No, it's not. It's a perfectly valid example of a case where a legal sale was performed without "permission" from the copyright holder.
Yes, it is. The "permission" is implied by it being a proper, licensed copy of a given recording (as opposed to an unlicensed, "bootleg/pirated" copy). Most (all ?) countries have a concept equivalent to the US's "first sale doctrine".
Perhaps I should put it thus: suppose I buy a CD that states, in the license text, that re-sale of the CD violates the license agreement. I re-sell the CD, which is directly contrary to the wishes of the copyright holder as explicitly stated in the license agreement. However, that license was invalid, and the sale was still legal. Again, legal sale which was performed without the copyright holder's permission (and in fact directly against their stated wishes).
You're contradicting yourself. Either the "license" is invalid (and therefore the resale legal), or the "license" is valid (and therefore the resale is illegal).
This question is not what the copyright holder might "like" to give permission for, the question is what the copyright holder can _legally_ give permission for.
Then be surprised. It's legal in every country, as far as I know.
This raises the question, then, of how all those "accounting for piracy" taxes (in countries that do it) applied to things like iPods are justified, if there is no legal problem with stuffing as much pirated media on them as you can get your hands on.
Then you should have said so instead of starting with generalities and moving the goalposts as we went along.
I did. At no point have I "moved the goalposts".
I'm 18 again and my girlfriend gives me a mix tape of songs that I have never purchased or otherwise acquired via authorized channels. Am I breaking the law?
I don't know. That's why I asked. I'm not an expert on copyright law in whatever country you're in. I would personally be _surprised_ if being in possession of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder is legal, although I would not expect it to be considered anywhere near as serious as unlicensed distribution.
Yes. I just burned a copy of it which is wholly unauthorized and against the wishes of the copyright holder. Are you of the opinion that I broke a law?
No, because you are allowed to under fair use.
However, I am talking about a scenario where you have a copy of the CD and NOT the original (and have never owned the original, or have sold it). Hence the reason I wrote "do you think owning a copy of that CD, not the original, would be OK".
If they could prevent re-sale, they would. Haven't there been plenty of stories about copyright owners trying to prohibit re-sale in the license agreement?
Certainly. But the issue at question here is legality, not copyright holders' desires.
Downloading material is not copyright infringement.
Are you suggesting being in possession of copyrighted material without the copyright owner's permission is legal ?
Let's put it this way -- if receiving on unauthorized copy of copyrighted material was actionable, then I could just copyright something, arrange to have someone else email it to everyone in the world, then start suing everybody who didn't delete the email!
You mean authorise them to distribute it to anyone ? How does that not implicitly give permission for anyone who receives it to have it ?
I have no way to know it's a default PIN unless I attempt to gain access.
You mean like you don't know it's an open WAP unless you attempt to use it ?
Requiring a PIN (and not telling me what it is) is an indication that I am not welcome, whether I could guess the PIN or not.
I would have thought not explicitly telling you it's OK to use someone else's property would have been sufficient indication that you may not be welcome to, but maybe I'm old fashioned in assuming that someone else's stuff is exclusively someone else's stuff unless they say otherwise.
Not if they've already indicated that it's OK.
But they haven't. Any more than a front door left open is an invitation to come in, drink some beer and watch TV.
As I said elsewhere, not explicitly keeping you out is in no way the same thing as implicitly inviting you in.
Not running it as root is good, but running it as me - I don't know. I'd rather that the user that runneth the X server is some sort of 'xserver' user - to whose process I connect.
So if you have multiple users on the same machine running X, they can stomp on each other (by virtue of all interacting with the same "xserver user") ?
If someone interested in their privacy can't be bothered to figure out how to change their own password on their phone, why would they be upset when someone else listens?
For the same reason if I leave my front door open I'd be upset to find someone wandering around inside my house.
Not actively keeping someone out, is in no way the same thing as inviting them in.
Whippersnapper. You say "never" because you're too young to remember.
I remember it quite well. I had been using Navigator since the 1.0 betas (heck, since it was still called Mosaic), after all.
When Navigator 4.0 was first out, and people were comparing it to version 3, the new version was a huge improvement.
