I meant to write DIVIX with regard to the expiring disk format, sorry.
Re:Actually as an employee of Omnicare...
on
Shrinkwrapped Books
·
· Score: 2
HEY!
If you can keep it for free due to postal regulations, I wonder if that could be interpreted to mean that the copyright on the content has also been transferred to you.
It is not a fact that "archival" copies are allowed. Copyright law specifically allows certain kinds of archival copies of software, but not of music, movies, books or anything else.
Repeat after me: anything not specifically prohibited is permitted.
When it comes to copyrighted content, there is this notion of "fair use". While some uses might have been explicitly found to be fair (i.e. the use of a VCR to time-shift TV programs -- MPAA vs. Sony, I believe), this does not mean a use is not "fair" just because a precedent finding it so hasn't yet been set.
Whether something is fair use hinges on a number of issues, and while IANAL, some are:
1. Does the use harm the copyright holder, i.e. prevent them from exploiting the copyright they hold?
2. Is the use commercial in nature?
3. How much of the work is copied?
4. Is the use educational?
The thing that was significant with VCRs is that the court established, for the first time IIRC, that entire copies of a work could constitute a fair use. So, this helps the archival copy case as a fair use.
One could argue that archival copies harm the copyright holder in that they reduce the market for replacement copies, but one could argue that taping a TV show harms the market for a commercial videotape release, and that didn't work for Sony -- the marketebility of the TV show (which the viewer pays for via a Cable or Satellite bill, or accepting advertising OTA) is enhanced by the fact that it can be time-shifted, and the copyright holder is not prevented from using technology to frustrate this -- the DMCA making circumvention of the copyright holder's access mechanisms criminal. (Yes, I know the Betamax issue related mostly to VCR to VCR copying, and not TV taping per se, but that would be the closest analogous harm to making an archival copy.)
So, there is nothing preventing a copyright holder from trying to frustrate the making of archival copies, or employing technology to make media "wear out" (DIVX) intentionally. Thus, if such technology is not employed, but could be, archival copies appear to pass the test of fair use.
Now, the DMCA gives legal teeth to prevent the circumvention of an "access control method" and this certainly quashes what would otherwise be a fair use (since making an archival copy might very well require circumventing an access control method), but the ??AAs have been employing access control methods to prevent "piracy", which can be loosely defined as the making of unauthorized copies to avoid licensing one. So, it seams to me that circumventing an access control method for archival purposes should be O.K. unless explicitly forbidden in the content license, if there is one. The DMCA even helps here, because it permits bypassing access controls for interoperability purposes -- if I have equipment which lets me view DVD content from a central server, I should be able to cirvumvent access controls so that I may view them that way.
So, in conclusion, copyright holders can make content intentionally "brittle", so it breaks after a while, but can not require me to be less than careful in preserving something I've paid for -- that would be like a furniture maker suing me for having blinds on my windows because that hurts his reupholstering sideline business when the fabric does not fade as fast.
Perhaps their policy changed, or we got a great deal because we dealt in large volumes of PCs -- mostly used as Windoze desktops. It's quite possible that the only way to get a PC was to buy a particular configuration (to get our corporate discount), and anything else was a "special" -- thus the roundabout process of getting an OS license and returning it for credit
But, the significant fact remains that Dell gave us a rebate for returning an unused OS at a time when many vendors refused to do this. I made a point of letting our Dell sales rep know that this reflected well on Dell in my mind.
Even if Dell charges the same with or without a Microsoft license, you might be better off without it -- consider that the Microsoft license might, in theory, have you agree to let them hack your computer even though you removed or never used their software. Getting the PC naked removes this possibility (IANAL so I can't comment on the legality of such a license, but I'd bet Microsoft would try it even if it wasn't enforcable at law.)
The systems will cost just as much as if you'd ordered them with Windows in the first place.
Are you sure?
At my last place of employment, we ordered about six Dell PCs for Linux-based development platforms. They came with a Microsoft OS (NT, I think). I called Dell, and they were quite happy to credit us about US$65 per license for every unopened OS installation media package that we sent back, and took our word that we'd reformat the hard disk without ever booting into the OS that was pre-installed.
It certainly improved my opinion of Dell at the time.
Sounds good for a set top box. I didn't know that Mozilla could render right to X11. Can it make intelligent use of Xv to bring up local video streams in X video viewports?
Yes, of course, but I don't know if "his robots.txt configuration let me scrape his site" would hold up in court -- it is a question of the law being behind the technology here.
