The UN has a long history of implementing bullshit the US invented, like prohibition of Drugs. Sometimes, if you're lucky, it does really take a stand against some bollocks the US or other states are trying to pull off.
So I don't think giving over the ICANN to the UN would not be a huge step. It _might_ be better than the status quo.
However, having the ITU in charge WILL lead to all kinds of shenanigans. The ITU has a long history of being a huge unaccountable body of TecCos, trying to keep their monopolies. Not a good idea.
> around when Windows 95 came out, you should've realized the future was for all computers to be networked,
Not at Microsoft. Remember that Windows 95 had no way to connect it to the internet on its own first? Only some "MSN"-thing? This was the state of mind at Microsoft then.
Yep, I don't understand why this is news, and why that book hasn't been available electronically for a long time.
Probably some jerk-publisher fraudulently claimed "coypright" on its print of it, and it took google several years until they noticed that indeed, the publisher did NOT have a copyright, and indeed, they COULD post it in its entirety. Which is, by the way, why around 80% of all public domain books google has digitized are not available in its entirety.
If you're doing historical research, it's absolutely maddening how most books from the 19th century and earlier "is not available if full" because of fraudulent copyright claims -- and google reacting very slowly.
Yes, why would one upgrade Windows? It's WINDOWS. It's not like you've get a better operating system if you upgrade. Only more hassle with DRM and other "features" you don't want.
Linux on the other hand... I'm running Debian unstable with a few packages from experimental;)
Fixing the problem would be minimizing the amount of people who have access to classified material. But since they tend to over-classify, nobody can work without that classified-access, so there's a huge amount of people who need that access.
The only rational course would be the declassify 90% of what gets classified right now, since it's not really important. And for the rest, you would not have to give 2 Million people access, but maybe only 50'000, so the chance of leaks would be very much lower.
But bureaucracies don't really work like that, since bureaucrats get power over other bureaucrats when classifying things. So everyone classifies and thus ever more people need access to that material... You see where this is going?
Actually, not really. Because that copyright-law DID NOT EVER contain any phrase which made possession or downloading illegal, except for software (introduced in 1986 I think). Well, maybe the direct democracy has helped to retain the status quo; but the idea that possession or download of a copy of something must be "illegal" or something like that is entirely NEW and totally RADICAL and EXTREMIST.
You misunderstood. Copyright is the right of the author to decide how, when and to what conditions he wants to PUBLISH. Nothing more.
And Switzerland happens to be one of the countries where that is STILL true. The Netherlands also. Germany fucked it up, with some wishi-washi "illegal source" bogus, which nobody can verify. Some other countries might also have been subject to MAFIAA pressure and changed it.
And this has nothing to do with socialism or fair use -- fair use is ALSO about PUBLISHING, not about downloading or possession or whatever.
Dammit, I can't believe how brainwashed everyone already is to believe copyright is suddenly about downloading (which it never was).
Very nice. It already is. It's just the patent offices, lawyers and courts that don't want to comprehend that software is math. Proofable. But no, they stick to their un-scientific worldview where one can legislate that Pi is exactly equal to 3.
Nope. It's a village. I've never heard of it before, and I'm member of the Swiss Pirate Party (different municipality tough). There are indeed towns this size in Switzerland, since "town" being defined as either a) has more than 10'000 inhabitants or b) has an inherited medieval town privilege.
License? If they don't have you sign an NDA, you're not bound by anything.
Because they actually don't hold any copyright on the photographs of two-dimensional works they provide. Because there is NONE for this kind of replication, because there is no originality, which is paramount for being eligible for copyright.
It's different for pictures of statues and other three-dimensional works, there the photograph actually can be a piece of art itself (and thus subject to copyright).
You're only right for three-dimensional works of art. With two-dimensional ones, you're dead wrong. It's not possible to copyright a photograph, scan or photocopy of a picture or text, because it's lacking originality. Just read your copyright-law.
So anyone claiming copyright on a two-dimensional replication of a two-dimensional work he does not hold copyright on is simply trying to the DEFRAUD the copyright holder -- and if that work happens to be in the public domain, he's trying to defraud the public.
I'm totally baffled that so many here believe anyone can claim copyright on a photo of a public domain picture. Propaganda must have worked wonders. But it's just not what the law says. Not in Europe, not in the USA, not in Canada.
