Don't worry, Superman has stepped in...er, wheeled in, to save the day. He's testifying before congress about the use of genetic research for medical cures - specifically, no duh, spinal injuries.
The college classes using Photoshop are typically geared towards poeple who will in turn use the software in a professional setting. They must learn how to deal with color management, different color spaces when when touching up photographs or perhaps designing texture maps for 3D animations or games. If the industry is using Photoshop for image editing, professional design and 3D work, it makes sense to teach the students on tools they will be using in the near future.
Another example I've come across has been the use of Maya in a college setting. Why not teach 3D Studio MAX or SoftImage or use a free tool like Blender? Because Maya is an industry standard tool for 3D animation. While MAX and SoftImage are used extensively in the industry, Maya is more common and is taught because of this.
"Why buy a PhotoShop educational license when you can use GIMP for free and with no obligations? Why lock-in to properiatary apps?"
Because Photoshop supports many features REQUIRED by professional design and printing firms. Photoshop became the industry standard image editing application because it caters to the needs of the design community. Simply put, the GIMP does not.
First of all, Dr' Felton's little expirement did not fully remove IE from teh system. Basically it only removed the applicationIE but the rendering functionality still existed. When will this myth stop circulating around the internet? oops, I forgot, it won't, it's the internet - the utopia of gossip and rumor mongering. To put it bluntly, you might have recalled this, but it was incorrect, so no, you did not recall correctly.
Second, Apple includes a Dock in their OS. Should everyone else include a Dock then because another is doing so? They also use a PDF rendering system. Should all OSes then follow this method for creating their dispalys?
Perhaps you are wrong in assuming that the inclusion of the browser, or technically an HTML renderer, is not necessary for future OSes. Considering the impact the internet has had on communication I would say it is vital for OSes to include this level of functionality AT THE VERY LEAST. In fact, KDE is doing the same thing with Konquerer and the file manager.
How is this insightful? If it were insightful, the original poster would have known that Be could NOT have given the source code away because they licensed proprietary technology. In othe rwords, they did not own all the source code so they had no say in its release to the public. At least they offered a free version.
While I agree with you, your cited cases deal with third parties on a discussion forum. The original poster wondered f the editors themselves might be held accountable for libel. I don't think they could be considered third partied because of the manner in which this site operates. In a typical forum, people could begin threads whenever they choose. On Slashdot, editors moderate the submissions and many post their own commentary to the end of the story submission. I think the mix of moderating (picking which articles to post) and the added commentary might be enough to place the editors in the position of first party and thus accountable for libel.
This is fine until you have to continously relearn the computer UIs of various systems you might come in contact with. Proof of this is in the manner in which people will invariably forget passwords, bank account pin numbers and safe combinations. All are very similar UIs in that they are a series of alpha numeric characters in a set sequence of similar length (though PIN numbers are often the shortest). The more of each of these required to be memorized, the greater the likelihood that one will fail because while the UIs are similar, they are not consistent or the same. This is not to say that they shoudl necessarily be the same, but as a counter to your argument, it works.
Perhaps they should cap the mp3 and video traffic then? When I was in college, we went to learn, not to violate copyright. Socializing meant keggers, bars and bands not IRC. Then again, I studied recording industry management (technology - audio engineering), not computer science.
"And if you manage to survive all that, well, there's Microsoft to steal your technology and shut you down. Anyone remember Lotus, Novell, and Netscape?"
Actually, Lotus is still around, Novell just released a new product to compete with Active Directory and Netscape has finally released a new browser after four years. Ironic that it's taken Microsoft encrouching on others territory to force them to compete. Novell would have wallowed around for a while longer before deciding they might want to reconsider developing a new product. Lotus has beenforced to improve their abhorrent Notes platform to better compete with Exchange. Netscape, well, AOL bought it for the name recognition and has failed to truly deliver a decent web browser; point to you here.
