My interpretation (IANAL) is that an organization can be considered a party, thus distributing within that party/organization isn't a violation since that party still has access to the source code -- but it's still distribution, and thus within the domain of the GPL
This I would disagree with. From the GPL FAQ:
Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone
If your supposition is correct, passing out modified GPL'ed programs within the company would be distribution and would in effect give "absolutely everyone" in the world license, something I don't think was intended.
The reason I believe this is that it sets up dual standard for companies and private individuals. If I'm a private individual, I can modify GPL software and keep it to myself without distribution. However, a company can not since the mere fact of giving it to ANY employee, under your definition, would constitute distribution. Since a company can't use or modify software without giving it to an employee first, we have a quandry. It also runs counter to another part of the FAQ:
[The GPL] does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program. [...] What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you
if he wishes to [emphasis theirs]
With your defintion, a company doesn't have this choice. The only way it "works" is if distribution within a company for company purposes does not constitute "distribution" under the terms of the GPL.
I'm afraid that the AC is right. Your interpretation is incorrect. If you look in your rather childish post, you'll see in the GPL that the terms on distribution says "you distribute" or "you redistribute". It does NOT say "you or anyone else distributes". A license can not bind you based on someone else's actions.
If the hypothetical company does not distribute their changes, then they are not bound to the distribution clauses of the GPL. Its that simple. If someone illegally (and yes, it would be illegal since the GPL does not nullify copyright) distributes the hypothethical company's code without permission or authority, the GPL does not force the company to release it retroactively. Since the company never released it themselves, they are under no obligation to adhere to the GPL's distribution clauses.
The same applies to the "internal" user. A company can not "distribute" software to itself. Distribution, under the terminology of the GPL, means distribution to the public, external to itself. An internal employee, when acting on behalf of the company, is PART of the company. Since the company didn't distribute the software under the terms of the GPL, its under no obligation to give the source code to anyone, including its own employees.
The copyright bargain that we have is no longer a good deal for the public, and it is time to revise it
I'm still humored that you can make grandiose personal attacks and come off so high and mighty, but you can't be bothered to read what you post.
I submit to you that "revise" does not mean the same as "repeal". Someone who claims to be so smart (yet is too insecure to post non-AC) should know the difference between those words.
You have exaggerated his stance quite a bit, when his own words can't even back you up. I agree that current copyright law needs a serious overhaul. However, that's a far cry from your presumption that he'd be pleased as punch if it just went away altogether. His own actions and words just don't agree with you.
It was a nice try though. You are so CUTE when you are arrogant!
I think you are right on the money. Blizzard is known for their ability to "throttle" the complexity of their games to suit the player.
For those people who just want to play, WarCraft, StarCraft, and Diablo are great for that. The controls are simple and the "rules" are obvious. You can have a lot of fun without knowing all the nits and details about every unit, every item, every doodad. Just sit down and kick @$$.
But for those people who want to master those nits and details, the games can become impossibly complex. Charts, formulas, special combinations, randomizers, special modifiers, etc... the list goes on and on in ever-increasing complexity. Spend some time thumbing through www.diabloii.net to see just how complex that game can really get.
I think this is why Blizzard does so well. They offer infinitely-variable levels of complexity to fit the needs of the player -- all in the same game.
That is one of the primary reasons why you can have such lively debate in England and Germany, and diverse views can be represented so openly, while America remains a shining example of the sounds of silence (a few posterchildren and tokens aside).
I think you should think twice before holding GERMANY up as the shining example of free speech. I'm laughing just writing this.
Germany is quite famous for suppressing speech that it finds objectionable. Go ahead, stand on a Berlin street corner and pass out fliers advocating a Neo-Nazi movement or publicly celebrate the wonders that was Hitler. See what happens to you. Heh. They police the content of the Web very heavily too. Put something on a web page in Germany that counters the government and you are in a world of hurts. Germany has a lot of anti-free speech laws that are very tightly enforced. Quite a few people are currently in German prisons because of it too.
The UK, of course, is much better. However, they are still nothing compared to the free speech freedoms you enjoy in the US. A quickie example: Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men" had part of its preface removed because it would have been illegal to publish that speech in the UK. Needless to say, he wasn't too pleased about that.
