You left out that part that a lawyer is not a person with 0 credibility. As I understand it he is an officer of the court, so he has a legal obligation to report this. Also by failing to report it, unless he's they're lawyer and attorney client relation exists he could potentially be disbarred for it. And what's even better if there was an attorney client relation or the girls weren't really distributing copyright material he could get disbarred and Florida would have one less lawyer on their hands. Which I see as a win win situation for the people.
Hmmm, are you saying that everyone else shouldn't have been victimized, but these girls should be because of their dad?
Nope, I'm saying that people should be victimized equally.:-)
I honestly don't know, has GWB said anything strongly pro-copyright or anti-music sharing? Or are we just painting him with a broad "pro-big-business" brush?
I don't care personally what his stance is; he's The President and if he puts a stop to it, for the sake of is daughters or whatever, hopefully others will be able to take advantage of that.
Admittedly, I don't have a very strong opinion on the issue - even though I have personal friends who are indie musicians with copyrighted music. It's interesting that musicians themselves seem pretty split on the issue. Some indie bands figure they won't make much money unless they can build an audience, and are willing to give up some sales to do that. OTOH, creating an album does cost money, and more money can usually make for a better final product. The big signed artists probably don't care about copying because they make most of their money off concerts while album profits go mostly to the label.
Despite what the RIAA and labels say, this has never been about the musicians, its about profit for the record companies.
Well right now its good to be a geek. I would go to dice and find a better job. And it always easier to find a job when you have one. I'm certain you can find a much better position.
Some UNIX systems are configured with a umask of 022, which means that, by default, new files are readable by all users and everyone. I remember having an account on a university computer science department's shared instructional system that was so configured. Now, as far as I know, that system was not running an HTTP server that made home directories available on a public IP address (just the public_html folder), but if I had put an MP3 file in my home directory, anyone in the department could have copied it using SSH. I think the system administrator eventually changed the settings on that system to cut down on plagiarism; but there are a lot of ways to share a file, and may of them do not necessarily involve a single defining act that everyone would naturally think of as "putting" or "publishing".
Unless you change the umask your.profile or.cshrc to something like 077, or use a command such as chmod 700 *.mp3 or place in them in a sub directors with similar permissions. And if you don't have permission to change these settings or the department has a policy of changing them or requiring everything to be world/group readable, don't put them there.
Are you stating that by putting a file on a machine, I am deputizing that machine to have the right to grant or withhold access to the file in my stead?
Your files, you control the access.
What about viruses, etc? If a trojan or worm installed on the machine starts emailing the files that I explicitly instructed to not be world readable to other people, did I deputize the worm to override the permission I gave on my computer and do that?
In the same way you're responsible if somebody breaks into your house or steals your car.
A user putting up music on a server similar to asking the guy with the CD in his possession if you can burn a copy of it while you're visiting with him. Which is very different than if he walked off and left the CD on the table by accident. Because to retrieve a file from a computer system, you have to issue a request to that computer system.
how is that different that leaving a CD physically out in the open? someone else is able to grab it and copy it. would that make me liable for leaving it there?
Its nothing like leaving a CD on a table and people coming by and copying it without permission. When you pick a CD up from the table you are not asking for the CD, unless somebody or something is there to control access to the CD. When you put a file on a server, to get a copy of the file you send a request or command for the server to give you a copy file in question. Ones the request is made, the server then checks whether or not you are authorized to receive the file. Very different from picking a CD up off a table.
We've had free market and competition in the mobile phone industry for quite sometime; so if competition will take care of everything, why do all the carriers still suck?
Linus doesn't have to relicense the entire kernel to impose the new GPL-3 restrictions on the kernel.
Since it looks like GPL-2 code may be freely integrated into GPL-3 software, all Linus has to do is start adding GPL-3 code to the kernel. These small additions will have the effect of relicensing the kernel without affecting licensing of individual modules that Linus doesn't own the copyright to. Then anybody who wants to use Linux will have to stick with the GPL-3 restrictions, or remove the GPL-3 code before building or distributing.
The real reason that the author of the article doesn't want the his name and email on the music tracks: he doesn't want anybody to know he's the one buying and uploading the Westlife tracks.
This is very ironic because in many states, no-competes aren't enforcible, the company isn't allowed to keep you from earning a living. But is some of those same states the: "Everything in your spare time belongs to us". Clauses do have weight and have been enforced.
If you read the MS response you would realize that the Express line of products have been stripped of Macros, Addins, extensions etc. MS has in fact not only *disabled* this functionality; they stripped it from the Express products entirely.
