> When "the public" pays me to referee papers by other astronomers, and "the public" pays the page charges > for the papers I write ($110 per page, by the way), and "the public" pays the editors and typesetters of > the journals, then "the public" might assert a right to those papers.
The public IS paying you. Who do you think gave the right to the govt. to grant you a copyright in the first place?
So you don't want to let those papers you write enter the public domain? Ok. You don't get to copyright them. You forget this is how and why copyright was started in this country in the first place.
If more so called publishers got to experence the joy of making money off their works without copyright at all, they would start to see why the cost of getting that copyright (the cost being you must give the work to the public after a limited time) isn't such a bad price after all.
The part i'm still confused about, is that the DMCA seperatly seems to outlaw the production of tools to circumvent DRM. I admit my own interpertation of the DMCA is probably flawed, and would hold the same to most of the interpratations of fellow slashdotters, however
If your form of DRM was unique, and the only software using that DRM was GPLv3, then perhaps the tools to break that DRM would also not be illegal to produce or distribute...
But using your example of CSS, while if YOU attempted to sue me for cracking your DRM, you lose the right to use the GPLv3 licence and thus your CSS protected video is no longer under any licence, it seems you could still sue both me for posessing the cracking tools, plus whomever produced them (assuming that wasnt myself.)
I am by far not arguing for the DMCA, nor particularly aginst the GPLv3, I am just unsure how often or not this new clause in the GPL will be useful compared to the times it wouldn't matter.
> All it takes to simulate a human brain is 22.8 teraflops? > I thought I was smarter than that.
A rough guess seems to come in at around 100 teraops or more.
In a paper by Hans Moravec, one guess is 10^14 instructions per second (Extrapolation of retina equivalent computer operations.)
While another by Ralph Merkle, suggests 10^13 - 10^16 operations per second, based on power consumption,
and yet another by Robert McEachern suggests 10^17 FLOPS (Floating Point Operation Per Second, more comparable to computer based math and what is discussed here.)
1 x 10^12 = 1 Tera
Thusly, 10^13 = 10 T, 10^14 = 100 T, 10^15 = 1000 T or 1 P, 10^16 = 10 P, and 10^17 = 100 P (or 100,000 TeraOps)
These numbers of course all depend on the method of measurement, what is being measured, and how much bearing that particular feature matters.. Sorta as meaningless/meaningful as CPU MHZ speed goes, and likewise, comparing a computer to a brain is going to run into the same problem.
However I think its safe to say, that as long as the computers hardware works like it does and not like our brains, then it will need to simulate our hardware in software, and thus two numbers matter: 1) how fast the computer can simulate the various actions of nurons, and 2) how fast those nurons need to function to compare to a real brain. As with all forms of emulation, the host system needs to be faster than the target, usually to an order of magnatude or more...
However, they didn't really say their simulation would be running at full/live speed... Researchers can still learn alot from this even if it takes a day to process a minute or two of brain time...
> A literal reading of this would say that some music files that I and a few > friends made and put online are going to become illegal. Consider:
(snip) > Are they really making it illegal for people to put their own files online > without first releasing them commercially?
(snip)
No.
The problem was taking a literal reading from news.com.com instead of the actual law:}
(Sec. 103) Establishes criminal penalties for willful copyright infringement by the distribution of a computer program, musical work, motion picture or other audiovisual work, or sound recording being prepared for commercial distribution by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if the person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
(bold added by me)
It's only going to be illegal to give something away for free if both: a) it was a copyright infringement, and b) it was being created Only for the purpose of selling
In your case, as you are the copyright holder of your own works, you can distribute them anyway you see fit, thus are not infringing copyright in the first place. Second, for someone else whom you did not grant license to, whom does infringe on your copyright and distributes your work aginst your will, this law only applies if you 1) intended to sell it, and 2) that should have been known.
As you said, you have given scripts and files away in the past on your site for free, so even if I broke in to your system and grabbed some files and put them out there on the net, I can claim I had no idea you planned to sell those works since your track record so far is to release them for free. This law would not apply then.
