Oh, I just noticed info about the 1984 Betamax decision allowing one-time, non-commercial taping. (It isn't my fault I never heard about that -- I'm Canadian;) So, I guess that is legal. It still doesn't help out RecordTV though, since they profit from their venture (I think, their site is hard to get to).
So here's my modified (and MUCH easier to understand argument):
You still have to destroy/erase the tape once you have watched the show once. I don't think you are going to be technically allowed to pause, fast forward, or rewind, either, since that differs from the original broadcast. And, like I said, RecordTV doesn't get the same protection as a home non-commercial user. This one-time-taping deal is the only fair use of TV shows I have seen yet. So you are still not allowed to keep what you have recorded. This is the only personal use allowed. You can't keep the recordings after you have watched them for the personal convenience of having them.
>According to the 1984 Betamax decision, the courts have ruled that personal, time-shifted content is legal.
This site (http://www2.awa.com/artnet/artnetweb/iola/journal /history/1994/copyright.html#Heading5) agrees, but you have a MAJOR problem running a business of time-shifting: it cannot be for profit or commercial. As a charity, you could do it.
And this is ONE-TIME use only. This means you have to tape a copy of the program for each person, on a separate casette. Another roadblock (imagine the cost of supporting users if you had to tie up a tape and VCR for each and every user).
Of course, IANAL, but hey, this bill only seems to protect the right of a non-commercial entity to record a program to watch once, on their own personal equipment. Unless you wanted to lease space for the users equipment (or lease your equipment to users), I think you'd still be hard up for legal support... Of course, that's just my opinion.:-)
>You have the right, under fair use, to make copies of anything for which you have in some sense purchased copyright.
Does a TV station sell you the rights to their programs, or simply lease the program for the time it is on the air? I would doubt a TV station would even have the authority to sell you the rights to most of the TV programs they air.
As far as a lease goes, fair use doesn't apply in the same way. It applies for the time the material is leased. IE: If you lease a computer program for a week, you can make a copy and keep it for that week. At the end of that time, it must be destroyed.
Well, the way I see it, the TV station leases you their program for the time it is on the air. Once the program ends, so does the lease. This means when the program ends, your VCR has to quickly backpedal and erase the material to have legally used the broadcast material... Not at all useful.
Now, as far as purchasing goes, since when did you pay money for TV? I don't. I have an antenna. Of course, there is cable, but cable isn't broadcast. It is a different animal... and there are SPECIAL exceptions to most copyright laws to allow rebroadcasting On-Air TV stations to other mediums in RealTime (only).
So if I record the TV station I didn't pay for, there aren't ANY fair use rights to argue about. And can I use RecordTV if I don't have cable? (I don't know... their site sucks to hard to use). If so, then I HAVE violated the law, as I have no right to cry "fair use".
And even cable users lease their service, along with many satellite users. Unless you have a lifetime purchase of a station, I think once your lease runs out you will have no choice but to destroy your tapes...
>It is wholely legal and aboveboard to tape cable TV, pay per view, regular TV, or ANYTHING that comes into your TV set, for your own personal use.
Now that has to be the biggest crock I have ever heard. Do you mean that if I take screenshots of The Simpsons and print them out and stick them to my cubicle, Fox can't bust me? Uhhh, hello, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. So many websites have been busted for this (taking screenshots of The Simpsons), there is even a special Fux-Hate website: http://nerd.simplenet.com
Whether it is taking a 1 frame screenshot, or taping the whole show doesn't matter - even if the whole world has access to the station.
>If we are not careful the copyright moguls (RIAA, TV networks) will completely erode our rights to fair use through intimidation and money.
I'd say they are eroding the spirit of copyright, but what the heck.
>So according to you, I can't tape anything on TV and watch it later, unless there's a disclaimer?
If you don't want to break any laws, pretty much, yes.
If it carries a copyright symbol, yes. If it doesn't, certain legal precendents have been set in the US over the past decade saying that material missing the copyright symbol is still protected by it. In other words, everything is copyright. So yes, there must be a notification of release of copyright terms before you can tape it. It's a bummer, I know.:-|
>So why do VCRs have a "Record" button?
(Real reason: For the same reason there are CD-R burners. To make "backups" of stuff and "transfer" to other formats...;-)
What the VCR companies lawyers would likely tell you:
So you can tape your home videos, public access stations, public service announcements and other non-copyrighted/public distrubution material etc... Sounds stupid but here it is, straight from my new JVC VCR (HR-S3600U) manual:
- "It may be unlawful to record or play back copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright owner".
I guess they say "may" because you never know when a copyleft copyright for movies will exist (or if it does already). It is interesting they say unlawful; in the US that means it often isn't a jailable offence (unlawful is reserved for misdemeanors, whereas illegal/illicit is reserved for heavier crimes).
There's one for my RCA VCR too (I don't have the manual handy tho).
And from my ainchent (sp?) VR1820 Zenith VCR manual:
- "Duplication of material that is copyrighted may be illegal. However, it is not illegal to copy home movies and material that is not otherwise copyrighted".
That should clear up the "intended" use of the record button for ya...:-)
>And why give numbers for programs I can't tape?
Because VCR+ doesn't create the numbers for specific programs. They made the system for the numbers. It really isn't much more that an overglorified calendar linked with a channel number. Looking at it like that, you'll see that if VCR+ was illegal, writing "Tape public access channel 5" on your calendar would be an offence too.
I don't know if the TV Guide people do the numbers, or if the broadcasters do them. If the broadcasters do them, you might sucessfully argue with a judge (not that a judge would even bother to accept such a petty crime as time shifting copyrighted material into the courts) that they are giving you the right to make a copy of the material by encouraging you to use those numbers by making them easily availiable. If the TV Guide people do it, I don't think this would count.
