Yet, apparently, some of them still go and buy stuff
Yes, and I have a rock that *APPARENTLY* keeps tigers away. I can personally attest that I have never been attacked by a tiger while I had the rock.
This is one of the myths about spam: that it must work, because otherwise spammers wouldn't be doing it. And it's just that: a myth.
It doesn't matter if people buy things from spammers, or if people don't buy things from spammers. The spammers will still spam because A) it costs them nothing, and B) they *BELIEVE* it must work, because there is so much spam.
He's not saying that they'll stop malicious software from being installed, he's saying that all malicious software will alert the user that they're being installed..
And how do they do that?
The MS installer will ensure that all non-MS software will present a warning saying that it might be malicious
The CRTC is the reason: -i pay 6,95$ "system access fees" EXTRA from my cell package.
Since you clearly believe everything that a salesman tells you, I have a bridge spanning the Burrard Inlet that I'm not using that you may be interested in. I'm asking $1000, which is a huge bargain because you could put a toll booth at each end and charge people $10.00 to drive on it - you'll make your money back in less than a year.
SCO issued a stop-use order with the 100-day hiatus required under the contract, but IBM neither changed its behavior nor embarked on good-faith negotiations to settle the issue.
And what really happend:
SCO issued a stop-use order with the 100-day hiatus, but failed to include in that order an explanation of what IBM did wrong, or how they could correct itas required under the contract, and so thereforeIBM neither changed its behavior nor embarked on good-faith negotiations to settle the issue, because SCO never gave them that option.
As I understand the situation, the author of the website wrote new text but copied many of the images.
Correct.
The parody was of Walmart's website's text, not the images.
No, the entire site was the parody. By your logic, if I write and record a parody of a song by changing the lyrics, can I be sued for copyright infringement? After all, the parody would be they lyrics, not the music, right?
Does section 107 permit copying of images that are not parody but are related to content that is?
Ye. When determining if something is a parody or not, you take the work as a whole, not individual pieces.
I suspect the law is not as black-and-white as you suggest.
I disagree. Parody is not an infringement of copyright (black and white.) Deciding whether something is a parody is another matter entirely.
The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
I think you should read this, specifically the part about The statement or other material constitutes a fair comment - that is, a comment or opinion on a matter of public concern being a defense against libel charges.
It is always legally actionable.
*Anything* is actionable - whether or not it's *winnable* is another matter entirely.
Thanks for replying, it's good to get some feedback from someone "in the field" (even if it's only tangentally related.)
anyway - the standard for parody is something like - is a a reasonable person likley to confuse the parody work as the work of the original
Yes, however I believe that deciding if something is a parody or not is a different issue than whether a parody is protected.
The previous poster said that parody is not considered fair use, and that it's a violation of copyright to use someone else's material in a parody, and I was correcting him (or her?)
those kinds of arguments can be expensive to prove
Which is why we (well me, and probably the people who modded me up:o) are outraged.
protection really does only apply to those who can afford to at least get the issue in fromt of a judge
Which (again) is another issue entirely - and (if I may say) is a sad, sad comment on the state of free speech in the country that claims to value its' freedom so much.
Fair use in parody only applies if you're not using their exact graphics/trademarks.
Bullshit. Try reading section 107 of the copyright act.
If you are you're violating their copyrights
Again, pure bullshit. Use of a work for parody is *NOT* a copyright violation.
possibly open for libel/fraud depending on what you're attributing to the company
It's not fraud unless you claim that you are the entity in question, and it's only libel if the claims are false, and only in some situations (libel is more difficult to prove against public entities.)
Standard copyright/trademark law would apply.
Yes, and because it's parody, it has an exception under Section 107 - so he's protected.
You're right, they're not bitching, they're having their lawyers shut the place down.
Walmart's ONLY beef was that he was using their images.
Which is irrelevant, as (according to Section 107 of the US Copyright act) it was fair use:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Parody is both criticism and commentary.
there may be some grey area with parodies
Uh, no. There is no gray - it is very much black and white.
he starts using "CENSORED BY THE DMCA" so we'll all cry fowl
And rightly so. His First Amendment rights are being violated.
