Well, that's not how the law works, you know, and I think it's unclear if it should be applied quite so strongly. For example, if I have a mill, why can I hire adults but not children, to work there and perhaps reach into operating machinery? That's discriminatory on the basis of age.
In practice, equal protection counts way more when discrimination on the basis of certain criteria occurs (eg race, gender) and not so much when it's otherwise innocuous business regulations.
The letters were already associated with those numbers, and were part of how the dialing system worked (since US phone numbers used to consist of both letters and numbers). Your suggestion would've caused untold chaos.
That's because we did it wrong (probably intentionally).
We should've just built the infrastructure ourselves, and run it like a public utility with a mandate to pursue upgrades to achieve the highest reasonably affordable speeds for the most people.
Was there a point to that? Because seriously, IBM was happy to have the dominant platform, but they never wanted clones or compatibles made by other companies. That's just something that happened and eventually drove them out of the personal computer business.
Neither Apple nor IBM liked it when people made clones or compatible systems. But other than being able to go after people who directly copied their software (eg shady manufacturers who made direct copies of the ROM, such as Franklin, which got sued for copying Apple's) not much could be done about it.
Apple's later systems had a more complex ROM that was more important, and combined with changes in the marketplace, generally stopped having this problem. (Showing that piracy is better than unpopularity) But there were still Mac compatible systems, like the Outbound laptops that predated the PowerBooks, and required a user to install his own ROM, scavenged from a proper Mac.
IBM tried to get away from the original PC architecture with the PC Jr. but everyone hated it, and their simple ROM was soon reverse engineered, which gave the third party hangers on a way to make perfectly compatible systems legally, which pissed IBM off to no end. And it was popular. And now IBM doesn't even make personal computers anymore.
No, some venues do not have to pay royalties in the US. This is because of the so-called home style exception at 17 USC 110(5), the gist of which is, if a venue plays a radio or a TV, uses ordinary consumer equipment (and not too much of it), doesnt charge for it, and isn't too big, it need not be licensed. The idea is that a small coffee shop can leave a radio on or a bar can have a tv and not get dragged into the complicated and annoying world of copyright.
(Ironically, given recent events in Antigua, the US lost a case against IIRC an Irish music organization that claimed that the exception was not allowed by mutual copyright treaties. And having been told to abolish the exception⦠we ignored the WTO and continue to have it, because the restaurant lobby is powerful enough in Congress, and the US is powerful enough in the world)
I'm all for unions. And for copyright reforms. But not so much for propping up unviable business models and industries. If being a professional musician stops being something that can pay the bills, then so be it. If it's important enough, we'll figure something out. A negative income tax for all persons, maybe. (Because there's nothing about artists that makes them more deserving of welfare than anyone else in similar financial straits)
Perhaps one of our resident "IAAL"s can clarify this, but in the absence of an explicit license, doesn't copyright still apply to a code snippet by default? So rejecting the use of the GPL or other FOSS doesn't mean just any corporate asshat can come along and steal your work - Quite the opposite, it means no one can legally use your code.
No, not quite. Copyright licenses can be express or implied. You can't have an implied exclusive license, but implied non exclusive licenses are a dime a dozen. There are also things that aren't covered by copyright at all. For example, if you legally own a copy of someone's software, the copyright on that software doesn't preclude you from modifying it so that it runs on a computer or backing it up.
Still though, I think the original poster would be better served for now by using at least a basic license, and in the long run by having the copyright act amended to make it easier to do what he wants by default.
It also needs to function as a deterrent. If it is not effective at actually deterring people, it needs to be abolished.
In 18th century England, shoplifting was punishable by death. But there were always lots and lots of thieves, because it wasn't an effective deterrent.
I doubt that this thing in NZ will accomplish a whole lot other than to make people angry about copyright law, which is perhaps the opposite of what the proponents of the measure want. Personally, I think we're looking at a Tarkin's Grip situation forming.
