Copyright allows limited exceptions, true. Backup is a possible reason although the explicit exception only covers computer software. Also it's possible that the use it's put to would not be considered a backup but a format shift. After all, the idea of a backup is that the backup is stored; not the original.
It's not a legal right, so much as a possible fair use defence. Copyright law without fair use would prevent it. Fair use provides exceptions and courts would probably rule that this was acceptable (you're not making anything from it, the studios would be hard pressed to demonstrate a lost sale).
Real have a little more difficulty. Firstly, they would have to show that this behaviour is virtually always fair use, and then they'd need to show that their software has the primary purpose of legitimate copies rather than piracy.
On the face of it they seem to have an okay case. The MPAA can pay for very good lawyers though.
Okay. it looks like Wikipedia. The name is similar to Wikipedia. It's not obvious that it's criticism. Even the content appears to be more transformative than critical.
No problem with what they're doing but make it more obvious that this isn't part of Wikipedia.
Niches are more attractive than crowded mainstreams.
This is why there are magazines for speciality interests such as trout fishing, even though the circulation of celebrity gossip magazines is much much higher, and they're much easier to produce. The market segment is way too crowded.
There are literally millions of hardcore gamers! Even if we have a billion casual gamers, there will still be those millions of hardcore gamers.
There will always be a market. If most of the developers are developing casual titles, then there's a decent niche for any medium sized developer to aim for the hardcore market segment.
I wonder what would happen if one were to declare one doesn't accept the GPL and then distributes software licensed with GPL, but only in ways allowed by GPL?
If I understand it, the GPL is a limited grant of permissions (to redistribute). I think you automatically accept it by doing anything that requires permission. Much like if you have a fishing licence, you can declare you don't accept it, but if you go fishing you clearly have accepted it.
You can't make arbitrary demands on a purchaser after the purchase. What if it said "You agree to pay the author a subscription to continue using this book after a year"?
"Software Piracy" is a term that intentionally clouds the issue.
When I was 6, I saw a cartoon about pirates. They came up against a "pirate video". Any suggestion that there's any similarity between media pirates and ocean pirates is so stupid that even a 6 year old realises it's a joke!
I think it unlikely that anyone is deliberately trying to cloud the issue.
That you think TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation is your interpretation of what TPB exists for.
I'm not sure I understand this argument. I guess part of my misunderstanding is whether you actually believe that or whether the legal system should simply accept this.
I find it hard to believe that TPB is intended for any purpose other than copyright infringement. I consider a frying pan to exist for frying food, and a paper clip to be designed for clipping pieces of paper together.
Would you make the argument that legislation intended for sports equipment safety and electricians tools be applied respectively to these items on account of the fact that they can be used for these purposes?
The Pirate Bay was a site intended to assist piracy! Google exists to assist finding legitimate content.
You can use TPB to find legitimate content, and you can find pirate material on Google, but in both cases this is tangential to the main aim.
Complain about copyright infringement to Google - they will remove the link. Complain about copyright infringement to TPB, and they'll respond saying that what they're doing is legal.
99% of the traffic on Google is people searching for legitimate material. 90+% of the traffic on TPB is people searching for infringing material.
At least half the torrent on TPB seem to be for infringing content (try a search for "the" or something that will get a lot of arbitrary hits). A very small part of Google is for infringing content.
And finally - A torrent is more sophisticated than a link. It's a detailed set of instructions on where to find and how to assemble a specific set of files, complete with checksums and file lists. A link is an arbitrary pointer to a location on the web. You can't change the content in a torrent.
We can make our feelings known. Much like we can protest about human rights violations in Tibet.
Hoenstly, I don't think there's anything inherently unjustifiable about this decision, but that puts me in the minority. I fully support anyone's right to do anything from write a sternly worded letter to the a Swedish official, to marching on the Swedish embassy with banners insulting their King, and burning their flag over this.
Can someone provide an unbiased explanation of what Phorm is? Why is it an opt-out system? When did I or Slashdot give implied consent to anyone to inspect the packets for reasons other than routing? What data do they collect and what do they do with it?
But it seems like it's completely ok for the government and the EU to question companies and individuals about this kind of practice. But when it comes to individuals asking the government about wiretapping etc. it's a completely different thing?
The key difference is that we elect the government.
Just because you say it's "giving" doesn't actually mean it is. The legal system recognises that sometimes people will misrepresent the truth for personal gain.
When it's quite clear that the intention is to set up a pyramid scheme - and it is quite clear, to any reasonable person, that this is the intention - then it will be treated as a pyramid scheme. The "It's not a pyramid scheme" defence isn't going to cut it here. The government - scoundrels that they are - will even employ someone to present the argument over how this is not just giving.
Yeah because you know... when we're dealing with Saddam Husein or some upper ranking member of Al Queda then it's so awful to have their only choice of television programing be South Park, right?
Why does it matter who it they're guarding? These are marines and we expect them to show all due respect to their prisoners.
