If enough people simply refuse to fly, the airlines will go belly up, or they will lobby to remove the TSA. Though, the private thugs they replace them with probably won't be any better.
Just some food for thought:
Nationalization of airlines is just another step towards totalitarianism. Control the travel, control the people. The airlines are cheap when they're bankrupt -- watch for a consolidation in the airline industry, then the government to take stake in what's left over.
In a competition between lobbyists of the military industrial complex and those of the airline industry, who do you think would come out on top?
So refusing to fly will ironically starve the airline industry of the funds necessary to combat the entrenched security apparatus. You would be better with a rich airline industry, whose incentive is to make flying easy, fast, safe and cheap.
The thing to do may be to fly, and fly often. A rich airline industry will want to seek to increase its profits, and will see reducing security costs as a way to do that. A poor airline industry will seek bailouts, shelter and favour from the government (such as the granting of rights to overseas routes); these shall come with strings attached.
As a historical anecdote, there is a pattern of economic sanctions imposed by the UN entrenching incumbent demagogues, such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It starves the population and deprives them of the wealth necessary to form and fund an opposition. Perhaps the airline industry in this context is somewhat analogous.
Not to make conclusions - the relationship between airlines and the TSA is at best complex. However, I am confident that stymying the great and growing divide between fundamental rights and the TSA is not as simple as ceasing to fly, and it may actually be a counter-productive.
They are searches without judicial oversight, and prior restraints on free speech. In violation of amendments 4 and 1.
I am fairly certain the impugned rights are from the 5th and 14th Constitutional Amendments, and in particular the Due Process Clause.
The problem is that the State is issuing orders that affect the rights of individuals, without any opportunity for those individuals to participate or respond in the process giving rise to the order.
There does not appear to be any restraint on speech on these facts.
They are companies that take other people's money and use it to earn interest for themselves by lending it out at higher rates of interest than they pay to their customers.
Actually, under the fractional reserve system they use taxpayer money via the overnight lending system. Customer money is really a reserve to cover "catastrophe", but accounts for a fraction of the money lent by most banks. For example, when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt it was borrowing around $75 every day from the Federal Reserve for every dollar that it held in reserve.
This is analogous to hedge funding, but instead of being built upon discretionary lending of private lenders, it is mandatory lending by the public coffers, purportedly to create an adequate money supply.
Property rights can be lost through e.g. laches, limitations periods, and adverse possession. If you do not pay your property taxes, eventually the municipality will take possession of the property and sell it. While not strictly expiration, one cannot separate the relationship between land and recurring taxes, since that is how land "ownership" evolved.
As a matter of interest, if you are in a commonwealth or former commonwealth country then you almost certainly draw land-ownership rights as a "fee simple" (aka freehold). Fee simple is a form of license granting the right to exclusive use of the land by the sovereign, which right is granted in exchange for payment of taxes. In the commonwealth countries the sovereign is the Queen, and in the US the Queen has been replaced by the "People". The Queen owns all land within her territory because she answers only to god (i.e. is a sovereign), and the rights of subjects to the use of land within the commonwealth are derived from this hierarchy of god, sovereign, landholder.
Practically speaking, being a sovereign - since the Peace of Westphalia anyway - means having an unchallenged exclusive statehood recognized by state peers (e.g. at the UN, or by the world's postal system, etc). Boundaries may fluctuate according to the resolution of disputes by force or agreement or certain accepted rules (e.g. the Law of the Sea), but the essentially autonomous governance remains over the areas remaining under the state's control. Within those areas property ownership typically flourishes. Outside those areas, it is a murky prospect - try delving into the law of treasure salvaging in the deep ocean.
The registration systems for each jurisdiction have changed, but the fundamental relationship of land ownership to government remains effectively unchanged.
Unless you live in the bayou or Sealand, the numbers in the computer that give you an exclusive right to enjoyment over certain areas of land are subject to the governing laws of the land. If you do not meet the requirements set out under that law, then your rights to the land will be extinguished.
Even supposing a complete legal enjoyment to land, it remains subject to change and destruction by nature. And in any case, when you die you cannot take it with you.
