's not the world we live in, so people should play by the rules or expect to get stomped on.
I agree that they can't reasonably divvy up the proceeds based on how many CDs each person bought (since that's too difficult to determine), and also that it's ridiculous for anyone to buy new CDs and support the RIAA's tactics. But the premise you started off with is totally faulty.
The best alarms don't make a sound. They give the thief a minute or so to drive off and then cut off the fuel. The idea being that they will be in traffic by then where they are much too high profile to attempt to bypass the alarm.
How about LoJack System IV (or whatever they call it these days?)
There's an alarm, which goes off if you open the doors without deactivating it (proximity or motion-detecting alarms are the real pains in the ass, IMO). But then there's an ignition kill, making it harder to start the car, and the tracer beacon.
The fact that there's an alarm may actually make thieves think they've defeated the security if they get it deactivated, but then they get caught when you call the cops and give them your VIN to trace.;-)
Hm. I recall a story from one of my teachers at school, back in the late '80's. She sent her TA to put some stuff in the trunk of her car (a light-blue Toyota). Then when she got home, she didn't have the stuff. She asked her TA about it, who insisted she had done it.
A couple of weeks later, the same thing happened again.
Then another teacher approaches my teacher in the faculty lounge, asking if this stuff belongs to her. Sure enough, the mystery was solved... the stuff ended up in the trunk of the second teacher's dark-blue Honda. Not even the same make of car, but the key opened both trunks. (I think they tried the reverse, with the second teacher's key in the first's trunk, but that did not work).
Then there's valet keys, which open the doors and start the car, but won't open the trunk or internal compartments... or those emergency lock-out plastic keys you can get from the auto club, which will open the doors but not start the engine. It's pretty well-documented that car keys are a bit wonky as far as interchangeability, your Camaro experience notwithstanding.
My car doesn't have keyless entry so the idea of using the key to open the door setting off an alarm seems ridiculous to me.
Before keyless entry became popular, clickers just deactivated (and activated) the alarm. And then after that, you used your key to open the door.
If you have an alarm that is activated by a remote, it goes off if you open the car door without deactivating it. The "keyless entry" devices are just the alarm remotes, which also are friendly enough to unlock the door for you. Using your key to unlock the door doesn't normally set off the alarm, but opening the door without deactivating the alarm does.
i would really like to have a way of finding out negative or positive moderation overturns and filtering. seems one persons flamebait (which parent post is listed as currently) often isnt and is moderated accordingly later on.
He asked to be modded off-topic, so he was (after being modded up sufficiently). What's wrong with that?;-)
Sigh... when will people learn the difference between NPR (radio, does "All Things Considered") and PBS (TV, responsible for "Sesame Street")?
10 million NPR stations, sure (especially with the $200 M donation from Judy Kroc, McDonald's heiress). 10 million Oscars the Grouch I think we might not need.
That's why all of the DSL/Cable companies have started sending acceptable usage warnings to their customers because they used up all of their unlimited bandwidth
actualy, they send the warnings because the cost of supporting 1% of the users who use 70% of the bandwidth is to much and interfears with the other 99% of users.
I don't understand this... you're simply clarifying why they did it, but it doesn't mean they didn't do what the grandparent post said they did. It simply means they had an economic incentive to do it (and when was the last time a major company did something without having an economic incentive?)
You know, the string that sticks out most to me in that is "no win"... which could be a bad thing, but since "win" in the context of job listings usually means MS, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
I'd say that apoptosis is better characterized as "natural cell death". It's a natural and essential part of the cell's life cycle, and certainly isn't as alarming as the article's tone suggests.
In fact, we have a word for cells that don't undergo apoptosis: Cancer.
Seems you are only sort of correct here.
Cells may undergo apoptosis from internal mechanisms *or* outside influences, but in both cases, the process induces the cell to self-destruct. This is how the immune system kills infected cells, how damaged cells sometimes eliminate themselves, etc. It may be that the cell has just determined its time is up, but in many cases the self-destruction is triggered by something going wrong with the cell.
*Some* cancer cells have a resistance to apoptosis (through a variety of mechanisms). But the main thing that cancer cells don't do is stop reproducing. The signals that tell a cell that it can't undergo mitosis anymore goes bye-bye. Melanoma, lung, and colon cancer are among those that *also* produce chemicals that make them more resistant to apoptosis.
