"They prohibit another cable company from laying cable. So no one can compete, even if they wanted to lay their own cable."
Strange thing is, people/companies who have deals like this like to sing the praises of the free market whenever anyone suggests sensible government regulations of their markets.
"I find this hard to belive. What happened to due process?"
With possible jail time, (loss of right to vote if convicted?) and hugh statutory damages, most cannot afford the risk of fighting.
"As long as they aren't defenceless, as long as these people can use the law (in general) to defend themselves against the law (this particular one), i wouldn't call it "terrorist.""
Not saying terrorist should apply, but why not? They seem to think pirate and thief apply.
However, what is defenceless? Totally defenceless? Who is? Everyone has some means of defence to try, however foolish and ultimately ineffective. If this were a true test, there could be no terrorists ever. Right? Whone?
I don't know how modern it is, I will leave that up to others with knowledge in the area, however, it certainly is a trick and a dirty one at that.
Most often seen around here with the words:
Thief Stealing Pirate Piracy
To fight back, I suggest we start calling the big media companies who have been caught price fixing and/or writing dirty contracts so as to turn copyright law which they claim is to protect the artists to their benefit and to the ruin of many of their "beloved" artists...
Rapists
Does one good dirty trick deserve another?
I would prefer it if someone had a more gentlemanly idea as to how to counteract these memes.
"I bet if government ran the phone companies and telecom, we could get service for pennies on the dollar."
Don't be naive. You would lose your bet. In my country (The Bahamas) the government owns and runs the telco, electric, water & sewerage, airline, tv station, and radio stations. All monopolies for most of my life. Things are easing up a bit lately.
I hear figures that more than 20% of the workforce in the country is government employed. This has large economic effects sure, but also large political effects for a democracy.
Until the last year, the telco rate for a long distance call to Miami (roughly 185 miles from where I live) was 99 cents a minute. The electricity is constantly going out. In the summer, they load shed so you can expect a several hour plus outage on a regular basis. It is illegal (as far as I know) to go off grid and generate your own power if the power company can supply you (however poorly.)
If you have better that this, you don't want what we have.
Don't get me wrong, life is good here anyway. It is just sad that it could easily be so much better.
What I think you should want for a start is for your government to ensure no monopoly or cartel type foolishness. Then to properly oversee any markets where they are not fully free. (This probably covers more markets than most of us realise or think.) As to whether this proper oversite is possible, who knows. Anyone have and actual current or past examples?
I doubt my usage patterns would change that much as a result of going static, I am on 24x7 as it is.
I would think my tolerance for downtime would be more related to the fact that I am paying for home service rather than the more expensive and slower business service.
Besides which, we have to take what they give us. Cable service goes out when the power goes off (quite often) - word on the street is that this happens because the battery backups on the poles often fail because the batteries are not properly maintained/monitored/replaced.
Someone(s) is sending spam pretending to be from my email address lately and I am getting tons of bounces, delivery failure notices, etc. Quite a pain.
Anyone else dealing with this? How do you cope? Right now I am still on the "suffer through" phase.
This really shouldn't be something that we have to buy now should it?
I really dislike that game. If I want a static and my machine is on all the time (except for frequent BEC [local power monopoly] outages) I should just be given one. I am using an IP address all the time anyway. That eliminates the reason usually given for a static costing more.
First, let me say that this is far from any area of expertise I may have.
"Now in essence there are two methods of including it in a program: distinction or inclusion."
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
"Now if my code is distinct from the other code, I could distribute it without the GPL code. Even if it does not work without those, I own the copyright to the code, and so I can do what I want with it."
Yes, and you could also distribute it without the Foo code too. Right? However, would you lose your rights to distribute the gpl code in question if you did this?
"If I mix my distinct code with the library with the GPL licence needed to run it, there is no conflict. Both are seperate entities. Dependence does not make derivative. The owner of the GPL code has no grounds for complaint.
If however I created the same mix with the Foo library, then I am distributing copyrighted works without a licience and it is infingement (or theft or piracy or murder depending on how silly we wish to be with the argument)."
