The GPL may not compel the release of internal, non-distributed modifications, but copyright law is still copyright law: the original author has exclusive rights to derivative works.
No, they just autodialed telephone contact numbers listed in WHOIS with a message that was supposed to sound like some sort of regulatory message ("Know your rights", etc.) but was instead an ad for their services.
If you steal your neighbor's cow in such a way that he starts with a herd of 50 cows, and you steal one, and he still somehow has 50 cows, then maybe you'd have an analogy.
Implementing patented software, though illegal (thanks to the rubber-stamp crowd at the USPTO), is even further away from 'stealing' than is merely reproducing copyrighted material in violation of the author's copyright.
The newspaper is a comparable scenario. Mail is not. The advertisements in your mailbox don't help pay for your mail delivery. When you get a letter from your friend, it isn't "brought to you by..."
Do you know enough about the postal service's pricing structure to make that claim? Would it be different if bulk mail effectively subsidized personal mail by keeping the price down?
Copyright law is the "infectious" hook of the GPL; the GPL has power over you only because if you don't accept its terms then the author doesn't grant you the right to reproduce his copyrighted material. Copyright law gives the author copyright over derivative works, hence the GPL covers derivative works.
Preemptive multiprocessing is supported, but it's definately not symmetric. All application tasks run on the primary processor. An app can launch a preemptively scheduled thread using the MP manager, but those threads can't make just any system call. These days they can call async I/O routines, but any user interaction is verboten.
Given how expelsnive patent litigation can be, even a patent which would be "easy" to defeat can be a formidable weapon. Especially against an opponent without much money.
There's a difference between your unsubstantiated claim that "many Slashdotters think that filtering programs should be illegal shomehow" and the beliefs that it should not be legal for the government to mandate filters, and that consumers should have the right to know exactly what the filter programs are filtering.
If you compare the number of black male drug users to the number of black males in prison for drug charges, it's pretty obvious SOMETHING weird is going on.
However if this were to be done to a given stock on a large scale and people found out about it, then they might think that there's something wrong with the company, since someone with a fair bit of money was betting the stock would go down. Maybe not the best way to do it, but neither inconceivable.
If Red Hat, etc., didn't want people to be able to download the ISO they might have started by not providing one to begin with. Granted, they wouldn't be able to stop people from making their own out of the Free software making up the distribution, but they didn't have to actively distribute one either.
But you know something...its not that terrible of a player.
Not that terrible of a player? It tries to take over your desktop and file mappings on both windows and the mac, they want you to register with demographic information and an email address, you have to set a dozen or so settings to make sure it's not going to contact their server to tell them what you listen to, or to automatically download updates, or to subscribe you to "special offers".
Maybe the format isn't bad, but the player is AWFUL.
"Experimental result X is impossible according to theory Y, therefore the experiment is so obviously in error that we need not even consider the possibility that the theory is incomplete."
With a well established, well tested theory, making decisions about how to allocate resources for research should probably take into account whether the dominant theory precludes the possibility of the result.
Once the research has been completed, making decision about how much of one's personal time to spend investigating the results should probably take such considerations into account as well.
Given the number of genuine cranks out there, this is just common sense. BUT: Don't let these pragmatic considerations become a dogmatic acceptance of the intrinsic validity of the theory in question! If an experiment contradicts the theory, then either the experiment was flawed, or the theory was wrong. I don't have the physics credentials (or more importantly than the credentials, the skills) necesary to judge this particular case, but there does exist the possibility that the theories making up your physics worldview and intuition are WRONG. It makes sense to develop standards by which to avoid throwing out a useful theoretical framework at the drop of a hat, but there seems to be a lot of "GR says X is impossible, so if you've demonstrated X there is no conceivable possibility other than that you didn't really demonstrate X". That argument may be useful in filtering out cranks, but it also means you've elevated GR from the level of falsifiable theory to Dogma from On High--the antithesis of what science is supposed to be about.
You might actually try reading the patent before commenting. The referenced patent covers the "Active Time Battle" system used starting in, I believe, FF3 (US FF3, which was like FFV or something in Japan. Something like that, anyway) in which instead of having strict turns, you input commands asynchronously when each character is "ready". Definately different than Dragon Warrior.
At the very least they could have included a feature to let you "give" an e-book to someone else, deleting it from your machine in process. It wouldn't be much more (if any more) susceptable to abuse than the current no-transfer system which the copyright owners seem to be okay with. It would seem the only "advantage" is that you have to buy the book if you want to read it, no more used or borrowed books. Which is, of course, the whole point of eBooks as far as publishers are concerned.
Just scanning books from the library without checking to see if it is out of print may be theft. I'm sure the boys down at the jail will really be impressed by what a hardcore you are. The only burning you'll feel is when you sit.
Copyright infringement != theft, it's copyright infringement, and is likely to be civil rather than criminal an offense, unless you make available to the public enough within a 6 month time period to run afoul of the NET act.
Lucky you, not getting much spam. I, on the other hand, get at least one new "weekly adult mailing" per week claiming I "opted in" on one of their web sites, which is bullshit. They invariably have a phony address where I can go to stop the mailings (i.e. confirm that they sent to a valid email address which someone reads). I filter 'em out, and new ones keep coming.
