Google's primary line of business is selling ad space. You will have a brutal time convincing a court that increased revenue from increased ad views is an indirect benefit.
Additionally, Viacom can attack Google's search reputation by pointing out that their take down list came as the results of a search of the content on Youtube. The misidentified files, Viacom will blame on poor quality search results.
Wow. You're a total idiot. End to end idiot. Idiot from the inside out. In one ear and out the other ear idiot. But maybe in your world turnitin is breaking into these student's homes, creeping up the stairs and stealing their homework out from under lock and key. Unlike in our world, where the teacher or *GASP* the student, send a copy to turnitin. Turnitin accepts submissions you zero. Stupid. Not expletive stupid. Just stupid. Dumb. Ignorant. Stupid. So stupid you try and connect completely unrelated facts. You do not even know the law. Stupid enough to think that doing exactly what is expected, ie. notify the teacher of suspected plagiarism, is publication. If this was my website, I'd ban your entire/8 because you, personally, are so stupid that averaging in IQs of the other twenty-four million people on that network segment still results in an IQ less than a houseplant. You are an idiot wrapped in a moron inside a retard.
(Mods, go ahead, mod me flamebait. I'm used to it.)
What rights are they surrendering? The right to distribute? Nope, turnitin isn't publishing these things. The right to make duplicates? Nope, turnitin isn't making duplicates.
You put the blame on the wrong person. The teacher made the copy and distributed it. Turnitin received a copy, presumedly a legal copy. (You even stated exactly who made a copy: "Teacher then makes a copy...")
There's something perverse about a for profit company throwing a smattering of database code at a massive stack of ill-gotten IP and then charging public institutions for access.
Never heard of Lexis-Nexis? Westlaw? Google? I suspect that Turnitin will have a different opinion on how ill-gotten the papers that are submitted to them are. It'd be surprising if there wasn't a clause in the terms of use that specifically allows them to keep a copy of any paper that is submitted to them.
Perfect 10 asked Google to remove their content, Google said "oh, it's too hard." They went to court. So far Google doesn't have to avoid indexing illegally distributed copies of Perfect 10's material. If a professor illegally copies a paper and sends the copy to Turnitin, how is this Turnitin's problem?
My wife is an adjunct professor at a university, and she pretty routinely nails at least 1 or 2 students for blatant plagiarism per class.
Don't take this wrong, but I think I want to be in your wife's class. I can plagiarize with the best of them and if my punishment is to be nailed by the teacher....
No, it says that you can be v2 or later. If you try and distribute under v3 only, or "v3 or any later version", you are no longer abiding by the original license terms which specifically identify v2 as legit.
Don't forget what this means. As a receipient of "GPLv2 or any later version" I can choose to have future new rights given in GPLv3. However I can also choose to ignore any new restrictions in GPLv3. If a piece of GPLv2 software is not owned by a single entity (or had all right assigned to a single entity) it can never become "GPLv3 or any later version." That language does not give automatic relicensing rights. New derived works (ie. patches) are still bound by the original license. The only way anything becomes v3 is if it's relicensed.
Keep in mind that GPL v2 is not the license, it's the terms of the license. The license is the notice attached to the software which says you can use this blah blah blah under terms of GPL V2 or any later version.
v3 is attempting to restrict deployment of apps via the web such that someone can take a GPLed piece of software and make changes then allow users to use it from their browser without distributing the changes. Since the people putting it on their website are the users in this case, it sure sounds like someone wants to control how users use the software.
Unlike some of my other posts, I'm not going to call you a cocksucking idiot....:) (really, it's a joke)
Why does everyone look at this in isolation? The whole question of a loophole seems to be already answered by the fact that this license is version 3 of the GPL. Of course it's not going to be "perfect" (according to Dick Stallman), but it's not like they won't be able to make version 4.... version 5.... version 6.... version 7....
This particular problem crops up a lot here. People see things as interesting curiousities and ignore them in their actual context and because of that mindset they come up with the most ridiculous conclusions.
As you should. We're not a bunch of panty wastes. If you don't welcome us properly we'll get in our longships and row our tall, blond asses over there and.... um.... call someone on our cellphones.
Blah blah blah. What point is it you are arguing? OWA is an AJAX application. It was the first AJAX application. Go start some investigation at wikipedia. The first sentence of the history (skipping the bit about who coined the term) is:
Although the term "Ajax" was coined in 2005, most of the technologies that enable Ajax started a decade earlier with Microsoft's initiatives in developing Remote Scripting.
