Why is software treated differently than any other copyrighted work? Especially in the case of DVDs, where there is no explicit licensing (e.g., shrinkwrap licenses) involved?
It seems to me that if software has different redistribution terms than, say, a book, the legal foundation is the license under which it's distributed. If DVDs are distributed like books (and it seems to me that they are), then they should be treated under copyright law like books are, regardless of the nature of the contents.
Am I missing something?
Re:Carpel tunnel syndrome strikes
on
GNU Emacs 21
·
· Score: 1
You'd have to move your whole hand over one-off from home row?
Whole hand? I just move my pinky finger. It's much easier than having to reach way down to the bottom row where Control lives on the bastardized keyboards that are standard on PCs.
Don't you think that with simple encryption, the US government now no longer has to brute force encryption to bypass the problem, when the encryption is very poor, and backdoors made very apparant, (at least in other parts of the world).
Honestly, with simple backdoors such as this to "popular" forms of encryption, don't you think the government is giddy as a school girl? No more "big iron" from cray for brute force cracking. No, now we have the software implemintation of the clipper chip.
I don't think this is really about the government. Nobody who's really trying to keep secrets will use such poor encryption. The DMCA is so that companies can build straw houses around their copyrighted materials so they can use threat of legal action instead of good engineering to prevent unlawful distribution of their copyrighted materials (and, it turns out, lots legitimate fair uses as well).
Actually, L.A. County and L.A. City are different entities. When the secessionists start cutting up the city, the county (which is much bigger than the City of Los Angeles) will still be whole. And they're the ones doing the taxing.
Trailers do tend to spoil a lot these days. But I don't think you're idea applies very well to this particular movie. All of us that are excited about it have already read the book---probably many times. Watching the trailer won't give any of the story away.
I don't know what the terms were, but, according to one of the articles, Roxio had a license agreement with Gracenote that expired on April 22. They waited until after then to switch to FreeDB.
Overall, you make good points, but, in defense of Mr.Arnold, he's not approaching it from an "I like Linux how can we use it" direction. He specifically stated that most of the people who will be using this are already "using Linux to meet their computing needs". By looking for a Linux solution, he is trying to support what his researchers are comfortable with.
It's not unreasonable to have a standard library as part of the language spec. I see your point about word usage, but what good is [insert favorite language here] without its standard library? Do you really want a C without printf? C++ without cout?
Since there's not much point in a language without its standard library, why bother separating the specs?
We do like music and movies, though. If the respective industries choose Windows Media, then we are even more limited in terms of content that's available to us.
There are privacy and consumer rights issues. Protecting my rights involves protecting everybody else's as well.
To make it work with my screen I had to specify the resolution I wanted to use in XF86Config and only that one. Otherwhise it would go for the lowest resolution, I have no clue why. (I have a fancy LCD flatscreen, could be the problem)
I think this is normal for any XFree setup (it certainly used to be). It'll start up in the lowest setting and then you use whatever the hotkeys are (Ctrl-Alt-Keypad+/-, I think) to cycle through the available resolutions.
Btw. where is the Unix philosophy of nifty tools combined together to do the job gone? Mozilla, StarOffice, NS6 and many other apps are getting bigger, slower and everyone is building their own APIs, widget set, and all... If gecko rules, then please leave out all the crap and give us a "BROWSER", just that:) Is it that difficult?
On a command line, even after a DIR or LS, you still have
to type the name of the viewer app (and potentially its full path) as well as the name of the document, even
though it's RIGHT THERE, in front of you, you want to point to it and grab it. While some die-hard CLS
users would argue that the command line approach is easier anyway, many people wouldn't concur.
Under X, when the filename is right there in front of you, it's just a highlight and middleclick away. (I love the X clipboard.) It's nearly as easy as just clicking an icon and you don't give up the power of the command line.
Generally, though, I agree that there is room for both interfaces. I happen to much prefer the command line for file management stuff, but other things definitely lend themselves to graphics. The most important thing is making both options available.
Fair use only covers "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research."
You've trimmed the quote and changed it's meaning. The full sentence is:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,
including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In other words, the list of purposes is a list of examples, not a limitive list. "including" is read by the courts as "including, but not limited to" and is treated in this instance as illustrative, not definitive.
Umm, no. Try looking a little harder at that sentence. "including" refers to using the work "by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or any other means specified by that section". I.e., the physical method of use--not the purpose of the use. The "including" has nothing to do with the example purposes.
Yes, they are example purposes. Notice that they are introduced with the words "such as". While fair use, then, isn't limited to the purposes explicity mentioned, the law doesn't leave exactly leave the possibilities wide open. Legitimate fair use purposes still need to be reasonably similar that one could consider them represented by the list of examples given in the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is software treated differently than any other copyrighted work? Especially in the case of DVDs, where there is no explicit licensing (e.g., shrinkwrap licenses) involved?
It seems to me that if software has different redistribution terms than, say, a book, the legal foundation is the license under which it's distributed. If DVDs are distributed like books (and it seems to me that they are), then they should be treated under copyright law like books are, regardless of the nature of the contents.
Am I missing something?
Whole hand? I just move my pinky finger. It's much easier than having to reach way down to the bottom row where Control lives on the bastardized keyboards that are standard on PCs.
I don't think this is really about the government. Nobody who's really trying to keep secrets will use such poor encryption. The DMCA is so that companies can build straw houses around their copyrighted materials so they can use threat of legal action instead of good engineering to prevent unlawful distribution of their copyrighted materials (and, it turns out, lots legitimate fair uses as well).
Actually, L.A. County and L.A. City are different entities. When the secessionists start cutting up the city, the county (which is much bigger than the City of Los Angeles) will still be whole. And they're the ones doing the taxing.
Trailers do tend to spoil a lot these days. But I don't think you're idea applies very well to this particular movie. All of us that are excited about it have already read the book---probably many times. Watching the trailer won't give any of the story away.
I don't know what the terms were, but, according to one of the articles, Roxio had a license agreement with Gracenote that expired on April 22. They waited until after then to switch to FreeDB.
Deep pockets. They're going to go after the money. Freedb doesn't have money.
Overall, you make good points, but, in defense of Mr.Arnold, he's not approaching it from an "I like Linux how can we use it" direction. He specifically stated that most of the people who will be using this are already "using Linux to meet their computing needs". By looking for a Linux solution, he is trying to support what his researchers are comfortable with.
It's not unreasonable to have a standard library as part of the language spec. I see your point about word usage, but what good is [insert favorite language here] without its standard library? Do you really want a C without printf? C++ without cout?
Since there's not much point in a language without its standard library, why bother separating the specs?
Maybe not too many novels, but many technical documents are written in LaTeX.
Check out Apache Toolbox. Way less than half a day.
Under X, when the filename is right there in front of you, it's just a highlight and middleclick away. (I love the X clipboard.) It's nearly as easy as just clicking an icon and you don't give up the power of the command line.
Generally, though, I agree that there is room for both interfaces. I happen to much prefer the command line for file management stuff, but other things definitely lend themselves to graphics. The most important thing is making both options available.
Umm, no. Try looking a little harder at that sentence. "including" refers to using the work "by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or any other means specified by that section". I.e., the physical method of use--not the purpose of the use. The "including" has nothing to do with the example purposes.
Yes, they are example purposes. Notice that they are introduced with the words "such as". While fair use, then, isn't limited to the purposes explicity mentioned, the law doesn't leave exactly leave the possibilities wide open. Legitimate fair use purposes still need to be reasonably similar that one could consider them represented by the list of examples given in the law.
(IANAL, but I do know how to read English.)