"However, the content of the book (subject to copyright) is *NOT* owned by you, only licensed to you. "
No, this is a fine point but that is still not correct. You DO own the content, as well. You are just restricted by law from doing certain things with it.
Buying a book is not a "contract" between you and the author, and copyright law does not constitute a "license". You are simply enjoined from engaging in infringing activity.
You reckon?
Ok, here's a tip: open any printed book on your bookshelf (assuming you didn't drop the "dead-tree books") and read the copyright notice(s) on the first pages - usually where ISBN and other publishing info are printed. Here's an example an example: a text which is in public domain for hundreds of years; you'll notice that, while not that extensive as an EULA, the copyright notice sound exactly like one (for this example: "Cover art, interior art and text copyright 1990 Playmore Inc. etc. International copyright reserved in all countries. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher")
1. Doesn't the above sounds to you like an "simplified but still binding EULA for books"? (as you can't reverse engineer a book or break a DRM scheme for a paper book, seems only natural to me the EULA is much simpler for a book that for a software) 2. Doesn't an EULA act as contract between the buyer and the owner of the copyright? (note that I'm not asserting that the author is the owner of the "intellectual property" that the content of the book represents).
"Because software is "Intellectual property", so you don't own the software once you bought a copy: you are only allowed to use it. (yes, I know, copyright infringement is not theft for this very same reason...)."
Wrong on both counts.
To clean a bit the water, I'll answer first to:
The idea that you are just using it (or "licensing" it) is pretty much unique to the software industry, and has between little and nothing to do with the fact that it is "intellectual property".
I haven't said that the "intellectual property" applies only to software, have I? I only said that software is "intellectual property" (and so other things would be). And I made this distinction in response to someone who tried a "car analogy" - not only flawed as analogy, but wasn't even funny (read again the phrase: "Sure, except to use the car you agreed to the EULA where Ford disclaimed themselves against any such defects.") I can elaborate on why the analogy is deeply flawed, but I think it should already be evident.
A book is intellectual property, too, but if you buy it you own it.
The book (paper, cover, overcover and what not) is your property as a physical entity as it is a CD/DVD/any-storage that contains the software that you bought/downloaded - true, you can do whatever you want with it (use it to crack nuts if you so like).
However, the content of the book (subject to copyright) is *NOT* owned by you, only licensed to you. To demonstrate: buy a book (which's content is still subject to copyright), photocopy its content and sell the copies. Or just transcribe the content of the book by typing it in ASCII and offer it for download from your site. Then wait and see what happens... to speed the process, make a little "noise" about, advertise it, just so the publisher gets to learn quicker about.
I should qualify my comment about your last bit, though. While the fact that it isn't theft is related to the intellectual property concept, I suppose, but only indirectly. The more direct reason they are distinct in law is because when you steal something from somebody, you deprive them of the thing stolen. They no longer have use of that thing. Not so with software, music, books or patents. Therefore it cannot be "theft".
Whatever the reason behind two different pieces of legislation, the fact remains... theft and copyright infringement are different. I don't disagree with your interpretation, even if I can find other reasons for which the two are treated differently.
If it's a years old version and *yet* after years of pushing security and bugfixes there're still more, it can only mean that the product they sold was basically cow shit and they deserve what it takes to protect it.
You don't want to push security updates forever? Damn easy: just don't push away shitty software.
Not that I wouldn't agree with your position, but nothing is meant to leave forever... at a certain moment, one should expect the "end-of-warranty period" for a tangible good or the equivalent "end-of-support-life" for a software.
If software producers can get away with that, why cant car producers? Or the other way around, if nobody else can get away with self-absolving EULAs, why do software producers?
Because software is "Intellectual property", so you don't own the software once you bought a copy: you are only allowed to use it. (yes, I know, copyright infringement is not theft for this very same reason...).
Democrat Congressman to Pentagon general: "I am concerned that if we put too many tanks on the island might..... tip over." - Yep. Stupidity in a leader is dangerous.
(anecdotes aside... active stupidity is dangerous because makes the actions unpredictable. Avarice and ambitions show at least a pattern).
