Just because someone gives you a copy of their copyrighted work doesn't mean you get to copy and redistribute it.
Numerous URLs listed in the September 4, 2007 letter clearlywere not infringing as they were links to well known and reputable music magazines such as Filter, Spin, and Paste Store. Nevertheless, relying upon EMI's notice, MP3tunes promptly removed all of the URLs listed in the September 4, 2007 letter. -- from the PDF
Does linking to other sites that are actually hosting the music count as "copying and redistributing"? Where does that leave Google and Yahoo?
All they were doing was providing links to where other entities (including, as it turns out, EMI) were distributing them.
They're saying "EMI told us to remove these links and said that they hadn't authorized any of this music to be downloaded, and look, here's where EMI was authorizing it..."
I'm a contributor because I noticed something in Wikipedia that I could provide more details on. Now and then I've fixed typos or updated articles, in passing, as a user.
That doesn't mean I feel any obligation to roam the wikisphere and poke my nose in everywhere I can, or obsess about the details of one entry.
If most people are like me (and I'm not claiming they are, but if they are) then most contributors are going to be idle most of the time, only contributing when they notice some place they can, you know, actually contribute. It doesn't seem to me that this is a *problem*.
Not to mention that many governments would not need to break the root CA.
They could just "ask" the CA to write them as many certificates as they like. Given what the Bush Administration's already got away with, there's no reason to assume any CA is really secure in any country.
With SSH, a certificate/key change would at least be flagged as suspicious, but would a browser even so much as raise an alert as long as the new certificate is properly signed and all that?
Indeed. I've been boggled by the byzantine labyrinth of certificate authorities when for most situations the mechanism used by SSH is better.
My "gamepad" has 101 buttons on one side, and three buttons, a wheel, and a positional sensor on the other. And don't talk to me about your "boss" levels, I've got a real boss to worry about.
Stupid console gamers and their dumbing down. If you can't operate a modern compiler you might as well go out and shoot hoops instead.
should go back to recommending a soda with your cheeseburger deluxe. Wrist rests don't protect your wrist. The best typing position involves your arms and hands being supported by... your arm and shoulder muscles. Get rid of the fat comfortable arms of your chair and toss the wrist-rest on your keyboard. You'll be glad you did.
And although implementing a DMS is smart, traditionally they didn't do "web".
Yes, that would be the problem, wouldn't it? It's exactly the same problem I have with Lotus Notes... they're implementing something that the Web does better than anything, but without the web (yes, really, WebDAV is not a "web" technology, it eliminates the most important thing in the web... the replayable, reusable, recordable, readable reference). It's exactly like someone was trying to create a web-based technology without any comprehension of what that meant.
Yet this same company has produced a great server operating system (Windows Server 2008) and sharing server (SharePoint 2007)
SharePoint? A great sharing server?
SharePoint is like someone at Microsoft heard of a Wiki as explained by a Martian, and hired some people from Lotus to implement it. It's inflexible to set up and configure, only works right on Internet Explorer, and is insufferably clumsy to use. It could only be described as "great" by someone who has never touched any software unblessed by Redmond.
Yes yes, and Newton was a mystic and an alchemist, but that doesn't mean we should abandon calculus and classical physics. We don't dismiss all of psychology because of the quirks of Freud and Jung.
The map is not the territory. The part is not the whole. Evolution is not "Darwinism", relativity isn't "Einsteinism", and physics isn't "Newtonism". But engaging in an ad-hominem attack on a man centuries dead is sheer "Bozoism".
I agree, I find the whole "office suite" approach to building office automation software profoundly frustrating, I didn't like it when Microsoft started bundling applications into Office in the first place, and when people started trying to develop open source "suites" that were even more tightly integrated it was even more frustrating.
What you get is a good spreadsheet, a mediocre word processor, and a bunch of floor-sweepings, all bundled together. It's a great way to create a barrier to entry for better third-party applications (who's going to buy Word Perfect when they get Word with Excel), but it's not good for the end-user.
On top of that, cloning all the flaws of Word (and even Apple is doing that: Pages uses the same hideous flat document model as Word) is so much the wrong thing. It just keeps that nasty application barrier to entry up. And of course it's not going to attract developers... it's not interesting work, and it's not work that's going to give you much sense of accomplishment.
The high value of personal time makes the private car cheapest in total personal cost.
If I take a train or bus to work, I don't need to *loose* the time I spend commuting. I can sit and read, work with pen and paper or on a laptop, listen to music... REALLY listen to it. I don't *lose* the commuting time.
With an automobile, it costs me an hour a day during which I have to actively pay attention to what I'm doing at risk of death or injury. That time is gone, dead, lost from my life.
