Why don't you cry your emo tears for allofmp3.com? If the RIAA are a bunch of crooks earning BMWs off the labor of others, what exactly is allofmp3.com?
That's idiotic. Aside from the fact that the EU is an entity not a person and no one elected the entity, if you substituted "Bush" for EU and "ACLU" for Microsoft, I doubt you'd even agree with your own statement.
Because a sales tax is the equivalent of a wage tax, and much more regressive than our current income tax. It's also not magical as Neil Boortz would have you believe.
"Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor doesn't say in the event of trouble "But, judge, the licensee promised me he wouldn't do what he's doing now." The licensor plaintiff says 'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.' The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses, or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not 'challenge' the GPL.
At least with version 3 of the GPL, it most certainly does require certain behavior when you redistribute a work, esp. with regard to modified works that may incorporate patented material.
And then there is note [1]:
[1] Of course, the law isn't that easy. The book Contracts, by John D. Calamari and Joseph M. Perillo, 3d Edition, begins with this first sentence: "No entirely satisfactory definition of the term 'contract' has ever been devised." It then goes on for almost a thousand pages, trying to do so. So while acknowledging that the word 'contract' can be used loosely in various contexts to mean different things, here we are looking at the heart of the matter, not the "on-the-other-hand" footnotes that result from common law. In the broadest sense, you might even hear someone say a license is a form of contract, but that's in the footnote category, not the essence of the discussion. There are important differences between a true license and a true contract.
So while there are distinctions between a license and a contract, there are also similarities. Are those distinctions important wrt interpretation of the obligations of parties? AFAIK, no.
A license is just a special case contract. Anytime I agree to do one thing and in return you agree to do another, we have a contract. There are rules of contract interpretaion that would apply to a written license, including the Parol Evidence Rule, which would impact what outside documents would be allowed to be introduced to show the meaning of the contract.
I would say that in addition to RMS's interpretation not mattering because he isn't a lawyer, it doesn't matter because it is largely unintelligible.
There's another form of attack on Free Software's freedoms that we found out about last November with the Novell-Microsoft deal. What happened was that Novell made a deal with Microsoft where Novell pays for distributing copies of GPL-covered software and Microsoft gives the customers of Novell a very limited patent licence which is conditional on their not exercising many of the rights that the GPL gives them.
This is a big threat, so we've gone at it from two directions. One is aimed at Microsofts role in that deal. We say: if you make a deal to procure someone else's distribution of a program under GPL version three and you provide any sort of patent licence to anybody in connection with that, then it extends to anybody who gets it. So if Novell were to distribute software under GPL version three under this deal, then this affects Microsoft because they're procuring distribution through this deal.
What the heck does any of that mean? I've read that four times and I still have no idea who is doing what to whom in the MS Novell deal, why it's so bad, and what the GPLv3 does to fix it.
If the licensor had published those newsletters and the licensee had read them before agreeing to the license, then you might have a point. However, where one party drafts a contract and it is given to the other party on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, the contract is usually interpreted in the way most favorable to the receiving party. IOW, what the licensee of the software thinks it means is probably more important than what RMS thinks it means.
Who says there is no global warming? Nobody? But if you're right about Venus then what it really says is that we can ignore all the whahoos like Al Gore and go back about our business. Unless you're going to claim that humans are responsible for the 450*C temperatures on other planets.
Wal-Mart giftcards over $500 require ID to redeem. So they were buying only $400 giftcards. Cashiers were suspicous of people using multiple $400 giftcards to make large purchases.
It saddens me that the state of legal writing is such that this could be considered a "model" letter. I also find it funny[0] that the defense counsel is offering a settlement in exchange for a dismissal before he has even filed an answer, let alone a countersuit. What exactly is he offering to settle? And what kind of attorney finds it necessary to insult the opposing party in a settlement offer?
[0]Not funny as in haha, funny as in ethically questionable.
I read the summary. And I read the links too. And I concluded that this is just another example of the full-of-shit anti-MS FUD that has overtaken Slashdot. The only suggestion that DRM has anything to do with the slowness of file operations seems to be in the Slashdot summary.
You dare disrespect the great Ayn Rand?!??!!?!? I hope you are prepared for the mighty wrath of the Slashdot anarcholibertarian cabal. The free market will decide your fate!