I absolutely agree that people who modify GPLed code are obligated to release their modifications. I believe the GPL is enforceable and would LOVE to have a client hire me to enforce it for them. I'll do my best to get you a copy when my article is completed.
So in your opinion, enforcement of this type of contract would *require* specific performance as a remedy in all cases? Or is it a particularly "FANTASTIC result" when it happens?
I'm quite confused. To begin with, you said that breach of contract cases are normally settled only with payment of damages, but here you say that in GPL cases you believe that release of code is necessary to resolve claims?
Say I find out that a web store uses a particular "small project" web module. I can then read the source code, find a way to get in and steal their credit card database. If it was a closed source component with a small user base, the barrier would be higher.
So what you're saying is, only open-source your software if it's good... and if it sucks, keep it proprietary?;-)
IE6 is available for free on Microsoft's website. YOu can download just it or any other update they've released. You can't, as you say, download Windows XP. But the point is, you aren't stuck buying a whole new product just to fix this security vulnerability.
Unless you're running Windows 95, which isn't compatible with IE6.
You would, in that case, have to buy Windows XP to fix this issue.
This definition fits the GPL. The licensor is obligated to refrain from enforcing its copyright because it has granted permission to use the copyrighted material under the terms of the GPL. The licensee, once it has accepted the GPLed code, is obligated to release its own source.
So you agree with MS and others that, if you distribute GPL code as part of a proprietary product, you are then obligated to release the source of the product? Rather than pursuing another remedy?
If the GPL is a contract in the manner you just described, it certainly seems that this is the case. But I thought you had argued above that it is not.
I would be most interested in your law review. Email me when it's available.
Sorry, but I am not confused. However, you may be. Licenses such as the GPL are indeed contracts.
I would be interested in your analysis of why this article is completely wrong, then. When it was discussed earlier on/., there were lots of people who were dubious, but no one with specific legal training in IP law came forward to dispute the concepts presented by Pamela Jones.
Why do certain companies not research beforehand, that what they are doing is illegal? Why do people have to resort to things like this, before they complay with the terms of a license?
Well, think about it for a second: who knows where the code came from? The developers, not the lawyers.
So, Developer goes to his supervisor (who may or may not be a PHB) and says, "Listen, we can do this more quickly and easily if we incorporate this code, which is available under the GPL." Boss-guy says, "Hey, whatever it takes." Now Developer thinks he has appropriately communicated the source of the code and the necessary steps to use it legally, and Boss-guy thinks that his Developer has just come up with a nifty shortcut, whatever this GPL thing is.
The lawyers find out when it's much too late to do anything. But, when they do find out, they say, "Ok, how can we fix this with the least expense and bad publicity?" which it sounds like they did pretty effectively in this case.
They'll disqualify you for any reason they want. They rejected one perfectly suitable resume because his last job was as a magician at kids' parties; they said that it indicated that he didn't want the position as a career.
At one point in my life, I had three different resumes depending on what kind of job I was applying for. One made much of my experience as a Membership Consultant and Youth Sports Instructor at the YMCA, and went into great detail about my Customer Service training at the Disney Store. Another enumerated the software applications I was proficient in from my work at Kinko's, and the supervisorial and management duties I had held.
Anyone who wears different hats, but puts them on all at the same time, is compromising their ability to present themselves professionally. A candidate for a technical position who thinks that his work as a magician at kids' parties belongs on that resume may not have the sense to realize that your clients don't want to hear stories from those same parties, or that he shouldn't waste fellow employees' time with making balloon animals.
Chances are, he was just self-conscious about a gap in employment. But there are ways to handle it better, really. If you have a lot of resumes to go through, you make the quick decisions you can.
Your job in an inteview is not to make the other side believe you are more valuble than you yourself beielve you are. It is to present yourself as best you can while being as honest as you can.
Very true. The folks who are saying "lie your ass off" have misunderstood the art of careful wording.
My resume lists all gaps in employment as freelance work. If anyone asks, I've done some grant writing for one non-profit (from which I have an excellent reference, and no need to mention he's known me since birth) and some desktop publishing, computer repair, and one-on-one training for various folks. All true, paid work. They don't ask if it's for friends and family, and I don't volunteer that it is.
