No, there have been Fair Use cases where the work in its entirety was distributed against the will of the copyright holder and that has been found to be Fair Use.
Fair use - as defined by copyright law - never mentions anything about distribution and the teacher scenario that you reference is explicitly limited to short excerpts. But of course you've taken the discussion completely off-topic in a pathetic attempt to avoid the fact that you've been wrong about your idea that 'nothing is taken' when unauthorized copies of a copyright work are made. Fair use is not unauthorized copying so is irrelevant in this discussion, but of course you remain ignorant of that fact and your next post will be something again related to fair use to avoid the fact that you're completely wrong about the idea that 'nothing is taken'.
No it isn't. The assertion that copyrighted material cannot be distributed through 'fair use' is absolutely correct, only excerpts can be, which is why it is irrelevant to this discussion.
And all your conclusions are false.
Don't confuse your inability to understand copyright law with the truth. The simple fact that you continue to ignore because you've been proven wrong is that when unauthorized copies of copyrighted material are made something is indeed taken away.
Since you wanted to teach me all about Fair Use
Where did i imply i wanted to do that? Don't make up rubbish just because you've been proven wrong.
I would have figured you'd have at least heard about it, but apparently you haven't heard anything about it other than it's an evil communist exception to copyright that should be ignored and marginalized. Go read up and get back to us.
'evil' is a point of view and im not sure what communism has to do with it but i've maintained an objective stance throughout this discussion. I don't agree with copyright law at all, but it is what it is. Indeed fair use should be ignored in the context of this discussion because it exists within copyright law, this discussion is about actions that conflict with copyright law.
So teacher's exploitation (such a lovely emotionally charged word, I wonder why you picked that, could it be because you are biased to the point of being blind) requires Fair Use, but Apple doesn't. Then it's the worst analogy ever. Aside from the fact that they share nothing in common, they are otherwise exactly the same.
No, i was using the word 'exploit' by it's common meaning 'The act of using something for any purpose'. Now, after being proven wrong you're attempting to construe my argument as a subjective one, which it clearly is not. I'm not biased at all, i think copyright law as it is is a terrible system but im not going to let my opinion of it get in the way of the facts.
You've taken this discussion off topic in a pathetic attempt to avoid the issue, the simple fact is that you are wrong, unauthorized copying of copyrighted material does take something away. But you don't want to admit that for some reason.
i never said my comments applied to anything outside of music in any way, shape or form
Ah. You live in some special fantasy world where "music" is magically protected under something other than "copyright" and is mysteriously different from every other form of copyrightable work.
No, of course not, and no-one would to come to that conclusion based on anything that i wrote. The fact is in the real world no-one uses EULAs or any derivation thereof to sell music to consumers, the license terms are dictated by copyright law and not by copyright holders.
Right, I'll leave you to it then. As I have no idea what reality you live in, you're welcome to stay there and I'll not try to bring my reality, or any other, into the picture.
I'm afraid you are the one out of touch with reality, as has been clearly and comprehensively demonstrated throughout the discussion in the ignorance of your posts.
Ah. So you are asserting that I'm ignorant of Fair Use, when it's the opposite. iTunes doesn't offer track samples without explicit permission from the copyright holders.
Read what i said, not what you misinterpret it as. I didn't say that at all.
Teachers are taking copyrighted material. Making an unauthorized copy. Then distributing those unauthorized copies. And it's being done legally.
No, it is not fair use to distribute a copyrighted material. Only a *part* of that material, hence why that's irrelevant to this discussion given we are talking about the copyrighted work, not an excerpt. The fact is the ability to exercise the right to exclusive distribution has been taken away, it has been stolen.
That's fundamentally different than Apple making an authorized copy in transmitting a track sample. So I'll take it as a unconditional concession of defeat that you can't support any of your incorrect assertions regarding Fair Use.
Take it as you like, but your failure at reading comprehension doesn't make it correct. I never said itunes track samples were fair use, i said the teacher's exploitation of fair use is no more than track samples, it is not a distribution of the copyrighted work.
So you've completely and utterly lost the argument which was directly related to music and only music
So in the process of "winning" the argument about music, you've completely and utterly lost the argument which was directly related to copyright in general and copyrightable works in general.
No, because that argument was never taking place and i never said my comments applied to anything outside of music in any way, shape or form. You just tried to take it in that direction when you realised you comment was bullshit in the context of this discussion.
Your argument only holds for the specific case of music, and that only in the specific case of buying it without a contract, and that only because the industry chooses to sell it like that.
In other words, exactly in the context of the real world and of this discussion.
The right is as good as taken away if you don't have the ability to exercise it.
