If _you_ would pay attention you'd learn that I did not equate ownership of ideas, aka 'Intellectual Property' with the copy right. In fact, I was responding to just such an assertion by you.
You assert that the copy right somehow confers upon an author ownership of an idea ie, ownership of 'Intellectual Property'. This is your hypothesis, not mine.
"You are completely and utterly incorrect. Property rights can and do expire. For example, I can grant you real estate in perpetuity ("fee simple"), or I can grant you a life estate. Or an estate for a certain length of time."
Then it isn't _yours_! Please, do not stretch this already horribly mutilated property to copyright analogy. Trying to graft the idea of copyright onto physical property via 'Intellectual Property' is crap.
Again, you're quite simply wrong. Fair use is not a right at all, but a (statutory) affirmative defense to infringement. You probably could "borrow" Hillary's car if she leased it or licensed it to you."
Again with this tortured analogy. 'Fair Use' has nothing to do with property and it is not analogous to borrowing someone's property. Copyright is just that, a limited exclusive right to make _copies_ of a work. It has nothing to do with property which you would have learned if you read the article.
"They didn't want copyrights treated as physical property. They wanted them treated as intellectual property.
In case you haven't been listening, the term 'Intellectual property' is bogus double speak that was not used by the framers and really has nothing to do with the limited exclusive right to make _copies_ of a work. The framers had no intention of turning ideas into some kind of possession. Yes, you might say the authors of a work 'possess' the copy right, but they do not 'possess' the actual work or idea... just the _copyright_. Understand? They simply wanted to create an incentive for the public release of previously private (or non-existant) ideas.
See Harper, "It should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas."
This does not in anyway imply a 'property right'... it implies a 'copy right'.
The exclusive right for a limited time is unquestionably, without any doubt whatsoever, a property right."
No, it is not and no matter how much you plead to the contrary, it is not a 'property right'. Of course, you are free to use whatever semantics you like, but the common understanding of 'property right' does a disservice to the true intention and mechanism of the copy right. If you would open your eyes and read the article you might see why.
"... redefine business loss.... it's an expense. Not a loss. They will get it back..."
No, they need to report this as a loss. Look, the Xbox division is a gamble by the larger company to enter into the home entertainment market. As with any gamble it contains a significant amount of risk. This loss quanitifies exactly how large a risk and let's the shareholders and prospective investors have some insight into how the gamble is going. Perhaps, this whole experiment will bomb... who knows what can happen in five years... So, you see, it is in the best interest of everyone for losses like this to continue to be reported for exactly what they are: immediate losses on a long term gamble with no guarantee on seeing the money again.
Data security. Hmmph. The ones clamoring for 'data security' are Hollywood not normal every day end users. So, I call bullshit when Microsoft tries to market this as somehow benefiting the end user. You are trying to spin this into something it is not! Palladium does not provide a benefit to the end user. It provides Hollywood the opportunity to eliminate the Fair Use rights of the public.
The only "rights" that you will be loosing are the "rights" to steal copywrited digital content that you never had the "rights" to in the first place."
No, I am losing my Fair Use rights as described by the United States Supreme Court. This has nothing to do with stealing any copyrighted content.
Microsoft is trying to lie and spin Palladium as something benefiting the end user when nothing could be further from the truth. Palladium will hurt the end user by exposing technology that will be used to restrict rights. Microsoft tries very hard (and you are too) to white wash this as something other than it is. They would have the public believe that this is good for them and that Microsoft is doing this to help there customers while the only thing this will help is Microsofts bottom line and Hollywood. And if it is successful it will also provide another tool for Microsoft to bludgeon the Free Software movement.
No it is not by definition 'security'. There can be no question that Microsoft is marketing Palladium as some kind of enhancement to end users security. There can be no question that this is disingenuous if not an outright lie.
DRM is the main purpose of this crap technology and no amount of misleading FUD/marketing is going to change that simple fact.
