Assuming Shakespeare didn't steal from some other more ancient tome:)
However This whole thing reminds me of an old episode of 'Newhart'. Bb was being sued because a home repair book on plumbing plagiarized another home repair book on plumbing. At the end it turns out that there are only so many ways to describe how to turn a wrench, or solder a pipe, or perhaps.. book an airline ticket.
Indeed, the problem, in and of itself, is not the licensing scheme. Its the licensors. The artists get screwed by crappy deals and low royalties, the consumers get screwed by not only being force fed crap, but being told how they have to eat it tartare. As usual the middle man is eating the money.
Ya know you arent helping me beat down my paranoia any. I managed for once to subvert my "long term worst case scenario" engine and you have to wake up. Well thanks a lot!!:)
What is even more cliche is all the people that kept saying "oh this will never be abused it will only be used to fight terrorism." Well frankly, welcome to the 4th reich of fascist america. When Ashcroft was put up for AG he said something like "i will uphold all of thaws of the United States" when asked about his biased and prejudices and such. Well sure his goal has been to change all the laws so he can carry out whatever things he likes. Its gonna get a lot worse before it gets better. I fully expect my children to see another american revolution in their lifetimes.
Well something similar occurred to me with the powermac g5. Build a USb powered LED display and mount it in all the little holes in the front of the case and have it display the the register contents of the cpu in psuedo real time.
Re:Irrelevant - it's a contract suit, not trademar
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 1
Yes I did. Did you? let me quote for you:Actually, the clause is the agreement went something like "can't make music"
in which they are effectively behaving in a way indistinguishable from a record label
Apple has no contracts with artists. This is the most important distinction between Apple computer and a record label.
So you're saying no one under 20 has a copy of Let It Be, has ever looked at the front of the CD, and seen the little (whole) apple logo with "apple records" on it just underneath the (c) 1970 EMI Records Ltd. statement? Or of the Beatles' Anthology disks, all of which have apples on the disks themselves?
No you are saying that. and if you look at one of the other posts in this thread my point as been made for me. Also I have a friend that is a self proclaimed beatlephile and we was unaware that Apple records was even still in business. I don't know what more needs to be said about being irrelevant.
"Why? Because when I say "Apple" and "music" together, what do you think of? Apple Computer, right? There's the confusion. They have infringed on the trademark."
Can someone be confused if dont know that apple records exists because they arent active in the market place themselves? Is this is real world equivalent of cybersquatting?
Exactly. This may well end up in the best in the best intents of Apple (Computer:) If there is indeed a suit a new look at the facts of the original thing and the lawsuits there after may vacate the whole thing for the future as Apple Records is now a footnote.
Re:Irrelevant - it's a contract suit, not trademar
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
A computer isn't a breach anyway. Apple isn't making any music (other than perhaps incidental music for ads, which is prolly all farmed out anyway). The wording is important here. You can make music to your hearts content. You have no agreement with Apple records. Apple Computer has no agreement with Apple Records that it cannot be a retailer.
Your logic has a problem. So, hypothetically, if apple records consisted of 1 CPA sitting a room for 10 years doing nothing but receiving bills, squatting, on a name that would otherwise effectively dead. This is enough of a reason to cause brand confusion? Besides your argument would have to cause marketplace confusion. I dare say you would be hard pressed to find any.
Besides, as i said they arent in the same market. Apple Computer is not a record label, they are not music producers, or in the 'industry' sense a Distributor. The iTunes Music Store is the electronic effective equivalent of the Kmart music department. There is no restriction for Apple Computer being a retailer. Apple records is pissing in the wind because they think "Oh it has music! Apple Computer must be in the music business."
Only way to see the details is to find the actually paperwork. The only way to settle it is in court if the wording is unclear. However, I very much doubt Steve would have taken this venture had there not been compelling assurances that this was in the clear.
"I can't think of the last time I bought any music from Apple Corps. That they distributed, maybe, but I give no thought to that at all when making a purchase."
That's because they are irrelevant. As it was in another post, No one with any common sense would confuse the 2 entities. I dare say that people under 20 don't even know an apple corps exists/existed. The original suit was frivolous to begin with. Speakers on a computer somehow would cause market place confusion and such. give it a rest guys.
This could be very instructing. Not only to find what the real genetic linage of any unix variant is, but i also have to wonder if this can be used on data dumps of DNA sequences to get a 'quick' estimate of genetic lineage and drift.
Well not assisting you and going out of ones way to hamper you from exercising your rights is a little different. If the RIAA cold stop you from mailing a CD you sold on ebay i'm sure they would try.
Hallucinations and the hallucinating hallucinators that have them, a fair and balanced look at SCO and Darl McBride. The new coffee table book from Slashdot presses.
"Microsoft prefers competition between software applications to be determined in the free markets rather than by government agencies. "Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," Robertson said. "
So I guess a court deciding they were a monopoly is also something they would typically be against.
You forgot one other thing. Clauses of contract that are illegal are invalid. Even if a license says you cant make a backup copy the court decisions say you can. If you have the otherwise right of resale, a license cant take that away from you. Where the law and the court stands on this instance is still murky.
Slashdot Mirror
Pentium Extreme! its just as good as having a 64 bit CPU!
Assuming Shakespeare didn't steal from some other more ancient tome:)
However This whole thing reminds me of an old episode of 'Newhart'. Bb was being sued because a home repair book on plumbing plagiarized another home repair book on plumbing. At the end it turns out that there are only so many ways to describe how to turn a wrench, or solder a pipe, or perhaps.. book an airline ticket.