1. Is it unambiguisly illegal to backup a DVD in the US?
Not only is it not unambiguously illegal back up a DVD in the US, the unclarity of the unambiguousness of the activity of the unambiguous illegallity of backing up a DVD in the US makes people's head hurt when they try to fathom some wanker using double negatives when asking about the unambiguous illegallity of backing up a DVD in the US!
Is admitting wrong-doing on Slashdot admissible in court?
Probably not.
The thing is that actually making a backup is not illegal, in any way, shape, or form. It's not even illegal to *own* something that will perform a backup. What's illegal (more or less) is importing or selling a device (whether hardware or software) that will make a backup, or (as interpreted by Judge Kaplan) telling someone where to find a device that will make a backup.
I read all the "Douglas approved" bits as reassurances more than evasions.
Maybe I've been around the sales guys in the office too much, but all I could see was evasiveness.
The line "The script we shot was very much based on the last draft that Douglas wrote" is a perfect example: Just because you shot something, doesn't mean it didn't wind up on the cutting room floor.
it's the people who upload. The levy doesn't grant rights to distribute copyrighted material.
It has yet to be proven that you 'upload' by simply making the material available.
The law addresses what people do - make copies. You are allowed to make copies for your own use, you are not allowed to make copies for someone else.
It has been argued that the downloader is the one making the copy, as they are the one that uses the client to navigate the client, select the songs they want, and initiate the download. If this is the case, then there is no law being broken at all. The uploader is not "distributing" anything, they're making the material available.
Also note that the newest proposed copyright bill directly addresses this, legally defining and reserving the right to "make available" to the copyright holder. It's glossed over a lot (most people are concerned with the "DMCA"-like provisions) but it's being addressed.
Gay customers buy a lot of computers, and they tend to be cultural trend-setters or bellweathers, i.e. the people who Microsoft is trying to attract from Apple.
I'm sorry, but could you please *TRY* to present gays in a more stereotypical way? I notice you didn't once use the word "flaming" or put your arms on your hips and talk with a lisp.
And next time, you should to prefix at least one sentence with "there is a gay guy at my work..."
I are you implying that IBM set up SCO so that SCO would have something to sue them for? Somehow, I doubt it. And in any case, I have a hard time believing that anyone wants to be sued.
Winning this battle - which they must have known they would - has made that investment a lot more valuable.
But it's costing them a lot, and has the potential for damage in the short term (witness the ravings Didiot and Pretenderle.)
I think that IBM (or any sane company, for that matter) would have prefered to not be sued, and put the money they're spending on the suit into Linux PR.
SCO actually launched this case on their own behalf and with some merit?
Of course not. There was never any merit.
this was a proxy attack on behalf of Microsoft against its two main enemies, IBM and Linux
Actually, it started out as a way for SCO executives to bail out a dying company. They threatened IBM with a bogus suit, expecting to be bought out. When they weren't, they shopped it to MS as a way to continue to make IBM's life painful, and for MS to smear Linux.
Both McBride and Sontag have publically stated this - they were "amazed" that IBM chose to fight, instead of taking the easy way out, and purchasing them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet, apparently, some of them still go and buy stuff
Yes, and I have a rock that *APPARENTLY* keeps tigers away. I can personally attest that I have never been attacked by a tiger while I had the rock.
This is one of the myths about spam: that it must work, because otherwise spammers wouldn't be doing it. And it's just that: a myth.
It doesn't matter if people buy things from spammers, or if people don't buy things from spammers. The spammers will still spam because A) it costs them nothing, and B) they *BELIEVE* it must work, because there is so much spam.
Read between the lines..
He's not saying that they'll stop malicious software from being installed, he's saying that all malicious software will alert the user that they're being installed..
And how do they do that?
The MS installer will ensure that all non-MS software will present a warning saying that it might be malicious
See? It's easy!
The CRTC is the reason: -i pay 6,95$ "system access fees" EXTRA from my cell package.
