You are misinterpreting the fair use laws. They allow a person to duplicate the full works for which he has paid. They do not allow you to borrow a work and fully duplicate it.
They also allow you to duplicate part of a work. Newspaper reporters etc can even publish part of a work. They maynot publish the work in its entirety.
And by the way, being prosecuted is different than being sued.
Fair use allows limited copying for a purpose like you mentioned. The students are not breaking the law. However, if you were to use a Xerox machine to copy an entire book you would be in violation.
I didn't say for "basic" copyright infringement (whatever that is) and I said that it is unlikely. However, as screwy as things are getting on the legal front, I would be very careful.
BTW, I apologize for the "fool" comment. But it angers me anytime someone gives advice that will get another into trouble.
The copyright law carries both civil and criminal penalties. Though unlikely, it is possible that a person could be held criminally liable for following your advice. Be sure of what you speak when the consequences could be so damaging.
A lot of people say that after finding music on-line that they like they go out and purchase the album.
But the fact is that it is not up to us to dictate a business practice to the RIAA. They represent the copyright holders and it is their right to set the terms for distribution of the music under those copyrights.
I would recommend that people support legal on-line music distribution. The keyword being legal.
Don't listen to this fool. If you burn downloaded music that you haven't paid for it is still copyright infringement no matter if you burn the music to a music blank or a regular CD.
The "tax" this guy is talking about is given to the RIAA to help recoup losses from illegal copying but in no way gives people the right to copy.
The bottom line is: Pay for your music. You have the legal right to make copies of the music that you pay for. You have NO right whatsoever to infringe on other peoples copyright no matter what media you use to do so.
"Record stores generally sell only "music" blanks, which sends a tax to RIAA through the American Home Recording Act. You have full permission to burn a music CD borrowed from a friend onto a music disk, by law."
This is of course total bullshit. Burning a friends album onto a "music" blank in no way lessens your crime of copyright infringement.
I can't believe that anyone modded this comment up. Bull shit. Total an utter nonsense.
Don't copy copyrighted music without paying for it.
If you don't like the RIAA boycott the artists that are under labels that are members of the RIAA. A major boycott could bring these bastards down in just a couple of years.
The RIAA lobbying for unjust laws to do what they are doing really sucks. But so does stealing music. And don't give me any shit for saying stealing instead of "infringing on their copyrights." You know what I mean.
Go ahead mod me down. I've got karma to burn and someone has to say it.
From the Google Translation, it sounds to me like the claims that they are being fined for appear on their web site. It also appears that SCO is claiming that this was an oversight that will presumably be corrected.
If the government starts printing lots of money to cover a big cash payment to millions of people inflation would run wild.
There have been countries that printed more currency to cover government expenses. What happened is that the value of their money went down compaired to other countries money.
A country's paper money must be balanced against something. When we were on the gold standard it was gold. I don't know what the US balances it's paper money against now. Maybe GNP? Others may be able to tell you.
In countries that printed more money to meet expences, there were people who wanted to insulate their homes but found it cheaper to stuff the walls with the worthless paper money rather than buy the insulation.
Once a country starts sliding down that hill things get bad really fast.
I really find the "Linux must have a standard GUI or it's not usable" argument very irritating. People will migrate to whichever desktop look and feel that they like. The distributions that default to a GUI that users can't tolerate will change or disappear.
Let's face it. There are two main GUIs that most people want. KDE and GNOME. Including the other GUIs for people who want something different will in no way hurt Linux. This is especially true if the default is one of the two popular window managers.
What could hurt Linux is a lack of software. Different GUIS tend to use different libraries. This leaves programmers in a situation where they must choose which library to use to build their applications. If they choose a library that isn't included in a distribution then the application that they build won't run on that distribution.
The important thing here is that the two main GUIs work together so that programmers can code apps that will run on either desktop. As for the less popular window managers, they probably won't be that well supported.
Re:Please don't get testy (snicker)
on
Mandrake 9.2 RC1
·
· Score: 1
"If you are in the "Mandrake community" why would you need Slashdot to inform you of the release. I assume you would follow their website, forums, mailing lists, etc."
I, like most people, split my time among many projects etc. I don't live and breath Mandrake but I use it. I am still part of the community and participate in the RC process.
This/. article was the first that I knew of the start of the RC process and I am therefore glad that they ran it.
"I wasn't "dissin'" Mandrake, I was curious why an RC was a good story for the homepage of Slashdot."
Very true. Anyone who has done any diving knows how dangerous a fully charged air tank can be.
A friend of mine runs a dive shop and one day he dropped a fully charged air tank. The fall broke the neck of the air bottle which then shot straight up through the roof and landed over a block away.
"Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights. "
Lois baby. You have it all wrong. Open-source does not run counter to intellectual-property rights. If the open-source community didn't have IP rights they wouldn't have the right to share code.
Open source may run against the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights FOR THE RICH CORPORATIONS.
The WIPO, as many fear, does not give a shit about the human condition if it in any way lowers its members bottom line.
Slashdot Mirror
What an idiot...
...a level of animosity that China has toward Taiwan.
Let's just pray that all of the fighting stays in the cyber world.
You are misinterpreting the fair use laws. They allow a person to duplicate the full works for which he has paid. They do not allow you to borrow a work and fully duplicate it.
They also allow you to duplicate part of a work. Newspaper reporters etc can even publish part of a work. They maynot publish the work in its entirety.
And by the way, being prosecuted is different than being sued.
Fair use allows limited copying for a purpose like you mentioned. The students are not breaking the law. However, if you were to use a Xerox machine to copy an entire book you would be in violation.
I didn't say for "basic" copyright infringement (whatever that is) and I said that it is unlikely. However, as screwy as things are getting on the legal front, I would be very careful.
