I think you are alluding to a Mussolini quote here (although there is some debate on if Mussolini actually said this or not)
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
However, the meaning of the word corporate here has almost exactly the opposite of the way we think of the word today.
Rather than meaning a ".inc" business, industry, zaibatsu, what have you
in 1950's Italian, "corporate" had a meeting much more like "cooperative" and in fact was refering to unionization of workers, IE socialism.
Fascism requires government control of the means of production, and in fact is prety darn close to actual implementations of socialism. (The dream of socializm, never materializing except for small 1960's communes and kibbutz)
In america you certainly have corrupt politicians, and business buying power in government, but that is sort of the reverse of fascism. Not that it is a good thing, but it does nobody any good (regardless of where you are in the political spectrum) to use the wrong vocabulary.
The left often likes accusing Bush et al of being fascists, or NAZIs. Its debatable if NAZIism is in fact fascism, or if the two groups just had common enough goals to get along, but remember, the NAZIs were National SOCIALISTS.
I just bought a wacom tablet, its great. It makes doing touch ups a snap, and very organic. So much better than a mouse.
Most digitals only shoot color anyway (I have seen a dedicated b&w digital, and its b&w quality was noticably better - 1/3 the grain and much sharper, since the color circuits were dedicated to better tonaliy), but if you are doing film, and plan on making the prints in b&w, I would highly reccomend doing some test rolls of real b&w film (like tx400 or something) stay away from consumer level b&w film (c41) its really just color film processed differently, so you dont get the benefit
Its funny you liked the nature photos. That is some of the earliest stuff I took, right after I bought the camera. The picture of the Cardinal is one of my favorites, and I took it the day I got the camera, when I had no clue about apeture, shutter speed, or iso or anything:)
I love the d70. You can see TONS of examples of the color reprouction on my site, http://jasoncoyne.smugmug.com/ Stay away from the theatre photos, they are very dark, and won't give you a good idea of how it does in better lighting. Try some of the shots from Paris. Color is definatly different between canon and nikon. Canon seems a bit more flat to me tho, but has less noise. I think its a preference thing.
The full frame SLRs are nice because you know exactly what a given lens is going to do (if you are used to that lens in a film body) but the selection of lenses and bodies is a lot less. Nikon and Cannon have all the good lens selection, and they are both the 3/4 frame.
On the other hand, the smaller format gives you longer effective focal lengths with all of your lenses. your 200mm would instantly become a 300mm.
(its not actual optical zoom, but its not a pure crop like some people claim, its the difference in formats. Just like a 35mm film camera isnt really cropping compared to a medium format)
Im suprised you like to shoot in color then print b&w, you have a double hit of contrast lost in that workflow. If you are shooting slide film tho, you probably don't see the difference that much tho.
There is a great site at www.kenrockwell.com he gives reviews of all the digital stuff, and lots of medium format stuff. Great advice there. He does a lot with exposure of slide vs film, and getting the zone system down too.
I'm assuming you are using a 35mm SLR (or digital SLR) with those lenses, long telephoto's like that are almost unheard of in medium format.
the 70-210 f4 from nikon is great, but if you are outside, you might try the 70-300 or the 200-400 They aren't as fast, but with sunlight, that shouldn't be an issue.
ou can also find good deals on 800 or 1000mm manual focus prime lenses on ebay once in a while.
There is a big difference between doing an Ansel style landscape, and taking a picture of scenery tho. It would be pretty tough to get the tonality and smoothness of a good landscape with a 35mm, even using pro black and white film. There is just too much grain. Digital might do you better on the grain somewhat, but you won't be able to blow it up to poster size like you would want to with a good landscape.
That said, I do almost all my work with a Nikon d70 digital SLR, because I do action photography a lot more than I do half-dome or death valley:)
Consumers aren't walking around with medium format cameras. for a point and shoot user, digital took over ages ago. Point and shoot people aren't printing bigger than 5x6 which you can do in like 2MP. For SLR users, its a gray area. Unless you are going to do something bigger than 11x14, digital has enough resolution.