Let's take these two together. If you are correct re the gpl and the "all rights reserved" cases. It would simply mean that the gpl would need to be reworded to fix the issue. Imagine a line starting at public domain and ending at "all rights reserved" - the gpl falls somewhere on that line. It would just need to move a little further towards the "all rights reserved" end and the issue could be resolved in favour of the gpl rights holders' wishes. (gpl license designers wishes?)
For instance, suppose some text like the following was added to the end of hte gpl license:
"You may not distribute this code if you also distribute code which links to this code and that code is not licensed under this license."
"My point is, using code is not the same as making a derivative of it, and thus the GPL does not (and should not) prevent me from using GPL libraries in non-GPL code."
So your point is that in the case libraries licensed "Copyright 2005 Foo Nanki, all rights reserved" you are free to link to them and not pay or whatever and everything is cool as it relates to copyright law? If not, please explain the difference as you see it.
"However if you are going to distribute the GPL code, you must follow the licience, that is, any GPL or derivative code you distribute or copy must be licienced with compatibility to GPL."
I don't like that they do it, or did it, but isn't that how nvidia got around the GPL vs. binary drivers?
They did not actually distribute any GPLed code. So, losing the right to distribute GPL code that they did not distribute in any case was not a problem. Am I remembering this correctly?
"You are forgetting that agreeing to a license is accepting it. As such, being widely "used" is the same as being widely "accepted"."
Do you honestly think that most people even read those "agreements?" And when the click on "I agree" do you honestly think they are not saying to themselves something along the lines of "yeah right?"
Granted, the law may hold this to be agreement, but what do you think is going through people's minds?
These self same agreements are one of the reasons I switched over to Free Software. When I bought my Vaio a year or two back, I booted Knoppix and did a hard disk install withoug ever letting XP boot for the first time. "I agree" - no thanks, I don't.
"I'd be inclined to suggest that the economic situation in the USA is too free, with the continued consolidation of media companies etc remaining unopposed."
It may be too free or it may not be too free. One thing is certain though, the problems we see in the market when it comes to "items" that are protected by copyright and/or patents are not because of a free market. There are no free markets when it comes to government granted monopolies. Are there? If someone thinks they are, please explain to us all.
"But you said you were worried about the fact that your legally-made backups would be considered pirated copies. If you have the backups..."
You know, I may have erred in stating a simplified version of how things went for the sake of discussion.
In some cases, I have a copy on casette, in some cases, on a cd, in some cases, files on disk. BUT, I also have songs from the heyday of MP3.com, songs from irate radio, etc.
I am FAR from an organized person. I cannot go from what I have now to a list of what I lost in the hurricane. So, with the threat of jail for what was advertised in the paper as posession of illegal CDs/DVDs, can I run the risk of keeping anything.
Do you run the risk of jail? I may not, but the ad in the paper certainly wants me to think I do. And with (4 or 5) years in jail and a $50,000.00 fine per illegal disk, that is a hugh chance to take. You know, I need to call a lawyer today. It is that serious.
"But if you wanted to be safe, you would of course file a report with the police and/or insurance company listing the lost CDs. This wouldn't be a problem, since you have the backups and so know what you lost.
It's not really that hard a hypothetical to answer, you know."
Unfortunately, it is not a hypothetical question. I did lose a lot of CDs and LPs in a hurricane several years back. I don't have a record of what I lost. When you are dealing with the after effects of a hurricane that has forced you out of your home, making lists of CDs and LPs lost is not at the top of the list. So, now I have files on my HD with non-provable provenance.
So, do I run the risk of jail for posessing illegal CDs? (I do not live in the US.)
"Most of them aren't indulging in a deliberate, calculated act of civil disobedience, they're just saying "gimme"."
I wouldn't want to take odds in opposition to that proposition, however, I will note that I got into GPLing my programs as a way of saying thanks to all those who have given me so much. (Even if they were only scratching their own itches.)
