I am also 6'2" and drive a 2000 Corolla. It is obvious that the car was not designed for someone as tall as me -- the seat doesn't go far enough back, the mirrors don't swing out enough for my field of vision, I have to be careful not to bang the steering wheel with my knees when I get in or out, etc. I drive it anyway (since I commute more -- can't argue with 35/40 fuel efficiency), but it's not a pleasant experience.
It's also much more difficult to get a baby seat in and out of the Corolla than our Outback Sport.
Unless the performance has creative elements which stand on their own, i.e. the arrangement, the guitar solo, the intonations chosen when singing the lyrics, etc.
A work is only protected by certain portions of copyright law (infringement actions, including the DMCA) once it is published. There is an explicit exception in the copyright code that, "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."
So you're right that certain aspects of a performance may be copyrighted, but they must be fixed prior to the public performance to allow the ingringement sections to apply to recordings of that performance.
(Of course, if the performance isn't public, none of this matters.)
Recording rights will be included in [the performance license]
So what? The DMCA only allows the actual copyright holder (or an agent thereof) to issue takedown notices, and the copyright holder in this case is Radiohead, not Prince.
A performance cannot be copyrighted. A record of it may be (such as a script, transcript, or video recording), in which case the copyright is owned by whomever created the record.
Thanks, I stole it (slightly modified) from someone else.
I just happen to have an Alpha. With Linux/GCC, short is 16 bits, int is 32 bits, and long is 64 bits.
Regardless, a portable C program may only assume that short can hold values in the range -32767 through +32767. Anything else has the potential for overflow (which is undefined behavior with signed types).
I was going to agree with you, but then I RTFA. Quoth CNN:
But the posted videos were shot by fans and, obviously, the song isn't Prince's. So no, Prince doesn't own the copyright on the recording of the performance.
I still play Tecmo Bowl on an almost daily basis, thanks to FCEU. When my daughter (12 months old) is really upset, I just fire up the game and she's grinning in seconds. She's even figured out (much to my pride and frustration) which keys make the players move.
"Ctrl+C" isn't just "Windows" standard, it's actually coming from much older days. Um, no it isn't. CUA was introduced in 1987. Windows was first released in 1985 and CUA mostly codified the Windows interface. CUA is a Windows-centric standard. The CUA is not Windows-centric. It was designed during the heyday of DOS-based graphical programs, when Windows was hardly ever used. In fact, Windows mostly copied the Apple spellings: Cmd+ZXCV, which are from the Apple Lisa and original Mac (and thus predate Windows) became Ctrl+ZXCV. The IBM CUA uses Ctrl+Del, Ctrl+Ins, and Shift+Ins for cut, copy, and paste, respectively.
The genetic code is not the sequence of base pairs in a nucleic acid (which varies from individual to individual). It is the "dictionary" that controls the translation of base pair sequences into amino acid sequences. And that, except in a few weird species, is the same for every organism on Earth.
Yes and no. ISPs, phone companies, etc are all legally protected (much more than normal property owners) from liability for the content that crosses their networks so long as they don't cross a certain threshold of editorial control.
I'd say that this definitely crosses that threshold. IOW, MS is taking legal responsibility for the content of messages passed on their system. You could sue Microsoft if someone verbally assaults you on MSN, and you might actually have a chance in court.
So while the act itself may be "perfectly legal", it does have strong legal implications.
The English word "censorship" has a long and glorious history of applying to entities other than governments. But by all means, continue with your Orwellian attempts to change the language to suit a particular political view.
Then you suck at reading comprehension. The first post in this thread was a complaint that the article summary was wrong because TFA did not provide a link to an *article* on Chilling Effects but rather to the homepage.
In some make-believe world, your analogy makes sense. In the real world, where damages for copyright violations in the US are based upon *market value* for the copied item, my analogy is actually correct.
The standard desktop install at my last workplace was built for a 10GB hard drive (we had to DOD-spec sanitize the drives frequently, and the extra time required for our larger hard drives was prohibitive without migrating all our hardware to SATA).
It had a 2GB pagefile. Standard install of XP, standard install of Office 2k3, Roxio CD burning software (which is hugely bloated, but it's what was approved), Visio, and about 20 other applications (one of which was 2GB installed all by itself). It had drivers for 10 different hardware profiles for a unified Ghost image.
We had to make sure we deleted the hotfix uninstall info periodically, but other than that, it fit fine. If XP+Office is bursting the seams of your 8GB partition, you're doing something wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I am also 6'2" and drive a 2000 Corolla. It is obvious that the car was not designed for someone as tall as me -- the seat doesn't go far enough back, the mirrors don't swing out enough for my field of vision, I have to be careful not to bang the steering wheel with my knees when I get in or out, etc. I drive it anyway (since I commute more -- can't argue with 35/40 fuel efficiency), but it's not a pleasant experience.