If you are doing landscapes or something, using medium or large format, film has a huge number of advantages. But not many people do that.
Wedding photographers used to be medium format, but most of them have gone digital, due to the number of photos you can take digital. Film you might get 2 or 3 rolls of 110 (110 is the size, not the number of exposures)
Almost all of those shots will need to be posed, because medium format is not a good candid camera.
Digital you might get a few thousand pictues, posed and candid, and you get them all online. Also the photgrapher can spend their time at a second wedding, thus getting an additional few grand, instead of spending the next few days developing and printing.
Consumer film may have the 6 stops of exposure, but unless you are doing your own printing, you probably won't get access to it.
If you KNOW you underexposed the shots, you can handle that doing your development (you couyld have the lab push it for you, but most people don't know about that) and if you print yourself you can have a lot of control.
But for the 99.99% of people that get their pictures printed at the 1 hour lab, they will be better off with digital, where they can edit it in photoshop.
The 1 hour lab is going to print the whole roll with default settings, and most of them will come out as crap.
You can find a good middle ground by doing lab development, and then scanning the negative, but even that is way more work than most people want to do.
Also, there is a new digital camera that has 9 stops of exposure, but it is really slow compared to most digital SLRs (1 fps etc)
uh, google maps doesn't have mouse zooming at all. There is a greasemonkey plugin that supports that feature, but surely you don't suggest that MS should follow greasemonkey?
Google earth does mouse zooming, so perhaps thats what you were talking about.
Your original comment has almost an exact opposite meaning to what you just posted.
The original parent said if you cant afford it, do without. You compared that to cancer. The implication would be that the ability to afford something, does not dictate the justice in having the thing or not (cancer overrides money == enjoyment overrides money)
Yes, I immediately see how not giving you the free music you want is equivilent to refusing cancer treatment.
And even the cancer treatment has limits : If its going to cost a a few hundred thousand (or a million is not unheard of) to fix you up, think of all the starving kids in africa we could feed.
This actually works fine now. They must have patched. I had horrible problems with this, but it works flawlessly now. No CD required either.
I did complain, so I suppose they might have patched only me, and left the rest of you losers in the cold, but I doubt it.
They also changed the offline mode thing so you don't have to select it when you log off, you can do it at any time, without having the password saved.
The point was not if GPL did such a thing, jsut that IF such a thing was done, it would not be fundamentally diffent from a legal perspective than GPL. If GPL is binding, so are more restrictive terms (including usage terms). If those more restrictive terms are not binding, then neither is GPL
I understand that copyright does not limit use, only distribution. But if the author chooses not to distribute to you, based on you not voluntarily accepting usage limitations, then you are still shafted!
You are right, any breaches of this would be covered by contract law, not copyright. This is true for the GPL tho too.
If you violate a term of the GPL, it is contract law that will resolve the dispute. (The GPL is written in such a way that the reciever pre-agrees that any dispute is resolved in the favor of the author, so any resolution will be quick)
such You esentially have a contract that allows you do recieve a copy of the program. Absent that contract, the program is restricted from you by copyright.If you violate the contract, the contract is nullified, and you are back to just copyright, which says you cannot have a copy of the software. (If you cannot have the software, you cannot use the software)
You are still not listening. You cannot use software, unless you can obtain it.
I as the software owner, can choose not to send you the software unless you agree to my terms. Some of those terms might be usage terms, some of those terms might be distribution terms.
You are not able to circumvent my terms, because to get the softare you have to break the copyright laws.
Therefore, EULA type terms are protected by copyright, even though copyright does not specifically cover usage.
It is very true, the GPL does not make any restrictions on usage. However if they had made usage terms, those terms would be just as binding as the distribution terms.
Yes, must be before the fact, and EULAs are on tenuous ground there.
However, with DMCA around, they mightbe able to get away with it by saying something like:
We distributed an installer, the installer displayed an EULA, the actual program is encrypted, without agreeing to the EULA, you don't get the distribution of the actual software. You can't break the encryption without violating DMCA.
