The only solution to this problem is to have the subject transmit its coordinates to a server. Your "small, unobtrusive device" then becomes a combination of GPS receiver and cell phone. There is no other option. The software used is largely irrelevant.
THUS, you are best served in this case by getting her a cell phone and teaching her what to do if she gets lost. Preferably a cellphone that already has some of these features available.
I have implemented such a system myself for my company, although for vehicle location rather than people. We use off-the-shelf USB dongles on a laptop, and we have a client app on the laptop that "phones home" every few seconds with the updated positions. A server side app allows plotting points on the map (research Google Maps or Microsoft Virtual Earth). It's very neat, and I'm sure its exactly what you want for your daughter... but since you would want her carrying around a "small device" rather than a laptop anyway, you're looking at a cellphone.
Apple Corps distributes music. Apple Computers now distributes music, so there is market overlap. That's a serious undermining of Apple Corps' trademark, and the impact is far from negligible. You, for example, don't seem to know about Apple Corps. There's no way anybody talking about Apple Music is going to think of the Beatles' company anymore. Apple computer has stolen the name.
What had Apple Corps' done in the last 20 years to earn any recognition whatsoever? Apple Computer is being taken advantage of due to a triviality. And if it were "Microsoft Corporation" vs some "Microsoft Music" company, I'd feel the same way.
I mean, look at their place holder web page! If they were a company of any merit whatsoever, there'd be something to see there.
Everybody knows that Apple Computer is synonymous with iTunes. No one thinks that they sign any bands. No one gives a shit about Apple Corps, and only hears about them when they sue. They didn't win a name change in the first battle, so should have waived any rights to battle over future name-related damages.
Radioshack gave the cuecat away free because (A) there was no want or demand for it and (B) they thought that it would pay for itself via advertising (maybe also raising brand awareness and marketing revenue).
The surprise for them was that people saw the obvious "hey, free barcode scanner!" and didn't bother chaining themselves to Radioshack's dreamland business model. The scanners weren't locked to cuecat-only barcodes, if they were then they'd have had even less value. They just totally forgot that people have the right to do as they please with their own possessions.
Similarly with CDs, people don't see any need to restrict themselves to DRM or the RIAA's wishes, and continue to run with the obvious "rip - mix - burn!" philosophy.
You are ignoring minimum fixed costs for living, such as housing, food, utilities, clothes, etc. Those costs are a much much larger percentage of B's net worth than A's, which changes the balance of discretionary monies. It IS harder for B to donate the dime, even though it's a much lower percentage of net worth, because of scale. Billionaires can donate HUGE percentages and still be very well off, making charitable donations essentially cost them nothing.
The charitable works of the B&MG Foundation are to be applauded, but Bill is not some great philanthropist just because of the sheer dollar value of his donations. Is he doing more than Joe Average would with the same amount of resources? Who can say? My intuition tells me that he is doing it for three reasons, (a) it's the Right Thing, (b) because it makes him look good, and (c) it essentially costs him nothing. Reasons B and C kill it as philanthropy for me.
Gates, as much as you hate him, is a HUGE philanthropist
Pull your nose out, man. The Foundation does many charitable things, true, and Bill has donated large chunks of cash here and there.
But when you look at his wealth to scale, with *orders of magnitude* more fortune than even necessary to still be fabulously rich, what he does amounts to tossing pennies into the crowd. That's not even considering the PR gained from it. In fact, I would wager that Bill has done more to *hurt* this nation than he has mitigated through charitable donations - sitting on huge amounts of capital, throwing it overseas, extinguishing markets, destroying standards, roadblocking innovation, etc.
I don't hate B.G. I have, though, become very much anti-Microsoft over the years, and every day there's more news about them that shows me I made the right decision in dropping all Microsoft products long ago.
You can verify it if you write a letter or number on every square of the same colour in the same position, scramble it and solve the puzzle. you will see that the numbers/letters are in wrong position.
