Here's where I get confused. Which part of the code was under the GPL, the actual code for the x86 Linux or the source code that became that? Because if it was only the source code, then this is not a problem at all, you aren't changing that.
Ah, the old notion of CYA. What Censorware will allow the libraries to do is to transfer blame to the censorware vendors (as long as the license agreements warrants this). They can say, "Hey, we installed 'sufficient' safeguards for the purposes of filtering that which some may find objectionable, so it's not our fault." This may be important for a small community library, who can ill-afford lawsuits.
I can guarentee that there's some shrink wrap license that says "If we let some of that evil stuff through you can't blame us for it". When did the idea of "this thing is supposed to do something, but if it doesn't, it isn't our fault"?
But when the RIAA then scans Napster files, it will be very easy to find out whose copy it is that is floating around there (providing the watermark is still discernible). You did pay for your original download with your credit card, didn't you? Who's 31337 now, when they charge a gazillion bucks in damages to you?
There's just one little problem with this method, and that's why the RIAA probably doesn't want this (as much as they may SAY they want it). You sue Joe Shmoe for a gazillion dollars, and if he files bankruptcy, you get very little back. What they probably will sue is Napster for "allowing" it to happen, because if they win that case, Napster at least has money to give!
It's probably just to say that certain things are copies so that lawyers get more money. Anyone thinking of changing jobs?
To me at least, all a computer is is an automating machine. So a "paint" program couldn't be patented because the prior art would be using paint brushes and such. It causes the same results, though perhaps the computer can make it faster. However, the code itself can be copyrighted, as it is... well... something you did- a specific way to acheive a specific effect.
Now, when you start to patent things such as "1-click shopping" you have to think this, "Was there ever a similar idea WITH OR WITHOUT A COMPUTER?" Because a computer is just a tool to make life easier (or in the lawyer's case, harder) I would say that there was a very similar thing to "1-click shopping" called "put it on my tab". If you were reconized by the bar (or Starbucks or whatever), they would know you would come in later to pay it off. You could quite litterally say "Hey, I'm buying this but I don't have the money on me now." and the manager wouldn't mind.
The real problem is that most people don't see a computer as just a tool that helps to automate work. They see it as a psuedo-magical thing that just does... stuff. And because this magical thing just does this stuff, its prior art would be different then any other prior art.
Is the light bulb really THAT different from a fire? I'm for copyright, but not patent, if it is used for the same purpose.
"Having somebody who can screw around with my operating system would make me very, very nervous"
Okay, you're willing to let them put together the computer, install new software on the computer, and even be able to monitor every thing you do, but you feel bad if IT decideds that the OS would run faster/safer/securer in a better way? I do not understand the logic behind this.
If they can select what type of installation to do of WinNT and what programs with what features, why would the author not want them to be able to tweak the code?
In the US court system, both the plaintif and the defendent have to agree to the jury members. This is done so that neither side can choose people that are obviously bias for them. However, according to the CNet article, when you have a domain name dispute, only the plaintif chooses the "jury" (the group that ends up settling the dispute), so of course they are going to choose the group that is most likely to rule for them!
Doesn't this give more power to the plaintif than the defendent? If I created a group of/.ers, and some how got ICANN accredited, then if any one of you sued Microsoft, saying that you make small software and therefore deserve the domain microsoft.com more thant MS, you would just need to choose the/. dispute resolution to win! Is it just me, or does that seem silly? Of course you shouldn't win, but you would!
So does this mean that Microsoft tabbed widgets that do the same thing are also braking the law? After all, I've seen this thing in GUIs for a long time. In Windows it's refered to as a "Tab". Sue MS!
Maybe it's just me, but I seem to remeber a backup law that applied to digital media. Or has this too been completely nullified by the DCMA, saying that now if you mistakenly damage the stuff, you have to buy a new one? I'm confused...
What I think many people don't realize is that when you ask for abolishment of IP laws, you are asking for too much of a change. IP laws are so imbedded in our society that they can not just be got rid of. Go for a little change, like getting people to just realize some of the problems with IP laws, but do not say that they are completely bad or the average Joe will space out. The article brings up some great points; I personally think the best one mentioned is the piracy. With the super-techno-information-superhighway Internet web thing that many people are just starting to have access to, piracy is becoming a bigger factor, just look at Napster. People are realizing that if they are not going to have any other way to get it, because of budget, the company isn't really hurt... if the person really would not have bought the CD/game/movie. Like it or not, IP laws are going to be here for a while, just because they are so deep in society. Until lots of normal people start to think that they are bad (and it is starting, many people feel that the patenting of the genome is horrid) we'll just have to wait it out.
Moderators! View at -1, Newest first w/o threads, ignore scores!
