You can rest assurred that if i buy a computer from Dell that the price goes down later THAT SAME DAY that i'm going to be pist and that i'm going to want the difference back.
Yeah, I bought 100 shares of Yahoo back when it was $150/share, and the next day they lowered it to $100/share. I was very pissed and I called up my broker and told him I wanted the difference back, but he told me there was nothing I could do. Needless to say I never went with *that* broker again.
Because more people will buy at a lower price than a higher price. You'd really like to fill the entire space under the price-demand curve, rather than the rectangle delimited by a single price point. That's why hardcover books sell at a premium, and that's why hardcover books come out before the paperback version. What you're *really* paying for is the earlyness, not the hard cover. It's called "price differentiation".
And it is closely related to "price discrimination", which is illegal under Robinson-Patman. Price discrimination is when you charge different prices to different individuals without having different costs. Amazon would likely have been guilty of this. Booksellers are selling different products, and have (admittedly slightly) higher costs to print hardcover books. But booksellers are given a statutory monopoly anyway (copyright), so pure anti-monopolistic laws don't really apply. As for IBM/Compaq/Dell, they are merely modifying prices for *everyone*, something which they already did anyway, it just wasn't automated and as often.
No, it is fraud already to offer a deal and then switch that deal to a worse one after the offer has been accepted. It is called "bait and switch", and is generally done by sellers, who advertise a product and then when you come to the store they are all out of that product but have a "newer, better" one available at a slightly higher price. Even if you agree to the new price, it is still fraud if they did not advertise the product as "limited supply".
Higher temperatures cause a higher cost to run the machines which keep the soda cold, so actually, supply is based in part on weather. Also, faster soda purchases require more storage space and more frequent monitoring of levels of supply within the machines. This also increases the cost. As long as there is no restriction from you buying your soda somewhere else, and taking it with you, this is perfectly legitimate. You are paying extra for the convenience of having soda available at your whim, which other people have loaded into the machine in the hot sun.
Gouging can only happen when there's a monopoly. While I can understand calling it gouging when a baseball stadium charges rediculous prices and doesn't allow you to bring your own food/drinks, most parks I know do not have such strict rules.
I had the same thing happen to me. Got beaten up, and got suspended for it. And you know what, I learned really quickly how not to taunt people who are bigger and stronger than I. Had the bully been the only one punished, I probably would have felt self-righteous about the whole incident and continued to be a dick. Well, I did continue to be a dick, but a lot less of a dick, I learned the limits and a lot about how to get along with other people.
America seems to be getting discipline backward. Schools are there to enforce rules, not to baby kids. The boy's parents should have explained to him that sometimes teachers and principals make rules that are unfair, taught the boy how to get along with society, let him know that he wasn't going to go to jail, and let him know that they (his parents, not the school) were there to support him. The whole institution of the family is based on that principle. Teachers can't love every student and know them personally, only parents can do that. Suspensions don't mean shit if your parents don't punish you on top of it.
And so there's no fair use when you copy and republish the entire work.
Well, now, this is interesting. A phone book can't be copied, because it lacks originality. It is basically a compilation of facts. So presumably, you couldn't copyright a law. But, this was copyrighted before it became a law. I think most people would agree that things can't automatically become uncopyrighted because they become a law. Otherwise, a small little town could make a law saying for instance "You must read the following text:" followed by the complete text of say a new Stephen King novel. I think most people would agree that that would not make the Stephen King novel public domain, especially not for national/international publication.
I can't come up with a situation where you can copy and republish an entire work and it still fall under fair use.
I think there's a good chance the supreme court will take this case, and it'll be interesting to see the ruling.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
How can this type of thing be allowed to happen? If the GPL isn't published how would anyone ever know that this exist [sic]. It is so wrong to think that we as free software users are supposed to follow license agreements that we can't even ready [sic]. Any court that upholds this kind of thing must be funny in the head.
"For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
Sounds like everyone who contributed data to CDDB under the terms of the GPL has a right to sue them for copyright infringement.
