That sounds a lot like the diff between old EZCD Creator v3.5 (before it became Roxio and was ruined), and Nero anyversion. How to do anything in EZCD 3.5 was flamingly obvious; you didn't need to start with a single clue. It Just Worked.
OTOH even starting with some clues, Nero caused a lot of initial head-scratching, and despite being a very powerful program, it still causes me occasional swearing.
Nero fullversion and Nero Express aren't even vaguely similar.
Nero fullversion has a disorganized, buggy interface that frequently exhibits random behaviour, and has issues with retaining settings (and the bugs are different in every minor version) but the actual BURNING part always works fine, and one can get used to the interface, remember that this here setting won't stay checked in that there subversion, etc. I still don't like the program, but its end result IS reliable, and it IS quick to use once you get used to its quirks, so I use it despite the annoyances.
Nero Express has a slick, simple interface, but it variously locks up solid while adding files, refuses to burn above 4x, or refuses to burn anything at all. It is so bad that now I don't even install it, but instead go find myself and clients a, um, borroware copy of the real thing (figuring since we PAID for a copy with that new CDRW drive, we are damn well due a copy that WORKS. And yes, I have complained to the CDRW manufacturers about it.) All in all, Nero Express is probably the single worst piece of shit I've seen in a widely-distributed commercial app.
Ah, I see the feather now. You better tie your cap down, it's about to fly away;)
Okay, fair enough... except that I don't agree that "half to fund artists making copyleft works." -- I'm not convinced that art which can't pay for its own keep should be funded by the gov't"
Not exactly being funded by the government, but by the copyright holder that has dropped out of sight. Right?
Good point. Tho what if said invisible-copyright-holder disagrees with the concept, or with what his taxes are being used for? Also, he's been effectively taxed without representation.
But I do agree, the gov't should not be the major beneficiary, nor begin viewing this as a means to acquire "free money" -- because the next step after that is emminent domain at the least excuse. (Which might be all well and good to put a screeching halt to galloping copyright-foreverness, but it's not really fair to go abroad for a couple years and return to find a freeway where your house used to be.:)
Yep, that's where I was going, and thanks for bringing up that Scene 2 point (great, now there's MORE worms in the can!!) -- to wit, exactly WHO *does* have the right to demand that Company B's new source be released?? Is it Individual A as the "previous generation coder", the FSF as originator of the GPL license, maybe someone else whose code Indiv.A built upon in the first place? or any random 3rd party, whether they have a vested interest in Company B's sources or not??
At some point this is going to have to be settled so as to create a precedent for contract law.
But I think it would be a VERY bad precedent for random 3rd parties to become the "enforcers" (GPL vigilantes, if you will). That would really be no different from the RIAA going around suing filesharers, and thereby representing themselves as the "agents" of the infringed artists -- with whom the RIAA *itself* has no contract.
By now the details are falling out of my head:) But the scenario as presented Here Somewhere went sorta like this:
-- Individual A makes program, GPLs it. -- Company B uses it to build a new program, and fails to comply with GPL by not releasing source for said new program. -- Company C, who also uses A's code (but is NOT A's employer, so has no founding interest), takes Company B to court to force Company B to cough up their added sources.
My point of disagreement was that even tho Company B is in the wrong (whether intentionally or accidentally), it isn't Company C's place to play enforcer.
That was in 1976ish. So before the present spasm of corpyright-- er, copyright foreverness.
But it would indeed be interesting to ask them the exact same question, and compare the answers. I'm sure I must still have the originals Around Here Someplace....
Enjoyed meeting you too, talk to ya again someday!
Okay, fair enough... except that I don't agree that "half to fund artists making copyleft works." -- I'm not convinced that art which can't pay for its own keep should be funded by the gov't -- tho if one must do so, this is a better source of funding than taxes!
Don't know about you, but I haven't received a spam that was genuinely sent by an AOL server in 6 or 7 years. Occasional spoofs, yeah, but no real ones.
Being forced to comply isn't itself a bad thing. But being forced to comply *by a competitor* would be a bad precedent. And I can see that happening, given the current legal climate, where litigating your competitors out of business is a common mode.
That's a good point -- that the real legal threat might not be from the holder of the individual copyright(s) for said GPL'd code, but rather, from another company who also uses that same GPL'd code. Sortof "if WE can't do this, YOU ain't gonna get away with it either!!" as a method of taking down competitors.
On second thought, I'm not so sure this is such a great thing:/
Depending on what they're doing, the law might require it be served in person. It's a lot cheaper to do it this way, than to hire a marshall to serve some CEO in another state.
