No. "Fact" does not equal "true statement". Statements about facts are true, if and only if they describe the facts correctly, like in the example Alfred Tarski has given: "Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white. Facts can be checked. True statements can be proven. If a statement can't be proven true and neither can its contrary, it's called "undecidable", not "true". If something can't be checked, it's not a fact, it's just an allegation.
One could go and really define copyright priviledges as property. But then all the property rules arise. If the sale of a copy does not move the property rights to the buyer, then it's a rent with the payment upfront. It means that the owner of said copy, the copyright holder, has the full responsibility to make and keep the rented out property intact, including repair, replacement and administration, such as a landlord has. The renter then could even go and reduce the rent because of a reduced usability, if the copyright landlord doesn't fix the rented property. Imagine a world with no software maintenance contracts and an explicit right of software users to program fixes and updates! I doubt many copyright holders would agree to those conditions.
There might be another twist if software publishers really switch to time limited licenses. It might be that this then would considered a rent with full payment upfront. The danger to software publishers is that if they really just "rent out" the software copies, then the copy stays their property, and they are required to keep the rented out property functional during the whole lease time. Basicly this means free support for the whole contract time.
The 99ys. standard equals a permanent license, because after 70 years in the E.U., copyright runs out, and you are further allowed to use the copy anyway.
Currently, the usual licenses are permanent. End of support does not equal end of license. You can run a legal copy Windows 3.1 as long as you want, without running afoul of any law or infringe on any license.
a) you got a copy of the software, b) you got a permanent use license for that software,
this is considered a transfer of ownership for exactly that copy of software, and thus you are entitled to sell that copy as you see fit.
Or in the words of the Court:
Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible – and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy. Therefore, even if the licence agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy.
Your cunning reply is flawed because also an OEM license is exhausted due to the First Sale doctrin as stated by the Court. There are only two preconditions for the software copy to become your property and trigger the First Sale doctrin: 1. You got the copy legally. 2. With the copy, you got a permanent license to use it. This fits for every OEM license that comes with your computer.
So yes, you can sell OEM licenses legally and unrestricted in the E.U. according to the Court's ruling.
You could send Blizzard a Cease&Desist forbidding them to call you a cheater. And then you demand them to either unban you or refund your game purchase. Wait what happens.
The core ruling can be found at the end of Page 1:
Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible – and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy.
So the Court ruled that the buyer of any non-expiring software license (consumer or not) has the ownership of the copy and is untrestricted in his right to sell the copy.
I do it all the time. But on the other hand, I install phone systems for a living:) So my answer on the first question is "last Friday", and for the second it was somewhen two weeks ago, when one of my children dropped the remote.
If someone points out that there is a difference between an operating system and a kernel, then there should be the whole story. But nevertheless, you could still run apps on iOS that aren't coded against the API. Apple's approval mechanism guarantees that those apps won't be found in the AppStore, and there is a good chance that those apps won't run on later versions of iOS, but in general, they are possible.
You seem to be making the common mistake of conflating an operating system and a distribution (as people general do, not only with linux).
From a CS point of view, the operating system is the program, which manages all ressources of a computer, including CPU, memory and I/O-devices and distributes the resources to the applications. That means that the Operating System is the kernel, the init process and the device drivers -- and nothing else. GUI is an appliction, command line interface is an application, services or server processes are applications. Everything you use to interact with the computer is an application. And an operating system together with a collection of applications is a distribution.
Because they have contracts with their customers guaranteering them continued software support. And if the main supplier stops software support, those contracts become quite shaky.
No, PCs caught on, because their computing power and extensability was enough to fulfill a special need centralized systems weren't fit for: Doing your own spreadsheet at your desk, writing something to be edited heavily later, playing some games, combine arbitrary software adapted to your ideas how to work or recreate. The whole notion of "personal computing" was diametral to the centralized IT shop with the big irons serving multiple terminals. PCs weren't eating into IBM's or DEC's revenues. Only when the PC technology was mature enough to make inroad into the server business, the game was changed. But at that time, tens of millions of PCs were already sold.
It never was. The highest ever recorded rate was on Jul 7 2008, when the dollar was at a low of 1.5893 per euro. The dollar dropped below 1:1.50 again in Oct and Nov 2010 for a short period.
