Life is not always fair. However, due to the nature of information it's unfair to the people who wish to exert control. If I memorize a book written by someone else, it takes laws to _prevent_ me from using however I please. And even with more laws than you could count, once I've memorized it, no one short of God himself can stop me from 'rereading' it, as it were, as much as I want.
The laws are limited to copying (and then only sometimes) because otherwise they'd be ineffectual. And if there's one thing that no one likes, it's a law that's impossible to enforce. Many judges will overturn such laws because they're harmful to society, IIRC.
The most natural way is that which grants no control at all. The most likely best way is that which lets the author control the first sale, and then gets the hell out of the way.
Well there is also an ergonomic benefit to having one big button instead of two smaller buttons. Evidently, when you've got several fingers on a single big button, you click with all of them. This reduces the strain placed on any particular finger. Most multibutton mice force users to have a single finger on each button, and are shaped in such a way that it's always the same fingers.
When I heard about this I actually watched myself to see what I did. Turns out I click with the first three fingers of my hand. I wouldn't mind a thumb button though.
Well, while CGI requires a totally different sort of work on the part of the animators, that doesn't mean that it's going to hit high framerates. The rendering alone takes a lot of time, and the animation is still an art - can you make characters that walk realistically in 2d or 3d? It's not particularly easy.
Reboot was limited because not only did they have a very tight schedule, being a weekly show, but also because it was the first AFAIK show entirely in CGI meaning that the animators were still learning, and they had significantly less powerful computers to work with than they do today. The stunning difference between the end of the 2nd season and the beginning of the 3rd season highlights this.
Akira, IIRC, was filmed on ones (meaning 24fps - it's a movie) but it's virtually alone in that class. I liked it a lot, though my favorite anime movies are probably Dirty Pair: Project Eden, and Patlabor 2. Anime isn't frequently done at Akira levels is all I'm saying. If the animators are careful, it doesn't have to be (this is where the dramatic pauses come in...;)
And Eva has lots of good animation in some parts, and cheats insanely at others. I believe there's a full two minutes of Rei on an elevator in which there are probably 10 frames for the entire scene. By the end of the series they were IIRC over budget and behind schedule and it shows.
The Marvel series on Fox are awful, you're right. IMHO this is because they're trying to animate the same character designs that they use for the comics. One of the greatest successes of the Batman cartoon was that the character designs were so simple that fluid animation was relatively easy. (the excellent writing didn't hurt either) Animating each and every hair on Wolverine's arms is a PITA. It's got a lot to do with why it's so jerky at times. They had crappy backgrounds too.
The work that the Warner Bros. animation department did in the 30s-50s was really good, with lots of subtle movement all the time that probaby wasn't necessary, but really makes the shorts look great. No one does this anymore (e.g. characters idly shifting from foot to foot even though that's not the center of attention) Unfortunately their work started to get pretty bad by about the midpoint of Chuck Jones' reign - overly cute character designs and poor writing.
Meh. I just don't care for it. With the exception of Daley and possibly Linna, I like the old character designs better.
OTOH BGC has plenty of faults on it's own; the animation doesn't really get good until episode 5, 'Bye Bye My Crisis' is the worst song ever, and there's the curiously large phone. But it's a good series nonetheless.
Crisis was first, and it's still a good 8-episode series. On DVD as well, which is a plus. Crash was the sequel to Crisis, and was originally going to be 13 episodes long, but got cut to 3. It's terrible, and not really worth watching. The old ADPolice series is also 3 episodes, but takes place before Crisis (a prequel) and doesn't have the Sabers, or even Genom. It's all about Leon, when he's a rookie on the ADP.
The 2040 series is a _remake_ of Crisis, but they changed a number of things; curiously, the hardsuit designs are the only thing that's still basically intact. It doesn't seem to be awful, though admittedly I haven't watched it since I don't buy VHS tapes anymore. Also I can't get over that they made Nene a blonde;)
You _have_ to be joking. No one, but no one does animation at 30fps. It's a waste of time and money. Only occassionally, when great fluidity is needed might someone even think about doing ones. For instance the bit of fighting between Escaflowne and Schezarade in the opening of Vision of Escaflowne might be on ones. That's what - a few seconds?