You're wrong. It's NOT possible to copyright photographs of two-dimensional art. Copyright law only allows copyright on "original works of art". And photographs of text and pictures are not original. And there's not only the law (just about anywhere in the world, including the US and Canada) which doesn't give them copyright, but there are also court decisions support that.
This doesn't keep photographers from claiming copyright, but actually, what they're doing is FRAUD. And the people doing that book could have just ignored these fraudulent claims. There was no need at all to "clear copyrights", because there aren't any. And if the photographer is unhappy and sues -- tough luck, he's actually the criminal trying to defraud the public.
You can't. If you're not into whatewer-is-currently-mainstream, you can only hope that somwhen, somewhere is posting it, otherwise you're fucked. Actually, you're fucked anyway, since iTunes does not have it either. Unless you've got "L'Eau Rouge" by the Young Gods as CD, you won't get it -- and that's from a band who's got more than 20 albums out.
The usage of "purchase" suggests you a) don't consider free music to be music, and b) you're not making music yourself. c) You're probably referring to self-made music as "homebrew";)
(Yes, I realise the original post is ironic, but the word "purchase" just screamed for it..)
The "adversaries” who don't get access to the vulnerability information also includes the manufacturer of the software, its customers, and certainly ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS. Can't have the Navy or the Ground Forces to have that information.
They're moving towards a vicious circle where everyone hoards vulnerabilities, and nobody is secure.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, which idiots devised prohibition and wonder when nobody wants to work in an environment where you get drug-tested?
I'm using steam with wine http://www.winehq.org/ ... No stupid MS OS here, no sir.
The UN has a long history of implementing bullshit the US invented, like prohibition of Drugs. Sometimes, if you're lucky, it does really take a stand against some bollocks the US or other states are trying to pull off.
So I don't think giving over the ICANN to the UN would not be a huge step. It _might_ be better than the status quo.
However, having the ITU in charge WILL lead to all kinds of shenanigans. The ITU has a long history of being a huge unaccountable body of TecCos, trying to keep their monopolies. Not a good idea.
> around when Windows 95 came out, you should've realized the future was for all computers to be networked,
Not at Microsoft. Remember that Windows 95 had no way to connect it to the internet on its own first? Only some "MSN"-thing? This was the state of mind at Microsoft then.
In short: "Microsoft's product delays are to blame on the fact that it threw away Xenix". Now THAT is a reason ;)
Yep, I don't understand why this is news, and why that book hasn't been available electronically for a long time.
Probably some jerk-publisher fraudulently claimed "coypright" on its print of it, and it took google several years until they noticed that indeed, the publisher did NOT have a copyright, and indeed, they COULD post it in its entirety. Which is, by the way, why around 80% of all public domain books google has digitized are not available in its entirety.
I wrote about it a few years ago http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/stealing-from-the-public-domain/ The situation hasn't changed. Google Books is still the biggest repository of public domain books with fraudulently claimed copyright.
If you're doing historical research, it's absolutely maddening how most books from the 19th century and earlier "is not available if full" because of fraudulent copyright claims -- and google reacting very slowly.
That's nice. But you still supply Amazon with money so it can do more mischief.
Yes, why would one upgrade Windows? It's WINDOWS. It's not like you've get a better operating system if you upgrade. Only more hassle with DRM and other "features" you don't want.
Linux on the other hand... I'm running Debian unstable with a few packages from experimental ;)
There is no patented code, the US (and EU) patent law say so: mathematical algorithms are not patentable.
End of story. Now you only need to explain this to the patent offices and patent courst, which still believe it's possible to legislate Pi=3.
Fixing the problem would be minimizing the amount of people who have access to classified material. But since they tend to over-classify, nobody can work without that classified-access, so there's a huge amount of people who need that access.
The only rational course would be the declassify 90% of what gets classified right now, since it's not really important. And for the rest, you would not have to give 2 Million people access, but maybe only 50'000, so the chance of leaks would be very much lower.
But bureaucracies don't really work like that, since bureaucrats get power over other bureaucrats when classifying things. So everyone classifies and thus ever more people need access to that material... You see where this is going?
Not even this. Because he wrote "f*cking", and not "fucking".
He did not write "fucking", he wrote "f*cking". Which definitly is NOT profanity at all, but self-censorship inhibiting obscenity.
