Why should you be allowed to make permanent copies on removable media? 99% of broadcast TV is copyrighted material. Your right to make a copy of this is for time-shifting purposes only - not to make a permanent copy.
Whilst in theory Communism is an economic one and does not preclude democracy, in practice it tends to require such a degree of centralized control that it leads naturally to a concentration of power - and concentrations of power usually lead to abuse.
On a small scale - small rural communities - communism can work - on a national one - it breaks down or becomes tyranny.
It's not a hunch - it's evidence gathered automatically. Which may be incorrect (but probably isn't most of the time) - so the person involved should have the information needed to defend themselves.
Unfortunately you are mistaken. Fair use does not normally include sharing. It can - for extracts of works used educationally - but usually doesn't. Sharing with my family member/friend has always been technically illegal - although rarely prosecuted.
Even if this were not the case - the doctrine of fair use does not require that the work be made copyable. It simply means that if you are able to copy it and your copy falls within the domain of fair use then it means that you have not infringed the rights' owner's copyright. If they make it so you are prevented from copying it - then it goes against the spirit of the Fair Use doctrine but does not break copyright law.
The issue then becomes about advertising/labelling so that people can make and informed choice.
I can distinguish between those two concepts just fine and I'm not a 'basher'.
I was commenting on the default theme and toolbar configuration - as displayed in the screenshot.
For many that will be "the look of KDE"
If the KDE developers wanted to establish a dramatically different look and feel from those other OS GUIs they would have done so in the default setup. They obviously didn't.
If I had $5000 to spare and was using GNOME would I
a) donate it to GNOME get mousemat, t-shirt etc b) pay a programmer directly to write the features I wanted to see implemented c) take that holiday I've been promising myself.
"You have to be self-deterministic in terms of how things work. You have to make your own choices and do your own tests on motherboards, graphics cards, applications, operating system releases, all those kinds of things."
Again, I'm not buying this comment either... afterall, you have IBM behind you! Don't they test the motherboards, graphics cards, operating system releases, and all those kind of things?
It's about taking control of your own destiny. You do your own testing, not because IBM hasn't, but because you are the one who needs to know it all hangs together and works.
It might also have something to do with the fact that a movie can make a profit through the theatrical release. The DVD/VHS/TV rights revenues are just a bonus.
Is there an equivalent for music? There's not enough money in radio airplay revenues to outset the 'promotional' costs involved in getting the airplay in the first place.
Touring? Big bands make big bucks on tour. Lucky and talented smaller bands break even. Most are losing money but doing it for love of music or hopes of future success. So unless you're already famous through radio and CD sales - don't expect to make a mint on the road.
That only leaves the CD sales themselves. Hence the reason why they are more anti- 'sharing/piracy' (delete according to your pov)
I can't speak for anyone else obviously but the thing that's gotten to me about Buffy is that's it's consistently very very well written. The acting is also good - but not necessarily better than you'd see elsewhere.
I think one of the reasons it's not as widely regarded as it could be is the lack of standalone episodes. You really have to get hooked on the seasonal storylines which is a barrier to the casual viewer.
If anything, I'd say that an absolute blank on the disk is closer to Cage's original intent than a recording of a live performance. It forces the listener to strain his ears trying to figure out what's going on, resulting in him listening to ambient sounds. Since that was Cage's exact intent, it seems to me that it really is a copy of his work. It certainly isn't a ridiculous thing to argue about.
However since the CD track and Cage's piece have different durations then one must conclude that this is a different expression of the same idea - and as such is not copyrighted to Cage.
Unless of course you can prove that Batt's piece is an excerpt from 4'33" - but then we're back to the ridiculous again - are two pieces of silence the same. I'm thinking of composing a piece myself which consists of two separate 1min silences and the audience is invited to compare the two:)
If your roommate is listening to your music there's no illegality. If he makes a copy of it - or you make one for him then it's illegal. If you make one for yourself you're covered by fair use.
Now making an mp3 and putting it on a networked server could be considered just making a copy for yourself. What then becomes the issue is contributory infringement - whether you in effect encouraged breaking of copyright. I am uncertain as to the precise legal test for contributory infringement - but based on precedent - Napster amongst others - putting mp3s on a network and advertising the fact could fall within that.
It remains to be seen whether UL will be a good thing or not. But I thought the whole point of Open Source was to allow you more freedom (as in speech) over the code you run. Since when is charging money going against this ideal? Even RMS says it's ok to charge for Free Software.
Say UL is successful and lots of businesses adopt it. They still won't have the kind of control over the users that Microsoft does - because they can always take the source and go elsewhere if they don't like the direction UL is going.
Certification is about giving businesses the comfort factor that applications will work out of the box on their linux systems. Certification means testing - which means time and manpower - which costs money. Charging for it seems to make sense to me. And you're only getting charged if you want to be part of the UL distro club (as far as I can see anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
Licence is the English spelling as opposed to the American spelling. Which spelling should the UK Government use?
Why should you be allowed to make permanent copies on removable media? 99% of broadcast TV is copyrighted material. Your right to make a copy of this is for time-shifting purposes only - not to make a permanent copy.
Whilst in theory Communism is an economic one and does not preclude democracy, in practice it tends to require such a degree of centralized control that it leads naturally to a concentration of power - and concentrations of power usually lead to abuse.
On a small scale - small rural communities - communism can work - on a national one - it breaks down or becomes tyranny.