This is not true. There is only one position for each block of the Cube. The center squares of each face do not move, only rotate. If you write a number on each square, then scramble and solve, you will end up with everything in the original positions (although the center square of each face will probably have rotated).
A "base station" is what you call the magical machines connected to the base of each cell tower.
Idiot.
Cell towers are often in the middle of stupid nowhere, having a single power line and the leased fiber, with the magical 'base station' in a little brick box at the base. If they don't already have battery backups, though, I would be really surprised.
Re:Watch a little more closely ...
on
Deep in the Core
·
· Score: 1
Hate entails hate. Only peace can get you out of that vicious cycle.
How does one invoke peace? Peace is the desired condition, the goal... you could even try to say that it is the norm. When you have life-and-death conflict, for whatever reason, neither side can resolve it by simply "being peaceful" unless they wish to lose.
I am against killing, as I think are most people - but there are times when your hand is forced. It is a tragedy, but sometimes a necessity.
Only a successful war can break the vicious cycle of hate. Failed wars will unfortunately be repeated.
Once a medicine is proven effective the chemical composition and method of manufacture aught to be posted online by all reasonable cracks possible. Why are computer geeks the only ones posting cracks and hack online anyway.
Anything with a patent has its formulas available, right? That's what the patent is, the disclosure of the formula (and the method of manufacture, I suppose).
What would be neat is a compilation of "household" methods of manufacture for all meds. Like aspirin from willow bark. The homebrew med scene is stuck in the dark age of narcotics, unfortunately.
I pay for a box of software, yet I don't own it. I see the internet in much the same light.
When I pay for a box of software, I sure as hell own it - that copy, the box, the packing materials, etc. Just like with a book, movie, newspaper, etc.
I see the internet in much the same light. The rest of the world is free to make its own copy.
While there are some gamers who openly defend the title and its style, it seems the majority of voices express disappointment, even disgust.
So what if the haters are louder? The game is inspired, and remains one of the best of all time.
I don't believe in fairies, elves or magic in real life, and I don't need them to 'look real' on the screen in order to suspend disbelief and 'get into the game'.
The review is practically flamebait. People bitch and moan about trifles regardless of how awesome the game is... that is not newsworthy.
Bullshit. You took a little knowledge and filled in your gaps with bullshit. There is a buffer in the CD player. The data in the buffer is a buffer that supplies the output if/when the mechanism is recovering from shocks.
"I'll fill in from a buffer while you're looking" is correct. "Usually this is done by repeating briefly the last good data" is complete crap. The player either plays the data from the buffer or it plays nothing. Shock buffering the servo does nothing in this case, where we have a CD player sitting on a shelf.
Not everybody knows how to recognize this in what they hear, as it is very short. Typical crazy audiophile bullshit.
To say you can ignore any rules you don't agree with is arrogant beyond measure.
I think that in general most people ignore rules they don't agree with (witness jaywalking, rampant filesharing, office supply theft, cell phones in theatres, etc etc). Looking just at filesharing - the majority of people believe this to be the greatest thing since email. So I wouldn't agree with saying that ignoring the rules is "arrogant beyond measure" but rather "typically self-centered".
You seem to be blinded to the idea that "to copy" is different than "to take". The cost of copying has dropped to virtually nothing in the digital age, making scarcity obsolete for IP. Copyright attempts to retain scarcity on IP artifically, and the view by many is that this is in vain - in a number of years, despite attempts by RIAA/MPAA or whomever, digital copying will be ubiquitous and free.
As a potential author, I would have to be aware that my works, even if I never released them digitally, will end up in the public and traded freely. Does that mean that I should not produce my work at all? Does that mean that I won't see a dime for my work ever? No. It may mean I get less income from a particular work than I otherwise might, but any work of value will still find paying customers. To wish that the gravy train of lifetime compensation per work and pay-per-view consumption continues is to wish the stagnation and death of thee internet and the Information Age.
