Since you only license the material and do not own it, they should be able to replace the media for a nominal fee.
"Nominal fee" being loose enough to allow weasel room enough for them to simply charge you retail pricing for another copy of the disk. And they'd most likely include some "subject to availability" clause in their "subject to change without notice" license that covers them in the event that the disk is out of print.
I was more interested in the video not from a "what to build" standpoint, and more of a "this was our process, and here's how it evolved over successive generations" standpoint.
Bicycle Baoding balls (I think it'll prevent RSI/carpal tunnel) Walking (more exercise for the dog than for me) Light exercise with free weights
At some point I want to get back into running again, but I never did have the discipline to keep with it on my own. I need a group or a partner to run with, and never can find anyone who wants to do it.
I *love* the baoding balls. I just started them a short time ago on a whim, and I can't say enough about how good it feels to work my forearms with them.
Microsoft did more than that. They took the statistical data that they compiled from real-world users who opted in to "make future Office better" and used it to determine what features and functions were used most often, and prioritized their efforts on re-working the interface for those features based on that.
One of their leads gave a talk recently on the story of the evolution of Office's interface, starting from Word 1.0 through Office 2007. It's worth watching:
They can still reach such an agreement. However, if the Scrabulous developers did not wish to enter into such an arrangement, no one can compell them to do so.
If they *are* guilty of infringement of IP or tradmark, then either shutting them down or seizing their infringing properties and handing it over to Hasbro is necessary as an option or else the infringers could simply say "No, thank you, we'd rather compete with you than work for you," and Hasbro would have no recourse.
Certainly win-win business agreement is a possible outcome, but without force of law to protect Hasbro's IP, there's no reason that such an agreement would ever happen. Why would the infringers ever need Hasbro, when they've shown they can do it all by themselves?
I think that a game's rules is not something that should be protectable as IP, but Habro's trademark for the game Scrabble should protect it... but that Scrabulous does not infringe upon that trademark. So if I were the judge I'd be siding with the alleged infringers.
As long as Comcast is responding to public blog entries, and isn't doing something like packet sniffing the upload traffic during the post to the blog, in order to read access-limited blog entries, and
As long as Comcast is responding positively, e.g. offering assistance and not
Punishing people who complain about Comcast,
I can't help but think that this is a good thing, and I wish that more companies would do things like this.
You've got things a bit backwards. Safari came out, and then Microsoft decided to pull IE, because Macs had a built-in browser now. Firefox came along sometime later. Netscape and Mozilla were around for the early years of OS X, and Firefox didn't hit 1.0 until 2004, and wasn't fully OS X native (people were using Camino on OS X for a fair time after the 1.0 release, if I'm not mistaken, in order to enjoy a fully-native experience on OS X.)
Instead they seem to use the word formerly thought to mean "two" to represent a quantity of 5 or 6, and the "one" word for anything from 1 to 4. The language has about 300 native speakers.
hey bonehead - try to understand things before you argue.
Fuck you. Don't talk to me if you're not going to be polite. I may be a moron, ignorant, misinformed, or just plain wrong, but there's no need to be rude.
1st some send a takedown notice, hoster complies and is therefore not liable. 2nd submitter can send a letter (still don't need lawyers or courts) to hoster sating, nope I this is completely legal so put it back. At this point the original party needs to go sue and get teh courts involved, but the case is between the 2 parties and the hosting company is NOT involved.
Then how is this any different from any other situation where someone is asked to do something by someone else, complies, and then *surprise* there's no follow-up action in the courts? This isn't some special goodness that got packed into the DMCA, is it?
If someone's trespassing on my property, and I tell them to leave, or I'll call the cops, and they get off, and then I don't call the cops, is this some special feature of trespassing laws that makes our country the best in the world? No.
Are you saying the DMCA grants immunity to hosts as long as no one tries to take them to court? Whoop dee freakin doo. That's some kind of immunity, let me tell you.
"Innocence" and "guilt" don't really enter into it at the takedown-notice stage; at that point it's just one private individual or organization sending a letter to another private individual or organization.
Right, I get that. But what I mean is that the spirit of the law is to assume that the takedown request is always legitimate, and to stay "safe" you have to immediately comply. There's no due process because the courts are avoided entirely -- you don't get a chance to defend your use of the material, therefore there's no due process happening.
Due process, the presumption of innocence, etc. only become an issue when the matter goes to court.
Right, which, if that never happens, you never get due process. If the law says you're only protected as a content host if you always immediately take down material upon request of an alleged complaint, then how the hell are you ever going to get to due process in the courts?
