This post clearly shows that someone doesn't understand either the First-sale doctrine or the reason why libraries can lend out books and movies for free. I suggest no one listen to the nonsense he put out. The rental company has no right under the First-sale doctrine to rent the person's video if they had no permission to do so. Since this rental company is also clearly not a library they are not covered under the same protections afforded to such institutions. The AC, if their claim is real, should use his status as the copyright owner to stop this violation of his rights.
That rental company has no right to do that under the First-sale doctrine. If they are truly doing so you need to take action to stop them. It's funny that you tried to argue against the First-sale doctrine protections by providing an example of something that isn't protected by said doctrine. A rental company must have a contract with the copyright owner in order to rent out their copyrighted works.
And the same could be said when reselling books, movies, cds, etc. But it's been ruled we have a right to resell such things and it's about time the same thing was clarified for software. It's a shame if the company goes under, but they don't have a right to undermine the rights of the users.
He could do a check to see when it was modified last versus when the last version of the file was archived as a starting point to at least to weed out any files that are different do to modification not corruption. That should at least cover most cases and in the other cases it would definitely most likely require manual checking.
Exactly. All this company is doing is periodic credit report checks and to put a credit lock on the customers credit information. All of this the consumer can do on their own for a fraction of the cost and will be just as secure. But then again companies like LifeLock would rather you not know about these options since you no longer line their pockets.
Which highlights a huge hole in their service. Just imagine how many of their clients could have already been subjected to such a misuse of their personal information and they would have no idea about it because as the article says, they don't use one of the 3 credit reporting agencies when giving out the loan. You can just save yourself the money and just get credit lock from each of the credit reporting agencies and save yourself the monthly bill (which is also this service ends up being in the first place).
If copyright law suddenly disappeared, the GPL would not be legally binding anymore, would it? No, because you're acting as if a copyright and a software license are the same thing which they aren't. The copyright the author places on the work would go away, but the contract between the author and the user, the software license, would still be valid.
But calling OSS unlicensed IS dead wrong. It is FULLY licensed and that is what makes it OSS. Please quote where he said that OSS is unlicensed? Oh you mean he didn't? This is what he actually said:
We've positioned ourselves for what we see as the future of software - unlicensed software Other than by purposefully misinterpreting his statement, I see nowhere in there where he says any current piece of OSS is unlicensed. Is there some omission that isn't being shown?
So, either the AV company does the whitelist entirely (causing the AV companies to hold a lot of power), or the user can add things manually- which would lead to social engineering- "Make sure to add FunFreeScreenSaver.exe to your whitelist!" Or it can just be something like the list used in AdBlock for Firefox. Again, I'm seeing nothing in the quote saying you just blindly do just whatever some AV company tells you to do.
Now, as for a whitelist. Dumb idea. It puts too much power in the hands of AV companies (who can say "$$$ to get on the list!" or if users can change it, they'll get "IMPORTANT WINDOWS UPDATE- REMEMBER TO ADD TO YOUR WHITELIST!". What about unsigned programs? Updated versions?
A whitelist might work for children, for work PCs, for other non-administrators. But people ultimately want to install their own programs without the blessing of company XYZ. Huh? I've re-read the whitelist quote and I'm failing to see what this random rant has to do with what he is saying. Where in his statement did he say that you should just be a zombie and create a whitelist based on only what your AV company tells you?
I guess they don't really have the board volume to get low prices. But If you want a graphics card for $1500 that's probably less functional than an NVidia commodity card, I'm not gonna stop you. Because we all know that first generation prototypes are the most super powerful and cheap cards ever made.
Because it's a prototype card and not something meant to compete realistically with Nvidia and ATI.
The first short-term goal is to implement a prototype PCI graphics card dubbed OGD1 using a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) chip. Although this card will not be able to compete with existing graphics cards on the market performance- or functionality-wise, it will be useful as a tool for prototyping the first application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) board, as well as for other professionals needing programmable graphics cards or FPGA-based prototyping boards. It is hoped that this prototype will attract enough interest to gain some profit and attract investors for the next card, since it is expected to cost around $2,000,000 to start the production of a specialized ASIC design. Later AGP and PCI Express variations will follow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_graphics_project
If I had the money to spend I'd help support them because I'd love to see them get the money to build a truly open video card that could compete with it's modern rivals.
What I proposed might be used to take all the 2channel content and present it with useful moderation Then you've eliminated the whole appeal that 2channel has to it's user base. If the users wanted a site with moderation, they wouldn't post on 2channel in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
This post clearly shows that someone doesn't understand either the First-sale doctrine or the reason why libraries can lend out books and movies for free. I suggest no one listen to the nonsense he put out. The rental company has no right under the First-sale doctrine to rent the person's video if they had no permission to do so. Since this rental company is also clearly not a library they are not covered under the same protections afforded to such institutions. The AC, if their claim is real, should use his status as the copyright owner to stop this violation of his rights.
That rental company has no right to do that under the First-sale doctrine. If they are truly doing so you need to take action to stop them. It's funny that you tried to argue against the First-sale doctrine protections by providing an example of something that isn't protected by said doctrine. A rental company must have a contract with the copyright owner in order to rent out their copyrighted works.
And clearly Netflix, Blockbuster and Hollywood Video, etc have ravaged DVD sales!
And the same could be said when reselling books, movies, cds, etc. But it's been ruled we have a right to resell such things and it's about time the same thing was clarified for software. It's a shame if the company goes under, but they don't have a right to undermine the rights of the users.
He could do a check to see when it was modified last versus when the last version of the file was archived as a starting point to at least to weed out any files that are different do to modification not corruption. That should at least cover most cases and in the other cases it would definitely most likely require manual checking.
Score one for the little guy!
Maintaining a database of md5 checksum on the archived versions of the files and periodically check your live versions against it?
Exactly. All this company is doing is periodic credit report checks and to put a credit lock on the customers credit information. All of this the consumer can do on their own for a fraction of the cost and will be just as secure. But then again companies like LifeLock would rather you not know about these options since you no longer line their pockets.
Which highlights a huge hole in their service. Just imagine how many of their clients could have already been subjected to such a misuse of their personal information and they would have no idea about it because as the article says, they don't use one of the 3 credit reporting agencies when giving out the loan. You can just save yourself the money and just get credit lock from each of the credit reporting agencies and save yourself the monthly bill (which is also this service ends up being in the first place).
When all else fails call your opposition communists.
Because finding a motherboard with a pci slot is real hard? You do know that PCI-x is backwards compatible, right?
Yes. Steve Ballmer. He also throw a chair at me.
Good for you. I'm glad you shared this interesting anecdote with us.
But what if the person getting the BJ is gay you insensitive clod!
Does anyone else taste blue?