"I think that Microsoft has been very straightforward about the goals of Palladium... "
Then you are either stupid or willfully being dishonest yourself. The truth is Palladium is designed to protect large copyright holder X from the end user. It is not designed to protect the end user from anything. I submit _if_ Microsoft were truly serious and motivated (see: pocketbook) to help protect the end user, _then_ they would research and design a system that would look nothing like Palladium!
Yes, I read the link. The fact is Palladium (for all practical purposes) _is_ DRM. It provides the means _and_ they created it specifically for DRM. Brian admitted this. Others (when pressed) have admitted it. Palladium's primary goal is DRM and Microsoft has been trying to spin it otherwise.
My rights will be taken away if and when Microsoft roles out Palladium and it is successful. My rights will be taken away because large copyright holders will use Palladium to limit the fair use rights of the public (Microsoft has admitted this although grudgingly). And please don't repeat the soiled mantra of 'you can turn it off'. Well you can turn your computer off too, but then it isn't useful anymore now is it. If and when Palladium becomes successful, Microsoft can use it just like it has the IE browser to hinder competition and create another level of second class computer users. The danger is obvious and your pathetic attempts at white washing this as nothing more than something analogous to encryption are stupid and will backfire... just like Microsofts related FUD about linux.
You must have missed the talk that Brian (one of the lead developers for Microsoft Palladium) gave at MIT. Brian claimed that stopping viruses and trojans is what keep the Palladium developers up at night. The clear implication is that Palladium will help stop these things. You see this over and over... Microsoft will claim that Palladium is all about security (because they know admitting it's all about DRM would be a disaster), but when intelligent people ask the right questions, they back off only to go right back to the 'Palladium is all about enhancing security' mantra as soon as they think people are not looking. They will still make these very general (and absurd) claims.
This is all cleverly designed to piggy back Palladium in as a security benefit for the end user. It's not and they are being disingenuous when they imply that it is. In fact, it's nothing of the sort. Same thing goes for when these Microsoft spokesman ask that we judge Palladium by actions not there words. Hello McFly! We are judging them by there actions and the verdict is: Guilty!
If people *want* to believe something, nothing they say or do can prove otherwise."
Dare I say that it reminds of... many Microsoft supporters who claim Palladium is a Good Thing (tm)?
Microsoft lovers *want* to believe that Palladium is a god send for computer security, despite the fact that it's utterly impossible for Microsoft to protect against viruses and trojans and still maintain backward compatibility with unsigned software and/or viruses.
Yet, no matter how much I make this point, which the hopelessly optimistic never bother to refute, their only answer is "Microsoft is a great company they'd never try to hoodwink users into believing the benefit of Palladium was increased security."
If you want to know how people can be so delusional that they can believe the moon landing was a consipiracy, look no further than the parent post.
I'm sure the congressman had a perfectly good reason for only supporting IE. What would you have the congressman do? Drop the ability to process email, just because your favorite browser isn't up to the task?
Bill Gates from the article, "Why are my document files stored one way, my contacts another way and my e-mail and instant-messaging buddy list still another, and why aren't they related to my calendar or to one another, and easy to search en masse?"
Hmm, let's see...
Because your documents are different than your contacts which are in turn fundamentally different than your email which are in turn fundamentally different than your buddy lists. Yes, they are all data. So are books, CD's, audio-tapes, which are all quite different. Both in terms of media and interaction. This is such a silly question. Why on earth would you want a 'Universal' viewer for your data...?! This would necessarily lower it to the common denominator, but then it is the differences that make these kinds of data useful.
Sorry, breaking up the company was thrown out because of Jackson's appearance of bias. Nothing prevents Kollar-Kotelly from imposing this ruling if she deems it is the best recourse for the illegal acts.
She is reponsible for two different rulings. The email today that she would deliver her 'Opinions' (see: plural). The first ruling is whether the settlement is in the public interest. This she can only accept or reject. The other opinion is far more detailed. She could very well break up the company with this other ruling. Hope that helps.
Man, you are really trying to bury your head in the sand.
