I also read an interview a few days ago with Pete Seeger in some weekly magazine, and in the article there was an interesting description of how "This Land Is Your Land" was written. Apparently it was written over a few years, and the line "this land was made for you and me" was changed from something else, although I can't remember what the original line was (something less universal).
I'm not sure that JibJab's case is that weak-- the accompanying video does mock some of the original lyrics.
Guthrie's first verse
This land is your land, this land is my land. From California to the New York Island From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream Water This land was made for you and me.
These stanzas and the illustrations simply retell the Simpson tale. Although The Cat NOT in the Hat! does broadly mimic Dr. Seuss' characteristic style, it does not hold his style up to ridicule. The stanzas have "no critical bearing on the substance or style of" The Cat in the Hat. Katz and Wrinn merely use the Cat's stove-pipe hat, the narrator ("Dr. Juice), and the title (The Cat NOT in the Hat! ) "to get attention" or maybe even "to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh." Acuff-Rose, 114 S. Ct. at 1172. While Simpson is depicted 13 times in the Cat's distinctively scrunched and somewhat shabby red and white stove-pipe hat, the substance and content of The Cat in the Hat is not conjured up by the focus on the Brown-Goldman murders or the O.J. Simpson trial. Because there is no effort to create a transformative work with "new expression, meaning, or message," the infringing work's commercial use further cuts against the fair use defense.
Despite the fourth ("Private property") and the sixth ("Relief Office") verses, which are less frequently reprinted in "patriotic" songbooks. the popular conception of "This land" is that it promotes national solidarity. Jubjub has penned one set of verses for Bush, and one set for Kerry. The theme of solidarity becomes one of divisiveness.
Nevertheless, this transformation is not quite novel-- Cappy Israel wrote:
This land is your land, but it once was my land
Before we sold you Manhatten Island You pushed my people to the reservation This land was stole by you from me.
Nor is Jubjub's cynicism novel.
As I went walking the oil filled coastline
Along the beaches fishes were choking The smog kept on rolling. the populations growing This land was made for you and me. --Country Joe McDonald
In fact, there are a host of verses, written by dozens of folk singers, for a variety of political and artistic purposes. In 1971, Pete Seeger wrote of this phenomenon
The publishers of this song, who have the difficult job of collecting royalties for its use and seeing that it is not misused are probably wincing by now. I am certainly not making their job any easier. Let me say simply that all of the verses printed in this article are copyrighted by the same company that copyrighted the original song. And I suggest that if you make more changed yourself, you should send them into the company so at least they'll have a complete list of all the good new verses. Here's their address...
Yes, yes. We must uphold the example of Real, and their heroic achievements in the field of reverse engineering. We must blindly ignore the portion of their own license which states
2. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS. a) You may not: (i) permit other individuals to use the Software except under the terms listed above; (ii) modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble (except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by law) or create derivative works based upon the Software or Documentation; (iii) copy the Software or Documentation (except for back-up or archival purposes); (iv) rent, lease, transfer, or otherwise transfer rights to the Software or Documentation; (v) remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Software or Documentation; or (vi) use the MP3 encoder in real time broadcasting (terrestrial, satellite, cable or other media) or broadcasting via the internet or other networks, such as, but not limited to, intranets. You also may not use the RealJukebox MP3 encoder in pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications. Any such forbidden use shall immediately terminate your license to the Software. The recording, playback and download features of the Software are intended only for use with public domain or properly licensed content and content creation tools. You may require a patent, copyright, or other license from a third party to create, copy, download, record or save content files for playback by this Software or to serve or distribute such files to be played back by the Software. b) You agree that you shall only use the Software and Documentation in a manner that complies with all applicable laws in the jurisdictions in which you use the Software and Documentation, including, but not limited to, applicable restrictions concerning copyright and other intellectual property rights. c) You may only use the Software for your private, non-commercial use. You may not use the Software in any way to provide, or as part of, any commercial service or application. Copies of content files, including, but not limited to songs and other audio recordings, which are downloaded or copied using the Software, and which are protected by the copyright laws or related laws of any jurisdiction, are for your own personal use only and may not be distributed to third parties or performed outside your normal circle of family and social acquaintances. d) You may not use the Software in an attempt to, or in conjunction with, any device, program or service designed to circumvent technological measures employed to control access to, or the rights in, a content file or other work protected by the copyright laws of any jurisdiction. e) The Software embodies a serial copying management system required by the laws of the United States. You may not circumvent or attempt to circumvent this system by any means.
