Did you think Emporer Palpatine was the Senator's evil twin or something.
There is a problem though. At no point, in any of the movies has the name 'Emperor Palpatine' been used.
Those who know the extended lore, upon hearing the name 'Senator Palpatine' quickly put two and two together to realize he was the Emperor to be, however for the rest of the world subtle hints were given.
And with a little extra reasoning we will have Duku vs Yoda: Round 2. This time on Dagobah.
You heard it hear first! But then I realized this after walking out of EP2.
If you're wondering... the expanded SW lore says that when a Jedi of one side (dark or light) dies, an energy field in the area is created in which a member of the opposite side can hide within and remain undetected.
I know it's a bit too much analysis, but why didn't Vader every hunt down Yoda, wouldn't a Jedi of such power been easily located? The above is the explanation they will use.
Any sort of additional user verification/etc used to try to limit spam and other undesirable mail needs to be transparent otherwise many people (like 3/4th of my family) will decide that e-mail is too hard to use and no longer worth it.
Ripping is implicitly permitted (ie they provide a tool to use for doing so and have stayed mum on the subject.)
The DMCA does not apply to burning and re-ripping as you are not bypassing the DRM system with out authorization. Remember, Apple has granted you permission to burn as the only legal way contractually permissible way to free iTMS songs of DRM.
If you violate the contract/agreement/etc midway through, it does not nullify past events. That's not unlike me breaking my lease and expecting my landlord to refund my last 12 months worth of rent. Such an idea is preposterous, and many such contracts have provisions for should either party break the contract. A cell phone contract is a perfect example, a customer of Verizon has agreed that should the customer break the contract, that they will pay a $175 dollar early termination fee.
Breaking of the contract simply means that all granted rights under it become null and void (ie your 'rights' to the purchased music) and that future relations will require a new contract. Something either party can reject based on past experiances. Something either party can reject based on past experiences.
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. George Frena. 839 F.Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla., 1993). George Frena, the sysop of the Techs Warehouse BBS, had 170 digitized images from both Playboy and Playgirl magazine posted to his computerized bulletin board system. The two magazines were commercial adult publications protected under copyright law. Playboy Enterprises, owner and publisher of both magazines, sued Frena for copyright infringement. The Federal District Court acknowledged Frena's claims that the uploading had been done by his users without his approval; however, it still found him liable for intellectual property violation. It ruled that Frena's users had illegaly copied the pictures by digitizing them; furthermore, Frena had infringed on exclusive vendor distribution rights by making the pictures available for download by his users. It also found Frena in violation of trademark law, since the infringing material contained registered trademarks belonging to Playboy Enterprises (the Playboy and Playgirl logos).
This case established two things. First, courts can find against a defendant in an intellectual property dispute whether or not the defendant is aware of such activity. Second, intellectual property protection extends to all copies of a given work regardless of how they are made or the media on which they are presented.
It would not be hard for a plaintiff to argue that in bypassing a DRM system, the resulting file could very easily end up being copied by potentially thousands and thousands of users, with or with out the knowledge of the original copier of the file give how most P2P apps work.
There does exist the principal of "substantial non infringing use", however when a system exists to prevent rampant copying and is bypassed, it is not unheard of (and some would say not unreasonable) for a content owner/licensee owner (ie Apple) to fear unauthorized distribution and sue preemptively.
In my copying example I was only referring to the actually copying act, not the copyright law. Furthermore, I did state the fundamental point that:
copyright does not come into play on this as contract law (ie the agreement between you and Apple governing your purchase of songs) supersedes copyright law in this case.
Which is the point I am ultimately trying to hammer home here.
The fundamental difference between your example and the Apple agreement is that the purchaser of the software has not agreed to anything, but when you buy an iTMS song you have.
The case has to do with free software you may receive with hardware which is often labeled as "not for resale", similar to candy bars or bottles of pop which make come in a bag or 6 pack. Under those cases you have not agreed in anyway to not sell them individually and can do so. (Hell, I'm receiving some free software soon which is labeled as "not for resale" and I intend to sell it on ebay, perfectly legal).
The moment you click "I Agree" however, you are bound by the license/contract and cannot resell the software.
When you purchase a song from the iTMS, you are purchasing the (revocable) rights to said song, something Apple can exercise at their leisure.
On a Windows based machine: Step 1: Click on file Step 1: Press Control-C Step 1: Press Control-V
I don't know about you... but I'd call this copying.
