Stop pretending criminal law can protect DRM, remove the penalties for hacking it, and you won't need to make DRM illegal. The community of users will neuter any DRM so badly it will be worthless to try to implement it anymore.
It wouldn't even change that much. DRM (at least on general-purpose computers) is already worthless to try to implement. Do you really think that pirates are going to throw up their hands because Windows 7 protects Adobe DLLs? No, they'll break it, and torrents, keygens, and patches for CS4 on Windows 7 will be widely available.
What repealing DMCA 1201 is bring it all out into the open, so even the most pointy-haired DRM advocate couldn't believe it was actually doing any good. But that's not going to happen, ever.
Also, what are the odds the particle doesn't exist AND they find it?
You got modded funny for this, but it's a reasonable question. It's certainly possible they'll conclude they've found the Higgs even if it doesn't exist.
I don't think by definition you could release a photo under CC without a model release.
That's not the case. The copyright licensing is completely separate from any model release. It's the responsibility of the publisher to get a model release if one is needed, not the photographer; a professional photographer will get one to make his photos more salable, but he's not required to. So Virgin Mobile doesn't get off that easily.
Musicians most likely get a cut of the ticket sales and not the $40 worth of extra charges that get tacked on.
You're not thinking evil enough. Most likely musicians have to pay the venue for the privilege to perform, said payment being taken out of their future royalties as "marketing expenses", and a large part of said payment being kicked back to the record companies.
So it's not theft if someone comes into your house, takes away your TV, doesn't give it to someone else, but throws it into the ocean?
Of course that's theft; when the thief took away the TV he possessed it while I didn't; that he later tossed it in the ocean doesn't change that. If he'd destroyed the TV without taking it away, it wouldn't be theft.
In the case of copyright, the "thief" doesn't gain copyright, but deprives the author of being the sole distributor (i.e., the copyright). Consequently, it is a theft.
The thief doesn't gain copyright and the author doesn't lose it. So no theft on two counts. You could "steal" copyright through fraud, or by putting a gun to the copyright holder's head and making him sign it over to you, but not by merely making an unauthorized copy.
Well, there's already at least one case where apparently a photo just being released under the Creative Commons, made it legal enough for Virgin to use it in a big advertising campaign. I don't think they needed anything else there.
Well, if you release a photo under a Creative Commons license which allows commercial uses of your work, of course it does. If you don't understand language that plain, nothing will save you.
Where Virgin Mobile screwed up is that getting the license to the photo didn't get them a model release as well; they had the photographer's permission but not the subject's. IANAL but I'd expect a model release would be required to use a living person's photo as the main subject in an ad.
You can't open a restaurant and then lock the doors once people are eating, saying anyone who walked in has to pay an exit toll due to a retroactive change in the conditions of entry.
Unless you're the government, which is how Charlie got stuck on the MTA.
Why bother to fight DRM? DRM is not the problem, the problem is that distributing DRM workarounds is illegal. Instead, why not go after the root problem, the DMCA?
Because they already lost that battle when they failed to appeal 2600 v. MPAA.
Is need the keyword there? I don't need an outdoor antenna because I am required to pay for cable as part of my monthly maintenance. My association refuses to let any of us install an outdoor antenna or even a satellite dish because we already get cable.
Your association is in violation of the OTARD where it comes to the satellite dish. If the cable provided gives you every local channel available over the air with an antenna, there might not be a violation there (the cable service might be considered the equivalent of a common antenna). Check the page I linked to.
If you want to do DTV over the air right, you need to build yourself a Gray Hoverman Antenna. There are lots of plans for it on the net, including the hackaday sight. Takes most people a couple of hours to build and works very well.
The Gray-Hoverman is good for UHF and some VHF-Hi, but not the only choice in the build-it-yourself category; there's also the 4-bay reflectorized bowtie. The AVS forum has a whole thread on variants of that, including the "mclapp" antenna, named after the user who optimized and built one of the best ones.
If you need VHF-Lo or a lot of gain on VHF-Hi, like I do, you're kind of stuck with the commercial varieties. I haven't seen plans for a good and practical VHF-Lo/VHF-Hi build-it-yourself antenna.
Outside of the UK, there are things called apartments, and "home owners association" which prohibits having such things visible to the outside world.
In the US, there's this thing called the "OTARD", which is basically a case of a governmental agency (the FCC) telling a bunch of quasi-governmental petty fascists (HOAs) to stay the fuck out of their territory. The OTARD says that if you need an outdoor antenna, homeowner's associations can't prevent you from getting one. They can't even delay you or try to make it hard through bureaucratic BS (the FCC is obviously well-acquainted with red tape).
Plus, you're not arguing invalidity of a patent issued to some fly-by-night company that develops crap and files applications on it - this was Xerox, and they typically have/had their shit together.
They have the same incentive as any company to patent things even when prior art exists, though. And claim 1 of the '412 patent is certainly covered by Apple's 1985 "Switcher".
