that's $3000 per person...at least two people in the scene, at least one camera operator, and a director. That's minimum $12,000 for six minutes of footage, plus wages and film. Plus clean up. And yes, I do believe we're putting WAY too much thought into zero G pr0n...
1) Can I subscribe and just repost all of the early warnings on a website somewhere, or are subscribers bound by an NDA/EULA type thingie?
2) What about black hats subscribing to the service to get early info on new holes that won't be patched anytime soon?
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Oh, you've cornered me. It was really I, LiquidSin, who shot John Lennon! I've lived with my secret all these years! You must understand, I was aiming for Yoko.
Ok, crackpot conspiracy theories aside, I have no interest here other than seeing some sort of sanity in the legal system. It's not a contract case. It was a court settlement. The case was originally about trademarks. Therefore the whole damn mess stems from trademark law. Following yet? I fuckin' hope so. Since the original 1991 court case was about trademarks, does that not mean that the settlement about not entering "the music business" *should*, in the eyes of the law, be construed to mean "the business of music" and NOT the business of retail? What about Apple Garage Band? Is software that helps you make music putting Apple into the music business? Or iTunes for playing music? Does that put them in the music business? Of course not. That would be fucking ridiculous. So why is selling music, that someone else is writing, recording and producing all of a sudden considered to be breaching the court settlement? Obviously the spirit of the original settlement wasn't to keep Apple Computers from ever having anything to do with sound, otherwise we'd have no Macs with soundcards. So where does the line get drawn? My vote goes with the spirit of the original settlement, which I personally would construe as having to do with trademarks. Apple Computers is not a record label. They sell other people's music. Apple Music is a record label. The produce music. These are two entirely different businesses, and therefore this should NOT be considered a violation of trademark law, and by extension (by my logic...your opinion is obviously different) should not be considered a breach of the previous settlement. And as for you incessantly accusing me of having some hidden agenda, turn off the X-Files DVD and try leaving your mom's basement.
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
There's a grocery store down the street from me. It's called "McDonald's Grocery". In their meat cooler, they have hamburgers. The point is, the original Apple vs. Apple court case stemmed from a trademark dispute. No right-minded judge would find McDonald's Grocery guilty of violating a registered trademark. If Apple Computers was pushing "The Apple Music Store" and trying to sell "Apple Music" then yeah, hang 'em. That's just not the case.
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Apple Computers is in the music business the same way as Amazon.com is in the book business. They only sell. Of course, as with patents, nobody can figure out what the fuck is going on when you take a normal business and put it on the internet. I wouldn't say Apple Computers is in the music business anymore than I'd say Walmart is in the food industry, even though they have a candy aisle.
Granted, I don't use ITMS, but I've never seen it billed as "the Apple music store", only as "the iTunes Music Store". I'm entirely lost as to how this could be a trademark issue. If the article (which is skimpy on details) is accurate, then the 1991 court ruling said they had an "agreement that that forbids it from using the trademark for any application "whose principle content is music."". So how is "iTunes Music Store" easily confused with "Apple Records"?
You can try here to start, but there are lots more. Like this. I just figured that since that was a linux driver for console controllers, it'd be appreciated around here. I built my NES controller for my PC from about $10 worth of Radio Hack parts and an old NES controller. It hooks up to the game port. None of this new fangled USB bullshit that these kids today are into. And is it just me, or does it seem like cheating to buy a prebuilt kit to solder onto your controller?
I use Telus (Canadian provider) and they did the same to me with an Ericsson T206. They don't actually tell you that they've fucked up the phone - you have to find that out for yourself. They decided it was more profitable to remove the ringtone composer that Sony put on the phone, as well as the ability to send ringtones via SMS, leaving only one option for getting new ringtones - buy them on the Telus website for $1.50 each. Rat bastards.
If all modifications to the GPL'd code are available in the *nix source, and the 30 day trial code is his own creation, isn't he releasing all of the source that he's required to? I'm not entirely certain on this aspect of the GPL, but that's my interpretation, though I'm not a lawyer.
The binary is apparently produced using unpublished modifications of the GPL code
That's a pretty big assumption. How do you know that all of the hacks to build in Windows aren't entirely the author's own devices? Quite a few companies are making a business of building GPL code into non-GPL software. As long as he's redistributing all of the changes to the GPL'd code, he can do whatever he wants with his own code that's rolled into it. And if he wants to charge money for his time and effort in building Windows binaries, he's more than welcome to. As long as the code he's releasing builds under linux and he's not making any unreleased changes to the GPL stuff, I see no problem.
I wonder, though, that since courts have already determined that recording for personal use is still protected, can the XM ToS legally revoke that right from you? I mean, they could claim that by listening to their service I'm consenting to anal sex with their CEO, but that doesn't make it legally binding.
