Microsoft did similar with the XBox. They just started using the name without checking if someone else has it trademarked, well someone did. that would have been fun to be one of the XBox consulting lawyers, "Yes, Microsoft you are going to write a check so large, it hurts, or we will get a cease and desist order until after xmas"
then they get audited, even if they are complient. it still costs lots of money and time to go through that process.
and if they are refusing to use MS software, their previous agreement will still allow for an audit.
not to mention the time involved in converting an entire school to a different OS, getting the bugs worked out, training the teachers, the students will usually be fine after a short intro.
The long run will most likely save money, but the short time will prove to be prohibiting. Not to mention that most Sys admins at schools are Minesweeper solitaire cert experts, who believe anything MS says.
no offense to those that are MCSE and know what the hell they are doing. Just the ones that think since they have that piece of paper they can walk on water.
In Wisconsin, the Fireside used to have heavy mafia ties and they got their cut from parking fees. If you walked to the concert, you had to pay for a parking fee.
That is just one obvious way that the artists appearance was used to make money. There were no doubt other methods to directly screw the artists by charging them for stuff.
That mtv show about the performance contracts at concert halls is pretty amazing. Its no wonder why artists request incredibly stupid things. Bowls of M&M's, with out any red ones (or whatever the color was).
there are different levels of each type of shareware. A simple asking my to register/buy before using xyz app is not bad (even in combination with a 30 day trial)
shareware that constantly popups with messages throughout normal usage quickly gets the uninstall for a more friendly program preferably free if possible
The GPL is giving the right and responsibility that you must make any public modifications available in source. The priviledge the original author gave to the modifier, must in turn be given to the user of the modified software.
It is a privilege to be allowed to modify source and redistribute it. But you must give that same oppurtunity then. A person complaining about the GPL wants to use someone elses hardwork without restriction. Other licenses exist that allow that. Modify software under those licenses then, and ignore GPL software
exactly no matter the analogy, there is no copying of the material done. There is no reformating the material. It appears in its entirity on their website. This could be argued that the site itself would be needed for entirity, but since its an article, (ie not a chapter from a book) it means it stands by itself
since the record labels are claiming that the company running the p2p is responsible for what is trading, the record labels would therefore be providing the software. that could be construed as giving permission
Since i have an after market stereo that sounds quite good in my car, a tape is not adequete, and second of all i payed for cd quality, i am entitled to that quality.
currently you could make a crappy quality tape etc. but with watermarking how long will that be viable.
the problem is that it does interfere, the law makes little distinction between fair use and piracy.
On the RIAA website it states that they dont mind of if people make a copy of a CD for their car. And in fact they state it is fair use to do this. Ahh, but there is a problem now, with copy protected CD's, i cannot legally make a copy now, because i cannot break the copy protection. And more importantly it is illegal for someone to make a program that will allow this.
This law does nothing but maybe hike up the penalties for the real pirates (large scale manufactures) They are already breaking laws by making cds, then selling them.
Granted 321 studios may declare that this doesnt break the DMCA, but a tool to allow for even playing music cds on the computer could (the copy protected ones). This is only stating that their utility is legal, not utilities that are similar
they dont go looking for the unknown guys, they MANUFACTURE another boyband, or find a rock band with one good song knowing they will be a one hit wonder
oh i forgot the Record labels are NOT screwing the artists.
you are not hurting the artist when music is copied, you are hurting the Record labels, who turn around and will squeeze a few more pennies out of the artists
it's a toss up between styrofoam and paper though.
its a trade off between paper using 10 times more BTU's to produce a paper cup than styrofoam cup. And having something that will break down and can be recycled.
Slashdot Mirror
nice to insult someones age as a rebuttal
who said giving it to the world for free. open source does not equal giving away for free to the world
run a program, watch both procs go to 50%, unless the program specically supports multiple procs your pretty much out of luck
what do you get with windows, thats right, nothing outside of an internet browser
Microsoft did similar with the XBox. They just started using the name without checking if someone else has it trademarked, well someone did. that would have been fun to be one of the XBox consulting lawyers, "Yes, Microsoft you are going to write a check so large, it hurts, or we will get a cease and desist order until after xmas"
god forbid anyone use the software for something. He doesnt want to rip off the code, he wants to make USE of it.
thats a mutual contract, you are also being protected from the company, the car is yours plus any warranty (or whatever)
then they get audited, even if they are complient. it still costs lots of money and time to go through that process.
and if they are refusing to use MS software, their previous agreement will still allow for an audit.
not to mention the time involved in converting an entire school to a different OS, getting the bugs worked out, training the teachers, the students will usually be fine after a short intro.