And how exactly is freedb a derivative of CDDB? As far as I know everything's been re-entered from scratch into it; there's never been a public copy of CDDB available to have been somehow copied by the freedb folks.
This will be fairly easy to demonstrate legally. Simply analyse the databases, especially mispellings and incorrect information, and see how closely they match. If there are a lot of mispellings and other incorrect data which match, chances are very high (statistically) that they either stole the data or got it from the same original source. If they can't say what that same original source is, they probably broke the law.
Whether the law is right depends on whether you think it should be legal to "steal" information. Personally, I think it should not be. Economics relies on competition, and copyright and other intellectual properties laws are monopolies by definition. If CDDB wants to protect the data, have them establish direct account, with limits, and poisoned data, and non-disclosure agreements.
psst.. don't tell them it can be obtained by going into a cd store... shhhhh.
So go to a cd store, type in all the information yourself, and give it away for free. If it's so easy to get the information why is CDDB the only one who did the work to actually do it?
You may transfer ownership of the disk without in any way transfering license to USE the software, much as you may transfer ownership of a car without transfering your license to drive it.
"A copyright is the exclusive right granted to 'authors' under the U.S. Copyright Act to copy, adapt, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display their works of authorship." So, actually, you have it completely backward. Copyright law applies to your distribution of the work, not to your use of the work. Of course, loading it onto your computer or into memory is considered copying.
Microsoft would win hands down. Getting Stallman to debate against Microsoft's marketing droids would be like watching Nader debating against Bush. No, GPL will win out if and when it creates a better product. Which is not to say that the best product always wins, but if the best product happens to also be free and open. It's going to take more than just corporations to stop it.
Now if this same attitude holds in the cases of documentary film or photojournalism (in which the presence of copyrighted works is wholly incidental), then I'd say we have a copyright system that is overly strong.
Primarily newsworthy purposes fall under fair use, especially when the use is incidental, and doesn't impact the market for the original work. (Since there is no market for the GPL, it would be interesting to see how damages could be claimed).
I had a Latitude back in October when they went through the first recall. Battery died, even though it was probably fine, so I put in a brand new one. Sure enough, there was a loud crack and smoke started coming out of the machine. I didn't see any flames but I blew on it inside the fan part and the smoke eventually stopped. Machine started working after that, and I managed to ethernet it to my desktop and take everything off, then handed it in to my IT department.
You own the copyright on a derivative work. True, you must license that derivative work under the GPL, but that doesn't restrict you from also licensing the derivative work under the BSD licence. Then a third party can take that work which you licensed under the BSD license and create a derivative work based on that. This eliminates them from having to distribute the work under the GPL, as they never agreed to the GPL, only to the BSD license.
i think this is a far cry from some play by play (which, AFAIK, isn't copyright infringement).
It is much closer to play by play than it is to just the scores. Whether or not that is copyright infringement is still somewhat of an open question. As far as I know though, radio broadcasts of a game are licensed. Why wouldn't someone just watch the game on tv, and make their own broadcast? One key question which I don't know is whether or not Yahoo obtained a license for the Yahoo Sports applet which updates a sporting event in real-time. But anyway, fair enough, I withdraw this analogy (but I think the analogy to sports scores is even worse).
1) Anyone who is getting these tabs is usually getting them for personal use. They'll either use them to play when they're bored, or they'll play them when friends come over for shits ang giggles. That, my friend, is definitely fair use. Unless, of course, there is something sinister about playing covers for your friends, and, dear god, not charging them for your private show.
From what I read, they are not trying to stop the people getting the tabs, they are trying to stop the people distributing them. This is almost always commercial use. Take OLGA, for instance. Selling T-Shirts, displaying ads at the top of the page. Don't you think the artists should get a part of this revenue?
Playing covers for your friends, if you don't charge your friends to play the covers, is generally fair use.
2) Any half-way competent guitarist should be able to figure out any song without use of tablature.
If you can figure it out yourself, then you don't need the tablature.
