Well, on the one hand, he's apparently withdrawing so he can retire to his personal Caribbean island. On the other hand, he cites as the reason for his sudden retirement stress the death of his two dogs and favorite horse. So I'd say "both".
This seems legit to me. It isn't even restricted to the Internet. For instance, if you go to the grocery store, often you'll get printed coupons for competitors to the products you bought. And if you go to a foolish restaurant which only offers Pepsi products and ask for a Coke, they're not only allowed but encouraged to say "Would you rather have a Pepsi?". What they're not allowed to do is give you a Pepsi when you asked for a Coke, but that's not what's going on here.
because that's exactly the attitude I hear. Maybe that's just the way things are going to be from now on, but it does bother me that so many people consider not getting a product to be an unacceptable response to terms they don't like. I guess *I* must be getting old...
That begs the question of whether or not those dictating the terms have the right to do so. The MPAA asks why you'd download a movie if you wouldn't steal a car or various other tangible items, but more to the point is the question of why someone who wouldn't steal a _DVD_ would download a movie. I think a large part of the answer is that the right to exclusive control of reproduction and distribution of creative works is not automatically accepted by people.
How long before some particularly vengeful luddite publisher starts printing on treated paper stock that has an IR visible pattern, calculated to confuse these scanners, printed on it?
Before one does it? Not long. Before any significant amount of product is produced using it? Probably forever, on cost and particularly cost/benefit issues.
Besides, if the protected product produced was particularly interesting to those wanting to scan it, they could almost certainly modify the scan system to accomodate it.
They're not emulating the RIAA. They're the RIAA's mentors. They're the original music mafia; they claim to own every melody from Happy Birthday on up, and if you show that a tune (say, Greensleeves) is centuries old, they'll claim that your "arrangement" of it is theirs until you prove otherwise. Remember the lawsuit against the Girl Scouts over public perfomance of campfire songs? That was ASCAP.
There's already spam-blocking and virus-scanning firewalls out there. This seems like the perfect problem for a COTS (Commercial-off-the-shelf) solution.
Although I do agree with earlier posters that it would be infinitely more satisfying if they sent the military after the spammers instead... they could take a middle ground between arresting them and torturing them, and just shoot them.
"Did you really think we wanted those laws to be observed?"... oh, fuck it, look it up yourself.
There's no point in trying to find a middle ground while the other guys are moving the current situation further and further towards their extreme. Give them anything and they'll take it and then demand more, with nothing in return. May as well just declare them irrelevant and hoist the Jolly Roger.
Thankfully, as badly as our corporations do seem to control our government, we're still nowhere near this nightmare scenario you describe. You can violate EULAs, licenses, and terms of service all you want, and the most that'll happen to you is you'll be sued in civil court.
Wrong. Lori Drew was convicted of three misdemeanors for violating the MySpace terms of service.
basically AdBlock (and NoScript) are allowing users to get something for nothing... for free! We are cheating the system in a way.
No, we're not cheating the system. The advertisers just don't understand the system. The way the system works is this
1) My computer requests a web page 2) The server provides it 3) What I do with it is totally up to me.
There's no agreement to run any of the stuff on the page, or to download and/or display any of the content linked to by the page, or anything like that. I get the web page for free because they provided it for free, and not viewing the ads is no more cheating than going to the bathroom during commercials on TV is.
Um, don't most ad-based companies only pay the site whenever a user clicks on an ad? Most of the time, unless its some really amazing ad (like buy a Core i7 Desktop for $330 from Newegg), most technical users know never to click on the ads.
Sure, except when they slide them across the page so you hit them by accident going for something else. Or put them up as a window blocking the content with a fake close box that counts as a click.
Screw ads. It doesn't matter how much advertisers (or webmasters) promise to behave and not do shit like that, they will. Pohl and Kornbluth had it right in _Merchants of Venus_... if they could beam addictive ads directly into your brain, they'd do it in a second without feeling so much as a twinge in their non-existent consciences.
What can be patented (but not copyrighted) is the process of performing diagnostic tests on a certain gene. To quote the article:
"Myriad's patents give it exclusive right to perform diagnostic tests on the genes -- forcing other researchers to request permission from the company before they can take a look at BRCA1 and BRCA2, the ACLU said. The patents also give the company the rights to future mutations on the BRCA2 gene and the power to exclude others from providing genetic testing."
