You need to make very specific factual claims based on law to get a lawyer disbarred. And these people tend to be quite good at the whole legal thing. Perceived poor conduct is not going to be enough.
Hey, I was just coming up with reasons. Doesn't mean I agree with the conspiracy theorists. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Apple have a software only contingency plan.
But these guys spend so much time in the game that they can get a decent character pretty quickly anyway. Obviously there must be people willing to pay that amount, since we can clearly see people are doing so, but it would appear to be a contradiction since the addicts don't have any need, and the non-addicts don't have any desire.
It also has to cover the risk of failure. Many drugs cost as much to research but then don't pass final approval.
But actually, the above statement is a lie to fool the naive. The reason it costs so much is that they can charge what the hell they like, and once the price goes higher than that, the demand falls.
Patents would be much better if there was some way to force patent holders to licence to anyone for reasonable fees.
Perhaps. Don't think it would be all that popular though.
While I'm quite strongly against software patents, my opposition isn't quite as great as my opposition to being unemployed and ineligible for unemployment benefit.
Modern languages are designed for flexibility. They don't implement complex numbers, or vectors either. A lot of them don't even bother with strings. OO programming has made direct language suppport for higher level structures redundant.
An ultra-liberal revolt would be similarly doomed to failure. The glorius revolutionn would be adapted to take into account all walks of life, the manfesto would be modified so it was acceptable to all, and what was going to be a bloody takeover and storming of the winter palace eventually turns into a leafleting campaign.
It's software. It's ethically neutral, and can be used for good or bad by anyone who gets hold of it. The army may consider using it entirely for peaceful purposes, in a manner that benefits all mankind. A drugs company might find some way to use it for evil.
Giving it a GPL-like non-GPL licence give the worst of both worlds. It means we no longer have the basic freedoms from the philosophy of the FSF, and it's incompatible with the GPL.
Seriously - this is a hugely underpowered console compared with the PS3 and XBox 360. I hope Ninntendo are right in their apparent assumption that these days consoles have enough power, and the typical consumer doesn't care about running at ultra high resolutions.
Certain releigions are less dogmatic and more general. Some encourage forgiveness, some actively encourage members to do no harm as the whole basis of their moral philosophy. And many religious people will go against a dogmatic view of their holy book if they encounter a situation which they find is against their personal ethics.
The fact that some religions are regularly corrupted by fundamentalists is not a reason to consider most religious people to be willing to do reprehensible things. Athiests are just as willing to compromise their morals as Theists. It's possible that religion can give them the excuse, but anyone who wants to will find a justification to do what they will.
To represent the cents. And possibly to account for whatever sales taxes are relevent in the country. It would probably make more sense to use integer values and calculate the cents, but not everyone is sensible.
But this is less than the entire song and more than a vague description.
All these factors are relevent. The NMPA disagree with you that this is fair use, because of the amount that is transcribed. If OLGA feel the same way as you, the only way to resolve the matter is to take it to court.
Actually - This is simply a demand for them to shut it down. They are legally entitled to ignore it, and the writers of the letter are legally entitled to demand the ISP removes the data, and to sue OLGA. From a certain point of view, they're showing restraint.
Same goes with teaching a song. What, if I'm at that party with 100 people and I tell everyone what the chords to "Louie, Louie" are (and that they're the same as "Wild Thing"), I owe somebody a nickel? No way. That's a factual statement, covered by my free speech rights. And it doesn't matter if there are 1,000 people at that party, or 10,000.
Well, it depends. Once you get to a certain level, then you know fewer and fewer of them personally. Once you put this on the internet, you are essentially broadcasting. Fair use is not very specific by design. If you read an extract from a novel at a party, then that's your right to free speech. Post that online, and it's not. It's not just whether its commercial, but also whether its public or private in nature. And there are various levels of public and private. Member only clubs, places of work, educational establishments, informal gatherings... All could be considered private or public depending on many factors.
If OLGA think that what they do is fair use, then they have every right to use that as a defence. If the NMPA don't think this is fair use, then the only option is to take it to the courts.
I'd like to see just how much profit is made from sheet music. I'd find it hard to believe that any songwriter of any song featured on OLGA makes any worthwhile fraction of their money from sheet music. Surely almost all of it is from airplay royalties and record sales.
True, but this is different. You'r not just chatting to a few friends any more than singing a song on stage in front of thousands is the same as singing along to your iPod.
I agree that Olga's existence is actively in the interests of the songwriters, but it isn't absolutely certainly fair use. It scores in that it's not for profit, and doesn't harm sales for the songwriter (although the various music industries would argue that it does). On the flipside, it is a transcription of an entire song, and it is distributed to a lot of people.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to make very specific factual claims based on law to get a lawyer disbarred. And these people tend to be quite good at the whole legal thing. Perceived poor conduct is not going to be enough.
Hey, I was just coming up with reasons. Doesn't mean I agree with the conspiracy theorists. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Apple have a software only contingency plan.
But these guys spend so much time in the game that they can get a decent character pretty quickly anyway. Obviously there must be people willing to pay that amount, since we can clearly see people are doing so, but it would appear to be a contradiction since the addicts don't have any need, and the non-addicts don't have any desire.
