Cloning was never set up properly. They should have had the clone makers go after markets that Apple didn't, instead they ended up cannibalizing Apple sales.
B.S. Apple's downturn in sales of that era dwarfed the number of clones sold. Unless people were choosing to buy 1 PowerTower instead of the 10 PowerMacs they'd been planning to buy before, you need to find another explanation.
Besides, cloners were paying license fees. If the issue had *really* been sales loss, Apple could have just set the license fee equal to their expected profit on the version of the machine that the clone would have competed with. Instead, Apple just pulled the plug on the program.
No, mpg and mov should NOT be.avi, because they're different file formats. You can have cinepak compression in an avi file or cinepak compression in a mov file, and the resulting files will -not- be the same. AVI is very much a very spefici file format, just not one that requires a given compression format. Same with QuickTime.
Seatling DVDs wouldn't help the problem, and would be unfair to the distributers who depend on being able to sell or return their physical stock in order to recoup the cost of obtaining it from the manufacturer.
If, on the other hand, you were to illegally copy the movie for your own viewing, the impact from the standpoint of the movie industry would not be distinguishable from the case in which you simply decide not to view.
No, they didn't. The DVD-CCA added Copyleft to their trade secrets case, which is entirely separate from the MPAA's DMCA case. This is even in the article you linked to.
You do not know what atheism is.
Atheism is the LACK of belief in any deity. It is *NOT* (repeat **NOT**) the belief that the deity does not exist.
From wordnet:
a.the.ist (n.)
One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
ag.nos.tic(n.)
One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.
Sounds like you, as with many people, are closer to agnostic than athiest. I'm of the belief that, given the definitions above, athiesm is no more or less rational than thiesm.
Unless you have some sort of LCD monitor without a back panel that has selective opacity based on the alpha channel, the final output of a monitor in a 32-bit color mode is still only 24-bits of color. The alpha gets blended against the background when compositing images, but there's nothing to composite against in the final output.
Not at all--the runtime environment for x86 assembly specifies a set of machine registers and access to an address space or two, along with various other logical and arithmetic operations. If there's a way to burn out the AX register, there's a bug in x86 assembly language. C purports to be high-level, and specifies additional semantics on top of the machine as compared to the register level, but there are rather trivial ways to smash the stack, etc, even though the language depends on these constructs to be valid in order to function as specified.
I imagine that the individuals represented are people who felt strongly about this issue and rather than just grousing with their friends or preaching to the choir on slashdot actually got up and DID something about the situation. Certainly more than most of us, myself included, can say.
Well lets be honest now... Earthlink had the permission of the copyright holders to do that. They were acting as a publisher. Or maybe more as a distributor?
If Earthlink has an nntp server, or is used by people to access an nntp server, then there is all SORTS of distribution of materials without the authorization of the copyright holder. (most of alt.binaries.*, for example)
From an information-theory point of view, it is clear that they where not violating the copyright. They didn't duplicate/spread the data to anyone who hadn't paid the owner of the data for it.
No. They didn't duplicate the data to anyone who did not have access to a Beam-It account which had at one point been enabled by someone who happened, for whatever reason, to have access to a physical copy of the media. If you're going to argue practicalities then fine, but if you're talking information theory, then make sure you're being precise about what's actually going on.
You seem to be arguing that the distinction shouldn't matter, and that the law shouldn't take the distinction into account. Fine. I agree with you. The issue is what the law says, not what it should say according to us.
Furthermore, that's not even what this case was about. This case was about my.mp3.com's initial action of copying the CD's to their servers in the first place. This is perfectly allowable for personal use. They were doing it as a business. I don't think that what they did is morally wrong. I don't think that it should be against the law. I do think that it is fairly easy to see that it is against the (unfair) law as currently written.
