Hell, when bicycles first came along, there were schools you could go to to learn to ride it. If it catches on, learning how to use one isn't a big deal.
Naw, you just add a speaker... you could even customize the sound: buzzing 2 stroke through to loud-ass harley.;) It's like ring tones all over again.
Re:Begging Questions and Urban Planning
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
What the hell are you on?
Seattle has a downtown. It goes from the Sound to I-5, and from Belltown to the International District. Furthermore, people are outside all the time, and it doesn't even rain significantly all that much at all. I lived in the area for years, worked downtown (500-block Olive Way, behind Nordstroms; 1500-block 3rd Ave, a bit away from Pike Place Mkt.) and commuted from Overlake in Bellevue in 45 minutes EASY day in and out.
Hell, downtown Bellevue on the Eastside gives you ANOTHER downtown core if you really needed one. (and some towns like Issaquah and Redmond have decent, though smaller, downtowns too)
The only crappy thing in Seattle is Lake Washington; you can't go around quickly, and there are only two ways across, both congested. If those morons running the county would run their precious light rail, or the more optimal monorail from Downtown Seattle & Capital Hill directly across the lake and to an expanded downtown Bellevue Transit Center, then run a lot of trains back and forth during rush hour, they would _seriously_ lick a lot of the transportation issues.
As it stands of course, the light rail is just going to make things worse, especially when the bus tunnel is closed. (despite having been originally designed to accomodate trams and trains simultaneously)
Given that I hated the waiting and the transfers in Bellevue from my local bus (230 or 253) to the 550 express, but hated the steep hills in Overlake even more, I probably could've really gone for one of these things if it worked and was safe.
(it might even be cool in my new digs in the Philly area, rather than driving my car to the park and ride, but I can't afford it anymore)
Re:The most important...
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
Should make cases easy... you could claim no reasonable person would be seen on one;)
Mm, I've had my eye on TDI VWs for a while, but the ol' Taurus is paid for, and I have student loans, so there's not much hope anytime soon.
Now if we could get a turbo diesel / electric hybrid, something that got up towards 60-80mpg, I'd be a lot more likely to switch over. (more in fact, if they'd develop an engine that could take diesel or regular, because diesel's cheapness hasn't been holding up too well lately)
Ah well... Segway looks interesting. I couldn't justify it of course, but I'd give one a try. How fast does it go?
Generally, no. The federal courts don't issue advisory opinions, and AFAIK, even the state courts do so very, very rarely, if at all. (I recall that the MA Supreme Court has done so in the past) Given that this is a copyright law, and that Congress has decided to make questions of copyright law exclusive to the federal courts, there's no chance.
Something would have to be used to invoke the law.
IANAL, but IIRC, this wouldn't be baseless or frivolous. If it seemed reasonably likely that they could bring the issue, even if they'd lose (remember, someone always loses!) then they are entitled to do so.
A case has to be pretty damn clearly an attempt at draining the defendant's resources to trigger the relevant safeguards.
Honestly, I would've liked a positive ruling here, but it's true: Felten had no standing. The RIAA didn't _do_ anything.
Well, I think perhaps it is more accurate to say that it is piracy unless you have the blessing of the author.
However, just because one is a pirate, that _doesn't_ necessarily mean that one is either a) breaking the law, or b) acting immorally.*
There were, IIRC, publishers known as pirates prior to the existance of copyright, when their behavior was perfectly legal, and incidentally when there were real 'arr matey' types of pirates roaming around.
It's a bit of a slur, but a wholly seperate issue from copyrights or copyright infringements.
*Your law and morals may vary, see dealer for details.
People don't need to make money where they're being thoroughly artificially propped up, however. I'd be perfectly happy to see cancer eliminated, even though it would be quite a blow to oncologists. People do _not_ have a natural right to make money. People do _not_ have a natural right to copyrights.
I suspect that were decryption of the signal legal, some bright fellow would still figure out a way to make money off of it. Maybe not as _much_, but enough to keep it all going. Remember, profits are inefficiencies in the system... razor-thin margins are ideal.
That would never fly. 17 USC 117(a)(1) is very clearly intended to cover copies _within_ a single machine. Notice how 'machine' is singular? It permits you to copy software from, for example, CD to HD to RAM to Cache to CPU in whole or part, if it is necessary to do so to make it work.
