Unless you can cite a particular court case, I'm calling bullshit on this one. There is no possible way that you can know what a judge would rule when there is a strong argument in favor of one possible decision and a contrary opinion at the same time.
Here you are interpreting the law, but failing to understand what I'm saying.
You made a claim that makes absolutely no sense, therefore the burden of proof is on you, not me. "A judge may happen to be distracted by Chewbacca, and support my outrageous claims" is not a valid argument.
If you don't enforce copyright, you don't get to claim damages. It is that simple.
Where the Hell did your claim about "sunset" and other ridiculous ideas go? Of course, the author can't be awarded damages if he doesn't sue for infringement. You made a specific claim that material posted on web site at some point becomes immune to prosecution. You made up some bizarre definition of "distribution" and "copying" that somehow excluded people downloading things from a web site. I have called bullshit on this, and now you are trying to weasel your way out. You have failed, and you are welcome to shut up.
Now Miguel can play with his pet project all by himself, so others won't have to tolerate him just because of his former association with their projects.
I generally agree with your interpretation of the law here, but on this particular issue the courts are surprisingly silent, as I doubt anybody has really tried to challenge copyright on this ground.
If they are "silent", then all claims about law not being interpreted in any but most obvious way, are bullshit. YOU claimed that a copyright holder can lose the ability to sue for infringement if someone placed copyrighted material on a web site, and some unspecified "sunset" time passed. Now YOU claim that no one tried to challenge copyright in a manner you claim it can be "lost".
That means, you are the only source for ridiculous claims of "sunset" for copyright and its applicability to things posted on web sites. In other words, you originated some idiotic claims and you are claiming that they have something to do with reality while the letter of law and all decisions of courts say the opposite.
I don't know what a court would say on this issue for "old" web pages.
What you quoted, applies to every particular act of unauthorized distribution. You can't prosecute against distribution that was done a long time ago. Continuing violations (and only those matter for copyright owner) are in no way protected by this, and maintaining a web site with infringing material is a continuing distribution.
Getting approval for putting a Linux server as a guest on your existing virtualized infrastructure (pitch as a virtual appliance if necessary) is usually way easier that getting approval for changing your whole IT infrastructure (changing hypervisor or using two different ones).
Linux under Windows is worse than Windows. All those things accomplish is making Linux look bad.
but then the content which has passed the sunset requirements they use freely and openly.
Calling bullshit on this.
There is no "sunset" on copyright other than its normal (unreasonably long) expiration time. Same applies to patents, except it takes less time for them to expire.
Trademarks are unique in a way how they can be lost if trademarked term obtains generic meaning in widespread usage, so the word can no longer identify a particular company (what lawyers such as yourself use to inspire idiotic, fraudulent lawsuits in situations where trademark is not in any way infringed or is under threat of anything other than being forgotten).
Forms of advertisement and propaganda that are commonly used in US, rely on subjecting the viewer/listener to extreme emotional pressure, as person's current state (not owning a product, acting in a manner different from one being prescribed) is portrayed as miserable, ridiculous or immoral. As a result the goal is achieved (some of affected people buy products and obey the norms of thoughts and behavior promoted by propaganda, to get rid of negative self-perception) however both those who comply and those who don't, have to deal with constant stream of insults and manipulation directed toward them from all forms of mass media. After decades of this escalating pressure, people become mentally unstable, stupid, and incapable of normal emotional reaction to real-life events.
There is no, and most likely never will be any "ABI" inside the kernel. This is a design decision that has nothing to do with proprietary drivers and everything with improving interfaces between components -- source compatibility stays the same, and proprietary drivers' vendors can accommodate their blobs with wrappers. It is also unrelated to the fact that all proprietary drivers except Nvidia, are steaming piles of shit that no one wants to use.
Linux ABI is its syscall and library interface -- it's very much backward compatible, and proprietary applications use it just fine. If even Adobe developers figured out how to release Linux binaries, I can't see how anyone can complain about it.
The Iraq war was legalized by security council resolution--granted, they worded the resolution so that most of them could pretend to protest while the US could use it as pretext for invasion, but they went along with it, which effectively makes it legal under international law.
