Your use of Prozac was a bad example. It showed that drugs can be successful if patents are granted. We already knew that. The question at hand is whether *unpatented* drugs can be successful. The Polio vaccine is an example of *this* - unpatented drugs solving the problems they were intended to. There have been other examples of this, including a better way of making Penicilin, a Malaria vaccine, and more.
So, your thesis that temporary monopolies are necessary for the production of good drugs is false.
"If the patents were not in place, the discoveries would not lead to aggressive products in the market, since no one will fund a company based on public domain IP."
False. Many companies make generic drugs based on formerly patented drugs. They even make money that way.
"For a game genie to have those effects on a game, you would have to go to the store, buy a game genie, place it in your console, then place the cartridge onto the console, not exactly something that could happen without the end user knowing about it."
To be fair, attribution is one of the exclusive rights protected by copyright. This could infringe that, except that HTML does not really specify presentation - even CSS won't change how a blind user hears a page. So, an author cannot expect that her page will appear exactly as she expects to the audience. Does Junkbuster violate the right of attribution?
Galoob was decided for two reasons: 1. There was no infringement because there was no copy created in a fixed form, and thus no derivative work. 2. Users of GG were fair users - their purposes (not Galoob's) were non-commercial, not significant in alteration, and not distributed. This applies to smart tags (or Junkbuster) instead.
Besides, MS isn't forcing you to use this (it can be turned off). They are forcing you to use IE6, in that they have a monopoly, about which see DOJ v. MS.
I pointed out most of those cases to refute your lies about fair use - that it was purely academic and non-commercial. That's why I put Feist in there. It wasn't strictly necessary, tho.
-------
"I can't imagine a court buying an argument that having Mario jump higher affects Nintendo's free speech; adding links to some sites most assuredly does affect their speech. "
What does free speech have to do with this? It's a copyright issue that you brought up. The question before the court was: "does it violate Nintendo's exclusive right to control the distribution of its games, characters, etc."
-------
"There is no "fair-use" precedent for industrial-scale modification. For instance, you cannot print an annotated edition of a complete work currently in copyright without permission of the copyright owner. None of your referenced cases directly apply to the problem at hand."
Certainly, there's Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, in which an entire work was reproduced commercially, millions of copies, but altered. That's a precedent. Then, there's Nintendo v. Galoob, which *does* apply - it is a large-scale (many Game Genies were sold) set of modifications to Nintendo's games. Just as in this case, the modification is done on the client side. It's no different than Junkbuster - but end users will like it far less:).
"Gotta watch that "fair-use" stuff... it's extremely limited and does not refer to modification at all. You have the right to quote small snippets in a academic context, parody, and a couple of other small things, but it does not extend to arbitrary modification."
False. For modification, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose or Nintendo v. Galoob. For "small snippets", see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co. For commercial use, see Campbell and Galoob. Here's a good start:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary/index.html#c as elaw
"Ah, but: nothing in that case is being copied in a form which the user can access. A web page is being published across the web and the user actually has the result in a form that they can save to disk and access at will."
The smart tags are still evaluated client-side, I think. At any rate, it's nothing the user wouldn't otherwise have.
Could MS be sued for copyright breach on the grounds that the displayed page is now a derived work?
Sure. The plaintiff would lose, tho. See Nintendo v. Galoob. Galoob made a product that altered the reactions, graphics, and gameplay of Nintendo's copyrighted stuff. Nintendo sued for copyright infringement, and lost. The product? Game Genie.
"SOS is based in Utah, and we have different legal and cultural norms here. The first amendment (ratified by the same idiots who brought us the secon amendment) may prevail in the Federal courts, but that doesn't mean we enforce it to the
same extent in the state courts."
Your courts are required to. Fortuntately, if they don't, there's always the Supremes.
"And even if we did, it'd be irrelevant here. The first amendment exists to protect political speech, but SOS wasn't at all about political speech."
Let's read what the First Amendment actually says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
So, it doesn't say "political speech". It just says speech (and the press). The First Amendment protects all speech.
"What's more, the "speech" in question was mere anonymous insults"
Anonymous speech is a right - federal courts have upheld this many times.
"When the Founding Fathers broke away from England and enacted the bill of rights, they didn't intend for it to apply to this sort of situation."
Tough. They owned slaves, too. Things change. You can't seriously argue against 200 years of SCOTUS precedent on this flimsy basis. Besides, there's a good chance that they *did* mean it to apply - see Ben Franklin's essays on flatulence.
"hosted with the bandwidth of a private university"
No, it's a *public* university.