To keep this on topic - the GPL is necessary to protect the ideas of Open Source in today's copyright landscape. Without it, unscrupulous companies will "take" open source code (not just "copy", but "take", as in claiming ownership and credit) without any compensation to the good samaritan coders. This is a thing to be fought, and rightly so. The RIAA/MPAA etc exist to do something similar for their works - however, they are not attempting to prevent unscrupulous people from "taking" works (claiming ownership or credit), but are trying to enforce a "pay-per-view" model.
I personally find obtaining digital things for free to be good, and arbitrary rules against it I ignore. I also personally feel that falsely claiming credit or ownership of a work is abhorrent, and should be fought against.
I think the way things are going, we'll end up going back to a "patronage" model, with quality being the revenue generator, and the actual 'works' freely available. For books, the real consumer value is in owning a physical copy (the 'work' being essentially an ad for the particular stack of bound paper). Publishers sell books not 'works'. For music, this will mean live performances rather than the 'works', which are essentially ads for the live performance. The **AAs will become the patrons of tommorrow. For software this means Open Source everywhere.
The true value lies in quality. That is what drives the economy and progress, and successful business models will always reflect this regardless of how copyright law plays out.
This thread is hysterically funny, thank you guys!
I think the AC isn't demanding that everyone act exactly as he does - rather, he wants "just enough" people to act like he does so that he can claim that his particular style choices have validity over the 'common' styles of say GAP or Walmart.
He isn't letting his choices stand on their own merits, but instead is simultaneously claiming validity through popularity AND obscurity. It's really quite fascinating - a study in doublethink.
I think it's some sort of transitional phase that younger folks go through as they realize that they want to take control of their own lives and be true to themselves, but they don't understand just how to do that yet and they don't understand what makes them unique. So, they associate with the not-as-common-but-still-prepackaged styles as opposed to the even-the-nerds-shop-at-GAP prepackaged styles.
Further, the AC is berating "true individuality" as if it's something that isn't possible or desirable. He wants to march to the beat of a different drummer, but does not understand your point - that it is still marching to someone else's beat. Why not be his own drummer?
I'd say this kid is a junior in highschool... if that. In time, he will see the error of his ways.
Oh, man, am I glad that they use actual chemicals, whew! I thought for a second that they were using magic or something! That makes me feel so much better - chemicals!
Oh, oh, and I'm glad that homeopathic remedies take longer to work - I wouldn't want to have to take a sick day ever! This way, it feels much more like my body is naturally healing itself!
I'm sure glad you no longer have to use your two year old "asthama" inhaler that you still, for some reason, carry around...
So for example, it's facially illegal to record a TV broadcast as that would infringe on the reproduction right.
According to
this
and this it seems that non-commerical, private copying is non-actionable, irrespective of 106 and 107. IE - downloading, ripping, time/format-shifting, mixing, etc are free and clear, provided I don't step over the "private" and "non-commercial" boundaries.
I just looked at the statutes myself. You are correct, 106.1 says that I do not have the right to reproduce a copyrighted work. Fair use (107) does not give it to me.
So you are not necessarily bent over the machine, and I apologize for my hasty, ad hominem attack.
That said, I am baffled and amazed by the attitudes that yourself and so many others demonstrate - seemingly that laws exist for the private benefit of large corporate interests, and the general public should just roll over. You are taking the easy way out, siding with the "big boys", and by association you trample on my inherent and reasonable freedoms sir and I do not like it.
These copyright statutes could be easily fixed to protect the freedoms of the individual (to protect my innate and default rights to do as I please with myself and my possessions) and still protect commercial interests... namely by fixing 106.1 to say "reproduction for commercial benefit" and the rest would fall into place (private backup copies and the act of downloading would no longer be infringements, while uploading would remain so). A nice, big, fat "this applies to commercial purposes only" sticker is what copyright law needs.
So it remains that I will be a flagrant and willful copyright infringer, although I would challenge anyone to tell me that my actions are unreasonable or morally wrong. It is the law that differs from the norm expected, the law differs from the reality of society... thus, the law must be made right or it must be ignored.
