They did give Apple a license to redistribute, under the condition that a portion of the revenue for doing so reverts to the copyright holder. If they didn't get a license to copy and redistribute, how is would what Apple is doing not be massive copyright infringement?
It seems like you're misunderstanding who is the customer in this case. The license is not being sold to the person listening to the music, it's being sold to APPLE, who are then licensed to sell to end users. You talk about Itunes charging the label, but that's exactly backwards. The LABEL is charging APPLE for the privilege of being able to sell to end users.
The question being asked is: Is the work of distribution being done by the label, or by Apple. If it's being done by the label, then they are selling the product to Apple. If it's being done by Apple, then Apple is being granted a license. If the label doesn't do the work, then the contract says that Sister Sledge gets the part of the proceeds that would normally go to reimburse the label for that work.
Again, Apple's profits and costs doesn't enter into this at all. Only the money that is paid to the label is in question.
I can't argue with how good it looks; I'm not competent to judge. It's intentionally not novel, though. Car and Driver got an interesting quotation from one of the designers:
Chief designer Franz von Holzhausen says the Model S has a conventional “face” and proportions—never mind that freakish width—to make customers who might be cross-shopping the car against a BMW or an Audi more comfortable with the Tesla. Once the brand is established, he hopes to push the design more to take advantage of the unconventional powertrain, and “expand the notion of what a car is supposed to look like.”
Insurance companies haves lots of experience figuring out what risky behavior actually looks like and setting their premiums accordingly. Most of us here are speculating about how this will be used using examples of what we think might be risky. Even if you disagree with the example, you could easily get the point by reading GPs post as saying:
If you're driving on a lot of side streets it's probably going to raise your premiums... Just because driving somewhere is legal, doesn't mean the insurance company can't charge you extra for doing it.
Releasing to the public domain has its own problems, unfortunately. That's what caused Creative Commons to come up with the CC0 license, as they explain:
Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what rights are automatically granted and how and when they expire or may be voluntarily relinquished. More challenging yet, many legal systems effectively prohibit any attempt by these owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights, even when the author wishing to do so is well informed and resolute about doing so and contributing their work to the public domain.
What if I try to punish violators to get monitary rewards, rather than just trying to enforce compliance?
...
If you prove a violation, legally you can force the violators to pay you fees. Can you also force them (as compensation) to disclose or release under GPL other software that they would not have been required to release had done everything correctly the first time?
I do not believe you can force disclosure of the infringing work as restitution for prior infringement, but it is the only condition under which the infringer would be permitted to continue distributing the product in question. So, though you may only be interested in monetary restitution, it will probably have the effect of enforcing compliance. There is no way to force them to disclose unrelated works, though they may agree to it as part of settlement terms.
It could easily be used by people who are traveling with more than one person in the vehicle. The fact that there exists an illegal usage for something doesn't mean it shouldn't be available for those who would use it legally. (cf. Sony vs. Universal City, 1984. Since this is a car story I figure I'm obligated to provide a copyright analogy.)
I don't know about you, but if I had a certified auto-driver, my first use for it would be to sleep while in transit, otherwise, what's the point?
Drink and drive, talk on your damn cell phone all you want... I can think of a few things. Not that it makes any difference; I wouldn't be asleep but I wouldn't be watching for flashing lights either.
No, but he would be presumed so in a court of law. Whether or not it is provable, his guilt or innocence is a fact. And even if this were a courtroom, the whole point would be to debate the fact. Since we're just in a web forum, it's perfectly reasonable to do so with a much lower standard of evidence.
Generally the kind of people who come up with these sorts of things are not working the kinds of jobs that get sent to China. Once their ideas are made public, they are certainly not.
It's not possible to not be registered for all the elections at a particular polling station, so that's no issue. Handing out a booklet of ballots is certainly a possibility, but carries with it its own problems. Who is responsible for sorting them? If it's the voter, how do you account for ballots placed in the wrong box (keeping in mind, we're talking a dozen of the things per voter)? If it's the election judges, it doesn't save you any time when they go to tabulate them.
Really, the optical scanning machines are an excellent solution right now, especially since most of the population was trained on filling in bubbles properly all through primary school.