It definatly only applies to people who only* make things in life to make a buck off them. *(It almost has to be only and not usually/sometimes/occasionally, as that does not satisfy the 'should have known' clause of the law) Now, if it was taken from a company/corporation instead of a person, i'm sure the court will rule 'should have known' to be in the 'always true' logic state, as its rare to have an answer for 'what else do companys exist for?'
> By programming my computer to independently examine and verify the proof. Done > properly, the instructions for a computer to verify a proof can be a lot simpler > than verifying the proof itself.
But even multiple computers performing a verify isn't _truly_ a verification.
After all, how long did the Pentium division bug go _unnoticed_???
Over a year and a half worth of time any/all such verifications obtained with the newest intel computers at the time were WRONG.
And any guesses how they even found this bug?? It was a human, not another buggy computer, that had to verify the data.
Yes computers can do things faster, but ever underestimate the power of truly knowing what your doing, which so far, a computer can't grasp at all, let alone do as well as the human mind.
> So here's an interesting legal issue. If an organization duly authorized by > the copyright owner to help manage their copyrights places a copy of the > copyrighted material on a public warez server, it seems to me that this > legally qualifies as free public distribution by the copyright owner. > > So the question then becomes whether such a distribution is sufficient to have > the movies in question declared to be in the public domain.... Thoughts?
No.. No more than when the copyright owner allows a studio to make copys of their media and sell them in a store.
When you buy it (or download it in this case) that never implied you bought/downloaded the same permission to distribute it as these guys may have.
All this would -possibly- mean is the copy of the 'warez' you downloaded is legal for you to have gotten, and this is even assuming the person placing the warez there both a) DID have the permission to distribute, and b) had the permission to distribute it 'in any way' or atleast in this way specifically.
Generally if a studio is given the right to make copies to sell in stores, that limits them to just that (and in the contract no doubt very specifically says so) That permission is not the same as 'oh and feel free to make free copies for yourself.' That has to be given seperatly.
Chances are the copyright owner did not say they could distribute the materials in this way at all, making them as much of a copyright violator as those doing the downloading from the server.
However, as I said above, even if that permission is given or arguable, that permission does not transfer to anyone else. It only means the copy you got that way was legally given to you, just as when you buy the thing in the store.
> Talk to anyone who has counseled friends, familes, affected by a suicide. > This is not a victimless crime.
Its as much a _crime_ for a person to _rob you_ of _their_ life, because you feel they simply should do so despite what they think,
than its a _crime_ for you to _rob me_ of _your_ money, because I feel you simply should give it to me despite what you think,
or that its a _crime_ for that girl over there to _rob me_ of _her_ body, because I feel she simply must give it to me despite what she thinks.
Lets pass the laws aginst those ones too!!! Actually, no, I'd rather not live in that world, despite the fact we are 1/3rd the way there in my examples above.
P.S. I have lost a close friend to suicide, and as bad as I miss her, I still respect her enough to have made the choice she had to, despite if I agree with it or not. Cancer can be a bitch I hear:/
I don't think the argument is _if_ they can do so. For all the reasons you pointed out, they most certainly can.
It's a question of if doing so is really a right thing.
"kiddy pr0n, sites with bomb making instructions, incitements for hatred" All of those things can (and mostly do, and mostly are for no other purpose) hurt other people aginst their will.
Info on how to end your own life would be better compared to things like condom use (because sex is dirty) or self-help drug recovery (because drugs are bad, mkay? and most govt's already have a life ruining process of rehab and jail in mind for you)
Despite the fact a government _can_ ban information about condom use, self drug rehibilitation, and of course, suicide, does not mean its right to rob people of information that effects no one but themself.
You can also say that by killing yourself, you actually are affecting other people, and claim that is a reason why to outlaw it. Well, under that logic, by the fact you are not right now giving me all of your money, you are affecting me just the same.
Does that give me, or your government, the right to force my will over yours?
> Don't forget that the chip reseating maneuver was obsoleted when Apple replaced > all existing Apple/// motherboards with an updated version. For free.
That is true. I got rid of my/// (unfortunatly) before taking advantage of that offer (That problem was not why I got rid of it), but it does go to show how some companys take care of their customers better than others.
