Sure, it's the free market capitalism alternative to government funded services. Instead of taxing people, get the stupid ones to buy lottery tickets. As someone pointed out, WorldCom was perhaps not the best example, but @Home is another one. If only Bush would take it one step further and allow the airlines and Amtrak to go out of business as well... It's not like Bush is bailing out lottery ticket buyers who happened to not win.
Your time is worth nothing? Mine ain't. If I could be listening to music or news instead of blather about some product or service, buddy, I hit the channel changer.
So the 0.1 seconds it takes you to change the station is worth how much, exactly? And what exactly could you be doing in those 0.1 seconds? You're in the car driving anyway, so it's not like you have important work you could be doing instead.
It's a public discussion on a public discussion board. There are no rules on/. (codified or otherwise;)) that demand that such conversations remain uninterrupted.
Yep, so I'm free to tell you that "next time you should make points of your own instead of jumping in to quibble about irrelevant points in a discussion between two others."
It was hardly an "irrelevant point"; you made a definite, positive assertion regarding whether a specific behavior constitutes copyright infringement, and I corrected you (albeit in a clumsy, ham-handed fashion).
It was not relevant to the point I was making. In fact, it wasn't even what I meant by the statement.
Would it have been better to leave the inaccuracy intact?
Yes. Or at least to have been accurate in your correction.
I don't believe states have power over copyright, though, since the Constitution specifically gives that right to Congress.
Well, if Congress decided not to exercise that right, then the States presumably would have it.
The second comment in this article [aaanet.org] makes a distinction between common-law plagiarism and statutory copyright infringement.
I knew about that link, but you asked me for a "case tried in U.S. courts where the defendant was found guilty or liable due to 'plagiarism.'" I figured it wasn't worth fighting over whether or not that source was accurate, which you certainly are free to contend. Especially when you are perfectly free to do a google search yourself before contesting my assertion about common law.
Straw man. I didn't say anything about your initial statement.
Weren't you the one who replied to my initial statment? (checking) Nope, I guess you weren't.
Your assertion is false.
Yeah, but I corrected it. Copying something and claiming it as your own is both plagiarism and (possibly, depending on fair use and other factors) copyright infringement. So hey, your quibble about my phrasing is correct. But next time you should make points of your own instead of jumping in to quibble about irrelevant points in a discussion between two others.
What exactly do you want a lien for? Are you afraid that they are going to transfer the rights to your software? It seems to me that's the only angle that's going to work - trying to stop them from transferring rights in your software. The best approach for that probably involves claiming that they don't have the rights in your software to begin with, because they haven't paid, but IANAL so I don't know how productive that argument would be. As you've said, their debt to you is unsecured, so if you're just trying to get your money and they don't have it you have to fight with all the other debtors, and you're pretty much last in line (before the shareholders).
If they haven't paid you they may be commiting copyright infringement by using your code after you inform them that you have not authorized them to use it unless they pay.
Yeah, but why in the world would you want to do that? If they are experiencing financial difficulties, don't you want them to use your software to help themselves get out of the financial difficulties? Stopping them from using your software is only shooting yourself in the foot.
Basically, you're making a claim here, but have provided no evidence to back it up.
I'm not sure there is any evidence available online.
What I described is emphatically not fair use. Claiming another's work as your own and distributing it does not fall under fair use, no matter what.
Claiming another's work as your own is not copyright infringement.
In any case, your quibble is irrelevant, because my statement of "wouldn't it be simpler if there were no copyright laws" does not preclude plagiarism laws.
"The BSA is viewed by many as an inclusive organization open to all boys and youth of good character whose ages fall within certain limits. This belief is well founded in the BSA's own recruitment literature. However, the BSA regards itself as a religious/spiritual organization with specific membership exclusions based on the youth's religion or sexual orientation."
Fine then, if we can't agree on an analogy, let's not use analogies.
It's more like KFC telling Popeye's employees that they need to buy some food before they can grab napkins and plastic-ware, which is fully within KFC's rights.
