Pricing is perceived value and the rate people are willing to pay for an object, not the relative value to an item which no longer exists.
Have you stopped using gasoline because the price has tripled? Will you get a reduction in cost because the ethanol laced gasoline provides fewer miles-per-gallon due to lower energy density? Of course not. Supply and demand drive prices, not value.
A license can dictate that, but a sale cannot. You didn't buy a licence, for a license is a contract. You picked up a box, put it on the counter (real or virtual) and exchanged money for an object. You can do what you damned well please with it (provided it doesn't violate any other laws).
The digital realm has offered companies the opportunity to claim that you are only licensing the content, not purchasing a product. That's a legal battle yet to be fought, but given the dollars and players involved, I foresee first sale doctrine being nullified - at least for all digital works - within the next decade.
Once, a few years ago, they had some ad with a really attractive woman shaving her face with some new razor, saying, "ooh, is this the sensitive part... poor baby."
That's hilarious. Well, I read that ad as a knock at men, but it is sort of about shaving - just not about shaving some guys beard. The puritanical american would be appalled at such an ad (though...if they get the joke, they're not that innocent).
Call me when the edge cuts through to another universe.
(Just finished reading the dark materials series. Terribly disappointing, I must say. Started with a bang and finished with a whimper. Hell, I'm a big fan of bittersweet endings, but this one was just pitiful and frayed)
Yeah, except that once you've purchased the books, they're yours to do with what you like. Including modifying them and reselling them.
Worried that they're running afoul of their distribution agreement? Okay, buy the books at retail. Spray paint the covers blue. Cut our three or four pages. Put them up on eaby for 150% of what you paid for them. There's nothing illegal about that. What if you spill coffee on the disc liner for a CD and resell it on ebay. Legal? of course. Now spray paint the top of the disc green, then resell it. First sale doctrine says you can. What if you could alter the original dvd? What if you could alter the data on the original disc, then resell it on ebay. Still legal - it's yours to modify once you've bought it. You can scratch the disk to make a chapter unplayable and resell it, why not alter it more surgically?
Of course, the sticking point is that the content is not easily alterable on a DVD.
So, what if you bought the DVD, shipped it to them for editing for your personal use, and they sent you back the altered version (DMCA notwithstanding - this is not a DMCA ruling, it's copyright) with your original. Still smells like fair use to me. You bought it, you own it, you (had it) modified to suit your personal desires. No different than dubbing you're Eagles Greatest Hits album you've got on tape to eliminate "Life in the Fast Lane", or taking your CD collection and remixing it onto your MP3 player. But you're worried about someone making money off the alterations....so how about sending your CDs off to be ripped for you and tagged for you for a fee? It's happening now, apparently wihtout challenge - you can see for yourself here. They send you the ripped versions and your originals. Fair use. Now they do not alter the tracks, nor do they store and compile, but the implication is that if you can do A and B via fair use and first sale doctrine, doing both should not require a stretch of the imagination.
As for a vendor's license, all that does is make it easy for your locality to levy taxes on your business. They don't really care what you sell.
You missed the point. They're buying a shrinkwrapped version for each modified version they're selling. The studios are getting a sale to an enduser that wouldn't otherwise buy the movie. What is in question is that they are charging a fee for the modification.
Okay, so can you create a business out of modifying novels? You purchase a container of the latest blockbuster novel, then sell it to your readers. If they check the box on the order for that says "sanitize," you drop the book in the san-o-matic and it applies white-out to the objectionable parts and prints some alternate text, cuts out a few pages, pastes in a couple extra pages, puts a "Santized by the Purity Book Club Company" sticker on the jacket and then boxes it up for shipping.
Aside from the inability to modify a pressed DVD, this is what they seem to be doing. They are buying a proper copy, making changes as requested by the end user, and sending the modified copy (naturally, the source must be destroyed...couldn't tell if they did that or not from the original story). I think that, given the one copy bought - one (modified) copy sold, this should somehow fall under first sale doctrine. Is doing this any worse that burning a CD/DVD in public? Clearly the artists work is being damaged and defaced in a way they did not intend. I don't really expect the Dixie Chicks to win any money in Texas over that claim, though.