I hate the laws the way they stand too. They are vauge and open to interpretation. The only stance you can take if you need to protect yourself nowadays is the defensive. If it "looks" illegal, or was illegal, it still is.:-(
Current copyright laws have to be ammended/changed to have any true effects on the average person at home. Right now, I would be most everyone in a first world country is guilty of breaking copyright in at least some minor way. All I know is I can't change them, I can just guess at them.
The big two words in copyright are COPY and RIGHT. Expanded, copyright means to me (basically): A legal right to restrict the copying of your work.
If you insert comercials into your work, and decide to broadcast it one day, and one day only, and you NEVER want it seen at any other time, that is your right (by default). You don't have to put in any special restrictions. By recording such a program (which is all programs not specifically displaying a denial of right to copyright) you violate the right of the author to the restriction of the content to being viewed at a certain time. That is a copyright right (to the best of my knowledge).
This is identical to the fact that it is illegal to record a movie at the theater for later viewing; even if you plan to destroy the copy and only watch it once, pay for the movie, and leave the theater while it is taped.
Of course, you are free to make backups of pre-recorded, purchased tapes. Why? Because these are intended by the author to be viewed for the life of the casette, at any time. By making a personal backup you don't violate these terms.
Whether you agree with copyright or not doesn't let you bend the rules, sorry.
And, as far as the cost is concerned, yes, the company might not be able to recoup costs, but the government can fine you $250,000 _and_ put your ass in jail for 5 years (this is on most all videocasettes). That is a strong reminder that the loss of funds isn't what is illegal here, but the copying of the content.
>Let's say I record a program. I record a baseball game, Murder She Wrote, it doesn't matter. I watch it for my own personal use. It's all legal so far.
1+2) Nope, copyright means copyright. Unless that program says "You may record one copy for later viewing.", or "Released to the public domain" you have violated copyright. This is in the same vein as saying "Well, I taped Star Wars TPM at the theater because I had to go to the washroom for a looong time.". Even if you meant it (you wanted to watch it later at home, not distribute it), it is still illegal. This doesn't mean that anybody cares, but the law is the law.
3) VCR+ isn't illegal because it is just a method for easily recording what is on a station at a certain time. This is the same as, say, a timed packet sniffer on a network [if such a thing were to exist]. If it records copyrighted content, that is YOUR problem, not the problem of the people designing the system... Remember, TV static, and often test patterns are not copyrighted.:-)
4) The internet is new. New stuff tends to drag up mud that has settled. People are used to doing something one way, and the advertisers/TV companies haven't really cared about VCRs for a long time. Now you pour salt into an old wound. Of course they're gonna howl...:-)
>I hope the rest of the world is able to take care of itself so we gun crazy Americans don't have to go halfway around the world and give our lives for you again.
It took you gun crazy Americans 10 million Jewish lives and 2 years before you gave a sh*t. Don't try and make it look like you won the war. You simply finished it.
>They don't have to be worked out at the barrel of a gun. As a matter of fact I've never pointed a gun at a person. However I'm not afraid of people or peoples guns. Because I'm able and willing to defend myself if necessary.
I wouldn't use a gun for defense. I'd use a bulletproof vest. A gun is an offense weapon. You can't stop bullets hitting you with one. You can just shoot them.
>Of course you can work out the social problems with guns on the street. WTF if people are content with their life why would they want to go out and commit crimes with guns or otherwise.
Because they are seriously disturbed psychotics? It is VERY hard to stop a psycho from owning a gun. They look and act normal enough most of the time to easily pass "criminal activity" detection.
>As for criminals having guns, we already have laws against that.
But why would a criminal care about laws? Now, I know the usual retort to that is "But criminals don't care about gun laws, so they will get as many guns as they like.". I think that without ANY guns in the hands of ANY citizens, it is a LOT harder (nearly impossible) for petty criminals to get guns. This is like plutonium. No one has it at home. You can't buy it at a corner store. So how many criminals have it? Almost none (except an elite few).
>When the situation in this country becomes so bad that terroism is common I will definatly feel much safer knowing that I can defend myself if need be.
When the situation in the country gets so bad that average citizens have to kill other people to live, I'm leaving.
>Good because I don't trust you either so I think it would be in my best interest for the government to take away your right to privacy so that I can monitor what you are doing at all times and your right to free speech so that I won't have to worry about your influencing people with your dangerous thoughts.
How is my right to privacy going to put you at risk of death by my hands?
>Well lets see guns are used for entertainment. Marksmanship is even included in some olympic contests. >Some guns are made exclusivly for collectors and are never meant to be fired
Entertainment. Ok, well I have a Nintendo LightGun. What's wrong with making a gun for entertainment that can't kill? If the Nintendo LightGun cost $1000 I would bet it would feel and sound like a "real" gun. And there is no reason why one of these simulation guns couldn't be used instead of live ammo in an olympic sport.
And as far as collection goes, since the gun doesn't need to be fired, why do you need the firing mechanism? The government should keep those.
>Are you then a vegetarian or are you content to kill as the government does from afar, because believe me whenever you eat a hamburger or steak you are causing the death of an animal.
Yeah, but I'm enjoying food. There isn't anything wrong with that (unless you are anorexic). I'm not simply destroying life for my personal pleasure, I'm doing it because I don't have any choice. (BTW: Just a note, there is NO such thing as a vegetarian. Take a REAL good look at the vegetables you eat. Under a microscope. You'll find living organisms...)
>I hunt and fish and I enjoy it but I do eat what I kill. To kill just for the sake of killing IS wrong.
That's ok, as there is a purpose to it. But I know enough people personally that simply kill and don't bother to use the animal for anything. That's disgusting.
>That's the way it should be but in America we have all these people that grew up in large urban war zones and they think if they could just get guns away from people it would solve all of their problems.
