A television rebroadcast involves obvious copyright violation. Linking to a file? The only copy was made by the original rights holder and transmitted to the recipient. It's not obvious to me where the illegality on behalf of the linker derives from.
If she (Pelosi) is waiting for evidence to justify impeachment, this isn't going to be it. The public outrage over this move will be muted at best -- it's too easy to explain it away (as they do) as simply giving the PR department a chance to prepare for the news release before it gets out. That may even be the truth. Still, as a scientist, a policy like this gives me chills if only for the appearance of bias.
So lighting your cigar with a bill might just be illegal after all.
Nah, his intent was just to light his cigar. Plus, isn't paper currency fit for reissue as long as you have more than half of it intact? Just blow it out before that point has passed...
I wouldn't expect this to be much of a problem. Fiction is unlikely to describe a functional warp drive in a way that turns out to be correct. It's pretty much going to be finding "simple" things, like an elegant user interface. (I use quotes because, while perhaps technically simple, UI design is often profoundly difficult in other ways) A patent requires (or should require, who knows what the reality is) enough detail to implement the invention it describes. In the case of a UI device, that is likely to be immediately obvious when seen or read about. For a warp drive, there's a lot more to it than frobbling the pragnozticatrix.
Heck, even if a deep technical article describes that you can create a wormhole in the warp field by frobbling the pragnozticatrix, you're likely to get a patent for a practical implementation of a pragnozticatrixial frobblinator.
Anyway, my point is that simply being the first to *do* something isn't enough to qualify for a patent. You have to have actually invented something non-obvious. No matter how good or non-obvious the idea, if you didn't invent it, you shouldn't get the patent. Once you've seen a picture of a trigger on a phaser, it's not your idea when you use it, even if no one's ever used it outside of Star Trek before.
Of course, I don't even remember what the actual article was about any more and I'm too tired to look at it again...
Umm, not any more easily than I can give you a good reason why anyone would use base-51... this was a joke.
As for writing it down, you'd have to come up with a notation that allows for 51 digit symbols. Since the alphabet only gives you 36 total, I'd probably opt to use two-decimal-digit numbers with augmented notation. Something like:
1 decimal = (1).(0) base-51 ("one point zero") 51 decimal = (1)(0).(0) base-51 ("one zero point zero") 510 decimal = (10)(0).(0) base-51 ("ten zero point zero") 0.098039 decimal = (0).(5) base-51 ("point-5") 0.98039 decimal = (0).(50) base-51 ("point-50")
Anyway, the point is, if you were using base-N for N greater than 50, you might find it convenient to call your digits by their decimal names. In that case, there really would be a "point-fifty" that is quite distinct from "point-five." Although people do often work in odd bases (including non-rational number bases on occasion), no one really does this. As I said, it was a joke. Now it's an over-explained one. Ah well.
Ok, but it seems like a pretty widely encompassing three. Note that he's not saying there's only three ways to defend such a case. He's arguing that if you want to claim P2P copying is legal. There are a lot of illegal acts that are successfully defended every day. His categories of defense seem pretty broad and I have a hard time imagining how you could argue that the act of making or enabling a copy to be made is legal without showing one of them. I was hoping for some insight on this point, but I guess I'll have to wait until your day in court. Good luck.
Also, let me just say, I don't actually mean to call you a troll or ask you to stop posting, because it IS good to have such opinions here. However, it's not enough to get a free pass to just answer yes/no questions with authority when, as you point out, there is still a lot of debate at all levels of involvement in these questions. I am not any better informed for having been told by a lawyer that he doubts there are no other ways to defend these cases -- all I could possibly do is give hearsay that "oh some guy on slashdot who claimed he was a lawyer said x."
Right, but they knew the copyright terms when they chose to do the work, now they're trying to change them after entering into the bargain with society. It's more like a long-retired worker deciding that his pension just isn't enough and trying to rewrite his contract.
The reason it works with copyright is because those who sell the recordings stand to gain an enormous amount while those they're bargaining with (i.e., all the citizens) each loses a comparatively small amount. The net effect is still bad for society overall (imo) but it's harder to get someone excited about defending society as a whole.