When I was taking resume orders several times a day at Kinko's, and therefore was expected to be a cut-rate resume consultant, some of the stuff I learned (from various sources provided by the company) was:
- Only go back five jobs or fifteen years. Older experience isn't going to be considered relevant, and more than five jobs just looks... tacky. If there's something a ways back that you really, really want on there, create a section called "Other Relevant Experience" and list it there more informally.
- For short-term jobs, leave them off unless they look *really* good for some reason. For example, for two months I was a Support Engineer for a telecommunications testing equipment manufacturer, which involved phone and email support as well as writing custom scripts and conducting user training courses. I ended up quitting because I couldn't stand commuting 50 miles each way every day for $32k a year, but it's definitely the most impressive-looking technical experience I have. (Not the most useful on a day-to-day basis, but whatever.)
- Keep it to two pages. This used to be one page, until people started bouncing around jobs a lot.
- Start with either education or experience, depending on which looks better. If you have an advanced degree, or a BS from a well-regarded institution, you probably want to start with that. If you barely got your BA in English at the state uni because you were too busy playing computer games, but used to be Director of Technology for someplace, start with experience.
And this is one I picked up on my own: never, EVER put the word "sales" in your resume, unless you're looking for a sales job. I made the mistake of including "supported Corporate Accounts Manager on sales calls" on my monster.com resume and got drowned in listings for every sales job imaginable.
It is common usage to refer to a benefit that is obtained at the involuntary loss of another party as "theft". That a dictionary doesn't offer such a definition, or that courts may not charge the offense in such terms, is of little consequence.
It is of great consequence in terms of how the crimes are handled. Copyright infringement is still largely a civil matter, but those who perceive themselves as having the most to lose from it cast it as the same as criminal offenses. This is misleading, disingenuous, and somewhat insulting to those who are victims of actual criminal acts.
Theft is the primary connotation of intentional copyright infrigment, because infringement involuntarily deprives the copyright owner of the benefit of the copyright.
You come closest to a real justification of using the term "theft" for copyright infringement. If you consider that what is being removed is the benefit of the copyright, it almost works. Almost, though, because that benefit is highly dubious in the cases usually discussed. It's one thing when someone plagarizes a work and sells it as their own, in which case your use of the term "theft" might be appropriate. But in the case of illegal duplication of copyrighted works, you are assuming a benefit exists in order for it to be removed. This is a totally unfounded assumption; the record companies blame their declining sales on illegal downloading, but haven't experienced a significantly greater decline than the rest of the economy... while independent artists have found their books, music, and other works selling quite well after they make them available for free download.
Until someone actually can demonstrate a causal link between declining music sales and downloading of music on the internet, the "benefit" they are "deprived" of is a purely hypothetical entity.
"Yeah, I didn't steal, I *infringed*. It's like tresspassing. I didn't steal anything. It's no big deal."
Whether or not someone thinks it's a big deal is wholly unrelated to whether or not it's theft. However, those who don't think people consider it a big enough deal try to paint it as a crime that is generally accepted as serious and obviously wrong.
Personally, I think copyright infringement *is* a big deal. But it's a very different deal than what the RIAA would have us believe. Our laws are completely broken and have been twisted into serving not to foster creativity, but to protect profits... often for the most uncreative of works. Independent artists who attempt to make their work available for little or no money are at risk of being taken advantage of by huge corporations, and are relatively helpless to use copyright law to defend themselves. This is a HUGE deal. But the RIAA is interested in ensuring that copyright works for them, not for artists, so that's been the focus of our recent legislative efforts.
Let's consider your bond with your partner your "copyright". How about if I, without your agreement, get your partner pregnant and you end up raising the resulting children. I haven't taken possesion of your partner. But I have deprived you of the benefit (of passing along your genes). I strongly doubt you would not use the word "theft" to describe what I had done to your reproductive opporunity in that relationship.
Setting aside for a moment the sheer impossibility of you getting my husband pregnant, this is still a ridiculous comparison for several reasons:
- In a traditional monogamous relationship, copyright is an inappropriate analogy, because the concept of distribution, sale, or creation of derivative works is completely out of the question. It would be slightly more accurate to say that my own personal feelings of love and attachment are a "copyrightable" work, and that I grant my partner an exclusive license.
