This is not always true. Imagine having a piece of medical hardware that's computer controlled. Or imagine skimping on simulating the design of a building due to lost files, where the building eventually collapses.
Of course, we don't even NEED such extreme examples. If I'm working on a project and I lose my work then that's already bad enough to justify such features! Don't people claim that one of the virtues of Unix is its uptime? Well, if crashing is not a big deal because it only takes a few minutes to reboot, why all the big deal?
Peoples' work isn't a video game. It is often serious enough to them to require GREAT care on the part of developers to keep them happy.
So you must never wear a seat belt either because you've never been in a fatal car accident.
Moron.
Re:Recycle Bins - don't you just hate them?
on
Undelete In Linux
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
So... what? Linux is incapable of ever having a log appear for the user that, by use of clever formatting, tries to convey what files were deleted, and where they were, and how many?
I can think of some ways of doing that. I would say that any sort of Unix OS needs some serious ass kicking by HCI specialists, but frankly I think that it would be easier to dump Unix in the crapper and start over with UI as the predominant concern.
(and no, OS X is not a Unix with a good UI, it has a craptastic UI. It gets dumped too)
While a trash can is nice to have, this doesn't fundementally address the issue of retrivability of accidently deleted information. That is, there is still going to be a step where information is going to be classed as unretrivable even when it COULD be retrieved. (i.e. when the trash is emptied)
Clearly users appear to want to be able to correct mistakes that they've made -- perhaps even those that were not immediately apparent as being mistakes at the time -- for as long as possible. A trash is a step in that direction, but simply does not go far enough.
My proposal is this: 1st it should be recognized that when you delete a file, you're really only marking the space where that file was as being available to be overwritten by more data. The original data is there, but what it consisted of, and where it was, are lost.
So, let's keep that information in a log so that we can in a very real sense undelete anything that has not yet been overwritten. This log is not especially large, and with modern drive sizes is not a serious concern.
Then, let's order the overwriting process to favor the maximum preservation of data. So for example this might result in new writes being done to the areas of the oldest deleted files first. Important files might be considered to be worth preserving longer, with importance dervived from various factors such as number of accesses, etc. prior to deletion. There's definately work for some user testing here to determine the optimal method. That's okay.
If fragmentation is a worry, (bear in mind most people have never heard of it) then defragging software could take into consideration the undelete log and continue to preserve as much of the deleted data as possible when it shifts information around on the disk.
In any event, the objective is to forestall the day when you have to tell a user who wants to undelete a file for as long as possible. Not longer, which the trash solution does, but AS LONG AS POSSIBLE.
We also have the concept of compensatory damages in the US, thanks. And that's what most suits are over.
Punitive damages are only employed where the party seeking them can convince a jury that the tortfeasor (and other potential tortfeasors who will be basing their future decisions on the outcome of this case) has acted so wrongfully that they need to be taught a lesson.
I mean, imagine going up against a well-funded toxic waste dumper. If you can only sue him for actual damages that may not be enough to discourage him from dumping _more_ waste. He can afford it, after all.
As for the McDonalds' case, I STRONGLY suggest you actually look into the details of it; you're clearly just acting on what you've heard from some guy -- not exactly an accurate source.
It DOESN'T MATTER. However, if you like, let us consider Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow." As an American who wrote it around 1820, Irving would definately have qualified for a copyright. I strongly suspect he had one, though I don't have time to research it just now.
Disney made a short cartoon of it in 1949. I suspect that most people are probably more familiar with the cartoon than the actual story!
And yet, this didn't stop OTHER retellings of the story, such as the Jeff Goldblum version, or the (very good, but very divergent) Tim Burton version.
See, you fail to understand that the burden of proof here is going to rest on ABC, as they're the plaintiffs. They have to actually PROVE that someone infringed before the other party even has to think about defending themselves. A mere allegation simply doesn't cut it. And being aware of later works is not enough -- every time Disney brings out a movie based on a fairy tale there are tons of low-budget imitators. As long as they don't draw on whatever NEW STUFF Disney has ADDED to the old story, they're a-ok.
