I can send you a text file copy of the WindowsXP licencing agreement. Windows XP readilly spits out the darn thing when you look for it, and it's easily readable by anyone who can get through the GPL (or even just do their taxes.)
in an nutshell: "standard EULA stuff" "we owe you, at the most, $5 legal liabity for anything WinXP does", "If you come use our services, we'll sell anonymous stats" "If we help to fix you, you won't sue us" "If it randomly breaks, it's not our fault."
Nothing in there about small children whatsoever. Please, drop the anti-MS FUD. Their EULA is evil and one-sided and not negotiated and a general sick twist of the way things should be, but it's not as complex as the contracts to sell your soul to Satan.
Very nicely done reply. I admit my error on copyleft, and only two points come to mind.
1: Copyleft should still compete with non-copyleft software and licenses--including proprietary software. A bussness, ideally, should choose somewhere between pure copyleft (where everything down to the company's trademark are free for the taking) and pure copyright (where they don't even use interfaces that they don't totally own.)
I find no moral problem with Apple creating an excellent GUI and configuring it to run atop a "non-copyleft" (BSD) licensed software. Especially when the major relevant copyleft licenses (GPL) would require them to reinvent their business plan into something far less profitable.
The key to this lack of moral objection is the value of sticking as close to the original "copymiddle'd" code as possible. Doing so allows them to tap into the network of programmers and hobbyists that write BSD, thus allowing them to focus on the things that are valueable.
While I support the FSF in theory (the best thing I can do with my money is put my own house in order right now), I disagree with a pure-freedom enviornment. Absolute freedom runs rampant over unpopular rights (How many people pay for Winzip? Since they have the "Freedom" of using it at the cost of either their conciense or their checkbook, many people simply do not pay for it.) Competition demands the ability to compete and be reimbursed when your efforts are valued and used by others.
Besides which, the FSF seems to work on moral authoirty--and moral authority has more credence when the line is "you should give these rights to everyone else" rather than "you must give these rights to everyone else."
2: As I've mentioned before, the best copyleft license is a limited-area copyleft. The Open Gaming License is such a license. It's the best I've seen where a Work can have both Copyleft (game rules and other hard numbers) and non-Copyleft (ficiton, characters, and trademarks) content.
If the GPL were modified to allow for all-new, non-derived components (like a GUI) to be added to GPL'd copylefted software components which could never be closed again, it would be a better license and many of the objections to the GPL would vanish, while still allowing it to retain all of its assets and moral authority.
That won't even be touched by this law. All this means is that parents can rest assured that their children will no more easilly get a violent video game at the mall than they will a porno mag.
Some parents do give their children porn, alcohol, and tobacco, and teach them how to use firearms to boot. But unless the parent agrees, the child won't get any of these legally.
This law will put violent video games in the same "not without parental supervision" catagory as guns and porn. Sounds just fine to me.
Copyrighted music was already protected under copyright law. Fair use was already protected under other laws. Why do we keep writing and amending and rewriting laws that do the SAME THING as previous laws?
Copyright law protects copyrighted stuff--and it also allows for Fair Use, which is a time when you can infringe on someone's copyright and actually have a defense in court.
The DMCA deals with *security devices*, which is something else entirely. It's like the part of the law that makes picking your neighbor's lock *and not opening the door* illegal.
It just so happens that the DMCA does this by making *all* lock-picking illegal, even if you want it so there's no key to your door.
I'll make no bones about Christianity supporting war. War is a horrible, nasty thing--and sometimes, it's appropriate.
For example, the only 100% sure way to get someone to stop their crimes is to kill them. The only way to stop a rapist is to make it very, very unpleasant for them. War is just the use of this on a scale when you have no higher temporal power to appeal to (and, still, the UN doens't count.)
Oh, wait--you said "organized force." Or, more aptly, the Church. Read some of my other posts--I repsect the Church for doing good works, but any body that says "I am right" is going to suffer the Istarian fault to some degree.
That includes the Catholics, the Presbeterians (my wife's one of 'em), and the Free Software Foundation.
I've had more than my share of moral crisis since my childhood ended. After quite a lot of stress, I've found that religion makes a great guidestone when I listen to my own heart, rather than organized religion or organized religion's opponents. (I am, however, rather interested in both sides, which is why I discuss this so readilly.)
Regarding The Word's word that you quoted, I interpret it a lot differently than you did. Rather than "it's adultery to think about a woman," I think it's more like "lusting after a woman and fucking her are the same sin in the eyes of God." But God (obviously) wants mankind to have sex, so there has to be a place for it.
