Eventually, I decided it was more cost effective to just *buy* a Linksys rather than spend 8 or more hours getting the things set up correctly plus the case for the extra NICs.
He dosn't have to prove that. The court is looking for a standard. If the claim is "Congress can extend copyright whenever it wants for as long as it wants as long as the term is finite." then this court will not uphold that standard.
If the standard is "review what Congress does and stop them when it gets too long." this court won't uphold that either because they don't want the job of reviewing the appropriateness.
Lessis has offered them a standard and the Solicitor General has not. Now that they question has been raised, they have to rule on whether there's even a standard or not.
Having read limits into the Commerce Clause where there are no explicit limits in the text of the Copnstitution in the Lopez case, how can they possibly ignore a literal limit which appears not to be a limit at all.
This case is about "If there is a limit where is it?" The SG's answer was completely unacceptable to the Justices.
GENERAL OLSON: It is -- well, it -- let me say with respond -- in response to both of those questions, an unlimited time would violate the Copyright Clause. Something that was the functional equivalent of an unlimited time would violate the Copyright Clause, but the Framers specifically did not put in numbers. They had the opportunity to do that. Thomas Jefferson suggested that a number should be put in. We submit that it would be -- even -- since the petitioners don't suggest that it's an appropriate function of this Court, certainly in this case, to pick a number, 133 years or something [*33] of that nature, but it is quite clear that Congress from the Statute of Anne, 1710, we have 300 years of history, of Congress thinking that it continues to benefit the process, not just of the productivity, of the creation of the work itself, but the dissemination of it to provide --
JUSTICE SCALIA: General Olson, you say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time would be a violation, but that's precisely the argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is extendable is the functionable, functional equivalent of an unlimited time, a limited time that 10 years from now can be extended, and then extended again, and extended again. Why -- their argument is precisely that, a limited time doesn't mean anything unless it means, once you have established the limit for works that have been created under that limit, that's the end.
The Justices were clearly looking for some kind of a limit that gives effect to the "limited times" language of the Constitution. Having Congress with the ability to have a perpetual copyright with 20 year extensions enacted every 20 years is itself inconsistant with "limited times". The Justices say this very clearly. Look at Kennedy and Scalia questioning Olson.
Furthermore, the Justices don't want to be making the judgement that life+x is OK but life+y is not. That's a legislative judgement, not a judicial one.
Lessig was offering them a clear limit -- a way of interpreting that word in the Constitution so that it gives effect to the clause. So, the question isn't "Is life+90 unconstitutional?". THe question is "Are retroactive increases constitutional?". By disallowing retroactive increases, the Justices give a meaning to "limited times" that allowing them dosn't give. This also has the positive effect of removing much of the pressure for increases. The Justices are already concerned that Copyright terms have gone way beyond anything the Framers ever envisioned.
The justices seem to have gotten the issue very clearly. The footnote from Eldred's brief makes the point very well.
Print artists have the concept of a "limited print run". WHen they print artwork, they sign it and give it a number. 20/300 is the 20th print from a limited run of 300. If the artist sells all 300, he can't go out and print more. If he does, the print run is not limited.
Similarly, the pattern of Congress in extending Copyrights 11 times since 1963 has been not to allow any works to fall into the public domain. This is the argument against a retroactive extension -- if you extend it, it ain't limited any more. Since it could be extended by future Congresses (unless there is a SCOTUS ruling prohibiting it) that is enough to establish the lack of a limit. There is no need to prove the impossible -- what future Congresses will do.
There were many more than just two extensions in recent times. IIRC, there were 11 since 1963. See the briefs for the exact number. Congress has not allowed any copyrights to expire since then.
Eldred's argument is that retrospective extensions are not constitutional since they don't conform to the limits of the Copyright Clause in the Constitution.
...you're like saying that black holes are like electrons, neutrons and protons and, like, one of these could be, like, part of an atom in some bigger universe?
Already I like it better than the Sharp Zaurus. The keyboard is bigger and easier to use. An autocorrect feature capitalizes the first word of a sentance which already makes it easier to use.
The internet connection is much faster than my CDPD account and it looks like it's going to be very usable for email and occasional web use.
Actually, it depends entirely on the amount of mass and means of imparting velocity to the removed mass. If you excavated a lot of mass and decided to eject it from the moon with a mass driver so that the velocity of the moon around the Earth decreased enough, it sure would crash.
If the path of an object is concave with respect to the sun, the object is a planet.
In the case of the Earth/Moon system, it is called a double planet because the path of the moon from the point of view of the sun in strictly concave -- that is it dosn't loop back on itself as do other moons.
It's pretty clear that all the studio shots are produced after the fact. They have the two guys interviewing the builders after each match. They have a few shots of Carmen Electra in front of the stands saying inane things that could be used next to just about any match. She probably cruised in, taped 20 minutes worth of gratuitous cleavage shots and breezed out.
Heck, even Mark Biro is computer generated. How else could he survive in the battlebox. THink about it.
The GPL is a license, not a contract. Some licenses are contracts, but they do not have to be. The GPL is more powerful in that it is a license and not a contract.
I used one of these as part of the wireless beta. I got a good 2-3 hours out of a charge on the wireless battery and about 4-5 hours of constant use on the Z itself.
If their rate of travel away from one another is small in relation to their rate of travel with respect to the earth, parallel tracks is exactly what you would expect to see.
Slashdot Mirror
Eventually, I decided it was more cost effective to just *buy* a Linksys rather than spend 8 or more hours getting the things set up correctly plus the case for the extra NICs.