This has been happening to Americans buying firearms for over a decade and the ACLU has never given a shit. Every day, hundreds of law abiding American citizens are denied or delayed by a NICS check because of ambiguity in the records, but Congress won't fix it and I've never heard a peep out of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. Funny that. I wonder why Pablo Escobar's "right" to get a mortgage is more important than my Constitutionally protected right to buy a Mossberg.
The travel office employees were not political appointees, they were career civil servants. It isn't surprising to me that 6 out of 8 were involved in public corruption investigations. Public corruption is one of the few crimes that get a USA's attention.
Just because they are user created does not mean they were posted on youtube by the creator. Plus many of the user created clips use copyrighted music, so those may be infringing as well.
One of the founders of the company is currently in charge of new media and web for Obama. The company is called "Blue State Digital". They work exclusively for democrat and progressive candidates/causes. They have like 15 employees.
This is not just some random guy at some random media company that just happened to have a contract with Obama. You don't work at such a place if you don't have some very partisan ideals. You would wind up hanging yourself from a ceiling fan.
That's a very nice quote, but the only circumstance that has changed is that music is easier to steal. People still want to listen to it, but now they don't have to pay for it.
But the thieving pirates will continue to rationalize. First it was the claims that you'd be happy to pay for the music, if you could only buy the songs you wanted. ITMS, Napster, et al put the lie to that. Then there were the claims that nobody was getting hurt because the labels were still selling plenty of CDs. Now we know that was a lie too.
It's all just a bunch of bullshit excuses for the oldest desire. You want to get something for nothing. Don't worry. Soon enough the record labels will all fold, and all that will remain is the guy on the corner playing his sax for quarters.
Remember Howard Stern getting fined by the FCC for saying essentially the same thing that Oprah said on her show?
No I don't. But any comparison between the two is like comparing an 8th grade sex ed. class to a porno movie. The same words can be obscene or not, depending upon whether or not they are intended to "titilate". Did Stern play a clip of Oprah's show, or did he "act out" a transcript?
I'm not missing your point. Your point is wrong. The copyright doesn't become eternal. The copyright simply lasts the lifetime of the work. Of course, that is a tautology when applied to ephemeral works, because ephemeral works will never enter the public domain, since there is nothing left around to copy. If there is, then it wasn't really ephemeral. It appears that wht you object to is DRMs capacity to allow a creator to convert a work in a fixed medium into an ephemeral work. Of course none of this is news. There are plenty of creative works that cannot (or it would be impractical) to copy even after they enter the public domain.
Ephermeral works do not enjoy eternal copyright. In fact, ephemeral works do not enjoy copyright protection [i]at all[/i].
It isn't a question of precision, it's a question of accuracy. The statement in your.sig is just wrong. Eternal is still wrong, since it implies the copyright lasts forever, which is directly contradicted by the first part. You're also missing some commas.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you cry your emo tears for allofmp3.com? If the RIAA are a bunch of crooks earning BMWs off the labor of others, what exactly is allofmp3.com?
No honor among thieves, eh?
The Identites Act only criminalizes revealing the identity of an operative who has worked overseas in the past five year.
That's idiotic. Aside from the fact that the EU is an entity not a person and no one elected the entity, if you substituted "Bush" for EU and "ACLU" for Microsoft, I doubt you'd even agree with your own statement.
Because a sales tax is the equivalent of a wage tax, and much more regressive than our current income tax. It's also not magical as Neil Boortz would have you believe.
At least with version 3 of the GPL, it most certainly does require certain behavior when you redistribute a work, esp. with regard to modified works that may incorporate patented material.
And then there is note [1]:
So while there are distinctions between a license and a contract, there are also similarities. Are those distinctions important wrt interpretation of the obligations of parties? AFAIK, no.
A license is just a special case contract. Anytime I agree to do one thing and in return you agree to do another, we have a contract. There are rules of contract interpretaion that would apply to a written license, including the Parol Evidence Rule, which would impact what outside documents would be allowed to be introduced to show the meaning of the contract.
What the heck does any of that mean? I've read that four times and I still have no idea who is doing what to whom in the MS Novell deal, why it's so bad, and what the GPLv3 does to fix it.
If the licensor had published those newsletters and the licensee had read them before agreeing to the license, then you might have a point. However, where one party drafts a contract and it is given to the other party on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, the contract is usually interpreted in the way most favorable to the receiving party. IOW, what the licensee of the software thinks it means is probably more important than what RMS thinks it means.
