This parent needs to be modded up. Journalists used to be in the business of delivering facts as quickly and accuratly as possible. This is no longer the case. Most journalists these days are in the business of trying to save the world one story at a time. As far as trying to explain science, well I think that the best example is that it's somehow considered to be reporting science by reporting the "consensus" view, however small that may be (as long as the reporter thinks it's the best view for the story). There used to be a consensus that the earth was flat and tha the sun revolved around the earth. As any real scientist will tell you, consensus doesn't mean crap. A theory is accepted in science when it's got overwhelming evidence or an actual proof.
This is capitalist shortsightedness at its worst. Bad word of mouth hurts more in the long run. Satisfaction leads to good word of mouth which leads to more sales. As a personal example, I always make a note to people about how phenomenal Nintendo customer service is. I tell them about a problem, they fix it immediately. I know for a fact that my advice has caused a few more sales of Wiis rather than (usually) PS2s. See, since Nintendo didn't penny-pinch with the cost of repairs for my system, they indirectly made more money through my satisfaction. This is foresight that I wish American companies had. I think we'd all be happier for it.
Maybe in theory. In practice you overestimate the impact of word of mouth and the amount of word of mouth gets spread. Take a look at Walmart. Ask anyone if they've heard that walmart is bad for an area (or bad in general) and they'll say yes. Ask them if they no longer shop there and they'll say no. Cutting service means directly impacting cost. I could simply sell my widgets for the same price and take the extra profit, OR I could lower my price, gaining even more customers and lessening the impact of bad word of mouth and pile up even more profit by the increased sales. Of course this would be broken if the consumer ever decided that service was more important than price, but that's not likely to occur.
Of course what is never mentioned in these examples is that based on the last election turnout for that district the amount of balot machines was fine. The problem is that you can't figure out how many machines you need or the size required for the location if the parties start pulling stunts like paying off voters to show up and vote for their candidate.
I only need a license to copy. If I no longer want to copy, I don't need a license. So I can sell the license (unless it is personalised, possibly) and the media (since I own both) and the person buying now has a license to copy. If I were to copy the program (like, for instance, by running it or installing from backups), I would be breaking copyright law, since I don't have a license. I sold it.
You can't sell a license, you can only sell things you own. Puchasing a license entitles you to usage, nothing more unless explicitly listed in the license (note that usage may or may not entitle you to installation; usage really means usage, but generally it also means installation as well). Unless specified a license is always "personalised", since you are the purchaser. You can copy the media as much as you like (usually). Usually there is no provision about the number of copies you can possess at one time, and usually media is either low or no cost since only a licensed user can use the product. I suppose you might be theorectically breaking copyright law but why would a licensed user be buying a copy from you when they could get it direct from the manufacturer. What you can't sell is the right to use the software
If I must have the license, then why do I need one for each machine? Why is it only for one machine? It is now supposed to be a license for me to run the program. Nothing about installing it or running it on different computers, just running it.
Depends on the license, some licenses are site licenses (use as many copies as you want per location). Some are based on the number of installs and some on the number of users. That's what makes license management so much fun, infinite variety in infinite combinations
Don't worry, you don't think they'd pay more than minimum wage just because they force you to get chipped, do you?
then the playing field is level, since the wages can't get any lower, a company without chips by default has greater profit as it as less costs and could easily turn around and profitshare that with the employees or afford to pay more for higher quality employees
And starting a company ain't as easy as it may look. You can rest assured that the companies who are most interested in this kind of tagging aren't small or mid sized. They usually play in fields where you most certainly cannot be a competitor.
No one said it's easy to start (or to be accurate run successfully, as anyone with a few hundred dollars a can start a business with zero knowledge) It's tough for a company to be very large if the employees quit, so either enough people will simply not care, rendering said law irrelevent and clearly stupid, or the company will have to raise their wages/incentives to overcome the negatives. Should the latter happen all of a sudden either a bunch of companies will spring up or other existing large companies will decide to enter the now easily profitable field. Think it doesn't happen? Take take a look at EMC.