The other major "innovation" they appear to claim is that of pinning windows so the same one appears on multiple desktops. Given multiple desktops already, that's hardly patent-worthy... and it was probably anticipated. (Switcher may have had it, for desk accessories; I don't remember).
Bullshit. Sorry, but it is. Did you know that if you form a business partnership without an agreement it defaults to a canned thing under the Uniform Partnership Act. So you can make your own agreement or default to the one the law already has.
But there _isn't_ an equivalent for software licenses. That was what UCITA was intended to be.
The only real requirement is that both parties agree, and read it or not, clicking agree means that you agree.
If you wish to fall back on pure formalities, this would mean that if I modified the software (before clicking on "agree") to change the wording on the buttons, I would not be bound by the license. That is of course ludicrous.
The only times it really has gotten beaten up is when they try to add illegal crap to the license (such as removing First Sale)
Since "First Sale" rights explicitly _do not apply_ to software which is licensed rather than sold, you're being self-contradictory here. See 17 USC 109(d).
I may rent a movie, and watch it with my friends, but I may not charge them admission.
Actually, you can. Just because you charge for it doesn't make it "public performance".
From 17 USC 101 "To perform or display a work "publicly" means-- (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or "
If you want to be a dick and charge your friends and family to watch a rented (or purchased) movie, copyright law doesn't stop you.
Fair use is unfortunately mostly an urban legend these days. It's a defense, not something you can establish prior to being challenged.
Fair use is an exception to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. It can be used as a defense, but so can "I didn't do it".
So if someone that can afford a stable of lawyers accuses you of a copyright violation, it ceases to matter whether you or any other reasonable person considered it fair use.
If you can't get a lawyer of your own, it ceases to matter if you even did what they said you did; just ask the RIAA and their rotating random IP lawsuit system.
You're not purchasing the software. Almost nobody purchases software.
Yes, I am. Looks like a sale, quacks like a sale, it's a sale. If it were a license, it would have to be established under ordinary contract law, with all those nasty legal formalities and meetings of the mind and such -- given that neither Apple (based on the Safari for Windows EULA snafu) nor most of the users ("just click Agree and the box goes away") actually reads the thing, it'd be pretty hard to establish that.
Since the software contains controls, Apple could argue those controls are being circumvented (which is illegal under DMCA) for gaining access to protected works for infringing purposes.
Unfortunately, you may be onto something there. According to the 2600 case, it doesn't matter whether the work was sold or not. No one argues that DVDs are licensed rather than sold. Yet the Circuit Court in the 2600 case decided that for a purchaser to circumvent the copy protection to gain access to a copy of a work _which he owned_ was a violation of the DMCA.
Apple stores are boutiques where people come in, are greeted, browse, play, learn, get help, and maybe buy a computer on the spot, without lines.
Not the King of Prussia Apple Store. That's always packed so forget about "without lines" or "play". You can browse if you don't mind crowds (I do). If you want help, you'll have to make an appointment. A victim of their own success, alas.
He was forcibly quarantined on his return to the U.S., having demonstrated that he wouldn't abide by the health restrictions placed on him. Was that tyranny?
Turns out that not only was he non-contagious, he didn't even have the disease they claimed. So, yeah.
It is commonly sold as rabbit or deer repellent sprays.
The rabbit and deer stuff often has "putrescent egg solids", which is a fancy name for "rotten egg". You don't want to spray that indoors. It does repel rabbits though.
Reusing traps doesn't work anyway. If a mouse died in the trap, it smells like dead mouse, and living mice will rather chew through concrete than go near it.
You'd think so, but I've successfully re-used snap traps. Mice will brave death for peanut butter.
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't even change that much. DRM (at least on general-purpose computers) is already worthless to try to implement. Do you really think that pirates are going to throw up their hands because Windows 7 protects Adobe DLLs? No, they'll break it, and torrents, keygens, and patches for CS4 on Windows 7 will be widely available.
What repealing DMCA 1201 is bring it all out into the open, so even the most pointy-haired DRM advocate couldn't believe it was actually doing any good. But that's not going to happen, ever.
Lead-acid batteries. Or better yet, just the electrolyte, which is typically shipped separate from the batteries (except for sealed batteries).
Some drain cleaners have it too.
That's a feature, not a bug :-).
Well, that's one way to get us out of the economic crisis.
You got modded funny for this, but it's a reasonable question. It's certainly possible they'll conclude they've found the Higgs even if it doesn't exist.
That's not the case. The copyright licensing is completely separate from any model release. It's the responsibility of the publisher to get a model release if one is needed, not the photographer; a professional photographer will get one to make his photos more salable, but he's not required to. So Virgin Mobile doesn't get off that easily.
You're not thinking evil enough. Most likely musicians have to pay the venue for the privilege to perform, said payment being taken out of their future royalties as "marketing expenses", and a large part of said payment being kicked back to the record companies.