Thus, don't go thinking about girls in high school that don't know that you're lusting after them, and don't lust after girls that don't want you to.;)
Anyway, as to the article--I think the author is intentionally misnormalizing the scale of Christian sexual conduct, especially at the time of its creation.
Rather than (celebacy=0), (chastity=-1) and (forification=-2), it's more like (chastity=+1), (celebacy=0) and (forification=-1). Chastity should be the *normal* state for people who aren't saints (but make their shoes and the babies), but celebacy is a "more holy" state than chastity.
Just like it's "normal" to not rob someone, "wrong" to rob someone, and "holy" to give someone your money.
Anyway, it's one of the big faults with organized religion. Things thare a "good states to be held in high regard" become, over decades "mandatory states for everyone who's not going to hell." And, of course, that sparks the "I can't live that way, so they must not really mean it" trail of thought, that quickly empties churches and, in some of those who rebel against the entire framework, sparks everyone back to the "fornification" stage that they were in before the church showed up and said "that's wrong."
Of course, the whole issue's compounded by the fact that People Are Stupid, and so God didn't bother saying WHY the good things are good and the bad things are bad.:(
Anyway, my final point: Thanks for the link, I agree with the organized religion part, I disagree with the "no God"/"no soul" part, and I'm always open if you just want to kill some time to talk about religion. (or MS--those evil bastards!)
This doesn't really have anything to do with anything, but the statement made me think: What if someone asks for legal advice, and you advise them to see a lawyer? Sorta a catch 22...?
As far as I know...
"The only legal advice that I'm qualified to give is to go see a lawyer."
:) Luckilly for all of us, the American system of common law is decided by judges, and based on a "reasonable man" standard. I think they decided quite a while ago that "go get a lawyer, you've got legal problems" isn't "legal advice."
Somebody explain this apparent hypocrisy to me please.
There's a difference between copyright and free speech. In fact, they're about as related as capitalism and matricarchy.
"Free Speech" is the idea that the government cannot made a law keeping you from communicating something. There are a few limits on it ("you can't shout fire in a crowded theather"), but absent a very good reason, the government can't stop you from communicating whatever you want.
(From "this sucks" to "let's be communist" to "all commies must die.")
"Copyright" is a different beast altogether. It's the government recognizing the right of someone who works to create a thing that's very easily copied (like a book or a poem) to gain fiscal benefit from people using this thing. It's the government outlining how long the creator of a protected work gets total control over who gets to make copies. (When that time's up, it goes into the "public doman," which anyone can make copies of.)
This part is the core of copyright protection, and it's what Microsoft & the rest offer you in exchange for you agreeing to their EULA.
The hariy part about copyright comes when you take only a little bit of someone's work, add your own into it, and make a new work. This is what's called a "derivitive work," and it's the legal basis behind the GPL. Since you're making a copy of PART of someone's work, you're breaking the copyright law ("infringement.") But since someone made something new, THEY have a copyright on it to. In this situation, both parties need to agree to do anything with teh second work--or they need to go to a judge, who decides if a work is or is not "derivitive."
An exception to this is "Fair Use," which is a few specific exceptions (Journalism, Academia, and Parody) wherin the infringement isn't punishable.
SO, let's say that I write a novel. (I am, btw. Just about done, too.) My novel is Copyrighted. Because of Free Speech, the government cannot come down and lock me in jail because the main characters rebel against their government and break the law. My copyright means that if you want you very own copy of my novel, you need to convince me (ordinarilly by buying it from a publiher) to let you do it.
If you like my fantasy world a lot, and you write your own "fanfic", you need my permission to do anything at all with it, including post it on the web, and especially including selling your own copies. You've infringed by copying my setting.
If you decide to write a review of my novel for your school paper (or local paper), you can quote a small bit of it for journalistic use and I can't say a darn thing, because of Fair Use. Unless you quote an entire chapter every week, in which case I can probably get a judge to rule that you're not really being journalistic.
One more thing--I'm not a lawyer. Please, please, PLEASE don't do anything and then come back and say "well, this guy on Slashdot said it was OK." IANAL, and dispensing legal advice when you're not can get you busted. (I was merely sharing my understanding of the law.)
OSX is exactly the same thing as any non-coder who uses any OSS. It's NOT theft. It's NOT unethical. And, in fact, it's EXACTLY WHAT THE BSD FOLKS SEEM TO WANT!
OSS is (alledgely) about getting the best sofware, and being able to get support long after the creator dies. Not getting your agenda across. Not beating down the big guy. But getting THE BEST SOFTWARE POSSIBLE.