IIRC, the plan was to deliberately keep them in a low orbit to allow the insulation to fall off (aided by extremely thin atmosphere). The insulation would eventually reenter, while the tank would be picked up by a robot and boosted up to somewhere convenient before its orbit had degraded. Plus, while the LH2 would've boiled off by then, any remaining LOX could still be used.
Of course, much of that rigmarole could be avoided had the insulation been internal, as with the S4B.
As for debris hitting the tanks, perhaps they could be stored in single file behind a large whipple shield that could be assembled on orbit.
There are only three states in which gambling is illegal, iirc. And it's clearly interstate or international commerce, so congress could step in and legalize or ban it (or particular practices, games, etc) if it wanted to. It would not cause a civil war.
Copyright statutory damages are in the range of $750 to $30,000 per work (not per infringement), with the lower limit reducible with great difficulty to $200, and the upper limit increasible quite easily to $150,000.
Yeah I've seen the papers on it. However, I think it would have been useful for two reasons. First, we could have experimented with on orbit construction techniques (it's not like half the crap the shuttle did was economically worthwhile anyway) and they could had saved up a bunch of conveniently available tanks for future use once we either figured out how to cheaply convert them into habitats, for reuse as fuel storage (LH2 would boil off, but there's always use for LOX), or just as aluminum feedstock for some sort of processing equipment to make girders or something needed for other projects.
It's not a matter of the US breaking a treaty, it's a matter of the US's ability to comply with it. The matter of gambling is a matter of the states. The US cannot legitimately force the states to make gambling legal nor can they force the states to stop regulating the gambling.
Got a cite? This sounds like a classic case of interstate -- or here, international -- commerce to me, and exactly something that Congress can legitimately force on the states. Now, they might not want to for political reasons, but if that's the case, we ought to modify the treaty, exit the WTO, or take it like a man.
Well, that was technically all that the suit was over, but reading through the actual opinion, it's pretty clearly overturning the whole income tax. Parts of it might be dicta but it still works as a good precedent in practice.
Well, it would be pretty impressive, given that federal income taxation was declared unconstitutional, and we then ratified an amendment to the constitution specifically to permit it.
No, gambling is easily interstate and/or international commerce. Congress has the power to ram it down the throats of states if they want to. Likewise, they can shut it down. But in the absence of complete regulation at the federal level, states have room to operate independently.
Then the author shouldn't publish them. In fact, he should destroy them if he feels so strongly about it. But just because the author doesn't like it is no reason to enable the destruction of a work that has already gotten loose by means of copyright. The world is better off, the more works we have, even if the author is upset.
Virgil wanted the Aneid destroyed, Emily Dickenson wanted her poems destroyed, Kafka wanted all of his works destroyed -- and we are all much better off for having totally ignored their wishes.
(And Disney does keep some works, most notably The Song of the South, locked up due to their negative PR value rather than a desire to make money)
No, copyright doesn't ensure remuneration. Most works have a copyright related economic value of zero. And there are many which are flops that never recover their cost. Remember Green Lantern? Or Pluto Nash?
Copyright at most provides a chance at turning a profit, but it is no guarantee, and in fact, it's fairly unusual that it works out.
It was also, to my understanding, much nicer for hardware technicians. The case opened up easily, and everything was handy to get at. Certainly in comparison to the original Mac (and many of the later models too) which required weird screwdrivers and had exposed high voltage parts. No one who's accidentally touched a flyback transformer in a Mac ever forgets it.
No, you can make a derivative of the Grimm's version too -- it just can't copy anything that Disney (or anyone else, where there's still a valid copyright) added to it.
Feel free to name the dwarves something different.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's not how the law works, you know, and I think it's unclear if it should be applied quite so strongly. For example, if I have a mill, why can I hire adults but not children, to work there and perhaps reach into operating machinery? That's discriminatory on the basis of age.
