Pretty much all electronic music is still released on vinyl. As a matter of fact, there is quite a bit of material that can only be gotten in that format. I wouldn't have a clue as to the number of people employed by these companies...
No, but if Stephen King gives Person A permission to create a derivitive work of his book on the stipulation that Person A gives the rough draft for the chapter with every distribution, then Person B buys a copy of the book from Person A, first sale allows Person B to redistribute the book to Person C without giving the rough draft to him/her.
If I rip the copyright notice out of a book I buy and then resell it, that doesn't mean that the person I sold it to can then make as many copies as he likes. Person B above *only* has first sale rights, and so does person C. They still don't have the right to distribute a single copy that has added to the original. IOW, they can't pull out single pages and write a story around that page because it would be a derivitive work. Each person down the chain of first sales would have less than or equal to the information that the previous person had.
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights [...] to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. [emphasis mine]
And exactly how are you going to get caught making derivitive works unless you try to distribute them? I doubt anone would even care what you do with your personal copies as long as you don't start selling them or giving them away.
I just signed up for an automatic $10 a month payroll deduction to go straight to the EFF. My company will match 15% of whatever I put in, so I thought I might as well contribute to something that I actually care about.
What law are you relying on? Are you saying that this is contributory copyright infringement? Because there is no law restricting the redistribution of a derivitive work, only the preparation of a derivitive work.
You have that backwards. You can produce as many copies or derivitive works as you like and wouldn't be in violation of anything. It is only when you try and distribute something that you run into problems with the law.
The redistribution is only protected to the extent that it infringes on the original work.
If it infringes at all, you aren't allowed to redistribute.
Further the first sale doctrine allows the redistribution of a work without permission of the copyright holder. The anonymous author may have only licensed the derivitive work to you under the GPL, but that doesn't stop you from ignoring the GPL and invoking your rights under the first sale doctrine.
First sale doesn't give you any rights to make derivitive works, only to sell exactly what you have bought. If you haven't bought anything (say you downloaded a GPL program), you have no right to redistribute unless you follow the GPL. If you did buy something (say a CD containing GPL programs), you have the right to resell that cd.
You cannot buy a Stephen King book, add a chapter, and then sell a million copies.
I think it's clear that the GPL can easily be subverted from this example.
I think I'm missing it. How is the GPL being subverted? Nobody is using any GPL code in their proprietary product, and a GPL version of the library could be created if someone had an objection to paying for it.
The only thing stopping it these days is Linux's smaller marketshare.
What smaller marketshare? Check out the Netcraft survey if you don't believe me. I think better programming is the reason we aren't seeing any worms targetted at linux web servers.
No matter what, if Person C distributes the modified tax software, it has to be under the GPL.
Person D seems to be clear because the GPL software is making calls to his library. If it were the other way around (the binary module making calls to the GPL library), there would be a problem.
A third party who obtains a derivitive work does not have to agree to the GPL, and therefore can redistribute binaries without redistributing the derivitive work.
This is as dumb as saying that if someone gave me a pirated version on WinXP, I could distribute it freely because I wasn't the one who made the original copy. By distributing any derivitive work, you would still be in violation of the original copyright.
Thanks to the DMCA you can't touch the binary code. You have the right to source but the GPL does not explicity give you the right to reverse engineer the binary and the DMCA takes that right away.
Exactly which DMCA have you been reading? The one I've seen doesn't say a thing about touching binary code, only content protected by encryption. Even if it were covered under the DMCA, there is still a reasonable chance you could get off on the interoperability clause.
Shrink-wrap licenses aren't enforcable most places, so it really doesn't matter if you break their 'terms' as long as you aren't also breaking some other law.
It might be possible to port the whole thing to linux using the CrystalSpace 3d engine if they don't build everything too windows specific. If they GPL the thing, why not?
On the last Black Hole article on/., someone said that a hole can't eat up anything larger than its event horizon. This means that to suck in even an electron, it has to be at least a certain mass to add any new mass. I make no claims about its validity.
I'm not sure if that's true. Imagine the case where a normal star smashes into a black hole. The star is probably larger than the black hole's event horizon, but it is certainly going to be sucked in. What I'm not sure about is if this applies to particles like electrons.
The speed at whih a black hole decays is in proportion to its total mass. A black hole as tiny as the article is suggesting wouldn't last more that a trillionth of a second. It wouldn't have time to suck up anything.
When we determine exactly who is responsible for these attacks, instead of mobilizing our armed forces I suggest the following: A one hundred million dollar bounty on the head of the leader of the organization, and half a million for any verified members of the group. This would still be way cheaper than sending in the military, and wouldn't mean the loss of any more American lives.
A club bouncer keeping people out? How does libertarianism justify club bouncers physically removing pushy people?
If it's my club, I am justified in using force to keep unruly people in line with the rules I set down. If they don't like my rules, they can stay out.