If Apple dies tomorrow (MS buys them and shuts them down 100%), everyone who has an Apple with OSX can continue to get support and updates from the OSS community--which is composed of people who, for the three goals of getting-something-that-works, ego-stroking, and philanthropy, donate their time to something that does not get them any direct fiscal payback.
Oh, and the "all you have to do is say the I-accept-Jesus prayer" is not a fundamental principle of Christianity. In fact, I don't believe that this principle was formulated prior to the 20th century.
I believe that particular piece of dogma originated in the Renaissance, during the period of the Protestant reformation. When you've got a church that says "you need to do X, X, and X, and THEN AND ONLY THEN can you be saved," there tends to be a great big backlash against that.
Personally, I think salvation is a two-part process. Part one is getting in contact (on some level, even if it's not concious or following the paths I would follow) with the Creator. Part two is convincing the Creator to give you a mighty big break and let you off all of the sins ("bad stuff", "crimes against God", or just the roman "stuff that pisses God off") that you have committed.
Where organized religions, like the Catholic Church, go wrong is when they forget that they exist for step 1 only, and that step 2 is something that God is perfectly capable of dealing with Himself (or Herself, if you've got a more feminine view of that all-powerful, all-knowing, shy, just-like-man-but-not-split-or-finite thing I call Jesus Christ, the world's first hippie.)
...an ordinance that requires parental consent before children under 17 can buy or play violent or sexually explicit video games...
Final Fantasy whatever is neither violent nor sexually explicit. Neither is Black and White. Nor Myst. Nor Civilization. Nor any of the other games that were mentioned to defend "video games" as protected speech.
Doom, Mortal Kombat, and Resident Evil are famous games for their violence. And they're also all three lacking in *speech*. They're great marvels of techonlogy (for their times) and gameplay (for even now, in some ways), but they're not necessarily worthy of judicial protection.
The ruling isn't saying "all games aren't speech." It's saying "game's aren't always protected speech."
Heck, I mean--NO form of expression is always protected speech. If I slander someone in a song, I'm still civilly / criminally liable. If I write a novel that's sexually evocative, I'm still regulated as porn.
I for one and quite happy with "mature" video games being regulated as "adult content." Especially when the law rests on the permission of the parents, who in my day were the ones actually purchasing the games anyway.
Trust is earned. Would you mind telling me what the Catholic Church has done to deserve my trust?
Trust is multifauceted. By acting as they did, the Catholic Chruch has gained some trust for not telling other people the details of confession, at the consequnece of a lot of trust on handling children.
In fact, the *church* has earned quite a bit of trust, by coming down so hard on the *american branch*'s scandal.
I would trust the doctors in most hospitals. But if I learned that a hospital willingly hired doctors with suspended licenses, or that they used underhanded tactics to crush malpractice lawsuits, or that complaints were always ignored, why trust them then?
We're not talking about a hospital. We're talking about a multinational organization with moral purposes (that runs, among other things, hospitals) that has a proven track record of sticking to what they mean. While I'm not a Catholic, (I'm a non-denomination Christian), this scandal in no way has altered my opinion of the Catholic Priests that my friends, grandmother, and father listen to.
Re:No. Do not trust a priest. Or any authority.
on
The Magic Box Hoax
·
· Score: 1
"Forgiveness" does not make you legally exempt from the consequences of your actions.
I didn't say that it did. I didn't say that the Catholic Church did the right thing.
I just said that, in doing the wrong thing, their morals were at least in the right place.
It's like shooting a lawyer. Sure, you might be follwing a good moral code, but you're still doing the wrong thing.
It's perfectly legal to convince everyone in the world that your "x" is THE "x", and thus have everyone purchase/see/read your "x."
What's illegal is if you make it impossible for anyone else to get THEIR "x" to the masses. Specifically, if you're the biggest maker of "x", and you beat out all the other makers of "x" based on your sheer size rather than the quality of your "x." This is what's called a monopoly, and it's a Bad Thing.
Advertising--that is, increasing the perceptive value of your "x"--is not a Bad Thing. A Dishonest Thing, maybe, but not a Bad Thing.
Message to nerds/geeks: You just have to wait for superpowers to fall on you. There is no way else you can interest a girl. This movie praises you, do not change a thing. Just wait.
Almost. But Peter got Mary Jane intersted by standing up to Flash & just being a nice guy all of those years--not by being spider-man.
;) So, the message is "talk to the girl." Heck, he even has his rich best friend steal the girl because he never says anything--what more of a "make your move" message do you want than that?
