Let me count the ways - those DVRs are used to closely track viewing habits, at least as closely as watching the shows streaming from the network's own website.
1) No national ad revenue 2) No local/affiliate ad revenue
When I watch Chuck, I watch it on a Mythbox, receiving its content over the air. No tracking, no ads. And not piracy, at least until Betamax is definitively overruled. So those clearly are not the distinguishing factors of piracy.
Though now that they're moving it to the Friday night death slot, it's as good as canceled anyway.
Since they've now explicitly and announcedly decided to adopt a strategy of technology control measures, they just became a thorn in every geek's side.
Umm, that's not new. Remember the Audio Home Recording Act (mandating the Serial Copy Management System and destroying consumer DAT)? Remember a little thing called the DMCA?
They're just abandoning one prong of their approach (or say they are, anyway). The other prong has always been there.
I get it from the idea that someone that creates noxious fumes, toxic solid waste, and poisonous wastewater should clean it up before releasing it into the environment.
When you drink a 64 oz glass of your own urine each day, spend an hour each day in a room filled with nothing but your exhalations and flatulations, and have your feces sprinkled over your food, then you can make the demand you made in your original post. Until then, you're totally unreasonable. Any useful process creates waste, and the process of "cleaning up" that waste is both unlikely to make that waste actually consumable, and generates waste of its own.
But Microsoft's flagship products (Windows and Office) ship by default with "custom menus" turned on, which irritatingly moves menu items based on usage.
Not anymore. Now Microsoft Office doesn't have a menu system at all, concealing frequently used commands behind clickable tabs. It basically makes the interface unnecessarily modal. I'd ask what they were thinking, but it's clear that they weren't.
Governments spend billions of dollars and many years building up their credibility. Every time the justice system fails, that credit is lost. In time, if corrective measures aren't taken, the justice department finds itself bankrupt - people have zero respect for the law (because it is corrupt), and much contempt for the law. Society becomes lawless.
Not all governments. Some governments have wisely looked ahead, realized this process is inevitable, and saved the initial outlay. Modern cases in point are Mexico and Russia.
Easily solved.... the CEOs, boardmembers, stakeholders and major profit earners of these companies have to live adjacent to the factory. On a daily basis they have to 1) drink a nice 64 oz. glass of any waste water that may exist, 2) they have to sit for an hour in a room fill with any exhaust gases, and 3) any solid waste is ground up and sprinkled over their food.
You can bet that any byproducts will be clean or the guilty parties will receive their just rewards.
To bargain with management collectively instead of individually, so that you, the worker, have greater bargaining power.
No. The union decisionmakers have greater bargaining power. The worker has less. The idea is that the interests of the union should be aligned with the interests of the worker, but often that is not the case.
The problem with semi-ballistic, or sub-orbital hops, is that you more often than not end up wearing your breakfast - which businessmen do not like to do.
Ha. Cut a few hours off their Crackberry-free time, and they'll grab some Dramamine and sign right up.
I am now chief steward of the union where I work. If you are not happy about the way your union is being run (if you have one) then run for a leadership position - DO something rather that just bitch about it. The union leadership is elected by the employees from the pool of employees - not run from some outside group.
And if you're not particularly good at leadership, or running for leadership, or if the current people in charge are just better (or more ruthless) at retaining power? "If you don't like it, take over" isn't often a practical option.
Get rid of the secret ballot, as this proposal suggests, and all it will take to "organize" tech workers is to seed the group with a few thuggish pro-union ex-steelworkers who suggest bodily harm to anyone who fails to sign up.
What are "professional bodies" if not unions? Do you really want a world in which anybody can call themselves a teacher,physician, an accountant, a lawyer, an airline pilot, or a civil or electrical engineer?
Or a computer programmer, or system administrator? It seems livable. BTW, I think anyone CAN call themselves an accountant (but not a CPA). Anyway, that argument is about licensure, not union membership, though sometimes they are tied together.
For example, the automakers. Ford admits it doesn't need money 'right now', they are just looking for a multi-million dollar loan pre-approval.
If the other two get the pre-approval, Ford would be at a relative disadvantage -- possibly enough to sink them. So Ford pretty much has to play the same game.
Chrysler does one thing well, and that's the minivan. Unfortunately the value of the minivan division is not enough to make up for the rest of the company.
Maybe if "the world" was smart they'd stop lending money to the U.S. and instead invest in the future of the new superpowers - Russia, China, and especially the European Union. Let the U.S. wallow in it recession while the rest of the world continues forward.