If you use an application to do it and in the process of copying it strips DRM information it is still copying, regardless of if it is not distributed outside of your PC. And remember, copyright does not come into play on this as contract law (ie the agreement between you and Apple governing your purchase of songs) supersedes copyright law in this case.
Key quote: In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
That did not say that if it falls under the below categories that it's fair game, what you quoted is nothing more then a guide, not an absolute, it is open to interpretation and no matter how you may interpret it... the way a judge or a lawyer or a company interprets it is far more critical (and possibly costly to you) should you be accused of copyright infringement and you use fair use as a defense.
I will not debate you on the legality or binding-ness of a EULA as they have almost always been upheld by the courts.
I suggest you check your facts though, as you will note from the Apple Terms of Sale which says:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
This does not mean that if you bypass the DRM of a song that you loose the 'right' to download any new songs but still retain the 'rights' to your existing ones, it means that if you bypass the DRM that you can have your 'rights' to the already purchased songs revoked! You not only loose access to the service but everything you 'purchased' from it.
WRAAAAAG! At times it feels like I'm the only one who recognizes that fair use does not apply when you have contractually agreed not to bypass the DRM... for further info, see some of my other posts in this thread.
By purchasing songs from the iTMS you have contractually agreed NOT to bypass their DRM system in anyway other than those provided (ie burning to cd and re-ripping). Any other means, such as this is a violation of said contract and you are liable for any and all damages, regardless of if they are actual (ie 10,000 people didn't buy a CD because they got the song from you instead) or imaginary (ie they think 10,000 didn't buy a CD because they had the remote ability to get the song from you).
Because by singing a copyrighted song you would still need to pay royalties for the performance you give to your roommates or neighbors as they hear you sound like a tortured cat in the shower.
I think you missed the point of this and the last article. If a company is going to claim their product works in such and such a way, that they should support it to the point of ensuring that it does so under most conditions.
I cannot speak for you, but Microsoft Tech Support is my favorite group to deal wit, just because they are so competent and able to help me. Only once have I ever had a problem that they could not resolve (and it was a mobo bios issue (you've never lived until you've heard one tech chewing out another for not properly supporting their own product, all the while you're listening to the exchange)).
I just make perfectly sure that the hardware I'm going to use can perfectly well support the dedicated software of my service
How? The HCL from Microsoft tells you what they will warranty with their systems. Hell! Call tech support for an NT based system and tell em you've got a piece of hardware in your system that's not on the HCL and you'll be lucky to have em tell you the time of day. Provided you are within pretty wide margins of hardware, they'll bend over backwards to help you fix your problem, and if the lower level techs can't, they'll put you in touch with people who can.
Funny thing about your claim that you'd make sure that the hardware you are going to use can support the software... that's what the author did! He was told that his soundcard was supported by the distro and was not able to get sufficient support to make their claims valid for him.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what this hardware was, the fact was that the distro seller said a piece of hardware was supported and they were unable to support it. Is that the consumers fault for having that piece of hardware? Of course not! If the distro maker is going to claim that they support it then they better damn well do so.
That still assumes that the "overpriced" version of linux you are running supports your hardware.
Furthermore, in your post, you outlined no benefit of going with the "overpriced" linux service/version which may very well be available for free... why not save the money if you are so determined to go with linux?
Chemical castration is generally a good method as a temporary method of ensuring blanks with the side affect of having a low drive (ie zero) that makes it a perfect solution for punishing some sex offenders.
The major stumbling block in the development of a mail pill is been to find a way to let us function normally (other then the fact that we'd be shooting blanks). Having plenty of duds is fine, but if we can't use em... what's the point?
That is a very good point, guys only have a single option (assuming they decide not to go without) that is nothing but a thin piece of latex which can easily break and does not have the best batting average for success.
I'm all for the concept of the 'male pill', and I'll be happy to sign up for trials if/when it becomes available, until then, I guess we'll keep trusting the lil piece of transparent latex.
Besides, would you trust a guy who said that he was on the pill? If he lied, it could be a few weeks before you found out and he could be long gone! Part of the reason there has been far more work done on the subject of female birth control is that woman bare a larger liability often times for failure of a given method.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you think Emporer Palpatine was the Senator's evil twin or something.
There is a problem though. At no point, in any of the movies has the name 'Emperor Palpatine' been used.
Those who know the extended lore, upon hearing the name 'Senator Palpatine' quickly put two and two together to realize he was the Emperor to be, however for the rest of the world subtle hints were given.
Isn't Duku a dark jedi?
Timothy Zahn's books are where I drew the idea from, however the name given for the dark jedi who yoda kills was not Duku.
