The DMCA acknowledges that some software may be used to break protection measures, but targets those that have no legitimate uses
No legitimate commercial uses. It can have all the legitimate personal use in the world, such as using DeCSS to play your DVDs, but the DMCA only makes that exception for legitimate commercial uses. It becomes even more obvious that corporations wrote the DMCA.
and there's already transfer mechanisms built into most ebooks and ebook readers.
The mechanism is there, but publishers are under no obligation to enable it, giving them the ability to eliminate all of your fair use rights. This re-enables them.
This code was meant primarily to allow piracy, period.
Does not establish a right to keep and bear arms. It recognizes that the people have a previously existing moral right to do so, and prevents the government from infringing upon that right.
"Oh, damn, I want to shoot 30 bullets at these people, but I'm limited to a 10-round mag instead of the normal 15-rounder. I guess I'll have to take two seconds more swapping magazines."
I like my hunting rifles to have precision. I wouldn't buy a sniper rifle simply because they generally cost five-figures, with ammo also costing too much. But if you're a rich and like to hunt or go to the extreme with target practice, why not?
Actually, our violence and crime rates are far higher than those countries aside from guns. Other countries have approximately the same ownership rates as us (aside from Switzerland, where ownership is militia-based), but with far lower crime rates.
We have to blame guns, video games, TV, etc. Whiney, whiney, whiney, no one's ever responsible for thier own actions. What ever happened to the idea that these kids were just off their collective rockers?
J. Neil Schulman asked America's foremost expert in language usage, Roy Copperud, to interpret the 2nd Amendment purely according to the language here. The retired journalism professor was not told the politics of the requester and could not guess the purpose of the exercise though he tried. In the end, no it doesn't depend on a militia:
"...The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
Especially important was that it is an assumed right inherent of the people. It was not thought that the Constitution was granting this right, but prohibiting the government from infringing on an established one.
Even in places where all guns were seized during insurrections, people even made their own guns. As we've seen with drugs, if the people want them, they'll get them. And all the government can do is make the problem worse by banning them. The best the government can do is very harsh penalties for misuse that directly harms another.
Secondly, only a fraction of cirminals would carry guns if doing so was prohibited.
Since England banned handguns, Scotland Yard has admitted that prohibition has done nothing to keep the criminals from obtaining them. It's easier than ever, and the London crime rate is suddenly higher than New York City.
A murderer could use a knife to kill, but it's much harder; he'd have to be very close to the victim.
Some interesting research showed that even if handguns were completely wiped out, criminals would simply carry long (hunting) guns or knives (that part's obvious). Probably more knives and fewer guns because of concealability. The unobvious part is the fact that a long gun is far, far more deadly than a handgun, which wipes out any life savings from those who would have used less-effective knives instead.
It is my opinion that guns do more harm than good, and should therefore be banned.
In the U.S., that annoying right of the people to keep and bear arms gets in the way.
Photoshop especially is highly tuned for the Altivec engine. In fact, Apple used to use Photoshop to promote the speed of its processors until the Intel processors started running Photoshop faster.
Keep in mind that collections of facts (like a phone book) are copyrightable.
It's a very fine line we're talking about here. There is no original expression in a list of items and prices since they're facts, but organizing the list into a book (phone book) or distributable flyer or ad is an original expression of those facts. Therefore, posting a PDF of the ad would be infringement; however, posting the facts represented in the ad isn't.
The fact that it was confidential material has nothing to do with copyright and should not be brought up in this discussion as relating to a claim of copyright. As I said, they can make claims under trade secret for that, but they've already hitched their wagon to copyright.
I agree that someone probably needs to be fired for leaking the list.
I think the copyright claim stems not from the fact that they merely reposted prices, but that they reposted the full text of their advertisements.
I haven't seen the advertisements, but I'll bet anything that they had some formatting, choice of font, introductory text and a company logo. I've seen the posted list, and it was just a list of items and prices.
