If the EULA doesn't grant any rights, then under what how am I actually given the right to use the software? If I have the CD and I install the software, am I magically allowed to use it?
No magic required. If you buy a car then you're allowed to drive it. If you buy a painting then you're allowed to look at it. If you buy a CD then you're allowed to play it. If you buy a book you're allowed to read it. If you buy software you are allowed to use it. Where do you get the need for magic from?
Copyright prohibits you from copying the work or from public performances of the work. That's it. Copyright does not restrict use, just copying and public performance.
Government produced work should be public domain, not GPL.
Work produced directly by the government is public domain, not GPL. Do you mean that all government funded work should be a. public domain and b. published (being public domain is irrelevant if it isn't published), not GPL and not proprietary?
What's the effective difference between a compact-disc and music on a plastic wafer that will play back pretty much anywhere but won't let people record from it, other than the preventing copying part?
It's not entirely clear from your question whether or not you realise that these pseudo-cds won't play back in devices correctly made to play real cds.
If the question is "what is the difference between a piece of plastic that will play on a class of devices and a piece of plastic that will play on a subset of that class of devices"? Then... well, I think with a bit of effort you should be able to work out the answer but if not then let me know and I'll try to think up some clues.
Irrelevent.... dictionary.com doesn't define International and Australian Federal laws. Legislation can give anything it's own meaning, for example in the US it was legislated that tomatoes are vegetables for taxation purposes.
Legislation has no effect on the language that the rest of us are speaking. Even if the Australian parliament had expressly defined "refugee" as "a type of yellowish moss found only in Saudi Arabia", the rest of would not be wrong to continue using the word in its normal sense.
The original poster referred to Australian treatment of refugees. He did not add "as defined by Australian Federal Laws". If a government defined "people" as not including slaves, would you vociferously argue that that country didn't enslave people because the law defines people to exclude them?
You seem to think that you're living in "1984". Or possibly a sort of "further through the looking glass" - When anyone else uses a word, said AuusiePenguin, it means exactly what the Australian Government want it to mean, neither more nor less?
Incidentally, tomatoes are vegetables. You may be getting confused by the fact that they are also fruit.
"Oh no! Please don't deny me your library of inferior games, Microsoft! Whatever would I do?"
Sorry, you're bashing some 100 game developers under the Microsoft umbrella. XBOX happens to have a very good selection of games.
So remove the word "inferior" from the quote and see how much it changes it. Honestly "do as we say, or no more Xboxes" is at most amusing, maybe not even that; it's certainly not scary.
The entity at fault whenever a special interest purchases a law is always only the government. The government has no right to sell one person's rights to another. If you dislike the idea of Australia changing its laws because of this, then the only entity you should be blaming is Australia. As you said yourself, M$ has a right to do what it's doing.
Microsoft have the right to make ludicrous threats in exactly the same way and to the same extent that anyone here has the right to point at them and laugh for doing it, or to express moral outrage.
Accepting that someone has the right to do something does NOT mean that you can't criticise them for doing it. Presumably you recognise the right of the previous poster to make his comments, but you criticised him anyway. He recognised that Microsoft has the right to make their comments, but he had ever right to criticise them for doing it. Having a right to do something is not the same being right to do it.
>Then why not simultaneously release in the United States and the United Kingdom?
Because the US release is normally a one-language, English-only build. And the European build often needs support for 3-5 languages (including English)
So, at the risk of sounding incredibly ignorant and naive, why not release "the US release" in the United Kingdom, which really doesn't care how many languages you might want to include in "the European build"?
Maybe, but I don't see them going all the way as to more or less threaten the government of an entire country.
If it's supposed to be a threat then it's an incredibly mediocre one.
"Governments of the world, do as we say or we'll stop selling our games console!" Not exactly time for James Bond to leap into action.