If the standard is "review what Congress does and stop them when it gets too long." this court won't uphold that either because they don't want the job of reviewing the appropriateness.
Lessis has offered them a standard and the Solicitor General has not. Now that they question has been raised, they have to rule on whether there's even a standard or not.
Having read limits into the Commerce Clause where there are no explicit limits in the text of the Copnstitution in the Lopez case, how can they possibly ignore a literal limit which appears not to be a limit at all.
This case is about "If there is a limit where is it?" The SG's answer was completely unacceptable to the Justices.
The Justices were clearly looking for some kind of a limit that gives effect to the "limited times" language of the Constitution. Having Congress with the ability to have a perpetual copyright with 20 year extensions enacted every 20 years is itself inconsistant with "limited times". The Justices say this very clearly. Look at Kennedy and Scalia questioning Olson.
Furthermore, the Justices don't want to be making the judgement that life+x is OK but life+y is not. That's a legislative judgement, not a judicial one.
Lessig was offering them a clear limit -- a way of interpreting that word in the Constitution so that it gives effect to the clause. So, the question isn't "Is life+90 unconstitutional?". THe question is "Are retroactive increases constitutional?". By disallowing retroactive increases, the Justices give a meaning to "limited times" that allowing them dosn't give. This also has the positive effect of removing much of the pressure for increases. The Justices are already concerned that Copyright terms have gone way beyond anything the Framers ever envisioned.
You should really read the transscript.
The justices seem to have gotten the issue very clearly. The footnote from Eldred's brief makes the point very well.
Print artists have the concept of a "limited print run". WHen they print artwork, they sign it and give it a number. 20/300 is the 20th print from a limited run of 300. If the artist sells all 300, he can't go out and print more. If he does, the print run is not limited.
Similarly, the pattern of Congress in extending Copyrights 11 times since 1963 has been not to allow any works to fall into the public domain. This is the argument against a retroactive extension -- if you extend it, it ain't limited any more. Since it could be extended by future Congresses (unless there is a SCOTUS ruling prohibiting it) that is enough to establish the lack of a limit. There is no need to prove the impossible -- what future Congresses will do.
There were many more than just two extensions in recent times. IIRC, there were 11 since 1963. See the briefs for the exact number. Congress has not allowed any copyrights to expire since then.
Eldred's argument is that retrospective extensions are not constitutional since they don't conform to the limits of the Copyright Clause in the Constitution.
...you're like saying that black holes are like electrons, neutrons and protons and, like, one of these could be, like, part of an atom in some bigger universe?
That's, like, awesome, Dude.
Microsoft never abandons a product, period, they just repurpose it a few years later.
I'm waitng for the next iteration of MS Bob. Do you think it might be the next security interface?
The LKML archive I use dosn't preserve headers. Does anyone have the headers from the origional message?
He refers to "Linux development" not "GNU/Linux". That in itself gives me reason to suspect that it's a forgery.
Does your browser have a spellchecker?
I could add an auto-correct to change sentance to sentence. But I'd probably run out of RAM if I put all of my common mistypings in.
I'm typing this message on it.
Already I like it better than the Sharp Zaurus. The keyboard is bigger and easier to use. An autocorrect feature capitalizes the first word of a sentance which already makes it easier to use.
The internet connection is much faster than my CDPD account and it looks like it's going to be very usable for email and occasional web use.
Oh and it's a phone, too.
In other news, terrorism is bad.
And you can't make me.
The FSF has given us an amazing amount of things not the least of which is the compiler used to compile the Linus kernel.
But they should stop being self-serving grammar police and start being promoters of Free Software.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Market behavior with is legal and ethical by a company in a competitive market is neither legal nor ethical for a monopolist.
Actually, it depends entirely on the amount of mass and means of imparting velocity to the removed mass. If you excavated a lot of mass and decided to eject it from the moon with a mass driver so that the velocity of the moon around the Earth decreased enough, it sure would crash.
Que Luna! Que bella Luna!
If the path of an object is concave with respect to the sun, the object is a planet.
In the case of the Earth/Moon system, it is called a double planet because the path of the moon from the point of view of the sun in strictly concave -- that is it dosn't loop back on itself as do other moons.
It's pretty clear that all the studio shots are produced after the fact. They have the two guys interviewing the builders after each match. They have a few shots of Carmen Electra in front of the stands saying inane things that could be used next to just about any match. She probably cruised in, taped 20 minutes worth of gratuitous cleavage shots and breezed out.
Heck, even Mark Biro is computer generated. How else could he survive in the battlebox. THink about it.
Or they might have wanted to buy the patent (legit or not) in order to extort^H^H^H^H^H^H charge royalties on its competitor's businesses.
I don't accept cookies from Google.
The GPL is a license, not a contract. Some licenses are contracts, but they do not have to be. The GPL is more powerful in that it is a license and not a contract.
The modem has its own battery.
I used one of these as part of the wireless beta. I got a good 2-3 hours out of a charge on the wireless battery and about 4-5 hours of constant use on the Z itself.
IBM, SUn, Red Hat, Caldera...
Anyone with assets in the US who distributes Linux.
It's people distributing the kernel in places where the patents are valid who could get bitten by this. It matters not where the code was written.
If their rate of travel away from one another is small in relation to their rate of travel with respect to the earth, parallel tracks is exactly what you would expect to see.
Oh, so I'm a Socialist for asserting that promoting the welfare of the people is a legitimate role of government?
I didn't advocate government ownership of industry.