What the hell? If the means used to arrive at a figure is wrong, then the figure is wrong. What kind of ass-backwards logic is this, where the figure can still be right even if the means used to calculate the figure is wrong...?
The formal logic used by everybody that has the slightest clue? (false premises can lead to anything by correct rationing).
A housing authority housing (probably... too lazy to look up numbers) thousands of families, and probably tracking financial information on them all, across several hundred separate locations? No, they don't need an IS department at all. They can use Excel, right?
Do they need an IS service dept that resorts in connecting these utilities to the net? What for?
These types of attack have never happened, but in the age of ever-mounting cyber exploits, NYCHA, which is responsible for over a thousand buildings in the city, wants to take every precaution, though it could get expensive
.
Ah, I see... that explains (works even better if you are not on a consulting position, but a permanent hire).
They probably are. This guy is just trying to sell fear for personal gain (money or power). Ben Franklin was right when he said the greatest danger are those in power who are filled with avarice or ambition.
You can't expect Microsoft to not take advantage of this. If anyone complains, they can just point at Apple and say "they started it!"
To take advantage of what exactly? I haven't heard yet of Microsoft tablets being considered "cool" enough for clueless twits (and I doubt it will happen, but... meh... time will tell) and I'm certain iPads won't run Win8.
It looks like a "me too" attempt from MS... again... after many others that go or already went busted (Win-phone and Bing to mention only 2 of them)
Unfortunately, the direction you seem to be going towards is the licensing of software developers and requiring huge liability insurance policies
Not at all... The direction I'd (at least intended to) be going is one in which the govt and other agencies keep away from preemptively hunting "0day exploit crackers", because:
1. I'm already having enough of "if you have nothing to hide...", "think of the children", "... otherwise the terrorists will win", "piracy is a crime" as reasons of dropping the privacy on the net. I don't want to reach a point where the use of encryption is outlawed for yet one the more reason of "think of the dumb-ass users installing random software" (when even the list above brings enough of this risk already).
2. as I said in my original post - not only my privacy risks being invaded, but I'm paying for it on taxes.
Anything but the above situation is bearable.
If you have lots of experience and are generally successful the insurance policy isn't very expensive but for a beginner it is very expensive.
You see a funny thing: software is "speech" (copyrightable). If I wouldn't want to pay the insurance policy (for various reasons, not only because it might be expensive), I can still write software: I'd only need to distribute it in the source code and (if the free speech right is still in place) nobody should be able to stop me doing it. The secondary benefit of doing this: unqualified users will not suffer because of me.
On the side note: the above is a mechanism by which one can also write and distribute programs that use software patents the author does not own and one should not be able to stop you distributing them - in source code, the "free speech" must beat patents (I swear I'll start doing it on purpose sometimes).
They (cyber criminals) almost never get caught and punished. Until we solve the problem of accountability, we will never get rid of the underlying problem.
Hang on... what about the accountability of the software producer? Oh, yeah, the DISCLAIMER in the copyright/license legalese... it passes the responsibility to deal with the effects to the users. So why are the users complaining?
Before you jump on my throat: I reckon the "social cost" of going after hackers would be higher than the cost of the "war on drugs" (even if only because a running software is intangible and the attack vectors are easier to anonymize). Even more, the "cost of discovering/deterring/preventing the cyber criminals" will be supported from taxes, even if the bug allowing the exploited is caused by the software producer... feels like a great incentive to reduce the cost of quality assurance stages in a software project, by externalizing them to the society... that's what corporations are excellent at, ain't it?
I was always told the cause of seeing boulders move in Ireland was Whiskey.
Depends... if you see the boulder moving up, 't's Whiskey and you're lying on the ground... if downward, it's stout (and you're taking a leak on the boulder).
Q:And if I could also ask the Attorney-General, this kind of increased intelligence cooperation tends to also lead to increased sharing of the information of Australians [unclear] information on Australian citizens. Have we seen today with the signing of these agreements, will more information be shared between the two countries?