If they're telling that only to Popeye's employees, and no other patrons, then yes, it's the same thing.
OK. Not exactly the same reason. But capitalism only works if there is free trade and competition. And you don't have to be a monopoly to be in restraint of free trade.
If they did, then they're engaging in unfair business practices.
Google can rank pages any way they want to.
Obviously not, or there wouldn't be a lawsuit.
In this scenario, if the users of Google decided that they would rather use a search engine that doesn't arbitrarily block sites, they'd move to another search engine.
And if the people of the United States wanted to not have laws against unfair business practices, they'd move to Libertarianville.
I have a stream that plays a three hour loop of the Best of my radio show, so I own the copyright on that and it's all that's on the stream... Why should I pay the RIAA for this?
Yeah but if KFC refused to serve chicken to employees of Popeye's, that would be illegal.
That's totally different than tweaking a private algorithm to cut out the freeloading and search-engine abuse.
True, but SearchKing is alleging that they tweaked the algorithm solely to shut them out as a competitor. Sure, it's probably not true, and the evidence will probably show that, but saying that Google is justfied is much different from saying that they can do anything they want.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, it's the free market capitalism alternative to government funded services. Instead of taxing people, get the stupid ones to buy lottery tickets. As someone pointed out, WorldCom was perhaps not the best example, but @Home is another one. If only Bush would take it one step further and allow the airlines and Amtrak to go out of business as well... It's not like Bush is bailing out lottery ticket buyers who happened to not win.
Your time is worth nothing? Mine ain't. If I could be listening to music or news instead of blather about some product or service, buddy, I hit the channel changer.
So the 0.1 seconds it takes you to change the station is worth how much, exactly? And what exactly could you be doing in those 0.1 seconds? You're in the car driving anyway, so it's not like you have important work you could be doing instead.
Nope, I think it qualfies as free.
It's a public discussion on a public discussion board. There are no rules on /. (codified or otherwise ;)) that demand that such conversations remain uninterrupted.
Yep, so I'm free to tell you that "next time you should make points of your own instead of jumping in to quibble about irrelevant points in a discussion between two others."
It was hardly an "irrelevant point"; you made a definite, positive assertion regarding whether a specific behavior constitutes copyright infringement, and I corrected you (albeit in a clumsy, ham-handed fashion).
It was not relevant to the point I was making. In fact, it wasn't even what I meant by the statement.
Would it have been better to leave the inaccuracy intact?
Yes. Or at least to have been accurate in your correction.
I don't believe states have power over copyright, though, since the Constitution specifically gives that right to Congress.
Well, if Congress decided not to exercise that right, then the States presumably would have it.
The second comment in this article [aaanet.org] makes a distinction between common-law plagiarism and statutory copyright infringement.
I knew about that link, but you asked me for a "case tried in U.S. courts where the defendant was found guilty or liable due to 'plagiarism.'" I figured it wasn't worth fighting over whether or not that source was accurate, which you certainly are free to contend. Especially when you are perfectly free to do a google search yourself before contesting my assertion about common law.
Straw man. I didn't say anything about your initial statement.
Weren't you the one who replied to my initial statment? (checking) Nope, I guess you weren't.
Your assertion is false.
Yeah, but I corrected it. Copying something and claiming it as your own is both plagiarism and (possibly, depending on fair use and other factors) copyright infringement. So hey, your quibble about my phrasing is correct. But next time you should make points of your own instead of jumping in to quibble about irrelevant points in a discussion between two others.
What exactly do you want a lien for? Are you afraid that they are going to transfer the rights to your software? It seems to me that's the only angle that's going to work - trying to stop them from transferring rights in your software. The best approach for that probably involves claiming that they don't have the rights in your software to begin with, because they haven't paid, but IANAL so I don't know how productive that argument would be. As you've said, their debt to you is unsecured, so if you're just trying to get your money and they don't have it you have to fight with all the other debtors, and you're pretty much last in line (before the shareholders).
If they haven't paid you they may be commiting copyright infringement by using your code after you inform them that you have not authorized them to use it unless they pay.