BTW, I apologize for the "fool" comment. But it angers me anytime someone gives advice that will get another into trouble.
The copyright law carries both civil and criminal penalties. Though unlikely, it is possible that a person could be held criminally liable for following your advice. Be sure of what you speak when the consequences could be so damaging.
You really have no concept of the law. Post the exact law that you claim gives a person the right to copy another's music.
It does not. The money collected for the RIAA from music CDs does NOT give you any rights.
Shit man read the fricking law! People who read your post and buy into it could get stomped on by the RIAA.
If you believe that this is the law then show it to me. You won't, you can't because the law doesn't say that.
". It's only a boycott if you refuse to download the music, too."
I believe that is what he said he is doing in his post.
"The people who download without buying would naver have contributed to a sale anyhow."
That is an unfounded assumption. Further it is highly unlikely to be accurate.
A lot of people say that after finding music on-line that they like they go out and purchase the album.
But the fact is that it is not up to us to dictate a business practice to the RIAA. They represent the copyright holders and it is their right to set the terms for distribution of the music under those copyrights.
I would recommend that people support legal on-line music distribution. The keyword being legal.
Don't listen to this fool. If you burn downloaded music that you haven't paid for it is still copyright infringement no matter if you burn the music to a music blank or a regular CD.
The "tax" this guy is talking about is given to the RIAA to help recoup losses from illegal copying but in no way gives people the right to copy.
The bottom line is: Pay for your music. You have the legal right to make copies of the music that you pay for. You have NO right whatsoever to infringe on other peoples copyright no matter what media you use to do so.
"Record stores generally sell only "music" blanks, which sends a tax to RIAA through the American Home Recording Act. You have full permission to burn a music CD borrowed from a friend onto a music disk, by law."
This is of course total bullshit. Burning a friends album onto a "music" blank in no way lessens your crime of copyright infringement.
I can't believe that anyone modded this comment up. Bull shit. Total an utter nonsense.
Don't copy copyrighted music without paying for it.
If you don't like the RIAA boycott the artists that are under labels that are members of the RIAA. A major boycott could bring these bastards down in just a couple of years.
The RIAA lobbying for unjust laws to do what they are doing really sucks. But so does stealing music. And don't give me any shit for saying stealing instead of "infringing on their copyrights." You know what I mean.
Go ahead mod me down. I've got karma to burn and someone has to say it.
"My response is, Boycott and Copy."
Some people never learn. Boycott, yes... Copy, no...
From the Google Translation, it sounds to me like the claims that they are being fined for appear on their web site. It also appears that SCO is claiming that this was an oversight that will presumably be corrected.
That Billy Goat is going to clean up the mess left by Billy Gates?
ROFLMAO!
"Still it could speed up Wine developement, which is always good."
Really? Did I miss something? Has Transgaming ever released their source to the open source community?
It's not false.
If the government starts printing lots of money to cover a big cash payment to millions of people inflation would run wild.
There have been countries that printed more currency to cover government expenses. What happened is that the value of their money went down compaired to other countries money.
A country's paper money must be balanced against something. When we were on the gold standard it was gold. I don't know what the US balances it's paper money against now. Maybe GNP? Others may be able to tell you.
In countries that printed more money to meet expences, there were people who wanted to insulate their homes but found it cheaper to stuff the walls with the worthless paper money rather than buy the insulation.
Once a country starts sliding down that hill things get bad really fast.
I really find the "Linux must have a standard GUI or it's not usable" argument very irritating. People will migrate to whichever desktop look and feel that they like. The distributions that default to a GUI that users can't tolerate will change or disappear.
Let's face it. There are two main GUIs that most people want. KDE and GNOME. Including the other GUIs for people who want something different will in no way hurt Linux. This is especially true if the default is one of the two popular window managers.
What could hurt Linux is a lack of software. Different GUIS tend to use different libraries. This leaves programmers in a situation where they must choose which library to use to build their applications. If they choose a library that isn't included in a distribution then the application that they build won't run on that distribution.
The important thing here is that the two main GUIs work together so that programmers can code apps that will run on either desktop. As for the less popular window managers, they probably won't be that well supported.
"If you are in the "Mandrake community" why would you need Slashdot to inform you of the release. I assume you would follow their website, forums, mailing lists, etc."
/. article was the first that I knew of the start of the RC process and I am therefore glad that they ran it.
I, like most people, split my time among many projects etc. I don't live and breath Mandrake but I use it. I am still part of the community and participate in the RC process.
This
"I wasn't "dissin'" Mandrake, I was curious why an RC was a good story for the homepage of Slashdot."
As my first post stated...
Many in the Mandrake community help by sending in bug reports during the RC process. It's important that we know when this process begins.
I for one appreciate this story.
Very true. Anyone who has done any diving knows how dangerous a fully charged air tank can be.
A friend of mine runs a dive shop and one day he dropped a fully charged air tank. The fall broke the neck of the air bottle which then shot straight up through the roof and landed over a block away.
"LoveOO writes Boston.com has a story about three companies which are trying to replace the Light bulb."
How many companies does it take to change a light bulb?
"Windows XP, by default, provides unrestricted, "administrator" access to a computer."
And this after Microsoft made security its number one priority!
Anyone here who does not believe that the "security is our number one prioity" speech was nothing more than a PR decision please raise your hands.
"Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights. "
Lois baby. You have it all wrong. Open-source does not run counter to intellectual-property rights. If the open-source community didn't have IP rights they wouldn't have the right to share code.
Open source may run against the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights FOR THE RICH CORPORATIONS.
The WIPO, as many fear, does not give a shit about the human condition if it in any way lowers its members bottom line.
Come on Lois baby. Squeal like a pig for me.