... or maybethe source is included on each device, in a directory that you wouldn't normally access (set-top boxes for hdtv include a hard drive)? Also, Minerva doesn't distribute set-top boxes to end-users - they license their software to box manufacturers. Minerva only have to provide the source to those manufacturers who ask for it, which they might be doing, since Minevra's website says that their stuff easily integrates with OSS.
The end user, on the other hand, has to go to the set-top box manufacturer, since Minerva never distributed software to the end-user, only the set-top box manufacturer did.
> The attorney isn't necessarily stupid - you are if you accept email that isn't protected by PGP.
I gave him my email address (server that I pay for, and therefore have a fiduciary relationship with, unlike gmail's free stuff), and it was only after he emailed me that I saw it was from a free mail service. WTF kind of lawyer charges $250/hour and still can't afford their own mail? An idiot, obviously, since he fubarred everything so badly I had to fire him, file my motions myself, and beat the other sides' lawyers up in court in person (can't say I didn't enjoy that last bit...:-).
While section 106 (5) does give authors the right to limit:
in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly;
Section 109 contains a specific exemption to display that trumps section 106.5, when it comes to displaying:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (5), the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to display that copy publicly, either directly or by the projection of no more than one image at a time, to viewers present at the place where the copy is located.
In other words, if you want to claim your email is a "literary work" subject to copyright, I can post it publicly for everyone to view. If it's got embedded video, I can show one image at a time.
Higher-level stuff is great. Unfortunately, when you see something like someone complaining that "70% of the code wasn't documented", without any further explanation, you've go to wonder just how the did their analysis - was it like the "MIT Dumpster Divers" that SCO claimed to have hired, but who must have been hiding in Blep's suitcase along with the "millions of lines of code".
"Publishing the contents" means making them known to others. You can do that simply by showing it to others. (Check out the definition of "publishing" defamatory statements).
Also, keep in mind that copyright only applies to items *after* they are permanently affixed in a physical medium (Berne Convention). If you want to split hairs, YOUR copy of the email you send is not permanently affixed - immediately after you send it, it is no longer in your "outbox". That file is either deleted and a new one created in your "sent items" folder, or the file is moved more-or-less permanently to your "sent items" folder. In other words, the copy you sent - the original was not "permanently affixed in a physical medium" and did not enjoy protection.
Further, the copy you sent is not the copy the recipient receives - they receive a derivative work, as the email system adds its' own headers. Do they need to ask you for a license to create this derivative work? Nope, just like the recipient doesn't need to ask you for a license to store a copy on their machine or print up a hard copy.
And did you bother to ask for a license to quote any part of the original when you reply to an email? Of course not.
I remember flame wars on usenet where people tried to supress their earlier posts by cancelling them, and then demanding that anyone who had copied them (usually because you KNOW that some net kook is going to try to "change their posting history" and deny they ever wrote what they wrote) delete their posts or be sued for copyright violation. All that did was encourage others to make even more copies.
Nothing ever comes of it because there's no expectation of being able to keep others from copying your usenet posts. "It's how it works" and anyone trying to claim otherwise is being a total nit.
Also, did you affix a notice to any of your emails claiming that you restrict others' copying your emails? It's not like all copyright automatically disallows copying - the GPL and GDL, as well as various other licenses, are good examples of copyright that encourages copying. Unless you express your intentions, don't expect people to be psychics. Send them an email? Then you shouldn't be surprised if recipients make multiple copies, forward it to others, etc., unless you say otherwise, since you haven't gone to the trouble of placing any formal restrictions on it prior to sending it.
You have the right to publish it (in the legal sense of the term, which is NOT the same as making 1000 copies and handing them out). Publishing means making it known to others. BTW, the recipient NEVER receives your original email - the server modifies it by adding their own headers, so what the recipient receives is NOT what you sent. The servers are making "derivative works". Are you going to claim copyright infringement? You won't get far - you have no expectation that the server WON'T do that.
Also, I am allowed to store MY email (including anything I receive) in multiple locations as a backup, and to affix it in a more permanent fashion. Are you going to claim that printing up a hard copy is a violation of your copyright, when there's a reasonable expectation that people WILL print up copies?
You'd also be hard pressed to claim damages if someone were to forward it to others, unless they agreed beforehand not to. Again, it's the whole "reasonable expectations" thing. Same with quoting part of an email when replying - you don't need to get a license from them beforehand to quote them.