Twos are the best you'll ever see normally. Threes or fours are much more common. But the Japanese are well known for recycling animation, or employing other tricks (e.g. dramatic pauses - or having characters talk with their mouths concealed - or camera tricks) to cut down on animating anything.
If you're really all that concerned about frame count, go watch more American animation (other than cheap crap, like most Hanna Barbera series)
I went to that museum once (and I have also touched a penny, so I'm sure I'm in all of the databases by now) and it's probably true.
The centerpiece of the section on Obsolete Computers was a CM5. There was also a Cray of some kind in there, I don't remember which, but it was pretty old.
(on the other side of the room was the infamous wooden US Seal - a hinge was installed so that you could see the hollowed out area inside)
IIRC, the NSA is like the CIA - it's prohibited from surveilling on Americans by and large. But I have heard that the FBI, CIA et al get into fights all the time over jurisdiction.
Sometimes. There are actually a fair number of public domain recordings too - records have been around for a while now. At any rate you oughtn't assume that there's nothing in the p.d. just because the big corporations are doing such a good job at unconstitutionally subverting copyrights.
My personal favorite are the player piano rolls which were recorded onto by IIRC Aaron Copeland. Difficult to find a player, true, but pretty interesting stuff.
Xerox runs a business based almost entirely on the copying of copyrighted materials. Fortunately a lot of the copying is done by the copyright holders, or their agents. But this hasn't stopped other copyright holders from being pissed off about the whole thing.
Everything else strikes me as just details. Searching a database is not a copyright violation AFAIK. Isn't the database compiled by Napster? Is the database creative, and deserving of protection? Probably not. It's little more than a phone book when you get down to it.
So the database is a dead issue.
Napster's business model is also irrelevant, unless they're the ones actually doing the copying. But they're not. And using their database (sounds like a service at first glance) isn't a copyright infringement. If it were though, it would be infringing on Napster, not on the RIAA et al.
Even copying files isn't necessarily a copyright infringement, but it's got little to do with Napster. Files are copied straight from another user, and never touch Napster at all.
So while there is obviously a lot of copyright infringement going on, I still don't see how Napster can be singled out when our history indicates that all sorts of 'contributory infringers' aren't.
------
As for the four points: 1)Doesn't matter. It is not Napster's job to take positive action to ensure that no infringement is taking place, AFAIK. If they are made aware, then they do, yes. But there's no legal requirement that makes them check beforehand.
2 and 3) Doesn't matter if there's not a lot. Again, go after the people actually infringing. If you claim that Napster is infringing, show me the proof of that or shut up. The atmosphere they have created is equally conductive to legal and illegal distribution, which begins to raise common carrier issues to me. Maybe Napster can qualify as an ISP....
4) So if I sneak into a classroom with hundreds of legitimate students and swipe a copy of a handout, the prof. is responsible for not checking everyone's credentials? While there are other methods available, I doubt that fair users are legally mandated to use on service and not another. It's a legal use either way. If you misrepresent yourself, that's hardly the fault of the fair use distributor. They had no intent of giving it to you, had you not misled them.
Nope. There is a difference between owning a copyright and owning a copy of a work. (which is actually impossible, but I won't get into that here)
Let us say that you take the pages on your website, and put them onto a CD. Then you start selling the CDs to passers-by. If I successfully buy the CD from you, you don't have any rights to dictate to me how I can use what's on the CD. The law prohibits me from distributing copies I make, or publicly displaying it, but OTOH I can read it, change what's written, make copies for my own personal use, read it, etc.
The trick is this: If you tell me prior to my buying it that I have to agree to use it only in ways you approve of, and I agree and buy it, then I'm stuck using it with your permission. If you don't tell me this before the sale, you're out of luck.
The four or so cases that have dealt with software licences don't all agree, so generally it's assumed that unless you agree to a post-sale license (using the product you already bought doesn't count - clickwrap probably would) you're not bound by it.
Want to buy Windows and use it w/o agreeing to their license? Just don't click on the 'I agree' button. Installing it is trickier, but you don't need MS's permission, as they already sold it to you.
