I see a lot of people angry because they don't want their right to resell their own property taken away or effectively destroyed by DRM.
If you don't like the terms don't buy it. The publishers don't have to offer the stuff for sale at all, you know. They do so voluntarily and you buy it voluntarily. There's nothing preventing you from writing your own games and going into competition with them (or giving your games away Free should you so choose). Stop whining and start coding.
BTW all the stuff about "licensed not owned" is crap. When you buy a copy you own it. However, under USA copyright a "copy" is a physical, tangible object, not some sort of abstraction. You have the right to transfer that object, not copies of it.
Of course he does. It means anyone who doesn't share each and every one of his standard-issue "liberal" opinions. In other words, it means exactly the same as "liberal" does to a "conservative".
...increase in transparency? I suspect that there was at least as much of this sort of stuff decades ago but most of it was handled behind closed doors.
Wrong. The court did not say that there was no harm nor that there was no crime: just that there was no CFAA violation. This is a reasonable and proper decision.
Darts which were sold. For money. This is product liablility. The key word is "product": something you sell. Giving away software with no expectation of being compensated creates no duty and therefor no liability.
And they are right here in my office, sucking up the gigawatts. They are the reason Wisconsin had no snow this winter. Want to save the environment? Gift me with a couple of 30" LCDs.
Protect yourselves from what? How would it harm you if someone made money from it?
> The county just wants to make sure they can't be held liable
People have been releasing Free software for thirty years or more with impunity. The University of California has not been sued over bugs in BSD. Linus Trovalds has not been sued over bugs in Linux. Why do you think you will be sued?
Your language would be copyrighted automatically whether you like it or not. You would have to explicitly apply a Free license in order to people to be able to freely use it. Otherwise you could sell the copyright to Oracle after it was in widespread use.
Slashdot Mirror
So we'll soon have mutton that tastes like spinach?
> Let me omit all search results that aren't TV or XBox related.
Typical Clippy bungling. No sports scores.
...for targeting malware.
"Can't find him on FaceBook. He must be stupid".
-or-
"Can't find him on FaceBook. He must be smart".
Why would they do that?
The yammerings of some random marketing doofus can make you feel like a bad person? Why? Do you have a self-esteem problem?
> It's simple criticism, which can be quite important at times.
Most of it looks like juvenile temper tantrums. Buying the stuff and then whining about the terms is not going to influence anyone.
If you don't like the terms don't buy it. The publishers don't have to offer the stuff for sale at all, you know. They do so voluntarily and you buy it voluntarily. There's nothing preventing you from writing your own games and going into competition with them (or giving your games away Free should you so choose). Stop whining and start coding.
BTW all the stuff about "licensed not owned" is crap. When you buy a copy you own it. However, under USA copyright a "copy" is a physical, tangible object, not some sort of abstraction. You have the right to transfer that object, not copies of it.
> The music and film industries have been selling us the
> same old rubbish over and over for decades.
And you have been buying it.
Why?
And some other asshat has to drag out the term "denialist". Asshat.
> Do you even know what "conservative" means?
Of course he does. It means anyone who doesn't share each and every one of his standard-issue "liberal" opinions. In other words, it means exactly the same as "liberal" does to a "conservative".
...increase in transparency? I suspect that there was at least as much of this sort of stuff decades ago but most of it was handled behind closed doors.
Wrong. The court did not say that there was no harm nor that there was no crime: just that there was no CFAA violation. This is a reasonable and proper decision.
Darts which were sold. For money. This is product liablility. The key word is "product": something you sell. Giving away software with no expectation of being compensated creates no duty and therefor no liability.
...you can't just set your foreground and background colors appropoeriately?
> No, the big power draw is from CRT displays.
> Both of them.
And they are right here in my office, sucking up the gigawatts. They are the reason Wisconsin had no snow this winter. Want to save the environment? Gift me with a couple of 30" LCDs.
Protect yourselves from what? How would it harm you if someone made money from it?
> The county just wants to make sure they can't be held liable
People have been releasing Free software for thirty years or more with impunity. The University of California has not been sued over bugs in BSD. Linus Trovalds has not been sued over bugs in Linux. Why do you think you will be sued?
> So you're going to pay more for them compared to the same thing from China.
On the other hand, they may actually work.
> Does your experience concern Philips CFLs?
Many different brands.
> I have one that has lasted since 1998.
And I have one incandescent that has lasted since 1995. Outliers happen.
In my experience CFLs last no longer than incandescents. Why should I believe that these claims about LEDs are not also lies?
Well, they already make airports.
n/t
> A database containing factual information can be copyrighted...
Not in the USA.
> ...because it takes time and effort to maintain the database.
"Sweat of the brow" is irrelevant. "Creative expression" is what matters. See Feist v Rural Telephone.
That doesn't mean they are good for us.
Your language would be copyrighted automatically whether you like it or not. You would have to explicitly apply a Free license in order to people to be able to freely use it. Otherwise you could sell the copyright to Oracle after it was in widespread use.