Matt Oppenhein (RIAA guy): Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works, Congress has tried to keep pace with what it has believed is necessary to continue to incentivize creators and publishers.
And here I thought the problem was it was too easy to copy stuff.
Congress also was concerned that American creators should not have less copyright protection than is commonly provided abroad, and they therefore extended the term to match the copyright term in Europe and elsewhere.
Oh, right, the americans always do what the French and the Germans say...
Yes, redistibution DOES constitute an act of licensing. It even includes a license agreement (gpl).
all you have to do is get your hands on some of their proprietary secret data... well I think that's problem number one.
As soon as they redistribute it, ahem... why are they distributing things without knowing what they are?
My point is that it does correct that. Since they are the copyright owners (or whatever, who knows now) they are able to redistribute the code. The fact that they say oops later is irrelevent, and even more so since they are STILL redistributing the code under the same GPL license.
I know exactly the kind of precedent my interpretation sets. Just like buyer beware, also seller beware.
Because of the GPL, they had a responsibility to be sure they weren't distributing their own IP
I disagree. Continuing under the assumption that someone's IP was wrongfully included in the Linux kernel source, the contributor of that source did not have a right to contribute it. Since he did not own the copyright, he had no legal right to attempt to license it under the GPL. The rights apparently granted by the GPL are void then for every release based upon that code.
Hold on there sparky. Assuming that IBM released illegal code under GPL, making it not GPL. Then SCO release the same code, and they are the owners (a lot of assumptions there). They are able to release the code under GPL. There is nothing stopping them. Making it legal GPL.
You are saying that they were incompetent by releasing code they didn't mean to. Well, does the law protect companies from being incompetent? I don't think so. After all they only had 186 or so patents that delt with Unix code. There are public records of kernel logs saying what is going into the kernel. They are able to download the kernel before it's released. They know what changes are comming months in advance (we all do). They had every oportunity to check the code before they released it.
They cannot release code under one license and then decide to changed the license after the fact. Which is what this boils down to.
If you take a binary image and compile (back) into C code, that C code will be very different then the original code. As the artical says there will be things lost, classes become dynamic function calls etc.
The new C code would in effect be a different expression of the same idea would it? Doesn't that make it copyrightable in it's own right?
If you make a copy note for note of a public doman piece, and publish it, that is a copyrightable work, since it is one rendering of the work. Someone else could make the same copy of the original, and copyright it and as it is a different layout etc, it is copyrightable as well.
I think this is the same type of thing.
Am I wrong?
Should I be asking Slashdot? (of course, slashdot is, as we all know full of lawyers!)
If you distribute the code under GPL, then it is assumed that you have distributed code under the GPL. The fact that you didn't check the code, shows incompetence, but does not inspire me to view you as the wronged party. The fact that you released the code after you discovered the copyright violation shows that you accept the violation and are willing to release the code.
If you don't want to play in the sandbox quit giving me your toys!
I think it would probably be more of a class action involving anyone who contributed code that was falsely released under SCO's GPL.
Since SCO has released code claiming to be under GPL, and then are but are not abiding by the GPL's rules, they are releasing GPL'd code while violating the License agreement.
Re:High-efficiency automobile lighting?
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 1
Or go the otherway. A windsheild that converts infrared to visible light. No need for headlights!
Zombo.com is fantastic!
on
Gentoo Games
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
If she was pursuaded by the recent DMCA rulings, shouldn't she also be pursuaded by the SC rulings on VCR copying? Afterall, the fact that VCR's have a record button, means they are built in order to record. The fact they have a play button means they were also built to play (and in the process unencrypt) video tapes. If VCR's are able to play a video tape, why can't my computer play a DVD?
Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. There are an infinite number of ways to find a mathematical solution.
Consider 1 + 1 = 2.
The same solution can be found by an infinite number of mathematical sequences (1+1+1-1=2, 1+1+2-2 = 2 and so on). (Patenting any one of them is stupid IMHO).
There may be a best algorithm in both math and software, but the two can be viewed as equivilent, ie a method of communication which describes the world around us. It is the idea of patenting the communication or presentation of ideas that I find repugnent.