When exactly was the last time you ever defused a landmine or stormed a machine gun nest? How many times have you had to decide between saving your own lift by taking cover or risking death by dragging a profusely bleeding friend to safety?
Does behaving childishly towards prisoners somehow make this easier?
No, I didn't think so. Yet you sit there high and mighty talking down on the military.
Because they behaved reprehensibly. Heroic deeds don't excuse you from the right to be a decent human being.
You know what happens in a war? people get hurt and killed. Many of whom don't deserve it and many times the civilians who are caught in the cross fire don't get any compensation. People suffer horribly and soldiers have to make some very hard decisions and do things they're not proud of.
What military objective was achieved by showing a prisoner the same stupid movie again and again?
Sometimes there are not hard lines between what is justified and what goes too far.
This is a line that's quite easy to stay on the "justified" side of. Don't keep showing him the movie.
You may disagree with that becasue your life is not in danger.
Neither was theirs. Prisons are quite safe.
Tell me the same after you've been very narrowly killed and then capture the guy who killed several of your comrads and tried to kill you.
No. Being shot at doesn't give you the right to be a jerk.
You don't think you'd humiliate him, scare him and even punch him in the face if you knew he knew where other snipers were?
No. I don't think I would.
Ugly, unfair, brutal shit happens.
And I don't condone that either.
It happened on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima and it happens in Iraq.
But for clear military objectives.
If you tried to be a prim proper goody goody you'd be dead very quickly.
How many lives were saved by showing the same movie over and over?
You're a pathetic coward. If you think our soldiers are so bad at what they do, why don't you join so you can show them what a great and fair soldier you are.
Because I don't want to get shot at.
Courage gains them a lot of respect. Respect does not give them the right to be childish jerks.
This is essentially a proposal to abolish the.com part of URLs..com has just become an indicator meaning "website" for the majority of web traffic anyway.
I guess a couple of these probably always existed, just took a long time before the need was there. Asimov didn't realise he invented the term Robotics until he was credited with in in a dictionary. He just assumed that was the correct term.
It makes me wonder whether we'd still have these terms if these particular writers hadn't used them.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright allows limited exceptions, true. Backup is a possible reason although the explicit exception only covers computer software. Also it's possible that the use it's put to would not be considered a backup but a format shift. After all, the idea of a backup is that the backup is stored; not the original.
I'd love to see Real point out the First Sale. The customer bought it, they can fold, spindle or mutilate it.
They sure can. They can't copy it though.
It's not a legal right, so much as a possible fair use defence. Copyright law without fair use would prevent it. Fair use provides exceptions and courts would probably rule that this was acceptable (you're not making anything from it, the studios would be hard pressed to demonstrate a lost sale).
Real have a little more difficulty. Firstly, they would have to show that this behaviour is virtually always fair use, and then they'd need to show that their software has the primary purpose of legitimate copies rather than piracy.
On the face of it they seem to have an okay case. The MPAA can pay for very good lawyers though.
Okay. it looks like Wikipedia. The name is similar to Wikipedia. It's not obvious that it's criticism. Even the content appears to be more transformative than critical.
No problem with what they're doing but make it more obvious that this isn't part of Wikipedia.
Niches are more attractive than crowded mainstreams.
This is why there are magazines for speciality interests such as trout fishing, even though the circulation of celebrity gossip magazines is much much higher, and they're much easier to produce. The market segment is way too crowded.
There are literally millions of hardcore gamers! Even if we have a billion casual gamers, there will still be those millions of hardcore gamers.
There will always be a market. If most of the developers are developing casual titles, then there's a decent niche for any medium sized developer to aim for the hardcore market segment.
I wonder what would happen if one were to declare one doesn't accept the GPL and then distributes software licensed with GPL, but only in ways allowed by GPL?
If I understand it, the GPL is a limited grant of permissions (to redistribute). I think you automatically accept it by doing anything that requires permission. Much like if you have a fishing licence, you can declare you don't accept it, but if you go fishing you clearly have accepted it.
But even if it did, what difference does it make?
You can't make arbitrary demands on a purchaser after the purchase. What if it said "You agree to pay the author a subscription to continue using this book after a year"?
"Software Piracy" is a term that intentionally clouds the issue.
When I was 6, I saw a cartoon about pirates. They came up against a "pirate video". Any suggestion that there's any similarity between media pirates and ocean pirates is so stupid that even a 6 year old realises it's a joke!
I think it unlikely that anyone is deliberately trying to cloud the issue.
And I can't get over the Swedish court's argument that making the service available is criminal, because it can be used illegally.
I think it's more about the fact that it is very widely used illegally. Very few users wanted to download Linux distributions or public domain music.
That you think TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation is your interpretation of what TPB exists for.
I'm not sure I understand this argument. I guess part of my misunderstanding is whether you actually believe that or whether the legal system should simply accept this.
I find it hard to believe that TPB is intended for any purpose other than copyright infringement. I consider a frying pan to exist for frying food, and a paper clip to be designed for clipping pieces of paper together.