NICOLA ROXON: Thank you. Look, when we say that we want to increase and improve cooperation, of course it still means that we will do that within the constraints of our laws, which means that information is shared where it meets particular thresholds. Of course we have for a long time and will continue to share information with other partners when someone is involved or we fear is involved in criminal activity. That sort of information, I think Australian citizens expect us to share with others. But there are very tight constraints around what can and can't be shared.
This agreement doesn't change that. But what it means is that we can continue to cooperate very closely in sharing where there are risks, what trends change, whether there are people of particular interest. And the US and Australia and our law enforcement agencies have had very strong partnerships for a long time. This enhances in an environment where we have new threats, new risks, more online activity, more information that's obtained, more transnational crime which relies on activity that might travel through different countries. We need to be aware of all of that and that's why we want to keep working so closely with the US in improving those relationships and I think these agreements today allow us to do that.
On the "good" side... the technology increases the chances for many cars getting close enough to run a Beowulf cluster using their dashboard computers.
The Aussie dollar has already taken some hits as China's infrastructure investment growth rates and therefore iron ore growth rates are tailing off.
If you'd like to call yearly variations of 9% as hits and rebounds back to the average level as tailing off... then I guess you are right. After all, it's just a matter of terminology, like in "you say potato, I say potahto" so, to be fair... let's call the whole thing off, shall we?
Slashdot Mirror
"However, the content of the book (subject to copyright) is *NOT* owned by you, only licensed to you. "
No, this is a fine point but that is still not correct. You DO own the content, as well. You are just restricted by law from doing certain things with it.
Buying a book is not a "contract" between you and the author, and copyright law does not constitute a "license". You are simply enjoined from engaging in infringing activity.
You reckon?
Ok, here's a tip: open any printed book on your bookshelf (assuming you didn't drop the "dead-tree books") and read the copyright notice(s) on the first pages - usually where ISBN and other publishing info are printed.
Here's an example an example: a text which is in public domain for hundreds of years; you'll notice that, while not that extensive as an EULA, the copyright notice sound exactly like one (for this example: "Cover art, interior art and text copyright 1990 Playmore Inc. etc.
International copyright reserved in all countries. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher")
1. Doesn't the above sounds to you like an "simplified but still binding EULA for books"? (as you can't reverse engineer a book or break a DRM scheme for a paper book, seems only natural to me the EULA is much simpler for a book that for a software)
2. Doesn't an EULA act as contract between the buyer and the owner of the copyright? (note that I'm not asserting that the author is the owner of the "intellectual property" that the content of the book represents).
"Because software is "Intellectual property", so you don't own the software once you bought a copy: you are only allowed to use it. (yes, I know, copyright infringement is not theft for this very same reason...)."
Wrong on both counts.
To clean a bit the water, I'll answer first to:
The idea that you are just using it (or "licensing" it) is pretty much unique to the software industry, and has between little and nothing to do with the fact that it is "intellectual property".
I haven't said that the "intellectual property" applies only to software, have I? I only said that software is "intellectual property" (and so other things would be). And I made this distinction in response to someone who tried a "car analogy" - not only flawed as analogy, but wasn't even funny (read again the phrase: "Sure, except to use the car you agreed to the EULA where Ford disclaimed themselves against any such defects.")
I can elaborate on why the analogy is deeply flawed, but I think it should already be evident.
A book is intellectual property, too, but if you buy it you own it.
The book (paper, cover, overcover and what not) is your property as a physical entity as it is a CD/DVD/any-storage that contains the software that you bought/downloaded - true, you can do whatever you want with it (use it to crack nuts if you so like).
However, the content of the book (subject to copyright) is *NOT* owned by you, only licensed to you. To demonstrate: buy a book (which's content is still subject to copyright), photocopy its content and sell the copies. Or just transcribe the content of the book by typing it in ASCII and offer it for download from your site. Then wait and see what happens... to speed the process, make a little "noise" about, advertise it, just so the publisher gets to learn quicker about.