Does it make your ass fizz and foam painfully to hear that Microsoft created something that gives you a boner? Is that why you're so rabidly in denial of the truth? Unless there is something like that, all your revisionist fiction is hard to explain.
XmlHTTPRequest was first used Outlook Web Access. In one step microsoft took the web from klugey JVM and form based web apps to asynchronous, dynamic, loosely coupled, non-modal web apps. If you even took the slightest amount of time to look it up you'd know this.
Being agnostic doesn't result in you turning blue. If you don't talk about it, nobody will know. And you can always stop with the pot. See, that was easy. Besides, if the county commisioners are wrong then stinking of weed will help you get elected.
Are you going to believe me, or some ad agency from New York?
Who are you? Some would be politician who's too lazy, or crazy, to get on the ballot? With your telling your friend how to vote as opposed to letting him make a decision on his own, one wonders.
Seriously, if you're going to make inflammatory remarks you should at least be prepared to discuss them.
What's inflammatory about what I've said? It's all true. Unlike you:
I think you're just opposed to publically funded higher education -- which is a viewpoint I don't entirely disagree with -- or maybe that you're just angry about your student loans or something -- but you made an argument about how students don't deserve residental Internet access because the school is state subsidized and now you're refusing to discuss that point.
I have not resorted to judgements for which I have zero basis. But if you really want to know, I'm willing to be content contributing to the public good when the services I am contributing to are being used for their stated purpose. When people receiving public subsidies start crying that they are not getting enough luxuries I have a trouble feeling any sympathy.
This whole dorm vs. apartment vs. house thing only got started because I answered your rhetorical question in the same rhetorical manner -- it's wholly unrelated to the discussion, and you're using it to ignore everything else I've said.
No, this whole subthread got started because you couldn't find a valid counter to my original point and resorted to making the exact same statement, only changing from a public supplier of a service to a private supplier of a similar service, and presenting it as an attack against my argument. Fundamentally whenever someone resorts to using a service, you don't have the same freedoms you would have if you provided for yourself.
But that isn't the point, an important thing to consider is that a happy student is a productive student; so if a 2am porn fix is what I need to be happy then how is it in the schools best interest to deny me? I'll just leave and give my lovely money to some one else. And my school doesn't want that, now does it?
0) happy is not necessarily productive. there are a lot of college age people who are very happy hanging out, drinking beer, and smoking dope.
1) if it's a little visit to your favorite porn site, then no problem. If it's a 10 hours of 40 Mbit/sec porn vacuum with an accompanying 20 MBit/sec outbound spray, then there's a problem.
2) universities are not for profit. They are much more interested in your ability to achieve good grades, maybe get a paper published, than your ability to pay tuition. That's why some people fail out of college and some people get scholarships.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet we still shut down crack houses....
Google's primary line of business is selling ad space. You will have a brutal time convincing a court that increased revenue from increased ad views is an indirect benefit.
Additionally, Viacom can attack Google's search reputation by pointing out that their take down list came as the results of a search of the content on Youtube. The misidentified files, Viacom will blame on poor quality search results.
Wow. You're a total idiot. End to end idiot. Idiot from the inside out. In one ear and out the other ear idiot. But maybe in your world turnitin is breaking into these student's homes, creeping up the stairs and stealing their homework out from under lock and key. Unlike in our world, where the teacher or *GASP* the student, send a copy to turnitin. Turnitin accepts submissions you zero. Stupid. Not expletive stupid. Just stupid. Dumb. Ignorant. Stupid. So stupid you try and connect completely unrelated facts. You do not even know the law. Stupid enough to think that doing exactly what is expected, ie. notify the teacher of suspected plagiarism, is publication. If this was my website, I'd ban your entire /8 because you, personally, are so stupid that averaging in IQs of the other twenty-four million people on that network segment still results in an IQ less than a houseplant. You are an idiot wrapped in a moron inside a retard.
(Mods, go ahead, mod me flamebait. I'm used to it.)
Don't forget that opt out notices are only accepted on cashier's checks for amounts larger than $50,000.00.
Tell that to the salutatorian.
What rights are they surrendering? The right to distribute? Nope, turnitin isn't publishing these things. The right to make duplicates? Nope, turnitin isn't making duplicates.
You put the blame on the wrong person. The teacher made the copy and distributed it. Turnitin received a copy, presumedly a legal copy. (You even stated exactly who made a copy: "Teacher then makes a copy...")
Never heard of Lexis-Nexis? Westlaw? Google? I suspect that Turnitin will have a different opinion on how ill-gotten the papers that are submitted to them are. It'd be surprising if there wasn't a clause in the terms of use that specifically allows them to keep a copy of any paper that is submitted to them.