OK, consider yourself corrected. Microsoft has been developing a 64-bit version of their Windows XP servers in sync with the 32-bit versions. They have been tested and do run on the Itanium line of processors. I'm not sure what the support for SledgeHammer will be because that would necessitate a large undertaking to either update the x86-32 Windows XP to x86-64 or to convert the IA-64 version of Windows XP over to x86-64 so it will work on the SledgeHammer processors. Microsoft may have to do this anyway(and could very well have started this process) as Intel is developing a SledgeHammer x86-64 compatible CPU in case McKinley doesn't do as well as hoped.
...but don't you think it quite ironic, nay hypocritical, that many here cry foul when anyone suggests violating the GPL yet when anyone violates another's copyrights many here cheer? Little do you know that without copyrights your GPL becomes unenforcable. Before you condemn thers for wishing to control their work, think about what you're doing when you place the GPL on your software.
The reason for this law is to keep the noise ratio down. Can you imagine the task the Secret Service would have if they had to track down and investigate each and every case like yours? By prohibiting speech against our President (not just Bush Jr.), the noise ratio can be kept down to a minimum and the Secret Service and FBI can investigate the more imminent threats.
Re:Great... Content Control Features For Creators?
on
Photoshop for OS X
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
PDF content protection is intended, in this regard, for distribution amongst work groups in geographically distant loactions or even to make distribution between clients and designers easier. I can safely send a client a file in Photoshop.pdf with a pre-determined passsword we agree to. This way if someone not approved to view the images were to obtain them, perhaps a competitor working with the design firm (don't laugh - it happens) were to get a hold of the new ad then there could be serious reprecussions both to the client and the design firm. This will allow designers to use the web as a means of client contact thus streamlining the design process. This is an excellent feature that myself, and many designers, welcome openly. Personally, many of us couldn't care less what the Slashdot crowd thinks.
It can ultimately harm the quality of their product. Blizzard has gone to great lengths to try to limit cheating, PK'ing and general misfits from ruining an otherwise enjoyable game. While they are not perfect, they control what the players can get away with. If a new cheat is discovered, they can close it. They cannot force BNETD, or any other server hosting their games in this manner, to patch cheats and issues with user interaction, thus potentially harming the quality of the game and in turn the number of players usingthe service. Remember, in the minds of most people, they will blame Blizzard for these problems, not BNETD.
Actually, record labels do have a sort of R&D. It's calles A&R. They go out and look for new talent by scouting local night clubs and favorit watering holes of the college students.
IANAL, but assuming a warrant has been obtained, if the e-mail is already in the inbox during the course of their search, or subsequent searches, of the suspects home or business then it should be considered regular mail as if it were sitting on the table or in the mailbox. If the law enforcement officers monitor future e-mail, or try to receive new e-mail during the course of their search or subsequent searches of the suspects home or business then a wiretap order should be obtained in addition to a wiretap. If the computer can be legally confiscated during the coure of the investigation the law enforcement officers should obtain a wiretap before monitoring e-mail but this should be a rubber stamp approval because if the computer is in the original warrant then there is suspicion of illegal activity focused on the computer in question and e-mail will likely be a reason for confiscating the compuyer in the first place during the course of serving the warrant.
Agsin, IANAL, I just think this would be the best approach to the issue.
To the contrary, much of the gorundwork for blues and jazz in America was from these "dirtfarmers". In fact, music was their form of entertainment in the evenings. You do realize they didn't have computers, televisions and radio back then don't you?
You can bypass distribution, you cannot bypass recording and marketing costs. I don't know about you but I know very few independently wealthy artists who are just starting out.
I realize they don't write the law, they only "make" the laws by interpreting the laws written by Congress or the President. But yeah, this isn't a bad idea as it allows for the copyright terms to remain as long as a third party can't prove the public can actually benefit from releasing the intellectual property to the public domain. This forces people to question whether the public actually benefits from a realistic perspective, not from a "pie in the sky" theoretical point of view.