This is the same idea as in the phonebook ruling by the Supreme Court. From 499 U.S. 340 (1991), in which a company copied a whole white pages, most data sections verbatim (=full-text repost in the Internet age):
While Rural has a valid copyright in the directory as a whole because it contains some forward text and some original material in the yellow pages, there is nothing original in Rural's white pages. The raw data are uncopyrightable facts, and the way in which Rural selected, coordinated, and arranged those facts is not original in any way. Rural's selection of listings - subscribers' names, towns, and telephone numbers - could not be more obvious, and lacks the modicum of creativity necessary to transform mere selection into copyrightable expression.
There is a very long shot that the court may believe that coming up with the prices for those items is copyrightable, but the problem is that once those prices are decided upon, they are mere facts and not copyrightable creative expression.
Why would all of these retail chains be making the same copyright claim if there wasn't some merit to their argument?
Collusion. Baseless legal intimidation usually works as people fear getting drowned in lawyers fees, and intimidation by many works even better. Mastercard did it individually to NetFunny over a parody of their "priceless" ads when they knew that parody was protected (as does anyone who's seen "The People vs. Larry Flynt"). NetFunny told them to get lost.
But there is no way any of those stores could reasonably claim copyright. That means their letters under the DMCA subject them to fees under the DMCA and possible purjury and ethics charges for their lawyers.
However, the letter did mention the possibility of the stores claiming trade secret, but dismissed that possibility fairly well too.
Wal-Mart was supposed to decide whether to withdraw the subpoena yesterday. If not, FatWallet reserves the right to wait until the 10th to file a motion to quash. Since Wal-Mart claimed copyright violation as the reson behind the subpoena, then their subpoena is baseless and will probably be quashed. They should have claimed trade secret.
"Your demand... is an abuse of copyright law.... Sanctions for perjury may also be applicable, as well as penalties for violations of the ethical cannons governing attorneys."
Looks like they're going to seek sanctions for perjury and go to the state bars and file ethics compliants against the lawyers representing these companies.
And a list of prices is a collection of facts. Had the prices been printed on a nice ad with formatting and pretty designs, the whole can be copyrighted, but the mere facts presented on the page are free to redistribute.
Read the DMCA response letter by FatWallet's lawyers to get the appropriate Supreme Court rulings.
Re:Cute, but impractical
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I know of quite a few Lotus Elises, at ~1600lbs, that have been in serious crashes (collision, rolled, nose-first 12ft into a ditch) with little or no driver injuries. The driver sits in an extruded aluminum bathtub with a rollcage around him. The front and back are collapsible subframes and the body panels shatter. I feel quite safe.
Along with the McLaren F1 (also very safe at 2400lbs) it's the only car to be drivable after the front collision test.
You don't have to make cars heavier, just more intelligently.
Actually, Dalton would have never been Bond if Hollywood hadn't acted in its usual brutal manner. IIRC, Pierce Brosnan's then series Remington Steele was losing ratings and was about to be canceled, then Brosnan was asked to do Bond. This caused lots of publicity and the show got more popular. The studio refused to release Brosnan to do Bond because they were making money off the show again. Then interest died down and the studio canceled the show after Brosnan's chance at Bond had passed.
I've seen one. It's very scary. I wouldn't go in the water in one, and it didn't look too capable as a land car either. I loved the wood-slatted floor boards so the passengers don't get their feet wet when it fills with water.
And, yes, I don't know OS X at all, and I actually said so in the article the previous month, linked to from this article.
Then you really shouldn't be the one making comparisons such as this; although in honesty you did give disclaimers, but few read those and therefore get a false impression of performance. You are obviously an expert at Linux setups, but know little about OS X. You should have gotten some expert advice at setting up OS X before making such a comparison in order to have a truly good test worthy of being called "journalism."
Not using 10.2 was an especially egregious oversight since it is a large leap in performance from 10.1.5 (that fast graphics card you mentioned would have taken most of the GUI load).
But in general I liked the article. I await one after you've had time to learn OS X and test 10.2.x against stable 2.5.x.