Perfect 10 asked Google to remove their content, Google said "oh, it's too hard." They went to court. So far Google doesn't have to avoid indexing illegally distributed copies of Perfect 10's material. If a professor illegally copies a paper and sends the copy to Turnitin, how is this Turnitin's problem?
Unless you're a book publisher or author. Then they feel free to make copies of your work regardless.
No they won't. If you don't believe me go read about Google's use of robots.txt.
Don't take this wrong, but I think I want to be in your wife's class. I can plagiarize with the best of them and if my punishment is to be nailed by the teacher....
No, it says that you can be v2 or later. If you try and distribute under v3 only, or "v3 or any later version", you are no longer abiding by the original license terms which specifically identify v2 as legit.
Don't forget what this means. As a receipient of "GPLv2 or any later version" I can choose to have future new rights given in GPLv3. However I can also choose to ignore any new restrictions in GPLv3. If a piece of GPLv2 software is not owned by a single entity (or had all right assigned to a single entity) it can never become "GPLv3 or any later version." That language does not give automatic relicensing rights. New derived works (ie. patches) are still bound by the original license. The only way anything becomes v3 is if it's relicensed.
Keep in mind that GPL v2 is not the license, it's the terms of the license. The license is the notice attached to the software which says you can use this blah blah blah under terms of GPL V2 or any later version.
v3 is attempting to restrict deployment of apps via the web such that someone can take a GPLed piece of software and make changes then allow users to use it from their browser without distributing the changes. Since the people putting it on their website are the users in this case, it sure sounds like someone wants to control how users use the software.
Unlike some of my other posts, I'm not going to call you a cocksucking idiot.... :) (really, it's a joke)
Why does everyone look at this in isolation? The whole question of a loophole seems to be already answered by the fact that this license is version 3 of the GPL. Of course it's not going to be "perfect" (according to Dick Stallman), but it's not like they won't be able to make version 4.... version 5.... version 6.... version 7....
This particular problem crops up a lot here. People see things as interesting curiousities and ignore them in their actual context and because of that mindset they come up with the most ridiculous conclusions.
As you should. We're not a bunch of panty wastes. If you don't welcome us properly we'll get in our longships and row our tall, blond asses over there and.... um.... call someone on our cellphones.
Does it make your ass fizz and foam painfully to hear that Microsoft created something that gives you a boner? Is that why you're so rabidly in denial of the truth? Unless there is something like that, all your revisionist fiction is hard to explain.
XmlHTTPRequest was first used Outlook Web Access. In one step microsoft took the web from klugey JVM and form based web apps to asynchronous, dynamic, loosely coupled, non-modal web apps. If you even took the slightest amount of time to look it up you'd know this.
Do you enjoy writing fiction and lies?
What. The. Fuck? MS created AJAX from whole cloth. Your entire post is pure rhetoric and fiction.
How can you be reminded of something that never happened?
Being agnostic doesn't result in you turning blue. If you don't talk about it, nobody will know. And you can always stop with the pot. See, that was easy. Besides, if the county commisioners are wrong then stinking of weed will help you get elected.
Who are you? Some would be politician who's too lazy, or crazy, to get on the ballot? With your telling your friend how to vote as opposed to letting him make a decision on his own, one wonders.
Why don't you stop taking the lazy way out and instead of voting symbolicly, run for office.
What's inflammatory about what I've said? It's all true. Unlike you:
I have not resorted to judgements for which I have zero basis. But if you really want to know, I'm willing to be content contributing to the public good when the services I am contributing to are being used for their stated purpose. When people receiving public subsidies start crying that they are not getting enough luxuries I have a trouble feeling any sympathy.
No, this whole subthread got started because you couldn't find a valid counter to my original point and resorted to making the exact same statement, only changing from a public supplier of a service to a private supplier of a similar service, and presenting it as an attack against my argument. Fundamentally whenever someone resorts to using a service, you don't have the same freedoms you would have if you provided for yourself.
0) happy is not necessarily productive. there are a lot of college age people who are very happy hanging out, drinking beer, and smoking dope.
1) if it's a little visit to your favorite porn site, then no problem. If it's a 10 hours of 40 Mbit/sec porn vacuum with an accompanying 20 MBit/sec outbound spray, then there's a problem.
2) universities are not for profit. They are much more interested in your ability to achieve good grades, maybe get a paper published, than your ability to pay tuition. That's why some people fail out of college and some people get scholarships.