This is not "self-censorship". This is about a company changing the content of a work then profiting from it. Renting is a grey-market activity as it is.
You know, I always thought my librarian seemed a little shady.
Let's talk about paintings. Facist regime under Franco buys Guernica, excises critical parts and resells it. Maybe not so good, since there is only one painting -- so let's imagine it was one of Picasso's Franco-critical lithographs. Picasso has no recourse because Franco bought it and the consumer always win?
As long as every copy that Franco uses of the lithograph is a modified legally purchased original, yes.
How about books: Slaughterhouse 5 by Vonnegut, which is always high on the ban in high school library lists, is bought by Clean Books in order to make it palatable to the religious right. So offending parts are excised and the story structure is rearranged to restore narrative balance and then Clean Books sells it. But as what? Do they call it Cleanbooks Slaughterhouse 2 or maybe the Abridged Version of Slaughterhouse 5? Meanwhile, the publisher and the author can't say anything because Clean Books bought a copy and merely acted in place of the agent the buyer could have ultimately hired?
As long as every copy that Clean Books sells is a modified legally purchased original, yes.
Let's talk about code. You, Jan Developer, wrote Bitchin' App 1.0 and Clean Coders has decided that some functionality is offensive to their target market. So they buy a copy, excise the offending parts, and then sell it to a client as Jan Developer's (Almost) Bitchin' App 1.0. You have no recourse because they bought it? After all, the buyers of AB App 1.0 could have hired their own coders to excise those parts.
This is tricky because of the way code is licensed. Without any terms in the license beyond what copyright law alone provides, and if every copy of (Almost) Bitchin' App 1.0 is a modified legally purchased original, yes. (In the case of code, let's call it the original media with, on a second CD, an installer that applies a patch, or something like that. For that matter, it could just be the patch and installer, leaving the original purchase up to the consumer.)
You might tell people you changed your copy, but what if whoever buys it doesn't tell people and then sells it. They are then representing that it is the original work, when it is not.
Then they are breaking the law. The person who changed his copy and then sold it as a changed copy did not break the law.
If you bought an actual original, such as for a painting, you could, yes, resell it. But with an original you could not alter the work without the authors permission if they retained the copyright for the original. If you purchased the copyright as well as the original, then you could do whatever you wanted with it, because you would be the copyright holder. But the copyright exists entirely independently of the physical object itself. (Incidently, if you bought an original painting, but not the copyright, not only couldn't you change the original, even though you could resell it, but the artist could sell as many reproductions of the original as he liked, since he'd still be the copyright holder.)
I don't buy that. Can you cite a case? Certainly you couldn't sell it claiming that it's an unadulterated original by so-and-so, but you can still sell it.
As for copyright, what you cannot do is go and sell copies of your modified original. (Because you are now publishing a clearly derivative work.)
The copyright is the right to copy and distribute a work. Just like you can own and book and not own the copyright, so too you can own the copyright and not own a single copy of the book.
No. Copyright is the right to publish a work. It is not about distribution. If I buy a book or movie from the legitimate publisher, I'm free to distribute it any way I want, even at a profit. (Which is why every store selling new and used books--e.g., Amazon, Borders--can exist.)
Clean Flicks does not publish. The legitimate publisher gets paid. Every copy of a movie sold by Clean Flicks was first a copy sold by the publisher.
Bottom line: Copyright ends after the first sale. Once I buy a book, I can do what I want with it. Same as with movies.
It's not possible to go too far in repealing the DMCA. Having the law completely eliminated is a Good Thing. And once it's all gone, the repealing effort cannot go any farther.
There is a difference between the quest to eliminate the DMCA and the quest to protect copyrights. Unlike protecting copyrights, eliminating the DMCA is clear-cut, has an obvious logical limit, and is 100% achievable.
You know, that's the first thing I came up with when I tried to figure out what DNUG stood for. I think they should go with.NUG instead. Pronounced dot-nug. Then everyone would know what they were. 'Cause things that start with a dot are kewl. Or something. Nothing says "I probably don't understand the Internet, but I want you to think I do" quite like beginning your name with a dot.
The OS used to upload MP3s to the player is an issue because an MP3 player is of no value if one doesn't have the OS that's required to upload the songs.