Taken away? Don't have the ability to exercise it? You make it sound like a teacher legally copying copyrighted material against the wishes of the copyright holder is the same as lynching black people because they are black.
No i don't make it sound like that at all, you're using that comparison to sensationalise it in an attempt to move away from what it actually is.
Speaking of which, how's that description of Fair Use going, because I still think it's related to distribution and you've not explained to me how it works that Fair Use has nothing to do with distribution.
Im avoiding moving away from the argument, but the only part of fair use related at all to distribution is the teacher scenario and that doesn't allow distribution of copyrighted material any more than the way itunes offers track samples.
Someone taking BSD code and marrying it with their own proprietary code doesn't do anything to the original code, that code is still there and free to be tinkered with and learned from.
Not when it comes on a closed up device, with no way of running it on that device and likely not even an indication that there's even any BSD code in there.
Same as with GPL code.
So, I as a recipient of BSD code in binary form - I might not know it's BSD, the original project could have disappeared or gone offline, all sorts of stuff. To say it *never* goes away is simplistic.
The GPL situation is worse, if the code disappears then the binary is pretty much useless. At least the binary can still be used in the BSD situation.
Actually it's neither. As a consumer I want to tinker with my device.
What do you mean by 'device'? I'm pretty sure what you want to tinker with is the proprietary code. There is no FOSS licensing issue with tinkering if you strip the software from the hardware.
The right to ask the binary distributor for the source
No, no-one takes that right from you, you always have that. What you want is the right to force the distributor to give you the source.
It's not that I demand the right to use other people's code, it's that they have to play ball if they want the right to use mine.
And you're entitled to that, but from my point of view if i release free code then people are free to use it however they wish.
If you like to think of BSD as more altruistic as a result then that's up to you, but if you look at the software ecosystem (particularly consumer devices with embedded operating systems) you'll see that the GPL often opens up a lot of areas of cool hobby-type stuff that would have stayed closed if there was no publishing requirement for linux.
Not really, the real 'cool hobby stuff' on consumer devices would be available if linux were under the GPLv3, which it isn't.
I think the notion that there is one "correct" form that "free software" can take is mostly rubbish.
Neither is more 'open' or more 'free', the only fact is that one is more restrictive than the other. BSD is much more altruistic, the GPL is more about supporting an ideology, which is 'better' depends on your point of view.
More free for the first party that gets the code, much less free for third parties that are given binaries later.
That's only one possibility, and it's likely that without that BSD code the would have written their own (incompatible?) code instead. So the only loss is the potential interoperability, and if there is no interoperability then nothing is lost.
RMS is a zealot on this, it's true. But I applaud people who release GPL code because they are giving everyone the continuing right to learn and to tinker with the fruits of their labour, not just the first party.
Someone taking BSD code and marrying it with their own proprietary code doesn't do anything to the original code, that code is still there and free to be tinkered with and learned from. GPL just forces everyone else who wants to use that code into that way of thinking.
I am not free to tinker with my playstation 3, but there is BSD code in there.
That's a fair point, but in truth the bit you want to tinker with is the proprietary code, the BSD code is still free. So you want them to release their code under a free license as well.
Sometimes I find the whole holier-than-though, libre software is more like the PETA of the software world -- they're much more obsessed with the ideological purity of code.
That's why i prefer BSD-style licenses, they are more altruistic, it's not about forcing people to do things your way. With the GPL it's more of a 'you can freely use my code within the scope of my idea of freedom' whereas the BSD is a 'you can freely use my code'.
To clarify, I was asking an illustrative question to point out that there's no "perfect" sentinel value for all circumstances, and I prefer Python's raise-on-failure paradigm. I don't know whether OP was correct about.NET working that way, it's not an inherently crazy design decision.
He is correct wrt nullable types, however nullable types only raise that exception if you've tried to use an undefined value without putting a guard checking the result of 'HasValue' first.
Well in the context of modern society, if 15 million people bought iPads already. Then I would consider that pretty strong evidence there might be a 'need' for it then.
That's the sort of idiotic logic that would prove there is a 'need' for 'iFart', just look at the amount of downloads.
When have you ever signed a contract when buying a copyrighted work that told you how you can use it?
Four letters: EULA.
So you've completely and utterly lost the argument which was directly related to music and only music that you've resorted to changing what i wrote in your quote to reflect a scenario that works for you. The fact that you've had to do that just shows how wrong you are and then put in a response that clearly does not answer the question i actually asked.
I've never had to sign a contract when buying music, but that's just because I was content to get the standard license, and they were content to sell me that.
So in the normal situation the copyright owner does not dictate the terms of use.
