I suspect they didn't include porn distributors in their list. Since they've been offering downloads for years now, I'd be surprised if they weren't actually number one.
But this does lead to the question - what format do they offer porn in? Is that all DRM'ed, or are we in the poisition where an industry that is meant to be exploitative and completely lacking in morality actually trusts its customers?
Say, rather, that copyright holders have the option of looking the other way if no money is exchanged -- because, unlike trademarks, you do not risk losing the copyright if you don't vigorously defend it.
But that is more misleading. They have the option of looking the other way if you blatently plagarise something, and sell it for $1000 per copy. They typically won't though.
As a rule, they'll often look the other way if they aren't losing any money. This is a generalisation though. Lucasarts are apparently fairly easy going when it comes to fan fiction, but stamp down on anything too dirty.
Generally speaking, the advice given to people who want to produce, say, a website for a TV show, is not to ask permission, and if they get told off by producers, then take it down. If you ask permission, you'll typically be told no.
Sure, you own the disc and the packaging, but you don't own the work contained on that disc
You own a copy. This is different from owning a license. You have certain implicit rights in a copy that can not be taken away.
You only have the right to destroy or transfer your copy of the movie simply because provisions for such activities are outlined in US copyright law.
I'm not sure they are. But even if they are, US copyright laws (and in fact all US laws) prevent you from doing what would otherwise be legal. The only time they explicitely permit actions is if that action is an exception.
All other activities are prohibited except when otherwise granted those rights by the copyright owner.
Not at all. You can do anything that is not expressly prohibited by copyright. You can watch it backwards. You can talk about it with your friends, fast forward through the boring bits, freeze it and zoom in to see how they did the special effects or copy the raw data to dev/audio and listen to random horrible noise. None of these are permitted by copyright. All copyright grants is a limited exclusive right to reproduce, broadcast, perform or display the work. It does this by prohibiting others from reproducing, broadcasting or performong the work.
An analogy exists to illustrate a point! You can't prove something by analogy. It's not the same situation. Since it's a different situation, the conclusions from one do not automatically apply to the other.
And while we're at it, nobody was equating theft of a recording with rape. He was using one specific case as an analogy to another to illlustrate the point.
It'd be like me writing a novel, people loving it, and then going back and revising some parts of it, saying "This is what I always had in mind"
Which - assuming you prevented the original from being released - would be incredibly selfish. Ruining other people's enjoyment simply to brush your own ego.
The DeLorean in BTTF wasn't product placement though. It was put in there because they wanted the joke where the farmer thinks it's an alien spaceship.
Snowspeeders on Hoth. They're slightly transparent in the old version (this was done to reduce the thick outlines) whereas in the special edition they're not.
Would have been nice if the only improvements were these little cosmetic effects.
You can make a copy from LaserDisc to DVD. Should be very good quality as well. Getting hold of the original version on Laserdisc may be a little hard, but apparently it does exist.
But it's not really a loophole. The point of the GPL is that anyone who has a copy has the freedom to use the software he acquired in any way he sees fit. Essentially this is the right to run it, modify it and redistribute it. But you are not obliged to do any of these.
Don't want to give people your source changes? Fair enough. Don't distribute. I've known a lot of people use modified GPL software in-house. Using it on a website is not any different. The only person who could do anything with the code is the website owner anyway. There's no reason for the users to modify it.
Ever hear that hoary old saying "Ignorance of the law is no excuse?" Seems doubtful that you have.
Yes. It typically means that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence in a court of law. Not that because someone didn't know the law, a paranoid psychotic houseowner shopuld be entitled to shoot you.
There should be some sort of procedure for relatively small amounts. Not sure about the US, but in England there's the "small claims track" where the parties typically represent themselves.
Fair enough. I do see it as rather a shame that they could offer the service that I want, and make a decent profit. I don't think they'll pay any attention to me if I bitch to them, so I'll bitch to Slashdot. Still doesn't help much but it makes me feel better.
