Sadly, a number of web apps I am forced to use in my work require IE to function. And I'm not talking about 'require the user agent to say IE' I mean actual functionality through (I believe) vbscript and (shudder) activex components.
Of course, I do use firebird ALL THE REST OF THE TIME.
This illustrates it nicely doesn't it? Palladium enables publishers to bleed more cash from you for less utility than you get today.
Also,
"However, Giving music to millions of people needs to become socially and technologically unacceptable."
Socially unacceptable sure, but to make that one idea "technologically unacceptable" (meaning not possible or extremely difficult?) you as a user may have to sacrifice more than you will ever gain.
If only the *duration* of time wasn't a factor that would be a great philosophy, eh?
And yeah, give me a place to stand and i will move the earth.
Sadly, I don't share your "pigheaded optimism" (let's call it) since all it takes is for a sufficiently "pocketed" legislative body to both retain power and distribute it to friends - coupled with just enough apathy in the majority and you have a defacto "Never".
This does not define fair use as an ABSOLUTE RIGHT, it mearly EXCLUDES it from the definition of infringement.
okay... Fair Use is not an infringing activity.
I would be forced to settle for a low-quality analog duplication which would not serve my purpose at all. Therefore, DeCSS would be restricting my Fair Use rights as an educator.
Utter nonesense. I had the exact same lecture and in fact we watched the entire movie, long before DVD's or CSS existed. Again, the producer is under no obligation to make te work available, even under "fair use"
they are under no obligation to make it "available" - does this mean they have the right to stop it being "made available" for a (as you note) non-infringing activity?
Many high priced periodicals are printed in such a way as to prevent copying. Does this interfere with your rights? No.
I assume you mean "prevent identical quality level copying" - so if I can make a higher quality copy than the publisher would expect and/or like, for a non-infringing activity, that would be within my rights?
The copyright and therefore fair use apply to the material not the media. You cannot claim that the MPAA has taken away your ability to use the work in non-infringing ways. There are still video tapes. You can still make analog copies of DVD movies.
Can't I have a digital copy for my remote students to watch during our on-line seminar? Must I send out vhs copies of the clip to them all prior to the start?
Our ability to communicate has expanded into the digital arena - we can do some things more easily than before. Why should I have to perform 'n+1' steps to acheive something I can do in 'n'?
How I get a digital copy of a video clip (for the professor / student "distance learning" example) should be decided by... the MPAA? Me?
Most publishers will provided copies to educational institutions and individuals for reviews.
This hardly seems relevant. Some companies "strive to be the premier provider of customer service" or "take our customers privacy into account when deciding which select partners to share personal information with".
Those movie publishers don't have to give me those copies.
Does that mean I can't acquire the material legally without their express help?
This is all redundant stuff - I just couldn't leave this comment unreplied to. Shame on me for biting.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, to buy more gold of course.
G
The Proxomitron
I am cool with adding another proxy into the chain - and my proxy will simply unfuck their fucking :)
At the end of the day, Palladium notwithstanding, I get to decide what I do with the bits and bytes coming into my machine.
Sadly, a number of web apps I am forced to use in my work require IE to function. And I'm not talking about 'require the user agent to say IE' I mean actual functionality through (I believe) vbscript and (shudder) activex components.
Of course, I do use firebird ALL THE REST OF THE TIME.
G
The update date you mention is incorrect.
:
Visit, for example
http://clamav.elektrapro.com/database/
Last updated date was yesterday.
G
Sure, For A Fee.[macworld.com]
This illustrates it nicely doesn't it? Palladium enables publishers to bleed more cash from you for less utility than you get today.
Also,
Socially unacceptable sure, but to make that one idea "technologically unacceptable" (meaning not possible or extremely difficult?) you as a user may have to sacrifice more than you will ever gain.
If only the *duration* of time wasn't a factor that would be a great philosophy, eh?
And yeah, give me a place to stand and i will move the earth.
Sadly, I don't share your "pigheaded optimism" (let's call it) since all it takes is for a sufficiently "pocketed" legislative body to both retain power and distribute it to friends - coupled with just enough apathy in the majority and you have a defacto "Never".
Hmm.
Doesn't it even say "Durex" on it?
Perhaps an additional mod of "Ironic" would be beneficial here.
Ah, but then, +1 or -1?
(aha! no! 0 - then it could be recursively ironic!)
The short version is no-one on the list new if CSS had been used on the frames of public domain movies.
But yes, public domain DVD's already exist
This does not define fair use as an ABSOLUTE RIGHT, it mearly EXCLUDES it from the definition of infringement.
okay... Fair Use is not an infringing activity.
they are under no obligation to make it "available" - does this mean they have the right to stop it being "made available" for a (as you note) non-infringing activity?
Many high priced periodicals are printed in such a way as to prevent copying. Does this interfere with your rights? No.
I assume you mean "prevent identical quality level copying" - so if I can make a higher quality copy than the publisher would expect and/or like, for a non-infringing activity, that would be within my rights?
The copyright and therefore fair use apply to the material not the media. You cannot claim that the MPAA has taken away your ability to use the work in non-infringing ways. There are still video tapes. You can still make analog copies of DVD movies.
Can't I have a digital copy for my remote students to watch during our on-line seminar? Must I send out vhs copies of the clip to them all prior to the start?
Our ability to communicate has expanded into the digital arena - we can do some things more easily than before. Why should I have to perform 'n+1' steps to acheive something I can do in 'n'?
How I get a digital copy of a video clip (for the professor / student "distance learning" example) should be decided by... the MPAA? Me?
Most publishers will provided copies to educational institutions and individuals for reviews.
This hardly seems relevant. Some companies "strive to be the premier provider of customer service" or "take our customers privacy into account when deciding which select partners to share personal information with".
Those movie publishers don't have to give me those copies.
Does that mean I can't acquire the material legally without their express help?
This is all redundant stuff - I just couldn't leave this comment unreplied to. Shame on me for biting.