Yeah, there's social issues to work out. But they are NEVER going to be worked out at the barrel of a gun. Saying you can work out these problems with guns on the streets is like saying you can stop prostitution without police. It doesn't compute.
>I was never allowed to use a gun unless supervised until I was mature enough to be trusted with a gun.
And I'm supposed to believe that every stranger on the street with a gun is to be trusted with it? In fact, why the heck should I even trust you with a gun? You give me no reason to (other than that you state you have [in your opinion] proper training.). Maybe if you had a big "The Gov't of xyz has Licensed me a Trained Marksman" sign on you...
>Fear the government that fears your guns.
Ohhh, yeah. Right. I'm sure that if every citized has a shotgun this is going to stop the Country from unleashing biological warfare... (no). You see, any government whose people have enough money to buy lots of firearms has enough money (and sense) to be able to defeat the purpose of them.
And how are you going to get into the underground military bases with your guns? I don't care HOW big your shotgun is, it ISN'T going to matter to 10 ft. of steel.
>Don't ask the government to take away my rights because you don't like guns.
But do ask the government to take away the rights of those with guns that you don't trust. And, to me, that is ANYONE I haven't met personally. Seems to me like this includes you (sorry...:-)
The same way I wouldn't trust an unlicensed/unfit driver on the road, I don't trust ANYONE with a gun that doesn't have a license.
>Everyone that knows history knows that the reason that we have the right to bear arms in the US is because the British tried to deny the colonists that right and this made the American revolution that much harder. That right was given to the people of the united states, as a last resort, in case our government ever became tyranical.
That I understand. And at the time, enough guns and you could ruin the government. But now, what kind of gun is going to destroy the government? You can't do it with a gun. Maybe with a nuclear weapon you could overthrow the government. It worked a little more than 50 years ago... Should people have these to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? How a little about sarin gas and anthrax to sweeten the deal?
I bet you won't find any supporters of giving people the right to bear nuclear arms and biological/chemical weapons for "defense against the government".
Fact is guns do just one thing: KILL.
Give me a use of a gun that isn't designed to KILL or THREATEN TO KILL. Get over the idea of stopping the Queen of England from busting into your living room. If she wanted to do it, she'd be in a popemobile, and your gun will look like a pea shooter in comparison.
Now, if you wanted to support guns, and still have me on your side, try this. I have only come up with one use of guns that is reasonable: For the removal of animals. No, I don't mean killing species to extinction, but I mean reducing the number of animals when necessary. For example, if the population of animals threatens human life, then that population of animals must be destroyed. I believe there was a serious problem with deer carrying lyme disease in parts of the US at one time. The only choice in the matter would be to euthanise these animals, for the sake of the people living in these areas.
Other than that, I have never been able to figure out why a first world country needs arms in the hands of its citizens to happily survive nowadays. And the idea of killing things for sport sickens me. It reminds me of the time when humans were nothing more than animals. Why would anyone want to debase themselves like that?
>You mean like the price of CD's and VHS tapes went down with time?
EXACTLY like that. Remember old great movies like "The Terminator"? Remember how the ONLY way you could ever enjoy then was to either rent them or pay the $70 or so price that the rental store had to pay for it? Now, $13 will get you a copy.
And if you add inflation to the original cost... wow... VHS has truly changed.
So when my kernel panics at boot (like it did when I compiled bttv into kernel 2.0.0pre8 a long time ago) I can somehow run dmesg? About 5 or 6 other things from 5 or 6 other separate pieces of kernel code scrolled past before the panic. Lets see:
5 things x 5 lines (with ads) == 25 lines. Add about 5 lines for the kernel panic info, and there's NO WAY I can see what is wrong (25 lines default screen size).
5 things x 1.5 lines (normal size) == 7 lines. Add about 5 lines for the kernel panic info, and that is just 12 lines. Woohoo! I can see that my bttv driver is loaded.
And shift-pgup doesn't work on an MDA card (why bother with anything better for a server?).
As you see, ads will annoy the HELL out of any sysadmin running cheapass hardware. Sure it might be "his fault" for not buying good stuff, but why make anyone's life harder? If you want to add credits in try:
-- ReiserFS loaded. dd/mm/yy. Visit www.sponors.reiserfs.org for sponsorship info.
One line. Clean. Has a hint of advertisement in it, but as long as it is less than 80 chars long, it doesn't matter. The kernel messages are ONLY for debugging purposes. They aren't there for personal glory. Thank God Linux is open source, if the trend of ads in kernel messages continues, I'm willing to bet there will be special "cut-the-crap" kernel patches availiable.:-)
I'm happy you wrote some free software for me. Thanks. But just as when someone gives you a gift they don't tell you every time they meet you that THEY gave you THAT gift, you don't have to tell me every time my linux box boots that YOU gave me THAT software. Argh....:-|
I'm now 1% more happier to live in Canada. Don't have to worry about the government tapping my phones here. Now, if only we could get free speech guaranteed by law...
>We need to get constructive folks, and not continue to feed the machine.
No way man. We just need to separate America from the rest of the net. Of course, the way I read your post, that wouldn't leave any one else, would it?
And Americans wonder why they are called self-centered...:-)
Like, what the heck is the FBI thing you keep talking about? And this S. 2092 policy? I don't have either of these in Canada.:-)
I've been banned from IRC lines that are "limited" to G rated language.
I said: Darn. Heck. Oh Man. That's Nasty. Jerk.
That's the problem with IRCops. They think because they are ops they should start making up rules as they go along. That IS NOT how the REAL "law" works. You set rules, and you follow them. No leniency, no "preventative examples". So I got kicked. Why? Why do YOU think? If you haven't seen a Disney movie with those words in it, well, you haven't seen a Disney movie yet.