I will continue to make my archival backups, to rip my CDs and delete FBI warnings from my DVDs and then watch them in Linux or in unauthorized regions, download rom files for games I own to play in emulators on reverse-engineered hardware, ignore EULA 'agreements', print out copies of my professionally taken pictures, and share books and music with my friends.
Interesting. I was not aware of this until I myself did a quick google for the statute.
It seems to me that 106.1 needs to be changed to say "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords for commercial purposes". This would make the statute fit reality and fit the majority of people's expectations.
The statute as written seems to even remove my right to make a backup copy of a CD I own for my own (archival, say) purposes, which is clearly ludicrous. The change would make simple acts like this, as well as the act of downloading, strictly legal.
Uploading (ie, distributing) copyrighted works would still be infringement, and rightly so. However, according to 109.b.4, it isn't a criminal offense... again, rightly so.
a) show me where in the Law it says that I can not do as I please with copyrighted material in my possession *for my own private use*.
b) books, movies, sound recordings... that IS what we're talking about here, and there IS real concern over that (ie, fair and private use is being threatened). You are correct, they are NOT normally licensed to ordinary customers. Instead, copies are purchased, and once obtained posession alone is proof of the right to use the work (see, for example, my large bookshelf full of books - how do you know I didn't magically duplicate them from someone else's copy in my SuperDuplicator 2000 drive?)
c) there IS a legal reason for different treatment - that is, Copyright Law is about Distribution rights, and Copyright Infringements are about violations of the right to distribute. Acquisition of the works is not covered by copyright infringement - just infringing distribution. *This* is why they go after uploaders - they have an actual legal case against them - and why they don't go after the downloaders.
I believe it is YOU that is incorrect, and I believe it is YOU that has completely bent over for some faceless corporate entity.
But by playing the game, you agree to be bound by its license.
No. You are wrong. The reality of the Law and what you are saying in your post are completely different things.
If I purchase a box containing a game CD from a store, at completion of the sale I now own the contents of the box and can use them however I like. This includes popping the enclosed CD into my computer and playing the games that appear from it on my screen, clicking OK to any text boxes that pop up, printing up large sections of data from the CD to hang on my wall, or editing the data on the CD for my purposes as well.
Fancy, scary words written on other papers also enclosed in the box are mine to ignore and discard at will. Doesn't matter if they say "by playing this game, you agree to X" or "haha, j00 g0t pwndD!!1", they have exactly zero legal value.
When you fall off a building, just before hitting the ground your speed is X and just after hitting the ground your speed is 0. This is a change in velocity (ie, an acceleration). It is this large acceleration (something typically talked about as G-forces) that kills you.
More specifically, the change in velocity is experienced on one side of the body sooner than the rear, causing fatal body deformations (ie, the "Splat"). If you could magically experience the change in velocity at all points of your body at the same time, then you would not "Splat"... but the stopping force is applied unevenly, causing this "jerk".
I had never heard this referred to as "jerk" before, but that makes sense now.
I think you are getting into too much detail. People are having trouble with easy stuff like whether something is a planet or a moon!
Looking at all our astronomy observations so far, I'd say that these are the key dividing characteristics: - Is it massive enough to Fuse hydrogen? (high mass) - Is it massive enough to be Spherical? (medium mass) - Does it Orbit anything else?
Using these dividers, we have: - Star: an object massive enough for fusion to occur within it - Planet: an object of medium mass (spherical, non-fusing) orbiting a star - Planetoid: an object of low mass (not spherical, not fusing) that orbits nothing - Asteroid: an object of low mass that orbits a Star - Moon: an object of low/medium mass that orbits a Planet - Doublet: a pair of orbiting objects with a common center of gravity outside them both that together fit one of the descriptions above (double planet, double star, etc)
It's as simple as that. The Moon is a moon, as is Titan. Mercury, Ceres, Quaoar... planets. Pluto-Charon is a double planet for their center of gravity, while Earth-Moon isn't. Mars' moons are moons, not asteroids. An extrastellar super-Jupiter planet orbiting some other Star is a Planet if it isn't fusing, it's a star on its own if it is fusing. Comets - special case of asteroids, icy with eccentric orbits... but then you're getting into the atmosphere / makeup discussion rather than the broader size / orbit.
