If a friend buys a copy of Microsoft Windows and gives it to you with no restrictions, does that mean you can copy the software freely?
Yes yes, that argument wouldn't hold up in court. Copyright law says that the copyright holder has an exclusive right to reproduce his/her work. 39 USC sec 3009 says the recipient can use it however they want. Is copying included under "use"? Neither code specifies exactly, so I'd expect the issue to be decided in some court case, but I can't find any such cases. (I didn't look very hard)
I would think that even if the recipient could make millions of copies and distribute them, that the people you gave it to wouldn't be able to copy the software. Unless, maybe, if they were also sent via postal mail.
I'm pretty sure copyright law would have precedence though. --
The difference is that the RFC doesn't deal with security. Cisco's patent seems to be a combination NAT+firewall. AFAIK, combinations of obvious/prior-art/patented things can be patented as long as the combination is non-obvious and novel. (*)
But it doesn't seem like this combination is anything to write home about.
--
Because it adds a certain amount of uncertainty to their future. Businesses fail all the time due to blunders and unforseen events, especially on the internet. The RIAA thought that CD copying was difficult enough that it would be kept to a dull roar, but they were wrong and they wish they could go back and do things differently. The internet gives consumers the power to use a little crack in the door to open it all the way. DigitalConvergence doesn't want to be pried open unexpectdly by an organized revolt or consumer greed or anything else. --
On the other hand, if you know that a lawsuit won't do much good overall (eg. BNL v. a few fans), then why bog down the courts with a lawsuit that's really just political commentary/PR stunt? --
I think the RIAA is trying to wage a publicity and political war against Napster right now, not a practical one. They see Napster as being a long-term threat, so rather than focusing their efforts on causing a short-term dip in Napster usage, they want to make sure it's eventually killed for good. --
I believe a patent can be a combination of other known ideas. (see here). The combination of the two has to be novel though. So you'd have to show that 1 click shopping specifically has been done before to be able to invalidate it. --
Maybe it's because the act of serving a file is a sort of endorsement of the song's quality by the server. There are a lot of crap songs out there and people have limited disk space. And if most songs on napster are 3rd generation copies, then most of the content is going to reflect its users likes and dislikes to some extent.
Sue for what? False advertising perhaps? There's no money being exchanged though. And I don't see anywhere in Napster's agreement that says anything about using correct file names. In fact, it says this (*):
Napster does not, and cannot, control what content is available to you using the Napster browser. Napster users decide what content to make available to others using the Napster browser, and what content to download.
...
Napster makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation of this web site, the Napster service, or the information, content, materials, services or products included or referenced on this web site.
So I assume that's a caveat emptor.
--
Re:How can I assert my own ethics on FreeNet?
on
Freenet 0.3 Released
·
· Score: 2
I wouldn't say it's exploitation. After all, you very well could be supporting a movement that could get you killed. Freenet lets you further your movement by distributing knowledge. In exchange, you're helping someone else's movement out. You may not support their movement, but the tradeoff seems fair because it distributes responsibility and thus saves your neck. --
Yes. US Code Title 36, Chapter 17, Sec 380 says that the USOC can only go after people who use trademarks, etc, "for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition".
That didn't stop the USOC for going after anyone and everyone with Olympic (or misspellings) in the domain name before. (article in TheStandard). --
Not to be the devil's sidekick. Just that any organization that can change US laws to gain exclusive use of a particular word in trademarks seems very evil. And given their past track record, they'll surely go after this one, right or wrong. --
That's funny. I guess their lawyer didn't do a good enough job of combing through the EULA after cut-n-pasting it from somebody else's shrinkwrap software.
So are you bound to the specific contract that you agreed to with the "I agree" button, or can you use multiple copies since they publicly state that you can? --
The:Convergence:Cable uses audio "barcodes", and its software (and maybe the cable too) is covered by a patent because it's possible novel and nonobvious. The:Cue:Cat uses visual barcodes and isn't covered by any patent because it's been done a million times before. --
Nobody viewed, copied, reverse engineered, or emulated any part of the firmware in the CueCat. Period.