I should qualify my comment about your last bit, though. While the fact that it isn't theft is related to the intellectual property concept, I suppose, but only indirectly. The more direct reason they are distinct in law is because when you steal something from somebody, you deprive them of the thing stolen. They no longer have use of that thing. Not so with software, music, books or patents. Therefore it cannot be "theft".
Whatever the reason behind two different pieces of legislation, the fact remains... theft and copyright infringement are different. I don't disagree with your interpretation, even if I can find other reasons for which the two are treated differently.
"If this was a years-old version, I'd understand"
Well, I don't.
If it's a years old version and *yet* after years of pushing security and bugfixes there're still more, it can only mean that the product they sold was basically cow shit and they deserve what it takes to protect it.
You don't want to push security updates forever? Damn easy: just don't push away shitty software.
Not that I wouldn't agree with your position, but nothing is meant to leave forever... at a certain moment, one should expect the "end-of-warranty period" for a tangible good or the equivalent "end-of-support-life" for a software.
If software producers can get away with that, why cant car producers? Or the other way around, if nobody else can get away with self-absolving EULAs, why do software producers?
Because software is "Intellectual property", so you don't own the software once you bought a copy: you are only allowed to use it. (yes, I know, copyright infringement is not theft for this very same reason...).
Democrat Congressman to Pentagon general: "I am concerned that if we put too many tanks on the island might..... tip over." - Yep. Stupidity in a leader is dangerous.
(anecdotes aside... active stupidity is dangerous because makes the actions unpredictable. Avarice and ambitions show at least a pattern).
What the hell? If the means used to arrive at a figure is wrong, then the figure is wrong. What kind of ass-backwards logic is this, where the figure can still be right even if the means used to calculate the figure is wrong...?
The formal logic used by everybody that has the slightest clue? (false premises can lead to anything by correct rationing).
A housing authority housing (probably... too lazy to look up numbers) thousands of families, and probably tracking financial information on them all, across several hundred separate locations? No, they don't need an IS department at all. They can use Excel, right?
Do they need an IS service dept that resorts in connecting these utilities to the net? What for?
These types of attack have never happened, but in the age of ever-mounting cyber exploits, NYCHA, which is responsible for over a thousand buildings in the city, wants to take every precaution, though it could get expensive
. Ah, I see... that explains (works even better if you are not on a consulting position, but a permanent hire).
They probably are. This guy is just trying to sell fear for personal gain (money or power). Ben Franklin was right when he said the greatest danger are those in power who are filled with avarice or ambition.
(pro)active stupidity in power is even worse.
You can't expect Microsoft to not take advantage of this. If anyone complains, they can just point at Apple and say "they started it!"
To take advantage of what exactly? I haven't heard yet of Microsoft tablets being considered "cool" enough for clueless twits (and I doubt it will happen, but... meh... time will tell) and I'm certain iPads won't run Win8.
It looks like a "me too" attempt from MS... again... after many others that go or already went busted (Win-phone and Bing to mention only 2 of them)
Seriously, who's going to tweet something like that?
In the context of metaphors, some clueless UK tourists?
the wavefunction is not just a statistical tool, but rather, a real, objective state of a quantum system.
I'm afraid the answer is more complex than that: unfortunately, the wavefunction has an imaginary part, stopping it short from getting real.
Unfortunately, the direction you seem to be going towards is the licensing of software developers and requiring huge liability insurance policies
Not at all... The direction I'd (at least intended to) be going is one in which the govt and other agencies keep away from preemptively hunting "0day exploit crackers", because:
1. I'm already having enough of "if you have nothing to hide...", "think of the children", "... otherwise the terrorists will win", "piracy is a crime" as reasons of dropping the privacy on the net. I don't want to reach a point where the use of encryption is outlawed for yet one the more reason of "think of the dumb-ass users installing random software" (when even the list above brings enough of this risk already).
2. as I said in my original post - not only my privacy risks being invaded, but I'm paying for it on taxes.
Anything but the above situation is bearable.
If you have lots of experience and are generally successful the insurance policy isn't very expensive but for a beginner it is very expensive.