I am now putting all of my other types of work that I can under CC BY-SA (until I find something better,) also in an attempt to say thanks and as I have thought about this more, as a small attempt to counteract the abuses of the current copyright usage.
So, I think some of us have thought things through quite a bit if not fully. I am not saying that there is no hypocrisy even in my own views. I try to get rid of it as I find it though. Actually, I just looked up hypocrisy, perhaps a better term would be inconsistent beliefs. Have you looked up hypocrisy lately?
I also mearly point the apparent total lack of people whose GPL code has been violated who have tried to shake down the violaters for hugh sums of money. Contrast that with the **AA plan that seems to be in play.
"The only thing copyright law forbids is making copies. (And public performances.) Anything else is legal. That includes being in possession of a copy that was not made legally."
If only it were this simple. At one time in my country the government entiry charged with enforcing copyright was customs. I guess the thought was that if someone was going to violate your copyrights, the books would be printed overseas and imported. I guess you were supposed to go to customs and have the books confiscated when they were being shipped in.
Note, this would make importing of "knock offs" illegal even if you had bought them and were not the person who made the copies.
You think these type laws are not on the books? I microsoft can show that a store has violating CDs on the shelf, you don't think they can have them confiscated?
"What I don't get is why so many slashdotters are AGAINST the use of IP law as it stands.
It is the only thing that protects you when you write code and release it as GPL."
As it stands? I don't think so, it could be changed a LOT and made much more sensible and still the GPL would work.
For instance, get rid of the JAIL threats. I mean, the corporations to violate the GPL can't be sent to jail anyway, why should humans face jail? Unless you like this idea:
"the compete lack of proven harm for the 'crime', the insane and inhuman penalties, with protecting a revenue stream a primary motive, the parallels are surprising."
If you don't think those inhuman penalties are intended to strike fear and terror in the hearts of citizens, what do you think they are intended to do?
Now, I don't want to get into calling people terrorists at this point, I will restrict myself to commenting on what I think the results of the penalties are.
In my country recently, some "Copyright Control Coalition" (I don't actually remember what they called themselves) has begun putting ads in one of our national papers.
From memory, this gist of it is if you are selling or simply posess what are termed illegal DVDs/CDs you can face 4 years in jail and a $50,000.00 fine for each DVD or CD.
What do you think an ad like this is intended to do it not strike fear and terror into the hearts of the citizens?
Please note, they have made no actual effort to educate the public as to how this actually works. Like, can a person who went to a store in a major shopping center/mall and bought what they thought was a legitimate CD and now has it in their home, go to jail and have to pay $50,000.00 for having this CD in their home?
You see, if that is really the case, which is what I think the ad wants us to believe, I need to destroy all of my legitimate CDs as well as all of my possibly questionable ones that I bought in good faith. I just can't afford to run the risk.
Also, if these are the effects of the laws that the big boys have managed to have passed, no more money from my family is going to go to them. No movies in the theatre, no more buying CDs and DVDs, nothing. I don't know what I am going to do without books and magazines. Hey can I afford to take the risk of buying a newspaper? Is this a back door way to curtail the freedom of the press? (That's a joke.) I do notice that they only mention illegal CDs/DVDs and not books or other items which might be a violation of copyright.
They also make no effort to educate the public as to what makes a CD or a DVD illegal. From their name though, it must concern some sort of violation of copyrights. Would a CD with a lifted and non-cleared sample in a song released by a major label be considered an illegal CD and subject the purchaser to the same penalties?
Would a person convicted under such circumstances be able to sue the major label? If so, I can see a new money making industry for these once piratical islands. (The Bahamas: - a histroy of piracy, wrecking, running - guns, rum, drugs.) (That's a joke too.)
"Under the copyright regime the industry wants, you might well be liable for something just because you have a lot of MP3s on your computer... but I don't believe we're there yet."