I don't use IRC anymore. It is a TOTAL waste of time with asses like that op. I am NOT going to pretend I can read an ops mind, because I can't. If you don't want certain things to happen in a channel, LIST THEM CLEARLY, or conflict can and WILL occurr. The problem is, most people who are ops on channels have NEVER dealt with controlling a crowd of people. How many ops do you know that do public speaking? How many ops do you know that are (good) teachers? How many ops do you know that are law enforcement officials? How many ops have done done a public fundraiser, or been on TV? Unless you do something along those lines successfully, then you are proabably not cut out to control and direct a bunch of people.
Just my 2 cents.
That being said, flooding, or other wastes of people's time should not be tolerated.
>Let's break up Microsoft because they have an 80% desktop market share. Sure, Microsoft has the best newbie-oriented gui and os, the best office suite, the best web browser, and even the best joysticks and mice. But these superior products were developed through illegal means, such as...
...scaremongering companies into purchasing Microsoft only products. No, this isn't "I'll give you a deal if you give me a deal", this is "I'll sell you xyz IF you don't do zyx". If you are a monopoly and do that, you stifle the market. The market dies, and the world economy ends up being ruled by people you and I never elected... That may/may not be good, depending on your point of view. I know I don't think it is good, and since I don't get my say in it, enforcing a monopoly through strongarm tactics is a form of dictatorship, therefore illegal, IMHO.
Now, a truly good product (the only one in your list that is good, again IMHO, is possibly the mouse) requires NO strongarm tactics -- a good product will sell very well on word of mouth and advertising alone. Microsoft needs their monopolistic tactics to continue selling their other horribly crappy (IMHO) products, such as a Web Browser that can crash most of the OS, and an OS that often crashes itself. Not to mention an office suite that barely fits on a CD yet does little more than StarOffice (an office suite in well under 75 Mb).
I could gain a 100% share in anything if I were willing to threaten people. I don't, and I wouldn't. It would be illegal and morally wrong. Just because there are more people in a company doesn't water down the justice.
>Microsoft should be required to open up its APIs even though they were developed in-house. Further, Microsoft should be required to port office and IE to every platform, including but not limited to Linux, Unix, BeOS, MacOS, V2OS, PALM OS, TI 92, Nintendo 64, and Sega Master System.
No, opening up API source would be wrong. They were developed in-house by paid workers. They cost MS money. But, due to US law on Reverse Engineering, the ONLY way for programmers to find out how the APIs work is to ask MS for information. That information should be provided to outside progammers, or the IDIOTIC laws against reverse engineering should be repealed. I can't beleive that I am allowed to open my car engine to see how it works, but I am NOT allowed to look under the hood of a piece of software.
MS should NOT be required to port software to any platform they don't want to, for the same reason GM isn't required (I think) by law to make diesel engines instead of gasoline engines. But, they should be required to do what I mentioned above.
>Microsoft is CHEATING! They didn't get where they are now through hard work and insight! Heck, if I reduced myself to Gates' level, I could have created Microsoft. Since Bill Gates and Microsoft are evil capitalist pigs, their company should be destroyed.
Mix 10 parts opportunity, 2 parts knowledge, 30 parts unscrupulousness, 20 parts worker incompensation, 100 parts image, and what do you get? Microsoft!
If you are unscrupulous (which I think MS is), you are a cheat, and possibly a liar. You do what you must through knowledge and hard work, the rest, you do through whatever means necessary.
A true capitalist realizes the market has to continue for society to remain capitalist. Microsoft has perverted that idea by forcing themselves into a monopoly position, and therefore cannot truly be capitalist. America is all for capitalist companies. Are they for monopolistic companies? We will find out (News at 11).
>I think its a clever TV that has Video in AND out. The TV could conceivable also have been designed with a built in Macrovision blocking mechanism, or some system that has the same effect.
Still won't work (unless, like you say, you actually find a TV with Macrovision blocking circuitry -- which would add at least $200 to the cost of the TV to do it without patent violations). Read this for some more "expert" opinion on it:
>No sweat, If you do as you always have done nothing is different, but it may hurt the reputation of Linux, if some stupid ComputerWorld journalist gets infected because he installs all kind of soiled binaries and gets burned.
Not that I don't agree with you, but in my eyes the reputation of the journalist is tarnished for being dumb enough to get themselves a virus -- and then they double that with telling the world just how stupid they are.:-)
A 386, SX-16 with 4 MB RAM and 20 MB hard drive will run Linux with Apache. That should be the cheapest solution. And with that low a running frequency, you probably won't have to worry about buying a case.
That solution will run you about -$5 if you are lucky (the person with the machine will probably give you $5 to take it away).
I wouldn't try serving more than 1 person at a time, though, with that little memory...:-)
Did you mean Commodore, as in the computer ( =D for those that remember )?
I don't remember any of the Commodore series (the PET, the VIC, or the C64/128) ever coming with any kind of taco promotion. When did you get such a machine? I would be interested to know...
Or, if you mean "taco biased", would you point out to me exactly where a taco biases the circuitry? That would be one of the most ingenious hacks I've ever seen.
Perhaps the taco came with their typwriters, or other business products (like filing cabinets, mouse pads, or the dreaded Commodore PC). Whichever it is, PLEASE send us a picture.
>more like a badly written commercial.
Now I _KNOW_ you are talking about Commodore Computers...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I just noticed info about the 1984 Betamax decision allowing one-time, non-commercial taping. (It isn't my fault I never heard about that -- I'm Canadian ;) So, I guess that is legal. It still doesn't help out RecordTV though, since they profit from their venture (I think, their site is hard to get to).
So here's my modified (and MUCH easier to understand argument):
You still have to destroy/erase the tape once you have watched the show once. I don't think you are going to be technically allowed to pause, fast forward, or rewind, either, since that differs from the original broadcast. And, like I said, RecordTV doesn't get the same protection as a home non-commercial user. This one-time-taping deal is the only fair use of TV shows I have seen yet. So you are still not allowed to keep what you have recorded. This is the only personal use allowed. You can't keep the recordings after you have watched them for the personal convenience of having them.