Would you make the argument that legislation intended for sports equipment safety and electricians tools be applied respectively to these items on account of the fact that they can be used for these purposes?
The Pirate Bay was a site intended to assist piracy! Google exists to assist finding legitimate content.
You can use TPB to find legitimate content, and you can find pirate material on Google, but in both cases this is tangential to the main aim.
Complain about copyright infringement to Google - they will remove the link. Complain about copyright infringement to TPB, and they'll respond saying that what they're doing is legal.
99% of the traffic on Google is people searching for legitimate material. 90+% of the traffic on TPB is people searching for infringing material.
At least half the torrent on TPB seem to be for infringing content (try a search for "the" or something that will get a lot of arbitrary hits). A very small part of Google is for infringing content.
And finally - A torrent is more sophisticated than a link. It's a detailed set of instructions on where to find and how to assemble a specific set of files, complete with checksums and file lists. A link is an arbitrary pointer to a location on the web. You can't change the content in a torrent.
We can make our feelings known. Much like we can protest about human rights violations in Tibet.
Hoenstly, I don't think there's anything inherently unjustifiable about this decision, but that puts me in the minority. I fully support anyone's right to do anything from write a sternly worded letter to the a Swedish official, to marching on the Swedish embassy with banners insulting their King, and burning their flag over this.
Some years we do. We tend to celebrate with a hosepipe ban.
I think there may have been 3 or more days of sun in August 2005.
Thanks for the link. Exactly what I wanted:)
Can someone provide an unbiased explanation of what Phorm is? Why is it an opt-out system? When did I or Slashdot give implied consent to anyone to inspect the packets for reasons other than routing? What data do they collect and what do they do with it?
But it seems like it's completely ok for the government and the EU to question companies and individuals about this kind of practice. But when it comes to individuals asking the government about wiretapping etc. it's a completely different thing?
The key difference is that we elect the government.
Saddam was probably a lot safer there than outside in most cities.
Just because you say it's "giving" doesn't actually mean it is. The legal system recognises that sometimes people will misrepresent the truth for personal gain.
When it's quite clear that the intention is to set up a pyramid scheme - and it is quite clear, to any reasonable person, that this is the intention - then it will be treated as a pyramid scheme. The "It's not a pyramid scheme" defence isn't going to cut it here. The government - scoundrels that they are - will even employ someone to present the argument over how this is not just giving.
Yeah because you know... when we're dealing with Saddam Husein or some upper ranking member of Al Queda then it's so awful to have their only choice of television programing be South Park, right?
Why does it matter who it they're guarding? These are marines and we expect them to show all due respect to their prisoners.
When exactly was the last time you ever defused a landmine or stormed a machine gun nest? How many times have you had to decide between saving your own lift by taking cover or risking death by dragging a profusely bleeding friend to safety?
Does behaving childishly towards prisoners somehow make this easier?
No, I didn't think so. Yet you sit there high and mighty talking down on the military.
Because they behaved reprehensibly. Heroic deeds don't excuse you from the right to be a decent human being.
You know what happens in a war? people get hurt and killed. Many of whom don't deserve it and many times the civilians who are caught in the cross fire don't get any compensation. People suffer horribly and soldiers have to make some very hard decisions and do things they're not proud of.
What military objective was achieved by showing a prisoner the same stupid movie again and again?
Sometimes there are not hard lines between what is justified and what goes too far.
This is a line that's quite easy to stay on the "justified" side of. Don't keep showing him the movie.
You may disagree with that becasue your life is not in danger.
Neither was theirs. Prisons are quite safe.
Tell me the same after you've been very narrowly killed and then capture the guy who killed several of your comrads and tried to kill you.
No. Being shot at doesn't give you the right to be a jerk.
You don't think you'd humiliate him, scare him and even punch him in the face if you knew he knew where other snipers were?
No. I don't think I would.
Ugly, unfair, brutal shit happens.
And I don't condone that either.
It happened on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima and it happens in Iraq.
But for clear military objectives.
If you tried to be a prim proper goody goody you'd be dead very quickly.
How many lives were saved by showing the same movie over and over?
You're a pathetic coward. If you think our soldiers are so bad at what they do, why don't you join so you can show them what a great and fair soldier you are.
Because I don't want to get shot at.
Courage gains them a lot of respect. Respect does not give them the right to be childish jerks.
Ultimately that's what the problem is.
I want to see the Marines as heroes when doing their duty. Not childish bullies. It's mainly about how it reflects on them.
It will be redundant.
.com part of URLs. .com has just become an indicator meaning "website" for the majority of web traffic anyway.
This is essentially a proposal to abolish the
I guess a couple of these probably always existed, just took a long time before the need was there. Asimov didn't realise he invented the term Robotics until he was credited with in in a dictionary. He just assumed that was the correct term.
It makes me wonder whether we'd still have these terms if these particular writers hadn't used them.
Yes, but does anyone think it originated in a Science journal?
Wasn't that a popular science essay rather than science fiction though?