They didn't take that right away. Whether the committed a crime related to that right by blocking your freedom to exercise it is irrelevant. The right was not then and never was lost or taken.
The right is as good as taken away if you don't have the ability to exercise it. If you would rather view it as the 'ability to exercise that right' as the thing being taken away then that's fine, the fact is something *has* been taken. So your insistence that nothing has been taken is a load of shit.
Who comes up with data structures that throw an exception because you asked it if something was inside and the answer was 'no'?
No-one, what are you talking about? The only thing i can think of is the invalidoperationexceptions that are raised if you try to use the data value *without* asking if something is inside. So it sounds like you're doing it wrong.
I do personally have a will for tablets, I want to use them around the house as a series of network devices I can use to play music in the room I'm in, or to view my calendar in the room I'm in or so forth.
Why not have your phone? Use a single device rather than a bunch of devices scattered around the house.
I would like one in the kitchen mounted to keep a shopping list on and so forth, but detachable if need be.
Again, why not use your phone? Rather than having to go to the kitchen to add to your shopping list.
If the phone screen is too small for you then surely a single tablet is better than having a bunch of them lying around.
More like the one language to lose them all. Java and Flash cross-platform development have shown that you tend up with a least-common-denominator application that fails to take full advantage of any given platform, Couple that with failing to fully match a specific platform's UI and UX conventions, and you have a nice little recipe for developing a losing application.
That's if you wrote the whole application in java. But writing a java backend with a platform-specific frontend is going to save you a hell of a lot of time porting code.
No, it will be less than current *platforms* (as Mono is not a language) and the reason for this is because Microsoft can wipe the floor with it at any point it feels like.
better quickly get back under that tin foil hat of yours.
Slashdot Mirror
No, there have been Fair Use cases where the work in its entirety was distributed against the will of the copyright holder and that has been found to be Fair Use.
Fair use - as defined by copyright law - never mentions anything about distribution and the teacher scenario that you reference is explicitly limited to short excerpts. But of course you've taken the discussion completely off-topic in a pathetic attempt to avoid the fact that you've been wrong about your idea that 'nothing is taken' when unauthorized copies of a copyright work are made. Fair use is not unauthorized copying so is irrelevant in this discussion, but of course you remain ignorant of that fact and your next post will be something again related to fair use to avoid the fact that you're completely wrong about the idea that 'nothing is taken'.
POSIX filesystem semantics
Fix it so POSIX api functions are no longer treated as bastard stepchildren - implement them in the core, and emulate others.
Why? Break application compatibility to turn windows into a POSIX system? What's wrong with all the existins POSIX OSes?
Your assertion is false.
No it isn't. The assertion that copyrighted material cannot be distributed through 'fair use' is absolutely correct, only excerpts can be, which is why it is irrelevant to this discussion.
And all your conclusions are false.
Don't confuse your inability to understand copyright law with the truth. The simple fact that you continue to ignore because you've been proven wrong is that when unauthorized copies of copyrighted material are made something is indeed taken away.
Since you wanted to teach me all about Fair Use
Where did i imply i wanted to do that? Don't make up rubbish just because you've been proven wrong.
I would have figured you'd have at least heard about it, but apparently you haven't heard anything about it other than it's an evil communist exception to copyright that should be ignored and marginalized. Go read up and get back to us.
'evil' is a point of view and im not sure what communism has to do with it but i've maintained an objective stance throughout this discussion. I don't agree with copyright law at all, but it is what it is. Indeed fair use should be ignored in the context of this discussion because it exists within copyright law, this discussion is about actions that conflict with copyright law.
So teacher's exploitation (such a lovely emotionally charged word, I wonder why you picked that, could it be because you are biased to the point of being blind) requires Fair Use, but Apple doesn't. Then it's the worst analogy ever. Aside from the fact that they share nothing in common, they are otherwise exactly the same.
No, i was using the word 'exploit' by it's common meaning 'The act of using something for any purpose'. Now, after being proven wrong you're attempting to construe my argument as a subjective one, which it clearly is not. I'm not biased at all, i think copyright law as it is is a terrible system but im not going to let my opinion of it get in the way of the facts.
You've taken this discussion off topic in a pathetic attempt to avoid the issue, the simple fact is that you are wrong, unauthorized copying of copyrighted material does take something away. But you don't want to admit that for some reason.
i never said my comments applied to anything outside of music in any way, shape or form
Ah. You live in some special fantasy world where "music" is magically protected under something other than "copyright" and is mysteriously different from every other form of copyrightable work.
No, of course not, and no-one would to come to that conclusion based on anything that i wrote. The fact is in the real world no-one uses EULAs or any derivation thereof to sell music to consumers, the license terms are dictated by copyright law and not by copyright holders.