Actually they were comparing it to IE4, which destroyed it in pretty much every measurable way - faster, more stable, less buggy, and more standards compliant. Heck, people were comparing it to the IE4 betas and preferring them.
Do I want to use any of that stuff *now*? Not on your life. But I loved Navigator 4.08 well enough in its day.
4.08 ? That's over a year and half after the release of 4.0. By then they had, at least, managed to beat some of the awfulness out of it - but IE4 was still much better and people were turning to it and the very-soon-to-be-released IE5.
I think you need to take of your rosy glasses. The collective suck of Navigator 4.x basically cost Netscape the "Browser wars".
Are you making the point "one can pay Apple instead of paying Microsoft", or are you making the point "one can buy a non-working machine"?
I'm making the exact same point I've been making for the last 3 posts. You don't _have_ to buy Windows with a computer.
What you get otherwise is irrelevant to everyone but you. No-one has an obligation to sell you exactly the computer you want, nor do you have any right to force them.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not. It's a perfectly valid example of a case where a legal sale was performed without "permission" from the copyright holder.
Yes, it is. The "permission" is implied by it being a proper, licensed copy of a given recording (as opposed to an unlicensed, "bootleg/pirated" copy). Most (all ?) countries have a concept equivalent to the US's "first sale doctrine".
Perhaps I should put it thus: suppose I buy a CD that states, in the license text, that re-sale of the CD violates the license agreement. I re-sell the CD, which is directly contrary to the wishes of the copyright holder as explicitly stated in the license agreement. However, that license was invalid, and the sale was still legal. Again, legal sale which was performed without the copyright holder's permission (and in fact directly against their stated wishes).
You're contradicting yourself. Either the "license" is invalid (and therefore the resale legal), or the "license" is valid (and therefore the resale is illegal).
This question is not what the copyright holder might "like" to give permission for, the question is what the copyright holder can _legally_ give permission for.
Then be surprised. It's legal in every country, as far as I know.
This raises the question, then, of how all those "accounting for piracy" taxes (in countries that do it) applied to things like iPods are justified, if there is no legal problem with stuffing as much pirated media on them as you can get your hands on.
Then you should have said so instead of starting with generalities and moving the goalposts as we went along.
I did. At no point have I "moved the goalposts".
I'm 18 again and my girlfriend gives me a mix tape of songs that I have never purchased or otherwise acquired via authorized channels. Am I breaking the law?
I don't know. That's why I asked. I'm not an expert on copyright law in whatever country you're in. I would personally be _surprised_ if being in possession of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder is legal, although I would not expect it to be considered anywhere near as serious as unlicensed distribution.
"Permission" speaks of their desires. Legality isn't an issue; Just Some Guy's scenario was an obviously legal sale.
I never suggested otherwise. It is not, however, the scenario I hypothesised - it is a straw man.
Yes. I just burned a copy of it which is wholly unauthorized and against the wishes of the copyright holder. Are you of the opinion that I broke a law?
No, because you are allowed to under fair use.
However, I am talking about a scenario where you have a copy of the CD and NOT the original (and have never owned the original, or have sold it). Hence the reason I wrote "do you think owning a copy of that CD, not the original, would be OK".
If they could prevent re-sale, they would. Haven't there been plenty of stories about copyright owners trying to prohibit re-sale in the license agreement?
Certainly. But the issue at question here is legality, not copyright holders' desires.
I bought a used CD yesterday, and am certain that the copyright owner did not authorize or endorse that purchase.
They did, it's an implicit part of the CD itself.
Do you think owning a copy of that CD, not the original, would be OK ?
Their history of anti-competitive suits, fines, and complaints relates to keeping other companies from running software on Windows.
Can you provide an example of Microsoft preventing another company's software from running on Windows ?
Downloading material is not copyright infringement.
Are you suggesting being in possession of copyrighted material without the copyright owner's permission is legal ?
Let's put it this way -- if receiving on unauthorized copy of copyrighted material was actionable, then I could just copyright something, arrange to have someone else email it to everyone in the world, then start suing everybody who didn't delete the email!
You mean authorise them to distribute it to anyone ? How does that not implicitly give permission for anyone who receives it to have it ?
Your problem is that you want to get rich from writing a single song, rather than lots of them.
The plumber doesn't make his money because toilets keep breaking. He makes his money because lots of people have toilets.