Furthermore, how do you defend against people changing their robots.txt configurations after the fact that their site has been scraped and claiming that scraping was not permitted in the first place?
... for all the messy copyright issues it raises. Asking a site that's about to be slashdotted if it wants to be cached would be a bit of a pain, and might delay reporting the story if no response was forthcomming. I think the Slashdot FAQ answers these and other related questions.
That said, it would be very nice if there was some standard machine readable mechanism to indicate, "yes, you may cache this to avoid slashdotting this site" that the site could serve. Of course, then it gets complex: the caching parameters have to be specified, you ight want allow/deny lists for cachers, etc. Finally, if someone does cache such a site, they'd want to have legal proof that permission was granted, and that brings us to the use of PKI and certified digital signatures.
Great idea, but the overhead of a practical implementation with legal safeguards is probably too high. Hmm, perhaps such caching could be construed as a "fair use" of copyright material?
The point I saw was that capitalists exploit social conventions to permit the leverage of their capital. Taking advantage of a patent system is one way of doing this, but, would not be something a libertarian would do -- not all capitalists are libertarians.
However, capitalists, whether libertarian or not, do not do everything with the thought of personal benefit in mind.
...and in the case of the glass armonica, I'm sorry but I have my doubts that this ever helped any less fortunate persons to obtain food, clothing or shelter.
Not in the direct sense, of course, but the issue is that Franklin did not exploit it via a patent, excluding others from making them. Taken in that light, Franklin was generous to "allow" others to benefit from his ideas, without having to pay tribute.
Of course, if you reject the legitimacy of state-enforced patent protection, then Franklin had no right to restrict production by others in the first place. Still, refusing to exploit a law for one's exclusive benefit, so that others might share in the wealth of one's ideas strikes me as generous, nevertheless.
The connection with charity is weak, but the common point is that not everything people with a capitalist mindset do is necessarily for their own benefit.
However, even though I have disagreed with you on some points, I must commend you on your charitable nature, you are truely a giving person and the world can always use more of that. Kudos to you my freind.
Gee, shucks. I am by no means a phlanthropist, and I do enjoy various luxeries in life (I live in a nice house, have decent A/V equipment, and like to eat and drink well), that many might find decadent. But, damn, I work hard to earn the money to pay for it all, and the funds I spend continue to make the wheels of the economy turn. I support charities to the extent that it doesn't cramp my lifestyle, and try to not indulge my vices too excessively. In other words, I am hardly a saint, looking out for the poor. I think I'm pretty much like most decent people, selfish in my desire of creature comforts, but not cruel to the point of depriving the unfortunate of things I no longer need or want, but that they might find useful.
One of the best ways to help others, I've found, is donation of outgrown children's clothes, toys, and furniture to organizations that can put them to good use.
But, contrary to belief, not everything I do is for profit, or if so, very indirectly.
You see, I place value of the general welfare of my fellow person. I contribute to charties, and donate things I no longer need that are in good repair, so that they can either be given to the poor, or sold, and the proceeds used to help them. I've gone so far as to donate running cars.
Yes, either I benefit, or my descendents will benefit, in some small way, from these acts, so a Randian might consider them quite rational. But, and this is the important thing, the general welfare of "clan Hollan" was not in my mind when I undertook these acts.
While it is all fine and good to be able to participate in a free market, we are not without compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves, whatever the reason. I, for example, had the good fortune to study a field (Computer Science) that has blossemed to fill an as unquenched thirst for skill in the market place. However, to argue that this was a calculated optimal decision on my part, as opposed to a calculated risk would be arrogance. In fact, I chose it becase I liked it and was good at it.
So, I can certainly empathize with those who's fortunes have not been as good as mine, though I do not feel a particular obligation to help the less fortunate.
Nevertheless, parting with that for which one feels no desire to exploit, so that the lives of others can be, in some small way, enriched, is no great misery, and in the minds of the recipients, might translate into the most wonderful gift of all.
That presumes that you can get to the unencrypted stream. Sampling an analog version might be feasable, but increasingly, the analog outputs of devices have crippled resolution, and future legislation may forbid them all together.
1 (or 2 or 3) orange habaneros;
1 lb. (500g [cook's rounding]) shrimp, deveined, and shelled, but with tail on;
1 tsp. chopped garlic;
2 tbsp. cooking oil;
3 limes ;
pinch of black pepper (fresh ground is best).