I thought that copyright was for the purpose of encouraging the advancement of the arts and sciences though a protected financial arrangement, not for the purpose of protecting the integrity of those works. It is arguable that an artist who has his work changed and rereleased may be dissuaded from future work, but that's sort of a first-sale doctrine thing. If you don't want people messing with your work, don't sell it.
You know, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
What it really comes down to is selective enforcement. By making everything unlawful, the power that be can cherry pick the "violations" that suit their agenda or revenue stream. Convenient for them, but not for the general population. It's all about the golden rule, and I'm not talking about the one that has a "thou shalt not" in it.
...the submitting user grants OSTG the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
don't you understand? I mean, it's right there in the terms of service at the bottom of every page, just below the "owners" text you quoted.;-)
Just curious as to where the rankings fall for: Being poor Being black (ahem, excuse me, African American) Being male Being of sub-average intellegence
As for getting rid of males...well, let's just say that there is a value added to useful humans, regardless of whether they're cranking out little swimmers.
There are lots of various maladies which affect male sperm production and viability. I mean, what if you had your balls cut off in an accident (God would see through it, of course)? Not that it's necessarily a positive thing to be adding more defective genes to the pool.
It would be a shame to let this comment die on the end of a deep thread. Mutations can help - I personally would like the one with the extra set of teeth coming in at age 40-42 as it would save me quite a bit in upcoming dental work. Nonetheless, the inability for humans to effectively cull the negative mutations is a huge burden for genetic optimization. Most mutations have a negative effect on a well-adapted organizm, and only a small fraction are positive. In our society, the model is breaking down, with the "successful" humans generally producing fewer offspring than the "unsuccessful" (in a genetic sense, not necesarily the financial one).
We have more to lose from mutation than we have to gain.
You'll still be wrong, but the more experience you have in solving these types of problems, the less wrong you'll be. To do an estimate (not for coding, but for engineering design on existing work), I sketch out the solution, and then break it down into discrete tasks. I do smallish projects, so that's resonable amount of time to put in (one to two hours, tops, usually less than 1% of the design time). From rules of thumb, I can assign an average value for each task type - usually only three or four type on any project - and get a good estimate.
For pure analyis work, I've got another benchmark. I can size up a job pretty quickly by eye based on experience and get the number of hours it will take to do the job if I am perfectly efficient, don't run in to any issues, and could work straight through. If I double that number, that's a good shot at the actual calendar time it will take. If there are others working on the project, I tack on 30% for changes which will require rework. It's scarily accurate, but only for from-scratch stuff; working on an existing system means method one, above.
No, this is a revitalization of America's puritanical present.
I remember a recent radio spot about some research into the differences between the left and right in America. The results were offered as a sample story: Your neighbor's pet gets hit by a car and dies. The neighbor chooses to dress the animal and eat it for their family meal. In both cases, the participnts (left and right) in the study were appalled or disgusted by the practice. "conservatives (right) felt it was wrong and would support legislation to outlaw the practice even if they were directly unaffected, those identified as "liberal" (left) felt is was wrong and would not engage in such a practice, but that it was not their business to legislate what other people could and couldn't do unless is harmfully impacted thier lives.
I've got a lappy with a 1920x1200 15.4" screen, only 155 pixels per inch, and I ended up getting a 24" monitor to go with it for work. At the end of an 8 hour day, doing word processing and CAD, my eyes were pretty much freaking out. I wouldn't expect someone to spend lots of hours per day on this thing, but its certainly going to need a pretty close eye distance.
No, the biggest question is, "Will it run microsoft software transparently?"