The definition in the dictionary he quoted, while not strictly *wrong*, was certainly incomplete. As he points out, the term "vaporware" has a connotation that goes deeper than simply meaning not-yet-released. I've only ever seen it used to describe things which are not-yet-released AND which there is good reason to believe will never be released, and it usually also implies some ill intent on the part of the company who announced it. It is decidedly not a synonym for "unreleased," as the author points out, correctly in my opinion.
Quality dictionaries are occasionally wrong, and frequently incomplete, especially on technical or esoteric terms. Even the venerable Oxford English Dictionary readily admits this in its introduction.
1. Yes I do, but I'm actually a practicing lawyer defending these cases: it would be foolish of me to publicly post my arguments before I've put them in play in actual litigations. There's nothing to be gained by tipping my hand.
Great, well, if you don't actually say anything more than "I disagree," then why bother posting on a discussion site? It adds nothing.
As for your other point, I think the other reply to your post said it pretty well... sure, there ARE plenty of clearly legal uses of P2P sharing but it was plainly obvious which sort was being discussed.
1. I disagree that there are only 3 logical arguments.
Do you have examples of other arguments that don't fall in his categories? Note that he's not talking about arguments about whether copyright law is just in this regard, merely that it is, in fact, illegal to violate copyright law as it stands. Perhaps you could claim that copyright law would not withstand a constitutional challenge if it blocked P2P sharing, but that seems pretty unlikely.
2. Additionally, your statement fails to take into account the fact that there are a great multiplicity of different kinds of "P2P sharing" behaviors [...]
I think it's safe to assume he's referring to the most common behavior which is placing a full, high-quality copy of a song for permanent download and unrestricted replaying of that download.
Actually, the "ensure"-like meaning of "insure" is not a modern common usage thing. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was in use in the 1600s. In fact, the OED also notes that this use is obsolete. It's more complicated than just letting new "incorrect" meanings into new dictionaries...
Thanks for an informative post... one thing, though.
I think that it should be done, but now is not the time.
It's never going to be cheap, easy, convenient, and popular to make a change like this. It's one of those things that you just have to do or it'll never get done. Note that the order doesn't say they have to fix it immediately, only that they have to start working on it, and the judge went so far as to basically ask that his ruling be appealed.
I think the thing to do is immediately add these accessibility features to the plan and roll them out on a time scale that's consistent with the economic realities of the process. It's going to be more expensive than not doing it, but that's exactly the reason we have laws that protect the disabled -- the economic pressure to help them is usually in the wrong direction.
Oh, actually, two things -- line breaks would have made your post a lot easier to read.
It seems to me that, as a service provider, Google should be pretty much free to determine the terms under which they provide their service. If they only want to support their own software, they should be free to reject users of other software. They certainly have no obligation to support or even permit any particular user. I don't think it's reasonable to dispute this.
However, here, they appear to be asserting some sort of right to prevent others from developing tools that would allow users to have software that Google would need to deny access. I'm a bit puzzled as to what legal basis they have for this. On the other hand, they didn't go through lawyers to do it, so perhaps they have none. For whatever reason, Gaia chose to respect their request.
Personally, I think the right thing happened here, as much as I'd like to see unfettered free access to the information. Google went to great expense to produce a free-as-in-beer information repository that is extremely valuable, even within its limitations. Gaia's developers found ways to make it more useful to them, but which would jeopardize Google's ability to make the information available at all. Google asked them to stop, and the developers obliged.
As a result, Google doesn't have to clamp down further on their software, which would probably make the tool less useful to those who use it within their intended limitations. Sure, it'd be great to have freer access to the data, but it's not up to the end users to decide what their rights to the images are. It's also not up to Google. Thanks to Google, users have more information than they'd have otherwise and I don't see the basis for an entitlement to more.
I have a better idea, how about you wake me up when you develop a sense of humor?
