The reason that radio stations were regulated is because the airwaves are a public asset. When they accept pay for play, they are essentially becoming a giant commercial for the record companies.
You've got it backwards. Most people listen to the radio to find out what the biggest hits currently are. They don't think for themselves about whether a song is good or not. They just assume that if it's being played a lot, a lot of other people must like it and therefore it must be great. It just seems bizarre to me that the RIAA would be the ones complaining, since they are the ones who instigated the whole thing. Since they could not directly pay the stations for promoting certain songs, they came up with these middlemen to do it for them. Now the middlemen have more control than they like, so they decide to do something about it.
I remembered reading several of these articles in the past. Very informative about the whole situation. It's about time someone attempted to do something about it.
Re:Linux, GPL and Copyright
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
No, you're mistaken because those who take the code are not required to release the source. So what? You could still take the binary and hack it in any way you please, or even give a copy to everyone you know.
The GPL is not necessary at all with no copyright.
Don't know about in Canada, but only 2 states in the US even have laws that might make the enforcable. The rest of us can ignore them, because we bought the software and attempting to enforce restrictions made after the sale is almost comical.
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
IP law was developed to encourage innovation.
And do you think that is what it is currently doing? How innovative can you be when the basis for any new creative works are tied up in copyright for up to 150 years?
They tried the "non-scarcity based economy" in Eastern Europe for a while.
And what makes you think the 'artificial-scarcity based economy' would fare any better?
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
In fact, formulating IP as real property could actually sanitize things a great deal.
Personally, I would love being able to legally copy a cd as many times as I'd like and distribute to my friends if 'IP' were the exact same as regular property. After all, if I've bought it, it would become my property just as any other tangible item would.
Re:Linux, GPL and Copyright
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
The GPL would be unnecessary without copyright laws. If some company took your code and distributed it as their own, you could just as easily take whatever they packaged up and do the exact same thing.
Without copyright, all code is open. Nobody can keep you from using it in any way you like.
Re:Leveraging what business, exactly?
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
If I write a book that contains original content, or I record an album, you might still loosely call it information, but it is something created by me, and therefore it is mine to dispose of as I see fit.
Ok, if you are going to call it property, let's treat is exactly the same as any other peoperty. The moment you sell it or give it to someone else, it is no longer your property. That's right. Just as when Ford sells me a car, they can no longer tell me what to do with it, when you sell me some music, it is no longer yours. Once an idea has left your head, you are no more in control of it than you are the wind.
Just the same as if you built a log cabin in the woods. You would want to feel entitled to live there, and to defend it against anyone who wanted to steal it from you.
I wouldn't mind one bit if someone came and made an exact copy of my cabin. What have I lost in the transaction? That is what we are talking about - copying. Not stealing.
Re:Decrease length of time copyright applies
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
Literary works, music and other purely creative works should at least receive protection for the life of the creator or 50 years, whichever comes last. Why should you be able to make money on a work that you created more than 10 years ago? What is the benefit to society (which is the primary purpose of copyright) in allowing you to be the sole benefactor of creating a work for such a long period of time?
Remember, the constitution doesn't require the existence of copyright.
Creativity is just about always based on things that have gone before. When you stifle access to creative works by others who produce creative works (as the example in the interview about rap music), you lower the total overall creativity of society.
This article is just one example of how the judicial system views EULAs.
Quoting the judge:
"... the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the 'license.' The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license."
Think about it. The EULA is what gives the SBA the right to "audit" companies.
No, what gives them that right is a signed contract with those companies. If your company buys all of its software off the shelf, you don't have to allow anyone to audit your software. Unless they can produce a signed contract stating that they have that right, they *don't* have that right.
The day the BSA comes sniffing around my business is the day they have the door slammed in their face.
Software and books are radically different as far as licensing goes. You too are falling for the same marketing as the previous poster. You buy a piece of software in *exactly* the same way as you buy a book. You aren't buying a license or anything else - you are buying one instance of that intellectual property, and can do with it whatever you like, within the bounds of copyright law. If software was "licensed" like books were then you could buy one copy of a piece of software and install it wherever you wanted. You can. You have the same rights with your software as you would making a copy of a book for your own use. How about MS's OEM license terms? (Copy of Windows licensed to only the original piece of hardware that it came on.) How about it? Unless I signed a contract stating that I wouldn't copy it to another PC, I have nothing to fear. Don't ever mistake a software license for what you get when you buy a book. And what is your opinion based upon?
