After over 5 years having to deal with Diebold in a variety of applications I'm not at all surprised. Every time I talk to their tech people they blame everything on the wiring. Sheesh.
Ok, its out of print. Here's something I've always been curious about regarding copyright. Should not the protections given to works expire after the works are no longer in print, or perhaps a short term afterward, say a year. I mean after all the purpose of copyright is to guarantee a limited monopoly so that a publisher can make a profit from the protected works. But if they are no longer in print, then they no longer generate any income and are essentially locked away from the public domain, prisoner of their copyrighted status.
Re:You're making the furniture,
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 1
Heh, yeah for an item that costs less than $1 to press and shipping is about the same.
Re:You're making the furniture,
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 1
Ok, so that means I've paid my fee to listen to the music I bought, so will they replace my discs for cost of shipping and media, like Adobe will replace my copy of Photoshop if the CD gets wrecked? After all, I paid my license. I paid to make use of the data. For that matter I paid the "piracy tax" on the blank CD-R's (that oddly only gets divided among the big player, cuz no one would copy indy labels or anything) I bought to recreate the CD thats lost to damage, so how can they complain about it.
Re:you know it's true
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 1
"And you face zero legal liability if you listen to a music track and then go home and RECORD YOUR OWN track in your own studio."
This is so fraught with potential liability that I can't even get into it. What I am saying is, if you hand me a shiny little disk with a certain pattern of pits on it which cause it to produce a certain "music" when placed in a CD player, then theoretically I can reproduce the object.
If music is a license and not a product then that is a different story entirely. Then the INFORMATION itself is in question. Just as the information contained in the design of a piece of furniture would be in question if you were to buy a license for that furniture.
It is not my fault that reploducing a copy became so easy. They must adapt. And they cannot continue to maintain that music is BOTH a product and a license.
Re:You're making the furniture,
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 1
but you're not making the music.
Nope. I am recreating a PHYSICAL item. In all but the rarest instances those who manufacture the objects recreated (CD's) didn't make the music either. That's why its called _COPY_right.
"No one would have a problem if you listened to a song and then sang it in the shower at home."
Wasn't there some sort of lawsuit about royalties for campfire songs sung by the Girlscouts or something like that? So I would have to beg to differ.
"By your logic, there is nothing wrong if Microsoft takes bits of Linux code without following the GPL. After all, the Linux code is still there."
No, because what you are talking about is violating a license. The music publishers still view CD's etc as _BOTH_ a product (which I should be able to recreate like a chair) and a license (in which case I've paid the license on the cassettes I own, so I should have the right to listen to the songs on CD if I choose)
They need to pick one. As soon as that happens, a lot of problems go away.
Re:you know it's true
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 1
"You didn't make the music, and you don't have a natural right to listen to it. I don't see what is so wrong about others expecting to be paid for their efforts, despite the fact that the product of those efforts is intangible."
Um, because its not a natural right?
"If you don't want to pay for it, feel free to not listen to it."
And if you don't want to get upset that others are listening to your works without paying you, feel free to keep them to yourself.
I face exactly _zero_ legal liability if I go into a furniture store and proceed to return to my home and build an identical copy of what I have just seen. So why is this any different from music? I'm not profitting from it (selling it) other than having the item without paying the original vendor(not artist/creator mind you). It still costs me in materials and time.
What if I listen to a concert from outside the venue? I've heard the performance, but I have not paid the admission. (not the best example but you get the idea) Why is music (as in CD's) still considered BOTH a product and a license? You can't have it both ways. Which is it? Maybe after someone decides to answer that they can turn their attention to why the middlemen are still necessary to the musicians.
"For example, if the company added a feature to the ski mask that made it harder to pull off, and advertised this feature for use in bank robberies, they'd probably be held liable for its use in a robbery."
Kindof like every purveyor of broadband access advertising fast downloads of music as a selling point?
He has yet to convince the people who fly the planes. "In general, pilots are openly hostile," he says. "Frankly it surprises me, because of all of the options that they are facing right now - including being shot at or commandeered from the ground - this is their best one."
I'm not surprised.
All of the options? Nope, sorry. The best defence against a hijacking is denial of access to the cockpit. I've said this since I was an Aerospace Engineering student, as long as the cockpit is accessable from the passenger compartment, you run the risk of hijacking. If you can't get to the aircraft's controls, you can blow it up, but you can't fly it into anything.
The airline industry just need to redesign its aircraft. It isn't cheap to retrofit but in new designs it would add little to the cost.
You joke about that but I _fear_ when the weather breaks around hear and the sidewalks are full of beautiful people. I see _so_ may fender-benders because some driver was checking out some walkers ass!