>According to the 1984 Betamax decision, the courts have ruled that personal, time-shifted content is legal.
l /history/1994/copyright.html#Heading5) agrees, but you have a MAJOR problem running a business of time-shifting: it cannot be for profit or commercial. As a charity, you could do it.
:-)
This site (http://www2.awa.com/artnet/artnetweb/iola/journa
And this is ONE-TIME use only. This means you have to tape a copy of the program for each person, on a separate casette. Another roadblock (imagine the cost of supporting users if you had to tie up a tape and VCR for each and every user).
Of course, IANAL, but hey, this bill only seems to protect the right of a non-commercial entity to record a program to watch once, on their own personal equipment. Unless you wanted to lease space for the users equipment (or lease your equipment to users), I think you'd still be hard up for legal support... Of course, that's just my opinion.
>You have the right, under fair use, to make copies of anything for which you have in some sense purchased copyright.
Does a TV station sell you the rights to their programs, or simply lease the program for the time it is on the air? I would doubt a TV station would even have the authority to sell you the rights to most of the TV programs they air.
As far as a lease goes, fair use doesn't apply in the same way. It applies for the time the material is leased. IE: If you lease a computer program for a week, you can make a copy and keep it for that week. At the end of that time, it must be destroyed.
Well, the way I see it, the TV station leases you their program for the time it is on the air. Once the program ends, so does the lease. This means when the program ends, your VCR has to quickly backpedal and erase the material to have legally used the broadcast material... Not at all useful.
Now, as far as purchasing goes, since when did you pay money for TV? I don't. I have an antenna. Of course, there is cable, but cable isn't broadcast. It is a different animal... and there are SPECIAL exceptions to most copyright laws to allow rebroadcasting On-Air TV stations to other mediums in RealTime (only).
So if I record the TV station I didn't pay for, there aren't ANY fair use rights to argue about. And can I use RecordTV if I don't have cable? (I don't know... their site sucks to hard to use). If so, then I HAVE violated the law, as I have no right to cry "fair use".
And even cable users lease their service, along with many satellite users. Unless you have a lifetime purchase of a station, I think once your lease runs out you will have no choice but to destroy your tapes...
>It is wholely legal and aboveboard to tape cable TV, pay per view, regular TV, or ANYTHING that comes into your TV set, for your own personal use.
Now that has to be the biggest crock I have ever heard. Do you mean that if I take screenshots of The Simpsons and print them out and stick them to my cubicle, Fox can't bust me? Uhhh, hello, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. So many websites have been busted for this (taking screenshots of The Simpsons), there is even a special Fux-Hate website: http://nerd.simplenet.com
Whether it is taking a 1 frame screenshot, or taping the whole show doesn't matter - even if the whole world has access to the station.
>If we are not careful the copyright moguls (RIAA, TV networks) will completely erode our rights to fair use through intimidation and money.
I'd say they are eroding the spirit of copyright, but what the heck.
>So according to you, I can't tape anything on TV and watch it later, unless there's a disclaimer?
:-|
;-)
:-)
:-(
If you don't want to break any laws, pretty much, yes.
If it carries a copyright symbol, yes. If it doesn't, certain legal precendents have been set in the US over the past decade saying that material missing the copyright symbol is still protected by it. In other words, everything is copyright. So yes, there must be a notification of release of copyright terms before you can tape it. It's a bummer, I know.
>So why do VCRs have a "Record" button?
(Real reason: For the same reason there are CD-R burners. To make "backups" of stuff and "transfer" to other formats...
What the VCR companies lawyers would likely tell you:
So you can tape your home videos, public access stations, public service announcements and other non-copyrighted/public distrubution material etc... Sounds stupid but here it is, straight from my new JVC VCR (HR-S3600U) manual:
- "It may be unlawful to record or play back copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright owner".
I guess they say "may" because you never know when a copyleft copyright for movies will exist (or if it does already). It is interesting they say unlawful; in the US that means it often isn't a jailable offence (unlawful is reserved for misdemeanors, whereas illegal/illicit is reserved for heavier crimes).
There's one for my RCA VCR too (I don't have the manual handy tho).
And from my ainchent (sp?) VR1820 Zenith VCR manual:
- "Duplication of material that is copyrighted may be illegal. However, it is not illegal to copy home movies and material that is not otherwise copyrighted".
That should clear up the "intended" use of the record button for ya...
>And why give numbers for programs I can't tape?
Because VCR+ doesn't create the numbers for specific programs. They made the system for the numbers. It really isn't much more that an overglorified calendar linked with a channel number. Looking at it like that, you'll see that if VCR+ was illegal, writing "Tape public access channel 5" on your calendar would be an offence too.
I don't know if the TV Guide people do the numbers, or if the broadcasters do them. If the broadcasters do them, you might sucessfully argue with a judge (not that a judge would even bother to accept such a petty crime as time shifting copyrighted material into the courts) that they are giving you the right to make a copy of the material by encouraging you to use those numbers by making them easily availiable. If the TV Guide people do it, I don't think this would count.
I hate the laws the way they stand too. They are vauge and open to interpretation. The only stance you can take if you need to protect yourself nowadays is the defensive. If it "looks" illegal, or was illegal, it still is.
Current copyright laws have to be ammended/changed to have any true effects on the average person at home. Right now, I would be most everyone in a first world country is guilty of breaking copyright in at least some minor way. All I know is I can't change them, I can just guess at them.
IANAL but wth:
The big two words in copyright are COPY and RIGHT. Expanded, copyright means to me (basically): A legal right to restrict the copying of your work.