If an 'EULA' did not impose any restrictions upon your intrinsic rights to use the software and if an 'EULA' granted you a right to redistribute the software then yes, it would be similar to the GPL. But then, it wouldn't be an 'EULA' in the common vernacular it would be a copyright license.
The truth is this never happens. EULA's attempt to restrict intrinsic rights you already have and almost never grant any rights to redistribute in any form or shape.
You are attempting to bend the common definition of 'EULA' so far around that it no longer represents what is commonly known as an 'EULA'. I can do the same thing. It is just semantics. How about we agree to describe pseudo contracts that restrict intrinsic rights and don't grant any rights to redistribute as POSL Piece Of Shit License and we'll call things that only _grant_ right's to distribute as KAL Kick Ass Licenses. Sound good?
Find me one court in the country that agrees that I haven't bought the software. When I walk into my favorite record store and purchase a CD of my favorite band am I also licensing the music? NO!
Same goes with software. I have not 'licensed' anything. I have purchased it. I do not remember _any_ contract negotiation (except the price) before or during my trip to the cashier.
They can not impose a contract negotiation after you've purchased the software. That is not in the chips man.
What makes you think that they can get away with this implied licensing? If you purchased a toaster do you ever think to license the use of the toaster? No, because you've purchased it. Pull your head out your ass man!
"This is because the copyright owner of the piece of GPLed software has decreed that anyone and everyone can use the software."
If you've legally happened upon a piece of software then you have an intrinsic right to _use_ that software. Just like if you've legally happened upon a toaster you have an intrinsic right to toast your bread. You do not need permission or need to enter into a contract.
The constitution grants a limited _COPY_right to authors. It does not grant them the right to determine how others will use the creations.
The copyright owner for the commercial software hasn't decided to give out that right."
You have been seriously befuddled by our corporate culture. The copyright owner does not _have_ that right to give out. The copyright owner has only one exclusive right, ie to _copy_. Get it?
The parent and I both agree. He has just given the more detailed account. You however, are completely wrong. The GPL is not an EULA nor is it anything like an EULA. One grants rights and one takes away rights. In another post you betrayed your ignorance by saying that the EULA grants rights that were not seen beforehand. This shows you know nothing about what you speak.
You are absolutely correct. Contract law holds a minor position in the GPL, while Copyright is the heart of the matter.
The EULA however, is all contract law. I agree completely with what you have stated. I still think we've said the same thing, you've just elaborated and provided the details. Thank you.
Re:what if it also installed it's source?
on
First Worm with a EULA?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Ok, like I have stated in other places,
The EULA is a matter of contract law.
while...
The GPL is a matter of copyright law
The two are fundamentally different. The EULA places _restrictions_ on what you can _do_ with the software.
The GPL _grants_ you the right to redistribute (which would normally not be there, because of copyright law) once certain criteria are met. The GPL does not impose any restrictions on what you can _do_ with the software.
In the absence of the EULA you would be allowed to do anything you saw fit with the software (short of illegal acts and within the copyright clause).
No, the EULA does not grant you any rights. The EULA removes many rights, basically if the EULA was not there you would be entitled to use the software in any way you see fit.
By agreeing to the EULA you necessarily limit what you can do with the software.
The EULA has nothing to do with copyright law! It is contract law.
The GPL does not require an end user to agree to a license before using the software. It is a copyright license. That is it. It _grants_ the abillity to copy and redistribute once certain criteria are met. The two are fundamentally different.
The GPL has nothing to say about how you can use the software. It places _no_ restrictions on your right to use the software or how you plan on using the software.
The GPL _does_ have something to say on how you might redistribute the software. That is it. It is a copyright notice which _grants_ you the right to redistribute after meeting a few requirements. Once again, it does not restrict what you can _do_ with the software.
Slashdot Mirror
If _you_ would pay attention you'd learn that I did not equate ownership of ideas, aka 'Intellectual Property' with the copy right. In fact, I was responding to just such an assertion by you.
You assert that the copy right somehow confers upon an author ownership of an idea ie, ownership of 'Intellectual Property'. This is your hypothesis, not mine.