That said, I'm not sure serving a booth lackey is sufficiently high on the chain to count.
This *reader* of the article concluded that there were 25 cases of "Oh, sorry, let's fix it", two cases of "Who's gonna make me?" and one case of "Fuck you".
Ah, yes, very good point. Sortof like "if you dance in the department store window, don't get pissed when people laugh and point.":)
If they'd just SAID that in so many words, users wouldn't be up in arms. But how would such straightforward language be viewed by the courts?? Seriously, is it legally less effective to just SAY "If you transmitted it by IM, *anyone* might see it" ??
[OT: I went to beadstore.com, way nifty stuff!! practical site but lots of errors in the HTML. Holler if'n ya wants some help.]
What I meant was... copyleft would be sortof like if you went on an extended trip overseas and could not be found, and the gov't decided to give your house to someone else. That wouldn't go over so well!
But what would be reasonable, is for the gov't to have someone else *caretake* your house so that it doesn't get overgrown with weeds.
It's not an exact parallel, but you get the idea:)
Well, I'm not sure the gov't (who would have to approve any such plan) can rightfully decide whether to copyleft orphaned works (after all, if the actual owner surfaces, they may vehemently object), but even so, the idea of the lic.fee being "small to zilch" was to allow for non-commercial use rather akin to copyleft. So the realworld effect would be much the same.
I agree that no matter its intent, as it is present written it *will* be widely misinterpreted, because its language is so ridiculously overreaching. AOL's lawyers should be dosed with anti-hyperactives, and sent back to the drawing board.
Let that be a lesson to folk writing contracts: if you do too much ass-covering, you wind up splattering shit all over.
A ways upstream, I said something to the effect that as I read the TOS, the point here debated seems to be largely CYAism in the event some moron decides to sue AOL for copyright infringement because what said moron wrote was "copied" by AOL's servers. Thoughts?
I have two very old AIM accounts that still work fine, and a relatively new account that has stopped working (Oscar seems to have forgotten its password, and wherever the hell it's mailing what it thinks the password is, it's not coming to any of my email accounts).
I have a suspicion it's a matter of "some user data is on an unreliable login server". I've seen the same between the good old members.aol.com webserver, and their horrible new hometown server -- about half the time, the latter can't find its own ass.
That said, I do know that in years past, if you trashed AOL in an AOL chat room, or touched other "forbidden" topics, you'd mysteriously lose your connection (but not your account).
[Note: I'm not an AOL subscriber, but I do like and use AIM.]
Some years ago I asked the Copyright Office about this very thing. That is, whether something could be copyrighted if it was not published. They told me flat out that the object of copyright was to protect PUBLISHED works (that is, made available to the public one way or another), and therefore something that was not published could not be copyrighted.
ISTM that by direct extension, something that is not available to the public loses its copyright protection, by the very definition of what copyright is supposed to be.
I was thinking along similar lines, that there should be an "orphan works database" where people can submit whatever info is known about a given work, and thus build up a catalog of "not exactly public domain, but usable by all, within the context of this here compulsory license".
Fees should probably be prorated according to intended use, too. So if it's for noncommercial use, the fee is minimal to zilch, and for commercial use the fee is a small percentage sortof like a sliding sales tax. Since commercial value can be hard to predict, it could be determined by gross sales receipts.
I read the TOS, and concluded it was just a case of lawyeritis (inflammation of the lawyers). The actual intent seems to be to establish that AOL shall NOT be held liable for copyright infringement due to copyrighted material (specifically meaning words written *by* AIM users) being passed through their servers.
So if you write something and send it via AIM, you have given AOL the right to "reproduce" it on their servers, and therefore you cannot sue AOL for copyright infringement, nor can you claim that AOL owes you anything for "distributing" it. (However, this does not *assign* the copyright to AOL.)
IOW, it's just overly-paranoid ass-covering as performed by lawyers, probably due to some asshole having actually sued them for "storing my works on your server and thereby infringing my copyright" (even if that's just for the few seconds as it passes through) without grokking that this is how sending stuff via AIM works.
[I can readily see someone like Harlan Ellison going off the deep end about this natural side effect of transmitting data, thus getting the lawyers in a tizzy.]
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds a lot like the diff between old EZCD Creator v3.5 (before it became Roxio and was ruined), and Nero anyversion. How to do anything in EZCD 3.5 was flamingly obvious; you didn't need to start with a single clue. It Just Worked.