Except for emulation, the same goes for the PC software. DigitalConvergence can't protect against emulation unless they get a patent on some crucial part of the decoding process. --
It sounds like their EULA is trying to be as broad and as protective as a patent would be. If so, why don't they just rely on their patent? (hint: maybe because it doesn't cover the CueCat?)
Patents are given only if the creator can show that the invention is novel enough, after which, the inventor is given a limited-time monopoly.
If DC can't get a patent that specifically covers the CueCat, then they shouldn't be able to arbitrarily upgrade their protection to the level of a patent. If they were able to, then there would be no reason for the patent review office. The kind of protection they're seeking is only given to products that do something in a non-obvious and novel way. --
Yes, the general method of stopping something is to make it hard enough that only a few people do it.
Except, computers allow things to be automated, so things are different in cyberspace.
If there existed a micropayment system for paying for bandwidth, you could bet that a well-represented cross-section of canada would quickly set up redirectors.
If the practice of companies paying you to use your idle CPU and bandwidth becomes prevalent, then do-gooders couldn't point at the software and say that it's inherently evil (ala Napster). So the task would boil down to charging 25% of the population for something that they don't view as "stealing", especially since they're passing on the commercials too. --
When we figure out what consciousness is, we'll try to implement it. If we can't, we'll go back and try to understand it better.
I never suggested that reasoning is verbal. Just that one person probably can't figure out all of consciousness, so they have to communicate with other people. Also, it's often beneficial to write down ones thoughts and study them carefully... you'll often find incorrect assumptions that you made somewhere along the line. --
I think we're looking for a formal verbal response to what consciousness is.
If it's only nonverbal, then you can't reason about it, you can't tell others your ideas about it in order to refine your concept of it, and we can't work towards putting consciousness in a machine (other than trial & error). --
The "you may not copy" clause does not terminate when the copyright expires
Shit, I never thought of that. You oughta spread that around on Slashdot more.
One wonders why they don't do more NDA-ish things like ask you to not talk about what you learned. It seems like they're bound more by how much the public is willing to take rather than what the laws are. --
Well, breaking a lock and entering, even if it's a horrible flimsy and easy to surpass lock, is illegal. So I guess one could extend the analogy and say that breaking flimsy encryption is illegal.
But breaking in and copying software (with no loss of information to the owner) doesn't seem to be nearly as evil as breaking into an unlocked house and stealing the jewels. --
Slashdot Mirror
Yes yes, that argument wouldn't hold up in court. Copyright law says that the copyright holder has an exclusive right to reproduce his/her work. 39 USC sec 3009 says the recipient can use it however they want. Is copying included under "use"? Neither code specifies exactly, so I'd expect the issue to be decided in some court case, but I can't find any such cases. (I didn't look very hard)
I would think that even if the recipient could make millions of copies and distribute them, that the people you gave it to wouldn't be able to copy the software. Unless, maybe, if they were also sent via postal mail.
I'm pretty sure copyright law would have precedence though.
--
I second that. :)
--
But it doesn't seem like this combination is anything to write home about.
--
Because it adds a certain amount of uncertainty to their future. Businesses fail all the time due to blunders and unforseen events, especially on the internet. The RIAA thought that CD copying was difficult enough that it would be kept to a dull roar, but they were wrong and they wish they could go back and do things differently. The internet gives consumers the power to use a little crack in the door to open it all the way. DigitalConvergence doesn't want to be pried open unexpectdly by an organized revolt or consumer greed or anything else.
--
"Good will" and "charity" are concepts that simply don't exist in the business world.
--
On the other hand, if you know that a lawsuit won't do much good overall (eg. BNL v. a few fans), then why bog down the courts with a lawsuit that's really just political commentary/PR stunt?
--
Maybe CNN is afraid of MP3's.