Or, "over the wire" installers will become more popular, where you download a small installer, that shows an EULA, and then THAT gets the full software.
However, both in-the-zip and shrinkwrap licenses have a long history, and I think convincing arguments could be made that they are binding because of common conventions. Especially if precidents get set that you can return shrinkwrap software that you do not accept the EULA of.
I fully understand the rights of copyright. It controls only distribution.
However, the author can make any terms they want as a condition of that distribution.
If you do not agree to the terms, then the product getting distributed TO you is illegal/infringing.
In the case of a book, the only thing in effect is copyright, as there is not license that you agreed to. However, that is not always the case. Advance review copies get distributed, on terms such as when the reviews can be released, how much content can be excerpted, or with more onerus terms like the publishing company gets to veto any negative reviews. If you don't like those terms, you don't get your advance copy, and have to wait for the bookstore like everyone else.
I know that the GPL does not cover any usage, however that is because the author of the GL did not include any usage terms.
However, there would be nothing fundamentally diffeernt (or less binding) about a license that DID include usage terms.
Distribution license, vs EULA is just semantics on OUR part, not on the part of the law.
In both cases, the author of the software has ALL rights. You are granted rights based on certain terms. The author of the GPL has deemed that useage is not covered by any terms.
You are missing something fundamental. The first step in you USING the app, is it getting DISTRIBUTED to you in the first place. Therefore GPL and COPYRIGHT cover your use, even if no terms specifically apply to the way you use it.
IF you make a change to the GPL (or a new license) covering how the software may be used, it is just as binding as the GPL, because you do not have the right to RECIEVE (part of DISTRIBUTION) the app without the licence granting you that right.
That is why DRM and things, are legal, even though annoying
You need to have a copy of the work before you can mangle it however you want.
Since they own the COPYright, therefore to get YOUR copy, you have to agree to their terms. In the case of the GPL, they allow you to mangle however you want, but they could be more restrictive if they wanted.
Take a bookstore. They own the book. If you buy the book, you can do whatever you want. But you have to agree to their terms first (giving them money) If you don't get the money, you dont get the book and you can't rip it up.
In the case of the GPL, agreement to the terms is the money.
If you choose NOT to agree to the terms (your choice) then your right to COPY the work in the first place, to get something to play with, is void.
There are many other things that work under this principle. your drivers license for example. You have given implied consent to a breathalizer by accepting the drivers license (or a blood test, but you can't refuse, at least not in most states).
But if you choose not to accept the terms (no test) then you also choose not to drive. If you choose not to comply with GPL, then you dont have rights to use the software, even for yourself, because the author has "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED"
They can make it cover whatever they want. They can make you stand on your head every time you use the program (or even if you aren't using the program at the moment)
The fact that it currently does not included clauses to that effect is not relevant for this discussion. The point was that copyright confers on the author, the right to make whatever conditions they want. If you don't like them, you don't get the software.
In the specific case of the GPL, they have allwoed for use without condition. It could easily be changed.
You are not violating copyright if the person who owns the copyright gives you rights.
One of the rights he gives you is the right to DOWNLOAD or USE the software in the first place. Therefore, if you do not agree to his terms, you cannot use the software.
You are right, you are only guilty of infringing, and will pay fines, and be forced to comply, or stop using.
You are not allowed to "buy" the software in the first place, unless you agree to the terms.
Therefore if you do not agree to the terms, you have stolen(pirated, infringed, whatever) the software and have no rights to it whatsoever.
Now, if you were given the software, without the license, the license may not be applied retroactively, but if it was distributed under that method originally, you are stuck.
Of course, the person who gave you the software might have been in violation, by not passing along the license. In this case, you are probably free from any fines or whatnot, but would have to either agree to the license, or stop using the software.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are alluding to a Mussolini quote here (although there is some debate on if Mussolini actually said this or not)
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
However, the meaning of the word corporate here has almost exactly the opposite of the way we think of the word today.
Rather than meaning a ".inc" business, industry, zaibatsu, what have you
in 1950's Italian, "corporate" had a meeting much more like "cooperative" and in fact was refering to unionization of workers, IE socialism.