Great! (I mean that we aren't there yet, not that that is what they probably want.) If this is indeed the case and not just wishful thinking. Are you a lawyer? Would a lawyer care to comment. I know you will not give us legal advice. ~;-)
"I took "proprietary" in the sense of "Synonym for closed-source, e.g. software issued in binary without source and under a restructive license."[1], with the emphasis on the lack of source. The presence of source is really important, as without it all of the things MS does that are harmful can continue. Being able to pass around closed source binaries doesn't really help us much."
You are right in this and I agreed in the post as per this quote:
"I am not saying they could not take our code and make mods and keep the mods private, but we could at least then copy their binaries all we wanted. I am not saying we would be better off with no copyright on code than with copylefted code though. That is another discussion."
"Being able to pass around closed source binaries doesn't really help us much."
You are probably right here too except that it may cut into their profits and thus keep them from buying the situation worse.
Also:
"e.g. software issued in binary without source and under a restructive license."
what license?
Are they going to somehow give up retail sales and have everyone negotiate and sign a license before transferring a binary?
Click through?
Without copyright law, wouldn't someone just go in and remove the copyright notice/click through from the binary?
Slashdot Mirror
"They prohibit another cable company from laying cable. So no one can compete, even if they wanted to lay their own cable."
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=druncerta inty
Strange thing is, people/companies who have deals like this like to sing the praises of the free market whenever anyone suggests sensible government regulations of their markets.
all the best,
drew
Money where my mouth is link:
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"I find this hard to belive. What happened to due process?"
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=dragirl
With possible jail time, (loss of right to vote if convicted?) and hugh statutory damages, most cannot afford the risk of fighting.
"As long as they aren't defenceless, as long as these people can use the law (in general) to defend themselves against the law (this particular one), i wouldn't call it "terrorist.""
Not saying terrorist should apply, but why not? They seem to think pirate and thief apply.
However, what is defenceless? Totally defenceless? Who is? Everyone has some means of defence to try, however foolish and ultimately ineffective. If this were a true test, there could be no terrorists ever. Right? Whone?
all the best,
drew
Money where my mouth is link:
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"That is a modern trick."
h t_Term_Reform/Meme_development
h t_Term_Reform/Default
p yright_Term_Reform/Default
h t_Term_Reform/Taxation
p yright_Term_Reform/Taxation
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=JohnConst antakisdrewRobertsRainwaterBlues&PHPSESSID=c3cb624 17e961e49576b2e5cfdc92b9a
I don't know how modern it is, I will leave that up to others with knowledge in the area, however, it certainly is a trick and a dirty one at that.
Most often seen around here with the words:
Thief
Stealing
Pirate
Piracy
To fight back, I suggest we start calling the big media companies who have been caught price fixing and/or writing dirty contracts so as to turn copyright law which they claim is to protect the artists to their benefit and to the ruin of many of their "beloved" artists...
Rapists
Does one good dirty trick deserve another?
I would prefer it if someone had a more gentlemanly idea as to how to counteract these memes.
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyrig
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyrig
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Talk:Co
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyrig
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Talk:Co
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"I bet if government ran the phone companies and telecom, we could get service for pennies on the dollar."
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=JohnConst antakisdrewRobertsRainwaterBlues
Don't be naive. You would lose your bet. In my country (The Bahamas) the government owns and runs the telco, electric, water & sewerage, airline, tv station, and radio stations. All monopolies for most of my life. Things are easing up a bit lately.
I hear figures that more than 20% of the workforce in the country is government employed. This has large economic effects sure, but also large political effects for a democracy.
Until the last year, the telco rate for a long distance call to Miami (roughly 185 miles from where I live) was 99 cents a minute. The electricity is constantly going out. In the summer, they load shed so you can expect a several hour plus outage on a regular basis. It is illegal (as far as I know) to go off grid and generate your own power if the power company can supply you (however poorly.)
If you have better that this, you don't want what we have.
Don't get me wrong, life is good here anyway. It is just sad that it could easily be so much better.
What I think you should want for a start is for your government to ensure no monopoly or cartel type foolishness. Then to properly oversee any markets where they are not fully free. (This probably covers more markets than most of us realise or think.) As to whether this proper oversite is possible, who knows. Anyone have and actual current or past examples?