This is the legal fiction of land ownership. Unless you circumvent your sovereign and talk to god directly, it is a fiction imposed by the laws of the land. Literally.
As a lawyer who has acted on behalf of several individuals with property disputes, I can assure you that land ownership is neither more or less fiction than copyright ownership. They are all rights derived from the law.
It's not property and never really was. So all of these arguments about devaluing music or not paying for it are all entirely bogus.
Some food for thought: All property is a legal fiction.
It just so happens that most property is tangible. Copyright is intangible, but the legal fiction of property as it applies to qualifying artistic works is no different than the legal fiction of home ownership, stock ownership or life insurance ownership. All these forms of property are granted by legislation.
Whether copyright in its present form is morally objectionable or adequately serves the social utility for which it was created is another question. Given the mortgage crisis, one could entertain the same question about home ownership.
In this context "monetize" means transforming the content demand into something that can be resold -- viewer eyeballs are resold to advertisers, thus ad-supported media is "monetized." Youtube is "monetized," Louis CK's videos aren't "monetized" yet but if they continued to move like the first one did it's a possibility, as advertisers see the videos as a useful way to piggyback their messages.
What is the difference between monetization in this context and Broadcast Syndication?
Or is the addition of advertisements more of an exclusive license with value added (via advertisements) reselling?
Go back and read about the NTP settlement. RIM was brutalized in a way that's hard to compare. And those fat margins? Every penny went to paying the patent troll under the bridge so they could take their phones to market.
NTP offered to settle in the millions of dollars initially. RIM mislead the Court about prior-art in an effort to invalidate NTP's patent. They got caught, and the Judge awarded punitive damages that were a multiple of the infringement damages, if I recall correctly.
It is misleading to say that every penny went to a patent troll. RIM today still makes several billion dollars a year, and since 2006 they had significant profits. The NTP settlement was around $613 million.
Why wouldn't a 117(a)(1) defense be easy to argue in summary judgment?
If you had a license or proof of purchase, it ought to be straightforward to succeed whether in summary judgment or another method for a determination on the merits.
Practically speaking, a proceeding is unlikely to get to any summary judgment as on the presentation of proof of a licence a plaintiff/copyright holder will likely dismiss its claims.
Are you familiar with the Best Western case? This logo is not copyrighted because this letter from the Copyright Office says it isn't.
I am not familiar with this case. I understand the USCO to have jurisdiction to determine the suitability of works for copyright protection. I recall their decisions being subject to review by the federal courts.
Incidentally, I agree with the decision of the USCO in this case, though not for their reasons (I take no opinion on their reasons, as I have at best cursory experience in this sort of "copyright prosecution"). From a social policy perspective, I believe the BW logo is properly protected as a trademark, and at the same time the objective of copyright is not met by granting copyright protections to the logo.
I wonder what BW hoped to achieve with copyright protections, given that it already has trademark protections. Perhaps they would use it to demand licensing fees from web-sites that have listings with their logo?
I have a point that you may find interesting or illuminating.
You are likely copying software when you install it
This sort of copying is not an infringement under United States law, 17 USC 117(a)(1):
Copying without permission is infringement. However, one is not liable for infringement where (1) you have permission to make the copy through a license of the copyright holder, or (2) alternatively through exception set out in 17 USC 117(a)(1).
There is an implied license upon purchase of software, essentially an implied warranty for fitness of purpose. I believe 17 USC 117(a)(1) is a statutory codification of that sort of implied license.
By installing software, there is a prima facie case of infringement. However, it is a complete defence to have a license permitting the installation, or alternatively the copying falls under a statutory exemption such as 17 USC 117(a)(1).
The shift in onus is an important practical consideration, and the distinction is helpful to understanding how our legal system operates. This is why organizations such as the BSA can make accusations of infringement and require proof of licensing compliance. The burden is not on the BSA to prove that infringement exists - the case for that is in the installation; the onus is on the accused to prove they have a license.
As a lawyer I have argued copyright law as it relates to software, including in federal court. However that was a decade ago; some things have changed, and I always appreciate illumination. Recent issues around intellectual property for fonts I am unfamiliar with, but interested in.