Ya know there are time i just want to mod the story up:)
Indeed, the problem, in and of itself, is not the licensing scheme. Its the licensors. The artists get screwed by crappy deals and low royalties, the consumers get screwed by not only being force fed crap, but being told how they have to eat it tartare. As usual the middle man is eating the money.
Ya know you arent helping me beat down my paranoia any. I managed for once to subvert my "long term worst case scenario" engine and you have to wake up. Well thanks a lot!! :)
Very soon we are going to need an actual lawsuit to reassert out rights as the public to use devices we purchase in any manner we deem fit.
What is even more cliche is all the people that kept saying "oh this will never be abused it will only be used to fight terrorism." Well frankly, welcome to the 4th reich of fascist america. When Ashcroft was put up for AG he said something like "i will uphold all of thaws of the United States" when asked about his biased and prejudices and such. Well sure his goal has been to change all the laws so he can carry out whatever things he likes. Its gonna get a lot worse before it gets better. I fully expect my children to see another american revolution in their lifetimes.
Well something similar occurred to me with the powermac g5. Build a USb powered LED display and mount it in all the little holes in the front of the case and have it display the the register contents of the cpu in psuedo real time.
Yes I did. Did you? let me quote for you :Actually, the clause is the agreement went something like "can't make music"
Apple has no contracts with artists. This is the most important distinction between Apple computer and a record label. So you're saying no one under 20 has a copy of Let It Be, has ever looked at the front of the CD, and seen the little (whole) apple logo with "apple records" on it just underneath the (c) 1970 EMI Records Ltd. statement? Or of the Beatles' Anthology disks, all of which have apples on the disks themselves?
No you are saying that. and if you look at one of the other posts in this thread my point as been made for me. Also I have a friend that is a self proclaimed beatlephile and we was unaware that Apple records was even still in business. I don't know what more needs to be said about being irrelevant.
"Why? Because when I say "Apple" and "music" together, what do you think of? Apple Computer, right? There's the confusion. They have infringed on the trademark."
Can someone be confused if dont know that apple records exists because they arent active in the market place themselves? Is this is real world equivalent of cybersquatting?
Exactly. This may well end up in the best in the best intents of Apple (Computer:) If there is indeed a suit a new look at the facts of the original thing and the lawsuits there after may vacate the whole thing for the future as Apple Records is now a footnote.
A computer isn't a breach anyway. Apple isn't making any music (other than perhaps incidental music for ads, which is prolly all farmed out anyway). The wording is important here. You can make music to your hearts content. You have no agreement with Apple records. Apple Computer has no agreement with Apple Records that it cannot be a retailer.
Your logic has a problem. So, hypothetically, if apple records consisted of 1 CPA sitting a room for 10 years doing nothing but receiving bills, squatting, on a name that would otherwise effectively dead. This is enough of a reason to cause brand confusion? Besides your argument would have to cause marketplace confusion. I dare say you would be hard pressed to find any.
Besides, as i said they arent in the same market. Apple Computer is not a record label, they are not music producers, or in the 'industry' sense a Distributor. The iTunes Music Store is the electronic effective equivalent of the Kmart music department. There is no restriction for Apple Computer being a retailer. Apple records is pissing in the wind because they think "Oh it has music! Apple Computer must be in the music business."
Only way to see the details is to find the actually paperwork. The only way to settle it is in court if the wording is unclear. However, I very much doubt Steve would have taken this venture had there not been compelling assurances that this was in the clear.
"I can't think of the last time I bought any music from Apple Corps. That they distributed, maybe, but I give no thought to that at all when making a purchase."
That's because they are irrelevant. As it was in another post, No one with any common sense would confuse the 2 entities. I dare say that people under 20 don't even know an apple corps exists/existed. The original suit was frivolous to begin with. Speakers on a computer somehow would cause market place confusion and such. give it a rest guys.
Funny, the new top secret apple marketing slogan is "You only die twice (at the same time).
This could be very instructing. Not only to find what the real genetic linage of any unix variant is, but i also have to wonder if this can be used on data dumps of DNA sequences to get a 'quick' estimate of genetic lineage and drift.
Well not assisting you and going out of ones way to hamper you from exercising your rights is a little different. If the RIAA cold stop you from mailing a CD you sold on ebay i'm sure they would try.
Hallucinations and the hallucinating hallucinators that have them, a fair and balanced look at SCO and Darl McBride. The new coffee table book from Slashdot presses.
(ok this is obvious karma whoring:)
"Microsoft prefers competition between software applications to be determined in the free markets rather than by government agencies. "Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," Robertson said. "
So I guess a court deciding they were a monopoly is also something they would typically be against.
"Respectfully,
Customer Support (Trust and Safety Department)
Ebay Inc."
Why does the trust and safety dept. make my ears ring of the ministry of the prevention of vice and the promotion of virtue.
You forgot one other thing. Clauses of contract that are illegal are invalid. Even if a license says you cant make a backup copy the court decisions say you can. If you have the otherwise right of resale, a license cant take that away from you. Where the law and the court stands on this instance is still murky.
ya know its a bit ironic to give paper and woods gifts in a virtual world:)
*ahem* other than just *saying* it why dont you tell us why mach allegedly sucks, and which variant?
Im sorry sir you cant return that tin foil because it didn't block the mind control lasers, as this barcode clearly states your warranty has expired.