3. Most importantly, these songs were "reverse engineered" so to speak. 99.9% of the tab you see on places like the OLGA weren't written by anyone who had anything to do with the music industry. They were written by average joes like you and me who decided to help others out. They weren't, and aren't, doing anything more than providing easy instructions for a product that doesn't come with an instruction manual.
Reverse engineered products are legal in a very specific instance. One person looks at the code, then tells a second person about the code, without telling them the exact code. For your analogy to work, one person would listen to the music, then would tell a second person about the music, without telling them the exact chords. That is not what is happening here.
In that sense, the music industry is trying to outlaw do-it-yourself manuals. Why don't we just take the next step and outlaw Chilton's car guides and Time-Life Home Improvement books.
Fixing your car or your house is not a protected form of expression.
Quick personal note: When art forms an industry, and decides to make the public pay for its use, it ceases to be art. Art is that which enriches your soul for no greater price than that of your time.
Well, personally, I think that's bullshit. Art is important, and wanting to be able to afford to live in a house and eat is acceptable. I'm pretty sure that tablature is one of the few items generally owned by the artists themselves, not some record company. Forming an industry is what allows the artists to get paid *and* them not having to charge each person individually by themselves. I'd be all for a statutory licence of lyrics and tablature which works in the same way as one for public performances. Because they are not "broadcast", this is not "public display", and would presumably fall under mechanical licensing. This charges a per minute per copy fee. If instead they made a statutory license on a percentage of (usually ad) revenue basis, this would make a lot more sense, since "copies" are generally free and unlimited. I don't want to stop the spread of guitar tablature. But when sites like OLGA come up and try to profit off what is essentially a compilation of other people's work, I have no sympathy for them. This is mainly a fight between ASCAP et. al. against Harry Fox et. al. I think *most* people would agree that the artist should share in the revenues of OLGA, they would only argue about how and under what terms.
I could have sworn I saw a case previously which held that giving a play by play account of a sporting event over the radio was copyright infringement. Also, I know that sporting events broadcast over television always say that unauthorized "descriptions or accounts" of the game are prohibited. Of course, that doesn't make it true, just because they said it.
In any case, I just found the Motorola case, and you are 100% correct, at least under the jurisdiction of the second circuit court of appeals.
I wonder how this would apply to factual content such as the imdb database, for instance.
No, it's more like outlawing sports spectators from giving a play by play account of a sporting event. Which, guess what, that's copyright infringement.
Pardon me for being clueless... but if you don't have jurisdiction there... then you have NO legal right to do that, meaning you BROKE THE LAW. Just because it's another country doesn't whitewash it!
Maybe, maybe not. If the U.S. and Russia already had an agreement to take that property, but the Russians were refusing to give it up, the U.S. had four options: go to an international committee (isn't going to accomplish anything), start a war over it, go in and take the information anyway, or let the Russians bully them around. If the Russians were under agreement to share the information, the U.S. made the best choice. If not, the U.S. better watch it's ass, because one of these days the rest of the world is going to get pissed off enough get together and teach us a lesson. China and Japan are already pissed off enough, and we never had very good relations with Russia. The Euro strongly ties the European Union together, but at least for now, they're pretty much on our side.
This was not in the IP options section, it was in the TOS section.
These are probably not routers.
Standards don't mean shit.
From RFC 2481: "Because of the unstable history of the TOS octet, the use of the ECN field as specified in this document cannot be guaranteed to be backwards compatible with all past uses of these two bits."
In RFC 791, the bits in question are shown set to zero.
If a firewall doesn't understand a packet, and wants to protect a server behind it, it should drop the packet. Better for an experimental user to not be able to reach a site than for a system to be crashed or hacked.
Sure, the devices which fail should be updated, as this is now going to become somewhat common. If they are firewalls, and they are good ones, they've probably already notified someone of the increase in dropped packets of this type, and the solution is already in the works.
Slashdot Mirror
You can rest assurred that if i buy a computer from Dell that the price goes down later THAT SAME DAY that i'm going to be pist and that i'm going to want the difference back.