I agree with your sentiments, you can nit-pick your way deep into the spectrum of what's out there, but as long as we stick to the meaningful boundaries then we have a meaningful system.
Slashdot Mirror
THUS, you are best served in this case by getting her a cell phone and teaching her what to do if she gets lost. Preferably a cellphone that already has some of these features available.
I have implemented such a system myself for my company, although for vehicle location rather than people. We use off-the-shelf USB dongles on a laptop, and we have a client app on the laptop that "phones home" every few seconds with the updated positions. A server side app allows plotting points on the map (research Google Maps or Microsoft Virtual Earth). It's very neat, and I'm sure its exactly what you want for your daughter... but since you would want her carrying around a "small device" rather than a laptop anyway, you're looking at a cellphone.
What had Apple Corps' done in the last 20 years to earn any recognition whatsoever? Apple Computer is being taken advantage of due to a triviality. And if it were "Microsoft Corporation" vs some "Microsoft Music" company, I'd feel the same way.
I mean, look at their place holder web page! If they were a company of any merit whatsoever, there'd be something to see there.
Everybody knows that Apple Computer is synonymous with iTunes. No one thinks that they sign any bands. No one gives a shit about Apple Corps, and only hears about them when they sue. They didn't win a name change in the first battle, so should have waived any rights to battle over future name-related damages.
Missing anything? Uhm, yeah.
Radioshack gave the cuecat away free because (A) there was no want or demand for it and (B) they thought that it would pay for itself via advertising (maybe also raising brand awareness and marketing revenue).
The surprise for them was that people saw the obvious "hey, free barcode scanner!" and didn't bother chaining themselves to Radioshack's dreamland business model. The scanners weren't locked to cuecat-only barcodes, if they were then they'd have had even less value. They just totally forgot that people have the right to do as they please with their own possessions.
Similarly with CDs, people don't see any need to restrict themselves to DRM or the RIAA's wishes, and continue to run with the obvious "rip - mix - burn!" philosophy.
You are ignoring minimum fixed costs for living, such as housing, food, utilities, clothes, etc. Those costs are a much much larger percentage of B's net worth than A's, which changes the balance of discretionary monies. It IS harder for B to donate the dime, even though it's a much lower percentage of net worth, because of scale. Billionaires can donate HUGE percentages and still be very well off, making charitable donations essentially cost them nothing.
The charitable works of the B&MG Foundation are to be applauded, but Bill is not some great philanthropist just because of the sheer dollar value of his donations. Is he doing more than Joe Average would with the same amount of resources? Who can say? My intuition tells me that he is doing it for three reasons, (a) it's the Right Thing, (b) because it makes him look good, and (c) it essentially costs him nothing. Reasons B and C kill it as philanthropy for me.
Except that they lose $X per console sold. It's more like the worst system launch ever, take two. Gotta love burning through billions in cash.
Pull your nose out, man. The Foundation does many charitable things, true, and Bill has donated large chunks of cash here and there.
But when you look at his wealth to scale, with *orders of magnitude* more fortune than even necessary to still be fabulously rich, what he does amounts to tossing pennies into the crowd. That's not even considering the PR gained from it. In fact, I would wager that Bill has done more to *hurt* this nation than he has mitigated through charitable donations - sitting on huge amounts of capital, throwing it overseas, extinguishing markets, destroying standards, roadblocking innovation, etc.
I don't hate B.G. I have, though, become very much anti-Microsoft over the years, and every day there's more news about them that shows me I made the right decision in dropping all Microsoft products long ago.