Like Apple, Real uses AAC files for this service. Unlike Apple, it doesn't use the fairplay scheme, but rather something called helix. If I'm reading the articles correctly, the harmony program translates the helix drm wrapper into a fairplay wrapper. It doesn't have a license to use the fairplay wrapper, though.
The DMCA is turning out to be quite a circumvention device itself--circumventing fair use, circumventing the 17 USC 117 exception... (I apologize for ignoring this rather important exception)
Apple could argue that it is not the iPod that is being accessed improperly, but rather the fairplay software. Real is trying to use an access control technology that it has not paid for. Now if Real were to offer the option of unprotected AAC or MP3 files, Apple would have no case
Previous reviews and previews have implied that the brand of sound card doesn't much matter (at least for quake iii), but it should be capable of driving 6 speakers.
The article did mention that the low end cards were run without specular lighting, making for a somewhat darker world. It might be easier to see enemies with a card that's capable of sustaining the extra load of specular textures.
CBS is the Columbia Broadcasting System, founded in 1927 as the Columbia Phonograph Broadcasting Company. I find it rather doubtful that they would spurn what was, at the time, their own sister company.
A few extra people? Do these few extra people get their own supercomputers?
The problem with clusters is that they don't scale well in all cases. Programming tricks may help, but profiling and testing on a sub cluster may not reveal bottlenecks in the full cluster.
Yeah, yeah, you could spend your time hand optimizing loops-- and profiling, over and over. Or you cold spend your time actually running the simulation, and optimizing the underlying model.
when you can build a top 5 supercomputer for under 6 million dollars, using off the shelf parts. Why spend the hundreds of millions of dollars?
Why waste time and energy trying to cobble something out of off the shelf parts, when you could be designing a system that could challenge the three-year-old Earth Simulator?
Consider this. You are given a blackbox, with several inputs, and several outputs. You don't know the circuitry inside the black box. But by using a signal generator and oscilloscope, you can make detailed observations of the behavior of this black box. With enough observations, you can recreate a box of your own that behaves in a similar manner. That's reverse engineering-- and it is a lengthy, involved process. The most advanced forms of reverse engineering separate the observation process from the recreation process, and are called "clean room". Such involved techniques are used to insulate the cloning company from claims of copyright infringement. The mot famous and probably the most successful example was Compaq's reverse engineering of the IBM PC bios.
You can reverse engineer software--a number of programs exist to decompile object code into an uncommented, obtuse 'C' code, but sometimes the software designer is aware of the existence of such tools, and may employ various techniques, such as encryption to foil such attempts. The binary is customarily copyrighted along side the source code, so a decompilation may constitute a derivative work and an infringement. The DMCA also comes into play here-- as the reverse engineering exemption has been interpreted quite narrowly by the courts.
In contrast to close binaries, open source software comes with the source code-- the plans to the black box, if you will. It also comes with a license to modify the plans, and to construct new boxes from those plans.
This license is most important. If Compaq had somehow obtained official IBM specifications for the BIOS, or a microphotograph of the BIOS's layout, or had hired away a junior designer with knowledge of IBM's methods, they could be accused of producing a derivative work, and infringing on IBM's intellectual property-- both trade secrets and copyrights.
Apple has both a license for BSD, and sources for a number of BSD operating systems. They don't have to reconstruct the sources. And they needn't use a clean room, because they don't have to deal with a host of lawyers ready to accuse them of misappropriating Berkeley trade secrets and copyrights.
