Considering how trivial it is to open a letter, I would think that the only really analagous situation would be if you ROT-13'ed (or some other trivial cipher) your email.
This is ridiculous, there should have been a "stay", "restraining order", or whatever, to stop either party from building infrastructure until a ruling could be made.
But preventing the Telco from doing it would be *gasp* SOCIALISM!!!!!11!1!1
You missed what I said. I'm talking about their behavior toward FORMER mormons, not NON-mormons.
Speaking as a person who was baptized in the Mormon church when I was 12, and left when I was 17, I must point out that this statement is complete and utter bullshit.
A documented binary format is better than an undocumented one
As long as
A) the documentation describes the stuff that exists in the real world, rather than what it would look like in some alternate universe (as is MS's usual tactic.)
and
B) the documentation isn't a bunch of "OOMXL"-like "implement this like Outlook 97 did"
The "try before you buy" excuse that people give as a reason to pirate (very popular here at Slashdot) has always been a steaming pile of bullshit, as is the tale that PirateBay is primarily used for legitimate torrent downloads. Pure bullshit. Honestly, it's difficult to take people that say these things seriously.
Wow, all that hard data you provided has convinced me! Maybe you should provide it to people who do studies that say the exact opposite?
Remember that the next time someone calls the big tower next to their monitor their "hard drive", or calls their desktop wallpaper their "screen saver", or talks about the time they "programmed MS Office" when they just installed it from the CD.
Appropriation of an unpublished manuscript would be prosecuted under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in most states.
Trade secrets have absolutely nothing to do with either copyright or licensing of copyright.
Publication and lawful sale provide you an implicit license to no longer consider that material as a secret.
There is no "license", implied or otherwise, that something is "secret".
If you divulge the ending of Harry Potter 8 before it's published, expect to be sued, even though you bought the book and a copyright applies to it, and you never signed an NDA.
As many people here are fond of pointing out, anyone can sue anyone else for anything. Whether I would win in your (quite incomplete) example would depend on how I found out the ending. There would *still* be no "license" involved, and the copyright status of the work would be irrelevant.
Bruce, normally I find you enlightening, but could you provide a link that backs up that statement? Because it seems pretty counterintuitive that a there is any sort of "license" involved in the sale of books.
Funny how you can take two very long paragraphs to try to avoid admitting you're wrong when you could have just said "you're right, I was completely wrong."
Copyright prohibits people from doing with their own property what they wish. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it, you were wrong. Try to man up and admit it next time.
Our vision for the future is that consumers won't have to think about where they bought [a movie], how they bought it, or when they bought it," says Mr. Chapek.
So.. their vision for the future is exactly the way it is right now?
Because I'm pretty sure "consumers" don't do any of that with DVDs.
Imagine I tell my young children to stay out of my toolbox. Then they get several years older, and I tell them "you can use my toolbox responsibly". By your logic, I've contradicted myself; in reality, I've merely changed the rules because the circumstances have changed.
So you're saying that the Old Testament only applies to children, and the New Testament applies to adults?
Or are you saying that prior to 2000 years ago, the world was entirely populated by toddlers? If that was true, how exactly did they procreate if they hadn't hit puberty?
Parents do it all the time - why is it perfectly logical for parents to do it, but it's somehow completely illogical for God to do it?
Please show the part of the Old Testament that states "the rules will change once you're old enough". Please show how your absurd analogy is in any way true.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering how trivial it is to open a letter, I would think that the only really analagous situation would be if you ROT-13'ed (or some other trivial cipher) your email.
Remember that for the purposes of DMCA, ROT13 is "effective" encryption.
So, if you sent all your emails in ROT-13, would that be private?
This is ridiculous, there should have been a "stay", "restraining order", or whatever, to stop either party from building infrastructure until a ruling could be made.
But preventing the Telco from doing it would be *gasp* SOCIALISM!!!!!11!1!1
the copper has a good reason to use a hand-held device
So it's OK to be unsafe as long as you have a good reason?
Its been used to trace most human ancestors to a couple places in Africa, almost to a couple of individual females.
Two questions:
1. If it was two females, how did they reproduce?
2. Do you have any pictures? (Maybe an artist's interpretation? :)
You missed what I said. I'm talking about their behavior toward FORMER mormons, not NON-mormons.
Speaking as a person who was baptized in the Mormon church when I was 12, and left when I was 17, I must point out that this statement is complete and utter bullshit.
Ahh.. more data in support of John Gabriel's G.I.F.T.
Wow, you MS apologists just don't quit, do you?
Here's the thing: If it was exclusive then what caused the exclusivity to change?
If it was just "oh, now someone else wants to do it", which is the case here then it wasn't exclusive.
The key question is: was Sony excluded before now?
No, they weren't. Which means it wasn't exclusive
Methinks you don't understand what "exclusive" means.
