They decide to switch to "open standards-based software and systems", and decide on Apple, a company which makes Microsoft look like a bastion of openness?
If you'd RTFA, you'd know that the "open standards" referred to are Java and Unix, which OSX interoperates with much better than Windows, which (apparently) was used previously. The iMacs run a Java virtual terminal and Mozilla browsers. Is that open enough?
Microsoft and many other software makers already address this licensing issue. On this machine Microsoft requires either two licenses for Windows or one Windows license and a Terminal Server Client Access license. For MS Office a license is required for each per seat instance. So, two users in Word requires two licenses.
I don't think they've addressed this at all. Is the word "seat" used in the licence? How is it defined? You can certainly use it with two monitors, and as many input devices as you like. There is only one processor and there is only one instance running at any moment. I think a good case could be made that this is legally no different than two people sharing a PC in the fashion of one sliding into the other's "seat".
Of course if MS wants to break it they can do it easily, it needs software that enables it, presumably built with cooperation from MS -- so unless they hid their intentions from MS, MS must already have given approval at some level. If this takes off, MS'll just make sure it doesn't work in the standard install of Windows and Office, and require a special version.
I'm curious if you can run two simultaneous copies of Photoshop. For some reaason, Adobe only allows one instance at a time...
But you can certainly have more than one file open. Of course you'd be stepping over each other's palette and tool selections, so it might not be very practical.
Please explain how PlayFair is legal, rather than just assert that it is.
Before defending oneself, one needs to know what one is charged with. I know that in the new America you just throw people in concentration camps for a couple of years because they have shifty eyes, but in most other countries you need to say what law has been broken first.
Apple has a lot more resouces than most people and can make good on their threats.
Apple used to have service manuals for their old Macs on ftp.apple.com, with no passwords. But if anyone even gave a link to them in any Mac discussion group they had very heavy legal threats using "copyright" and "trade secret" language that made all the site and list owners immedaitely delete the articles. Again, these were simply links to documents freely available on Apple's own site, for obsolete machines that would cost more than they were worth to take to a repair centre -- even for trivial (once you see the diagrams) tasks like replacing the motherboard battery.
>Not only that, the PlayFair program is against the express provisions of our Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957 and you are equally liable as accessories
I'm not familiar with what they are referring to. Is that Indian law, or are they doing some cross-ocean hand-waving and hoping Sarovar doesn't notice?
4. With refard to Sarovar, Apple did nothing more than make with is essentially an intellectual appeal. Apple didn't "force" anyone to do anything.
Oh yes they did.
[T]he PlayFair program is against the express provisions of our Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957 and you are equally liable as accessories, being the means through which the offending program is available for download at the Sarovar site.... Please confirm your compliance of the above requisitions within 24 hours from receipt of this notice, failing which our clients would be forced to consider the legal options available to them
Is not an "intellectual appeal", it's a threat to make them spend the rest of their lives in court and/or be bankrupted. It's one step removed from a horse's head in the bed.
Okay, I lied. I'm replying to point out that you are, in fact, clueless. Everything you write, including EMail, is instantly copyrighted by you. There is no "arguable" about it, it is a fact, backed up by case law. Saying it's arguable does not make it so.
You keep searching for irrelevant side issues to argue, and "argue" is used advisedly. Regarding your belief that all spam is protected by copyright: consider for instance that most spam is copied from other spam, often word for word with garbage characters added mechanically perhaps. Thus if any copyright existed, it certainly is not owned by the sender, and thus even if copyright somehow protected messages from being filtered, or censored if you prefer, it would have no effect.
Having followed you down your rabbit hole so far, it really is time for me to return to the real world.
South Pole to Get Highway
Posted by michael on Friday January 24, @10:21PM from the south-pole-highway-patrol-now-hiring dept.
tetrad writes "The New Scientist magazine reports that the US is building a road to the South Pole. The "highway" would cross the Ross Ice Shelf and then pass through the Transantarctic Mountains (map here). Convoys of tractors will be the only traffic on the road, bringing fuel and heavy equipment to the South Pole, as well as enabling the installation of a $250M fibre-optic communications cable (discussed previously)."
If this TV show adds anything to the story above (which I rather doubt), apologies.