"The university is well within its rights (and upholding its duty to instill good moral character within its students) when they treat your site this way."
Probably not. It's a content-based restriction on speech at a government-funded school.
Courts have always rejected the "sweat of the brow" argument for copyright and (IIRC) patents. Simply, "IP" (terrible term, I know) is not awarded on the basis that it is hard to develop. For patents, this is obvious, as a patent restricts even independent invention - if HP were to put all the CPU time and research into developing a codec that IBM had, and ended up with the same codec, they would still not be allowed to use it.
I for one believe that the dead are affected by (and in some cases can affect) the temporal world, but not to the extent that they are likely to post
to slashdot.
How else can you explain some of the posts in this sid?
"I'd hate to have any of my unfinished work thrust onto the public. The difference between finished and unfinished is that with the former I'm happy with it going for general release, the latter, i'm not."
That's what Franz Kafka thought too. He asked his wife and his editor to burn all his work after his death. Fortunately, his editor didn't, and that's why we have all of Kafka's stuff. Amerika, his unfinished novel, is still *great*.
Here's why Reed's new license wording is in fact a change in meaning:
1. He did not in the past correct people who were under the impression
that it was BSD-licensed. Now, copyright law doesn't require this - but
common courtesy does.
See e.g. this thread:
http://false.net/ipfilter/1999_12/0055.html
And of course, Open, Free, and Net BSDs distributing modified versions
w/o any problems.
Now, the original license seemed to allow modification - I base this on
two things, which I have marked with _s :
"Redistribution and use in source _and binary_ forms are permitted
provided that _this notice is preserved_ and due credit is given
to the original author and the contributors."
1. Allowing redistribution in binary form is already allowing derivative
works - the original is distributed only in source form.
2. Removal of the notice would constitute modification - the existence
of this phrase implies that other modifications are allowed.
So, it can definately be argued that Reed's new license is a change in
meaning.
(I tried to post this to my local LUG mailing list, but their server is on crack).
Re:Street Performer Protocol would be appropriate
on
Shadowmarch Launched
·
· Score: 2
"The trick is to keep people from altering the story, such as removing your attribution and instructions on how they can make a donation to support the public work."
Illegal e-book distributers tend to be sticklers for attribution. Many even reproduce the copyright notices which explicitly forbid their actions:)
"It remains to be seen if the Street Performer Protocol would generate enough revenue to support the project, but that's why it's an experiment. As
others have pointed out, we've already had the "limited distribution on the Internet" experiment, i.e. Stephen King's "The Plant". It was a failure."
No, King *thought* was a failure. The project brought in $80,000 US. That's *tons* of money for a short story.
"Well, now, wait a minute. To be fair, both sides are arguing from analogy."
Hm, I wasn't really talking about their choice of precedent - it is certainly a valid question which cases should be chosen as precedent. But the MPAA seems to argue that there's hardly a need for precedent - it's a *digital crowbar* or whatever. Their choices of precedents seem to be targetting their analogies, rather than the actual situation. Perhaps I am biased (I certainly know which side I wish to win), but the choice of Madsen v. Women's Health Center rather than some more directly applicable case such as Planned Parenthood v American Coalition of Life Activists seems to be a deliberate choice of arguing to the analogy, rather than to the logic.
The MPAA is going about this in a fundamentally unsound manner. They consistently argue by analogy, comparing DeCSS to some bad physical thing or disseminating it to some bad physical act, and often arguing that said thing or act would be illegal.
2600's team argues purely based on the actual situation - comparing dissemination to dissemination, decryption to decryption.
Based on this, I think that 2600's chances are much stronger than most of the posters so far seem to think.
It seems quite unlikely that any Martian micro-organisms exist or could harm us.
But how are we going to know what stuff Mars *does* contain unless we keep earth dust, bacteria, and airborne spores out of our samples? Shouldn't we be doing this anyway?
"You cannot access the Government Gateway at the moment. This is because you are either using an old version of a browser, or the browser you are using does not have the correct settings. Read this page to find out which browsers are supported and which settings to use."
Slashdot Mirror
Your use of Prozac was a bad example. It showed that drugs can be successful if patents are granted. We already knew that. The question at hand is whether *unpatented* drugs can be successful. The Polio vaccine is an example of *this* - unpatented drugs solving the problems they were intended to. There have been other examples of this, including a better way of making Penicilin, a Malaria vaccine, and more.
So, your thesis that temporary monopolies are necessary for the production of good drugs is false.
"If the patents were not in place, the discoveries would not lead to aggressive products in the market, since no one will fund a company based on public domain IP."
