guessing wrong leading to death is not a solvable problem unless you can eliminate the guessing. Pushing the guessing off somewhere else is easy. Eliminating it pretty much requires psychic powers.
there is, and that is indeed the argument. The counterargument is that MS USA completely controls MS EU and therefore should be able and required to force MS EU to pony up despite European laws.
such a parking spot is easy to find. Said driver needs to eat lunch, after all, making them a paying customer of whatever fast food joint floats their boat.
what pretend? I betcha Amazon will have a service where you can have stuff loaded into your car while you're at work, so it can do your shopping (for non-perishables, at least, and maybe those too if you're willing to add a stop to your trip home. Which should be no big deal since you'll be asleep or watching TV or doing crossword puzzles.)
True. But you don't have a legal right to make that copy. You simply have permission, hemmed in with whatever restrictions Disney applies. Certainly you have a legal right to distribute the piece of paper however you wish; first sale doctrine on physical objects and all that. But just having a piece of paper with a code does not grant a right; I can write codes on paper all day and it's not going to save me in court.
Disney lost this one only because they didn't write their restrictions correctly for the result they wanted.
Sure, but they don't have to make "allowed to use the code" contingent on having the piece of paper. They can make it contingent on "was the first person to buy the box containing the code from a retailer". Sucks, but if they word it right, legal.
I don't see it as a single license. I see it as "here's a physical object, and it has an embedded license to watch the media encoded in it. And here's a code, and an implied (or maybe explicit) license to use that code to make one electronic copy of the movie." The first sale doctrine and lots of case law determines that the license to watch the disc goes with the disc, but the license to use the code does not have to be transferable. They just didn't use the right verbiage to make the way they said "it's not transferable" actually stick.
They can't make it physically impractical. They can make it into a situation where they can sue and win, yes.
Your simpler example has one flaw that I see, btw. Downloading a movie is inherently a copy operation. Giving you permission to make that copy under certain circumstances is very different from giving you an extra physical object and trying to dictate its use, as far as copyright law and first sale doctrine are concerned.
We already need US citizens to pick the fruit. They don't want to. Expect fruit prices to rise as either fruit goes unpicked or picker wages increase (or both).
oh, no disagreement. But with signatures I can now prove that your clip is not the whole thing, and therefore that there is likely missing context. Yeah, that should be obvious in the context of a clip, but it does have an effect.
Fair point. However, at least for video distributed by net, signatures should be a possibility, so it can at least be determined whether that video really was put out by CNN or whether someone altered something to look like it. Broadcast may (for a while at least) have to stick with "nobody else has a transmitter on that frequency" but digital channels can probably fit signatures in too, with some protocol tweaking.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not ambi-turners.
we've had artificial stupidity for decades. Very fast, too :)
It's (yet another) sin tax.
"If you like your plan and it meets requirements, the law will not make you change but your insurance company can." doesn't fit in a sound bite.
guessing wrong leading to death is not a solvable problem unless you can eliminate the guessing. Pushing the guessing off somewhere else is easy. Eliminating it pretty much requires psychic powers.
As I said elsewhere, I don't agree with the counterargument, I was just trying to explain it.
As I said, I don't agree with the counterargument, I was just trying to explain it.
Very true. I personally do not agree with the counterargument; I was just trying to explain it.
there is, and that is indeed the argument. The counterargument is that MS USA completely controls MS EU and therefore should be able and required to force MS EU to pony up despite European laws.
such a parking spot is easy to find. Said driver needs to eat lunch, after all, making them a paying customer of whatever fast food joint floats their boat.
what pretend? I betcha Amazon will have a service where you can have stuff loaded into your car while you're at work, so it can do your shopping (for non-perishables, at least, and maybe those too if you're willing to add a stop to your trip home. Which should be no big deal since you'll be asleep or watching TV or doing crossword puzzles.)
Oh, I don't think it'll double the duration. It will make both directions suck, but the duration will probably only increase by a third to a half.
It'll obsolete those lanes that switch directions based on time of day, though. I'm not sure if that's a plus or a minus...
paintbrushes. Watercolors are still a thing, right?
conflating the opinions of individuals (submitters and/or editors) with the "opinion" of the organization, 5 yards.
because in theory you're not allowed to copy the content of the disc?
True. But you don't have a legal right to make that copy. You simply have permission, hemmed in with whatever restrictions Disney applies. Certainly you have a legal right to distribute the piece of paper however you wish; first sale doctrine on physical objects and all that. But just having a piece of paper with a code does not grant a right; I can write codes on paper all day and it's not going to save me in court.
Disney lost this one only because they didn't write their restrictions correctly for the result they wanted.
Sure, but they don't have to make "allowed to use the code" contingent on having the piece of paper. They can make it contingent on "was the first person to buy the box containing the code from a retailer". Sucks, but if they word it right, legal.
I don't see it as a single license. I see it as "here's a physical object, and it has an embedded license to watch the media encoded in it. And here's a code, and an implied (or maybe explicit) license to use that code to make one electronic copy of the movie." The first sale doctrine and lots of case law determines that the license to watch the disc goes with the disc, but the license to use the code does not have to be transferable. They just didn't use the right verbiage to make the way they said "it's not transferable" actually stick.
They can't make it physically impractical. They can make it into a situation where they can sue and win, yes.
Your simpler example has one flaw that I see, btw. Downloading a movie is inherently a copy operation. Giving you permission to make that copy under certain circumstances is very different from giving you an extra physical object and trying to dictate its use, as far as copyright law and first sale doctrine are concerned.
We already need US citizens to pick the fruit. They don't want to. Expect fruit prices to rise as either fruit goes unpicked or picker wages increase (or both).
why not? My understanding was that meltdown was based on predictive branching, in which case if you disable predictive branching it doesn't happen.
Granted, that's a pretty heavyhanded fix, but there may be other ways that are still down to changing the cpu microcode...
I think the disagreement was more with "outpaced the capabilities of open protocols". It's still HTTP under there, after all.
oh, no disagreement. But with signatures I can now prove that your clip is not the whole thing, and therefore that there is likely missing context. Yeah, that should be obvious in the context of a clip, but it does have an effect.
Fair point. However, at least for video distributed by net, signatures should be a possibility, so it can at least be determined whether that video really was put out by CNN or whether someone altered something to look like it. Broadcast may (for a while at least) have to stick with "nobody else has a transmitter on that frequency" but digital channels can probably fit signatures in too, with some protocol tweaking.
by all means, feel free :)