Copyright under the Berne Convention applies to works affixed in a permanent state. Did you print up a copy of that email before sending it? The copy that was in your "outbox" wasn't "affixed in a permanent state" - it was removed and a new copy made in your "sent items" folder *after* you sent your ephemerial copy... in other words, copyright didn't apply on the email you sent, since the original was never "affixed in a permanent state" - not even on your hard drive - when it was sent. You can only claim copy on the copy in your "sent items" folder, which was made AFTER the copy you sent, so the copy you sent is not governed by that later copyright.
Really? Ever quoted part of the original message when replying to an email? Did you remember to get a "license" to do that from the original author? Can they now sue you for copyright infringement? Can they sue you if you make a hard copy? I don't think so, Clyde. There's an implied license to make a copy of it on their computer, as well as any backup systems, and to fix it in more permanent form, such as printing a copy.
To receive an email, the user HAS to make a copy of it, as does your mail server. Your "copy" never left your computer. I'm free to publish my copy, in the legal sense of the term (to make it known to others) by printing it up and posting it in a window for the public to see, or by showing it to others on my screen, so trying to keep someone from "publishing" your emails by claiming copyright won't work. If I have a valid copy, I can do what I want with it, including showing it to others, or fixing it in permanent form and pasting it on a bulletin board.
You are automatically granted a license to copy email by the sender, since that is the ONLY way for you to actually read the email. Think of it - when you "send" email, your copy doesn't cease to exist on your computer and magically appear on the recipients' computer. You send a copy of the data, and it gets copied to various servers, into backups, etc., it's also scanned by 3rd parties, and the recipient finally receives a copy. Claiming that their making a copy would be infringement is meaningless. Just the act of sending email means that you grant the recipient, and everyone along the way, the right to make copies. It's the only way to "store-and-forward" email.
On the question of physical letters the recipient owns them. If you later become famous and they then decide to acution them off, that's their right - since THEY own the letters now, not you.
Posting it via the net (email) IS publication. There is NO assumption whatsoever of privacy, unlike sealed mail through the post office. It has the same effect as a post card. If you believe your email isn't scanned, backed up on various servers, etc., you're naive. At any one time ther are multiple copies of your email sitting on your machine, the recipient's machine, undeleted mail queues, etc.
Email is not private. Get over it. If you want privacy, use pgp, or gpg. Don't depend on copyright law to "prevent copying", since for email to work, copies MUST be made - your original didn't disappear from your computer when you "sent" it - only a copy of the data was sent, and you gave authorization for that copying to be made in the act of sending.
and also a 1x1 transparent.GIF... no need for spammy images
... and many of us (myself included) would never request your spammy gif. Plain-text email should be the default, with a "this email contains html. click here only if you trust the sender" like kmail does it.
Because wanting to use italics, underline, bold, fonts, etc., allows more expressivity?
Many email clients understand the old tricks for indicating bold or italics - *bold* and/italics/.
Anything much more than that, and you end up with email that looks like a ransom letter on crack - 15 different fonts, blinking text, all sorts of images, etc.
People at my work still send me stuff with receipt requested. The first time anybody does it they wonder why I never read my email. My answer is always the same. Email is fundamentally unreliable and my client doesn't send receipts.
Do what I did... "I didn't need to read your email a second time - I got the original off you machine earlier today as you typed it. I *told* you you're running an unsecure OS!"
If you sends bits to MY computer, using MY libraries, and running MY kernel, those bits are mine to do with as I wish,
The copyright still remains with the sender, so, no, they are not yours. Furthermore, you cannot legally do with them as you wish.
Nope. Mail addressed to you becomes YOUR property. It is a gift from the sender to you. You may do anything with YOUR copy that you wish. Why do you think they need a warrant to search YOUR computer/mailbox, and not a warrant for each sender as well?
Every once in a while, someone tries to prevent their lies from becoming exposed by invoking *their* copyright on their email/snail mail, forgetting that they freely GAVE the mail to the recipient. No license required.
Rich text can actually be useful, you know. The fact that pretty much the entire web opts to use rich text rather than plain text should tip you off to that.
My email is not a web page, and I don't *want* it to be one. Nor do I want to read someone else's "web-page-style" email, run their dorky embedded javascript, or download their 1x1 12ab95rtyd62534.gif tracking images. CSS Style sheets for email? Wallpaper? Muzak? Sick.