In practice, equal protection counts way more when discrimination on the basis of certain criteria occurs (eg race, gender) and not so much when it's otherwise innocuous business regulations.
Yeah, tout suite!
The letters were already associated with those numbers, and were part of how the dialing system worked (since US phone numbers used to consist of both letters and numbers). Your suggestion would've caused untold chaos.
That's because we did it wrong (probably intentionally).
We should've just built the infrastructure ourselves, and run it like a public utility with a mandate to pursue upgrades to achieve the highest reasonably affordable speeds for the most people.
Was there a point to that? Because seriously, IBM was happy to have the dominant platform, but they never wanted clones or compatibles made by other companies. That's just something that happened and eventually drove them out of the personal computer business.
That's not what happened.
Neither Apple nor IBM liked it when people made clones or compatible systems. But other than being able to go after people who directly copied their software (eg shady manufacturers who made direct copies of the ROM, such as Franklin, which got sued for copying Apple's) not much could be done about it.
Apple's later systems had a more complex ROM that was more important, and combined with changes in the marketplace, generally stopped having this problem. (Showing that piracy is better than unpopularity) But there were still Mac compatible systems, like the Outbound laptops that predated the PowerBooks, and required a user to install his own ROM, scavenged from a proper Mac.
IBM tried to get away from the original PC architecture with the PC Jr. but everyone hated it, and their simple ROM was soon reverse engineered, which gave the third party hangers on a way to make perfectly compatible systems legally, which pissed IBM off to no end. And it was popular. And now IBM doesn't even make personal computers anymore.
No, some venues do not have to pay royalties in the US. This is because of the so-called home style exception at 17 USC 110(5), the gist of which is, if a venue plays a radio or a TV, uses ordinary consumer equipment (and not too much of it), doesnt charge for it, and isn't too big, it need not be licensed. The idea is that a small coffee shop can leave a radio on or a bar can have a tv and not get dragged into the complicated and annoying world of copyright.
(Ironically, given recent events in Antigua, the US lost a case against IIRC an Irish music organization that claimed that the exception was not allowed by mutual copyright treaties. And having been told to abolish the exception⦠we ignored the WTO and continue to have it, because the restaurant lobby is powerful enough in Congress, and the US is powerful enough in the world)
I'm all for unions. And for copyright reforms. But not so much for propping up unviable business models and industries. If being a professional musician stops being something that can pay the bills, then so be it. If it's important enough, we'll figure something out. A negative income tax for all persons, maybe. (Because there's nothing about artists that makes them more deserving of welfare than anyone else in similar financial straits)
Perhaps one of our resident "IAAL"s can clarify this, but in the absence of an explicit license, doesn't copyright still apply to a code snippet by default? So rejecting the use of the GPL or other FOSS doesn't mean just any corporate asshat can come along and steal your work - Quite the opposite, it means no one can legally use your code.
No, not quite. Copyright licenses can be express or implied. You can't have an implied exclusive license, but implied non exclusive licenses are a dime a dozen. There are also things that aren't covered by copyright at all. For example, if you legally own a copy of someone's software, the copyright on that software doesn't preclude you from modifying it so that it runs on a computer or backing it up.
Still though, I think the original poster would be better served for now by using at least a basic license, and in the long run by having the copyright act amended to make it easier to do what he wants by default.
It also needs to function as a deterrent. If it is not effective at actually deterring people, it needs to be abolished.
In 18th century England, shoplifting was punishable by death. But there were always lots and lots of thieves, because it wasn't an effective deterrent.
I doubt that this thing in NZ will accomplish a whole lot other than to make people angry about copyright law, which is perhaps the opposite of what the proponents of the measure want. Personally, I think we're looking at a Tarkin's Grip situation forming.
IIRC, the plan was to deliberately keep them in a low orbit to allow the insulation to fall off (aided by extremely thin atmosphere). The insulation would eventually reenter, while the tank would be picked up by a robot and boosted up to somewhere convenient before its orbit had degraded. Plus, while the LH2 would've boiled off by then, any remaining LOX could still be used.