Even if Disney loses their copyright to Mickey Mouse, they surely must hold a trademark on Mickey Mouse. As trademarks do not expire, though they have to be guarded more closely, Disney should have an eternal "copyright" on Mickey Mouse as long as he is used as the symbol for the Disney corporation or any properties they own (Disney World, Disney Land, etc.)
First, the Supreme Court could just as easily side with Copyright holders making the current extension of Copyright legitimate. Many fail to face this reality, assuming their "moral high ground" argument will automatically win the case for them.
Second, when the original framers of the Constitution wrote the copyright clause, 28 years was a lifetime. The average life expectancy wasn't that long and assuming you didn't actually have the funding to create your inventions, scientific discoveries, author books or songs, or paint pictures until you were 30, add 28 years to this and you might expect to live 10 years without copyright protection. Put in this light, the copyright extensions isn't that much of a stretch, we just happen to live longer.
If the Supreme Court sides against copyright holders, it STILL won't be a boon for applications like Napster given that the material transferred over these networks was generally current works and applications, images and music sent over other peer to peer networks would still be protected under original copyright provisions. This will NOT be a free for all, grab the intellectual property you want some here seem to be making it out to be.
My proposal would be to keep the extensions but make them renewable every 15 years after the first 45 or death of the author, whichever comes first. At the beginning of each renewal period, if it can be shown by a third party that the works are no longer profitable and releasing them into the public domain is the only recourse to ensuring the works will be around for the public to benefit from in the future then the works are released.
By placing the burden on third parties to argue for the public, this will hopefully alleviate the pressure on the legal system as each and every copyright will not likely be contested, only the ones there is a strong case for the public to benefit from. After the current copyright period is up (life + 70) there can no longer be any extensions and the intellectual property will be released to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, Superman has stepped in...er, wheeled in, to save the day. He's testifying before congress about the use of genetic research for medical cures - specifically, no duh, spinal injuries.
The college classes using Photoshop are typically geared towards poeple who will in turn use the software in a professional setting. They must learn how to deal with color management, different color spaces when when touching up photographs or perhaps designing texture maps for 3D animations or games. If the industry is using Photoshop for image editing, professional design and 3D work, it makes sense to teach the students on tools they will be using in the near future.
Another example I've come across has been the use of Maya in a college setting. Why not teach 3D Studio MAX or SoftImage or use a free tool like Blender? Because Maya is an industry standard tool for 3D animation. While MAX and SoftImage are used extensively in the industry, Maya is more common and is taught because of this.
"Why buy a PhotoShop educational license when you can use GIMP for free and with no obligations? Why lock-in to properiatary apps?"
Because Photoshop supports many features REQUIRED by professional design and printing firms. Photoshop became the industry standard image editing application because it caters to the needs of the design community. Simply put, the GIMP does not.
First of all, Dr' Felton's little expirement did not fully remove IE from teh system. Basically it only removed the applicationIE but the rendering functionality still existed. When will this myth stop circulating around the internet? oops, I forgot, it won't, it's the internet - the utopia of gossip and rumor mongering. To put it bluntly, you might have recalled this, but it was incorrect, so no, you did not recall correctly.
Second, Apple includes a Dock in their OS. Should everyone else include a Dock then because another is doing so? They also use a PDF rendering system. Should all OSes then follow this method for creating their dispalys?
Perhaps you are wrong in assuming that the inclusion of the browser, or technically an HTML renderer, is not necessary for future OSes. Considering the impact the internet has had on communication I would say it is vital for OSes to include this level of functionality AT THE VERY LEAST. In fact, KDE is doing the same thing with Konquerer and the file manager.
How is this insightful? If it were insightful, the original poster would have known that Be could NOT have given the source code away because they licensed proprietary technology. In othe rwords, they did not own all the source code so they had no say in its release to the public. At least they offered a free version.