If you insert comercials into your work, and decide to broadcast it one day, and one day only, and you NEVER want it seen at any other time, that is your right (by default). You don't have to put in any special restrictions. By recording such a program (which is all programs not specifically displaying a denial of right to copyright) you violate the right of the author to the restriction of the content to being viewed at a certain time. That is a copyright right (to the best of my knowledge).
This is identical to the fact that it is illegal to record a movie at the theater for later viewing; even if you plan to destroy the copy and only watch it once, pay for the movie, and leave the theater while it is taped.
Of course, you are free to make backups of pre-recorded, purchased tapes. Why? Because these are intended by the author to be viewed for the life of the casette, at any time. By making a personal backup you don't violate these terms.
Whether you agree with copyright or not doesn't let you bend the rules, sorry.
And, as far as the cost is concerned, yes, the company might not be able to recoup costs, but the government can fine you $250,000 _and_ put your ass in jail for 5 years (this is on most all videocasettes). That is a strong reminder that the loss of funds isn't what is illegal here, but the copying of the content.
>Let's say I record a program. I record a baseball game, Murder She Wrote, it doesn't matter. I watch it for my own personal use. It's all legal so far.
:-)
:-)
1+2) Nope, copyright means copyright. Unless that program says "You may record one copy for later viewing.", or "Released to the public domain" you have violated copyright. This is in the same vein as saying "Well, I taped Star Wars TPM at the theater because I had to go to the washroom for a looong time.". Even if you meant it (you wanted to watch it later at home, not distribute it), it is still illegal. This doesn't mean that anybody cares, but the law is the law.
3) VCR+ isn't illegal because it is just a method for easily recording what is on a station at a certain time. This is the same as, say, a timed packet sniffer on a network [if such a thing were to exist]. If it records copyrighted content, that is YOUR problem, not the problem of the people designing the system... Remember, TV static, and often test patterns are not copyrighted.
4) The internet is new. New stuff tends to drag up mud that has settled. People are used to doing something one way, and the advertisers/TV companies haven't really cared about VCRs for a long time. Now you pour salt into an old wound. Of course they're gonna howl...
>Honestly, for real, when you think about it, how is Spam a crime?
Denial of Service is a crime. You deny service (ie. shutdown) service on many small ISPs with huge spam floods and hacked open relays.
>I hope the rest of the world is able to take care of itself so we gun crazy Americans don't have to go halfway around the world and give our lives for you again.
It took you gun crazy Americans 10 million Jewish lives and 2 years before you gave a sh*t. Don't try and make it look like you won the war. You simply finished it.
>They don't have to be worked out at the barrel of a gun. As a matter of fact I've never pointed a gun at a person. However I'm not afraid of people or peoples guns. Because I'm able and willing to defend myself if necessary.
I wouldn't use a gun for defense. I'd use a bulletproof vest. A gun is an offense weapon. You can't stop bullets hitting you with one. You can just shoot them.
>Of course you can work out the social problems with guns on the street. WTF if people are content with their life why would they want to go out and commit crimes with guns or otherwise.
Because they are seriously disturbed psychotics? It is VERY hard to stop a psycho from owning a gun. They look and act normal enough most of the time to easily pass "criminal activity" detection.
>As for criminals having guns, we already have laws against that.
But why would a criminal care about laws? Now, I know the usual retort to that is "But criminals don't care about gun laws, so they will get as many guns as they like.". I think that without ANY guns in the hands of ANY citizens, it is a LOT harder (nearly impossible) for petty criminals to get guns. This is like plutonium. No one has it at home. You can't buy it at a corner store. So how many criminals have it? Almost none (except an elite few).
>When the situation in this country becomes so bad that terroism is common I will definatly feel much safer knowing that I can defend myself if need be.
When the situation in the country gets so bad that average citizens have to kill other people to live, I'm leaving.
>Good because I don't trust you either so I think it would be in my best interest for the government to take away your right to privacy so that I can monitor what you are doing at all times and your right to free speech so that I won't have to worry about your influencing people with your dangerous thoughts.
How is my right to privacy going to put you at risk of death by my hands?
>Well lets see guns are used for entertainment. Marksmanship is even included in some olympic contests.
>Some guns are made exclusivly for collectors and are never meant to be fired
Entertainment. Ok, well I have a Nintendo LightGun. What's wrong with making a gun for entertainment that can't kill? If the Nintendo LightGun cost $1000 I would bet it would feel and sound like a "real" gun. And there is no reason why one of these simulation guns couldn't be used instead of live ammo in an olympic sport.
And as far as collection goes, since the gun doesn't need to be fired, why do you need the firing mechanism? The government should keep those.
>Are you then a vegetarian or are you content to kill as the government does from afar, because believe me whenever you eat a hamburger or steak you are causing the death of an animal.
Yeah, but I'm enjoying food. There isn't anything wrong with that (unless you are anorexic). I'm not simply destroying life for my personal pleasure, I'm doing it because I don't have any choice. (BTW: Just a note, there is NO such thing as a vegetarian. Take a REAL good look at the vegetables you eat. Under a microscope. You'll find living organisms...)
>I hunt and fish and I enjoy it but I do eat what I kill. To kill just for the sake of killing IS wrong.
That's ok, as there is a purpose to it. But I know enough people personally that simply kill and don't bother to use the animal for anything. That's disgusting.
>That's the way it should be but in America we have all these people that grew up in large urban war zones and they think if they could just get guns away from people it would solve all of their problems.
:-)
Yeah, there's social issues to work out. But they are NEVER going to be worked out at the barrel of a gun. Saying you can work out these problems with guns on the streets is like saying you can stop prostitution without police. It doesn't compute.
>I was never allowed to use a gun unless supervised until I was mature enough to be trusted with a gun.