And how do you think it acquired said aura?
And with a little extra reasoning we will have Duku vs Yoda: Round 2. This time on Dagobah.
You heard it hear first! But then I realized this after walking out of EP2.
If you're wondering... the expanded SW lore says that when a Jedi of one side (dark or light) dies, an energy field in the area is created in which a member of the opposite side can hide within and remain undetected.
I know it's a bit too much analysis, but why didn't Vader every hunt down Yoda, wouldn't a Jedi of such power been easily located? The above is the explanation they will use.
This is a very good point.
Any sort of additional user verification/etc used to try to limit spam and other undesirable mail needs to be transparent otherwise many people (like 3/4th of my family) will decide that e-mail is too hard to use and no longer worth it.
Incorrect!
DRM breaking is explicitly forbidden
Burning is explicitly permitted (albeit limited).
Ripping is implicitly permitted (ie they provide a tool to use for doing so and have stayed mum on the subject.)
The DMCA does not apply to burning and re-ripping as you are not bypassing the DRM system with out authorization. Remember, Apple has granted you permission to burn as the only legal way contractually permissible way to free iTMS songs of DRM.
I thought that this was already debunked in a previous story.
Once again quoting from the Apple Terms of Sale...
REFUND POLICY
All Sales are final.
If you violate the contract/agreement/etc midway through, it does not nullify past events. That's not unlike me breaking my lease and expecting my landlord to refund my last 12 months worth of rent. Such an idea is preposterous, and many such contracts have provisions for should either party break the contract. A cell phone contract is a perfect example, a customer of Verizon has agreed that should the customer break the contract, that they will pay a $175 dollar early termination fee.
Breaking of the contract simply means that all granted rights under it become null and void (ie your 'rights' to the purchased music) and that future relations will require a new contract. Something either party can reject based on past experiances. Something either party can reject based on past experiences.
The ultimate question is regarding distribution.
x B.htm
This evening while looking for something completely unrelated I found an interesting page providing some case law regarding emulation at: http://www.worldofspectrum.org/EmuFAQ2000/Appendi
Quoting from it:
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. George Frena. 839 F.Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla., 1993).
George Frena, the sysop of the Techs Warehouse BBS, had 170 digitized images from both Playboy and Playgirl magazine posted to his computerized bulletin board system. The two magazines were commercial adult publications protected under copyright law. Playboy Enterprises, owner and publisher of both magazines, sued Frena for copyright infringement. The Federal District Court acknowledged Frena's claims that the uploading had been done by his users without his approval; however, it still found him liable for intellectual property violation. It ruled that Frena's users had illegaly copied the pictures by digitizing them; furthermore, Frena had infringed on exclusive vendor distribution rights by making the pictures available for download by his users. It also found Frena in violation of trademark law, since the infringing material contained registered trademarks belonging to Playboy Enterprises (the Playboy and Playgirl logos).
This case established two things. First, courts can find against a defendant in an intellectual property dispute whether or not the defendant is aware of such activity. Second, intellectual property protection extends to all copies of a given work regardless of how they are made or the media on which they are presented.
It would not be hard for a plaintiff to argue that in bypassing a DRM system, the resulting file could very easily end up being copied by potentially thousands and thousands of users, with or with out the knowledge of the original copier of the file give how most P2P apps work.
There does exist the principal of "substantial non infringing use", however when a system exists to prevent rampant copying and is bypassed, it is not unheard of (and some would say not unreasonable) for a content owner/licensee owner (ie Apple) to fear unauthorized distribution and sue preemptively.
In my copying example I was only referring to the actually copying act, not the copyright law. Furthermore, I did state the fundamental point that:
copyright does not come into play on this as contract law (ie the agreement between you and Apple governing your purchase of songs) supersedes copyright law in this case.
Which is the point I am ultimately trying to hammer home here.
The fundamental difference between your example and the Apple agreement is that the purchaser of the software has not agreed to anything, but when you buy an iTMS song you have.
The case has to do with free software you may receive with hardware which is often labeled as "not for resale", similar to candy bars or bottles of pop which make come in a bag or 6 pack. Under those cases you have not agreed in anyway to not sell them individually and can do so. (Hell, I'm receiving some free software soon which is labeled as "not for resale" and I intend to sell it on ebay, perfectly legal).
The moment you click "I Agree" however, you are bound by the license/contract and cannot resell the software.
When you purchase a song from the iTMS, you are purchasing the (revocable) rights to said song, something Apple can exercise at their leisure.
