As long as you can agree that copying a work to/dev/null does not constitute broadcasting or transmitting it, which represents one major branch of a type of copyright infringement copyright infringement, then the issue at hand would ordinarily only deal with any "fixed" copies that get made (a term from 17 U.S. Code, S101), and the Code further defines "fixed" (as it applies to such copies) to explicitly mean "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived".
Downloading the song and then deleting it still involves *MAKING* a copy, however brief its existence. no copy is made in the first place by "copying" to/dev/null. Doing so may go through the motions, but doesn't actually do the deed.
The RIAA has previously successfully argued that a copy's duration of existence....
The duration of the existence of the copy may not matter, but that still requires that the copy actually get made in the first place. By "copying" to/dev/null, what he did was he went through the motions of making a copy, arguably just pretending to make one, but did not actually make any through that action. Further, he did not even try to hide the fact that this is what he was doing, so the pretense of the action was obvious.
It is *NOT* illegal to pretend to commit a crime when the pretense is not only plainly admitted, but outwardly obvious to everyone.
You misunderstand what I mean by "ignored". I don't just mean that it was ignored by people, I mean that it was ignored *ENTIRELY*, to the point that no copy was ever even made in the fase.
Sending a so-called "copy" to/dev/null may involve going through all of the motions of making a copy, but is *not* actually making one.
Again, it is *NOT* generally illegal to pretend to commit a crime when you are simultaneously making your pretense obvious.
Going through the motions of committing a crime when you are also making it obvious that you are not actually committing a crime is not illegal. If it were, actors could be arrested when they portray a character who commits a crime as part of the story.
It's not just the fact the the copy is ignored, it's the fact that the copy isn't even being made in the first place.... While it's technically invoking copy-like instructions to accomplish the task, it's not actually *MAKING* a copy. At best, it is only *pretending* to make a copy by going through the motions of doing so. And while it can be the case that pretending to commit a crime can still be considered criminal, it is only actually such when there is no clear indication of pretense, and this person is not trying to hide the fact that he was "copying" to/dev/null, so the pretense is obvious. Therefore, no infringement is occurring.
The 8,000,000 copies it makes every day costs the record industry $10m/day in losses
Except it's not actually *making* any copies of the content... it is sending them to/dev/null, which means that the content is being ignored. It may be doing this through the invocation of a copy-like command, but that doesn't mean that copies are actually being *made*, because that would require that the copies actually exist after they had allegedly been made.
The term Xmas is over a thousand years old, and is derived from what was at one time a fairly common usage of a capital letter X to denote Christ (possibly derived from the fact that the word Christ itself begins with a letter that resembles an 'X' in Greek). The term itself originated with Christians (and among those who could write, they may have denoted themselves as X-tians). While there are Christians today that object to "Xmas" under the notion that it allegedly "takes Christ out of Christmas", this objection is driven by ignorance of the actual origin of the term. "Xmas" does not take Christ out of Christmas, and if anything, highlights the association even more strongly by using an archaic form to emphasize it.
If you object to "Christmas" because you don't believe in the story behind it, you may want to reconsider what you call it.
I would imagine that modern devs for the NES do not publish on a cart at all, but distribute their work as a rom file that is uploaded into an eeprom that is wired to a fake cart that plugs into the device. They still suffer from the 4Meg limit of addressable space in the cart, and even that must be bank switched in pieces at a time, since the NES's 6502 can only address 64K of memory.
So how come when I download a Super Mario Brothers rom it's 3.7megs zipped and not 32kb?
I cannot testify to know for sure except to conclude that there is either additional information in that rom file that is not part of the game itself or else you may be talking about some other game entirely. If I were to speculate what is going on with your rom file is that since the maximum possible cartridge size that the NES hardware even supported was 4Megabytes, the rom file you possess may simply be a trimmed image of a full dump of a 4Meg eeprom cartridge that contained a copy of the game. That's just a guess, however. The game itself was really only 32kb. The largest game that Nintendo itself ever produced for the NES was 600kb, and was a Kirby title.