Before you compare the vast freedoms you enjoy in the US to those of Europe, you should really learn what you are talking about.
God you people are selective in your memory and your choice of laws to enforce and ignore.
Pot, kettle, black. I cited numerous examples of instances of people being fired for expression in America through the decades. You just said it was unthinkable at your particular place of work during the late 1970's/early 80's. Which one is more credible?
At a professional level the supreme court has ruled, numerous times, that "freedom of association" is quite limited. (yadda yadda for three paragraphs)
Yes, thank you for making a point I already made. Did you even read what I posted?
When Bush (or Clinton in years past) can turn to a company and say "Hey, one of your employees is spouting off" and thereby get that employee fired, that employee's freedom of speech is meaningless, indeed a mockery.
Can you cite any specific examples of this? I haven't heard of any. If such a thing did happen, the ACLU would be all over it in a heartbeat. However, I haven't heard one bit about this kind of thing happening at all. Do you have a specific example or this is just paranoia?
In either case, we are still talking about a choice.
At the end of the day, this hypothetical company made a choice -- a legal choice by today's laws (and held up multiple times by the courts). Choices are a lot different than laws. The company can not be legally compelled to fire anyone on the basis of speech. THAT'S also a part of freedom of association. So if someone is fired from a private company, it was done because that company chose to -- not because the government compelled them to. The company can more than legally tell the government to jump in a lake.
What you are suggesting is the removal of choice and a reduction of freedoms. You are suggesting that a company can't fire an employee who badmouths a client in public, costing them the contract and millions of dollars (which might send the company bankrupt and put a LOT of people on the dole queue).
You probably think that this is some brave, new unproven legal ground you are advocating. Its not. Many, MANY cases have come before courts fighting this very issue from as far back as I can remember. Except in the cases of illegal discrimination, whistleblowing, and union busting -- the court, yes the same courts that you claim to cite with your beliefs, actually ruled in favor of the employer -- on first amendment grounds.
You really can't both advocate the first amendment and admonish it when it becomes inconvienent for you.
The bottom line is, in the United States you do not have the right to a job, no matter what you might think.
First of all, I just want to say that you are right on the money in your post. However, I want to take what you said and expand on it a bit more.
Much of this thread has involved what is and what is not constitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpretted the First Amendment to give us another freedom that is just as important as Freedom of Speech: Freedom of Association, sometimes called the Right of Free Association.
Free Association gives people the right to associate with whomever they want for just about any reason they want. Its also been ruled that the inverse is true, a person or organization has the right to DISSOCIATE with anyone they want for whatever reason they want, without fear of government reprisal. This includes firing someone for saying something that the employer doesn't like.
The First Amendment actually would make it unconstitutional to create the society that FreeUser is advocating.
Of course, just like Free Speech has limitations (libel, clear and present danger, etc), Free Association has limitations as well, such as Illegal Discrimination in the workplace and "whistleblower" laws. However, by and large, the Right of Free Association runs counter to everything that FreeUser is advocating.
To respond to the grandparent (FreeUser) as well, I also don't remember the "almost taboo" nature of firing people for disagreeable speech a few decades back. In fact, I strongly remember the opposite. In the 1950's people got blacklisted for belonging to leftist organizations or anything that might resemble being a communist sympathizer. In the 1960's, having long hair alone was enough to not get a job. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, speaking out for or against the Vietnam War cost many people their jobs. And so on and so on. People getting fired for counter-culture speech has been part and parcel of American life for a very, VERY long time.
Are there any laws that would prevent them from linking the information they collect to identifiable info? Do they have a privacy policy somewhere for their customers? I suppose it's all about trust.
Please tell me you are joking. Please? PLEASE?
I think maybe you are based on your tin-foil hat comment, but JUST IN CASE...
Just, um, what would Disney or ANYONE else do with personally-indentified information that on the 12th of July at 12:43pm, I took the Disneyland RR from Adventureland to Tomorrowland and got into the Space Mountain queue?
In 1984, there were a number of IBM-compatible manufacturers out there, but all of them put together did not have any form of market dominance. The IBM-compatible was just too expensive for most people and businesses.