My favourite "government using terror threats to push hidden agenda" story is this one. Sure, we have no *specific* knowledge of a terrorist plot to poison knock-off pharmaceuticals manufactured in Canada and illegally shipped to the U.S., but if we tell you that it *could* happen we can get people to stop buying them, thus making more money for U.S. drug companies with their exorbitant prices on patented life-saving meds.
Can it really be said that he's using it for commercial gain? Chances are that anyone who accidentally visited his site while looking for Jerry Falwell isn't going to buy any of his merch. Secondly, he plainly states (at least on the site as shown on the google cache) that he's not affiliated with Rev. Falwell and gives a link to the real Falwell site. Finally, Rev. Falwell's site is at jerryfalwell.com, so anyone who hit fallwell.com by mistake would have to be just guessing at the domain name. Can Coca-Cola take me to court for putting a "Coke Sucks" page at kola.com because my domain name is a misspelling of *part* of their company name?
Yeah, because the best way to "protect consumers" is to fine a company into oblivion for something that's legal. You heard me. Legal. Morally responsible? Probably not, depending on who you speak to. But legal. I'd hate to see any sort of precedent set where the government can say "ok, now that we've made $action illegal, let's go retroactively apply fines to everyone who did it last year."
P2P file-sharing technology can allow its users to access the files of other
users,
even when the computer is "off" if the computer itself is connected to the Internet via
broadband.
So they actually sent this to P2P software makers in hopes of swaying them? I'm gonna send a letter to the oil industry, asking them to lower prices, because expensive gasoline causes my car to rape children. Once they see how right I am, they'll drop prices for sure! Who's with me?!
Would YOU put pictures of YOUR child on a website which, through no action or fault of your own, is now forever linked with a story about a paedophile who stalked his victim(s?) online?
Funny as hell! I'd like to see her write a little summary of the events in the book, with some creative license making it read like 13 yr old slut Katie seduced the poor, helpless, 40 yr old. Or how about posting the story "Katie.com : a true story of a greedy corporation and their attempts to hijack a domain for profit".
Re:I'm still waiting for a feature
on
Bash 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Funny
How about Clippy?
Hi! You appear to be typing something at the command prompt. It does not appear to be english. Maybe I can help. Would you like me to:
Slashdot Mirror
1. Go here
2. Find high moderated comments, and repost them.
3. Karmic Profit!!!
I'm sure you'll call me a heretic, but I'd have to say it's a big *spherical* thing rushing towards you at ~140 mph.
that's $3000 per person...at least two people in the scene, at least one camera operator, and a director. That's minimum $12,000 for six minutes of footage, plus wages and film. Plus clean up. And yes, I do believe we're putting WAY too much thought into zero G pr0n...
My first thoughts on this were:
1) Can I subscribe and just repost all of the early warnings on a website somewhere, or are subscribers bound by an NDA/EULA type thingie?
2) What about black hats subscribing to the service to get early info on new holes that won't be patched anytime soon?
Oh, you've cornered me. It was really I, LiquidSin, who shot John Lennon! I've lived with my secret all these years! You must understand, I was aiming for Yoko.
Ok, crackpot conspiracy theories aside, I have no interest here other than seeing some sort of sanity in the legal system. It's not a contract case. It was a court settlement. The case was originally about trademarks. Therefore the whole damn mess stems from trademark law. Following yet? I fuckin' hope so. Since the original 1991 court case was about trademarks, does that not mean that the settlement about not entering "the music business" *should*, in the eyes of the law, be construed to mean "the business of music" and NOT the business of retail? What about Apple Garage Band? Is software that helps you make music putting Apple into the music business? Or iTunes for playing music? Does that put them in the music business? Of course not. That would be fucking ridiculous. So why is selling music, that someone else is writing, recording and producing all of a sudden considered to be breaching the court settlement? Obviously the spirit of the original settlement wasn't to keep Apple Computers from ever having anything to do with sound, otherwise we'd have no Macs with soundcards. So where does the line get drawn? My vote goes with the spirit of the original settlement, which I personally would construe as having to do with trademarks. Apple Computers is not a record label. They sell other people's music. Apple Music is a record label. The produce music. These are two entirely different businesses, and therefore this should NOT be considered a violation of trademark law, and by extension (by my logic...your opinion is obviously different) should not be considered a breach of the previous settlement. And as for you incessantly accusing me of having some hidden agenda, turn off the X-Files DVD and try leaving your mom's basement.
There's a grocery store down the street from me. It's called "McDonald's Grocery". In their meat cooler, they have hamburgers. The point is, the original Apple vs. Apple court case stemmed from a trademark dispute. No right-minded judge would find McDonald's Grocery guilty of violating a registered trademark. If Apple Computers was pushing "The Apple Music Store" and trying to sell "Apple Music" then yeah, hang 'em. That's just not the case.
