He asks for a $20,000 licensing fee, which they will agree to because their attorney's don't wipe their own ass for less than $500 an hour.
Here's something I've pondered before: what if there was some very intelligent, extremely rich (say, by birth) individual who decided to become a lawyer. Suppose this person was an extraordinary lawyer, and took on all kinds of high-profile cases, winning most of them. And this person did this all for free, because he/she was already loaded.
What would eventually happen to this person? Would he/she turn up dead pretty quick?
Everybody so far in this thread is missing the archival value of MusicXML -- they criticize it for "re-inventing the wheel," but they're only looking at the value for music composers and consumers.
The true value of MusicXML is as a universally understood format for describing musical scores digitally. The music libraries of the future aren't going to be made of paper, don't you think?
Alternatively, I prefer to use keys signed by trusted CA servers.
That's what I was suggesting, also. I may have misinterpretted your post.
Some people who use PKI systems have a habit of attaching their unsigned public key to their emails, either as a sig or a mail attachment. Obviously these keys can't be trusted because they haven't been signed. I thought you were implying that using keys in such a way is okay, but clearly I've misunderstood what you said. Sorry.
With gpg I can encrypt with your key even without asking you to send me your key if it's already in PKI. All I need is your ID in PKI (typically that would be your email) and "ta-da!"
Sounds like you don't really "get" PKI then. Would you seriously encrypt an important message using a public key that you received attached to an email?
How do you know that email from "Alan Cox" with his public key is actually from Alan Cox? The last time you got a penis enlargement spam from "Bill Clinton" did you actually believe where it came from? How do you know the mail hasn't been tampered with to replace his key with Bill Gates' key? Do you actually consider email a secure medium? What planet are you on?
This is why certificates were invented. And it's why PKI is more difficult to use (at least, to use correctly) than you seem to think it is.
And for God's sake, stop "explaining" an incorrect, insecure way of using PKI to everyone. What you've just described is a security joke.
Prove it. Either you're lying or you can't follow a thread. The original argument the AC gave was regarding cruel and unusual punishment.
You know I can't prove it without Taco's help (the actual user account is logged in the DB), but I was arguing that what is not a cruel and unusual punishment in one case (e.g., a 30 year old sentenced to 15 years for massive copyright infringement) becomes cruel and unusual under other circumstances (i.e., a 70 year old sentenced to 15 years, who will probably die in prison during that period).
For Caridi, a 15 year sentence is essentially a sentence of life in prison. Since life in prison is unreasonable punishment for copyright violation, a 15 year sentence for Caridi would be cruel and unusual. Need I spell it out in big bold letters for you?
It would be more fitting to take the major portion of the presumably large chunk of cash he's got sitting around, and give it to the movie studio as compensation.
Good luck making such a small amount of money.
That statement is ridiculous beyond the point of being able to reply to it.
I was the AC you were replying to. My ability to follow the thread is not in question. Clearly, it is you who are incapable of understanding what I'm talking about, not vice versa.
I am happy to watch you rot on a small pittance each month.
Well, since you want to get into a pissing contest, my paychecks are $1574.88. Every two weeks. After tax, dipshit. How about you?
By this logic, anyone sentenced to life without parole has received a cruel sentence and should be released?
No. There are certainly some crimes for which that punishment is fitting. The whole point here is that somebody who infringes copyrights (or, in this case, a person who merely enables another to so infringe) doesn't deserve to die behind bars.
Caridi is an actor. One would assume he has a fair amount of money. Since the impact of the crime is entirely financial, against the movie industry, the correct punishment would be to take his money. However, he'll probably end up in jail, in which case I will do what I said -- never pay for a movie again.
Sadly, that means I'll only be able to watch them on TV. But by no means am I going to go out and start violating copyright myself.
however your tone has been unacceptable throughout our conversation.
I again apologize, but I'm being assailed by multiple people who are all insisting that the only reason I could have an opinion on the matter is that I'm a pirate. I'm notorious for being unable to deal with false accusations -- I'm working on it.
