No. DMCA complaints don't work against people or organisations that are also their own host, as they will get it and simply pull the infringement down (Or, if the complaint is incorrect, ignore it). DMCA complaints only work against those who use a third-party host, who in order to avoid liability will almost always pull not just individual files but entire webhosts down the moment they get the notice, and those sites will stay down until the owner gets the appropriate paperwork sorted out.
The ten commandments are a translation nightmare, really. The 'kill' doesn't mean what people think it means, and 'adultery' back then was a crime that only applied to married women. Married men were free to have all the sex they wanted outside of their marriage, so long as it wasn't with another man's wife.
'Pirate' in this context started out as a similar use, an effort to make the infringers sound more dangerous and destructive. It backfired when they eventually adopted the label and started wearing it with pride.
There's also control. If the video is streamed, they have the option of ceasing to stream it at some future data. If it's for download, they can pull the link but people will still have all those files.
Only at the top end private schools. The comprehensives for the normal people are all about the grades, and good school grades are achieved through memorisation. You can't test complex thinking easily.
Actually, yes. Based on the past behavior of the company, I am inclined to be highly suspicious of anything they do. It seems entirely possible that they may be willing to accept open-source software on the market for now - they'll need every app they can get to start with, being latecomers to the arena - but will change this policy when the situation allows.
An earlier post explained this: Companies are very reluctant to provide training now, because employment is more temporary. People will work with an employer for a couple of years, not spend a good part of their lives working their way up. So why would any company want to pay to train it's employees, when doing so just means a competitor will steal them away by offering more money?
I'd put some blame on the ease of applications too. It used to take a good twenty minutes or so to write a job application. Now, it's one click to send a form-email. Potential employees end up applying for jobs they haven't a hope at getting 'just in case' and employers have to spend time sorting through a mountain of chaff in the hunt for an application worth interviewing.
(Also, First! And this paragraph goes in to fool the filter into letting it pass. Because the characters-per-line average just needs me to write a big block of stuff somewhere to push it over the limits.)
So all they'd need to do is remove the 'except if you include FOSS' clause. The point here is that Microsoft will have the ability to effectively prohibit free software on Windows RT and render it substantially less accessible on Windows x86 - given the company's history of blatantly anticompetitive business tactics, are you going to just trust them not to use that ability? This is Microsoft, remember: They have demonstrated on countless occasions that they don't play fair.
The problem with 'obvious to a practitioner of the art' is that the patent examiners are not practitioners of the art. They approve anything that looks remotely passable, and leave it up to the courts to rectify their quick-and-cheap cheating. That's why the plague of 'X.... but ON A COMPUTER' patents.
No more granting patents for the bloody obvious! Things like Amazon's one-click, or Apple's patent for a slide-to-unlock bar. This includes things which may sound arcane and innovative but are actually obvious to anyone working in the field, which in turn means the examiners will need to be better trained.
Or how about a 'fail fee' to discourage companies from fileing thousands of junk patents in the hope that just a few will be approved by luck and can be used to fill their patent chest?
A ban on patents that provide no obvious benefit to mankind, but rather are intended specifically to prevent interoperability with a specific format? Things like filesystems or file formats. I'm thinking specifically of MSs patent on long file names in fat32.
I think you need to expand 2:
2a: Microsoft is sued.
2b: Microsoft stalls
2c: Microsoft appeals.
2d: After ten years, the legal action is finally over. Microsoft is fined for tens of millions of dollars. But by this point their control has allowed them to eradicate all competitors and make many billions of dollars in additional profit. Net winner: Microsoft. We've seen it before.
If you look at some of the MS SDK licenses, redsitributables and similar things, you often find a clause refering to 'identified software' - here's an example, taken from the ASF/WMA/WMF specification license (http://read.pudn.com/downloads3/sourcecode/multimedia/9891/ASF%20Specification%20v.1.0/ASF%20Specification%20v.1.0.doc, abridged for clarity):
"2 (g)...your license rights to the Specification are conditioned upon your (a) not distributing the Implementation in conjunction with Identified Software (as defined below); (b) not using Identified Software (e.g. tools) to develop the Implementation; and (c) not distributing the Implementation under license terms which would make the Implementation Identified Software.... Identified Software includes, without limitation, any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or
distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (x) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (y) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (z) be redistributable at no charge"
The details vary between different licenses.. The most restrictive, those on things like the ASF specification that I used as an example, prohibit even using 'Identified Software' at any stage in the development process.