Apple Computers is in the music business the same way as Amazon.com is in the book business. They only sell. Of course, as with patents, nobody can figure out what the fuck is going on when you take a normal business and put it on the internet. I wouldn't say Apple Computers is in the music business anymore than I'd say Walmart is in the food industry, even though they have a candy aisle.
Granted, I don't use ITMS, but I've never seen it billed as "the Apple music store", only as "the iTunes Music Store". I'm entirely lost as to how this could be a trademark issue. If the article (which is skimpy on details) is accurate, then the 1991 court ruling said they had an "agreement that that forbids it from using the trademark for any application "whose principle content is music."". So how is "iTunes Music Store" easily confused with "Apple Records"?
Fuck OS/2, I wanna know if it'll boot UnixWare!
You can try here to start, but there are lots more. Like this. I just figured that since that was a linux driver for console controllers, it'd be appreciated around here. I built my NES controller for my PC from about $10 worth of Radio Hack parts and an old NES controller. It hooks up to the game port. None of this new fangled USB bullshit that these kids today are into. And is it just me, or does it seem like cheating to buy a prebuilt kit to solder onto your controller?
I use Telus (Canadian provider) and they did the same to me with an Ericsson T206. They don't actually tell you that they've fucked up the phone - you have to find that out for yourself. They decided it was more profitable to remove the ringtone composer that Sony put on the phone, as well as the ability to send ringtones via SMS, leaving only one option for getting new ringtones - buy them on the Telus website for $1.50 each. Rat bastards.
If all modifications to the GPL'd code are available in the *nix source, and the 30 day trial code is his own creation, isn't he releasing all of the source that he's required to? I'm not entirely certain on this aspect of the GPL, but that's my interpretation, though I'm not a lawyer.
The binary is apparently produced using unpublished modifications of the GPL code
That's a pretty big assumption. How do you know that all of the hacks to build in Windows aren't entirely the author's own devices? Quite a few companies are making a business of building GPL code into non-GPL software. As long as he's redistributing all of the changes to the GPL'd code, he can do whatever he wants with his own code that's rolled into it. And if he wants to charge money for his time and effort in building Windows binaries, he's more than welcome to. As long as the code he's releasing builds under linux and he's not making any unreleased changes to the GPL stuff, I see no problem.
I wonder, though, that since courts have already determined that recording for personal use is still protected, can the XM ToS legally revoke that right from you? I mean, they could claim that by listening to their service I'm consenting to anal sex with their CEO, but that doesn't make it legally binding.
Net's content value improvement rate is trending downwards ..
And you're not helping the situation any...
Either the mods didn't catch on to your pun, or I'm the only one who noticed it.
cuz, like, lurning all thoze command line thingz wuz totally hard, this wil maek me s0 much m0re 1337!!!!!!!one I totale r0x0rz n0w!!!!LOLOL
My favourite "government using terror threats to push hidden agenda" story is this one. Sure, we have no *specific* knowledge of a terrorist plot to poison knock-off pharmaceuticals manufactured in Canada and illegally shipped to the U.S., but if we tell you that it *could* happen we can get people to stop buying them, thus making more money for U.S. drug companies with their exorbitant prices on patented life-saving meds.
So here I am reading /. at work to find out about how to stop slacking off. Good thing I'm too lazy to read the article.
Can it really be said that he's using it for commercial gain? Chances are that anyone who accidentally visited his site while looking for Jerry Falwell isn't going to buy any of his merch. Secondly, he plainly states (at least on the site as shown on the google cache) that he's not affiliated with Rev. Falwell and gives a link to the real Falwell site. Finally, Rev. Falwell's site is at jerryfalwell.com, so anyone who hit fallwell.com by mistake would have to be just guessing at the domain name. Can Coca-Cola take me to court for putting a "Coke Sucks" page at kola.com because my domain name is a misspelling of *part* of their company name?
Yeah, because the best way to "protect consumers" is to fine a company into oblivion for something that's legal. You heard me. Legal. Morally responsible? Probably not, depending on who you speak to. But legal. I'd hate to see any sort of precedent set where the government can say "ok, now that we've made $action illegal, let's go retroactively apply fines to everyone who did it last year."
So they actually sent this to P2P software makers in hopes of swaying them? I'm gonna send a letter to the oil industry, asking them to lower prices, because expensive gasoline causes my car to rape children. Once they see how right I am, they'll drop prices for sure! Who's with me?!
Would YOU put pictures of YOUR child on a website which, through no action or fault of your own, is now forever linked with a story about a paedophile who stalked his victim(s?) online?
Funny as hell! I'd like to see her write a little summary of the events in the book, with some creative license making it read like 13 yr old slut Katie seduced the poor, helpless, 40 yr old. Or how about posting the story "Katie.com : a true story of a greedy corporation and their attempts to hijack a domain for profit".