No, it's pretty black-and-white. Before the CRIA launched their first lawsuit, the Copyright Policy branch of the Heritage Ministry stated that they believed downloading music (whether from p2p sites, or a website) was not copyright infringement, as long as the person downloading was doing it for their own use. It was a gray area then.
When the CRIA launched their suit, the judge agreed with the Heritage Ministry, and said that the CRIA had not shown that any law had been broken - people putting music on their hard drives would probably be so they could listen to it themselves, which is not against the law. Sharing it out is not making a copy (the copy isn't made until the person downloading it begins the download, so therefore they are the one making the copy.)
Not technically legal
No, it's perfectly legal. As long as you're making the copy for your own personal use, it's perfectly legal.
If that argument prevais - or even achieves wide distribution - it would be VERY BAD for getting Open Source adopted by software vendors.
Well, you'd better go tell IBM, because they're the ones making it, and (*gasp*) they contribute source code to open source projects!
they continued to distribute the code because:
- they were obligated to do so under the GPL
No, they weren't. If that (rather laughable) scenario were true, they have protection against their GPL "obligations" because the alleged code shouldn't have been there in the first place.
the cat was out of the bag, so stopping their distribution wouldn't mitigate the (alleged) harm to them
I think you're confused about what "mitigate" means - it's something you do, not something that is done to you.
SCOX was obligated to migitage damages to them by letting everyone know where their alleged code was. Saying "the cat is out of the bag" doesn't change the fact that SCOX was legally obligated to *try*.
stopping distribution and support WOULD cause them FURTHER harm by driving customers away to other vendors of what was (allegedly) their own stolen IP.
In which case, there is no harm to them because the "other vendors" would owe all of that money to SCOX (assuming SCOX had mitigated the damages by telling the vendors which parts infringed on their copyrights.)
If they proved their point they would be reimbursed by IBM and could chose between taking actions to get thieir IP removed from distributions
Ahem, bullshit. By not attempting to mitigate the damages, they are stating that the (alleged) code in question is *worthless*, that they *want* it to be distributed, and therefore there is nothing for IBM to reimburse.
If your argument were to stand, a company with software IP would be foolish to distribute or contribute to any open source distribution, for fear of compromising any of its own IP that it did NOT want to open.
Poppcock. His argument is entirely correct - that *is* the way it works, and there are plenty of companies that contribute source to FOSS projects while keeping other proprietary code. For proof, you need to look no further than IBM, who is making this exact argument in court, and does exactly what you're claiming is impossibe.
If *YOUR* argument were to stand, then any company who discovered code had been contributed to an open source project could just sit back and wait for 100 years, then say "hey, you've been using our copyrighted code for 100 years, you owe us trillions of dollars!"
IBM has the resources to defend against this shite. They could have knocked out half a dozen distros just filing the complaint.
You're making the (fatal) assumtion that they filed this suit because they wanted to win, and continue in business.
In actuality, the suit was SCOX's exit strategy - they initially sued IBM because they believed that IBM would just buy them out rather than fighting (which is why BSF's initial contract with SCOX mentions 30% of any buy out goes to the lawyers.) The scenario they envisioned went something like "IBM buys us, we all get rich, and the company gets dissolved."
As sociopaths who have no understanding of the concept of reputation, they believed that everybody must think only of money - hence IBM was the safest bet for the big payout.
I don't think that SCOX ever had any belief that they could *win* this suit (which is why they were fine making their absurd claims) they were looking for the big payout, and (in their mind) IBM was their safest bet.
Thanks, IBM.
I think IBM is doing what's in IBM's best interest. Their reputation wouldn't allow any other action than to fight (for at least two reasons: relations with existing partners, and settling/buyout would encourage copycats.)
Exactly. After all, it is well known that the only people who would have *ever* bought NWN to run on Linux would have posted to that forum, right? The fact that only 1000 people posted to the forum means that *ONLY* those people would have bought NWN2 for Linux, and they would have only bought one copy.
Why, it's a known fact that only people who know about (and post to) a forum before a game is released will *ever* purchase that game! If someone didn't know that the forum existed, then they would *never* buy a game after it's been released, right?
And even if they do know about it, it's quite obvious that *nobody* would ever think "I'm not going to waste my time registering an account to post a message to one forum, because it won't change their mind anyway - they've already shuffled everybody away from the real NWN forums."
Hollywood never had many original ideas to begin with. They take alot of shit from Japanese animes, who flatout do sci-fi, horror and anything fantasy better than us.
Interesting - can you point out which Japanese movie this one is based on, or this?
Kryten: Actually, more correctly sir, we don't ever have existed here before. Although this is hardly the time to be conjugating temporal verbs in the past and possible never tense.
what happens if I bookmark your comment page to come write an insightful comment later?
How does that affect the referer header of the submitted page? Are you suggesting that your web browser will allow you to click "submit", but not actually submit the page (maybe presenting you to a placeholder, so you can bookmark it?), and then somehow submit it later with all of the text you entered?
If you bookmark a form, then come back to it, enter text, and submit, then the referer header will be correct.
