We found out that snickers is the best food because: 1. it comes in a nice wrapping 2. has many calories and can give you an energetic boost 3. its taste is supreme to others
The problem is, I agree completely. This is a dandy summation, and you'll actually starve to death if you try to live on apples/carrots/ and/or honey, whereas Snickers will sustain you forever.
But now you've done it. It's 6:30 in the morning, I haven't been to sleep yet (been up all night playing Golden Slippers Cajun Style on the fiddle. I'm sure neighbors just loved that), it's what the meterologists refer to as "Frickin' Cold" out (you have to go to college to learn technical terms like that); and now I've got to go down to the Stewart's on the corner and get a fist full of Snickers (seriously).
And it's all your fault. I'll be sure to tell my dentist about you.
Assuming I don't pull a "Scott of the Antarctic" over a frickin' Snickers bar.
Number of things you can build with a Meccano set (or Lego, for you youngsters): Limited only by your imagination.
Of course if all you really want is a model of a '57 Corvette you should just go buy one of those. Or is it an '84 Ferrari GTO you're after, well go buy one of those. Not into cars, huh? How about this lovely Mosquito nightfighter kit? Or a Charles W. Morgan in full running rigging? It can be built with just standing rigging too, if you want to do a diarama of it in dock at New Bedford.
Oh, wait, I'm sorry, the model manufacturing community has decided that framentation is a bad thing and that every model having different parts and assembly instructions was just confusing the average model builder.
They only supply prebuilt, Lime Green, Tatra T57s now.
We must learn to work with the artists and record industry, along with the movie industry and others, instead of against them.
And they must, conversely, learn to work with us, something that, on the whole, most of them aren't interested in.
They're interested in your money. They've been known to "steal" it when they thought they could away with it, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
What we really need is fair, third party, representation in the governmental process that regulates such behavior, except that "they" are using "our" money (which we then necessarily lack ourselves) to access said representation.
No, these are just "ideas," although perhaps ideas you don't tell anybody else. They ever less "property" than IP is "property."
IP becomes "property" because it has a title attached that can be adjudicated in court of law. Without the possibility of such adjudication the entire concept of ideas as property is undefined in the mathematical sense.
IP is whatever the government says it is because the entire field only has meaning within that governmental definition.
And the whole originalreveal your trades secrets without "losing" them.
Because trade secrets are in no way, by any definition, "property." They're just something you know that others don't.
And I wish to God that no one had ever come up with the property metaphor for ideas, protected by title or otherwise. It leads people to mistaken ideas. That's all it is, a metaphor, not reality, or even law. ..yet.
You'll find that most of the stuff in there is protected by copyright.
View a website, send your browser author to jail. Ok, in the case of Microsoft that would be fitting, but for differenct crimes against humanity.
This is a silly bill and I'd like to see them try the same with copiers, fax machines, cameras and recording devices. In fact, they've already tried those and failed. This will fail too, for the same reasons.
The only quetion is whether it fails before or after it passes. After requires ruining some poor schmuck's life to overturn the bill.
What he wrote was an original work, not a derivative one. It does not copy any of exploited software's code. Your shell scripts are your own orginal works. You own them. They are not derivative works of explorer.exe or vbscript. Your batch files are not derivative works of DOS.
To be a derivative work it has to contain actual code from the original work. A project fork is a derivative work. A workalike project is not.
Because it is the writing that is protected, not what the writing does.
Spreadsheets? Those have been around for hundreds of years.
And writing tablets have been around for thousands. This has nothing to do with a software program emulating them. You may reverse engineer a word processor, not because writing has been around for thousands of years, but because reverse engineering isn't a copyright violation (patents are another issue).
Copying MS Word would be a violation. That means copying the code. Not what it does.
Predates the DMCA, and a pluthera of other statutory laws (and countless court rulings) by a good long while.
None of which prohibit reverse engineering, which remains an original work, not a derivative one and thus no violation of copyright. WINE and the Open BIOS project are perfectly legal.
The DMCA, by the way, extends to cover all works that were still under copyright at the time it was past. It would make the Phoenix BIOS a violation if reverse engineering were prohibited.
With regards to exploits the DMCA only covers those exploits that circumvent intentional attempts by the author to prevent copying, such as encryption. Not bugs in the software and not things that have no relationship to copying.