You are not entering into any agreement. That derives from copyright law. Software is quite unusual in being a good that is popularly disseminated under contract. So unusual that there are people that suspect that that is not actually possible in fact. Hopefully, they're right.
This was in a federal court -- the Central District of California. Copyright infringement issues as Adobe tried to raise cannot be brought in state courts.
Of course, one, this is NOT a final judgement, but just an order relating to a preliminary injunction. Softman hasn't won, there's no guarantee they will win, and there is no precedential value yet. (although it is promising) Two, when final judgement _is_ rendered, it will only have power in its own district. Outside cases can of course refer to it, but not as anything binding. And the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could, and I suspect ultimately will, have something to say about it. And maybe, just maybe, it'll get to the Supreme Court.
As for DMCA... if this _were_ the ruling, which it isn't, there's not a whole lot of use. I don't even want to get into UCITA... but I wouldn't take it for granted that it would overturn it.
Well, when it comes to copyright, I'm afraid that other countries tend to be rather stupid.
Writers of a work should have _NO_ rights to control how the work is used. I don't mind if a writer chooses who he will and will not sell a work to, but that is pretty much the end of it.
I do _not_ need the heirs of the guy that invented the word 'the' to tell me to stop using it. But this is the absurdity that your argument leads to.
The American utilitarian copyright model is so much better -- authors get those rights that people find it is convenient to give them, taking into consideration the important interests of the readers and the arts, and the less important interests of authors. (who are only tolerated insofar as is necessary to get them to produce something else)
Your monopoly on some piece of software you develop derives solely from copyright law -- you have no natural or moral rights to it. Only what other people choose, through the government, to give you.
The user can, if he wants, control things on a much more fundmental level than the developer. The most you could do would be to take your ball home with you, but this doesn't result in any additional value for you!
(and of course note that you recieve value from such a scheme, because much more software -- everyone else's -- becomes available for you to improve as well)
I expect that if we don't start to see some moderation on the part of copyright holders in the next couple of decades that people will become sufficiently fed up that the pendulum starts swinging the other way./. is already full of people who are fed up.
Of course, so what? The author was perfectly happy to part with it for $10. If he wasn't, he should've held onto it, hoping that it would later pay off better.
Most artists of all types never make it big. I never did. (and have now changed careers, but not for that reason) Your objection is only valid for works that are 'discovered.' This isn't a big segment of the population, and doesn't stop artists from capitalizing on their new fame by setting their sights higher on the next work.
And still, the artist was either happy to release at that price, or could wait and chance it.
In response to your points:
1) The developers are getting paid -- there's no assumption that they are not self interested. Developers can either choose to accept risk by developing first, then announcing, or by announcing to test out the waters at no risk. (other than having to develop if there is in fact enough demand)
2) The virtually unlimited compensation model only works if we assume copyright exists. As I was offering a suggestion for a world without copyright, this objection is moot. If you accept that the lack of copyright is a condition of this thought experiment, your objections will probably hold more merit.
3) Any kind of contract for software will require that the product perform as specified. Certainly developers would appreciate not having to check their work if you don't care, but delivering intolerably buggy software is already failure to perform in most cases.
4) Consumers only have to plan purchases in advance IF the developer is unwilling to run the risk of writing software prior to getting enough money in escrow to feel safe.
In the real world, not only do gamers often watch upcoming games (Duke Nukem has been in development for _how_ long now?) but companies write games with no assurances at all that it'll sell.
In the worst case, there's little difference -- games that are developed prior to getting the money and which flop will most likely be released for less than the developer's initial expectations (b/c the developer lowers the needed amount to try to get something). Compare that with releasing a flop game that never recoups its costs, e.g. Daikatana.
5) Consumers _aren't_ sponsoring developers for the public good -- they're doing so for their own interests. Not everyone will sponsor every release. But everyone does benefit from every successful release. Thus people do get a bit of a free ride, and sponsor derivative developers who can make use of released software, but still have to pay or do without for things they really like, and have to support.
Well the trick is, if there's no copyright (which was a condition, remember),
1) there's no GPL, only the public domain
2) you must never ever let a copy escape your grasp, because once it does, you're toast. perhaps you could recover damages for breach of contract from that one guy who did it, but you probably wouldn't get a return on the investment.
Sigh. Please go and _read_ more carefully, instead.
The order of this process (it's the Street Performer Protocol, as described more fully elsewhere) might be:
1) Carmack comes up with an idea for yet another FPS game. He announces it, and sets the price at $1 million.