Of course, none of the above is legal advice - seek legal counsel for advice on any particular situation.
2. permission to use the software in spite of copyright and patent protections is unnecessary.
Nonsense. You have fixed nothing, and completely misconstrued the law.
Software is a literary work under Section 101 of the USC. Case law has held that the code, audio and visual work of software is protected by copyright.
Customers are liable for operations that violate the patent. Users have generally been saved by the impracticality of such litigation. For example, Apple has sued Samsung for the patent violations of the Android software that was developed by Google.
As for Title 17 s. 117, that relates to copying necessary to use the software, archival backups, subleasing (with permission), and temporary copies for maintenance. Suggest you re-read. It is here:
17 U.S.C. s. 117 : US Code - Section 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. (b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. - Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner. (c) Machine Maintenance or Repair. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if - (1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and (2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine. (d) Definitions. - For purposes of this section - (1) the "maintenance" of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and (2) the "repair" of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.
You are not copying the book by buying it. The copy was made by the publisher, which has a license from the copyright holder to make said copy (or is violating copyrights).
You are likely copying software when you install it but that being said, we do not have strong and clear relationship for lawful use of software. We have instead pigeonholed the issues into traditional copyright, patent, service and license agreements. The results have been ugly at times, but I would not now describe them as murky - with the exception of fonts I do not see much issue around software use and online service rights.
GoodOldGames is a great site and example. I would expect a Court to call the entitlement upon purchase to download the games a license to copy. As a matter of policy, it is against the economic interest of this site, which provides service considered useful, to prohibit subsequent sharing of these games as if they were effectively in the public domain. Since it is not a stretch for copyright to apply, and it is useful to do so in cases such as this, it probably will be deemed to apply (or so the argument goes, though with some variation, throughout the common law).
The legal question has typically been whether the software is a "work" to which copyright law applies. There are weird edge cases, such whether fonts can be copyrighted or protected by some other intellectual property. I do not believe this to be an issue now (though, of course, I always stand to be corrected).
As a matter of interest, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., defines the relevant terms as:
Good: 1. Tangible or movable personal property other than money; esp., articles of trade or items of merchandise....
Service:... 3. The act of doing something useful for a person or company for a fee....
License: 1. A revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful;...
In the case of a software game:
1. the box, CD, manual etc., is a good; 2. permission to use the software in spite of copyright and patent protections is a license; and 3. the interactive online access is a service.
UNIX is nowhere near old enough to have had its copyright expire yet. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that SCO doesn't own the copyright.
Expiration of copyright and statute of limitations are separate issues.
Copying of a work after the copyrights expire does not constitute copyright infringement.
If infringement has occurred, one must bring a claim before the statute of limitations expires.
Expiration of copyright is somewhere in the order of 80 years or so, depending on where you are. The typical statute of limitations is usually between 1 and 6 years, depending on the claim and the jurisdiction.
IAAL, but this is not legal advice. Please seek legal counsel for advice on any specific issues.
Statute of limitations, and its equitable cousin laches, prevent one from bringing claims after a certain period of time eg 2 years after an incident. SCO brought the claim within the appropriate time frame, and in any case they allege the infringement is ongoing (and so the only issue related to statute of limitations is how far back damages can be calculated - usually two or so years before the claim was issued).
There are other doctrines that may apply during and after a proceeding. For example res judicata (the civil/tort equivalent of what we call 'double jeopardy' in a criminal context, which prevents re-hearing a claim that has been determined already on the merits in an ongoing or previous proceeding) or its related (sometimes included) cousin collateral estoppel (prevents re-hearing an issue that has been determined in an ongoing, previous or parallel proceeding).
I do not know the facts of this case well enough to comment, but the above are the legal concepts that prevent re-hearing of issues that have already been decided (IAAL; this is not legal advice, and please seek out a lawyer for advice). I expect these issues are more likely to apply than statute of limitations.
The only "bad" social movement that I can think of in US history attributed to Christians would be the Temperance movement that eventually led to Prohibition. Obviously that didn't last. Everything else has been positive, often overwhelmingly so.