Chop habaneros fine (gloves are advised for wimps). Retain seeds and fruit placenta (yes, this makes it very hot. Save one habanero top "cap" for garnish. Fry gently in oil (gas mask is advisable for wimps). Add shrimp. When almost done, add garlic, and fry for about 30 seconds more. Remove from heat, and drain excess oil. Add juice from two of the limes, and black pepper to taste. Refrigerate three hours. Serve garnished with wedges from the last lime and the top of a habanero pepper.
These make a wonderfuly "surprising" appetizer. Not for the timid. Keep away from pets and small children.
Gak! You're right, of course. I'm so used to seeing Macrovision in hardware (like graphics and MPEG2 decoder cards with TV-outs), I just assumed the VCR hardware added it to a clean video signal.
Still, since the recorded signal is analog, and not digital (ignoring digital video tapes), he DMCA probably still does not apply.
Unless the copyright holder hasn't given permission, this is perfecty legal. Thre is plenty of copyright music on the internet that is free to download and copy.
Oh, I see, this is one of those, "punish the tool maker because the tool can be used to comit a crime".... On that note, I demand that the courts have everyone else executed because they might otherwise murder me -- people can do that, ya know.
In a similar vein, I noticed my local Target store offering a service to copy video tapes to DVD. Since I have a lot of VHS tapes taking up a bunch of space, this would be a great thing for me were it not for the fact that they charge some US$35/tape for the service. But, what burned me was their note that "copying copyright material" is illegal. Ever hear of "fair use" dweebs? Even the DMCA doesn't apply here since there is no access protection on a videocassette (macrovision is part of the VCR).
PUSH SP does NOT do the same thing on 8086 and 80286 architectures: in one case it pushes the stack pointer value before decrementing it, and in the other case it pushes it after decrementing it.
I got stung by that on a Friday before a long weekend in 1984 or 1985. A dirty INT21 hook I was applying to DOS worked on ATs but not on XTs (or was it the other way around?). I had set up a structure on the stack and needed to pass its address to a higher language (prolly K&R C) routine, so PUSH SP seamed like the right thing to do.
Hardly a complex bug, but one where it is non-obvious that a 286 is not a superset of an 86.
Then there was the time I had to download a patch to over a thousand embedded controllers spread over a whole country whose problem was that downloading didn't work.... a truck roll to wach one was not an option. But, that's another story (bootstrapping the fix was horrendously more complex that finding the bug).
What so bad about ClearCase? Well, yeah, the learning curve is steep, and licenses are expensive, and it is not free, but I've always found it to be a powerful tool (albeit easily abused) for advanced source code control, particularly when dealing with multiple branches/forks of a common code base.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant to write DIVIX with regard to the expiring disk format, sorry.
If you can keep it for free due to postal regulations, I wonder if that could be interpreted to mean that the copyright on the content has also been transferred to you.
Repeat after me: anything not specifically prohibited is permitted.
When it comes to copyrighted content, there is this notion of "fair use". While some uses might have been explicitly found to be fair (i.e. the use of a VCR to time-shift TV programs -- MPAA vs. Sony, I believe), this does not mean a use is not "fair" just because a precedent finding it so hasn't yet been set.
Whether something is fair use hinges on a number of issues, and while IANAL, some are:
1. Does the use harm the copyright holder, i.e. prevent them from exploiting the copyright they hold?
2. Is the use commercial in nature?
3. How much of the work is copied?
4. Is the use educational?
The thing that was significant with VCRs is that the court established, for the first time IIRC, that entire copies of a work could constitute a fair use. So, this helps the archival copy case as a fair use.
One could argue that archival copies harm the copyright holder in that they reduce the market for replacement copies, but one could argue that taping a TV show harms the market for a commercial videotape release, and that didn't work for Sony -- the marketebility of the TV show (which the viewer pays for via a Cable or Satellite bill, or accepting advertising OTA) is enhanced by the fact that it can be time-shifted, and the copyright holder is not prevented from using technology to frustrate this -- the DMCA making circumvention of the copyright holder's access mechanisms criminal. (Yes, I know the Betamax issue related mostly to VCR to VCR copying, and not TV taping per se, but that would be the closest analogous harm to making an archival copy.)
So, there is nothing preventing a copyright holder from trying to frustrate the making of archival copies, or employing technology to make media "wear out" (DIVX) intentionally. Thus, if such technology is not employed, but could be, archival copies appear to pass the test of fair use.