I view code as an instruction manual to be read by a device. Can you patent an instruction manual? You can patent the device which uses it. If the device has an internal instruction manual (microcode) then the device is still patentable, but not the internal instruction manual. Like patenting a special type of book, but not the letters and words inside it. This is where the patent office made it's mistake. They view the microcode as part of the device whereas it's only a set of instructions used by the device.
How about if I patent the idea of adding up prices to come up with a total that get's printed at a cash register. It's just addition, but it's PRINTED!!!
The problem is that the whole idea of software patents is bad. Software is math. Did you know that creating a cursor on the screen by xoring the current value on the screen with a 0xff is a patent.
Xor is one of the most basic logic operations there are, but it's patented.
So to answer your question, (IMHO) No micropayments would not be a viable answer.
Not only that but it takes time. PNG still isn't as popular as gifs, even though it's better. The reason is that GIF's are already present, so PNG must not only become popular, they must also displace something which is popular.
I was at a Linux conference yesterday (in Toronto). Oracle had a presentation. They now support Linux.
If you have a problem with your database you phone Oracle, and they talk you through it. If it turns out to be an OS problem, then they tell you go talk to your OS vender except when it's Linux. If it's Linux they will deal with it directly.
I was very impressed. They are moving their whole company onto Linux and are more then 50% there now.
No, I think you are missing my point. Yes 3d is hard to do. It's hard to do no matter what. However if you are doing it so that it maps to one interface, then all drivers written to that interface will work for it. This was my point. I wasn't talking about cross platform although that's definitely an area where this will help.
OK, having a window transparent so you can watch what's going on behind it is kind of cool. It's opengl people, we can move the windows sideways and view them edge on too. Have a stack of 30 or so windows edge on, with just enough angle so you can see if anything changes.
Secondly, He's implementing the hardware driver as opengl. I think this statement is very important. Device drivers can be written to OpenGL. All of a sudden the hardware manufacture's have an easy route to support Linux. WOW!
We have that in Canada for writeable CD's. It's a levy so that everytime you buy a CD you have to pay a bit extra (hidden in the cost of course) for the CD. This bit extra (I think it's 23cents per cd, but going up to close to 50cents) is supposed to go to the copyright holders of music, because as we all know, if you are buying a writeable cd you must be stealing music...
As far as I know as of last Christmas none of the 17Million collected has gone to any copyright holder.
The reason I don't think this is good for the Internet, is that it will become a creeping cost that gradually goes up and up. It's also a cost that may have nothing to do with what you are buying! If you are just looking at slashdot, and not looking at music or movies then why should you pay for this tax?
The Internet should be viewed as air. Free to all, and if you pollute it you should pay to clean it.
Re:And now for something completely different...
on
Python in a Nutshell
·
· Score: 1
I kinda liked assorted. It has wordplay. Assorted and assaulted are very close. And when you get assorted nuts it means several kinds. How do you get several kinds of 1?
All the comments I keep seeing are things aluding to programmers not actually doing anything about bug reporting.
This might be true of some companies, but as far as Open Source, I've not found it to be the case at all. I've reported bugs for kmail, gentoo, crystal space as well as many others. In every case, the bug was handled quickly. Sometimes with a fix or workaround the same day. For example I wanted to sent the subject header from emails to a speech synthasizer. And had problems. The lead programmer put the fix in immediatly, and sent me the source so I could do it myself. Not only that, but several other people sent me work arounds, to the point where I didn't need to bother with modifying the source. Open source is great in this respect.
Gentoo bugfixes are also very fast in this respect. Although like a doctor's office, the important cases get handled first. But I wouldn't want it any other way.
So I say, report the bugs. Do it as carefully as you can. (After all you and the programmer have the same goals, why not help each other out as much as possible).
OTOH, I've not had the same experience with closed source.... Sometimes the newsgroups have workarounds, but usually it's just people who have experience the same things. The lead programmer does not make an appearance ever.
A few extra weeks of spam while his customers sell my email address to the next bunch of spammers. You obviously don't get as much as I do. I've lost important emails because they were lost in a deluge of spam. After several hundred clicks of delete. Eventually you just delete them all and hope there was nothing important. Not to mention the bandwidth that my ISP has to pay for this garbage, that is going to come right back to me. I think any law regarding spam, should be backed up to the fullest extent.
Slashdot Mirror
Matt Oppenhein (RIAA guy): Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works, Congress has tried to keep pace with what it has believed is necessary to continue to incentivize creators and publishers.