The BIOS is not a copy protection measure either and does not fall under the DMCA at all.
That's why MS wants a "trusted" BIOS, because such a BIOS would fall under the DMCA in the different world we live in now.
He made an exploit (derived from the product, and his reverse-engineering of said product), and then *published* it. He published this derivative work without the consent of the copyright holder.
Please turn in your BIOS and text editor/word processor or I'll have to send the helicopters after you. God help you if you've got a spreadsheet installed.
Reverse engineering is not a derivative work, and he did not make an exploit. The original authors did. He discovered it. Discovering an exploit is no more a violation of copyright than finding a typo in a book is, nor is it even reverse engineering.
Look, I'm really not trying to rag on or flame you in any way whatsoever, although in the context of a post it came across that way, but the fact of the matter is that everytime you say something all you do is give further evidence of your complete cluelessness.
You are simply wrong, about everything, to the extent that someone arguing that the moon really is made of green cheese would be wrong.
I'm trying to give you a clue, for free. I'd take it if I were you.
I have no idea what your use or nonuse of free software has to do with anything.
. ..sans the silly "band" thing, which I refuse to let be anything other than fun. ..
Ok, so you're not wrong about everything, just everything about copyright. Here you're on the right track. There was one morning, many, many years ago, when I woke up facing a four gig day and started thinking to myself, "Jesus, I really don't want to go out and sing."
Luckily for me the bell went off in my head telling me I'd made an error in judgement.
That is entirely correct. Just like you have to pay the toll on the road to use it at all. It is incorrect to believe that the license must inherently be arranged in advance or that the license can be denied under any circumstances.
There's more to a license than just a fee...there's the license. Licenses have terms. Some terms are simple. Some are complex.
With mechanical royalties such terms are set by law, not contract, and yes, it's just a matter of the fee. You may follow the contract terms if you wish, but the law does not require you to do so, even if you have signed it. Some rights cannot be signed away, even if the lawyers leave you with the impression that you have done so. That's one of the things that lawyers do, and why they have the reputation they have. Particularly music industry lawyers. The entire raison d'etre of mechanical rights is that they cannot be signed away by contract.
Broadcast, recording and performance licenses of musical works are mechancial. That means they are set by law and do not need negotiating at all. Permission to record, perform or broadcast a muscial work cannot be denied and the terms and fees are set by law.
Sortof like theatres that had to leave Episode 1 playing for weeks. ..
For starters, this is a strawman argument, as the laws governing movies are different from those governing musical works, so it isn't "sort of like that" at all.
And again, you are confusing contract with law and simply assuming the terms of a contract reflect enforcable law. Often this is not the case. That's one of the reasons we have courts. License terms may well, in and of themselves, be invalid. That's why virtually every contract on God's green earth has that "if any term of this contract is invalid the other terms remain valid" clause in the fine print, so that something they tried to sneak over on you doesn't invalidate the entire contract.
I can write up and get you to sign any damed fool thing I want. If you're fool enough to believe it imposes actual legal restrictions upon you, well, the better for me.
Sucks to be you though. Smarten up.
I'm not a DJ. Some of my best friends are though, or hosts of live musical radio shows. I did grow up in a household with a manager of GE Broadcasting Corporation though, and am a singer/songwriter/recording artist who does a fair amount of live radio and does some sort of thing that is legally defined as a performance on a nearly daily basis.
This shit surrounds me like a Satanic halo, 24/7. The Berne Convention defining arrangements of public domain works as copyrightable really fucked over my world completely (Dave Van Ronk didn't make a penny from The Animals using his arrangement of House of the Rising Sun, because at the time arrangments of public domain works could not be protected. I once had to spend a half hour with a rather inebriated Dave pissing and moaning about that).
I'm not an IP lawyer. That's why I pay an IP lawyer, because the other guy's IP lawyer is there to try to fuck me out of my inherent rights. I try not to let them do that. Where we are discussing rights set by law, again, you can obtain those rights even after signing a contract, because the contract has no legal standing.
Let me repeat, because you should really grasp this idea, license terms are not the law, and may well be invalid.
If you buy Microsoft Office and use it to make a Word document, that is a *derivative work*.