Right, I'll leave you to it then. As I have no idea what reality you live in, you're welcome to stay there and I'll not try to bring my reality, or any other, into the picture.
I'm afraid you are the one out of touch with reality, as has been clearly and comprehensively demonstrated throughout the discussion in the ignorance of your posts.
Ah. So you are asserting that I'm ignorant of Fair Use, when it's the opposite. iTunes doesn't offer track samples without explicit permission from the copyright holders.
Read what i said, not what you misinterpret it as. I didn't say that at all.
Teachers are taking copyrighted material. Making an unauthorized copy. Then distributing those unauthorized copies. And it's being done legally.
No, it is not fair use to distribute a copyrighted material. Only a *part* of that material, hence why that's irrelevant to this discussion given we are talking about the copyrighted work, not an excerpt. The fact is the ability to exercise the right to exclusive distribution has been taken away, it has been stolen.
That's fundamentally different than Apple making an authorized copy in transmitting a track sample. So I'll take it as a unconditional concession of defeat that you can't support any of your incorrect assertions regarding Fair Use.
Take it as you like, but your failure at reading comprehension doesn't make it correct. I never said itunes track samples were fair use, i said the teacher's exploitation of fair use is no more than track samples, it is not a distribution of the copyrighted work.
So Scions are targeted at people who either are so cheap that they need to pirate 99 cent apps
That 99c could to towards the purchase of a prius.
Because android is half-assed broken fork of Linux.
It's interesting how some people call it 'broken', it quite clearly isn't, Android seems to be working quite well for millions and millions of people.
So you've completely and utterly lost the argument which was directly related to music and only music
So in the process of "winning" the argument about music, you've completely and utterly lost the argument which was directly related to copyright in general and copyrightable works in general.
No, because that argument was never taking place and i never said my comments applied to anything outside of music in any way, shape or form. You just tried to take it in that direction when you realised you comment was bullshit in the context of this discussion.
Your argument only holds for the specific case of music, and that only in the specific case of buying it without a contract, and that only because the industry chooses to sell it like that.
In other words, exactly in the context of the real world and of this discussion.
The right is as good as taken away if you don't have the ability to exercise it.
Taken away? Don't have the ability to exercise it? You make it sound like a teacher legally copying copyrighted material against the wishes of the copyright holder is the same as lynching black people because they are black.
No i don't make it sound like that at all, you're using that comparison to sensationalise it in an attempt to move away from what it actually is.
Speaking of which, how's that description of Fair Use going, because I still think it's related to distribution and you've not explained to me how it works that Fair Use has nothing to do with distribution.
Im avoiding moving away from the argument, but the only part of fair use related at all to distribution is the teacher scenario and that doesn't allow distribution of copyrighted material any more than the way itunes offers track samples.
GPL - you can freely use my code as long as you pass that freedom on
That's why - when using the GPL - 'freedom' comes with a caveat.
BSD - you can freely use my code including denying the downstream people the same freedom.
No, you can't deny anyone the freedom to use my BSD code.
Someone taking BSD code and marrying it with their own proprietary code doesn't do anything to the original code, that code is still there and free to be tinkered with and learned from.
Not when it comes on a closed up device, with no way of running it on that device and likely not even an indication that there's even any BSD code in there.
Same as with GPL code.
So, I as a recipient of BSD code in binary form - I might not know it's BSD, the original project could have disappeared or gone offline, all sorts of stuff. To say it *never* goes away is simplistic.
The GPL situation is worse, if the code disappears then the binary is pretty much useless. At least the binary can still be used in the BSD situation.
Actually it's neither. As a consumer I want to tinker with my device.
What do you mean by 'device'? I'm pretty sure what you want to tinker with is the proprietary code. There is no FOSS licensing issue with tinkering if you strip the software from the hardware.
The right to ask the binary distributor for the source
No, no-one takes that right from you, you always have that. What you want is the right to force the distributor to give you the source.
It's not that I demand the right to use other people's code, it's that they have to play ball if they want the right to use mine.
And you're entitled to that, but from my point of view if i release free code then people are free to use it however they wish.
If you like to think of BSD as more altruistic as a result then that's up to you, but if you look at the software ecosystem (particularly consumer devices with embedded operating systems) you'll see that the GPL often opens up a lot of areas of cool hobby-type stuff that would have stayed closed if there was no publishing requirement for linux.
Not really, the real 'cool hobby stuff' on consumer devices would be available if linux were under the GPLv3, which it isn't.
I think the notion that there is one "correct" form that "free software" can take is mostly rubbish.