And here I thought the problem was it was too easy to copy stuff.
Congress also was concerned that American creators should not have less copyright protection than is commonly provided abroad, and they therefore extended the term to match the copyright term in Europe and elsewhere.
Oh, right, the americans always do what the French and the Germans say...
This guy makes the most sense so far!
Yes, redistibution DOES constitute an act of licensing. It even includes a license agreement (gpl).
all you have to do is get your hands on some of their proprietary secret data... well I think that's problem number one.
As soon as they redistribute it, ahem... why are they distributing things without knowing what they are?
My point is that it does correct that. Since they are the copyright owners (or whatever, who knows now) they are able to redistribute the code. The fact that they say oops later is irrelevent, and even more so since they are STILL redistributing the code under the same GPL license.
I know exactly the kind of precedent my interpretation sets. Just like buyer beware, also seller beware.
Because of the GPL, they had a responsibility to be sure they weren't distributing their own IP
.
I disagree. Continuing under the assumption that someone's IP was wrongfully included in the Linux kernel source, the contributor of that source did not have a right to contribute it. Since he did not own the copyright, he had no legal right to attempt to license it under the GPL. The rights apparently granted by the GPL are void then for every release based upon that code.
Hold on there sparky. Assuming that IBM released illegal code under GPL, making it not GPL. Then SCO release the same code, and they are the owners (a lot of assumptions there). They are able to release the code under GPL. There is nothing stopping them. Making it legal GPL.
You are saying that they were incompetent by releasing code they didn't mean to. Well, does the law protect companies from being incompetent? I don't think so. After all they only had 186 or so patents that delt with Unix code. There are public records of kernel logs saying what is going into the kernel. They are able to download the kernel before it's released. They know what changes are comming months in advance (we all do). They had every oportunity to check the code before they released it
They cannot release code under one license and then decide to changed the license after the fact. Which is what this boils down to.
If you take a binary image and compile (back) into C code, that C code will be very different then the original code. As the artical says there will be things lost, classes become dynamic function calls etc.
The new C code would in effect be a different expression of the same idea would it? Doesn't that make it copyrightable in it's own right?
If you make a copy note for note of a public doman piece, and publish it, that is a copyrightable work, since it is one rendering of the work. Someone else could make the same copy of the original, and copyright it and as it is a different layout etc, it is copyrightable as well.
I think this is the same type of thing.
Am I wrong?
Should I be asking Slashdot? (of course, slashdot is, as we all know full of lawyers!)
If you distribute the code under GPL, then it is assumed that you have distributed code under the GPL. The fact that you didn't check the code, shows incompetence, but does not inspire me to view you as the wronged party. The fact that you released the code after you discovered the copyright violation shows that you accept the violation and are willing to release the code.
If you don't want to play in the sandbox quit giving me your toys!
I think it would probably be more of a class action involving anyone who contributed code that was falsely released under SCO's GPL.
Since SCO has released code claiming to be under GPL, and then are but are not abiding by the GPL's rules, they are releasing GPL'd code while violating the License agreement.
Or go the otherway. A windsheild that converts infrared to visible light. No need for headlights!
I went there and was so inspired!!! :)
Unfortunately that judgement preceded the DMCA by about 15 years.
Exactly... Isn't that why they call it a precedent?
If she was pursuaded by the recent DMCA rulings, shouldn't she also be pursuaded by the SC rulings on VCR copying? Afterall, the fact that VCR's have a record button, means they are built in order to record. The fact they have a play button means they were also built to play (and in the process unencrypt) video tapes. If VCR's are able to play a video tape, why can't my computer play a DVD?
Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you.
-- The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. There are an infinite number of ways to find a mathematical solution.
Consider 1 + 1 = 2.
The same solution can be found by an infinite number of mathematical sequences (1+1+1-1=2, 1+1+2-2 = 2 and so on). (Patenting any one of them is stupid IMHO).
There may be a best algorithm in both math and software, but the two can be viewed as equivilent, ie a method of communication which describes the world around us. It is the idea of patenting the communication or presentation of ideas that I find repugnent.