Is smacking a child force? Is verbally abusing a child force?
All are force, but using force as a means to instruct your children can sometimes be necessary.
Is verbally abusing someone to the extent they commit suicide, force?
Restraining someone so that they have to listen to your abuse is certainly force.
Is stalking force?
Probably not.
Is drugging someone into a coma and then unlawfully imprisoning them without food or water (hence killing) force? Why?
Yes. You initiated force when you drugged them.
There is in point of fact no physical force involved, but it's still murder.
Of course. Do you have a point?
Is drug-raping someone force? Why, when consensual sex can involve more "force" than drug-rape?
I believe you missed the non-consensual part of the initiation of force that libertarians object to. Is graffitti force?
If it's not your property, yes.
Is littering force?
If it's not your property, yes.
Is tearing down a poster force?
If it's not your property, yes.
Is putting up advertising on someone else's property force?
Without their permission, yes.
Is trespass force?
Yes.
Is shooting at someone to get them off your property force?
Responding to someone else's initiation of force is the only valid reason libertarians see for using force.
Is pollution force?
Yes. If you pollute the environment of other people, they should be able to sue you because of it.
If I force you to breathe noxious fumes and you immediately die from them that's surely murder. But corporations get away with it by being separated in space and time, and being richer.
Why would you think libertarians love corporations?
Is noise pollution force? You can kill someone with sound if it's loud enough. At what point does sound become force? Injury? Deafness? Bleeding ears? Death?
Certainly any action which results in harm to another person without their consent is force. Noise pollution could be considered force, depending on where it occurs.
Is goatse.cx force?
Nope. A website's existence doesn't harm anyone.
Is shoving a printout of goatse.cx in someone's face force?
It could be.
What about if it was a child you were showing it to?
It could be.
How horrifying does a picture have to be before it's outrageous to show it to a child?
That's up to the child and his parents to decide.
What about scaring a child to death, or giving an old woman a fatal heart attack by pretending to be a ghost? Is that force?
Absolutely. If you intentionally, or unintentionally for that matter, cause harm to someone else, you should have consequences to face.
Is fraud force?
Certainly.
Is education force?
No. How can learning be considered force?
Is libertarianism force?
I can't imagine how.
Is saying "Those protestors need to stop whining and get their heads out of their asses" force ?
No. Expressing your views doesn't harm anyone.
Is saying "You are a know nothing fuckwit" force? Yes. Yes yes yes it is.
No, it isn't. Maybe they are a no-nothing fuckwit.
Force is much, much more complicated than libertarians will admit. If they admitted it they'd have to renounce libertarianism.
"Force" is only complicated if you try and make it so.
Wow. I just had to do this yesterday. I went in and bought a cheap microphone and was paying with cash and they asked for my address, and all I had to say way "I'd rather not...". They didn't seem to have a problem with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much all electronic music is still released on vinyl. As a matter of fact, there is quite a bit of material that can only be gotten in that format. I wouldn't have a clue as to the number of people employed by these companies...
Turns out it was a pretty easy fix, anyway. All I had to do was change my arch from K6-2 to i586.
If I rip the copyright notice out of a book I buy and then resell it, that doesn't mean that the person I sold it to can then make as many copies as he likes. Person B above *only* has first sale rights, and so does person C. They still don't have the right to distribute a single copy that has added to the original. IOW, they can't pull out single pages and write a story around that page because it would be a derivitive work. Each person down the chain of first sales would have less than or equal to the information that the previous person had.
And exactly how are you going to get caught making derivitive works unless you try to distribute them? I doubt anone would even care what you do with your personal copies as long as you don't start selling them or giving them away.
I just signed up for an automatic $10 a month payroll deduction to go straight to the EFF. My company will match 15% of whatever I put in, so I thought I might as well contribute to something that I actually care about.
You have that backwards. You can produce as many copies or derivitive works as you like and wouldn't be in violation of anything. It is only when you try and distribute something that you run into problems with the law.
If it infringes at all, you aren't allowed to redistribute.
First sale doesn't give you any rights to make derivitive works, only to sell exactly what you have bought. If you haven't bought anything (say you downloaded a GPL program), you have no right to redistribute unless you follow the GPL. If you did buy something (say a CD containing GPL programs), you have the right to resell that cd.
You cannot buy a Stephen King book, add a chapter, and then sell a million copies.
I think I'm missing it. How is the GPL being subverted? Nobody is using any GPL code in their proprietary product, and a GPL version of the library could be created if someone had an objection to paying for it.
Whee! Looks like I get to submit a bug report.
What smaller marketshare? Check out the Netcraft survey if you don't believe me. I think better programming is the reason we aren't seeing any worms targetted at linux web servers.
No matter what, if Person C distributes the modified tax software, it has to be under the GPL.
Person D seems to be clear because the GPL software is making calls to his library. If it were the other way around (the binary module making calls to the GPL library), there would be a problem.