Are you one of those people who thinks that they have to "grow up" and take things seriously? Public Art, like movies, is at its best when it gets over itself and focuses and making a movie that's both FUN and GOOD. A perfect example of movies needing to "get over themselves" would the TPM, and any "brainy" movie that died at the box office.
Forget that Spider-Man is a comic book, and forget that you're supposed to put away comic books when you grow up. It's a story about a kid who gets something no one else has, and how he deals with it. It's every bit as "grown up" as a good novel, epic play, or any other bit of nonvisual art that I'd actually pick up outside of a classroom.
Oh, one more thing: RIAA and the MPAA so far haven't "suppressed" any of my rights, although I do have a dry technical complaint against them.
Re:No. Do not trust a priest. Or any authority.
on
The Magic Box Hoax
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
I didn't realize being made fun of on Slashdot was a legal action.
Believe it or not, justice and such things as logic and "weighing evidence" can exist outside of the courts. America would be a better place if they did so more often.
Anyone whose interests might conflict with mine, especially if they are charged with aiding or protecting me, should be subject to intense scrutiny, and be able to stand up under it. Lately, we've seen that the Church's actions cannot hold up under the light.
Intense scrutiny is fine, but don't damn them all just because of some transgressions.
The outrage at the scandals (note the use of the plural) is partly that sexual abuses happened, but mostly that the church has gone to such lengths to cover them up and keep those same priests active, in some cases returning them to positions with unsupervised contact with children. If there weren't a pattern of covering up, the innocent priests wouldn't be tainted by the guilt of their colleagues. But, by suppressing the truth, the Church has allowed uncertainty to spread, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Like I said before, this (the cover-up) is the church following through on its "forgiveness" dogma. I'm not Catholic, and I agree with those that say they forgave too much and worked too hard to keep it low, but I appreciate a moral authority that actually stands up for what they say.
Think about it. Let's say that you're accused of molesting a child left in your care. EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T DO IT, the accusation still hurts you. There's merit to the church overreacting to protect those accused of child molestation, considering the overreaction that's made to people merely accused of the crime.
(Yes, it's a horrible crime equal to or greater than murder. But, well, "Innocent until proven guilty.")
Yeah, there are probably a few good priests, in the same way that there are probably a few good lawyers, good traffic cops, or (relevant to this story) a few good patent office clerks. But I really do believe that there are some professions where it's a good idea to keep the practitioners as far away from you as humanly possible. It's not right, but pragmatism rarely is. It's simply pragmatic.
You don't need to trust a patent office clerk or traffic cop (well, "personally" trust, anyway). But you do need to trust YOUR lawyer when you employ one, YOUR doctor when you choose one, and YOUR priest if you go to one.
Of course, if you *really* don't need a lawyer, doctor, or priest at all, then you're a far better person thanone else I've met. Never suing someone or being suied, completely undserstanding even the most arcane argeement you make, never getting sick or being wounded--and having no mental problems whatsoever.
I agree, though. There are some professions (let's not go into detail, shall we? It's really a matter of personal taste) that you don't want to associate with at all if you can avoid it. But when/if you *do* find yourself associating with members of these professions, isn't it important to judge the specific person you're deaing with, rather than "the profession?"
Wow, you mean that we shouldn't trust people because people in the same profession committed horrible crimes? Wow!
That does it. I can no longer trust police officers, firemen, doctors, lawyers, computer programmers, stock market folk, bankers, store managers, or anyone else. They've all got members who've committed felonies!
No, no, no need for justice for them. Their professions obviously predispose them towards criminal behavior. Let's just assume that they're all crooks--the ones who aren't are just biding their time.
I mean, heck, every priest secretly wants to coodle a young boy. And all that talk about "forgivenenss" that they've been going on about for 2,000 years really is just PR, and they don't REALLY believe that.
... or maybe you're a +5 troll, and we should think rationally about who we trust in all manners, and not make sweeping generalizations about professions who can only function if they are trusted?
Slashdot Mirror
but do not want a hint of flesh to be seen anywhere lest people be tempted to have sex (which, I guess, must not be mentioned anywhere in the Bible?)
Not really--well, not in any good light.
You need to encourage people to go to war. You don't need to encourage people to have sex.
I can send you a text file copy of the WindowsXP licencing agreement. Windows XP readilly spits out the darn thing when you look for it, and it's easily readable by anyone who can get through the GPL (or even just do their taxes.)