Even if it was documented, are you going to trust the documentation? If you want to make sure it's doing what you think it's doing, read the damn code, that's what it's there for.
Too many times there's a divergence between the docs (and even the embedded comments) and the code, because of a "the code is important - the documentation can wait" mindset. People will claim to understand that good documentation, kept in sync, will save money, but their actions betray them - "this is an exception - we can do it later!"
Or "we'll catch it in the debugging phase" - even though not writing the bug in the first place, or catching it at an early stage, can easily be 100 times cheaper (no, that's not a typo - 100 times cheaper. Heck, it can make the difference between success and a death march to failure).
Of that 50% of open source code, 70% was undocumented.
They talked about looking at 300m LOC. I'd hope 70% was "undocumented". 70% of most code is just common-everyday stuff that doesn't NEED to be documented in the sense that comments are completely wasteful. It's the "glue code" that needs to be documented, and the non-intuitive stuff, and stuff that is done for a reason that, on first glance, looks like the writer had a brain fart, but, in this special case, makes sense, or "corner case" situations.
Oops - my bad - it's not a typo. The link is to a site called drudge.com, not drudgereport.com - looks like someone is typosquatting drudgereport with both drudge.com and drudgeretort.com.
Domain name: drudgeretort.com
Registrant Contact:
World Readable
R.L. Cadenhead
PMB 120, 1093 A1A Beach Blvd.
St. Augustine, FL 32080-6733
US
Domain name: drudge.com
Registrant Contact:
World Readable
R.L. Cadenhead
PMB 120, 1093 A1A Beach Blvd.
St. Augustine, FL 32080-6733
US
Actually, the typo is in the original article too. Maybe they're inserting typos on purpose so they can do a search for verbatim reposts of the article and claim "IP infringement!" just like map companies would put fake towns on the map so as to spot copy-cats.
Riiiight... you've just lifted the wheels, and someone throws the kill switch. You "glide" back into the ground, with a full load of fuel, no power, no wheels, no control.
If you also write design documents, you're a writer.
If you write code, you're a writer. After all, code can be copyrighted, just like anything else someone authors.
Think of it - a project SHOULD start out with certain documents - specs, overview, guidelines, detailed instructions on the data, the acceptable methods of interfacing with the data, etc. That's a lot more than just slapping some code together with a few comments and throwing it over the wall for the unwashed hordes to bang their heads on. That takes a writer, not just a code monkey.
Slashdot Mirror
Depreciation: assets with finite lives lose value over time.
Deprecated: features that are superseded and should be avoided.
Q: What does an 80-year-old have between her tits that an 18-yer-old doesn't?
A: Her bellybutton.
Sounds to me like tits are assets with finite lives that lose their value over time ...
The end user, on the other hand, has to go to the set-top box manufacturer, since Minerva never distributed software to the end-user, only the set-top box manufacturer did.
Civil servants work?
> The attorney isn't necessarily stupid - you are if you accept email that isn't protected by PGP.
I gave him my email address (server that I pay for, and therefore have a fiduciary relationship with, unlike gmail's free stuff), and it was only after he emailed me that I saw it was from a free mail service. WTF kind of lawyer charges $250/hour and still can't afford their own mail? An idiot, obviously, since he fubarred everything so badly I had to fire him, file my motions myself, and beat the other sides' lawyers up in court in person (can't say I didn't enjoy that last bit ... :-).
While section 106 (5) does give authors the right to limit:
Section 109 contains a specific exemption to display that trumps section 106.5, when it comes to displaying:
In other words, if you want to claim your email is a "literary work" subject to copyright, I can post it publicly for everyone to view. If it's got embedded video, I can show one image at a time.
I've seen worse - stupid lawyer using gmail for legal correspondence. I don't like the idea of my private information sitting on google's servers.
Higher-level stuff is great. Unfortunately, when you see something like someone complaining that "70% of the code wasn't documented", without any further explanation, you've go to wonder just how the did their analysis - was it like the "MIT Dumpster Divers" that SCO claimed to have hired, but who must have been hiding in Blep's suitcase along with the "millions of lines of code".
"Publishing the contents" means making them known to others. You can do that simply by showing it to others. (Check out the definition of "publishing" defamatory statements).