I know voters are unpredictable at times, but it's hard to believe that the next election is going to be affected by outrage at the loss of Xboxes. MAYBE if there was direct legislation to prevent sales or something, and the election was already too close to call, but even then we're not talking about an important commodity or an engine of the economy, it's not even the market leader as a games console and games console are hardly life and death...
A threat to stop selling Windows would at least have enough impact to wake someone up. Even then such a blatant attempt at economic blackmail would be more likely to see the introduction of a compulsory licensing scheme or something (don't blurble about treaties, treatise get broken or side stepped over much less important issues than someone blatantly trying to blackmail your country, plus even the US Government's main reaction would be to wonder what the hell Microsoft were thinking). But this isn't WIndows, it's Xbox, and nobody in power will even care.
I can't believe it is supposed to be a threat, but admittedly I don't see what else the point was supposed to be.
You can't have multiple people that each have a monopoly. (And while we're at it, there's no such thing as a "relative monopoly.")
Obviously multiple people can have monopolies, they just can't be in identical commodities. Furthermore ALL monopolies are relative : it's a question of how good the possible substitute goods are, not whether they exist.
For example, suppose I'm the only provider of gas for central heating, but someone else is the only provider of electricity. Do I have a monopoly? Yes. Are there competiting companies providing substitutes? Yes. Does more than one monopoly exist? Yes, the electricity monopoly.
Suppose I'm the only provider of telephone services. Do I have a monopoly? Yes. Are there competiting companies providing substitutes? Yes, at least as long as there's a postal service there is. In fact as long as people can buy carrier pigeons there is.
The question is always how good the substitutes are. Carrier pigeons are a pretty poor substitute for telephones, mail isn't great either. Electricity for heating isn't a terrible alternative to gas, but the need to change your heater isn't a minor issue.
All monopolies are relative.
Is Microsoft the sole supplier of a commodity? Yes, obviously they have a legal monopoly on supply of the Windows operating system. That's the whole point of copyright.
But are there good substitues for Windows? Opinions vary wildly, and around here a lot of people seem to think Linux is a pretty good substitute or even a great one. Lots of Mac users think that's a great substitute. But is it entirely unreasonable to come to the opposite conclusion when looking at the amount of software and hardware installed on the basis of Windows being used? I don't think so.
Voting libertarian will just make the party you disfavor least lose.
If he's advocating voting libertarian then it's highly likely that the libertarian party is the one that he disfavors least. How would his voting for them cause them to lose?
Okay, I guess when you said "At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I'll take snopes.com's word over Maureen Dowd's" you meant "the Justice Department" when you said "snopes.com" that's fine, presumably you can see why I'd be confused though:)
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I'll take snopes.com's word over Maureen Dowd's
Their word for what? All that snopes says is that some people claim it was covered up because Ashcroft doesn't like being photographed in front of the statue and that his spokespeople deny that. Nothing on there seems to imply even an opinion on which side is more plausible.
Well, dep is associating the League with the KDE project, and he himself knows the difference between the two. But, nonetheless, it is a valid point. In dre's response, he said that the league was "not-for-profit", and not "non-profit".
Can someone with experience in US law explain the difference, if any between the two? I'm still confused about this fact.
I'm not experienced in US law, so that probably doesn't help much:) but as far as I can tell from what the two sides are saying, the distinction they're making is:
Non-profit : special status granted by the federal government, grants immunity from taxes (or at least some special status with respect to taxes) but carries extra requirements, including additional disclosures. This would typically be used by charities (or maybe can only be used by charities)
Not-for-profit : just like any other company, but it doesn't trade or otherwise make a profit (and isn't intended to) so although it's liable to taxation in theory, in practice it doesn't have any taxable income. So in this case, I guess the idea is the company takes contributions from its members and spends those contributions on the things that the members are contributing them for, i.e. promoting KDS (or not). Any money left over the members are still entitled to. The company isn't charging outsiders for a service in order to generate a profit, so on no profit there's no tax.
That's my non-expert understanding of what they're saying.
I'm a little bit confused about why they are using such old data in a current story.
