they can't and the only 'terms of use' is the 'fair use' policy for copyrighted material, the terms of which not dictated by the copyright owner
You're looking at it wrong - "fair use" is something that had to be wrestled from them by brute force of law, in the effect of "you can't prohibit people from doing this". The terms were so dictated by the copyright owners that the law had to intervene.
Though you don't even need to dig that deep... the name gives it away. "Fair" use. When you're creating laws with words like "fair", it obviously implies that you think what was before wasn't fair. What was before was copyright holders dictating the terms of their copyright. What is now is only them dictating it still, with a few intervening laws to make their terms more "fair".
I can't imagine any real way of printing the grooves.
You wouldn't print the groove, you'd print up the surface on either side of it with a 3D printer. The 3D printer would have to be very fast and accurate to print in real-time, obviously.
Also, making a master (negative) with a 3D printer might be easier and more practical than directly making a vinyl disk with one (for one thing, it'd only have to print a single ridge as it traveled around, instead of two with a groove between them). The master could then be used to stamp vinyl copies. If a relatively cheap 3D printer was capable of producing a master, it might be cheaper and more practical than the current methods of making a master.
Or when viewing a collapsed comment doesn't show you who wrote it
I think that IS supposed to be a feature, to save space so you can see more of the one-line comment. However, it also no longer hides <quote>'d text in the one-line like it used to, which I consider a bug.
Or when a comment is scored 2 or 3, it doesn't state how it was moderated. It just states (Score:2). Not like the comment above mine which is (Score:1, Interesting).
I think that's supposed to be a feature too. It happened long before the redesign. Comments which only have one moderation don't have their moderation type changed from normal. Once two or more moderations have been made, the winning moderation type is displayed. The OP comment has been moderated twice (Interesting, Troll).
However, there's a bug where the comment's score isn't displayed at all until all of its parent comments are opened. And I'd really like the comment scores to be shown for one-line comments, too.
How about using a one-time pad. It is unbreakable (in a theoretical setting, of course).
A one-time pad is only as strong as the total number of possible "times" in your pad. You could make a pretty big one-time pad of nothing but alphabet replacement cyphers, but that wouldn't make the cypher any stronger.
There are 26! (about 4.03x10^26) possible alphabet replacement cyphers, but you can attack any one of them with a dictionary...
Yeah, it's a {bug/feature}. You {get/have} to open every post above it before you can click the one you want. And clicking the score to find out how a comment was moderated also collapses the comment and hides its replies.
I see that plastics are by definition organic, but fail to see how organic transistors are by definition plastic.
AFAIK, any organic polymer that is thermoplastic/thermosetting is a plastic.
Organic: carbon-based Polymer: large molecule made up of repeating basic units Thermoplastic/thermosetting: more plastic/moldable at higher temperatures and/or solidifying or just becoming stiffer at low temperature
They meet those criteria, so they're plastic. At least, the film used as the substrate certainly does.
You're missing the part where Amazon is authorized to sell their music and has a license (an actual written contract) to do so. And their license doesn't say they're allowed to stream it. This has nothing to do with the buyer's license, which (as you correctly stated) is dictated by law and not dictated by the copyright holder.
Your agreement is the standard license to play their copyrighted music for your personal use, which allows limited copying (under fair use) and doesn't allow you to play it for groups (public performance), etc. Since you're aware that the song is copyrighted, the standard license applies by default.
Amazon's license is the one in question here... if they are allowed to sell the music, what sort of access are they allowed to give people to the music after it is purchased? And are they allowed to store and stream music that users upload? (Since that's basically just like an iPod with its storage in the cloud I don't see how that couldn't be permitted.)
If they require you to actually download the MP3 and their cloud player requires you to re-upload it, there's no leg for the music industry to stand on whatsoever, but I can see where there could be a problem if the MP3 just shows up in your cloud player as soon as it is purchased. Though even then I think that should be perfectly acceptable.
Playing it in front of an audience, from the cloud or disk is a violation. Storing it on CD, USB Key or the cloud shouldn't be... however, ultimately it will boil down to legal issue that will be interesting to watch being sorted out.
And that's what it really amounts to. Every time a new way to store or play media for your own personal use, the thieves want to make you pay for it again to have the privilege of using that new method on what you already had a copy of. And every time it takes a long drawn-out legal battle to decide that yes, you are allowed to store your copy wherever you like and convert it into whatever form you like to be played back on whatever device you like.