No, it isn't. In fact, this is the single silliest misconception about copyright I have ever seen and simply goes to demonstrate your cluelessness about the matter.
They can't just put a cd in and send a quarter to someone. ..
Yes they can. That's why it's called a mechanical royalty and they have to keep play lists, so they can be checked for who gets the quarter.
. ..they have to get permission first. ..
No, they don't. That's why it's called a mechanical royalty. Permission is not needed, and cannot be denied. You need to pay a license fee. Although this is often done up front in such cases with scripted playlists such can be done after the fact. It's a matter of fees, not permission. Like a basket toll road (some of which actually used to collect the toll after you used the road. See the song "Charlie on the MTA.")
Almost no college radio station has such a scripted playlist. The DJs just play whatever the hell they feel like, whenever the hell they feel like it, either from out of the station bins, or something they've brought in themselves. They have to log what they play so the right person can get the quarter afterward.
I do live radio work of copyright protected material all the time. No one has any idea what I'm going to do before the show, least of all me. I don't have to ask anyone permission first, neither does the radio station. They have to keep track of what I sing and send the quarter to the appropriate rights holder/agent.
There's absolutely nothing illegal about live radio. I don't know where you could have gotten the idea that there is. Probably from the same place that makes you believe if I write a novel with Word or vi that novel is a derivative work of Word or vi.
This is why BMI exists in the first place. To monitor broadcast behavior and collect the quarters.
If I want to record a CD of protected works, likewise, I do not need permission. No one can stop me (the caveat being that author has the right to make the first recording. Once that anyone makes a legitimate recording that right is mooted). I simply owe a fee per sale. After the fact. Fill out a form, send in the quarter (albeit life is easier if you fill out the first form up front).
That's all. That's the law. Nobody can sue or arrest me or the radio station personel/owner if the license fee is paid in a timely manner. If it isn't, they can sue for the license fee, just like you can sue your neighbor for the twenty bucks he promised you for mowing his lawn but didn't remit.
As for top 40 playlist contracts you are confusing issues of industry politics with law. Many of those contracts aren't even legal and rely on everyone playing along without making a fuss, just as is the case with a software EULA. Google around on radio payola scandals. There are laws specifically against such monopolistic behavior. That's where the idea of a mechnaical royalty came from in the first place, to inherently prevent the rights holder the right to grant or deny permission to copy (either by recording or broadcast) a musical work.
Contracts and license terms are not law. You need to read the law to determine what the law is, not what you've heard about some term in some contract.
You have some very peculiar ideas about his stuff.
Any time a radio station plays a cd, they have to play royalties...
Of course they do. They go to the store, buy a CD, play it over the air, and then pay a mechancal royalty, and no one can stop them from doing so.
You have to put a quarter in the basket to use a toll road too. That doesn't mean you can't use the road.
The point is that purchasing the cd does not mean you can do whatever you want with it. ..
Yes, yes it does.
You merely purchase the right to do with it what the ip owner intends to be done with it.
This is absolute nonsense. You've been reading too many EULAs and thinking that just because it's in there it must be legally enforcable. There is no such thing as a "use" license. It is a copy license and covers intallation (among other things that require making a copy), not use, and you'll find no EULA on a music CD, only a copyright notice.
This is exactly why Microsoft wants to lease software over the internet rather than distribute it on CDs and license it. With a lease you have great rights to control use. With a copyright license you have few to none.
There is far, *far* more to the property laws than just "copyright."
But not when we're discussing properties whose only claim to being a "property" is copyright law. A CD, of course, whether it contains music, literature or software, is actually property.
Just like a book is property.
And you can do any damned thing you want with a book. ..except copy it. If literature had mechanical royalties like music does you could even do that.
Just like a radio station can't go buy a cd at a store and then play it over the airways. ..
Yes, they can. In fact, all the independants do. You think they all just get free handouts of everything they want to play, or payola for playing it? Some DJs will even bring stuff from home, especially the jazz freaks. Perfectly legal.
. ..don't get ownership of a car confused with ownership of software.
And don't confuse a copyright license with a license to "use."
What is this software you speak of. Me and the boys just might have a go at it. Some of us might even get paid for it. There are people who actually get paid for writing Free Software you know.