Slashdot Mirror
The DMCA acknowledges that some software may be used to break protection measures, but targets those that have no legitimate uses
No legitimate commercial uses. It can have all the legitimate personal use in the world, such as using DeCSS to play your DVDs, but the DMCA only makes that exception for legitimate commercial uses. It becomes even more obvious that corporations wrote the DMCA.
and there's already transfer mechanisms built into most ebooks and ebook readers.
The mechanism is there, but publishers are under no obligation to enable it, giving them the ability to eliminate all of your fair use rights. This re-enables them.
This code was meant primarily to allow piracy, period.
Yet one big customer was U.S. law enforcement.
Does not establish a right to keep and bear arms. It recognizes that the people have a previously existing moral right to do so, and prevents the government from infringing upon that right.
"Oh, damn, I want to shoot 30 bullets at these people, but I'm limited to a 10-round mag instead of the normal 15-rounder. I guess I'll have to take two seconds more swapping magazines."
I like my hunting rifles to have precision. I wouldn't buy a sniper rifle simply because they generally cost five-figures, with ammo also costing too much. But if you're a rich and like to hunt or go to the extreme with target practice, why not?
Actually, our violence and crime rates are far higher than those countries aside from guns. Other countries have approximately the same ownership rates as us (aside from Switzerland, where ownership is militia-based), but with far lower crime rates.
"What happened to just plain crazy?"
We have to blame guns, video games, TV, etc. Whiney, whiney, whiney, no one's ever responsible for thier own actions. What ever happened to the idea that these kids were just off their collective rockers?
In the end, no it doesn't depend on a militia:Especially important was that it is an assumed right inherent of the people. It was not thought that the Constitution was granting this right, but prohibiting the government from infringing on an established one.
Even in places where all guns were seized during insurrections, people even made their own guns. As we've seen with drugs, if the people want them, they'll get them. And all the government can do is make the problem worse by banning them. The best the government can do is very harsh penalties for misuse that directly harms another.
Secondly, only a fraction of cirminals would carry guns if doing so was prohibited.
Since England banned handguns, Scotland Yard has admitted that prohibition has done nothing to keep the criminals from obtaining them. It's easier than ever, and the London crime rate is suddenly higher than New York City.
A murderer could use a knife to kill, but it's much harder; he'd have to be very close to the victim.
Some interesting research showed that even if handguns were completely wiped out, criminals would simply carry long (hunting) guns or knives (that part's obvious). Probably more knives and fewer guns because of concealability. The unobvious part is the fact that a long gun is far, far more deadly than a handgun, which wipes out any life savings from those who would have used less-effective knives instead.
It is my opinion that guns do more harm than good, and should therefore be banned.
In the U.S., that annoying right of the people to keep and bear arms gets in the way.
Photoshop especially is highly tuned for the Altivec engine. In fact, Apple used to use Photoshop to promote the speed of its processors until the Intel processors started running Photoshop faster.
It's a very fine line we're talking about here. There is no original expression in a list of items and prices since they're facts, but organizing the list into a book (phone book) or distributable flyer or ad is an original expression of those facts. Therefore, posting a PDF of the ad would be infringement; however, posting the facts represented in the ad isn't.
The fact that it was confidential material has nothing to do with copyright and should not be brought up in this discussion as relating to a claim of copyright. As I said, they can make claims under trade secret for that, but they've already hitched their wagon to copyright.
I agree that someone probably needs to be fired for leaking the list.
I think the copyright claim stems not from the fact that they merely reposted prices, but that they reposted the full text of their advertisements.
I haven't seen the advertisements, but I'll bet anything that they had some formatting, choice of font, introductory text and a company logo. I've seen the posted list, and it was just a list of items and prices.
This is the same idea as in the phonebook ruling by the Supreme Court. From 499 U.S. 340 (1991), in which a company copied a whole white pages, most data sections verbatim (=full-text repost in the Internet age):
There is a very long shot that the court may believe that coming up with the prices for those items is copyrightable, but the problem is that once those prices are decided upon, they are mere facts and not copyrightable creative expression.