False. Many companies make generic drugs based on formerly patented drugs. They even make money that way.
From previous article:h tm l#433
4
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/01/04/1024239.s
Also mentioned in some debate about this:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/21.23.html#subj1
"For a game genie to have those effects on a game, you would have to go to the store, buy a game genie, place it in your console, then place the cartridge onto the console, not exactly something that could happen without the end user knowing about it."
To be fair, attribution is one of the exclusive rights protected by copyright. This could infringe that, except that HTML does not really specify presentation - even CSS won't change how a blind user hears a page. So, an author cannot expect that her page will appear exactly as she expects to the audience. Does Junkbuster violate the right of attribution?
Galoob was decided for two reasons: 1. There was no infringement because there was no copy created in a fixed form, and thus no derivative work. 2. Users of GG were fair users - their purposes (not Galoob's) were non-commercial, not significant in alteration, and not distributed. This applies to smart tags (or Junkbuster) instead.
Besides, MS isn't forcing you to use this (it can be turned off). They are forcing you to use IE6, in that they have a monopoly, about which see DOJ v. MS.
On the net:0 10 420_eff_2themart_pr.html
http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/2TheMart_case/20
More generally:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/mcintyre.html
I pointed out most of those cases to refute your lies about fair use - that it was purely academic and non-commercial. That's why I put Feist in there. It wasn't strictly necessary, tho.
:).
-------
"I can't imagine a court buying an argument that having Mario jump higher affects Nintendo's free speech; adding links to some sites most assuredly does affect their speech. "
What does free speech have to do with this? It's a copyright issue that you brought up. The question before the court was: "does it violate Nintendo's exclusive right to control the distribution of its games, characters, etc."
-------
"There is no "fair-use" precedent for industrial-scale modification. For instance, you cannot print an annotated edition of a complete work currently in copyright without permission of the copyright owner. None of your referenced cases directly apply to the problem at hand."
Certainly, there's Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, in which an entire work was reproduced commercially, millions of copies, but altered. That's a precedent. Then, there's Nintendo v. Galoob, which *does* apply - it is a large-scale (many Game Genies were sold) set of modifications to Nintendo's games. Just as in this case, the modification is done on the client side. It's no different than Junkbuster - but end users will like it far less
"Gotta watch that "fair-use" stuff... it's extremely limited and does not refer to modification at all. You have the right to quote small snippets in a academic context, parody, and a couple of other small things, but it does not extend to arbitrary modification."
c as elaw
False. For modification, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose or Nintendo v. Galoob. For "small snippets", see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co. For commercial use, see Campbell and Galoob. Here's a good start:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary/index.html#
"Ah, but: nothing in that case is being copied in a form which the user can access. A web page is being published across the web and the user actually has the result in a form that they can save to disk and access at will."
The smart tags are still evaluated client-side, I think. At any rate, it's nothing the user wouldn't otherwise have.
Could MS be sued for copyright breach on the grounds that the displayed page is now a derived work?
Sure. The plaintiff would lose, tho. See Nintendo v. Galoob. Galoob made a product that altered the reactions, graphics, and gameplay of Nintendo's copyrighted stuff. Nintendo sued for copyright infringement, and lost. The product? Game Genie.
"SOS is based in Utah, and we have different legal and cultural norms here. The first amendment (ratified by the same idiots who brought us the secon amendment) may prevail in the Federal courts, but that doesn't mean we enforce it to the
same extent in the state courts."
Your courts are required to. Fortuntately, if they don't, there's always the Supremes.
"And even if we did, it'd be irrelevant here. The first amendment exists to protect political speech, but SOS wasn't at all about political speech."
Let's read what the First Amendment actually says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
So, it doesn't say "political speech". It just says speech (and the press). The First Amendment protects all speech.
"What's more, the "speech" in question was mere anonymous insults"
Anonymous speech is a right - federal courts have upheld this many times.
"When the Founding Fathers broke away from England and enacted the bill of rights, they didn't intend for it to apply to this sort of situation."
Tough. They owned slaves, too. Things change. You can't seriously argue against 200 years of SCOTUS precedent on this flimsy basis. Besides, there's a good chance that they *did* mean it to apply - see Ben Franklin's essays on flatulence.
"hosted with the bandwidth of a private university"
No, it's a *public* university.
"The university is well within its rights (and upholding its duty to instill good moral character within its students) when they treat your site this way."
Probably not. It's a content-based restriction on speech at a government-funded school.
