The problem is that TVs aren't something that people replace very often. I have three televisions in my house right now. One of them is 5 years old, and the other two are a lot older than that. I think one of them is even older than me. Just imagine the uproar that's going to happen when Granny can no longer watch Matlock. She's going to say "Spend how much on a new TV?!?" and start bitching at her congresscritters.
You seem to be equating the cost of energy with some monetary cost. Once you get a machine that can generate enough energy to produce another working copy of itself and continue to operate, you are getting energy for free from an economic standpoint. Sure, you might be 'paying' by using sunlight or fusion, but that won't necessarily cost you a dime.
Most musicians do not ever make enough to support themselves under the current system. One-hit-wonders have just about zero chance of breaking even, let alone making any money. Even somewhat large acts (like the Goo Goo Dolls), and huge acts (TLC) will often wind up completely screwed by the record companies. The current system doesn't do *anything* for anyone except the people who are leeching off of those who actually make the music. Removing the recording industry will not harm the majority of musicians in any way.
Re:Need Link to Source Code and or Binary
on
Triangle Boy Lives
·
· Score: 2
Stupid people get what they deserve. A smart person would not have stored hot coffee between her legs. If you ask someone to toss you a jar of nitroglycerine, you forfeit the right to complain when you blow your arms off.
Please note that the word "privacy" is never used in the Fourth Amendment.
Doesn't matter. The government is what is restricted by the constitution, not individuals. The ninth amendment even spells out the fact that just because a right isn't listed doesn't mean that you don't have it.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
the Constitution of the United States was meant to only regulate the behavior of the Federal Government. Technically, not even the States are bound by it
Amendment 14
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Every state has to follow the laws as laid out in the Constitution of the US.
By pirating people are IN FACT denying this copyright holder USE of the product in exactly the manner they intended when they invested the many millions of dollars required for its production.
That's some seriously convoluted thinking there, bud. My copying or not copying a piece doesn't change anyone's ability to use anything. They can still do whatever their little hearts desire with it. I am under no obligation to fulfill their monetary wishes.
The addition of "Under God" does transform the otherwise secular pledge of allegiance into a prayer. Why should it be allowed when other forms of prayer are clearly unconstitutional?
Do you have a source on this? Fair use is a part of US law, Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 107. I've never heard of it being established by judicial decision.
It was first established by judicial decision, then later codified into law.
That's the problem - there was no legal contract. A legal contract is what you have to sign when you take out a loan for a house or car, or accept employment somewhere. Do you think there is a court anywhere that would uphold a 'click-throuh' agreement on a home loan? Of course not, because it's not a legal contract. If it isn't in that case, it isn't in the case of software, either.
Actually, they tried to do the same thing with books a long time ago. The courts smacked them down and came up with the concept of 'fair use', that means you are allowed to do anything within copyright law with a book (or any other piece of intellectual property) that you have bought. Software is no different than books. Unless you sign a legal contract that gives up some of your rights, an agreement that is forced upon you after you have paid for an item is not valid.
When you buy a book, you're not necessarily spending your hard earned dollars on the physical representation of what you buy. It doesn't cost $8 to produce a paperback. You own the cover, the spine, the pages but you do not own the story contained there within.
No, you are buying exactly one copy of not just the physical book, but the story contained within. The only thing that copyright gives anyone is the exclusive right to distribute copies of that work. That's it! It does not magically confer ownership of ideas to anyone.
You may sell your book under the doctrine of First Sale without having to pay royalties (or 'liscense fees' if you will) to the content owners, for that has already been paid once.
As can I sell or give away a copy of any piece of software I have legally purchased.
EULA's by themselves have been found legal, its parts in the EULA's that have not been legally tested.
"The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license," Judge Pregerson writes. If you put your money down and walked away with a CD, you bought that copy, EULA or no EULA."
You do not purchase something, you liscense the use of it.
The above court decision would clearly disagree.
Don'y buy the propaganda. It doesn't matter how many 'education' campaigns are waged by software publishers, it doesn't change the fact that you are, in fact, purchasing an item and not a license.
Wrong. I bought the software in *exactly* the same way I buy a cd or a book. Unless there is a contract signed by both me and the publisher that somehow restricts my rights under copyright, I am under no obligation to obey anything at all in the EULA.
How hard is this to understand? I walk into a book store and buy the book. I go home and find that the book has a slip of paper on the inside cover that states something ridiculous like "By opening this book, you agree not to lend, sell, or talk about this book". I would laugh just as much about that as I do EULAs. They are a joke, and there have already been court cases where they have been found invalid.
I bought the software. I didn't sign any contract. I am perfectly free to do whatever is legal within copyright laws with that software, regardless of what any EULA says.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that TVs aren't something that people replace very often. I have three televisions in my house right now. One of them is 5 years old, and the other two are a lot older than that. I think one of them is even older than me. Just imagine the uproar that's going to happen when Granny can no longer watch Matlock. She's going to say "Spend how much on a new TV?!?" and start bitching at her congresscritters.
You seem to be equating the cost of energy with some monetary cost. Once you get a machine that can generate enough energy to produce another working copy of itself and continue to operate, you are getting energy for free from an economic standpoint. Sure, you might be 'paying' by using sunlight or fusion, but that won't necessarily cost you a dime.