Big money lobbying interests that those air and cruise lines happen to be, will ensure that the "thumbs up" is routinely given
Why do you think that is?
You can damn well bet that they check will be done after you've bought the ticket, not before. And if you think they'll give you your money back, you've obviously never traveled anywhere.
"That's what cancellation insurance is for."
The more people that get hit by this, the more money the air/cruise line makes (because you give them the money, and they don't have to provide the service.) Why would they spend money lobbying against that?
Suppose you were the owner of a restaurant. How would you like to lose business because of your adamant refusal to install a ramp?
What an absurd question. Are you suggesting that there are restaurant owners that say to themselves "oh, I don't want to do something - I wish the government would pass a law to make me!"
A restaurant owner who didn't want to install a ramp would (by definition) be OK with the loss of business from people who couldn't enter their establishement (because if they *weren't* OK with it, they would build the ramp.
(For the record, I think that laws mandating accessibility are a good idea - it's just that your train of thought appears to have become derailed.)
games like tag and dodgeball are an excuse by bullies to enact serious injuries on other kids
Yeah, and math and chess clubs are excuses by homosexuals with no social skills to hide from girls. (See, two of us can make completely baseless and false generalizations!)
In short, cry me a river, Poindexter.
For the record, I played (and was good at) dodgeball, football, hockey, and most other sports.
I also played D&D, hung out with the computer geeks, and got picked on by bullies (yes, even kids good at sports get picked on.)
If you want people to take you seriously, try growing up a little.
Slashdot Mirror
it's more of a grey area
No, it's pretty black-and-white. Before the CRIA launched their first lawsuit, the Copyright Policy branch of the Heritage Ministry stated that they believed downloading music (whether from p2p sites, or a website) was not copyright infringement, as long as the person downloading was doing it for their own use. It was a gray area then.
When the CRIA launched their suit, the judge agreed with the Heritage Ministry, and said that the CRIA had not shown that any law had been broken - people putting music on their hard drives would probably be so they could listen to it themselves, which is not against the law. Sharing it out is not making a copy (the copy isn't made until the person downloading it begins the download, so therefore they are the one making the copy.)
Not technically legal
No, it's perfectly legal. As long as you're making the copy for your own personal use, it's perfectly legal.
Nice racial slur you've got there
First of all, you need to look up the word racial - it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Second, when used as Mr. Perens did, it doesn't refer to any nationality.
I *cannot* name a single program CBC carries that I would ever actually want to sit down and watch.
:)
How about the Rick Mercer Report?
If that argument prevais - or even achieves wide distribution - it would be VERY BAD for getting Open Source adopted by software vendors.
Well, you'd better go tell IBM, because they're the ones making it, and (*gasp*) they contribute source code to open source projects!
they continued to distribute the code because:
- they were obligated to do so under the GPL
No, they weren't. If that (rather laughable) scenario were true, they have protection against their GPL "obligations" because the alleged code shouldn't have been there in the first place.
the cat was out of the bag, so stopping their distribution wouldn't mitigate the (alleged) harm to them
I think you're confused about what "mitigate" means - it's something you do, not something that is done to you.
SCOX was obligated to migitage damages to them by letting everyone know where their alleged code was. Saying "the cat is out of the bag" doesn't change the fact that SCOX was legally obligated to *try*.
stopping distribution and support WOULD cause them FURTHER harm by driving customers away to other vendors of what was (allegedly) their own stolen IP.
In which case, there is no harm to them because the "other vendors" would owe all of that money to SCOX (assuming SCOX had mitigated the damages by telling the vendors which parts infringed on their copyrights.)
If they proved their point they would be reimbursed by IBM and could chose between taking actions to get thieir IP removed from distributions
Ahem, bullshit. By not attempting to mitigate the damages, they are stating that the (alleged) code in question is *worthless*, that they *want* it to be distributed, and therefore there is nothing for IBM to reimburse.
If your argument were to stand, a company with software IP would be foolish to distribute or contribute to any open source distribution, for fear of compromising any of its own IP that it did NOT want to open.
Poppcock. His argument is entirely correct - that *is* the way it works, and there are plenty of companies that contribute source to FOSS projects while keeping other proprietary code. For proof, you need to look no further than IBM, who is making this exact argument in court, and does exactly what you're claiming is impossibe.
If *YOUR* argument were to stand, then any company who discovered code had been contributed to an open source project could just sit back and wait for 100 years, then say "hey, you've been using our copyrighted code for 100 years, you owe us trillions of dollars!"
IBM has the resources to defend against this shite. They could have knocked out half a dozen distros just filing the complaint.
You're making the (fatal) assumtion that they filed this suit because they wanted to win, and continue in business.
In actuality, the suit was SCOX's exit strategy - they initially sued IBM because they believed that IBM would just buy them out rather than fighting (which is why BSF's initial contract with SCOX mentions 30% of any buy out goes to the lawyers.) The scenario they envisioned went something like "IBM buys us, we all get rich, and the company gets dissolved."
As sociopaths who have no understanding of the concept of reputation, they believed that everybody must think only of money - hence IBM was the safest bet for the big payout.