Okay, I'm done trying here, you simply refuse to stick to the points. Spews censors your Email in exactly the same way this company censors your movie. Q.E. fucking D.
It was YOUR "point". You brought SPEWS and spam into the discussion, and insisted they were somehow related to the subject: they're not, in my opinion, no matter how many times and how loudly you assert it. Even if email was art, which it generally isn't (so "moral rights" don't apply) and if it were copyrightable, which is arguable, but I'll accept it for the moment; these emails are not being modified, which is a form or republishing, they're being deleted/ignored/blocked. The principles involved in spam blocking are those of free speech, not artistic integrity and copyright. So now I have addressed your "point". And with that, I'm done too.
That has absolutely no part in this conversation at all. You made a few good points in other posts, but saying crap like this just hurts your argument by making it look like you are grasping for straws. It also makes you look like a tinfoil hat gent.
This from someone who says "WHAT??? SPEWS CENSORS YOUR EMAIL!!!
>If I just want to get work done I often disconnect from the network until I actually need to use it.
In most companies you can't even log in on a box if it's not connected to the network; logging in and pulling the cable is a sure way to stir up the sysops. Even if you succeed in bypassing the network login, your documents still are probably stored somewhere on the network, not on your local harddisk. This might be an option at home, but it's not an option at work most of the time.
I was mainly referring to home, where you're not restrained by PHB policies. However, in the tightly controlled situation above, there should be even less need to have intrusive and continuous scanning of the desktop. The file server can scan stuff when you save it, and not need to do it again before opening. At night more paranoid scans can be done when it doesn't slow down work.
Antivirus software has become so beloated these days. I run Norton Antivirus on my Windows machine and it turns it into a lag terminal.
If you are allowed to, turn off some of the checking. I think Norton by default scans every file you open, every app you run. Just set it scan stuff coming via email or web, and manually scan anything else. Set it on a complete scan when you go for lunch. If I just want to get work done I often disconnect from the network until I actually need to use it.
Why not put a drop of white paint on the LED -- I assume they're not hot. And if they do blow up, the device will keep working.
Anyone have an idea of the power consumption of these things? I used to worry about the effect on battery life on my portable short-wave when I was going into the bush for extended periods.
That's what these non-profits and poor countries really need, a Free Software distro that will run with fairly modern features (modern web browser, office suite, email) on *really* old hardware. I know it can be done. The proof is Windows 95 itself. There's also that NewDeal Office thing which is a GUI for DOS that is supposed to run in just 2MB of RAM as a minimum, with an office suite, web browser, email, etc.
You can get all of that, except "modern" web browser, with Win 3.1. I ran that on a 286, 4MB RAM, for years. Office 4.3/Lotus Smartsuite/Word Perfect all do everything you could need in an office suite. Email -- Eudora 3, which I still use on Win 98. Browser -- Netscape 3 or 4. There are better ones I'm sure; as I was on a 28k modem, as most of those will be who are restrictd to old hardware, that was the bottleneck more than the computer or software. I often just logged on to a command line and ran lynx to find stuff quickly. Also of course, none of the viruses or exploits going around will have any luck with this setup.
You CAN cut your own version. You CAN'T sell that cut version, even if you have a deal with the publisher to sell the original. The question is whether you can sell a cue list that creates a cut version when someone else watches their copy. The creators claim this violates their moral rights, and possibly their copyright if the list is seen as a derivative work. But the effect of doing this in an automated way, as this device does, is to create a new version of the work without the consent of the creators or copyright owners.
Brought closer to home (for most of us), you must be against SPEWS and all DNS blacklisting services as well,
I don't understand how you could imagine that. Choosing not to receive a message at all, even if it's an artwork (which I have a hard time thinking of an email message as, let alone spam) is not a violation of anyone's rights.
Aside from the creators having their work presented by a third party without their consent, on the viewers' end what really bothers me about this is that it could become a default setting, with the edits defined by some group with their own agenda, moral, political, whatever; and enforced with the full might of the DMCA legally and DRM technically. Thus in 10 years time you load your copy of Kubrick's Lolita and find it's 20 minutes short; and meanwhile you've been placed on a federal paedo watch list.
If I buy the original Mona Lisa, very much a "'work ' in the artistic sense," I have every right to shred it.