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
They want $20 per month here.
I doubt my usage patterns would change that much as a result of going static, I am on 24x7 as it is.
I would think my tolerance for downtime would be more related to the fact that I am paying for home service rather than the more expensive and slower business service.
Besides which, we have to take what they give us. Cable service goes out when the power goes off (quite often) - word on the street is that this happens because the battery backups on the poles often fail because the batteries are not properly maintained/monitored/replaced.
all the best,
drew
Sorry for the misunderstanding then.
Unfortunately, there are times when I find being dense all too easy.
all the best,
drew
Someone(s) is sending spam pretending to be from my email address lately and I am getting tons of bounces, delivery failure notices, etc. Quite a pain.
Anyone else dealing with this? How do you cope? Right now I am still on the "suffer through" phase.
all the best,
drew
"Time to buy a fixed IP service, people."
This really shouldn't be something that we have to buy now should it?
I really dislike that game. If I want a static and my machine is on all the time (except for frequent BEC [local power monopoly] outages) I should just be given one. I am using an IP address all the time anyway. That eliminates the reason usually given for a static costing more.
all the best,
drew
http://www.advogato.org/person/zotz/
First, let me say that this is far from any area of expertise I may have.
"Now in essence there are two methods of including it in a program: distinction or inclusion."
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
"Now if my code is distinct from the other code, I could distribute it without the GPL code. Even if it does not work without those, I own the copyright to the code, and so I can do what I want with it."
Yes, and you could also distribute it without the Foo code too. Right? However, would you lose your rights to distribute the gpl code in question if you did this?
"If I mix my distinct code with the library with the GPL licence needed to run it, there is no conflict. Both are seperate entities. Dependence does not make derivative. The owner of the GPL code has no grounds for complaint.
If however I created the same mix with the Foo library, then I am distributing copyrighted works without a licience and it is infingement (or theft or piracy or murder depending on how silly we wish to be with the argument)."
Let's take these two together. If you are correct re the gpl and the "all rights reserved" cases. It would simply mean that the gpl would need to be reworded to fix the issue. Imagine a line starting at public domain and ending at "all rights reserved" - the gpl falls somewhere on that line. It would just need to move a little further towards the "all rights reserved" end and the issue could be resolved in favour of the gpl rights holders' wishes. (gpl license designers wishes?)
For instance, suppose some text like the following was added to the end of hte gpl license:
"You may not distribute this code if you also distribute code which links to this code and that code is not licensed under this license."
Would that do it in your mind?"
all the best,
drew
"My point is, using code is not the same as making a derivative of it, and thus the GPL does not (and should not) prevent me from using GPL libraries in non-GPL code."
So your point is that in the case libraries licensed "Copyright 2005 Foo Nanki, all rights reserved" you are free to link to them and not pay or whatever and everything is cool as it relates to copyright law? If not, please explain the difference as you see it.
all the best,
drew
"However if you are going to distribute the GPL code, you must follow the licience, that is, any GPL or derivative code you distribute or copy must be licienced with compatibility to GPL."
I don't like that they do it, or did it, but isn't that how nvidia got around the GPL vs. binary drivers?
They did not actually distribute any GPLed code. So, losing the right to distribute GPL code that they did not distribute in any case was not a problem. Am I remembering this correctly?
all the best,
drew
Is it time that we modified the concept "Ignorance of the law is no excuse?"
Not abolished, mind you.
all the best,
drew
"You are forgetting that agreeing to a license is accepting it. As such, being widely "used" is the same as being widely "accepted"."
Do you honestly think that most people even read those "agreements?" And when the click on "I agree" do you honestly think they are not saying to themselves something along the lines of "yeah right?"
Granted, the law may hold this to be agreement, but what do you think is going through people's minds?
