I assume your friends would use Visual Studio exclusively to create Mono apps. Otherwise, I don't see what use they'd have for Visual Studio without Windows - unless they don't test their software.
Well, Slashdotters come from a number of different tech cultures, but there are some odd cultural aspects that came from the UNIX community. For example, you can require the user to use a special tool to view web pages but it's unmanly to use anything more sophisticated than a text editor to create client or server-side scripts.
This is a 1956 consent decree. It's not part of the more contemporary DOJ investigation. If that decree forced IBM to develop products with outside help, how did they get away with waiting over 20 years to do it?
"If you can't profit on a movie in the first year after its release (let alone the first 10 years), then perhaps producing YouTube quality work is all you should be doing..."
"I understand old contracts wouldn't compensate for what the internet is capable of, but from this point forward, it is not economically sound to think any creative work you produce, can be kept away from the information machine."
Sure, today Avatar has made a lot of money, but if the poster is correct, it wouldn't be the case in the future.
Surely your not suggesting that if theaters could have downloaded Avatar without paying for it and movie fans could watch it without paying it as well they'd still be making big bucks off it.
Well, Harrison admitted that he had heard "He's so fine" and the court concluded that the plagiarism wasn't intentional, and he still sold a lot of albums because of the song so he didn't fare that badly overall. But if you listen to both songs it's obvious they are essentially the same.
I assume that you are an individual and not a corporation of thousands of employees. It's meaningless for a corporation like Google to claim it made a "private" copy. At best it merely limited distribution to the employees of the company.
The mechanism by which an author is rewarded by money is well understood and doesn't require any speculative assumptions.
The mechanism by which an author is rewarded by "increasing its attraction to the reader" is not at all clear and requires a significant scaffold of assumptions to keep it from collapsing.
"Google presumably owns a copy of each book it scans. Scanning it is fair use."
I don't know if Google does own a copy of each book - did they claim that?
When I was in high school a teacher bought a humorous book for her humor in literature class. She made copies for all the students to study from. Later she had to stop it because of copyright issues.
Google's employees are several orders of magnitude greater in number than our class was. How can making a work available to thousands of people be considered fair use simply on the basis of purchasing a single book?
You may disagree with copyright law, but the courts aren't going to render it meaningless by stretching the idea of fair use past the breaking point. Nor should they.
Whoosh. The point is that Google (if it used the quoted argument) would be trying to establish a legal precedent for their behavior based on their own similar questionable behavior in the past. Such an argument is both circular and inefficacious.
This reminds me of my youth when I had long hair and my mother said I didn't have to have it cut, just shaped.
If Google scans photographs, those photographs are available to a lot of people within Google even if they aren't formally published online.
If they aren't going to publish them, they have no need to scan them. If they want to publish them, they're free to scan them after they get permission.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume your friends would use Visual Studio exclusively to create Mono apps. Otherwise, I don't see what use they'd have for Visual Studio without Windows - unless they don't test their software.
Yes, multitasking was evil last week, now it's a sacrament.
It's OK if harming Windows is a side-effect of delivering a quality product, but if it is the "point", something is wrong.
I'm not going to comment on your whole list, but doing things like sharing a spell checker have been possible on Windows for at least 15 years.
Show me a web based game that uses the same code to run on iPhones, PCs, and PSPs and I'll show you a game that sucks.
"The point of turning the web into an application platform is that Windows is suddenly rendered completely irrelevant."
Perhaps web apps would be more successful if the point was providing the user with a superior tool.
Well, Slashdotters come from a number of different tech cultures, but there are some odd cultural aspects that came from the UNIX community. For example, you can require the user to use a special tool to view web pages but it's unmanly to use anything more sophisticated than a text editor to create client or server-side scripts.
God, I hope so!
This is a 1956 consent decree. It's not part of the more contemporary DOJ investigation. If that decree forced IBM to develop products with outside help, how did they get away with waiting over 20 years to do it?
"If you can't profit on a movie in the first year after its release (let alone the first 10 years), then perhaps producing YouTube quality work is all you should be doing..."
But where does this magic year come from?
"Star Wars, which you cite, had a budget of $11 million..."
That's $11 million more than Lucas would have got to make it if the studio knew they couldn't make any money off of it.
I was replying to this:
"I understand old contracts wouldn't compensate for what the internet is capable of, but from this point forward, it is not economically sound to think any creative work you produce, can be kept away from the information machine."
Sure, today Avatar has made a lot of money, but if the poster is correct, it wouldn't be the case in the future.
Surely your not suggesting that if theaters could have downloaded Avatar without paying for it and movie fans could watch it without paying it as well they'd still be making big bucks off it.
Well, Harrison admitted that he had heard "He's so fine" and the court concluded that the plagiarism wasn't intentional, and he still sold a lot of albums because of the song so he didn't fare that badly overall. But if you listen to both songs it's obvious they are essentially the same.
won't rape if they don't know how to use a condom.
Copyrights aren't patents. Kurosawa would have little basis to sue anyone for copyright infringement unless they directly copied his dialog or images.
Look at what the AC was saying before you read my response. I was drawing a conclusion from his scenario which apparently you disagree with.
What you describe is not what Google is doing, so I have no comment on it.
I assume that you are an individual and not a corporation of thousands of employees. It's meaningless for a corporation like Google to claim it made a "private" copy. At best it merely limited distribution to the employees of the company.
Sorry if my point was too subtle for you.
"In either case, the author is rewarded."
If that were true they would be no dispute.
The mechanism by which an author is rewarded by money is well understood and doesn't require any speculative assumptions.
The mechanism by which an author is rewarded by "increasing its attraction to the reader" is not at all clear and requires a significant scaffold of assumptions to keep it from collapsing.
".. until after the matter had already been litigated by another search engine"
reference?
"Plus, fair uses are never even so much as questionable. The question is merely whether or not the use is fair to begin with. "
You say tomato and I say tomahto.
I guarantee you that Shakespeare never copyrighted his work, so I don't see how your example applies to this discussion.
Well, I'll admit that it's difficult to get in touch with nature and the inventor of musical notes is difficult to contact too.
"Google presumably owns a copy of each book it scans. Scanning it is fair use."
I don't know if Google does own a copy of each book - did they claim that?
When I was in high school a teacher bought a humorous book for her humor in literature class. She made copies for all the students to study from. Later she had to stop it because of copyright issues.
Google's employees are several orders of magnitude greater in number than our class was. How can making a work available to thousands of people be considered fair use simply on the basis of purchasing a single book?
You may disagree with copyright law, but the courts aren't going to render it meaningless by stretching the idea of fair use past the breaking point. Nor should they.
Whoosh. The point is that Google (if it used the quoted argument) would be trying to establish a legal precedent for their behavior based on their own similar questionable behavior in the past. Such an argument is both circular and inefficacious.
This reminds me of my youth when I had long hair and my mother said I didn't have to have it cut, just shaped.
If Google scans photographs, those photographs are available to a lot of people within Google even if they aren't formally published online.
If they aren't going to publish them, they have no need to scan them. If they want to publish them, they're free to scan them after they get permission.
I never realized that fair use was based on pixel count. I can't believe how silly these pro-Google comments are becoming.