You see huge amounts of trafficking between France and the UK - and in addition thousands of people camp outside Calais and other ports (and the Eurotunnel terminals) in order to hop the English Channel illegally. Its been a huge problem for decades.
That would be as effective as the FTP sites during the 1990s that had 'The FBI or any other law enforcement agency is forbidden from accessing this server' banners.
I have installed Visual Studio 2008 twice in the past week - zero reboots needed each time, and the only file associations it monkeyed with was.cs. No network connection in either case here either.
(If anyone, especially a company, buys a bunch of MSDN subscriptions for the downloads, they're doing it wrong)
Actually they are doing it right - the MSDN subscription not only gives you access to the download, it gives you a perpetual license to use the download. One MSDN license per company does not give each developer a license to use the download for development - each developer needs their own MSDN subscription to get the license.
So, if a company buys a bunch of MSDN subscriptions for the downloads, they are most certainly doing it right.
As Don_dumb has pointed out, this has been on the Quick Launch toolbar for a decade, and Windows 7 places the same feature to the right of the clock in the task bar.
Then you can pay them to support it, that option still exists. You have another 5 years to port your mission critical software to another platform, and this deadline has been known for several years already. If you got caught with your pants down, the only person to blame there is yourself.
The decisions by the legal rights holders are most certainly being overruled - Google is being granted the power to put these books back into print unless the rights holders carry out further actions.
That *is* the issue. If I make a decision to allow my work to go out of print, then that decision should stand until I reverse it myself or I lose the rights over the work. It should not be arbitrarily reversed by a third party.
Copyright law grants copyright holders the ability to control distribution - this ruling is not consistent with copyright law, because it adds further requirements to the rights holders in order to ensure that their control remains.
But again, you seem to rather prefer to insult me than actually understand my argument.
You still haven't given a reasonable argument about why this should be a class action at all - its arbitrarily overriding the decision by the rights holders to let their works go out of print, and requiring them to do further work to sustain that situation.
If Google wishes to archive them and make them available, they should wait for the copyrights to expire.
Yes they can - all you need to do is provide the end user with a unique hash token consisting of:
1, The date time the vote was placed
2, The vote placed
3, A randomly generated uniqueness
And then provide the voting population the ability to query the entire data set after the event - there is no reason why that data needs to remain secret as there is no correlation with peoples identities saved against the entry - that correlation walks away from the booth with the person after they vote, on the audit slip that gets printed.
This 'spirit of the social contract' thing is basically crap - there is no such thing, there are the limits of copyright law and thats that. If you want more, put it in the law.
As the rights holder, I should also have the right to not distribute.
No it doesnt actually - I still consider it a highly dodgy deal, arbitrarily overruling the decisions made by the legal rights holders. Congratulations, they just removed a whole load of peoples rights with that ruling - is that really a decision and precedent you want made?
But you do seem to be very quick to insult and resort to harsh language. Says a lot really.
But *why* should you have to do further work to protect a right already granted to you by Copyright Law!?! If I, as a rights holder, does not wish the book to go back into print, why should a decision made by someone else arbitrarily overrule myself and require further action?
None of that contradicts what I said - Google are getting blanket permission from a third party and not the rights holder.
The point of copyright was never to be "we give you exclusive rights to making copies of this book for a limited time period, then you remove it from our culture forever by burying it".
I ran across this train of thought in another thread, and I disagree with it - there is nothing stopping someone archiving works of art today, and waiting until copyright expires to make them available later on. There is nothing in copyright law, and quite rightly so, that requires copyright holders to ensure that their work is preserved and available for public release and consumption upon expiration of their copyrights.
If Google can get hold of orphaned out-of-print works today, then your point is moot, as they can do as I said above and nothing will be lost from our 'culture'. That is not, however, what they are doing.
If company A sells something to company B which company B then re-sells to the public, but company B almost certainly cannot resell the good without committing fraud as outlined above, then company A is complicit in the fraud as well. Some of AboveNet's defenders argued that they mostly sold Internet connectivity to ISPs, not to the public, and the ISPs knew that the connections were filtered. Even assuming this were true, the ISPs still would not be able to re-sell the service to the public without representing it as "regular Internet access" â" nobody would pay full price for a broken or degraded connection when a competitor could offer a regular connection for the same price.
Surely thats simply a case of 'if people aren't going to buy your product, why aren't you sourcing a replacement supplier?'
If you are willingly buying the degraded product from your supplier, and the supplier is not hiding the fact that it is degraded in some way, then I don't see why the supplier should be complicit in the fraud that you willingly went on to conduct.
The argument as presented in the summary just seems absurd in that regard.
The problem with this being a blanket settlement for out of print works is it makes no allowances for works that publishers or copyright owners *deliberately* allowed to go out of print for a reason - for example, limited edition releases et al.
The issue seems to be that Google is getting their blanket 'permission' to do what they want to do from a third party which may or may not have the actual legal right to give Google the blanket permission. From what I have read, it sounds very dodgy.
Why couldn't the people have formed a co-operative group, raised the capital investment and gone into competition with TWC - the same way any other entity would have had to? I don't like governments doing things like this because their position immediately puts them into a better stance for competing in markets.
But do you ever hear about the clearing houses losing data etc? The issues you describe are not failures of the system, but failures outside of the system that use the system in the same way as normal events.
If you ever look into fraud cases, its obvious that banks can track financial transactions throughout the system, they can't simply disappear until they are taken out of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
You see huge amounts of trafficking between France and the UK - and in addition thousands of people camp outside Calais and other ports (and the Eurotunnel terminals) in order to hop the English Channel illegally. Its been a huge problem for decades.