Sir –
With all due respect, and perhaps I have misread, but this statement is utter nonsense. To take this statement at face value one must ignore the following Christian influences in the USA:
- Anti-gay ("God hates fags") - Pro-war (eg putting religious quotes on top of war briefs being given to George Bush) - The violent anti-abortion movements - The inherent racism of Christian fellowships such as the Klu Klux Klan - The rounding of "Pi" to 3, denial of evolution, anathema of intelligence, and other assorted absurdities
That is off the top of my head. The list is practically endless thanks to the magical thinking a society as wealthy as the US can tolerate. US politicians run on campaigns of anti-gay, etc., so as to distract from their real objectives: to advance the political and economic gain of the rich at the expense of the poor.
If you do not consider the plethora of hatred, assaults, murders, invasions, brainwashing, the denial of irrefutable facts, and the destruction of society's capacity to understand and contribute to the advancement of human society to be "bad", then perhaps the Temperance movement is the only "bad" movement in the U.S. that can be attributed to Christians. I suggest it's probably the least noteworthy.
Religious thought negatively impacts economic growth, civil rights, critical thinking, scientific progress, human rights, and fundamental freedoms. It is a form of brainwashing supported by baseless fear-mongering and propaganda, masquerading as a social utility. Abolition, suffrage, and civil rights movements succeeded not because they were born of Christians but because they encouraged people to think and empathize. These three examples are stark contrast to the populist thought in the US now.
The people who make your world better, the educated engineers, civil rights activists, professors, are predominantly skeptical of Christianity. They are not driven by hate like the throng of evil-mongering zealots because they are busy making actual contributions to society.
So what is just so horrifying about a country founded and heavily influenced by a group of people who want us all to be free with equal rights?
This is not a horrifying concept, but it also has nothing to do with religious influence in the USA. Religious influence in the USA takes the form of a pestilence.
The founding fathers of the United States were, if anything, extraordinarily skeptical of the value of Christianity. With good reason: they were conscious of the evils inherent to religious movements.
Tea Party types like myself HATE HATE HATE SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. We see them for what they are: power grabs by BOTH the MPAA/RIAA et all AND the government. As a generally conservative/libertarian group of people, we want LESS government intrusion and regulation of our lives. Not more.
So the Tea Party HAMMERED the GOP over this one and unlike the Dems, the GOP LISTENED and responded in the way the people wanted.
Just curious: Do you prefer the word "poaching" in the following sense: âoetake or acquire in an unfair or clandestine wayâ to describe those in a parasitic relationship with Wikipedia (i.e. those who take its content to create link-farms)?
Those fabulous steps to Draconian governance from Western-style democracies are:
1. Establish a basis for circumventing human rights (eg "terrorism" or "piracy" or "national security", etc.);
2. Imbue state systems with financial gain from said basis (eg prison industrial complex, military industrial complex, etc.);
3. Have said systems lobby for increased funding and authority, encroaching on traditional authorities (eg policing, prosecutors, media, voting systems, etc);
4. Expand the application of the basis for circumventing human rights to other areas (eg immigration, child pornography, copyright violations, any other interests with lobbyists);
5. Enact laws that undermine the financing of political dissension, and undermine systems that may allow any discourse critical of the established government;
6. Engage in mass human rights violations, ghettoization, prison labour; State ignores human rights, imprisons or executes dissenters and acts with impunity and disregard for reason;
7. The state becomes a vehicle for despots supported by demagoguery. Non tenet anguillam, per caudam qui tenet illam.
Slashdot Mirror
Drones are more likely to be launched from carriers than they are to replace carriers.
Open question: Would the carrier need people on it if pilots were not necessary?
But how can you be sure?
There's only one way.
Nuke it from orbit?
StackExchange's Skeptics site has some related calculations for United Airlines that may be illuminating.
I prefer to undermine my arguments in an ethical manner.
That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Just some food for thought:
Nationalization of airlines is just another step towards totalitarianism. Control the travel, control the people. The airlines are cheap when they're bankrupt -- watch for a consolidation in the airline industry, then the government to take stake in what's left over.
In a competition between lobbyists of the military industrial complex and those of the airline industry, who do you think would come out on top?
