Thats quite correct, I think that based on current evidence the Bush administration is completely inept, and quite frankly stupid as hell. I have no idea if I would feel better with Kerry in charge, I'd judge that on evidence of his government's performance.
Thank you for clarifying. I now feel comfortable completely disregarding your opinion. The idea that we should make decisions like this based on who won an election is assinine. I'm sure at some point there would be someone in charge at the UN you didn't like (as if it could get any worse) and you'd want control to be taken away from them and given to someone else.
If you can't devise a system that works regardless of what individual is at the top, then you've got nothing.
So, you don't have any objection other than you dislike the current administration? If it were the KerryGore administration would you feel better? If you want to make fundamental changes to stuff like the Internet, you really should have somthing you are going to, not just something you are running away from (just like planning for a natural disaster). What's wrong with the current system and how would the system be fixed if the UN was in control? (Other than the increase in embezzlement and bribery)
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Perhaps you are thinking of a different part of the Bill of Rights? The forth amendment is probably more applicable.
You are incorrect. If you are an "employee" (based on what a court says, not what you or your employer says) your employer owns the copyright without any "work for hire" agreement.
Your post may or may not be correct. If he is an employee, the employer likely owns the copyright, if he is an independant contractor, they may not. Then again, even if he thinks he's an IC he may not be as far as the law is concerned. If the submitter (or anyone else) is serious about protecting his rights, he really should talk to a lawyer.
Have you considered that there are pros and cons to both systems? The loser pays system may deter righteous lawsuits where the plaintiff cannot afford to pay (risk of loss)x(probablility of loss) given that the probability of loss is never zero.
You said there is no advantage to consumers to a service contract. I listed several. They may not be characteristics of every contract, but they are certainly characteristic of many. As for:
The whole point of the service contract is to increase profit and loyalty for the company. If they wanted to throw the customer a bone and drop the price there would be no service contract to begin with.
In the instant case, TiVo is giving $150 rebates on the hardware, and requiring you to maintain service for one year. If you don't, you owe them $150. Since the 12 month requirement only applies to new service (i.e., they aren't requiring current subscribers commit to another 2 months) it's a reasonable assumption that anyone who is affected by this got the rebate. This seems quite fair.
Either the author is FOS, or TiVo has modified their website. The one year commitment is mentioned on the front page, on the shopping pages, and on the first setup screen in addition to a link in each place to the fill terms of service. I don't know if the link will work, but the commitment is even listed on the rebate form on Best Buy's website.
Secondly, the agreement states:
WITH RESPECT TO ANY NEW TIVO SERVICE SUBSCRIPTION ACTIVATED ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, YOU AGREE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE TIVO SERVICE FOR NO LESS THAN 12 MONTHS (THE "SERVICE COMMITMENT"). IF YOU FAIL TO MEET THE SERVICE COMMITMENT BY CANCELLING YOUR SUBSCRIPTION TO THE TIVO SERVICE (OR IF TIVO TERMINATES YOUR SUBSCRIPTION TO THE TIVO SERVICE DUE TO A BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT), YOU AGREE THAT TIVO MAY CHARGE YOU A $150 EARLY TERMINATION FEE, AND YOU AGREE TO PAY ANY SUCH EARLY TERMINATION FEE.
So, simply activating a new TiVo has no affect on any other subscription you have unless possibly you want to add a TiVo to your account and get a multi-service discount. Of course, you're basing your conslusion on something someone posted on a message board that got quoted in an article on betanews.com.
I don't see how any of this could be considered "back door."
If you have a service contract and they raise the rates, your rates do not go up. If you have a sevice contract and the company is bought, the new company may be required to continue to provide the service. If you agree to a service contract, you'll almost always pay less up front since the service provider can amortize their new customer costs over the length of your contract. If the service provider arbitrarily decides to change or discontinue the service, you may have legal recourse. These are but a few of the advantages to a consumer of signing a service contract.
The contract certainly spells out the terms under which TiVo can terminate the agreement. Most likely based on events like you not paying your bill. If they didn't have that right under the contract, they'd have to sue you each month you didn't pay your bill. There is a difference between a termination under the terms of the contract, and a breach.
Your freedom must not be absolute, because that would limit the freedom of others. What RMS wants is a way protect the freedom that every person should morally have, not the freedom to do anything you want.
You're absolutely right that freedom can't be absolute. And saying RMS wants to protect moral freedoms seems circular, given RMS's moral foundation is that what increases freedom is moral, and what decreases freedom is immoral. Being a self-centered hypocrite doesn't make RMS a bad person, it just makes him human. I know that according to the/. groupthink saying so makes me a troll, but I couldn't care less.
The F/OSS "movement" isn't about a coherenet moral philosphy, no matter how much anyone would like it to be. It's about sharing code, no more, no less. Make it a metaphor for life if you want, but code isn't life.