Americans who were Nazi sympathizers or with Japanese ancestors of course;)
(and unionists; anyone who isn't happy with whatever scraps their employer tosses to them clearly can only be stopped by attacking them with the entire US Army - pretty similar to WWI veterans too, really.)
And how is it illegal for me to build my own personal DVD player - which would require DeCSS or a functionally-equivalent piece of software in order to function? Smells like antitrust to me.
Remember, copying material as an essential step in using it in a computer is quite legal. You think that when you use Word there's not a copy on the hard drive, another copy in RAM and bits and pieces in your caches and CPU?
If DeCSS *has* to place decoded material in some memory other than the original DVD so that it's able to be processed by an MPEG player or whatever. If you've got 20GB of RAM, or a version of DeCSS so fast that it can send data straight to the Player in realtime that's nice, but it's not a requirement.
You _could_ put a license on any kind of media. But not only is this virtually unheard of in the consumer market outside of software, there is a lot of contention right now as to whether or not even software licenses are valid.
My opinion: If you have to agree to the license as a PRE CONDITION to obtaining the software, it's valid. But if you can pay cash money for the software and walk away with it without having to agree to anything except for that financial transaction you are not bound.
If you agree to a clickwrap license in the process of installing it, yeah, you're bound. But if you circumvent the installer or otherwise modify the software so that no license is presented to you (which you're free to do - you own that copy, you aren't bound by any license) you're free and clear. It's just difficult.
Obviously, there are other issues as well - software licences still can't violate the regular rules for contracts, etc.
Hate to break it to you, but none of the DVDs I've bought have a license on them. They do tend to say 'For Home Viewing Only' but not only is that not a license, that's already covered by copyright law and is pretty moot.
First sale applies for books, records, etc. What's so special about DVDs? (hint: Nothing)
There are, I would expect, much better copies of TPM by now. It was released on Laser Disc in Japan, and that's the best source on the market at present.
Prithee tell, what IS the unambiguously legal use of allowing ANYBODY to download your.mp3 files, including copyrighted ones?
There are several. And they are totally unambiguous.
If I hold the copyright to a particular piece of music, I can transfer copies of that music however I want. Even via Napster. If the RIAA et al try to argue that this isn't so, they're exposing themselves for a nice anti-trust suit.
If I hold a license that permits me to distribute someone else's copyrighted music via Napster (doesn't mean that you can also copy it, but I could)
If there is no copyright (e.g. public domain music)
If the transfer is fair use (e.g. a music professor at a college wants his class to download music for an assignment)
Contributory copyright infringement is a terribly bogus charge. IMHO if there's a significant legal use for the service/product in question (and there are four I just pointed out for Napster off the top of my head) then it's legal, though it's still possible for suits to be brought against people who use it illegally. Otherwise wouldn't xerox machines, which have NO other purpose but to copy what's on the platen, be illegal?
The animation for Atlantis looks to be exceptionally good. It's reported that it's not a musical, which is good. (I like musicals, but not as much as Disney has for the past decade) The trailer looks great. The setting looks great, though I keep thinking of Gainax's excellent series Nadia.
Unfortunately, it sounds as if the story is even worse than Titan AE. Bastards.
If they hurry up and _fix_ the storyline, it could turn out to be really very good. Very, very good. But right now, don't worry too much about it. Hopefully Dreamworks can come up with something good. Pixar's upcoming Monsters, Inc. ought to be very good but that's not going to influence Disney all that much just yet.
Yes, you're more or less on target. But it's essential to remember that copyrights are artificial, and that they serve the public first and foremost. I couldn't care less about the convenience of artists and I _am_ an artist.
This is largely because art can't exist in a vacuum. I'd be in trouble if I couldn't use other people's work as steps in creating my own work (e.g. reacting to it, imitating it, transforming it, etc.)
And I very much agree that copyrights should be short term. I'd say 10-20 years tops. With a healthy amount of money going towards the creation of public domain art, strict limitations on copyrights, no paracopyrights, and registration required.
Well...the movie studios DID fund the movie...and the DID make the dvd...so don't they have some say on how it gets used?