Non-free software or no software. What would you rather have?
Software that is truely needed and important gets written. Period. It doesn't matter what the enviroment is. If necessary the people who need it will write it themselves, or hire someone to do it for them. Sometimes they even release it as free software. Commercial software houses are not the only source of software, and not everyone gives a damn about making a profit from their software, because they are actually in some other line of work.
Software that would not get written at all if it had no commercial outlet is very likely not actually valuable or important, no matter how highly you yourself think of it for providing you with a salary.
Progammers like to think of their output as needed and important, but they're usually wrong. That's no crack at commercial code writers either. It goes quadruple for FOSS writers, and often the best first step of a project is to not do it at all.
The fact that a particular piece of software sells well is not an indication of its need or importance either. People line up to pay for all sorts of magic rocks, potions and magnets guarunteed to cure all their ills.
The customers are usally happy with their purchases.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you think stories get published on Slashdot?
I submit them from a virtual post office box in Schenectady.
KFG
. . .do you honestly think having at least the option for a unified desktop is a completely evil thing?
No. I think that's an oxymoron. Tell you what, just call KDE the "optional unified desktop" and you'll be there.
KFG
We found out that snickers is the best food because:
1. it comes in a nice wrapping
2. has many calories and can give you an energetic boost
3. its taste is supreme to others
The problem is, I agree completely. This is a dandy summation, and you'll actually starve to death if you try to live on apples/carrots/ and/or honey, whereas Snickers will sustain you forever.
But now you've done it. It's 6:30 in the morning, I haven't been to sleep yet (been up all night playing Golden Slippers Cajun Style on the fiddle. I'm sure neighbors just loved that), it's what the meterologists refer to as "Frickin' Cold" out (you have to go to college to learn technical terms like that); and now I've got to go down to the Stewart's on the corner and get a fist full of Snickers (seriously).
And it's all your fault. I'll be sure to tell my dentist about you.
Assuming I don't pull a "Scott of the Antarctic" over a frickin' Snickers bar.
KFG
"Distributions matched: 344"
.and Lime Green.
Number of things you can build with a Meccano set (or Lego, for you youngsters): Limited only by your imagination.
Of course if all you really want is a model of a '57 Corvette you should just go buy one of those. Or is it an '84 Ferrari GTO you're after, well go buy one of those. Not into cars, huh? How about this lovely Mosquito nightfighter kit? Or a Charles W. Morgan in full running rigging? It can be built with just standing rigging too, if you want to do a diarama of it in dock at New Bedford.
Oh, wait, I'm sorry, the model manufacturing community has decided that framentation is a bad thing and that every model having different parts and assembly instructions was just confusing the average model builder.
They only supply prebuilt, Lime Green, Tatra T57s now.
I hope you like prewar Tatras. .
KFG
Does anyone stop to think that there may be too many flavors of Linux for the average user?
Yes, and decided the point has validity.
"Perhaps the Linux community should get together and make a serious effort at a unified "desktop" launch."
No, they shouldn't.
KFG
I have never lost this bizarre fondness I have for that ugly, unwieldy, but somehow cool FORTRAN.
I, on the other hand, cried the day they took away my timeshare on the mainframe running APL and gave me a mini running FORTRAN.
FORTRAN I and I are the same age. Perhaps that's why I grew up to be a bit cranky and obscure.
I'm also told I'm "cool," but I think the people who say that are a bit nuts. Maybe they've been writing too much FORTRAN.
That'll do it you ya.
KFG
We must learn to work with the artists and record industry, along with the movie industry and others, instead of against them.
And they must, conversely, learn to work with us, something that, on the whole, most of them aren't interested in.
They're interested in your money. They've been known to "steal" it when they thought they could away with it, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
What we really need is fair, third party, representation in the governmental process that regulates such behavior, except that "they" are using "our" money (which we then necessarily lack ourselves) to access said representation.
KFG
Don't be silly, it's far more sophisticated than that; they've discovered find.
"Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag."
I didn't realize that fiddler's were hot chess players. I'll have to go practice Ragtime Annie some more.
KFG
Why yes, I did preview the above before I submitted it. Feel free to mod it down "-1: Posted before his morning coffee."
