You know the saying, if the troll fits... no, er, if the troll posts, don't reply.
The chance that the GP is using a free browser to post his "message", if we may call it that, to a free web site hosted on a free server, using free transport protocols approaches 1. I think that anybody using free stuff to claim that the free stuff he is using doesn't work, pretty likely is a troll.
"If you're doing amateur photography and graphics work, GIMP has everything you need, and at least a few nifty things that photoshop doesn't. If you're looking into doing something a bit more professional, there are still reasons to stick with Photoshop."
I don't think the distinction Professional=PS, Amateur=GIMP is very fair. I am a professional who prefers The GIMP over Photoshop, because in my line of work, it is the better tool. (And as far as I can tell, I like PSP the best for my work, although I haven't used it much.)
Both GIMP and PS are powertools. They have in common that they offer vastly more functionality than any one person is ever likely to need. Comparissons between the two will always fail unless you specify what you need them for.
FWIW, the GIMP will let you ICC profiles, but as a preview. I don't know if that's sufficient, I don't do colour management.
(I am a professional web developer: the way Photoshop manages to **** up colours makes me wish all art professionals would use the GIMP. Proper workflow and all that.)
"--So, Scientology, as a "religion" is allowed to maintain a copyright over its underlying dogma? Freaky!"
"Most of the scientology copyright cases I'm aware of in the past involved their actual documents, word for word, posted on websites."
It could be argued that in the case of a religion, where the writings contain "the word of god", there is no difference between an expression and it's underlying idea. If you change the text, it will no longer represent your god's opinion.
"Copyright was introduced to protect the financial interests of authors and composers; to allow them to earn a living by writing words or music."
Have you got any evidence to support this claim? I know a little bit about the history of copyright (the Stationers, the Statute of Anne, the US Constitution, the Berne Convention), but much of it is still dark to me. Especially, I know precious little about copyright on the European mainland.
Although copyright was invented to foster creativity, the method it uses is giving an author complete control. So anybody who wants complete control over an expression or an idea "merely" needs to pour it into a form that is copyrightable.
This works well with religious works, because a church will claim to know The Word of God. The copyrighted religious text is that word of God, and any deviation is heresy. Recasting of that word is only possible through the church.
"2. The material in question was not 'posted illegally'. It was part of a court file and the public could see it and/or ask for copies of it. The Dutch AG (and previous courts in this case) considers that fact sufficient to establish legal publication, hence quoting from it is allowed."
IIRC, and understood the verdict correctly, the previous court hinted that the publication might be illegal, but refused to pass verdict on that, because it wasn't necessary for their final "Free Speech" conclusion.
It's the latest installment in a soap, and as in any other soap, if you haven't seen the previous episodes you won't know what's going on. But as in any other soap, that doesn't really matter.
The Supreme Court is about to rule on whether Karin Spaink broke the law when she quoted from Scientology's secret teachings.
Complicating matters was that - a lot of people linked to the secret teachings, and CoS wanted a verdict that linking is illegal - ISP's were supporting Spaink, and they wanted a verdict that their responsibility is limited (in the meantime the law has changed in this respect to a DMCA type affair, but worse) - Scientology claimed the documents were unpublished (you are only allowed to quote from legally published - A new European law states that copyright can be trumped when you have legitimate claims that you want to expose something or someone.
This is mostly from my memory, follow the links in the article if you want to know more.
These things matter, because they set precedent on how copyright should be treated on the internet.
Spaink won the last case. Now it is up to the Supreme Court to either revert that decision or affirm it. The Supreme Court's advisor, the Attorney General, wants the court to affirm it.
In my defense I would like to plead that I used the recent invention of paragraphs to make the text more legible, but unfortunately they appear not to have survived the submission process, making the blurb harder to read.
This is the Supreme Court case. The battles from your earlier memories took place in lower courts. The advice from the Attorney General is the one-but last episode. (Although, knowing CoS, they will probably keep fighting Karin Spaink even after this particular case is over.)
Anyway, apart from what's at the core of this legal fight, what's also interesting here is how copyright law in the internet age gets redefined by judicial verdicts.
"Do you just run it and then leave or do you show them how to use it?"
It depends. Some people just don't want to be shown anything that looks remotely complicated, and figure they can just ask me again when it goes wrong next time; but most people I know are actually eager to keep their desktops clean and will display some interest in what I am doing.
Every once in a while I get a call from a less-technical friend or colleague who needs something "technical" done to their PC. Lately, and with an alarming frequency, the "something technical" involved cleaning the system of spyware. Anti-spyware tools only catch a certain percentage of the culprits, and often the less damaging ones. Running Adaware and S&D takes a few unattended minutes. Rooting out the rest of the malware can take hours.
Since I don't feel like wiping my friends bums for them all the time, one of the first preventive measures I take is to try and remove as many hooks into IE as possible, and install Firefox as the default browser. I am not sure this helps, but the way I figure it should at least diminish the number of "support calls" I get.
I think you are overestimating the amount of geeks out there. Sure, the first 3 or 4 percentage points of Firefox installations were probably done by those who know that there are other browsers out there. But the next 2 or 3 must have been regular users.