But MP3.com hadn't sold that file to the user. Their copy isn't the same as your copy. You can play your copy, not their copy.
According to our inane copyright laws, even if you and your friend have the exact same CD, he can't rip it and give you the MP3s. Even if they're bit-for-bit identical to what you'd get if you ripped the CD yourself. That was basically what MP3.com was doing - giving you access to their copy of the song. You're not allowed to do that. It has to be your copy of the song.
Amazon sold the song, which meant they gave you access to the MP3 file on their server, which they still possess - so everyone who bought it gets access to the exact copy they originally purchased. That should be perfectly kosher.
Streaming one's own uploaded music is nothing more than a specialized form of data retrieval.
One's own music? That would be music that you yourself performed and recorded. Otherwise, you don't "own" the music. You own nothing but a license to play it under the terms that its real owner dictates, and they're in the business of making you pay to listen to their music. And they're obviously not opposed to the idea of making you pay more than once to listen to the same song.
And yes, I agree that it's completely absurd. They shouldn't be allowed to tell you where you can keep a copy of their music or when or how you can listen to it.
I would also like to see it tested in a room full of hydrogen/oxygen mix.
Either you just mean a room full of water vapor, or it will just be a room full of water vapor in about a split second if it ignites. Minus whatever water vapor escaped when the roof blew off.
They meant "electric field" but of course they don't know what the difference is between "electricity" and "electric fields".
They only tell you what's really going on if you bother to read the "complex" explanation:
But how does it work? Cademartiri acknowledged that the phenomenon is complex with several effects occurring simultaneously. Among these effects, it appears that carbon particles, or soot, generated in the flame are key for its response to electric fields.
So an amoral government is a source of conflicts, and a moral one is a source of conflicts. Jolly clever of you. Sounds like there's no way around conflicts, when you put it that way. Almost like they're an inseparable part of human nature.
Slashdot Mirror
EABOD
Eat A Bluescreen Of Death?
Shhh, if he says it often enough it becomes true. Magically. Like unicorns.
they can't and the only 'terms of use' is the 'fair use' policy for copyrighted material, the terms of which not dictated by the copyright owner
You're looking at it wrong - "fair use" is something that had to be wrestled from them by brute force of law, in the effect of "you can't prohibit people from doing this". The terms were so dictated by the copyright owners that the law had to intervene.
Though you don't even need to dig that deep... the name gives it away. "Fair" use. When you're creating laws with words like "fair", it obviously implies that you think what was before wasn't fair. What was before was copyright holders dictating the terms of their copyright. What is now is only them dictating it still, with a few intervening laws to make their terms more "fair".
Then you're missing the part where that's what is in question here.
Here you go:
javascript:void((d=(d=document.getElementsByTagName('select')[0])[d.length-1]).innerHTML=d.value='pedophiles');
I can't imagine any real way of printing the grooves.
You wouldn't print the groove, you'd print up the surface on either side of it with a 3D printer. The 3D printer would have to be very fast and accurate to print in real-time, obviously.
Also, making a master (negative) with a 3D printer might be easier and more practical than directly making a vinyl disk with one (for one thing, it'd only have to print a single ridge as it traveled around, instead of two with a groove between them). The master could then be used to stamp vinyl copies. If a relatively cheap 3D printer was capable of producing a master, it might be cheaper and more practical than the current methods of making a master.
And.. They were only able to get a good result for about 10-15 minuts in the beginning of the disc..
Sounds like their device didn't compensate for the increased circumferential distance the farther out you move on the disc.
I remember something like that too - probably it was about either this, this or this.
Or when viewing a collapsed comment doesn't show you who wrote it
I think that IS supposed to be a feature, to save space so you can see more of the one-line comment. However, it also no longer hides <quote>'d text in the one-line like it used to, which I consider a bug.
Or when a comment is scored 2 or 3, it doesn't state how it was moderated. It just states (Score:2). Not like the comment above mine which is (Score:1, Interesting).
I think that's supposed to be a feature too. It happened long before the redesign. Comments which only have one moderation don't have their moderation type changed from normal. Once two or more moderations have been made, the winning moderation type is displayed. The OP comment has been moderated twice (Interesting, Troll).
However, there's a bug where the comment's score isn't displayed at all until all of its parent comments are opened. And I'd really like the comment scores to be shown for one-line comments, too.
How about using a one-time pad. It is unbreakable (in a theoretical setting, of course).
A one-time pad is only as strong as the total number of possible "times" in your pad. You could make a pretty big one-time pad of nothing but alphabet replacement cyphers, but that wouldn't make the cypher any stronger.