A CD serial number isn't compression, it is a key in a database. There is no computable method of extracting the contents given the serial number unless you already have access to the contents. my.mp3.com didn't use a serial number like CDDB, though, it calculated hashes from random sections of digital audio data, making it more secure than just calculating a deterministic CD serial number. It was not, however, proof of ownership, merely proof that you had physical access to the CD for a couple minutes.
my.mp3.com wasn't making copies for personal use. They were making copies to distribute to others as a business providing a service. I'm on mp3.com's side on this, but it's not quite the same thing as making a copy for personal use.
And I agree with previous messages that there really isn't any indication that any copyright infringement ever took place.
Sure there is--that's what this trial was about. Maybe you mean that you don't think what they did should be illegal, or that you think it wasn't morally wrong? They were distributing music without the permission of the copyright owner. It may have been logically equivilant to the CD owners exercising time and space shifting rights, but the physical act was different, and unfortunately the law makes a distinction in this case.
Sorry, the 'loss leader' business model is stupid and should die a quick, quiet death. Name one company that sells *all* its product below cost and still makes a profit. You can't.
I was pointing out the correct definition of 'loss leader', and why it doesn't deserve death, quiet or otherwise, which to me seems both related and relevant. Perhaps you should take your own advice.
One thing that caught my eye about the Python license is that it's a clickthrough/shrinkwrap agreement--it attempts to assert bindingness based on the fact that you've downloaded it. This is in stark contrast to BSD and GPL style licenses which state what you're allowed to do, and if you don't accept the license then fine, but copyright law says you can't make a derivative work. Of course, there's not much to accept in the case of BSD, less in BSD w/o advertising, but the principle is the same: "here is when you may create derivative works and distribute", rather than "to even touch this you have to agree to a contract"
On the contrary, the loss leader business model is a boon to educated consumers. A real "loss leader" is a product sold below cost in order to get people into your store. If you know which products are the loss leaders, and refuse to get suckered in by "convenience" you can get great deals. In my neck of the woods there's a department store called Fred Meyer with an entire grocery section as a loss leader. Just don't buy non-grocery stuff there. Circuit City and music CDs (modulo their crappy selection) is another example (or at least used to be).
Slashdot Mirror
Unless the hole was found by someone who figured knowing how to exploit djbdns was worth more than $500.
Whohoo! Forgot to hit "anonymous" before posting -that- bit of flamebait :)
FUCKING read FUCKING the FUCKING fucking FUCKING article
For now it is, but the FCC is petitioning God to modify quantium mechanics to implement watermarking and copy protection.
Every computer on the network too? Uh oh, I'm connected to the internet....
I have a problem with this--it was a criminal matter. I don't see why any IP law should be criminal rather than civil.
B.S.
Apple's downturn in sales of that era dwarfed the number of clones sold. Unless people were choosing to buy 1 PowerTower instead of the 10 PowerMacs they'd been planning to buy before, you need to find another explanation.
Besides, cloners were paying license fees. If the issue had *really* been sales loss, Apple could have just set the license fee equal to their expected profit on the version of the machine that the clone would have competed with. Instead, Apple just pulled the plug on the program.
No, mpg and mov should NOT be .avi, because they're different file formats. You can have cinepak compression in an avi file or cinepak compression in a mov file, and the resulting files will -not- be the same. AVI is very much a very spefici file format, just not one that requires a given compression format. Same with QuickTime.
Seatling DVDs wouldn't help the problem, and would be unfair to the distributers who depend on being able to sell or return their physical stock in order to recoup the cost of obtaining it from the manufacturer.
If, on the other hand, you were to illegally copy the movie for your own viewing, the impact from the standpoint of the movie industry would not be distinguishable from the case in which you simply decide not to view.
No, they didn't. The DVD-CCA added Copyleft to their trade secrets case, which is entirely separate from the MPAA's DMCA case. This is even in the article you linked to.
From wordnet:
- a.the.ist (n.)
- ag.nos.tic(n.)
Sounds like you, as with many people, are closer to agnostic than athiest. I'm of the belief that, given the definitions above, athiesm is no more or less rational than thiesm.One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.