This is not a good thing, but it does seem to fit within the scope of patents. This is more reason for patent reform.
That only fits into the legitimate scope of patents if the tests themselves were patentable subject matter. If the only thing unique about "performing diagnostic tests on BRCA1" is the specific gene, then this is the biochemical equivalent of a software patent, where non-patentable subject matter is magically made patentable by adding "performed on a device consisting of a CPU, input device, output device, operating system, and memory store".
Not to defend Officer Abed's overreaction (nor her probably violation of your civil rights) but when interacting a heavily armed lady who's authorized to use deadly force and deprive you of your freedom, it's absolutely the wrong time to cop an attitude.
That's the when it counts the most. Anyone can run their mouth in a blog. If you don't stand up for your rights when they are being threatened, you don't have them. Sure, people say you should just comply and file a complaint later, but that just amounts to capitulation. You know what will happen to the complaint -- straight to File 13.
By the logic of the decision, your cache would be considered a reproduction, because it isn't transient. Since you'd have had to set up the system to do the caching, it would be made at your request, so this decision wouldn't shield you from direct liability for making that copy.
If your client downloaded each chunk, sent it on, and then erased it, then your cache might not be considered a reproduction. There is a blurry line (the court suggests that a copy of an entire work which lasts "minutes" is not transient, but a piece-by-piece copy of a work in which each part only lasts a few seconds is transient, leaving a whole area in the middle to fight over), but your scheme clearly falls to the infringing side of it.
When I get something from the cable company, that is distribution. If that is not distributed in the manner as the owner of the copyright desires, that is a copyright violation on face. Copyright is ABOUT distribution.
The MPAA did not assert a violation of the distribution right. It wouldn't apply anyway, because no copies were distributed. Instead, they asserted a violation of the public performance right... and got shot down as the performance wasn't public.
Perhaps they've colluded in order to get the courts to arrive at a decision that is anti-consumer.
If so, they've done a pretty poor job. The circuit court decision is pretty good
1) It rejects the notion that buffering a work necessarily infringes on the reproduction right. (that doctrine would make playing most digital media a reproduction, giving legal teeth to playback restrictions) 2) It rejects (following Netcom) direct liability for the operator of a system which makes copies automatically at the request of someone else. 3) It rejects broad readings of the "public performance" clause which says that all commercial performances are public, and that multiple performances of the a work to individuals, even if based off different copies of the same work, constitute public performance. (Remember the claims that Kindle text-to-speech constitutes public performance? This decision cuts the legs out from most such arguments)
A few years ago I'd have said no, but if you look around now, particularly in some of the more prestigious companies, a lot of them are now asking for an MS in CS, CE, or EE for certain positions. But it's by no means universal, so if you're sick and tired of school or drowning in student debt, you still have the option of a going into the work force (well, assuming this recession gets over with). If it's the theory-heavy stuff you like, the masters is probably the better bet in the long run.
23 year old's don't command starships in ANY reality. Reboot, my ass. Die StarTrek, die......
Space Admiral Farragut would strongly disagree. (the real wet-navy Farragut was given command of a prize ship at age 12, and attained a command of his own at age 22)
So, if a Linux file system blows up, then, the author of that file system is liable for all the data loss from it.
And that sort of thing, in a nutshell, is why nearly every warranty out there attempts to limit or disclaim liability for "incidental or consequential damages". Eliminating this and making the manufacturer of a product face almost unbounded liability for flaws is a great way of ensuring only flawless products are marketed. Unfortunately, it fails to actually increase the number of flawless products.
Actually, 99 times out of 100, its the software. As a hardware developer, it really pisses me off when I have to look through the crappy code to find the bloody obvious fault that 20 software "gurus" couldn't bloody well see! Of course, the software developers don't do the same for me.
You wired DTR and DSR backwards and the interrupt pin you left floating is causing 10% of the systems out there (somehow including none of the samples in development and alpha test) to lock solid before the code can disable it. Happy now?
