You cannot prove a negative. Unless you can prove it was someone else, noone will believe that it wasn't you. If you really think that your past behavior has any impact on the courts, you may have a harsh lesson coming. For the sake of the truly naive, I will hope not.
Also, remember that every contributor to BSD, WebKit, libxml, gcc, etc. has code on the iPhone. Are you going to say they can't express an opinion on how it should be used? Hell yes. In the sense that most such posts are not just giving an opinion, but actually demanding Apple change, I'd say these developers have zero rights to try and insist Apple behave a certain way just because some of their code is used. When releasing code under an Open license, one of the very rights you give up is how others use your code. This is even more true for BSD-licensed code.
In terms of just giving an opinion, every person on Earth has exactly the same right as anyone else. There's no such as having more of a "right" than someone else. You have it or you don't, period.
When Apple gains a monopoly and uses that monopoly to enforce its rules across the entire market, you will have a legitimate concern. You may disagree with software licenses in general, but what Apple is doing in terms of the SDK license is a well-accepted Industry practice. Apple is not preventing jailbreak-style applications from being developed and used. They are simply stating that they are releasing the official SDK on their terms. If you don't like their terms, feel free to break the license or not use the SDK. There's nothing legally or morally wrong with Apple choosing restrictive terms. It's not even like they are cutting out competition. At best, they are trying to prevent competition with AT&T's service, and not their own.
So basically you bought something without having perfect information, knew you didn't have the information and basically assumed. Well, you got exactly what you paid for. It's noone else's fault that you thought you were buying something else. Apple never once misrepresented the product. At the time of sale, Apple was selling a locked-down phone that was stated to be locked-down months before it was even released. That's what you bought. No fault but your own.
Why is it that Federal law can be created anonymously (voice vote), but there's even the idea that simply posting opinion on a web-based forum anonymously could in anyway become illegal. I guess when you're making the law, hypocracy is not a road-block.
I think that what the GP is getting at is that a cash register is a physical implementation of the idea of using a machine to calculate sales costs and to provide a mechanism for storing the consideration (cash, check, CC transaction) received by the customer. The physical device is patentable, but the idea of such a device is not.
In the one-click example, Amazon is claiming, through their patent, that the idea of allowing a sale to be completed via a single interaction (click) is exclusive to Amazon for the duration of the patent. This aught to be absurd. At best, Amazon should be able to patent the exact method by which this is accomplished. The problem is that they consider the click itself to be an integral part of the design.
You are wrong. Just because there is a law against reproduction of copyrighted works does not mean that I have lost my rights regarding such actions. The premise of the Constitution is that rights cannot be taken away. Just because there are legal consequences does not mean my rights are any less.
The day you move out into the wilds and build yourself a 100% self-sufficient home, you can yammer about your so-called "rights". Since you use a computer, you obviously depend on others. Unless you barter for everything, and only trade items that you produced through 100% of your own efforts, you are relying on others for the economy. Part of that economy is the tax system. You have no natural right to any part of the economy, so you have no valid claim that any rights are violated by being taxed.
It's already been pointed out that the wording of this bill allows SCIENTIFIC presentation other than Evolution. It says nothing about teaching things that are not true. I realize you are a pro-Evolution bigot, but perhaps you should learn to read before criticizing.
The clearest proof that ID is false is that you exist. It seems perfectly clear that only a random process could have come up with something like you.
The parent you replied to blindly and stupidly assumes that if copyright did not exist in Law that all software developers would magically decide to release the source. You and I know that if copyright Law were to be abolished, source code would be treated as Trade Secrets by those who don't currently believe in Free Software.
Try telling that to the number one Carbonated Beverage company in the world. The exact formular for Coca Cola is a company secret. Tell me again how that's worthless?
A key difference between privacy law and copyright law is who the law protects. The idea of copyright is to provide incentive to creators to make their creations accesible to the public. The ultimate beneficiary of the law is supposed to be the Public. Copyright has been twisted such that it only benefits the creator, or even worse, the mere owner of the copyright.
On the other hand, privacy law is intended to benefit the Public (slightly ironic, huh?). It does this by preventing, amongst others, corporations from sharing information about you such that they profit at your expense.
The simplest distinction is that information that is made public "wants to be free". It is ONLY the legal construct of copyright that prevents such information from being legally distributable by a 3rd party for any price the party cares to name, which may be no price at all.
