All this could be solved if the publishers institute a system of EULAs for books. Every book should be shrink-wrapped, with a notice on the wrapping saying "By opening this shrink-wrap you hereby agree to the following..." etc. Then, instead of owning the book, you would be buying limited rights to read the contents of a book still owned by the publisher. Wait! What am I doing? ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H oh dammit! I need to patent this idea *now*!
Could this be AOL's attempt to get some "street cred" by sponsoring a bunch of hackers? Kind of like Sprite running commercials telling us not to believe the hype commercials, or lifelong politicians portraying themselves as "outsiders"?
IANAL and all, but the gist I got from actually reading the bill makes it sound like it's only prohibiting full reproductions (like word-by-word transcripts), not mere summaries. Does anyone know if that's true?
In my opinion, if it just limits transcripts and the like, that's fine. I teach at UC Berkeley, and the facts that I teach are public domain, not mine. But I do consider my lectures to be mine. I try to present material in a way that will help students understand it and see connections they might not otherwise see. Presumably that's one of the services that students are paying for with their college fees (and why UC is paying me), since almost all of the facts covered are available for free in the library. On the other hand, if someone summarizes the facts I present, that's probably fair use. I don't see this as much different from a textbook -- the facts in a textbook aren't protected, but the author's particular way of presenting the material is.
(Of course, if they're trying to outlaw selling any notes, I can see where that might be a problem.)
StarWars episode II, as yet untitled film, has wrapped up shooting ahead of shedule.
They were shooting it in England?
But seriously, I think this is going to be better than Episode I for two reasons. One, I heard Lucas quoted as saying that Ep2 will be the darkest Star Wars yet, darker than Empire. And two, knowing that Jar Jar will be in it, my expectations couldn't be any lower -- at this point I can only be pleasantly surprised.
From Microsoft: "The consumer that enables first-party cookies is even more exposed. This should only be an issue for someone who has disabled all cookies and is concerned about unique identification."
Translation: only people who care about their privacy care about their privacy. Gee whiz, mister, that makes it all okay!
Slashdot Mirror
All this could be solved if the publishers institute a system of EULAs for books. Every book should be shrink-wrapped, with a notice on the wrapping saying "By opening this shrink-wrap you hereby agree to the following..." etc. Then, instead of owning the book, you would be buying limited rights to read the contents of a book still owned by the publisher. Wait! What am I doing? ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H oh dammit! I need to patent this idea *now*!
Could this be AOL's attempt to get some "street cred" by sponsoring a bunch of hackers? Kind of like Sprite running commercials telling us not to believe the hype commercials, or lifelong politicians portraying themselves as "outsiders"?
IANAL and all, but the gist I got from actually reading the bill makes it sound like it's only prohibiting full reproductions (like word-by-word transcripts), not mere summaries. Does anyone know if that's true?
In my opinion, if it just limits transcripts and the like, that's fine. I teach at UC Berkeley, and the facts that I teach are public domain, not mine. But I do consider my lectures to be mine. I try to present material in a way that will help students understand it and see connections they might not otherwise see. Presumably that's one of the services that students are paying for with their college fees (and why UC is paying me), since almost all of the facts covered are available for free in the library. On the other hand, if someone summarizes the facts I present, that's probably fair use. I don't see this as much different from a textbook -- the facts in a textbook aren't protected, but the author's particular way of presenting the material is.
(Of course, if they're trying to outlaw selling any notes, I can see where that might be a problem.)
StarWars episode II, as yet untitled film, has wrapped up shooting ahead of shedule.
They were shooting it in England?
But seriously, I think this is going to be better than Episode I for two reasons. One, I heard Lucas quoted as saying that Ep2 will be the darkest Star Wars yet, darker than Empire. And two, knowing that Jar Jar will be in it, my expectations couldn't be any lower -- at this point I can only be pleasantly surprised.
From Microsoft: "The consumer that enables first-party cookies is even more exposed. This should only be an issue for someone who has disabled all cookies and is concerned about unique identification."
Translation: only people who care about their privacy care about their privacy. Gee whiz, mister, that makes it all okay!