Just apt-get install git-core.
Actually, not really. Because that copyright-law DID NOT EVER contain any phrase which made possession or downloading illegal, except for software (introduced in 1986 I think). Well, maybe the direct democracy has helped to retain the status quo; but the idea that possession or download of a copy of something must be "illegal" or something like that is entirely NEW and totally RADICAL and EXTREMIST.
You misunderstood. Copyright is the right of the author to decide how, when and to what conditions he wants to PUBLISH. Nothing more.
And Switzerland happens to be one of the countries where that is STILL true. The Netherlands also. Germany fucked it up, with some wishi-washi "illegal source" bogus, which nobody can verify. Some other countries might also have been subject to MAFIAA pressure and changed it.
And this has nothing to do with socialism or fair use -- fair use is ALSO about PUBLISHING, not about downloading or possession or whatever.
Dammit, I can't believe how brainwashed everyone already is to believe copyright is suddenly about downloading (which it never was).
...to make software simply non-eligible.
Very nice. It already is. It's just the patent offices, lawyers and courts that don't want to comprehend that software is math. Proofable.
But no, they stick to their un-scientific worldview where one can legislate that Pi is exactly equal to 3.
Nope. It's a village. I've never heard of it before, and I'm member of the Swiss Pirate Party (different municipality tough). There are indeed towns this size in Switzerland, since "town" being defined as either a) has more than 10'000 inhabitants or b) has an inherited medieval town privilege.
So this is a village: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langnau_im_Emmental -- 9'000 inhabitants
But this is a town: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werdenberg_(Ort) -- about 60 inhabitants
License? If they don't have you sign an NDA, you're not bound by anything.
Because they actually don't hold any copyright on the photographs of two-dimensional works they provide. Because there is NONE for this kind of replication, because there is no originality, which is paramount for being eligible for copyright.
It's different for pictures of statues and other three-dimensional works, there the photograph actually can be a piece of art itself (and thus subject to copyright).
You're only right for three-dimensional works of art. With two-dimensional ones, you're dead wrong. It's not possible to copyright a photograph, scan or photocopy of a picture or text, because it's lacking originality. Just read your copyright-law.
So anyone claiming copyright on a two-dimensional replication of a two-dimensional work he does not hold copyright on is simply trying to the DEFRAUD the copyright holder -- and if that work happens to be in the public domain, he's trying to defraud the public.
I'm totally baffled that so many here believe anyone can claim copyright on a photo of a public domain picture. Propaganda must have worked wonders. But it's just not what the law says. Not in Europe, not in the USA, not in Canada.
You're wrong. It's NOT possible to copyright photographs of two-dimensional art. Copyright law only allows copyright on "original works of art". And photographs of text and pictures are not original. And there's not only the law (just about anywhere in the world, including the US and Canada) which doesn't give them copyright, but there are also court decisions support that.
This doesn't keep photographers from claiming copyright, but actually, what they're doing is FRAUD. And the people doing that book could have just ignored these fraudulent claims. There was no need at all to "clear copyrights", because there aren't any. And if the photographer is unhappy and sues -- tough luck, he's actually the criminal trying to defraud the public.
Yeah, mee too. I just don't understand your constant squabble over who is to blame, this George W. Bush or this Obama Bush. It's all the same.
You can't. If you're not into whatewer-is-currently-mainstream, you can only hope that somwhen, somewhere is posting it, otherwise you're fucked. Actually, you're fucked anyway, since iTunes does not have it either. Unless you've got "L'Eau Rouge" by the Young Gods as CD, you won't get it -- and that's from a band who's got more than 20 albums out.
Hi
The usage of "purchase" suggests you a) don't consider free music to be music, and b) you're not making music yourself. c) You're probably referring to self-made music as "homebrew" ;)
(Yes, I realise the original post is ironic, but the word "purchase" just screamed for it..)
http://freecode.com/projects/fdupe -- perl. Only finds exact duplicates, and I haven't used it against more than 200'000 files and 2TB.
The "adversaries” who don't get access to the vulnerability information also includes the manufacturer of the software, its customers, and certainly ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS. Can't have the Navy or the Ground Forces to have that information.
They're moving towards a vicious circle where everyone hoards vulnerabilities, and nobody is secure.