I didn't miss the point at all. Musicians are not benefitting from P2P, consumers are. P2P has no mechanism for limited dstribution of IP, period. Musicians will start by distributing a few songs on P2P in hopes of getting listenres interested and direct them to their website to purchae the album. Great so far, but the same mechanism which allows users to pirate music wholesale from the RIAA member companies will allow users to pirate wholesale the music from the musicians except the musicians will have even less clout to protect their work.
P2P services are NOT content providers, they are content distributors that bypass the content providers cut of the pie. The RIAA, or atleast their member companies, are the content providers.
Mr. Redding illegally distributed a coy of a movie, both in violation of copyright law and apparently an agreement with the studios. Copyright doesn't just cover copying a work you know.
"More than half of registered consumers say they're still getting unwanted calls, according to a recent phone survey."...was this phone survey unwanted as well? Nothing would be more ironic than an unwated phone survey about unwanted phone calls.
It amazes me (well not really, this is/. after all) that slashbots will take anything at face value as long as it proves their assertions. Where's the proof this guy is a Microsoft employee? Where's the proof the reader comments are from Microsoft employees? If either of these are true, would they make similar comments if they worked at some other large corporation? I'm not trying to defend Microsoft, I'm just pointing out a character flaw in the community.
"Devices that do video... have not been successful yet. No-one's figured out the right formula."...that Apple was the pinnacle of innovation. Are you trying to tell me that the innovative geniuses at Apple can't come up with the video player that everyone will want?
Nowhere in any of these definitons, legal or otherwise, has the term deprive been mentioned. For it to be stealing you simply must take with the intent to keep illegally. Have you taken the file? Yes, even though it's a copy you have taken the file none the less. Do you intend to keep the file illegally? If you were using a P2P app, it is arguable that you certainly intended to violate copyright law thus you are holding the file, albeit a copy, illegally.
"1. To take (personal property) illegally with the intent to keep it unlawfully"
Where in this definition is the personal property defined as being physical in nature? Copying a file is taking something and you are keeping it illegally since you have violated the right of the copyright owner to reproduce the work. If you offer the file for upload you have also violated the copyright owner's right of distribution. However, you look at it, copyright infringement can be considered stealing but I'd wager that the original poster was thinking in terms of the general use of the word, not the legal definition of stealing.
I believe Merriam Webster may disagree with you. Let's see, dictionary, jack ass on slashdot, who would you refer to concerning definitions of words?
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
transitive sense 1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
According to the transitive sense of the definition in 1b, one can have their liberty stolen yet liberty is not a physical object either. Let's just stick with the first definition though. Does it mention anywhere that the property must be physical? No, it doesn't, therefore intellectual property. would fall under this definition as well. Simply because you do not like the way a word is used does not mean it is being used improperly.
"I agree they are the same.. BUT, its not so much the software as it is the way OSX uses windows... i like the ability to see the desktop while using photoshop.. instead of a grey square... also another difference is that photoshop windows can use the entire screen on OSX as opposed to being restricted to the application window on Windows with the grey background... and in that, it is different.. theres simply more room to use on OSX"
I absolutely fricking hate that "feature" of OS X. fifty times a day at least I wind up missing a partially hidden window by a pixel when I try to select it and I lose focus of the application because I clicked the background (Finder) or an open Bridge window. Personally I'd rather have the background a neutral gray though without having to set my desktop background to a flat, drab gray.
Also, there's a near trick where you can actually change the color of the Photoshop application background in Windows without changing the color for all applications. First press F once to go into full creen mode with the toolbar. Then pick a color you want to use for your background and choose the paint bucket tool. The press shift and click on the area outside the image frame and voila.
Ummm, Photoshop is identical on MacOS and Windows. Trust me, I have a G5 at work and a Windows system at home and my versions of Photoshop are identical in look and functionality on both.
It has the Google logo, text box form element, submit button and a few links. That's not clean, it's sparse and there's a very big difference between the two. Not to mention that teh Google logo has bot to be one of the worst well known corporate logos ever. Not only is he logo dated but any page it adorns is dated as well.
"Looking at the screenshots I see bling being put before usability."
And you can determine usabilit from a screenshot how exactly? As far as you know, those new toolbars are automatically selected based on what's currently selected in the document. Since you haven't used the new Office suite I'd say you know next to nothing about its usability or the bling to usability ratio and any comments you may have are surely pulled straight from your ass. I guess you'd expect nothing less from a slashbot though.
As far as the Pages comparison, have you considered that Word has a lot more functionality that it has to expose through its UI and the floating palette may not be a good solution to the problem? Word for theMac did that, long before Pages by the way, and the UI, while good, was fairly cluttered.