As far as I know, no game ever commercially published for the NES even pushed the cartridge size memory requirement past the 1 Meg mark, because by the time memory prices had dropped to where such large amounts of memory were commercially viable to produce in that format, the console itself had long been obsolete, and game manufactures were no longer producing games for that platform.
Wow... the website genuinely does block Ctrl-U, as well as other hotkeys, such as F12 to activate Firebug, which I didn't know was possible, although just clicking just once in the address bar while the page is showing, and then hitting the desired hotkey bypasses this.
Also, of course, the menu choices to access the source in this way are still enabled and work normally.
Uh.... no. The NES only had 64K of addressable memory. Only a fraction of that was available for games. Super Mario Bros used a 32KB cartridge.
More than 64K of effective memory on a cartridge was possible with bank switching (up to 1MB, switched in at 32K at a time), but Super Mario Bros did not use that.
The only thing I understood it was possible to disable in js was direct copy/paste, by intercepting mouse clicks on the panel, and disallowing the user from selecting text in the first place . That's a pretty far cry from disabling a hotkey, let alone a program menu item (fwiw, copy paste still technically works on the pages that try to disable it too, they just don't let you select text in the first place by intercepting the mouse click, so there's never anything to copy).
I did google before I asked the question... I saw many claims, but none seem to actually work, even without disabling javascript. Nonetheless, the article at the link in the summary said that Ctrl-U hotkey was somehow disabled for them.
Even assuming that one is.... afaik, there is no way in javascript to disable menu items, or even the hotkeys to those items.... can you imagine a webpage blocking alt-f4?
Serious question.... is it even possible to disable browser hotkeys while they are on a page so that they can't view the source code to the web page they are visiting?
Since their aircraft are technically "unmanned"...
if we only extend the concept of man to refer to being flown by someone or something that is considered intelligent, then we only end up having to further refine the issue when we make a computer that is at least as smart as a person.
Having a line of sight does not mean you are necessarily looking directly at it, so having line of sight and flying by camera are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
You admit the importance and sanity of declaring light bulbs to be coupled to the power generation source, electric cars are absolutely no different.
Note also that I did not say that light bulbs emit any pollution, because they do not. The only enviuronmental impact that they have that is worse the LED's is in the fact that they *draw* more power in the first place, requiring more work to be done in power generation, which may itself lead to more pollution. Nonetheless, lightbulbs are still entirely zero-emission devices, because they do not emit any pollution.
Electric vehicles are absolutely no different in that respect.... and it is still ultimately the *production* of electricity that may be dirty, while the vehicles themselves do not directly emit any greenhouse gasses. I would even concede that they may *contribute* to greenhouse gas emissions because of how much electricity that they use, but that is entirely different than saying that they emit the gasses themselves, which is what the term 'vehicle emissions' means... that the car *emits* those gasses, when in the case of an electric car, it does not.
If a person cannot distinguish between the two, then one should explicitly say exactly what they mean (which isn't a bad policy to be following in the first place), instead of using popular terms to refer to something that does not describe the literal truth. In my opinion, people who allege that the average person is genuinely too unintelligent to understand this if it were explicitly spelled out in that way is probably only making an excuse for being too lazy to make the effort to try.
Gasoline cars *do* emit greenhouse gasses. Electric cars emit none. My so-called "agenda" is nothing more than to expect people to use words that mean what they say, rather than playing twisting the literal defininitions of things of the words involved and suggesting the co2 impact of using an electric vehicle are the emissions caused by the vehicle itself. They are not. Go ahead and talk about how dirty electricity production is if you want, go ahead and talk about how everything that uses such electricity inherently contributes to that end, but it is grossly misleading to say that the cars produce emissions, because that suggests that the cars themselves do, and they do not. Not saying what you actually mean, that electricity production is dirty, is misleading at best and lying at worst. If the phrase "zero emissions" is taken to mean "no co2 impact at all" then one should again say precisely what they mean and expressly point out that the since the production of electricity is dirty, everything that uses such generated power contributes to that, the amount ring dependant on how much power is being used. Or if that is too complex, as another person put it, try "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".