Having read the article I would have thought it was pretty obvious that the reason they are using such old data is that no current data has been provided (and even the old budgeted data has only been leaked).
The main point of the non-profit vs not-for-profit stuff was that if they are a non-profit, as they have apparently claimed to be in official filings in Delaware, then they are required to disclose details of their activities, which they have not done.
However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes;
You'd think that they'd require that it actually be a holiday but apparently they're satisfied just so long as what you're wearing is a holiday costume.
Mod parent Troll!:( I do NOT like GNOME at all. I hate its look and feel
I agree. I distinctly remember it saying somewhere in the moderation guidelines that "troll" moderation was to be used on posts advocating things that WetCat doesn't like.
When I say "I use linux" or "I use Windows" I am describing the kernel. I could have the GNU utilities installed on a windows box, BSD, or many others. I am saying my computer executes code written and compiled to run on Linux (the kernel).
If all you are talking about when you use the term "Linux" is the kernel then Richard Stallman and the FSF have no quarrel with you. This is very clear from their web site, including the FAQ linked to from the story above.
Many people, myself being one example, use the term "Linux" as a generic name for distributions that include Linux (the kernel), GNU software, and other software. These distributions that include Linux (kernel) and also GNU software are what the FSF feel should be called GNU/Linux.
The FSF call the Linux kernel Linux just as you do. They have no objection to you doing so. Do you understand yet?
They should support Linus' freedom to name the software he created and maintains.
You really don't have a clue what's being discussed here do you?
I call operating systems that contain the Linux kernel and GNU tools just "Linux", just like a lot of people do. But I do comprehend the argument. I know that those systems aren't created or maintained by Linus Torvalds. I know that the FSF aren't asking anyone to call the Linux kernel, which is maintained by Linux Torvalds, anything other than Linux.
How you can contribute so forcefully to a discussion whilst apparently having no clue what the discussion is about is beyond me.
If you buy a movie and rip content out of it, then it would be false advertising to claim that it is the same movie any more, don't you agree?
It would be false advertising to sell it and fail to mention the changes, agreed.
And yet, if you call it something else, or claim that it is a different movie BASED on the original, then you are violating copyright.
No, actually. I could call it, for example, 'a film I bought and ripped some bits out of'. But I'd agree that claiming that it was an original film created by me would probably be illegal.
So, in short, their product is illegal because it is a separate product which contains an illegal amount of the original.
That paragraph seems to be a complete non-sequitur. Why would it be illegal to sell half a book or half a film, or any other fraction, so long as you were honest about it?
Another example: if I take the newest Stephen King book, change the title and two of the pictures, and then claim that I am selling the newest Stephen King book, I am obviously infringing copyright.
No, you're not. You're probably misrepresenting what you're selling for which the purchaser may be able to sue you. You might arguably be slandering Stephen King, for which he would be able to sue you, by implying that a 'worse' book was written by him. But I don't see where you get the copyright claim from.
How's this : I buy the latest Stephen King book, I rip out page 73, and I sell it as "latest Stephen King book with page 73 removef". I don't see how anyone can possibly think that copyright comes into that, I didn't copy anything. I don't see any other basis for claiming it's illegal either, can you?
So, can I just not sell my work to you if I don't want you to edit it?
Maybe a non-modification license would be enough? IMHO, I can distribute my work under any license and all you can do is not buying it.
If I walk into a book shop, pick a book off the shelf, take it to the counter and say "I'd like to buy this please" then I absolutely agree that the checkout person can say "Oh no, we can't sell you it but I can offer you a license to make certain limited uses of it, just sign here and here...". It's extremely unlikely that I'd choose to shop in such a place but I have no problem at all with the concept. In that position I could accept the license or reject it, clear cut just as you say.
Right now that is nothing like what happens. We both know that books are sold not licensed. We both know that I'm not going to get sued if I decide to soak my book collection in ketchup, because they're mine and I'm allowed to.