Ahh, you'd be one of those smug Europeans who not only expected the US economy to fail, but expected this to be GOOD for Europe.
China? China bases its economy on exporting goods to Americans and Europeans. The American economy falls, the Chinese one does to -- and it did.
Russia's still too unstable to make it as an economic superpower.
Could you explain why the dollar gain strength when the american economy fails? Is it just because it's so big people trust it more?
Because the American economy dragged down many other world economies with it. Surprised a bunch of smug Europeans who were rubbing their hands with glee waiting for the impending American collapse. The pound was especially hard hit because not only were UK banks invested in US real estate securities, but the UK had a real estate bubble of its own.
This "new socialism", where governments don't own the means of production outright, but rather have "partnerships" with private companies where the governments cover the risk and have a large degree of control (perhaps via an overseer, or "auto czar" in the case of car companies)... it looks suspiciously similar to the old fascism.
Determining the speed of light is constant in a vacume (engineering)
Err, no. Mathematics. Engineering can only verify that the speed of light is constant within some error -- which they already had by the time Einstein came around (Michelson-Morely). Einstein made the insightful observation that Maxwell's equations, along with the principle that physical laws do not change based on your reference frame, implied that the speed of light was constant in any reference frame. And then there's general relativity...
determining the chromosome structure (would have been done eventually by better scanners and computers)
Without having any idea what to look for? I think not.
atomic bomb (engineering)
The bomb itself is engineering. The discovery of the nuclear chain reaction, on the other hand, was physics, 20th century physics.
integrated circuit (engineering).
Perhaps, but the transistor itself? Lots of basic physics there.
You also seem to have missed quantum mechanics and the Big Bang.
No, it says that transfer of a material object does not. A material object is not itself a copy.
I sure hope you are lying about doing this stuff for a living.
From 17 USC 101
"Copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "copies" includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
And from 17 USC 202
Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object;
A copy is a material object; transfer of a copy (including the very first copy) does not transfer copyright. All very basic stuff.
No. If you'll recall, I said that fair use is "the transformative incorporation of a portion of a work in a new work for a valid artistic or informative purpose". At no point does that suggest a threshold level for any particular factor in consideration, nor does it suggest or deny the presence of exceptions.
While it fails to suggest a threshold level, it does at least assert the presence of certain factors. Factor 1: Transformative. Factor 2: Incorporation in a new work. Factor 3: Only a portion of the work copied. Factor 4: Purpose is artistic or informative. Since, in fact, there are fair uses which have none of those factors, and fair uses which have only some of those factors, your claim is refuted. Time shifting and space shifting have been held to be fair use (and I know you don't like that, but they have); those uses have none of those factors. The example given by the copyright office of repairing a damaged work lacks the first two of your factors.
And while I might not be able to do better in 20 words, that's no excuse for an essentially wrong 20 words. There's no penalty for using more.
The DMCA makes it illegal to bypass any copyright protection measures, and does not state that it's ok to bypass such measures after 50, 70 or 100 years.
Actually, the DMCA does not make it illegal to bypass technological protection measures on works NOT protected under Title 17. I wouldn't bet my ass on it, but one could make an argument that it's not only legal to bypass any technological protection measures on uncopyrightable or public domain works, but that it's legal to develop devices which bypass technological protection measures on uncopyrightable works -- even if the same measures are also used on copyrightable works.
Talking about ownership in the copyright tends to lead to lay confusion, since ownership of a copy does confer a copyright interest.
Given that 17 USC 202 -- the very section you cited -- says that transfer of ownership of a copy does not confer a copyright interest, that's an extraordinary claim.
Copyright and exclusive rights (partial copyright interests) are collectively the intellectual work.
Odd, then, that the language of Title 17 treats the work and the copyright in the work as separate things.
This is what I do.
If so, I feel sorry for your clients.
All permission is indeed a license. A license is a promise not to sue.
A license is certainly distinct from a promise not to sue.
Again, you demonstrate a lack of appreciation for the development of copyright law in this country. Because the US lacks an explicit personal use exemption, the fair use doctrine has been overextended in some cases to cover certain personal use aspects.
Whether you think it has been "overextended" or not, it has been so extended.
If you can point to a non-transformative, non-artistic, and non-informative fair use with an impact on the market that was still approved, I'd love to see it.