;)
in an nutshell: "standard EULA stuff" "we owe you, at the most, $5 legal liabity for anything WinXP does", "If you come use our services, we'll sell anonymous stats" "If we help to fix you, you won't sue us" "If it randomly breaks, it's not our fault."
Nothing in there about small children whatsoever. Please, drop the anti-MS FUD. Their EULA is evil and one-sided and not negotiated and a general sick twist of the way things should be, but it's not as complex as the contracts to sell your soul to Satan.
Satan, by the way, give a warranty.
Very nicely done reply. I admit my error on copyleft, and only two points come to mind.
1: Copyleft should still compete with non-copyleft software and licenses--including proprietary software. A bussness, ideally, should choose somewhere between pure copyleft (where everything down to the company's trademark are free for the taking) and pure copyright (where they don't even use interfaces that they don't totally own.)
I find no moral problem with Apple creating an excellent GUI and configuring it to run atop a "non-copyleft" (BSD) licensed software. Especially when the major relevant copyleft licenses (GPL) would require them to reinvent their business plan into something far less profitable.
The key to this lack of moral objection is the value of sticking as close to the original "copymiddle'd" code as possible. Doing so allows them to tap into the network of programmers and hobbyists that write BSD, thus allowing them to focus on the things that are valueable.
While I support the FSF in theory (the best thing I can do with my money is put my own house in order right now), I disagree with a pure-freedom enviornment. Absolute freedom runs rampant over unpopular rights (How many people pay for Winzip? Since they have the "Freedom" of using it at the cost of either their conciense or their checkbook, many people simply do not pay for it.) Competition demands the ability to compete and be reimbursed when your efforts are valued and used by others.
Besides which, the FSF seems to work on moral authoirty--and moral authority has more credence when the line is "you should give these rights to everyone else" rather than "you must give these rights to everyone else."
2: As I've mentioned before, the best copyleft license is a limited-area copyleft. The Open Gaming License is such a license. It's the best I've seen where a Work can have both Copyleft (game rules and other hard numbers) and non-Copyleft (ficiton, characters, and trademarks) content.
If the GPL were modified to allow for all-new, non-derived components (like a GUI) to be added to GPL'd copylefted software components which could never be closed again, it would be a better license and many of the objections to the GPL would vanish, while still allowing it to retain all of its assets and moral authority.
"Don't buy them for him..."
That won't even be touched by this law. All this means is that parents can rest assured that their children will no more easilly get a violent video game at the mall than they will a porno mag.
Some parents do give their children porn, alcohol, and tobacco, and teach them how to use firearms to boot. But unless the parent agrees, the child won't get any of these legally.
This law will put violent video games in the same "not without parental supervision" catagory as guns and porn. Sounds just fine to me.
Copyrighted music was already protected under copyright law. Fair use was already protected under other laws. Why do we keep writing and amending and rewriting laws that do the SAME THING as previous laws?
Copyright law protects copyrighted stuff--and it also allows for Fair Use, which is a time when you can infringe on someone's copyright and actually have a defense in court.
The DMCA deals with *security devices*, which is something else entirely. It's like the part of the law that makes picking your neighbor's lock *and not opening the door* illegal.
It just so happens that the DMCA does this by making *all* lock-picking illegal, even if you want it so there's no key to your door.
I'll make no bones about Christianity supporting war. War is a horrible, nasty thing--and sometimes, it's appropriate.
For example, the only 100% sure way to get someone to stop their crimes is to kill them. The only way to stop a rapist is to make it very, very unpleasant for them. War is just the use of this on a scale when you have no higher temporal power to appeal to (and, still, the UN doens't count.)
Oh, wait--you said "organized force." Or, more aptly, the Church. Read some of my other posts--I repsect the Church for doing good works, but any body that says "I am right" is going to suffer the Istarian fault to some degree.
That includes the Catholics, the Presbeterians (my wife's one of 'em), and the Free Software Foundation.
You didn't say much about copyleft--at least, nothing in opposition to what I said.
But you used the term "Free Software" a lot. Without defining it. By God, define it if you must use such an ambiguous and contrary term!
(Do you mean free-as-in-beer, free-as-in-speech, or free-as-in-naked?)
Interesting.
;)
:(
I've had more than my share of moral crisis since my childhood ended. After quite a lot of stress, I've found that religion makes a great guidestone when I listen to my own heart, rather than organized religion or organized religion's opponents. (I am, however, rather interested in both sides, which is why I discuss this so readilly.)