These self same agreements are one of the reasons I switched over to Free Software. When I bought my Vaio a year or two back, I booted Knoppix and did a hard disk install withoug ever letting XP boot for the first time. "I agree" - no thanks, I don't.
all the best,
drew
http://www.lulu.com/zotz
If that is the only problem and these are the controlling restrictions, the BSD would work fine for the purpose proposed. No?
all the best,
drew
"I'd be inclined to suggest that the economic situation in the USA is too free, with the continued consolidation of media companies etc remaining unopposed."
It may be too free or it may not be too free. One thing is certain though, the problems we see in the market when it comes to "items" that are protected by copyright and/or patents are not because of a free market. There are no free markets when it comes to government granted monopolies. Are there? If someone thinks they are, please explain to us all.
all the best,
drew
"But you said you were worried about the fact that your legally-made backups would be considered pirated copies. If you have the backups..."
You know, I may have erred in stating a simplified version of how things went for the sake of discussion.
In some cases, I have a copy on casette, in some cases, on a cd, in some cases, files on disk. BUT, I also have songs from the heyday of MP3.com, songs from irate radio, etc.
I am FAR from an organized person. I cannot go from what I have now to a list of what I lost in the hurricane. So, with the threat of jail for what was advertised in the paper as posession of illegal CDs/DVDs, can I run the risk of keeping anything.
Do you run the risk of jail? I may not, but the ad in the paper certainly wants me to think I do. And with (4 or 5) years in jail and a $50,000.00 fine per illegal disk, that is a hugh chance to take. You know, I need to call a lawyer today. It is that serious.
all the best,
drew
That is funny.
And I say that as someone who likes perl for some of my quick and dirty hacks.
all the best,
drew
"But if you wanted to be safe, you would of course file a report with the police and/or insurance company listing the lost CDs. This wouldn't be a problem, since you have the backups and so know what you lost.
It's not really that hard a hypothetical to answer, you know."
Unfortunately, it is not a hypothetical question. I did lose a lot of CDs and LPs in a hurricane several years back. I don't have a record of what I lost. When you are dealing with the after effects of a hurricane that has forced you out of your home, making lists of CDs and LPs lost is not at the top of the list. So, now I have files on my HD with non-provable provenance.
So, do I run the risk of jail for posessing illegal CDs? (I do not live in the US.)
all the best,
drew
"Most of them aren't indulging in a deliberate, calculated act of civil disobedience, they're just saying "gimme"."
I wouldn't want to take odds in opposition to that proposition, however, I will note that I got into GPLing my programs as a way of saying thanks to all those who have given me so much. (Even if they were only scratching their own itches.)
I am now putting all of my other types of work that I can under CC BY-SA (until I find something better,) also in an attempt to say thanks and as I have thought about this more, as a small attempt to counteract the abuses of the current copyright usage.
So, I think some of us have thought things through quite a bit if not fully. I am not saying that there is no hypocrisy even in my own views. I try to get rid of it as I find it though. Actually, I just looked up hypocrisy, perhaps a better term would be inconsistent beliefs. Have you looked up hypocrisy lately?
I also mearly point the apparent total lack of people whose GPL code has been violated who have tried to shake down the violaters for hugh sums of money. Contrast that with the **AA plan that seems to be in play.
all the best,
drew
"The only thing copyright law forbids is making copies. (And public performances.) Anything else is legal. That includes being in possession of a copy that was not made legally."
If only it were this simple. At one time in my country the government entiry charged with enforcing copyright was customs. I guess the thought was that if someone was going to violate your copyrights, the books would be printed overseas and imported. I guess you were supposed to go to customs and have the books confiscated when they were being shipped in.
Note, this would make importing of "knock offs" illegal even if you had bought them and were not the person who made the copies.
You think these type laws are not on the books? I microsoft can show that a store has violating CDs on the shelf, you don't think they can have them confiscated?
all the best,
drew
"What I don't get is why so many slashdotters are AGAINST the use of IP law as it stands.
h t_Term_Reform/Default
It is the only thing that protects you when you write code and release it as GPL."
As it stands? I don't think so, it could be changed a LOT and made much more sensible and still the GPL would work.