Unless they're actually _right_, ABC's lawyers would probably be subject to sanctions for bringing a frivolous suit. They're not going to try it unless they really do have a case. (or else they're idiots who probably deserve to be disbarred -- smart lawyers, no matter how slimy, won't risk their careers like that)
They can't. I can publish anything I want about Snow White (there's a kung-fu movie coming out soon, no joke) and Disney cannot stop me despite their massive 'investment' in it, unless I what I'm doing draws directly from what THEY did, as opposed to the perfectly unobjectional original source material that they also drew from. Thus I couldn't name the dwarves Happy or Doc or whatever. I'd have to find something else, like Hillary and Jack and Bill. (assuming I bothered at all)
IIRC the trademark on a character is lost, or at least weakened, once the work the character was introduced in hits the public domain.
Otherwise we would be in the stupid situation of being able to reproduce, say, existing Mickey Mouse cartoons, but not be able to make our own new ones. Trademarks are, here, of somewhat lesser importance than the public domain goals of the copyright system. (if only b/c it's the only meaningful way to reconcile them, but also b/c one is straight out of the Const. and the other is merely statutory)
Black and gritty? We're talking about the same Batman that introduced the Robin character as early as 1940 IIRC to make it more appealing to kids? "Dark Knight Returns" levels of grittyness are pretty modern, from the 80's, AFAIK.
(the level of camp VARIED of course, but it's fairly minor if you then make a comparison to the modern stuff)
Except of course the hotly debated issue of retroactive copyright laws, which goes before the Supreme Ct. pretty soon.
As for automatic copyrights, MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech is in the public domain b/c he didn't comply with the formalities. A big win for the public, IMO. I would definately support the return of some formal requirements.
No, I think you're wrong. But thank you for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts.
Ordinary property law applies -- if you buy something, you buy it. If you want an exception, you're going to have to find an explicit one.
It is _argued_ that EULAs do this, but the courts are split as to whether that's actually the case. No one even claims that the stupid little disclaimers on CDs and the like is equivalent. The law doesn't carve out an exception when it comes to CDs and DVDs. (and have you noticed the THRIVING trade in used CDs and DVDs lately?)
So... would you care to name an example? Any example? I bet you can't.
I'm an artist. I'd LOVE to make art that gets mutilated and resold. After all, since only I can make new copies, I'd have quite a market if there were a lot of people doin' that. And it doesn't reduce the availability of the unaltered works. As long as it was made clear that they were ALTERED copies -- not solely attributable to me -- I'd be totally okay with it.
I suspect a lot of artists would -- we're not all blind to commercial realities. Nor do we deserve any rights in our works unless it results in an overall positive gain for society taking into account the harm caused by giving us any rights.
As for your idiotic consumer rights blabber: So you're saying it is illegal for a college bookstore to sell used copies of textbooks that have been extensively modified by a) adding notes, highlighting, etc, and b) having parts mutilated or missing? Even if the buyer of the used copy is completely and fully aware of the modifications? That's what you're saying, right?
And that's great. Just make sure that you're clearly pointing out that it's edited so as to not run afoul of fraud (by selling someone a product that isn't what it was advertised to be) or libel (by essentially putting words in someone's mouth). I don't think that this is either -- and certainly no one's been seriously pursuing either theory AFAIK.
As long as they never make any new copies, but only make modifications to copies that were made by the original publisher, it's dandy.
If I go to the bookstore and buy a book, why shouldn't I be allowed to rip up half of it? Once I've ripped it up, why shouldn't I be able to resell it. I'm not making a new copy, I'm altering an EXTANT copy.
My proxy filter that I use to get rid of ads etc is exactly the same thing -- why should I have to look at things that I don't want to look at? Why can't I make that decision on a word-by-word basis, rather than having to read the whole book or nothing at all?
The creator should have no right of integrity to their work at all as far as I'm concerned -- they sold it, that's the end of their involvement with the copies they themselves sold. (new copies are a different matter) For mass published works, there's definately no such right.