It's also much more difficult to get a baby seat in and out of the Corolla than our Outback Sport.
Unless the performance has creative elements which stand on their own, i.e. the arrangement, the guitar solo, the intonations chosen when singing the lyrics, etc.
A work is only protected by certain portions of copyright law (infringement actions, including the DMCA) once it is published. There is an explicit exception in the copyright code that, "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."
So you're right that certain aspects of a performance may be copyrighted, but they must be fixed prior to the public performance to allow the ingringement sections to apply to recordings of that performance.
(Of course, if the performance isn't public, none of this matters.)
Recording rights will be included in [the performance license]
So what? The DMCA only allows the actual copyright holder (or an agent thereof) to issue takedown notices, and the copyright holder in this case is Radiohead, not Prince.
A performance cannot be copyrighted. A record of it may be (such as a script, transcript, or video recording), in which case the copyright is owned by whomever created the record.
Thanks, I stole it (slightly modified) from someone else.
I just happen to have an Alpha. With Linux/GCC, short is 16 bits, int is 32 bits, and long is 64 bits.
Regardless, a portable C program may only assume that short can hold values in the range -32767 through +32767. Anything else has the potential for overflow (which is undefined behavior with signed types).
I'll have to ask the guy I downloaded it from.
I still play Tecmo Bowl on an almost daily basis, thanks to FCEU. When my daughter (12 months old) is really upset, I just fire up the game and she's grinning in seconds. She's even figured out (much to my pride and frustration) which keys make the players move.
Credit where credit's due:
http://www.physics.uwo.ca/~harwood/humor13.txt
Double-negatives aren't always incorrect.
No.
The genetic code is not the sequence of base pairs in a nucleic acid (which varies from individual to individual). It is the "dictionary" that controls the translation of base pair sequences into amino acid sequences. And that, except in a few weird species, is the same for every organism on Earth.
Any other form is perfectly legal.
Yes and no. ISPs, phone companies, etc are all legally protected (much more than normal property owners) from liability for the content that crosses their networks so long as they don't cross a certain threshold of editorial control.
I'd say that this definitely crosses that threshold. IOW, MS is taking legal responsibility for the content of messages passed on their system. You could sue Microsoft if someone verbally assaults you on MSN, and you might actually have a chance in court.
So while the act itself may be "perfectly legal", it does have strong legal implications.
The English word "censorship" has a long and glorious history of applying to entities other than governments. But by all means, continue with your Orwellian attempts to change the language to suit a particular political view.
Then you suck at reading comprehension. The first post in this thread was a complaint that the article summary was wrong because TFA did not provide a link to an *article* on Chilling Effects but rather to the homepage.
Maybe someone weighing 100 pounds should consider a different line of work.
Accessing PSTs via SMB shares is unsupported by Microsoft, for good reason (much more than is mentioned in the Technet article).
In some make-believe world, your analogy makes sense. In the real world, where damages for copyright violations in the US are based upon *market value* for the copied item, my analogy is actually correct.
The difference is that theft deprives the owner of use of the original.. Copyright violation does not.
So what? The law is very clear on what the punishment is.
This ignores, of course, the fact that the great majority of casual downloaders would never have purchased the music they downloaded for free.
That only matters from a political and business standpoint. From a legal standpoint, all that matters is the market value of the item stolen.
I mean, come on. Should a car jacker be treated less harshly because he never would have actually bought the car at market value?
I call bullshit.
The standard desktop install at my last workplace was built for a 10GB hard drive (we had to DOD-spec sanitize the drives frequently, and the extra time required for our larger hard drives was prohibitive without migrating all our hardware to SATA).
It had a 2GB pagefile. Standard install of XP, standard install of Office 2k3, Roxio CD burning software (which is hugely bloated, but it's what was approved), Visio, and about 20 other applications (one of which was 2GB installed all by itself). It had drivers for 10 different hardware profiles for a unified Ghost image.
We had to make sure we deleted the hotfix uninstall info periodically, but other than that, it fit fine. If XP+Office is bursting the seams of your 8GB partition, you're doing something wrong.
Interesting. Didn't know that.
OTOH, a person doing this has strayed from a scenario where they merely violate policy to one where they actually commit a crime.
And if they did that, they wouldn't have changed anything on the laptop. Good for them. Obviously, we can't control the topology of foreign networks.
Even still it's possible a false BIOS was installed which lies about the boot order
Hah... I know some non-false BIOS which do that.
with a hypervisor booted off a small partition
If they use PXE, you can't get around it by swapping the hard drive.
I'm surprised there isn't some sort of RSA token solution for personal use.
I have a government-issued smart card with client certificates on it. Too bad most web sites don't allow me to authenticate that way.
In fact, I'm surprised that they haven't incorporated SSL into the standard WiFi protocol.
Because it doesn't make any sense. SSL works between the ends of the socket -- it's totally blind to everything in between.