If you do, you're opening yourself for liability and a stripping of immunity. If the system was fair, you could contest a complaint in court if it didn't seem clearly legitimate. If it was, you'd then have to comply with the takedown request, no damages would be awarded, the courts would simply interpret that yes, this was a violation of copyright and the complaintant had a legitimate right to request the takedown, and the matter would be settled, and the host would be obligated to take down the offending content. If they still refused, then they'd be liable for damages.
I'm not saying that every takedown complaint should result in a court case, either, but if the case is not clear cut, testing the law in the courts should not result in opening the door to liability.
It's a bad law, but one of the few good things it does is provide a measure of immunity to content-hosting sites, as long as those sites comply immediately with takedown requests.
This "comply immediately" clause is not good. It necessarily presumes guilt on the part of the host/content poster. There's no due process here, to determine: A) if the takedown request originates from the legitimate copyright holder or a duly appointed agent thereof, B) if the posting is in fact a violation of copyright, and not, say, fair use (an excerpt quoted for criticism, parody, a derivative work, etc).
No due process here, just take down immediately or you're in violation of the law. Not in MY Constitution, they don't.
Running on vapors? That's nothing, I can get my car to run (sometimes, anyway) on nothing but pure vitriol. If your car has fuel invective, it may be able to use this highly volatile energy source as well.
I don't trust them to anonymize properly, that's why I've registered my user account using bogus information. On YouTube, I'm a 99 year old woman from the North Pole, using an email address that in no way is used for any other purpose and would be difficult to trace back to my real identity.
It's still possible they could trace my access of the site or the email account under that user ID to my ISP and get my real name and info from there, but that's a separate lawsuit and it's a bit unlikely that they'll go to that extreme.
Although, since my ISP is a cable company, and Viacom is a big player in television, getting the ISP's cooperation might not be all that much of an obstacle.
Computers were nerdy WAAAAY before Bill Gates came on the scene.
Seriously, BillG gets way too much recognition and way too much blame. All he is is an obscenely rich, lucky bastard who happened to be in the right place at the right time and played his cards just about perfectly.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you only license the material and do not own it, they should be able to replace the media for a nominal fee.
"Nominal fee" being loose enough to allow weasel room enough for them to simply charge you retail pricing for another copy of the disk. And they'd most likely include some "subject to availability" clause in their "subject to change without notice" license that covers them in the event that the disk is out of print.
So, good luck with that.
For that matter, if you really wanted your data to be secure, you should be useing OpenBSD or SE Linux, not Vista :)
I was more interested in the video not from a "what to build" standpoint, and more of a "this was our process, and here's how it evolved over successive generations" standpoint.
Bicycle
Baoding balls (I think it'll prevent RSI/carpal tunnel)
Walking (more exercise for the dog than for me)
Light exercise with free weights
At some point I want to get back into running again, but I never did have the discipline to keep with it on my own. I need a group or a partner to run with, and never can find anyone who wants to do it.
I *love* the baoding balls. I just started them a short time ago on a whim, and I can't say enough about how good it feels to work my forearms with them.
Microsoft did more than that. They took the statistical data that they compiled from real-world users who opted in to "make future Office better" and used it to determine what features and functions were used most often, and prioritized their efforts on re-working the interface for those features based on that.
One of their leads gave a talk recently on the story of the evolution of Office's interface, starting from Word 1.0 through Office 2007. It's worth watching:
http://msstudios.vo.llnwd.net/o21/mix08/08_WMVs/UX09.wmv
They can still reach such an agreement. However, if the Scrabulous developers did not wish to enter into such an arrangement, no one can compell them to do so.
If they *are* guilty of infringement of IP or tradmark, then either shutting them down or seizing their infringing properties and handing it over to Hasbro is necessary as an option or else the infringers could simply say "No, thank you, we'd rather compete with you than work for you," and Hasbro would have no recourse.
Certainly win-win business agreement is a possible outcome, but without force of law to protect Hasbro's IP, there's no reason that such an agreement would ever happen. Why would the infringers ever need Hasbro, when they've shown they can do it all by themselves?
I think that a game's rules is not something that should be protectable as IP, but Habro's trademark for the game Scrabble should protect it... but that Scrabulous does not infringe upon that trademark. So if I were the judge I'd be siding with the alleged infringers.
I can't help but think that this is a good thing, and I wish that more companies would do things like this.
Hasbro: We'll show 'em! No one plays games with us!
Guy temporarily in a wheelchair due to an accident wants to rehab and is thinking about wanting to buy a stairmaster.
Guy in a wheelchair wants to buy his able-bodied wife a stairmaster for a surprise gift.
These people have analogous counterparts in the WWW.
I thought it was supposed to be ^H, not ^W.
^W is what you use to bomb the shit out the text's author's home country.
