Property in ideas is an insoluble contradiction. [He who complains of "theft" of his idea] complains that something has been stolen which he still possesses, and he wants back something which, if given to him a thousand times, would add nothing to his possession.
I don't understand rotten.com; the keep posting things like this, claiming that they believe they're in the right, but then back down, claiming "other battles to fight."
Do they ever fight the battles, or do they just keep backing down?
The McDonald's case comes up all the time. Here's what someone had to say about it in another thread, reposted without permission:
The McDonald's case is interesting.
The coffee, maintained at a scalding 180F-190F because the customers supposedly "like it hot", caused severe third-degree burns. She spent seven days in the hospital and was treated with skin grafts.
Initially she only wanted payment for her medical bills but McDonald's refused to even negotiate with her. Consequently she contacted an attorney who had settled another coffee burn case with McDonald's. In the course of the trial company documents revealed that "in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third-degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000."
Despite knowledge of the hazard, company officials refused to warn its customers. "There are more serious dangers in restaurants." And given the 1 billion cups of coffee sold annually, McDonald's considered the number of burn complaints to be "statistically insignificant".
After hearing such testimony a jury found McDonald's liable and awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages. The jurors deducted $40,000 for contributory negligence. Also, given McDonald's conduct, the jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was equal to 2 days of coffee sales.
Later the judge reduced the punitive award to $480,000. While awaiting appeal the two parties settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.
The #1 sickening thing about the whole McDonald's coffee hype is how it distracts from the facts. I suppose you just glibly believed whatever it was the mass media told you about that McDonald's case didn't you? Why do you expect anyone else to behave differently when it comes to the hacker culture (or whatever you want to call it today)?
US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: [The Congress shall have the power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Copyrights have been extended an average of one year per year for the last while; at this rate they'll last forever. Furthermore, nothing says that the Authors and Inventors shall have the right to sell their "Right". I'd say it/should/ have taken a constitutional ammendment to enact current copyright law.
There's a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality Sony Bono copyright extension act, but I can't find the URL at the moment; I think I saw it on EFF.
The government grants authors an artificial monopoly, giving them the right to initiate force against those who "steal" from them (but in fact, leave the creator with everything he had before) and you invoke Ayn Rand to defend this practice?
Property in ideas is an insoluble contradiction. [He who complains of "theft" of his idea] complains that something has been stolen which he still possesses, and he wants back something which, if given to him a thousand times, would add nothing to his possession. -- H. Rentzsch, Geistiges Eigenthum, 1866.
Slashdot Mirror
But Frauenhofer -already- owns MP3. And they're a corporation.
Property in ideas is an insoluble contradiction. [He who complains of "theft" of his idea] complains that something has been stolen which he still possesses, and he wants back something which, if given to him a thousand times, would add nothing to his possession.
-- H. Rentzsch, Geistiges Eigenthum, 1866.
I don't understand rotten.com; the keep posting things like this, claiming that they believe they're in the right, but then back down, claiming "other battles to fight."
Do they ever fight the battles, or do they just keep backing down?
The McDonald's case comes up all the time. Here's what someone had to say about it in another thread, reposted without permission:
The McDonald's case is interesting.
The coffee, maintained at a scalding 180F-190F because the customers supposedly "like it hot", caused severe third-degree burns. She spent seven days in the hospital and was treated with skin grafts.
Initially she only wanted payment for her medical bills but McDonald's refused to even negotiate with her. Consequently she contacted an attorney who had settled another coffee burn case with McDonald's. In the course of the trial company documents revealed that "in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third-degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000."
Despite knowledge of the hazard, company officials refused to warn its customers. "There are more serious dangers in restaurants." And given the 1 billion cups of coffee sold annually, McDonald's considered the number of burn complaints to be "statistically insignificant".
After hearing such testimony a jury found McDonald's liable and awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages. The jurors deducted $40,000 for contributory negligence. Also, given McDonald's conduct, the jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was equal to 2 days of coffee sales.
Later the judge reduced the punitive award to $480,000. While awaiting appeal the two parties settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.
The #1 sickening thing about the whole McDonald's coffee hype is how it distracts from the facts. I suppose you just glibly believed whatever it was the mass media told you about that McDonald's case didn't you? Why do you expect anyone else to behave differently when it comes to the hacker culture (or whatever you want to call it today)?
US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: [The Congress shall have the power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
/should/ have taken a constitutional ammendment to enact current copyright law.
Copyrights have been extended an average of one year per year for the last while; at this rate they'll last forever. Furthermore, nothing says that the Authors and Inventors shall have the right to sell their "Right". I'd say it
There's a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality Sony Bono copyright extension act, but I can't find the URL at the moment; I think I saw it on EFF.
The government grants authors an artificial monopoly, giving them the right to initiate force against those who "steal" from them (but in fact, leave the creator with everything he had before) and you invoke Ayn Rand to defend this practice?
Property in ideas is an insoluble contradiction. [He who complains of "theft" of his idea] complains that something has been stolen which he still possesses, and he wants back something which, if given to him a thousand times, would add nothing to his possession.
-- H. Rentzsch, Geistiges Eigenthum, 1866.
The GIMP is handy for some things, but to say that GIMP is a Photoshop replacement is an insult to Photoshop.