Ah, no moving the goalposts. You said that fair use had to be transformative AND that it had to be incorporation of a portion of a work into a new work AND that it had to be for artistic or informative purposes. None of these is true, as in the time-shifting and space-shifting cases. There's also the case of "reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy" (mentioned by the Copyright Office in its discussion of fair use). That use is non-transformative and does not involve creation of a new work.
Second, the Copyright Act clearly spells out exactly what rights you do receive upon purchase: ownership of the medium, but zero ownership of the work (s. 202). You have no right to reproduce the work contained on the medium (s. 106), except as specifically permitted (i.e. licensed) by the Copyright Act (ss. 107-22), or as otherwise licensed to you by explicit grant or agreement (e.g. an SLA).
Wrong, as usual.
First: The Copyright Act does not refer to ownership of the work, nor of the medium. It refers to ownership of the _copyright_ in the work, and ownership of a copy of the work.
Second: Not all permission is a license. Permission granted by law is typically NOT a license (except in the case of compulsory license), hence the common phrase "permitted by law or license".
Fair use is the transformative incorporation of a portion of a work in a new work for a valid artistic or informative purpose. Fair use is not personal use. Personal use is a "fair" (in the colloquial sense) use, but it is not Fair Use.
Again wrong. Some personal use IS fair use (e.g. ripping songs to your MP3 player). Other personal use (such as simply watching the movie) is simply not an exclusive right of the coyright owner. Fair use is not limited to transformative uses, nor to artistic or informative purposes, though such uses are more likely to be judged "fair".
Most of the rest of your nonsense is so far from what the law actually is that that there's no point in attempting to refute it point by point.
It was actually a *mistake* that the only advancement path for most exceptional skilled workers was to become a manager that didn't use their exceptional skills.
On the other hand, now there's no advancement path at all. Which probably accounts for some of the difficulties in managing such people... you've got no carrot, and they're too stubborn for the stick.
Slashdot Mirror
When I watch Chuck, I watch it on a Mythbox, receiving its content over the air. No tracking, no ads. And not piracy, at least until Betamax is definitively overruled. So those clearly are not the distinguishing factors of piracy.
Though now that they're moving it to the Friday night death slot, it's as good as canceled anyway.
Umm, that's not new. Remember the Audio Home Recording Act (mandating the Serial Copy Management System and destroying consumer DAT)? Remember a little thing called the DMCA?
They're just abandoning one prong of their approach (or say they are, anyway). The other prong has always been there.
When you drink a 64 oz glass of your own urine each day, spend an hour each day in a room filled with nothing but your exhalations and flatulations, and have your feces sprinkled over your food, then you can make the demand you made in your original post. Until then, you're totally unreasonable. Any useful process creates waste, and the process of "cleaning up" that waste is both unlikely to make that waste actually consumable, and generates waste of its own.
How you get that from a demand for potable wastewater, edible solid waste, and breathable exhaust gases is beyond me.
Not anymore. Now Microsoft Office doesn't have a menu system at all, concealing frequently used commands behind clickable tabs. It basically makes the interface unnecessarily modal. I'd ask what they were thinking, but it's clear that they weren't.
Not all governments. Some governments have wisely looked ahead, realized this process is inevitable, and saved the initial outlay. Modern cases in point are Mexico and Russia.
And that nothing will ever be made, ever again.
Stephenson didn't invent that idea; it's been an SF staple for a long time.
No. The union decisionmakers have greater bargaining power. The worker has less. The idea is that the interests of the union should be aligned with the interests of the worker, but often that is not the case.
How about if it's a cargo ship in the wool trade?
Ha. Cut a few hours off their Crackberry-free time, and they'll grab some Dramamine and sign right up.
And if you're not particularly good at leadership, or running for leadership, or if the current people in charge are just better (or more ruthless) at retaining power? "If you don't like it, take over" isn't often a practical option.
Get rid of the secret ballot, as this proposal suggests, and all it will take to "organize" tech workers is to seed the group with a few thuggish pro-union ex-steelworkers who suggest bodily harm to anyone who fails to sign up.
Or a computer programmer, or system administrator? It seems livable. BTW, I think anyone CAN call themselves an accountant (but not a CPA). Anyway, that argument is about licensure, not union membership, though sometimes they are tied together.
...provided they are languages of the Editor. And yea, that editor is the One True Editor, EMACS.