Yes, you do. Especially as Leonardo has been dead for several centuries his feelings don't come into it.
Just because you claim that "moral rights" means that the creator(s) can restrict what you do with their stuff, it is not necessarily legally (or morally) true. Actually, I think morality has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's a made-up term so that creators can feel like they have more control that they do not have.
Yes, it's a made up term. From the French. I recommend looking at Moral Rights and Authors' Rights which explains it in detail, with special reference to differing legal traditions.
As like most of those who've followed up my post, you fail to distinguish between what you do to your own copy of a work, which no one contests, and what you "publish" so others may see that, which is what the proposed legal action is about.
You have chosen to censor those out. I can't see how you can argue for one (censoring popups), and against the other (censoring DVDs), censorship is censorship.
Slashdot Mirror
If you'd RTFA, you'd know that the "open standards" referred to are Java and Unix, which OSX interoperates with much better than Windows, which (apparently) was used previously. The iMacs run a Java virtual terminal and Mozilla browsers. Is that open enough?
I don't think they've addressed this at all. Is the word "seat" used in the licence? How is it defined? You can certainly use it with two monitors, and as many input devices as you like. There is only one processor and there is only one instance running at any moment. I think a good case could be made that this is legally no different than two people sharing a PC in the fashion of one sliding into the other's "seat".
Of course if MS wants to break it they can do it easily, it needs software that enables it, presumably built with cooperation from MS -- so unless they hid their intentions from MS, MS must already have given approval at some level. If this takes off, MS'll just make sure it doesn't work in the standard install of Windows and Office, and require a special version.
But you can certainly have more than one file open. Of course you'd be stepping over each other's palette and tool selections, so it might not be very practical.
The laws cited are Indian. (If it were US, they'd be talking DMCA.)
while we're at it, this story seems to have even more spelling errors than scientific ones:
..."
"a result the motors uses"
should be either "the motor uses" or "the motors use"
"still maintaing the same horsepower"
should be "... maintaining..."
"a tradtitionally powered fan"
should be "... traditionally
"convience stores "
should be "convenience"
(and I did RTFA, these mistakes weren't in that, they were made by the dipshit who submitted this bogus story)
Before defending oneself, one needs to know what one is charged with. I know that in the new America you just throw people in concentration camps for a couple of years because they have shifty eyes, but in most other countries you need to say what law has been broken first.
Apple used to have service manuals for their old Macs on ftp.apple.com, with no passwords. But if anyone even gave a link to them in any Mac discussion group they had very heavy legal threats using "copyright" and "trade secret" language that made all the site and list owners immedaitely delete the articles. Again, these were simply links to documents freely available on Apple's own site, for obsolete machines that would cost more than they were worth to take to a repair centre -- even for trivial (once you see the diagrams) tasks like replacing the motherboard battery.
I'm not familiar with what they are referring to. Is that Indian law, or are they doing some cross-ocean hand-waving and hoping Sarovar doesn't notice?
Google search "Information+Technology+Act,+2000"
Hit #2:"India's Information Technology Act, 2000"
and search for Copyright Act, 1957", hit #5: "Indiainfo Law: Enactments THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957".
Right. Until this story was posted.
Oh yes they did.
Is not an "intellectual appeal", it's a threat to make them spend the rest of their lives in court and/or be bankrupted. It's one step removed from a horse's head in the bed.The Google cache is of LAST YEAR's page. (Obviously they haven't spidered it yet.)And so is the Wayback Machine's. Anyone have a current mirror?
You keep searching for irrelevant side issues to argue, and "argue" is used advisedly. Regarding your belief that all spam is protected by copyright: consider for instance that most spam is copied from other spam, often word for word with garbage characters added mechanically perhaps. Thus if any copyright existed, it certainly is not owned by the sender, and thus even if copyright somehow protected messages from being filtered, or censored if you prefer, it would have no effect.
Having followed you down your rabbit hole so far, it really is time for me to return to the real world.
Posted by michael on Friday January 24, @10:21PM
from the south-pole-highway-patrol-now-hiring dept.
tetrad writes "The New Scientist magazine reports that the US is building a road to the South Pole. The "highway" would cross the Ross Ice Shelf and then pass through the Transantarctic Mountains (map here). Convoys of tractors will be the only traffic on the road, bringing fuel and heavy equipment to the South Pole, as well as enabling the installation of a $250M fibre-optic communications cable (discussed previously)."