While I agree with you, your cited cases deal with third parties on a discussion forum. The original poster wondered f the editors themselves might be held accountable for libel. I don't think they could be considered third partied because of the manner in which this site operates. In a typical forum, people could begin threads whenever they choose. On Slashdot, editors moderate the submissions and many post their own commentary to the end of the story submission. I think the mix of moderating (picking which articles to post) and the added commentary might be enough to place the editors in the position of first party and thus accountable for libel.
This is fine until you have to continously relearn the computer UIs of various systems you might come in contact with. Proof of this is in the manner in which people will invariably forget passwords, bank account pin numbers and safe combinations. All are very similar UIs in that they are a series of alpha numeric characters in a set sequence of similar length (though PIN numbers are often the shortest). The more of each of these required to be memorized, the greater the likelihood that one will fail because while the UIs are similar, they are not consistent or the same. This is not to say that they shoudl necessarily be the same, but as a counter to your argument, it works.
Perhaps they should cap the mp3 and video traffic then? When I was in college, we went to learn, not to violate copyright. Socializing meant keggers, bars and bands not IRC. Then again, I studied recording industry management (technology - audio engineering), not computer science.
Really? I can't imagine a more widely avialable way to waste hard drive space. As an OS is a tool, pick the one you need.
"And if you manage to survive all that, well, there's Microsoft to steal your technology and shut you down. Anyone remember Lotus, Novell, and Netscape?"
Actually, Lotus is still around, Novell just released a new product to compete with Active Directory and Netscape has finally released a new browser after four years. Ironic that it's taken Microsoft encrouching on others territory to force them to compete. Novell would have wallowed around for a while longer before deciding they might want to reconsider developing a new product. Lotus has beenforced to improve their abhorrent Notes platform to better compete with Exchange. Netscape, well, AOL bought it for the name recognition and has failed to truly deliver a decent web browser; point to you here.
OK, consider yourself corrected. Microsoft has been developing a 64-bit version of their Windows XP servers in sync with the 32-bit versions. They have been tested and do run on the Itanium line of processors. I'm not sure what the support for SledgeHammer will be because that would necessitate a large undertaking to either update the x86-32 Windows XP to x86-64 or to convert the IA-64 version of Windows XP over to x86-64 so it will work on the SledgeHammer processors. Microsoft may have to do this anyway(and could very well have started this process) as Intel is developing a SledgeHammer x86-64 compatible CPU in case McKinley doesn't do as well as hoped.
...but don't you think it quite ironic, nay hypocritical, that many here cry foul when anyone suggests violating the GPL yet when anyone violates another's copyrights many here cheer? Little do you know that without copyrights your GPL becomes unenforcable. Before you condemn thers for wishing to control their work, think about what you're doing when you place the GPL on your software.
The reason for this law is to keep the noise ratio down. Can you imagine the task the Secret Service would have if they had to track down and investigate each and every case like yours? By prohibiting speech against our President (not just Bush Jr.), the noise ratio can be kept down to a minimum and the Secret Service and FBI can investigate the more imminent threats.
PDF content protection is intended, in this regard, for distribution amongst work groups in geographically distant loactions or even to make distribution between clients and designers easier. I can safely send a client a file in Photoshop .pdf with a pre-determined passsword we agree to. This way if someone not approved to view the images were to obtain them, perhaps a competitor working with the design firm (don't laugh - it happens) were to get a hold of the new ad then there could be serious reprecussions both to the client and the design firm. This will allow designers to use the web as a means of client contact thus streamlining the design process. This is an excellent feature that myself, and many designers, welcome openly. Personally, many of us couldn't care less what the Slashdot crowd thinks.
You don't get to click, you agree to the copyright provisons by purchasing the album. Don't a moronic troll.