For instance, get rid of the JAIL threats. I mean, the corporations to violate the GPL can't be sent to jail anyway, why should humans face jail? Unless you like this idea:
http://slashdot.org/~zotz/journal/101428
We could probably remove the statutory damages and not hurt the GPL as well.
We could also reduce the term limits to say 14 years and the GPL would still be fine.
Hey check this link:
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyrig
We could do something like that and still not prevent the GPL from working now couldn't we?
Do you see how we can oppose copyright "as it now stands" without calling for scraping it completely?
all the best,
drew
"the compete lack of proven harm for the 'crime', the insane and inhuman penalties, with protecting a revenue stream a primary motive, the parallels are surprising."
/CDs you can face 4 years in jail and a $50,000.00 fine for each DVD or CD.
If you don't think those inhuman penalties are intended to strike fear and terror in the hearts of citizens, what do you think they are intended to do?
Now, I don't want to get into calling people terrorists at this point, I will restrict myself to commenting on what I think the results of the penalties are.
In my country recently, some "Copyright Control Coalition" (I don't actually remember what they called themselves) has begun putting ads in one of our national papers.
From memory, this gist of it is if you are selling or simply posess what are termed illegal DVDs
What do you think an ad like this is intended to do it not strike fear and terror into the hearts of the citizens?
Please note, they have made no actual effort to educate the public as to how this actually works. Like, can a person who went to a store in a major shopping center/mall and bought what they thought was a legitimate CD and now has it in their home, go to jail and have to pay $50,000.00 for having this CD in their home?
You see, if that is really the case, which is what I think the ad wants us to believe, I need to destroy all of my legitimate CDs as well as all of my possibly questionable ones that I bought in good faith. I just can't afford to run the risk.
Also, if these are the effects of the laws that the big boys have managed to have passed, no more money from my family is going to go to them. No movies in the theatre, no more buying CDs and DVDs, nothing. I don't know what I am going to do without books and magazines. Hey can I afford to take the risk of buying a newspaper? Is this a back door way to curtail the freedom of the press? (That's a joke.) I do notice that they only mention illegal CDs/DVDs and not books or other items which might be a violation of copyright.
They also make no effort to educate the public as to what makes a CD or a DVD illegal. From their name though, it must concern some sort of violation of copyrights. Would a CD with a lifted and non-cleared sample in a song released by a major label be considered an illegal CD and subject the purchaser to the same penalties?
Would a person convicted under such circumstances be able to sue the major label? If so, I can see a new money making industry for these once piratical islands. (The Bahamas: - a histroy of piracy, wrecking, running - guns, rum, drugs.) (That's a joke too.)
all the best,
drew
"Under the copyright regime the industry wants, you might well be liable for something just because you have a lot of MP3s on your computer... but I don't believe we're there yet."
Great! (I mean that we aren't there yet, not that that is what they probably want.) If this is indeed the case and not just wishful thinking. Are you a lawyer? Would a lawyer care to comment. I know you will not give us legal advice. ~;-)
all the best,
drew
"I took "proprietary" in the sense of "Synonym for closed-source, e.g. software issued in binary without source and under a restructive license."[1], with the emphasis on the lack of source. The presence of source is really important, as without it all of the things MS does that are harmful can continue. Being able to pass around closed source binaries doesn't really help us much."
You are right in this and I agreed in the post as per this quote:
"I am not saying they could not take our code and make mods and keep the mods private, but we could at least then copy their binaries all we wanted. I am not saying we would be better off with no copyright on code than with copylefted code though. That is another discussion."
"Being able to pass around closed source binaries doesn't really help us much."
You are probably right here too except that it may cut into their profits and thus keep them from buying the situation worse.
Also:
"e.g. software issued in binary without source and under a restructive license."
what license?
Are they going to somehow give up retail sales and have everyone negotiate and sign a license before transferring a binary?
Click through?
Without copyright law, wouldn't someone just go in and remove the copyright notice/click through from the binary?
all the best,
drew
Offtopic, yes, but I was trying for funny. guess our senses of humour don't overlap there. ~;-)
all the best,
drew