Courts have always rejected the "sweat of the brow" argument for copyright and (IIRC) patents. Simply, "IP" (terrible term, I know) is not awarded on the basis that it is hard to develop. For patents, this is obvious, as a patent restricts even independent invention - if HP were to put all the CPU time and research into developing a codec that IBM had, and ended up with the same codec, they would still not be allowed to use it.
You are referring to "FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TEL. SERVICE CO."
l ?c ourt=US&vol=499&invol=340
Here's the case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.p
Yep, the fucker even calls it "Open Source" at one point:
r -0 007/110/1.html
http://msgs.SecurePoint.com/cgi-bin/get/ipfilte
I for one believe that the dead are affected by (and in some cases can affect) the temporal world, but not to the extent that they are likely to post to slashdot.
How else can you explain some of the posts in this sid?
"I'd hate to have any of my unfinished work thrust onto the public. The difference between finished and unfinished is that with the former I'm happy with it going for general release, the latter, i'm not."
That's what Franz Kafka thought too. He asked his wife and his editor to burn all his work after his death. Fortunately, his editor didn't, and that's why we have all of Kafka's stuff. Amerika, his unfinished novel, is still *great*.
Here's why Reed's new license wording is in fact a change in meaning:
1. He did not in the past correct people who were under the impression
that it was BSD-licensed. Now, copyright law doesn't require this - but
common courtesy does.
See e.g. this thread:
http://false.net/ipfilter/1999_12/0055.html
And of course, Open, Free, and Net BSDs distributing modified versions
w/o any problems.
Now, the original license seemed to allow modification - I base this on
two things, which I have marked with _s :
"Redistribution and use in source _and binary_ forms are permitted
provided that _this notice is preserved_ and due credit is given
to the original author and the contributors."
1. Allowing redistribution in binary form is already allowing derivative
works - the original is distributed only in source form.
2. Removal of the notice would constitute modification - the existence
of this phrase implies that other modifications are allowed.
So, it can definately be argued that Reed's new license is a change in
meaning.
(I tried to post this to my local LUG mailing list, but their server is on crack).
"The trick is to keep people from altering the story, such as removing your attribution and instructions on how they can make a donation to support the public work."
:)
Illegal e-book distributers tend to be sticklers for attribution. Many even reproduce the copyright notices which explicitly forbid their actions
"It remains to be seen if the Street Performer Protocol would generate enough revenue to support the project, but that's why it's an experiment. As
others have pointed out, we've already had the "limited distribution on the Internet" experiment, i.e. Stephen King's "The Plant". It was a failure."
No, King *thought* was a failure. The project brought in $80,000 US. That's *tons* of money for a short story.
"Alchohol prohbition ... was a direct result of giving the women the right to vote."
/ am endment18/
/ am endment19/
Hahahahahaha! Learn some history, dude.
Prohibition: Amendment 18.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution
Women's sufferage: Amendment 19.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution
"Yeah, somehow I don't see Harpers magazine being allowed to publish instructions to make dangerous radioactive devices!"
In fact, it almost certainly would. Although the Supreme Court decided U.S. v Progressive in favor of the government, it lifted the injunction later.
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/os2001/view/e _sess/1834
"So get used to the ads, because they're not going anywhere."
Wrong. http://www.junkbuster.com
"Well, now, wait a minute. To be fair, both sides are arguing from analogy."
Hm, I wasn't really talking about their choice of precedent - it is certainly a valid question which cases should be chosen as precedent. But the MPAA seems to argue that there's hardly a need for precedent - it's a *digital crowbar* or whatever. Their choices of precedents seem to be targetting their analogies, rather than the actual situation. Perhaps I am biased (I certainly know which side I wish to win), but the choice of Madsen v. Women's Health Center rather than some more directly applicable case such as Planned Parenthood v American Coalition of Life Activists seems to be a deliberate choice of arguing to the analogy, rather than to the logic.
The MPAA is going about this in a fundamentally unsound manner. They consistently argue by analogy, comparing DeCSS to some bad physical thing or disseminating it to some bad physical act, and often arguing that said thing or act would be illegal.
2600's team argues purely based on the actual situation - comparing dissemination to dissemination, decryption to decryption.
Based on this, I think that 2600's chances are much stronger than most of the posters so far seem to think.
It seems quite unlikely that any Martian micro-organisms exist or could harm us.
But how are we going to know what stuff Mars *does* contain unless we keep earth dust, bacteria, and airborne spores out of our samples? Shouldn't we be doing this anyway?
"You cannot access the Government Gateway at the moment. This is because you are either using an old version of a browser, or the browser you are using does not have the correct settings. Read this page to find out which browsers are supported and which settings to use."
Fuckers.