If this TV show adds anything to the story above (which I rather doubt), apologies.
It was YOUR "point". You brought SPEWS and spam into the discussion, and insisted they were somehow related to the subject: they're not, in my opinion, no matter how many times and how loudly you assert it. Even if email was art, which it generally isn't (so "moral rights" don't apply) and if it were copyrightable, which is arguable, but I'll accept it for the moment; these emails are not being modified, which is a form or republishing, they're being deleted/ignored/blocked. The principles involved in spam blocking are those of free speech, not artistic integrity and copyright. So now I have addressed your "point". And with that, I'm done too.
This from someone who says "WHAT??? SPEWS CENSORS YOUR EMAIL!!!
In most companies you can't even log in on a box if it's not connected to the network; logging in and pulling the cable is a sure way to stir up the sysops. Even if you succeed in bypassing the network login, your documents still are probably stored somewhere on the network, not on your local harddisk. This might be an option at home, but it's not an option at work most of the time.
I was mainly referring to home, where you're not restrained by PHB policies. However, in the tightly controlled situation above, there should be even less need to have intrusive and continuous scanning of the desktop. The file server can scan stuff when you save it, and not need to do it again before opening. At night more paranoid scans can be done when it doesn't slow down work.
If you are allowed to, turn off some of the checking. I think Norton by default scans every file you open, every app you run. Just set it scan stuff coming via email or web, and manually scan anything else. Set it on a complete scan when you go for lunch. If I just want to get work done I often disconnect from the network until I actually need to use it.
Anyone have an idea of the power consumption of these things? I used to worry about the effect on battery life on my portable short-wave when I was going into the bush for extended periods.
You can get all of that, except "modern" web browser, with Win 3.1. I ran that on a 286, 4MB RAM, for years. Office 4.3/Lotus Smartsuite /Word Perfect all do everything you could need in an office suite. Email -- Eudora 3, which I still use on Win 98. Browser -- Netscape 3 or 4. There are better ones I'm sure; as I was on a 28k modem, as most of those will be who are restrictd to old hardware, that was the bottleneck more than the computer or software. I often just logged on to a command line and ran lynx to find stuff quickly. Also of course, none of the viruses or exploits going around will have any luck with this setup.
You CAN cut your own version. You CAN'T sell that cut version, even if you have a deal with the publisher to sell the original. The question is whether you can sell a cue list that creates a cut version when someone else watches their copy. The creators claim this violates their moral rights, and possibly their copyright if the list is seen as a derivative work. But the effect of doing this in an automated way, as this device does, is to create a new version of the work without the consent of the creators or copyright owners.
Brought closer to home (for most of us), you must be against SPEWS and all DNS blacklisting services as well,
I don't understand how you could imagine that. Choosing not to receive a message at all, even if it's an artwork (which I have a hard time thinking of an email message as, let alone spam) is not a violation of anyone's rights.
Aside from the creators having their work presented by a third party without their consent, on the viewers' end what really bothers me about this is that it could become a default setting, with the edits defined by some group with their own agenda, moral, political, whatever; and enforced with the full might of the DMCA legally and DRM technically. Thus in 10 years time you load your copy of Kubrick's Lolita and find it's 20 minutes short; and meanwhile you've been placed on a federal paedo watch list.
Yes, you do. Especially as Leonardo has been dead for several centuries his feelings don't come into it.
Just because you claim that "moral rights" means that the creator(s) can restrict what you do with their stuff, it is not necessarily legally (or morally) true. Actually, I think morality has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's a made-up term so that creators can feel like they have more control that they do not have.
Yes, it's a made up term. From the French. I recommend looking at Moral Rights and Authors' Rights which explains it in detail, with special reference to differing legal traditions.
As like most of those who've followed up my post, you fail to distinguish between what you do to your own copy of a work, which no one contests, and what you "publish" so others may see that, which is what the proposed legal action is about.
No, you seem capable of arguing for both of us. I'll check back tomorrow and see who "won".
Please, be my guest. I never suggested you couldn't.
No I haven't. And goodnight.
I've explained the difference, several times.