OTOH even starting with some clues, Nero caused a lot of initial head-scratching, and despite being a very powerful program, it still causes me occasional swearing.
Nero fullversion and Nero Express aren't even vaguely similar.
Nero fullversion has a disorganized, buggy interface that frequently exhibits random behaviour, and has issues with retaining settings (and the bugs are different in every minor version) but the actual BURNING part always works fine, and one can get used to the interface, remember that this here setting won't stay checked in that there subversion, etc. I still don't like the program, but its end result IS reliable, and it IS quick to use once you get used to its quirks, so I use it despite the annoyances.
Nero Express has a slick, simple interface, but it variously locks up solid while adding files, refuses to burn above 4x, or refuses to burn anything at all. It is so bad that now I don't even install it, but instead go find myself and clients a, um, borroware copy of the real thing (figuring since we PAID for a copy with that new CDRW drive, we are damn well due a copy that WORKS. And yes, I have complained to the CDRW manufacturers about it.) All in all, Nero Express is probably the single worst piece of shit I've seen in a widely-distributed commercial app.
Okay, fair enough... except that I don't agree that "half to fund artists making copyleft works." -- I'm not convinced that art which can't pay for its own keep should be funded by the gov't"
Not exactly being funded by the government, but by the copyright holder that has dropped out of sight. Right?
Good point. Tho what if said invisible-copyright-holder disagrees with the concept, or with what his taxes are being used for? Also, he's been effectively taxed without representation.
But I do agree, the gov't should not be the major beneficiary, nor begin viewing this as a means to acquire "free money" -- because the next step after that is emminent domain at the least excuse. (Which might be all well and good to put a screeching halt to galloping copyright-foreverness, but it's not really fair to go abroad for a couple years and return to find a freeway where your house used to be. :)
I'll see your http://zotz.openphoto.net/, and raise you one http://www.longplain.com/ :)
Yep, that's where I was going, and thanks for bringing up that Scene 2 point (great, now there's MORE worms in the can!!) -- to wit, exactly WHO *does* have the right to demand that Company B's new source be released?? Is it Individual A as the "previous generation coder", the FSF as originator of the GPL license, maybe someone else whose code Indiv.A built upon in the first place? or any random 3rd party, whether they have a vested interest in Company B's sources or not??
At some point this is going to have to be settled so as to create a precedent for contract law.
But I think it would be a VERY bad precedent for random 3rd parties to become the "enforcers" (GPL vigilantes, if you will). That would really be no different from the RIAA going around suing filesharers, and thereby representing themselves as the "agents" of the infringed artists -- with whom the RIAA *itself* has no contract.
Where does your email go thru? Mine is thru earthlink and 1and1.com/perfora.net, and has no problem reaching AOLers.
BTW, gorgeous wallpaper graphics!!
By now the details are falling out of my head :) But the scenario as presented Here Somewhere went sorta like this:
-- Individual A makes program, GPLs it.
-- Company B uses it to build a new program, and fails to comply with GPL by not releasing source for said new program.
-- Company C, who also uses A's code (but is NOT A's employer, so has no founding interest), takes Company B to court to force Company B to cough up their added sources.
My point of disagreement was that even tho Company B is in the wrong (whether intentionally or accidentally), it isn't Company C's place to play enforcer.
That was in 1976ish. So before the present spasm of corpyright-- er, copyright foreverness.
But it would indeed be interesting to ask them the exact same question, and compare the answers. I'm sure I must still have the originals Around Here Someplace....
Enjoyed meeting you too, talk to ya again someday!
"... but you get the idea ~;-) "
[eyeing smiley] Your hair is on fire!!
Okay, fair enough... except that I don't agree that "half to fund artists making copyleft works." -- I'm not convinced that art which can't pay for its own keep should be funded by the gov't -- tho if one must do so, this is a better source of funding than taxes!
Don't know about you, but I haven't received a spam that was genuinely sent by an AOL server in 6 or 7 years. Occasional spoofs, yeah, but no real ones.
I didn't see that part, but if true, rather disturbing.
Being forced to comply isn't itself a bad thing. But being forced to comply *by a competitor* would be a bad precedent. And I can see that happening, given the current legal climate, where litigating your competitors out of business is a common mode.
Watch your mailbox... Incoming!!! :)
That's a good point -- that the real legal threat might not be from the holder of the individual copyright(s) for said GPL'd code, but rather, from another company who also uses that same GPL'd code. Sortof "if WE can't do this, YOU ain't gonna get away with it either!!" as a method of taking down competitors.