Regarding The Word's word that you quoted, I interpret it a lot differently than you did. Rather than "it's adultery to think about a woman," I think it's more like "lusting after a woman and fucking her are the same sin in the eyes of God." But God (obviously) wants mankind to have sex, so there has to be a place for it.
Thus, don't go thinking about girls in high school that don't know that you're lusting after them, and don't lust after girls that don't want you to.
Anyway, as to the article--I think the author is intentionally misnormalizing the scale of Christian sexual conduct, especially at the time of its creation.
Rather than (celebacy=0), (chastity=-1) and (forification=-2), it's more like (chastity=+1), (celebacy=0) and (forification=-1). Chastity should be the *normal* state for people who aren't saints (but make their shoes and the babies), but celebacy is a "more holy" state than chastity.
Just like it's "normal" to not rob someone, "wrong" to rob someone, and "holy" to give someone your money.
Anyway, it's one of the big faults with organized religion. Things thare a "good states to be held in high regard" become, over decades "mandatory states for everyone who's not going to hell." And, of course, that sparks the "I can't live that way, so they must not really mean it" trail of thought, that quickly empties churches and, in some of those who rebel against the entire framework, sparks everyone back to the "fornification" stage that they were in before the church showed up and said "that's wrong."
Of course, the whole issue's compounded by the fact that People Are Stupid, and so God didn't bother saying WHY the good things are good and the bad things are bad.
Anyway, my final point: Thanks for the link, I agree with the organized religion part, I disagree with the "no God"/"no soul" part, and I'm always open if you just want to kill some time to talk about religion. (or MS--those evil bastards!)
Agreed. Any ideas on how we can go about implementing a "M-13" rating system?
;)
This doesn't really have anything to do with anything, but the statement made me think: What if someone asks for legal advice, and you advise them to see a lawyer? Sorta a catch 22...?
:)
As far as I know...
"The only legal advice that I'm qualified to give is to go see a lawyer."
:) Luckilly for all of us, the American system of common law is decided by judges, and based on a "reasonable man" standard. I think they decided quite a while ago that "go get a lawyer, you've got legal problems" isn't "legal advice."
Then again, IANAL.
Somebody explain this apparent hypocrisy to me please.
There's a difference between copyright and free speech. In fact, they're about as related as capitalism and matricarchy.
"Free Speech" is the idea that the government cannot made a law keeping you from communicating something. There are a few limits on it ("you can't shout fire in a crowded theather"), but absent a very good reason, the government can't stop you from communicating whatever you want.
(From "this sucks" to "let's be communist" to "all commies must die.")
"Copyright" is a different beast altogether. It's the government recognizing the right of someone who works to create a thing that's very easily copied (like a book or a poem) to gain fiscal benefit from people using this thing. It's the government outlining how long the creator of a protected work gets total control over who gets to make copies. (When that time's up, it goes into the "public doman," which anyone can make copies of.)
This part is the core of copyright protection, and it's what Microsoft & the rest offer you in exchange for you agreeing to their EULA.
The hariy part about copyright comes when you take only a little bit of someone's work, add your own into it, and make a new work. This is what's called a "derivitive work," and it's the legal basis behind the GPL. Since you're making a copy of PART of someone's work, you're breaking the copyright law ("infringement.") But since someone made something new, THEY have a copyright on it to. In this situation, both parties need to agree to do anything with teh second work--or they need to go to a judge, who decides if a work is or is not "derivitive."
An exception to this is "Fair Use," which is a few specific exceptions (Journalism, Academia, and Parody) wherin the infringement isn't punishable.
SO, let's say that I write a novel. (I am, btw. Just about done, too.) My novel is Copyrighted. Because of Free Speech, the government cannot come down and lock me in jail because the main characters rebel against their government and break the law. My copyright means that if you want you very own copy of my novel, you need to convince me (ordinarilly by buying it from a publiher) to let you do it.
If you like my fantasy world a lot, and you write your own "fanfic", you need my permission to do anything at all with it, including post it on the web, and especially including selling your own copies. You've infringed by copying my setting.
If you decide to write a review of my novel for your school paper (or local paper), you can quote a small bit of it for journalistic use and I can't say a darn thing, because of Fair Use. Unless you quote an entire chapter every week, in which case I can probably get a judge to rule that you're not really being journalistic.
One more thing--I'm not a lawyer. Please, please, PLEASE don't do anything and then come back and say "well, this guy on Slashdot said it was OK." IANAL, and dispensing legal advice when you're not can get you busted. (I was merely sharing my understanding of the law.)
doesn't matter. The point was that he stood up.
In my expereince, a woman who CAN find someone atractive for fighthing WILL find that someone atractive regardless if they win or not.
