it is possible to determine what something means using today's voice recog.
What you are describing is just a simple lookup. That's a long way from determining what an arbitrary sentence means, which is what the original poster is describing.
It would be nice if they had made torrents for the mp3 and ogg files as well. I don't have any download the entire set as wav files, but downloading each song one-by-one is a pain. And now that it's been slashdotted, the mirrors are getting slow, too. I downloaded the first few before this was posted, but now they're really starting to crawl.
I was reading an anthology recently (one of the "Year's Best Science Fiction" volumes, from a few years ago), and was struck by the fact that the majority of the stories in the volume were very, very light on the science fiction. For the most part, they were just straight fiction that happened to be set a dozen years from now, or had a plot that was incidentally related to aliens / robots / nanotechnology / other random SF topic. It left me wondering: what happened to the science?
You're assuming that allowing people to download music from your computer is exactly analogous to having a copier in the library. I don't believe that there are any legal judgements that say that, and I think that it's more than possible to make the case that it's not. Libraries are a specific case that is covered in the law, and trying to generalize something from that is risky at best.
Sending a copy of the song to a remote downloader would constitute a transfer of ownership of the copy, which is covered. (Saying "I didn't make the copy, he did," is pretty shaky: you're actively sending the data to him, after all.) It's not like this isn't well-established; illegal distribution on websites, bulletin boards, and (for that matter) P2P has been successfully prosecuted on numerous occasions.
Though, I must admit that I did not know it was illegal to lend my cool new CD to a friend for them to listen to.
It's not. Later sections detail the exceptions to those rules; that would be one of them (Sec. 109).
I recommend you read the law about copyright. In fact, I recommend everyone read it, if they want to know something about copyright. It's not that long, and it's better than trying to get your information by listening to the commentators on Slashdot.
The first is almost completely true as well. No one has *ever* been charged with downloading.
That's because it's hard to discover what somebody downloads from somebody else, not because it's legal. Title 17, Sec. 106:
"the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;"
That is, if I rip my CD collection and share out the directory on Kazaa, then I've broken no current law or copyright. This has been explicitly stated in court rulings.
Do you have any references for that? I've never heard of such a ruling (especially not an "explicit" one), and I rather doubt that one exists. (If you can point one out, I'd be happy to eat my words.) However, the same section says:
"the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:...
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"
"Sharing" of someone else's copyrighted material can almost certainly be classified as distribution. And, not being the copyright holder, whether or not you own the CD has nothing to do with being allowed to distribute it.
Re:Downloading music itself is not illegal...
on
NYT Promotes File Sharing
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Lots of people have weird notions about what is and isn't allowed. A while ago, I got a phone call about alleged copyright infringement from my ISP, and I thought that their claim of what's allowed and what's not was interesting: they said (as near as I can remember) "Downloading copyrighted material isn't illegal, but making it available is."
Of course, both parts of that statement are, at best, half-true. Downloading copyrighted material may or may not be legal, depending on the will of the copyright holder. Same with making such material available on the internet. And generally, if sharing it is illegal, so is downloading it, which makes their statement wrong no matter how you look at it. Perhaps everyone should have to be educated on what you can and can't do within copyright law before they're allowed to touch a computer.
Looking at the web page, I wasn't really able to figure out what User Linux is. I mean, I see that you're doing commercial support and certification, but the impression I got was that the distribution is just Debian. (Especially comments like the best way to try out UL is to install debian and switch to unstable. If that's it, I've been running UL for years.)
I assume that's not everything, given that you have a seperate release and everything. What is the difference between the User Linux distribution and Debian? In other words, why aren't you just doing "Debian support" rather than creating a new project?
The article describes something very different than what is being claimed. The RIAA "poisoning" specifically combats people who are downloading their copyrighted material (by posting files masquerading as the copyrighted music.) That's a completely different thing, both in goals and in implementation, from what the poster was claiming. Rather, his scenario was just a knee-jerk "Big Bad RIAA wants to shut us down!"
Yeah, because I'm sure that use of Gnomoradio is going to cut a huge dent in the number of people listening to RIAA music. After all, if history has shown us anything, it's that when given the choice, the teeming masses have always chosen to listen to free independent music rather than illegally downloading the latest Britney song.
I believe it means that there will never be a magic equation to 4th order polynomials and above like one learned in algebra to the 2nd order polynomial.
Fifth order, I believe; there actually is a quartic equation to solving a 4th-order polynomial algebraically. (Although admittedly, even with the equation I'd hate to try to do it by hand.)
And you still conveniently ignore the fact that these cameras aren't in your apartment, in the bathroom, etc. That's why I repeat: your argument has absolutely no merit or validity.
Perhaps you should try to find problems with putting cameras in public places, rather than just pretending that a camera in a public place is the same as a camera on my private property, and hoping that nobody will notice that your argument has absolutely no relevance to the topic.
Not quite, because I never said (or implied) that criminals are OK. However, crime is an inevitable part of society, and given that there will be criminals, I prefer them to be elsewhere. I may be accused of acting in my own self-interest, but not of condoning criminal behavior.
I've seen that article before, and the truth is that I can't see why it's considered a condemnation of Wal-Mart. It sounds to me like capitalism at its finest: tearing down Vlasic's outdated business model in favor of what the customers want. Why do people foam at the mouth about overpriced CDs, but don't care that pickle companies charge obscene amounts to slice their pickles?