You have been misled. When you buy a piece of software, you are making the exact same transaction as you are when you buy a book. No book publisher would ever try to tell me that I can't write in the pages of their books. Nor would they be able to tell me that I cannot create any device that works with one of their books (say a book-reading device). As long as I'm not giving out copies of their work, they have no say at all about what I do with a book I've bought.
You have paid for it, therefore you are free to do whatever you want with it within the bounds of copyright law. If you want to write a replacement for some service that they would like you to use, there is nothing, legally or morally, stopping you from doing so.
Don't try to take control from Blizzard by letting people use their client with your server.
The problem is that blizzard doesn't have control to begin with. Once that piece of software is bought and paid for, they have no control over what you do with it. If I want to alter that program in any way I like, I am free to do so as long as I'm not distributing copies.
Blizzard sees it necessary for keeping their business to have that control exclusive to them, and you may not like it, or agree with it, but you need to respect it.
No you don't. Just because some company wants something doesn't mean I have to do anything to make sure it happens.
Well, that totally depends on the agreement they worked out beforehand. If the client wants it bad enough, you can usually convince them to do anything - unless they are trying to sell the code, of course.
Wrong again. When you buy a book, you do own one single copy of that work, not just the physical medium that contains the work. You are fairly restricted by copyright law as to what you can do with it, but it is yours. As the poster below pointed out, booksellers did try to place restrictions on what could be done with their sold works, but were slapped down by the courts.
The software has no more or fewer rights than I do. I am no more under any obligation to accept their terms after a sale than they are to accept mine. They might really want to have the terms of their agreement apply to me, but I paid my money without agreeing to anything.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason that radio stations were regulated is because the airwaves are a public asset. When they accept pay for play, they are essentially becoming a giant commercial for the record companies.
You've got it backwards. Most people listen to the radio to find out what the biggest hits currently are. They don't think for themselves about whether a song is good or not. They just assume that if it's being played a lot, a lot of other people must like it and therefore it must be great. It just seems bizarre to me that the RIAA would be the ones complaining, since they are the ones who instigated the whole thing. Since they could not directly pay the stations for promoting certain songs, they came up with these middlemen to do it for them. Now the middlemen have more control than they like, so they decide to do something about it.
I remembered reading several of these articles in the past. Very informative about the whole situation. It's about time someone attempted to do something about it.
No, you're mistaken because those who take the code are not required to release the source.
So what? You could still take the binary and hack it in any way you please, or even give a copy to everyone you know.
The GPL is not necessary at all with no copyright.
Don't know about in Canada, but only 2 states in the US even have laws that might make the enforcable. The rest of us can ignore them, because we bought the software and attempting to enforce restrictions made after the sale is almost comical.
EULAs are non-enforcable, so sell away!
IP law was developed to encourage innovation.
And do you think that is what it is currently doing? How innovative can you be when the basis for any new creative works are tied up in copyright for up to 150 years?
They tried the "non-scarcity based economy" in Eastern Europe for a while.
And what makes you think the 'artificial-scarcity based economy' would fare any better?
In fact, formulating IP as real property could actually sanitize things a great deal.
Personally, I would love being able to legally copy a cd as many times as I'd like and distribute to my friends if 'IP' were the exact same as regular property. After all, if I've bought it, it would become my property just as any other tangible item would.
The GPL would be unnecessary without copyright laws. If some company took your code and distributed it as their own, you could just as easily take whatever they packaged up and do the exact same thing.
Without copyright, all code is open. Nobody can keep you from using it in any way you like.
If I write a book that contains original content, or I record an album, you might still loosely call it information, but it is something created by me, and therefore it is mine to dispose of as I see fit.
Ok, if you are going to call it property, let's treat is exactly the same as any other peoperty. The moment you sell it or give it to someone else, it is no longer your property. That's right. Just as when Ford sells me a car, they can no longer tell me what to do with it, when you sell me some music, it is no longer yours. Once an idea has left your head, you are no more in control of it than you are the wind.
Just the same as if you built a log cabin in the woods. You would want to feel entitled to live there, and to defend it against anyone who wanted to steal it from you.