True, but when that little green walking guy signal (when did we all forget how to read?) is on, I'm not a distraction, I'm claiming my right-of-way. And the next SUV-driving, cel-phone gabbing soccer-mom who nearly runs me over because its too much trouble to look out the windshield just might get a steel-toed boot in the fender.
And for the record, I used to drive 30k+ mile/year for yesr without an accident, I'm only a pedestrian now because some uninsured kid in a borrowed car destroyed my vehicle while argueing with his girlfriend on a cel phone.
"Although, I've noticed that when someone is in the car with me and I'm talking to them, I don't have any problem paying attention to the road. I haven't quite figured that out yet."
Pretty simple. The passenger talking to you is part of your immediate environment. They occupy more of your sensory abilities that a cel caller. You only hear a cell call, and somewhat artificially at that. A real live person can be seen, heard, smelled, etc. Much more "real" that your phone call. Or radio for that matter, considering the limited volume, placement and quality of sound.
Er... and if there actually IS a gear shift lever there? And if there isn't one, the driver probably doesn't drive stck, so performing any action in that space is neither "familiar" nor "natural".
Bad design. How about making an autopilot that takes over when the driver is being an idiot?
Just get a bee into their car and watch the hilarity!
Seriously, most people I see can't even handle driving when they aren't actually trying to do anything else, why are they being encouraged to do anything but drive?
"Semantics aside, if you take something without paying for it (assuming the creator/owner of that thing intended for you to pay for it), regardless of whether or not it is a physical object or a digital copy, or if it doesn't seem to adversely affect the owner, it is still wrong, and I call it stealing."
I'm curious as to your opinion of people/companies that make/sell copies or "knock-offs" of things like furniture, clothing, handbags, antiquities and so forth. You insist that creating a copy is stealing even tho there may be no obvious harm to the original creator, and no one was deprived of property.
Slashdot Mirror
After over 5 years having to deal with Diebold in a variety of applications I'm not at all surprised. Every time I talk to their tech people they blame everything on the wiring. Sheesh.
...they might just take all the management jobs and all our butts will be doing the grunt-work.
I for one welcome our robot masters.
"As for the days of every appliance in our homes having an IP... "
Yeah no kidding, don't even make me whip out my "all-it-needs-to-do-is-make-fscking-toast" rant.
As long as there is NAT, there is no shortage of IP's
"Out of print means that the _publisher_ isn't running copies of the item, not that the creator of the item wants the item off of shelves."
Them maybe the creator shouldn't have signed away the copyright to the publisher now should he?
...Birth?
Ok, its out of print. Here's something I've always been curious about regarding copyright. Should not the protections given to works expire after the works are no longer in print, or perhaps a short term afterward, say a year. I mean after all the purpose of copyright is to guarantee a limited monopoly so that a publisher can make a profit from the protected works. But if they are no longer in print, then they no longer generate any income and are essentially locked away from the public domain, prisoner of their copyrighted status.
Heh, yeah for an item that costs less than $1 to press and shipping is about the same.
Ok, so that means I've paid my fee to listen to the music I bought, so will they replace my discs for cost of shipping and media, like Adobe will replace my copy of Photoshop if the CD gets wrecked? After all, I paid my license. I paid to make use of the data. For that matter I paid the "piracy tax" on the blank CD-R's (that oddly only gets divided among the big player, cuz no one would copy indy labels or anything) I bought to recreate the CD thats lost to damage, so how can they complain about it.
"And you face zero legal liability if you listen to a music track and then go home and RECORD YOUR OWN track in your own studio."
This is so fraught with potential liability that I can't even get into it. What I am saying is, if you hand me a shiny little disk with a certain pattern of pits on it which cause it to produce a certain "music" when placed in a CD player, then theoretically I can reproduce the object.
If music is a license and not a product then that is a different story entirely. Then the INFORMATION itself is in question. Just as the information contained in the design of a piece of furniture would be in question if you were to buy a license for that furniture.
It is not my fault that reploducing a copy became so easy. They must adapt. And they cannot continue to maintain that music is BOTH a product and a license.
but you're not making the music.
Nope. I am recreating a PHYSICAL item. In all but the rarest instances those who manufacture the objects recreated (CD's) didn't make the music either. That's why its called _COPY_right.
"No one would have a problem if you listened to a song and then sang it in the shower at home."
Wasn't there some sort of lawsuit about royalties for campfire songs sung by the Girlscouts or something like that? So I would have to beg to differ.
"By your logic, there is nothing wrong if Microsoft takes bits of Linux code without following the GPL. After all, the Linux code is still there."