At the time, Commodore ruled the roost. The Commodore VIC-20 a couple years earlier was the best selling computer of all time, only to be surpassed by the Commodore 64 which debuted in 1982. It was hardly on its deathbed when it was the world's best selling computer!
The Apple ][ was a close second. Yes, the Macintosh was introduced that year, but it did not have immediate market dominance (in fact, to this day, it never did). The Apple ][ was still being sold and millions of units were in use around the world. It too was hardly on its deathbed.
The IBM-compatible did not really gain ground until the Tandy 1000 was produced and priced at a level that the masses could afford. However, the Tandy 1000 did not come out until late 1984 and, like all new products, took time for it to be sold in enough quantities to have an effect on the marketplace -- certainly longer than would be needed to meet the timeframe of Microsoft's supposed influence to the US government to threaten invokation of a Super 301 trade limit.
The article made no mention that Microsoft did anything whatsoever to block TRON using trade rules or anything else for that matter. There are only three mentions of Microsoft in the article.
having developed an operating system that is more widely used than even Microsoft Corp's Windows
What sets the two systems apart -- and the fortunes of Sakamura and Gates -- is that while Windows must be bought from Microsoft, TRON is distributed free of charge
When it was first revealed in 1984, TRON, which can be modified for use on personal computers, was hailed in Japan as a homemade software which could break the dominance of Microsoft and free Japanese computer firms from the burden of paying for the basic software
I'm not sure of how much dominance Microsoft had in 1984!! These were the days of the Commodore 64 and Apple ][. The IBM compatible wasn't a market leader at the time -- let alone Microsoft. Microsoft didn't have the money nor the clout to block anything.
We are talking about pictures, which are a copyrightable item on their own. Because they are the whole work in themselves, not a part, that could significantly change things.
How? Copyright law considers "parts" on the copyrighted work, not the infringing work. So if I illegally produce a copyrighted picture as a poster or if its produced on page 130 of 400 of a book, it doesn't make any difference.
Remember, they're not forced to carry any of the products that they stock. It's their choice.
This is true.. but so what? See my previous post on where the liability should lie.. and why.
If Amazon.com has its way. Walmart could also be considered a "service provider", since they stock many, many products that are supplied by outside vendors but aren't their own. It's up to the retailer to determine what is legal to carry.
Really! So if Wal-Mart sells a book that has cover art that was infringing someone's copyrights, then you think that Wal-Mart is liable?
The implications of what you are proposing is astounding! Wal-Mart or Amazon or any service provider can't possibly know to any degree of certainty that any if its 3rd party merchandise is 100% legit. To probe every legal facet of every single piece of merchandise would be impossible to implement and the chilling effect on the economy could be devestating. No one would want to stock third party merchandise out of fear of being opened up to serious liability risk.
There has to be some level of trust between the suppliers and the retailers... or in this case, the venue and its vendors. The only way that Amazon or the hypothetical Wal-Mart should be liable is if they had reason to believe the vendor was dealing in illegal goods or showed extreme negligence. I don't believe Amazon could have possibly have known the images were not legit without prohibitively expensive probing and therefore should not be held liable... IMHO.
So because "copyright violation" is subtly different from "stealing," its OK?
I don't recall anyone saying that just because copyright violations are not the same stealing, that it is "OK".
I believe the poster was just saying "call a spade a spade, rather than the RIAA's bastardization of the definition of a spade".
Manslaughter, by the letter of the law, IS a form a murder (often its called murder in the 3rd degree). Both are felony crimes.
However, by the letter of the law, copyright violation is not a form of theft. Theft is a crime. Copyright violation is a civil tort. That's not a subtle difference.
Please note, however, that I didn't say that copyright violations are "OK".
Unfortunately, you can't take flammable liquids like lighter fluid aboard aircraft, so it isn't going to help much on those long flights unless they change the regs. I don't see that hapening in the current security climate.
Well.. you aren't supposed to be using your mobile phone aboard aircraft either!
Its not really fair to blame the MPAA and the movie studios for the poor quality of the cinema you went to. Do you also blame HBO when the color balance on your television is messed up?
Honestly, do you think Warner Brothers had any power to do anything about the short in the theatre's speaker, the quality of the physical screen, or the number or type of anemities offered to the guests?
I didn't realize there was such a high demand for theatres that you can design several every day.