Nope. That was pretty simple. Please, _please_ look through history and tell me, when have authors ever had that right? Oh, they can refuse to sell it to you unless you bind yourself to a contract that governs use. I don't dispute that. (although contracts can't go too far in certain respects or they're considered void) But that is not one bit the same as selling you a DVD in a store, for cash money, and THEN claiming that you can only use it in the way that they permit.
Copyrights are loosely about copying. NOT use. Never use. Just as long as the use doesn't involve copying - with exceptions for fair uses (e.g. educational copying, space shifting) - anything goes. There's a weird set of rules for public performance, but that has nothing to do with DVD players per se.
Remember always, that copyrights do not and have never existed for the convenience of the people who create works. The fundemental principles of copyright do not anywhere claim that it's a right for creators to make money. It's not. The point is for works to promote the arts and sciences, chiefly by there being very many works which are in the public domain and are totally free for anyone to copy and use at will. In order to achieve this, Congress may permit authors and inventors short-lived and limited monopolies on their works and inventions.
With regards to copyright, this consists of a monopoly on SOME instances of copying, for a while, sometimes. If it were a use-related right, it'd be called useright. Funny how it's not.
Copyright holders have no constitutional right to dictate use after selling a copy of a work. None. And barring an amendment, they never will. And there are no copyrights in nature - so it's not even as though they're losing anything. They've never had those rights. It's virtually impossible to conceive of a way that they could without blantantly defying nature, and the way that humans interact with information.
So summing up, if they don't like the possibility that I might watch a DVD with a homemade player, their only option is not to sell it to me. If they sell it to me, they can't claim anything unless I start copying it.
Do bear in mind that MS occupies a special position in this industry - your business practices may very well be identical to those of your competitors. But because of this special position you occupy, you just aren't allowed to do business in that fashion, legally.
If you don't like it, your only option is to leave that special position - say, by breaking apart into several independent companies, each more similar to its competitors in terms of power weilded than MS presently is. But guess what the government is trying to do... hm....
Also you're shortsighted wrt the Borgishness of MS. Unification implies the merging of two equals, both exerting pressure on one another. While MS may only enter into various fields through buying smaller companies, this is not unification. These companies are not changing MS's overall goals, or culture or anything else. They're being integrated into a relatively unchanging culture that's wholly MS's. And of course their goal is to kill off the competition. Many businesses (except for those run by people who are able to be satisfied and let other people play too - this is very rare, though commendable) would love to see nothing more than have their competition die. MS can achieev this BOTH by simply acquiring their competitors or using the tentacle of MS most suited to competition in that field, with superior backing and FUD to compete them to death.
The resources MS has, and again the position in the industry that it occupies, permit it to compete in both of these manners.
(incidentally, I don't regard the unification of the Germanies as unification - West Germany has the bulk of the population, the economy is centered there, and their culture is wiping out (this is not an awfully bad thing) East German culture. It was beneficial to both sides, but I don't see a lot of influence by the east. The merging of the thirteen colonies into the US is more along the lines of unification - no one became dominant, and it was more of a meeting of equals. This began to break down eventually, but cultures don't change _too_ radically from state to state, and no one's used for the expense of others)
Re:Groupthink? Yes! Here's how it happened...
on
The Myth Of The Borg
·
· Score: 1
Of course, I have more confidence in the ethical qualities of the culture in my yogurt than I do in Microsoft's.... I know several MS employees, and in fact I'm going over to their campus later today (not an MS employee, but I do live within the Minimum Safe Distance) to see them. They're nice people individually, but they don't ever question themselves.
OTOH, I dislike MS intensely, but I still critically examined the issues at hand before agreeing that government intervention was the best plan. As it happens, this reexamination made me think a lot about the role of businesses and more specifically corporations wrt society and government. I no longer am willing to assume that just because it's possible for businesses to achieve corporate status that it's desirable, or that corporations have any right whatsoever to be free of government oversight, seeing as how they're creations of government with no independent existance.