So what the developer wrote could not possibly have been extension or plugin for the Express Edition, because according to what you say those hooks have been removed and it is not possible.
What was done here was to leverage a feature of the properties panel as an attach vector to worm in functionality. The property panel supports "custom editors". That a feature open to any.NET developer: If you develop your own class/control/component you can leverage the built-in editors for properties of your class, or you can develop your own editors.
So he has written some code that uses basic.NET functionality that any developer has access to? And the panel does support "custom editors" So he wrote a "custom editor" which must be legal since the functionality is there.
TestDriven.NET used this feature to have his own code run in the context of the Visual Studio Express process. When that happens he hijacks the internals of the application to inject his own menus, commands etc. That is clearly circumventing a restriction explicitly imposed on the Express line. It is also violating the copyright on the product b/c you are now changing the product in ways it was not designed to be changed and to which you have not been granted rights.
You say he was not granted rights, but yet he was using basic.NET functionality and writing a "custom editor" which should have the functionality to have custom menus. Unless you're talking copyright rights. Since he's not distributing Express line of products there is not copyright violation there. He can't be in violation of writing a plugin or extension for the software in question, since you said the functionality has been removed. And writing 3rd party products that work with existing products has long been deemed legal, in spite of what the EULA claims.
I'd like to teach some graphic design and web production skills to my coworkers in the marketing department
Remember you're teaching fundamental skills, not products. Sure the Gimp sucks compared to Photoshop, but what do you want to teach them to do, crop images, Alpha channel and transparency?
You need to detach yourself from the product, go ahead use the free apps listed elsewhere, but make sure you're teaching concepts of graphic/web design, not Photoshop/Deamweaver. Then when they get access to some high end tools, they at least know what they want them to do.
The point wasn't the war on terror. What's the point in targeting missiles against somebody who is installing missile shield? It the missiles can get through the shield in sufficient numbers, the entity putting up the shield is waisting its resources. If the missiles can't get through you're waisting your time.
Imagine, let's say that Russia stated worries about Mexican plots against them, and thus Russia built a missile shield over Cuba and Venezuela, how would USA feel about that?
If the US had even the slightest amount of common sense, we would ignore them. Or if we wanted to annoy them, leak the information the the media and let private enterprise do our dirty work. But announcing the we were pointing missiles at the shield would the the dumbest, and unfortunately most likely, scenario.
I get charged twice the fee, once by the ATM owner, and once by my bank
For the ATM owner; profit.
For your bank: profit.
Canadian banks have posted record profits and yet the fees only go up and up.
Evidence that the banks ATM fee structure works.
At some point it has to stop or people will just be broke all the time. You can't get fees out of people with no money.
Then they loan the broke people money. And since people are broke, they can charge higher interest rates on loans or credit. That goes along with the above methodology for generating more profit.
The bank has little vested interest in holding your money for you. They hold your money to encourage you to use their services, which they charge for. If you have very little money, they have a vested interest in getting you to borrow more money. A fundamental principle of banking is they don't make money by sitting on it; they make money by loaning it out. Banks of course need money to loan, which is why the offer to hold your money for you. But really they have little interest in holding your money other than to charge you fees for services, (such as ATM fees), or to loan it back to you, (credit cards and loans).
Slashdot Mirror
You left out that part that a lawyer is not a person with 0 credibility. As I understand it he is an officer of the court, so he has a legal obligation to report this. Also by failing to report it, unless he's they're lawyer and attorney client relation exists he could potentially be disbarred for it. And what's even better if there was an attorney client relation or the girls weren't really distributing copyright material he could get disbarred and Florida would have one less lawyer on their hands. Which I see as a win win situation for the people.
Nope, I'm saying that people should be victimized equally. :-)
I don't care personally what his stance is; he's The President and if he puts a stop to it, for the sake of is daughters or whatever, hopefully others will be able to take advantage of that.
Despite what the RIAA and labels say, this has never been about the musicians, its about profit for the record companies.
So you're saying that 2 girls who share music and are reported to the RIAA should not be because of their dad?
They've been caught and reported, why shouldn't they be victimized like the rest of us?
You forgot the one about selling you another ink cartridge .
Well right now its good to be a geek. I would go to dice and find a better job. And it always easier to find a job when you have one. I'm certain you can find a much better position.
Broadcast TV is still free, until they get the "no changing channels during the commercials flag" added to the digital standard.
Pay the bill then sue them in small claims court for failure to deliver services.
because
In other words they want to show off their skillz and know some RA or post doc is going to be messing with it.
