You can definitely enter data into a docs spreadsheet vi a web form: http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=87809 Or do you mean something else?
I just got the flac version of Surfacing. Thanks for the pointer. I wonder if they'll see a spike (Slashdot purchasing clout as a new market force in on-line music distribution)?
If you read the article carefully, you'll notice how they stress that the fair use rights aren't really rights and should be decided by courts on case-by-case basis. There is a fairly illuminating analysis of legality of ripping CDs in there for instance. In general the CBO's positions is pretty radical, in my opinion, on the issue of how little is actually protected by the fair use principle (as well as their meandering around the frist sale principle). This goes along the lines of the fair use area of the copyright law being unregulated (as opposed to, say, given by a statute), and while some people think that this is good (say Lessig seems to be of that opinion), CBO, on the other hand, seems to think that this is a good basis to declare these unregulated uses as infringing.
I think the poster is a little more optimistic about this study than the content actually warrants.
That's a really low score for a post that perfectly captures the problem with the New Scientist article. I have to say that it's disappointing to see them report stuff that's quite obviously wrong as a 'controversy'. They seem to have gotten confused by how Doppler effect influences the notion of a perfect (but physically consistent) mirror. The out-of-context application of the second law of thermodynamics should have been even more of a give away
I also thought it might be a troll, but I think that's too generous an explanation.
Slashdot Mirror
You can definitely enter data into a docs spreadsheet vi a web form: http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=87809
Or do you mean something else?
I just got the flac version of Surfacing. Thanks for the pointer. I wonder if they'll see a spike (Slashdot purchasing clout as a new market force in on-line music distribution)?
If you read the article carefully, you'll notice how they stress that the fair use rights aren't really rights and should be decided by courts on case-by-case basis. There is a fairly illuminating analysis of legality of ripping CDs in there for instance. In general the CBO's positions is pretty radical, in my opinion, on the issue of how little is actually protected by the fair use principle (as well as their meandering around the frist sale principle). This goes along the lines of the fair use area of the copyright law being unregulated (as opposed to, say, given by a statute), and while some people think that this is good (say Lessig seems to be of that opinion), CBO, on the other hand, seems to think that this is a good basis to declare these unregulated uses as infringing.
I think the poster is a little more optimistic about this study than the content actually warrants.
norbert
That's a really low score for a post that perfectly captures the problem with the New Scientist article. I have to say that it's disappointing to see them report stuff that's quite obviously wrong as a 'controversy'. They seem to have gotten confused by how Doppler effect influences the notion of a perfect (but physically consistent) mirror. The out-of-context application of the second law of thermodynamics should have been even more of a give away
I also thought it might be a troll, but I think that's too generous an explanation.