- If you get my partner pregnant without my permission, that's between two people: me, and my partner. Adultery is grounds for divorce. I have absolutely NO legal
Slashdot Mirror
CDs are luxury items, and as such they're worth whatever people are willing to pay for them. Obviously however much you've been paying for CDs is all right for you, otherwise you wouldn't be buying the CDs.
It's one thing for a company to say "Hey, let's charge more for our product... that way, we'll make more money!"
But it's illegal for an organization that comprises most of an industry to *all* decide together that they're going to fix their prices.
That's all there is to it. What they did was illegal. It doesn't matter if they're luxury goods or life-and-death items... our free-market capitalist system is driven by competition, and things like price-fixing are against the rules. If you have a problem with that, then argue that the law should be different, but don't just say "This is stupid" because you don't understand how the laws work or why they exist.
I think it's more complicated than that. You cannot take your copy, that you purchased and legally own, and play it for a large audience though there is no further copying involved.
It's even more complicated, because in many cases, you can do exactly that.
For example, you can throw a party, and as far as I know, no one's ever been convicted of music piracy for playing music at a party.
Radio stations have a special agreement with the RIAA etc. to play music royalty-free, so long as they credit it (since the music folks long ago worked out that they sold more albums if they got airplay).
I used to work in a record store, where we played music non-stop all day. Every time we put on a CD, at least one person asked what it was and then went to find it. This is why one of the guys from Capitol who came in now and then to sell off promo discs once brought us t-shirts that said "If you play them, they will sell" (Yes, it was the "Field of Dreams" era of sloganizing).
But there are cases where you can't play music for a large audience without special permission. I'm not sure what the limitations are, though.
If you read page 20 of the settlement, you will find the amount awarded to over 3.5 million people is $143,075,000.
So, for each of the 8 parent companies named as respondents, that's $17,884,375.00.
Sony Corp. earned $875 million in the last quarter of 2003. Universal Music recorded $510 million *profit* in 2002. EMI made (profitted) about $64.5 million in the first half of 2003, before swallowing Warner music. And I'm guessing the companies involved are not going to split the burden equally, either.
Although the total amount is non-trivial, by the time it's parceled out, it becomes a slap on the wrist for the respondents. It doesn't do damage to the cause against the RIAA to point out that these companies still wield a huge advantage, regardless of this victory. It *definitely* doesn't hurt the cause to point out that the settlement hasn't particularly injured them; many companies go for the beleaguered "oh, no, now we'll not be as economically *viable* after these evil anti-capitalists have taken advantage of us through the courts!" tactic after something like this.
You agreed to pay the price. Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to buy those CDs.
I'd agree they'd owe us more if they were selling something necessary like food or fuel products.
But they're not. They're selling luxeries. Things you don't need.
The free-market capitalist economy does not apply only to "necessaries." When you break the rules, it doesn't matter if what you were selling is life-and-death or totally frivolous; you still broke the rules by which the system works.
Granted, I'd prefer a much more socialistic world, where this comparison isn't valid because those life-and-death items are available to everyone regardless of ability to pay. But that's not the world we live in, so people should play by the rules or expect to get stomped on.
I agree that they can't reasonably divvy up the proceeds based on how many CDs each person bought (since that's too difficult to determine), and also that it's ridiculous for anyone to buy new CDs and support the RIAA's tactics. But the premise you started off with is totally faulty.
Yes, but some would argue that a common way to steal a car is to tow it, then disarm the alarm when you get to your chop shop.
Don't most car alarms have a level detector in them that disable the alarm if the car reaches an angle that indicates it's being towed?
The only thing I learned from seeing the movie Twins... (Except that Danny DeVito is a far superior actor to Arnold Schwarzenegger).
Most vehicles have a switch under the dash that lets you turn off the alarm once in the vehicle.
;-)
Yeah... mine has that. It's called the fuse box.
The best alarms don't make a sound. They give the thief a minute or so to drive off and then cut off the fuel. The idea being that they will be in traffic by then where they are much too high profile to attempt to bypass the alarm.