But I *thought* about this, and looked closely at what I had been thinking beforehand. Microsofties, in my experience, don't. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Life is not always fair. However, due to the nature of information it's unfair to the people who wish to exert control. If I memorize a book written by someone else, it takes laws to _prevent_ me from using however I please. And even with more laws than you could count, once I've memorized it, no one short of God himself can stop me from 'rereading' it, as it were, as much as I want.
The laws are limited to copying (and then only sometimes) because otherwise they'd be ineffectual. And if there's one thing that no one likes, it's a law that's impossible to enforce. Many judges will overturn such laws because they're harmful to society, IIRC.
The most natural way is that which grants no control at all. The most likely best way is that which lets the author control the first sale, and then gets the hell out of the way.
Well there is also an ergonomic benefit to having one big button instead of two smaller buttons. Evidently, when you've got several fingers on a single big button, you click with all of them. This reduces the strain placed on any particular finger. Most multibutton mice force users to have a single finger on each button, and are shaped in such a way that it's always the same fingers.
When I heard about this I actually watched myself to see what I did. Turns out I click with the first three fingers of my hand. I wouldn't mind a thumb button though.
I could see that, though I'd hate to have to figure out how to design a cruise control for it that could be shut off when rapid braking was required.
;)
One of these days, I'd like a throttle and stick combination for my car. Wheels are for cavemen
Well, while CGI requires a totally different sort of work on the part of the animators, that doesn't mean that it's going to hit high framerates. The rendering alone takes a lot of time, and the animation is still an art - can you make characters that walk realistically in 2d or 3d? It's not particularly easy.
;)
Reboot was limited because not only did they have a very tight schedule, being a weekly show, but also because it was the first AFAIK show entirely in CGI meaning that the animators were still learning, and they had significantly less powerful computers to work with than they do today. The stunning difference between the end of the 2nd season and the beginning of the 3rd season highlights this.
Akira, IIRC, was filmed on ones (meaning 24fps - it's a movie) but it's virtually alone in that class. I liked it a lot, though my favorite anime movies are probably Dirty Pair: Project Eden, and Patlabor 2. Anime isn't frequently done at Akira levels is all I'm saying. If the animators are careful, it doesn't have to be (this is where the dramatic pauses come in...
And Eva has lots of good animation in some parts, and cheats insanely at others. I believe there's a full two minutes of Rei on an elevator in which there are probably 10 frames for the entire scene. By the end of the series they were IIRC over budget and behind schedule and it shows.
The Marvel series on Fox are awful, you're right. IMHO this is because they're trying to animate the same character designs that they use for the comics. One of the greatest successes of the Batman cartoon was that the character designs were so simple that fluid animation was relatively easy. (the excellent writing didn't hurt either) Animating each and every hair on Wolverine's arms is a PITA. It's got a lot to do with why it's so jerky at times. They had crappy backgrounds too.
The work that the Warner Bros. animation department did in the 30s-50s was really good, with lots of subtle movement all the time that probaby wasn't necessary, but really makes the shorts look great. No one does this anymore (e.g. characters idly shifting from foot to foot even though that's not the center of attention) Unfortunately their work started to get pretty bad by about the midpoint of Chuck Jones' reign - overly cute character designs and poor writing.
Meh. I just don't care for it. With the exception of Daley and possibly Linna, I like the old character designs better.
OTOH BGC has plenty of faults on it's own; the animation doesn't really get good until episode 5, 'Bye Bye My Crisis' is the worst song ever, and there's the curiously large phone. But it's a good series nonetheless.
Crisis was first, and it's still a good 8-episode series. On DVD as well, which is a plus. Crash was the sequel to Crisis, and was originally going to be 13 episodes long, but got cut to 3. It's terrible, and not really worth watching. The old ADPolice series is also 3 episodes, but takes place before Crisis (a prequel) and doesn't have the Sabers, or even Genom. It's all about Leon, when he's a rookie on the ADP.
;)
The 2040 series is a _remake_ of Crisis, but they changed a number of things; curiously, the hardsuit designs are the only thing that's still basically intact. It doesn't seem to be awful, though admittedly I haven't watched it since I don't buy VHS tapes anymore. Also I can't get over that they made Nene a blonde
You _have_ to be joking. No one, but no one does animation at 30fps. It's a waste of time and money. Only occassionally, when great fluidity is needed might someone even think about doing ones. For instance the bit of fighting between Escaflowne and Schezarade in the opening of Vision of Escaflowne might be on ones. That's what - a few seconds?