No, the GPL is needed to edit and redistribute NEW COPIES YOU HAVE MADE. It is not needed to edit or redistribute the SAME copy SOMEONE ELSE MADE.
It's legal to sell used books, even used books that have had pages ripped out or notes written in. This goes a long way towards disproving your statement.
As for censorship -- so what? This is not the government censoring here! It is the audience itself!
For example, I have a proxy filter on my computer. I get rid of ads with it. I also get rid of other things that bother me, like excessive logos, or annoying graphics or text. (e.g. Aint It Cool News has webmail -- I don't use it, so I have programmed the filter to delete that, and thus I never see it)
This is not really censorship. This is my selectively choosing what I will and will not look at. Do you read the ads in a newspaper or magazine? I don't. This is little different, except that we now have a machine that helps you in the process of not wasting your time on looking at crap -- by using choices about what to hide from you, THAT YOU MADE YOURSELF, AND CAN ALWAYS CHANGE ACCORDING TO YOUR WHIM!
There's a _world_ of difference between the Soviet Union telling me what I can and cannot look at, and me making my own decision. Likewise, I do not make decisions for anyone else, though I'm happy to share my filters with anyone who wants to use them because they have made similar choices.
To decide for yourself seems to me to be the acme of freedom -- not necessarily tolerance or open mindedness, but freedom nevertheless.
You own a copy of the book, which for your own use you may do what you like, but you can't alter the content, then sell it, no.
That's an absurd comment to make. First Sale doctrine protects your right to alter copies of works you have bought, e.g. tearing pages out of a book. First Sale doctrine protects your right to resell a copy of a work you have bought, e.g. selling a used book.
Are you so stupid that you are seriously telling me that I can only do one of those at a time? Seems so!
Here's a nickel, kid -- don't bother coming back to talk about copyright issues till you've read up on the law.
There is perhaps a minor problem in that patents ALREADY require the details to be published. You cannot put some protective license around it.
The best you could do would be to license the invention to others for free in exchange for them licensing any patents derived from your invention for free.
Don't worry -- they're adding moving parts. A GeForce 4 is often little more than a fan and a heatsink with a chip attached somewhere. A few sad, sad, people are beginning to strap cooling hardware onto RAM. Exabit ethernet will probably be ridiculous, and a switch will cost a fortune.
Unfortunately reverse engineering is alive and well, whether you analyze the chemical composition and published nutritional information of soy sauce to reproduce it, or decompile and study the output of software to reproduce it. (remember the IBM BIOS?)
Trade secrets aren't as great as you might think they are.
I'd want to look into it, but I shy away from agreeing with you.
In the realm of patent law, if you create a patentable invention in the course of your duties while working for someone, or even just using their facilities, IIRC, it is owned by the employer. Regardless of any explicit agreement.
Lots of people work creating content for businesses as an integral part of their job -- I doubt a formal agreement is necessary if the nature of the work is intrinsically work for hire. But I'd want to check it out.
Actually, it is NOT up to the producer to determine what the copyright is on their work. That's the government's job. The most the photographer can do is to give up some of what he was given by the government.
We have copyrights because we generally view the market as having failed. Your solution, aside from being utterly incorrect, does not help the situation one iota.
The "People" have shown that they want content, without paying for it.
I disagree. People want convenience and quality at a reasonable price.
I agree with both of you.
What I really want is lots of content for free, and with no restrictions on what I can do with it. However, this is unlikely to happen.
So I am willing to trade some of "free" for more of "content." But only if I think I'll be better off by doing so than I would be otherwise -- after all, history proves that it's possible to have all of "free" and at least some of "content."
No matter how reasonable the price were, however, I'd be damned if I'd want to pay for something if I felt it was overall a bad deal for me. Instead I'd just change the system so that I could get it for free. (see for example that copyrights are required to expire at a time determined by the government, which has as its mission to promote the public good, regardless of the effect on the artists)
Okay, now prove it. Lots of legal theorists have been working hard to justify why we have property rights.