BTW, Intellectual property is terribly important to this discussion, because the techniques of reverse engineering, and in particular, the clean room were developed in an age when the reverse engineers were actively trying to avoid torts. If it weren't for copyright and trade secret law, a rival company could simply bribe an employee at a rival firm to lift some blueprints-- a much more expedient method than reverse engineering.
Perhaps there's a way to to test this-- access google news from two or three different computers in a internet cafe or computer lab. Compare the article selections.
I've opened up google.news on both IE (which I use a few times a year) and safari-- no differences are apparent, but of course google news may be caching content for my I.P.
Good point. I dimly recall that in David Brin's novel, Earth, a user of the World Net News was required to accept a certain amount of off-topic news-- so as not to become informationally inbred.
It's slower than google news. Because it uses the left hand side MSNBC toolbar (with its less than instantaneous menus) less actual news fits on my screen.
Finally, this statement is somewhat disturbing.
"Newsbot (beta) responds to your reading preferences. Clicking on articles determines what we base your recommendations on."
MSNBC does go out of its way to label AP wire service stories as such, which is a nice touch-- I really don't need to read the same story 700 times.
However, google does print the headlines of stories from three sources for each news item, which is more useful that a simple "Also covered in Sun, Herald-Tribune, and ABC". Speaking of which, is that the Chicago Sun, International Herald Tribune, and American Broadcasting Company? Or is it The Sun, Southwest Florida Herald Tribune, and Australian Broadcasting Company?
Organized crime associations derive a large part of their incomes from a number of shady economic activities-- sports betting, sales of pornography, cigarette smuggling, the numbers game, and the production of counterfeit goods. Under the RICO laws, the penalties for such minor crimes could be vastly increased, if the prosecutor could show that this activity was somehow tied to a certain predicate acts and a pattern of illegal activity.
Terrorist organizations are believed to sometimes engage in similar activities. It's easier to prosecute such cases and easier to secure funding if the case is treated as a "potential terrorism" case.
Remember those anti-drug tv advertisements that ran a few months back. The odds are that ones local drug supplier are not connected to a terrorist organization. But the remote possibility raised by that series of ads might have convinced some that they might "just say no..."
Yeah. I do. I keep wondering when Linus Torvalds will descend into the underworld and complete his heroquest. (viz. Joseph Campbell...)
Many of those statements are paraphrases from various essays and manifestos floating about the net. In many of those writings, the statement is presented as a challenge-- a provocation to invite persons to listen. Supporting and clarifying statements usually follow.
Consider the statement "All software should be free." Gunton attacks this from a financial standpoint-- "free software" will deprive him of income. But RMS states
"The word ``free'' has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of ``free software'', we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer''.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.
Instead of attacking RMS's explanation, Gunton assumes that the statement is equivalent to "No one should be permitted to charge for software," and scythes through another straw man.
1.) one could say that apple 'reverse engineered' BSD to hack in the entire OSX interface. so screw apple if they have a complaint about someone else building off their work.
One could say that, but then one would be wrong. Apple didn't attempt to reverse engineer the BSD sources-- they already had the sourcecode, along with a license giving them the legal right (but not the obligation) to modify and redistribute the OS.
Apple did not see fit to apply an open source license to the ipod. Consequently, a great many reverse engineering schemes might be regarded by the federal courts as a infringement.
Software licenses "work" because the act of installing a program (or even of loading a program into memory) itself violates the prohibition on duplicating a copyrighted work. If the user agrees to the license, he is allowed to perform these rather prosaic tasks, but his legal rights in other areas may be further restricted.
Most of the time, a list of myths provides little more than an opportunity to trot out a consignment of straw men-- willful distortions of the opponent's arguments, to be hacked, burnt, and slashed at for the the audience's amusement.
Slashdot Mirror
I also read an interview a few days ago with Pete Seeger in some weekly magazine, and in the article there was an interesting description of how "This Land Is Your Land" was written. Apparently it was written over a few years, and the line "this land was made for you and me" was changed from something else, although I can't remember what the original line was (something less universal).
"God blessed America for me".
The copyright on "This land" says "Words and Music (c) Woody Guthrie (1940), TRO (c) 1956 (renewed), 1958 (renewed) & 1970 Ludlow Music Inc.
