It's not fair use to give near-perfect recordings of copyrighted material to everyone on the planet. This is not the same as making a tape for your friend.
Actually, it's exactly the same thing. The only difference is scale, and there is no legislative or judicial pronouncement which says that fair use may not scale.
The key difference is that the defendant here hasn't been found "guilty" beyond all appeal.... It's _possible_ that if they fought the case, the previous ruling might get overturned and MS let off scot free.
What are you talking about? The trial is over. The only reason the courts are still involved is to hand down a new sentence (or, more properly, a new remedy). Microsoft already appealed to both the Appellate and Supreme Courts. The worst Microsoft could do at this point is appeal the new remedy, which would only revert them to the same state they are in now (guilty, but unpunished).
Please enlighten me as to how Microsoft has the right to appeal either the findings or verdict after already doing so.
My bad. I use grub, so I didn't have a copy of the license to look at. I always assumed the license was part of the reason the FSF preferred grub. I'll go stand in a corner now.
MS's marketing team tried to get REM's "It's the End of the World As We Know it (And I feel fine)" for the Win95 launch. REM doesn't license it's songs for commercials,...
Odd thing is, it was a just a year or so later that the same song was used to advertise "Independence Day".
[Ultra-bizarre post in which user number 459812 refers to self as "a slashdot veteran", protests the "blindingly obvious" insightful posts in a manner virtually indistinguishable from any other protest of same, and is modded as insightful.]
[Obligatory reply attempting to point out the irony of parent post, but self-consciously ignoring several inconvenient facts so that it can be modded as funny.]
Strong encryption is strong encryption. If they leave any stone unturned, people will be able to pass messages through e-commerce sites (I set up a store-front, and you "buy" something from me using SSL or whatever). Besides, backdoors allow you to retain the appearance of security which, as the airports have demonstrated, is more important to the public than actual security.
You're pretty dim, too. With terrorism, murder is just a means to an end (which is invariably political). Stopping terrorism requires bringing an end to violent forms of political protest. You can't very well take a reactive position, because then the violence still occurs. This means you have to arrest people who are "about to become" violent, which will quickly devolve into arresting people who are "potentially" violent. Think McCarthy.
There are TONS of people pushing Linux for business, government, and educational use. In doing so you ARE competing with windows, regardless of what anyone says.
Correction: In doing so THEY are competing with Windows. I don't give a rat's ass about market share, and neither does Linus. I don't understand how you can expect Linus to adopt someone else's goals simply because that person installed his software.
Indeed. The FBI is trying to use laws about telephones to defend their actions. After all, if you unplug your phone or don't pick up the receiver, you're not communicating, right? Let's hope that the judge and/or Scarfo's lawyer(s) see through the gaping hole in this analogy.
Re:I wouldn't call this an "interesting interview"
on
Torvalds Tells All
·
· Score: 1
Subj: I wouldn't call this an "interesting interview"...
It doesn't particularly feel like a "tell-all" either.
...it would be erronious to assume that a court filing will be any more open than anything else they publish.
IIRC, the judge did get an accurate description, so that he could rule on whether it stayed within the bounds of the warrant. This doc is what opposing counsel got.
Not especially. They're just exploiting a legal technicality. They aren't allowed to intercept private communications, so they argue that a deactivated modem means no communicating is going on.
$129 for OS X is, by definition, an upgrade. [Explains why.]
Good point. Thanks for the insight.
I think you're just being a bit pedantic there.
Isn't that the point of/.?
In all seriousness, though, I think I failed in explaining my position (mainly by being too confrontational; let me try a friendlier approach). You said, "No one can say that the software that runs your hardware, that browses the Web, that provides your networking, etc., isn't worth $100 unless you're an outrageous cheapskate." For the sake of amicability, I'll agree with this assertion. The problem is, an upgrade only gets you the "etc." Everyone already has the other stuff. You only "get" these other things when you buy the full version. Another way to put it is: Your statement seems to argue that $100 is a reasonable price for the full version, putting the upgrade somewhere in the $50-$60 range. In that context, I consider the price of WinXP to be far too high.
Gas prices have gone up (and now lately back down) over the past few months. When they went up, was that proof that the company I buy gas from is a monopoly?
Ever hear of OPEC? They decided to lower production and -- surprise! -- gas prices went up. More recently (and especially after the events of 09-11), they decided to ramp up production and -- surprise! -- gas prices went down.
Slashdot Mirror
[N]o state I know of has codified its law of priveleges.
Welcome to Ohio, "The Heart of it All!" O.R.C. 2317.02 "Privileged communications."
It's not fair use to give near-perfect recordings of copyrighted material to everyone on the planet. This is not the same as making a tape for your friend.
Actually, it's exactly the same thing. The only difference is scale, and there is no legislative or judicial pronouncement which says that fair use may not scale.
The key difference is that the defendant here hasn't been found "guilty" beyond all appeal. ... It's _possible_ that if they fought the case, the previous ruling might get overturned and MS let off scot free.