;-)
How about LoJack System IV (or whatever they call it these days?)
There's an alarm, which goes off if you open the doors without deactivating it (proximity or motion-detecting alarms are the real pains in the ass, IMO). But then there's an ignition kill, making it harder to start the car, and the tracer beacon.
The fact that there's an alarm may actually make thieves think they've defeated the security if they get it deactivated, but then they get caught when you call the cops and give them your VIN to trace.
Hm. I recall a story from one of my teachers at school, back in the late '80's. She sent her TA to put some stuff in the trunk of her car (a light-blue Toyota). Then when she got home, she didn't have the stuff. She asked her TA about it, who insisted she had done it.
A couple of weeks later, the same thing happened again.
Then another teacher approaches my teacher in the faculty lounge, asking if this stuff belongs to her. Sure enough, the mystery was solved... the stuff ended up in the trunk of the second teacher's dark-blue Honda. Not even the same make of car, but the key opened both trunks. (I think they tried the reverse, with the second teacher's key in the first's trunk, but that did not work).
Then there's valet keys, which open the doors and start the car, but won't open the trunk or internal compartments... or those emergency lock-out plastic keys you can get from the auto club, which will open the doors but not start the engine. It's pretty well-documented that car keys are a bit wonky as far as interchangeability, your Camaro experience notwithstanding.
My car doesn't have keyless entry so the idea of using the key to open the door setting off an alarm seems ridiculous to me.
Before keyless entry became popular, clickers just deactivated (and activated) the alarm. And then after that, you used your key to open the door.
If you have an alarm that is activated by a remote, it goes off if you open the car door without deactivating it. The "keyless entry" devices are just the alarm remotes, which also are friendly enough to unlock the door for you. Using your key to unlock the door doesn't normally set off the alarm, but opening the door without deactivating the alarm does.
i would really like to have a way of finding out negative or positive moderation overturns and filtering. seems one persons flamebait (which parent post is listed as currently) often isnt and is moderated accordingly later on.
;-)
He asked to be modded off-topic, so he was (after being modded up sufficiently). What's wrong with that?
Sigh... when will people learn the difference between NPR (radio, does "All Things Considered") and PBS (TV, responsible for "Sesame Street")?
10 million NPR stations, sure (especially with the $200 M donation from Judy Kroc, McDonald's heiress). 10 million Oscars the Grouch I think we might not need.
I don't understand this... you're simply clarifying why they did it, but it doesn't mean they didn't do what the grandparent post said they did. It simply means they had an economic incentive to do it (and when was the last time a major company did something without having an economic incentive?)
Unless you live in india. Then, may I suggest monsterphilipines.com?
Unless you live in the Philippines and are a doctor, and then you're back to monster.com for US nursing positions.
yourjobisnowinindia.com
You know, the string that sticks out most to me in that is "no win"... which could be a bad thing, but since "win" in the context of job listings usually means MS, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
I'd say that apoptosis is better characterized as "natural cell death". It's a natural and essential part of the cell's life cycle, and certainly isn't as alarming as the article's tone suggests.
In fact, we have a word for cells that don't undergo apoptosis: Cancer.
Seems you are only sort of correct here.
Cells may undergo apoptosis from internal mechanisms *or* outside influences, but in both cases, the process induces the cell to self-destruct. This is how the immune system kills infected cells, how damaged cells sometimes eliminate themselves, etc. It may be that the cell has just determined its time is up, but in many cases the self-destruction is triggered by something going wrong with the cell.
*Some* cancer cells have a resistance to apoptosis (through a variety of mechanisms). But the main thing that cancer cells don't do is stop reproducing. The signals that tell a cell that it can't undergo mitosis anymore goes bye-bye. Melanoma, lung, and colon cancer are among those that *also* produce chemicals that make them more resistant to apoptosis.
(Yay Google for finding this site.)
I absolutely agree that people who modify GPLed code are obligated to release their modifications. I believe the GPL is enforceable and would LOVE to have a client hire me to enforce it for them. I'll do my best to get you a copy when my article is completed.
So in your opinion, enforcement of this type of contract would *require* specific performance as a remedy in all cases? Or is it a particularly "FANTASTIC result" when it happens?