And I'm supposed to believe that every stranger on the street with a gun is to be trusted with it? In fact, why the heck should I even trust you with a gun? You give me no reason to (other than that you state you have [in your opinion] proper training.). Maybe if you had a big "The Gov't of xyz has Licensed me a Trained Marksman" sign on you...
>Fear the government that fears your guns.
Ohhh, yeah. Right. I'm sure that if every citized has a shotgun this is going to stop the Country from unleashing biological warfare... (no). You see, any government whose people have enough money to buy lots of firearms has enough money (and sense) to be able to defeat the purpose of them.
And how are you going to get into the underground military bases with your guns? I don't care HOW big your shotgun is, it ISN'T going to matter to 10 ft. of steel.
>Don't ask the government to take away my rights because you don't like guns.
But do ask the government to take away the rights of those with guns that you don't trust. And, to me, that is ANYONE I haven't met personally. Seems to me like this includes you (sorry...
The same way I wouldn't trust an unlicensed/unfit driver on the road, I don't trust ANYONE with a gun that doesn't have a license.
>Everyone that knows history knows that the reason that we have the right to bear arms in the US is because the British tried to deny the colonists that right and this made the American revolution that much harder. That right was given to the people of the united states, as a last resort, in case our government ever became tyranical.
That I understand. And at the time, enough guns and you could ruin the government. But now, what kind of gun is going to destroy the government? You can't do it with a gun. Maybe with a nuclear weapon you could overthrow the government. It worked a little more than 50 years ago... Should people have these to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? How a little about sarin gas and anthrax to sweeten the deal?
I bet you won't find any supporters of giving people the right to bear nuclear arms and biological/chemical weapons for "defense against the government".
Fact is guns do just one thing: KILL.
Give me a use of a gun that isn't designed to KILL or THREATEN TO KILL. Get over the idea of stopping the Queen of England from busting into your living room. If she wanted to do it, she'd be in a popemobile, and your gun will look like a pea shooter in comparison.
Now, if you wanted to support guns, and still have me on your side, try this. I have only come up with one use of guns that is reasonable: For the removal of animals. No, I don't mean killing species to extinction, but I mean reducing the number of animals when necessary. For example, if the population of animals threatens human life, then that population of animals must be destroyed. I believe there was a serious problem with deer carrying lyme disease in parts of the US at one time. The only choice in the matter would be to euthanise these animals, for the sake of the people living in these areas.
Other than that, I have never been able to figure out why a first world country needs arms in the hands of its citizens to happily survive nowadays. And the idea of killing things for sport sickens me. It reminds me of the time when humans were nothing more than animals. Why would anyone want to debase themselves like that?
>You mean like the price of CD's and VHS tapes went down with time?
:-)
EXACTLY like that. Remember old great movies like "The Terminator"? Remember how the ONLY way you could ever enjoy then was to either rent them or pay the $70 or so price that the rental store had to pay for it? Now, $13 will get you a copy.
And if you add inflation to the original cost... wow... VHS has truly changed.
If the same would happen to CDs.
So when my kernel panics at boot (like it did when I compiled bttv into kernel 2.0.0pre8 a long time ago) I can somehow run dmesg? About 5 or 6 other things from 5 or 6 other separate pieces of kernel code scrolled past before the panic. Lets see:
:-)
:-|
5 things x 5 lines (with ads) == 25 lines. Add about 5 lines for the kernel panic info, and there's NO WAY I can see what is wrong (25 lines default screen size).
5 things x 1.5 lines (normal size) == 7 lines. Add about 5 lines for the kernel panic info, and that is just 12 lines. Woohoo! I can see that my bttv driver is loaded.
And shift-pgup doesn't work on an MDA card (why bother with anything better for a server?).
As you see, ads will annoy the HELL out of any sysadmin running cheapass hardware. Sure it might be "his fault" for not buying good stuff, but why make anyone's life harder? If you want to add credits in try:
-- ReiserFS loaded. dd/mm/yy. Visit www.sponors.reiserfs.org for sponsorship info.
One line. Clean. Has a hint of advertisement in it, but as long as it is less than 80 chars long, it doesn't matter. The kernel messages are ONLY for debugging purposes. They aren't there for personal glory. Thank God Linux is open source, if the trend of ads in kernel messages continues, I'm willing to bet there will be special "cut-the-crap" kernel patches availiable.
I'm happy you wrote some free software for me. Thanks. But just as when someone gives you a gift they don't tell you every time they meet you that THEY gave you THAT gift, you don't have to tell me every time my linux box boots that YOU gave me THAT software. Argh....
Ahh, well that clears things up.
I'm now 1% more happier to live in Canada. Don't have to worry about the government tapping my phones here. Now, if only we could get free speech guaranteed by law...
>/me thinks you're mixing IRCops and channel ops
:-|
You could be right... (As I scrape the egg from my face... cough cough). Which is the embarrased smiley?
>We need to get constructive folks, and not continue to feed the machine.
:-)
:-)
No way man. We just need to separate America from the rest of the net. Of course, the way I read your post, that wouldn't leave any one else, would it?
And Americans wonder why they are called self-centered...
Like, what the heck is the FBI thing you keep talking about? And this S. 2092 policy? I don't have either of these in Canada.
I've been banned from IRC lines that are "limited" to G rated language.
I said: Darn. Heck. Oh Man. That's Nasty. Jerk.
That's the problem with IRCops. They think because they are ops they should start making up rules as they go along. That IS NOT how the REAL "law" works. You set rules, and you follow them. No leniency, no "preventative examples". So I got kicked. Why? Why do YOU think? If you haven't seen a Disney movie with those words in it, well, you haven't seen a Disney movie yet.