I bought my/// used, so it's possible it did not come with everything it should have, but did the/// come with circuit schematics as well? I know they were in the apple// technical reference manual and I've read they came with the apple 1. Just curious... thats another thing you will never see again from a company these days:{
> In it's place, I'd like to nominate the Apple///. It was such a failure that > perhaps the list's originator doesn't even know about it.
As stated in the///'s user manual, just pick it up a few inches off your desk and drop it back down... That will stop it from failing!/still amazed at that chip reseating 'fix';}
Re:IRC analysis fatally flawed
on
Is IRC All Bad?
·
· Score: 1
Exactly
Just like 99.9% of all warez websites traffic is illegal, doesnt pertain much to how much web traffic is.
99.9% of warez ftp site traffic is illegal. Doesnt pertain at all to ftp in general.
99.9% of warez p2p traffic is.. er.. nevermind that one:P But my point remains valid!
I have two access points, one fully open, no wep, NAT over one public IP, and fully firewalled from my network except for my dns servers (dhcp runs on the access point)
SSID is:)
The other access point is closed via LEAP, different private IP block, also firewalled as above except this one allows access to the IP address of my VPN gateway machine, and does not do NAT.
The theft claim comes from the idea that part of the value (in the form of potential profits) is removed.
Under that logic, I am a pirate simply because I don't like an authors work and made the choice to not purchase it or have it in my posession under any circumstances.
After all, my god given right to not want something clearly is out ranked by an IP owners government given right to make a profit on it at all costs.. right?
> > But there is no inherent reason why computing power can't someday reach the > > level of the human brain. If Moore's law continues, this is supposed to take > > under 30 years.
> Please read this statement, and mod parent appropriately. Insightful?!? Hardly!
You seem to imply based on that statement this should be modded funny or some such. Why is that?
The procecssing power of the human brain has been a subject of science for a few decades now. We already know the human brains power is not in its overall speed but its neural net configuration and 'parallel' computational ability.
Currently 300 TeraOps for human thought capacity is the scientific estimation. If we assume 6 ×10^10 neurons × 5 ×10^1 firings per second × 10^3 operations per neuron firing , we end up with a result of 3 ×10^15 operations per second (300 Trillion operations per second or 300 TeraOps)
Super computers of today are capable of this. It's obviously not raw computing power that makes us special, its the configuration of the hardware (or software from a conventional computers point of view)
After all, attempting to overthrow the government actually ranks as a crime up with murder. Both carry life sentences, though I'm not sure if both still can carry the death penalty.
When terrorists tried it, we started a war. When a company on home soil trys it, they get a ticket:/
Parents just have to inform their children that if there is a loss of GPS data for more than n seconds caused by turning the phone off, placing a prolonged call, turning the GPS off on the phone, etc., will result in punative actions. With escalating punishment for each occurance, up to and including prolonged grounding.
I fear for your kid when he/she goes out driving for the first time on a rainy day... And yes I know from the content of your post that you do not know why that is an issue...
> You aren't allowed to upload 1 second of the material, > since you don't own the copyright!
> Is it that hard to understand? They can distribute as much of it as they want, > because they OWN IT. You, however, do NOT.
Actually, you are allowed to quote/use up to either 30 seconds or 10% of the original work under fair use laws.
While there is no way to assure this in bittorrent, it goes to show even the pro-IP like yourself also seem to find copyright hard to understand...
An additional point to be made, if the copyright holders intent is for their copyrighted work to be distroyed or become lost, then their copyright claim is invalid, and a criminal act as far as private contracts go.
Thusly, the copyright holder can not simply do 'anything they want' with it just because they hold the copyright.
That sounds like evolution is something that deliberately picks what it thinks are good traits, and then decides to keep them around. In other words: God:)
God is not what decides somethings evolution... Things higher up on the food chain do:P
> No. It isn't. Nothing is public domain unless put there by its copyright holder, > or by the expiry of its copyright.
While its true the posts are not public domain, and technically are copyrighted, the authors already granted permission for the usenet network to reproduce the messages and distribute them to usenet clients, simply by willingly posting them.
So google, acting as a usenet carrier/server, has the permission to do this. Additionally, as long as the people using clients do not reproduce the works outside of usenet, they have the right to obtain and archive the messages as well already (copyright never prevented that)
So google could even charge for this service legally. I'm glad they choose not to though.