Which is really useful I mean knowing the solids never expand or contract with temperature.
Unless you change the umask your .profile or .cshrc to something like 077, or use a command such as chmod 700 *.mp3 or place in them in a sub directors with similar permissions. And if you don't have permission to change these settings or the department has a policy of changing them or requiring everything to be world/group readable, don't put them there.
Your files, you control the access.
In the same way you're responsible if somebody breaks into your house or steals your car.
A user putting up music on a server similar to asking the guy with the CD in his possession if you can burn a copy of it while you're visiting with him. Which is very different than if he walked off and left the CD on the table by accident. Because to retrieve a file from a computer system, you have to issue a request to that computer system.
Its nothing like leaving a CD on a table and people coming by and copying it without permission. When you pick a CD up from the table you are not asking for the CD, unless somebody or something is there to control access to the CD. When you put a file on a server, to get a copy of the file you send a request or command for the server to give you a copy file in question. Ones the request is made, the server then checks whether or not you are authorized to receive the file. Very different from picking a CD up off a table.
We've had free market and competition in the mobile phone industry for quite sometime; so if competition will take care of everything, why do all the carriers still suck?
You obviously haven't had to deal with their lawyers.
Which section?
Linus doesn't have to relicense the entire kernel to impose the new GPL-3 restrictions on the kernel.
Since it looks like GPL-2 code may be freely integrated into GPL-3 software, all Linus has to do is start adding GPL-3 code to the kernel. These small additions will have the effect of relicensing the kernel without affecting licensing of individual modules that Linus doesn't own the copyright to. Then anybody who wants to use Linux will have to stick with the GPL-3 restrictions, or remove the GPL-3 code before building or distributing.
The real reason that the author of the article doesn't want the his name and email on the music tracks: he doesn't want anybody to know he's the one buying and uploading the Westlife tracks.
So you're saying that the only place you have your name and email address, on your laptop is in the music you downloaded from Apple?
Vim 7.1 was released on 2007-05-12
Assuming the average person doesn't have any need or desire to play video games written withing the past few months.
This is very ironic because in many states, no-competes aren't enforcible, the company isn't allowed to keep you from earning a living. But is some of those same states the: "Everything in your spare time belongs to us". Clauses do have weight and have been enforced.
Lets do a little analysis of this.
So what the developer wrote could not possibly have been extension or plugin for the Express Edition, because according to what you say those hooks have been removed and it is not possible.
So he has written some code that uses basic .NET functionality that any developer has access to? And the panel does support "custom editors" So he wrote a "custom editor" which must be legal since the functionality is there.
You say he was not granted rights, but yet he was using basic .NET functionality and writing a "custom editor" which should have the functionality to have custom menus. Unless you're talking copyright rights. Since he's not distributing Express line of products there is not copyright violation there. He can't be in violation of writing a plugin or extension for the software in question, since you said the functionality has been removed. And writing 3rd party products that work with existing products has long been deemed legal, in spite of what the EULA claims.
Remember you're teaching fundamental skills, not products. Sure the Gimp sucks compared to Photoshop, but what do you want to teach them to do, crop images, Alpha channel and transparency?
You need to detach yourself from the product, go ahead use the free apps listed elsewhere, but make sure you're teaching concepts of graphic/web design, not Photoshop/Deamweaver. Then when they get access to some high end tools, they at least know what they want them to do.
The point wasn't the war on terror. What's the point in targeting missiles against somebody who is installing missile shield? It the missiles can get through the shield in sufficient numbers, the entity putting up the shield is waisting its resources. If the missiles can't get through you're waisting your time.
If the US had even the slightest amount of common sense, we would ignore them. Or if we wanted to annoy them, leak the information the the media and let private enterprise do our dirty work. But announcing the we were pointing missiles at the shield would the the dumbest, and unfortunately most likely, scenario.
For the ATM owner; profit.
For your bank: profit.
Evidence that the banks ATM fee structure works.
Then they loan the broke people money. And since people are broke, they can charge higher interest rates on loans or credit. That goes along with the above methodology for generating more profit.
The bank has little vested interest in holding your money for you. They hold your money to encourage you to use their services, which they charge for. If you have very little money, they have a vested interest in getting you to borrow more money. A fundamental principle of banking is they don't make money by sitting on it; they make money by loaning it out. Banks of course need money to loan, which is why the offer to hold your money for you. But really they have little interest in holding your money other than to charge you fees for services, (such as ATM fees), or to loan it back to you, (credit cards and loans).