Also, keep in mind that copyright only applies to items *after* they are permanently affixed in a physical medium (Berne Convention). If you want to split hairs, YOUR copy of the email you send is not permanently affixed - immediately after you send it, it is no longer in your "outbox". That file is either deleted and a new one created in your "sent items" folder, or the file is moved more-or-less permanently to your "sent items" folder. In other words, the copy you sent - the original was not "permanently affixed in a physical medium" and did not enjoy protection.
Further, the copy you sent is not the copy the recipient receives - they receive a derivative work, as the email system adds its' own headers. Do they need to ask you for a license to create this derivative work? Nope, just like the recipient doesn't need to ask you for a license to store a copy on their machine or print up a hard copy.
And did you bother to ask for a license to quote any part of the original when you reply to an email? Of course not.
I remember flame wars on usenet where people tried to supress their earlier posts by cancelling them, and then demanding that anyone who had copied them (usually because you KNOW that some net kook is going to try to "change their posting history" and deny they ever wrote what they wrote) delete their posts or be sued for copyright violation. All that did was encourage others to make even more copies.
Nothing ever comes of it because there's no expectation of being able to keep others from copying your usenet posts. "It's how it works" and anyone trying to claim otherwise is being a total nit.
Also, did you affix a notice to any of your emails claiming that you restrict others' copying your emails? It's not like all copyright automatically disallows copying - the GPL and GDL, as well as various other licenses, are good examples of copyright that encourages copying. Unless you express your intentions, don't expect people to be psychics. Send them an email? Then you shouldn't be surprised if recipients make multiple copies, forward it to others, etc., unless you say otherwise, since you haven't gone to the trouble of placing any formal restrictions on it prior to sending it.
You have the right to publish it (in the legal sense of the term, which is NOT the same as making 1000 copies and handing them out). Publishing means making it known to others. BTW, the recipient NEVER receives your original email - the server modifies it by adding their own headers, so what the recipient receives is NOT what you sent. The servers are making "derivative works". Are you going to claim copyright infringement? You won't get far - you have no expectation that the server WON'T do that.
Also, I am allowed to store MY email (including anything I receive) in multiple locations as a backup, and to affix it in a more permanent fashion. Are you going to claim that printing up a hard copy is a violation of your copyright, when there's a reasonable expectation that people WILL print up copies?
You'd also be hard pressed to claim damages if someone were to forward it to others, unless they agreed beforehand not to. Again, it's the whole "reasonable expectations" thing. Same with quoting part of an email when replying - you don't need to get a license from them beforehand to quote them.
Copyright under the Berne Convention applies to works affixed in a permanent state. Did you print up a copy of that email before sending it? The copy that was in your "outbox" wasn't "affixed in a permanent state" - it was removed and a new copy made in your "sent items" folder *after* you sent your ephemerial copy ... in other words, copyright didn't apply on the email you sent, since the original was never "affixed in a permanent state" - not even on your hard drive - when it was sent. You can only claim copy on the copy in your "sent items" folder, which was made AFTER the copy you sent, so the copy you sent is not governed by that later copyright.
Really? Ever quoted part of the original message when replying to an email? Did you remember to get a "license" to do that from the original author? Can they now sue you for copyright infringement? Can they sue you if you make a hard copy? I don't think so, Clyde. There's an implied license to make a copy of it on their computer, as well as any backup systems, and to fix it in more permanent form, such as printing a copy.
To receive an email, the user HAS to make a copy of it, as does your mail server. Your "copy" never left your computer. I'm free to publish my copy, in the legal sense of the term (to make it known to others) by printing it up and posting it in a window for the public to see, or by showing it to others on my screen, so trying to keep someone from "publishing" your emails by claiming copyright won't work. If I have a valid copy, I can do what I want with it, including showing it to others, or fixing it in permanent form and pasting it on a bulletin board.
You are automatically granted a license to copy email by the sender, since that is the ONLY way for you to actually read the email. Think of it - when you "send" email, your copy doesn't cease to exist on your computer and magically appear on the recipients' computer. You send a copy of the data, and it gets copied to various servers, into backups, etc., it's also scanned by 3rd parties, and the recipient finally receives a copy. Claiming that their making a copy would be infringement is meaningless. Just the act of sending email means that you grant the recipient, and everyone along the way, the right to make copies. It's the only way to "store-and-forward" email.
On the question of physical letters the recipient owns them. If you later become famous and they then decide to acution them off, that's their right - since THEY own the letters now, not you.