I wouldn't mind one bit if someone came and made an exact copy of my cabin. What have I lost in the transaction? That is what we are talking about - copying. Not stealing.
Literary works, music and other purely creative works should at least receive protection for the life of the creator or 50 years, whichever comes last.
Why should you be able to make money on a work that you created more than 10 years ago? What is the benefit to society (which is the primary purpose of copyright) in allowing you to be the sole benefactor of creating a work for such a long period of time?
Remember, the constitution doesn't require the existence of copyright.
most of these people took years just to "learn" Windows, Linux (or whatever) is going to be a nightmare for them.
Yeah, instead of pointing and clicking on windows, they might have to learn how to point and click on linux. What a nightmare.
Creativity is just about always based on things that have gone before. When you stifle access to creative works by others who produce creative works (as the example in the interview about rap music), you lower the total overall creativity of society.
Hmm. Link didn't go through.
m l
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23073.ht
This article is just one example of how the judicial system views EULAs.
Quoting the judge:
"... the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the 'license.' The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license."
Think about it. The EULA is what gives the SBA the right to "audit" companies.
No, what gives them that right is a signed contract with those companies. If your company buys all of its software off the shelf, you don't have to allow anyone to audit your software. Unless they can produce a signed contract stating that they have that right, they *don't* have that right.
The day the BSA comes sniffing around my business is the day they have the door slammed in their face.
Software and books are radically different as far as licensing goes.
You too are falling for the same marketing as the previous poster. You buy a piece of software in *exactly* the same way as you buy a book. You aren't buying a license or anything else - you are buying one instance of that intellectual property, and can do with it whatever you like, within the bounds of copyright law.
If software was "licensed" like books were then you could buy one copy of a piece of software and install it wherever you wanted.
You can. You have the same rights with your software as you would making a copy of a book for your own use.
How about MS's OEM license terms? (Copy of Windows licensed to only the original piece of hardware that it came on.)
How about it? Unless I signed a contract stating that I wouldn't copy it to another PC, I have nothing to fear.
Don't ever mistake a software license for what you get when you buy a book.
And what is your opinion based upon?
You have been misled. When you buy a piece of software, you are making the exact same transaction as you are when you buy a book. No book publisher would ever try to tell me that I can't write in the pages of their books. Nor would they be able to tell me that I cannot create any device that works with one of their books (say a book-reading device). As long as I'm not giving out copies of their work, they have no say at all about what I do with a book I've bought.
You have paid for it, therefore you are free to do whatever you want with it within the bounds of copyright law. If you want to write a replacement for some service that they would like you to use, there is nothing, legally or morally, stopping you from doing so.
Don't try to take control from Blizzard by letting people use their client with your server.
The problem is that blizzard doesn't have control to begin with. Once that piece of software is bought and paid for, they have no control over what you do with it. If I want to alter that program in any way I like, I am free to do so as long as I'm not distributing copies.
Blizzard sees it necessary for keeping their business to have that control exclusive to them, and you may not like it, or agree with it, but you need to respect it.
No you don't. Just because some company wants something doesn't mean I have to do anything to make sure it happens.
Well, that totally depends on the agreement they worked out beforehand. If the client wants it bad enough, you can usually convince them to do anything - unless they are trying to sell the code, of course.
...committing suicide by turning himself into the famed Arkham Asylum
I knew Batman was powerful, but I had no idea that he could transmute into works of architecture!
Start listening to electronic music. You can usually get 8-10 hours of music at a show for $20.
Yes, writing music *IS* fun (or can be), but to think that people make music just for the "joy" of it is ridiculous.
Yeah. Just as ridiculous as the idea that people would write code just for the "joy" of it...
How are you deprived of the right of first sale by the GPL? If you buy a redhat cd full of GPL software, you are still permitted to sell that cd.
Wrong again. When you buy a book, you do own one single copy of that work, not just the physical medium that contains the work. You are fairly restricted by copyright law as to what you can do with it, but it is yours. As the poster below pointed out, booksellers did try to place restrictions on what could be done with their sold works, but were slapped down by the courts.
The software has no more or fewer rights than I do. I am no more under any obligation to accept their terms after a sale than they are to accept mine. They might really want to have the terms of their agreement apply to me, but I paid my money without agreeing to anything.