Twos are the best you'll ever see normally. Threes or fours are much more common. But the Japanese are well known for recycling animation, or employing other tricks (e.g. dramatic pauses - or having characters talk with their mouths concealed - or camera tricks) to cut down on animating anything.
If you're really all that concerned about frame count, go watch more American animation (other than cheap crap, like most Hanna Barbera series)
I went to that museum once (and I have also touched a penny, so I'm sure I'm in all of the databases by now) and it's probably true.
The centerpiece of the section on Obsolete Computers was a CM5. There was also a Cray of some kind in there, I don't remember which, but it was pretty old.
(on the other side of the room was the infamous wooden US Seal - a hinge was installed so that you could see the hollowed out area inside)
IIRC, the NSA is like the CIA - it's prohibited from surveilling on Americans by and large. But I have heard that the FBI, CIA et al get into fights all the time over jurisdiction.
Sometimes. There are actually a fair number of public domain recordings too - records have been around for a while now. At any rate you oughtn't assume that there's nothing in the p.d. just because the big corporations are doing such a good job at unconstitutionally subverting copyrights.
My personal favorite are the player piano rolls which were recorded onto by IIRC Aaron Copeland. Difficult to find a player, true, but pretty interesting stuff.
Now _that_ is an interesting idea. I'll have to think about that for a while, but I suspect that you're on to something.
Just wait 'til you see the upcoming 'Infrared' and 'Ultraviolet.' Oh sure, they look black to humans, but they're different blacks ;)
Xerox runs a business based almost entirely on the copying of copyrighted materials. Fortunately a lot of the copying is done by the copyright holders, or their agents. But this hasn't stopped other copyright holders from being pissed off about the whole thing.
Everything else strikes me as just details. Searching a database is not a copyright violation AFAIK. Isn't the database compiled by Napster? Is the database creative, and deserving of protection? Probably not. It's little more than a phone book when you get down to it.
So the database is a dead issue.
Napster's business model is also irrelevant, unless they're the ones actually doing the copying. But they're not. And using their database (sounds like a service at first glance) isn't a copyright infringement. If it were though, it would be infringing on Napster, not on the RIAA et al.
Even copying files isn't necessarily a copyright infringement, but it's got little to do with Napster. Files are copied straight from another user, and never touch Napster at all.
So while there is obviously a lot of copyright infringement going on, I still don't see how Napster can be singled out when our history indicates that all sorts of 'contributory infringers' aren't.
------
As for the four points:
1)Doesn't matter. It is not Napster's job to take positive action to ensure that no infringement is taking place, AFAIK. If they are made aware, then they do, yes. But there's no legal requirement that makes them check beforehand.
2 and 3) Doesn't matter if there's not a lot. Again, go after the people actually infringing. If you claim that Napster is infringing, show me the proof of that or shut up. The atmosphere they have created is equally conductive to legal and illegal distribution, which begins to raise common carrier issues to me. Maybe Napster can qualify as an ISP....
4) So if I sneak into a classroom with hundreds of legitimate students and swipe a copy of a handout, the prof. is responsible for not checking everyone's credentials? While there are other methods available, I doubt that fair users are legally mandated to use on service and not another. It's a legal use either way. If you misrepresent yourself, that's hardly the fault of the fair use distributor. They had no intent of giving it to you, had you not misled them.
Nope. There is a difference between owning a copyright and owning a copy of a work. (which is actually impossible, but I won't get into that here)
Let us say that you take the pages on your website, and put them onto a CD. Then you start selling the CDs to passers-by. If I successfully buy the CD from you, you don't have any rights to dictate to me how I can use what's on the CD. The law prohibits me from distributing copies I make, or publicly displaying it, but OTOH I can read it, change what's written, make copies for my own personal use, read it, etc.
The trick is this: If you tell me prior to my buying it that I have to agree to use it only in ways you approve of, and I agree and buy it, then I'm stuck using it with your permission. If you don't tell me this before the sale, you're out of luck.