First of all, every law is an artificial construct. Nature has only one rule, survival of the fittest. Anything else is just established to bring balance to those who are less fit to survive.
Second, Intellectual property rights are designed to grant copyright holders, many of which are individuals, the right to protect the expression of an idea. It is not designed to help companies make a profit.
So, I should lose my constitutional rights because of a shift in technology? Funny, technology makes it damn easy to keep track of people through spying on communications and the use of camera systems. Throw in RFID and you've got something there. Forget about your rights, technology has made them obsolete. Or was your argument meant to last only so far as you being able to get shit for free?
You're forgetting the biggest chack and balance of them all for the Supreme Court; Justices are appointed for life. Many justices have gone in believing one thing, politically speaking, and ended their careers on the opposite spectrum of belief simply because they can afford that luxury. They are not beholden to the whims of Congress or the President after they've been appointed.
But the GPL still has to explicitely tell the user they may use the software however they choose, they just don't go into great length to limit its use. However, distribution is still use EULAs and the GPL both set restriction son distribution. There is really no difference between the two document slegally, no matter how much you want there to be.
Wrong. it's a license, hence the L in GPL, that explicetely states what can be done with copyrighted works. The GPL is more of a what you can do with the work as long as you follow these rules and EULAs are more of a what you cannot do with these works but if you have the courts make EULAs unenforceable (not going to happen) than the GPL is no longre enforceable.
If you think the U.S. Miliitary and the Intelligence community (CIA, NSA) uses low-res satellite images you'd be sorely mistaken. You do realize their information doesn't come from Google Earth, right?
No, it's not a rental. You can do whatever you want with the physical media, including giving it away for free. You cannot do whatever you like with the content of the media however. Copyright limits what you can do with the content unless you pay for the rights to license the content. It really is that simple but for some reason many people want to complicate the issues with their armchair lawyering.
"I think that legalizes my copying, I already paid for it, didn't I??"
Legalizes? No. does it help you sleep better at night? Well, as long as you don't wet your bed, I guess this may help. What you paid for is the loss accrued by freeloaders of the system. people who think all digital content should be free. Thank them next time you meet one. I suggest a good swift kick in the balls, or should they not have any balls, an uppercut to the chin and kick them in the chest and/or stomach repeatedly when they are on the ground.
By the way, when you buy a CD, DVD, or other media you are purchasing the physical storage medium and paying for the cost to bring the media to market; marketing, distribution, replication, etc. What you are not paying for is the full rights to copy, distribute, make derivatives, or any of the other exclusive rights granted copyright holders.
Linux has fallen into common usage prior to Linus asserting rights to the trademark. Trademarks are an "enforce them or lose them" proposition and Linus, IMHO, let his trademark become too common to enforce now. If I were one of the companies he's extorting I'd try to have the mark made unenforceable due to its commonality and be done with it.
Besides, if the code's free, why isn't the mark? Shouldn't there be an OSS license to handle the trademark? As long as you agree to follow these basic ethical guidelines you may use this trademark for free. If you fail to act ethically, according to common OSS standards you are no longer permitted to use the trademark in association with your goods or services. Or something to that effect.
Then your daughter is a resident idiot, not an expert. You are more than welcome to quote me on that. The only problems I've ever had with my XBOX are with a handful of games. Morrowwind and GTA (all three) tend to get dirty disc errors very infrequently but it can be annoying when it happens. Pitfall had problems from the start. I've played from three different discs on multiple XBOX systems and all three have had serious problems being read. This leads me to believe the game was improperly burned to the disc or there's a problem with the game code itself.
As for the Halo comment, I have Halo 1 and 2 and am looking forward to the XBOX 360 and Halo 3 but I also got the XBOX because I knew the games would be more than your average anime crap the Japanese keep pushing out the door for the PS2 consoles. While I agree that the women in this genre of art are typically quite attractive, I don't get my jollies ogling them on the TV. I have a wide mix of FPS/TPS, RTS, platformer and RPG games. I'm looking forward to the crop of WWII inspired flight sims Heroes of the Pacific, Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII, and Battlestations: Midway. Starcraft: Ghost, if it's ever released, will do so on the XBOX or XBOX 360. I'm looking forward to playing a TPS based in the Starcraft world. XBOX games, when they are on the XBOX and PS2, are typically better than their PS2 counterparts and I've only found the occasional GC version rated as being better by the online reviewers. In short, the XBOX is far more than Halo/ Halo 2 despite them being a revolutionary game with large levels and no load screens except between missions and extremely fun to boot.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't miss the point at all. Musicians are not benefitting from P2P, consumers are. P2P has no mechanism for limited dstribution of IP, period. Musicians will start by distributing a few songs on P2P in hopes of getting listenres interested and direct them to their website to purchae the album. Great so far, but the same mechanism which allows users to pirate music wholesale from the RIAA member companies will allow users to pirate wholesale the music from the musicians except the musicians will have even less clout to protect their work.