Anyway, that little "Freak" light probably means you won't respond to this, so I won't waste too much time on this post... But my opinion seems shallow due to my thinking being clouded by anger, not because I haven't thought it through. Hopefully sometime we can discuss it the right way.
I mean, your logic states that if a person is older, and commits a crime against a corporation, nothing should be done to them?
I never said that. They should punish him in a way that doesn't amount to a life-in-prison sentence. He's got a lot of money, right? Take it all. After all, the impact of his crime was financial, correct?
I agree, the punishment isn't good for the person, but you have a choice, either an impartial system or not.
There's this concept that the system should be mechanistic, with no room for humans to make exceptions. I just don't understand that at all. This guy's lifetime of actions, his current state of mind, his character, all these things should be considered in making a punishment decision.
Clearly I've inflamed a lot of people with my original post. I'd suggest they go re-read it, and determine which things I actually said, and which things they are assuming because they're instantly enraged by anyone who appears to be a pirate (which I am decidedly not -- you assumed that when I said I would never pay for a movie again).
Sorry -- the one thing you're doing that's driving me nutty is accusing me of pirating movies. I don't do that. If you'll stop insisting that I'm lying, I'll be able to calm down and talk a little more coherently, okay?
what if this old guy spent the last 5 years stealing half of your salary.
Point to even a single person within the movie industry whose life has been destroyed by movie piracy. When you can do that, I'll happily support throwing the responsible parties in jail.
I believe that crime is defined by suffering inflicted on others. No suffering, no crime. Simple.
And one more time for the record, since none of you respondants can seem to comprehend it, I don't pirate movies. When I said I would stop paying for movies I meant nothing more than that. (If I said "I'm never going to buy a car again" would that imply that I'm going to start stealing cars? Please.)
Why don't you help me out, and explain why I appear to be some kind of "warrior" to you? Or why an opinion can be a product of misinformation?
For Jiminy's sake... The entire point of my original post was that the punishment this guy is going to receive is cruel. I never once said it is okay to violate copyright.
Or do you assume that by saying "I'll never pay for a movie again" that means I'm now going to steal them?
I don't pay for music either, nor do I download MP3s. I listen to it on the radio. And I'll get by watching movies on television, if it comes to it.
It's amazing that you literally cannot believe a person could have such a viewpoint without being a thief!
You do not put people in prisons to protect society, nor to punish them.
You're utterly full of shit. Prison personnel turn a blind eye to abuses of inmates by other inmates. That's punishment. I don't give a flying fuck what it says in your nice little book what a prison is "supposed to be."
So I take it you support companies taking the Linux kernel, and then using it, and NOT following the GPL?
Wow, you people are just fountains of illogic, today.
Read what I said. I didn't say it should be legal to violate copyright. What I said was, it is cruel to imprison somebody whose death is already imminent, for a non-violent crime commited against what amounts to a corporate conglomerate.
The issue is not my ability to pirate movies off the Internet. I don't even do that. The issue is the degree of punishment this man will probably face, which is disproportionate and cruel.
You of course think that you are part of some great revolution, participating in some great collective disobedience when, in fact, you are a simple criminal.
What the fuck are you talking about? I've never downloaded a movie. This isn't about me, as you seem to think. Continue making your stupid assumptions. One day they'll get you in hot water.
You just can't imagine how a person who doesn't pirate movies on the Internet could possibly have an opinion on this matter, huh?
Could you please direct me to the article of the constitution that grants immunity to 70 year old criminals?
Can you please direct me to where it says I'm not allowed to disagree with a law, or the punishments associated with it?
I suppose you think it would be justice to throw somebody in prison, most likely for the remainder of his life, because he allowed people to see a movie screener? You're a barbarian.
Does porting the kernel not bring all the existing software to the new platform?
It brings a lot of it... But not all, by any means.
Many programs which manipulate binary data are hard-coded with the assumption that the data order is little-endian, as it is on Intel. These programs will break on a big-endian architecture like Power.
Also, some programs may rely on memory protection functionality which is not available on a particular architecture (for example, on Intel, it's impossible to mark a page as "execute-only." Programs which depend on being able to mark pages as "execute-only" thus cannot function on x86 processors.)
