Even more to the point, how the #$^*? do these things get certified as "safe"? I was under the impression that the certification program for hospital grade equipment was extremely strict.
Obviously, that would be a waste of time - humans counting printouts of what's in the database will be less accurate than just taking the total from the database.
Thats right! Because there is no way that a programming error could possibly result in an incorrect tally...
16 MEGS!!!! That would have cost me close to $1000 at the time I was running my first web-browser. I was running Win 3.something on a 486DX50 with 4MB RAM using trumpet Winsock with SLIP on a 9600 baud modem. If I recall, it was NCSA mosaic, and when it came out I switched to Netscape 0.9'ish. I had to use windows. IIRC it wasn't ported to linux yet. (actually not sure if Slackware 1.1 had support for SLIP dialup anyway)
I'm not so sure. I think hardware makers are going to find it hard to sell this stuff when there's no demand for it.
Yes, but there will be demand when Microsoft tells the hardware manufacturers that the only way they will be allowed to maintain the OEM agreement is by selling machines exclusively with Longhorn installed...
Re:$1/CPU hour? Sure!
on
Paid To Spam
·
· Score: 1
better yet, VMware. run a couple dozen virtual machines on one p4 and only allocate about 10MHz CPU per VM. just watch the clock ticks add up in a real hurry!
yes, but if I came to your house and made the copies, I have not supplied the original material to be copied, or if I borrow a CD from you I have not supplied the original material, yet that is not copyright violation.
If I walk into your house, sit down at your computer, pull out your CD's, copy them (for my own personal enjoyment) and walk away home there has been no violation of copyright.
what happened here?
I used an electronic input device (keyboard/mouse) to conrol a music playing system (your computer) and directed it to output to a recording medium (let's say a USB HDD).
now, supposing I use a wireless keyboard and mouse from the opposite side of the room. The location of controlling changed, but I can still quite clearly be said to be making the copy. There is still no violation of copyright.
What if I then make the USB cable really long. I am now controlling the system from a distance and transferring the data over a really long cable. Still no fundamental change. Still no violation.
Now, what if I use something like VNC or PC-Anywhere to control your computer from the other side of the room and copy data onto my USB drive with the really long cable. I am still creating copies for my own personal use. Still no violation.
Now, take this model to it's logical extreme. Using a proprietary protocol, I remotely control your computer, but instead of copying the music down a really long USB cable to a local drive, I am transferring the data across an IP channel to my own computer.
Where is the copyright violation? I have used your computer to copy music for my personal use.
Please explain to me how my coming to your house to copy your music collection makes you a distributor of copyrighted materials.
Part VIII, Section 80, subsection 1 of the Canada Copyright Act - Chapter C-42, EXPLICITLY grants a person the right to reproduce all or any substantial part of:
a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for private use of the person who makes the copy REGARDLESS of the original source.
I can borrow music from a library and copy it.
I can record songs from the radio.
I can borrow music from a friend and copy it.
I can visit a friend's house and copy all of his/her music and take it home with me
In all four of these cases I am within the legal boundaries of copyright regardless of whether the owner of the original recording has legal title to that recording. (i.e. owns the cd, etc.)
If I were to print a list of all the CD's I own and post it on a bulleting board I would clearly not be violating copyright.
If someone then saw that list and came to my house and used my equipment to make copies of that music for his own personal use, he would not be violating copyright law, nor would I.
In the case of P2P networks, the "sharer" is not distributing the music, he or she is merely advertising a list of titles.
the downloader is considered to be the person making the copy, that is, the downloader is remotely controlling the computer and commanding it to make copies. The downloader is, in essence, visitng the abode of the "sharer", making copies of the the music being shared and going home with it.
The downloader, then, is within legal boundaries, asssuming he or she is only using the music for personal use.
The "sharer" is not violating any copyright because he or she did not perform the act of copying.
No, the computer is not distributing the files, it is duplicating music FOR PERSONAL USE by the person responsible for making the copy.
The law is not concerned with who owns the equipment used for making the copy, nor is the law concerned with where that equipment is located nor how the copy is transported from the place of duplication.
The key here is that the music is being used by the person that performed the copy. In the case of digital media residing on a computer, pressing the download button, is considered to be the equivalent of pressing the record button on a casette tape. The computer is acting in a passive mode by awaiting instructions to begin duplication.
