Somebody is. It has higher ratings than Voyager ever did and I've heard some rumors that it's higher than TNG most of the time.
I like it. Rather a lot. It's definitely stronger at this point in it's life than TNG was at the end of first season. For the record I enjoy most of TOS: even though most of it is bad, I enjoy it anyway. Like TNG: when it was bad it sucked (most of season 1) but when it was good (inner light) it was amazing. Loved DS9: it was great seeing the ST universe used with actual plots and characters instead of morality tales and redressed fables. Never made it through a whole episode of Voyager in one sitting. Ever. Tried many times.
Not the only, but probably the minority. I never managed to actually make it through a full episode. I almost did with a few in first season. Tried 5 different times in the last season and didn't make it even to first commercial with most of them. The finale episode almost made me vomit and I was only in the room for 20 minutes of the 2 hours.
I still think it's out of bounds to bring charges against him. An author still retains his copyright on most novels, for example, in the US. That does not make the author liable if the publisher does something illegal with the work. Yes, by signing a publication contract he says "Yes, you can do what you want with the work". It does not, however, imply that the publisher is acting on behalf of the person.
Now there are a number of catches that could happen here. I'm not familiar (and I doubt many of us are) with Russian copyright and publication laws & conventions. Lots of interesting/nasty stuff could be in there. Dunno if any of it would have an effect here or not. Also if he was hand selling copies that of course opens the door, obviously. I've heard no credible reports (and many non-credible) ones both was with regards to that.
Like it or not, Declan's made great points in both of the articles mentioned above. Disorganized 'geektivism' hurts our causes. The legal verbage in the DMCA doesn't apply to academics publishing research.
This is incorrect. He, and a few others, said it would be a "stretch" and would almost assuredly be denied by the courts. Until a precedent has been set however the copyright cartels have show a willingness to let the mear fear of litigation do the work for them. The EFF wouldn't have examples to scream and yell about if the MPAA/RIAA were not letting fly with cease & desist letters backed up by their multi-million dollar retained legal counsil. Just because you would win in court doesn't mean you have the means to get to that point. In that sense the DMCA is most definitley a threat to academics in related fields.
I can just see some sleazeball Hollywood exec suing his mistress for not aborting a pregnancy under the DMCA. "That is an illegal copy of my genetic code. I claim full copyright on my genetic sequence!"
...like give permission to his employers to sell the code, for profit, within the United States, via a server in the United States? At least, that's what the original indictment specifies...
Hmm... so now you are personally responsible for everything your company does even in foreign markets and even if it's work for hire? You know, that's a hell of a lot scarier than the DMCA.
But he COULD BE found guilty...and that is the fear.
I don't think the chance of losing is even the issue here, given the particulars of the article. Within academic circles I'm sure 99% of the potential defendants are absolutely positive that they would be victorious in a legal fight against the DMCA. However, the time, expense, and public image problems that come with it are often far and away enough of a deterrent (to their respective institutions even if not to the academics themselves) to hamper potential research publication, as you pointed out.
Saying, "Oh, don't worry. If it ever makes it to court you'll win." does not cut it in our modern legal system as a reason to not be worried.
Why should Osama bin Ladin be charged with a crime he did not commit while in the USA?
He shouldn't. He didn't violate our laws within out sovereign territories. What he did do was violate a whole cart load of international law, and he should be held responsible in the appropriate venue for those violations.
He also makes a very good point: Activists that don't understand the impact of the laws they're protesting don't present very convincing cases.
I think the activists understand the law, and our legal system, very well. Perhaps better than the author of this article. Yes, we all know that a real test case against a member of academia is almost guaranteed to be decided in favor of the acadmic. In the mean time the DMCA can and is being used by the copyright interests as a club to stifle the dissemination of information they don't like. The threat of litigation is there and until someone is willing to actually spend the tens of thousands of dollars it takes to fight the ??AA's retained lawyers it is a real threat that every single person in publishing has to think about.
Besides, the idea of licensing software isn't stupid. The fact that people will agree to any licence that's put in front of them is what's stupid.
What's truly stupid, IMHO, is that we have no choice but to accept the license or soak the loss. We can't see the terms until we open the software. Once the software is open it may have been copied so we can't return it. So we pay between fifty and thousands of dollars to see the license then if we like said legal text we get to play with the software as a bonus.
Re:Great, there goes more of our freedom
on
Shrinkwrapped Books
·
· Score: 1
Apathy.
Not always. There often isn't an option available to vote for someone that will represent ones views. There were no candidates on the ballot last time I looked at voting that were sympathetic to public with regard to copyright issues. None.