2) Games froth at the mouth, and pay an escrow agent however much they want. Some people will not pay anything. Other people will pay perhaps as much as $20-50.
3) At some point,
a) Gamers break the total amount of money needed, or
b) Carmack decides that he had his sights set too high, and lowers the price, or
c) There's not enough demand for Carmack to want to proceed, so he cancels, and the money is returned.
4) Assuming that the amount of money required is ultimately met, and the game finished, the game is delivered to the escrow agent. It checks it out to ensure that it meets the specs that people were paying for.
5) The agent releases the game, and gives Carmack the money.
6) No one pays for the game again, unless they're kind of lame, or are paying for having it on CD, or DVD, or with packaging. But there's nothing illegal about dl'ing it from a server, or getting a copy from a friend either.
So basically -- during the period where payment is needed, there is no way to get the game, and during the period where the game is available, there is no need for payment.
People would probably pay in advance to developers they trusted, but to escrow agents. Either they'd pay for games proposed by the developers, or they'd make suggestions, which might be weighted by the amount of money backing each up.
The developer releases to the escrow agent. It checks to see that it meets the criteria of the order; perhaps some reviewers would have to find it to be appropriately cool, or having certain features, or it would have to make a certain delivery date to avoid lower payment, etc.
If it all checks out, the escrow agent releases the game (which, because there's no copyright, is public domain) and pays the developer from the money it was holding. The agent itself might be paid from the interest on the money it held.
Personally, I'm not upset about copyright in general, but the present implementation is hardly balanced. It's great that games get written and developers earn a living, but these are probably less important goals than progress in the development of gaming, and the preservation of games for the future. (by letting people patch and port them independently, e.g. arcade ROMS)
You're hardly balancing if the only interests you're worried about are those of authors.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, when bicycles first came along, there were schools you could go to to learn to ride it. If it catches on, learning how to use one isn't a big deal.
Naw, you just add a speaker... you could even customize the sound: buzzing 2 stroke through to loud-ass harley. ;) It's like ring tones all over again.
What the hell are you on?
Seattle has a downtown. It goes from the Sound to I-5, and from Belltown to the International District. Furthermore, people are outside all the time, and it doesn't even rain significantly all that much at all. I lived in the area for years, worked downtown (500-block Olive Way, behind Nordstroms; 1500-block 3rd Ave, a bit away from Pike Place Mkt.) and commuted from Overlake in Bellevue in 45 minutes EASY day in and out.
Hell, downtown Bellevue on the Eastside gives you ANOTHER downtown core if you really needed one. (and some towns like Issaquah and Redmond have decent, though smaller, downtowns too)
The only crappy thing in Seattle is Lake Washington; you can't go around quickly, and there are only two ways across, both congested. If those morons running the county would run their precious light rail, or the more optimal monorail from Downtown Seattle & Capital Hill directly across the lake and to an expanded downtown Bellevue Transit Center, then run a lot of trains back and forth during rush hour, they would _seriously_ lick a lot of the transportation issues.
As it stands of course, the light rail is just going to make things worse, especially when the bus tunnel is closed. (despite having been originally designed to accomodate trams and trains simultaneously)
Given that I hated the waiting and the transfers in Bellevue from my local bus (230 or 253) to the 550 express, but hated the steep hills in Overlake even more, I probably could've really gone for one of these things if it worked and was safe.
(it might even be cool in my new digs in the Philly area, rather than driving my car to the park and ride, but I can't afford it anymore)
Should make cases easy... you could claim no reasonable person would be seen on one ;)
Mm, I've had my eye on TDI VWs for a while, but the ol' Taurus is paid for, and I have student loans, so there's not much hope anytime soon.
Now if we could get a turbo diesel / electric hybrid, something that got up towards 60-80mpg, I'd be a lot more likely to switch over. (more in fact, if they'd develop an engine that could take diesel or regular, because diesel's cheapness hasn't been holding up too well lately)
Ah well... Segway looks interesting. I couldn't justify it of course, but I'd give one a try. How fast does it go?
I was wondering when the Japanese would take the logical next step and transform cat girls from an anime fantasy to creepy reality.
Well duh. That's why I'm in law school.