Yes. The "have their cake and eat it too" attitude. Hollywood is way too obsessed with piracy. It's a red herring. It makes a lot more sense to try to maximise sales, and only worry about piracy when it's actually causing a problem.
Because they're so obsessed with the loss of hypothetical sales through piracy, they're losing actual sales through an unsuitable service.
The entire concept is based around you paying for it and watching it then. That's like paying to see a movie in a theater and expecting to be able to come back and watch it 2 weeks later, because the first time was inconvient for you.
The difference is that they have the capability to allow you top watch it as many times as you like. A cinema can't offer this because they have a limited number of seats.
If you don't like the concept of Pay Per View, then don't use it, that's fine. But don't bitch because it works exactly as described. You know the terms before you get a PPV movie.
Yup. And I'm going to bitch because the terms suck, and I have no choice in the matter, apart from not buying one (a choice which seems perfectly good to me)
It's an arbitrary limitation that offers few benefits to the providers, and will most likely turn some people off. Most people are not going to pay again to see something a second time. Most people hate arbitrary cut-offs.
I want them to offer a service that I want, that they have the technology to offer and that would allow them a decent profit. Is that too much to ask?
Happens with any large organisation. It's basic darwinian evolution. Entities that make their continued existence their primary purpose are more likely to survive. As a result, most long lasting organisations have no purpose other than the continue to exist.
Considering the US is a nation that decided to start a rrevolution to protect their rights against an unpopular, unrepresentative government, the citizens seem to be remarkably happy to just let others roll right over them.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect they didn't include porn distributors in their list. Since they've been offering downloads for years now, I'd be surprised if they weren't actually number one.
But this does lead to the question - what format do they offer porn in? Is that all DRM'ed, or are we in the poisition where an industry that is meant to be exploitative and completely lacking in morality actually trusts its customers?
Say, rather, that copyright holders have the option of looking the other way if no money is exchanged -- because, unlike trademarks, you do not risk losing the copyright if you don't vigorously defend it.
But that is more misleading. They have the option of looking the other way if you blatently plagarise something, and sell it for $1000 per copy. They typically won't though.
As a rule, they'll often look the other way if they aren't losing any money. This is a generalisation though. Lucasarts are apparently fairly easy going when it comes to fan fiction, but stamp down on anything too dirty.
Generally speaking, the advice given to people who want to produce, say, a website for a TV show, is not to ask permission, and if they get told off by producers, then take it down. If you ask permission, you'll typically be told no.
Sure, you own the disc and the packaging, but you don't own the work contained on that disc
You own a copy. This is different from owning a license. You have certain implicit rights in a copy that can not be taken away.
You only have the right to destroy or transfer your copy of the movie simply because provisions for such activities are outlined in US copyright law.
I'm not sure they are. But even if they are, US copyright laws (and in fact all US laws) prevent you from doing what would otherwise be legal. The only time they explicitely permit actions is if that action is an exception.
All other activities are prohibited except when otherwise granted those rights by the copyright owner.
Not at all. You can do anything that is not expressly prohibited by copyright. You can watch it backwards. You can talk about it with your friends, fast forward through the boring bits, freeze it and zoom in to see how they did the special effects or copy the raw data to dev/audio and listen to random horrible noise. None of these are permitted by copyright. All copyright grants is a limited exclusive right to reproduce, broadcast, perform or display the work. It does this by prohibiting others from reproducing, broadcasting or performong the work.
Sounds like a good idea. Doubt I'd pay for it, but iuf someone released a free parody of Linus, I wouldn't demand source.
If they decided to charge for it, I simply wouldn't buy a copy.
oh. be like that. I'll go jack off into the rose bushes myself then. seeya.
What is it with this site, and analogies!?
An analogy exists to illustrate a point! You can't prove something by analogy. It's not the same situation. Since it's a different situation, the conclusions from one do not automatically apply to the other.
And while we're at it, nobody was equating theft of a recording with rape. He was using one specific case as an analogy to another to illlustrate the point.
What is the purpose of your stupid analogy?