Why would all of these retail chains be making the same copyright claim if there wasn't some merit to their argument?
Collusion. Baseless legal intimidation usually works as people fear getting drowned in lawyers fees, and intimidation by many works even better. Mastercard did it individually to NetFunny over a parody of their "priceless" ads when they knew that parody was protected (as does anyone who's seen "The People vs. Larry Flynt"). NetFunny told them to get lost.
But there is no way any of those stores could reasonably claim copyright. That means their letters under the DMCA subject them to fees under the DMCA and possible purjury and ethics charges for their lawyers.
However, the letter did mention the possibility of the stores claiming trade secret, but dismissed that possibility fairly well too.
Wal-Mart was supposed to decide whether to withdraw the subpoena yesterday. If not, FatWallet reserves the right to wait until the 10th to file a motion to quash. Since Wal-Mart claimed copyright violation as the reson behind the subpoena, then their subpoena is baseless and will probably be quashed. They should have claimed trade secret.
"Your demand ... is an abuse of copyright law. ... Sanctions for perjury may also be applicable, as well as penalties for violations of the ethical cannons governing attorneys."
Looks like they're going to seek sanctions for perjury and go to the state bars and file ethics compliants against the lawyers representing these companies.
And a list of prices is a collection of facts. Had the prices been printed on a nice ad with formatting and pretty designs, the whole can be copyrighted, but the mere facts presented on the page are free to redistribute.
Read the DMCA response letter by FatWallet's lawyers to get the appropriate Supreme Court rulings.
To maintain high speed, most of your horsepower goes into overcoming air resistance. What's the drag coefficient on this thing, .05?
The 1500lb Smart gets as good a score as the much heavier Ford Escort. Many SUVs achieve this same score.
The 2000lb Audi A2 gets as good a score as a 2250lb Honda Civic. The rest of the SUVs fall into this rating.
Source
I know of quite a few Lotus Elises, at ~1600lbs, that have been in serious crashes (collision, rolled, nose-first 12ft into a ditch) with little or no driver injuries. The driver sits in an extruded aluminum bathtub with a rollcage around him. The front and back are collapsible subframes and the body panels shatter. I feel quite safe.
Along with the McLaren F1 (also very safe at 2400lbs) it's the only car to be drivable after the front collision test.
You don't have to make cars heavier, just more intelligently.
You're thinking Timothy Dalton.
Actually, Dalton would have never been Bond if Hollywood hadn't acted in its usual brutal manner. IIRC, Pierce Brosnan's then series Remington Steele was losing ratings and was about to be canceled, then Brosnan was asked to do Bond. This caused lots of publicity and the show got more popular. The studio refused to release Brosnan to do Bond because they were making money off the show again. Then interest died down and the studio canceled the show after Brosnan's chance at Bond had passed.
That the driver would be up to his neck in water before the skier.
I've seen one. It's very scary. I wouldn't go in the water in one, and it didn't look too capable as a land car either. I loved the wood-slatted floor boards so the passengers don't get their feet wet when it fills with water.
I just typed in "cnn" and ended up with http://www.cnn.com/
Jetro/Jethro? :)
You can also go to Edit : Preferences : Navigator : Internet Search and set your default search engine to Google.
Then type your search criteria into the address bar and hit the Search button; you'll get the Google results.
When designers trust a Microsoft product to get their high-end print jobs to the printer.
And, yes, I don't know OS X at all, and I actually said so in the article the previous month, linked to from this article.
Then you really shouldn't be the one making comparisons such as this; although in honesty you did give disclaimers, but few read those and therefore get a false impression of performance. You are obviously an expert at Linux setups, but know little about OS X. You should have gotten some expert advice at setting up OS X before making such a comparison in order to have a truly good test worthy of being called "journalism."
Not using 10.2 was an especially egregious oversight since it is a large leap in performance from 10.1.5 (that fast graphics card you mentioned would have taken most of the GUI load).
But in general I liked the article. I await one after you've had time to learn OS X and test 10.2.x against stable 2.5.x.