Generally, no. The federal courts don't issue advisory opinions, and AFAIK, even the state courts do so very, very rarely, if at all. (I recall that the MA Supreme Court has done so in the past) Given that this is a copyright law, and that Congress has decided to make questions of copyright law exclusive to the federal courts, there's no chance.
Something would have to be used to invoke the law.
IANAL, but IIRC, this wouldn't be baseless or frivolous. If it seemed reasonably likely that they could bring the issue, even if they'd lose (remember, someone always loses!) then they are entitled to do so.
A case has to be pretty damn clearly an attempt at draining the defendant's resources to trigger the relevant safeguards.
Honestly, I would've liked a positive ruling here, but it's true: Felten had no standing. The RIAA didn't _do_ anything.
Well, I think perhaps it is more accurate to say that it is piracy unless you have the blessing of the author.
However, just because one is a pirate, that _doesn't_ necessarily mean that one is either a) breaking the law, or b) acting immorally.*
There were, IIRC, publishers known as pirates prior to the existance of copyright, when their behavior was perfectly legal, and incidentally when there were real 'arr matey' types of pirates roaming around.
It's a bit of a slur, but a wholly seperate issue from copyrights or copyright infringements.
*Your law and morals may vary, see dealer for details.
If it were your store? Hell yes. Thanks, I'll come back again.
If you're only an employee... then it's not likely.
Tell me, is Apple an employee of Apple, or is Apple Apple? This isn't an awfully hard thing to figure out.
I thought that it was actually rather more like the Unix backdoor password hack of yore. There's some info about it on the Jargon File.
People don't need to make money where they're being thoroughly artificially propped up, however. I'd be perfectly happy to see cancer eliminated, even though it would be quite a blow to oncologists. People do _not_ have a natural right to make money. People do _not_ have a natural right to copyrights.
I suspect that were decryption of the signal legal, some bright fellow would still figure out a way to make money off of it. Maybe not as _much_, but enough to keep it all going. Remember, profits are inefficiencies in the system... razor-thin margins are ideal.
That would never fly. 17 USC 117(a)(1) is very clearly intended to cover copies _within_ a single machine. Notice how 'machine' is singular? It permits you to copy software from, for example, CD to HD to RAM to Cache to CPU in whole or part, if it is necessary to do so to make it work.
You are not entering into any agreement. That derives from copyright law. Software is quite unusual in being a good that is popularly disseminated under contract. So unusual that there are people that suspect that that is not actually possible in fact. Hopefully, they're right.
Yep. Of course, IANAL either.
This was in a federal court -- the Central District of California. Copyright infringement issues as Adobe tried to raise cannot be brought in state courts.
Of course, one, this is NOT a final judgement, but just an order relating to a preliminary injunction. Softman hasn't won, there's no guarantee they will win, and there is no precedential value yet. (although it is promising) Two, when final judgement _is_ rendered, it will only have power in its own district. Outside cases can of course refer to it, but not as anything binding. And the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could, and I suspect ultimately will, have something to say about it. And maybe, just maybe, it'll get to the Supreme Court.
As for DMCA... if this _were_ the ruling, which it isn't, there's not a whole lot of use. I don't even want to get into UCITA... but I wouldn't take it for granted that it would overturn it.
Well, when it comes to copyright, I'm afraid that other countries tend to be rather stupid.
Writers of a work should have _NO_ rights to control how the work is used. I don't mind if a writer chooses who he will and will not sell a work to, but that is pretty much the end of it.
I do _not_ need the heirs of the guy that invented the word 'the' to tell me to stop using it. But this is the absurdity that your argument leads to.
The American utilitarian copyright model is so much better -- authors get those rights that people find it is convenient to give them, taking into consideration the important interests of the readers and the arts, and the less important interests of authors. (who are only tolerated insofar as is necessary to get them to produce something else)
Tough cookies then.
/. is already full of people who are fed up.
Your monopoly on some piece of software you develop derives solely from copyright law -- you have no natural or moral rights to it. Only what other people choose, through the government, to give you.
The user can, if he wants, control things on a much more fundmental level than the developer. The most you could do would be to take your ball home with you, but this doesn't result in any additional value for you!
(and of course note that you recieve value from such a scheme, because much more software -- everyone else's -- becomes available for you to improve as well)
I expect that if we don't start to see some moderation on the part of copyright holders in the next couple of decades that people will become sufficiently fed up that the pendulum starts swinging the other way.
Yep.