I'm quite confused. To begin with, you said that breach of contract cases are normally settled only with payment of damages, but here you say that in GPL cases you believe that release of code is necessary to resolve claims?
Say I find out that a web store uses a particular "small project" web module. I can then read the source code, find a way to get in and steal their credit card database. If it was a closed source component with a small user base, the barrier would be higher.
;-)
So what you're saying is, only open-source your software if it's good... and if it sucks, keep it proprietary?
IE6 is available for free on Microsoft's website. YOu can download just it or any other update they've released. You can't, as you say, download Windows XP. But the point is, you aren't stuck buying a whole new product just to fix this security vulnerability.
Unless you're running Windows 95, which isn't compatible with IE6.
You would, in that case, have to buy Windows XP to fix this issue.
This definition fits the GPL. The licensor is obligated to refrain from enforcing its copyright because it has granted permission to use the copyrighted material under the terms of the GPL. The licensee, once it has accepted the GPLed code, is obligated to release its own source.
So you agree with MS and others that, if you distribute GPL code as part of a proprietary product, you are then obligated to release the source of the product? Rather than pursuing another remedy?
If the GPL is a contract in the manner you just described, it certainly seems that this is the case. But I thought you had argued above that it is not.
I would be most interested in your law review. Email me when it's available.
I've got a better idea. keep the name. stop marketing it in france.
King Feature Syndicate isn't French, MandrakeSoft is. That's why the case was in France. Marketing it in the US is also a no-no under this decision.
Sorry, but I am not confused. However, you may be. Licenses such as the GPL are indeed contracts.
/., there were lots of people who were dubious, but no one with specific legal training in IP law came forward to dispute the concepts presented by Pamela Jones.
I would be interested in your analysis of why this article is completely wrong, then. When it was discussed earlier on
Why do certain companies not research beforehand, that what they are doing is illegal?
Why do people have to resort to things like this, before they complay with the terms of a license?
Well, think about it for a second: who knows where the code came from? The developers, not the lawyers.
So, Developer goes to his supervisor (who may or may not be a PHB) and says, "Listen, we can do this more quickly and easily if we incorporate this code, which is available under the GPL." Boss-guy says, "Hey, whatever it takes." Now Developer thinks he has appropriately communicated the source of the code and the necessary steps to use it legally, and Boss-guy thinks that his Developer has just come up with a nifty shortcut, whatever this GPL thing is.
The lawyers find out when it's much too late to do anything. But, when they do find out, they say, "Ok, how can we fix this with the least expense and bad publicity?" which it sounds like they did pretty effectively in this case.
They'll disqualify you for any reason they want. They rejected one perfectly suitable resume because his last job was as a magician at kids' parties; they said that it indicated that he didn't want the position as a career.
At one point in my life, I had three different resumes depending on what kind of job I was applying for. One made much of my experience as a Membership Consultant and Youth Sports Instructor at the YMCA, and went into great detail about my Customer Service training at the Disney Store. Another enumerated the software applications I was proficient in from my work at Kinko's, and the supervisorial and management duties I had held.
Anyone who wears different hats, but puts them on all at the same time, is compromising their ability to present themselves professionally. A candidate for a technical position who thinks that his work as a magician at kids' parties belongs on that resume may not have the sense to realize that your clients don't want to hear stories from those same parties, or that he shouldn't waste fellow employees' time with making balloon animals.
Chances are, he was just self-conscious about a gap in employment. But there are ways to handle it better, really. If you have a lot of resumes to go through, you make the quick decisions you can.
Your job in an inteview is not to make the other side believe you are more valuble than you yourself beielve you are. It is to present yourself as best you can while being as honest as you can.
Very true. The folks who are saying "lie your ass off" have misunderstood the art of careful wording.
My resume lists all gaps in employment as freelance work. If anyone asks, I've done some grant writing for one non-profit (from which I have an excellent reference, and no need to mention he's known me since birth) and some desktop publishing, computer repair, and one-on-one training for various folks. All true, paid work. They don't ask if it's for friends and family, and I don't volunteer that it is.