And it works, if you have good management. I have merely acceptable management, and they tend to assume that if we are getting everything done then we are capable of doing more. Under your system, they would just increase expectations until people were unable to take vacation, but not so much that anyone who worked every day could not meet them, and simply replace the ones who weren't able to deal with that. Not every worker is, or can be, irreplaceable.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, Americans generally vote for more than one race at the same election. It's not a matter of figuring out which stack to put the ballot in, but of tabulating the responses from each of 10-20 choices. Apparently we're somewhat unique in that.
The SF-2000 series controllers are already limited on the sequential side by 6Gbps SATA as well as the ONFI 2.x interface. Both need to be addressed to improve sequential performance, which we likely won't see until 2013.
Anything can be defined as a tautology. It can be useful to measure units in other units, though. E.g. you might want to know the height of a liter (in a particular container) or the weight of a foot (of wire). As long as you know the context, as most of us do for this article, it makes sense. You do have match the unit to the measurement you're trying to make, though; it would be perfectly cogent for them to say that the COLOR of the atom is yellow, though I don't know why we'd care.
Re:Microsoft did the smart thing
on
Who Goes To CES?
·
· Score: 1
It is kind of telling that the only thing you know about CES this year is wrong. If you're part of their target audience, they have a problem.
Android will never have the polish that iOS has and that may be a hard fact for the Android loyalists, but it is a fact never the less.
As an Android user who wouldn't even consider buying what Apple has out there, it doesn't bother me in the least. As someone who wants there to continue being competition in these markets, it would be better otherwise, but they seem to be doing okay as it is. I think it's rather a stretch to say 'never,' though. If I had that sort of ability to predict the future I'd be a rich man. It's certainly true that it's not going to happen the way they're going.
Slashdot Mirror
They did give Apple a license to redistribute, under the condition that a portion of the revenue for doing so reverts to the copyright holder. If they didn't get a license to copy and redistribute, how is would what Apple is doing not be massive copyright infringement?
It seems like you're misunderstanding who is the customer in this case. The license is not being sold to the person listening to the music, it's being sold to APPLE, who are then licensed to sell to end users. You talk about Itunes charging the label, but that's exactly backwards. The LABEL is charging APPLE for the privilege of being able to sell to end users.
The question being asked is: Is the work of distribution being done by the label, or by Apple. If it's being done by the label, then they are selling the product to Apple. If it's being done by Apple, then Apple is being granted a license.
If the label doesn't do the work, then the contract says that Sister Sledge gets the part of the proceeds that would normally go to reimburse the label for that work.
Again, Apple's profits and costs doesn't enter into this at all. Only the money that is paid to the label is in question.
I can't argue with how good it looks; I'm not competent to judge. It's intentionally not novel, though. Car and Driver got an interesting quotation from one of the designers:
Chief designer Franz von Holzhausen says the Model S has a conventional “face” and proportions—never mind that freakish width—to make customers who might be cross-shopping the car against a BMW or an Audi more comfortable with the Tesla. Once the brand is established, he hopes to push the design more to take advantage of the unconventional powertrain, and “expand the notion of what a car is supposed to look like.”
Dude, how many times do we have to say this? If you don't want your parents finding about about something, don't post it to Facebook!
Insurance companies haves lots of experience figuring out what risky behavior actually looks like and setting their premiums accordingly. Most of us here are speculating about how this will be used using examples of what we think might be risky. Even if you disagree with the example, you could easily get the point by reading GPs post as saying:
If you're driving on a lot of side streets it's probably going to raise your premiums... Just because driving somewhere is legal, doesn't mean the insurance company can't charge you extra for doing it.
Reread GP's post. He clearly says:
human rights are by virtue of one's humanity, and not determined by the current state of written law.
And since I apparently mangled my link, that quotation is from http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
Releasing to the public domain has its own problems, unfortunately. That's what caused Creative Commons to come up with the CC0 license, as they explain:
Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what rights are automatically granted and how and when they expire or may be voluntarily relinquished. More challenging yet, many legal systems effectively prohibit any attempt by these owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights, even when the author wishing to do so is well informed and resolute about doing so and contributing their work to the public domain.