1. And it's still war of aggression. UN is not authorized to pardon criminals. 2. Powell gave UN fake evidence of nonexistent Iraqi weapon development programs. That alone invalidates pretty much everything that came out of it.
War of aggression is a war crime -- apparently ignorant Americans are unaware of this fact, and believe that it's only a war crime if you kill cute puppies.
And, of course, presidents are hardly alone among perpetrators of those -- there is Congress, Department of Defense and plenty of other organizations.
And when that happens, and the majority of Americans realize their lives are continuing on just as before, with literally no change to their lives, maybe then they'll realize just how useless and pointless the government is.
Except encryption is not a container. Regardless of the safe existence and condition, its contents exist and can be extracted even without a person opening it with a key. Opening the safe does not change the fact that contents will be accessible, it merely provides an easier option of all options available.
Readable data literally does not exist until the moment decryption is performed -- and asking a person to provide it would certainly be a violation of the 5th amendment. Encrypted data is already in evidence, however if prosecution can't use it for any purpose, it's merely a problem for prosecution, and defendant has no obligations related to it.
For what it's worth, the first scene of Great Teacher Onizuka anime contains just that -- as seen in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flaWaPP2nto . Series in question are not in any way pornographic, sex is mentioned often but no one actually has sex or shows up naked "on camera". Showing panties on animated girls is about as close to pornography as it gets there.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you can cite a particular court case, I'm calling bullshit on this one. There is no possible way that you can know what a judge would rule when there is a strong argument in favor of one possible decision and a contrary opinion at the same time.
Here you are interpreting the law, but failing to understand what I'm saying.
You made a claim that makes absolutely no sense, therefore the burden of proof is on you, not me. "A judge may happen to be distracted by Chewbacca, and support my outrageous claims" is not a valid argument.
If you don't enforce copyright, you don't get to claim damages. It is that simple.
Where the Hell did your claim about "sunset" and other ridiculous ideas go? Of course, the author can't be awarded damages if he doesn't sue for infringement. You made a specific claim that material posted on web site at some point becomes immune to prosecution. You made up some bizarre definition of "distribution" and "copying" that somehow excluded people downloading things from a web site. I have called bullshit on this, and now you are trying to weasel your way out. You have failed, and you are welcome to shut up.
It might also be a good time to put a car up on blocks in your front yard, just before he's ready to sell the house.
Dressing like a pimp will help, too.
And tell the U.S. what a tits-up unmitigated disaster W would be as president.
I tried that already.
Now Miguel can play with his pet project all by himself, so others won't have to tolerate him just because of his former association with their projects.
Idiotic in all possible ways -- the purpose, the name, the method, the announcement, and the results of application.
Hey look, hairyfeet is spreading lies and paranoia.
That is arguable, as web pages are dated.
So are CDs and books.
I generally agree with your interpretation of the law here, but on this particular issue the courts are surprisingly silent, as I doubt anybody has really tried to challenge copyright on this ground.
If they are "silent", then all claims about law not being interpreted in any but most obvious way, are bullshit.
YOU claimed that a copyright holder can lose the ability to sue for infringement if someone placed copyrighted material on a web site, and some unspecified "sunset" time passed.
Now YOU claim that no one tried to challenge copyright in a manner you claim it can be "lost".
That means, you are the only source for ridiculous claims of "sunset" for copyright and its applicability to things posted on web sites. In other words, you originated some idiotic claims and you are claiming that they have something to do with reality while the letter of law and all decisions of courts say the opposite.
I don't know what a court would say on this issue for "old" web pages.
I do. And everyone else does.
What you quoted, applies to every particular act of unauthorized distribution. You can't prosecute against distribution that was done a long time ago. Continuing violations (and only those matter for copyright owner) are in no way protected by this, and maintaining a web site with infringing material is a continuing distribution.
Getting approval for putting a Linux server as a guest on your existing virtualized infrastructure (pitch as a virtual appliance if necessary) is usually way easier that getting approval for changing your whole IT infrastructure (changing hypervisor or using two different ones).