Not exactly. My children have some guinea pigs. So we often harvest all the dandelions we can find, because the guinea pigs absolutely love them. At the end of the summer, nearly no dandelions are left, except for the small little plants that come out of some cracks in the yard, which we don't plug, because they are too small. If you consider dandelions weed you will find that they grow everywhere and are not killable. If you actually look for dandelions to feed your pets, they get sparse, and sparse, and then you have to ask the neighbours if you can get their dandelions too, because you already drove your dandelion stock to the brink of extinction.:)
The common sense is that most of the consequences that can come from lying (betrayal, fraud etc.pp.) are already punishable, and this law would then just penalize those lies which had no further consequences. And the common sense was that about everything smalltalk can be deconstructed to be purely lying: "Good Morning". We lie all the time, imagine contractual talks without small or big lies ("$1000 will be my last offer.", and then they finally agree to $1100). Why this should be punishable per se if it happens online is not clear.
The dandelion strategy makes it possible to spread mutations fast by cloning and still have a plan B if the mutations don't work out positively. It's a strategy adapted to fast adaption.:)
Let me ask you a question as a biologist -- I've learned too that species encompasses all individuals who can interbred with each other and produce fertile offspring. But some livings have a too weird reproductive cycle to be reconsilidated with that definition. Lets look at the common dandelion (Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia). There are three kinds of dandelion plants out there, looking all the same. But some are diploid, others triploid and quadroploid. Triploid dandelions are sterile, they can only clone itself to reproduce. Diploid dandelions can interbred with other diploid dandelions, and their offspring is quadroploid. Quadroploid dandelions can't interbred with each other, but diploid dandelions can interbred with quadroploids, and the offspring is triploid. Here the story would come to an end, because triploids are sterile. But sometimes during cloning, something goes wrong, and a diploid seed is produced, causing a fertile diploid dandelion to grow, and now the cycle starts again. So how does a biologist classify the dandelion individual, where most dandelions are infertile, some can't interbred with each other, and only one kind is quite fertile, but does not reproduce itself during interbreding? One could define one dandelion individual as being all the plants from a diploid, it's quadroploid offspring, the triploid F2 generation and then all clones until the next diploid clone. But then we get into the "divisible individual" contradiction.
How does a biologist deal with such situations? Just some handweaving "Yes, this is weird, but you get the term species in general, do yo"?
Slashdot Mirror
No. "Fact" does not equal "true statement". Statements about facts are true, if and only if they describe the facts correctly, like in the example Alfred Tarski has given: "Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white. Facts can be checked. True statements can be proven. If a statement can't be proven true and neither can its contrary, it's called "undecidable", not "true". If something can't be checked, it's not a fact, it's just an allegation.
One could go and really define copyright priviledges as property. But then all the property rules arise. If the sale of a copy does not move the property rights to the buyer, then it's a rent with the payment upfront. It means that the owner of said copy, the copyright holder, has the full responsibility to make and keep the rented out property intact, including repair, replacement and administration, such as a landlord has. The renter then could even go and reduce the rent because of a reduced usability, if the copyright landlord doesn't fix the rented property. Imagine a world with no software maintenance contracts and an explicit right of software users to program fixes and updates!
I doubt many copyright holders would agree to those conditions.
There might be another twist if software publishers really switch to time limited licenses. It might be that this then would considered a rent with full payment upfront. The danger to software publishers is that if they really just "rent out" the software copies, then the copy stays their property, and they are required to keep the rented out property functional during the whole lease time. Basicly this means free support for the whole contract time.
The 99ys. standard equals a permanent license, because after 70 years in the E.U., copyright runs out, and you are further allowed to use the copy anyway.
Currently, the usual licenses are permanent. End of support does not equal end of license. You can run a legal copy Windows 3.1 as long as you want, without running afoul of any law or infringe on any license.
No, this ruling says something completely else.
If two preconditions are met:
a) you got a copy of the software,
b) you got a permanent use license for that software,
this is considered a transfer of ownership for exactly that copy of software, and thus you are entitled to sell that copy as you see fit.
Or in the words of the Court:
Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible
– and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement
granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder
sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a
transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy. Therefore, even if the licence
agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of
that copy.
Your cunning reply is flawed because also an OEM license is exhausted due to the First Sale doctrin as stated by the Court. There are only two preconditions for the software copy to become your property and trigger the First Sale doctrin: 1. You got the copy legally. 2. With the copy, you got a permanent license to use it. This fits for every OEM license that comes with your computer.
So yes, you can sell OEM licenses legally and unrestricted in the E.U. according to the Court's ruling.
You could send Blizzard a Cease&Desist forbidding them to call you a cheater. And then you demand them to either unban you or refund your game purchase. Wait what happens.
He was caught in the end. Sometimes it takes a while, especially if no one really cares about the papers you publish.
The core ruling can be found at the end of Page 1:
Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible
– and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement
granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder
sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a
transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy.