I don't use IRC anymore. It is a TOTAL waste of time with asses like that op. I am NOT going to pretend I can read an ops mind, because I can't. If you don't want certain things to happen in a channel, LIST THEM CLEARLY, or conflict can and WILL occurr. The problem is, most people who are ops on channels have NEVER dealt with controlling a crowd of people. How many ops do you know that do public speaking? How many ops do you know that are (good) teachers? How many ops do you know that are law enforcement officials? How many ops have done done a public fundraiser, or been on TV? Unless you do something along those lines successfully, then you are proabably not cut out to control and direct a bunch of people.
Just my 2 cents.
That being said, flooding, or other wastes of people's time should not be tolerated.
>Let's break up Microsoft because they have an 80% desktop market share. Sure, Microsoft has the best newbie-oriented gui and os, the best office suite, the best web browser, and even the best joysticks and mice. But these superior products were developed through illegal means, such as...
...scaremongering companies into purchasing Microsoft only products. No, this isn't "I'll give you a deal if you give me a deal", this is "I'll sell you xyz IF you don't do zyx". If you are a monopoly and do that, you stifle the market. The market dies, and the world economy ends up being ruled by people you and I never elected... That may/may not be good, depending on your point of view. I know I don't think it is good, and since I don't get my say in it, enforcing a monopoly through strongarm tactics is a form of dictatorship, therefore illegal, IMHO.
Now, a truly good product (the only one in your list that is good, again IMHO, is possibly the mouse) requires NO strongarm tactics -- a good product will sell very well on word of mouth and advertising alone. Microsoft needs their monopolistic tactics to continue selling their other horribly crappy (IMHO) products, such as a Web Browser that can crash most of the OS, and an OS that often crashes itself. Not to mention an office suite that barely fits on a CD yet does little more than StarOffice (an office suite in well under 75 Mb).
I could gain a 100% share in anything if I were willing to threaten people. I don't, and I wouldn't. It would be illegal and morally wrong. Just because there are more people in a company doesn't water down the justice.
>Microsoft should be required to open up its APIs even though they were developed in-house. Further, Microsoft should be required to port office and IE to every platform, including but not limited to Linux, Unix, BeOS, MacOS, V2OS, PALM OS, TI 92, Nintendo 64, and Sega Master System.
No, opening up API source would be wrong. They were developed in-house by paid workers. They cost MS money. But, due to US law on Reverse Engineering, the ONLY way for programmers to find out how the APIs work is to ask MS for information. That information should be provided to outside progammers, or the IDIOTIC laws against reverse engineering should be repealed. I can't beleive that I am allowed to open my car engine to see how it works, but I am NOT allowed to look under the hood of a piece of software.
MS should NOT be required to port software to any platform they don't want to, for the same reason GM isn't required (I think) by law to make diesel engines instead of gasoline engines. But, they should be required to do what I mentioned above.
>Microsoft is CHEATING! They didn't get where they are now through hard work and insight! Heck, if I reduced myself to Gates' level, I could have created Microsoft. Since Bill Gates and Microsoft are evil capitalist pigs, their company should be destroyed.
Mix 10 parts opportunity, 2 parts knowledge, 30 parts unscrupulousness, 20 parts worker incompensation, 100 parts image, and what do you get? Microsoft!
If you are unscrupulous (which I think MS is), you are a cheat, and possibly a liar. You do what you must through knowledge and hard work, the rest, you do through whatever means necessary.
A true capitalist realizes the market has to continue for society to remain capitalist. Microsoft has perverted that idea by forcing themselves into a monopoly position, and therefore cannot truly be capitalist. America is all for capitalist companies. Are they for monopolistic companies? We will find out (News at 11).
Ensign Ice
>I think its a clever TV that has Video in AND out. The TV could conceivable also have been designed with a built in Macrovision blocking mechanism, or some system that has the same effect.
i on1.html#MACROVISION_011
:-)
Still won't work (unless, like you say, you actually find a TV with Macrovision blocking circuitry -- which would add at least $200 to the cost of the TV to do it without patent violations). Read this for some more "expert" opinion on it:
http://www.repairfaq.org/filipg/LINK/F_MacroVis
Of course, you can always try it and see for yourself... Maybe you got lucky and purchased an "overpriced" set?
For all those without a PS2, try reading this
>No sweat, If you do as you always have done nothing is different, but it may hurt the reputation of Linux, if some stupid ComputerWorld journalist gets infected because he installs all kind of soiled binaries and gets burned.
:-)
Not that I don't agree with you, but in my eyes the reputation of the journalist is tarnished for being dumb enough to get themselves a virus -- and then they double that with telling the world just how stupid they are.
You'll find a long discussion about a TCP Wrapper trojan:
here
From the link:
:-)
>Newspaper reports from Washington say officials are highly sceptical of the proposals from Microsoft
The error: sceptical, which should be skeptical.
But then what do you expect when the sh*t hits the fan?
A 386, SX-16 with 4 MB RAM and 20 MB hard drive will run Linux with Apache. That should be the cheapest solution. And with that low a running frequency, you probably won't have to worry about buying a case.
:-)
That solution will run you about -$5 if you are lucky (the person with the machine will probably give you $5 to take it away).
I wouldn't try serving more than 1 person at a time, though, with that little memory...
>COMMADORE
Did you mean Commodore, as in the computer ( =D for those that remember )?
I don't remember any of the Commodore series (the PET, the VIC, or the C64/128) ever coming with any kind of taco promotion. When did you get such a machine? I would be interested to know...
Or, if you mean "taco biased", would you point out to me exactly where a taco biases the circuitry? That would be one of the most ingenious hacks I've ever seen.
Perhaps the taco came with their typwriters, or other business products (like filing cabinets, mouse pads, or the dreaded Commodore PC). Whichever it is, PLEASE send us a picture.
>more like a badly written commercial.
Now I _KNOW_ you are talking about Commodore Computers...
>Though perhaps that could be faked...
Remember to bring along a toaster oven...