Fascism requires government control of the means of production, and in fact is prety darn close to actual implementations of socialism. (The dream of socializm, never materializing except for small 1960's communes and kibbutz)
In america you certainly have corrupt politicians, and business buying power in government, but that is sort of the reverse of fascism. Not that it is a good thing, but it does nobody any good (regardless of where you are in the political spectrum) to use the wrong vocabulary.
The left often likes accusing Bush et al of being fascists, or NAZIs. Its debatable if NAZIism is in fact fascism, or if the two groups just had common enough goals to get along, but remember, the NAZIs were National SOCIALISTS.
I just bought a wacom tablet, its great. It makes doing touch ups a snap, and very organic. So much better than a mouse.
:)
Most digitals only shoot color anyway (I have seen a dedicated b&w digital, and its b&w quality was noticably better - 1/3 the grain and much sharper, since the color circuits were dedicated to better tonaliy), but if you are doing film, and plan on making the prints in b&w, I would highly reccomend doing some test rolls of real b&w film (like tx400 or something) stay away from consumer level b&w film (c41) its really just color film processed differently, so you dont get the benefit
Its funny you liked the nature photos. That is some of the earliest stuff I took, right after I bought the camera. The picture of the Cardinal is one of my favorites, and I took it the day I got the camera, when I had no clue about apeture, shutter speed, or iso or anything
I love the d70. You can see TONS of examples of the color reprouction on my site, http://jasoncoyne.smugmug.com/ Stay away from the theatre photos, they are very dark, and won't give you a good idea of how it does in better lighting. Try some of the shots from Paris. Color is definatly different between canon and nikon. Canon seems a bit more flat to me tho, but has less noise. I think its a preference thing.
The full frame SLRs are nice because you know exactly what a given lens is going to do (if you are used to that lens in a film body) but the selection of lenses and bodies is a lot less. Nikon and Cannon have all the good lens selection, and they are both the 3/4 frame.
On the other hand, the smaller format gives you longer effective focal lengths with all of your lenses. your 200mm would instantly become a 300mm.
(its not actual optical zoom, but its not a pure crop like some people claim, its the difference in formats. Just like a 35mm film camera isnt really cropping compared to a medium format)
Im suprised you like to shoot in color then print b&w, you have a double hit of contrast lost in that workflow. If you are shooting slide film tho, you probably don't see the difference that much tho.
There is a great site at www.kenrockwell.com he gives reviews of all the digital stuff, and lots of medium format stuff. Great advice there. He does a lot with exposure of slide vs film, and getting the zone system down too.
I'm assuming you are using a 35mm SLR (or digital SLR) with those lenses, long telephoto's like that are almost unheard of in medium format.
:)
the 70-210 f4 from nikon is great, but if you are outside, you might try the 70-300 or the 200-400 They aren't as fast, but with sunlight, that shouldn't be an issue.
ou can also find good deals on 800 or 1000mm manual focus prime lenses on ebay once in a while.
There is a big difference between doing an Ansel style landscape, and taking a picture of scenery tho. It would be pretty tough to get the tonality and smoothness of a good landscape with a 35mm, even using pro black and white film. There is just too much grain. Digital might do you better on the grain somewhat, but you won't be able to blow it up to poster size like you would want to with a good landscape.
That said, I do almost all my work with a Nikon d70 digital SLR, because I do action photography a lot more than I do half-dome or death valley
Consumers aren't walking around with medium format cameras. for a point and shoot user, digital took over ages ago. Point and shoot people aren't printing bigger than 5x6 which you can do in like 2MP. For SLR users, its a gray area. Unless you are going to do something bigger than 11x14, digital has enough resolution.
If you are doing landscapes or something, using medium or large format, film has a huge number of advantages. But not many people do that.
Wedding photographers used to be medium format, but most of them have gone digital, due to the number of photos you can take digital. Film you might get 2 or 3 rolls of 110 (110 is the size, not the number of exposures)
Almost all of those shots will need to be posed, because medium format is not a good candid camera.