It can ultimately harm the quality of their product. Blizzard has gone to great lengths to try to limit cheating, PK'ing and general misfits from ruining an otherwise enjoyable game. While they are not perfect, they control what the players can get away with. If a new cheat is discovered, they can close it. They cannot force BNETD, or any other server hosting their games in this manner, to patch cheats and issues with user interaction, thus potentially harming the quality of the game and in turn the number of players usingthe service. Remember, in the minds of most people, they will blame Blizzard for these problems, not BNETD.
Actually, record labels do have a sort of R&D. It's calles A&R. They go out and look for new talent by scouting local night clubs and favorit watering holes of the college students.
This is great but Microsoft uses a proprietary design on their USB plugs.
IANAL, but assuming a warrant has been obtained, if the e-mail is already in the inbox during the course of their search, or subsequent searches, of the suspects home or business then it should be considered regular mail as if it were sitting on the table or in the mailbox. If the law enforcement officers monitor future e-mail, or try to receive new e-mail during the course of their search or subsequent searches of the suspects home or business then a wiretap order should be obtained in addition to a wiretap. If the computer can be legally confiscated during the coure of the investigation the law enforcement officers should obtain a wiretap before monitoring e-mail but this should be a rubber stamp approval because if the computer is in the original warrant then there is suspicion of illegal activity focused on the computer in question and e-mail will likely be a reason for confiscating the compuyer in the first place during the course of serving the warrant.
Agsin, IANAL, I just think this would be the best approach to the issue.
To the contrary, much of the gorundwork for blues and jazz in America was from these "dirtfarmers". In fact, music was their form of entertainment in the evenings. You do realize they didn't have computers, televisions and radio back then don't you?
You can bypass distribution, you cannot bypass recording and marketing costs. I don't know about you but I know very few independently wealthy artists who are just starting out.
I realize they don't write the law, they only "make" the laws by interpreting the laws written by Congress or the President. But yeah, this isn't a bad idea as it allows for the copyright terms to remain as long as a third party can't prove the public can actually benefit from releasing the intellectual property to the public domain. This forces people to question whether the public actually benefits from a realistic perspective, not from a "pie in the sky" theoretical point of view.
Even if Disney loses their copyright to Mickey Mouse, they surely must hold a trademark on Mickey Mouse. As trademarks do not expire, though they have to be guarded more closely, Disney should have an eternal "copyright" on Mickey Mouse as long as he is used as the symbol for the Disney corporation or any properties they own (Disney World, Disney Land, etc.)
First, the Supreme Court could just as easily side with Copyright holders making the current extension of Copyright legitimate. Many fail to face this reality, assuming their "moral high ground" argument will automatically win the case for them.
Second, when the original framers of the Constitution wrote the copyright clause, 28 years was a lifetime. The average life expectancy wasn't that long and assuming you didn't actually have the funding to create your inventions, scientific discoveries, author books or songs, or paint pictures until you were 30, add 28 years to this and you might expect to live 10 years without copyright protection. Put in this light, the copyright extensions isn't that much of a stretch, we just happen to live longer.
If the Supreme Court sides against copyright holders, it STILL won't be a boon for applications like Napster given that the material transferred over these networks was generally current works and applications, images and music sent over other peer to peer networks would still be protected under original copyright provisions. This will NOT be a free for all, grab the intellectual property you want some here seem to be making it out to be.
My proposal would be to keep the extensions but make them renewable every 15 years after the first 45 or death of the author, whichever comes first. At the beginning of each renewal period, if it can be shown by a third party that the works are no longer profitable and releasing them into the public domain is the only recourse to ensuring the works will be around for the public to benefit from in the future then the works are released.
By placing the burden on third parties to argue for the public, this will hopefully alleviate the pressure on the legal system as each and every copyright will not likely be contested, only the ones there is a strong case for the public to benefit from. After the current copyright period is up (life + 70) there can no longer be any extensions and the intellectual property will be released to the public.
Well, duh. But if I'm to be hit, I'd prefer the quick and painless laser burning me to a fina ash over being riddled with various caliber rounds :)