Chess.
It's not theft. It's use.
OSX is exactly the same thing as any non-coder who uses any OSS. It's NOT theft. It's NOT unethical. And, in fact, it's EXACTLY WHAT THE BSD FOLKS SEEM TO WANT!
OSS is (alledgely) about getting the best sofware, and being able to get support long after the creator dies. Not getting your agenda across. Not beating down the big guy. But getting THE BEST SOFTWARE POSSIBLE.
If Apple dies tomorrow (MS buys them and shuts them down 100%), everyone who has an Apple with OSX can continue to get support and updates from the OSS community--which is composed of people who, for the three goals of getting-something-that-works, ego-stroking, and philanthropy, donate their time to something that does not get them any direct fiscal payback.
drat, and you're posting anonymously, so you probably won't respond to this.
But, you wouldn't happen to have a link to collaborate your view of St. Augustine, would you?
Or is this just one of those "King Richard was Gay" things, and everyone believes it without giving evidence.
Oh, and the "all you have to do is say the I-accept-Jesus prayer" is not a fundamental principle of Christianity. In fact, I don't believe that this principle was formulated prior to the 20th century.
I believe that particular piece of dogma originated in the Renaissance, during the period of the Protestant reformation. When you've got a church that says "you need to do X, X, and X, and THEN AND ONLY THEN can you be saved," there tends to be a great big backlash against that.
Personally, I think salvation is a two-part process. Part one is getting in contact (on some level, even if it's not concious or following the paths I would follow) with the Creator. Part two is convincing the Creator to give you a mighty big break and let you off all of the sins ("bad stuff", "crimes against God", or just the roman "stuff that pisses God off") that you have committed.
Where organized religions, like the Catholic Church, go wrong is when they forget that they exist for step 1 only, and that step 2 is something that God is perfectly capable of dealing with Himself (or Herself, if you've got a more feminine view of that all-powerful, all-knowing, shy, just-like-man-but-not-split-or-finite thing I call Jesus Christ, the world's first hippie.)
At least read the slashdot tagline!
...an ordinance that requires parental consent before children under 17 can buy or play violent or sexually explicit video games...
Final Fantasy whatever is neither violent nor sexually explicit. Neither is Black and White. Nor Myst. Nor Civilization. Nor any of the other games that were mentioned to defend "video games" as protected speech.
Doom, Mortal Kombat, and Resident Evil are famous games for their violence. And they're also all three lacking in *speech*. They're great marvels of techonlogy (for their times) and gameplay (for even now, in some ways), but they're not necessarily worthy of judicial protection.
The ruling isn't saying "all games aren't speech." It's saying "game's aren't always protected speech."
Heck, I mean--NO form of expression is always protected speech. If I slander someone in a song, I'm still civilly / criminally liable. If I write a novel that's sexually evocative, I'm still regulated as porn.
I for one and quite happy with "mature" video games being regulated as "adult content." Especially when the law rests on the permission of the parents, who in my day were the ones actually purchasing the games anyway.
Trust is earned. Would you mind telling me what the Catholic Church has done to deserve my trust?
Trust is multifauceted. By acting as they did, the Catholic Chruch has gained some trust for not telling other people the details of confession, at the consequnece of a lot of trust on handling children.
In fact, the *church* has earned quite a bit of trust, by coming down so hard on the *american branch*'s scandal.
I would trust the doctors in most hospitals. But if I learned that a hospital willingly hired doctors with suspended licenses, or that they used underhanded tactics to crush malpractice lawsuits, or that complaints were always ignored, why trust them then?
We're not talking about a hospital. We're talking about a multinational organization with moral purposes (that runs, among other things, hospitals) that has a proven track record of sticking to what they mean. While I'm not a Catholic, (I'm a non-denomination Christian), this scandal in no way has altered my opinion of the Catholic Priests that my friends, grandmother, and father listen to.
"Forgiveness" does not make you legally exempt from the consequences of your actions.
I didn't say that it did. I didn't say that the Catholic Church did the right thing.
I just said that, in doing the wrong thing, their morals were at least in the right place.
It's like shooting a lawyer. Sure, you might be follwing a good moral code, but you're still doing the wrong thing.
It's perfectly legal to convince everyone in the world that your "x" is THE "x", and thus have everyone purchase/see/read your "x."
What's illegal is if you make it impossible for anyone else to get THEIR "x" to the masses. Specifically, if you're the biggest maker of "x", and you beat out all the other makers of "x" based on your sheer size rather than the quality of your "x." This is what's called a monopoly, and it's a Bad Thing.