An example that does take place in practice, is that I borrow a book from the library, it's not mine and I can't mutilate it without the owner's permission. I have no problem with that at all. If I do buy them, however, then they are mine and I can do with them what I like.
If you want to license your books instead of selling them then go ahead, just don't expect to do very well. This is not a system that is likely to appeal to consumers. One of the reasons that a lot of us buy books instead of using libraries is that we like owning things. If you rely on book sales for a living then reduce sales to loans at your peril.
Or those people who can afford to and are happy to pay for the services can get someone else to do the fast forwards / editing for them. what's the problem with that?
A bit offtopic, but why has the responsibility of parenting fallen on the shoulders of others?
I know, it's terrible. It was bad enough when parents were buying their children books that other people had written instead of writing their own. Now getting thier children movies that other people have edited, to their requirements. It's terrible.
I'm with you 100%. Every parent should either buy their own film studio and make the movies themselves or just do without movies all together.
Next thing you know they'll be buying their animals and plants pre-raised (or even pre-killed!) to feed thier kids instead of doing it all themselves. No wonder the country's in such a mess.
The real point is that when Spielberg or Redford makes a movie, that movie carries their message and says something about them. Cutting all the gruesome and objectionable parts from Shindler's List or Saving Private Ryan destroys the movies.
Sure, and ripping out every page of Lord of the Rings that mentions the Ring would destroy that, but so long as you buy the book you're allowed to do it, or to pay someone else to do it. Why shouldn't you be allowed to?
If you want a kid-friendly version either edit it yourself or get their permission and give yourself the title of the editor, but don't put on their shoulders the responsibility for your creation.
How could I possibly create any responsibility on their behalf? What is it I make them responsible for? This simply makes no sense. And why make a distinction between editing it myself and paying someone else to? Somehow Spielberg is "responsible" if I hire someone to do the editing but not if I do it myself? Why?
Slashdot Mirror
If the EULA doesn't grant any rights, then under what how am I actually given the right to use the software? If I have the CD and I install the software, am I magically allowed to use it?
No magic required. If you buy a car then you're allowed to drive it. If you buy a painting then you're allowed to look at it. If you buy a CD then you're allowed to play it. If you buy a book you're allowed to read it. If you buy software you are allowed to use it. Where do you get the need for magic from?
Copyright prohibits you from copying the work or from public performances of the work. That's it. Copyright does not restrict use, just copying and public performance.
Government produced work should be public domain, not GPL.
Work produced directly by the government is public domain, not GPL. Do you mean that all government funded work should be a. public domain and b. published (being public domain is irrelevant if it isn't published), not GPL and not proprietary?
What's the effective difference between a compact-disc and music on a plastic wafer that will play back pretty much anywhere but won't let people record from it, other than the preventing copying part?
It's not entirely clear from your question whether or not you realise that these pseudo-cds won't play back in devices correctly made to play real cds.
If the question is "what is the difference between a piece of plastic that will play on a class of devices and a piece of plastic that will play on a subset of that class of devices"? Then... well, I think with a bit of effort you should be able to work out the answer but if not then let me know and I'll try to think up some clues.
Irrelevent.... dictionary.com doesn't define International and Australian Federal laws. Legislation can give anything it's own meaning, for example in the US it was legislated that tomatoes are vegetables for taxation purposes.
Legislation has no effect on the language that the rest of us are speaking. Even if the Australian parliament had expressly defined "refugee" as "a type of yellowish moss found only in Saudi Arabia", the rest of would not be wrong to continue using the word in its normal sense.
The original poster referred to Australian treatment of refugees. He did not add "as defined by Australian Federal Laws". If a government defined "people" as not including slaves, would you vociferously argue that that country didn't enslave people because the law defines people to exclude them?
You seem to think that you're living in "1984". Or possibly a sort of "further through the looking glass" - When anyone else uses a word, said AuusiePenguin, it means exactly what the Australian Government want it to mean, neither more nor less?