Linux under Windows is worse than Windows. All those things accomplish is making Linux look bad.
but then the content which has passed the sunset requirements they use freely and openly.
Calling bullshit on this.
There is no "sunset" on copyright other than its normal (unreasonably long) expiration time. Same applies to patents, except it takes less time for them to expire.
Trademarks are unique in a way how they can be lost if trademarked term obtains generic meaning in widespread usage, so the word can no longer identify a particular company (what lawyers such as yourself use to inspire idiotic, fraudulent lawsuits in situations where trademark is not in any way infringed or is under threat of anything other than being forgotten).
Forms of advertisement and propaganda that are commonly used in US, rely on subjecting the viewer/listener to extreme emotional pressure, as person's current state (not owning a product, acting in a manner different from one being prescribed) is portrayed as miserable, ridiculous or immoral. As a result the goal is achieved (some of affected people buy products and obey the norms of thoughts and behavior promoted by propaganda, to get rid of negative self-perception) however both those who comply and those who don't, have to deal with constant stream of insults and manipulation directed toward them from all forms of mass media. After decades of this escalating pressure, people become mentally unstable, stupid, and incapable of normal emotional reaction to real-life events.
FFmpeg and VLC look pretty relevant...
There is no, and most likely never will be any "ABI" inside the kernel. This is a design decision that has nothing to do with proprietary drivers and everything with improving interfaces between components -- source compatibility stays the same, and proprietary drivers' vendors can accommodate their blobs with wrappers. It is also unrelated to the fact that all proprietary drivers except Nvidia, are steaming piles of shit that no one wants to use.
Linux ABI is its syscall and library interface -- it's very much backward compatible, and proprietary applications use it just fine. If even Adobe developers figured out how to release Linux binaries, I can't see how anyone can complain about it.
It is buggy as hell.
That's perfectly normal -- it's buggy as hell on other operating systems and hardware platforms, too.
hairyfeet is hard at work, shilling for Microsoft even in threads about the articles praising Microsoft's greatest friends.
That must be some heretical Pastafarian sect. Traditional Pastafarians wear pirate hats, not strainers.
The Iraq war was legalized by security council resolution--granted, they worded the resolution so that most of them could pretend to protest while the US could use it as pretext for invasion, but they went along with it, which effectively makes it legal under international law.
1. And it's still war of aggression. UN is not authorized to pardon criminals.
2. Powell gave UN fake evidence of nonexistent Iraqi weapon development programs. That alone invalidates pretty much everything that came out of it.
War of aggression is a war crime -- apparently ignorant Americans are unaware of this fact, and believe that it's only a war crime if you kill cute puppies.
And, of course, presidents are hardly alone among perpetrators of those -- there is Congress, Department of Defense and plenty of other organizations.
It's not like anyone needs a court to find out who in US is a war criminal.
And when that happens, and the majority of Americans realize their lives are continuing on just as before, with literally no change to their lives, maybe then they'll realize just how useless and pointless the government is.
Any pointers, what should I loot first?
haityfeet hard at work, posting copypasta for karma.
ALL GLORY TO MICROSOFT!
Solution: Burn them with fire.
But then you run the risk of getting charged with arson and/or some sort of murder charge. I'm not sure if it's worth it.
Compared to the cost of litigation it just as well may be.
Except encryption is not a container. Regardless of the safe existence and condition, its contents exist and can be extracted even without a person opening it with a key. Opening the safe does not change the fact that contents will be accessible, it merely provides an easier option of all options available.
Readable data literally does not exist until the moment decryption is performed -- and asking a person to provide it would certainly be a violation of the 5th amendment. Encrypted data is already in evidence, however if prosecution can't use it for any purpose, it's merely a problem for prosecution, and defendant has no obligations related to it.
For what it's worth, the first scene of Great Teacher Onizuka anime contains just that -- as seen in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flaWaPP2nto . Series in question are not in any way pornographic, sex is mentioned often but no one actually has sex or shows up naked "on camera". Showing panties on animated girls is about as close to pornography as it gets there.
hairyfeet posting popular opinions, whoring for karma again, preparing for his BATTLES FOR THE GLORY OF MICROSOFT!