What a complete and utter bunch of horse shit!
... just the _copyright_. Understand? They simply wanted to create an incentive for the public release of previously private (or non-existant) ideas.
... it implies a 'copy right'.
"You are completely and utterly incorrect. Property rights can and do expire. For example, I can grant you real estate in perpetuity ("fee simple"), or I can grant you a life estate. Or an estate for a certain length of time."
Then it isn't _yours_! Please, do not stretch this already horribly mutilated property to copyright analogy. Trying to graft the idea of copyright onto physical property via 'Intellectual Property' is crap.
Again, you're quite simply wrong. Fair use is not a right at all, but a (statutory) affirmative defense to infringement. You probably could "borrow" Hillary's car if she leased it or licensed it to you."
Again with this tortured analogy. 'Fair Use' has nothing to do with property and it is not analogous to borrowing someone's property. Copyright is just that, a limited exclusive right to make _copies_ of a work. It has nothing to do with property which you would have learned if you read the article.
"They didn't want copyrights treated as physical property. They wanted them treated as intellectual property.
In case you haven't been listening, the term 'Intellectual property' is bogus double speak that was not used by the framers and really has nothing to do with the limited exclusive right to make _copies_ of a work. The framers had no intention of turning ideas into some kind of possession. Yes, you might say the authors of a work 'possess' the copy right, but they do not 'possess' the actual work or idea
See Harper, "It should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas."
This does not in anyway imply a 'property right'
The exclusive right for a limited time is unquestionably, without any doubt whatsoever, a property right."
No, it is not and no matter how much you plead to the contrary, it is not a 'property right'. Of course, you are free to use whatever semantics you like, but the common understanding of 'property right' does a disservice to the true intention and mechanism of the copy right. If you would open your eyes and read the article you might see why.
" ... redefine business loss. ... it's an expense. Not a loss. They will get it back ..."
... who knows what can happen in five years ... So, you see, it is in the best interest of everyone for losses like this to continue to be reported for exactly what they are: immediate losses on a long term gamble with no guarantee on seeing the money again.
No, they need to report this as a loss. Look, the Xbox division is a gamble by the larger company to enter into the home entertainment market. As with any gamble it contains a significant amount of risk. This loss quanitifies exactly how large a risk and let's the shareholders and prospective investors have some insight into how the gamble is going. Perhaps, this whole experiment will bomb
Data security. Hmmph. The ones clamoring for 'data security' are Hollywood not normal every day end users. So, I call bullshit when Microsoft tries to market this as somehow benefiting the end user. You are trying to spin this into something it is not! Palladium does not provide a benefit to the end user. It provides Hollywood the opportunity to eliminate the Fair Use rights of the public.
The only "rights" that you will be loosing are the "rights" to steal copywrited digital content that you never had the "rights" to in the first place."
No, I am losing my Fair Use rights as described by the United States Supreme Court. This has nothing to do with stealing any copyrighted content.
Microsoft is trying to lie and spin Palladium as something benefiting the end user when nothing could be further from the truth. Palladium will hurt the end user by exposing technology that will be used to restrict rights. Microsoft tries very hard (and you are too) to white wash this as something other than it is. They would have the public believe that this is good for them and that Microsoft is doing this to help there customers while the only thing this will help is Microsofts bottom line and Hollywood. And if it is successful it will also provide another tool for Microsoft to bludgeon the Free Software movement.
No it is not by definition 'security'. There can be no question that Microsoft is marketing Palladium as some kind of enhancement to end users security. There can be no question that this is disingenuous if not an outright lie.
... "
DRM is the main purpose of this crap technology and no amount of misleading FUD/marketing is going to change that simple fact.
"I think that Microsoft has been very straightforward about the goals of Palladium
Then you are either stupid or willfully being dishonest yourself. The truth is Palladium is designed to protect large copyright holder X from the end user. It is not designed to protect the end user from anything. I submit _if_ Microsoft were truly serious and motivated (see: pocketbook) to help protect the end user, _then_ they would research and design a system that would look nothing like Palladium!