(And no, I do not have Windows at home. Compared to how many operating systems there are, I have access to very few of them.)
I don't think etymology has anything to do with trademark law. All that matters is if the infringing mark could be confused with the trademark by a reasonable person. It doesn't matter how the infringing mark was created.
You program for Windows. You read Slashdot. This is an article on the front page of Slashdot about a flaw in the Windows Application Programming Interface. I think this article was appropriate.
There's more to Slashdot than bringing down the Beast in Redmond.
Re:Yes, but who's fault is it? Not MS'!
on
Shattering Windows
·
· Score: 1
Did you read the whitepaper? He explicitly states that the default Windows desktop includes windows with elevated privs. Microsoft stumbles over this too.
I'm not a Windoze expert, but, I'm guessing that device drivers run in kernel space, whereas apps run in user space. It's understandable that something in kernel space can take down the system. Device drivers have a higher standard to meet than regular apps. It is, however, never even kind of okay for something in user space to be able to take down the system.
I'll probably do the same, but here's how I'll rationalize those bad feelings away...
I have a son and hope to have more someday. There will be a stage in his (their) development when I want them to be able to see LOTR, but they won't be quite ready for the super-duper-extended-carnage version. So I need to have both versions of the movie. The extra goodies for me and the theatrical release for my kids.
And, of course, it'll get me through 'til November;-)
I need Emacs-style keybindings. I don't expect everybody else's hands to work just like mine. Other people may legitimately be more comfortable with another arrangement. That's fine. Nobody suffers if we get a choice. Somebody operates in suboptimal conditions if we don't.
There are other issues like colors and fonts. There is no One True Aesthetic. People like different looks and that's OK. It's like decorating your cubicle walls. It might not make my interface technically better (as some of the content at themes.freshmeat.net proves, it might even make it worse;-), but controlling things like appearance let me feel better about it (which does help me work better).
I don't believe that one interface fits all. People are not all the same. Why force them to work the same way? I'm not saying that I have needs "over an[d] above" the average user. I'm saying that the best interface for me is different than what most people seem comfortable with.
Whether the differences are physical, cultural, or just plain individual, people have different needs and expectations. It is good to work toward finding a single interface (to be the default) that meets the most needs of most of the people. But it can't be be the best for everyone, so options and the ability to customize are important.
Themes are not actually useful. Anything other than purely aesthetic themeability (ie. the theme changes nothing other than some colours) is bad, in terms of UI design. The reason why everyone copies Windows' UI is because it's familiar. Uniformity of interface is a BIG DEAL.
Interfaces should be internally consistent, but there's no reason why my interface has to be identical to yours. That is, I agree on the importance of all my applications behaving the same way. But I should be able to edit things like key-bindings, location of buttons on window decorations, colors, typefaces, etc.
There is a benefit to having default settings be consistent across platforms (e.g., Windows-like keybindings or appearance because that's what most people are used to). The one thing Havoc Pennington was right on about in his rant on usability was the importance of good defaults, because not everybody really cares about or wants to tinker with their interface settings. They should be treated well by whatever is handed to them. But I should be able to customize my environment to suit my needs and preferences. I should not be bound to whatever the average user feels comfortable with.
Those that just want a consistent default interface aren't hurt by themeability. Those that have found a non-default way that works better for them are hurt by a lack of themeability.
Mockus and Herbsleb (PDF, from the 2nd Workshop on OSS Engineering) look at the way Apache is developed (and try to glean lessons that can be applied to distributed development in general). They point out that a small team of core developers produce most of the new features, a much larger group contributes patches to fix bugs, and a much larger group than that uses and tests the code. In my experience, that is how the most successful OSS projects work.
The study in this article only counts the number of registered developers--the small core team. The people contributing patches are where the "More Eyeballs" argument comes in. I don't think that was reflected in this study.
Nobody should have to flowchart a program with one For loop.
Exactly. And flowcharts become worse than code for modeling anything more complicated. That is, except for a big-picture look at program flow. As Brooks (in The Mythical Man Month) points out, flowcharts rapidly lose any sort of value if they don't fit on just one page. One-page flowcharts don't describe meaningful programs unless they do so at a very high level.
It is important to teach good design. Just don't use useless tools. The classic flowchart is a pointless burden, not a design (or documentation) aid.