I would rather spend twice as much time on public transport, but I don't have that option, because of people who don't understand that not all time spent commuting has to be lost.
I've been unhappy with Apple's hardware for some time.
The last decent desktop keyboard Apple shipped was the beige "Extended II". It wasn't a great keyboard, but it was a decent one.
I'm not sure they've *ever* had a decent laptop keyboard, but I've read that some models of the Powerbook designed by IBM Japan were significantly better than the average. My Macbook Pro causes me actual pain to use for more than half an hour or so.
Any attempts for Apple to regulate its usage would have to be based that loading OS X requires making another "copy", but that's really stretching copyright too thin.
In the US, before the DMCA, that would be true, but even then that legal theory has been used successfully in the US.
#1: Microsoft has routinely and repeatedly crippled their own products less even versions of OSes they designed and that are based on the Windows design (like Windows CE) steal market share from their crown jewel. They dumped Xenix... arguably the best small-business OS at the time... like a hot potato. They spent years and millions of man-hours converting Hotmail from FreeBSD to Windows. They've got a nasty addiction to MS-DOS and Windows they couldn't even kick when they were handed a free prescription for methadone.
#2: They don't have the business model to duplicate OS X. It's not just "BSD with a new window manager". It's the whole NeXT API and uniform design and a ruthless approach to culling old APIs. Microsoft can't even dump their *own* old APIs, let alone all the X11 based ones they'd have to rewrite. They have no won't-power.
Back in the '80s the company I was working for investigated making a similar product, a neonatal phototherapy unit. While the product could have been made more cheaply than the competition, the necessary regulatory approvals, safety tests, and other red tape would have pushed the price up far enough that the savings in materials wouldn't have mattered... and the competing product had already passed all of that and was on the market.
If you're going to boycott DRM, boycott DVDs and Blu-Ray, they have much stronger and more objectionable DRM than Fairplay. Apple's DRM is good for consumers because Apple's DRM keeps the whole issue of DRM in people's faces. If they weren't there we'd all be using compatible Windows Media format DRM for our music right now, and nobody would care even as much as the don't care already.
Slashdot Mirror
They're linking directly to the (unrestricted) .mp3 files, which is interesting, actually.
It's what just about every "MP3 blog", including the ones EMI was using, does.
Just because someone gives you a copy of their copyrighted work doesn't mean you get to copy and redistribute it.
Does linking to other sites that are actually hosting the music count as "copying and redistributing"? Where does that leave Google and Yahoo?
Even if he's "a scumbag" that doesn't mean that EMI are angels. Sometimes there aren't any good guys.
MP3Tunes wasn't even distributing the music.
All they were doing was providing links to where other entities (including, as it turns out, EMI) were distributing them.
They're saying "EMI told us to remove these links and said that they hadn't authorized any of this music to be downloaded, and look, here's where EMI was authorizing it..."
That's pretty credible, they forgot about leap years...
I'm a contributor because I noticed something in Wikipedia that I could provide more details on. Now and then I've fixed typos or updated articles, in passing, as a user.
That doesn't mean I feel any obligation to roam the wikisphere and poke my nose in everywhere I can, or obsess about the details of one entry.
If most people are like me (and I'm not claiming they are, but if they are) then most contributors are going to be idle most of the time, only contributing when they notice some place they can, you know, actually contribute. It doesn't seem to me that this is a *problem*.
He doesn't need to wear the tights, feathers, and shiny breastplate now does he?
I keep forgetting this is slashdot. I'm obviously not holding up my end. :)
Not to mention that many governments would not need to break the root CA.
They could just "ask" the CA to write them as many certificates as they like. Given what the Bush Administration's already got away with, there's no reason to assume any CA is really secure in any country.
With SSH, a certificate/key change would at least be flagged as suspicious, but would a browser even so much as raise an alert as long as the new certificate is properly signed and all that?
Indeed. I've been boggled by the byzantine labyrinth of certificate authorities when for most situations the mechanism used by SSH is better.
My "gamepad" has 101 buttons on one side, and three buttons, a wheel, and a positional sensor on the other. And don't talk to me about your "boss" levels, I've got a real boss to worry about.
Stupid console gamers and their dumbing down. If you can't operate a modern compiler you might as well go out and shoot hoops instead.
You need to look at Direct Space Transportation System...
Any review that includes comments like:
Cons: [...] no real wrist pad;
or:
Pros: [...] decent wrist rest.
should go back to recommending a soda with your cheeseburger deluxe. Wrist rests don't protect your wrist. The best typing position involves your arms and hands being supported by... your arm and shoulder muscles. Get rid of the fat comfortable arms of your chair and toss the wrist-rest on your keyboard. You'll be glad you did.