This is not true. There is only one position for each block of the Cube. The center squares of each face do not move, only rotate. If you write a number on each square, then scramble and solve, you will end up with everything in the original positions (although the center square of each face will probably have rotated).
A "base station" is what you call the magical machines connected to the base of each cell tower. Idiot. Cell towers are often in the middle of stupid nowhere, having a single power line and the leased fiber, with the magical 'base station' in a little brick box at the base. If they don't already have battery backups, though, I would be really surprised.
How does one invoke peace? Peace is the desired condition, the goal... you could even try to say that it is the norm. When you have life-and-death conflict, for whatever reason, neither side can resolve it by simply "being peaceful" unless they wish to lose.
I am against killing, as I think are most people - but there are times when your hand is forced. It is a tragedy, but sometimes a necessity.
Only a successful war can break the vicious cycle of hate. Failed wars will unfortunately be repeated.
Anything with a patent has its formulas available, right? That's what the patent is, the disclosure of the formula (and the method of manufacture, I suppose).
What would be neat is a compilation of "household" methods of manufacture for all meds. Like aspirin from willow bark. The homebrew med scene is stuck in the dark age of narcotics, unfortunately.
When I pay for a box of software, I sure as hell own it - that copy, the box, the packing materials, etc. Just like with a book, movie, newspaper, etc.
I see the internet in much the same light. The rest of the world is free to make its own copy.
So what if the haters are louder? The game is inspired, and remains one of the best of all time.
I don't believe in fairies, elves or magic in real life, and I don't need them to 'look real' on the screen in order to suspend disbelief and 'get into the game'.
The review is practically flamebait. People bitch and moan about trifles regardless of how awesome the game is... that is not newsworthy.
That just hands them the mindshare they so desperately crave. Just say no.
"I'll fill in from a buffer while you're looking" is correct. "Usually this is done by repeating briefly the last good data" is complete crap. The player either plays the data from the buffer or it plays nothing. Shock buffering the servo does nothing in this case, where we have a CD player sitting on a shelf.
Not everybody knows how to recognize this in what they hear, as it is very short. Typical crazy audiophile bullshit.
I think that in general most people ignore rules they don't agree with (witness jaywalking, rampant filesharing, office supply theft, cell phones in theatres, etc etc). Looking just at filesharing - the majority of people believe this to be the greatest thing since email. So I wouldn't agree with saying that ignoring the rules is "arrogant beyond measure" but rather "typically self-centered".
You seem to be blinded to the idea that "to copy" is different than "to take". The cost of copying has dropped to virtually nothing in the digital age, making scarcity obsolete for IP. Copyright attempts to retain scarcity on IP artifically, and the view by many is that this is in vain - in a number of years, despite attempts by RIAA/MPAA or whomever, digital copying will be ubiquitous and free.
As a potential author, I would have to be aware that my works, even if I never released them digitally, will end up in the public and traded freely. Does that mean that I should not produce my work at all? Does that mean that I won't see a dime for my work ever? No. It may mean I get less income from a particular work than I otherwise might, but any work of value will still find paying customers. To wish that the gravy train of lifetime compensation per work and pay-per-view consumption continues is to wish the stagnation and death of thee internet and the Information Age.
To keep this on topic - the GPL is necessary to protect the ideas of Open Source in today's copyright landscape. Without it, unscrupulous companies will "take" open source code (not just "copy", but "take", as in claiming ownership and credit) without any compensation to the good samaritan coders. This is a thing to be fought, and rightly so. The RIAA/MPAA etc exist to do something similar for their works - however, they are not attempting to prevent unscrupulous people from "taking" works (claiming ownership or credit), but are trying to enforce a "pay-per-view" model.
I personally find obtaining digital things for free to be good, and arbitrary rules against it I ignore. I also personally feel that falsely claiming credit or ownership of a work is abhorrent, and should be fought against.