So refusing to fly will ironically starve the airline industry of the funds necessary to combat the entrenched security apparatus. You would be better with a rich airline industry, whose incentive is to make flying easy, fast, safe and cheap.
The thing to do may be to fly, and fly often. A rich airline industry will want to seek to increase its profits, and will see reducing security costs as a way to do that. A poor airline industry will seek bailouts, shelter and favour from the government (such as the granting of rights to overseas routes); these shall come with strings attached.
As a historical anecdote, there is a pattern of economic sanctions imposed by the UN entrenching incumbent demagogues, such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It starves the population and deprives them of the wealth necessary to form and fund an opposition. Perhaps the airline industry in this context is somewhat analogous.
Not to make conclusions - the relationship between airlines and the TSA is at best complex. However, I am confident that stymying the great and growing divide between fundamental rights and the TSA is not as simple as ceasing to fly, and it may actually be a counter-productive.
They are searches without judicial oversight, and prior restraints on free speech. In violation of amendments 4 and 1.
I am fairly certain the impugned rights are from the 5th and 14th Constitutional Amendments, and in particular the Due Process Clause.
The problem is that the State is issuing orders that affect the rights of individuals, without any opportunity for those individuals to participate or respond in the process giving rise to the order.
There does not appear to be any restraint on speech on these facts.
They are companies that take other people's money and use it to earn interest for themselves by lending it out at higher rates of interest than they pay to their customers.
Actually, under the fractional reserve system they use taxpayer money via the overnight lending system. Customer money is really a reserve to cover "catastrophe", but accounts for a fraction of the money lent by most banks. For example, when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt it was borrowing around $75 every day from the Federal Reserve for every dollar that it held in reserve.
This is analogous to hedge funding, but instead of being built upon discretionary lending of private lenders, it is mandatory lending by the public coffers, purportedly to create an adequate money supply.
Copyrights expire.
Property doesn't.
Nonsense.
Property rights can be lost through e.g. laches, limitations periods, and adverse possession. If you do not pay your property taxes, eventually the municipality will take possession of the property and sell it. While not strictly expiration, one cannot separate the relationship between land and recurring taxes, since that is how land "ownership" evolved.
As a matter of interest, if you are in a commonwealth or former commonwealth country then you almost certainly draw land-ownership rights as a "fee simple" (aka freehold). Fee simple is a form of license granting the right to exclusive use of the land by the sovereign, which right is granted in exchange for payment of taxes. In the commonwealth countries the sovereign is the Queen, and in the US the Queen has been replaced by the "People". The Queen owns all land within her territory because she answers only to god (i.e. is a sovereign), and the rights of subjects to the use of land within the commonwealth are derived from this hierarchy of god, sovereign, landholder.
Practically speaking, being a sovereign - since the Peace of Westphalia anyway - means having an unchallenged exclusive statehood recognized by state peers (e.g. at the UN, or by the world's postal system, etc). Boundaries may fluctuate according to the resolution of disputes by force or agreement or certain accepted rules (e.g. the Law of the Sea), but the essentially autonomous governance remains over the areas remaining under the state's control. Within those areas property ownership typically flourishes. Outside those areas, it is a murky prospect - try delving into the law of treasure salvaging in the deep ocean.
The registration systems for each jurisdiction have changed, but the fundamental relationship of land ownership to government remains effectively unchanged.
Unless you live in the bayou or Sealand, the numbers in the computer that give you an exclusive right to enjoyment over certain areas of land are subject to the governing laws of the land. If you do not meet the requirements set out under that law, then your rights to the land will be extinguished.
Even supposing a complete legal enjoyment to land, it remains subject to change and destruction by nature. And in any case, when you die you cannot take it with you.
This is the legal fiction of land ownership. Unless you circumvent your sovereign and talk to god directly, it is a fiction imposed by the laws of the land. Literally.
As a lawyer who has acted on behalf of several individuals with property disputes, I can assure you that land ownership is neither more or less fiction than copyright ownership. They are all rights derived from the law.
It's not property and never really was. So all of these arguments about devaluing music or not paying for it are all entirely bogus.
Some food for thought: All property is a legal fiction.