I'm hearing so many things about protecting the MP3 this and protecting the MP3 that. Doesn't anyone realize that Napster does NOT represent MP3s? Napster was created for illegal puposes, it has been said numerous times; to deny it now is ludecrous. MP3s are not being outlawed, and they won't be! You will not see the RIAA try to say MP3s are illegal and you won't see the MPAA say MPGs (or DivX;-)) is illegal. The companies know they won't win the cases and they know that the technology is useful!
Moderators! View at -1, Newest first w/o threads, ignore scores!
Maybe I'm a bit confused, but why is the company concerned about reverse-importing (a.k.a. exporting). Japan got Mononokehime a looong time ago (after all, anime comes from JAPAN!). As a starting fan of Anime, I was really looking forward to getting Princess Mononoke with Japanese voices (lots of people tend to like hearing the original voices), as Mononokehime is considered a great anime.
Now, the only thing that I can think of is that Japan has not yet released a DVD version of Mononokehime. Well, this would be easy enough to fix! Just call whoever distributes Ghlibi's films, and tell them that you are worried about exportation (and they should be worried too), yada yada yada, and so why not release a DVD version at the same date? PRESTO! No more problem!
Hey, don't insult the Virtual Boy, it was pretty neat! What's too bad is that what it was using is so old that the Sega Master System had it, but with shutter glasses. But playing the Mario Tennis and watching the ball bounce to and away and to and away and to and away... was actually was quite fun! Why can't they use shutter glasses or something like that with the new 3D cards?
I remeber the Good Times virus. That was the hoax that was always mentioned. Now with all the security problems, that can actually be done. Say, why hasn't someone created an email that completely follows the Good Times virus, including the subject?
Perhaps now people will realize that running in Windows dumb mode (without the last extention) is really stupid. I haven't found anyone who does something real with their computer to find dumb mode useful. Perhaps new versions of Windows will not have dumb mode as the default.
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see what the.god TLD (A quite humerous one, too bad you all are going to get is.god) has to do with not respecting trademarks. Sure, that means you can register microsoft.god and such, but isn't that already illegal in 99.9% of the countries? It seems like Joe Baptista is just trying to seem like an evil anarchist.
I'm surprised that no one so far is happy about this. So far, it seems only Sega has said emulation is legal (Sony has not really said anything, but they sued bleem!) and Nintendo still has their stance "All emulators are illegal!". Sega is willing to release emulators commercially or endorce them (First the "Sega Smash Pack", now the "bleemcast!"). Many people will like this for the reason that they can sell their used PSXs and some games but keep the good ones. However, the rumor mills have stated that you will only be able to play 400 games (100 per "bleempak" you buy), making me kind of angry. I'd rather have a full fledged emulator than an emu that checks for certain games.
That proof is circular. You are saying that you are conscious to prove you are. You have no way to know that you aren't just a really complex machine that just appears to have "free will". Maybe I'm not conscious or alive, but my psuedo-life is good enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's where I get confused. Which part of the code was under the GPL, the actual code for the x86 Linux or the source code that became that? Because if it was only the source code, then this is not a problem at all, you aren't changing that.
Ah, the old notion of CYA. What Censorware will allow the libraries to do is to transfer blame to the censorware vendors (as long as the license agreements warrants this). They can say, "Hey, we installed 'sufficient' safeguards for the purposes of filtering that which some may find objectionable, so it's not our fault." This may be important for a small community library, who can ill-afford lawsuits. I can guarentee that there's some shrink wrap license that says "If we let some of that evil stuff through you can't blame us for it". When did the idea of "this thing is supposed to do something, but if it doesn't, it isn't our fault"?
It's probably just to say that certain things are copies so that lawyers get more money. Anyone thinking of changing jobs?
To me at least, all a computer is is an automating machine. So a "paint" program couldn't be patented because the prior art would be using paint brushes and such. It causes the same results, though perhaps the computer can make it faster. However, the code itself can be copyrighted, as it is... well... something you did- a specific way to acheive a specific effect.
Now, when you start to patent things such as "1-click shopping" you have to think this, "Was there ever a similar idea WITH OR WITHOUT A COMPUTER?" Because a computer is just a tool to make life easier (or in the lawyer's case, harder) I would say that there was a very similar thing to "1-click shopping" called "put it on my tab". If you were reconized by the bar (or Starbucks or whatever), they would know you would come in later to pay it off. You could quite litterally say "Hey, I'm buying this but I don't have the money on me now." and the manager wouldn't mind.
The real problem is that most people don't see a computer as just a tool that helps to automate work. They see it as a psuedo-magical thing that just does... stuff. And because this magical thing just does this stuff, its prior art would be different then any other prior art.
Is the light bulb really THAT different from a fire? I'm for copyright, but not patent, if it is used for the same purpose.
Okay, you're willing to let them put together the computer, install new software on the computer, and even be able to monitor every thing you do, but you feel bad if IT decideds that the OS would run faster/safer/securer in a better way? I do not understand the logic behind this.
If they can select what type of installation to do of WinNT and what programs with what features, why would the author not want them to be able to tweak the code?