Yeah, I bought 100 shares of Yahoo back when it was $150/share, and the next day they lowered it to $100/share. I was very pissed and I called up my broker and told him I wanted the difference back, but he told me there was nothing I could do. Needless to say I never went with *that* broker again.
Because more people will buy at a lower price than a higher price. You'd really like to fill the entire space under the price-demand curve, rather than the rectangle delimited by a single price point. That's why hardcover books sell at a premium, and that's why hardcover books come out before the paperback version. What you're *really* paying for is the earlyness, not the hard cover. It's called "price differentiation".
And it is closely related to "price discrimination", which is illegal under Robinson-Patman. Price discrimination is when you charge different prices to different individuals without having different costs. Amazon would likely have been guilty of this. Booksellers are selling different products, and have (admittedly slightly) higher costs to print hardcover books. But booksellers are given a statutory monopoly anyway (copyright), so pure anti-monopolistic laws don't really apply. As for IBM/Compaq/Dell, they are merely modifying prices for *everyone*, something which they already did anyway, it just wasn't automated and as often.
No, it is fraud already to offer a deal and then switch that deal to a worse one after the offer has been accepted. It is called "bait and switch", and is generally done by sellers, who advertise a product and then when you come to the store they are all out of that product but have a "newer, better" one available at a slightly higher price. Even if you agree to the new price, it is still fraud if they did not advertise the product as "limited supply".
Higher temperatures cause a higher cost to run the machines which keep the soda cold, so actually, supply is based in part on weather. Also, faster soda purchases require more storage space and more frequent monitoring of levels of supply within the machines. This also increases the cost. As long as there is no restriction from you buying your soda somewhere else, and taking it with you, this is perfectly legitimate. You are paying extra for the convenience of having soda available at your whim, which other people have loaded into the machine in the hot sun.
Gouging can only happen when there's a monopoly. While I can understand calling it gouging when a baseball stadium charges rediculous prices and doesn't allow you to bring your own food/drinks, most parks I know do not have such strict rules.
I had the same thing happen to me. Got beaten up, and got suspended for it. And you know what, I learned really quickly how not to taunt people who are bigger and stronger than I. Had the bully been the only one punished, I probably would have felt self-righteous about the whole incident and continued to be a dick. Well, I did continue to be a dick, but a lot less of a dick, I learned the limits and a lot about how to get along with other people.
America seems to be getting discipline backward. Schools are there to enforce rules, not to baby kids. The boy's parents should have explained to him that sometimes teachers and principals make rules that are unfair, taught the boy how to get along with society, let him know that he wasn't going to go to jail, and let him know that they (his parents, not the school) were there to support him. The whole institution of the family is based on that principle. Teachers can't love every student and know them personally, only parents can do that. Suspensions don't mean shit if your parents don't punish you on top of it.
And so there's no fair use when you copy and republish the entire work.
Well, now, this is interesting. A phone book can't be copied, because it lacks originality. It is basically a compilation of facts. So presumably, you couldn't copyright a law. But, this was copyrighted before it became a law. I think most people would agree that things can't automatically become uncopyrighted because they become a law. Otherwise, a small little town could make a law saying for instance "You must read the following text:" followed by the complete text of say a new Stephen King novel. I think most people would agree that that would not make the Stephen King novel public domain, especially not for national/international publication.
I can't come up with a situation where you can copy and republish an entire work and it still fall under fair use.
I think there's a good chance the supreme court will take this case, and it'll be interesting to see the ruling.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
How can this type of thing be allowed to happen? If the GPL isn't published how would anyone ever know that this exist [sic]. It is so wrong to think that we as free software users are supposed to follow license agreements that we can't even ready [sic]. Any court that upholds this kind of thing must be funny in the head.Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
"For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
Sounds like everyone who contributed data to CDDB under the terms of the GPL has a right to sue them for copyright infringement.
And how exactly is freedb a derivative of CDDB? As far as I know everything's been re-entered from scratch into it; there's never been a public copy of CDDB available to have been somehow copied by the freedb folks.
