The broadcast flag is simply a flag that indicates that people are not entitled to do what people don't do anyway - Make multi-generational copies of broadcast media.
Why do you need to do that? It's certainly nothing to do with delayed viewing. The only possible reason I can think of for wanting to do it is for distribution and archiving. Neither of these are rights you have under copyright. Fair use can only be stretched so far. This is well outside of it.
The government is the people. If the people don't want businesses offering a service, surely it's up to them. I don't think the governmnet should be protecting people from other parts of government.
I don't see what all the hype is about. While Go may be a decent strategy game, I don't see how it compares to Ludo.
Ludo is an ancient western board game, so sophisiticated that even the best computer implementations can only win against a human player 50% of the time.
But you will. Competition is explicitely legally permitted. You can buy unbranded cartridges.
Lexmark can still sell their printer at a loss since they'll still be able to charge a little more for their cartridges thanks to brand recognition. Many people are a lot happier buying cartridges from the same people that made their printer.
That's an interesting one. It's always seemed a little dubious that console makers should have such a level of control over the software that plays on their machines.
On the other hand, copyrighted materials seem to be treated very differently legally. Many of the normal rules about competition and product tying don't seem to apply in the same way.
No, I think the reason everyone is angry is that he is trying to trademark the name and logo of the MAME project. I fail to see what that has to do with stopping the illegal sale of ROM images.
I thought the reason everone was angry was that he was threatening to sue the writers of Mame. Must be mistaken.
Please, explain how taking the logo from MAMEs site and trying to use it has his own isn't harmful.
Harm... Trying to work out what harm has been done. He's not using the trademark, and not preventing the rightful owners of using it. Where's the injury? All I see is a free gain for Ultracade. Sure, they don't deserve the gain, but until it costs someone something I can't be bothered to complain.
Why should he be able to use a FOSS projects logo to stop copyright voliations? He didn't coin the MAME acronym AFAIK.
Why does it matter!? Ohhh the poor pirates making heaps of money by breaching the licence terms of Mame on selling illegal copies of ROMs can't do it any more. So, he's using dirty tactics. I'll complain when someone who doesn't deserve to be harmed is harmed. Until then it's a couple of businesses fighting dirty. Not something I approve of, but I'm willing to ignore it if they keep it to themselves.
The MAME authors still have full use of it. He certainly hasn't threatened to sue them. Are you just determined to be angry? It seems to me that the main reason everyone was angry turned out to be a false rumour.
He has a (presumably) legitimate business making arcade conversions. The competition is using illegal methods to compete with him.
He can't get any help from the rights holders. Perhaps he could also get no help from MAME's authors. But he claims this action is only to apply pressure to people who are selling illegal copies.
Shifty, perhaps, but why should we care? He's not hurting anyone except people who are already breaking the terms of the MAME licence and the copyright on ROMs. He has shown no signs of intending to do anything that will harm MAME itself.
So if he isn't currently using the mark, he has no rights to it. If he is currently using the mark, it's still obvious that the name have been in use for far too long for the free product for him to have any rights to it unless it's in a significantly different market (and no, releasing a commercial version would certainly not be sufficient)
It's not that these scenarios are likely, but that we don't know what he's doing.
MAME's authors should assume hostility right from the outset because there is simply no legitimate reasons for this person to register the mark without having talked to them and arranged an agreement with them first.
No. They should contaqct him and ask him what the plan is. Assuming hostility is usually counter productive.
It might be that he's "innocent", but if so he's also clueless enough about trademarks to be just as dangerous as if he's doing it on purpose and should be treated as such.
Is he clueless? You don't know what he's doing so can't make that judjement.
Maybe he simply plans to release a commercial version of Mame, and is planning to negotiate a commercial licence with the Mame authors. If so, he wants to be sure to get this stuff sorted out first.
Or maybe he's just a philanthropist who realises that trademark protection might be important in the future.
Until he actually files suit, we shouldn't assume hostility.
They certainly have a vested interest in this, but this does not in itself mean they're wrong. For example, I know a farmer who believes that eating food is important to live a long and fulfilling life.
But we lose rights all the time. Every time a patent is granted, we lose a right. Often when a law is passed, we lose a right. Why is this right so important?
Can't I record an episode of the simpson with my vcr?
Yup. Delayed viewing. Explicitely permitted by law.
If yes, can my friends borrow the tape from me? Can I do that
Possibly. IANAL but it probably comes under fair use.
If yes, what if I have 1000 friends? is it still legal?
Then you're pushing your luck. Fair use takes into account various factors, including impact on the market. Letting a few friends see a copy is unlikely to have a huge effect on the market. It may result in a lost 'sale' (or rather fewer viewers resulting in lower revenue)for the broadcasters, but the effect will be small. Sharing with 1000 people is a lot more likely to have an effect. But you are limited here. It will take a long time to lend it to 1000 people. At the minimum, if only one person watches it at a time, it will be difficult for all of them to see it within a month.
