The courts have already handled this issue. There's a minimum length to a piece of music before it's eligble for copyright protection (I don't know what it is off-hand). There's also a minimum amount of similarity required before one song is considered a derivative of another (e.g., five out of every six notes the same; again, I don't know the correct legal amount).
I'm not really disagreeing with your statement that "All innovation is derivative work." I'm just pointing out how the law currently stands (as I understand it).
If i translate something into computer language, I now own it, because its NOT the original work.
Except that what you've created is known as a "derivative work", and under modern (even pre-DMCA) copyright law, it is illegal to do that without the permission of the original copyright holder. (IANAL, etc.)
Okay, I haven't read the text of that law (no longer a bill, btw); I only know what pundits on TV say, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
In all the discussion and debate about this law, I was surprised that no one ever mentioned Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC. Maybe it's totally inapplicable (IANAL, so I wouldn't know), but it seems relevant to me. At the time, the press was constantly parroting a line from Justice Stevens' concurring opinion: Money is property; it is not speech.
The only part of this new law that raises constitutional questions are those about the "blackout period" on TV ads. Maybe those will get struck down as unconstitutional, but the Court tends to be very precise about that sort of stuff. They'd cut out that one piece, and leave the rest of the law intact.
Laws, by definition, are legal. I think you mean the CBDTPA is unconstitutional.
The Senate is not distinct from Congress, it is a subset. The other half is called the House of Representatives (the House, for short).
Again, Congress can grant itself any legal authority it chooses. Its only restrictions are from its constitutional authority.
Finally, they aren't trying to dictate anything to "the rest of the world". Read the bill. Just dictating things to their own country will suffice. The massive peer pressure the U.S. exerts will either get everyone else to fall into line, or they'll find themselves ostracized by the world community.
You are, indeed, confused. Perhaps you should read the article. The goal is not to allow users to "install" or "use" alternate this or that. The goal is to replace this or that.
And how, pray tell, does discussing the merits of this proposal qualify as "bitching"?
...the free market does not want and will not provide a good enough solution.
Then perhaps this "solution" in not needed at all. Aren't we supposed to trust the free market to figure this stuff out? (Good luck to us all in convincing Congress of this, though.)
I'm really quite amazed that your meaningless post garnered a score of 3, while my post which poses an interesting situation was labeled as Flamebait.
Setting aside the word "meaningless", I actually agree with this statement. I don't think what I said truly qualifies as informative (I assumed what I was posting was common knowledge). Also, calling your post Flamebait is a tad harsh (is my post really a flame?). At least they didn't mod me Insightful:)
You're looking for a scapegoat...
While I don't doubt that other are doing just that, I am not. I harbor no grudge against Bill Gates. I just got the impression you meant that his role in shaping Microsoft's strategy was de minimus, with which I disagree.
In any decent company, even the minute software engineer can play a key part in crafting that company's strategy.
Which only goes to show that I've never worked for a decent company.:) For example, my current employer's CIO is a de facto dictator of our corporate IT strategy (ordering sweeping changes of questionable value a month after getting hired). Never having known another way, I assume all places are like this. If that's not so, then that's wonderful; I'll update my résumé this week.
I'm sure your counter-argument is that everyone will listen to Gates above any other suggestion. The flaw with that logic is that Gates is a very shrewd businessman, and no such person tosses away good ideas with his own short-sightedness.
A valid point, but I can make that support me just as well as it supports you: If Gates weren't so good at his job, he would, in fact, throw away the ideas of others, and is perfectly capable of doing so. That says to me that he plays a pivotal role in deciding what is or is not done at Microsoft. Just because he's wise doesn't mean he's unimportant.
It would be foolish to think that Ballmer does not play an equal if not larger role in crafting MS business strategy.
Agreed. I again assert that this doesn't make Gates unimportant.
I dissent. ..
That's cool. When someone dissents intelligently (as opposed to a troll), it gives me a good chance to rethink my position, and adjust accordingly.
Odds are, she doesn't. As has been pointed out elsewhere, simply having a monopoly is not illegal. The anti-trust remedy will not likely include a dismantling of the Windows monopoly. Rather, the ideal remedy (from a legal standpoint) will probably allow Microsoft to keep its monopoly position, but will "undo" the damages caused by the past abuses, and not allow any future abuses of that position.
It's not like he isn't still employed by Microsoft. He's their Chief Software Architect (or whatever it's called now); he's also the Chairman of Board of Directors; and he literally has the largest stake in Microsoft's success. Do you really think he doesn't play any part at all in crafting Microsoft's strategy?
Warning: Operating Systems was a class in which I did not excel (though I at least passed), so I'm as like as not to say something that makes no sense.
Your point (or Cox's, as it were) is a good one, and one I would concede immediately for the typical home system. In response, I would like to point out that in the example I was discussing (a multi-user system), the limits of customization in a monolithic design are set by a single person (whoever has the permissions to modify the kernel/reboot the machine). In the case of the Hurd, though, I should be able to download a new file system server and fire it up without needing to su root.
Actually, it's built on top of the Mach micro-kernel.