In the US court system, both the plaintif and the defendent have to agree to the jury members. This is done so that neither side can choose people that are obviously bias for them. However, according to the CNet article, when you have a domain name dispute, only the plaintif chooses the "jury" (the group that ends up settling the dispute), so of course they are going to choose the group that is most likely to rule for them!
Doesn't this give more power to the plaintif than the defendent? If I created a group of /.ers, and some how got ICANN accredited, then if any one of you sued Microsoft, saying that you make small software and therefore deserve the domain microsoft.com more thant MS, you would just need to choose the /. dispute resolution to win! Is it just me, or does that seem silly? Of course you shouldn't win, but you would!
So does this mean that Microsoft tabbed widgets that do the same thing are also braking the law? After all, I've seen this thing in GUIs for a long time. In Windows it's refered to as a "Tab". Sue MS!
Maybe it's just me, but I seem to remeber a backup law that applied to digital media. Or has this too been completely nullified by the DCMA, saying that now if you mistakenly damage the stuff, you have to buy a new one? I'm confused...
What I think many people don't realize is that when you ask for abolishment of IP laws, you are asking for too much of a change. IP laws are so imbedded in our society that they can not just be got rid of. Go for a little change, like getting people to just realize some of the problems with IP laws, but do not say that they are completely bad or the average Joe will space out.
The article brings up some great points; I personally think the best one mentioned is the piracy. With the super-techno-information-superhighway Internet web thing that many people are just starting to have access to, piracy is becoming a bigger factor, just look at Napster. People are realizing that if they are not going to have any other way to get it, because of budget, the company isn't really hurt... if the person really would not have bought the CD/game/movie.
Like it or not, IP laws are going to be here for a while, just because they are so deep in society. Until lots of normal people start to think that they are bad (and it is starting, many people feel that the patenting of the genome is horrid) we'll just have to wait it out.
Moderators! View at -1, Newest first w/o threads, ignore scores!
I'm hearing so many things about protecting the MP3 this and protecting the MP3 that. Doesn't anyone realize that Napster does NOT represent MP3s? Napster was created for illegal puposes, it has been said numerous times; to deny it now is ludecrous. ;-)) is illegal. The companies know they won't win the cases and they know that the technology is useful!
MP3s are not being outlawed, and they won't be! You will not see the RIAA try to say MP3s are illegal and you won't see the MPAA say MPGs (or DivX
Moderators! View at -1, Newest first w/o threads, ignore scores!
Maybe I'm a bit confused, but why is the company concerned about reverse-importing (a.k.a. exporting). Japan got Mononokehime a looong time ago (after all, anime comes from JAPAN!). As a starting fan of Anime, I was really looking forward to getting Princess Mononoke with Japanese voices (lots of people tend to like hearing the original voices), as Mononokehime is considered a great anime.
Now, the only thing that I can think of is that Japan has not yet released a DVD version of Mononokehime. Well, this would be easy enough to fix! Just call whoever distributes Ghlibi's films, and tell them that you are worried about exportation (and they should be worried too), yada yada yada, and so why not release a DVD version at the same date? PRESTO! No more problem!
Hey, don't insult the Virtual Boy, it was pretty neat! What's too bad is that what it was using is so old that the Sega Master System had it, but with shutter glasses. But playing the Mario Tennis and watching the ball bounce to and away and to and away and to and away... was actually was quite fun! Why can't they use shutter glasses or something like that with the new 3D cards?
I remeber the Good Times virus. That was the hoax that was always mentioned. Now with all the security problems, that can actually be done. Say, why hasn't someone created an email that completely follows the Good Times virus, including the subject?
Perhaps now people will realize that running in Windows dumb mode (without the last extention) is really stupid. I haven't found anyone who does something real with their computer to find dumb mode useful. Perhaps new versions of Windows will not have dumb mode as the default.
Or perhaps not.
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see what the .god TLD (A quite humerous one, too bad you all are going to get is.god) has to do with not respecting trademarks. Sure, that means you can register microsoft.god and such, but isn't that already illegal in 99.9% of the countries? It seems like Joe Baptista is just trying to seem like an evil anarchist.
I'm surprised that no one so far is happy about this. So far, it seems only Sega has said emulation is legal (Sony has not really said anything, but they sued bleem!) and Nintendo still has their stance "All emulators are illegal!". Sega is willing to release emulators commercially or endorce them (First the "Sega Smash Pack", now the "bleemcast!"). Many people will like this for the reason that they can sell their used PSXs and some games but keep the good ones. However, the rumor mills have stated that you will only be able to play 400 games (100 per "bleempak" you buy), making me kind of angry. I'd rather have a full fledged emulator than an emu that checks for certain games.
That proof is circular. You are saying that you are conscious to prove you are. You have no way to know that you aren't just a really complex machine that just appears to have "free will". Maybe I'm not conscious or alive, but my psuedo-life is good enough.