KFG
Trade secrets, manufacturing methods, software - that's IP.
.yet.
No, these are just "ideas," although perhaps ideas you don't tell anybody else. They ever less "property" than IP is "property."
IP becomes "property" because it has a title attached that can be adjudicated in court of law. Without the possibility of such adjudication the entire concept of ideas as property is undefined in the mathematical sense.
IP is whatever the government says it is because the entire field only has meaning within that governmental definition.
And the whole originalreveal your trades secrets without "losing" them.
Because trade secrets are in no way, by any definition, "property." They're just something you know that others don't.
And I wish to God that no one had ever come up with the property metaphor for ideas, protected by title or otherwise. It leads people to mistaken ideas. That's all it is, a metaphor, not reality, or even law. .
KFG
"upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest.'"
. .
kfg
This is more about power, and less about money than you might think.
You haven't read many of my posts.
KFG
We at the Starbucks Legislature. . .
.what more does a junior state senator need?
Starbucks bought Disney? Yeah, well, I guess it was bound to happen.
. .
A big, fat envelope passed under the table?
KFG
You'll find that most of the stuff in there is protected by copyright.
View a website, send your browser author to jail. Ok, in the case of Microsoft that would be fitting, but for differenct crimes against humanity.
This is a silly bill and I'd like to see them try the same with copiers, fax machines, cameras and recording devices. In fact, they've already tried those and failed. This will fail too, for the same reasons.
The only quetion is whether it fails before or after it passes. After requires ruining some poor schmuck's life to overturn the bill.
KFG
FUDCicle?
KFG
There was a vulnerability, not an exploit.
What he wrote was an original work, not a derivative one. It does not copy any of exploited software's code. Your shell scripts are your own orginal works. You own them. They are not derivative works of explorer.exe or vbscript. Your batch files are not derivative works of DOS.
To be a derivative work it has to contain actual code from the original work. A project fork is a derivative work. A workalike project is not.
Because it is the writing that is protected, not what the writing does.
Spreadsheets? Those have been around for hundreds of years.
And writing tablets have been around for thousands. This has nothing to do with a software program emulating them. You may reverse engineer a word processor, not because writing has been around for thousands of years, but because reverse engineering isn't a copyright violation (patents are another issue).
Copying MS Word would be a violation. That means copying the code. Not what it does.
Predates the DMCA, and a pluthera of other statutory laws (and countless court rulings) by a good long while.
None of which prohibit reverse engineering, which remains an original work, not a derivative one and thus no violation of copyright. WINE and the Open BIOS project are perfectly legal.
The DMCA, by the way, extends to cover all works that were still under copyright at the time it was past. It would make the Phoenix BIOS a violation if reverse engineering were prohibited.
With regards to exploits the DMCA only covers those exploits that circumvent intentional attempts by the author to prevent copying, such as encryption. Not bugs in the software and not things that have no relationship to copying.
The BIOS is not a copy protection measure either and does not fall under the DMCA at all.
That's why MS wants a "trusted" BIOS, because such a BIOS would fall under the DMCA in the different world we live in now.
KFG
He made an exploit (derived from the product, and his reverse-engineering of said product), and then *published* it. He published this derivative work without the consent of the copyright holder.
.sans the silly "band" thing, which I refuse to let be anything other than fun. . .
Please turn in your BIOS and text editor/word processor or I'll have to send the helicopters after you. God help you if you've got a spreadsheet installed.
Reverse engineering is not a derivative work, and he did not make an exploit. The original authors did. He discovered it. Discovering an exploit is no more a violation of copyright than finding a typo in a book is, nor is it even reverse engineering.
Look, I'm really not trying to rag on or flame you in any way whatsoever, although in the context of a post it came across that way, but the fact of the matter is that everytime you say something all you do is give further evidence of your complete cluelessness.
You are simply wrong, about everything, to the extent that someone arguing that the moon really is made of green cheese would be wrong.
I'm trying to give you a clue, for free. I'd take it if I were you.
I have no idea what your use or nonuse of free software has to do with anything.
. .
Ok, so you're not wrong about everything, just everything about copyright. Here you're on the right track. There was one morning, many, many years ago, when I woke up facing a four gig day and started thinking to myself, "Jesus, I really don't want to go out and sing."