By what kind of right can APIs be burdened that you need to license them? Or put differently: using which law would Microsoft go after me if I used the API, but did not pay the license?
Yet another and typical attack on the GPL, by pretending it is something magical that somehow transcends copyright law and traditional licenses.
He who writes the code, owns the code. This ownership can be transfered by contract.
If Microsoft publishes Office, and Daimaou's employer purchases a license to Office, and Daimaou then changes the code of Office, this does not magically transfer ownership of Office from Microsoft to Daimaou's employer. The only way Daimaou's employer can obtain that ownership is by transfer of copyrights.
What Daimaou (or Daimaou's employer, in case of transfer) owns, is the stuff that Daimaou wrote.
I am surprised that Slashdot would purposely spread such a bit of FUD. I am saying purposely, because this type of FUD has been refuted on Slashdot many times before.
Oh, Cliff Sometimes it must be difficult not to feel as if You really are a Cliff When fascists keep trying to push you over it Are they the lemmings? Or are you Cliff? Or are you, Cliff?
"As the creator and copyright holder of the piece, I believe I have the right to say how it's used."
You also have the right to pay for an attorney to have a license drafted specifically for you.
What Creative Commons (supposedly) is trying to do, is create a commons. A commons is not really a commons if everybody builds fences in it. Non-Commercial is counterproductive to the goals of CC--that is why it is a pity that they allow it in the first place.
"I'd like to get this story from a source that's not named "Boing Boing" and doesn't use words like "sez" in their articles."
Well, if you asked perhaps you would get a link to that source, but then again, who is going to invest time in somebody who hides behind a ridiculous name like "sfjoe" and who signs his messages with "Buy Blue!!". I'd rather spend my time helping Condoleezza Rice. Maybe. Hell no!
Slashdot Mirror
You know the saying, if the troll fits ... no, er, if the troll posts, don't reply.
The chance that the GP is using a free browser to post his "message", if we may call it that, to a free web site hosted on a free server, using free transport protocols approaches 1. I think that anybody using free stuff to claim that the free stuff he is using doesn't work, pretty likely is a troll.
"Depends what you're doing with it."
Well put.
"If you're doing amateur photography and graphics work, GIMP has everything you need, and at least a few nifty things that photoshop doesn't. If you're looking into doing something a bit more professional, there are still reasons to stick with Photoshop."
I don't think the distinction Professional=PS, Amateur=GIMP is very fair. I am a professional who prefers The GIMP over Photoshop, because in my line of work, it is the better tool. (And as far as I can tell, I like PSP the best for my work, although I haven't used it much.)
Both GIMP and PS are powertools. They have in common that they offer vastly more functionality than any one person is ever likely to need. Comparissons between the two will always fail unless you specify what you need them for.
FWIW, the GIMP will let you ICC profiles, but as a preview. I don't know if that's sufficient, I don't do colour management.
(I am a professional web developer: the way Photoshop manages to **** up colours makes me wish all art professionals would use the GIMP. Proper workflow and all that.)
"The fact that they found 2 out of 100 people who "rabidly oppose" Scientology says something, IMO."
It says that Scientologists, unlike the average person in the street, know about Scientology (and its critics).
"Most countries do have a "fair use" doctrine. If I wanted to criticize Scientology, I could legally quote passages I was criticizing."
Fair Use is a uniquely American concept, although there are countries who use similar concepts.
Fair Use works likes this:
1. You break the law
2. You get sued and prosecuted
3. Your lawyer claims your infringement was Fair Use
4. If you are lucky, judge and jury agree.
"--So, Scientology, as a "religion" is allowed to maintain a copyright over its underlying dogma? Freaky!"
"Most of the scientology copyright cases I'm aware of in the past involved their actual documents, word for word, posted on websites."
It could be argued that in the case of a religion, where the writings contain "the word of god", there is no difference between an expression and it's underlying idea. If you change the text, it will no longer represent your god's opinion.
"Copyright was introduced to protect the financial interests of authors and composers; to allow them to earn a living by writing words or music."
Have you got any evidence to support this claim? I know a little bit about the history of copyright (the Stationers, the Statute of Anne, the US Constitution, the Berne Convention), but much of it is still dark to me. Especially, I know precious little about copyright on the European mainland.
"where does a copyright case fit into that"
See for instance Copyright on Religious Works.
Although copyright was invented to foster creativity, the method it uses is giving an author complete control. So anybody who wants complete control over an expression or an idea "merely" needs to pour it into a form that is copyrightable.
This works well with religious works, because a church will claim to know The Word of God. The copyrighted religious text is that word of God, and any deviation is heresy. Recasting of that word is only possible through the church.
"2. The material in question was not 'posted illegally'. It was part of a court file and the public could see it and/or ask for copies of it. The Dutch AG (and previous courts in this case) considers that fact sufficient to establish legal publication, hence quoting from it is allowed."
IIRC, and understood the verdict correctly, the previous court hinted that the publication might be illegal, but refused to pass verdict on that, because it wasn't necessary for their final "Free Speech" conclusion.