The four or so cases that have dealt with software licences don't all agree, so generally it's assumed that unless you agree to a post-sale license (using the product you already bought doesn't count - clickwrap probably would) you're not bound by it.
Want to buy Windows and use it w/o agreeing to their license? Just don't click on the 'I agree' button. Installing it is trickier, but you don't need MS's permission, as they already sold it to you.
Americans who were Nazi sympathizers or with Japanese ancestors of course ;)
(and unionists; anyone who isn't happy with whatever scraps their employer tosses to them clearly can only be stopped by attacking them with the entire US Army - pretty similar to WWI veterans too, really.)
And pray tell, what is an assault rifle?
And how is it illegal for me to build my own personal DVD player - which would require DeCSS or a functionally-equivalent piece of software in order to function? Smells like antitrust to me.
Remember, copying material as an essential step in using it in a computer is quite legal. You think that when you use Word there's not a copy on the hard drive, another copy in RAM and bits and pieces in your caches and CPU?
If DeCSS *has* to place decoded material in some memory other than the original DVD so that it's able to be processed by an MPEG player or whatever. If you've got 20GB of RAM, or a version of DeCSS so fast that it can send data straight to the Player in realtime that's nice, but it's not a requirement.
You _could_ put a license on any kind of media. But not only is this virtually unheard of in the consumer market outside of software, there is a lot of contention right now as to whether or not even software licenses are valid.
My opinion: If you have to agree to the license as a PRE CONDITION to obtaining the software, it's valid. But if you can pay cash money for the software and walk away with it without having to agree to anything except for that financial transaction you are not bound.
If you agree to a clickwrap license in the process of installing it, yeah, you're bound. But if you circumvent the installer or otherwise modify the software so that no license is presented to you (which you're free to do - you own that copy, you aren't bound by any license) you're free and clear. It's just difficult.
Obviously, there are other issues as well - software licences still can't violate the regular rules for contracts, etc.
Hate to break it to you, but none of the DVDs I've bought have a license on them. They do tend to say 'For Home Viewing Only' but not only is that not a license, that's already covered by copyright law and is pretty moot.
First sale applies for books, records, etc. What's so special about DVDs? (hint: Nothing)
There are, I would expect, much better copies of TPM by now. It was released on Laser Disc in Japan, and that's the best source on the market at present.
There are several. And they are totally unambiguous.
If I hold the copyright to a particular piece of music, I can transfer copies of that music however I want. Even via Napster. If the RIAA et al try to argue that this isn't so, they're exposing themselves for a nice anti-trust suit.
If I hold a license that permits me to distribute someone else's copyrighted music via Napster (doesn't mean that you can also copy it, but I could)
If there is no copyright (e.g. public domain music)
If the transfer is fair use (e.g. a music professor at a college wants his class to download music for an assignment)
Contributory copyright infringement is a terribly bogus charge. IMHO if there's a significant legal use for the service/product in question (and there are four I just pointed out for Napster off the top of my head) then it's legal, though it's still possible for suits to be brought against people who use it illegally. Otherwise wouldn't xerox machines, which have NO other purpose but to copy what's on the platen, be illegal?
The animation for Atlantis looks to be exceptionally good. It's reported that it's not a musical, which is good. (I like musicals, but not as much as Disney has for the past decade) The trailer looks great. The setting looks great, though I keep thinking of Gainax's excellent series Nadia.
Unfortunately, it sounds as if the story is even worse than Titan AE. Bastards.
If they hurry up and _fix_ the storyline, it could turn out to be really very good. Very, very good. But right now, don't worry too much about it. Hopefully Dreamworks can come up with something good. Pixar's upcoming Monsters, Inc. ought to be very good but that's not going to influence Disney all that much just yet.
Yes, you're more or less on target. But it's essential to remember that copyrights are artificial, and that they serve the public first and foremost. I couldn't care less about the convenience of artists and I _am_ an artist.
This is largely because art can't exist in a vacuum. I'd be in trouble if I couldn't use other people's work as steps in creating my own work (e.g. reacting to it, imitating it, transforming it, etc.)