It's not a hunch - it's evidence gathered automatically. Which may be incorrect (but probably isn't most of the time) - so the person involved should have the information needed to defend themselves.
The person being accused should have the right to see their ISP logs to their own activity online in order to defend themselves.
All systems have false positives. Cops arrest the wrong person. Innocent people get convicted.
The important thing is where are the checks and balances. The right of appeal for instance.
I don't have a problem with the process in principle but I think 24 hours is too short a time to be able to challenge the information.
They should also have the right to have access to the ISP's logs on their connection.
They downloaded them on behalf of the people who own the copyright - with their knowledge and permission.
Unfortunately you are mistaken. Fair use does not normally include sharing. It can - for extracts of works used educationally - but usually doesn't. Sharing with my family member/friend has always been technically illegal - although rarely prosecuted.
Even if this were not the case - the doctrine of fair use does not require that the work be made copyable. It simply means that if you are able to copy it and your copy falls within the domain of fair use then it means that you have not infringed the rights' owner's copyright. If they make it so you are prevented from copying it - then it goes against the spirit of the Fair Use doctrine but does not break copyright law.
The issue then becomes about advertising/labelling so that people can make and informed choice.
I can distinguish between those two concepts just fine and I'm not a 'basher'.
I was commenting on the default theme and toolbar configuration - as displayed in the screenshot.
For many that will be "the look of KDE"
If the KDE developers wanted to establish a dramatically different look and feel from those other OS GUIs they would have done so in the default setup. They obviously didn't.
As I said - if that's what you like then fine.
KDE now wants to look like a cross between XP and OSX.
Which is fine if you like that I guess.
by the way - how's that TPS report coming?
A more interesting question would be -
If I had $5000 to spare and was using GNOME would I
a) donate it to GNOME get mousemat, t-shirt etc
b) pay a programmer directly to write the features I wanted to see implemented
c) take that holiday I've been promising myself.
I think it would be c) but b) is next.
..you could be describing Apple or Microsoft in the 70s
Maybe it's just as well your dot com went the way of James Dean...
"You have to be self-deterministic in terms of how things work. You have to make your own choices and do your own tests on motherboards, graphics cards, applications, operating system releases, all those kinds of things." Again, I'm not buying this comment either... afterall, you have IBM behind you! Don't they test the motherboards, graphics cards, operating system releases, and all those kind of things?
It's about taking control of your own destiny. You do your own testing, not because IBM hasn't, but because you are the one who needs to know it all hangs together and works.
Because energy efficieny is an important concept.
It might also have something to do with the fact that a movie can make a profit through the theatrical release. The DVD/VHS/TV rights revenues are just a bonus.
Is there an equivalent for music? There's not enough money in radio airplay revenues to outset the 'promotional' costs involved in getting the airplay in the first place.
Touring? Big bands make big bucks on tour. Lucky and talented smaller bands break even. Most are losing money but doing it for love of music or hopes of future success. So unless you're already famous through radio and CD sales - don't expect to make a mint on the road.
That only leaves the CD sales themselves. Hence the reason why they are more anti- 'sharing/piracy' (delete according to your pov)
It would - but most movie downloads are via p2p noetworks, usenet or IRC not ftp.
I can't speak for anyone else obviously but the thing that's gotten to me about Buffy is that's it's consistently very very well written. The acting is also good - but not necessarily better than you'd see elsewhere.
I think one of the reasons it's not as widely regarded as it could be is the lack of standalone episodes. You really have to get hooked on the seasonal storylines which is a barrier to the casual viewer.
Vicini = Wallace Shawn - and yes he's an excellent actor.
It's news because there was a ballot foul-up.
Wow! We've never ever ever heard that one before!
How many episodes did you watch before coming to that astounding conclusion? A whole one or just the teaser?
However since the CD track and Cage's piece have different durations then one must conclude that this is a different expression of the same idea - and as such is not copyrighted to Cage.
Unless of course you can prove that Batt's piece is an excerpt from 4'33" - but then we're back to the ridiculous again - are two pieces of silence the same. I'm thinking of composing a piece myself which consists of two separate 1min silences and the audience is invited to compare the two :)
As you say the Batt track may be a rip-off of the idea of the Cage one. However copyright does not protect ideas only expressions of ideas.
The difference in durations alone would therefore make this a different expression of the same idea.
Then again, by the nature of silence, there is no evidence internal to the piece itself that this is even expressing the same idea.
If your roommate is listening to your music there's no illegality. If he makes a copy of it - or you make one for him then it's illegal. If you make one for yourself you're covered by fair use.
Now making an mp3 and putting it on a networked server could be considered just making a copy for yourself. What then becomes the issue is contributory infringement - whether you in effect encouraged breaking of copyright. I am uncertain as to the precise legal test for contributory infringement - but based on precedent - Napster amongst others - putting mp3s on a network and advertising the fact could fall within that.
It remains to be seen whether UL will be a good thing or not. But I thought the whole point of Open Source was to allow you more freedom (as in speech) over the code you run. Since when is charging money going against this ideal? Even RMS says it's ok to charge for Free Software.
Say UL is successful and lots of businesses adopt it. They still won't have the kind of control over the users that Microsoft does - because they can always take the source and go elsewhere if they don't like the direction UL is going.
Certification is about giving businesses the comfort factor that applications will work out of the box on their linux systems. Certification means testing - which means time and manpower - which costs money. Charging for it seems to make sense to me. And you're only getting charged if you want to be part of the UL distro club (as far as I can see anyway).