If the other two get the pre-approval, Ford would be at a relative disadvantage -- possibly enough to sink them. So Ford pretty much has to play the same game.
Chrysler does one thing well, and that's the minivan. Unfortunately the value of the minivan division is not enough to make up for the rest of the company.
Ahh, you'd be one of those smug Europeans who not only expected the US economy to fail, but expected this to be GOOD for Europe.
China? China bases its economy on exporting goods to Americans and Europeans. The American economy falls, the Chinese one does to -- and it did.
Russia's still too unstable to make it as an economic superpower.
Because the American economy dragged down many other world economies with it. Surprised a bunch of smug Europeans who were rubbing their hands with glee waiting for the impending American collapse. The pound was especially hard hit because not only were UK banks invested in US real estate securities, but the UK had a real estate bubble of its own.
This "new socialism", where governments don't own the means of production outright, but rather have "partnerships" with private companies where the governments cover the risk and have a large degree of control (perhaps via an overseer, or "auto czar" in the case of car companies)... it looks suspiciously similar to the old fascism.
Err, no. Mathematics. Engineering can only verify that the speed of light is constant within some error -- which they already had by the time Einstein came around (Michelson-Morely). Einstein made the insightful observation that Maxwell's equations, along with the principle that physical laws do not change based on your reference frame, implied that the speed of light was constant in any reference frame. And then there's general relativity...
Without having any idea what to look for? I think not.
The bomb itself is engineering. The discovery of the nuclear chain reaction, on the other hand, was physics, 20th century physics.
Perhaps, but the transistor itself? Lots of basic physics there. You also seem to have missed quantum mechanics and the Big Bang.
Perhaps, but not scientific genius.
I sure hope you are lying about doing this stuff for a living.
From 17 USC 101
And from 17 USC 202
A copy is a material object; transfer of a copy (including the very first copy) does not transfer copyright. All very basic stuff.
While it fails to suggest a threshold level, it does at least assert the presence of certain factors. Factor 1: Transformative. Factor 2: Incorporation in a new work. Factor 3: Only a portion of the work copied. Factor 4: Purpose is artistic or informative. Since, in fact, there are fair uses which have none of those factors, and fair uses which have only some of those factors, your claim is refuted. Time shifting and space shifting have been held to be fair use (and I know you don't like that, but they have); those uses have none of those factors. The example given by the copyright office of repairing a damaged work lacks the first two of your factors.
And while I might not be able to do better in 20 words, that's no excuse for an essentially wrong 20 words. There's no penalty for using more.
Actually, the DMCA does not make it illegal to bypass technological protection measures on works NOT protected under Title 17. I wouldn't bet my ass on it, but one could make an argument that it's not only legal to bypass any technological protection measures on uncopyrightable or public domain works, but that it's legal to develop devices which bypass technological protection measures on uncopyrightable works -- even if the same measures are also used on copyrightable works.
Given that 17 USC 202 -- the very section you cited -- says that transfer of ownership of a copy does not confer a copyright interest, that's an extraordinary claim.
Odd, then, that the language of Title 17 treats the work and the copyright in the work as separate things.
If so, I feel sorry for your clients.
A license is certainly distinct from a promise not to sue.
Whether you think it has been "overextended" or not, it has been so extended.
Ah, no moving the goalposts. You said that fair use had to be transformative AND that it had to be incorporation of a portion of a work into a new work AND that it had to be for artistic or informative purposes. None of these is true, as in the time-shifting and space-shifting cases. There's also the case of "reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy" (mentioned by the Copyright Office in its discussion of fair use). That use is non-transformative and does not involve creation of a new work.
Wrong, as usual.
First: The Copyright Act does not refer to ownership of the work, nor of the medium. It refers to ownership of the _copyright_ in the work, and ownership of a copy of the work.
Second: Not all permission is a license. Permission granted by law is typically NOT a license (except in the case of compulsory license), hence the common phrase "permitted by law or license".
Again wrong. Some personal use IS fair use (e.g. ripping songs to your MP3 player). Other personal use (such as simply watching the movie) is simply not an exclusive right of the coyright owner. Fair use is not limited to transformative uses, nor to artistic or informative purposes, though such uses are more likely to be judged "fair".
Most of the rest of your nonsense is so far from what the law actually is that that there's no point in attempting to refute it point by point.
On the other hand, now there's no advancement path at all. Which probably accounts for some of the difficulties in managing such people... you've got no carrot, and they're too stubborn for the stick.