Doesn't this make like 95% of choir/piano/symphony performances illegal? (the other 5% being classics that are thankfully beyond copyright) Owning sheet music != owning the copyright so they are obviously infringing, right?
Strong agree. Apple has everything to gain by allowing iPhones to be unlocked: it makes their product more attractive. "Apple doesn't allow us" is pure BS.
This may be rather No-True-Scotsman-ish of me, but I don't consider VB6ers and FORTRANers to be proper "devs". Well, maybe the FORTAN ones, if they are really old. Then they can be considered legacy devs.
That doesn't mean that recording it should be wrong. It just means people need to turn on their brains before passing judgement based on the recording.
...some of these/. headlines only make it through the firehose so that we can all get a good laugh out of them? Also, "security experts agree" needs a big fat [citation needed]. TFA got like 2 or 3 "experts" that didn't even strongly agree with their conclusions.
Slashdot Mirror
So then likewise shouldn't owning a song = licensing the right to lip-synching to it in public then?
Doesn't this make like 95% of choir/piano/symphony performances illegal? (the other 5% being classics that are thankfully beyond copyright) Owning sheet music != owning the copyright so they are obviously infringing, right?
It would now criminalize anybody that performs a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner
FTFY. This law is absurd, but it would be even more absurd if it were criminal for copyright owners to perform their own work.
while punishing pirates and those who actually are causing damage.
Funny how there's a distinction between pirates and those that actually cause damage.
Lowest-level language with careful tweaking yields best performance. Film at 11.
10^4 = 10000
Strong agree. Apple has everything to gain by allowing iPhones to be unlocked: it makes their product more attractive. "Apple doesn't allow us" is pure BS.
Mesmerising Jedi mind trick powers (you know, convinces the weak-minded...)
It's not like they'd throw Firefox out of the Software Center; it just wouldn't be bundled with the OS.
Good luck getting the non-blessed browser idea past Steve.
This may be rather No-True-Scotsman-ish of me, but I don't consider VB6ers and FORTRANers to be proper "devs". Well, maybe the FORTAN ones, if they are really old. Then they can be considered legacy devs.
PHBs Worried, Devs Secretly Hopeful, Microsoft Will Dump .NET
Infringer! The abbreviation iIRC is trademarked, donchaknow.
Its Flash. You know, the Devils Platform according to Apple.
One of the few things RMS and Jobs can agree on.
Web filtering software.
If you can't bother to spend time browsing the web with your kid, don't have one.
Or a gentler solution: don't let them browse the web.
I N C E P T I O N
I made you think about resisting arrest, which made you resist arrest, which made me arrest you for resisting arrest.
That doesn't mean that recording it should be wrong. It just means people need to turn on their brains before passing judgement based on the recording.
I'm no fan of Imaginary Property, but if the basic intent of the law is to be upheld, then Google really ought to win this one.
RMS cares.
In former soviet Kazakhstan, Google configures YOU!!!
No. (Elaboration is left as an exercise for the reader)
...some of these /. headlines only make it through the firehose so that we can all get a good laugh out of them? Also, "security experts agree" needs a big fat [citation needed]. TFA got like 2 or 3 "experts" that didn't even strongly agree with their conclusions.
Well, actually, they said* you could use X GB/month, with a boatload of restrictions.
*not out loud, mind you. It's in the fine print somewhere.
In a sane world,
You must not be from around here...