P2P services are NOT content providers, they are content distributors that bypass the content providers cut of the pie. The RIAA, or atleast their member companies, are the content providers.
Mr. Redding illegally distributed a coy of a movie, both in violation of copyright law and apparently an agreement with the studios. Copyright doesn't just cover copying a work you know.
"More than half of registered consumers say they're still getting unwanted calls, according to a recent phone survey." ...was this phone survey unwanted as well? Nothing would be more ironic than an unwated phone survey about unwanted phone calls.
It amazes me (well not really, this is /. after all) that slashbots will take anything at face value as long as it proves their assertions. Where's the proof this guy is a Microsoft employee? Where's the proof the reader comments are from Microsoft employees? If either of these are true, would they make similar comments if they worked at some other large corporation? I'm not trying to defend Microsoft, I'm just pointing out a character flaw in the community.
"Devices that do video... have not been successful yet. No-one's figured out the right formula." ...that Apple was the pinnacle of innovation. Are you trying to tell me that the innovative geniuses at Apple can't come up with the video player that everyone will want?
Nowhere in any of these definitons, legal or otherwise, has the term deprive been mentioned. For it to be stealing you simply must take with the intent to keep illegally. Have you taken the file? Yes, even though it's a copy you have taken the file none the less. Do you intend to keep the file illegally? If you were using a P2P app, it is arguable that you certainly intended to violate copyright law thus you are holding the file, albeit a copy, illegally.
"1. To take (personal property) illegally with the intent to keep it unlawfully"
Where in this definition is the personal property defined as being physical in nature? Copying a file is taking something and you are keeping it illegally since you have violated the right of the copyright owner to reproduce the work. If you offer the file for upload you have also violated the copyright owner's right of distribution. However, you look at it, copyright infringement can be considered stealing but I'd wager that the original poster was thinking in terms of the general use of the word, not the legal definition of stealing.
I believe Merriam Webster may disagree with you. Let's see, dictionary, jack ass on slashdot, who would you refer to concerning definitions of words?
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
transitive sense
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
According to the transitive sense of the definition in 1b, one can have their liberty stolen yet liberty is not a physical object either. Let's just stick with the first definition though. Does it mention anywhere that the property must be physical? No, it doesn't, therefore intellectual property. would fall under this definition as well. Simply because you do not like the way a word is used does not mean it is being used improperly.
"I agree they are the same.. BUT, its not so much the software as it is the way OSX uses windows... i like the ability to see the desktop while using photoshop.. instead of a grey square... also another difference is that photoshop windows can use the entire screen on OSX as opposed to being restricted to the application window on Windows with the grey background... and in that, it is different.. theres simply more room to use on OSX"
I absolutely fricking hate that "feature" of OS X. fifty times a day at least I wind up missing a partially hidden window by a pixel when I try to select it and I lose focus of the application because I clicked the background (Finder) or an open Bridge window. Personally I'd rather have the background a neutral gray though without having to set my desktop background to a flat, drab gray.
Also, there's a near trick where you can actually change the color of the Photoshop application background in Windows without changing the color for all applications. First press F once to go into full creen mode with the toolbar. Then pick a color you want to use for your background and choose the paint bucket tool. The press shift and click on the area outside the image frame and voila.
Ummm, Photoshop is identical on MacOS and Windows. Trust me, I have a G5 at work and a Windows system at home and my versions of Photoshop are identical in look and functionality on both.
It has the Google logo, text box form element, submit button and a few links. That's not clean, it's sparse and there's a very big difference between the two. Not to mention that teh Google logo has bot to be one of the worst well known corporate logos ever. Not only is he logo dated but any page it adorns is dated as well.
If you had read the site you linked to you would note that there is an estimated shipping of 4-6 weeks.
"Looking at the screenshots I see bling being put before usability."
And you can determine usabilit from a screenshot how exactly? As far as you know, those new toolbars are automatically selected based on what's currently selected in the document. Since you haven't used the new Office suite I'd say you know next to nothing about its usability or the bling to usability ratio and any comments you may have are surely pulled straight from your ass. I guess you'd expect nothing less from a slashbot though.
As far as the Pages comparison, have you considered that Word has a lot more functionality that it has to expose through its UI and the floating palette may not be a good solution to the problem? Word for theMac did that, long before Pages by the way, and the UI, while good, was fairly cluttered.