This will be fairly easy to demonstrate legally. Simply analyse the databases, especially mispellings and incorrect information, and see how closely they match. If there are a lot of mispellings and other incorrect data which match, chances are very high (statistically) that they either stole the data or got it from the same original source. If they can't say what that same original source is, they probably broke the law.
Whether the law is right depends on whether you think it should be legal to "steal" information. Personally, I think it should not be. Economics relies on competition, and copyright and other intellectual properties laws are monopolies by definition. If CDDB wants to protect the data, have them establish direct account, with limits, and poisoned data, and non-disclosure agreements.
psst.. don't tell them it can be obtained by going into a cd store... shhhhh.
So go to a cd store, type in all the information yourself, and give it away for free. If it's so easy to get the information why is CDDB the only one who did the work to actually do it?
You may transfer ownership of the disk without in any way transfering license to USE the software, much as you may transfer ownership of a car without transfering your license to drive it.
"A copyright is the exclusive right granted to 'authors' under the U.S. Copyright Act to copy, adapt, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display their works of authorship." So, actually, you have it completely backward. Copyright law applies to your distribution of the work, not to your use of the work. Of course, loading it onto your computer or into memory is considered copying.
Microsoft would win hands down. Getting Stallman to debate against Microsoft's marketing droids would be like watching Nader debating against Bush. No, GPL will win out if and when it creates a better product. Which is not to say that the best product always wins, but if the best product happens to also be free and open. It's going to take more than just corporations to stop it.
C'mon, you know you'd rather be playing word association than arguing politics on slashdot.
Now if this same attitude holds in the cases of documentary film or photojournalism (in which the presence of copyrighted works is wholly incidental), then I'd say we have a copyright system that is overly strong.
Primarily newsworthy purposes fall under fair use, especially when the use is incidental, and doesn't impact the market for the original work. (Since there is no market for the GPL, it would be interesting to see how damages could be claimed).
In order for the downstream person to use the derivative work, they must have the rights both to the derivative and original.
Copyright does not apply to use.
I had a Latitude back in October when they went through the first recall. Battery died, even though it was probably fine, so I put in a brand new one. Sure enough, there was a loud crack and smoke started coming out of the machine. I didn't see any flames but I blew on it inside the fan part and the smoke eventually stopped. Machine started working after that, and I managed to ethernet it to my desktop and take everything off, then handed it in to my IT department.
You own the copyright on a derivative work. True, you must license that derivative work under the GPL, but that doesn't restrict you from also licensing the derivative work under the BSD licence. Then a third party can take that work which you licensed under the BSD license and create a derivative work based on that. This eliminates them from having to distribute the work under the GPL, as they never agreed to the GPL, only to the BSD license.
i think this is a far cry from some play by play (which, AFAIK, isn't copyright infringement).
It is much closer to play by play than it is to just the scores. Whether or not that is copyright infringement is still somewhat of an open question. As far as I know though, radio broadcasts of a game are licensed. Why wouldn't someone just watch the game on tv, and make their own broadcast? One key question which I don't know is whether or not Yahoo obtained a license for the Yahoo Sports applet which updates a sporting event in real-time. But anyway, fair enough, I withdraw this analogy (but I think the analogy to sports scores is even worse).
1) Anyone who is getting these tabs is usually getting them for personal use. They'll either use them to play when they're bored, or they'll play them when friends come over for shits ang giggles. That, my friend, is definitely fair use. Unless, of course, there is something sinister about playing covers for your friends, and, dear god, not charging them for your private show.
From what I read, they are not trying to stop the people getting the tabs, they are trying to stop the people distributing them. This is almost always commercial use. Take OLGA, for instance. Selling T-Shirts, displaying ads at the top of the page. Don't you think the artists should get a part of this revenue?
Playing covers for your friends, if you don't charge your friends to play the covers, is generally fair use.
2) Any half-way competent guitarist should be able to figure out any song without use of tablature.
If you can figure it out yourself, then you don't need the tablature.
3. Most importantly, these songs were "reverse engineered" so to speak. 99.9% of the tab you see on places like the OLGA weren't written by anyone who had anything to do with the music industry. They were written by average joes like you and me who decided to help others out. They weren't, and aren't, doing anything more than providing easy instructions for a product that doesn't come with an instruction manual.