A computer (or administrator of said computer) could be considered to be distributing music if he or she was acting if an active mode. An example of this would be if I had an FTP server with public access and a request list. If you were to read my request list and upload music for me to listen to, you would be in violation of copyright because you could be said to be making copies for the use of someone other than yourself.
Do you see the difference? In the case of P2P, as a downloader I am responsible for creating copies for my own personal use from a system (or administrator) that is allowing me access to his or her files. In the second case the administrator is creating the copies and distributing the files. It is definitely a case of splitting hairs, because the end result is the same (I have copies of music to listen to which I have not paid a cent for, blank media levies aside).
Whether you agree with it or not, that is the letter of the law. It comes down to a matter of active versus passive. I am allowed to passively allow you to make copies of my music, but I am not allowed to actively make copes for you.
WRONG! Under Canadian Copyright Law a person is entitled to make copies of music for personal use.
On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act came into force. Until then, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright. Part VIII legalizes one such activity: copying of sound recordings of musical works onto recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy. -neil.eton.ca [emphasis mine]
So, it becomes plain that it is a very important, if somewhat pedantic, detail whether the downloader is said to be the person performing the copy. As it stands right now, the Federal Supreme court ruling that recently passed has implied that by requesting a download, a person is actually considered to be making the recording. Just because the computer that the file resides on is owned by another person, does not alter that fact.
So in what world is putting a file that you do _NOT_ own the copyright on, and have not actually obtained permission from the copyright holder to copy for purposes beyond fair use, in a publicly shared folder for others to obtain _not_ a violation of the copyright act?
In the world where borrowing music and making copies of it for your own personal use is part of "fair use". The world happens to coincide with the world we live in here in Canada."
Canadian copyright law is very explicit in the fact that Canadians are allowed to borrow music and make copies for themselves. The catch to this is that the copy MUST be made by the borrower, not the lender, so if I copy my new CD and give that copy to a friend, I am violating copyright law. If I lend my new CD to a friend and he makes a copy of it, that is legal.
So, the natural extension of this into the digital world appears to be something like this:
Advertising my files in a file share is equivalent to telling my friend that I have a new CD.
When the downloader requests a file from me, it is equivalent to my friend asking to borrow the CD.
As an uploader, I am not guilty of copyright violation because the command to "copy" the song was initiated by the "borrower."
Uploading can hardly be considered "unethical" since the people that are really hurt by filesharing are the corporate fat-cats that are losing control of the distribution stronghold. Feeling sympathy for these people is like feeling sorry for Nike CEO's when China finally institues labour laws and starts shutting down child-labour sweat shops.
where are mod points when you need 'em? This is either some serious trolling, or perhaps "sane?" hasn't moved out of the basement yet and is/.ing while mommy is cooking lunch...
yes, compared to the amazing creativity of americans where every film seems to go somewhat along the lines of:
2 boys, separated at birth, fall in love with the American Dream, except one is rich/ powerful/ a cop and the other is rich/ powerful/ a thief... they fight each other for the money, and there is much killing and shooting throughout.
I dunno, feeding trolls gives me that warm fuzzy feeling like feeding the squirrels in the park...They quickly begin to trust you enought that it's easy to snatch 'em and wring their scrawny little necks!
Actually, I think the really cool point you mention is the RFID tags. If these things live up to their expectations and become embedded in everything, a robot could use the RF signal to home in on objects while avoiding other ones. Things wouldn't always have to be in the same place. The robot could find the RFID tag for orange juice in the fridge, etc. ...think of the possibilities!
Dear pedantic Slashbots: If cable theft is stealing, why is MP3 downloading "infringement?" Face it; it's stealing
Ah, you see, your logical fallacy here is a faulty premise. You have fallen prey to the cable company's propaganda stating that so called "cable theft" is stealing.
Let's review:
The basic legal definition of theft is 'the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it'. Put simply this means, taking someone else's property intending that it will not be returned. There needs to be an element of dishonesty. If someone believes they have a right to take property or the owner would have consented this could mean that a theft has not been committed.
In the case of cable or mp3, since there is no tangible object of which the "owner" can be permanently deprived, there cannot be a theft. Plain and simple.
Well if Sears charges too much for _insert product here_ you buy it somewhere else. You don't go into Sears and steal it.
As much a the RIAA would like you to believe otherwise, copying music IS NOT STEALING!.
Period.
Theft is a criminal matter. Copyright is a civil matter. Anyway, the argument has been clearly drawn up so many times before, I will not waste my own time pointing you to the legal definitions of theft and copyright. I trust you can figure out how to use google.
