No... copyright is not censorship... it is the very opposite, since the works that are copyrighted are being actually published. That you aren't permitted to freely copy them doesn't change that. The alternative is for the creator to not publish at all (which is what no small number of people did before copyright, when they feared their works would simply be blatantly copied).
It is the inevitable logical conclusion, unless you can purge the characteristic of greed from human nature. Trying to implement a system as if greed did not exist will not work.
At what point did I suggest that Canada was part of the USA? My point is that it's legal to travel between them... and that it's legal in Canada to unlock a cell phone. Since it's not illegal in the USA to possess an unlocked cell phone, so it must be okay to unlock a locked cell phone when outside of the USA unless the DMCA contains a provision that any locks broken outside of the USA on products purchased within in it, and which would be a violation of the DMCA if done in the USA, must be restored upon returning (which I'd wager doesn't exist).
In the USA, apparently, not anymore... unlocking of cell phones was made as an exception to the DMCA, and this exception was evidently revoked earlier this week.
Replace "not buying the product" with "not buying any product", and you see the the problem with that suggestion.
Sure, there's already unlocked phones you can buy now... but with the removal of cell phone unlocking from the exceptions to the DMCA, the lawmakers have now implicitly added some incentive for cell phone providers to produce more locked cell phones, since by doing so, they could potentially reap the benefits of the additional protections the law offers for them (with the exception in place, there is no real benefit, and therefore no incentive). With this added incentive, it is inevitable that the available of alternative unlocked phones is going to diminish significantly within the next few months, and the consumer's freedom to choose such alternatives will be proportionally limited.
... taking the cell phone to Canada and unlocking it there?
Notwithstanding that this could violate a cell phone provider's terms of service agreement, and one could still be accountable to their cell provider for violating that.
However, in Canada, the unlocking of cell phones is *expressly* legal.
And, if people who are, for instance, residents of California, are allowed to travel to Nevada and gamble and then return without consequence, I see no reason why a person from the USA could not also go into Canada and unlock their phone there without legal repercussions.
I smell a potentially profitable business opportunity for people who live in border towns.
At the very worst, you just need something that could safely meet all of the energy needs of a planet's population for at least the lifetime of the planet's sun, plus whatever it takes to send the people to another planet to start using resources there.
If it had nothing to do with being unable to copyright look and feel, what about any of the other windowing systems which have features found in the Apple gui? X? Java Swing?
"Apple had agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0, but when Microsoft made changes in Windows 2.0 adding overlapping windows and other features found in the Macintosh GUI, Apple filed suit."
So the problem Apple had with them was that Windows copied parts of their GUI that Microsoft never paid any license for.
... that if Apple had thought of trying this idea of patenting or trademarking their look 30 years ago, their lawsuit against Microsoft for copying their look and feel could have gone very differently.
At least you can't say that Apple doesn't learn from their own mistakes.
Their reason is largely irrelevant to the fact that they expect customers to obey the rules. Advocating everybody giving away their wifi is suggesting that everybody willingly do things that *will* get them disconnected completely if or when their ISP finds out.
Broken or not, the former is infinitely preferable... and at least while we have it, there is still hope to make it better. Weakening it to the point that it no longer has any value to creators is not a way to accomplish that.
Considering the nature of the crime, being guilty of one incident gives sufficient cause to consider the person guilty of the other two without proof to the contrary. It's like being caught lying.... once you are caught doing it once, it makes other things you've said which are related very unbelievable.
Like I said... don't deliberately do illegal shit in the first place and this wouldn't be an issue. If she had pleaded not guilty to all three, I'd have been a whole lot more supportive of her position.
Right... so running an open wifi on a home consumer subscription Internet connection would be a violation of your ISP's ToS. You get disconnected, and have *NO* internet.
All an ISP has to do is require, as part of their ToS, that a subscriber assumes full civil liability for any use of their subscribed IP address. If they don't agree, too bad. No service at all.
A) Possibly... Not something I make a practice of, however. Which was my only point. If I'm caught doing something illegal that I didn't know about, I don't expect to not have to pay the consequences, however.