When I was taking resume orders several times a day at Kinko's, and therefore was expected to be a cut-rate resume consultant, some of the stuff I learned (from various sources provided by the company) was:
- Only go back five jobs or fifteen years. Older experience isn't going to be considered relevant, and more than five jobs just looks... tacky. If there's something a ways back that you really, really want on there, create a section called "Other Relevant Experience" and list it there more informally.
- For short-term jobs, leave them off unless they look *really* good for some reason. For example, for two months I was a Support Engineer for a telecommunications testing equipment manufacturer, which involved phone and email support as well as writing custom scripts and conducting user training courses. I ended up quitting because I couldn't stand commuting 50 miles each way every day for $32k a year, but it's definitely the most impressive-looking technical experience I have. (Not the most useful on a day-to-day basis, but whatever.)
- Keep it to two pages. This used to be one page, until people started bouncing around jobs a lot.
- Start with either education or experience, depending on which looks better. If you have an advanced degree, or a BS from a well-regarded institution, you probably want to start with that. If you barely got your BA in English at the state uni because you were too busy playing computer games, but used to be Director of Technology for someplace, start with experience.
And this is one I picked up on my own: never, EVER put the word "sales" in your resume, unless you're looking for a sales job. I made the mistake of including "supported Corporate Accounts Manager on sales calls" on my monster.com resume and got drowned in listings for every sales job imaginable.
It is common usage to refer to a benefit that is obtained at the involuntary loss of another party as "theft". That a dictionary doesn't offer such a definition, or that courts may not charge the offense in such terms, is of little consequence.
It is of great consequence in terms of how the crimes are handled. Copyright infringement is still largely a civil matter, but those who perceive themselves as having the most to lose from it cast it as the same as criminal offenses. This is misleading, disingenuous, and somewhat insulting to those who are victims of actual criminal acts.
Theft is the primary connotation of intentional copyright infrigment, because infringement involuntarily deprives the copyright owner of the benefit of the copyright.
You come closest to a real justification of using the term "theft" for copyright infringement. If you consider that what is being removed is the benefit of the copyright, it almost works. Almost, though, because that benefit is highly dubious in the cases usually discussed. It's one thing when someone plagarizes a work and sells it as their own, in which case your use of the term "theft" might be appropriate. But in the case of illegal duplication of copyrighted works, you are assuming a benefit exists in order for it to be removed. This is a totally unfounded assumption; the record companies blame their declining sales on illegal downloading, but haven't experienced a significantly greater decline than the rest of the economy... while independent artists have found their books, music, and other works selling quite well after they make them available for free download.
Until someone actually can demonstrate a causal link between declining music sales and downloading of music on the internet, the "benefit" they are "deprived" of is a purely hypothetical entity.
"Yeah, I didn't steal, I *infringed*. It's like tresspassing. I didn't steal anything. It's no big deal."
Whether or not someone thinks it's a big deal is wholly unrelated to whether or not it's theft. However, those who don't think people consider it a big enough deal try to paint it as a crime that is generally accepted as serious and obviously wrong.
Personally, I think copyright infringement *is* a big deal. But it's a very different deal than what the RIAA would have us believe. Our laws are completely broken and have been twisted into serving not to foster creativity, but to protect profits... often for the most uncreative of works. Independent artists who attempt to make their work available for little or no money are at risk of being taken advantage of by huge corporations, and are relatively helpless to use copyright law to defend themselves. This is a HUGE deal. But the RIAA is interested in ensuring that copyright works for them, not for artists, so that's been the focus of our recent legislative efforts.
Let's consider your bond with your partner your "copyright". How about if I, without your agreement, get your partner pregnant and you end up raising the resulting children. I haven't taken possesion of your partner. But I have deprived you of the benefit (of passing along your genes). I strongly doubt you would not use the word "theft" to describe what I had done to your reproductive opporunity in that relationship.
Setting aside for a moment the sheer impossibility of you getting my husband pregnant, this is still a ridiculous comparison for several reasons:
- In a traditional monogamous relationship, copyright is an inappropriate analogy, because the concept of distribution, sale, or creation of derivative works is completely out of the question. It would be slightly more accurate to say that my own personal feelings of love and attachment are a "copyrightable" work, and that I grant my partner an exclusive license.
- If you get my partner pregnant without my permission, that's between two people: me, and my partner. Adultery is grounds for divorce. I have absolutely NO legal