Luckily for me the bell went off in my head telling me I'd made an error in judgement.
KFG
YOu have to get license to play it at all.
.
That is entirely correct. Just like you have to pay the toll on the road to use it at all. It is incorrect to believe that the license must inherently be arranged in advance or that the license can be denied under any circumstances.
There's more to a license than just a fee...there's the license. Licenses have terms. Some terms are simple. Some are complex.
With mechanical royalties such terms are set by law, not contract, and yes, it's just a matter of the fee. You may follow the contract terms if you wish, but the law does not require you to do so, even if you have signed it. Some rights cannot be signed away, even if the lawyers leave you with the impression that you have done so. That's one of the things that lawyers do, and why they have the reputation they have. Particularly music industry lawyers. The entire raison d'etre of mechanical rights is that they cannot be signed away by contract.
Broadcast, recording and performance licenses of musical works are mechancial. That means they are set by law and do not need negotiating at all. Permission to record, perform or broadcast a muscial work cannot be denied and the terms and fees are set by law.
Sortof like theatres that had to leave Episode 1 playing for weeks. .
For starters, this is a strawman argument, as the laws governing movies are different from those governing musical works, so it isn't "sort of like that" at all.
And again, you are confusing contract with law and simply assuming the terms of a contract reflect enforcable law. Often this is not the case. That's one of the reasons we have courts. License terms may well, in and of themselves, be invalid. That's why virtually every contract on God's green earth has that "if any term of this contract is invalid the other terms remain valid" clause in the fine print, so that something they tried to sneak over on you doesn't invalidate the entire contract.
I can write up and get you to sign any damed fool thing I want. If you're fool enough to believe it imposes actual legal restrictions upon you, well, the better for me.
Sucks to be you though. Smarten up.
I'm not a DJ. Some of my best friends are though, or hosts of live musical radio shows. I did grow up in a household with a manager of GE Broadcasting Corporation though, and am a singer/songwriter/recording artist who does a fair amount of live radio and does some sort of thing that is legally defined as a performance on a nearly daily basis.
This shit surrounds me like a Satanic halo, 24/7. The Berne Convention defining arrangements of public domain works as copyrightable really fucked over my world completely (Dave Van Ronk didn't make a penny from The Animals using his arrangement of House of the Rising Sun, because at the time arrangments of public domain works could not be protected. I once had to spend a half hour with a rather inebriated Dave pissing and moaning about that).
I'm not an IP lawyer. That's why I pay an IP lawyer, because the other guy's IP lawyer is there to try to fuck me out of my inherent rights. I try not to let them do that. Where we are discussing rights set by law, again, you can obtain those rights even after signing a contract, because the contract has no legal standing.
Let me repeat, because you should really grasp this idea, license terms are not the law, and may well be invalid.
Invalid license terms you may simply ignore.
KFG
If you buy Microsoft Office and use it to make a Word document, that is a *derivative work*.
.
.they have to get permission first. . .
No, it isn't. In fact, this is the single silliest misconception about copyright I have ever seen and simply goes to demonstrate your cluelessness about the matter.
They can't just put a cd in and send a quarter to someone. .
Yes they can. That's why it's called a mechanical royalty and they have to keep play lists, so they can be checked for who gets the quarter.
. .
No, they don't. That's why it's called a mechanical royalty. Permission is not needed, and cannot be denied. You need to pay a license fee. Although this is often done up front in such cases with scripted playlists such can be done after the fact. It's a matter of fees, not permission. Like a basket toll road (some of which actually used to collect the toll after you used the road. See the song "Charlie on the MTA.")
Almost no college radio station has such a scripted playlist. The DJs just play whatever the hell they feel like, whenever the hell they feel like it, either from out of the station bins, or something they've brought in themselves. They have to log what they play so the right person can get the quarter afterward.
I do live radio work of copyright protected material all the time. No one has any idea what I'm going to do before the show, least of all me. I don't have to ask anyone permission first, neither does the radio station. They have to keep track of what I sing and send the quarter to the appropriate rights holder/agent.
There's absolutely nothing illegal about live radio. I don't know where you could have gotten the idea that there is. Probably from the same place that makes you believe if I write a novel with Word or vi that novel is a derivative work of Word or vi.