The cinematic experience is not a shared social event. [...] It is all about you going to watch the screen.
Bull. Utter bull.
Consider this: - When Star Wars was re-released in 1997, people around the world flocked to the cinemas to watch it again, even though everyone had seen it many times before and most probably owned the videotape. Did people go to watch it for the piddling of new footage? Maybe a little. Did people go to watch it because the screen was really big? Maybe a little. Did people go to watch it because of the shared experience of watching it with a lot of other people in a cinema? Hell yes.
- Mystery Science Theatre 3000 - The Movie. Watching it at home is nothing -- NOTHING -- in comparison to experiencing it with a hundred others who are laughing with you. Watching it at home simply paled in comparison. I'm sure most comedies are the same way. This is why a lot of TV sitcoms have a laugh-track (and historically a live audience). It simulates a shared audience where there is none. The experience somehow feels hollow without it.
- People tend to feel uncomfortable watching a film in a cinema when few people are there. I know that's certainly true in my case. If it was just about me and the screen, people wouldn't care in the slightest how many people were there with me.
- If it was just about me and the screen, why have cinemas at all? Why wouldn't the cinemas have faded with the advent of the VHS player and DVDs? People certainly predicted it -- and yet the growth of the box office continues, with attendance and box office gross records being broken every summer it seems.
Advertisers say the car I bought can do 180 MPH. Just because I can not legally go above 70 MPH on the freeway doens't mean that the advertising was false or that the car is only capable of 40% of its advertised throughput.
Similiarly, I'm sure the devices produced by "Bug Company" can do 45Mbps -- just because that speed is over the standard limit, doesn't make the advertising any less true.
Modems are another fine example of this. Most modems routinely connect as speeds less than their advertised speed -- sometimes considerably less. I've never heard of companies refunding people for their modems because of this though.
Slashdot Mirror
This I would disagree with. From the GPL FAQ:
If your supposition is correct, passing out modified GPL'ed programs within the company would be distribution and would in effect give "absolutely everyone" in the world license, something I don't think was intended.
The reason I believe this is that it sets up dual standard for companies and private individuals. If I'm a private individual, I can modify GPL software and keep it to myself without distribution. However, a company can not since the mere fact of giving it to ANY employee, under your definition, would constitute distribution. Since a company can't use or modify software without giving it to an employee first, we have a quandry. It also runs counter to another part of the FAQ:
With your defintion, a company doesn't have this choice. The only way it "works" is if distribution within a company for company purposes does not constitute "distribution" under the terms of the GPL.
Interesting point! ...and one I completely agree with, humourous aspects and all :)
I'm afraid that the AC is right. Your interpretation is incorrect. If you look in your rather childish post, you'll see in the GPL that the terms on distribution says "you distribute" or "you redistribute". It does NOT say "you or anyone else distributes". A license can not bind you based on someone else's actions.
If the hypothetical company does not distribute their changes, then they are not bound to the distribution clauses of the GPL. Its that simple. If someone illegally (and yes, it would be illegal since the GPL does not nullify copyright) distributes the hypothethical company's code without permission or authority, the GPL does not force the company to release it retroactively. Since the company never released it themselves, they are under no obligation to adhere to the GPL's distribution clauses.
The same applies to the "internal" user. A company can not "distribute" software to itself. Distribution, under the terminology of the GPL, means distribution to the public, external to itself. An internal employee, when acting on behalf of the company, is PART of the company. Since the company didn't distribute the software under the terms of the GPL, its under no obligation to give the source code to anyone, including its own employees.
yeah! Its supposed to be GNU/Linus!
The copyright bargain that we have is no longer a good deal for the public, and it is time to revise it
I'm still humored that you can make grandiose personal attacks and come off so high and mighty, but you can't be bothered to read what you post.
I submit to you that "revise" does not mean the same as "repeal". Someone who claims to be so smart (yet is too insecure to post non-AC) should know the difference between those words.
You have exaggerated his stance quite a bit, when his own words can't even back you up. I agree that current copyright law needs a serious overhaul. However, that's a far cry from your presumption that he'd be pleased as punch if it just went away altogether. His own actions and words just don't agree with you.
It was a nice try though. You are so CUTE when you are arrogant!