:/
On second thought, I'm not so sure this is such a great thing
Depending on what they're doing, the law might require it be served in person. It's a lot cheaper to do it this way, than to hire a marshall to serve some CEO in another state.
:)
That said, I'm not sure serving a booth lackey is sufficiently high on the chain to count.
Is there a lawyer in the house?
This *reader* of the article concluded that there were 25 cases of "Oh, sorry, let's fix it", two cases of "Who's gonna make me?" and one case of "Fuck you".
Ah, yes, very good point. Sortof like "if you dance in the department store window, don't get pissed when people laugh and point." :)
If they'd just SAID that in so many words, users wouldn't be up in arms. But how would such straightforward language be viewed by the courts?? Seriously, is it legally less effective to just SAY "If you transmitted it by IM, *anyone* might see it" ??
[OT: I went to beadstore.com, way nifty stuff!! practical site but lots of errors in the HTML. Holler if'n ya wants some help.]
What I meant was... copyleft would be sortof like if you went on an extended trip overseas and could not be found, and the gov't decided to give your house to someone else. That wouldn't go over so well!
:)
But what would be reasonable, is for the gov't to have someone else *caretake* your house so that it doesn't get overgrown with weeds.
It's not an exact parallel, but you get the idea
I know, and that's why I agree that their lawyers need to take a few chill pills, then rewrite the thing so it actually says what they meant.
Well, I'm not sure the gov't (who would have to approve any such plan) can rightfully decide whether to copyleft orphaned works (after all, if the actual owner surfaces, they may vehemently object), but even so, the idea of the lic.fee being "small to zilch" was to allow for non-commercial use rather akin to copyleft. So the realworld effect would be much the same.
I agree that no matter its intent, as it is present written it *will* be widely misinterpreted, because its language is so ridiculously overreaching. AOL's lawyers should be dosed with anti-hyperactives, and sent back to the drawing board.
Let that be a lesson to folk writing contracts: if you do too much ass-covering, you wind up splattering shit all over.
Nice analysis, thanks.
A ways upstream, I said something to the effect that as I read the TOS, the point here debated seems to be largely CYAism in the event some moron decides to sue AOL for copyright infringement because what said moron wrote was "copied" by AOL's servers. Thoughts?
I have two very old AIM accounts that still work fine, and a relatively new account that has stopped working (Oscar seems to have forgotten its password, and wherever the hell it's mailing what it thinks the password is, it's not coming to any of my email accounts).
I have a suspicion it's a matter of "some user data is on an unreliable login server". I've seen the same between the good old members.aol.com webserver, and their horrible new hometown server -- about half the time, the latter can't find its own ass.
That said, I do know that in years past, if you trashed AOL in an AOL chat room, or touched other "forbidden" topics, you'd mysteriously lose your connection (but not your account).
[Note: I'm not an AOL subscriber, but I do like and use AIM.]
Some years ago I asked the Copyright Office about this very thing. That is, whether something could be copyrighted if it was not published. They told me flat out that the object of copyright was to protect PUBLISHED works (that is, made available to the public one way or another), and therefore something that was not published could not be copyrighted.
ISTM that by direct extension, something that is not available to the public loses its copyright protection, by the very definition of what copyright is supposed to be.
I was thinking along similar lines, that there should be an "orphan works database" where people can submit whatever info is known about a given work, and thus build up a catalog of "not exactly public domain, but usable by all, within the context of this here compulsory license".
Fees should probably be prorated according to intended use, too. So if it's for noncommercial use, the fee is minimal to zilch, and for commercial use the fee is a small percentage sortof like a sliding sales tax. Since commercial value can be hard to predict, it could be determined by gross sales receipts.
I read the TOS, and concluded it was just a case of lawyeritis (inflammation of the lawyers). The actual intent seems to be to establish that AOL shall NOT be held liable for copyright infringement due to copyrighted material (specifically meaning words written *by* AIM users) being passed through their servers.
So if you write something and send it via AIM, you have given AOL the right to "reproduce" it on their servers, and therefore you cannot sue AOL for copyright infringement, nor can you claim that AOL owes you anything for "distributing" it. (However, this does not *assign* the copyright to AOL.)
IOW, it's just overly-paranoid ass-covering as performed by lawyers, probably due to some asshole having actually sued them for "storing my works on your server and thereby infringing my copyright" (even if that's just for the few seconds as it passes through) without grokking that this is how sending stuff via AIM works.
[I can readily see someone like Harlan Ellison going off the deep end about this natural side effect of transmitting data, thus getting the lawyers in a tizzy.]