It just so happens that most property is tangible. Copyright is intangible, but the legal fiction of property as it applies to qualifying artistic works is no different than the legal fiction of home ownership, stock ownership or life insurance ownership. All these forms of property are granted by legislation.
Whether copyright in its present form is morally objectionable or adequately serves the social utility for which it was created is another question. Given the mortgage crisis, one could entertain the same question about home ownership.
In this context "monetize" means transforming the content demand into something that can be resold -- viewer eyeballs are resold to advertisers, thus ad-supported media is "monetized." Youtube is "monetized," Louis CK's videos aren't "monetized" yet but if they continued to move like the first one did it's a possibility, as advertisers see the videos as a useful way to piggyback their messages.
What is the difference between monetization in this context and Broadcast Syndication?
Or is the addition of advertisements more of an exclusive license with value added (via advertisements) reselling?
Go back and read about the NTP settlement. RIM was brutalized in a way that's hard to compare. And those fat margins? Every penny went to paying the patent troll under the bridge so they could take their phones to market.
NTP offered to settle in the millions of dollars initially. RIM mislead the Court about prior-art in an effort to invalidate NTP's patent. They got caught, and the Judge awarded punitive damages that were a multiple of the infringement damages, if I recall correctly.
It is misleading to say that every penny went to a patent troll. RIM today still makes several billion dollars a year, and since 2006 they had significant profits. The NTP settlement was around $613 million.
Why wouldn't a 117(a)(1) defense be easy to argue in summary judgment?
If you had a license or proof of purchase, it ought to be straightforward to succeed whether in summary judgment or another method for a determination on the merits.
Practically speaking, a proceeding is unlikely to get to any summary judgment as on the presentation of proof of a licence a plaintiff/copyright holder will likely dismiss its claims.
Are you familiar with the Best Western case? This logo is not copyrighted because this letter from the Copyright Office says it isn't.
I am not familiar with this case. I understand the USCO to have jurisdiction to determine the suitability of works for copyright protection. I recall their decisions being subject to review by the federal courts.
Incidentally, I agree with the decision of the USCO in this case, though not for their reasons (I take no opinion on their reasons, as I have at best cursory experience in this sort of "copyright prosecution"). From a social policy perspective, I believe the BW logo is properly protected as a trademark, and at the same time the objective of copyright is not met by granting copyright protections to the logo.
I wonder what BW hoped to achieve with copyright protections, given that it already has trademark protections. Perhaps they would use it to demand licensing fees from web-sites that have listings with their logo?
I have a point that you may find interesting or illuminating.
You are likely copying software when you install it
This sort of copying is not an infringement under United States law, 17 USC 117(a)(1):
Copying without permission is infringement. However, one is not liable for infringement where (1) you have permission to make the copy through a license of the copyright holder, or (2) alternatively through exception set out in 17 USC 117(a)(1).
There is an implied license upon purchase of software, essentially an implied warranty for fitness of purpose. I believe 17 USC 117(a)(1) is a statutory codification of that sort of implied license.
By installing software, there is a prima facie case of infringement. However, it is a complete defence to have a license permitting the installation, or alternatively the copying falls under a statutory exemption such as 17 USC 117(a)(1).
The shift in onus is an important practical consideration, and the distinction is helpful to understanding how our legal system operates. This is why organizations such as the BSA can make accusations of infringement and require proof of licensing compliance. The burden is not on the BSA to prove that infringement exists - the case for that is in the installation; the onus is on the accused to prove they have a license.
As a lawyer I have argued copyright law as it relates to software, including in federal court. However that was a decade ago; some things have changed, and I always appreciate illumination. Recent issues around intellectual property for fonts I am unfamiliar with, but interested in.
Of course, none of the above is legal advice - seek legal counsel for advice on any particular situation.
I hope the above is interesting or helpful.
Assuming US law, let me fix that for you:
2. permission to use the software in spite of copyright and patent protections is unnecessary.
Nonsense. You have fixed nothing, and completely misconstrued the law.
Software is a literary work under Section 101 of the USC. Case law has held that the code, audio and visual work of software is protected by copyright.