The logical conclusion is that instead of/teaching/ you in high school, you are brainwashed to be a good consumer that will never complain and will vote pro-corporatist all the time.
However, apparently logic isn't a strong point in the school curriculum in your country.
Your arguing a point that the article doesn't address. His point isn't "look, I can get mistakes into wikipedia, so wikipedia is stupid!" His point is that you can't treat the wikipedia as an authoritative source, because it's far too easy to insert the mistakes. The amount of funding that wikipedia gets, how "boring" the topics are, and how long he left them up are all completely irrelevant. Either a source can be trusted, or it can't -- and wikipedia cannot.
You know, if you switch to Light HTML in your preferences, you don't have to worry about the horrific color scheme (well, there's the bar at the top of the comments, but that's it.) And as a plus, you get more bandwidth for downloading mus^H^H^Hpr0^H^H^H Linux ISOs.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be nice if they had made torrents for the mp3 and ogg files as well. I don't have any download the entire set as wav files, but downloading each song one-by-one is a pain. And now that it's been slashdotted, the mirrors are getting slow, too. I downloaded the first few before this was posted, but now they're really starting to crawl.
Four friends? According to this, you are all alone in the world.
I was reading an anthology recently (one of the "Year's Best Science Fiction" volumes, from a few years ago), and was struck by the fact that the majority of the stories in the volume were very, very light on the science fiction. For the most part, they were just straight fiction that happened to be set a dozen years from now, or had a plot that was incidentally related to aliens / robots / nanotechnology / other random SF topic. It left me wondering: what happened to the science?
Sending a copy of the song to a remote downloader would constitute a transfer of ownership of the copy, which is covered. (Saying "I didn't make the copy, he did," is pretty shaky: you're actively sending the data to him, after all.) It's not like this isn't well-established; illegal distribution on websites, bulletin boards, and (for that matter) P2P has been successfully prosecuted on numerous occasions.
It's not. Later sections detail the exceptions to those rules; that would be one of them (Sec. 109).I recommend you read the law about copyright. In fact, I recommend everyone read it, if they want to know something about copyright. It's not that long, and it's better than trying to get your information by listening to the commentators on Slashdot.
Do you have any references for that? I've never heard of such a ruling (especially not an "explicit" one), and I rather doubt that one exists. (If you can point one out, I'd be happy to eat my words.) However, the same section says:
"Sharing" of someone else's copyrighted material can almost certainly be classified as distribution. And, not being the copyright holder, whether or not you own the CD has nothing to do with being allowed to distribute it.Of course, both parts of that statement are, at best, half-true. Downloading copyrighted material may or may not be legal, depending on the will of the copyright holder. Same with making such material available on the internet. And generally, if sharing it is illegal, so is downloading it, which makes their statement wrong no matter how you look at it. Perhaps everyone should have to be educated on what you can and can't do within copyright law before they're allowed to touch a computer.
I assume that's not everything, given that you have a seperate release and everything. What is the difference between the User Linux distribution and Debian? In other words, why aren't you just doing "Debian support" rather than creating a new project?
The article describes something very different than what is being claimed. The RIAA "poisoning" specifically combats people who are downloading their copyrighted material (by posting files masquerading as the copyrighted music.) That's a completely different thing, both in goals and in implementation, from what the poster was claiming. Rather, his scenario was just a knee-jerk "Big Bad RIAA wants to shut us down!"
Yeah, because I'm sure that use of Gnomoradio is going to cut a huge dent in the number of people listening to RIAA music. After all, if history has shown us anything, it's that when given the choice, the teeming masses have always chosen to listen to free independent music rather than illegally downloading the latest Britney song.
And you still conveniently ignore the fact that these cameras aren't in your apartment, in the bathroom, etc. That's why I repeat: your argument has absolutely no merit or validity.
Perhaps you should try to find problems with putting cameras in public places, rather than just pretending that a camera in a public place is the same as a camera on my private property, and hoping that nobody will notice that your argument has absolutely no relevance to the topic.
Not quite, because I never said (or implied) that criminals are OK. However, crime is an inevitable part of society, and given that there will be criminals, I prefer them to be elsewhere. I may be accused of acting in my own self-interest, but not of condoning criminal behavior.
Nothing wrong with that. Sounding cool and insightful is what got me the formidable karma I have today :)
Your analogy might work if I was the one contributing to crime. As it is, it doesn't have any relationship to what I said.
I've seen that article before, and the truth is that I can't see why it's considered a condemnation of Wal-Mart. It sounds to me like capitalism at its finest: tearing down Vlasic's outdated business model in favor of what the customers want. Why do people foam at the mouth about overpriced CDs, but don't care that pickle companies charge obscene amounts to slice their pickles?
Where are the superheroes when you need them...
Nah, it just represents the diverse spectrum of political ideologies. Just like Slashdot.
Your arguing a point that the article doesn't address. His point isn't "look, I can get mistakes into wikipedia, so wikipedia is stupid!" His point is that you can't treat the wikipedia as an authoritative source, because it's far too easy to insert the mistakes. The amount of funding that wikipedia gets, how "boring" the topics are, and how long he left them up are all completely irrelevant. Either a source can be trusted, or it can't -- and wikipedia cannot.
You know, if you switch to Light HTML in your preferences, you don't have to worry about the horrific color scheme (well, there's the bar at the top of the comments, but that's it.) And as a plus, you get more bandwidth for downloading mus^H^H^Hpr0^H^H^H Linux ISOs.