You have heard of the Free Software Foundation, right? Microsoft is irrelevant.
You seem to argue against yourself. First you describe the 'first sale' doctrine, then mention that it doesn't apply to software. Then you argue that software licenses violate the first sale doctrine. Huh?
A small note: the publisher referred to is "Charles Scribners' Sons", and is commonly called "Scribners"; not "Scribner and Sons".
(I still have Pyramid of Doom on cassette for my II+! Thanks for the magic machine, Woz)
1) Steve Jobs is a very good salesman. But old pictures from the Apple I days show him doing tech stuff. In your opinion, how much did he contribute to the technical side of Apple?
2) I've heard lots of incompatible stories about the Apple II Disk system. Who did which parts? Both the hardware and software side of the system.
3) The ROMS on my II's are stamped "(C) Microsoft". Did you think putting MS-BASIC in the system was a good idea? Or would you have rather stayed with your FP BASIC routines?
4) Where can I get a copy of the Red Book? I would really like to see your 11-byte music routine.
This whole deal is a rerun of the Betamax case. When the Betamax came out, the motion picture and television industries took up arms against it. I believe Disney spearheaded that case. Their arguments were essentially identical to the ones being made against DeCSS; "The only purpose this technology serves is to copy copyrighted material."
From our vantage point here in the 21st Century, we see that studios and production companies garner a sizeable portion of their income from video sales. And direct-to-video has saved projects that otherwise would have been total losses in theaters, if they weren't scrapped before that to cut distribution losses. So, far from ruining the film industry, the VCR has built a whole new market segment that generates a great deal of additional profit. I expect DVD-R will do the same thing. There is a good book on the Betamax case, "Fast Forward" that is well worth rereading in light of the DeCSS issue.
One issue I'd like to see tested in the courts, is the clause in US Title 18 that permits the owner of a copy of digital material to "make, or cause to be made, a copy, including an altered copy of the material for archival purposes". (Not an exact quote, and emphasis added). The 'altered copy' phrase has always struck me as applying to removing any copy protection. And, of course, I should be able to pay someone else to make that deprotected copy for me.
While all this is quite legal, I've never understood how the statute would create a 'right' to make copies, which ESR seems to think is being infringed. That is, there is nothing here that can be construed as forcing authors to provide their material in easy-to-copy format. It simply declares that if you can do it, it's not a crime.
(Anyone interested in opening a 'copy shop' to provide customers with legal, deprotected duplicates of their DVD's? I wonder what the DVD Association would say about that?)
Slashdot Mirror
You have heard of the Free Software Foundation, right? Microsoft is irrelevant.
You seem to argue against yourself. First you describe the 'first sale' doctrine, then mention that it doesn't apply to software. Then you argue that software licenses violate the first sale doctrine. Huh?
A small note: the publisher referred to is "Charles Scribners' Sons", and is commonly called "Scribners"; not "Scribner and Sons".
1) Steve Jobs is a very good salesman. But old pictures from the Apple I days show him doing tech stuff. In your opinion, how much did he contribute to the technical side of Apple?
2) I've heard lots of incompatible stories about the Apple II Disk system. Who did which parts? Both the hardware and software side of the system.
3) The ROMS on my II's are stamped "(C) Microsoft". Did you think putting MS-BASIC in the system was a good idea? Or would you have rather stayed with your FP BASIC routines?
4) Where can I get a copy of the Red Book? I would really like to see your 11-byte music routine.
From our vantage point here in the 21st Century, we see that studios and production companies garner a sizeable portion of their income from video sales. And direct-to-video has saved projects that otherwise would have been total losses in theaters, if they weren't scrapped before that to cut distribution losses. So, far from ruining the film industry, the VCR has built a whole new market segment that generates a great deal of additional profit. I expect DVD-R will do the same thing. There is a good book on the Betamax case, "Fast Forward" that is well worth rereading in light of the DeCSS issue.
One issue I'd like to see tested in the courts, is the clause in US Title 18 that permits the owner of a copy of digital material to "make, or cause to be made, a copy, including an altered copy of the material for archival purposes". (Not an exact quote, and emphasis added). The 'altered copy' phrase has always struck me as applying to removing any copy protection. And, of course, I should be able to pay someone else to make that deprotected copy for me.
While all this is quite legal, I've never understood how the statute would create a 'right' to make copies, which ESR seems to think is being infringed. That is, there is nothing here that can be construed as forcing authors to provide their material in easy-to-copy format. It simply declares that if you can do it, it's not a crime.
(Anyone interested in opening a 'copy shop' to provide customers with legal, deprotected duplicates of their DVD's? I wonder what the DVD Association would say about that?)