Digital you might get a few thousand pictues, posed and candid, and you get them all online. Also the photgrapher can spend their time at a second wedding, thus getting an additional few grand, instead of spending the next few days developing and printing.
Consumer film may have the 6 stops of exposure, but unless you are doing your own printing, you probably won't get access to it.
If you KNOW you underexposed the shots, you can handle that doing your development (you couyld have the lab push it for you, but most people don't know about that) and if you print yourself you can have a lot of control.
But for the 99.99% of people that get their pictures printed at the 1 hour lab, they will be better off with digital, where they can edit it in photoshop.
The 1 hour lab is going to print the whole roll with default settings, and most of them will come out as crap.
You can find a good middle ground by doing lab development, and then scanning the negative, but even that is way more work than most people want to do.
Also, there is a new digital camera that has 9 stops of exposure, but it is really slow compared to most digital SLRs (1 fps etc)
uh, google maps doesn't have mouse zooming at all. There is a greasemonkey plugin that supports that feature, but surely you don't suggest that MS should follow greasemonkey?
Google earth does mouse zooming, so perhaps thats what you were talking about.
Inalienable rights cannot be taken away or given away, from a philisophical standpoint.
Nobody denies that rights can (and often are) violated.
Your original comment has almost an exact opposite meaning to what you just posted.
The original parent said if you cant afford it, do without. You compared that to cancer. The implication would be that the ability to afford something, does not dictate the justice in having the thing or not (cancer overrides money == enjoyment overrides money)
Yes, I immediately see how not giving you the free music you want is equivilent to refusing cancer treatment.
And even the cancer treatment has limits : If its going to cost a a few hundred thousand (or a million is not unheard of) to fix you up, think of all the starving kids in africa we could feed.
No, we are a republic because of congress, not the president.
And ancient greece had a direct democracy (for a while anyway). So do many modern small town governments (where everything is passed by referendum)
It would not be feasable for the US to become a true democracy, but that does not mean that such a thing does not exist.
It's actually touche (with a little accent over the e) whean means "A Touch", not Touchez which means "TOUCH IT!"
This actually works fine now. They must have patched. I had horrible problems with this, but it works flawlessly now. No CD required either.
I did complain, so I suppose they might have patched only me, and left the rest of you losers in the cold, but I doubt it.
They also changed the offline mode thing so you don't have to select it when you log off, you can do it at any time, without having the password saved.
The point was not if GPL did such a thing, jsut that IF such a thing was done, it would not be fundamentally diffent from a legal perspective than GPL. If GPL is binding, so are more restrictive terms (including usage terms). If those more restrictive terms are not binding, then neither is GPL
I understand that copyright does not limit use, only distribution. But if the author chooses not to distribute to you, based on you not voluntarily accepting usage limitations, then you are still shafted!
You are right, any breaches of this would be covered by contract law, not copyright. This is true for the GPL tho too.
If you violate a term of the GPL, it is contract law that will resolve the dispute. (The GPL is written in such a way that the reciever pre-agrees that any dispute is resolved in the favor of the author, so any resolution will be quick)
such You esentially have a contract that allows you do recieve a copy of the program. Absent that contract, the program is restricted from you by copyright.If you violate the contract, the contract is nullified, and you are back to just copyright, which says you cannot have a copy of the software. (If you cannot have the software, you cannot use the software)
You are still not listening. You cannot use software, unless you can obtain it.
I as the software owner, can choose not to send you the software unless you agree to my terms. Some of those terms might be usage terms, some of those terms might be distribution terms.
You are not able to circumvent my terms, because to get the softare you have to break the copyright laws.
Therefore, EULA type terms are protected by copyright, even though copyright does not specifically cover usage.
It is very true, the GPL does not make any restrictions on usage. However if they had made usage terms, those terms would be just as binding as the distribution terms.
Yes, must be before the fact, and EULAs are on tenuous ground there.