Ahh but you forget, there is a cost to copyrighting a work. That cost is that after a limited time, copyright expires, and the work is then public domain.
And I -DO- have the right to assure the existance of a work that will in a limited time belong to me. (And by 'me', I mean everyone, a group that I happen to be a member of.)
If the copyright holder's wishes are that the work not be distributed at all and stop existing before that limited time is up, well, thats just as illegal and fraudulant as me writting a check to you that you agree wont be desposited until a certain date, then having me clear out and empty the bank account the day before.
This form of copyright abuse is the most wide spread form of fraud being carried out in this country by corporations, and I for one will not be a victom.
> I'm sure you'll point out that copyright violation isn't the same as physical theft
See, this topic really erks me.
I agree with you fully. Copyright voilation IS theft!
Unfortunatly, I live in the USA, and their laws disagree with us both by saying they are two different things:{ Don't worry brother. One of these days we will get them to rewrite the laws in some country (Hopefully the USA) as to say copyright violations are theft. Then we will have the last laugh!
-- BTW, incase you couldnt tell, I was being sarcastic
No.. there is tons of nagware and adware, all claiming to be shareware. But due to the millions of nagware apps labeled as shareware, it would be next to impossible to find any true shareware anymore.
This can be proven by going to a search engine and typing in 'keygen' or 'krack'. See all the apps you can get keygens for? Shareware by definition can not require registration. Those are called nagware.
The closest thing i've seen in the past few years was an app labeled as 'postcardware' asking you to send a postcard to the author. But as a postcard isnt money, it's not quite the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
> When "the public" pays me to referee papers by other astronomers, and "the public" pays the page charges
> for the papers I write ($110 per page, by the way), and "the public" pays the editors and typesetters of
> the journals, then "the public" might assert a right to those papers.
The public IS paying you. Who do you think gave the right to the govt. to grant you a copyright in the first place?
So you don't want to let those papers you write enter the public domain? Ok. You don't get to copyright them.
You forget this is how and why copyright was started in this country in the first place.
If more so called publishers got to experence the joy of making money off their works without copyright at all, they would start to see why the cost of getting that copyright (the cost being you must give the work to the public after a limited time) isn't such a bad price after all.
Yes
If you tie, you wern't beaten.
The part i'm still confused about, is that the DMCA seperatly seems to outlaw the production of tools to circumvent DRM.
I admit my own interpertation of the DMCA is probably flawed, and would hold the same to most of the interpratations of fellow slashdotters, however
If your form of DRM was unique, and the only software using that DRM was GPLv3, then perhaps the tools to break that DRM would also not be illegal to produce or distribute...
But using your example of CSS, while if YOU attempted to sue me for cracking your DRM, you lose the right to use the GPLv3 licence and thus your CSS protected video is no longer under any licence, it seems you could still sue both me for posessing the cracking tools, plus whomever produced them (assuming that wasnt myself.)
I am by far not arguing for the DMCA, nor particularly aginst the GPLv3, I am just unsure how often or not this new clause in the GPL will be useful compared to the times it wouldn't matter.
> All it takes to simulate a human brain is 22.8 teraflops?
> I thought I was smarter than that.
A rough guess seems to come in at around 100 teraops or more.
In a paper by Hans Moravec, one guess is 10^14 instructions per second (Extrapolation of retina
equivalent computer operations.)
While another by Ralph Merkle, suggests 10^13 - 10^16 operations per second, based on power consumption,
and yet another by Robert McEachern suggests 10^17 FLOPS (Floating Point Operation Per Second, more comparable to computer based math and what is discussed here.)
1 x 10^12 = 1 Tera
Thusly, 10^13 = 10 T, 10^14 = 100 T, 10^15 = 1000 T or 1 P, 10^16 = 10 P, and 10^17 = 100 P (or 100,000 TeraOps)
These numbers of course all depend on the method of measurement, what is being measured, and how much bearing that particular feature matters..
Sorta as meaningless/meaningful as CPU MHZ speed goes, and likewise, comparing a computer to a brain is going to run into the same problem.