On a Windows based machine:
Step 1: Click on file
Step 1: Press Control-C
Step 1: Press Control-V
I don't know about you... but I'd call this copying.
If you use an application to do it and in the process of copying it strips DRM information it is still copying, regardless of if it is not distributed outside of your PC. And remember, copyright does not come into play on this as contract law (ie the agreement between you and Apple governing your purchase of songs) supersedes copyright law in this case.
Key quote:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
That did not say that if it falls under the below categories that it's fair game, what you quoted is nothing more then a guide, not an absolute, it is open to interpretation and no matter how you may interpret it... the way a judge or a lawyer or a company interprets it is far more critical (and possibly costly to you) should you be accused of copyright infringement and you use fair use as a defense.
I will not debate you on the legality or binding-ness of a EULA as they have almost always been upheld by the courts.
I suggest you check your facts though, as you will note from the Apple Terms of Sale which says:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
This does not mean that if you bypass the DRM of a song that you loose the 'right' to download any new songs but still retain the 'rights' to your existing ones, it means that if you bypass the DRM that you can have your 'rights' to the already purchased songs revoked! You not only loose access to the service but everything you 'purchased' from it.
WRAAAAAG! At times it feels like I'm the only one who recognizes that fair use does not apply when you have contractually agreed not to bypass the DRM... for further info, see some of my other posts in this thread.
This is NOT a legal method!
By purchasing songs from the iTMS you have contractually agreed NOT to bypass their DRM system in anyway other than those provided (ie burning to cd and re-ripping). Any other means, such as this is a violation of said contract and you are liable for any and all damages, regardless of if they are actual (ie 10,000 people didn't buy a CD because they got the song from you instead) or imaginary (ie they think 10,000 didn't buy a CD because they had the remote ability to get the song from you).
Because by singing a copyrighted song you would still need to pay royalties for the performance you give to your roommates or neighbors as they hear you sound like a tortured cat in the shower.
I think you missed the point of this and the last article. If a company is going to claim their product works in such and such a way, that they should support it to the point of ensuring that it does so under most conditions.
I cannot speak for you, but Microsoft Tech Support is my favorite group to deal wit, just because they are so competent and able to help me. Only once have I ever had a problem that they could not resolve (and it was a mobo bios issue (you've never lived until you've heard one tech chewing out another for not properly supporting their own product, all the while you're listening to the exchange)).
I just make perfectly sure that the hardware I'm going to use can perfectly well support the dedicated software of my service
How? The HCL from Microsoft tells you what they will warranty with their systems. Hell! Call tech support for an NT based system and tell em you've got a piece of hardware in your system that's not on the HCL and you'll be lucky to have em tell you the time of day. Provided you are within pretty wide margins of hardware, they'll bend over backwards to help you fix your problem, and if the lower level techs can't, they'll put you in touch with people who can.
Funny thing about your claim that you'd make sure that the hardware you are going to use can support the software... that's what the author did! He was told that his soundcard was supported by the distro and was not able to get sufficient support to make their claims valid for him.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what this hardware was, the fact was that the distro seller said a piece of hardware was supported and they were unable to support it. Is that the consumers fault for having that piece of hardware? Of course not! If the distro maker is going to claim that they support it then they better damn well do so.
That still assumes that the "overpriced" version of linux you are running supports your hardware.
Furthermore, in your post, you outlined no benefit of going with the "overpriced" linux service/version which may very well be available for free... why not save the money if you are so determined to go with linux?
Stop it! Stop it! This sketch is getting too silly!
I grok what you are saying, however the term has passed into the normal English language (even if it's usage is not that common).
Chemical castration is generally a good method as a temporary method of ensuring blanks with the side affect of having a low drive (ie zero) that makes it a perfect solution for punishing some sex offenders.
The major stumbling block in the development of a mail pill is been to find a way to let us function normally (other then the fact that we'd be shooting blanks). Having plenty of duds is fine, but if we can't use em... what's the point?
That is a very good point, guys only have a single option (assuming they decide not to go without) that is nothing but a thin piece of latex which can easily break and does not have the best batting average for success.
I'm all for the concept of the 'male pill', and I'll be happy to sign up for trials if/when it becomes available, until then, I guess we'll keep trusting the lil piece of transparent latex.
Besides, would you trust a guy who said that he was on the pill? If he lied, it could be a few weeks before you found out and he could be long gone! Part of the reason there has been far more work done on the subject of female birth control is that woman bare a larger liability often times for failure of a given method.
That may as be, but it doesn't prevent you from being named as a father and that's the point.