If I could pop Ubuntu onto my workstations and leverage my existing five-figure investment in MS-only software (hey, I'm only a three person shop), I'd seriously consider taking the plunge. WGA scares the shit out of me, and I'm fully legal from top to bottom. Two to three days of downtime on just one of my machines at the wrong time could cost me my paycheck for the month, and a lost client or two. I bristle at the possibility that I could be forced to pay for a $300 XPpro license just to keep my shop open if WGA makes a mistake - but given the choice between $300 and $3000 in lost revenue to sort the problem out and get reauthorized, you can bet I'll end up grabbing my ankles for Bill and Co. Sad, but true. Prevent that scenario, and I'd be a happy camper.
Just take a look as some before-and-after shots of the Annapolis, MD project and you can see how much the gain in aesthetics can be had. It was a very expsensive project (including bricking the streets), but it's quite a sight.
Sorry, I was substiting optimum for perfect. Perfect solutions don't exist, in nature or anywhere else. Optimum solutions can, but are only judged on the parameters given. You've suggested a condition where the parameters were not provided to the optimization process (invasive species).
Having perused the regular attnedees at a local church, I found a large number of what I would consider to be "crooked" businesspeople and public figures. Apparently, they are either "faking it" by going to church, or they expect that Christian absolution of sin, for them, is good enough for whatever wrongs they commit during the week. Either way, I'm not sure God is doing much to help for those who also are too old to believe in santa (no, I'm not dyslexic).
They'll spend it on somthing unrelated that helps the families/friends of those in power. It's how all of these organizations work. Heck, it's how the world works. The point is to hurt MS for their noncompliance. The extra cash in the coffers means they can start a new program or three, then when the penalty money runs out, they'll ask for more money from the EU countries to continue these programs, and your countries will, in turn, raise your taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Pricing is perceived value and the rate people are willing to pay for an object, not the relative value to an item which no longer exists.
Have you stopped using gasoline because the price has tripled? Will you get a reduction in cost because the ethanol laced gasoline provides fewer miles-per-gallon due to lower energy density? Of course not. Supply and demand drive prices, not value.
A license can dictate that, but a sale cannot. You didn't buy a licence, for a license is a contract. You picked up a box, put it on the counter (real or virtual) and exchanged money for an object. You can do what you damned well please with it (provided it doesn't violate any other laws).
The digital realm has offered companies the opportunity to claim that you are only licensing the content, not purchasing a product. That's a legal battle yet to be fought, but given the dollars and players involved, I foresee first sale doctrine being nullified - at least for all digital works - within the next decade.
Once, a few years ago, they had some ad with a really attractive woman shaving her face with some new razor, saying, "ooh, is this the sensitive part... poor baby."
That's hilarious. Well, I read that ad as a knock at men, but it is sort of about shaving - just not about shaving some guys beard. The puritanical american would be appalled at such an ad (though...if they get the joke, they're not that innocent).
So how do you explain the massive market in used textbooks which are marked and highlighted? I don't see anybody being sued over that.
Call me when the edge cuts through to another universe.
(Just finished reading the dark materials series. Terribly disappointing, I must say. Started with a bang and finished with a whimper. Hell, I'm a big fan of bittersweet endings, but this one was just pitiful and frayed)
Yeah, except that once you've purchased the books, they're yours to do with what you like. Including modifying them and reselling them.
Worried that they're running afoul of their distribution agreement? Okay, buy the books at retail. Spray paint the covers blue. Cut our three or four pages. Put them up on eaby for 150% of what you paid for them. There's nothing illegal about that. What if you spill coffee on the disc liner for a CD and resell it on ebay. Legal? of course. Now spray paint the top of the disc green, then resell it. First sale doctrine says you can. What if you could alter the original dvd? What if you could alter the data on the original disc, then resell it on ebay. Still legal - it's yours to modify once you've bought it. You can scratch the disk to make a chapter unplayable and resell it, why not alter it more surgically?
Of course, the sticking point is that the content is not easily alterable on a DVD.