No, because what you are talking about is violating a license. The music publishers still view CD's etc as _BOTH_ a product (which I should be able to recreate like a chair) and a license (in which case I've paid the license on the cassettes I own, so I should have the right to listen to the songs on CD if I choose)
They need to pick one. As soon as that happens, a lot of problems go away.
"You didn't make the music, and you don't have a natural right to listen to it. I don't see what is so wrong about others expecting to be paid for their efforts, despite the fact that the product of those efforts is intangible."
Um, because its not a natural right?
"If you don't want to pay for it, feel free to not listen to it."
And if you don't want to get upset that others are listening to your works without paying you, feel free to keep them to yourself.
I face exactly _zero_ legal liability if I go into a furniture store and proceed to return to my home and build an identical copy of what I have just seen. So why is this any different from music? I'm not profitting from it (selling it) other than having the item without paying the original vendor(not artist/creator mind you). It still costs me in materials and time.
What if I listen to a concert from outside the venue? I've heard the performance, but I have not paid the admission. (not the best example but you get the idea) Why is music (as in CD's) still considered BOTH a product and a license? You can't have it both ways. Which is it? Maybe after someone decides to answer that they can turn their attention to why the middlemen are still necessary to the musicians.
Hmmm, or how about maybe a guy in a goofy butterfly outfit putting you in a headlock if you try to show the info on an 'R' rated film to some kid?
Ahhh, parental controls....
"For example, if the company added a feature to the ski mask that made it harder to pull off, and advertised this feature for use in bank robberies, they'd probably be held liable for its use in a robbery."
Kindof like every purveyor of broadband access advertising fast downloads of music as a selling point?
So which is it? Crappy journalism or skewed statistics? Who can tell anymore.
And that is one of the prime problems with the patent situation.
He has yet to convince the people who fly the planes. "In general, pilots are openly hostile," he says. "Frankly it surprises me, because of all of the options that they are facing right now - including being shot at or commandeered from the ground - this is their best one."
I'm not surprised.
All of the options? Nope, sorry. The best defence against a hijacking is denial of access to the cockpit. I've said this since I was an Aerospace Engineering student, as long as the cockpit is accessable from the passenger compartment, you run the risk of hijacking. If you can't get to the aircraft's controls, you can blow it up, but you can't fly it into anything.
The airline industry just need to redesign its aircraft. It isn't cheap to retrofit but in new designs it would add little to the cost.
LOL!
You joke about that but I _fear_ when the weather breaks around hear and the sidewalks are full of beautiful people. I see _so_ may fender-benders because some driver was checking out some walkers ass!
True, but when that little green walking guy signal (when did we all forget how to read?) is on, I'm not a distraction, I'm claiming my right-of-way. And the next SUV-driving, cel-phone gabbing soccer-mom who nearly runs me over because its too much trouble to look out the windshield just might get a steel-toed boot in the fender.
And for the record, I used to drive 30k+ mile/year for yesr without an accident, I'm only a pedestrian now because some uninsured kid in a borrowed car destroyed my vehicle while argueing with his girlfriend on a cel phone.
Where is "arse-whuppin" justice when you need it?
As a pedestrian you have my full support, where can I make a donation to your campaign?
"Although, I've noticed that when someone is in the car with me and I'm talking to them, I don't have any problem paying attention to the road. I haven't quite figured that out yet."
Pretty simple. The passenger talking to you is part of your immediate environment. They occupy more of your sensory abilities that a cel caller. You only hear a cell call, and somewhat artificially at that. A real live person can be seen, heard, smelled, etc. Much more "real" that your phone call. Or radio for that matter, considering the limited volume, placement and quality of sound.
Er... and if there actually IS a gear shift lever there? And if there isn't one, the driver probably doesn't drive stck, so performing any action in that space is neither "familiar" nor "natural".
Bad design. How about making an autopilot that takes over when the driver is being an idiot?
Just get a bee into their car and watch the hilarity!
Seriously, most people I see can't even handle driving when they aren't actually trying to do anything else, why are they being encouraged to do anything but drive?
"Semantics aside, if you take something without paying for it (assuming the creator/owner of that thing intended for you to pay for it), regardless of whether or not it is a physical object or a digital copy, or if it doesn't seem to adversely affect the owner, it is still wrong, and I call it stealing."
I'm curious as to your opinion of people/companies that make/sell copies or "knock-offs" of things like furniture, clothing, handbags, antiquities and so forth. You insist that creating a copy is stealing even tho there may be no obvious harm to the original creator, and no one was deprived of property.
Thoughts?
True, but any "tracking" it does is specific to product purchases. It cant tell someone which aisle you are in.
Frankly I hate those discount cards. They say they want to offer us savings? Lower the prices!
And does anyone else think you should get a discount if you use the self-checkout lane?
Hormail?