You see a funny thing: software is "speech" (copyrightable). If I wouldn't want to pay the insurance policy (for various reasons, not only because it might be expensive), I can still write software: I'd only need to distribute it in the source code and (if the free speech right is still in place) nobody should be able to stop me doing it. The secondary benefit of doing this: unqualified users will not suffer because of me.
On the side note: the above is a mechanism by which one can also write and distribute programs that use software patents the author does not own and one should not be able to stop you distributing them - in source code, the "free speech" must beat patents (I swear I'll start doing it on purpose sometimes).
They (cyber criminals) almost never get caught and punished. Until we solve the problem of accountability, we will never get rid of the underlying problem.
Hang on... what about the accountability of the software producer? Oh, yeah, the DISCLAIMER in the copyright/license legalese... it passes the responsibility to deal with the effects to the users. So why are the users complaining?
Before you jump on my throat: I reckon the "social cost" of going after hackers would be higher than the cost of the "war on drugs" (even if only because a running software is intangible and the attack vectors are easier to anonymize).
Even more, the "cost of discovering/deterring/preventing the cyber criminals" will be supported from taxes, even if the bug allowing the exploited is caused by the software producer... feels like a great incentive to reduce the cost of quality assurance stages in a software project, by externalizing them to the society... that's what corporations are excellent at, ain't it?
I was always told the cause of seeing boulders move in Ireland was Whiskey.
Depends... if you see the boulder moving up, 't's Whiskey and you're lying on the ground... if downward, it's stout (and you're taking a leak on the boulder).
Canberra Times
SMH
Attorney General's press conference:
Q:And if I could also ask the Attorney-General, this kind of increased intelligence cooperation tends to also lead to increased sharing of the information of Australians [unclear] information on Australian citizens. Have we seen today with the signing of these agreements, will more information be shared between the two countries?
NICOLA ROXON: Thank you. Look, when we say that we want to increase and improve cooperation, of course it still means that we will do that within the constraints of our laws, which means that information is shared where it meets particular thresholds. Of course we have for a long time and will continue to share information with other partners when someone is involved or we fear is involved in criminal activity. That sort of information, I think Australian citizens expect us to share with others. But there are very tight constraints around what can and can't be shared.
This agreement doesn't change that. But what it means is that we can continue to cooperate very closely in sharing where there are risks, what trends change, whether there are people of particular interest. And the US and Australia and our law enforcement agencies have had very strong partnerships for a long time. This enhances in an environment where we have new threats, new risks, more online activity, more information that's obtained, more transnational crime which relies on activity that might travel through different countries. We need to be aware of all of that and that's why we want to keep working so closely with the US in improving those relationships and I think these agreements today allow us to do that.
Some cheap ones from China
On the "good" side... the technology increases the chances for many cars getting close enough to run a Beowulf cluster using their dashboard computers.
Micro$oft, don't insult our intelligence by being such a bare faced liar.
Hear, hear... at least a niqab would be in order.
Got yea by the balls, now pay up or sing soprano.
But then 802.11n is omnidirectional, whereas a laser is unidirectional, so this is really an apples to htcs comparison.
I think you're missing something from the GP post
How does the Mbit/mW compare to a 802.11b/g/n pringles cantenna?
A cantenna is essentially a wave-guide, making the transmission highly directional.
Unless you want a Beowulf cluster of laser sharks.
What about "the year of $name on the desktop"? Will $name='laser sharks' come earlier than $name='Linux'?
(ducks)
What is the basis for the assumption that this is the "last" bastion?
(raises hand) I know it! I know! Me... pick me to answer!
Because... after this one is busted, Dec 21 2012 comes and there's no time to raise another, right?
The Aussie dollar has already taken some hits as China's infrastructure investment growth rates and therefore iron ore growth rates are tailing off.
If you'd like to call yearly variations of 9% as hits and rebounds back to the average level as tailing off... then I guess you are right. After all, it's just a matter of terminology, like in "you say potato, I say potahto" so, to be fair... let's call the whole thing off, shall we?
Also, you can't torrent a BMW.
Yes, you can.