Customers are liable for operations that violate the patent. Users have generally been saved by the impracticality of such litigation. For example, Apple has sued Samsung for the patent violations of the Android software that was developed by Google.
As for Title 17 s. 117, that relates to copying necessary to use the software, archival backups, subleasing (with permission), and temporary copies for maintenance. Suggest you re-read. It is here:
17 U.S.C. s. 117 : US Code - Section 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make
or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that
computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other
manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes
only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that
continued possession of the computer program should cease to be
rightful.
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or
Adaptation. - Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the
provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise
transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were
prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all
rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred
only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
(c) Machine Maintenance or Repair. - Notwithstanding the
provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner
or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of
a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the
activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy
of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair
of that machine, if -
(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed
immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and
(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that
is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program
or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such
new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.
(d) Definitions. - For purposes of this section -
(1) the "maintenance" of a machine is the servicing of the
machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original
specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized
for that machine; and
(2) the "repair" of a machine is the restoring of the machine
to the state of working in accordance with its original
specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized
for that machine.
Please refrain from misleading people in future.
I do not need a license to read a book.
You are not copying the book by buying it. The copy was made by the publisher, which has a license from the copyright holder to make said copy (or is violating copyrights).
You are likely copying software when you install it but that being said, we do not have strong and clear relationship for lawful use of software. We have instead pigeonholed the issues into traditional copyright, patent, service and license agreements. The results have been ugly at times, but I would not now describe them as murky - with the exception of fonts I do not see much issue around software use and online service rights.
GoodOldGames is a great site and example. I would expect a Court to call the entitlement upon purchase to download the games a license to copy. As a matter of policy, it is against the economic interest of this site, which provides service considered useful, to prohibit subsequent sharing of these games as if they were effectively in the public domain. Since it is not a stretch for copyright to apply, and it is useful to do so in cases such as this, it probably will be deemed to apply (or so the argument goes, though with some variation, throughout the common law).
The legal question has typically been whether the software is a "work" to which copyright law applies. There are weird edge cases, such whether fonts can be copyrighted or protected by some other intellectual property. I do not believe this to be an issue now (though, of course, I always stand to be corrected).
As a matter of interest, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., defines the relevant terms as:
Good: 1. Tangible or movable personal property other than money; esp., articles of trade or items of merchandise. ...
Service: ... 3. The act of doing something useful for a person or company for a fee. ...
License: 1. A revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful; ...
In the case of a software game:
1. the box, CD, manual etc., is a good;
2. permission to use the software in spite of copyright and patent protections is a license; and
3. the interactive online access is a service.
It is not apparent to me what is "murky" here.
UNIX is nowhere near old enough to have had its copyright expire yet. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that SCO doesn't own the copyright.
Expiration of copyright and statute of limitations are separate issues.
Copying of a work after the copyrights expire does not constitute copyright infringement.
If infringement has occurred, one must bring a claim before the statute of limitations expires.
Expiration of copyright is somewhere in the order of 80 years or so, depending on where you are. The typical statute of limitations is usually between 1 and 6 years, depending on the claim and the jurisdiction.
IAAL, but this is not legal advice. Please seek legal counsel for advice on any specific issues.
Statute of limitations, and its equitable cousin laches, prevent one from bringing claims after a certain period of time eg 2 years after an incident. SCO brought the claim within the appropriate time frame, and in any case they allege the infringement is ongoing (and so the only issue related to statute of limitations is how far back damages can be calculated - usually two or so years before the claim was issued).
There are other doctrines that may apply during and after a proceeding. For example res judicata (the civil/tort equivalent of what we call 'double jeopardy' in a criminal context, which prevents re-hearing a claim that has been determined already on the merits in an ongoing or previous proceeding) or its related (sometimes included) cousin collateral estoppel (prevents re-hearing an issue that has been determined in an ongoing, previous or parallel proceeding).
I do not know the facts of this case well enough to comment, but the above are the legal concepts that prevent re-hearing of issues that have already been decided (IAAL; this is not legal advice, and please seek out a lawyer for advice). I expect these issues are more likely to apply than statute of limitations.