Of course, so what? The author was perfectly happy to part with it for $10. If he wasn't, he should've held onto it, hoping that it would later pay off better.
Most artists of all types never make it big. I never did. (and have now changed careers, but not for that reason) Your objection is only valid for works that are 'discovered.' This isn't a big segment of the population, and doesn't stop artists from capitalizing on their new fame by setting their sights higher on the next work.
And still, the artist was either happy to release at that price, or could wait and chance it.
I'm just not seeing the problem here.
In response to your points:
1) The developers are getting paid -- there's no assumption that they are not self interested. Developers can either choose to accept risk by developing first, then announcing, or by announcing to test out the waters at no risk. (other than having to develop if there is in fact enough demand)
2) The virtually unlimited compensation model only works if we assume copyright exists. As I was offering a suggestion for a world without copyright, this objection is moot. If you accept that the lack of copyright is a condition of this thought experiment, your objections will probably hold more merit.
3) Any kind of contract for software will require that the product perform as specified. Certainly developers would appreciate not having to check their work if you don't care, but delivering intolerably buggy software is already failure to perform in most cases.
4) Consumers only have to plan purchases in advance IF the developer is unwilling to run the risk of writing software prior to getting enough money in escrow to feel safe.
In the real world, not only do gamers often watch upcoming games (Duke Nukem has been in development for _how_ long now?) but companies write games with no assurances at all that it'll sell.
In the worst case, there's little difference -- games that are developed prior to getting the money and which flop will most likely be released for less than the developer's initial expectations (b/c the developer lowers the needed amount to try to get something). Compare that with releasing a flop game that never recoups its costs, e.g. Daikatana.
5) Consumers _aren't_ sponsoring developers for the public good -- they're doing so for their own interests. Not everyone will sponsor every release. But everyone does benefit from every successful release. Thus people do get a bit of a free ride, and sponsor derivative developers who can make use of released software, but still have to pay or do without for things they really like, and have to support.
Well the trick is, if there's no copyright (which was a condition, remember),
1) there's no GPL, only the public domain
2) you must never ever let a copy escape your grasp, because once it does, you're toast. perhaps you could recover damages for breach of contract from that one guy who did it, but you probably wouldn't get a return on the investment.
Sigh. Please go and _read_ more carefully, instead.
The order of this process (it's the Street Performer Protocol, as described more fully elsewhere) might be:
1) Carmack comes up with an idea for yet another FPS game. He announces it, and sets the price at $1 million.
2) Games froth at the mouth, and pay an escrow agent however much they want. Some people will not pay anything. Other people will pay perhaps as much as $20-50.
3) At some point,
a) Gamers break the total amount of money needed, or
b) Carmack decides that he had his sights set too high, and lowers the price, or
c) There's not enough demand for Carmack to want to proceed, so he cancels, and the money is returned.
4) Assuming that the amount of money required is ultimately met, and the game finished, the game is delivered to the escrow agent. It checks it out to ensure that it meets the specs that people were paying for.
5) The agent releases the game, and gives Carmack the money.
6) No one pays for the game again, unless they're kind of lame, or are paying for having it on CD, or DVD, or with packaging. But there's nothing illegal about dl'ing it from a server, or getting a copy from a friend either.
So basically -- during the period where payment is needed, there is no way to get the game, and during the period where the game is available, there is no need for payment.
People would probably pay in advance to developers they trusted, but to escrow agents. Either they'd pay for games proposed by the developers, or they'd make suggestions, which might be weighted by the amount of money backing each up.
The developer releases to the escrow agent. It checks to see that it meets the criteria of the order; perhaps some reviewers would have to find it to be appropriately cool, or having certain features, or it would have to make a certain delivery date to avoid lower payment, etc.
If it all checks out, the escrow agent releases the game (which, because there's no copyright, is public domain) and pays the developer from the money it was holding. The agent itself might be paid from the interest on the money it held.
Personally, I'm not upset about copyright in general, but the present implementation is hardly balanced. It's great that games get written and developers earn a living, but these are probably less important goals than progress in the development of gaming, and the preservation of games for the future. (by letting people patch and port them independently, e.g. arcade ROMS)
You're hardly balancing if the only interests you're worried about are those of authors.
I agree. BBEdit's great. Not perfect (e.g. the misdesigned white space for scrolling option) but getting there.
Yeah, only that's piracy.
A better scenario is to migrate mp3s from home to your work computer for your personal use there.