If they hadn't required an NDA, he would have happily fixed the problem, given the fix to anyone who asked, and moved on with his life. However, the NDA and copyright prevented him from doing so.
Except that an NDA has nothing to do with copyright, it's a private contract. Even if they hadn't required an NDA, he still couldn't redistribute his derivative work without permission of the copyright holder. And if there were no such thing as copyright they would have been more, not less, likely to require an NDA.
That doesn't make any sense. The GPL itself limits my freedom. I am not free to modify and redistribute a GPL'd program without distributing the source as well. So, if we follow the logic that it's wrong to violate the GPL because it "tramples other people's freedom", then it is an equally good argument that it isn't wrong to violate the GPL.
You are the one who is confused. Personal use is not synonymous with fair use. Nor does personal use necessarily fall under any other exception to the copyright owner's exclusive rights. And my terminology is not innacurate, although it may have been imprecise. The "owner" refered to in the sentence you quoted is the copyright owner, and yes he can place restrictions on what you can do with even a legally owned copy of his copyrighted work.
I have yet to hear of any copyright statute in law that says a copyright holder can regulate your use of content after you've purchased it - or received it for free over the air.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but that's exactly what copyright is all about. Title 17 of the US Code tells you what you may or may not do with copyrighted content without the owner's permission. Specifcally, 17 USC 106 states:
The owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
Yes, there are stautory and judicial exceptions to that exclusivity, but there you go.
Freedom of contract is a pretty important concept in our legal system. First, you don't have any free speech rights as far as your employer is concerned. There are statutes that protect whistleblowers, but this is way beyond that. Second, this guy didn't have anything "taken away" from him, he negotiated it away, and if he didn't get something he valued more in return, he shouldn't have agreed.
If you don't think you have enough information about the company to have faith in the stock, don't buy it.
Let me expand on it this way. Is it reasonable for me to pay $19.99 for the -exact- same movie that a chinese citizen pays $2.75 for (legal copy- not pirated).
Yes, if you assign a greater value to the movie, it is expected that you should pay more for it. If you don't value it more than your $20, don't buy it. If enough other people have the same values as you, the price will go down.
How is it fair to the poor of america that they are subsidizing the middle-class of other countries?
Anyone who has many $20 DVDs is outside of my definition of "poor".
There is no valid reason the Harry Potter author can make over a BILLION dollars for a series of books- a few million (more than enough to live a lifetime) would have been more reasonable.
No valid reason? Why isn't she entitled to make whatever people are willing to pay?
Slashdot Mirror
Thats quite correct, I think that based on current evidence the Bush administration is completely inept, and quite frankly stupid as hell. I have no idea if I would feel better with Kerry in charge, I'd judge that on evidence of his government's performance.
Thank you for clarifying. I now feel comfortable completely disregarding your opinion. The idea that we should make decisions like this based on who won an election is assinine. I'm sure at some point there would be someone in charge at the UN you didn't like (as if it could get any worse) and you'd want control to be taken away from them and given to someone else.
If you can't devise a system that works regardless of what individual is at the top, then you've got nothing.
So, you don't have any objection other than you dislike the current administration? If it were the KerryGore administration would you feel better? If you want to make fundamental changes to stuff like the Internet, you really should have somthing you are going to, not just something you are running away from (just like planning for a natural disaster). What's wrong with the current system and how would the system be fixed if the UN was in control? (Other than the increase in embezzlement and bribery)
what has fed.gov.us done to cut your access to deviant porn?
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Perhaps you are thinking of a different part of the Bill of Rights? The forth amendment is probably more applicable.
You are incorrect. If you are an "employee" (based on what a court says, not what you or your employer says) your employer owns the copyright without any "work for hire" agreement.
Your post may or may not be correct. If he is an employee, the employer likely owns the copyright, if he is an independant contractor, they may not. Then again, even if he thinks he's an IC he may not be as far as the law is concerned. If the submitter (or anyone else) is serious about protecting his rights, he really should talk to a lawyer.
It'd be a lot easier to check their claims about the studies they cite if, well, they had cited any studies. Otherwise, it's just pothead optimism.
Have you considered that there are pros and cons to both systems? The loser pays system may deter righteous lawsuits where the plaintiff cannot afford to pay (risk of loss)x(probablility of loss) given that the probability of loss is never zero.
Why? P2P is used mostly for legal trade, isn't it? 'Cause that's what I keep reading on /.
You said there is no advantage to consumers to a service contract. I listed several. They may not be characteristics of every contract, but they are certainly characteristic of many. As for:
The whole point of the service contract is to increase profit and loyalty for the company. If they wanted to throw the customer a bone and drop the price there would be no service contract to begin with.