US West really has brass ones, selling "privacy products" when their network is at the same time allowing telemarketers to opt out of caller ID broadcast. Sure, you can set your caller ID to "blocked" when you dial out, but not to "unknown". It made a little sense back when Caller ID was less universal, but I see a phone number these days even for out-of-state calls, but for telemarketers it's still "Name Unknown, Number Unknown". US West makes money on both sides; pretty damn sleazy.
GPL requires Copyright law
on
RMS On eBooks
·
· Score: 2
RMS's own GPL depends on the existance of copyright law.
While this is technically true, you seem to view that as hypocritical somehow. The GPL is a hack designed to allow RMS's view of free software to exist within a world with copyrights. While the GPL requires copyright to exist, the GPL is only necesary as long as copyright itself exists. It's a way of saying "if you're going to make me play by your rules (copyright, as in forcing people to get the permission of the author to do something with a work) then I'm going to make you play by mine (GPL, as in forcing you to share with others if you're going to do something with the GPL'd work)."
If copyright didn't exist, then the GPL would have no force, but it would also be far less necesary. While it still might be the case that some software would not come with a source code release, you would at least be allowed to share software freely with others.
I'm not trying to say "for free, I don't care what it sounds like," what I'm saying is that whatever artifacts are present as a result of cheap cabling, 128-160kbps MP3s and sub-$1000 speakers honestly don't bother me, whether I'm listening to rock or classical.
If the patches are contributed to the GPL'd project without having their copyright assigned to the principal author, then the main author can release under another license, but can't incorporate the code from the other authors, since he doesn't have the copyright for the combined work.
The reality you're trying to defend, though, is more like going to Evian's bottling plant, drawing some water from a bottle on the line, and claiming it isn't theft.
You don't have to be trying to rationalize copyright infringement to point out the fundamental difference between copying music (or anything else) and taking something from someone: if you copy music, the person from whom you copied still has it! If I draw some water from Evian's plant, they're out 8 or 12 oz of water. Sure, it's not much, but their total amount of water available has decreased slightly. Clearly theft. If you copy something, the total number of copies has -increased- by one, rather than staying the same.
Here's my tired refrain: "It may be just as illegal, it may be just as immoral, it may even kill your dog, but copying is not the same thing as theft."
And Mp3s degrade with copying! Mp3s that have been decoded and recoded more then once sound crappy, and even first time encoded Mp3s have their sound quality problems (especially with Folk and some classical music with lots of Strings).
Sure, if you do something stupid like decode and re-encode the mp3 every time you copy it, it will degrade, but why would you DO that?
192kb/s is good enough for me; I guess I've just been blessed with crappy hearing. Means MP3 is good enough for me, and I don't have to go out and buy $500 tungsten-kryptonite-rubidium speaker wire to make sure everything is "perfectly balanced" either.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL may not compel the release of internal, non-distributed modifications, but copyright law is still copyright law: the original author has exclusive rights to derivative works.
No, they just autodialed telephone contact numbers listed in WHOIS with a message that was supposed to sound like some sort of regulatory message ("Know your rights", etc.) but was instead an ad for their services.
If you steal your neighbor's cow in such a way that he starts with a herd of 50 cows, and you steal one, and he still somehow has 50 cows, then maybe you'd have an analogy.
Implementing patented software, though illegal (thanks to the rubber-stamp crowd at the USPTO), is even further away from 'stealing' than is merely reproducing copyrighted material in violation of the author's copyright.
Do you know enough about the postal service's pricing structure to make that claim? Would it be different if bulk mail effectively subsidized personal mail by keeping the price down?
Copyright law is the "infectious" hook of the GPL; the GPL has power over you only because if you don't accept its terms then the author doesn't grant you the right to reproduce his copyrighted material. Copyright law gives the author copyright over derivative works, hence the GPL covers derivative works.
Preemptive multiprocessing is supported, but it's definately not symmetric. All application tasks run on the primary processor. An app can launch a preemptively scheduled thread using the MP manager, but those threads can't make just any system call. These days they can call async I/O routines, but any user interaction is verboten.
Given how expelsnive patent litigation can be, even a patent which would be "easy" to defeat can be a formidable weapon. Especially against an opponent without much money.
There's a difference between your unsubstantiated claim that "many Slashdotters think that filtering programs should be illegal shomehow" and the beliefs that it should not be legal for the government to mandate filters, and that consumers should have the right to know exactly what the filter programs are filtering.
If you compare the number of black male drug users to the number of black males in prison for drug charges, it's pretty obvious SOMETHING weird is going on.
However if this were to be done to a given stock on a large scale and people found out about it, then they might think that there's something wrong with the company, since someone with a fair bit of money was betting the stock would go down. Maybe not the best way to do it, but neither inconceivable.
If Red Hat, etc., didn't want people to be able to download the ISO they might have started by not providing one to begin with. Granted, they wouldn't be able to stop people from making their own out of the Free software making up the distribution, but they didn't have to actively distribute one either.