Now, the DMCA gives legal teeth to prevent the circumvention of an "access control method" and this certainly quashes what would otherwise be a fair use (since making an archival copy might very well require circumventing an access control method), but the ??AAs have been employing access control methods to prevent "piracy", which can be loosely defined as the making of unauthorized copies to avoid licensing one. So, it seams to me that circumventing an access control method for archival purposes should be O.K. unless explicitly forbidden in the content license, if there is one. The DMCA even helps here, because it permits bypassing access controls for interoperability purposes -- if I have equipment which lets me view DVD content from a central server, I should be able to cirvumvent access controls so that I may view them that way.
So, in conclusion, copyright holders can make content intentionally "brittle", so it breaks after a while, but can not require me to be less than careful in preserving something I've paid for -- that would be like a furniture maker suing me for having blinds on my windows because that hurts his reupholstering sideline business when the fabric does not fade as fast.
But, the significant fact remains that Dell gave us a rebate for returning an unused OS at a time when many vendors refused to do this. I made a point of letting our Dell sales rep know that this reflected well on Dell in my mind.
Even if Dell charges the same with or without a Microsoft license, you might be better off without it -- consider that the Microsoft license might, in theory, have you agree to let them hack your computer even though you removed or never used their software. Getting the PC naked removes this possibility (IANAL so I can't comment on the legality of such a license, but I'd bet Microsoft would try it even if it wasn't enforcable at law.)
Are you sure?
At my last place of employment, we ordered about six Dell PCs for Linux-based development platforms. They came with a Microsoft OS (NT, I think). I called Dell, and they were quite happy to credit us about US$65 per license for every unopened OS installation media package that we sent back, and took our word that we'd reformat the hard disk without ever booting into the OS that was pre-installed.
It certainly improved my opinion of Dell at the time.
Sounds good for a set top box. I didn't know that Mozilla could render right to X11. Can it make intelligent use of Xv to bring up local video streams in X video viewports?
Furthermore, how do you defend against people changing their robots.txt configurations after the fact that their site has been scraped and claiming that scraping was not permitted in the first place?
That said, it would be very nice if there was some standard machine readable mechanism to indicate, "yes, you may cache this to avoid slashdotting this site" that the site could serve. Of course, then it gets complex: the caching parameters have to be specified, you ight want allow/deny lists for cachers, etc. Finally, if someone does cache such a site, they'd want to have legal proof that permission was granted, and that brings us to the use of PKI and certified digital signatures.
Great idea, but the overhead of a practical implementation with legal safeguards is probably too high. Hmm, perhaps such caching could be construed as a "fair use" of copyright material?
He, he. I have been known to eat them before they cool too, but it is not quite the same effect (though quite yummy).
The point I saw was that capitalists exploit social conventions to permit the leverage of their capital. Taking advantage of a patent system is one way of doing this, but, would not be something a libertarian would do -- not all capitalists are libertarians.
However, capitalists, whether libertarian or not, do not do everything with the thought of personal benefit in mind.
Not in the direct sense, of course, but the issue is that Franklin did not exploit it via a patent, excluding others from making them. Taken in that light, Franklin was generous to "allow" others to benefit from his ideas, without having to pay tribute.
Of course, if you reject the legitimacy of state-enforced patent protection, then Franklin had no right to restrict production by others in the first place. Still, refusing to exploit a law for one's exclusive benefit, so that others might share in the wealth of one's ideas strikes me as generous, nevertheless.
The connection with charity is weak, but the common point is that not everything people with a capitalist mindset do is necessarily for their own benefit.
However, even though I have disagreed with you on some points, I must commend you on your charitable nature, you are truely a giving person and the world can always use more of that. Kudos to you my freind.
Gee, shucks. I am by no means a phlanthropist, and I do enjoy various luxeries in life (I live in a nice house, have decent A/V equipment, and like to eat and drink well), that many might find decadent. But, damn, I work hard to earn the money to pay for it all, and the funds I spend continue to make the wheels of the economy turn. I support charities to the extent that it doesn't cramp my lifestyle, and try to not indulge my vices too excessively. In other words, I am hardly a saint, looking out for the poor. I think I'm pretty much like most decent people, selfish in my desire of creature comforts, but not cruel to the point of depriving the unfortunate of things I no longer need or want, but that they might find useful.
One of the best ways to help others, I've found, is donation of outgrown children's clothes, toys, and furniture to organizations that can put them to good use.
But, contrary to belief, not everything I do is for profit, or if so, very indirectly.