[W]hat other benefits are the Hurd folks hoping to realize?
As I understand it, one goal of Hurd is to give end-users on a multi-user system the ability to completely customize their system. Since Hurd is built on top of a micro-kernel, a lot more of the system is userland, so it's much more flexible. In addition, each user can run his/her own choice of servers, so no one's choices constrains anyone else. If you think about it, that actually meshes well with the goals of the GPL (giving people the ability to customize their computing environment without the ability to impose anything on anyone else).
I see one potential problem with the Hurd: it makes the sysadmin's job a nightmare. I just don't see any way to lock down a Hurd-based system (of course, the FSF may not care to allow that).
(please don't troll me on this, just look at how much it cost them and how much it affected the stock)
I'd just like to point out one little thing about the stock price. Although people who support MS will sometimes pull out the fact that the stock price has suffered ever since the original verdict, they often overlook the fact that none other than Steve Ballmer stated back in 1999 that their stock was overvalued.
Because technically speaking, there's little real difference between the two. Whenever laws are repealed, the language of the bill Congress debates would look something like, "Amend Title 17 to remove 1201". This is because (for example) courts need to be able to see what the laws used to be when evaluating precedent. If a Supreme Court ruling is based on a law that has been repealed, lower courts need to know about it to determine if that ruling is still worth following (in case maybe Congress later passed another law similar to the repealed one). (IANAL, but this seems like the most logical explanation.)
Interesting. I based my explanation on what I managed to glean during the trial. Admittedly, I didn't read the economists' depositions, but everyone else seemed to be saying that there was no "hard and fast" rule for determining the line between successful company and monopolist. Perhaps that was just how they explained it to poor lay-folk like me.
Now, if only everyone on/. can be convinced that the simple fact of having a monopoly isn't illegal...
Slashdot Mirror
The courts have already handled this issue. There's a minimum length to a piece of music before it's eligble for copyright protection (I don't know what it is off-hand). There's also a minimum amount of similarity required before one song is considered a derivative of another (e.g., five out of every six notes the same; again, I don't know the correct legal amount).
I'm not really disagreeing with your statement that "All innovation is derivative work." I'm just pointing out how the law currently stands (as I understand it).
If i translate something into computer language, I now own it, because its NOT the original work.
Except that what you've created is known as a "derivative work", and under modern (even pre-DMCA) copyright law, it is illegal to do that without the permission of the original copyright holder. (IANAL, etc.)
Troll?! WTF?
Well, at least now I've finally collected the full set of moderations.
CFR bill that tramples the First Amendment
Okay, I haven't read the text of that law (no longer a bill, btw); I only know what pundits on TV say, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
In all the discussion and debate about this law, I was surprised that no one ever mentioned Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC. Maybe it's totally inapplicable (IANAL, so I wouldn't know), but it seems relevant to me. At the time, the press was constantly parroting a line from Justice Stevens' concurring opinion: Money is property; it is not speech.
The only part of this new law that raises constitutional questions are those about the "blackout period" on TV ads. Maybe those will get struck down as unconstitutional, but the Court tends to be very precise about that sort of stuff. They'd cut out that one piece, and leave the rest of the law intact.
It doesn't go into effect until November, conveniently just after this year's elections.
Sorry to nitpick, but your post demands it.
Laws, by definition, are legal. I think you mean the CBDTPA is unconstitutional.
The Senate is not distinct from Congress, it is a subset. The other half is called the House of Representatives (the House, for short).
Again, Congress can grant itself any legal authority it chooses. Its only restrictions are from its constitutional authority.
Finally, they aren't trying to dictate anything to "the rest of the world". Read the bill. Just dictating things to their own country will suffice. The massive peer pressure the U.S. exerts will either get everyone else to fall into line, or they'll find themselves ostracized by the world community.
Thank you for your ranting summary of the linked-to article. You obviously grokked it much better than many others here.
You are, indeed, confused. Perhaps you should read the article. The goal is not to allow users to "install" or "use" alternate this or that. The goal is to replace this or that.
And how, pray tell, does discussing the merits of this proposal qualify as "bitching"?
Eccles: killed by a scroll of genocide.
Yes, more nits, but it's the little things...
...would prohibit the sale of any kind of electronic device...
...problems the House and Senate have been facing...
...the numerous copyright laws that have been passed...
try "just" or "unjustly"
copywritten
copyrighted
infrindge
infringe
...such as the $2000 you received...
A very nice letter. I like the references to specific donations; it shows you're watching their every move.
Then perhaps this "solution" in not needed at all. Aren't we supposed to trust the free market to figure this stuff out? (Good luck to us all in convincing Congress of this, though.)
Bio-luminesence.
The normal /. rules of spelling and grammer DO NOT APPLY.
Case in point: it's "grammar", not "grammer".
;-)
I'm really quite amazed that your meaningless post garnered a score of 3, while my post which poses an interesting situation was labeled as Flamebait.
Setting aside the word "meaningless", I actually agree with this statement. I don't think what I said truly qualifies as informative (I assumed what I was posting was common knowledge). Also, calling your post Flamebait is a tad harsh (is my post really a flame?). At least they didn't mod me Insightful :)
You're looking for a scapegoat...
