You can make a personal mixtape of a CD, but loaning that CD to others is not legal unless you delete all of your original files.
A better out would be if it was a mixtape of CC licensed K-Pop.
The act mentioned in her twitter presumably isn't loaning a CD, but rather sharing some form of a copied mixtape. If P2P is effected by this law, then the actions are on roughly the same scale since mathematically, the average of p2p would be 1 copy uploaded and 1 copy downloaded. Given that it's a compilation, it's probably infringing multiple rightsholders, and if the law is written just right, it might mean that it's enough to strike her and her friend out already.
I don['t recall having tried that particular method, but Johnathon Swift had some rather good recipes that at the very least work wonderfully for Irish children. I would recommend trying all of them out before one makin a blanket statement about not liking children.
Of course, you can't blame the legislators because they are enticed by lobbyists, who in regards to patents, are paid off by patent holders, who use the patents that legislators let exist, and the cycle repeats itself.
I will admit that MS is not the only party to blame when MS sues, but that doesn't make them not to blame. Both legislators and corporations are to blame.
In regards to defense, the argument is that, for example, Google only acquires patents so they will not be as vulnerable to Microsoft or Apple's patent portfolio if either party sues them because they have patent that MS and Apple are infringing.
Actively using patents against competitors is not defensive. One might argue that it's a justified action, but it is an offensive move.
Again, I'm not saying that there is a right to source code, I'm just saying that not making source code available for software that is distributed is rude IMO. I also consider not giving attribution to an author to be rude. Others may have differing opinions, but that is what I personally hold. I don't really care for the law enforcing either of those, and would prefer to rely on the social mechanisms that curb other rude behavior.
As for copyright it allows software to be written with a business model that is far more successful than anything the open source world has to offer. Preventing duplication allows the software company to recoup R&D. The GPL itself makes use of copyright
I won't disagree that it does allow for a more successful business model (we would not have a software company as large as Microsoft without copyright), but a good business model is not what copyright is intended for. Copyright is supposed to provide an incentive to authors to write and publish more, hopefully outweighing the social costs of limited term monopolies. In that respect, copyright appears to have been an utter failure. Now, the GPL does make use of copyright, but absent typical usage of copyright, there would probably be little to no need for the GPL in the first place.
The source code isn't that big of a concern for me and not giving out source code is more of a rude thing than an inhibition of freedom IMO, but they are restricting your use of the code they wrote by preventing redistribution and modification. If you have a copy of OS X and the means to share that copy, you would be able to do so absent the legal restrictions of copyright. Copyright takes freedom from you.
It would not mean that they would release source code, that's true. I am not that personally concerned with the legal right to source code myself, and consider it more of a courtesy thing than something that should be legally obligated, just like attribution. And of course, one has to consider how business models would adapt in the absence of copyright. If the proprietary model was no longer sustainable with copyright, then adopting a FOSS model might happen out of necessity.
However, even if the majority of large corporations did remain proprietary, it in no way inhibits the ability for a project like Debian to exist and share free software.
They DID NOT LOSE THE OPTION TO USE PROJECT A as my license does not effect it, and can not.
Yes, but they don't have the freedom to redistribute and modify Project AB, which they would have absent the 'disease' of copyright.
Basically, it wants everyone to live in a hippy commune. Which is fine for those people who want to do so, but they'll soon find themselves starving to death since those of us who DO actually DO THE WORK feel no need to support a bunch of free loaders.
It's in line with hippies, but it's fairly close to approximating a laissez faire market like good ole capitalists like in a 'local area', instead of that socialist copyright system, which is a government attempt at trying to "promote the progress" for the benefit of society. That's why I say it's like a treatment. Some symptoms of copyright remain, but they've been partially eliminated. Now, it has some side effects, but virtually all treatments do, and even the BSDL has some side effects. You and I have to stroke Theo de Raadt's ego via attribution when we get or distribute a copy of OpenSSH.
Only, if those downstream derivatives are distributed, in which case the derivative is taking freedom from end users if the code were proprietary. I have some customized versions of userscripts on my personal computers which are GPL, specifically v3 iirc. However, they only exist in that form on my personal computer, and nobody can have them except me. This is completely in line with the GPL, and the FSF actually considers licenses that don't allow personal or internal versions of software to remain private to be non-free.
In practical terms, liberty can have conditions, as numerous examples already given have shown. If you mean absolute liberty, then you can't have conditions, but when people say liberty or freedom, they generally don't mean the absolute version of it. If you want to say that GPL isn't absolute freedom, I will agree 100% with you, but I will also feel the need to point out that any license other than the WTFPL doesn't provide absolute liberty, so if someone were advocating the BSDL instead, they would be a hypocrite. Also, I would say that you should interpret 'freedom' as meaning 'absolute freedom' only when it is proceeded by 'absolute' or a similar adjective.