I could imagine them changing their tunes if they got decent saturation of the generic PC market.
What would be the point in testing OS X on generic PCS at this stage?
They were tesing OSX on intel long before they switched.
And why can't Apple do it themselves?
It cost money to test every configuration.
your conspiracy theory is about as credible as Elvis faking the moon landings with help from Tom Jones.
It was Elvis and Lord Lucan.
It also has to cover the risk of failure. Many drugs cost as much to research but then don't pass final approval.
But actually, the above statement is a lie to fool the naive. The reason it costs so much is that they can charge what the hell they like, and once the price goes higher than that, the demand falls.
Patents would be much better if there was some way to force patent holders to licence to anyone for reasonable fees.
Perhaps. Don't think it would be all that popular though.
While I'm quite strongly against software patents, my opposition isn't quite as great as my opposition to being unemployed and ineligible for unemployment benefit.
Modern languages are designed for flexibility. They don't implement complex numbers, or vectors either. A lot of them don't even bother with strings. OO programming has made direct language suppport for higher level structures redundant.
An ultra-liberal revolt would be similarly doomed to failure. The glorius revolutionn would be adapted to take into account all walks of life, the manfesto would be modified so it was acceptable to all, and what was going to be a bloody takeover and storming of the winter palace eventually turns into a leafleting campaign.
Uhm... If I was leading a band if heroic freedom fighters, I'd imagine I'd be willing to make a few compromises on breaking an occasional law.
It's software. It's ethically neutral, and can be used for good or bad by anyone who gets hold of it. The army may consider using it entirely for peaceful purposes, in a manner that benefits all mankind. A drugs company might find some way to use it for evil.
Giving it a GPL-like non-GPL licence give the worst of both worlds. It means we no longer have the basic freedoms from the philosophy of the FSF, and it's incompatible with the GPL.
And there's still the problem that Fixed Point is not integrated into any "modern" programming languages (except SQL).
But it doesn't need to be. It's trivial to implement in any language with operator overloading. Doing so for BCD isn't exactly rocket science either.
But he'd have told the captain it would take 30 minutes.
Is the complete lack of horsepower.
Seriously - this is a hugely underpowered console compared with the PS3 and XBox 360. I hope Ninntendo are right in their apparent assumption that these days consoles have enough power, and the typical consumer doesn't care about running at ultra high resolutions.
Why is BCD more flexible? It only seems to be able to represent base 10, and if stored with the same precision, will have a smaller limit.
Certain releigions are less dogmatic and more general. Some encourage forgiveness, some actively encourage members to do no harm as the whole basis of their moral philosophy. And many religious people will go against a dogmatic view of their holy book if they encounter a situation which they find is against their personal ethics.
The fact that some religions are regularly corrupted by fundamentalists is not a reason to consider most religious people to be willing to do reprehensible things. Athiests are just as willing to compromise their morals as Theists. It's possible that religion can give them the excuse, but anyone who wants to will find a justification to do what they will.
BCD is fine, but so is fixed point if implemented correctly.
It's not government run.
To represent the cents. And possibly to account for whatever sales taxes are relevent in the country. It would probably make more sense to use integer values and calculate the cents, but not everyone is sensible.
Nope.
The RIAA are going after people who share music. The implied permission from paying a CD levy simply allowing you to copy to the CD.
But this is less than the entire song and more than a vague description.
All these factors are relevent. The NMPA disagree with you that this is fair use, because of the amount that is transcribed. If OLGA feel the same way as you, the only way to resolve the matter is to take it to court.
Actually - This is simply a demand for them to shut it down. They are legally entitled to ignore it, and the writers of the letter are legally entitled to demand the ISP removes the data, and to sue OLGA. From a certain point of view, they're showing restraint.
Same goes with teaching a song. What, if I'm at that party with 100 people and I tell everyone what the chords to "Louie, Louie" are (and that they're the same as "Wild Thing"), I owe somebody a nickel? No way. That's a factual statement, covered by my free speech rights. And it doesn't matter if there are 1,000 people at that party, or 10,000.
Well, it depends. Once you get to a certain level, then you know fewer and fewer of them personally. Once you put this on the internet, you are essentially broadcasting. Fair use is not very specific by design. If you read an extract from a novel at a party, then that's your right to free speech. Post that online, and it's not. It's not just whether its commercial, but also whether its public or private in nature. And there are various levels of public and private. Member only clubs, places of work, educational establishments, informal gatherings... All could be considered private or public depending on many factors.
If OLGA think that what they do is fair use, then they have every right to use that as a defence. If the NMPA don't think this is fair use, then the only option is to take it to the courts.
I'd like to see just how much profit is made from sheet music. I'd find it hard to believe that any songwriter of any song featured on OLGA makes any worthwhile fraction of their money from sheet music. Surely almost all of it is from airplay royalties and record sales.
True, but this is different. You'r not just chatting to a few friends any more than singing a song on stage in front of thousands is the same as singing along to your iPod.
I agree that Olga's existence is actively in the interests of the songwriters, but it isn't absolutely certainly fair use. It scores in that it's not for profit, and doesn't harm sales for the songwriter (although the various music industries would argue that it does). On the flipside, it is a transcription of an entire song, and it is distributed to a lot of people.
No, they shouldn't.