Yeah, but why in the world would you want to do that? If they are experiencing financial difficulties, don't you want them to use your software to help themselves get out of the financial difficulties? Stopping them from using your software is only shooting yourself in the foot.
With a universe the size of ours it is almost inconcievable that life doesn't exist elsewhere.
Sure, but with a universe the size of ours it is almost inconcievable that we will actually find that life.
The U.S. legal system does not use common law.
Every state in the U.S. does though.
Basically, you're making a claim here, but have provided no evidence to back it up.
I'm not sure there is any evidence available online.
What I described is emphatically not fair use. Claiming another's work as your own and distributing it does not fall under fair use, no matter what.
Claiming another's work as your own is not copyright infringement.
In any case, your quibble is irrelevant, because my statement of "wouldn't it be simpler if there were no copyright laws" does not preclude plagiarism laws.
Just be careful you don't get any diseases. "Despite detailed searches no one has yet found any Trojan objects near the Earth."
Legally, it is copyright infringement.
True, but it's also plagiarism.
As far as I know there are no laws regarding "plagiarism" as a separate legal entity from copyright infringement.
Plagiarism is illegal under common law.
If someone creates a copyrighted work, and you take it, claim it as your own, and distributed it, you have infringed their copyright.
Unless it is fair use.
"The BSA is viewed by many as an inclusive organization open to all boys and youth of good character whose ages fall within certain limits. This belief is well founded in the BSA's own recruitment literature. However, the BSA regards itself as a religious/spiritual organization with specific membership exclusions based on the youth's religion or sexual orientation."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/bsa_0.htm
Since when is it a requirement that a lawsuit make sense before being filed?
That has always been a requirement.
Huh?
Chances are the greatest benefactor will be free (but limited) music.
Yes, that way when I write something or record something, I can forget about worrying if someone is going to copy it and claim it as their own.
Umm, no that's plagiarism, not copyright infringement.
How do you manage to read into this that the list has to be "fair".
That's the law. You can't engage in unfair business practices.
And who defines "fair" anyway?
In the case of federal law, juries, and in the case of state law, either juries or judges.
They can produce any list they want to. If that list isn't useful, people won't use Google.
No, fortunately in this country we have anti-trust laws which say they can't produce any list they want to.
Non-sequitor.
Fine then, if we can't agree on an analogy, let's not use analogies.
It's more like KFC telling Popeye's employees that they need to buy some food before they can grab napkins and plastic-ware, which is fully within KFC's rights.
If they're telling that only to Popeye's employees, and no other patrons, then yes, it's the same thing.
OK. Not exactly the same reason. But capitalism only works if there is free trade and competition. And you don't have to be a monopoly to be in restraint of free trade.
You're wrong. They don't.
No, if you own the copyright (or hae permission from the copyright holder), then no one can sue you, so you don't have to pay anyone.
if we didn't have copyright laws at all?
Even if they did, so what?
If they did, then they're engaging in unfair business practices.
Google can rank pages any way they want to.
Obviously not, or there wouldn't be a lawsuit.
In this scenario, if the users of Google decided that they would rather use a search engine that doesn't arbitrarily block sites, they'd move to another search engine.
And if the people of the United States wanted to not have laws against unfair business practices, they'd move to Libertarianville.
Why do webcasters have ANY say in what the RIAA charges for allowing them to broadcast their music?
Because of the DMCA, actually. It enacted a statutory license for webcasting.
I have a stream that plays a three hour loop of the Best of my radio show, so I own the copyright on that and it's all that's on the stream... Why should I pay the RIAA for this?
You shouldn't. What makes you think you should?
Yeah but if KFC refused to serve chicken to employees of Popeye's, that would be illegal.
That's totally different than tweaking a private algorithm to cut out the freeloading and search-engine abuse.
True, but SearchKing is alleging that they tweaked the algorithm solely to shut them out as a competitor. Sure, it's probably not true, and the evidence will probably show that, but saying that Google is justfied is much different from saying that they can do anything they want.