Do you see preventing killing sprees as something in opposition to liberty? In an absolute sense, it is, but if you mean liberty in the normal, non-anal retentive way, then it's not a restriction of liberty, and a 'free country' can still prevent killing sprees.
No, the copyright holder can always offer it under another license. However, if you aren't the copyright holder, you can't sublicense it like you can with for example the X11 license. When there are a lot of copyright holders, getting an exception is going to be quite difficult.
If they released the derivative code under a proprietary license, it would be restricting the freedom of end users. For example, end users would not be legally allowed to redistribute the derivative code.
Also, 'viral' isn't appropriate language, as it's closer to 'treating' the 'disease' of copyright, although only legislation could 'cure' it.
Copyleft works by restricting the ability to restrict others, ensuring that end users maintain certain liberties. It's no more doublespeak on liberty than the government protecting someone who says something unpopular from physical or other harm.
If you want a completely free license with no restrictions, then license everything under the WTFPL or release your code into the public domain.
True freedom is letting people do what they want. That includes making money with the code, or using that code in a larger proprietary code. If you do not allow this you're a hypocrite.
Copyright has no role in 'true freedom', as it is only capable of restricting freedom. Copyleft is a clever way of using this restriction to prevent downstream restrictions and thus prevent end-users from losing their freedom.
IANAL, but I think the RIAA could have asked for something a bit lower. At the very least, they could have left quite a few instances out to get less insane numbers
First of all, there is no stealing. Also, if the patents being infringed by android took billions in R&D to make, then perhaps you need to change your R&D strategy..
I didn't say that they vote invalid 50% of the time. They will invalidate patents that were just over the line of invalid, but they will also uphold patents just over the line of probably valid, and at least in theory, they'll make about as many errors to either side.
I don't have particularly high amounts of confidence in the USPTO, but more importantly, 50% means they will make a mistake on either side just as often. They will uphold an invalid patent just as often as they invalidate a valid patent. I don't see a point in upholding patents that are most likely invalid.
I don't think it's right for the patents to be upheld when it appears more likely than not that it's invalid. That's what has to be shown under preponderance, that the patent being invalid is more likely than the patent being valid. If your patent isn't already on shaky ground, it's probably not a real concern for you.
You seem to be suggesting that because the inventor chose to spend time and money already, they should be getting preferential treatment. However, the time and money they spent was entirely their own choice.
The difference, however, is that the inventor has already been harmed, since they had to spend that time and money to acquire the property. The other innocent party hasn't lost anything.
They didn't have to do anything. You can invent something and not even try to get a patent on it. The time and money the inventor chose to spend on getting a patent was spent because they chose to spend it.
Why just 50%? It's been gone over by experts who have spent years in a back and forth over whether it's valid before finally saying that it is. Why should the jury just ignore that?
50% is appropriate because it's means that it's more likely to be invalid than valid. The problem with giving the USPTO too strong of a presumption of validity here is that the only thing that can be proven is invalidity. You can prove that you were not the first to invent something, but you can't prove that you were the first to invent something.
Slashdot Mirror
You can make a personal mixtape of a CD, but loaning that CD to others is not legal unless you delete all of your original files. A better out would be if it was a mixtape of CC licensed K-Pop.
The US has the first sale doctrine, although I'm not sure what the situation in NZ is.
The act mentioned in her twitter presumably isn't loaning a CD, but rather sharing some form of a copied mixtape. If P2P is effected by this law, then the actions are on roughly the same scale since mathematically, the average of p2p would be 1 copy uploaded and 1 copy downloaded. Given that it's a compilation, it's probably infringing multiple rightsholders, and if the law is written just right, it might mean that it's enough to strike her and her friend out already.
I don['t recall having tried that particular method, but Johnathon Swift had some rather good recipes that at the very least work wonderfully for Irish children. I would recommend trying all of them out before one makin a blanket statement about not liking children.
Of course, you can't blame the legislators because they are enticed by lobbyists, who in regards to patents, are paid off by patent holders, who use the patents that legislators let exist, and the cycle repeats itself. I will admit that MS is not the only party to blame when MS sues, but that doesn't make them not to blame. Both legislators and corporations are to blame. In regards to defense, the argument is that, for example, Google only acquires patents so they will not be as vulnerable to Microsoft or Apple's patent portfolio if either party sues them because they have patent that MS and Apple are infringing. Actively using patents against competitors is not defensive. One might argue that it's a justified action, but it is an offensive move.
I won't disagree that it does allow for a more successful business model (we would not have a software company as large as Microsoft without copyright), but a good business model is not what copyright is intended for. Copyright is supposed to provide an incentive to authors to write and publish more, hopefully outweighing the social costs of limited term monopolies. In that respect, copyright appears to have been an utter failure. Now, the GPL does make use of copyright, but absent typical usage of copyright, there would probably be little to no need for the GPL in the first place.