There's nothing quite as pathetically funny as an AC on/. trying to argue with a joke, except when he also has a misplaced intellectual superiority complex. I swear, some days that's the only reason I come here. Thanks, buddy.
Slashdot Mirror
A television rebroadcast involves obvious copyright violation. Linking to a file? The only copy was made by the original rights holder and transmitted to the recipient. It's not obvious to me where the illegality on behalf of the linker derives from.
If she (Pelosi) is waiting for evidence to justify impeachment, this isn't going to be it. The public outrage over this move will be muted at best -- it's too easy to explain it away (as they do) as simply giving the PR department a chance to prepare for the news release before it gets out. That may even be the truth. Still, as a scientist, a policy like this gives me chills if only for the appearance of bias.
They're investigating because it may be a deceptive trade practice. Good luck with the troll, though.
I wouldn't expect this to be much of a problem. Fiction is unlikely to describe a functional warp drive in a way that turns out to be correct. It's pretty much going to be finding "simple" things, like an elegant user interface. (I use quotes because, while perhaps technically simple, UI design is often profoundly difficult in other ways) A patent requires (or should require, who knows what the reality is) enough detail to implement the invention it describes. In the case of a UI device, that is likely to be immediately obvious when seen or read about. For a warp drive, there's a lot more to it than frobbling the pragnozticatrix.
Heck, even if a deep technical article describes that you can create a wormhole in the warp field by frobbling the pragnozticatrix, you're likely to get a patent for a practical implementation of a pragnozticatrixial frobblinator.
Anyway, my point is that simply being the first to *do* something isn't enough to qualify for a patent. You have to have actually invented something non-obvious. No matter how good or non-obvious the idea, if you didn't invent it, you shouldn't get the patent. Once you've seen a picture of a trigger on a phaser, it's not your idea when you use it, even if no one's ever used it outside of Star Trek before.
Of course, I don't even remember what the actual article was about any more and I'm too tired to look at it again...
...and feeping creatures!!
I know, this was a quote from one of the reps. :-)
Umm, not any more easily than I can give you a good reason why anyone would use base-51... this was a joke.
As for writing it down, you'd have to come up with a notation that allows for 51 digit symbols. Since the alphabet only gives you 36 total, I'd probably opt to use two-decimal-digit numbers with augmented notation. Something like:
1 decimal = (1).(0) base-51 ("one point zero")
51 decimal = (1)(0).(0) base-51 ("one zero point zero")
510 decimal = (10)(0).(0) base-51 ("ten zero point zero")
0.098039 decimal = (0).(5) base-51 ("point-5")
0.98039 decimal = (0).(50) base-51 ("point-50")
Anyway, the point is, if you were using base-N for N greater than 50, you might find it convenient to call your digits by their decimal names. In that case, there really would be a "point-fifty" that is quite distinct from "point-five." Although people do often work in odd bases (including non-rational number bases on occasion), no one really does this. As I said, it was a joke. Now it's an over-explained one. Ah well.
Ok, but it seems like a pretty widely encompassing three. Note that he's not saying there's only three ways to defend such a case. He's arguing that if you want to claim P2P copying is legal. There are a lot of illegal acts that are successfully defended every day. His categories of defense seem pretty broad and I have a hard time imagining how you could argue that the act of making or enabling a copy to be made is legal without showing one of them. I was hoping for some insight on this point, but I guess I'll have to wait until your day in court. Good luck.
Also, let me just say, I don't actually mean to call you a troll or ask you to stop posting, because it IS good to have such opinions here. However, it's not enough to get a free pass to just answer yes/no questions with authority when, as you point out, there is still a lot of debate at all levels of involvement in these questions. I am not any better informed for having been told by a lawyer that he doubts there are no other ways to defend these cases -- all I could possibly do is give hearsay that "oh some guy on slashdot who claimed he was a lawyer said x."
Having an actual lawyer say "no" without any useful explanation on that point is little better than having a troll say the same. Seriously.
You should not be able to patent a fictional invention, but it should invalidate a patent that is nothing more than a realization of that idea.
Your comment is absurd. There is no 0.0013 dollars.