The present answer (the one we've been using for roughly 150-200 years) is actually a lot more accomodating towards people's whims than you might imagine.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not always true. Imagine having a piece of medical hardware that's computer controlled. Or imagine skimping on simulating the design of a building due to lost files, where the building eventually collapses.
Of course, we don't even NEED such extreme examples. If I'm working on a project and I lose my work then that's already bad enough to justify such features! Don't people claim that one of the virtues of Unix is its uptime? Well, if crashing is not a big deal because it only takes a few minutes to reboot, why all the big deal?
Peoples' work isn't a video game. It is often serious enough to them to require GREAT care on the part of developers to keep them happy.
So you must never wear a seat belt either because you've never been in a fatal car accident.
Moron.
So... what? Linux is incapable of ever having a log appear for the user that, by use of clever formatting, tries to convey what files were deleted, and where they were, and how many?
I can think of some ways of doing that. I would say that any sort of Unix OS needs some serious ass kicking by HCI specialists, but frankly I think that it would be easier to dump Unix in the crapper and start over with UI as the predominant concern.
(and no, OS X is not a Unix with a good UI, it has a craptastic UI. It gets dumped too)
While a trash can is nice to have, this doesn't fundementally address the issue of retrivability of accidently deleted information. That is, there is still going to be a step where information is going to be classed as unretrivable even when it COULD be retrieved. (i.e. when the trash is emptied)
Clearly users appear to want to be able to correct mistakes that they've made -- perhaps even those that were not immediately apparent as being mistakes at the time -- for as long as possible. A trash is a step in that direction, but simply does not go far enough.
My proposal is this: 1st it should be recognized that when you delete a file, you're really only marking the space where that file was as being available to be overwritten by more data. The original data is there, but what it consisted of, and where it was, are lost.
So, let's keep that information in a log so that we can in a very real sense undelete anything that has not yet been overwritten. This log is not especially large, and with modern drive sizes is not a serious concern.
Then, let's order the overwriting process to favor the maximum preservation of data. So for example this might result in new writes being done to the areas of the oldest deleted files first. Important files might be considered to be worth preserving longer, with importance dervived from various factors such as number of accesses, etc. prior to deletion. There's definately work for some user testing here to determine the optimal method. That's okay.
If fragmentation is a worry, (bear in mind most people have never heard of it) then defragging software could take into consideration the undelete log and continue to preserve as much of the deleted data as possible when it shifts information around on the disk.
In any event, the objective is to forestall the day when you have to tell a user who wants to undelete a file for as long as possible. Not longer, which the trash solution does, but AS LONG AS POSSIBLE.
We also have the concept of compensatory damages in the US, thanks. And that's what most suits are over.
Punitive damages are only employed where the party seeking them can convince a jury that the tortfeasor (and other potential tortfeasors who will be basing their future decisions on the outcome of this case) has acted so wrongfully that they need to be taught a lesson.
I mean, imagine going up against a well-funded toxic waste dumper. If you can only sue him for actual damages that may not be enough to discourage him from dumping _more_ waste. He can afford it, after all.
As for the McDonalds' case, I STRONGLY suggest you actually look into the details of it; you're clearly just acting on what you've heard from some guy -- not exactly an accurate source.
It DOESN'T MATTER. However, if you like, let us consider Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow." As an American who wrote it around 1820, Irving would definately have qualified for a copyright. I strongly suspect he had one, though I don't have time to research it just now.
Disney made a short cartoon of it in 1949. I suspect that most people are probably more familiar with the cartoon than the actual story!
And yet, this didn't stop OTHER retellings of the story, such as the Jeff Goldblum version, or the (very good, but very divergent) Tim Burton version.
See, you fail to understand that the burden of proof here is going to rest on ABC, as they're the plaintiffs. They have to actually PROVE that someone infringed before the other party even has to think about defending themselves. A mere allegation simply doesn't cut it. And being aware of later works is not enough -- every time Disney brings out a movie based on a fairy tale there are tons of low-budget imitators. As long as they don't draw on whatever NEW STUFF Disney has ADDED to the old story, they're a-ok.