While I don't doubt that other are doing just that, I am not. I harbor no grudge against Bill Gates. I just got the impression you meant that his role in shaping Microsoft's strategy was de minimus, with which I disagree.
In any decent company, even the minute software engineer can play a key part in crafting that company's strategy.
Which only goes to show that I've never worked for a decent company. :) For example, my current employer's CIO is a de facto dictator of our corporate IT strategy (ordering sweeping changes of questionable value a month after getting hired). Never having known another way, I assume all places are like this. If that's not so, then that's wonderful; I'll update my résumé this week.
I'm sure your counter-argument is that everyone will listen to Gates above any other suggestion. The flaw with that logic is that Gates is a very shrewd businessman, and no such person tosses away good ideas with his own short-sightedness.
A valid point, but I can make that support me just as well as it supports you: If Gates weren't so good at his job, he would, in fact, throw away the ideas of others, and is perfectly capable of doing so. That says to me that he plays a pivotal role in deciding what is or is not done at Microsoft. Just because he's wise doesn't mean he's unimportant.
It would be foolish to think that Ballmer does not play an equal if not larger role in crafting MS business strategy.
Agreed. I again assert that this doesn't make Gates unimportant.
I dissent. . .
That's cool. When someone dissents intelligently (as opposed to a troll), it gives me a good chance to rethink my position, and adjust accordingly.
If the judge wishes to "correct the monopoly,"...
Odds are, she doesn't. As has been pointed out elsewhere, simply having a monopoly is not illegal. The anti-trust remedy will not likely include a dismantling of the Windows monopoly. Rather, the ideal remedy (from a legal standpoint) will probably allow Microsoft to keep its monopoly position, but will "undo" the damages caused by the past abuses, and not allow any future abuses of that position.
Treble damages are for a civil lawsuit, such as the ones filed by AOL and Sun. In this case, only remedies are considered.
It's not like he isn't still employed by Microsoft. He's their Chief Software Architect (or whatever it's called now); he's also the Chairman of Board of Directors; and he literally has the largest stake in Microsoft's success. Do you really think he doesn't play any part at all in crafting Microsoft's strategy?
Warning: Operating Systems was a class in which I did not excel (though I at least passed), so I'm as like as not to say something that makes no sense.
Your point (or Cox's, as it were) is a good one, and one I would concede immediately for the typical home system. In response, I would like to point out that in the example I was discussing (a multi-user system), the limits of customization in a monolithic design are set by a single person (whoever has the permissions to modify the kernel/reboot the machine). In the case of the Hurd, though, I should be able to download a new file system server and fire it up without needing to su root.
At least, that's how I understand it.
Hurd talks about being a Mach kernel as well...
Actually, it's built on top of the Mach micro-kernel.
[W]hat other benefits are the Hurd folks hoping to realize?
As I understand it, one goal of Hurd is to give end-users on a multi-user system the ability to completely customize their system. Since Hurd is built on top of a micro-kernel, a lot more of the system is userland, so it's much more flexible. In addition, each user can run his/her own choice of servers, so no one's choices constrains anyone else. If you think about it, that actually meshes well with the goals of the GPL (giving people the ability to customize their computing environment without the ability to impose anything on anyone else).
I see one potential problem with the Hurd: it makes the sysadmin's job a nightmare. I just don't see any way to lock down a Hurd-based system (of course, the FSF may not care to allow that).
(but hey, if Lucas throws 300 new characters in he can sell figures of them all to people that have to buy every single one.
Ah, yes. Yet another phenomenon skewered by The Onion: "Star Wars Fan Collects All 48,720" (Vol. 35, Iss. 23, pg. 1)
(please don't troll me on this, just look at how much it cost them and how much it affected the stock)
I'd just like to point out one little thing about the stock price. Although people who support MS will sometimes pull out the fact that the stock price has suffered ever since the original verdict, they often overlook the fact that none other than Steve Ballmer stated back in 1999 that their stock was overvalued.
(I mean something other than a message in a 4pt font on the rear bottom of the CD jewel case)
Or worse yet, on the CD inside the jewel case.
Because technically speaking, there's little real difference between the two. Whenever laws are repealed, the language of the bill Congress debates would look something like, "Amend Title 17 to remove 1201". This is because (for example) courts need to be able to see what the laws used to be when evaluating precedent. If a Supreme Court ruling is based on a law that has been repealed, lower courts need to know about it to determine if that ruling is still worth following (in case maybe Congress later passed another law similar to the repealed one). (IANAL, but this seems like the most logical explanation.)
Interesting. I based my explanation on what I managed to glean during the trial. Admittedly, I didn't read the economists' depositions, but everyone else seemed to be saying that there was no "hard and fast" rule for determining the line between successful company and monopolist. Perhaps that was just how they explained it to poor lay-folk like me.
Now, if only everyone on /. can be convinced that the simple fact of having a monopoly isn't illegal...
I feel it is wrong to say Microsoft has a monopoly.
As I pointed out here, a monopoly is not defined as "the only game in town".