And you can find a currency converter here.
It'd be like me writing a novel, people loving it, and then going back and revising some parts of it, saying "This is what I always had in mind"
Which - assuming you prevented the original from being released - would be incredibly selfish. Ruining other people's enjoyment simply to brush your own ego.
The DeLorean in BTTF wasn't product placement though. It was put in there because they wanted the joke where the farmer thinks it's an alien spaceship.
Name one. I'm waiting.
Snowspeeders on Hoth. They're slightly transparent in the old version (this was done to reduce the thick outlines) whereas in the special edition they're not.
Would have been nice if the only improvements were these little cosmetic effects.
You can make a copy from LaserDisc to DVD. Should be very good quality as well. Getting hold of the original version on Laserdisc may be a little hard, but apparently it does exist.
I would. If I'd been using the name for a long time before the name was trademarked.
Yes.
But it's not really a loophole. The point of the GPL is that anyone who has a copy has the freedom to use the software he acquired in any way he sees fit. Essentially this is the right to run it, modify it and redistribute it. But you are not obliged to do any of these.
Don't want to give people your source changes? Fair enough. Don't distribute. I've known a lot of people use modified GPL software in-house. Using it on a website is not any different. The only person who could do anything with the code is the website owner anyway. There's no reason for the users to modify it.
You're not giving up your rights for a bonus track. You're just giving up your rights.
The bonus track is just a bonus.
the Aliens were more like us, they even used Mac compatible computers
So completely unlike most of us, surely?
Ever hear that hoary old saying "Ignorance of the law is no excuse?" Seems doubtful that you have.
Yes. It typically means that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence in a court of law. Not that because someone didn't know the law, a paranoid psychotic houseowner shopuld be entitled to shoot you.
There should be some sort of procedure for relatively small amounts. Not sure about the US, but in England there's the "small claims track" where the parties typically represent themselves.
I'd assume there's a similar process in the US.
Fair enough. I do see it as rather a shame that they could offer the service that I want, and make a decent profit. I don't think they'll pay any attention to me if I bitch to them, so I'll bitch to Slashdot. Still doesn't help much but it makes me feel better.
Yes. The "have their cake and eat it too" attitude. Hollywood is way too obsessed with piracy. It's a red herring. It makes a lot more sense to try to maximise sales, and only worry about piracy when it's actually causing a problem.
Because they're so obsessed with the loss of hypothetical sales through piracy, they're losing actual sales through an unsuitable service.
Yup. And it's a stupid agreement that they're offering. Fair enough. My answer's no. They can keep their movie. I'll keep my money.
There is no reason they can't allow an indefinite period of time for a PPV rental. It's what the customer wants.
The entire concept is based around you paying for it and watching it then. That's like paying to see a movie in a theater and expecting to be able to come back and watch it 2 weeks later, because the first time was inconvient for you.
The difference is that they have the capability to allow you top watch it as many times as you like. A cinema can't offer this because they have a limited number of seats.
If you don't like the concept of Pay Per View, then don't use it, that's fine. But don't bitch because it works exactly as described. You know the terms before you get a PPV movie.
Yup. And I'm going to bitch because the terms suck, and I have no choice in the matter, apart from not buying one (a choice which seems perfectly good to me)
It's an arbitrary limitation that offers few benefits to the providers, and will most likely turn some people off. Most people are not going to pay again to see something a second time. Most people hate arbitrary cut-offs.
I want them to offer a service that I want, that they have the technology to offer and that would allow them a decent profit. Is that too much to ask?
Happens with any large organisation. It's basic darwinian evolution. Entities that make their continued existence their primary purpose are more likely to survive. As a result, most long lasting organisations have no purpose other than the continue to exist.
If my landlord is in the house I rent, then - apart from for certain specific reasons - I can kick him out.
Typically, renters do have certain rights.
Wow!
Considering the US is a nation that decided to start a rrevolution to protect their rights against an unpopular, unrepresentative government, the citizens seem to be remarkably happy to just let others roll right over them.