Reverse engineered products are legal in a very specific instance. One person looks at the code, then tells a second person about the code, without telling them the exact code. For your analogy to work, one person would listen to the music, then would tell a second person about the music, without telling them the exact chords. That is not what is happening here.
In that sense, the music industry is trying to outlaw do-it-yourself manuals. Why don't we just take the next step and outlaw Chilton's car guides and Time-Life Home Improvement books.
Fixing your car or your house is not a protected form of expression.
Quick personal note: When art forms an industry, and decides to make the public pay for its use, it ceases to be art. Art is that which enriches your soul for no greater price than that of your time.
Well, personally, I think that's bullshit. Art is important, and wanting to be able to afford to live in a house and eat is acceptable. I'm pretty sure that tablature is one of the few items generally owned by the artists themselves, not some record company. Forming an industry is what allows the artists to get paid *and* them not having to charge each person individually by themselves. I'd be all for a statutory licence of lyrics and tablature which works in the same way as one for public performances. Because they are not "broadcast", this is not "public display", and would presumably fall under mechanical licensing. This charges a per minute per copy fee. If instead they made a statutory license on a percentage of (usually ad) revenue basis, this would make a lot more sense, since "copies" are generally free and unlimited. I don't want to stop the spread of guitar tablature. But when sites like OLGA come up and try to profit off what is essentially a compilation of other people's work, I have no sympathy for them. This is mainly a fight between ASCAP et. al. against Harry Fox et. al. I think *most* people would agree that the artist should share in the revenues of OLGA, they would only argue about how and under what terms.
I could have sworn I saw a case previously which held that giving a play by play account of a sporting event over the radio was copyright infringement. Also, I know that sporting events broadcast over television always say that unauthorized "descriptions or accounts" of the game are prohibited. Of course, that doesn't make it true, just because they said it.
In any case, I just found the Motorola case, and you are 100% correct, at least under the jurisdiction of the second circuit court of appeals.
I wonder how this would apply to factual content such as the imdb database, for instance.
No, it's more like outlawing sports spectators from giving a play by play account of a sporting event. Which, guess what, that's copyright infringement.
Pardon me for being clueless... but if you don't have jurisdiction there... then you have NO legal right to do that, meaning you BROKE THE LAW. Just because it's another country doesn't whitewash it!
Maybe, maybe not. If the U.S. and Russia already had an agreement to take that property, but the Russians were refusing to give it up, the U.S. had four options: go to an international committee (isn't going to accomplish anything), start a war over it, go in and take the information anyway, or let the Russians bully them around. If the Russians were under agreement to share the information, the U.S. made the best choice. If not, the U.S. better watch it's ass, because one of these days the rest of the world is going to get pissed off enough get together and teach us a lesson. China and Japan are already pissed off enough, and we never had very good relations with Russia. The Euro strongly ties the European Union together, but at least for now, they're pretty much on our side.
- This was not in the IP options section, it was in the TOS section.
- These are probably not routers.
- Standards don't mean shit.
- From RFC 2481: "Because of the unstable history of the TOS octet, the use of the ECN field as specified in this document cannot be guaranteed to be backwards compatible with all past uses of these two bits."
- In RFC 791, the bits in question are shown set to zero.
- If a firewall doesn't understand a packet, and wants to protect a server behind it, it should drop the packet. Better for an experimental user to not be able to reach a site than for a system to be crashed or hacked.
Sure, the devices which fail should be updated, as this is now going to become somewhat common. If they are firewalls, and they are good ones, they've probably already notified someone of the increase in dropped packets of this type, and the solution is already in the works.Connect-Four on the other hand. That's a win for the first player. http://www.cwi.nl/~tromp/c4/c4.html
works on freebsd, anyway
-------------
#!/bin/sh
fetch http://211.0.18.242/~patrick/other/original.dat
I'm a stupid idiot... you meant challenger meaning Mike... Unsubmit, Unsubmit...