--
I think the RIAA is trying to wage a publicity and political war against Napster right now, not a practical one. They see Napster as being a long-term threat, so rather than focusing their efforts on causing a short-term dip in Napster usage, they want to make sure it's eventually killed for good.
--
I believe a patent can be a combination of other known ideas. (see here). The combination of the two has to be novel though. So you'd have to show that 1 click shopping specifically has been done before to be able to invalidate it.
--
Maybe I'm stating the obvious...
--
- Napster does not, and cannot, control what content is available to you using the Napster browser. Napster users decide what content to make available to others using the Napster browser, and what content to download.
...
So I assume that's a caveat emptor.Napster makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation of this web site, the Napster service, or the information, content, materials, services or products included or referenced on this web site.
--
I wouldn't say it's exploitation. After all, you very well could be supporting a movement that could get you killed. Freenet lets you further your movement by distributing knowledge. In exchange, you're helping someone else's movement out. You may not support their movement, but the tradeoff seems fair because it distributes responsibility and thus saves your neck.
--
That didn't stop the USOC for going after anyone and everyone with Olympic (or misspellings) in the domain name before. (article in TheStandard).
--
Slashdot: 7/14/2000 - Olympic Committee Cracks Down On Domain Owners
Not to be the devil's sidekick. Just that any organization that can change US laws to gain exclusive use of a particular word in trademarks seems very evil. And given their past track record, they'll surely go after this one, right or wrong.
--
That's funny. I guess their lawyer didn't do a good enough job of combing through the EULA after cut-n-pasting it from somebody else's shrinkwrap software.
So are you bound to the specific contract that you agreed to with the "I agree" button, or can you use multiple copies since they publicly state that you can?
--
The :Convergence:Cable uses audio "barcodes", and its software (and maybe the cable too) is covered by a patent because it's possible novel and nonobvious. The :Cue:Cat uses visual barcodes and isn't covered by any patent because it's been done a million times before.
--
Nobody viewed, copied, reverse engineered, or emulated any part of the firmware in the CueCat, so there couldn't be a problem with that.
--
Except for emulation, the same goes for the PC software. DigitalConvergence can't protect against emulation unless they get a patent on some crucial part of the decoding process.
--
Patents are given only if the creator can show that the invention is novel enough, after which, the inventor is given a limited-time monopoly.
If DC can't get a patent that specifically covers the CueCat, then they shouldn't be able to arbitrarily upgrade their protection to the level of a patent. If they were able to, then there would be no reason for the patent review office. The kind of protection they're seeking is only given to products that do something in a non-obvious and novel way.
--
Except, computers allow things to be automated, so things are different in cyberspace.
If there existed a micropayment system for paying for bandwidth, you could bet that a well-represented cross-section of canada would quickly set up redirectors.
If the practice of companies paying you to use your idle CPU and bandwidth becomes prevalent, then do-gooders couldn't point at the software and say that it's inherently evil (ala Napster). So the task would boil down to charging 25% of the population for something that they don't view as "stealing", especially since they're passing on the commercials too.
--
I never suggested that reasoning is verbal. Just that one person probably can't figure out all of consciousness, so they have to communicate with other people. Also, it's often beneficial to write down ones thoughts and study them carefully... you'll often find incorrect assumptions that you made somewhere along the line.
--
If it's only nonverbal, then you can't reason about it, you can't tell others your ideas about it in order to refine your concept of it, and we can't work towards putting consciousness in a machine (other than trial & error).
--
- Alice: Do you like books or TV better?
(I wasn't trying to fool it, I was trying to make it seem a little more noble that I watch TV a lot)Interiot: I find moving pictures informative.
Alice: Where are you going?
--
Shit, I never thought of that. You oughta spread that around on Slashdot more.
One wonders why they don't do more NDA-ish things like ask you to not talk about what you learned. It seems like they're bound more by how much the public is willing to take rather than what the laws are.
--
But breaking in and copying software (with no loss of information to the owner) doesn't seem to be nearly as evil as breaking into an unlocked house and stealing the jewels.
--