Unless you have some sort of LCD monitor without a back panel that has selective opacity based on the alpha channel, the final output of a monitor in a 32-bit color mode is still only 24-bits of color. The alpha gets blended against the background when compositing images, but there's nothing to composite against in the final output.
Not at all--the runtime environment for x86 assembly specifies a set of machine registers and access to an address space or two, along with various other logical and arithmetic operations. If there's a way to burn out the AX register, there's a bug in x86 assembly language. C purports to be high-level, and specifies additional semantics on top of the machine as compared to the register level, but there are rather trivial ways to smash the stack, etc, even though the language depends on these constructs to be valid in order to function as specified.
PLEASE cite caselaw for this.
A language in which the execution of legal code can result in the corruption of the runtime environment is buggy, period.
I imagine that the individuals represented are people who felt strongly about this issue and rather than just grousing with their friends or preaching to the choir on slashdot actually got up and DID something about the situation. Certainly more than most of us, myself included, can say.
If Earthlink has an nntp server, or is used by people to access an nntp server, then there is all SORTS of distribution of materials without the authorization of the copyright holder. (most of alt.binaries.*, for example)
No. They didn't duplicate the data to anyone who did not have access to a Beam-It account which had at one point been enabled by someone who happened, for whatever reason, to have access to a physical copy of the media. If you're going to argue practicalities then fine, but if you're talking information theory, then make sure you're being precise about what's actually going on.
I'm not saying I think you're wrong necesarily, but could you back up that claim with a reference?
You seem to be arguing that the distinction shouldn't matter, and that the law shouldn't take the distinction into account. Fine. I agree with you. The issue is what the law says, not what it should say according to us.
Furthermore, that's not even what this case was about. This case was about my.mp3.com's initial action of copying the CD's to their servers in the first place. This is perfectly allowable for personal use. They were doing it as a business. I don't think that what they did is morally wrong. I don't think that it should be against the law. I do think that it is fairly easy to see that it is against the (unfair) law as currently written.
A CD serial number isn't compression, it is a key in a database. There is no computable method of extracting the contents given the serial number unless you already have access to the contents. my.mp3.com didn't use a serial number like CDDB, though, it calculated hashes from random sections of digital audio data, making it more secure than just calculating a deterministic CD serial number. It was not, however, proof of ownership, merely proof that you had physical access to the CD for a couple minutes.
my.mp3.com wasn't making copies for personal use. They were making copies to distribute to others as a business providing a service. I'm on mp3.com's side on this, but it's not quite the same thing as making a copy for personal use.
Sure there is--that's what this trial was about. Maybe you mean that you don't think what they did should be illegal, or that you think it wasn't morally wrong? They were distributing music without the permission of the copyright owner. It may have been logically equivilant to the CD owners exercising time and space shifting rights, but the physical act was different, and unfortunately the law makes a distinction in this case.
I was replying to this:
I was pointing out the correct definition of 'loss leader', and why it doesn't deserve death, quiet or otherwise, which to me seems both related and relevant. Perhaps you should take your own advice.
One thing that caught my eye about the Python license is that it's a clickthrough/shrinkwrap agreement--it attempts to assert bindingness based on the fact that you've downloaded it. This is in stark contrast to BSD and GPL style licenses which state what you're allowed to do, and if you don't accept the license then fine, but copyright law says you can't make a derivative work. Of course, there's not much to accept in the case of BSD, less in BSD w/o advertising, but the principle is the same: "here is when you may create derivative works and distribute", rather than "to even touch this you have to agree to a contract"
On the contrary, the loss leader business model is a boon to educated consumers. A real "loss leader" is a product sold below cost in order to get people into your store. If you know which products are the loss leaders, and refuse to get suckered in by "convenience" you can get great deals. In my neck of the woods there's a department store called Fred Meyer with an entire grocery section as a loss leader. Just don't buy non-grocery stuff there. Circuit City and music CDs (modulo their crappy selection) is another example (or at least used to be).