Right. The solution is that someone (company, group of individuals) needs to pay for a license, develop a player, and distribute it legally (whether they charge for it or not is up to whoever builds the player). Then and only then will playing CSS-encoded DVDs on linux be legal. (Okay, so a legal alternative would be a complete clean-room reverse engineering of the CSS encryption, but that's likely not even a possibility anymore with the proliferation of the DeCSS code, not to mention the DMCA itself.)
Um, playing CSS-encoded DVDs with an unlicensed decoder (e.g., DeCSS) is quite legal. CSS is not patented. It was kept as a trade secret. But it's not a secret anymore. There is no need for a license to use it.
On the other hand, thanks to the DMCA, distributing DeCSS is (unfortunately) legally questionable. I believe the Constitution protects my right to distribute it, but the issue is still in a murky position in the courts.
(Of course, as a Slashdotter, it goes without saying that IANAL.)
Solaris 8 ships with a companion CD that has a lot of the toys (GCC, Emacs, GDB, even KDE2) you'd get with a Linux distro. Of course, you can also just download the CD.
I don't know what they're planning with Solaris 9. I know they talked about including a lot more of the GNU tools by default. And, since it ships on DVD, there should be plenty of room for all the fun stuff we miss from out Linux distros.
Slashdot Mirror
With "Plain Old Text" a carriage return creates a new line. You shouldn't need an HTML break.
If you want more spacing between paragraphs, just add another blank line.
Renting is perfectly legal.
As long as every copy that Franco uses of the lithograph is a modified legally purchased original, yes.
As long as every copy that Clean Books sells is a modified legally purchased original, yes.
This is tricky because of the way code is licensed. Without any terms in the license beyond what copyright law alone provides, and if every copy of (Almost) Bitchin' App 1.0 is a modified legally purchased original, yes. (In the case of code, let's call it the original media with, on a second CD, an installer that applies a patch, or something like that. For that matter, it could just be the patch and installer, leaving the original purchase up to the consumer.)
As for copyright, what you cannot do is go and sell copies of your modified original. (Because you are now publishing a clearly derivative work.)
(This is Slashdot--obviously IANAL.)
Clean Flicks does not publish. The legitimate publisher gets paid. Every copy of a movie sold by Clean Flicks was first a copy sold by the publisher.
Bottom line: Copyright ends after the first sale. Once I buy a book, I can do what I want with it. Same as with movies.
It's not possible to go too far in repealing the DMCA. Having the law completely eliminated is a Good Thing. And once it's all gone, the repealing effort cannot go any farther.
There is a difference between the quest to eliminate the DMCA and the quest to protect copyrights. Unlike protecting copyrights, eliminating the DMCA is clear-cut, has an obvious logical limit, and is 100% achievable.
You know, that's the first thing I came up with when I tried to figure out what DNUG stood for. I think they should go with .NUG instead. Pronounced dot-nug. Then everyone would know what they were. 'Cause things that start with a dot are kewl. Or something. Nothing says "I probably don't understand the Internet, but I want you to think I do" quite like beginning your name with a dot.
The OS used to upload MP3s to the player is an issue because an MP3 player is of no value if one doesn't have the OS that's required to upload the songs.
(And no, I do not have Windows at home. Compared to how many operating systems there are, I have access to very few of them.)
I don't think etymology has anything to do with trademark law. All that matters is if the infringing mark could be confused with the trademark by a reasonable person. It doesn't matter how the infringing mark was created.
(IANAL--Hey, this is Slashdot)
Have you ever used RedHat's Disk Druid? Smooth like butter.
And letting the installer choose on its own is fine for people who don't want to care about how their disk partitions are laid out.
You program for Windows. You read Slashdot. This is an article on the front page of Slashdot about a flaw in the Windows Application Programming Interface. I think this article was appropriate.
There's more to Slashdot than bringing down the Beast in Redmond.
Did you read the whitepaper? He explicitly states that the default Windows desktop includes windows with elevated privs. Microsoft stumbles over this too.
I'm not a Windoze expert, but, I'm guessing that device drivers run in kernel space, whereas apps run in user space. It's understandable that something in kernel space can take down the system. Device drivers have a higher standard to meet than regular apps. It is, however, never even kind of okay for something in user space to be able to take down the system.