What are you talking about? The trial is over. The only reason the courts are still involved is to hand down a new sentence (or, more properly, a new remedy). Microsoft already appealed to both the Appellate and Supreme Courts. The worst Microsoft could do at this point is appeal the new remedy, which would only revert them to the same state they are in now (guilty, but unpunished).
Please enlighten me as to how Microsoft has the right to appeal either the findings or verdict after already doing so.
My vote would be for Sun. (JVM)
My bad. I use grub, so I didn't have a copy of the license to look at. I always assumed the license was part of the reason the FSF preferred grub. I'll go stand in a corner now.
Why not just improve on something existing that is proven and people are more familiar with. It's not like you can't get the sources for Lilo.
It was my understanding that lilo is free, but not Free.
I'll go you one better. My current project is littered with:
try {// Bunch of stuff
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new OurCustomException(e.getMessage());
}
I still haven't figured out what they were thinking.
MS's marketing team tried to get REM's "It's the End of the World As We Know it (And I feel fine)" for the Win95 launch. REM doesn't license it's songs for commercials,...
Odd thing is, it was a just a year or so later that the same song was used to advertise "Independence Day".
I use [gay] to mean happy.
I use hacker to mean cracker.
Actually, the biggest break-down in the analogy is that auto manufacturers are legally obligated to install headlights.
[Ultra-bizarre post in which user number 459812 refers to self as "a slashdot veteran", protests the "blindingly obvious" insightful posts in a manner virtually indistinguishable from any other protest of same, and is modded as insightful.]
[Obligatory reply attempting to point out the irony of parent post, but self-consciously ignoring several inconvenient facts so that it can be modded as funny.]
Strong encryption is strong encryption. If they leave any stone unturned, people will be able to pass messages through e-commerce sites (I set up a store-front, and you "buy" something from me using SSL or whatever). Besides, backdoors allow you to retain the appearance of security which, as the airports have demonstrated, is more important to the public than actual security.
You're pretty dim, too. With terrorism, murder is just a means to an end (which is invariably political). Stopping terrorism requires bringing an end to violent forms of political protest. You can't very well take a reactive position, because then the violence still occurs. This means you have to arrest people who are "about to become" violent, which will quickly devolve into arresting people who are "potentially" violent. Think McCarthy.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness are the only endowed [rights].
Re-read it. It says among these are..., i.e., it is not an exhaustive list.
To support something is not necessarily to vote for it.
Which is just a emotionally-charged way of saying: stop politcial dissent.
There are TONS of people pushing Linux for business, government, and educational use. In doing so you ARE competing with windows, regardless of what anyone says.
Correction: In doing so THEY are competing with Windows. I don't give a rat's ass about market share, and neither does Linus. I don't understand how you can expect Linus to adopt someone else's goals simply because that person installed his software.
This seems like a dubious argument.
Indeed. The FBI is trying to use laws about telephones to defend their actions. After all, if you unplug your phone or don't pick up the receiver, you're not communicating, right? Let's hope that the judge and/or Scarfo's lawyer(s) see through the gaping hole in this analogy.
Subj: I wouldn't call this an "interesting interview"...
It doesn't particularly feel like a "tell-all" either.
Stallman became known as "rms" because it was his username at MIT. That it is his initials is otherwise a coincidence.
Ameritech is running the same types of ads here in Ohio as well.
Since Ameritech is owned by SBC, they're probably the exact same ads.
IIRC, the judge did get an accurate description, so that he could rule on whether it stayed within the bounds of the warrant. This doc is what opposing counsel got.
Does this make sense?
Not especially. They're just exploiting a legal technicality. They aren't allowed to intercept private communications, so they argue that a deactivated modem means no communicating is going on.
$129 for OS X is, by definition, an upgrade. [Explains why.]
Good point. Thanks for the insight.
I think you're just being a bit pedantic there.
Isn't that the point of /.?
In all seriousness, though, I think I failed in explaining my position (mainly by being too confrontational; let me try a friendlier approach). You said, "No one can say that the software that runs your hardware, that browses the Web, that provides your networking, etc., isn't worth $100 unless you're an outrageous cheapskate." For the sake of amicability, I'll agree with this assertion. The problem is, an upgrade only gets you the "etc." Everyone already has the other stuff. You only "get" these other things when you buy the full version. Another way to put it is: Your statement seems to argue that $100 is a reasonable price for the full version, putting the upgrade somewhere in the $50-$60 range. In that context, I consider the price of WinXP to be far too high.
Gas prices have gone up (and now lately back down) over the past few months. When they went up, was that proof that the company I buy gas from is a monopoly?
Ever hear of OPEC? They decided to lower production and -- surprise! -- gas prices went up. More recently (and especially after the events of 09-11), they decided to ramp up production and -- surprise! -- gas prices went down.
Next time, think your examples through.