The long run will most likely save money, but the short time will prove to be prohibiting. Not to mention that most Sys admins at schools are Minesweeper solitaire cert experts, who believe anything MS says.
no offense to those that are MCSE and know what the hell they are doing. Just the ones that think since they have that piece of paper they can walk on water.
In Wisconsin, the Fireside used to have heavy mafia ties and they got their cut from parking fees. If you walked to the concert, you had to pay for a parking fee.
That is just one obvious way that the artists appearance was used to make money. There were no doubt other methods to directly screw the artists by charging them for stuff.
That mtv show about the performance contracts at concert halls is pretty amazing. Its no wonder why artists request incredibly stupid things. Bowls of M&M's, with out any red ones (or whatever the color was).
3000 people, thats how many.
how many die from the flu every year?
how many from car accidents or just our good old legal drug alcohol
there are different levels of each type of shareware. A simple asking my to register/buy before using xyz app is not bad (even in combination with a 30 day trial)
shareware that constantly popups with messages throughout normal usage quickly gets the uninstall for a more friendly program preferably free if possible
The GPL is giving the right and responsibility that you must make any public modifications available in source. The priviledge the original author gave to the modifier, must in turn be given to the user of the modified software.
It is a privilege to be allowed to modify source and redistribute it. But you must give that same oppurtunity then. A person complaining about the GPL wants to use someone elses hardwork without restriction. Other licenses exist that allow that. Modify software under those licenses then, and ignore GPL software
exactly no matter the analogy, there is no copying of the material done. There is no reformating the material. It appears in its entirity on their website. This could be argued that the site itself would be needed for entirity, but since its an article, (ie not a chapter from a book) it means it stands by itself
What if my workstation doesnt have an internet connection. So now i am required to have the internet to use photoshop 7, (as an example)
Could be an interesting virus also here. "Please insert the cdrom for xyz"
the virus/tojan craps that one file that has the serial info on it and uploads it somewhere
not really, its more like saying hey, go get a time magazine and read page 37
The website never copied the article to its own servers. that is key in this case.
you are only directing someone to a news article
the germans used this during world war 1, the black chamber (pre dates the NSA) were quite good at cracking it.
since the record labels are claiming that the company running the p2p is responsible for what is trading, the record labels would therefore be providing the software. that could be construed as giving permission
with the divx plugin it can
WInamp with divx
Since i have an after market stereo that sounds quite good in my car, a tape is not adequete, and second of all i payed for cd quality, i am entitled to that quality.
currently you could make a crappy quality tape etc. but with watermarking how long will that be viable.
the problem is that it does interfere, the law makes little distinction between fair use and piracy.
On the RIAA website it states that they dont mind of if people make a copy of a CD for their car. And in fact they state it is fair use to do this. Ahh, but there is a problem now, with copy protected CD's, i cannot legally make a copy now, because i cannot break the copy protection. And more importantly it is illegal for someone to make a program that will allow this.
This law does nothing but maybe hike up the penalties for the real pirates (large scale manufactures) They are already breaking laws by making cds, then selling them.
Granted 321 studios may declare that this doesnt break the DMCA, but a tool to allow for even playing music cds on the computer could (the copy protected ones). This is only stating that their utility is legal, not utilities that are similar
they dont go looking for the unknown guys, they MANUFACTURE another boyband, or find a rock band with one good song knowing they will be a one hit wonder
oh i forgot the Record labels are NOT screwing the artists.
you are not hurting the artist when music is copied, you are hurting the Record labels, who turn around and will squeeze a few more pennies out of the artists
it's a toss up between styrofoam and paper though.
its a trade off between paper using 10 times more BTU's to produce a paper cup than styrofoam cup. And having something that will break down and can be recycled.
well actually its LIRC withe an RCA 4 device remote ($5 at RS)
i set LIRC to do certain things when i press a button on the remote.
Girder is the windows equiv for it.
check out www.monkeygadget.com for building an IR reciever ($5 or so in parts)
www.lirc.org for linux software
and girder.nl for windows software
what you actually believe in "Secret ingredients"
a competitor can easily figure out the recipe. but generally they put their own style on it. it make it a little different.