And I very much agree that copyrights should be short term. I'd say 10-20 years tops. With a healthy amount of money going towards the creation of public domain art, strict limitations on copyrights, no paracopyrights, and registration required.
Nope. That was pretty simple. Please, _please_ look through history and tell me, when have authors ever had that right? Oh, they can refuse to sell it to you unless you bind yourself to a contract that governs use. I don't dispute that. (although contracts can't go too far in certain respects or they're considered void) But that is not one bit the same as selling you a DVD in a store, for cash money, and THEN claiming that you can only use it in the way that they permit.
Copyrights are loosely about copying. NOT use. Never use. Just as long as the use doesn't involve copying - with exceptions for fair uses (e.g. educational copying, space shifting) - anything goes. There's a weird set of rules for public performance, but that has nothing to do with DVD players per se.
Remember always, that copyrights do not and have never existed for the convenience of the people who create works. The fundemental principles of copyright do not anywhere claim that it's a right for creators to make money. It's not. The point is for works to promote the arts and sciences, chiefly by there being very many works which are in the public domain and are totally free for anyone to copy and use at will. In order to achieve this, Congress may permit authors and inventors short-lived and limited monopolies on their works and inventions.
With regards to copyright, this consists of a monopoly on SOME instances of copying, for a while, sometimes. If it were a use-related right, it'd be called useright. Funny how it's not.
Copyright holders have no constitutional right to dictate use after selling a copy of a work. None. And barring an amendment, they never will. And there are no copyrights in nature - so it's not even as though they're losing anything. They've never had those rights. It's virtually impossible to conceive of a way that they could without blantantly defying nature, and the way that humans interact with information.
So summing up, if they don't like the possibility that I might watch a DVD with a homemade player, their only option is not to sell it to me. If they sell it to me, they can't claim anything unless I start copying it.
Do bear in mind that MS occupies a special position in this industry - your business practices may very well be identical to those of your competitors. But because of this special position you occupy, you just aren't allowed to do business in that fashion, legally.
If you don't like it, your only option is to leave that special position - say, by breaking apart into several independent companies, each more similar to its competitors in terms of power weilded than MS presently is. But guess what the government is trying to do... hm....
Also you're shortsighted wrt the Borgishness of MS. Unification implies the merging of two equals, both exerting pressure on one another. While MS may only enter into various fields through buying smaller companies, this is not unification. These companies are not changing MS's overall goals, or culture or anything else. They're being integrated into a relatively unchanging culture that's wholly MS's. And of course their goal is to kill off the competition. Many businesses (except for those run by people who are able to be satisfied and let other people play too - this is very rare, though commendable) would love to see nothing more than have their competition die. MS can achieev this BOTH by simply acquiring their competitors or using the tentacle of MS most suited to competition in that field, with superior backing and FUD to compete them to death.
The resources MS has, and again the position in the industry that it occupies, permit it to compete in both of these manners.
(incidentally, I don't regard the unification of the Germanies as unification - West Germany has the bulk of the population, the economy is centered there, and their culture is wiping out (this is not an awfully bad thing) East German culture. It was beneficial to both sides, but I don't see a lot of influence by the east. The merging of the thirteen colonies into the US is more along the lines of unification - no one became dominant, and it was more of a meeting of equals. This began to break down eventually, but cultures don't change _too_ radically from state to state, and no one's used for the expense of others)
Of course, I have more confidence in the ethical qualities of the culture in my yogurt than I do in Microsoft's.... I know several MS employees, and in fact I'm going over to their campus later today (not an MS employee, but I do live within the Minimum Safe Distance) to see them. They're nice people individually, but they don't ever question themselves.
OTOH, I dislike MS intensely, but I still critically examined the issues at hand before agreeing that government intervention was the best plan. As it happens, this reexamination made me think a lot about the role of businesses and more specifically corporations wrt society and government. I no longer am willing to assume that just because it's possible for businesses to achieve corporate status that it's desirable, or that corporations have any right whatsoever to be free of government oversight, seeing as how they're creations of government with no independent existance.
But I *thought* about this, and looked closely at what I had been thinking beforehand. Microsofties, in my experience, don't. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary yet.