A common statistic is that bad guys will repeat a sucessful 'job', the same way. One could call it, "positive feedback".
Being shot at by an irate farmer is not a succesful job.
As for a persons life being in danger or not, how does one really know? How can one judge Fear? How can I be benevilent to something that considers me a food source? I feel comfortable selecting me over my attacker, every time, to survive. I really wish that I never have to deal with this issue, but the events in nature leave me no other choice.
It's hard to say. So, what you do is arrest someone who you have resonable grounds to suspect was acting out of revenge rather than self-defence, and then present the evidence to an unbiased group of people for their opinion.
In Hull, England, the telephone service was run by the local Authority. They had free local calls since 1904, broadband ADSL before anyone else had heard of it, and they've had ADSL based TV for several years now.
States are large and tend to get overly beurocratic, but smaller governmental organisations often run things rather well.
An allegedly "powerful" editor for people who get off on being able to edit files.
If I want to edit source code, I'll use a proper editor which not only has all the flexibility of vi, but has the learning curve of pico. If I want to edit a text file in a terminal environment, I'll use pico. It does what I want.
Does the government really need to protect me against the cost of a DVD because I didn't read the fine print while ignoring far larger issues?
I think consumer protection is important. Fine print is a con. When I make an agreement with somebody, I make sure they know absolutely all details are known without trying to hide or oversimplify anything that may be important.
Surely it's not unreasonable to expect that everyone does.
But that's not intuitive. It may be efficient, but that's another matter entirely.
To be intuitive, there should be little or no learning curve.
Re:Developers Are Not Good Judges of Their Own UI'
on
What Makes a Good UI?
·
· Score: 1
Beware of allowing users to customize (Wow - there goes my Karma...) Customization is fine for stuff you play with, but in a professional environment it is much more important to have consistency.
I agree for different reasons. I dislike emacs because I can customise it in endless ways, but it isn't set up remotely adequately be default. I could spend ages learning how to do this, but an editor is just a means to an end.
Slashdot Mirror
The broadcast flag is simply a flag that indicates that people are not entitled to do what people don't do anyway - Make multi-generational copies of broadcast media.
Why do you need to do that? It's certainly nothing to do with delayed viewing. The only possible reason I can think of for wanting to do it is for distribution and archiving. Neither of these are rights you have under copyright. Fair use can only be stretched so far. This is well outside of it.
That would be focussing on the consumer. This approach sounds good, but it never works. All you end up with is greedy consumers wanting more and more.
The only way to do business these days is to court other businesses, and work with them. Those are the ones with all the money.
Okay.
The government is the people. If the people don't want businesses offering a service, surely it's up to them. I don't think the governmnet should be protecting people from other parts of government.
I don't see what all the hype is about. While Go may be a decent strategy game, I don't see how it compares to Ludo.
Ludo is an ancient western board game, so sophisiticated that even the best computer implementations can only win against a human player 50% of the time.
But you will. Competition is explicitely legally permitted. You can buy unbranded cartridges.
Lexmark can still sell their printer at a loss since they'll still be able to charge a little more for their cartridges thanks to brand recognition. Many people are a lot happier buying cartridges from the same people that made their printer.
That's an interesting one. It's always seemed a little dubious that console makers should have such a level of control over the software that plays on their machines.
On the other hand, copyrighted materials seem to be treated very differently legally. Many of the normal rules about competition and product tying don't seem to apply in the same way.
No, I think the reason everyone is angry is that he is trying to trademark the name and logo of the MAME project. I fail to see what that has to do with stopping the illegal sale of ROM images.
I thought the reason everone was angry was that he was threatening to sue the writers of Mame. Must be mistaken.
Please, explain how taking the logo from MAMEs site and trying to use it has his own isn't harmful.
Harm... Trying to work out what harm has been done. He's not using the trademark, and not preventing the rightful owners of using it. Where's the injury? All I see is a free gain for Ultracade. Sure, they don't deserve the gain, but until it costs someone something I can't be bothered to complain.
Why should he be able to use a FOSS projects logo to stop copyright voliations? He didn't coin the MAME acronym AFAIK.
Why does it matter!? Ohhh the poor pirates making heaps of money by breaching the licence terms of Mame on selling illegal copies of ROMs can't do it any more. So, he's using dirty tactics. I'll complain when someone who doesn't deserve to be harmed is harmed. Until then it's a couple of businesses fighting dirty. Not something I approve of, but I'm willing to ignore it if they keep it to themselves.
What harm has been done?
The MAME authors still have full use of it. He certainly hasn't threatened to sue them. Are you just determined to be angry? It seems to me that the main reason everyone was angry turned out to be a false rumour.