Are you for real? If humans spewing CO2 isn't the cause of global warming then how is stopping the spew the soulution?
Who says there is no global warming? Nobody? But if you're right about Venus then what it really says is that we can ignore all the whahoos like Al Gore and go back about our business. Unless you're going to claim that humans are responsible for the 450*C temperatures on other planets.
Wal-Mart giftcards over $500 require ID to redeem. So they were buying only $400 giftcards. Cashiers were suspicous of people using multiple $400 giftcards to make large purchases.
It saddens me that the state of legal writing is such that this could be considered a "model" letter. I also find it funny[0] that the defense counsel is offering a settlement in exchange for a dismissal before he has even filed an answer, let alone a countersuit. What exactly is he offering to settle? And what kind of attorney finds it necessary to insult the opposing party in a settlement offer?
[0]Not funny as in haha, funny as in ethically questionable.
I read the summary. And I read the links too. And I concluded that this is just another example of the full-of-shit anti-MS FUD that has overtaken Slashdot. The only suggestion that DRM has anything to do with the slowness of file operations seems to be in the Slashdot summary.
You dare disrespect the great Ayn Rand?!??!!?!? I hope you are prepared for the mighty wrath of the Slashdot anarcholibertarian cabal. The free market will decide your fate!
This has been happening to Americans buying firearms for over a decade and the ACLU has never given a shit. Every day, hundreds of law abiding American citizens are denied or delayed by a NICS check because of ambiguity in the records, but Congress won't fix it and I've never heard a peep out of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. Funny that. I wonder why Pablo Escobar's "right" to get a mortgage is more important than my Constitutionally protected right to buy a Mossberg.
The travel office employees were not political appointees, they were career civil servants. It isn't surprising to me that 6 out of 8 were involved in public corruption investigations. Public corruption is one of the few crimes that get a USA's attention.
Just because they are user created does not mean they were posted on youtube by the creator. Plus many of the user created clips use copyrighted music, so those may be infringing as well.
Dude,
One of the founders of the company is currently in charge of new media and web for Obama. The company is called "Blue State Digital". They work exclusively for democrat and progressive candidates/causes. They have like 15 employees.
This is not just some random guy at some random media company that just happened to have a contract with Obama. You don't work at such a place if you don't have some very partisan ideals. You would wind up hanging yourself from a ceiling fan.
He was fired because his employment contract theoretically doesn't allow him to work for or against company clients off the clock.
Whether or not you believe he was really off the clock is another issue altogether.
That's a very nice quote, but the only circumstance that has changed is that music is easier to steal. People still want to listen to it, but now they don't have to pay for it.
But the thieving pirates will continue to rationalize. First it was the claims that you'd be happy to pay for the music, if you could only buy the songs you wanted. ITMS, Napster, et al put the lie to that. Then there were the claims that nobody was getting hurt because the labels were still selling plenty of CDs. Now we know that was a lie too.
It's all just a bunch of bullshit excuses for the oldest desire. You want to get something for nothing. Don't worry. Soon enough the record labels will all fold, and all that will remain is the guy on the corner playing his sax for quarters.
Remember Howard Stern getting fined by the FCC for saying essentially the same thing that Oprah said on her show?
No I don't. But any comparison between the two is like comparing an 8th grade sex ed. class to a porno movie. The same words can be obscene or not, depending upon whether or not they are intended to "titilate". Did Stern play a clip of Oprah's show, or did he "act out" a transcript?
Could you please explain QoS to my grandmother without using the tubes or highway metaphors?
TIA
I'm not missing your point. Your point is wrong. The copyright doesn't become eternal. The copyright simply lasts the lifetime of the work. Of course, that is a tautology when applied to ephemeral works, because ephemeral works will never enter the public domain, since there is nothing left around to copy. If there is, then it wasn't really ephemeral. It appears that wht you object to is DRMs capacity to allow a creator to convert a work in a fixed medium into an ephemeral work. Of course none of this is news. There are plenty of creative works that cannot (or it would be impractical) to copy even after they enter the public domain.
Ephermeral works do not enjoy eternal copyright. In fact, ephemeral works do not enjoy copyright protection [i]at all[/i].
It isn't a question of precision, it's a question of accuracy. The statement in your .sig is just wrong. Eternal is still wrong, since it implies the copyright lasts forever, which is directly contradicted by the first part. You're also missing some commas.