Now... I've done my homework... lemme see yours. So far, all I've heard is some ignornant swearing and blustering from an AC.
For someone who supposedly hates copyrights, he certainly goes out of the way to point out his own. The first lines of the GPL are:
It's worth what you spend. The $5 ring is worth $5. And the $1000 ring is worth $1000.
No. Its worth what you can sell it for. If no one (else) will pay more than $5 for a ring you paid $1000 for, then the ring is worth $5.
I think you are right on the money. Blizzard is known for their ability to "throttle" the complexity of their games to suit the player.
For those people who just want to play, WarCraft, StarCraft, and Diablo are great for that. The controls are simple and the "rules" are obvious. You can have a lot of fun without knowing all the nits and details about every unit, every item, every doodad. Just sit down and kick @$$.
But for those people who want to master those nits and details, the games can become impossibly complex. Charts, formulas, special combinations, randomizers, special modifiers, etc... the list goes on and on in ever-increasing complexity. Spend some time thumbing through www.diabloii.net to see just how complex that game can really get.
I think this is why Blizzard does so well. They offer infinitely-variable levels of complexity to fit the needs of the player -- all in the same game.
Oh yeah.. something I forgot to write before:
That is one of the primary reasons why you can have such lively debate in England and Germany, and diverse views can be represented so openly, while America remains a shining example of the sounds of silence (a few posterchildren and tokens aside).
I think you should think twice before holding GERMANY up as the shining example of free speech. I'm laughing just writing this.
Germany is quite famous for suppressing speech that it finds objectionable. Go ahead, stand on a Berlin street corner and pass out fliers advocating a Neo-Nazi movement or publicly celebrate the wonders that was Hitler. See what happens to you. Heh. They police the content of the Web very heavily too. Put something on a web page in Germany that counters the government and you are in a world of hurts. Germany has a lot of anti-free speech laws that are very tightly enforced. Quite a few people are currently in German prisons because of it too.
The UK, of course, is much better. However, they are still nothing compared to the free speech freedoms you enjoy in the US. A quickie example: Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men" had part of its preface removed because it would have been illegal to publish that speech in the UK. Needless to say, he wasn't too pleased about that.
Before you compare the vast freedoms you enjoy in the US to those of Europe, you should really learn what you are talking about.
God you people are selective in your memory and your choice of laws to enforce and ignore.
Pot, kettle, black. I cited numerous examples of instances of people being fired for expression in America through the decades. You just said it was unthinkable at your particular place of work during the late 1970's/early 80's. Which one is more credible?
At a professional level the supreme court has ruled, numerous times, that "freedom of association" is quite limited. (yadda yadda for three paragraphs)
Yes, thank you for making a point I already made. Did you even read what I posted?
When Bush (or Clinton in years past) can turn to a company and say "Hey, one of your employees is spouting off" and thereby get that employee fired, that employee's freedom of speech is meaningless, indeed a mockery.
Can you cite any specific examples of this? I haven't heard of any. If such a thing did happen, the ACLU would be all over it in a heartbeat. However, I haven't heard one bit about this kind of thing happening at all. Do you have a specific example or this is just paranoia?
In either case, we are still talking about a choice.
At the end of the day, this hypothetical company made a choice -- a legal choice by today's laws (and held up multiple times by the courts). Choices are a lot different than laws. The company can not be legally compelled to fire anyone on the basis of speech. THAT'S also a part of freedom of association. So if someone is fired from a private company, it was done because that company chose to -- not because the government compelled them to. The company can more than legally tell the government to jump in a lake.
What you are suggesting is the removal of choice and a reduction of freedoms. You are suggesting that a company can't fire an employee who badmouths a client in public, costing them the contract and millions of dollars (which might send the company bankrupt and put a LOT of people on the dole queue).
You probably think that this is some brave, new unproven legal ground you are advocating. Its not. Many, MANY cases have come before courts fighting this very issue from as far back as I can remember. Except in the cases of illegal discrimination, whistleblowing, and union busting -- the court, yes the same courts that you claim to cite with your beliefs, actually ruled in favor of the employer -- on first amendment grounds.
You really can't both advocate the first amendment and admonish it when it becomes inconvienent for you.
The bottom line is, in the United States you do not have the right to a job, no matter what you might think.