There are 26! (about 4.03x10^26) possible alphabet replacement cyphers, but you can attack any one of them with a dictionary...
Yeah, it's a {bug/feature}. You {get/have} to open every post above it before you can click the one you want. And clicking the score to find out how a comment was moderated also collapses the comment and hides its replies.
Mod {parent/me} {up/down}.
I see that plastics are by definition organic, but fail to see how organic transistors are by definition plastic.
AFAIK, any organic polymer that is thermoplastic/thermosetting is a plastic.
Organic: carbon-based
Polymer: large molecule made up of repeating basic units
Thermoplastic/thermosetting: more plastic/moldable at higher temperatures and/or solidifying or just becoming stiffer at low temperature
They meet those criteria, so they're plastic. At least, the film used as the substrate certainly does.
You're missing the part where Amazon is authorized to sell their music and has a license (an actual written contract) to do so. And their license doesn't say they're allowed to stream it. This has nothing to do with the buyer's license, which (as you correctly stated) is dictated by law and not dictated by the copyright holder.
Your agreement is the standard license to play their copyrighted music for your personal use, which allows limited copying (under fair use) and doesn't allow you to play it for groups (public performance), etc. Since you're aware that the song is copyrighted, the standard license applies by default.
Amazon's license is the one in question here... if they are allowed to sell the music, what sort of access are they allowed to give people to the music after it is purchased? And are they allowed to store and stream music that users upload? (Since that's basically just like an iPod with its storage in the cloud I don't see how that couldn't be permitted.)
If they require you to actually download the MP3 and their cloud player requires you to re-upload it, there's no leg for the music industry to stand on whatsoever, but I can see where there could be a problem if the MP3 just shows up in your cloud player as soon as it is purchased. Though even then I think that should be perfectly acceptable.
They most certainly do get a say. They're suing. That's their way of saying things. They might lose, but not without a battle.
Playing it in front of an audience, from the cloud or disk is a violation. Storing it on CD, USB Key or the cloud shouldn't be... however, ultimately it will boil down to legal issue that will be interesting to watch being sorted out.
And that's what it really amounts to. Every time a new way to store or play media for your own personal use, the thieves want to make you pay for it again to have the privilege of using that new method on what you already had a copy of. And every time it takes a long drawn-out legal battle to decide that yes, you are allowed to store your copy wherever you like and convert it into whatever form you like to be played back on whatever device you like.
But MP3.com hadn't sold that file to the user. Their copy isn't the same as your copy. You can play your copy, not their copy.
According to our inane copyright laws, even if you and your friend have the exact same CD, he can't rip it and give you the MP3s. Even if they're bit-for-bit identical to what you'd get if you ripped the CD yourself. That was basically what MP3.com was doing - giving you access to their copy of the song. You're not allowed to do that. It has to be your copy of the song.
Amazon sold the song, which meant they gave you access to the MP3 file on their server, which they still possess - so everyone who bought it gets access to the exact copy they originally purchased. That should be perfectly kosher.
Streaming one's own uploaded music is nothing more than a specialized form of data retrieval.
One's own music? That would be music that you yourself performed and recorded. Otherwise, you don't "own" the music. You own nothing but a license to play it under the terms that its real owner dictates, and they're in the business of making you pay to listen to their music. And they're obviously not opposed to the idea of making you pay more than once to listen to the same song.
And yes, I agree that it's completely absurd. They shouldn't be allowed to tell you where you can keep a copy of their music or when or how you can listen to it.
I would also like to see it tested in a room full of hydrogen/oxygen mix.
Either you just mean a room full of water vapor, or it will just be a room full of water vapor in about a split second if it ignites. Minus whatever water vapor escaped when the roof blew off.
They meant "electric field" but of course they don't know what the difference is between "electricity" and "electric fields".
They only tell you what's really going on if you bother to read the "complex" explanation:
But how does it work? Cademartiri acknowledged that the phenomenon is complex with several effects occurring simultaneously. Among these effects, it appears that carbon particles, or soot, generated in the flame are key for its response to electric fields.
You think porn is real life?
I'm very sorry for you.
Unless you mean "several millennia" when you say "several decades", no u.
So an amoral government is a source of conflicts, and a moral one is a source of conflicts. Jolly clever of you. Sounds like there's no way around conflicts, when you put it that way. Almost like they're an inseparable part of human nature.
The US formerly being one of them.
Fixed that for you.