So, what if you bought the DVD, shipped it to them for editing for your personal use, and they sent you back the altered version (DMCA notwithstanding - this is not a DMCA ruling, it's copyright) with your original. Still smells like fair use to me. You bought it, you own it, you (had it) modified to suit your personal desires. No different than dubbing you're Eagles Greatest Hits album you've got on tape to eliminate "Life in the Fast Lane", or taking your CD collection and remixing it onto your MP3 player. But you're worried about someone making money off the alterations....so how about sending your CDs off to be ripped for you and tagged for you for a fee? It's happening now, apparently wihtout challenge - you can see for yourself here. They send you the ripped versions and your originals. Fair use. Now they do not alter the tracks, nor do they store and compile, but the implication is that if you can do A and B via fair use and first sale doctrine, doing both should not require a stretch of the imagination.
As for a vendor's license, all that does is make it easy for your locality to levy taxes on your business. They don't really care what you sell.
You missed the point. They're buying a shrinkwrapped version for each modified version they're selling. The studios are getting a sale to an enduser that wouldn't otherwise buy the movie. What is in question is that they are charging a fee for the modification.
Okay, so can you create a business out of modifying novels? You purchase a container of the latest blockbuster novel, then sell it to your readers. If they check the box on the order for that says "sanitize," you drop the book in the san-o-matic and it applies white-out to the objectionable parts and prints some alternate text, cuts out a few pages, pastes in a couple extra pages, puts a "Santized by the Purity Book Club Company" sticker on the jacket and then boxes it up for shipping.
Aside from the inability to modify a pressed DVD, this is what they seem to be doing. They are buying a proper copy, making changes as requested by the end user, and sending the modified copy (naturally, the source must be destroyed...couldn't tell if they did that or not from the original story). I think that, given the one copy bought - one (modified) copy sold, this should somehow fall under first sale doctrine. Is doing this any worse that burning a CD/DVD in public? Clearly the artists work is being damaged and defaced in a way they did not intend. I don't really expect the Dixie Chicks to win any money in Texas over that claim, though.
I thought that copyright was for the purpose of encouraging the advancement of the arts and sciences though a protected financial arrangement, not for the purpose of protecting the integrity of those works. It is arguable that an artist who has his work changed and rereleased may be dissuaded from future work, but that's sort of a first-sale doctrine thing. If you don't want people messing with your work, don't sell it.
You know, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
What it really comes down to is selective enforcement. By making everything unlawful, the power that be can cherry pick the "violations" that suit their agenda or revenue stream. Convenient for them, but not for the general population. It's all about the golden rule, and I'm not talking about the one that has a "thou shalt not" in it.
...the submitting user grants OSTG the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
;-)
don't you understand? I mean, it's right there in the terms of service at the bottom of every page, just below the "owners" text you quoted.
...don't throw out your robe and wizard hat just yet.
Do you have a source?
Just curious as to where the rankings fall for:
Being poor
Being black (ahem, excuse me, African American)
Being male
Being of sub-average intellegence
As for getting rid of males...well, let's just say that there is a value added to useful humans, regardless of whether they're cranking out little swimmers.
There are lots of various maladies which affect male sperm production and viability. I mean, what if you had your balls cut off in an accident (God would see through it, of course)? Not that it's necessarily a positive thing to be adding more defective genes to the pool.
It would be a shame to let this comment die on the end of a deep thread. Mutations can help - I personally would like the one with the extra set of teeth coming in at age 40-42 as it would save me quite a bit in upcoming dental work. Nonetheless, the inability for humans to effectively cull the negative mutations is a huge burden for genetic optimization. Most mutations have a negative effect on a well-adapted organizm, and only a small fraction are positive. In our society, the model is breaking down, with the "successful" humans generally producing fewer offspring than the "unsuccessful" (in a genetic sense, not necesarily the financial one).
We have more to lose from mutation than we have to gain.