Actually.. shareware more or less took over. When was the last time you saw a game that was released that didn't have a demo come out for it? Demos == shareware "levels".
While I never thought that Mozilla and Godzilla had anything to do with each other I would probable still be using Netscape or Opera if not for the fact I said to myself 'hey clever name' and checked it out.
This is generally called "participating in your culture" or "cultural discourse" for the more academic among us. It is not trademark infringement.
And MS prevented the breaking of this loop by using it's power to keep anyone from shipping a machine w/ BeOS or even in a dual boot configuration. There were several vendors that wanted to try this. MS told them "if you do, you're paying full retail for windows from here on out, period."
That would probably be found unconstitutional when it made it's way to the supreme court. Infringes on free speach and extends the power of copyright beyond what is allowed in the constitution.
Actually, a large part of the reason they don't due this is that the law for audio stuff is much more complicated than that. The recording industry has built a huge and very intricate set of exceptions and provisions into copyright law over the years. Most full copyright lawyers don't even understand it all.
IANAL but I believe it has been established at this point that if the owners and operators are inside the US they are still subject to criminal and civil penalties related to be business, regardless of the location of the server.
Because they are effectively slaves. Have you ever looked into the provisions of a recording contract? The labels can destroy your musical career with trivial effort. If they don't like what you turn in for your next album, they can just tell you "No, make another one" and you're stuck. You can't record for anyone else. How much money you get from the records you do have out is determined by their accountants. Piss them off and you risk your dreams and your livelyhood.
Perens: "The DMCA is bad law. I'm going to show why by breaking it. Let them come after me." HP: "Umm... they could sue the shit out of us if you do that. Probably will. We have money, and you know how much they love money." Perens: "Shit. I don't want HP to take the fall for my demonstration. Lets think about this some more."
Nieve? Maybe. But with HP saying they are the "bigger fish" that seems to be the case to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Does your statement crash if $diety points to dev/nul?
Ummm... did you actually watch DS9? Many of the best episodes of the ST cannon are in there. Both goofy and serious.
I like it. Rather a lot. It's definitely stronger at this point in it's life than TNG was at the end of first season. For the record I enjoy most of TOS: even though most of it is bad, I enjoy it anyway. Like TNG: when it was bad it sucked (most of season 1) but when it was good (inner light) it was amazing. Loved DS9: it was great seeing the ST universe used with actual plots and characters instead of morality tales and redressed fables. Never made it through a whole episode of Voyager in one sitting. Ever. Tried many times.
Am I the only one who feels that way?
Not the only, but probably the minority. I never managed to actually make it through a full episode. I almost did with a few in first season. Tried 5 different times in the last season and didn't make it even to first commercial with most of them. The finale episode almost made me vomit and I was only in the room for 20 minutes of the 2 hours.
5 months is a quarter? I could have sworn 3 months was 1/4 of 12 months.
Wait, are we using Cthulhian algebra again?
Give the man a cookie! "Intellectual Property" by definition is a government granted monopoly on an idea. Monopolies are the antithesis of capitalism.
I still think it's out of bounds to bring charges against him. An author still retains his copyright on most novels, for example, in the US. That does not make the author liable if the publisher does something illegal with the work. Yes, by signing a publication contract he says "Yes, you can do what you want with the work". It does not, however, imply that the publisher is acting on behalf of the person.
Now there are a number of catches that could happen here. I'm not familiar (and I doubt many of us are) with Russian copyright and publication laws & conventions. Lots of interesting/nasty stuff could be in there. Dunno if any of it would have an effect here or not. Also if he was hand selling copies that of course opens the door, obviously. I've heard no credible reports (and many non-credible) ones both was with regards to that.
Like it or not, Declan's made great points in both of the articles mentioned above. Disorganized 'geektivism' hurts our causes. The legal verbage in the DMCA doesn't apply to academics publishing research.
This is incorrect. He, and a few others, said it would be a "stretch" and would almost assuredly be denied by the courts. Until a precedent has been set however the copyright cartels have show a willingness to let the mear fear of litigation do the work for them. The EFF wouldn't have examples to scream and yell about if the MPAA/RIAA were not letting fly with cease & desist letters backed up by their multi-million dollar retained legal counsil. Just because you would win in court doesn't mean you have the means to get to that point. In that sense the DMCA is most definitley a threat to academics in related fields.
I can just see some sleazeball Hollywood exec suing his mistress for not aborting a pregnancy under the DMCA. "That is an illegal copy of my genetic code. I claim full copyright on my genetic sequence!"