I have no way to know it's a default PIN unless I attempt to gain access.
You mean like you don't know it's an open WAP unless you attempt to use it ?
Requiring a PIN (and not telling me what it is) is an indication that I am not welcome, whether I could guess the PIN or not.
I would have thought not explicitly telling you it's OK to use someone else's property would have been sufficient indication that you may not be welcome to, but maybe I'm old fashioned in assuming that someone else's stuff is exclusively someone else's stuff unless they say otherwise.
Not if they've already indicated that it's OK.
But they haven't. Any more than a front door left open is an invitation to come in, drink some beer and watch TV.
As I said elsewhere, not explicitly keeping you out is in no way the same thing as implicitly inviting you in.
I interpret their SSID broadcast and lack of encryption to be an invitation.
Ah. So would you also "interpret" a predictable voicemail number and default PIN as an "invitation" ?
Gaining access by monitoring encrypted traffic and doing a brute-force crack on the encryption key would be impolite.
Using anything that belongs to other people without asking is "impolite".
Not only that but (more importantly) GP forgets that these guys were trying to access private data (voicemail).
What makes it private that doesn't apply equally to an unprotected WAP ?
Connecting to an unsecured WLAN generally doesn't involve accessing private data.
That depends a great deal on what you want to call "private". It certainly involves using someone else's property without permission or invitation.
So, basically, you're saying she was asking for it ?
I fail to understand your point?
In both cases, you are accessing someone else's "property" without explicit invitation or permission, simply because you can.
Not running it as root is good, but running it as me - I don't know. I'd rather that the user that runneth the X server is some sort of 'xserver' user - to whose process I connect.
So if you have multiple users on the same machine running X, they can stomp on each other (by virtue of all interacting with the same "xserver user") ?
To see who has a problem with this, but is A-OK with connecting to any random unprotected WAP they can find.
If someone interested in their privacy can't be bothered to figure out how to change their own password on their phone, why would they be upset when someone else listens?
For the same reason if I leave my front door open I'd be upset to find someone wandering around inside my house.
Not actively keeping someone out, is in no way the same thing as inviting them in.
Whippersnapper. You say "never" because you're too young to remember.
I remember it quite well. I had been using Navigator since the 1.0 betas (heck, since it was still called Mosaic), after all.
When Navigator 4.0 was first out, and people were comparing it to version 3, the new version was a huge improvement.
Actually they were comparing it to IE4, which destroyed it in pretty much every measurable way - faster, more stable, less buggy, and more standards compliant. Heck, people were comparing it to the IE4 betas and preferring them.
Do I want to use any of that stuff *now*? Not on your life. But I loved Navigator 4.08 well enough in its day.
4.08 ? That's over a year and half after the release of 4.0. By then they had, at least, managed to beat some of the awfulness out of it - but IE4 was still much better and people were turning to it and the very-soon-to-be-released IE5.
I think you need to take of your rosy glasses. The collective suck of Navigator 4.x basically cost Netscape the "Browser wars".
Exactly, I need a good core product that I'll evolve over time.
Why do you want to "evolve" it (by which I'm assuming you mean modify in depth rather than "configure") it at all ? What's missing that you need ?
System monitoring isn't exactly a fresh and new field. There are numerous well-established and quite comprehensive products already out there.
He said he was asked to "develop a new solution" [...]
From TFSummary:
Today I have changed employer and I have been asked to develop a new monitoring solution from scratch [...]
Where I come from, "from scratch" doesn't mean "configure existing solutions to my needs".
What limitations exist in current solutions that justifying developing a new one from scratch ?
Possible consequences: less war;
Lot more assassinations though.
A lot of people questioned this at the time, but the response was "That's the way Netscape Communicator 4 does it and everyone loves Netscape 4".
I've heard a lot of words used with Netscape 4. I can confidently say "loved" was never one of them.
Are you making the point "one can pay Apple instead of paying Microsoft", or are you making the point "one can buy a non-working machine"?
I'm making the exact same point I've been making for the last 3 posts. You don't _have_ to buy Windows with a computer.
What you get otherwise is irrelevant to everyone but you. No-one has an obligation to sell you exactly the computer you want, nor do you have any right to force them.