Most musicians do not ever make enough to support themselves under the current system. One-hit-wonders have just about zero chance of breaking even, let alone making any money. Even somewhat large acts (like the Goo Goo Dolls), and huge acts (TLC) will often wind up completely screwed by the record companies. The current system doesn't do *anything* for anyone except the people who are leeching off of those who actually make the music. Removing the recording industry will not harm the majority of musicians in any way.
http://www.jmarshall.com/tools/cgiproxy/
I use it daily...
Stupid people get what they deserve. A smart person would not have stored hot coffee between her legs. If you ask someone to toss you a jar of nitroglycerine, you forfeit the right to complain when you blow your arms off.
Jeezus! Look at that first picture of him! He looks like an alien spawn is about to burst out of his forehead.
Please note that the word "privacy" is never used in the Fourth Amendment.
Doesn't matter. The government is what is restricted by the constitution, not individuals. The ninth amendment even spells out the fact that just because a right isn't listed doesn't mean that you don't have it.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
the Constitution of the United States was meant to only regulate the behavior of the Federal Government. Technically, not even the States are bound by it
Amendment 14
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Every state has to follow the laws as laid out in the Constitution of the US.
Or just use xmms and select 'save stream'. ;)
Actually, by using their product, you are under such an obligation.
Nope, I'm not.
Their product is created and provided with the explicit condition that you fulfill their monetary wishes.
Sucks to be them.
If you use their product, you are tacitly agreeing to that condition.
Anyone can make up any conditions they want. If they don't want it distributed, they shouldn't release it.
By pirating people are IN FACT denying this copyright holder USE of the product in exactly the manner they intended when they invested the many millions of dollars required for its production.
That's some seriously convoluted thinking there, bud. My copying or not copying a piece doesn't change anyone's ability to use anything. They can still do whatever their little hearts desire with it. I am under no obligation to fulfill their monetary wishes.
I agree with everything you said, except for removing all patents. Software type patents should go away, but patents in general are not bad things.
Yeah, and I bet his nose was accidentally burned off by a jar of acid.
Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day...
EVERY point lies on a line parallel to an axis
They don't all fall on the *same* line, though.
Exactly what has Mame done than Microsoft can force them to remove binaries from their site? Are they accused of distributing copyrighted works? What?
It is an appeal to a deity. What else do you need for a phrase to be a prayer?
The addition of "Under God" does transform the otherwise secular pledge of allegiance into a prayer. Why should it be allowed when other forms of prayer are clearly unconstitutional?
Do you have a source on this? Fair use is a part of US law, Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 107. I've never heard of it being established by judicial decision.
It was first established by
judicial decision, then later codified into law.
That's the problem - there was no legal contract. A legal contract is what you have to sign when you take out a loan for a house or car, or accept employment somewhere. Do you think there is a court anywhere that would uphold a 'click-throuh' agreement on a home loan? Of course not, because it's not a legal contract. If it isn't in that case, it isn't in the case of software, either.
Actually, they tried to do the same thing with books a long time ago. The courts smacked them down and came up with the concept of 'fair use', that means you are allowed to do anything within copyright law with a book (or any other piece of intellectual property) that you have bought. Software is no different than books. Unless you sign a legal contract that gives up some of your rights, an agreement that is forced upon you after you have paid for an item is not valid.
Natural processes cannot be patented. A CNC mill is not natural, so I don't see what point you are trying to make.
When you buy a book, you're not necessarily spending your hard earned dollars on the physical representation of what you buy. It doesn't cost $8 to produce a paperback. You own the cover, the spine, the pages but you do not own the story contained there within.
No, you are buying exactly one copy of not just the physical book, but the story contained within. The only thing that copyright gives anyone is the exclusive right to distribute copies of that work. That's it! It does not magically confer ownership of ideas to anyone.
You may sell your book under the doctrine of First Sale without having to pay royalties (or 'liscense fees' if you will) to the content owners, for that has already been paid once.
As can I sell or give away a copy of any piece of software I have legally purchased.
EULA's by themselves have been found legal, its parts in the EULA's that have not been legally tested.
Really?
"The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license," Judge Pregerson writes. If you put your money down and walked away with a CD, you bought that copy, EULA or no EULA."
You do not purchase something, you liscense the use of it.
The above court decision would clearly disagree.
Don'y buy the propaganda. It doesn't matter how many 'education' campaigns are waged by software publishers, it doesn't change the fact that you are, in fact, purchasing an item and not a license.
Wrong. I bought the software in *exactly* the same way I buy a cd or a book. Unless there is a contract signed by both me and the publisher that somehow restricts my rights under copyright, I am under no obligation to obey anything at all in the EULA.
How hard is this to understand? I walk into a book store and buy the book. I go home and find that the book has a slip of paper on the inside cover that states something ridiculous like "By opening this book, you agree not to lend, sell, or talk about this book". I would laugh just as much about that as I do EULAs. They are a joke, and there have already been court cases where they have been found invalid.
I bought the software. I didn't sign any contract. I am perfectly free to do whatever is legal within copyright laws with that software, regardless of what any EULA says.
Go back and do your homework, or, do a search for Göedel.
Sure, there are specific questions that a turing machine cannot answer, but there are exactly the same number that a human being cannot.