Incidentally, tomatoes are vegetables. You may be getting confused by the fact that they are also fruit.
"Oh no! Please don't deny me your library of inferior games, Microsoft! Whatever would I do?"
Sorry, you're bashing some 100 game developers under the Microsoft umbrella. XBOX happens to have a very good selection of games.
So remove the word "inferior" from the quote and see how much it changes it. Honestly "do as we say, or no more Xboxes" is at most amusing, maybe not even that; it's certainly not scary.
The entity at fault whenever a special interest purchases a law is always only the government. The government has no right to sell one person's rights to another. If you dislike the idea of Australia changing its laws because of this, then the only entity you should be blaming is Australia. As you said yourself, M$ has a right to do what it's doing.
Microsoft have the right to make ludicrous threats in exactly the same way and to the same extent that anyone here has the right to point at them and laugh for doing it, or to express moral outrage.
Accepting that someone has the right to do something does NOT mean that you can't criticise them for doing it. Presumably you recognise the right of the previous poster to make his comments, but you criticised him anyway. He recognised that Microsoft has the right to make their comments, but he had ever right to criticise them for doing it. Having a right to do something is not the same being right to do it.
>Then why not simultaneously release in the United States and the United Kingdom?
Because the US release is normally a one-language, English-only build. And the European build often needs support for 3-5 languages (including English)
So, at the risk of sounding incredibly ignorant and naive, why not release "the US release" in the United Kingdom, which really doesn't care how many languages you might want to include in "the European build"?
Maybe, but I don't see them going all the way as to more or less threaten the government of an entire country.
If it's supposed to be a threat then it's an incredibly mediocre one.
"Governments of the world, do as we say or we'll stop selling our games console!" Not exactly time for James Bond to leap into action.
I know voters are unpredictable at times, but it's hard to believe that the next election is going to be affected by outrage at the loss of Xboxes. MAYBE if there was direct legislation to prevent sales or something, and the election was already too close to call, but even then we're not talking about an important commodity or an engine of the economy, it's not even the market leader as a games console and games console are hardly life and death...
A threat to stop selling Windows would at least have enough impact to wake someone up. Even then such a blatant attempt at economic blackmail would be more likely to see the introduction of a compulsory licensing scheme or something (don't blurble about treaties, treatise get broken or side stepped over much less important issues than someone blatantly trying to blackmail your country, plus even the US Government's main reaction would be to wonder what the hell Microsoft were thinking). But this isn't WIndows, it's Xbox, and nobody in power will even care.
I can't believe it is supposed to be a threat, but admittedly I don't see what else the point was supposed to be.
You can't have multiple people that each have a monopoly. (And while we're at it, there's no such thing as a "relative monopoly.")
Obviously multiple people can have monopolies, they just can't be in identical commodities. Furthermore ALL monopolies are relative : it's a question of how good the possible substitute goods are, not whether they exist.
For example, suppose I'm the only provider of gas for central heating, but someone else is the only provider of electricity. Do I have a monopoly? Yes. Are there competiting companies providing substitutes? Yes. Does more than one monopoly exist? Yes, the electricity monopoly.
Suppose I'm the only provider of telephone services. Do I have a monopoly? Yes. Are there competiting companies providing substitutes? Yes, at least as long as there's a postal service there is. In fact as long as people can buy carrier pigeons there is.
The question is always how good the substitutes are. Carrier pigeons are a pretty poor substitute for telephones, mail isn't great either. Electricity for heating isn't a terrible alternative to gas, but the need to change your heater isn't a minor issue.
All monopolies are relative.
Is Microsoft the sole supplier of a commodity? Yes, obviously they have a legal monopoly on supply of the Windows operating system. That's the whole point of copyright.
But are there good substitues for Windows? Opinions vary wildly, and around here a lot of people seem to think Linux is a pretty good substitute or even a great one. Lots of Mac users think that's a great substitute. But is it entirely unreasonable to come to the opposite conclusion when looking at the amount of software and hardware installed on the basis of Windows being used? I don't think so.