Unless they're actually _right_, ABC's lawyers would probably be subject to sanctions for bringing a frivolous suit. They're not going to try it unless they really do have a case. (or else they're idiots who probably deserve to be disbarred -- smart lawyers, no matter how slimy, won't risk their careers like that)
They can't. I can publish anything I want about Snow White (there's a kung-fu movie coming out soon, no joke) and Disney cannot stop me despite their massive 'investment' in it, unless I what I'm doing draws directly from what THEY did, as opposed to the perfectly unobjectional original source material that they also drew from. Thus I couldn't name the dwarves Happy or Doc or whatever. I'd have to find something else, like Hillary and Jack and Bill. (assuming I bothered at all)
IIRC the trademark on a character is lost, or at least weakened, once the work the character was introduced in hits the public domain.
Otherwise we would be in the stupid situation of being able to reproduce, say, existing Mickey Mouse cartoons, but not be able to make our own new ones. Trademarks are, here, of somewhat lesser importance than the public domain goals of the copyright system. (if only b/c it's the only meaningful way to reconcile them, but also b/c one is straight out of the Const. and the other is merely statutory)
Black and gritty? We're talking about the same Batman that introduced the Robin character as early as 1940 IIRC to make it more appealing to kids? "Dark Knight Returns" levels of grittyness are pretty modern, from the 80's, AFAIK.
(the level of camp VARIED of course, but it's fairly minor if you then make a comparison to the modern stuff)
Except of course the hotly debated issue of retroactive copyright laws, which goes before the Supreme Ct. pretty soon.
As for automatic copyrights, MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech is in the public domain b/c he didn't comply with the formalities. A big win for the public, IMO. I would definately support the return of some formal requirements.
No, I think you're wrong. But thank you for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts.
Ordinary property law applies -- if you buy something, you buy it. If you want an exception, you're going to have to find an explicit one.
It is _argued_ that EULAs do this, but the courts are split as to whether that's actually the case. No one even claims that the stupid little disclaimers on CDs and the like is equivalent. The law doesn't carve out an exception when it comes to CDs and DVDs. (and have you noticed the THRIVING trade in used CDs and DVDs lately?)
So... would you care to name an example? Any example? I bet you can't.
I'm an artist. I'd LOVE to make art that gets mutilated and resold. After all, since only I can make new copies, I'd have quite a market if there were a lot of people doin' that. And it doesn't reduce the availability of the unaltered works. As long as it was made clear that they were ALTERED copies -- not solely attributable to me -- I'd be totally okay with it.
I suspect a lot of artists would -- we're not all blind to commercial realities. Nor do we deserve any rights in our works unless it results in an overall positive gain for society taking into account the harm caused by giving us any rights.
As for your idiotic consumer rights blabber: So you're saying it is illegal for a college bookstore to sell used copies of textbooks that have been extensively modified by a) adding notes, highlighting, etc, and b) having parts mutilated or missing? Even if the buyer of the used copy is completely and fully aware of the modifications? That's what you're saying, right?
we're not defending selling copies though. just edited originals.
And that's great. Just make sure that you're clearly pointing out that it's edited so as to not run afoul of fraud (by selling someone a product that isn't what it was advertised to be) or libel (by essentially putting words in someone's mouth). I don't think that this is either -- and certainly no one's been seriously pursuing either theory AFAIK.
As long as they never make any new copies, but only make modifications to copies that were made by the original publisher, it's dandy.
If I go to the bookstore and buy a book, why shouldn't I be allowed to rip up half of it? Once I've ripped it up, why shouldn't I be able to resell it. I'm not making a new copy, I'm altering an EXTANT copy.
My proxy filter that I use to get rid of ads etc is exactly the same thing -- why should I have to look at things that I don't want to look at? Why can't I make that decision on a word-by-word basis, rather than having to read the whole book or nothing at all?
The creator should have no right of integrity to their work at all as far as I'm concerned -- they sold it, that's the end of their involvement with the copies they themselves sold. (new copies are a different matter) For mass published works, there's definately no such right.