Yes, I read the link. The fact is Palladium (for all practical purposes) _is_ DRM. It provides the means _and_ they created it specifically for DRM. Brian admitted this. Others (when pressed) have admitted it. Palladium's primary goal is DRM and Microsoft has been trying to spin it otherwise.
... just like Microsofts related FUD about linux.
My rights will be taken away if and when Microsoft roles out Palladium and it is successful. My rights will be taken away because large copyright holders will use Palladium to limit the fair use rights of the public (Microsoft has admitted this although grudgingly). And please don't repeat the soiled mantra of 'you can turn it off'. Well you can turn your computer off too, but then it isn't useful anymore now is it. If and when Palladium becomes successful, Microsoft can use it just like it has the IE browser to hinder competition and create another level of second class computer users. The danger is obvious and your pathetic attempts at white washing this as nothing more than something analogous to encryption are stupid and will backfire
You must have missed the talk that Brian (one of the lead developers for Microsoft Palladium) gave at MIT. Brian claimed that stopping viruses and trojans is what keep the Palladium developers up at night. The clear implication is that Palladium will help stop these things. You see this over and over ... Microsoft will claim that Palladium is all about security (because they know admitting it's all about DRM would be a disaster), but when intelligent people ask the right questions, they back off only to go right back to the 'Palladium is all about enhancing security' mantra as soon as they think people are not looking. They will still make these very general (and absurd) claims.
This is all cleverly designed to piggy back Palladium in as a security benefit for the end user. It's not and they are being disingenuous when they imply that it is. In fact, it's nothing of the sort. Same thing goes for when these Microsoft spokesman ask that we judge Palladium by actions not there words. Hello McFly! We are judging them by there actions and the verdict is: Guilty!
If people *want* to believe something, nothing they say or do can prove otherwise."
... many Microsoft supporters who claim Palladium is a Good Thing (tm)?
Dare I say that it reminds of
Microsoft lovers *want* to believe that Palladium is a god send for computer security, despite the fact that it's utterly impossible for Microsoft to protect against viruses and trojans and still maintain backward compatibility with unsigned software and/or viruses.
Yet, no matter how much I make this point, which the hopelessly optimistic never bother to refute, their only answer is "Microsoft is a great company they'd never try to hoodwink users into believing the benefit of Palladium was increased security."
If you want to know how people can be so delusional that they can believe the moon landing was a consipiracy, look no further than the parent post.
I'm sorry. That was meant as sarcasm. Looks like people didn't take it that way ;)
I'm sure the congressman had a perfectly good reason for only supporting IE. What would you have the congressman do? Drop the ability to process email, just because your favorite browser isn't up to the task?
Bill Gates from the article, "Why are my document files stored one way, my contacts another way and my e-mail and instant-messaging buddy list still another, and why aren't they related to my calendar or to one another, and easy to search en masse?"
...
Hmm, let's see
Because your documents are different than your contacts which are in turn fundamentally different than your email which are in turn fundamentally different than your buddy lists. Yes, they are all data. So are books, CD's, audio-tapes, which are all quite different. Both in terms of media and interaction. This is such a silly question. Why on earth would you want a 'Universal' viewer for your data...?! This would necessarily lower it to the common denominator, but then it is the differences that make these kinds of data useful.
This is the most incisive post I have seen on the issue of Palladium. This is a post for the history books!
Great job man!
Sorry, breaking up the company was thrown out because of Jackson's appearance of bias. Nothing prevents Kollar-Kotelly from imposing this ruling if she deems it is the best recourse for the illegal acts.
She is reponsible for two different rulings. The email today that she would deliver her 'Opinions' (see: plural). The first ruling is whether the settlement is in the public interest. This she can only accept or reject. The other opinion is far more detailed. She could very well break up the company with this other ruling. Hope that helps.
Man, you are really trying to bury your head in the sand.