Translated roughly from legalese, this means that if your software is open source or even if you allow users to redistribute it, you aren't even allowed to put it on the same CD as a microsoft redistributable. If you use one of the affected SDKs or licensed specifications that takes the most restrictive variation then you are not only prohibited from releasing your source, or allowing others to redistribute your software, but you can't so much as use vim or emacs to edit your code or GCC to compile it. I also find almost the same clause in things like the Windows XP Embedded EULA, so if you make a product which depends upon XP Embedded then you are not able to open-source the application software that you wrote to run on it.
If Microsoft were to go full-on Evil Empire once again, this is exactly the clause they would probably adapt. All they'd need to do is pass a policy that no 'Identified Software' be permitted in the marketplace. A trivial legal change, and it would easily and effectively not merely bar open source software from the market (And thus Windows RT entirely, as well as use of the metro interface), but possibly even prohibit any Windows dev hoping for commercial success or any accessibility to the ARM mobile users from even utilising open-source development tools.
She is one of those people with a technology blind spot. She isn't stupid - she has a lot of qualifications, and works in a very demanding field. She is just one of those people who, upon trying to do anything with computers, experiences some form of mental block. Remembering the functions, dosages, side-effects, contraindications and alternative names of hundreds of different medications is easy for her - but tell her which sequence of buttons to click to import some music and the information will vanish from her brain in moments.
I was thinking more that the iDevices only support one form of DRM, Apple's, so you can rule out all non-Apple DRMed stores (I know Apple no longer DRMs their music, but video and software still is) if you own an iDevice.
It's not a fault, it's a business strategy. Yes, it's awkward to use - but it's also the way that owners of iDevices are pushed towards the iTunes store (rather than, say, piracy - there not being many legitimate competitors around). iTunes turns what would be a one-off payment for a device into a sustainable revenue stream for content purchasing, and from a business perspective goes a long way to explain why Apple is so successful. They don't just sell hardware, but the entire ecosystem to go with it, and take a cut at every step.
Slashdot Mirror
No. DMCA complaints don't work against people or organisations that are also their own host, as they will get it and simply pull the infringement down (Or, if the complaint is incorrect, ignore it). DMCA complaints only work against those who use a third-party host, who in order to avoid liability will almost always pull not just individual files but entire webhosts down the moment they get the notice, and those sites will stay down until the owner gets the appropriate paperwork sorted out.
I notice that home tapeing didn't kill music.
A digital audio cable would be better for this type of thing.
The ten commandments are a translation nightmare, really. The 'kill' doesn't mean what people think it means, and 'adultery' back then was a crime that only applied to married women. Married men were free to have all the sex they wanted outside of their marriage, so long as it wasn't with another man's wife.
'Pirate' in this context started out as a similar use, an effort to make the infringers sound more dangerous and destructive. It backfired when they eventually adopted the label and started wearing it with pride.
Yarrrr.
There's also control. If the video is streamed, they have the option of ceasing to stream it at some future data. If it's for download, they can pull the link but people will still have all those files.
There's not much difference from a technical perspecive - but from a legal perspective, there is a great deal of difference.
Only at the top end private schools. The comprehensives for the normal people are all about the grades, and good school grades are achieved through memorisation. You can't test complex thinking easily.
Old meme is old.
Actually, yes. Based on the past behavior of the company, I am inclined to be highly suspicious of anything they do. It seems entirely possible that they may be willing to accept open-source software on the market for now - they'll need every app they can get to start with, being latecomers to the arena - but will change this policy when the situation allows.
An earlier post explained this: Companies are very reluctant to provide training now, because employment is more temporary. People will work with an employer for a couple of years, not spend a good part of their lives working their way up. So why would any company want to pay to train it's employees, when doing so just means a competitor will steal them away by offering more money?
I'd put some blame on the ease of applications too. It used to take a good twenty minutes or so to write a job application. Now, it's one click to send a form-email. Potential employees end up applying for jobs they haven't a hope at getting 'just in case' and employers have to spend time sorting through a mountain of chaff in the hunt for an application worth interviewing.
And we both used five Xs, not four.
Forgot the reverse squiggly!
xx
_xx
xxxx
xxxx
x
xx
xx
x
xx
x
_xx
xx
(Also, First! And this paragraph goes in to fool the filter into letting it pass. Because the characters-per-line average just needs me to write a big block of stuff somewhere to push it over the limits.)