First of all, every law is an artificial construct. Nature has only one rule, survival of the fittest. Anything else is just established to bring balance to those who are less fit to survive.
Second, Intellectual property rights are designed to grant copyright holders, many of which are individuals, the right to protect the expression of an idea. It is not designed to help companies make a profit.
So, I should lose my constitutional rights because of a shift in technology? Funny, technology makes it damn easy to keep track of people through spying on communications and the use of camera systems. Throw in RFID and you've got something there. Forget about your rights, technology has made them obsolete. Or was your argument meant to last only so far as you being able to get shit for free?
You're forgetting the biggest chack and balance of them all for the Supreme Court; Justices are appointed for life. Many justices have gone in believing one thing, politically speaking, and ended their careers on the opposite spectrum of belief simply because they can afford that luxury. They are not beholden to the whims of Congress or the President after they've been appointed.
But the GPL still has to explicitely tell the user they may use the software however they choose, they just don't go into great length to limit its use. However, distribution is still use EULAs and the GPL both set restriction son distribution. There is really no difference between the two document slegally, no matter how much you want there to be.
GPL is a copyright agreement, not a EULA.
Wrong. it's a license, hence the L in GPL, that explicetely states what can be done with copyrighted works. The GPL is more of a what you can do with the work as long as you follow these rules and EULAs are more of a what you cannot do with these works but if you have the courts make EULAs unenforceable (not going to happen) than the GPL is no longre enforceable.
If you think the U.S. Miliitary and the Intelligence community (CIA, NSA) uses low-res satellite images you'd be sorely mistaken. You do realize their information doesn't come from Google Earth, right?
No, it's not a rental. You can do whatever you want with the physical media, including giving it away for free. You cannot do whatever you like with the content of the media however. Copyright limits what you can do with the content unless you pay for the rights to license the content. It really is that simple but for some reason many people want to complicate the issues with their armchair lawyering.
"I think that legalizes my copying, I already paid for it, didn't I??"
Legalizes? No. does it help you sleep better at night? Well, as long as you don't wet your bed, I guess this may help. What you paid for is the loss accrued by freeloaders of the system. people who think all digital content should be free. Thank them next time you meet one. I suggest a good swift kick in the balls, or should they not have any balls, an uppercut to the chin and kick them in the chest and/or stomach repeatedly when they are on the ground.
By the way, when you buy a CD, DVD, or other media you are purchasing the physical storage medium and paying for the cost to bring the media to market; marketing, distribution, replication, etc. What you are not paying for is the full rights to copy, distribute, make derivatives, or any of the other exclusive rights granted copyright holders.
Linux has fallen into common usage prior to Linus asserting rights to the trademark. Trademarks are an "enforce them or lose them" proposition and Linus, IMHO, let his trademark become too common to enforce now. If I were one of the companies he's extorting I'd try to have the mark made unenforceable due to its commonality and be done with it.
Besides, if the code's free, why isn't the mark? Shouldn't there be an OSS license to handle the trademark? As long as you agree to follow these basic ethical guidelines you may use this trademark for free. If you fail to act ethically, according to common OSS standards you are no longer permitted to use the trademark in association with your goods or services. Or something to that effect.
Then your daughter is a resident idiot, not an expert. You are more than welcome to quote me on that. The only problems I've ever had with my XBOX are with a handful of games. Morrowwind and GTA (all three) tend to get dirty disc errors very infrequently but it can be annoying when it happens. Pitfall had problems from the start. I've played from three different discs on multiple XBOX systems and all three have had serious problems being read. This leads me to believe the game was improperly burned to the disc or there's a problem with the game code itself.
As for the Halo comment, I have Halo 1 and 2 and am looking forward to the XBOX 360 and Halo 3 but I also got the XBOX because I knew the games would be more than your average anime crap the Japanese keep pushing out the door for the PS2 consoles. While I agree that the women in this genre of art are typically quite attractive, I don't get my jollies ogling them on the TV. I have a wide mix of FPS/TPS, RTS, platformer and RPG games. I'm looking forward to the crop of WWII inspired flight sims Heroes of the Pacific, Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII, and Battlestations: Midway. Starcraft: Ghost, if it's ever released, will do so on the XBOX or XBOX 360. I'm looking forward to playing a TPS based in the Starcraft world. XBOX games, when they are on the XBOX and PS2, are typically better than their PS2 counterparts and I've only found the occasional GC version rated as being better by the online reviewers. In short, the XBOX is far more than Halo/ Halo 2 despite them being a revolutionary game with large levels and no load screens except between missions and extremely fun to boot.
...for most geeks is the port to recharge their laptop battery won't be much bigger than the current 1/8" headphone jacks.