Not that terrible of a player? It tries to take over your desktop and file mappings on both windows and the mac, they want you to register with demographic information and an email address, you have to set a dozen or so settings to make sure it's not going to contact their server to tell them what you listen to, or to automatically download updates, or to subscribe you to "special offers".
Maybe the format isn't bad, but the player is AWFUL.
"Experimental result X is impossible according to theory Y, therefore the experiment is so obviously in error that we need not even consider the possibility that the theory is incomplete."
With a well established, well tested theory, making decisions about how to allocate resources for research should probably take into account whether the dominant theory precludes the possibility of the result.
Once the research has been completed, making decision about how much of one's personal time to spend investigating the results should probably take such considerations into account as well.
Given the number of genuine cranks out there, this is just common sense. BUT: Don't let these pragmatic considerations become a dogmatic acceptance of the intrinsic validity of the theory in question! If an experiment contradicts the theory, then either the experiment was flawed, or the theory was wrong. I don't have the physics credentials (or more importantly than the credentials, the skills) necesary to judge this particular case, but there does exist the possibility that the theories making up your physics worldview and intuition are WRONG. It makes sense to develop standards by which to avoid throwing out a useful theoretical framework at the drop of a hat, but there seems to be a lot of "GR says X is impossible, so if you've demonstrated X there is no conceivable possibility other than that you didn't really demonstrate X". That argument may be useful in filtering out cranks, but it also means you've elevated GR from the level of falsifiable theory to Dogma from On High--the antithesis of what science is supposed to be about.
Knight Automated Roving Robot.
God, it sucks that I know that.
Castle Wolfenstein came out a LONG time before doom. Oh, you meant Wolf3D, didn't you.
You might actually try reading the patent before commenting. The referenced patent covers the "Active Time Battle" system used starting in, I believe, FF3 (US FF3, which was like FFV or something in Japan. Something like that, anyway) in which instead of having strict turns, you input commands asynchronously when each character is "ready". Definately different than Dragon Warrior.
At the very least they could have included a feature to let you "give" an e-book to someone else, deleting it from your machine in process. It wouldn't be much more (if any more) susceptable to abuse than the current no-transfer system which the copyright owners seem to be okay with. It would seem the only "advantage" is that you have to buy the book if you want to read it, no more used or borrowed books. Which is, of course, the whole point of eBooks as far as publishers are concerned.
Copyright infringement != theft, it's copyright infringement, and is likely to be civil rather than criminal an offense, unless you make available to the public enough within a 6 month time period to run afoul of the NET act.
Lucky you, not getting much spam. I, on the other hand, get at least one new "weekly adult mailing" per week claiming I "opted in" on one of their web sites, which is bullshit. They invariably have a phony address where I can go to stop the mailings (i.e. confirm that they sent to a valid email address which someone reads). I filter 'em out, and new ones keep coming.
US West really has brass ones, selling "privacy products" when their network is at the same time allowing telemarketers to opt out of caller ID broadcast. Sure, you can set your caller ID to "blocked" when you dial out, but not to "unknown". It made a little sense back when Caller ID was less universal, but I see a phone number these days even for out-of-state calls, but for telemarketers it's still "Name Unknown, Number Unknown". US West makes money on both sides; pretty damn sleazy.
While this is technically true, you seem to view that as hypocritical somehow. The GPL is a hack designed to allow RMS's view of free software to exist within a world with copyrights. While the GPL requires copyright to exist, the GPL is only necesary as long as copyright itself exists. It's a way of saying "if you're going to make me play by your rules (copyright, as in forcing people to get the permission of the author to do something with a work) then I'm going to make you play by mine (GPL, as in forcing you to share with others if you're going to do something with the GPL'd work)."
If copyright didn't exist, then the GPL would have no force, but it would also be far less necesary. While it still might be the case that some software would not come with a source code release, you would at least be allowed to share software freely with others.
I'm not trying to say "for free, I don't care what it sounds like," what I'm saying is that whatever artifacts are present as a result of cheap cabling, 128-160kbps MP3s and sub-$1000 speakers honestly don't bother me, whether I'm listening to rock or classical.
If the patches are contributed to the GPL'd project without having their copyright assigned to the principal author, then the main author can release under another license, but can't incorporate the code from the other authors, since he doesn't have the copyright for the combined work.
You don't have to be trying to rationalize copyright infringement to point out the fundamental difference between copying music (or anything else) and taking something from someone: if you copy music, the person from whom you copied still has it! If I draw some water from Evian's plant, they're out 8 or 12 oz of water. Sure, it's not much, but their total amount of water available has decreased slightly. Clearly theft. If you copy something, the total number of copies has -increased- by one, rather than staying the same.
Here's my tired refrain: "It may be just as illegal, it may be just as immoral, it may even kill your dog, but copying is not the same thing as theft."
Sure, if you do something stupid like decode and re-encode the mp3 every time you copy it, it will degrade, but why would you DO that?
192kb/s is good enough for me; I guess I've just been blessed with crappy hearing. Means MP3 is good enough for me, and I don't have to go out and buy $500 tungsten-kryptonite-rubidium speaker wire to make sure everything is "perfectly balanced" either.