So all they'd need to do is remove the 'except if you include FOSS' clause. The point here is that Microsoft will have the ability to effectively prohibit free software on Windows RT and render it substantially less accessible on Windows x86 - given the company's history of blatantly anticompetitive business tactics, are you going to just trust them not to use that ability? This is Microsoft, remember: They have demonstrated on countless occasions that they don't play fair.
Health-and-safety prohibits blowing stuff up in any entertaining manner, and the parents would be horrified if the kids went home dirty.
The problem with 'obvious to a practitioner of the art' is that the patent examiners are not practitioners of the art. They approve anything that looks remotely passable, and leave it up to the courts to rectify their quick-and-cheap cheating. That's why the plague of 'X.... but ON A COMPUTER' patents.
No more granting patents for the bloody obvious! Things like Amazon's one-click, or Apple's patent for a slide-to-unlock bar. This includes things which may sound arcane and innovative but are actually obvious to anyone working in the field, which in turn means the examiners will need to be better trained.
Or how about a 'fail fee' to discourage companies from fileing thousands of junk patents in the hope that just a few will be approved by luck and can be used to fill their patent chest?
A ban on patents that provide no obvious benefit to mankind, but rather are intended specifically to prevent interoperability with a specific format? Things like filesystems or file formats. I'm thinking specifically of MSs patent on long file names in fat32.
It adds value for the user, but not for the operator. The operator being google.
I think you need to expand 2:
2a: Microsoft is sued.
2b: Microsoft stalls
2c: Microsoft appeals.
2d: After ten years, the legal action is finally over. Microsoft is fined for tens of millions of dollars. But by this point their control has allowed them to eradicate all competitors and make many billions of dollars in additional profit. Net winner: Microsoft. We've seen it before.
If you look at some of the MS SDK licenses, redsitributables and similar things, you often find a clause refering to 'identified software' - here's an example, taken from the ASF/WMA/WMF specification license (http://read.pudn.com/downloads3/sourcecode/multimedia/9891/ASF%20Specification%20v.1.0/ASF%20Specification%20v.1.0.doc, abridged for clarity):
...your license rights to the Specification are conditioned upon your (a) not distributing the Implementation in conjunction with Identified Software (as defined below); (b) not using Identified Software (e.g. tools) to develop the Implementation; and (c) not distributing the Implementation under license terms which would make the Implementation Identified Software. ... Identified Software includes, without limitation, any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or
distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (x) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (y) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (z) be redistributable at no charge"
"2 (g)
The details vary between different licenses.. The most restrictive, those on things like the ASF specification that I used as an example, prohibit even using 'Identified Software' at any stage in the development process.
Translated roughly from legalese, this means that if your software is open source or even if you allow users to redistribute it, you aren't even allowed to put it on the same CD as a microsoft redistributable. If you use one of the affected SDKs or licensed specifications that takes the most restrictive variation then you are not only prohibited from releasing your source, or allowing others to redistribute your software, but you can't so much as use vim or emacs to edit your code or GCC to compile it. I also find almost the same clause in things like the Windows XP Embedded EULA, so if you make a product which depends upon XP Embedded then you are not able to open-source the application software that you wrote to run on it.
If Microsoft were to go full-on Evil Empire once again, this is exactly the clause they would probably adapt. All they'd need to do is pass a policy that no 'Identified Software' be permitted in the marketplace. A trivial legal change, and it would easily and effectively not merely bar open source software from the market (And thus Windows RT entirely, as well as use of the metro interface), but possibly even prohibit any Windows dev hoping for commercial success or any accessibility to the ARM mobile users from even utilising open-source development tools.
She is one of those people with a technology blind spot. She isn't stupid - she has a lot of qualifications, and works in a very demanding field. She is just one of those people who, upon trying to do anything with computers, experiences some form of mental block. Remembering the functions, dosages, side-effects, contraindications and alternative names of hundreds of different medications is easy for her - but tell her which sequence of buttons to click to import some music and the information will vanish from her brain in moments.
I was thinking more that the iDevices only support one form of DRM, Apple's, so you can rule out all non-Apple DRMed stores (I know Apple no longer DRMs their music, but video and software still is) if you own an iDevice.
It's not a fault, it's a business strategy. Yes, it's awkward to use - but it's also the way that owners of iDevices are pushed towards the iTunes store (rather than, say, piracy - there not being many legitimate competitors around). iTunes turns what would be a one-off payment for a device into a sustainable revenue stream for content purchasing, and from a business perspective goes a long way to explain why Apple is so successful. They don't just sell hardware, but the entire ecosystem to go with it, and take a cut at every step.