The obvious response is to offer implantation along with the option to use an external RFID tranmitter with the provision that if you are ever on the premises with either someone elses transmitter or without your transmitter you are fired. You add another proviso that states if you are ever not in posession of your transmitter you are fired.
This is just another silly law. Here's a solution- don't work for a company that requires RFID tags. Can't find one- start one! I'm sure there are folks that would work for a little less money in order to retain personal freedom, so you could then crush the RFID'ing competition.
But then, assuming it's my computer and my Rio player (or iPod, today), I'm only going to be listening to one at a time. I could reasonably claim that the other is merely a backup copy.
You could argue that, but so far no-one has that I am aware of (and I sure wouldn't want to). You could make a backup copy of the original media (the CD), but not of the copy. There is no tested fair use provision that allows media and format shifting. Remember that every example starts with the preseumption of starting from a CD (or a legally obtained stand alone media in the case of DAT tapes). Lets say you got your music from Itunes- then it's a whole different ballgame, you no longer have any rights except those granted to you by apple (and listed here http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html/
The important ones:
"You shall be authorized to use the Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time. "
Your Ipod might be authorised but how about that linux box you just built- I didn't see a copy of itunes on it...
"Any burning (if applicable) or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners in any audio or video content, sound recording, underlying musical composition, or artwork embodied in any Product."
So you burned a copy of the downloaded music then ripped it MP3 to get around fairplay? Ok but you still violated the agreement (there's a section about that being a violation) and even if you bought an itunes plus product (no DRM) you are still bound by the usage rules (where it can also be argued that you also agreed that you are not bound to the audio home recording act)
Therein lies the problem, as people currently do not factor it at all. It's entirely irrelevant that you (a single user) possess, control and or utilize all the devices. What matters is that the license granted to you to use the media of your choice either implicitly or explicitly entitles you to exactly 1 device per copy. RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia was listed as exempt from the audio home recording act because it copied from hard drives - an exempted media, however Section 1008 explicitly allows private, noncommercial home copying with 'analog' devices and media. RIAA v Diamond only talked about space shifting media (in theory moving the media- which we all know is never done) Currently fair use addresses none of these issues (although for some reason many people think that it does)
It's still technically decided on a case-by-case basis, but I do think there's enough precedent to say that if copying a CD you own to your iPod is fair use, then copying said CD to your computer, then to another computer, and then to your stereo system (yes, some plug directly into the network) is also fair use.
I would think the courts would agree that the space shifting as described would then be turning your music library into a mini napster according to A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. since you are now going from 1 device to many devices. You have to remember that "consumer protection or convenience was not paramount in copyright law, but rather protecting the rights of the copyright holders." Which is why a redefinition of fair use is overdue.
While I think that you should be able to share media for your own personal use, show me the fair use clause that allows it? I think it's time that we update fair use laws rather than try to get them to allow us what rights they choose not to reserve.
I'm not so sure about that. I thought the sales contract was in effect when the item shipped or when money was recieved. To use your example, you could walk out before the meal arrived and you aren't oblgated to pay- however once the meal arrives, you're on the hook for it. Likewise if you paid in advance- they owe you a meal.
If you're dumb enough to pirate a copy of vista basic (as opposed to ulimate) then there's a pretty good chance you're also dumb enough to "legalize" it by paying the reduced price.
It's also our responsibility as adults to allow children to be children as long as possible. There is no reason that a 5 year old needs to see Saving Private Ryan, or Final Destination 3 (on a side note does anyone need to see Final Destiniation 3) even if they are explained to them (and good luck on that explaination). Kids do not need to get exposed to all the crap of life at once. Parental controls on TV and computers are tools- not a panacea and I don't think folks that use them view them as such (if they do then they are guilty of avoiding adult responsibilities).
OIN is not protection simply an attempt to use the same mechanism Microsoft uses via aquiring patents and covenenting not to sue for patent violations. The difference is that Microsoft claims to already own the patents and OIN attempts to buy patent rights from holders. If OIN wanted to protect redhat users they would have to pay Microsoft on behalf of those users prior to the violation.
To that I have to ask "why does the telemarketing firm have access to that kind of info?" It bugs me when the rights of corporations to market their products are given priority over the quiet enjoyment of life by the citizens of the society.