That is the lynchpin of the argument. Theft of physical goods has been established since pre-history as being a moral crime against the owner of the property. It is simple to understand that depriving someone of a physical good formerly in their posession is not morally acceptable. There is no such understanding with respect to copyright. In fact, most people don't understand how anyone could consider it theft when their friend hands them a copy of a CD. The friend is freely giving it away, how could it be stealing?
The notion that a 3rd party which is not in any way a part of a given transaction can be transgressed against is completely absurd. The lack of a positive effect is not indicative of a negative. Just because I choose to obtain a free copy from a friend does not mean I transgressed by not choosing to pay the originator. Unless you consider breaking the law a "transgression". But if so, you aren't actually arguing with anyone, you're just playing word games.
If you cannot separate legal protections from moral or ethical considerations, you should at leat realize that others can and do. You may argue on those points, but to pretend that there's anything more to your argument is disingenuous.
Violating copyright is a crime, but you'll never convince me that it's immoral. What is immoral is buying laws to constantly extend the term of copyright such that nothing created in my lifetime will ever leave copyright in my lifetime. The Constitutional idea of copyright is not to provide a lifetime's income for a single piece of work. It is to promote creation of new material. Extending copyright negates this premise. The longer one profits from a single creation, the less incentive there is to create more.
I feel no obligation to pay attention to laws that are immoral. The extent to which I follow them at all is that I do not wish to be harrassed by the authorities who must uphold the law, however wrong it is.
It's also not our job to set them up for life for a few hours of work in a recording studio. I have a novel idea: if they want to keep control over the recording, don't release it to the public.
The natural state of creative work is that once it's known to the public, you have no control over it at all. It is only by the institution of Law that there are artificial limits in place. It is not beneficial to society to make society support an artist indefinitely for single instances of creative work. And any Law which places the individual ahead of society is not just. Copyright law as it stands today is completely unjust.
Blasphemy cannot be perpetrated by non-believers. It is not at all blasphemous for non-Muslims to depict pictures of Muhammed, just as it's not blasphemous for a non-Catholic to disbelieve in Jesus's divinity.
Slashdot Mirror
You cannot prove a negative. Unless you can prove it was someone else, noone will believe that it wasn't you. If you really think that your past behavior has any impact on the courts, you may have a harsh lesson coming. For the sake of the truly naive, I will hope not.
In terms of just giving an opinion, every person on Earth has exactly the same right as anyone else. There's no such as having more of a "right" than someone else. You have it or you don't, period.
When Apple gains a monopoly and uses that monopoly to enforce its rules across the entire market, you will have a legitimate concern. You may disagree with software licenses in general, but what Apple is doing in terms of the SDK license is a well-accepted Industry practice. Apple is not preventing jailbreak-style applications from being developed and used. They are simply stating that they are releasing the official SDK on their terms. If you don't like their terms, feel free to break the license or not use the SDK. There's nothing legally or morally wrong with Apple choosing restrictive terms. It's not even like they are cutting out competition. At best, they are trying to prevent competition with AT&T's service, and not their own.
So basically you bought something without having perfect information, knew you didn't have the information and basically assumed. Well, you got exactly what you paid for. It's noone else's fault that you thought you were buying something else. Apple never once misrepresented the product. At the time of sale, Apple was selling a locked-down phone that was stated to be locked-down months before it was even released. That's what you bought. No fault but your own.
Why is it that Federal law can be created anonymously (voice vote), but there's even the idea that simply posting opinion on a web-based forum anonymously could in anyway become illegal. I guess when you're making the law, hypocracy is not a road-block.
And you need to learn to RTFAs, idiot.
I think that what the GP is getting at is that a cash register is a physical implementation of the idea of using a machine to calculate sales costs and to provide a mechanism for storing the consideration (cash, check, CC transaction) received by the customer. The physical device is patentable, but the idea of such a device is not.
In the one-click example, Amazon is claiming, through their patent, that the idea of allowing a sale to be completed via a single interaction (click) is exclusive to Amazon for the duration of the patent. This aught to be absurd. At best, Amazon should be able to patent the exact method by which this is accomplished. The problem is that they consider the click itself to be an integral part of the design.
Your signature is so apt.
Which makes perfect sense. Copyright is supposed to be for our benefit.