You'll still be wrong, but the more experience you have in solving these types of problems, the less wrong you'll be. To do an estimate (not for coding, but for engineering design on existing work), I sketch out the solution, and then break it down into discrete tasks. I do smallish projects, so that's resonable amount of time to put in (one to two hours, tops, usually less than 1% of the design time). From rules of thumb, I can assign an average value for each task type - usually only three or four type on any project - and get a good estimate.
For pure analyis work, I've got another benchmark. I can size up a job pretty quickly by eye based on experience and get the number of hours it will take to do the job if I am perfectly efficient, don't run in to any issues, and could work straight through. If I double that number, that's a good shot at the actual calendar time it will take. If there are others working on the project, I tack on 30% for changes which will require rework. It's scarily accurate, but only for from-scratch stuff; working on an existing system means method one, above.
No, this is a revitalization of America's puritanical present.
I remember a recent radio spot about some research into the differences between the left and right in America. The results were offered as a sample story: Your neighbor's pet gets hit by a car and dies. The neighbor chooses to dress the animal and eat it for their family meal. In both cases, the participnts (left and right) in the study were appalled or disgusted by the practice. "conservatives (right) felt it was wrong and would support legislation to outlaw the practice even if they were directly unaffected, those identified as "liberal" (left) felt is was wrong and would not engage in such a practice, but that it was not their business to legislate what other people could and couldn't do unless is harmfully impacted thier lives.
I've got a lappy with a 1920x1200 15.4" screen, only 155 pixels per inch, and I ended up getting a 24" monitor to go with it for work. At the end of an 8 hour day, doing word processing and CAD, my eyes were pretty much freaking out. I wouldn't expect someone to spend lots of hours per day on this thing, but its certainly going to need a pretty close eye distance.
Of course, you'd have been berated for not knowing the -- beforehand, but hey - you'd have the answer, right?
(hey, I didn't know it either, but I'm a windows weenie, so I don't count)
No, the biggest question is, "Will it run microsoft software transparently?"
If I could pop Ubuntu onto my workstations and leverage my existing five-figure investment in MS-only software (hey, I'm only a three person shop), I'd seriously consider taking the plunge. WGA scares the shit out of me, and I'm fully legal from top to bottom. Two to three days of downtime on just one of my machines at the wrong time could cost me my paycheck for the month, and a lost client or two. I bristle at the possibility that I could be forced to pay for a $300 XPpro license just to keep my shop open if WGA makes a mistake - but given the choice between $300 and $3000 in lost revenue to sort the problem out and get reauthorized, you can bet I'll end up grabbing my ankles for Bill and Co. Sad, but true. Prevent that scenario, and I'd be a happy camper.
No, practially all statutes specifically exempt law enforcement from such restrictions.
It's the best laugh I've had all day!
(Do it, select troll, you whiney mac fanboi moderators!)
Just take a look as some before-and-after shots of the Annapolis, MD project and you can see how much the gain in aesthetics can be had. It was a very expsensive project (including bricking the streets), but it's quite a sight.
Sorry, I was substiting optimum for perfect. Perfect solutions don't exist, in nature or anywhere else. Optimum solutions can, but are only judged on the parameters given. You've suggested a condition where the parameters were not provided to the optimization process (invasive species).
Having perused the regular attnedees at a local church, I found a large number of what I would consider to be "crooked" businesspeople and public figures. Apparently, they are either "faking it" by going to church, or they expect that Christian absolution of sin, for them, is good enough for whatever wrongs they commit during the week. Either way, I'm not sure God is doing much to help for those who also are too old to believe in santa (no, I'm not dyslexic).
They'll spend it on somthing unrelated that helps the families/friends of those in power. It's how all of these organizations work. Heck, it's how the world works. The point is to hurt MS for their noncompliance. The extra cash in the coffers means they can start a new program or three, then when the penalty money runs out, they'll ask for more money from the EU countries to continue these programs, and your countries will, in turn, raise your taxes.
Don't you feel better now?