Posting it via the net (email) IS publication. There is NO assumption whatsoever of privacy, unlike sealed mail through the post office. It has the same effect as a post card. If you believe your email isn't scanned, backed up on various servers, etc., you're naive. At any one time ther are multiple copies of your email sitting on your machine, the recipient's machine, undeleted mail queues, etc.
Email is not private. Get over it. If you want privacy, use pgp, or gpg. Don't depend on copyright law to "prevent copying", since for email to work, copies MUST be made - your original didn't disappear from your computer when you "sent" it - only a copy of the data was sent, and you gave authorization for that copying to be made in the act of sending.
Many email clients understand the old tricks for indicating bold or italics - *bold* and /italics/.
Anything much more than that, and you end up with email that looks like a ransom letter on crack - 15 different fonts, blinking text, all sorts of images, etc.
Do what I did ... "I didn't need to read your email a second time - I got the original off you machine earlier today as you typed it. I *told* you you're running an unsecure OS!"
You'd be surprised how many people fall for it.
Nope. Mail addressed to you becomes YOUR property. It is a gift from the sender to you. You may do anything with YOUR copy that you wish. Why do you think they need a warrant to search YOUR computer/mailbox, and not a warrant for each sender as well?
Every once in a while, someone tries to prevent their lies from becoming exposed by invoking *their* copyright on their email/snail mail, forgetting that they freely GAVE the mail to the recipient. No license required.
My email is not a web page, and I don't *want* it to be one. Nor do I want to read someone else's "web-page-style" email, run their dorky embedded javascript, or download their 1x1 12ab95rtyd62534.gif tracking images. CSS Style sheets for email? Wallpaper? Muzak? Sick.
Too many times there's a divergence between the docs (and even the embedded comments) and the code, because of a "the code is important - the documentation can wait" mindset. People will claim to understand that good documentation, kept in sync, will save money, but their actions betray them - "this is an exception - we can do it later!"
Or "we'll catch it in the debugging phase" - even though not writing the bug in the first place, or catching it at an early stage, can easily be 100 times cheaper (no, that's not a typo - 100 times cheaper. Heck, it can make the difference between success and a death march to failure).
They talked about looking at 300m LOC. I'd hope 70% was "undocumented". 70% of most code is just common-everyday stuff that doesn't NEED to be documented in the sense that comments are completely wasteful. It's the "glue code" that needs to be documented, and the non-intuitive stuff, and stuff that is done for a reason that, on first glance, looks like the writer had a brain fart, but, in this special case, makes sense, or "corner case" situations.
Do *NOT* "insert comments like "for (i=0; i
Oops - my bad - it's not a typo. The link is to a site called drudge.com, not drudgereport.com - looks like someone is typosquatting drudgereport with both drudge.com and drudgeretort.com.
Domain name: drudgeretort.com
Registrant Contact:
World Readable
R.L. Cadenhead
PMB 120, 1093 A1A Beach Blvd.
St. Augustine, FL 32080-6733
US
Domain name: drudge.com
Registrant Contact:
World Readable
R.L. Cadenhead
PMB 120, 1093 A1A Beach Blvd.
St. Augustine, FL 32080-6733
US
Here's the "Real McCoy"
Registrant:
Drudge, Matt
ATTN: DRUDGEREPORT.COM
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA. 20172-0447
Domain Name: DRUDGEREPORT.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Drudge, Matt ez53n5895yz@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
Matt Drudge
ATTN: DRUDGEREPORT.COM
Actually, the typo is in the original article too. Maybe they're inserting typos on purpose so they can do a search for verbatim reposts of the article and claim "IP infringement!" just like map companies would put fake towns on the map so as to spot copy-cats.
Riiiight ... you've just lifted the wheels, and someone throws the kill switch. You "glide" back into the ground, with a full load of fuel, no power, no wheels, no control.
Here's just one link to the crap that the bible exhorts.
There is no god, and if there were, it wouldn't be THAT stupid.
Well, if you write code, you're a writer.
If you also write design documents, you're a writer.
If you write code, you're a writer. After all, code can be copyrighted, just like anything else someone authors.
Think of it - a project SHOULD start out with certain documents - specs, overview, guidelines, detailed instructions on the data, the acceptable methods of interfacing with the data, etc. That's a lot more than just slapping some code together with a few comments and throwing it over the wall for the unwashed hordes to bang their heads on. That takes a writer, not just a code monkey.
Depends on who the actual authors are. Wouldn't it be funny if they (MediaDefender) pirated code?