By the way, most of the royalties go to a charity, the Committee to Combat Huntington's Disease.
Guthrie's first verse
The court in Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. (109 F.3d 1394). used the following reasoning to deterine that The Cat NOT in the Hat! was not parody
Despite the fourth ("Private property") and the sixth ("Relief Office") verses, which are less frequently reprinted in "patriotic" songbooks. the popular conception of "This land" is that it promotes national solidarity. Jubjub has penned one set of verses for Bush, and one set for Kerry. The theme of solidarity becomes one of divisiveness.
Nevertheless, this transformation is not quite novel-- Cappy Israel wrote:
Nor is Jubjub's cynicism novel.
In fact, there are a host of verses, written by dozens of folk singers, for a variety of political and artistic purposes. In 1971, Pete Seeger wrote of this phenomenon
Like Apple, Real uses AAC files for this service. Unlike Apple, it doesn't use the fairplay scheme, but rather something called helix. If I'm reading the articles correctly, the harmony program translates the helix drm wrapper into a fairplay wrapper. It doesn't have a license to use the fairplay wrapper, though.
The DMCA is turning out to be quite a circumvention device itself--circumventing fair use, circumventing the 17 USC 117 exception... (I apologize for ignoring this rather important exception)
Apple could argue that it is not the iPod that is being accessed improperly, but rather the fairplay software. Real is trying to use an access control technology that it has not paid for. Now if Real were to offer the option of unprotected AAC or MP3 files, Apple would have no case
Previous reviews and previews have implied that the brand of sound card doesn't much matter (at least for quake iii), but it should be capable of driving 6 speakers.
The article did mention that the low end cards were run without specular lighting, making for a somewhat darker world. It might be easier to see enemies with a card that's capable of sustaining the extra load of specular textures.
CBS is the Columbia Broadcasting System, founded in 1927 as the Columbia Phonograph Broadcasting Company. I find it rather doubtful that they would spurn what was, at the time, their own sister company.
could be "flurry"
A few extra people? Do these few extra people get their own supercomputers?
The problem with clusters is that they don't scale well in all cases. Programming tricks may help, but profiling and testing on a sub cluster may not reveal bottlenecks in the full cluster.
Yeah, yeah, you could spend your time hand optimizing loops-- and profiling, over and over. Or you cold spend your time actually running the simulation, and optimizing the underlying model.
when you can build a top 5 supercomputer for under 6 million dollars, using off the shelf parts. Why spend the hundreds of millions of dollars?
Why waste time and energy trying to cobble something out of off the shelf parts, when you could be designing a system that could challenge the three-year-old Earth Simulator?
Consider this. You are given a blackbox, with several inputs, and several outputs. You don't know the circuitry inside the black box. But by using a signal generator and oscilloscope, you can make detailed observations of the behavior of this black box. With enough observations, you can recreate a box of your own that behaves in a similar manner. That's reverse engineering-- and it is a lengthy, involved process. The most advanced forms of reverse engineering separate the observation process from the recreation process, and are called "clean room". Such involved techniques are used to insulate the cloning company from claims of copyright infringement. The mot famous and probably the most successful example was Compaq's reverse engineering of the IBM PC bios.
You can reverse engineer software--a number of programs exist to decompile object code into an uncommented, obtuse 'C' code, but sometimes the software designer is aware of the existence of such tools, and may employ various techniques, such as encryption to foil such attempts. The binary is customarily copyrighted along side the source code, so a decompilation may constitute a derivative work and an infringement. The DMCA also comes into play here-- as the reverse engineering exemption has been interpreted quite narrowly by the courts.
In contrast to close binaries, open source software comes with the source code-- the plans to the black box, if you will. It also comes with a license to modify the plans, and to construct new boxes from those plans.
This license is most important. If Compaq had somehow obtained official IBM specifications for the BIOS, or a microphotograph of the BIOS's layout, or had hired away a junior designer with knowledge of IBM's methods, they could be accused of producing a derivative work, and infringing on IBM's intellectual property-- both trade secrets and copyrights.