If an 'EULA' did not impose any restrictions upon your intrinsic rights to use the software and if an 'EULA' granted you a right to redistribute the software then yes, it would be similar to the GPL. But then, it wouldn't be an 'EULA' in the common vernacular it would be a copyright license.
The truth is this never happens. EULA's attempt to restrict intrinsic rights you already have and almost never grant any rights to redistribute in any form or shape.
You are attempting to bend the common definition of 'EULA' so far around that it no longer represents what is commonly known as an 'EULA'. I can do the same thing. It is just semantics. How about we agree to describe pseudo contracts that restrict intrinsic rights and don't grant any rights to redistribute as POSL Piece Of Shit License and we'll call things that only _grant_ right's to distribute as KAL Kick Ass Licenses. Sound good?
Find me one court in the country that agrees that I haven't bought the software. When I walk into my favorite record store and purchase a CD of my favorite band am I also licensing the music? NO!
Same goes with software. I have not 'licensed' anything. I have purchased it. I do not remember _any_ contract negotiation (except the price) before or during my trip to the cashier.
They can not impose a contract negotiation after you've purchased the software. That is not in the chips man.
What makes you think that they can get away with this implied licensing? If you purchased a toaster do you ever think to license the use of the toaster? No, because you've purchased it. Pull your head out your ass man!
What smoke are you cracking ;)
..."
"This is because the copyright owner of the piece of GPLed software has decreed that anyone and everyone can use the software."
If you've legally happened upon a piece of software then you have an intrinsic right to _use_ that software. Just like if you've legally happened upon a toaster you have an intrinsic right to toast your bread. You do not need permission or need to enter into a contract.
The constitution grants a limited _COPY_right to authors. It does not grant them the right to determine how others will use the creations.
The copyright owner for the commercial software hasn't decided to give out that right."
You have been seriously befuddled by our corporate culture. The copyright owner does not _have_ that right to give out. The copyright owner has only one exclusive right, ie to _copy_. Get it?
"You simply don't get to use the software
See above.
The parent and I both agree. He has just given the more detailed account. You however, are completely wrong. The GPL is not an EULA nor is it anything like an EULA. One grants rights and one takes away rights. In another post you betrayed your ignorance by saying that the EULA grants rights that were not seen beforehand. This shows you know nothing about what you speak.
You are absolutely correct. Contract law holds a minor position in the GPL, while Copyright is the heart of the matter.
The EULA however, is all contract law. I agree completely with what you have stated. I still think we've said the same thing, you've just elaborated and provided the details. Thank you.
Ok, like I have stated in other places,
...
The EULA is a matter of contract law.
while
The GPL is a matter of copyright law
The two are fundamentally different. The EULA places _restrictions_ on what you can _do_ with the software.
The GPL _grants_ you the right to redistribute (which would normally not be there, because of copyright law) once certain criteria are met. The GPL does not impose any restrictions on what you can _do_ with the software.
In the absence of the EULA you would be allowed to do anything you saw fit with the software (short of illegal acts and within the copyright clause).
No, the EULA does not grant you any rights. The EULA removes many rights, basically if the EULA was not there you would be entitled to use the software in any way you see fit.
By agreeing to the EULA you necessarily limit what you can do with the software.
The EULA has nothing to do with copyright law! It is contract law.
The GPL is not an EULA!
The GPL does not require an end user to agree to a license before using the software. It is a copyright license. That is it. It _grants_ the abillity to copy and redistribute once certain criteria are met. The two are fundamentally different.
The EULA is a matter of contract law.
The GPL is a matter of copyright law.
Understand?
" ... but the click through license idea is not that flawed, just abused ... "
Something so easily abused can only be described as deeply flawed.
No! The GPL is not an EULA.
The GPL has nothing to say about how you can use the software. It places _no_ restrictions on your right to use the software or how you plan on using the software.
The GPL _does_ have something to say on how you might redistribute the software. That is it. It is a copyright notice which _grants_ you the right to redistribute after meeting a few requirements. Once again, it does not restrict what you can _do_ with the software.