No, that would be covered under the LGPL. *Any* work derived from something under the GPL must be placed under the GPL if it is distributed.
This is as dumb as saying that if someone gave me a pirated version on WinXP, I could distribute it freely because I wasn't the one who made the original copy. By distributing any derivitive work, you would still be in violation of the original copyright.
Exactly which DMCA have you been reading? The one I've seen doesn't say a thing about touching binary code, only content protected by encryption. Even if it were covered under the DMCA, there is still a reasonable chance you could get off on the interoperability clause.
Shrink-wrap licenses aren't enforcable most places, so it really doesn't matter if you break their 'terms' as long as you aren't also breaking some other law.
It might be possible to port the whole thing to linux using the CrystalSpace 3d engine if they don't build everything too windows specific. If they GPL the thing, why not?
Could someone please set up a shoutcast stream that just plays this list over and over, please?
I'm not sure if that's true. Imagine the case where a normal star smashes into a black hole. The star is probably larger than the black hole's event horizon, but it is certainly going to be sucked in. What I'm not sure about is if this applies to particles like electrons.
The speed at whih a black hole decays is in proportion to its total mass. A black hole as tiny as the article is suggesting wouldn't last more that a trillionth of a second. It wouldn't have time to suck up anything.
Just being pragmatic. Why not minimize both costs and lives lost?
My suggestion is just an alternative to sending troops in anywhere. If we can actually catch the people, put them on trial by all means.
When we determine exactly who is responsible for these attacks, instead of mobilizing our armed forces I suggest the following: A one hundred million dollar bounty on the head of the leader of the organization, and half a million for any verified members of the group. This would still be way cheaper than sending in the military, and wouldn't mean the loss of any more American lives.
They must've used strong encryption to hide their communications...
A club bouncer keeping people out? How does libertarianism justify club bouncers physically removing pushy people?
If it's my club, I am justified in using force to keep unruly people in line with the rules I set down. If they don't like my rules, they can stay out.
Is smacking a child force? Is verbally abusing a child force?
All are force, but using force as a means to instruct your children can sometimes be necessary.
Is verbally abusing someone to the extent they commit suicide, force?
Restraining someone so that they have to listen to your abuse is certainly force.
Is stalking force?
Probably not.
Is drugging someone into a coma and then unlawfully imprisoning them without food or water (hence killing) force? Why?
Yes. You initiated force when you drugged them.
There is in point of fact no physical force involved, but it's still murder.
Of course. Do you have a point?
Is drug-raping someone force? Why, when consensual sex can involve more "force" than drug-rape?
I believe you missed the non-consensual part of the initiation of force that libertarians object to.
Is graffitti force?
If it's not your property, yes.
Is littering force?
If it's not your property, yes.
Is tearing down a poster force?
If it's not your property, yes.
Is putting up advertising on someone else's property force?
Without their permission, yes.
Is trespass force?
Yes.
Is shooting at someone to get them off your property force?
Responding to someone else's initiation of force is the only valid reason libertarians see for using force.
Is pollution force?
Yes. If you pollute the environment of other people, they should be able to sue you because of it.
If I force you to breathe noxious fumes and you immediately die from them that's surely murder. But corporations get away with it by being separated in space and time, and being richer.
Why would you think libertarians love corporations?
Is noise pollution force? You can kill someone with sound if it's loud enough. At what point does sound become force? Injury? Deafness? Bleeding ears? Death?
Certainly any action which results in harm to another person without their consent is force. Noise pollution could be considered force, depending on where it occurs.
Is goatse.cx force?
Nope. A website's existence doesn't harm anyone.
Is shoving a printout of goatse.cx in someone's face force?
It could be.
What about if it was a child you were showing it to?
It could be.
How horrifying does a picture have to be before it's outrageous to show it to a child?
That's up to the child and his parents to decide.
What about scaring a child to death, or giving an old woman a fatal heart attack by pretending to be a ghost? Is that force?
Absolutely. If you intentionally, or unintentionally for that matter, cause harm to someone else, you should have consequences to face.
Is fraud force?
Certainly.
Is education force?
No. How can learning be considered force?
Is libertarianism force?
I can't imagine how.
Is saying "Those protestors need to stop whining and get their heads out of their asses" force ?
No. Expressing your views doesn't harm anyone.
Is saying "You are a know nothing fuckwit" force? Yes. Yes yes yes it is.
No, it isn't. Maybe they are a no-nothing fuckwit.
Force is much, much more complicated than libertarians will admit. If they admitted it they'd have to renounce libertarianism.
"Force" is only complicated if you try and make it so.
Wow. I just had to do this yesterday. I went in and bought a cheap microphone and was paying with cash and they asked for my address, and all I had to say way "I'd rather not...". They didn't seem to have a problem with that.
Acually, no. It was a regular old buy-it-at-the-store cd by a fairly famous country artist.