And although implementing a DMS is smart, traditionally they didn't do "web".
Yes, that would be the problem, wouldn't it? It's exactly the same problem I have with Lotus Notes... they're implementing something that the Web does better than anything, but without the web (yes, really, WebDAV is not a "web" technology, it eliminates the most important thing in the web... the replayable, reusable, recordable, readable reference). It's exactly like someone was trying to create a web-based technology without any comprehension of what that meant.
Contextual menus belong on the right button, so that they can be finely focussed on the context of the object you just clicked on.
What does Notes offer the Open Source community?
Yet this same company has produced a great server operating system (Windows Server 2008) and sharing server (SharePoint 2007)
SharePoint? A great sharing server?
SharePoint is like someone at Microsoft heard of a Wiki as explained by a Martian, and hired some people from Lotus to implement it. It's inflexible to set up and configure, only works right on Internet Explorer, and is insufferably clumsy to use. It could only be described as "great" by someone who has never touched any software unblessed by Redmond.
Yes yes, and Newton was a mystic and an alchemist, but that doesn't mean we should abandon calculus and classical physics. We don't dismiss all of psychology because of the quirks of Freud and Jung.
The map is not the territory. The part is not the whole. Evolution is not "Darwinism", relativity isn't "Einsteinism", and physics isn't "Newtonism". But engaging in an ad-hominem attack on a man centuries dead is sheer "Bozoism".
I agree, I find the whole "office suite" approach to building office automation software profoundly frustrating, I didn't like it when Microsoft started bundling applications into Office in the first place, and when people started trying to develop open source "suites" that were even more tightly integrated it was even more frustrating.
What you get is a good spreadsheet, a mediocre word processor, and a bunch of floor-sweepings, all bundled together. It's a great way to create a barrier to entry for better third-party applications (who's going to buy Word Perfect when they get Word with Excel), but it's not good for the end-user.
On top of that, cloning all the flaws of Word (and even Apple is doing that: Pages uses the same hideous flat document model as Word) is so much the wrong thing. It just keeps that nasty application barrier to entry up. And of course it's not going to attract developers... it's not interesting work, and it's not work that's going to give you much sense of accomplishment.
The high value of personal time makes the private car cheapest in total personal cost.
If I take a train or bus to work, I don't need to *loose* the time I spend commuting. I can sit and read, work with pen and paper or on a laptop, listen to music... REALLY listen to it. I don't *lose* the commuting time.
With an automobile, it costs me an hour a day during which I have to actively pay attention to what I'm doing at risk of death or injury. That time is gone, dead, lost from my life.
I would rather spend twice as much time on public transport, but I don't have that option, because of people who don't understand that not all time spent commuting has to be lost.
I've been unhappy with Apple's hardware for some time.
The last decent desktop keyboard Apple shipped was the beige "Extended II". It wasn't a great keyboard, but it was a decent one.
I'm not sure they've *ever* had a decent laptop keyboard, but I've read that some models of the Powerbook designed by IBM Japan were significantly better than the average. My Macbook Pro causes me actual pain to use for more than half an hour or so.
Any attempts for Apple to regulate its usage would have to be based that loading OS X requires making another "copy", but that's really stretching copyright too thin.
In the US, before the DMCA, that would be true, but even then that legal theory has been used successfully in the US.
#1: Microsoft has routinely and repeatedly crippled their own products less even versions of OSes they designed and that are based on the Windows design (like Windows CE) steal market share from their crown jewel. They dumped Xenix ... arguably the best small-business OS at the time ... like a hot potato. They spent years and millions of man-hours converting Hotmail from FreeBSD to Windows. They've got a nasty addiction to MS-DOS and Windows they couldn't even kick when they were handed a free prescription for methadone.
#2: They don't have the business model to duplicate OS X. It's not just "BSD with a new window manager". It's the whole NeXT API and uniform design and a ruthless approach to culling old APIs. Microsoft can't even dump their *own* old APIs, let alone all the X11 based ones they'd have to rewrite. They have no won't-power.
There's some scanning electron micrographs of the car in action.
Back in the '80s the company I was working for investigated making a similar product, a neonatal phototherapy unit. While the product could have been made more cheaply than the competition, the necessary regulatory approvals, safety tests, and other red tape would have pushed the price up far enough that the savings in materials wouldn't have mattered... and the competing product had already passed all of that and was on the market.
If you're going to boycott DRM, boycott DVDs and Blu-Ray, they have much stronger and more objectionable DRM than Fairplay. Apple's DRM is good for consumers because Apple's DRM keeps the whole issue of DRM in people's faces. If they weren't there we'd all be using compatible Windows Media format DRM for our music right now, and nobody would care even as much as the don't care already.