Since you clearly believe everything that a salesman tells you, I have a bridge spanning the Burrard Inlet that I'm not using that you may be interested in. I'm asking $1000, which is a huge bargain because you could put a toll booth at each end and charge people $10.00 to drive on it - you'll make your money back in less than a year.
Sure looks looks like EULA to me.
Then you don't read very well.
What do the "E" and "A" stand for in "EULA"?
Show me where the GPL says it applies to end users.
it's a bit eerie that you're dating yourself, personally
Well, you must admit that it's rather difficult to date yourself impersonally!
"FORD Owners Recommend Dodge"
SCO issued a stop-use order with the 100-day hiatus required under the contract, but IBM neither changed its behavior nor embarked on good-faith negotiations to settle the issue.
And what really happend:
SCO issued a stop-use order with the 100-day hiatus, but failed to include in that order an explanation of what IBM did wrong, or how they could correct it as required under the contract, and so therefore IBM neither changed its behavior nor embarked on good-faith negotiations to settle the issue, because SCO never gave them that option.
The US doesn't have a CD-R/MP3 player tax like other countries.
How much you wanna bet?
This may come as a shock to you, but not only are you wrong, but the US was one of the first countries to introduce something like this.
If someone redid all the SW movies and turned it into like Pulp Fiction style editing.
Already done!
As I understand the situation, the author of the website wrote new text but copied many of the images.
Correct.
The parody was of Walmart's website's text, not the images.
No, the entire site was the parody. By your logic, if I write and record a parody of a song by changing the lyrics, can I be sued for copyright infringement? After all, the parody would be they lyrics, not the music, right?
Does section 107 permit copying of images that are not parody but are related to content that is?
Ye. When determining if something is a parody or not, you take the work as a whole, not individual pieces.
I suspect the law is not as black-and-white as you suggest.
I disagree. Parody is not an infringement of copyright (black and white.) Deciding whether something is a parody is another matter entirely.
I think you should read this, specifically the part about The statement or other material constitutes a fair comment - that is, a comment or opinion on a matter of public concern being a defense against libel charges.
It is always legally actionable.
*Anything* is actionable - whether or not it's *winnable* is another matter entirely.
Thanks for replying, it's good to get some feedback from someone "in the field" (even if it's only tangentally related.)
:o) are outraged.
anyway - the standard for parody is something like - is a a reasonable person likley to confuse the parody work as the work of the original
Yes, however I believe that deciding if something is a parody or not is a different issue than whether a parody is protected.
The previous poster said that parody is not considered fair use, and that it's a violation of copyright to use someone else's material in a parody, and I was correcting him (or her?)
those kinds of arguments can be expensive to prove
Which is why we (well me, and probably the people who modded me up
protection really does only apply to those who can afford to at least get the issue in fromt of a judge
Which (again) is another issue entirely - and (if I may say) is a sad, sad comment on the state of free speech in the country that claims to value its' freedom so much.
Fair use in parody only applies if you're not using their exact graphics/trademarks.
Bullshit. Try reading section 107 of the copyright act.
If you are you're violating their copyrights
Again, pure bullshit. Use of a work for parody is *NOT* a copyright violation.
possibly open for libel/fraud depending on what you're attributing to the company
It's not fraud unless you claim that you are the entity in question, and it's only libel if the claims are false, and only in some situations (libel is more difficult to prove against public entities.)
Standard copyright/trademark law would apply.
Yes, and because it's parody, it has an exception under Section 107 - so he's protected.
You're right, they're not bitching, they're having their lawyers shut the place down.
Walmart's ONLY beef was that he was using their images.
Which is irrelevant, as (according to Section 107 of the US Copyright act) it was fair use:
Parody is both criticism and commentary.
there may be some grey area with parodies
Uh, no. There is no gray - it is very much black and white.
he starts using "CENSORED BY THE DMCA" so we'll all cry fowl
And rightly so. His First Amendment rights are being violated.