The source code isn't that big of a concern for me and not giving out source code is more of a rude thing than an inhibition of freedom IMO, but they are restricting your use of the code they wrote by preventing redistribution and modification. If you have a copy of OS X and the means to share that copy, you would be able to do so absent the legal restrictions of copyright. Copyright takes freedom from you.
It would not mean that they would release source code, that's true. I am not that personally concerned with the legal right to source code myself, and consider it more of a courtesy thing than something that should be legally obligated, just like attribution. And of course, one has to consider how business models would adapt in the absence of copyright. If the proprietary model was no longer sustainable with copyright, then adopting a FOSS model might happen out of necessity.
However, even if the majority of large corporations did remain proprietary, it in no way inhibits the ability for a project like Debian to exist and share free software.
Yes, but they don't have the freedom to redistribute and modify Project AB, which they would have absent the 'disease' of copyright.
It's in line with hippies, but it's fairly close to approximating a laissez faire market like good ole capitalists like in a 'local area', instead of that socialist copyright system, which is a government attempt at trying to "promote the progress" for the benefit of society. That's why I say it's like a treatment. Some symptoms of copyright remain, but they've been partially eliminated. Now, it has some side effects, but virtually all treatments do, and even the BSDL has some side effects. You and I have to stroke Theo de Raadt's ego via attribution when we get or distribute a copy of OpenSSH.
Only, if those downstream derivatives are distributed, in which case the derivative is taking freedom from end users if the code were proprietary. I have some customized versions of userscripts on my personal computers which are GPL, specifically v3 iirc. However, they only exist in that form on my personal computer, and nobody can have them except me. This is completely in line with the GPL, and the FSF actually considers licenses that don't allow personal or internal versions of software to remain private to be non-free.
In practical terms, liberty can have conditions, as numerous examples already given have shown. If you mean absolute liberty, then you can't have conditions, but when people say liberty or freedom, they generally don't mean the absolute version of it. If you want to say that GPL isn't absolute freedom, I will agree 100% with you, but I will also feel the need to point out that any license other than the WTFPL doesn't provide absolute liberty, so if someone were advocating the BSDL instead, they would be a hypocrite. Also, I would say that you should interpret 'freedom' as meaning 'absolute freedom' only when it is proceeded by 'absolute' or a similar adjective.
Do you see preventing killing sprees as something in opposition to liberty? In an absolute sense, it is, but if you mean liberty in the normal, non-anal retentive way, then it's not a restriction of liberty, and a 'free country' can still prevent killing sprees.
No, the copyright holder can always offer it under another license. However, if you aren't the copyright holder, you can't sublicense it like you can with for example the X11 license. When there are a lot of copyright holders, getting an exception is going to be quite difficult.
I think the "control freak assholes" in question are Apple and similar companies that take issue with the GPLv3.
If they released the derivative code under a proprietary license, it would be restricting the freedom of end users. For example, end users would not be legally allowed to redistribute the derivative code. Also, 'viral' isn't appropriate language, as it's closer to 'treating' the 'disease' of copyright, although only legislation could 'cure' it.
Copyleft works by restricting the ability to restrict others, ensuring that end users maintain certain liberties. It's no more doublespeak on liberty than the government protecting someone who says something unpopular from physical or other harm.
Copyright has no role in 'true freedom', as it is only capable of restricting freedom. Copyleft is a clever way of using this restriction to prevent downstream restrictions and thus prevent end-users from losing their freedom.
IANAL, but I think the RIAA could have asked for something a bit lower. At the very least, they could have left quite a few instances out to get less insane numbers
First of all, there is no stealing. Also, if the patents being infringed by android took billions in R&D to make, then perhaps you need to change your R&D strategy..
In a row?
I didn't say that they vote invalid 50% of the time. They will invalidate patents that were just over the line of invalid, but they will also uphold patents just over the line of probably valid, and at least in theory, they'll make about as many errors to either side.
I don't have particularly high amounts of confidence in the USPTO, but more importantly, 50% means they will make a mistake on either side just as often. They will uphold an invalid patent just as often as they invalidate a valid patent. I don't see a point in upholding patents that are most likely invalid.
I don't think it's right for the patents to be upheld when it appears more likely than not that it's invalid. That's what has to be shown under preponderance, that the patent being invalid is more likely than the patent being valid. If your patent isn't already on shaky ground, it's probably not a real concern for you.
You seem to be suggesting that because the inventor chose to spend time and money already, they should be getting preferential treatment. However, the time and money they spent was entirely their own choice.
They didn't have to do anything. You can invent something and not even try to get a patent on it. The time and money the inventor chose to spend on getting a patent was spent because they chose to spend it.
50% is appropriate because it's means that it's more likely to be invalid than valid. The problem with giving the USPTO too strong of a presumption of validity here is that the only thing that can be proven is invalidity. You can prove that you were not the first to invent something, but you can't prove that you were the first to invent something.