Why do you support the propaganda campaign being spread by the RIAA?
Slashdot Mirror
Even more to the point, how the #$^*? do these things get certified as "safe"? I was under the impression that the certification program for hospital grade equipment was extremely strict.
Obviously, that would be a waste of time - humans counting printouts of what's in the database will be less accurate than just taking the total from the database.
Thats right! Because there is no way that a programming error could possibly result in an incorrect tally...
Eudora downloads any messages that have been opened. You can also set options to download complete messages when checking mail.
Of course, once you have the data locally, you can back it up to Tape, CD, or a redundant array of enlightened monks...
16 MEGS!!!! That would have cost me close to $1000 at the time I was running my first web-browser. I was running Win 3.something on a 486DX50 with 4MB RAM using trumpet Winsock with SLIP on a 9600 baud modem. If I recall, it was NCSA mosaic, and when it came out I switched to Netscape 0.9'ish. I had to use windows. IIRC it wasn't ported to linux yet. (actually not sure if Slackware 1.1 had support for SLIP dialup anyway)
(yes, I am 100% not joking here either.)
Sheesh! Some people's children...
I'm not so sure. I think hardware makers are going to find it hard to sell this stuff when there's no demand for it.
Yes, but there will be demand when Microsoft tells the hardware manufacturers that the only way they will be allowed to maintain the OEM agreement is by selling machines exclusively with Longhorn installed...
9" VGA LCD used to be pretty common on e-bay.
better yet, VMware. run a couple dozen virtual machines on one p4 and only allocate about 10MHz CPU per VM. just watch the clock ticks add up in a real hurry!
yes, but if I came to your house and made the copies, I have not supplied the original material to be copied, or if I borrow a CD from you I have not supplied the original material, yet that is not copyright violation.
what is the difference?
Aright.
If I walk into your house, sit down at your computer, pull out your CD's, copy them (for my own personal enjoyment) and walk away home there has been no violation of copyright.
what happened here?
I used an electronic input device (keyboard/mouse) to conrol a music playing system (your computer)
and directed it to output to a recording medium (let's say a USB HDD).
now, supposing I use a wireless keyboard and mouse from the opposite side of the room. The location of controlling changed, but I can still quite clearly be said to be making the copy. There is still no violation of copyright.
What if I then make the USB cable really long. I am now controlling the system from a distance and transferring the data over a really long cable. Still no fundamental change. Still no violation.
Now, what if I use something like VNC or PC-Anywhere to control your computer from the other side of the room and copy data onto my USB drive with the really long cable. I am still creating copies for my own personal use. Still no violation.
Now, take this model to it's logical extreme. Using a proprietary protocol, I remotely control your computer, but instead of copying the music down a really long USB cable to a local drive, I am transferring the data across an IP channel to my own computer.
Where is the copyright violation? I have used your computer to copy music for my personal use.
Please explain to me how my coming to your house to copy your music collection makes you a distributor of copyrighted materials.
a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for private use of the person who makes the copy REGARDLESS of the original source.
In all four of these cases I am within the legal boundaries of copyright regardless of whether the owner of the original recording has legal title to that recording. (i.e. owns the cd, etc.)
If I were to print a list of all the CD's I own and post it on a bulleting board I would clearly not be violating copyright.
If someone then saw that list and came to my house and used my equipment to make copies of that music for his own personal use, he would not be violating copyright law, nor would I.
In the case of P2P networks, the "sharer" is not distributing the music, he or she is merely advertising a list of titles.
the downloader is considered to be the person making the copy, that is, the downloader is remotely controlling the computer and commanding it to make copies. The downloader is, in essence, visitng the abode of the "sharer", making copies of the the music being shared and going home with it.
The downloader, then, is within legal boundaries, asssuming he or she is only using the music for personal use.
The "sharer" is not violating any copyright because he or she did not perform the act of copying.
The law is not concerned with who owns the equipment used for making the copy, nor is the law concerned with where that equipment is located nor how the copy is transported from the place of duplication.
The key here is that the music is being used by the person that performed the copy. In the case of digital media residing on a computer, pressing the download button, is considered to be the equivalent of pressing the record button on a casette tape. The computer is acting in a passive mode by awaiting instructions to begin duplication.
A computer (or administrator of said computer) could be considered to be distributing music if he or she was acting if an active mode. An example of this would be if I had an FTP server with public access and a request list. If you were to read my request list and upload music for me to listen to, you would be in violation of copyright because you could be said to be making copies for the use of someone other than yourself.