What's so slimey about this act?
He has a (presumably) legitimate business making arcade conversions. The competition is using illegal methods to compete with him.
He can't get any help from the rights holders. Perhaps he could also get no help from MAME's authors. But he claims this action is only to apply pressure to people who are selling illegal copies.
Shifty, perhaps, but why should we care? He's not hurting anyone except people who are already breaking the terms of the MAME licence and the copyright on ROMs. He has shown no signs of intending to do anything that will harm MAME itself.
So if he isn't currently using the mark, he has no rights to it. If he is currently using the mark, it's still obvious that the name have been in use for far too long for the free product for him to have any rights to it unless it's in a significantly different market (and no, releasing a commercial version would certainly not be sufficient)
It's not that these scenarios are likely, but that we don't know what he's doing.
MAME's authors should assume hostility right from the outset because there is simply no legitimate reasons for this person to register the mark without having talked to them and arranged an agreement with them first.
No. They should contaqct him and ask him what the plan is. Assuming hostility is usually counter productive.
It might be that he's "innocent", but if so he's also clueless enough about trademarks to be just as dangerous as if he's doing it on purpose and should be treated as such.
Is he clueless? You don't know what he's doing so can't make that judjement.
Maybe he's innocent.
Maybe he simply plans to release a commercial version of Mame, and is planning to negotiate a commercial licence with the Mame authors. If so, he wants to be sure to get this stuff sorted out first.
Or maybe he's just a philanthropist who realises that trademark protection might be important in the future.
Until he actually files suit, we shouldn't assume hostility.
They certainly have a vested interest in this, but this does not in itself mean they're wrong. For example, I know a farmer who believes that eating food is important to live a long and fulfilling life.
Yes.
I love it when Slashdot uses headlines that can be answered in a single word. Makes commenting so much easier.
But we lose rights all the time. Every time a patent is granted, we lose a right. Often when a law is passed, we lose a right. Why is this right so important?
Can't I record an episode of the simpson with my vcr?
Yup. Delayed viewing. Explicitely permitted by law.
If yes, can my friends borrow the tape from me? Can I do that
Possibly. IANAL but it probably comes under fair use.
If yes, what if I have 1000 friends? is it still legal?
Then you're pushing your luck. Fair use takes into account various factors, including impact on the market. Letting a few friends see a copy is unlikely to have a huge effect on the market. It may result in a lost 'sale' (or rather fewer viewers resulting in lower revenue)for the broadcasters, but the effect will be small. Sharing with 1000 people is a lot more likely to have an effect. But you are limited here. It will take a long time to lend it to 1000 people. At the minimum, if only one person watches it at a time, it will be difficult for all of them to see it within a month.
If yes, can I use bitorrent to share the video??
No.
It was just a joke. Laugh. Or even better, do what the rest of us did - Insult the yanks back.
I'm offended by you taking offence.
and boom you have a hydrogen powered car
Please don't use the word "boom" in relation to explosive chemicals.
Until the bad guy turns around, and comes back.
Exactly. He should have waited until that time.
A common statistic is that bad guys will repeat a sucessful 'job', the same way. One could call it, "positive feedback".
Being shot at by an irate farmer is not a succesful job.
As for a persons life being in danger or not, how does one really know? How can one judge Fear? How can I be benevilent to something that considers me a food source? I feel comfortable selecting me over my attacker, every time, to survive. I really wish that I never have to deal with this issue, but the events in nature leave me no other choice.
It's hard to say. So, what you do is arrest someone who you have resonable grounds to suspect was acting out of revenge rather than self-defence, and then present the evidence to an unbiased group of people for their opinion.
In Hull, England, the telephone service was run by the local Authority. They had free local calls since 1904, broadband ADSL before anyone else had heard of it, and they've had ADSL based TV for several years now.
States are large and tend to get overly beurocratic, but smaller governmental organisations often run things rather well.
Pico offers:
- immediately obvious basic user interface
- basic editing
- Ctrl-key combination for commands
- A save option on quit
- On screen help
vi offers:Does the government really need to protect me against the cost of a DVD because I didn't read the fine print while ignoring far larger issues?
I think consumer protection is important. Fine print is a con. When I make an agreement with somebody, I make sure they know absolutely all details are known without trying to hide or oversimplify anything that may be important. Surely it's not unreasonable to expect that everyone does.
But that's not intuitive. It may be efficient, but that's another matter entirely.
To be intuitive, there should be little or no learning curve.
Beware of allowing users to customize (Wow - there goes my Karma...) Customization is fine for stuff you play with, but in a professional environment it is much more important to have consistency.
I agree for different reasons. I dislike emacs because I can customise it in endless ways, but it isn't set up remotely adequately be default. I could spend ages learning how to do this, but an editor is just a means to an end.