WindowMaker has a special place in my heart, right next to BlackBox. I still look at them and go "cool".
I hope someone revitalizes BlackBox, too. It was just plain neat.
The only "bad" social movement that I can think of in US history attributed to Christians would be the Temperance movement that eventually led to Prohibition. Obviously that didn't last. Everything else has been positive, often overwhelmingly so.
Sir –
With all due respect, and perhaps I have misread, but this statement is utter nonsense. To take this statement at face value one must ignore the following Christian influences in the USA:
- Anti-gay ("God hates fags")
- Pro-war (eg putting religious quotes on top of war briefs being given to George Bush)
- The violent anti-abortion movements
- The inherent racism of Christian fellowships such as the Klu Klux Klan
- The rounding of "Pi" to 3, denial of evolution, anathema of intelligence, and other assorted absurdities
That is off the top of my head. The list is practically endless thanks to the magical thinking a society as wealthy as the US can tolerate. US politicians run on campaigns of anti-gay, etc., so as to distract from their real objectives: to advance the political and economic gain of the rich at the expense of the poor.
If you do not consider the plethora of hatred, assaults, murders, invasions, brainwashing, the denial of irrefutable facts, and the destruction of society's capacity to understand and contribute to the advancement of human society to be "bad", then perhaps the Temperance movement is the only "bad" movement in the U.S. that can be attributed to Christians. I suggest it's probably the least noteworthy.
Religious thought negatively impacts economic growth, civil rights, critical thinking, scientific progress, human rights, and fundamental freedoms. It is a form of brainwashing supported by baseless fear-mongering and propaganda, masquerading as a social utility. Abolition, suffrage, and civil rights movements succeeded not because they were born of Christians but because they encouraged people to think and empathize. These three examples are stark contrast to the populist thought in the US now.
The people who make your world better, the educated engineers, civil rights activists, professors, are predominantly skeptical of Christianity. They are not driven by hate like the throng of evil-mongering zealots because they are busy making actual contributions to society.
So what is just so horrifying about a country founded and heavily influenced by a group of people who want us all to be free with equal rights?
This is not a horrifying concept, but it also has nothing to do with religious influence in the USA. Religious influence in the USA takes the form of a pestilence.
The founding fathers of the United States were, if anything, extraordinarily skeptical of the value of Christianity. With good reason: they were conscious of the evils inherent to religious movements.
Tea Party types like myself HATE HATE HATE SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. We see them for what they are: power grabs by BOTH the MPAA/RIAA et all AND the government. As a generally conservative/libertarian group of people, we want LESS government intrusion and regulation of our lives. Not more.
So the Tea Party HAMMERED the GOP over this one and unlike the Dems, the GOP LISTENED and responded in the way the people wanted.
Good result.
Bad hate to think ratio.
Some suggest that you can put a satellite into space for $8,000. I don't know how credible that price is.
Bouncing RF waves off the moon seems more cost effective and reliable.
Wikileaks should put a server on a satellite in orbit if they want autonomy.
Just curious: Do you prefer the word "poaching" in the following sense: âoetake or acquire in an unfair or clandestine wayâ to describe those in a parasitic relationship with Wikipedia (i.e. those who take its content to create link-farms)?
Those fabulous steps to Draconian governance from Western-style democracies are:
1. Establish a basis for circumventing human rights (eg "terrorism" or "piracy" or "national security", etc.);
2. Imbue state systems with financial gain from said basis (eg prison industrial complex, military industrial complex, etc.);
3. Have said systems lobby for increased funding and authority, encroaching on traditional authorities (eg policing, prosecutors, media, voting systems, etc);
4. Expand the application of the basis for circumventing human rights to other areas (eg immigration, child pornography, copyright violations, any other interests with lobbyists);
5. Enact laws that undermine the financing of political dissension, and undermine systems that may allow any discourse critical of the established government;
6. Engage in mass human rights violations, ghettoization, prison labour; State ignores human rights, imprisons or executes dissenters and acts with impunity and disregard for reason;
7. The state becomes a vehicle for despots supported by demagoguery. Non tenet anguillam, per caudam qui tenet illam.