Mike --
First of all, I just want to say that you are right on the money in your post. However, I want to take what you said and expand on it a bit more.
Much of this thread has involved what is and what is not constitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpretted the First Amendment to give us another freedom that is just as important as Freedom of Speech: Freedom of Association, sometimes called the Right of Free Association.
Free Association gives people the right to associate with whomever they want for just about any reason they want. Its also been ruled that the inverse is true, a person or organization has the right to DISSOCIATE with anyone they want for whatever reason they want, without fear of government reprisal. This includes firing someone for saying something that the employer doesn't like.
The First Amendment actually would make it unconstitutional to create the society that FreeUser is advocating.
Of course, just like Free Speech has limitations (libel, clear and present danger, etc), Free Association has limitations as well, such as Illegal Discrimination in the workplace and "whistleblower" laws. However, by and large, the Right of Free Association runs counter to everything that FreeUser is advocating.
To respond to the grandparent (FreeUser) as well, I also don't remember the "almost taboo" nature of firing people for disagreeable speech a few decades back. In fact, I strongly remember the opposite. In the 1950's people got blacklisted for belonging to leftist organizations or anything that might resemble being a communist sympathizer. In the 1960's, having long hair alone was enough to not get a job. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, speaking out for or against the Vietnam War cost many people their jobs. And so on and so on. People getting fired for counter-culture speech has been part and parcel of American life for a very, VERY long time.
Noone can live anywhere without someone producing. This is not "force" in the political-ethical sense, it is a law of nature.
Futhermore, no one can live without consuming. period.
Are there any laws that would prevent them from linking the information they collect to identifiable info? Do they have a privacy policy somewhere for their customers? I suppose it's all about trust.
Please tell me you are joking. Please? PLEASE?
I think maybe you are based on your tin-foil hat comment, but JUST IN CASE...
Just, um, what would Disney or ANYONE else do with personally-indentified information that on the 12th of July at 12:43pm, I took the Disneyland RR from Adventureland to Tomorrowland and got into the Space Mountain queue?
this was the heyday of "IBM compatible"
In 1984, there were a number of IBM-compatible manufacturers out there, but all of them put together did not have any form of market dominance. The IBM-compatible was just too expensive for most people and businesses.
At the time, Commodore ruled the roost. The Commodore VIC-20 a couple years earlier was the best selling computer of all time, only to be surpassed by the Commodore 64 which debuted in 1982. It was hardly on its deathbed when it was the world's best selling computer!
The Apple ][ was a close second. Yes, the Macintosh was introduced that year, but it did not have immediate market dominance (in fact, to this day, it never did). The Apple ][ was still being sold and millions of units were in use around the world. It too was hardly on its deathbed.
The IBM-compatible did not really gain ground until the Tandy 1000 was produced and priced at a level that the masses could afford. However, the Tandy 1000 did not come out until late 1984 and, like all new products, took time for it to be sold in enough quantities to have an effect on the marketplace -- certainly longer than would be needed to meet the timeframe of Microsoft's supposed influence to the US government to threaten invokation of a Super 301 trade limit.
Ummmmm... WTF?
The article made no mention that Microsoft did anything whatsoever to block TRON using trade rules or anything else for that matter. There are only three mentions of Microsoft in the article.
I'm not sure of how much dominance Microsoft had in 1984!! These were the days of the Commodore 64 and Apple ][. The IBM compatible wasn't a market leader at the time -- let alone Microsoft. Microsoft didn't have the money nor the clout to block anything.
We are talking about pictures, which are a copyrightable item on their own. Because they are the whole work in themselves, not a part, that could significantly change things.
How? Copyright law considers "parts" on the copyrighted work, not the infringing work. So if I illegally produce a copyrighted picture as a poster or if its produced on page 130 of 400 of a book, it doesn't make any difference.
Remember, they're not forced to carry any of the products that they stock. It's their choice.
This is true.. but so what? See my previous post on where the liability should lie.. and why.
If Amazon.com has its way. Walmart could also be considered a "service provider", since they stock many, many products that are supplied by outside vendors but aren't their own. It's up to the retailer to determine what is legal to carry.