Do you see the difference? In the case of P2P, as a downloader I am responsible for creating copies for my own personal use from a system (or administrator) that is allowing me access to his or her files. In the second case the administrator is creating the copies and distributing the files. It is definitely a case of splitting hairs, because the end result is the same (I have copies of music to listen to which I have not paid a cent for, blank media levies aside).
Whether you agree with it or not, that is the letter of the law. It comes down to a matter of active versus passive. I am allowed to passively allow you to make copies of my music, but I am not allowed to actively make copes for you.
So, it becomes plain that it is a very important, if somewhat pedantic, detail whether the downloader is said to be the person performing the copy. As it stands right now, the Federal Supreme court ruling that recently passed has implied that by requesting a download, a person is actually considered to be making the recording. Just because the computer that the file resides on is owned by another person, does not alter that fact.
In the world where borrowing music and making copies of it for your own personal use is part of "fair use". The world happens to coincide with the world we live in here in Canada."
Canadian copyright law is very explicit in the fact that Canadians are allowed to borrow music and make copies for themselves. The catch to this is that the copy MUST be made by the borrower, not the lender, so if I copy my new CD and give that copy to a friend, I am violating copyright law. If I lend my new CD to a friend and he makes a copy of it, that is legal.
So, the natural extension of this into the digital world appears to be something like this:
Advertising my files in a file share is equivalent to telling my friend that I have a new CD.
When the downloader requests a file from me, it is equivalent to my friend asking to borrow the CD.
As an uploader, I am not guilty of copyright violation because the command to "copy" the song was initiated by the "borrower."
Uploading can hardly be considered "unethical" since the people that are really hurt by filesharing are the corporate fat-cats that are losing control of the distribution stronghold. Feeling sympathy for these people is like feeling sorry for Nike CEO's when China finally institues labour laws and starts shutting down child-labour sweat shops.
Hello, you have just received the Linux version of the redneck virus. Since I don't know how to program, please su and rm -rf
Please send this to all of your friends first.
Thank-you!
actually, I'd rather see SCO get charged with contempt of court and ordered to personally appologize to every Linux user.
UNLIMITED IS UN-FUCKING-LIMITED!!! As soon as you place limits, be it range or scope the service is no longer unlimited.
where are mod points when you need 'em? This is either some serious trolling, or perhaps "sane?" hasn't moved out of the basement yet and is /.ing while mommy is cooking lunch...
No need. By default it appears to not work :-)
For once I guess I don't need to curse "webmasters" that develop for ie only!
Not buying it might be an option if there were any indication on the packaging that the enclosed disc does not conform to the red-book standard.
yes, compared to the amazing creativity of americans where every film seems to go somewhat along the lines of:
2 boys, separated at birth, fall in love with the American Dream, except one is rich/ powerful/ a cop and the other is rich/ powerful/ a thief... they fight each other for the money, and there is much killing and shooting throughout.
I dunno, feeding trolls gives me that warm fuzzy feeling like feeding the squirrels in the park...They quickly begin to trust you enought that it's easy to snatch 'em and wring their scrawny little necks!
*EG*
Actually, I think the really cool point you mention is the RFID tags. If these things live up to their expectations and become embedded in everything, a robot could use the RF signal to home in on objects while avoiding other ones. Things wouldn't always have to be in the same place. The robot could find the RFID tag for orange juice in the fridge, etc.
...think of the possibilities!
Ah, you see, your logical fallacy here is a faulty premise. You have fallen prey to the cable company's propaganda stating that so called "cable theft" is stealing.
Let's review:
The basic legal definition of theft is 'the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it'. Put simply this means, taking someone else's property intending that it will not be returned. There needs to be an element of dishonesty. If someone believes they have a right to take property or the owner would have consented this could mean that a theft has not been committed.
In the case of cable or mp3, since there is no tangible object of which the "owner" can be permanently deprived, there cannot be a theft. Plain and simple.
As much a the RIAA would like you to believe otherwise, copying music IS NOT STEALING!.
Period.
Theft is a criminal matter. Copyright is a civil matter. Anyway, the argument has been clearly drawn up so many times before, I will not waste my own time pointing you to the legal definitions of theft and copyright. I trust you can figure out how to use google.
Why do you support the propaganda campaign being spread by the RIAA?
Yes, that's true becuase soon there will be no economy left in the country and there will be no requirement for sourcing, be it in out or sideways...