Neither is more 'open' or more 'free', the only fact is that one is more restrictive than the other. BSD is much more altruistic, the GPL is more about supporting an ideology, which is 'better' depends on your point of view.
And those some would be wrong.
More free for the first party that gets the code, much less free for third parties that are given binaries later.
That's only one possibility, and it's likely that without that BSD code the would have written their own (incompatible?) code instead. So the only loss is the potential interoperability, and if there is no interoperability then nothing is lost.
RMS is a zealot on this, it's true. But I applaud people who release GPL code because they are giving everyone the continuing right to learn and to tinker with the fruits of their labour, not just the first party.
Someone taking BSD code and marrying it with their own proprietary code doesn't do anything to the original code, that code is still there and free to be tinkered with and learned from. GPL just forces everyone else who wants to use that code into that way of thinking.
I am not free to tinker with my playstation 3, but there is BSD code in there.
That's a fair point, but in truth the bit you want to tinker with is the proprietary code, the BSD code is still free. So you want them to release their code under a free license as well.
Sometimes I find the whole holier-than-though, libre software is more like the PETA of the software world -- they're much more obsessed with the ideological purity of code.
That's why i prefer BSD-style licenses, they are more altruistic, it's not about forcing people to do things your way. With the GPL it's more of a 'you can freely use my code within the scope of my idea of freedom' whereas the BSD is a 'you can freely use my code'.
To clarify, I was asking an illustrative question to point out that there's no "perfect" sentinel value for all circumstances, and I prefer Python's raise-on-failure paradigm. I don't know whether OP was correct about .NET working that way, it's not an inherently crazy design decision.
He is correct wrt nullable types, however nullable types only raise that exception if you've tried to use an undefined value without putting a guard checking the result of 'HasValue' first.
It doesn't really matter if the Romans invented all of that since their empire promptly fell apart and all of those benefits were lost to everyone.
Promptly? It was over the course of centuries.
Well in the context of modern society, if 15 million people bought iPads already. Then I would consider that pretty strong evidence there might be a 'need' for it then.
That's the sort of idiotic logic that would prove there is a 'need' for 'iFart', just look at the amount of downloads.
When have you ever signed a contract when buying a copyrighted work that told you how you can use it?
Four letters: EULA.
So you've completely and utterly lost the argument which was directly related to music and only music that you've resorted to changing what i wrote in your quote to reflect a scenario that works for you. The fact that you've had to do that just shows how wrong you are and then put in a response that clearly does not answer the question i actually asked.
I've never had to sign a contract when buying music, but that's just because I was content to get the standard license, and they were content to sell me that.
So in the normal situation the copyright owner does not dictate the terms of use.
maybe he's expecting an implicit conversion to a 0 value
Then he shouldn't be doing that because in terms of nullable types 0 and null are not the same thing.
They didn't take that right away. Whether the committed a crime related to that right by blocking your freedom to exercise it is irrelevant. The right was not then and never was lost or taken.
The right is as good as taken away if you don't have the ability to exercise it. If you would rather view it as the 'ability to exercise that right' as the thing being taken away then that's fine, the fact is something *has* been taken. So your insistence that nothing has been taken is a load of shit.
Who comes up with data structures that throw an exception because you asked it if something was inside and the answer was 'no'?
No-one, what are you talking about? The only thing i can think of is the invalidoperationexceptions that are raised if you try to use the data value *without* asking if something is inside. So it sounds like you're doing it wrong.
I do personally have a will for tablets, I want to use them around the house as a series of network devices I can use to play music in the room I'm in, or to view my calendar in the room I'm in or so forth.
Why not have your phone? Use a single device rather than a bunch of devices scattered around the house.
I would like one in the kitchen mounted to keep a shopping list on and so forth, but detachable if need be.
Again, why not use your phone? Rather than having to go to the kitchen to add to your shopping list.
If the phone screen is too small for you then surely a single tablet is better than having a bunch of them lying around.
More like the one language to lose them all. Java and Flash cross-platform development have shown that you tend up with a least-common-denominator application that fails to take full advantage of any given platform, Couple that with failing to fully match a specific platform's UI and UX conventions, and you have a nice little recipe for developing a losing application.
That's if you wrote the whole application in java. But writing a java backend with a platform-specific frontend is going to save you a hell of a lot of time porting code.
No, it will be less than current *platforms* (as Mono is not a language) and the reason for this is because Microsoft can wipe the floor with it at any point it feels like.
better quickly get back under that tin foil hat of yours.
That's what happens when you pair it to slutty devices, like the iPhone, over Bluetooth.
I thought the iphone was homo-phonal, you couldn't pair it to phones other than iphones...did this change?