Get sued for sharing a song written by someone who's been dead for 75 years and get the copyright-holder to explain in a public court how prohibiting that distribution is removing the dead author's incentive to produce. Do you mean the same someone who's been dead for 75 years but who saw his incentive go up nine years ago by the passage in Congress of the CTEA? After he'd been dead only 66 years? Because his creation wasn't sufficiently incented when he created it? That someone?
What makes you think that would be hard to explain in court? No court is gonna let your lawyer re-argue Eldred.
Here's a blurb from linuxjournal on a ruling between Adobe and Softman that appears to grant Right of First Sale. Did this one get overturned?
Not that I know of. But the distinguishing feature between Softman and this case is that these defendants assented to the EULA terms while Softman didn't.
Softman was accused by Adobe of violating the EULA when Softman basically bought boxed sets of Adobe software and repackaged the CD's individually. That is, they opened the boxed set, removed the disks and resold them. They didn't install the software first and click "I agree." What the Softman ruling says is, there's no EULA contract until both parties agree. Agreement is signified on the part of the user by clicking through the EULA. But since these guys did "Agree" to the EULA, there's a contract, or so this court says.
The workshop will focus on these and other related issues. Anyone wishing to comment on these or raise related issues is free to do so, either in writing before the meeting, or in person at the meeting. Prior comments will be collected via the Technology Administration Web site--www.ta.doc.gov/
Alright, people. Anyone else who cares to reason with an obvious one-trick-pony juvenile with a clear lack of critical faculties, please continue to post. I'm moving on to another thread.
I think they do. If the RIAA gets what it wants from Congress (read: two-bit whore) then the ISPs will be forced into a policing role, making sure their customers don't download music. If they can avoid that then it's a HUGE gain fore them.
Watch out, folks. Beware the news story that quotes only confidential sources. There was NO ONE at AOL or Rathed.. er.. Redhat.. who would speak on the record?
And people ask why I choose to run my own mail server at home (on a Linux box of course). I manage my own data because I don't trust anyone else to do it with MY best interests in mind.
That's fine but that's only at your end of things. the people who receive your emails, your forwards and your replies probably store them on their ISP hardware anyway. so what's the point?
What about a recognized, credible website posting a product review that pans a Microsoft product. Is that "disparagement?" I guess we'd need a court to decide it if MS wants to push the matter. And, furthermore, will any website that uses.NET or Passport technology ever be able to truthfully criticize The Beast or it's products if such EULA terms are enforcible??
So far y'all are talking like the EULA only disables ya from authoring a Microsoft Sucks web page using it's Front Page product. What I want to know is what effect this EULA (if it's true) will have on product reviews? What happens if a site is authored with Front Page, has links to M$ services etc. and ALSO does product reviews? Does a bad review constitute disparagment? Now we're REALLY talking prior restraint. And by a company, no less!
It's only natural that the MPAA etc would go after "fringe players." Not a lot of laypeople have much sympathy for 2600 The Hackers Quarterly which is exactly why they went after them. Look at Touretsky and what he's able to get away with here. They start with the "unsympathetic" target (Judge Kaplan's disdain for 2600 was obvious in his opinion. Would he have felt the same way about Touretzky?) And when they get case law behind the DMCA then EVERYONE will be fair game.
HAHAHA! That reminds me of the story about the censoeware that blocked anything with the word "teen" in it. The people maintaining the list had decided that "teen" was an adult word.
It sounds like the bill TAKES AWAY discretion from school districts since there's not a public district in the country that doesn't receive federal aid.
And while school districts have been allowed to restrict access to certain material in the past, also in the past the districts have been able to NAME the material they are restricting and to say WHY they are restricting THAT particular material. Not so with this censorware. In fact, school administrators will have no freeking idea what, specifically, material they are restricting access to. That sounds capricious to me.
And to me the worst part is who is making the shit lists? Mattel? Disney? WTF? This is just another example of the corporatization of America. Ralph Nader was right!
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think that would be hard to explain in court? No court is gonna let your lawyer re-argue Eldred.
Not that I know of. But the distinguishing feature between Softman and this case is that these defendants assented to the EULA terms while Softman didn't.
Softman was accused by Adobe of violating the EULA when Softman basically bought boxed sets of Adobe software and repackaged the CD's individually. That is, they opened the boxed set, removed the disks and resold them. They didn't install the software first and click "I agree." What the Softman ruling says is, there's no EULA contract until both parties agree. Agreement is signified on the part of the user by clicking through the EULA. But since these guys did "Agree" to the EULA, there's a contract, or so this court says.
You have to read the whole announcement:
The workshop will focus on these and other related issues. Anyone
wishing to comment on these or raise related issues is free to do so,
either in writing before the meeting, or in person at the meeting.
Prior comments will be collected via the Technology Administration Web
site--www.ta.doc.gov/
Alright, people. Anyone else who cares to reason with an obvious one-trick-pony juvenile with a clear lack of critical faculties, please continue to post. I'm moving on to another thread.
The ISPs don't gain anything from this venture.
I think they do. If the RIAA gets what it wants from Congress (read: two-bit whore) then the ISPs will be forced into a policing role, making sure their customers don't download music. If they can avoid that then it's a HUGE gain fore them.
i'm ready
i'm ready
hello
Watch out, folks. Beware the news story that quotes only confidential sources. There was NO ONE at AOL or Rathed .. er .. Redhat .. who would speak on the record?
...)
And those quotes! They were too good to be true!
(Hrm
This has fabrication written all over it, ppl.
and i find it extremely reliable, thankyouverymuch!
And people ask why I choose to run my own mail server at home (on a Linux box of course). I manage my own data because I don't trust anyone else to do it with MY best interests in mind.
That's fine but that's only at your end of things. the people who receive your emails, your forwards and your replies probably store them on their ISP hardware anyway. so what's the point?
What about a recognized, credible website posting a product review that pans a Microsoft product. Is that "disparagement?" I guess we'd need a court to decide it if MS wants to push the matter. And, furthermore, will any website that uses .NET or Passport technology ever be able to truthfully criticize The Beast or it's products if such EULA terms are enforcible??
So far y'all are talking like the EULA only disables ya from authoring a Microsoft Sucks web page using it's Front Page product. What I want to know is what effect this EULA (if it's true) will have on product reviews? What happens if a site is authored with Front Page, has links to M$ services etc. and ALSO does product reviews? Does a bad review constitute disparagment? Now we're REALLY talking prior restraint. And by a company, no less!
It's only natural that the MPAA etc would go after "fringe players." Not a lot of laypeople have much sympathy for 2600 The Hackers Quarterly which is exactly why they went after them. Look at Touretsky and what he's able to get away with here. They start with the "unsympathetic" target (Judge Kaplan's disdain for 2600 was obvious in his opinion. Would he have felt the same way about Touretzky?) And when they get case law behind the DMCA then EVERYONE will be fair game.
yep, that would be a troll, all right. and not a very good one :)
oh, shut up.
HAHAHA! That reminds me of the story about the censoeware that blocked anything with the word "teen" in it. The people maintaining the list had decided that "teen" was an adult word.
It sounds like the bill TAKES AWAY discretion from school districts since there's not a public district in the country that doesn't receive federal aid.
And while school districts have been allowed to restrict access to certain material in the past, also in the past the districts have been able to NAME the material they are restricting and to say WHY they are restricting THAT particular material. Not so with this censorware. In fact, school administrators will have no freeking idea what, specifically, material they are restricting access to. That sounds capricious to me.
And to me the worst part is who is making the shit lists? Mattel? Disney? WTF? This is just another example of the corporatization of America. Ralph Nader was right!