"Who did what to whom and how does this matter?"
It's the latest installment in a soap, and as in any other soap, if you haven't seen the previous episodes you won't know what's going on. But as in any other soap, that doesn't really matter.
The Supreme Court is about to rule on whether Karin Spaink broke the law when she quoted from Scientology's secret teachings.
Complicating matters was that
- a lot of people linked to the secret teachings, and CoS wanted a verdict that linking is illegal
- ISP's were supporting Spaink, and they wanted a verdict that their responsibility is limited (in the meantime the law has changed in this respect to a DMCA type affair, but worse)
- Scientology claimed the documents were unpublished (you are only allowed to quote from legally published
- A new European law states that copyright can be trumped when you have legitimate claims that you want to expose something or someone.
This is mostly from my memory, follow the links in the article if you want to know more.
These things matter, because they set precedent on how copyright should be treated on the internet.
"the Dutch AG supports Karen Spaink"
You are right. That was unclear. My apologies.
Spaink won the last case. Now it is up to the Supreme Court to either revert that decision or affirm it. The Supreme Court's advisor, the Attorney General, wants the court to affirm it.
In my defense I would like to plead that I used the recent invention of paragraphs to make the text more legible, but unfortunately they appear not to have survived the submission process, making the blurb harder to read.
This is the Supreme Court case. The battles from your earlier memories took place in lower courts. The advice from the Attorney General is the one-but last episode. (Although, knowing CoS, they will probably keep fighting Karin Spaink even after this particular case is over.)
Anyway, apart from what's at the core of this legal fight, what's also interesting here is how copyright law in the internet age gets redefined by judicial verdicts.
I used the translation provided by XS4All in their press release.
"Do you just run it and then leave or do you show them how to use it?"
It depends. Some people just don't want to be shown anything that looks remotely complicated, and figure they can just ask me again when it goes wrong next time; but most people I know are actually eager to keep their desktops clean and will display some interest in what I am doing.
Every once in a while I get a call from a less-technical friend or colleague who needs something "technical" done to their PC. Lately, and with an alarming frequency, the "something technical" involved cleaning the system of spyware. Anti-spyware tools only catch a certain percentage of the culprits, and often the less damaging ones. Running Adaware and S&D takes a few unattended minutes. Rooting out the rest of the malware can take hours.
Since I don't feel like wiping my friends bums for them all the time, one of the first preventive measures I take is to try and remove as many hooks into IE as possible, and install Firefox as the default browser. I am not sure this helps, but the way I figure it should at least diminish the number of "support calls" I get.
I think you are overestimating the amount of geeks out there. Sure, the first 3 or 4 percentage points of Firefox installations were probably done by those who know that there are other browsers out there. But the next 2 or 3 must have been regular users.
We cannot win _what_ like this? I wasn't aware there was a competition.
By what kind of right can APIs be burdened that you need to license them? Or put differently: using which law would Microsoft go after me if I used the API, but did not pay the license?
Yet another and typical attack on the GPL, by pretending it is something magical that somehow transcends copyright law and traditional licenses.
He who writes the code, owns the code. This ownership can be transfered by contract.
If Microsoft publishes Office, and Daimaou's employer purchases a license to Office, and Daimaou then changes the code of Office, this does not magically transfer ownership of Office from Microsoft to Daimaou's employer. The only way Daimaou's employer can obtain that ownership is by transfer of copyrights.
What Daimaou (or Daimaou's employer, in case of transfer) owns, is the stuff that Daimaou wrote.
I am surprised that Slashdot would purposely spread such a bit of FUD. I am saying purposely, because this type of FUD has been refuted on Slashdot many times before.
Oh, Cliff
Sometimes it must be difficult not to feel as if
You really are a Cliff
When fascists keep trying to push you over it
Are they the lemmings?
Or are you Cliff?
Or are you, Cliff?
"As the creator and copyright holder of the piece, I believe I have the right to say how it's used."
You also have the right to pay for an attorney to have a license drafted specifically for you.
What Creative Commons (supposedly) is trying to do, is create a commons. A commons is not really a commons if everybody builds fences in it. Non-Commercial is counterproductive to the goals of CC--that is why it is a pity that they allow it in the first place.
"I'd like to get this story from a source that's not named "Boing Boing" and doesn't use words like "sez" in their articles."
Well, if you asked perhaps you would get a link to that source, but then again, who is going to invest time in somebody who hides behind a ridiculous name like "sfjoe" and who signs his messages with "Buy Blue!!". I'd rather spend my time helping Condoleezza Rice. Maybe. Hell no!
"--"There is no signed contract, hence no agreement."
So we can say the same thing about MS license terms"
That is correct.
"I dont sign anything when I install windows, and we can use MS code whenever and wherever we want?"
That would be against the law.
Well put!
"copying software enough to run it is explicitly allowed by copyright law since 1990 or so"
I did not know that. Where does it say so in the law?
"Freedom is all well and good, but there is a time to TONE DOWN THE RHETORIC! so people will listen to you and not tune you out."
Except that the parent was talking about the ideological issues using the widespread marketing terms, and painted himself in the corner with them.