Agreed.... but that is saying something different than saying that electric cars have emissions
Most Americans don't understand grade school level physics and don't realize it is impossible to have a zero emission vehicle.
Electric vehicles *ARE* zero emission.... it is the production of electricity in the first place that may not be.... Electric cars do *NOT* directly cause any emissions, and suggesting that they are not zero emission just because the production of electricity may not be is *FAR* more misleading about the nature what is actually causing harm to the environment.
By your reasoning, light bulbs are a zero emission device and these newfangled efficient LED ones are a waste of money
The LED ones use electricity more efficiently.... if the production of electricity in the first place causes emissions, then at the very least, using LEDs instead of light bulbs will at least contribute less pollution to that end. If somebody made light bulbs that used electricity as efficiently as LED's and could produce just as much illumination and were cheaper than LED's, then LED's would indeed just be a waste of money, as you said.
Some people are actually buying electric cars because they believe things like they have no CO2 impact (completely false) or that the human noticable soot and smell from some diesels (older ones that need maintainance) are worse for you than the non noticable nano particle laden emissions from gas vehicles(also false).
I didn't say that electric cars have no CO2 impact.... Certainly their CO2 impact could be substantial (albeit still far less than a gasoline vehicle) if the production of electricity in the first place causes CO2, and there is a CO2 impact for their manufacture as well, although that impact is not any larger than the CO2 impact for the industrial manufacturing of anything, per kilogram of manufactured and produced goods. However, I am specifically talking about *vehicle emissions* here, that is, the gasses that would actually be emitted directly from the vehicle itself. An electric vehicle produces none of those. Certainly it's fair to say that electric vehicle vehicles have CO2 impact, and if you want to draw attention to that point, then don't be talking about emissions at all, because that only confuses the issue.
Like I said before.... if you want to simplify things for the person who is too dumb to understand the difference between emissions caused by the production of electricity in the first place and emissions that are directly caused by the usage of that electricity, then stick to your opening phrase.... "there is no such thing as a free lunch". It's concise, entirely true, and very well understood by most people.
So in what way are those emissions caused by the vehicle itself? That is caused by the production of electricity in general in regions that do not have convenient clean sources of energy, but one may equally condemn absolutely all electricity usage on that basis for contributing to that end... the responsibility for which is actually assumed by the owner of devices that are powered by such electricity, and not necessarily the devices themselves. Electric cars are indeed zero emission. It is misleading at best to suggest otherwise simply because the production of electricity may not be.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as you can agree that copying a work to /dev/null does not constitute broadcasting or transmitting it, which represents one major branch of a type of copyright infringement copyright infringement, then the issue at hand would ordinarily only deal with any "fixed" copies that get made (a term from 17 U.S. Code, S101), and the Code further defines "fixed" (as it applies to such copies) to explicitly mean "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived".
Downloading the song and then deleting it still involves *MAKING* a copy, however brief its existence. no copy is made in the first place by "copying" to /dev/null. Doing so may go through the motions, but doesn't actually do the deed.
The duration of the existence of the copy may not matter, but that still requires that the copy actually get made in the first place. By "copying" to /dev/null, what he did was he went through the motions of making a copy, arguably just pretending to make one, but did not actually make any through that action. Further, he did not even try to hide the fact that this is what he was doing, so the pretense of the action was obvious.
It is *NOT* illegal to pretend to commit a crime when the pretense is not only plainly admitted, but outwardly obvious to everyone.
You misunderstand what I mean by "ignored". I don't just mean that it was ignored by people, I mean that it was ignored *ENTIRELY*, to the point that no copy was ever even made in the fase.
Sending a so-called "copy" to /dev/null may involve going through all of the motions of making a copy, but is *not* actually making one.
Again, it is *NOT* generally illegal to pretend to commit a crime when you are simultaneously making your pretense obvious.