I don't think that SCOX ever had any belief that they could *win* this suit (which is why they were fine making their absurd claims) they were looking for the big payout, and (in their mind) IBM was their safest bet.
Thanks, IBM.
I think IBM is doing what's in IBM's best interest. Their reputation wouldn't allow any other action than to fight (for at least two reasons: relations with existing partners, and settling/buyout would encourage copycats.)
If the potential is only 1000 copies
Exactly. After all, it is well known that the only people who would have *ever* bought NWN to run on Linux would have posted to that forum, right? The fact that only 1000 people posted to the forum means that *ONLY* those people would have bought NWN2 for Linux, and they would have only bought one copy.
Why, it's a known fact that only people who know about (and post to) a forum before a game is released will *ever* purchase that game! If someone didn't know that the forum existed, then they would *never* buy a game after it's been released, right?
And even if they do know about it, it's quite obvious that *nobody* would ever think "I'm not going to waste my time registering an account to post a message to one forum, because it won't change their mind anyway - they've already shuffled everybody away from the real NWN forums."
Hollywood never had many original ideas to begin with. They take alot of shit from Japanese animes, who flatout do sci-fi, horror and anything fantasy better than us.
Interesting - can you point out which Japanese movie this one is based on, or this?
the Farnsworth fusor we keep hearing so much about
Wow, so he's not just famous for inventing the smelloscope and finglonger!
Why would Microsoft be the greenest? Those computers are not theirs.
:)
Obviously you haven't read the fine print in the EULA!
The major problem of time travel is grammar.
Lister: Oh, we don't exist here anymore!
Kryten: Actually, more correctly sir, we don't ever have existed here before. Although this is hardly the time to be conjugating temporal verbs in the past and possible never tense.
Who's "plaintiff Wallace"? The Spam King?
No; this is Daniel Wallace - net.kook, and inventor of "sciBSD", a purported OS, which in reality consisted of a (very) badly written HTML page.
burrocrisy
/. spelling error been more apropos.
Ahh.. and that would be what? Ruling by jackasses?
Methinks never has a
what happens if I bookmark your comment page to come write an insightful comment later?
How does that affect the referer header of the submitted page? Are you suggesting that your web browser will allow you to click "submit", but not actually submit the page (maybe presenting you to a placeholder, so you can bookmark it?), and then somehow submit it later with all of the text you entered?
If you bookmark a form, then come back to it, enter text, and submit, then the referer header will be correct.
Big money lobbying interests that those air and cruise lines happen to be, will ensure that the "thumbs up" is routinely given
Why do you think that is?
You can damn well bet that they check will be done after you've bought the ticket, not before. And if you think they'll give you your money back, you've obviously never traveled anywhere.
"That's what cancellation insurance is for."
The more people that get hit by this, the more money the air/cruise line makes (because you give them the money, and they don't have to provide the service.) Why would they spend money lobbying against that?
how the fuck does -that- work, exactly?
I'd imagine pretty much like this
Suppose you were the owner of a restaurant. How would you like to lose business because of your adamant refusal to install a ramp?
What an absurd question. Are you suggesting that there are restaurant owners that say to themselves "oh, I don't want to do something - I wish the government would pass a law to make me!"
A restaurant owner who didn't want to install a ramp would (by definition) be OK with the loss of business from people who couldn't enter their establishement (because if they *weren't* OK with it, they would build the ramp.
(For the record, I think that laws mandating accessibility are a good idea - it's just that your train of thought appears to have become derailed.)
language is more then just words, there is grammer to.
Ther si alos speeling (which you might want to work at improving, considering you misspelled two words under five letters each.)
There are thousands of langages, and none of them make any damn sense.
:)
What about Esperanto?
How could you miss "The story begins"?
"My, my, this here Anakin guy,
Maybe Vader, someday later
Now he's just a small-fry.
He left his home and kissed his mommy goodbye,
singing 'Soon I'm gonna be a Jedi,
Soon I'm gonna be a Jedi'"
I call bullshit.
Spamhaus doesn't charge (or require "donations") to be delisted.
Provide some proof for your absurd assertions, or STFU.
no. audio is audio, whether it's a single instrument or more
Yeah, and an image is an image, whether it's a large amount of a single color, or an image where every pixel is different.
games like tag and dodgeball are an excuse by bullies to enact serious injuries on other kids
Yeah, and math and chess clubs are excuses by homosexuals with no social skills to hide from girls. (See, two of us can make completely baseless and false generalizations!)
In short, cry me a river, Poindexter.
For the record, I played (and was good at) dodgeball, football, hockey, and most other sports.
I also played D&D, hung out with the computer geeks, and got picked on by bullies (yes, even kids good at sports get picked on.)
If you want people to take you seriously, try growing up a little.
Reiser-bots (or any filesystem zealots) should remember this:
[snip religious propounding of Ext2]
Do you know the definition of hypocrisy?
So in short, No, you didn't read the GP post.
You evidently also didn't understand the post to which you replied.
You may not copy a work to your computer's disk, to its RAM, or portions thereof to its cache, processor and other components without permission.
Your claim is completely and 100% incorrect.