He loses. Monsanto already owns it.
...like give permission to his employers to sell the code, for profit, within the United States, via a server in the United States? At least, that's what the original indictment specifies...
Hmm... so now you are personally responsible for everything your company does even in foreign markets and even if it's work for hire? You know, that's a hell of a lot scarier than the DMCA.
I don't think the chance of losing is even the issue here, given the particulars of the article. Within academic circles I'm sure 99% of the potential defendants are absolutely positive that they would be victorious in a legal fight against the DMCA. However, the time, expense, and public image problems that come with it are often far and away enough of a deterrent (to their respective institutions even if not to the academics themselves) to hamper potential research publication, as you pointed out.
Saying, "Oh, don't worry. If it ever makes it to court you'll win." does not cut it in our modern legal system as a reason to not be worried.
Why should Osama bin Ladin be charged with a crime he did not commit while in the USA?
He shouldn't. He didn't violate our laws within out sovereign territories. What he did do was violate a whole cart load of international law, and he should be held responsible in the appropriate venue for those violations.
He also makes a very good point: Activists that don't understand the impact of the laws they're protesting don't present very convincing cases.
I think the activists understand the law, and our legal system, very well. Perhaps better than the author of this article. Yes, we all know that a real test case against a member of academia is almost guaranteed to be decided in favor of the acadmic. In the mean time the DMCA can and is being used by the copyright interests as a club to stifle the dissemination of information they don't like. The threat of litigation is there and until someone is willing to actually spend the tens of thousands of dollars it takes to fight the ??AA's retained lawyers it is a real threat that every single person in publishing has to think about.
After all, all the new laws and shut down companies in the world won't actually bring them a cent of revenue, now will they?
Alas, they truly seem to think that's exactly the case.
Besides, the idea of licensing software isn't stupid. The fact that people will agree to any licence that's put in front of them is what's stupid.
What's truly stupid, IMHO, is that we have no choice but to accept the license or soak the loss. We can't see the terms until we open the software. Once the software is open it may have been copied so we can't return it. So we pay between fifty and thousands of dollars to see the license then if we like said legal text we get to play with the software as a bonus.
Apathy.
Not always. There often isn't an option available to vote for someone that will represent ones views. There were no candidates on the ballot last time I looked at voting that were sympathetic to public with regard to copyright issues. None.
Actually.. shareware more or less took over. When was the last time you saw a game that was released that didn't have a demo come out for it? Demos == shareware "levels".
While I never thought that Mozilla and Godzilla had anything to do with each other I would probable still be using Netscape or Opera if not for the fact I said to myself 'hey clever name' and checked it out.
This is generally called "participating in your culture" or "cultural discourse" for the more academic among us. It is not trademark infringement.
Copyrights are handled by the Libary of Congress.
Really? I would have sworn they were handled by the Copyright Interests through their agents - the congress, the house, and the president.
Now excuse me. I have to clean my computer after checking those links. Where did I put the hydrochloric?
And MS prevented the breaking of this loop by using it's power to keep anyone from shipping a machine w/ BeOS or even in a dual boot configuration. There were several vendors that wanted to try this. MS told them "if you do, you're paying full retail for windows from here on out, period."
That would probably be found unconstitutional when it made it's way to the supreme court. Infringes on free speach and extends the power of copyright beyond what is allowed in the constitution.
Actually, a large part of the reason they don't due this is that the law for audio stuff is much more complicated than that. The recording industry has built a huge and very intricate set of exceptions and provisions into copyright law over the years. Most full copyright lawyers don't even understand it all.
IANAL but I believe it has been established at this point that if the owners and operators are inside the US they are still subject to criminal and civil penalties related to be business, regardless of the location of the server.
Because they are effectively slaves. Have you ever looked into the provisions of a recording contract? The labels can destroy your musical career with trivial effort. If they don't like what you turn in for your next album, they can just tell you "No, make another one" and you're stuck. You can't record for anyone else. How much money you get from the records you do have out is determined by their accountants. Piss them off and you risk your dreams and your livelyhood.
It came across to me more like this:
Perens: "The DMCA is bad law. I'm going to show why by breaking it. Let them come after me."
HP: "Umm... they could sue the shit out of us if you do that. Probably will. We have money, and you know how much they love money."
Perens: "Shit. I don't want HP to take the fall for my demonstration. Lets think about this some more."
Nieve? Maybe. But with HP saying they are the "bigger fish" that seems to be the case to me.