However I think its safe to say, that as long as the computers hardware works like it does and not like our brains, then it will need to simulate our hardware in software, and thus two numbers matter: 1) how fast the computer can simulate the various actions of nurons, and 2) how fast those nurons need to function to compare to a real brain. As with all forms of emulation, the host system needs to be faster than the target, usually to an order of magnatude or more...
However, they didn't really say their simulation would be running at full/live speed... Researchers can still learn alot from this even if it takes a day to process a minute or two of brain time...
> A literal reading of this would say that some music files that I and a few
:}
> friends made and put online are going to become illegal. Consider:
(snip)
> Are they really making it illegal for people to put their own files online
> without first releasing them commercially?
(snip)
No.
The problem was taking a literal reading from news.com.com instead of the actual law
See the law here for a copy of the quote below...
(Sec. 103) Establishes criminal penalties for willful copyright infringement by the distribution of a computer program, musical work, motion picture or other audiovisual work, or sound recording being prepared for commercial distribution by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if the person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
(bold added by me)
It's only going to be illegal to give something away for free if both:
a) it was a copyright infringement, and
b) it was being created Only for the purpose of selling
In your case, as you are the copyright holder of your own works, you can distribute them anyway you see fit, thus are not infringing copyright in the first place.
Second, for someone else whom you did not grant license to, whom does infringe on your copyright and distributes your work aginst your will, this law only applies if you 1) intended to sell it, and 2) that should have been known.
As you said, you have given scripts and files away in the past on your site for free, so even if I broke in to your system and grabbed some files and put them out there on the net, I can claim I had no idea you planned to sell those works since your track record so far is to release them for free. This law would not apply then.
It definatly only applies to people who only* make things in life to make a buck off them.
*(It almost has to be only and not usually/sometimes/occasionally, as that does not satisfy the 'should have known' clause of the law)
Now, if it was taken from a company/corporation instead of a person, i'm sure the court will rule 'should have known' to be in the 'always true' logic state, as its rare to have an answer for 'what else do companys exist for?'
> By programming my computer to independently examine and verify the proof. Done
> properly, the instructions for a computer to verify a proof can be a lot simpler
> than verifying the proof itself.
But even multiple computers performing a verify isn't _truly_ a verification.
After all, how long did the Pentium division bug go _unnoticed_???
Looks like the chip was released on March 22, 1993
and the bug was reported on October 30, 1994
Over a year and a half worth of time any/all such verifications obtained with the newest intel computers at the time were WRONG.
And any guesses how they even found this bug??
It was a human, not another buggy computer, that had to verify the data.
Yes computers can do things faster, but ever underestimate the power of truly knowing what your doing, which so far, a computer can't grasp at all, let alone do as well as the human mind.
> Who pays for the copper?
Our tax dollars did when the govt gave the bells tons of money in exchange for keeping the lines a common carrier to share.
Tis a shame the phone co's never lived up to their end of the deal, and the govt backed down and let them.
> So here's an interesting legal issue. If an organization duly authorized by
> the copyright owner to help manage their copyrights places a copy of the
> copyrighted material on a public warez server, it seems to me that this
> legally qualifies as free public distribution by the copyright owner.
>
> So the question then becomes whether such a distribution is sufficient to have
> the movies in question declared to be in the public domain.... Thoughts?
No.. No more than when the copyright owner allows a studio to make copys of their media and sell them in a store.
When you buy it (or download it in this case) that never implied you bought/downloaded the same permission to distribute it as these guys may have.
All this would -possibly- mean is the copy of the 'warez' you downloaded is legal for you to have gotten, and this is even assuming the person placing the warez there both a) DID have the permission to distribute, and b) had the permission to distribute it 'in any way' or atleast in this way specifically.
Generally if a studio is given the right to make copies to sell in stores, that limits them to just that (and in the contract no doubt very specifically says so)
That permission is not the same as 'oh and feel free to make free copies for yourself.' That has to be given seperatly.
Chances are the copyright owner did not say they could distribute the materials in this way at all, making them as much of a copyright violator as those doing the downloading from the server.
However, as I said above, even if that permission is given or arguable, that permission does not transfer to anyone else. It only means the copy you got that way was legally given to you, just as when you buy the thing in the store.