Of course that's theft; when the thief took away the TV he possessed it while I didn't; that he later tossed it in the ocean doesn't change that. If he'd destroyed the TV without taking it away, it wouldn't be theft.
The thief doesn't gain copyright and the author doesn't lose it. So no theft on two counts. You could "steal" copyright through fraud, or by putting a gun to the copyright holder's head and making him sign it over to you, but not by merely making an unauthorized copy.
Well, if you release a photo under a Creative Commons license which allows commercial uses of your work, of course it does. If you don't understand language that plain, nothing will save you.
Where Virgin Mobile screwed up is that getting the license to the photo didn't get them a model release as well; they had the photographer's permission but not the subject's. IANAL but I'd expect a model release would be required to use a living person's photo as the main subject in an ad.
Unless you're the government, which is how Charlie got stuck on the MTA.
VHF-Lo is not going away. The frequencies auctioned away by the FCC last year were in the UHF spectrum and correspond to channels 52-69.
Because they already lost that battle when they failed to appeal 2600 v. MPAA.
Your association is in violation of the OTARD where it comes to the satellite dish. If the cable provided gives you every local channel available over the air with an antenna, there might not be a violation there (the cable service might be considered the equivalent of a common antenna). Check the page I linked to.
The Gray-Hoverman is good for UHF and some VHF-Hi, but not the only choice in the build-it-yourself category; there's also the 4-bay reflectorized bowtie. The AVS forum has a whole thread on variants of that, including the "mclapp" antenna, named after the user who optimized and built one of the best ones.
If you need VHF-Lo or a lot of gain on VHF-Hi, like I do, you're kind of stuck with the commercial varieties. I haven't seen plans for a good and practical VHF-Lo/VHF-Hi build-it-yourself antenna.
In the US, there's this thing called the "OTARD", which is basically a case of a governmental agency (the FCC) telling a bunch of quasi-governmental petty fascists (HOAs) to stay the fuck out of their territory. The OTARD says that if you need an outdoor antenna, homeowner's associations can't prevent you from getting one. They can't even delay you or try to make it hard through bureaucratic BS (the FCC is obviously well-acquainted with red tape).
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
If you don't own or control a spot to mount the antenna, you still may be SOL, but if you own your home, the OTARD lets you tell an HOA to STFU.
VHF is not going away. VHF-Lo (2-6) is going to be less used, but it's not going away completely. VHF-Hi (7-13) is going to be well-used.
They have the same incentive as any company to patent things even when prior art exists, though. And claim 1 of the '412 patent is certainly covered by Apple's 1985 "Switcher".
The other major "innovation" they appear to claim is that of pinning windows so the same one appears on multiple desktops. Given multiple desktops already, that's hardly patent-worthy... and it was probably anticipated. (Switcher may have had it, for desk accessories; I don't remember).
But there _isn't_ an equivalent for software licenses. That was what UCITA was intended to be.
If you wish to fall back on pure formalities, this would mean that if I modified the software (before clicking on "agree") to change the wording on the buttons, I would not be bound by the license. That is of course ludicrous.
Since "First Sale" rights explicitly _do not apply_ to software which is licensed rather than sold, you're being self-contradictory here. See 17 USC 109(d).
Actually, you can. Just because you charge for it doesn't make it "public performance".
From 17 USC 101
"To perform or display a work "publicly" means--
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or "
If you want to be a dick and charge your friends and family to watch a rented (or purchased) movie, copyright law doesn't stop you.
Fair use is an exception to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. It can be used as a defense, but so can "I didn't do it".
If you can't get a lawyer of your own, it ceases to matter if you even did what they said you did; just ask the RIAA and their rotating random IP lawsuit system.
Might want to read up on David, Uriah, and Bathsheba before you make that determination.
Yes, I am. Looks like a sale, quacks like a sale, it's a sale. If it were a license, it would have to be established under ordinary contract law, with all those nasty legal formalities and meetings of the mind and such -- given that neither Apple (based on the Safari for Windows EULA snafu) nor most of the users ("just click Agree and the box goes away") actually reads the thing, it'd be pretty hard to establish that.
Unfortunately, you may be onto something there. According to the 2600 case, it doesn't matter whether the work was sold or not. No one argues that DVDs are licensed rather than sold. Yet the Circuit Court in the 2600 case decided that for a purchaser to circumvent the copy protection to gain access to a copy of a work _which he owned_ was a violation of the DMCA.
Not the King of Prussia Apple Store. That's always packed so forget about "without lines" or "play". You can browse if you don't mind crowds (I do). If you want help, you'll have to make an appointment. A victim of their own success, alas.
Turns out that not only was he non-contagious, he didn't even have the disease they claimed. So, yeah.
The rabbit and deer stuff often has "putrescent egg solids", which is a fancy name for "rotten egg". You don't want to spray that indoors. It does repel rabbits though.
You'd think so, but I've successfully re-used snap traps. Mice will brave death for peanut butter.