Of course, much of that rigmarole could be avoided had the insulation been internal, as with the S4B.
As for debris hitting the tanks, perhaps they could be stored in single file behind a large whipple shield that could be assembled on orbit.
There are only three states in which gambling is illegal, iirc. And it's clearly interstate or international commerce, so congress could step in and legalize or ban it (or particular practices, games, etc) if it wanted to. It would not cause a civil war.
$500? You wish!
Copyright statutory damages are in the range of $750 to $30,000 per work (not per infringement), with the lower limit reducible with great difficulty to $200, and the upper limit increasible quite easily to $150,000.
Yeah I've seen the papers on it. However, I think it would have been useful for two reasons. First, we could have experimented with on orbit construction techniques (it's not like half the crap the shuttle did was economically worthwhile anyway) and they could had saved up a bunch of conveniently available tanks for future use once we either figured out how to cheaply convert them into habitats, for reuse as fuel storage (LH2 would boil off, but there's always use for LOX), or just as aluminum feedstock for some sort of processing equipment to make girders or something needed for other projects.
It's not a matter of the US breaking a treaty, it's a matter of the US's ability to comply with it. The matter of gambling is a matter of the states. The US cannot legitimately force the states to make gambling legal nor can they force the states to stop regulating the gambling.
Got a cite? This sounds like a classic case of interstate -- or here, international -- commerce to me, and exactly something that Congress can legitimately force on the states. Now, they might not want to for political reasons, but if that's the case, we ought to modify the treaty, exit the WTO, or take it like a man.
And you can power the router with a potatto
Well, that was technically all that the suit was over, but reading through the actual opinion, it's pretty clearly overturning the whole income tax. Parts of it might be dicta but it still works as a good precedent in practice.
As Homer Simpson said "Takes one to know one!"
Well, it would be pretty impressive, given that federal income taxation was declared unconstitutional, and we then ratified an amendment to the constitution specifically to permit it.
No, gambling is easily interstate and/or international commerce. Congress has the power to ram it down the throats of states if they want to. Likewise, they can shut it down. But in the absence of complete regulation at the federal level, states have room to operate independently.
How do you call gamers that love cheese? There must be a word for that.
GruyÃrmers
Then the author shouldn't publish them. In fact, he should destroy them if he feels so strongly about it. But just because the author doesn't like it is no reason to enable the destruction of a work that has already gotten loose by means of copyright. The world is better off, the more works we have, even if the author is upset.
Virgil wanted the Aneid destroyed, Emily Dickenson wanted her poems destroyed, Kafka wanted all of his works destroyed -- and we are all much better off for having totally ignored their wishes.
(And Disney does keep some works, most notably The Song of the South, locked up due to their negative PR value rather than a desire to make money)
No, copyright doesn't ensure remuneration. Most works have a copyright related economic value of zero. And there are many which are flops that never recover their cost. Remember Green Lantern? Or Pluto Nash?
Copyright at most provides a chance at turning a profit, but it is no guarantee, and in fact, it's fairly unusual that it works out.
It was also, to my understanding, much nicer for hardware technicians. The case opened up easily, and everything was handy to get at. Certainly in comparison to the original Mac (and many of the later models too) which required weird screwdrivers and had exposed high voltage parts. No one who's accidentally touched a flyback transformer in a Mac ever forgets it.
The slide-out reference cards under the keyboard were also a good idea, and were present on the Mac during prototyping but never shipped. Too bad, or was a great idea. You can see them here: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/extras/spotlights/lisa/photos/keyboardreferencecards
But it wasn't all perfect. IIRC, the Lisas all had GUIDs which they would write to install disks as a standard, built in copy protect scheme.
No, you can make a derivative of the Grimm's version too -- it just can't copy anything that Disney (or anyone else, where there's still a valid copyright) added to it.
Feel free to name the dwarves something different.