Apple has both a license for BSD, and sources for a number of BSD operating systems. They don't have to reconstruct the sources. And they needn't use a clean room, because they don't have to deal with a host of lawyers ready to accuse them of misappropriating Berkeley trade secrets and copyrights.
BTW, Intellectual property is terribly important to this discussion, because the techniques of reverse engineering, and in particular, the clean room were developed in an age when the reverse engineers were actively trying to avoid torts. If it weren't for copyright and trade secret law, a rival company could simply bribe an employee at a rival firm to lift some blueprints-- a much more expedient method than reverse engineering.
Inconceivable!
Nevertheless, point taken.
BTW, there is a personalized search feature-- but it's beta, and optional.
Got a cite?
Perhaps there's a way to to test this-- access google news from two or three different computers in a internet cafe or computer lab. Compare the article selections.
I've opened up google.news on both IE (which I use a few times a year) and safari-- no differences are apparent, but of course google news may be caching content for my I.P.
Good point. I dimly recall that in David Brin's novel, Earth, a user of the World Net News was required to accept a certain amount of off-topic news-- so as not to become informationally inbred.
It's slower than google news. Because it uses the left hand side MSNBC toolbar (with its less than instantaneous menus) less actual news fits on my screen.
Finally, this statement is somewhat disturbing.
"Newsbot (beta) responds to your reading preferences. Clicking on articles determines what we base your recommendations on."
MSNBC does go out of its way to label AP wire service stories as such, which is a nice touch-- I really don't need to read the same story 700 times.
However, google does print the headlines of stories from three sources for each news item, which is more useful that a simple "Also covered in Sun, Herald-Tribune, and ABC". Speaking of which, is that the Chicago Sun, International Herald Tribune, and American Broadcasting Company? Or is it The Sun, Southwest Florida Herald Tribune, and Australian Broadcasting Company?
Organized crime associations derive a large part of their incomes from a number of shady economic activities-- sports betting, sales of pornography, cigarette smuggling, the numbers game, and the production of counterfeit goods. Under the RICO laws, the penalties for such minor crimes could be vastly increased, if the prosecutor could show that this activity was somehow tied to a certain predicate acts and a pattern of illegal activity.
Terrorist organizations are believed to sometimes engage in similar activities. It's easier to prosecute such cases and easier to secure funding if the case is treated as a "potential terrorism" case.
Remember those anti-drug tv advertisements that ran a few months back. The odds are that ones local drug supplier are not connected to a terrorist organization. But the remote possibility raised by that series of ads might have convinced some that they might "just say no..."
Clever...
So, you're rather fond of this crude form of demagoguery, then?
Many of those statements are paraphrases from various essays and manifestos floating about the net. In many of those writings, the statement is presented as a challenge-- a provocation to invite persons to listen. Supporting and clarifying statements usually follow.
Consider the statement "All software should be free." Gunton attacks this from a financial standpoint-- "free software" will deprive him of income. But RMS states
Instead of attacking RMS's explanation, Gunton assumes that the statement is equivalent to "No one should be permitted to charge for software," and scythes through another straw man.
1.) one could say that apple 'reverse engineered' BSD to hack in the entire OSX interface. so screw apple if they have a complaint about someone else building off their work.
One could say that, but then one would be wrong. Apple didn't attempt to reverse engineer the BSD sources-- they already had the sourcecode, along with a license giving them the legal right (but not the obligation) to modify and redistribute the OS.
Apple did not see fit to apply an open source license to the ipod. Consequently, a great many reverse engineering schemes might be regarded by the federal courts as a infringement.
Software licenses "work" because the act of installing a program (or even of loading a program into memory) itself violates the prohibition on duplicating a copyrighted work. If the user agrees to the license, he is allowed to perform these rather prosaic tasks, but his legal rights in other areas may be further restricted.
Most of the time, a list of myths provides little more than an opportunity to trot out a consignment of straw men-- willful distortions of the opponent's arguments, to be hacked, burnt, and slashed at for the the audience's amusement.