I feel I have the right to format shift media that I own.
Fair Use is only exists because a legislative body created exceptions to copyright. These are not inalienable "rights" and fair use can be revoked whenever the legislative body feels like it.
The copyright holder and the law might not currently agree but I dont care.
That's fine. Just don't act as if what you are doing has any legal basis. The point is that people spread false nonsense about how they can download this or download that because of some random thing they made up that has no legal basis.
I do actually own most of the music that I download
And? That doesn't bestow upon you any legal right to also download it from anywhere you want. This was like all those people who used to laughably claim that you could download console game ROMs if you owned the game. The claim was wrong then and it's still wrong today.
I think they just assume "Pirate bay == piracy == must be illegal downloads",
That would be a pretty safe assumption considering that 99+% of the content shared between users of the site is done so without the consent of the copyright holders. I'm just as much against the RIAA/MPAA but don't act as if what the vast, vast majority of it's users are doing is somehow legal. This is why you will see pretty much all of them flee when it becomes a pay site because it was never about any of the supposed ideals they are proclaimed, it was about getting the latest movie, cd or piece of software without paying for it.
Well, for me, it is for low cost hosting for Django Applications, but for business it can be really interesting as there is somebody taking care of the infrastructure while they only need to care about the application itself.
So what exactly is supposed to be new about that? There have been companies providing exactly such services as that for decades.
Anna Liu, Associate Professor in services engineering at the UNSW School of Computer Science told iTnews she was excited by Cloud Computing as it could potentially enable organisations to "outsource a certain amount of their risks and costs and tap into new economies of scale."
Sounds more like she has a degree in buzzword engineering.
The statement was to the purpose of copyrights, not the requirements for getting one.
But it's flat out wrong. The historical creation of copyright was to protect authors who were having their works reprinted by publishers without their consent.
Correct, people however can still freely criticize them all they want.
I never said they couldn't. I was responding to someone saying:
flickr should be looking forward to a law suit.
Which is completely laughable because Flickr can't be sued over anything.
Why is it every time someone complains about something like this happening, everyone comes in yelling that its ok and for them to shut up. While it is completely legal for a company to censor images as they see fit, it doesn't free them from being criticized over it in hopes of them changing their position on the issue,
I never told anyone to shut up or that Flickr's actions were morally okay or that Flickr couldn't be criticized. You seem to be railing against some other post rather than mine. My post was only in response to someone saying that Flickr could be seeing a lawsuit over this.
I totally agree with the fact that copyright terms are outrageous but to claim that you should have legal recourse against someone because they don't sell you their product or they sell it in a way you don't like is just nonsense.
Copyright isn't something you have innately, it is something that is gifted to you for a limited time in EXCHANGE for making that material available.
The problem with this statement is that it's pure bunk. There is no obligation on the part of the copyright holder to make their content available to purchase in order to maintain their copyright.
That only works for internal calls, how were you planning on connecting to the public phone system. You just can't wave your magic VoIP wand at the phone company and expect to get a connection.
No it's not. You don't have the right to publicly broadcast someone else's copyrighted work without their permission. Such a right for the copyright holder is codified in the 1976 Copyright Act. There are exceptions but streaming copyrighted content on the internet without a license isn't one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel I have the right to format shift media that I own.
Fair Use is only exists because a legislative body created exceptions to copyright. These are not inalienable "rights" and fair use can be revoked whenever the legislative body feels like it.
The copyright holder and the law might not currently agree but I dont care.
That's fine. Just don't act as if what you are doing has any legal basis. The point is that people spread false nonsense about how they can download this or download that because of some random thing they made up that has no legal basis.
Because Canonical doesn't pay anyone to hack on the kernel? Are they required to?
YHBT. HAND.
Apparently everything is now some form of "engineering" if "services" is now an engineering discipline.
I do actually own most of the music that I download
And? That doesn't bestow upon you any legal right to also download it from anywhere you want. This was like all those people who used to laughably claim that you could download console game ROMs if you owned the game. The claim was wrong then and it's still wrong today.
WHOOOOOSH. The GP was making fun of the people who claim that they only use bittorrent for sharing Linux distros and public domain movies and music.
I think they just assume "Pirate bay == piracy == must be illegal downloads",
That would be a pretty safe assumption considering that 99+% of the content shared between users of the site is done so without the consent of the copyright holders. I'm just as much against the RIAA/MPAA but don't act as if what the vast, vast majority of it's users are doing is somehow legal. This is why you will see pretty much all of them flee when it becomes a pay site because it was never about any of the supposed ideals they are proclaimed, it was about getting the latest movie, cd or piece of software without paying for it.
ISPs don't have a common carrier status in the US.
How does 1-3 days beat launching a node in 5-15 minutes?
Because for any sufficient volume of processing you're going to be spending many times more using these cloud services than running your own server.
Well, for me, it is for low cost hosting for Django Applications, but for business it can be really interesting as there is somebody taking care of the infrastructure while they only need to care about the application itself.
So what exactly is supposed to be new about that? There have been companies providing exactly such services as that for decades.
Anna Liu, Associate Professor in services engineering at the UNSW School of Computer Science told iTnews she was excited by Cloud Computing as it could potentially enable organisations to "outsource a certain amount of their risks and costs and tap into new economies of scale."
Sounds more like she has a degree in buzzword engineering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transputer
I read the article, it's still a stupid license.
The statement was to the purpose of copyrights, not the requirements for getting one.
But it's flat out wrong. The historical creation of copyright was to protect authors who were having their works reprinted by publishers without their consent.
Correct, people however can still freely criticize them all they want.
I never said they couldn't. I was responding to someone saying:
flickr should be looking forward to a law suit.
Which is completely laughable because Flickr can't be sued over anything.
Why is it every time someone complains about something like this happening, everyone comes in yelling that its ok and for them to shut up. While it is completely legal for a company to censor images as they see fit, it doesn't free them from being criticized over it in hopes of them changing their position on the issue,
I never told anyone to shut up or that Flickr's actions were morally okay or that Flickr couldn't be criticized. You seem to be railing against some other post rather than mine. My post was only in response to someone saying that Flickr could be seeing a lawsuit over this.
True, by 4 months it has usually been duped at least 3 times.
It's even funnier because after it says that it's only available as source there is a link provided to compiled binaries. So which is it?
I totally agree with the fact that copyright terms are outrageous but to claim that you should have legal recourse against someone because they don't sell you their product or they sell it in a way you don't like is just nonsense.
Copyright isn't something you have innately, it is something that is gifted to you for a limited time in EXCHANGE for making that material available.
The problem with this statement is that it's pure bunk. There is no obligation on the part of the copyright holder to make their content available to purchase in order to maintain their copyright.
That only works for internal calls, how were you planning on connecting to the public phone system. You just can't wave your magic VoIP wand at the phone company and expect to get a connection.
Gee, if only someone would offer a VoIP services for businesses.
Which is why you only transfer money into the account when you want to use it with paypal. Hard to clear out an account with a $0.00 balance.
Posting dupes of 4 month old stories is the Slashdot way!
A freelance Wired magazine journalist has decided to see what it is like to disappear from normal life, all while staying on the grid.
WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG.
No it's not. You don't have the right to publicly broadcast someone else's copyrighted work without their permission. Such a right for the copyright holder is codified in the 1976 Copyright Act. There are exceptions but streaming copyrighted content on the internet without a license isn't one of them.
Why? Flickr can take down any picture it wants due to the agreement made when signing up to the site.