With Windows CE, the company pays their $3 per widget licensing fee, writes their embedded code, and ships. No worries that a customer can demand every single trade secret from a company because one line of GPL v3 code was on the Linux distro. A trade secret means a lot to a company, and it can be their identity. The formula of Coke for example.
You are a genius! OMFG! You figured it out!!! But what if there is one line of GPL v3 code in your windows code? What happens then? They'll have to give up EVERY SINGLE TRADE SECRET THE COMPANY OWNS!!! Oh, noes!!!
Counting cards in your head is not illegal, but if you do master the art of counting cards without being detected, you can be refused entry at the whim of the casino, just because you are too good at the game... They can walk up and ask you to leave and never return and you must do so. They can also put you face, vital statistics, and biometrics (for facial recognition) in a database shared with other casinos.
They should do this with baseball players. Don't test for drugs, just ban the ones that are too good at the game. And then share their biometrics with the NFL, NHL, and NBA.
Point to the work. Where is the derivative work? Since a "work" needs to be affixed to physical media to be copyrighted, i'd ask them where the derivative work is.
Why don't you show me where the derivative work is? For a work to be copyrighted it must be affixed to physical media (except for the new expansion covering dance).
Where is the derivative work?
ou might object to that because it seems like you lost some traditional right of ownership. But until people invented text -to voice converters you never missed this did you? it's only when this became possible that you noticed that they did not want you to do it. so it's not a traditional right.
I'm sorry i can't be charitable here, but his is so wrong. Do you really think copyrighted code was a traditional right? Do you think copyrighting moves was a traditional right? According to your definition of traditional, copyright owners should only be allowed to copyright the written word and physical works of art.
it's Amazon for making it possible. Afterall amazon sells both forms written and audio. Now they are selling both for the price of the DRM written version.
Not Amazon's problem. What if a third party sold the technology for people to use with their own content but incidentally they could also use it on Amazon content? Then who committed the infringement according to you?
What's the difference if you combine the revenue streams?
Will the world really be better off if writers get paid less than they already are?
Unask the question. I'm sorry coopers and blacksmiths are losing revenue streams, but if the alternative is threatening my freedoms then so be it. Text-to-speech has been around for a long time. Fair use covers reading a book aloud to my kids. I don't see how this is a public performance or a derivative work.
To be a 'work' don't you have to be affixed to some type of media?
Are you seriously a Utah apologist? I mean i get your point though. One of the 50 states has to have the stupidest laws...but it's better to have stupid laws in one state versus 50.
I guess you don't drink very many mixed drinks? How's your 1.5 ounce of scotch treating you? Still costs $12-18 though, right?
And god forbid if you ask a waitress if it is "real beer" or 3.2 beer they serve. You might as well shit in the middle of the floor because they'll be less insulted. (some places can serve full strength beer for some reason)
I mean, srsly, I'm not the one that lives in the state with backwards laws. Don't get pissed at me for asking. Locals have been around it so long they STICK UP for the stupid laws.
OMFG. I thought it was the original asshat that i was responding too.
It really sounded exactly like what 1u3hr was saying in all the other posts, i didn't even see that the reasonable poster had written it. Actually i hadn't read past the Heroin junkie part before everything went red...
Who is trying to get them to pay? I thought he was trying to get them to stop using it.
If the idiots in the third-world country want to use it, maybe they should pay for it or develop a non-backward country and create some useful software themselves?
You almost got me to feel bad for the "third-world people" but then i remembered they thought it was a good idea to destroy their intellectuals when they made the great leap forward....
If they can't afford to buy it, then they should go without. Right? Am i missing something? Why are you justifying free stuff for them just because they cannot afford it?
I love how you took slashdotters' favorite argument and turned it against them. There does seem to be a double standard
Are you that much of a simpleton? There isn't a double standard here. There are some people who are inconsistent, but all of slashdot is not caught up in a double standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. What a great post! WTH are you doing on slashdot? ;)
Why is it a problem?
good one
Mal is a girlie name too.