You see, I place value of the general welfare of my fellow person. I contribute to charties, and donate things I no longer need that are in good repair, so that they can either be given to the poor, or sold, and the proceeds used to help them. I've gone so far as to donate running cars.
Yes, either I benefit, or my descendents will benefit, in some small way, from these acts, so a Randian might consider them quite rational. But, and this is the important thing, the general welfare of "clan Hollan" was not in my mind when I undertook these acts.
While it is all fine and good to be able to participate in a free market, we are not without compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves, whatever the reason. I, for example, had the good fortune to study a field (Computer Science) that has blossemed to fill an as unquenched thirst for skill in the market place. However, to argue that this was a calculated optimal decision on my part, as opposed to a calculated risk would be arrogance. In fact, I chose it becase I liked it and was good at it.
So, I can certainly empathize with those who's fortunes have not been as good as mine, though I do not feel a particular obligation to help the less fortunate.
Nevertheless, parting with that for which one feels no desire to exploit, so that the lives of others can be, in some small way, enriched, is no great misery, and in the minds of the recipients, might translate into the most wonderful gift of all.
It is better to have to drive the a short distance in time X, than a longer one -- you are less likely to be late.
Though that by itself does not prohibit the presense of existing analog tuners, the writing is certainly on the wall, yes.
That presumes that you can get to the unencrypted stream. Sampling an analog version might be feasable, but increasingly, the analog outputs of devices have crippled resolution, and future legislation may forbid them all together.
Ingredients:
1 (or 2 or 3) orange habaneros;
1 lb. (500g [cook's rounding]) shrimp, deveined, and shelled, but with tail on;
1 tsp. chopped garlic;
2 tbsp. cooking oil;
3 limes
; pinch of black pepper (fresh ground is best).
Chop habaneros fine (gloves are advised for wimps). Retain seeds and fruit placenta (yes, this makes it very hot. Save one habanero top "cap" for garnish. Fry gently in oil (gas mask is advisable for wimps). Add shrimp. When almost done, add garlic, and fry for about 30 seconds more. Remove from heat, and drain excess oil. Add juice from two of the limes, and black pepper to taste. Refrigerate three hours. Serve garnished with wedges from the last lime and the top of a habanero pepper.
These make a wonderfuly "surprising" appetizer. Not for the timid. Keep away from pets and small children.
There are far stronger mechanisms around.
Still, your point about the dangers of ambiguous wording in laws is noted.
Er, the point about VHS to DVD transfers was a side issue. I presumed that people would know that the implied jurisdiction was local.
Still, since the recorded signal is analog, and not digital (ignoring digital video tapes), he DMCA probably still does not apply.
Oh, I see, this is one of those, "punish the tool maker because the tool can be used to comit a crime".... On that note, I demand that the courts have everyone else executed because they might otherwise murder me -- people can do that, ya know.
In a similar vein, I noticed my local Target store offering a service to copy video tapes to DVD. Since I have a lot of VHS tapes taking up a bunch of space, this would be a great thing for me were it not for the fact that they charge some US$35/tape for the service. But, what burned me was their note that "copying copyright material" is illegal. Ever hear of "fair use" dweebs? Even the DMCA doesn't apply here since there is no access protection on a videocassette (macrovision is part of the VCR).
Look if you have to worry about the derivetive of jerk being positive, it most likey will come ov.
I got stung by that on a Friday before a long weekend in 1984 or 1985. A dirty INT21 hook I was applying to DOS worked on ATs but not on XTs (or was it the other way around?). I had set up a structure on the stack and needed to pass its address to a higher language (prolly K&R C) routine, so PUSH SP seamed like the right thing to do.
Hardly a complex bug, but one where it is non-obvious that a 286 is not a superset of an 86.
Then there was the time I had to download a patch to over a thousand embedded controllers spread over a whole country whose problem was that downloading didn't work.... a truck roll to wach one was not an option. But, that's another story (bootstrapping the fix was horrendously more complex that finding the bug).
What so bad about ClearCase? Well, yeah, the learning curve is steep, and licenses are expensive, and it is not free, but I've always found it to be a powerful tool (albeit easily abused) for advanced source code control, particularly when dealing with multiple branches/forks of a common code base.
Funny, I've paid the appropriate copyright holders for all the entertainment content I have. How does that make me a pirate?
Are you seriously suggesting that watching DVDs that I've bought, on my choice of playback, device is "piracy"?
Technically, under the DMCA, it might be criminal (and the whole point of this disobedience), but piracy strikes me as the wrong word.