B) the disputed incident would not have substantially altered the penalty, as I said above.
C) That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I don't share it, however.
Not all copyright holders are "powerful", you know. And infringing on any copyright weakens the value of copyright for *ALL* copyright holders, not just the entity whose work was infringed.
To answer your three final questions: I don't make a habit of it. Never intentionally. And no. So to sum up, no.... I don't do illegal stuff all the time.
As for why she's getting fined for a crime there's no evidence she committed, she *admitted* to it....there's only one track that was even in dispute and that would have made only a difference of $2.19 in the judgement.
Personally, I don't think the fines are excessive at all... they are sufficient to leave a lasting impression that she will remember it is against the law in the future. That might mean that if she does so again, it will be in full knowledge of this, and she may try harder to cover her tracks, but if caught, the fines could justifiably be much higher.
Speeding harms nobody when there aren't any pedestrians or other cars around. Doesn't mean you don't deserve a ticket for it if you are doing it deliberately, and happen to get caught on radar camera.
Or... y'know... maybe... and I know this is going to sound just totally crazy here, a person could just not do illegal stuff in the first place?
Okay, this person didn't know what they were doing was illegal. But, ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break it. It might be an excuse for a lesser judgement, however... but she certainly knows now, and, if ever caught again, the fine will probably be much worse.
Because note.... this is a *FINE*... not a settlement. When being fined for criminal activity, the prosecuting party is only entitled to the monies they are out (in this case, $261.57, almost all of which were fees associated with bringing the matter to court in the first place, and probably would not change with the number of infringements).
I am only suggesting that the act of pointing and/or touching what you see is an extremely intuitive gesture. It's not the be-all-end-all of interfaces because we often want to do things with computers that require more complex interaction.
But that has nothing to do with the notion that touch interfaces allegedly requires learning a new method of interacting with a PC, because in applications where it's applicable, that mode of interaction requires no additional learning at all, since we learned the skills necessary before we even knew how to walk or speak.
Slashdot Mirror
If she had pleaded not guilty to all three charges, I would not have had any reason to suspect that she was being dishonest in the first place.
No... copyright is not censorship... it is the very opposite, since the works that are copyrighted are being actually published. That you aren't permitted to freely copy them doesn't change that. The alternative is for the creator to not publish at all (which is what no small number of people did before copyright, when they feared their works would simply be blatantly copied).
It is the inevitable logical conclusion, unless you can purge the characteristic of greed from human nature. Trying to implement a system as if greed did not exist will not work.
Well, a door, being capable of being opened or closed, certainly isn't *IM*mobile... so why is it different, exactly?
[nt]
Like what? And is there ever any reason for a user to legitimately *NOT* know about it?
... that a program can evidently send a text message to someone else without that text showing up in the message history?
At what point did I suggest that Canada was part of the USA? My point is that it's legal to travel between them... and that it's legal in Canada to unlock a cell phone. Since it's not illegal in the USA to possess an unlocked cell phone, so it must be okay to unlock a locked cell phone when outside of the USA unless the DMCA contains a provision that any locks broken outside of the USA on products purchased within in it, and which would be a violation of the DMCA if done in the USA, must be restored upon returning (which I'd wager doesn't exist).
In the USA, apparently, not anymore... unlocking of cell phones was made as an exception to the DMCA, and this exception was evidently revoked earlier this week.
Replace "not buying the product" with "not buying any product", and you see the the problem with that suggestion.
Sure, there's already unlocked phones you can buy now... but with the removal of cell phone unlocking from the exceptions to the DMCA, the lawmakers have now implicitly added some incentive for cell phone providers to produce more locked cell phones, since by doing so, they could potentially reap the benefits of the additional protections the law offers for them (with the exception in place, there is no real benefit, and therefore no incentive). With this added incentive, it is inevitable that the available of alternative unlocked phones is going to diminish significantly within the next few months, and the consumer's freedom to choose such alternatives will be proportionally limited.
Notwithstanding that this could violate a cell phone provider's terms of service agreement, and one could still be accountable to their cell provider for violating that.