As another example, a multimedia application which relies on certain real-time assumptions may not function on a platform which cannot make those real-time guarantees (perhaps because it has a crappy interrupt architecture).
And of course, there's always software that's mainly written in C, but also has little portions written in assembler. Clearly, these programs won't just magically compile on a completely different processor.
Slashdot Mirror
And they don't make that page easy to find -- no link to it from the licenses page. How did you find it?
Here's something I've pondered before: what if there was some very intelligent, extremely rich (say, by birth) individual who decided to become a lawyer. Suppose this person was an extraordinary lawyer, and took on all kinds of high-profile cases, winning most of them. And this person did this all for free, because he/she was already loaded.
What would eventually happen to this person? Would he/she turn up dead pretty quick?
You recall wrong. There is no free Windows QT, even for non-commercial purposes.
I complained about this years ago to TrollTech, and the response was "Why the hell would anyone want to create free Windows software?"
A non-commercial, free license for Windows QT is not forthcoming.
The true value of MusicXML is as a universally understood format for describing musical scores digitally. The music libraries of the future aren't going to be made of paper, don't you think?
That is why we have judges, right? To make decisions that simple rules can't make for us?
That's what I was suggesting, also. I may have misinterpretted your post.
Some people who use PKI systems have a habit of attaching their unsigned public key to their emails, either as a sig or a mail attachment. Obviously these keys can't be trusted because they haven't been signed. I thought you were implying that using keys in such a way is okay, but clearly I've misunderstood what you said. Sorry.
Sounds like you don't really "get" PKI then. Would you seriously encrypt an important message using a public key that you received attached to an email?
How do you know that email from "Alan Cox" with his public key is actually from Alan Cox? The last time you got a penis enlargement spam from "Bill Clinton" did you actually believe where it came from? How do you know the mail hasn't been tampered with to replace his key with Bill Gates' key? Do you actually consider email a secure medium? What planet are you on?
This is why certificates were invented. And it's why PKI is more difficult to use (at least, to use correctly) than you seem to think it is.
And for God's sake, stop "explaining" an incorrect, insecure way of using PKI to everyone. What you've just described is a security joke.
So, you're saying you feel proud that you don't know how to multiply numbers which aren't powers of ten?
You know I can't prove it without Taco's help (the actual user account is logged in the DB), but I was arguing that what is not a cruel and unusual punishment in one case (e.g., a 30 year old sentenced to 15 years for massive copyright infringement) becomes cruel and unusual under other circumstances (i.e., a 70 year old sentenced to 15 years, who will probably die in prison during that period).
For Caridi, a 15 year sentence is essentially a sentence of life in prison. Since life in prison is unreasonable punishment for copyright violation, a 15 year sentence for Caridi would be cruel and unusual. Need I spell it out in big bold letters for you?
It would be more fitting to take the major portion of the presumably large chunk of cash he's got sitting around, and give it to the movie studio as compensation.
Good luck making such a small amount of money.
That statement is ridiculous beyond the point of being able to reply to it.
I was the AC you were replying to. My ability to follow the thread is not in question. Clearly, it is you who are incapable of understanding what I'm talking about, not vice versa.
I am happy to watch you rot on a small pittance each month.
Well, since you want to get into a pissing contest, my paychecks are $1574.88. Every two weeks. After tax, dipshit. How about you?
No. There are certainly some crimes for which that punishment is fitting. The whole point here is that somebody who infringes copyrights (or, in this case, a person who merely enables another to so infringe) doesn't deserve to die behind bars.
Caridi is an actor. One would assume he has a fair amount of money. Since the impact of the crime is entirely financial, against the movie industry, the correct punishment would be to take his money. However, he'll probably end up in jail, in which case I will do what I said -- never pay for a movie again.
Sadly, that means I'll only be able to watch them on TV. But by no means am I going to go out and start violating copyright myself.
I again apologize, but I'm being assailed by multiple people who are all insisting that the only reason I could have an opinion on the matter is that I'm a pirate. I'm notorious for being unable to deal with false accusations -- I'm working on it.