Absolutely. I was suprised I had to scroll so far for a post recommending Stevens. The man was an expository genius.
I especially enjoyed the second chapter of the first Unix Network Programming book. It's dated, but it's a wonderful overview of how Unix works.
I highly recommend books by W. Richard Stevens.
I'll probably do the same, but here's how I'll rationalize those bad feelings away...
;-)
I have a son and hope to have more someday. There will be a stage in his (their) development when I want them to be able to see LOTR, but they won't be quite ready for the super-duper-extended-carnage version. So I need to have both versions of the movie. The extra goodies for me and the theatrical release for my kids.
And, of course, it'll get me through 'til November
I need Emacs-style keybindings. I don't expect everybody else's hands to work just like mine. Other people may legitimately be more comfortable with another arrangement. That's fine. Nobody suffers if we get a choice. Somebody operates in suboptimal conditions if we don't.
;-), but controlling things like appearance let me feel better about it (which does help me work better).
There are other issues like colors and fonts. There is no One True Aesthetic. People like different looks and that's OK. It's like decorating your cubicle walls. It might not make my interface technically better (as some of the content at themes.freshmeat.net proves, it might even make it worse
I don't believe that one interface fits all. People are not all the same. Why force them to work the same way? I'm not saying that I have needs "over an[d] above" the average user. I'm saying that the best interface for me is different than what most people seem comfortable with.
Whether the differences are physical, cultural, or just plain individual, people have different needs and expectations. It is good to work toward finding a single interface (to be the default) that meets the most needs of most of the people. But it can't be be the best for everyone, so options and the ability to customize are important.
Interfaces should be internally consistent, but there's no reason why my interface has to be identical to yours. That is, I agree on the importance of all my applications behaving the same way. But I should be able to edit things like key-bindings, location of buttons on window decorations, colors, typefaces, etc.
There is a benefit to having default settings be consistent across platforms (e.g., Windows-like keybindings or appearance because that's what most people are used to). The one thing Havoc Pennington was right on about in his rant on usability was the importance of good defaults, because not everybody really cares about or wants to tinker with their interface settings. They should be treated well by whatever is handed to them. But I should be able to customize my environment to suit my needs and preferences. I should not be bound to whatever the average user feels comfortable with.
Those that just want a consistent default interface aren't hurt by themeability. Those that have found a non-default way that works better for them are hurt by a lack of themeability.
Mockus and Herbsleb (PDF, from the 2nd Workshop on OSS Engineering) look at the way Apache is developed (and try to glean lessons that can be applied to distributed development in general). They point out that a small team of core developers produce most of the new features, a much larger group contributes patches to fix bugs, and a much larger group than that uses and tests the code. In my experience, that is how the most successful OSS projects work.
The study in this article only counts the number of registered developers--the small core team. The people contributing patches are where the "More Eyeballs" argument comes in. I don't think that was reflected in this study.
Exactly. And flowcharts become worse than code for modeling anything more complicated. That is, except for a big-picture look at program flow. As Brooks (in The Mythical Man Month) points out, flowcharts rapidly lose any sort of value if they don't fit on just one page. One-page flowcharts don't describe meaningful programs unless they do so at a very high level.
It is important to teach good design. Just don't use useless tools. The classic flowchart is a pointless burden, not a design (or documentation) aid.
Um, playing CSS-encoded DVDs with an unlicensed decoder (e.g., DeCSS) is quite legal. CSS is not patented. It was kept as a trade secret. But it's not a secret anymore. There is no need for a license to use it.
On the other hand, thanks to the DMCA, distributing DeCSS is (unfortunately) legally questionable. I believe the Constitution protects my right to distribute it, but the issue is still in a murky position in the courts.
(Of course, as a Slashdotter, it goes without saying that IANAL.)
Solaris 8 ships with a companion CD that has a lot of the toys (GCC, Emacs, GDB, even KDE2) you'd get with a Linux distro. Of course, you can also just download the CD.
I don't know what they're planning with Solaris 9. I know they talked about including a lot more of the GNU tools by default. And, since it ships on DVD, there should be plenty of room for all the fun stuff we miss from out Linux distros.
Some people have no sense of adventure.
I think you mean "Cry 'Havoc,'..."
At least, that's what Shakespeare wrote.
That explains Jar Jar!