This is why BMI exists in the first place. To monitor broadcast behavior and collect the quarters.
If I want to record a CD of protected works, likewise, I do not need permission. No one can stop me (the caveat being that author has the right to make the first recording. Once that anyone makes a legitimate recording that right is mooted). I simply owe a fee per sale. After the fact. Fill out a form, send in the quarter (albeit life is easier if you fill out the first form up front).
That's all. That's the law. Nobody can sue or arrest me or the radio station personel/owner if the license fee is paid in a timely manner. If it isn't, they can sue for the license fee, just like you can sue your neighbor for the twenty bucks he promised you for mowing his lawn but didn't remit.
As for top 40 playlist contracts you are confusing issues of industry politics with law. Many of those contracts aren't even legal and rely on everyone playing along without making a fuss, just as is the case with a software EULA. Google around on radio payola scandals. There are laws specifically against such monopolistic behavior. That's where the idea of a mechnaical royalty came from in the first place, to inherently prevent the rights holder the right to grant or deny permission to copy (either by recording or broadcast) a musical work.
Contracts and license terms are not law. You need to read the law to determine what the law is, not what you've heard about some term in some contract.
You have some very peculiar ideas about his stuff.
KFG
Any time a radio station plays a cd, they have to play royalties...
.
.except copy it. If literature had mechanical royalties like music does you could even do that.
Of course they do. They go to the store, buy a CD, play it over the air, and then pay a mechancal royalty, and no one can stop them from doing so.
You have to put a quarter in the basket to use a toll road too. That doesn't mean you can't use the road.
The point is that purchasing the cd does not mean you can do whatever you want with it. .
Yes, yes it does.
You merely purchase the right to do with it what the ip owner intends to be done with it.
This is absolute nonsense. You've been reading too many EULAs and thinking that just because it's in there it must be legally enforcable. There is no such thing as a "use" license. It is a copy license and covers intallation (among other things that require making a copy), not use, and you'll find no EULA on a music CD, only a copyright notice.
This is exactly why Microsoft wants to lease software over the internet rather than distribute it on CDs and license it. With a lease you have great rights to control use. With a copyright license you have few to none.
There is far, *far* more to the property laws than just "copyright."
But not when we're discussing properties whose only claim to being a "property" is copyright law. A CD, of course, whether it contains music, literature or software, is actually property.
Just like a book is property.
And you can do any damned thing you want with a book. .
KFG
Just like a radio station can't go buy a cd at a store and then play it over the airways. . .
.don't get ownership of a car confused with ownership of software.
Yes, they can. In fact, all the independants do. You think they all just get free handouts of everything they want to play, or payola for playing it? Some DJs will even bring stuff from home, especially the jazz freaks. Perfectly legal.
. .
And don't confuse a copyright license with a license to "use."
KFG
. . .and also some water balloons and cap guns, and they're not afraid to use them!"
Aha! So they're in league with the Andorran Liberation Front. I knew it!
KFG
Didn't I tell you to always have big pot of stew in reserve?
KFG
But WHAT is this way to make a living?
You seem to have excluded the set of available answers in the postamble to your questions.
Such as, something other than writing code.
KFG
There are no free alternatives.
What is this software you speak of. Me and the boys just might have a go at it. Some of us might even get paid for it. There are people who actually get paid for writing Free Software you know.
Non-free software or no software. What would you rather have?
Software that is truely needed and important gets written. Period. It doesn't matter what the enviroment is. If necessary the people who need it will write it themselves, or hire someone to do it for them. Sometimes they even release it as free software. Commercial software houses are not the only source of software, and not everyone gives a damn about making a profit from their software, because they are actually in some other line of work.
Software that would not get written at all if it had no commercial outlet is very likely not actually valuable or important, no matter how highly you yourself think of it for providing you with a salary.
Progammers like to think of their output as needed and important, but they're usually wrong. That's no crack at commercial code writers either. It goes quadruple for FOSS writers, and often the best first step of a project is to not do it at all.
The fact that a particular piece of software sells well is not an indication of its need or importance either. People line up to pay for all sorts of magic rocks, potions and magnets guarunteed to cure all their ills.
The customers are usally happy with their purchases.
KFG