And how does "trust" have anything to do with Palladium.
You have to trust a convicted monopolist to use it.
Voting libertarian will just make the party you disfavor least lose.
If he's advocating voting libertarian then it's highly likely that the libertarian party is the one that he disfavors least. How would his voting for them cause them to lose?
Okay, I guess when you said "At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I'll take snopes.com's word over Maureen Dowd's" you meant "the Justice Department" when you said "snopes.com" that's fine, presumably you can see why I'd be confused though :)
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I'll take snopes.com's word over Maureen Dowd's
Their word for what? All that snopes says is that some people claim it was covered up because Ashcroft doesn't like being photographed in front of the statue and that his spokespeople deny that. Nothing on there seems to imply even an opinion on which side is more plausible.
Well, dep is associating the League with the KDE project, and he himself knows the difference between the two. But, nonetheless, it is a valid point. In dre's response, he said that the league was "not-for-profit", and not "non-profit".
:) but as far as I can tell from what the two sides are saying, the distinction they're making is :
Can someone with experience in US law explain the difference, if any between the two? I'm still confused about this fact.
I'm not experienced in US law, so that probably doesn't help much
Non-profit : special status granted by the federal government, grants immunity from taxes (or at least some special status with respect to taxes) but carries extra requirements, including additional disclosures. This would typically be used by charities (or maybe can only be used by charities)
Not-for-profit : just like any other company, but it doesn't trade or otherwise make a profit (and isn't intended to) so although it's liable to taxation in theory, in practice it doesn't have any taxable income. So in this case, I guess the idea is the company takes contributions from its members and spends those contributions on the things that the members are contributing them for, i.e. promoting KDS (or not). Any money left over the members are still entitled to. The company isn't charging outsiders for a service in order to generate a profit, so on no profit there's no tax.
That's my non-expert understanding of what they're saying.
KDE/Gnome are largely unknown by the common Windows-using public.
:)
But that can't be true! What about all the good work being done by the KDE League to errrr... never mind
I'm a little bit confused about why they are using such old data in a current story.
Having read the article I would have thought it was pretty obvious that the reason they are using such old data is that no current data has been provided (and even the old budgeted data has only been leaked).
The main point of the non-profit vs not-for-profit stuff was that if they are a non-profit, as they have apparently claimed to be in official filings in Delaware, then they are required to disclose details of their activities, which they have not done.
However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes;
You'd think that they'd require that it actually be a holiday but apparently they're satisfied just so long as what you're wearing is a holiday costume.
Mod parent Troll! :( I do NOT like GNOME at all. I hate its look and feel
I agree. I distinctly remember it saying somewhere in the moderation guidelines that "troll" moderation was to be used on posts advocating things that WetCat doesn't like.
When I say "I use linux" or "I use Windows" I am describing the kernel. I could have the GNU utilities installed on a windows box, BSD, or many others. I am saying my computer executes code written and compiled to run on Linux (the kernel).
If all you are talking about when you use the term "Linux" is the kernel then Richard Stallman and the FSF have no quarrel with you. This is very clear from their web site, including the FAQ linked to from the story above.
Many people, myself being one example, use the term "Linux" as a generic name for distributions that include Linux (the kernel), GNU software, and other software. These distributions that include Linux (kernel) and also GNU software are what the FSF feel should be called GNU/Linux.
The FSF call the Linux kernel Linux just as you do. They have no objection to you doing so. Do you understand yet?
They should support Linus' freedom to name the software he created and maintains.
You really don't have a clue what's being discussed here do you?
I call operating systems that contain the Linux kernel and GNU tools just "Linux", just like a lot of people do. But I do comprehend the argument. I know that those systems aren't created or maintained by Linus Torvalds. I know that the FSF aren't asking anyone to call the Linux kernel, which is maintained by Linux Torvalds, anything other than Linux.
How you can contribute so forcefully to a discussion whilst apparently having no clue what the discussion is about is beyond me.