You are wrong. Just because there is a law against reproduction of copyrighted works does not mean that I have lost my rights regarding such actions. The premise of the Constitution is that rights cannot be taken away. Just because there are legal consequences does not mean my rights are any less.
The day you move out into the wilds and build yourself a 100% self-sufficient home, you can yammer about your so-called "rights". Since you use a computer, you obviously depend on others. Unless you barter for everything, and only trade items that you produced through 100% of your own efforts, you are relying on others for the economy. Part of that economy is the tax system. You have no natural right to any part of the economy, so you have no valid claim that any rights are violated by being taxed.
Suppliers are not middle-men.
It's already been pointed out that the wording of this bill allows SCIENTIFIC presentation other than Evolution. It says nothing about teaching things that are not true. I realize you are a pro-Evolution bigot, but perhaps you should learn to read before criticizing.
The clearest proof that ID is false is that you exist. It seems perfectly clear that only a random process could have come up with something like you.
The parent you replied to blindly and stupidly assumes that if copyright did not exist in Law that all software developers would magically decide to release the source. You and I know that if copyright Law were to be abolished, source code would be treated as Trade Secrets by those who don't currently believe in Free Software.
"Piracy is ethically no different from a mob looting a store whose locks were broken."
Whether you refer to real piracy or copyright violation, you are pretty much wrong.
If you don't wany any, you're an evolutionary dead-end and should be removed.
Or some would say.
Try telling that to the number one Carbonated Beverage company in the world. The exact formular for Coca Cola is a company secret. Tell me again how that's worthless?
A key difference between privacy law and copyright law is who the law protects. The idea of copyright is to provide incentive to creators to make their creations accesible to the public. The ultimate beneficiary of the law is supposed to be the Public. Copyright has been twisted such that it only benefits the creator, or even worse, the mere owner of the copyright.
On the other hand, privacy law is intended to benefit the Public (slightly ironic, huh?). It does this by preventing, amongst others, corporations from sharing information about you such that they profit at your expense.
The simplest distinction is that information that is made public "wants to be free". It is ONLY the legal construct of copyright that prevents such information from being legally distributable by a 3rd party for any price the party cares to name, which may be no price at all.
That is the lynchpin of the argument. Theft of physical goods has been established since pre-history as being a moral crime against the owner of the property. It is simple to understand that depriving someone of a physical good formerly in their posession is not morally acceptable. There is no such understanding with respect to copyright. In fact, most people don't understand how anyone could consider it theft when their friend hands them a copy of a CD. The friend is freely giving it away, how could it be stealing?
The notion that a 3rd party which is not in any way a part of a given transaction can be transgressed against is completely absurd. The lack of a positive effect is not indicative of a negative. Just because I choose to obtain a free copy from a friend does not mean I transgressed by not choosing to pay the originator. Unless you consider breaking the law a "transgression". But if so, you aren't actually arguing with anyone, you're just playing word games.
If you cannot separate legal protections from moral or ethical considerations, you should at leat realize that others can and do. You may argue on those points, but to pretend that there's anything more to your argument is disingenuous.
Violating copyright is a crime, but you'll never convince me that it's immoral. What is immoral is buying laws to constantly extend the term of copyright such that nothing created in my lifetime will ever leave copyright in my lifetime. The Constitutional idea of copyright is not to provide a lifetime's income for a single piece of work. It is to promote creation of new material. Extending copyright negates this premise. The longer one profits from a single creation, the less incentive there is to create more.
I feel no obligation to pay attention to laws that are immoral. The extent to which I follow them at all is that I do not wish to be harrassed by the authorities who must uphold the law, however wrong it is.
I think you mean that the chance approaches zero. If it's approaching infinity, I'd say it's likely wrong.
But I thought he is God. You mean there's something he can't do?
(Disclaimer: I am not a Christian.)
It's also not our job to set them up for life for a few hours of work in a recording studio. I have a novel idea: if they want to keep control over the recording, don't release it to the public.
The natural state of creative work is that once it's known to the public, you have no control over it at all. It is only by the institution of Law that there are artificial limits in place. It is not beneficial to society to make society support an artist indefinitely for single instances of creative work. And any Law which places the individual ahead of society is not just. Copyright law as it stands today is completely unjust.
Blasphemy cannot be perpetrated by non-believers. It is not at all blasphemous for non-Muslims to depict pictures of Muhammed, just as it's not blasphemous for a non-Catholic to disbelieve in Jesus's divinity.