Could this be the beginnings of a non-quantum solution to, say, the problem of factoring large numbers? Not a solution itself, but the beginnings of a method for breaking RSA without resorting to the use of q-bits et. al.?
Probably not. It's an interesting result, but it's not specific to prime numbers. Rather, it applies to all sets whose density is related to 1/log n.
After reading the article the only thing I can say is that the author has no clue about how Trademarks work. The examples don't even make sense.
If he doesn't know how trademarks work, neither does Red Hat. This IS probably the case, however.
One of his examples is Red Hat's attempt to prohibit redistribution of their binary distribution by claiming it's a violation of trademark rights to copy the programs which include their trademarks. However, one of the few areas of IP law where the courts have actually been fairly reasonable is in attempts to abuse one form of IP to extend another. Using a trademark to obtain copyright-like protection isn't likely to survive challenge.
Since you're obviously a troll, I hesitate to respond further, but...
yet Canonical can boast it for free because whenever you sue F/OSS, it makes you like you're punching a kitten and it's almost not worth the lost public image.
Yeah, like there aren't any number of litigious kitten-punchers out there who would be happy to do so if they thought they could win.
Have fun with Windows... just remember to stop using it next time Microsoft gets sued by a patent troll.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, on the one hand, he's apparently withdrawing so he can retire to his personal Caribbean island. On the other hand, he cites as the reason for his sudden retirement stress the death of his two dogs and favorite horse. So I'd say "both".
This seems legit to me. It isn't even restricted to the Internet. For instance, if you go to the grocery store, often you'll get printed coupons for competitors to the products you bought. And if you go to a foolish restaurant which only offers Pepsi products and ask for a Coke, they're not only allowed but encouraged to say "Would you rather have a Pepsi?". What they're not allowed to do is give you a Pepsi when you asked for a Coke, but that's not what's going on here.
That begs the question of whether or not those dictating the terms have the right to do so. The MPAA asks why you'd download a movie if you wouldn't steal a car or various other tangible items, but more to the point is the question of why someone who wouldn't steal a _DVD_ would download a movie. I think a large part of the answer is that the right to exclusive control of reproduction and distribution of creative works is not automatically accepted by people.
Before one does it? Not long. Before any significant amount of product is produced using it? Probably forever, on cost and particularly cost/benefit issues. Besides, if the protected product produced was particularly interesting to those wanting to scan it, they could almost certainly modify the scan system to accomodate it.
They're not emulating the RIAA. They're the RIAA's mentors. They're the original music mafia; they claim to own every melody from Happy Birthday on up, and if you show that a tune (say, Greensleeves) is centuries old, they'll claim that your "arrangement" of it is theirs until you prove otherwise. Remember the lawsuit against the Girl Scouts over public perfomance of campfire songs? That was ASCAP.
There's already spam-blocking and virus-scanning firewalls out there. This seems like the perfect problem for a COTS (Commercial-off-the-shelf) solution.
Although I do agree with earlier posters that it would be infinitely more satisfying if they sent the military after the spammers instead... they could take a middle ground between arresting them and torturing them, and just shoot them.
Hollywood has slightly less successful ways of cheating on the gross.
"Did you really think we wanted those laws to be observed?"... oh, fuck it, look it up yourself.
There's no point in trying to find a middle ground while the other guys are moving the current situation further and further towards their extreme. Give them anything and they'll take it and then demand more, with nothing in return. May as well just declare them irrelevant and hoist the Jolly Roger.
Wrong. Lori Drew was convicted of three misdemeanors for violating the MySpace terms of service.
No, we're not cheating the system. The advertisers just don't understand the system. The way the system works is this
1) My computer requests a web page
2) The server provides it
3) What I do with it is totally up to me.
There's no agreement to run any of the stuff on the page, or to download and/or display any of the content linked to by the page, or anything like that. I get the web page for free because they provided it for free, and not viewing the ads is no more cheating than going to the bathroom during commercials on TV is.
Sure, except when they slide them across the page so you hit them by accident going for something else. Or put them up as a window blocking the content with a fake close box that counts as a click.