You've got things a bit backwards. Safari came out, and then Microsoft decided to pull IE, because Macs had a built-in browser now. Firefox came along sometime later. Netscape and Mozilla were around for the early years of OS X, and Firefox didn't hit 1.0 until 2004, and wasn't fully OS X native (people were using Camino on OS X for a fair time after the 1.0 release, if I'm not mistaken, in order to enjoy a fully-native experience on OS X.)
No, he would have posted
"First Poon!"
Or, possibly,
"p00wned!"
True, but if not even the creators nor their company held an actual copy any longer, when what right should they have to the copyright?
Well, two anyway.
hey bonehead - try to understand things before you
argue.
Fuck you. Don't talk to me if you're not going to be polite. I may be a moron, ignorant, misinformed, or just plain wrong, but there's no need to be rude.
1st some send a takedown notice, hoster complies and is therefore not liable. 2nd submitter can send a letter (still don't need lawyers or courts) to hoster sating, nope I this is completely legal so put it back. At this point the original party needs to go sue and get teh courts involved, but the case is between the 2 parties and the hosting company is NOT involved.
Then how is this any different from any other situation where someone is asked to do something by someone else, complies, and then *surprise* there's no follow-up action in the courts? This isn't some special goodness that got packed into the DMCA, is it?
If someone's trespassing on my property, and I tell them to leave, or I'll call the cops, and they get off, and then I don't call the cops, is this some special feature of trespassing laws that makes our country the best in the world? No.
Are you saying the DMCA grants immunity to hosts as long as no one tries to take them to court? Whoop dee freakin doo. That's some kind of immunity, let me tell you.
"Innocence" and "guilt" don't really enter into it at the takedown-notice stage; at that point it's just one private individual or organization sending a letter to another private individual or organization.
Right, I get that. But what I mean is that the spirit of the law is to assume that the takedown request is always legitimate, and to stay "safe" you have to immediately comply. There's no due process because the courts are avoided entirely -- you don't get a chance to defend your use of the material, therefore there's no due process happening.
Due process, the presumption of innocence, etc. only become an issue when the matter goes to court.
Right, which, if that never happens, you never get due process. If the law says you're only protected as a content host if you always immediately take down material upon request of an alleged complaint, then how the hell are you ever going to get to due process in the courts?
If you do, you're opening yourself for liability and a stripping of immunity. If the system was fair, you could contest a complaint in court if it didn't seem clearly legitimate. If it was, you'd then have to comply with the takedown request, no damages would be awarded, the courts would simply interpret that yes, this was a violation of copyright and the complaintant had a legitimate right to request the takedown, and the matter would be settled, and the host would be obligated to take down the offending content. If they still refused, then they'd be liable for damages.
I'm not saying that every takedown complaint should result in a court case, either, but if the case is not clear cut, testing the law in the courts should not result in opening the door to liability.
It's a bad law, but one of the few good things it does is provide a measure of immunity to content-hosting sites, as long as those sites comply immediately with takedown requests.
This "comply immediately" clause is not good. It necessarily presumes guilt on the part of the host/content poster. There's no due process here, to determine: A) if the takedown request originates from the legitimate copyright holder or a duly appointed agent thereof, B) if the posting is in fact a violation of copyright, and not, say, fair use (an excerpt quoted for criticism, parody, a derivative work, etc).
No due process here, just take down immediately or you're in violation of the law. Not in MY Constitution, they don't.
vaporware, literally.
Running on vapors? That's nothing, I can get my car to run (sometimes, anyway) on nothing but pure vitriol. If your car has fuel invective, it may be able to use this highly volatile energy source as well.
a crime that 95% of law abiding people don't commit.
IANAL, but I think you're off by about 5% here.
"running as sufficiently as possible"?
Sometimes as a nation we must ask ourselves, is our children learning?
I disagree. OEM adoption has little to do with the successfulness or merit of software.
Just look at all the crapware that OEMs bundle. Mozilla.org can join with the elite if they pay the requisite bribes.
Asus bundles Firefox with the EeePC. Is that good enough?
I don't trust them to anonymize properly, that's why I've registered my user account using bogus information. On YouTube, I'm a 99 year old woman from the North Pole, using an email address that in no way is used for any other purpose and would be difficult to trace back to my real identity.
It's still possible they could trace my access of the site or the email account under that user ID to my ISP and get my real name and info from there, but that's a separate lawsuit and it's a bit unlikely that they'll go to that extreme.
Although, since my ISP is a cable company, and Viacom is a big player in television, getting the ISP's cooperation might not be all that much of an obstacle.
That both.
Divination through dancing retired politicians is no way to run a society!
Watery tarts throwing swords is clearly a superior methodology.
Computers were nerdy WAAAAY before Bill Gates came on the scene.
Seriously, BillG gets way too much recognition and way too much blame. All he is is an obscenely rich, lucky bastard who happened to be in the right place at the right time and played his cards just about perfectly.