Advertising--that is, increasing the perceptive value of your "x"--is not a Bad Thing. A Dishonest Thing, maybe, but not a Bad Thing.
Message to nerds/geeks: You just have to wait for superpowers to fall on you. There is no way else you can interest a girl. This movie praises you, do not change a thing. Just wait.
Almost. But Peter got Mary Jane intersted by standing up to Flash & just being a nice guy all of those years--not by being spider-man.
;) So, the message is "talk to the girl." Heck, he even has his rich best friend steal the girl because he never says anything--what more of a "make your move" message do you want than that?
"Comic Books and a children's book"...
Are you one of those people who thinks that they have to "grow up" and take things seriously? Public Art, like movies, is at its best when it gets over itself and focuses and making a movie that's both FUN and GOOD. A perfect example of movies needing to "get over themselves" would the TPM, and any "brainy" movie that died at the box office.
Forget that Spider-Man is a comic book, and forget that you're supposed to put away comic books when you grow up. It's a story about a kid who gets something no one else has, and how he deals with it. It's every bit as "grown up" as a good novel, epic play, or any other bit of nonvisual art that I'd actually pick up outside of a classroom.
Oh, one more thing: RIAA and the MPAA so far haven't "suppressed" any of my rights, although I do have a dry technical complaint against them.
I didn't realize being made fun of on Slashdot was a legal action.
Believe it or not, justice and such things as logic and "weighing evidence" can exist outside of the courts. America would be a better place if they did so more often.
Anyone whose interests might conflict with mine, especially if they are charged with aiding or protecting me, should be subject to intense scrutiny, and be able to stand up under it. Lately, we've seen that the Church's actions cannot hold up under the light.
Intense scrutiny is fine, but don't damn them all just because of some transgressions.
The outrage at the scandals (note the use of the plural) is partly that sexual abuses happened, but mostly that the church has gone to such lengths to cover them up and keep those same priests active, in some cases returning them to positions with unsupervised contact with children. If there weren't a pattern of covering up, the innocent priests wouldn't be tainted by the guilt of their colleagues. But, by suppressing the truth, the Church has allowed uncertainty to spread, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Like I said before, this (the cover-up) is the church following through on its "forgiveness" dogma. I'm not Catholic, and I agree with those that say they forgave too much and worked too hard to keep it low, but I appreciate a moral authority that actually stands up for what they say.
Think about it. Let's say that you're accused of molesting a child left in your care. EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T DO IT, the accusation still hurts you. There's merit to the church overreacting to protect those accused of child molestation, considering the overreaction that's made to people merely accused of the crime.
(Yes, it's a horrible crime equal to or greater than murder. But, well, "Innocent until proven guilty.")
Yeah, there are probably a few good priests, in the same way that there are probably a few good lawyers, good traffic cops, or (relevant to this story) a few good patent office clerks. But I really do believe that there are some professions where it's a good idea to keep the practitioners as far away from you as humanly possible. It's not right, but pragmatism rarely is. It's simply pragmatic.
You don't need to trust a patent office clerk or traffic cop (well, "personally" trust, anyway). But you do need to trust YOUR lawyer when you employ one, YOUR doctor when you choose one, and YOUR priest if you go to one.
Of course, if you *really* don't need a lawyer, doctor, or priest at all, then you're a far better person thanone else I've met. Never suing someone or being suied, completely undserstanding even the most arcane argeement you make, never getting sick or being wounded--and having no mental problems whatsoever.
I agree, though. There are some professions (let's not go into detail, shall we? It's really a matter of personal taste) that you don't want to associate with at all if you can avoid it. But when/if you *do* find yourself associating with members of these professions, isn't it important to judge the specific person you're deaing with, rather than "the profession?"
Wow, you mean that we shouldn't trust people because people in the same profession committed horrible crimes? Wow!
That does it. I can no longer trust police officers, firemen, doctors, lawyers, computer programmers, stock market folk, bankers, store managers, or anyone else. They've all got members who've committed felonies!
No, no, no need for justice for them. Their professions obviously predispose them towards criminal behavior. Let's just assume that they're all crooks--the ones who aren't are just biding their time.
I mean, heck, every priest secretly wants to coodle a young boy. And all that talk about "forgivenenss" that they've been going on about for 2,000 years really is just PR, and they don't REALLY believe that.
... or maybe you're a +5 troll, and we should think rationally about who we trust in all manners, and not make sweeping generalizations about professions who can only function if they are trusted?