Going through the motions of committing a crime when you are also making it obvious that you are not actually committing a crime is not illegal. If it were, actors could be arrested when they portray a character who commits a crime as part of the story.
It's not just the fact the the copy is ignored, it's the fact that the copy isn't even being made in the first place.... While it's technically invoking copy-like instructions to accomplish the task, it's not actually *MAKING* a copy. At best, it is only *pretending* to make a copy by going through the motions of doing so. And while it can be the case that pretending to commit a crime can still be considered criminal, it is only actually such when there is no clear indication of pretense, and this person is not trying to hide the fact that he was "copying" to /dev/null, so the pretense is obvious. Therefore, no infringement is occurring.
Except it's not actually *making* any copies of the content... it is sending them to /dev/null, which means that the content is being ignored. It may be doing this through the invocation of a copy-like command, but that doesn't mean that copies are actually being *made*, because that would require that the copies actually exist after they had allegedly been made.
If you object to "Christmas" because you don't believe in the story behind it, you may want to reconsider what you call it.
Obviously they don't think that it is anymore, but how was it ever?
It's not much of one... it was in the trailer for the film.
I would imagine that modern devs for the NES do not publish on a cart at all, but distribute their work as a rom file that is uploaded into an eeprom that is wired to a fake cart that plugs into the device. They still suffer from the 4Meg limit of addressable space in the cart, and even that must be bank switched in pieces at a time, since the NES's 6502 can only address 64K of memory.
I cannot testify to know for sure except to conclude that there is either additional information in that rom file that is not part of the game itself or else you may be talking about some other game entirely. If I were to speculate what is going on with your rom file is that since the maximum possible cartridge size that the NES hardware even supported was 4Megabytes, the rom file you possess may simply be a trimmed image of a full dump of a 4Meg eeprom cartridge that contained a copy of the game. That's just a guess, however. The game itself was really only 32kb. The largest game that Nintendo itself ever produced for the NES was 600kb, and was a Kirby title.
As far as I know, no game ever commercially published for the NES even pushed the cartridge size memory requirement past the 1 Meg mark, because by the time memory prices had dropped to where such large amounts of memory were commercially viable to produce in that format, the console itself had long been obsolete, and game manufactures were no longer producing games for that platform.
Wow... the website genuinely does block Ctrl-U, as well as other hotkeys, such as F12 to activate Firebug, which I didn't know was possible, although just clicking just once in the address bar while the page is showing, and then hitting the desired hotkey bypasses this.
Also, of course, the menu choices to access the source in this way are still enabled and work normally.
Uh.... no. The NES only had 64K of addressable memory. Only a fraction of that was available for games. Super Mario Bros used a 32KB cartridge.
More than 64K of effective memory on a cartridge was possible with bank switching (up to 1MB, switched in at 32K at a time), but Super Mario Bros did not use that.
The only thing I understood it was possible to disable in js was direct copy/paste, by intercepting mouse clicks on the panel, and disallowing the user from selecting text in the first place . That's a pretty far cry from disabling a hotkey, let alone a program menu item (fwiw, copy paste still technically works on the pages that try to disable it too, they just don't let you select text in the first place by intercepting the mouse click, so there's never anything to copy).
I did google before I asked the question... I saw many claims, but none seem to actually work, even without disabling javascript. Nonetheless, the article at the link in the summary said that Ctrl-U hotkey was somehow disabled for them.
Even assuming that one is.... afaik, there is no way in javascript to disable menu items, or even the hotkeys to those items.... can you imagine a webpage blocking alt-f4?
Serious question.... is it even possible to disable browser hotkeys while they are on a page so that they can't view the source code to the web page they are visiting?
Since their aircraft are technically "unmanned"...
if we only extend the concept of man to refer to being flown by someone or something that is considered intelligent, then we only end up having to further refine the issue when we make a computer that is at least as smart as a person.
Having a line of sight does not mean you are necessarily looking directly at it, so having line of sight and flying by camera are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Was that so hard?