You are a genius! OMFG! You figured it out!!! But what if there is one line of GPL v3 code in your windows code? What happens then? They'll have to give up EVERY SINGLE TRADE SECRET THE COMPANY OWNS!!! Oh, noes!!!
tell that to your wife...(oh wait, i'm on slashdot)
They should do this with baseball players. Don't test for drugs, just ban the ones that are too good at the game. And then share their biometrics with the NFL, NHL, and NBA.
The mafia has way too much power in nevada.
Yeah, because kids these days never get suspended without a lawsuit. riiight.
Point to the work. Where is the derivative work? Since a "work" needs to be affixed to physical media to be copyrighted, i'd ask them where the derivative work is.
Why don't you show me where the derivative work is? For a work to be copyrighted it must be affixed to physical media (except for the new expansion covering dance).
Where is the derivative work?
I'm sorry i can't be charitable here, but his is so wrong. Do you really think copyrighted code was a traditional right? Do you think copyrighting moves was a traditional right? According to your definition of traditional, copyright owners should only be allowed to copyright the written word and physical works of art.
Not Amazon's problem. What if a third party sold the technology for people to use with their own content but incidentally they could also use it on Amazon content? Then who committed the infringement according to you?
What's the difference if you combine the revenue streams?
Unask the question. I'm sorry coopers and blacksmiths are losing revenue streams, but if the alternative is threatening my freedoms then so be it. Text-to-speech has been around for a long time. Fair use covers reading a book aloud to my kids. I don't see how this is a public performance or a derivative work.
To be a 'work' don't you have to be affixed to some type of media?
Are you seriously a Utah apologist? I mean i get your point though. One of the 50 states has to have the stupidest laws...but it's better to have stupid laws in one state versus 50.
I guess you don't drink very many mixed drinks? How's your 1.5 ounce of scotch treating you? Still costs $12-18 though, right?
And god forbid if you ask a waitress if it is "real beer" or 3.2 beer they serve. You might as well shit in the middle of the floor because they'll be less insulted. (some places can serve full strength beer for some reason)
I mean, srsly, I'm not the one that lives in the state with backwards laws. Don't get pissed at me for asking. Locals have been around it so long they STICK UP for the stupid laws.
And it's not his fault that he got triple-dog-dared that he couldn't clear 3 bong hits with one inhale.
That's the curse of having superhuman lungs!
Or maybe children have a much greater neuroplasticity and being titillated by ads wires the objectification much stronger in their brains?
Educating kids about sex is not the same as titillating them and having them associate sex with commercial products.
yep...see my piss poor explanation in the previous post. ha.
HAHAHAHA!!
OMFG. I thought it was the original asshat that i was responding too.
It really sounded exactly like what 1u3hr was saying in all the other posts, i didn't even see that the reasonable poster had written it. Actually i hadn't read past the Heroin junkie part before everything went red...
Who is trying to get them to pay? I thought he was trying to get them to stop using it.
If the idiots in the third-world country want to use it, maybe they should pay for it or develop a non-backward country and create some useful software themselves?
You almost got me to feel bad for the "third-world people" but then i remembered they thought it was a good idea to destroy their intellectuals when they made the great leap forward....
Do you have a point?
If they can't afford to buy it, then they should go without. Right? Am i missing something? Why are you justifying free stuff for them just because they cannot afford it?
FAIL!
EPIC FAIL!
Wow. I can understand why you think that people that use cracked software never get rooted.
(Not that you care but the NIH shows that 22% of the adults in their study ODed on Heroin: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2039886 and life expectancy decreased by 18 years)
Are you that much of a simpleton? There isn't a double standard here. There are some people who are inconsistent, but all of slashdot is not caught up in a double standard.
Did you miss the part about malware?
I think their data was being shouted across a crowded room...unencrypted.
Maybe they shouldn't be broadcasting their data if they care about it being private?
Red/blue contacts.
what about penises? (peni?)