What if I try to punish violators to get monitary rewards, rather than just trying to enforce compliance?
If you prove a violation, legally you can force the violators to pay you fees. Can you also force them (as compensation) to disclose or release under GPL other software that they would not have been required to release had done everything correctly the first time?
I do not believe you can force disclosure of the infringing work as restitution for prior infringement, but it is the only condition under which the infringer would be permitted to continue distributing the product in question. So, though you may only be interested in monetary restitution, it will probably have the effect of enforcing compliance. There is no way to force them to disclose unrelated works, though they may agree to it as part of settlement terms.
It could easily be used by people who are traveling with more than one person in the vehicle. The fact that there exists an illegal usage for something doesn't mean it shouldn't be available for those who would use it legally. (cf. Sony vs. Universal City, 1984. Since this is a car story I figure I'm obligated to provide a copyright analogy.)
I just want sanity in the political sphere again.
Me too. I just wish I could find an example f when it's ever been there.
I'd support that, as long as we can get automated voting too.
And demonstrating again that this is a well heeled idea in SF: Asimov's The Evitable Conflict
Ob. Schlock
Bonus= includes clone crime.
I don't know about you, but if I had a certified auto-driver, my first use for it would be to sleep while in transit, otherwise, what's the point?
Drink and drive, talk on your damn cell phone all you want... I can think of a few things. Not that it makes any difference; I wouldn't be asleep but I wouldn't be watching for flashing lights either.
No, but he would be presumed so in a court of law. Whether or not it is provable, his guilt or innocence is a fact. And even if this were a courtroom, the whole point would be to debate the fact. Since we're just in a web forum, it's perfectly reasonable to do so with a much lower standard of evidence.
Generally the kind of people who come up with these sorts of things are not working the kinds of jobs that get sent to China. Once their ideas are made public, they are certainly not.
It's not possible to not be registered for all the elections at a particular polling station, so that's no issue.
Handing out a booklet of ballots is certainly a possibility, but carries with it its own problems. Who is responsible for sorting them? If it's the voter, how do you account for ballots placed in the wrong box (keeping in mind, we're talking a dozen of the things per voter)? If it's the election judges, it doesn't save you any time when they go to tabulate them.
Really, the optical scanning machines are an excellent solution right now, especially since most of the population was trained on filling in bubbles properly all through primary school.
And it works, if you have good management. I have merely acceptable management, and they tend to assume that if we are getting everything done then we are capable of doing more. Under your system, they would just increase expectations until people were unable to take vacation, but not so much that anyone who worked every day could not meet them, and simply replace the ones who weren't able to deal with that. Not every worker is, or can be, irreplaceable.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, Americans generally vote for more than one race at the same election. It's not a matter of figuring out which stack to put the ballot in, but of tabulating the responses from each of 10-20 choices. Apparently we're somewhat unique in that.
That was his point, yes. From his original post:
The current optical scanning technology is a fair balance... All the machines do is speed up the tabulation process.
We already need a faster bus.
The SF-2000 series controllers are already limited on the sequential side by 6Gbps SATA as well as the ONFI 2.x interface. Both need to be addressed to improve sequential performance, which we likely won't see until 2013.
Anything can be defined as a tautology. It can be useful to measure units in other units, though. E.g. you might want to know the height of a liter (in a particular container) or the weight of a foot (of wire). As long as you know the context, as most of us do for this article, it makes sense. You do have match the unit to the measurement you're trying to make, though; it would be perfectly cogent for them to say that the COLOR of the atom is yellow, though I don't know why we'd care.
It is kind of telling that the only thing you know about CES this year is wrong. If you're part of their target audience, they have a problem.
Android will never have the polish that iOS has and that may be a hard fact for the Android loyalists, but it is a fact never the less.
As an Android user who wouldn't even consider buying what Apple has out there, it doesn't bother me in the least.
As someone who wants there to continue being competition in these markets, it would be better otherwise, but they seem to be doing okay as it is.
I think it's rather a stretch to say 'never,' though. If I had that sort of ability to predict the future I'd be a rich man. It's certainly true that it's not going to happen the way they're going.
And yet he is still outraged. Funny the way people work.