Anyway, that little "Freak" light probably means you won't respond to this, so I won't waste too much time on this post... But my opinion seems shallow due to my thinking being clouded by anger, not because I haven't thought it through. Hopefully sometime we can discuss it the right way.
I never said that. They should punish him in a way that doesn't amount to a life-in-prison sentence. He's got a lot of money, right? Take it all. After all, the impact of his crime was financial, correct?
I agree, the punishment isn't good for the person, but you have a choice, either an impartial system or not.
There's this concept that the system should be mechanistic, with no room for humans to make exceptions. I just don't understand that at all. This guy's lifetime of actions, his current state of mind, his character, all these things should be considered in making a punishment decision.
Clearly I've inflamed a lot of people with my original post. I'd suggest they go re-read it, and determine which things I actually said, and which things they are assuming because they're instantly enraged by anyone who appears to be a pirate (which I am decidedly not -- you assumed that when I said I would never pay for a movie again).
Sorry -- the one thing you're doing that's driving me nutty is accusing me of pirating movies. I don't do that. If you'll stop insisting that I'm lying, I'll be able to calm down and talk a little more coherently, okay?
Point to even a single person within the movie industry whose life has been destroyed by movie piracy. When you can do that, I'll happily support throwing the responsible parties in jail.
I believe that crime is defined by suffering inflicted on others. No suffering, no crime. Simple.
And one more time for the record, since none of you respondants can seem to comprehend it, I don't pirate movies. When I said I would stop paying for movies I meant nothing more than that. (If I said "I'm never going to buy a car again" would that imply that I'm going to start stealing cars? Please.)
For Jiminy's sake... The entire point of my original post was that the punishment this guy is going to receive is cruel. I never once said it is okay to violate copyright.
Or do you assume that by saying "I'll never pay for a movie again" that means I'm now going to steal them?
I don't pay for music either, nor do I download MP3s. I listen to it on the radio. And I'll get by watching movies on television, if it comes to it.
It's amazing that you literally cannot believe a person could have such a viewpoint without being a thief!
You're utterly full of shit. Prison personnel turn a blind eye to abuses of inmates by other inmates. That's punishment. I don't give a flying fuck what it says in your nice little book what a prison is "supposed to be."
Wow, you people are just fountains of illogic, today.
Read what I said. I didn't say it should be legal to violate copyright. What I said was, it is cruel to imprison somebody whose death is already imminent, for a non-violent crime commited against what amounts to a corporate conglomerate.
The issue is not my ability to pirate movies off the Internet. I don't even do that. The issue is the degree of punishment this man will probably face, which is disproportionate and cruel.
What the fuck are you talking about? I've never downloaded a movie. This isn't about me, as you seem to think. Continue making your stupid assumptions. One day they'll get you in hot water.
You just can't imagine how a person who doesn't pirate movies on the Internet could possibly have an opinion on this matter, huh?
Can you please direct me to where it says I'm not allowed to disagree with a law, or the punishments associated with it?
I suppose you think it would be justice to throw somebody in prison, most likely for the remainder of his life, because he allowed people to see a movie screener? You're a barbarian.
So it's not okay for me to disagree with a law, or the harshness of the punishment for it?
Sorry, I thought I was supposed to never question anything.
Yeah. See me ever pay for a movie again after that...
Looks like their website is running on some "forgotten electronics."
About 24,000 miles away.
It brings a lot of it... But not all, by any means.
Many programs which manipulate binary data are hard-coded with the assumption that the data order is little-endian, as it is on Intel. These programs will break on a big-endian architecture like Power.
Also, some programs may rely on memory protection functionality which is not available on a particular architecture (for example, on Intel, it's impossible to mark a page as "execute-only." Programs which depend on being able to mark pages as "execute-only" thus cannot function on x86 processors.)
As another example, a multimedia application which relies on certain real-time assumptions may not function on a platform which cannot make those real-time guarantees (perhaps because it has a crappy interrupt architecture).
And of course, there's always software that's mainly written in C, but also has little portions written in assembler. Clearly, these programs won't just magically compile on a completely different processor.