If you buy a movie and rip content out of it, then it would be false advertising to claim that it is the same movie any more, don't you agree?
It would be false advertising to sell it and fail to mention the changes, agreed.
And yet, if you call it something else, or claim that it is a different movie BASED on the original, then you are violating copyright.
No, actually. I could call it, for example, 'a film I bought and ripped some bits out of'. But I'd agree that claiming that it was an original film created by me would probably be illegal.
So, in short, their product is illegal because it is a separate product which contains an illegal amount of the original.
That paragraph seems to be a complete non-sequitur. Why would it be illegal to sell half a book or half a film, or any other fraction, so long as you were honest about it?
Another example: if I take the newest Stephen King book, change the title and two of the pictures, and then claim that I am selling the newest Stephen King book, I am obviously infringing copyright.
No, you're not. You're probably misrepresenting what you're selling for which the purchaser may be able to sue you. You might arguably be slandering Stephen King, for which he would be able to sue you, by implying that a 'worse' book was written by him. But I don't see where you get the copyright claim from.
How's this : I buy the latest Stephen King book, I rip out page 73, and I sell it as "latest Stephen King book with page 73 removef". I don't see how anyone can possibly think that copyright comes into that, I didn't copy anything. I don't see any other basis for claiming it's illegal either, can you?
So, can I just not sell my work to you if I don't want you to edit it?
Maybe a non-modification license would be enough?
IMHO, I can distribute my work under any license and all you can do is not buying it.
If I walk into a book shop, pick a book off the shelf, take it to the counter and say "I'd like to buy this please" then I absolutely agree that the checkout person can say "Oh no, we can't sell you it but I can offer you a license to make certain limited uses of it, just sign here and here...". It's extremely unlikely that I'd choose to shop in such a place but I have no problem at all with the concept. In that position I could accept the license or reject it, clear cut just as you say.
Right now that is nothing like what happens. We both know that books are sold not licensed. We both know that I'm not going to get sued if I decide to soak my book collection in ketchup, because they're mine and I'm allowed to.
An example that does take place in practice, is that I borrow a book from the library, it's not mine and I can't mutilate it without the owner's permission. I have no problem with that at all. If I do buy them, however, then they are mine and I can do with them what I like.
If you want to license your books instead of selling them then go ahead, just don't expect to do very well. This is not a system that is likely to appeal to consumers. One of the reasons that a lot of us buy books instead of using libraries is that we like owning things. If you rely on book sales for a living then reduce sales to loans at your peril.
Or those people who can afford to and are happy to pay for the services can get someone else to do the fast forwards / editing for them. what's the problem with that?
A bit offtopic, but why has the responsibility of parenting fallen on the shoulders of others?
I know, it's terrible. It was bad enough when parents were buying their children books that other people had written instead of writing their own. Now getting thier children movies that other people have edited, to their requirements. It's terrible.
I'm with you 100%. Every parent should either buy their own film studio and make the movies themselves or just do without movies all together.
Next thing you know they'll be buying their animals and plants pre-raised (or even pre-killed!) to feed thier kids instead of doing it all themselves. No wonder the country's in such a mess.
The real point is that when Spielberg or Redford makes a movie, that movie carries their message and says something about them. Cutting all the gruesome and objectionable parts from Shindler's List or Saving Private Ryan destroys the movies.
Sure, and ripping out every page of Lord of the Rings that mentions the Ring would destroy that, but so long as you buy the book you're allowed to do it, or to pay someone else to do it. Why shouldn't you be allowed to?
If you want a kid-friendly version either edit it yourself or get their permission and give yourself the title of the editor, but don't put on their shoulders the responsibility for your creation.
How could I possibly create any responsibility on their behalf? What is it I make them responsible for? This simply makes no sense. And why make a distinction between editing it myself and paying someone else to? Somehow Spielberg is "responsible" if I hire someone to do the editing but not if I do it myself? Why?