I view code as an instruction manual to be read by a device. Can you patent an instruction manual? You can patent the device which uses it. If the device has an internal instruction manual (microcode) then the device is still patentable, but not the internal instruction manual. Like patenting a special type of book, but not the letters and words inside it. This is where the patent office made it's mistake. They view the microcode as part of the device whereas it's only a set of instructions used by the device.
And you think this is ok?
How about if I patent the idea of adding up prices to come up with a total that get's printed at a cash register. It's just addition, but it's PRINTED!!!
Nicely put!
Patents on software is like putting patents on thoughts or music or math or logic. It shouldn't be done.
The problem is that the whole idea of software patents is bad. Software is math. Did you know that creating a cursor on the screen by xoring the current value on the screen with a 0xff is a patent.
Xor is one of the most basic logic operations there are, but it's patented.
So to answer your question, (IMHO) No micropayments would not be a viable answer.
Not only that but it takes time. PNG still isn't as popular as gifs, even though it's better. The reason is that GIF's are already present, so PNG must not only become popular, they must also displace something which is popular.
I was at a Linux conference yesterday (in Toronto). Oracle had a presentation. They now support Linux.
If you have a problem with your database you phone Oracle, and they talk you through it. If it turns out to be an OS problem, then they tell you go talk to your OS vender except when it's Linux. If it's Linux they will deal with it directly.
I was very impressed. They are moving their whole company onto Linux and are more then 50% there now.
you know the rest.
No, I think you are missing my point. Yes 3d is hard to do. It's hard to do no matter what. However if you are doing it so that it maps to one interface, then all drivers written to that interface will work for it. This was my point. I wasn't talking about cross platform although that's definitely an area where this will help.
OK, having a window transparent so you can watch what's going on behind it is kind of cool. It's opengl people, we can move the windows sideways and view them edge on too. Have a stack of 30 or so windows edge on, with just enough angle so you can see if anything changes.
Secondly,
He's implementing the hardware driver as opengl. I think this statement is very important. Device drivers can be written to OpenGL. All of a sudden the hardware manufacture's have an easy route to support Linux. WOW!
We have that in Canada for writeable CD's. It's a levy so that everytime you buy a CD you have to pay a bit extra (hidden in the cost of course) for the CD. This bit extra (I think it's 23cents per cd, but going up to close to 50cents) is supposed to go to the copyright holders of music, because as we all know, if you are buying a writeable cd you must be stealing music...
As far as I know as of last Christmas none of the 17Million collected has gone to any copyright holder.
The reason I don't think this is good for the Internet, is that it will become a creeping cost that gradually goes up and up. It's also a cost that may have nothing to do with what you are buying! If you are just looking at slashdot, and not looking at music or movies then why should you pay for this tax?
The Internet should be viewed as air. Free to all, and if you pollute it you should pay to clean it.
I kinda liked assorted. It has wordplay. Assorted and assaulted are very close. And when you get assorted nuts it means several kinds. How do you get several kinds of 1?
All the comments I keep seeing are things aluding to programmers not actually doing anything about bug reporting.
This might be true of some companies, but as far as Open Source, I've not found it to be the case at all. I've reported bugs for kmail, gentoo, crystal space as well as many others. In every case, the bug was handled quickly. Sometimes with a fix or workaround the same day. For example I wanted to sent the subject header from emails to a speech synthasizer. And had problems. The lead programmer put the fix in immediatly, and sent me the source so I could do it myself. Not only that, but several other people sent me work arounds, to the point where I didn't need to bother with modifying the source. Open source is great in this respect.
Gentoo bugfixes are also very fast in this respect. Although like a doctor's office, the important cases get handled first. But I wouldn't want it any other way.
So I say, report the bugs. Do it as carefully as you can. (After all you and the programmer have the same goals, why not help each other out as much as possible).
OTOH, I've not had the same experience with closed source.... Sometimes the newsgroups have workarounds, but usually it's just people who have experience the same things. The lead programmer does not make an appearance ever.
A few extra weeks of spam while his customers sell my email address to the next bunch of spammers. You obviously don't get as much as I do. I've lost important emails because they were lost in a deluge of spam. After several hundred clicks of delete. Eventually you just delete them all and hope there was nothing important. Not to mention the bandwidth that my ISP has to pay for this garbage, that is going to come right back to me. I think any law regarding spam, should be backed up to the fullest extent.