In the instant case, TiVo is giving $150 rebates on the hardware, and requiring you to maintain service for one year. If you don't, you owe them $150. Since the 12 month requirement only applies to new service (i.e., they aren't requiring current subscribers commit to another 2 months) it's a reasonable assumption that anyone who is affected by this got the rebate. This seems quite fair.
Secondly, the agreement states:
So, simply activating a new TiVo has no affect on any other subscription you have unless possibly you want to add a TiVo to your account and get a multi-service discount. Of course, you're basing your conslusion on something someone posted on a message board that got quoted in an article on betanews.com.
I don't see how any of this could be considered "back door."
If you have a service contract and they raise the rates, your rates do not go up. If you have a sevice contract and the company is bought, the new company may be required to continue to provide the service. If you agree to a service contract, you'll almost always pay less up front since the service provider can amortize their new customer costs over the length of your contract. If the service provider arbitrarily decides to change or discontinue the service, you may have legal recourse. These are but a few of the advantages to a consumer of signing a service contract.
The contract certainly spells out the terms under which TiVo can terminate the agreement. Most likely based on events like you not paying your bill. If they didn't have that right under the contract, they'd have to sue you each month you didn't pay your bill. There is a difference between a termination under the terms of the contract, and a breach.
Your freedom must not be absolute, because that would limit the freedom of others. What RMS wants is a way protect the freedom that every person should morally have, not the freedom to do anything you want.
/. groupthink saying so makes me a troll, but I couldn't care less.
You're absolutely right that freedom can't be absolute. And saying RMS wants to protect moral freedoms seems circular, given RMS's moral foundation is that what increases freedom is moral, and what decreases freedom is immoral. Being a self-centered hypocrite doesn't make RMS a bad person, it just makes him human. I know that according to the
The F/OSS "movement" isn't about a coherenet moral philosphy, no matter how much anyone would like it to be. It's about sharing code, no more, no less. Make it a metaphor for life if you want, but code isn't life.
If they hadn't required an NDA, he would have happily fixed the problem, given the fix to anyone who asked, and moved on with his life. However, the NDA and copyright prevented him from doing so.
Except that an NDA has nothing to do with copyright, it's a private contract. Even if they hadn't required an NDA, he still couldn't redistribute his derivative work without permission of the copyright holder. And if there were no such thing as copyright they would have been more, not less, likely to require an NDA.
That doesn't make any sense. The GPL itself limits my freedom. I am not free to modify and redistribute a GPL'd program without distributing the source as well. So, if we follow the logic that it's wrong to violate the GPL because it "tramples other people's freedom", then it is an equally good argument that it isn't wrong to violate the GPL.
You are the one who is confused. Personal use is not synonymous with fair use. Nor does personal use necessarily fall under any other exception to the copyright owner's exclusive rights. And my terminology is not innacurate, although it may have been imprecise. The "owner" refered to in the sentence you quoted is the copyright owner, and yes he can place restrictions on what you can do with even a legally owned copy of his copyrighted work.
I have yet to hear of any copyright statute in law that says a copyright holder can regulate your use of content after you've purchased it - or received it for free over the air.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but that's exactly what copyright is all about. Title 17 of the US Code tells you what you may or may not do with copyrighted content without the owner's permission. Specifcally, 17 USC 106 states:
The owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
Yes, there are stautory and judicial exceptions to that exclusivity, but there you go.
Freedom of contract is a pretty important concept in our legal system. First, you don't have any free speech rights as far as your employer is concerned. There are statutes that protect whistleblowers, but this is way beyond that. Second, this guy didn't have anything "taken away" from him, he negotiated it away, and if he didn't get something he valued more in return, he shouldn't have agreed.
If you don't think you have enough information about the company to have faith in the stock, don't buy it.
Let me expand on it this way. Is it reasonable for me to pay $19.99 for the -exact- same movie that a chinese citizen pays $2.75 for (legal copy- not pirated).
Yes, if you assign a greater value to the movie, it is expected that you should pay more for it. If you don't value it more than your $20, don't buy it. If enough other people have the same values as you, the price will go down.
How is it fair to the poor of america that they are subsidizing the middle-class of other countries?
Anyone who has many $20 DVDs is outside of my definition of "poor".
Question: How do you know that's fair use?
Answer: You don't.
And some very smart people think it isn't.
There is no valid reason the Harry Potter author can make over a BILLION dollars for a series of books- a few million (more than enough to live a lifetime) would have been more reasonable.
No valid reason? Why isn't she entitled to make whatever people are willing to pay?
Opera actually looks for www.*.[whatever TLDs you have configured]. Which is more useful is a matter of preference.
That article seems to support the OP's point. The theater industry has a long history of self-regulating for this exact reason.
Link?