For fake sake. An analogy is not an argument. Contributory copyright infringement is a law, it exists, just because you close your eyes does not make it go away. If you really want to get rid of it, do something about it.
I'm told by our marketing people that Microsoft is putting gross amounts of money into the WinXP launch. I really hope they bet the farm and then buy one. Ahh.. that would be the final irony, Microsoft dead not due to antitrust lawsuits or strong competitors or (shya) pirates, but due to overspending on marketing hype:)
This is also the justification for EULA's and reverse engineering laws. After all, if you're not copying anything what does it have to do with copyright? Here is the relevant paragraph:
In MAI Systems Corp v Peak Computer Inc 991 F2d 511 (9th Cir 1993) the United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit held that "copying" for the purposes of US copyright law occurs when a computer program is transferred from a permanent storage device to a computer's RAM. At 518 of its reasons the Court said: "After reviewing the record we find no specific facts... which indicate that the copy created in the RAM is not fixed.... The law also supports the conclusion that [the defendant's] loading of copyrighted software into RAM creates a `copy' of that software in violation of the Copyright Act."
it's called contributory copyright infringement. The fact that you dont use it to infringe copyright makes no difference. Why bother bringing up the exact same arguments as we say in the napster case? The judge has already declared them invalid. Maybe you like watching reruns but I'd rather hear a fresh story. Build up a case, go to congress and get the stupid law revoked instead of crying about it.
pfft. Their empire is protected by the law, why shouldn't they excersize their rights? If you are really sick of it, go to congress, get the law changed.
FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too; are they next? Really, if you have nothing intelligent to say.. It sure makes a lot of sense. Take down the big one and then every other one after that. They *are* breaking the law, it's just that the law sux (or at least we think so). Will they go after the Opennap meta server next?
Re:A Simple Business Model
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
great. So why cant something similar be open source?
With slight modification...
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 5
While we're at it, let's toss out the legal system and switch over to the ten commandments. Ok......
This is your license, you shall have no other licenses before it.
You shall not make binaries without accompanying it with source.
Do not take the name of the GPL unless you really mean it.
Remember the source and value it above all things.
Honor your source and your freedom to modify it.
Do not close the source.
Do not link with unfree source.
Do not rip code without due credit.
Do not break the license or try to weasel out of it.
Respect other people's licenses as they respect yours.
Re:A Simple Business Model
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
winzip is the most popular piece of shareware on the net and it contains nag features that no-one even bothers to crack (and a lot of people pay for, dont ask me why). Modify it, yes, re-release it, maybe to their friends, but not to the world.
You dont even have to put it on an anonymous ftp site. Hell, if you distribute the source code on the cds that you sell you dont even have to supply an alternative way to distribute the source. I see absolutely no problem with selling GPL software on CD. Sure, some people will put your software on an anonymous ftp site and allow downloads, but there are plenty more people who will pay for the CD.
Slashdot Mirror
and it is not informative, it is exactly the opposite.
you can argue by analogy I just don't think it is ever effective in the context of law.
Wow, that sounds a lot like Microsoft's definition of an argument. Perhaps we should use something a little more applicable?
"Fuck off."
personally I just use pico it has its own mail program built in ;)
Timothy is a shit head, we know this, get over it (or off him, just dont bitch to me about it).
For fake sake. An analogy is not an argument. Contributory copyright infringement is a law, it exists, just because you close your eyes does not make it go away. If you really want to get rid of it, do something about it.
"fuck off"
as in a legal team on crack? No wait, that's Microsoft.
I'm told by our marketing people that Microsoft is putting gross amounts of money into the WinXP launch. I really hope they bet the farm and then buy one. Ahh.. that would be the final irony, Microsoft dead not due to antitrust lawsuits or strong competitors or (shya) pirates, but due to overspending on marketing hype :)
This is also the justification for EULA's and reverse engineering laws. After all, if you're not copying anything what does it have to do with copyright? Here is the relevant paragraph:
... which indicate that the copy created in the RAM is not fixed. ... The law also supports the conclusion that [the defendant's] loading of copyrighted software into RAM creates a `copy' of that software in violation of the Copyright Act."
In MAI Systems Corp v Peak Computer Inc 991 F2d 511 (9th Cir 1993) the United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit held that "copying" for the purposes of US copyright law occurs when a computer program is transferred from a permanent storage device to a computer's RAM. At 518 of its reasons the Court said: "After reviewing the record we find no specific facts
that's because it is unsubstantiated propoganda.
fruedian slip: when you say one thing and mean your mother.
werd. vi (or should I say vim) is for code, and only code. Typing a letter or even an email in it is hell.
such short memories we have, or is this a classic case of geek doublethink?
it's called contributory copyright infringement. The fact that you dont use it to infringe copyright makes no difference. Why bother bringing up the exact same arguments as we say in the napster case? The judge has already declared them invalid. Maybe you like watching reruns but I'd rather hear a fresh story. Build up a case, go to congress and get the stupid law revoked instead of crying about it.
Learn not
to press
enter randomly
as you're typing
stuff in, for
fuck sake.
cause you wont be using fat32 under winXP.
they said it was illegal.
pfft. Their empire is protected by the law, why shouldn't they excersize their rights? If you are really sick of it, go to congress, get the law changed.
FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too; are they next?
Really, if you have nothing intelligent to say.. It sure makes a lot of sense. Take down the big one and then every other one after that. They *are* breaking the law, it's just that the law sux (or at least we think so). Will they go after the Opennap meta server next?
great. So why cant something similar be open source?
winzip is the most popular piece of shareware on the net and it contains nag features that no-one even bothers to crack (and a lot of people pay for, dont ask me why). Modify it, yes, re-release it, maybe to their friends, but not to the world.
You dont even have to put it on an anonymous ftp site. Hell, if you distribute the source code on the cds that you sell you dont even have to supply an alternative way to distribute the source. I see absolutely no problem with selling GPL software on CD. Sure, some people will put your software on an anonymous ftp site and allow downloads, but there are plenty more people who will pay for the CD.