Note also that I did not say that light bulbs emit any pollution, because they do not. The only enviuronmental impact that they have that is worse the LED's is in the fact that they *draw* more power in the first place, requiring more work to be done in power generation, which may itself lead to more pollution. Nonetheless, lightbulbs are still entirely zero-emission devices, because they do not emit any pollution.
Electric vehicles are absolutely no different in that respect.... and it is still ultimately the *production* of electricity that may be dirty, while the vehicles themselves do not directly emit any greenhouse gasses. I would even concede that they may *contribute* to greenhouse gas emissions because of how much electricity that they use, but that is entirely different than saying that they emit the gasses themselves, which is what the term 'vehicle emissions' means... that the car *emits* those gasses, when in the case of an electric car, it does not.
If a person cannot distinguish between the two, then one should explicitly say exactly what they mean (which isn't a bad policy to be following in the first place), instead of using popular terms to refer to something that does not describe the literal truth. In my opinion, people who allege that the average person is genuinely too unintelligent to understand this if it were explicitly spelled out in that way is probably only making an excuse for being too lazy to make the effort to try.
Gasoline cars *do* emit greenhouse gasses. Electric cars emit none. My so-called "agenda" is nothing more than to expect people to use words that mean what they say, rather than playing twisting the literal defininitions of things of the words involved and suggesting the co2 impact of using an electric vehicle are the emissions caused by the vehicle itself. They are not. Go ahead and talk about how dirty electricity production is if you want, go ahead and talk about how everything that uses such electricity inherently contributes to that end, but it is grossly misleading to say that the cars produce emissions, because that suggests that the cars themselves do, and they do not. Not saying what you actually mean, that electricity production is dirty, is misleading at best and lying at worst. If the phrase "zero emissions" is taken to mean "no co2 impact at all" then one should again say precisely what they mean and expressly point out that the since the production of electricity is dirty, everything that uses such generated power contributes to that, the amount ring dependant on how much power is being used. Or if that is too complex, as another person put it, try "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".
Agreed.... but that is saying something different than saying that electric cars have emissions
Electric vehicles *ARE* zero emission.... it is the production of electricity in the first place that may not be.... Electric cars do *NOT* directly cause any emissions, and suggesting that they are not zero emission just because the production of electricity may not be is *FAR* more misleading about the nature what is actually causing harm to the environment.
The LED ones use electricity more efficiently.... if the production of electricity in the first place causes emissions, then at the very least, using LEDs instead of light bulbs will at least contribute less pollution to that end. If somebody made light bulbs that used electricity as efficiently as LED's and could produce just as much illumination and were cheaper than LED's, then LED's would indeed just be a waste of money, as you said.
I didn't say that electric cars have no CO2 impact.... Certainly their CO2 impact could be substantial (albeit still far less than a gasoline vehicle) if the production of electricity in the first place causes CO2, and there is a CO2 impact for their manufacture as well, although that impact is not any larger than the CO2 impact for the industrial manufacturing of anything, per kilogram of manufactured and produced goods. However, I am specifically talking about *vehicle emissions* here, that is, the gasses that would actually be emitted directly from the vehicle itself. An electric vehicle produces none of those. Certainly it's fair to say that electric vehicle vehicles have CO2 impact, and if you want to draw attention to that point, then don't be talking about emissions at all, because that only confuses the issue.
Like I said before.... if you want to simplify things for the person who is too dumb to understand the difference between emissions caused by the production of electricity in the first place and emissions that are directly caused by the usage of that electricity, then stick to your opening phrase.... "there is no such thing as a free lunch". It's concise, entirely true, and very well understood by most people.
So in what way are those emissions caused by the vehicle itself? That is caused by the production of electricity in general in regions that do not have convenient clean sources of energy, but one may equally condemn absolutely all electricity usage on that basis for contributing to that end... the responsibility for which is actually assumed by the owner of devices that are powered by such electricity, and not necessarily the devices themselves. Electric cars are indeed zero emission. It is misleading at best to suggest otherwise simply because the production of electricity may not be.