Free newspapers are still subject to libel and other laws...
That would be as effective as the FTP sites during the 1990s that had 'The FBI or any other law enforcement agency is forbidden from accessing this server' banners.
Under Win32, threads can roam between processors, and you can also set thread affinity - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684251.aspx?ppud=4
Why should the supplied market place advertise and enable rival services?
You do realise only idiots and people with an agenda tend to call Windows 7 'Vista SP3', don't you?
I have installed Visual Studio 2008 twice in the past week - zero reboots needed each time, and the only file associations it monkeyed with was .cs. No network connection in either case here either.
That depends on how the alternative rendering is done, surely?
(If anyone, especially a company, buys a bunch of MSDN subscriptions for the downloads, they're doing it wrong)
Actually they are doing it right - the MSDN subscription not only gives you access to the download, it gives you a perpetual license to use the download. One MSDN license per company does not give each developer a license to use the download for development - each developer needs their own MSDN subscription to get the license.
So, if a company buys a bunch of MSDN subscriptions for the downloads, they are most certainly doing it right.
As Don_dumb has pointed out, this has been on the Quick Launch toolbar for a decade, and Windows 7 places the same feature to the right of the clock in the task bar.
Then you can pay them to support it, that option still exists. You have another 5 years to port your mission critical software to another platform, and this deadline has been known for several years already. If you got caught with your pants down, the only person to blame there is yourself.
The decisions by the legal rights holders are most certainly being overruled - Google is being granted the power to put these books back into print unless the rights holders carry out further actions.
That *is* the issue. If I make a decision to allow my work to go out of print, then that decision should stand until I reverse it myself or I lose the rights over the work. It should not be arbitrarily reversed by a third party.
Copyright law grants copyright holders the ability to control distribution - this ruling is not consistent with copyright law, because it adds further requirements to the rights holders in order to ensure that their control remains.
But again, you seem to rather prefer to insult me than actually understand my argument.
You still haven't given a reasonable argument about why this should be a class action at all - its arbitrarily overriding the decision by the rights holders to let their works go out of print, and requiring them to do further work to sustain that situation.
If Google wishes to archive them and make them available, they should wait for the copyrights to expire.
Yes they can - all you need to do is provide the end user with a unique hash token consisting of:
1, The date time the vote was placed
2, The vote placed
3, A randomly generated uniqueness
And then provide the voting population the ability to query the entire data set after the event - there is no reason why that data needs to remain secret as there is no correlation with peoples identities saved against the entry - that correlation walks away from the booth with the person after they vote, on the audit slip that gets printed.
This 'spirit of the social contract' thing is basically crap - there is no such thing, there are the limits of copyright law and thats that. If you want more, put it in the law.
As the rights holder, I should also have the right to not distribute.
No it doesnt actually - I still consider it a highly dodgy deal, arbitrarily overruling the decisions made by the legal rights holders. Congratulations, they just removed a whole load of peoples rights with that ruling - is that really a decision and precedent you want made?
But you do seem to be very quick to insult and resort to harsh language. Says a lot really.
But *why* should you have to do further work to protect a right already granted to you by Copyright Law!?! If I, as a rights holder, does not wish the book to go back into print, why should a decision made by someone else arbitrarily overrule myself and require further action?
The point of copyright was never to be "we give you exclusive rights to making copies of this book for a limited time period, then you remove it from our culture forever by burying it".
I ran across this train of thought in another thread, and I disagree with it - there is nothing stopping someone archiving works of art today, and waiting until copyright expires to make them available later on. There is nothing in copyright law, and quite rightly so, that requires copyright holders to ensure that their work is preserved and available for public release and consumption upon expiration of their copyrights.
If Google can get hold of orphaned out-of-print works today, then your point is moot, as they can do as I said above and nothing will be lost from our 'culture'. That is not, however, what they are doing.
If company A sells something to company B which company B then re-sells to the public, but company B almost certainly cannot resell the good without committing fraud as outlined above, then company A is complicit in the fraud as well. Some of AboveNet's defenders argued that they mostly sold Internet connectivity to ISPs, not to the public, and the ISPs knew that the connections were filtered. Even assuming this were true, the ISPs still would not be able to re-sell the service to the public without representing it as "regular Internet access" â" nobody would pay full price for a broken or degraded connection when a competitor could offer a regular connection for the same price.
Surely thats simply a case of 'if people aren't going to buy your product, why aren't you sourcing a replacement supplier?'
If you are willingly buying the degraded product from your supplier, and the supplier is not hiding the fact that it is degraded in some way, then I don't see why the supplier should be complicit in the fraud that you willingly went on to conduct.
The argument as presented in the summary just seems absurd in that regard.
The problem with this being a blanket settlement for out of print works is it makes no allowances for works that publishers or copyright owners *deliberately* allowed to go out of print for a reason - for example, limited edition releases et al.
The issue seems to be that Google is getting their blanket 'permission' to do what they want to do from a third party which may or may not have the actual legal right to give Google the blanket permission. From what I have read, it sounds very dodgy.
Why couldn't the people have formed a co-operative group, raised the capital investment and gone into competition with TWC - the same way any other entity would have had to? I don't like governments doing things like this because their position immediately puts them into a better stance for competing in markets.
Windows 95 was supported for more than 6 years - just how long, exactly, should a company be expected to support older products?
And yet the banks and financial institutions can create an ATM that everyone trusts? See my point?
But do you ever hear about the clearing houses losing data etc? The issues you describe are not failures of the system, but failures outside of the system that use the system in the same way as normal events.
If you ever look into fraud cases, its obvious that banks can track financial transactions throughout the system, they can't simply disappear until they are taken out of the system.