It doesn't mean "nobody else is doing it".
It means "nobody else is is *allowed* to do it" (examine the root "exclude")
A documented binary format is better than an undocumented one
As long as
A) the documentation describes the stuff that exists in the real world, rather than what it would look like in some alternate universe (as is MS's usual tactic.)
and
B) the documentation isn't a bunch of "OOMXL"-like "implement this like Outlook 97 did"
On which planet?
According to my own recollections, which match this historical list, in 1993, low end was 40MB, high-end was ~500MB.
Most of the installs I did at the time were in the 120MB range. Anything over 200MB was rare.
So in other words, it's no more or less secure, and you were just blowing smoke?
The "try before you buy" excuse that people give as a reason to pirate (very popular here at Slashdot) has always been a steaming pile of bullshit, as is the tale that PirateBay is primarily used for legitimate torrent downloads. Pure bullshit. Honestly, it's difficult to take people that say these things seriously.
Wow, all that hard data you provided has convinced me! Maybe you should provide it to people who do studies that say the exact opposite?
Remember that the next time someone calls the big tower next to their monitor their "hard drive", or calls their desktop wallpaper their "screen saver", or talks about the time they "programmed MS Office" when they just installed it from the CD.
How can you show that you have a right to posess the book at all, and that you had a right to purchase it?
Mu. Last time I checked, people in the free world didn't have to go around worrying about how they would prove they owned their posessions.
Because it is published.
No. Because you had a good faith belief that it's not counterfeit.
That creates an implicit license. Without it, you could be prosecuted, not under copyright law but under trade secret law.
Never before in the history of /. was "[citation needed]" more required than after reading that.
What I have is mostly legal theory.
According to whom?
Appropriation of an unpublished manuscript would be prosecuted under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in most states.
Trade secrets have absolutely nothing to do with either copyright or licensing of copyright.
Publication and lawful sale provide you an implicit license to no longer consider that material as a secret.
There is no "license", implied or otherwise, that something is "secret".
If you divulge the ending of Harry Potter 8 before it's published, expect to be sued, even though you bought the book and a copyright applies to it, and you never signed an NDA.
As many people here are fond of pointing out, anyone can sue anyone else for anything. Whether I would win in your (quite incomplete) example would depend on how I found out the ending. There would *still* be no "license" involved, and the copyright status of the work would be irrelevant.
Seriously, I think you're way off base here.
Bruce, normally I find you enlightening, but could you provide a link that backs up that statement? Because it seems pretty counterintuitive that a there is any sort of "license" involved in the sale of books.
block all dutch users from accessing *all* copyrighted torrents.
So they have to block all Dutch users then?
I would be surprised if there was a *single* item on TPB that wasn't copyrighted, whether it's legal or not.
Linux distros? Perfectly legal, but still copyrighted.
Is someone screwing up the translation, or is the Dutch court really that brain-dead?
kissing is not sex
Not true - kissing *can* be sex, depending on where it is. :)
Funny how you can take two very long paragraphs to try to avoid admitting you're wrong when you could have just said "you're right, I was completely wrong."
Copyright prohibits people from doing with their own property what they wish. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it, you were wrong. Try to man up and admit it next time.
Sweet Zombie Jesus - are you really that stupid, or are you trolling?
False
If it's false, why do you claim it's true?
Let's see here:
copyright is a distribution license, you can make derivative works all day long but you can't distribute them without permission.
And what if you *want* to distribute them without permission?
Doesn't that mean you can't do what you want?
As soon as conditions are placed on something, it's no longer "what you want".
the psychological and medical aspects of 520-days period are bullshit
Thank you for your informed opinion. Where did you get your degree in psychology or sociology? Is it a Masters or a PhD?
Our vision for the future is that consumers won't have to think about where they bought [a movie], how they bought it, or when they bought it," says Mr. Chapek.
So.. their vision for the future is exactly the way it is right now?
Because I'm pretty sure "consumers" don't do any of that with DVDs.
Here ya go. This one's guaranteed to never need updating. :)
I spent more than that on my bookshelves, and they're not even portable.
They also can't confiscate your books at the distributor's whim, and can be used even when the batteries are dead.
Imagine I tell my young children to stay out of my toolbox. Then they get several years older, and I tell them "you can use my toolbox responsibly". By your logic, I've contradicted myself; in reality, I've merely changed the rules because the circumstances have changed.
So you're saying that the Old Testament only applies to children, and the New Testament applies to adults?
Or are you saying that prior to 2000 years ago, the world was entirely populated by toddlers? If that was true, how exactly did they procreate if they hadn't hit puberty?
Parents do it all the time - why is it perfectly logical for parents to do it, but it's somehow completely illogical for God to do it?
Please show the part of the Old Testament that states "the rules will change once you're old enough". Please show how your absurd analogy is in any way true.