If they recorded the album today they would have to pay a huge amount of money to George Lucas. It really isn't easy to determine where exactly an original work of art begins.
I think this is BS promoted by the lawyers. I can pretty damn well figure out that George Lucaas was not intending to create German hip-hop, and I think anybody else could figure that out too. The real question legally is whether the music is "derived" from the movie; I still think the song would have to do a lot more than just sample the movie to be "derivative." What's happened is that the lawyers have everyone at the record companies convinced that samples must be cleared, so that's the way it is. But I'm not aware of any significant case law (perhaps I'm wrong; IANAL) outlawing sampling without permission per se. I think it would be easy to establish that the use of samples in a particular work constitute a commentary on the original, even a parodic commentary, which would be protected as fair use. The problem is, that would require a record company willing to have their lawyers make this argument in court rather than quietly pony up a few grand for every snippet of an original work used in another work.
On another note, I think it's ridiculously hypocritical for record companies to expect anyone to ask them permission to regurgitate a bit of the crap they ram down our throats constantly through the mass media.
EBN used to do this sort of thing with a video sampler they made out of a keyboard attached to a guitar neck and slung around a shoulder; some of their stuff was cool as hell, though a lot of it was a mess as you describe. Here's some info.
If it's your code you don't need a subpoena; hopefully you saved a copy before you compiled it. I can't see very many situations in which you will be looking at closed code that isn't yours, and I really don't see how this argument shows open source to have skeletons in its closet anyway?
If the issue is that proprietary closed-source code was placed by an unscrupulous developer into an open-source product, then the openness of open source won't help you.
It will help anyone who thinks there is stolen code in the linux kernel, since they don't need a subpoena to look at the source and see if the stolen code is there. That's hardly a "skeleton in the closet" as it would be in the case of a closed source program that included stolen code.
No; that's an advantage of open source: no closet. If there be skeletons, they be out in the open where they can be discovered by anyone looking for them.
Well, yeah, and the idea of real-life face to face social networks is also inherently insecure. The more you interact with other people the greater the chances that one of them (or someone who knows one of them, or happens to eavesdrop on one of them) will take advantage of you. But interacting with other people is not automatically a "bad idea" because of this, and the same is true online. You need to weigh the security risks along with other factors (e.g. the social benefits of networking in this manner, or the amount of critical information that is actually compromised by these risks). I think friendster-style web-based networks are valuable enough that people should see what can be done to make them more secure rather than abandoning them as inherently insecure.
Guess what? Any candidate in a US election that refuses to sign or swear a loyalty oath will not be able to take office. Hell, you can't even get a government job in many states without signing a loyalty oath. The presence or absence of loyalty oaths is hardly the best register of democracy to look at here.
I once used my own car key to open someone else's car, sat in the driver's seat, and started the car before I realized I wasn't in my own car but in another car of the same make and model. That was creepy.
That is not true. The law was used that way because the Supreme Court interpreted it that way until Congress actually passed an amendment clarifying their intent and specifically exempting unions from antitrust law. So you're right that it was used to bust labor unions, but it was designed to bust monopolies. This was a time of severe public discontent with the arrogance of the "robber barons"; the public was clamoring for legislation like the antitrust act.
Slashdot Mirror
Israeli policy is never to negotiate with terrorists.
I think this is BS promoted by the lawyers. I can pretty damn well figure out that George Lucaas was not intending to create German hip-hop, and I think anybody else could figure that out too. The real question legally is whether the music is "derived" from the movie; I still think the song would have to do a lot more than just sample the movie to be "derivative." What's happened is that the lawyers have everyone at the record companies convinced that samples must be cleared, so that's the way it is. But I'm not aware of any significant case law (perhaps I'm wrong; IANAL) outlawing sampling without permission per se. I think it would be easy to establish that the use of samples in a particular work constitute a commentary on the original, even a parodic commentary, which would be protected as fair use. The problem is, that would require a record company willing to have their lawyers make this argument in court rather than quietly pony up a few grand for every snippet of an original work used in another work.
On another note, I think it's ridiculously hypocritical for record companies to expect anyone to ask them permission to regurgitate a bit of the crap they ram down our throats constantly through the mass media.
SCO seems to have decided that they would prefer to put the final nail in their coffin from the inside.
EBN used to do this sort of thing with a video sampler they made out of a keyboard attached to a guitar neck and slung around a shoulder; some of their stuff was cool as hell, though a lot of it was a mess as you describe. Here's some info.
If it's your code you don't need a subpoena; hopefully you saved a copy before you compiled it. I can't see very many situations in which you will be looking at closed code that isn't yours, and I really don't see how this argument shows open source to have skeletons in its closet anyway?
Cool! What colors does it come in?
It will help anyone who thinks there is stolen code in the linux kernel, since they don't need a subpoena to look at the source and see if the stolen code is there. That's hardly a "skeleton in the closet" as it would be in the case of a closed source program that included stolen code.
Arrr. ;)
No; that's an advantage of open source: no closet. If there be skeletons, they be out in the open where they can be discovered by anyone looking for them.
Well, yeah, and the idea of real-life face to face social networks is also inherently insecure. The more you interact with other people the greater the chances that one of them (or someone who knows one of them, or happens to eavesdrop on one of them) will take advantage of you. But interacting with other people is not automatically a "bad idea" because of this, and the same is true online. You need to weigh the security risks along with other factors (e.g. the social benefits of networking in this manner, or the amount of critical information that is actually compromised by these risks). I think friendster-style web-based networks are valuable enough that people should see what can be done to make them more secure rather than abandoning them as inherently insecure.
Are you sure you installed it correctly?
Jeez, somebody loses their dog and they blame a crater on Mars.
Guess what? Any candidate in a US election that refuses to sign or swear a loyalty oath will not be able to take office. Hell, you can't even get a government job in many states without signing a loyalty oath. The presence or absence of loyalty oaths is hardly the best register of democracy to look at here.
You've discovered the slashdot conspiracy against you.
It will be fine as long as these robots don't start dumping core all over the place.
We do have Photoshop, ya know.
I once used my own car key to open someone else's car, sat in the driver's seat, and started the car before I realized I wasn't in my own car but in another car of the same make and model. That was creepy.
That is not true. The law was used that way because the Supreme Court interpreted it that way until Congress actually passed an amendment clarifying their intent and specifically exempting unions from antitrust law. So you're right that it was used to bust labor unions, but it was designed to bust monopolies. This was a time of severe public discontent with the arrogance of the "robber barons"; the public was clamoring for legislation like the antitrust act.
Yeah me too. Remind me to tell you the story about the night I met the Bush sisters at a party....
The real reason that NORAD tracks Santa is because the CIA decided in 1974 that the US should do all it can to protect Santa from terrorists.
Nothin' like a quote from Kierkegaard to up your karma.
it better play ogg too. AND have three mouse buttons.
If I wanted to read the article, I wouldn't be here on slashdot....
*blinks*
Other news sites?
uhhh, yeah, sure, McBride, obviously a Jewish family name, from the little-known thirteenth tribe of Israel that migrated to, ummm, Ireland.
Moron.
You're joking right? Most people come here to avoid homework.