I agree. It bothers me a whole lot more that corporations can get this type of info than if the FBI alone was doing it.
Of course it's kinda ridiculous to tell the FBI they should have less access to information than the average telemarketing firm. At least the FBI can, at some point, possibly be held accountable.
If the problem is the EU copyright laws why aren't/.ers boycotting german products? If GDW was willing except the law wouldn't allow the artists to comply I see no fault by GDW.
but in *nix land those vulnerabilites are called features. Demands to change are always met with demands to keep them the same--"how can I keep my code from 1985 running without it!"
Slashdot Mirror
This parent needs to be modded up. Journalists used to be in the business of delivering facts as quickly and accuratly as possible. This is no longer the case. Most journalists these days are in the business of trying to save the world one story at a time. As far as trying to explain science, well I think that the best example is that it's somehow considered to be reporting science by reporting the "consensus" view, however small that may be (as long as the reporter thinks it's the best view for the story). There used to be a consensus that the earth was flat and tha the sun revolved around the earth. As any real scientist will tell you, consensus doesn't mean crap. A theory is accepted in science when it's got overwhelming evidence or an actual proof.
Maybe in theory. In practice you overestimate the impact of word of mouth and the amount of word of mouth gets spread. Take a look at Walmart. Ask anyone if they've heard that walmart is bad for an area (or bad in general) and they'll say yes. Ask them if they no longer shop there and they'll say no. Cutting service means directly impacting cost. I could simply sell my widgets for the same price and take the extra profit, OR I could lower my price, gaining even more customers and lessening the impact of bad word of mouth and pile up even more profit by the increased sales. Of course this would be broken if the consumer ever decided that service was more important than price, but that's not likely to occur.
try doing the math with only .5g constant acceleration.
Of course what is never mentioned in these examples is that based on the last election turnout for that district the amount of balot machines was fine. The problem is that you can't figure out how many machines you need or the size required for the location if the parties start pulling stunts like paying off voters to show up and vote for their candidate.
You can't sell a license, you can only sell things you own. Puchasing a license entitles you to usage, nothing more unless explicitly listed in the license (note that usage may or may not entitle you to installation; usage really means usage, but generally it also means installation as well). Unless specified a license is always "personalised", since you are the purchaser. You can copy the media as much as you like (usually). Usually there is no provision about the number of copies you can possess at one time, and usually media is either low or no cost since only a licensed user can use the product. I suppose you might be theorectically breaking copyright law but why would a licensed user be buying a copy from you when they could get it direct from the manufacturer. What you can't sell is the right to use the software
Depends on the license, some licenses are site licenses (use as many copies as you want per location). Some are based on the number of installs and some on the number of users. That's what makes license management so much fun, infinite variety in infinite combinations
ANY constant acceleration is all that counts. You're thinking like it's a rocket where you get x amount of acceleration then 0
I don't think you have to prove either. The issue is that the software is not sold, it's licensed. You don't own it so you can't sell it.
download a Livecd and boot off that. I know Ubuntu is available. If you want Solaris you can take a look at Belenix.
then the playing field is level, since the wages can't get any lower, a company without chips by default has greater profit as it as less costs and could easily turn around and profitshare that with the employees or afford to pay more for higher quality employees
No one said it's easy to start (or to be accurate run successfully, as anyone with a few hundred dollars a can start a business with zero knowledge) It's tough for a company to be very large if the employees quit, so either enough people will simply not care, rendering said law irrelevent and clearly stupid, or the company will have to raise their wages/incentives to overcome the negatives. Should the latter happen all of a sudden either a bunch of companies will spring up or other existing large companies will decide to enter the now easily profitable field. Think it doesn't happen? Take take a look at EMC.
The obvious response is to offer implantation along with the option to use an external RFID tranmitter with the provision that if you are ever on the premises with either someone elses transmitter or without your transmitter you are fired. You add another proviso that states if you are ever not in posession of your transmitter you are fired.