Really! So if Wal-Mart sells a book that has cover art that was infringing someone's copyrights, then you think that Wal-Mart is liable?
The implications of what you are proposing is astounding! Wal-Mart or Amazon or any service provider can't possibly know to any degree of certainty that any if its 3rd party merchandise is 100% legit. To probe every legal facet of every single piece of merchandise would be impossible to implement and the chilling effect on the economy could be devestating. No one would want to stock third party merchandise out of fear of being opened up to serious liability risk.
There has to be some level of trust between the suppliers and the retailers... or in this case, the venue and its vendors. The only way that Amazon or the hypothetical Wal-Mart should be liable is if they had reason to believe the vendor was dealing in illegal goods or showed extreme negligence. I don't believe Amazon could have possibly have known the images were not legit without prohibitively expensive probing and therefore should not be held liable... IMHO.
So because "copyright violation" is subtly different from "stealing," its OK?
I don't recall anyone saying that just because copyright violations are not the same stealing, that it is "OK".
I believe the poster was just saying "call a spade a spade, rather than the RIAA's bastardization of the definition of a spade".
Manslaughter, by the letter of the law, IS a form a murder (often its called murder in the 3rd degree). Both are felony crimes.
However, by the letter of the law, copyright violation is not a form of theft. Theft is a crime. Copyright violation is a civil tort. That's not a subtle difference.
Please note, however, that I didn't say that copyright violations are "OK".
Unfortunately, you can't take flammable liquids like lighter fluid aboard aircraft, so it isn't going to help much on those long flights unless they change the regs. I don't see that hapening in the current security climate.
Well.. you aren't supposed to be using your mobile phone aboard aircraft either!
Its not really fair to blame the MPAA and the movie studios for the poor quality of the cinema you went to. Do you also blame HBO when the color balance on your television is messed up?
Honestly, do you think Warner Brothers had any power to do anything about the short in the theatre's speaker, the quality of the physical screen, or the number or type of anemities offered to the guests?
I design theatres on a daily basis
I didn't realize there was such a high demand for theatres that you can design several every day.
The cinematic experience is not a shared social event. [...] It is all about you going to watch the screen.
Bull. Utter bull.
Consider this:
- When Star Wars was re-released in 1997, people around the world flocked to the cinemas to watch it again, even though everyone had seen it many times before and most probably owned the videotape. Did people go to watch it for the piddling of new footage? Maybe a little. Did people go to watch it because the screen was really big? Maybe a little. Did people go to watch it because of the shared experience of watching it with a lot of other people in a cinema? Hell yes.
- Mystery Science Theatre 3000 - The Movie. Watching it at home is nothing -- NOTHING -- in comparison to experiencing it with a hundred others who are laughing with you. Watching it at home simply paled in comparison. I'm sure most comedies are the same way. This is why a lot of TV sitcoms have a laugh-track (and historically a live audience). It simulates a shared audience where there is none. The experience somehow feels hollow without it.
- People tend to feel uncomfortable watching a film in a cinema when few people are there. I know that's certainly true in my case. If it was just about me and the screen, people wouldn't care in the slightest how many people were there with me.
- If it was just about me and the screen, why have cinemas at all? Why wouldn't the cinemas have faded with the advent of the VHS player and DVDs? People certainly predicted it -- and yet the growth of the box office continues, with attendance and box office gross records being broken every summer it seems.
Replying to myself --
There's one sign on I-19 that I find absolutely hilarious though. It says something along the lines of:
Ajo Rd - 1000 m
Irvington Rd - 3000 m
Valencia Rd - 5000 m
The theory - Either they
A) ran out of 'k'.
B) had a whole bunch of '0's to get rid of.
C) don't quite get the concept.
The highway is I-19 running between Nogales, AZ and Tucson, AZ.
Advertisers say the car I bought can do 180 MPH. Just because I can not legally go above 70 MPH on the freeway doens't mean that the advertising was false or that the car is only capable of 40% of its advertised throughput.
Similiarly, I'm sure the devices produced by "Bug Company" can do 45Mbps -- just because that speed is over the standard limit, doesn't make the advertising any less true.
Modems are another fine example of this. Most modems routinely connect as speeds less than their advertised speed -- sometimes considerably less. I've never heard of companies refunding people for their modems because of this though.