No, the GPL is needed to edit and redistribute NEW COPIES YOU HAVE MADE. It is not needed to edit or redistribute the SAME copy SOMEONE ELSE MADE.
It's legal to sell used books, even used books that have had pages ripped out or notes written in. This goes a long way towards disproving your statement.
As for censorship -- so what? This is not the government censoring here! It is the audience itself!
For example, I have a proxy filter on my computer. I get rid of ads with it. I also get rid of other things that bother me, like excessive logos, or annoying graphics or text. (e.g. Aint It Cool News has webmail -- I don't use it, so I have programmed the filter to delete that, and thus I never see it)
This is not really censorship. This is my selectively choosing what I will and will not look at. Do you read the ads in a newspaper or magazine? I don't. This is little different, except that we now have a machine that helps you in the process of not wasting your time on looking at crap -- by using choices about what to hide from you, THAT YOU MADE YOURSELF, AND CAN ALWAYS CHANGE ACCORDING TO YOUR WHIM!
There's a _world_ of difference between the Soviet Union telling me what I can and cannot look at, and me making my own decision. Likewise, I do not make decisions for anyone else, though I'm happy to share my filters with anyone who wants to use them because they have made similar choices.
To decide for yourself seems to me to be the acme of freedom -- not necessarily tolerance or open mindedness, but freedom nevertheless.
That's an absurd comment to make. First Sale doctrine protects your right to alter copies of works you have bought, e.g. tearing pages out of a book. First Sale doctrine protects your right to resell a copy of a work you have bought, e.g. selling a used book.
Are you so stupid that you are seriously telling me that I can only do one of those at a time? Seems so!
Here's a nickel, kid -- don't bother coming back to talk about copyright issues till you've read up on the law.
There is perhaps a minor problem in that patents ALREADY require the details to be published. You cannot put some protective license around it.
The best you could do would be to license the invention to others for free in exchange for them licensing any patents derived from your invention for free.
Don't worry -- they're adding moving parts. A GeForce 4 is often little more than a fan and a heatsink with a chip attached somewhere. A few sad, sad, people are beginning to strap cooling hardware onto RAM. Exabit ethernet will probably be ridiculous, and a switch will cost a fortune.
Unfortunately reverse engineering is alive and well, whether you analyze the chemical composition and published nutritional information of soy sauce to reproduce it, or decompile and study the output of software to reproduce it. (remember the IBM BIOS?)
Trade secrets aren't as great as you might think they are.
I'd want to look into it, but I shy away from agreeing with you.
In the realm of patent law, if you create a patentable invention in the course of your duties while working for someone, or even just using their facilities, IIRC, it is owned by the employer. Regardless of any explicit agreement.
Lots of people work creating content for businesses as an integral part of their job -- I doubt a formal agreement is necessary if the nature of the work is intrinsically work for hire. But I'd want to check it out.
Actually, it is NOT up to the producer to determine what the copyright is on their work. That's the government's job. The most the photographer can do is to give up some of what he was given by the government.
We have copyrights because we generally view the market as having failed. Your solution, aside from being utterly incorrect, does not help the situation one iota.
I agree with both of you.
What I really want is lots of content for free, and with no restrictions on what I can do with it. However, this is unlikely to happen.
So I am willing to trade some of "free" for more of "content." But only if I think I'll be better off by doing so than I would be otherwise -- after all, history proves that it's possible to have all of "free" and at least some of "content."
No matter how reasonable the price were, however, I'd be damned if I'd want to pay for something if I felt it was overall a bad deal for me. Instead I'd just change the system so that I could get it for free. (see for example that copyrights are required to expire at a time determined by the government, which has as its mission to promote the public good, regardless of the effect on the artists)
Okay, now prove it. Lots of legal theorists have been working hard to justify why we have property rights.
The present answer (the one we've been using for roughly 150-200 years) is actually a lot more accomodating towards people's whims than you might imagine.
That's not their choice. You must understand that the intent of giving creators any protection at all is not for their benefit, but for our own.