This is just another silly law. Here's a solution- don't work for a company that requires RFID tags. Can't find one- start one! I'm sure there are folks that would work for a little less money in order to retain personal freedom, so you could then crush the RFID'ing competition.
You could argue that, but so far no-one has that I am aware of (and I sure wouldn't want to). You could make a backup copy of the original media (the CD), but not of the copy. There is no tested fair use provision that allows media and format shifting. Remember that every example starts with the preseumption of starting from a CD (or a legally obtained stand alone media in the case of DAT tapes). Lets say you got your music from Itunes- then it's a whole different ballgame, you no longer have any rights except those granted to you by apple (and listed here http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html
The important ones:
"You shall be authorized to use the Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time. "
Your Ipod might be authorised but how about that linux box you just built- I didn't see a copy of itunes on it...
"Any burning (if applicable) or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners in any audio or video content, sound recording, underlying musical composition, or artwork embodied in any Product."
So you burned a copy of the downloaded music then ripped it MP3 to get around fairplay? Ok but you still violated the agreement (there's a section about that being a violation) and even if you bought an itunes plus product (no DRM) you are still bound by the usage rules (where it can also be argued that you also agreed that you are not bound to the audio home recording act)
These terms are one of the reasons Eminem is suing apple. The question is is this a licensing agreement or a sale? http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/07/31/rap
Therein lies the problem, as people currently do not factor it at all. It's entirely irrelevant that you (a single user) possess, control and or utilize all the devices. What matters is that the license granted to you to use the media of your choice either implicitly or explicitly entitles you to exactly 1 device per copy. RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia was listed as exempt from the audio home recording act because it copied from hard drives - an exempted media, however Section 1008 explicitly allows private, noncommercial home copying with 'analog' devices and media. RIAA v Diamond only talked about space shifting media (in theory moving the media- which we all know is never done) Currently fair use addresses none of these issues (although for some reason many people think that it does)
_ Act/
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording
I would think the courts would agree that the space shifting as described would then be turning your music library into a mini napster according to A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. since you are now going from 1 device to many devices. You have to remember that "consumer protection or convenience was not paramount in copyright law, but rather protecting the rights of the copyright holders." Which is why a redefinition of fair use is overdue.
While I think that you should be able to share media for your own personal use, show me the fair use clause that allows it? I think it's time that we update fair use laws rather than try to get them to allow us what rights they choose not to reserve.
I'm not so sure about that. I thought the sales contract was in effect when the item shipped or when money was recieved. To use your example, you could walk out before the meal arrived and you aren't oblgated to pay- however once the meal arrives, you're on the hook for it. Likewise if you paid in advance- they owe you a meal.
If you're dumb enough to pirate a copy of vista basic (as opposed to ulimate) then there's a pretty good chance you're also dumb enough to "legalize" it by paying the reduced price.
It's also our responsibility as adults to allow children to be children as long as possible. There is no reason that a 5 year old needs to see Saving Private Ryan, or Final Destination 3 (on a side note does anyone need to see Final Destiniation 3) even if they are explained to them (and good luck on that explaination). Kids do not need to get exposed to all the crap of life at once. Parental controls on TV and computers are tools- not a panacea and I don't think folks that use them view them as such (if they do then they are guilty of avoiding adult responsibilities).
OIN is not protection simply an attempt to use the same mechanism Microsoft uses via aquiring patents and covenenting not to sue for patent violations. The difference is that Microsoft claims to already own the patents and OIN attempts to buy patent rights from holders. If OIN wanted to protect redhat users they would have to pay Microsoft on behalf of those users prior to the violation.
You mean aside from dropping lifetime subscriptions...
thanks for the correction- like my plastic surgeon told a girlfriend of mine "what's an extra D among friends".
Of course it's kinda ridiculous to tell the FBI they should have less access to information than the average telemarketing firm. At least the FBI can, at some point, possibly be held accountable.
If the problem is the EU copyright laws why aren't /.ers boycotting german products? If GDW was willing except the law wouldn't allow the artists to comply I see no fault by GDW.
but in *nix land those vulnerabilites are called features. Demands to change are always met with demands to keep them the same--"how can I keep my code from 1985 running without it!"