However, in Canada, the unlocking of cell phones is *expressly* legal.
And, if people who are, for instance, residents of California, are allowed to travel to Nevada and gamble and then return without consequence, I see no reason why a person from the USA could not also go into Canada and unlock their phone there without legal repercussions.
I smell a potentially profitable business opportunity for people who live in border towns.
At the very worst, you just need something that could safely meet all of the energy needs of a planet's population for at least the lifetime of the planet's sun, plus whatever it takes to send the people to another planet to start using resources there.
If it had nothing to do with being unable to copyright look and feel, what about any of the other windowing systems which have features found in the Apple gui? X? Java Swing?
From the wikipedia article you linked to....
So the problem Apple had with them was that Windows copied parts of their GUI that Microsoft never paid any license for.
At least you can't say that Apple doesn't learn from their own mistakes.
Their reason is largely irrelevant to the fact that they expect customers to obey the rules. Advocating everybody giving away their wifi is suggesting that everybody willingly do things that *will* get them disconnected completely if or when their ISP finds out.
Broken or not, the former is infinitely preferable... and at least while we have it, there is still hope to make it better. Weakening it to the point that it no longer has any value to creators is not a way to accomplish that.
Considering the nature of the crime, being guilty of one incident gives sufficient cause to consider the person guilty of the other two without proof to the contrary. It's like being caught lying.... once you are caught doing it once, it makes other things you've said which are related very unbelievable.
Like I said... don't deliberately do illegal shit in the first place and this wouldn't be an issue. If she had pleaded not guilty to all three, I'd have been a whole lot more supportive of her position.
Right... so running an open wifi on a home consumer subscription Internet connection would be a violation of your ISP's ToS. You get disconnected, and have *NO* internet.
All an ISP has to do is require, as part of their ToS, that a subscriber assumes full civil liability for any use of their subscribed IP address. If they don't agree, too bad. No service at all.
A) Possibly... Not something I make a practice of, however. Which was my only point. If I'm caught doing something illegal that I didn't know about, I don't expect to not have to pay the consequences, however.
B) the disputed incident would not have substantially altered the penalty, as I said above.
C) That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I don't share it, however.
D) You first.
Not all copyright holders are "powerful", you know. And infringing on any copyright weakens the value of copyright for *ALL* copyright holders, not just the entity whose work was infringed.
To answer your three final questions: I don't make a habit of it. Never intentionally. And no. So to sum up, no.... I don't do illegal stuff all the time.
As for why she's getting fined for a crime there's no evidence she committed, she *admitted* to it....there's only one track that was even in dispute and that would have made only a difference of $2.19 in the judgement.
Personally, I don't think the fines are excessive at all... they are sufficient to leave a lasting impression that she will remember it is against the law in the future. That might mean that if she does so again, it will be in full knowledge of this, and she may try harder to cover her tracks, but if caught, the fines could justifiably be much higher.
Speeding harms nobody when there aren't any pedestrians or other cars around. Doesn't mean you don't deserve a ticket for it if you are doing it deliberately, and happen to get caught on radar camera.
Or... y'know... maybe... and I know this is going to sound just totally crazy here, a person could just not do illegal stuff in the first place?
Okay, this person didn't know what they were doing was illegal. But, ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break it. It might be an excuse for a lesser judgement, however... but she certainly knows now, and, if ever caught again, the fine will probably be much worse.
Because note.... this is a *FINE*... not a settlement. When being fined for criminal activity, the prosecuting party is only entitled to the monies they are out (in this case, $261.57, almost all of which were fees associated with bringing the matter to court in the first place, and probably would not change with the number of infringements).
What "nonsense" have I supposedly "come up with"?
I am only suggesting that the act of pointing and/or touching what you see is an extremely intuitive gesture. It's not the be-all-end-all of interfaces because we often want to do things with computers that require more complex interaction.
But that has nothing to do with the notion that touch interfaces allegedly requires learning a new method of interacting with a PC, because in applications where it's applicable, that mode of interaction requires no additional learning at all, since we learned the skills necessary before we even knew how to walk or speak.