Screw ads. It doesn't matter how much advertisers (or webmasters) promise to behave and not do shit like that, they will. Pohl and Kornbluth had it right in _Merchants of Venus_... if they could beam addictive ads directly into your brain, they'd do it in a second without feeling so much as a twinge in their non-existent consciences.
That only fits into the legitimate scope of patents if the tests themselves were patentable subject matter. If the only thing unique about "performing diagnostic tests on BRCA1" is the specific gene, then this is the biochemical equivalent of a software patent, where non-patentable subject matter is magically made patentable by adding "performed on a device consisting of a CPU, input device, output device, operating system, and memory store".
That's the when it counts the most. Anyone can run their mouth in a blog. If you don't stand up for your rights when they are being threatened, you don't have them. Sure, people say you should just comply and file a complaint later, but that just amounts to capitulation. You know what will happen to the complaint -- straight to File 13.
By the logic of the decision, your cache would be considered a reproduction, because it isn't transient. Since you'd have had to set up the system to do the caching, it would be made at your request, so this decision wouldn't shield you from direct liability for making that copy.
If your client downloaded each chunk, sent it on, and then erased it, then your cache might not be considered a reproduction. There is a blurry line (the court suggests that a copy of an entire work which lasts "minutes" is not transient, but a piece-by-piece copy of a work in which each part only lasts a few seconds is transient, leaving a whole area in the middle to fight over), but your scheme clearly falls to the infringing side of it.
The MPAA did not assert a violation of the distribution right. It wouldn't apply anyway, because no copies were distributed. Instead, they asserted a violation of the public performance right... and got shot down as the performance wasn't public.
If so, they've done a pretty poor job. The circuit court decision is pretty good
1) It rejects the notion that buffering a work necessarily infringes on the reproduction right. (that doctrine would make playing most digital media a reproduction, giving legal teeth to playback restrictions)
2) It rejects (following Netcom) direct liability for the operator of a system which makes copies automatically at the request of someone else.
3) It rejects broad readings of the "public performance" clause which says that all commercial performances are public, and that multiple performances of the a work to individuals, even if based off different copies of the same work, constitute public performance. (Remember the claims that Kindle text-to-speech constitutes public performance? This decision cuts the legs out from most such arguments)
Only when the "touching" in question is a person using his hand or arm to block a blow from a police officer.
A few years ago I'd have said no, but if you look around now, particularly in some of the more prestigious companies, a lot of them are now asking for an MS in CS, CE, or EE for certain positions. But it's by no means universal, so if you're sick and tired of school or drowning in student debt, you still have the option of a going into the work force (well, assuming this recession gets over with). If it's the theory-heavy stuff you like, the masters is probably the better bet in the long run.
Space Admiral Farragut would strongly disagree. (the real wet-navy Farragut was given command of a prize ship at age 12, and attained a command of his own at age 22)
And that sort of thing, in a nutshell, is why nearly every warranty out there attempts to limit or disclaim liability for "incidental or consequential damages". Eliminating this and making the manufacturer of a product face almost unbounded liability for flaws is a great way of ensuring only flawless products are marketed. Unfortunately, it fails to actually increase the number of flawless products.
You wired DTR and DSR backwards and the interrupt pin you left floating is causing 10% of the systems out there (somehow including none of the samples in development and alpha test) to lock solid before the code can disable it. Happy now?
Is it Wolfram Alpha V, or Wolfram Alpha VI? That's vitally important!
Probably not. It's an interesting result, but it's not specific to prime numbers. Rather, it applies to all sets whose density is related to 1/log n.
If he doesn't know how trademarks work, neither does Red Hat. This IS probably the case, however.
One of his examples is Red Hat's attempt to prohibit redistribution of their binary distribution by claiming it's a violation of trademark rights to copy the programs which include their trademarks. However, one of the few areas of IP law where the courts have actually been fairly reasonable is in attempts to abuse one form of IP to extend another. Using a trademark to obtain copyright-like protection isn't likely to survive challenge.
Since you're obviously a troll, I hesitate to respond further, but...
Yeah, like there aren't any number of litigious kitten-punchers out there who would be happy to do so if they thought they could win.
Have fun with Windows... just remember to stop using it next time Microsoft gets sued by a patent troll.