> Talk to anyone who has counseled friends, familes, affected by a suicide.
:/
> This is not a victimless crime.
Its as much a _crime_ for a person to _rob you_ of _their_ life, because you feel they simply should do so despite what they think,
than its a _crime_ for you to _rob me_ of _your_ money, because I feel you simply should give it to me despite what you think,
or that its a _crime_ for that girl over there to _rob me_ of _her_ body, because I feel she simply must give it to me despite what she thinks.
Lets pass the laws aginst those ones too!!!
Actually, no, I'd rather not live in that world,
despite the fact we are 1/3rd the way there in my examples above.
P.S. I have lost a close friend to suicide, and as bad as I miss her, I still respect her enough to have made the choice she had to, despite if I agree with it or not. Cancer can be a bitch I hear
I don't think the argument is _if_ they can do so. For all the reasons you pointed out, they most certainly can.
It's a question of if doing so is really a right thing.
"kiddy pr0n, sites with bomb making instructions, incitements for hatred"
All of those things can (and mostly do, and mostly are for no other purpose) hurt other people aginst their will.
Info on how to end your own life would be better compared to things like condom use (because sex is dirty) or self-help drug recovery (because drugs are bad, mkay? and most govt's already have a life ruining process of rehab and jail in mind for you)
Despite the fact a government _can_ ban information about condom use, self drug rehibilitation, and of course, suicide, does not mean its right to rob people of information that effects no one but themself.
You can also say that by killing yourself, you actually are affecting other people, and claim that is a reason why to outlaw it.
Well, under that logic, by the fact you are not right now giving me all of your money, you are affecting me just the same.
Does that give me, or your government, the right to force my will over yours?
> Don't forget that the chip reseating maneuver was obsoleted when Apple replaced
/// (unfortunatly) before taking advantage of that offer (That problem was not why I got rid of it), but it does go to show how some companys take care of their customers better than others.
/// used, so it's possible it did not come with everything it should have, but did the /// come with circuit schematics as well? I know they were in the apple// technical reference manual and I've read they came with the apple 1. :{
> all existing Apple/// motherboards with an updated version. For free.
That is true. I got rid of my
I bought my
Just curious... thats another thing you will never see again from a company these days
> In it's place, I'd like to nominate the Apple ///. It was such a failure that
///'s user manual, just pick it up a few inches off your desk and drop it back down... That will stop it from failing! /still amazed at that chip reseating 'fix' ;}
> perhaps the list's originator doesn't even know about it.
As stated in the
Exactly
:P
Just like 99.9% of all warez websites traffic is illegal, doesnt pertain much to how much web traffic is.
99.9% of warez ftp site traffic is illegal. Doesnt pertain at all to ftp in general.
99.9% of warez p2p traffic is.. er.. nevermind that one
But my point remains valid!
I have two access points, one fully open, no wep, NAT over one public IP, and fully firewalled from my network except for my dns servers (dhcp runs on the access point)
:)
:(
SSID is
The other access point is closed via LEAP, different private IP block, also firewalled as above except this one allows access to the IP address of my VPN gateway machine, and does not do NAT.
SSID is
Both SSIDs are broadcast out of course.
The theft claim comes from the idea that part of the value (in the form of potential profits) is removed.
Under that logic, I am a pirate simply because I don't like an authors work and made the choice to not purchase it or have it in my posession under any circumstances.
After all, my god given right to not want something clearly is out ranked by an IP owners government given right to make a profit on it at all costs.. right?
> > But there is no inherent reason why computing power can't someday reach the
> > level of the human brain. If Moore's law continues, this is supposed to take
> > under 30 years.
> Please read this statement, and mod parent appropriately. Insightful?!? Hardly!
You seem to imply based on that statement this should be modded funny or some such. Why is that?
The procecssing power of the human brain has been a subject of science for a few decades now. We already know the human brains power is not in its overall speed but its neural net configuration and 'parallel' computational ability.
Currently 300 TeraOps for human thought capacity is the scientific estimation.