I think the way things are going, we'll end up going back to a "patronage" model, with quality being the revenue generator, and the actual 'works' freely available. For books, the real consumer value is in owning a physical copy (the 'work' being essentially an ad for the particular stack of bound paper). Publishers sell books not 'works'. For music, this will mean live performances rather than the 'works', which are essentially ads for the live performance. The **AAs will become the patrons of tommorrow. For software this means Open Source everywhere.
The true value lies in quality. That is what drives the economy and progress, and successful business models will always reflect this regardless of how copyright law plays out.
This thread is hysterically funny, thank you guys!
I think the AC isn't demanding that everyone act exactly as he does - rather, he wants "just enough" people to act like he does so that he can claim that his particular style choices have validity over the 'common' styles of say GAP or Walmart.
He isn't letting his choices stand on their own merits, but instead is simultaneously claiming validity through popularity AND obscurity. It's really quite fascinating - a study in doublethink.
I think it's some sort of transitional phase that younger folks go through as they realize that they want to take control of their own lives and be true to themselves, but they don't understand just how to do that yet and they don't understand what makes them unique. So, they associate with the not-as-common-but-still-prepackaged styles as opposed to the even-the-nerds-shop-at-GAP prepackaged styles.
Further, the AC is berating "true individuality" as if it's something that isn't possible or desirable. He wants to march to the beat of a different drummer, but does not understand your point - that it is still marching to someone else's beat. Why not be his own drummer?
I'd say this kid is a junior in highschool... if that. In time, he will see the error of his ways.
Oh, man, am I glad that they use actual chemicals, whew! I thought for a second that they were using magic or something! That makes me feel so much better - chemicals!
Oh, oh, and I'm glad that homeopathic remedies take longer to work - I wouldn't want to have to take a sick day ever! This way, it feels much more like my body is naturally healing itself!
I'm sure glad you no longer have to use your two year old "asthama" inhaler that you still, for some reason, carry around...
Give me a break.
According to this and this
it seems that non-commerical, private copying is non-actionable, irrespective of 106 and 107. IE - downloading, ripping, time/format-shifting, mixing, etc are free and clear, provided I don't step over the "private" and "non-commercial" boundaries.
What say you to that?
-1 Flamebait
It's Open Source, idiot!
I just looked at the statutes myself. You are correct, 106.1 says that I do not have the right to reproduce a copyrighted work. Fair use (107) does not give it to me.
So you are not necessarily bent over the machine, and I apologize for my hasty, ad hominem attack.
That said, I am baffled and amazed by the attitudes that yourself and so many others demonstrate - seemingly that laws exist for the private benefit of large corporate interests, and the general public should just roll over. You are taking the easy way out, siding with the "big boys", and by association you trample on my inherent and reasonable freedoms sir and I do not like it.
These copyright statutes could be easily fixed to protect the freedoms of the individual (to protect my innate and default rights to do as I please with myself and my possessions) and still protect commercial interests... namely by fixing 106.1 to say "reproduction for commercial benefit" and the rest would fall into place (private backup copies and the act of downloading would no longer be infringements, while uploading would remain so). A nice, big, fat "this applies to commercial purposes only" sticker is what copyright law needs.
So it remains that I will be a flagrant and willful copyright infringer, although I would challenge anyone to tell me that my actions are unreasonable or morally wrong. It is the law that differs from the norm expected, the law differs from the reality of society... thus, the law must be made right or it must be ignored.
I will continue to make my archival backups, to rip my CDs and delete FBI warnings from my DVDs and then watch them in Linux or in unauthorized regions, download rom files for games I own to play in emulators on reverse-engineered hardware, ignore EULA 'agreements', print out copies of my professionally taken pictures, and share books and music with my friends.
I would recommend that you do the same.
Interesting. I was not aware of this until I myself did a quick google for the statute.
It seems to me that 106.1 needs to be changed to say "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords for commercial purposes". This would make the statute fit reality and fit the majority of people's expectations.