Well, unless you're operating in base-51, where point-fifty might be about 0.98039 decimal whereas point-five is only 0.098039...
Right, but they knew the copyright terms when they chose to do the work, now they're trying to change them after entering into the bargain with society. It's more like a long-retired worker deciding that his pension just isn't enough and trying to rewrite his contract.
The reason it works with copyright is because those who sell the recordings stand to gain an enormous amount while those they're bargaining with (i.e., all the citizens) each loses a comparatively small amount. The net effect is still bad for society overall (imo) but it's harder to get someone excited about defending society as a whole.
The definition in the dictionary he quoted, while not strictly *wrong*, was certainly incomplete. As he points out, the term "vaporware" has a connotation that goes deeper than simply meaning not-yet-released. I've only ever seen it used to describe things which are not-yet-released AND which there is good reason to believe will never be released, and it usually also implies some ill intent on the part of the company who announced it. It is decidedly not a synonym for "unreleased," as the author points out, correctly in my opinion.
Quality dictionaries are occasionally wrong, and frequently incomplete, especially on technical or esoteric terms. Even the venerable Oxford English Dictionary readily admits this in its introduction.
What's the frequency, Kenneth? WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY, KENNETH!!??
By the way, screw the lameness filter. Yes, I AM YELLING.
As for your other point, I think the other reply to your post said it pretty well... sure, there ARE plenty of clearly legal uses of P2P sharing but it was plainly obvious which sort was being discussed.
I think it's safe to assume he's referring to the most common behavior which is placing a full, high-quality copy of a song for permanent download and unrestricted replaying of that download.
Actually, the "ensure"-like meaning of "insure" is not a modern common usage thing. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was in use in the 1600s. In fact, the OED also notes that this use is obsolete. It's more complicated than just letting new "incorrect" meanings into new dictionaries...
It's never going to be cheap, easy, convenient, and popular to make a change like this. It's one of those things that you just have to do or it'll never get done. Note that the order doesn't say they have to fix it immediately, only that they have to start working on it, and the judge went so far as to basically ask that his ruling be appealed.
I think the thing to do is immediately add these accessibility features to the plan and roll them out on a time scale that's consistent with the economic realities of the process. It's going to be more expensive than not doing it, but that's exactly the reason we have laws that protect the disabled -- the economic pressure to help them is usually in the wrong direction.
Oh, actually, two things -- line breaks would have made your post a lot easier to read.
That's only because they can't even PAY people to use the damn things...
It seems to me that, as a service provider, Google should be pretty much free to determine the terms under which they provide their service. If they only want to support their own software, they should be free to reject users of other software. They certainly have no obligation to support or even permit any particular user. I don't think it's reasonable to dispute this.
However, here, they appear to be asserting some sort of right to prevent others from developing tools that would allow users to have software that Google would need to deny access. I'm a bit puzzled as to what legal basis they have for this. On the other hand, they didn't go through lawyers to do it, so perhaps they have none. For whatever reason, Gaia chose to respect their request.
Personally, I think the right thing happened here, as much as I'd like to see unfettered free access to the information. Google went to great expense to produce a free-as-in-beer information repository that is extremely valuable, even within its limitations. Gaia's developers found ways to make it more useful to them, but which would jeopardize Google's ability to make the information available at all. Google asked them to stop, and the developers obliged.
As a result, Google doesn't have to clamp down further on their software, which would probably make the tool less useful to those who use it within their intended limitations. Sure, it'd be great to have freer access to the data, but it's not up to the end users to decide what their rights to the images are. It's also not up to Google. Thanks to Google, users have more information than they'd have otherwise and I don't see the basis for an entitlement to more.
It's quite possible they were alerted to this "problem" by one of their licensors and didn't have the choice to ignore it.
I have a better idea, how about you wake me up when you develop a sense of humor?
/. trying to argue with a joke, except when he also has a misplaced intellectual superiority complex. I swear, some days that's the only reason I come here. Thanks, buddy.
There's nothing quite as pathetically funny as an AC on