If we assume 6 ×10^10 neurons × 5 ×10^1 firings per second × 10^3 operations per neuron firing , we end up with a result of 3 ×10^15 operations per second (300 Trillion operations per second or 300 TeraOps)
Super computers of today are capable of this.
It's obviously not raw computing power that makes us special, its the configuration of the hardware (or software from a conventional computers point of view)
Quoting from: Moravec, Hans, "When will computer hardware match the human brain?," Journal of Transhumanism. 1998. Vol. 1.
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm
Indeed.
:/
After all, attempting to overthrow the government actually ranks as a crime up with murder. Both carry life sentences, though I'm not sure if both still can carry the death penalty.
When terrorists tried it, we started a war.
When a company on home soil trys it, they get a ticket
Parents just have to inform their children that if there is a loss of GPS data for more than n seconds caused by turning the phone off, placing a prolonged call, turning the GPS off on the phone, etc., will result in punative actions. With escalating punishment for each occurance, up to and including prolonged grounding.
I fear for your kid when he/she goes out driving for the first time on a rainy day... And yes I know from the content of your post that you do not know why that is an issue...
> You aren't allowed to upload 1 second of the material,
> since you don't own the copyright!
> Is it that hard to understand? They can distribute as much of it as they want,
> because they OWN IT. You, however, do NOT.
Actually, you are allowed to quote/use up to either 30 seconds or 10% of the original work under fair use laws.
While there is no way to assure this in bittorrent, it goes to show even the pro-IP like yourself also seem to find copyright hard to understand...
An additional point to be made, if the copyright holders intent is for their copyrighted work to be distroyed or become lost, then their copyright claim is invalid, and a criminal act as far as private contracts go.
Thusly, the copyright holder can not simply do 'anything they want' with it just because they hold the copyright.
That sounds like evolution is something that deliberately picks what it thinks are good traits, and then decides to keep them around. In other words: God :)
:P
God is not what decides somethings evolution... Things higher up on the food chain do
> > Usenet is public domain
> No. It isn't. Nothing is public domain unless put there by its copyright holder,
> or by the expiry of its copyright.
While its true the posts are not public domain, and technically are copyrighted, the authors already granted permission for the usenet network to reproduce the messages and distribute them to usenet clients, simply by willingly posting them.
So google, acting as a usenet carrier/server, has the permission to do this.
Additionally, as long as the people using clients do not reproduce the works outside of usenet, they have the right to obtain and archive the messages as well already (copyright never prevented that)
So google could even charge for this service legally.
I'm glad they choose not to though.
> I mean, its not like you are looking at anything useful while you are fastforwarding
:P
A little obvious maybe, but personally i'm watching the screen to know when I should press play to stop the fast forward process
Ahh but you forget, there is a cost to copyrighting a work.
That cost is that after a limited time, copyright expires, and the work is then public domain.
And I -DO- have the right to assure the existance of a work that will in a limited time belong to me. (And by 'me', I mean everyone, a group that I happen to be a member of.)
If the copyright holder's wishes are that the work not be distributed at all and stop existing before that limited time is up, well, thats just as illegal and fraudulant as me writting a check to you that you agree wont be desposited until a certain date, then having me clear out and empty the bank account the day before.
This form of copyright abuse is the most wide spread form of fraud being carried out in this country by corporations, and I for one will not be a victom.
> I'm sure you'll point out that copyright violation isn't the same as physical theft
:{
See, this topic really erks me.
I agree with you fully. Copyright voilation IS theft!
Unfortunatly, I live in the USA, and their laws disagree with us both by saying they are two different things
Don't worry brother. One of these days we will get them to rewrite the laws in some country (Hopefully the USA) as to say copyright violations are theft.
Then we will have the last laugh!
--
BTW, incase you couldnt tell, I was being sarcastic
No.. there is tons of nagware and adware, all claiming to be shareware. But due to the millions of nagware apps labeled as shareware, it would be next to impossible to find any true shareware anymore.
This can be proven by going to a search engine and typing in 'keygen' or 'krack'.
See all the apps you can get keygens for? Shareware by definition can not require registration. Those are called nagware.
The closest thing i've seen in the past few years was an app labeled as 'postcardware' asking you to send a postcard to the author.
But as a postcard isnt money, it's not quite the same thing.