:
However, with DMCA around, they mightbe able to get away with it by saying something like
We distributed an installer, the installer displayed an EULA, the actual program is encrypted, without agreeing to the EULA, you don't get the distribution of the actual software. You can't break the encryption without violating DMCA.
Or, "over the wire" installers will become more popular, where you download a small installer, that shows an EULA, and then THAT gets the full software.
However, both in-the-zip and shrinkwrap licenses have a long history, and I think convincing arguments could be made that they are binding because of common conventions. Especially if precidents get set that you can return shrinkwrap software that you do not accept the EULA of.
I fully understand the rights of copyright. It controls only distribution.
However, the author can make any terms they want as a condition of that distribution.
If you do not agree to the terms, then the product getting distributed TO you is illegal/infringing.
In the case of a book, the only thing in effect is copyright, as there is not license that you agreed to. However, that is not always the case. Advance review copies get distributed, on terms such as when the reviews can be released, how much content can be excerpted, or with more onerus terms like the publishing company gets to veto any negative reviews. If you don't like those terms, you don't get your advance copy, and have to wait for the bookstore like everyone else.
I know that the GPL does not cover any usage, however that is because the author of the GL did not include any usage terms.
However, there would be nothing fundamentally diffeernt (or less binding) about a license that DID include usage terms.
Distribution license, vs EULA is just semantics on OUR part, not on the part of the law.
In both cases, the author of the software has ALL rights. You are granted rights based on certain terms. The author of the GPL has deemed that useage is not covered by any terms.
You are missing something fundamental. The first step in you USING the app, is it getting DISTRIBUTED to you in the first place. Therefore GPL and COPYRIGHT cover your use, even if no terms specifically apply to the way you use it.
IF you make a change to the GPL (or a new license) covering how the software may be used, it is just as binding as the GPL, because you do not have the right to RECIEVE (part of DISTRIBUTION) the app without the licence granting you that right.
That is why DRM and things, are legal, even though annoying
You need to have a copy of the work before you can mangle it however you want.
Since they own the COPYright, therefore to get YOUR copy, you have to agree to their terms. In the case of the GPL, they allow you to mangle however you want, but they could be more restrictive if they wanted.
Take a bookstore. They own the book. If you buy the book, you can do whatever you want. But you have to agree to their terms first (giving them money) If you don't get the money, you dont get the book and you can't rip it up.
In the case of the GPL, agreement to the terms is the money.
If you choose NOT to agree to the terms (your choice) then your right to COPY the work in the first place, to get something to play with, is void.
There are many other things that work under this principle. your drivers license for example. You have given implied consent to a breathalizer by accepting the drivers license (or a blood test, but you can't refuse, at least not in most states).
But if you choose not to accept the terms (no test) then you also choose not to drive.
If you choose not to comply with GPL, then you dont have rights to use the software, even for yourself, because the author has "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED"
They can make it cover whatever they want. They can make you stand on your head every time you use the program (or even if you aren't using the program at the moment)
The fact that it currently does not included clauses to that effect is not relevant for this discussion. The point was that copyright confers on the author, the right to make whatever conditions they want. If you don't like them, you don't get the software.
In the specific case of the GPL, they have allwoed for use without condition. It could easily be changed.
You are not violating copyright if the person who owns the copyright gives you rights.
One of the rights he gives you is the right to DOWNLOAD or USE the software in the first place. Therefore, if you do not agree to his terms, you cannot use the software.
You are right, you are only guilty of infringing, and will pay fines, and be forced to comply, or stop using.
Since obtaining the software in the first place falls under copyright, that means doing anything is under the jurisdiction of the GPL.
Here is the difference :
You are not allowed to "buy" the software in the first place, unless you agree to the terms.
Therefore if you do not agree to the terms, you have stolen(pirated, infringed, whatever) the software and have no rights to it whatsoever.
Now, if you were given the software, without the license, the license may not be applied retroactively, but if it was distributed under that method originally, you are stuck.
Of course, the person who gave you the software might have been in violation, by not passing along the license. In this case, you are probably free from any fines or whatnot, but would have to either agree to the license, or stop using the software.