So the Court ruled that the buyer of any non-expiring software license (consumer or not) has the ownership of the copy and is untrestricted in his right to sell the copy.
So the UK will extradite car driving women to Saudi Arabia, where it's illegal for women to drive, for better oil purchase conditions too?
But only because murder is illegal in England too.
I do it all the time. But on the other hand, I install phone systems for a living :) So my answer on the first question is "last Friday", and for the second it was somewhen two weeks ago, when one of my children dropped the remote.
The typical customer for a phone manufacturer in the U.S. is a carrier. This is a quite U.S.-centric problem.
If someone points out that there is a difference between an operating system and a kernel, then there should be the whole story. But nevertheless, you could still run apps on iOS that aren't coded against the API. Apple's approval mechanism guarantees that those apps won't be found in the AppStore, and there is a good chance that those apps won't run on later versions of iOS, but in general, they are possible.
You seem to be making the common mistake of conflating an operating system and a distribution (as people general do, not only with linux).
From a CS point of view, the operating system is the program, which manages all ressources of a computer, including CPU, memory and I/O-devices and distributes the resources to the applications. That means that the Operating System is the kernel, the init process and the device drivers -- and nothing else. GUI is an appliction, command line interface is an application, services or server processes are applications. Everything you use to interact with the computer is an application. And an operating system together with a collection of applications is a distribution.
The Atlantic is on the Pacific coast. Right?
Because they have contracts with their customers guaranteering them continued software support. And if the main supplier stops software support, those contracts become quite shaky.
No, PCs caught on, because their computing power and extensability was enough to fulfill a special need centralized systems weren't fit for: Doing your own spreadsheet at your desk, writing something to be edited heavily later, playing some games, combine arbitrary software adapted to your ideas how to work or recreate. The whole notion of "personal computing" was diametral to the centralized IT shop with the big irons serving multiple terminals. PCs weren't eating into IBM's or DEC's revenues. Only when the PC technology was mature enough to make inroad into the server business, the game was changed. But at that time, tens of millions of PCs were already sold.
It never was. The highest ever recorded rate was on Jul 7 2008, when the dollar was at a low of 1.5893 per euro. The dollar dropped below 1:1.50 again in Oct and Nov 2010 for a short period.
Not exactly. My children have some guinea pigs. So we often harvest all the dandelions we can find, because the guinea pigs absolutely love them. At the end of the summer, nearly no dandelions are left, except for the small little plants that come out of some cracks in the yard, which we don't plug, because they are too small. If you consider dandelions weed you will find that they grow everywhere and are not killable. If you actually look for dandelions to feed your pets, they get sparse, and sparse, and then you have to ask the neighbours if you can get their dandelions too, because you already drove your dandelion stock to the brink of extinction. :)
The verdict was handed down in 2004. It's the appeal where Microsoft managed to reduce the fine by about 30 Mio €.
The common sense is that most of the consequences that can come from lying (betrayal, fraud etc.pp.) are already punishable, and this law would then just penalize those lies which had no further consequences. And the common sense was that about everything smalltalk can be deconstructed to be purely lying: "Good Morning". We lie all the time, imagine contractual talks without small or big lies ("$1000 will be my last offer.", and then they finally agree to $1100). Why this should be punishable per se if it happens online is not clear.
The dandelion strategy makes it possible to spread mutations fast by cloning and still have a plan B if the mutations don't work out positively. It's a strategy adapted to fast adaption. :)
Let me ask you a question as a biologist -- I've learned too that species encompasses all individuals who can interbred with each other and produce fertile offspring. But some livings have a too weird reproductive cycle to be reconsilidated with that definition.
Lets look at the common dandelion (Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia). There are three kinds of dandelion plants out there, looking all the same. But some are diploid, others triploid and quadroploid. Triploid dandelions are sterile, they can only clone itself to reproduce. Diploid dandelions can interbred with other diploid dandelions, and their offspring is quadroploid. Quadroploid dandelions can't interbred with each other, but diploid dandelions can interbred with quadroploids, and the offspring is triploid. Here the story would come to an end, because triploids are sterile. But sometimes during cloning, something goes wrong, and a diploid seed is produced, causing a fertile diploid dandelion to grow, and now the cycle starts again. So how does a biologist classify the dandelion individual, where most dandelions are infertile, some can't interbred with each other, and only one kind is quite fertile, but does not reproduce itself during interbreding? One could define one dandelion individual as being all the plants from a diploid, it's quadroploid offspring, the triploid F2 generation and then all clones until the next diploid clone. But then we get into the "divisible individual" contradiction.
How does a biologist deal with such situations? Just some handweaving "Yes, this is weird, but you get the term species in general, do yo"?