The statute as written seems to even remove my right to make a backup copy of a CD I own for my own (archival, say) purposes, which is clearly ludicrous. The change would make simple acts like this, as well as the act of downloading, strictly legal.
Uploading (ie, distributing) copyrighted works would still be infringement, and rightly so. However, according to 109.b.4, it isn't a criminal offense... again, rightly so.
I wonder, was the statute always worded this way?
Wow, what complete tool of corporate greed.
a) show me where in the Law it says that I can not do as I please with copyrighted material in my possession *for my own private use*.
b) books, movies, sound recordings... that IS what we're talking about here, and there IS real concern over that (ie, fair and private use is being threatened). You are correct, they are NOT normally licensed to ordinary customers. Instead, copies are purchased, and once obtained posession alone is proof of the right to use the work (see, for example, my large bookshelf full of books - how do you know I didn't magically duplicate them from someone else's copy in my SuperDuplicator 2000 drive?)
c) there IS a legal reason for different treatment - that is, Copyright Law is about Distribution rights, and Copyright Infringements are about violations of the right to distribute. Acquisition of the works is not covered by copyright infringement - just infringing distribution. *This* is why they go after uploaders - they have an actual legal case against them - and why they don't go after the downloaders.
I believe it is YOU that is incorrect, and I believe it is YOU that has completely bent over for some faceless corporate entity.
No. You are wrong. The reality of the Law and what you are saying in your post are completely different things.
If I purchase a box containing a game CD from a store, at completion of the sale I now own the contents of the box and can use them however I like. This includes popping the enclosed CD into my computer and playing the games that appear from it on my screen, clicking OK to any text boxes that pop up, printing up large sections of data from the CD to hang on my wall, or editing the data on the CD for my purposes as well.
Fancy, scary words written on other papers also enclosed in the box are mine to ignore and discard at will. Doesn't matter if they say "by playing this game, you agree to X" or "haha, j00 g0t pwndD!!1", they have exactly zero legal value.
When you fall off a building, just before hitting the ground your speed is X and just after hitting the ground your speed is 0. This is a change in velocity (ie, an acceleration). It is this large acceleration (something typically talked about as G-forces) that kills you. More specifically, the change in velocity is experienced on one side of the body sooner than the rear, causing fatal body deformations (ie, the "Splat"). If you could magically experience the change in velocity at all points of your body at the same time, then you would not "Splat"... but the stopping force is applied unevenly, causing this "jerk". I had never heard this referred to as "jerk" before, but that makes sense now.
I think you are getting into too much detail. People are having trouble with easy stuff like whether something is a planet or a moon!
Looking at all our astronomy observations so far, I'd say that these are the key dividing characteristics:
- Is it massive enough to Fuse hydrogen? (high mass)
- Is it massive enough to be Spherical? (medium mass)
- Does it Orbit anything else?
Using these dividers, we have:
- Star: an object massive enough for fusion to occur within it
- Planet: an object of medium mass (spherical, non-fusing) orbiting a star
- Planetoid: an object of low mass (not spherical, not fusing) that orbits nothing
- Asteroid: an object of low mass that orbits a Star
- Moon: an object of low/medium mass that orbits a Planet
- Doublet: a pair of orbiting objects with a common center of gravity outside them both that together fit one of the descriptions above (double planet, double star, etc)
It's as simple as that. The Moon is a moon, as is Titan. Mercury, Ceres, Quaoar... planets. Pluto-Charon is a double planet for their center of gravity, while Earth-Moon isn't. Mars' moons are moons, not asteroids. An extrastellar super-Jupiter planet orbiting some other Star is a Planet if it isn't fusing, it's a star on its own if it is fusing. Comets - special case of asteroids, icy with eccentric orbits... but then you're getting into the atmosphere / makeup discussion rather than the broader size / orbit.
I agree with your sentiments, you can nit-pick your way deep into the spectrum of what's out there, but as long as we stick to the meaningful boundaries then we have a meaningful system.