1. Is it unambiguisly illegal to backup a DVD in the US?
Not only is it not unambiguously illegal back up a DVD in the US, the unclarity of the unambiguousness of the activity of the unambiguous illegallity of backing up a DVD in the US makes people's head hurt when they try to fathom some wanker using double negatives when asking about the unambiguous illegallity of backing up a DVD in the US!
Is admitting wrong-doing on Slashdot admissible in court?
Probably not.
The thing is that actually making a backup is not illegal, in any way, shape, or form. It's not even illegal to *own* something that will perform a backup. What's illegal (more or less) is importing or selling a device (whether hardware or software) that will make a backup, or (as interpreted by Judge Kaplan) telling someone where to find a device that will make a backup.
I read all the "Douglas approved" bits as reassurances more than evasions.
Maybe I've been around the sales guys in the office too much, but all I could see was evasiveness.
The line "The script we shot was very much based on the last draft that Douglas wrote" is a perfect example: Just because you shot something, doesn't mean it didn't wind up on the cutting room floor.
I'm still skeptical.
wasn't the "pirate tax" Canadian, not French?
If you're referring to a levy on blank media, I think you'll find that most "first world" countries have one, including the USA, which had it long before Canada did.
it's the people who upload. The levy doesn't grant rights to distribute copyrighted material.
It has yet to be proven that you 'upload' by simply making the material available.
The law addresses what people do - make copies. You are allowed to make copies for your own use, you are not allowed to make copies for someone else.
It has been argued that the downloader is the one making the copy, as they are the one that uses the client to navigate the client, select the songs they want, and initiate the download. If this is the case, then there is no law being broken at all. The uploader is not "distributing" anything, they're making the material available.
Also note that the newest proposed copyright bill directly addresses this, legally defining and reserving the right to "make available" to the copyright holder. It's glossed over a lot (most people are concerned with the "DMCA"-like provisions) but it's being addressed.
my first choice would have to be Alan Rickman
Wow, and all this time I thought Alan Rickman was a man!
It's not a "semantics" trick. It's the very defintion of equality.
Bullshit.
A straight person can marry the person they love, a gay person cannot.
That is *NOT* equal.
Dolphins will have sex with other male dolphins' blowholes
Chris: Dad, what's a blowhole for?
Peter: Well, I'll tell you what it's not for, son, and then you'll understand why we can never go back to Seaworld.
Gay customers buy a lot of computers, and they tend to be cultural trend-setters or bellweathers, i.e. the people who Microsoft is trying to attract from Apple.
I'm sorry, but could you please *TRY* to present gays in a more stereotypical way? I notice you didn't once use the word "flaming" or put your arms on your hips and talk with a lisp.
And next time, you should to prefix at least one sentence with "there is a gay guy at my work..."
Men and women are different.
Thank you, Captain Obvious!
Men and women feel different things when they are "in love"
And you know this because you've been both a man and a woman, right?
To say that gay men and women feel the same things, and that those feelings are the same as straights feel, is a logical contradiction.
Again, according to whom?
Sorry, but the only "logical contradiction" is how you went "A, B, 5, Mu."
Perhaps IBM wanted the fight.
I are you implying that IBM set up SCO so that SCO would have something to sue them for? Somehow, I doubt it. And in any case, I have a hard time believing that anyone wants to be sued.
Winning this battle - which they must have known they would - has made that investment a lot more valuable.
But it's costing them a lot, and has the potential for damage in the short term (witness the ravings Didiot and Pretenderle.)
I think that IBM (or any sane company, for that matter) would have prefered to not be sued, and put the money they're spending on the suit into Linux PR.
SCO actually launched this case on their own behalf and with some merit?
Of course not. There was never any merit.
this was a proxy attack on behalf of Microsoft against its two main enemies, IBM and Linux
Actually, it started out as a way for SCO executives to bail out a dying company. They threatened IBM with a bogus suit, expecting to be bought out. When they weren't, they shopped it to MS as a way to continue to make IBM's life painful, and for MS to smear Linux.
Both McBride and Sontag have publically stated this - they were "amazed" that IBM chose to fight, instead of taking the easy way out, and purchasing them.