(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
[Nope, he's not distributing it]
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
[Nope, he's not communicating it to the public]
There it is.. The person you are receiving the copyrighted work from, is not authorized to give it to you. If you obtain the copyrighted work with the authorization of the copyright holder, then you are permitted to copy it for personal use. Whether or not you are allowed to copy something after you have infringed on the copyright doesn't make any difference. If you acquire an illegitimate copy, you have no rights to it.
15. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a performer has a copyright in the performer's performance, consisting of the
sole right to do the following in relation to the performer's performance or any substantial part thereof:
(b) if it is fixed,
(i) to reproduce any fixation that was made without the performer's authorization
You have the right to copy anything that you have acquired legally. If the copyright owner didn't authorize you to have his work, you don't have any rights to it.
There is no such think as a "licence to have". Legally there is no such thing.
Yes there is. Thats what copyright is. If I write a song or a computer program, I have copyright of it. You don't, so you don't have any rights to it unless I give them to you.
It doesn't matter. If someone doesn't have the right to give you a recording, you don't have the right to it. You can steal satellite signals as well, but nothing gives you a right to the programming until you pay for it.
"Did you read the law he cited?"
Yes I did. Did you? He quoted the first half of it. The very first part was "Subject to subsection (2)", which he completely omitted. Go look for yourself
"Why on earth would you need a license to HAVE it?"
For the same reason that you need a license with software. You don't have the right to someone else's copyrighted works unless you have a license to use them.
"So you don't need a licnese to have it any more than you need a license to have a book, a toaster or a chewing gum."
Toasters and chewing gum have nothing to do with copyright. Books do.
You mean a license to make copies? Again, in the case of Canada, that is not needed for copying for personal/private use (according to my understanding)
No. A license to have it in the first place. If you are allowed to copy it after that isn't the issue. When you buy a CD at the store, you buy a license. It's fine to make as many copies for personal use of anything you have a license for.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
You don't think that sharing your music via P2P is exactly what 80.2.c is? "communicating to the public by telecommunication"
Oh, well. I live in Canada, where P2P is legal, and the stores still sell music.
Of course P2P is legal. Stealing copyrighted works is not. We are still required to enforce copyright law. The U.S. will attack us if we don't.
You are probably referring to the case where CIRA tried to force the ISPs to divulge information about its subscribers. It's entirely a different issue for whether it is legal for people to steal copyrighted works. Remember the quote from the judge that there was little difference between P2P and libraries who put photocopiers in the lobby? Note the judge didn't say anything about people who photocopy an entire book to save a few bucks. He was talking about legality of P2P in general. As in the people who write eMule, aren't any more responsible for theft than Xerox is, and the library isn't any more responsible than the ISPs are. In both cases, it's still illegal though.
people can no longer in the next breath defend copyright infringement on P2P networks.
Now what's it going to take to make people realize that you're bound to run across many different viewpoints, and that they don't form a collective just because they happen to be a different viewpoint than yours. Copyright infringement is bad no matter who's copyright it is. Just because the RIAA/MPAA are evil, doesn't make it okay to steal the works of the artists they represent. It does justify not buying or stealing them though.
Hopefully, Yahoo! Mail will also fix their Firefox problems in the file attachment downloading area
Could you please enlighten me as to what those are? I don't use Yahoo's mail but others in my family do and they claim there is a problem too, but I've never been able to find one. Click an attachment, and it asks you if you want to save it to disk. On my mom's computer I have avi/mpeg associated with mplayer, so she can just click open and it the movie begins playing.
Therefore Yahoo is moving towards world-wide web standards by making pages that render and function correctly on Firefox.
I wish Yahoo had worded it like that. Instead they make false statements like:
In the grand scheme of things Firefox is still a new technology
The reality is exactly as you say, and Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape all share a rendering engine that is NOT new technology, but has been in use for a very long time now.
The "viewers" are users of their browser software in my eyes. The HTML users are the ones writing the HTML. The person viewing the page is no more an HTML user than he is a C++ user, XUL user, and/or whatever user. Chances are he has no idea what language the browser or the web page are written in.
Let the broken pages die. Good riddance to bad practices.
Re:I'm sticking with 5 1/4 inch floppies
on
Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD
·
· Score: 1
I'll second the scratch resistance.. But on the label side mainly. I lose more discs to damage on that side than the reflective one.
Yeah, if you approach someone with a comment like "Hey, I love your web page but $PROBLEM prevents me from going there anymore", you'll probably get a favourable response. If your first contact with them is a full out rant about Microsoft being out to destroy the internet, it probably won't go so well. Save that for later.
Re:I'm sticking with 5 1/4 inch floppies
on
Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD
·
· Score: 1
Quite a lot of the space on a non-video/audio CD is dedicated to error correction.
Yeah, I'm just saying a little more couldn't hurt. I don't have very much luck with my recordable media after about 6 months, but I don't treat them very well either.
Re:I'm sticking with 5 1/4 inch floppies
on
Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Funny.. Seriously though I'd be happy if some of this new space went to more redundancy if it meant the discs would be more reliable than DVD/CD media is. I'd sacrifice some space for better chances to read it later. If part of whatever standard wins allowed for the data to be stored twice on the media, readers could check the other track if one was damaged.
Good point. Because Sourceforge, Freshmeat, and Slashdot are all OSTG pages. This is nice to see Google taking an interest in OSTG, not competing with it.
Yes it does matter. Think back to when this thread started. You said Microsoft's version of HTML was a de facto standard. If Microsoft is committed to the w3c, for all the reasons that they were committed back when they had the smaller market share, then they don't set a standard of any kind. It simply fails to comply with the standard.
IE7 will hopefully bring them closer to the goal of being compliant with the standard. Bugs are not features, I don't care what the marketing dept tells you.
Slashdot Mirror
- [Nope, he's not distributing it]
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; orThere it is.. The person you are receiving the copyrighted work from, is not authorized to give it to you. If you obtain the copyrighted work with the authorization of the copyright holder, then you are permitted to copy it for personal use. Whether or not you are allowed to copy something after you have infringed on the copyright doesn't make any difference. If you acquire an illegitimate copy, you have no rights to it.
Yes.. You do.
"Could you for example point to a copyright law that says you need a license to USE a work you don't hold the copyright to"
Sure:
You have the right to copy anything that you have acquired legally. If the copyright owner didn't authorize you to have his work, you don't have any rights to it.
There is no such think as a "licence to have". Legally there is no such thing.
Yes there is. Thats what copyright is. If I write a song or a computer program, I have copyright of it. You don't, so you don't have any rights to it unless I give them to you.
It doesn't matter. If someone doesn't have the right to give you a recording, you don't have the right to it. You can steal satellite signals as well, but nothing gives you a right to the programming until you pay for it.
"Did you read the law he cited?"
Yes I did. Did you? He quoted the first half of it. The very first part was "Subject to subsection (2)", which he completely omitted. Go look for yourself
"Why on earth would you need a license to HAVE it?"
For the same reason that you need a license with software. You don't have the right to someone else's copyrighted works unless you have a license to use them.
"So you don't need a licnese to have it any more than you need a license to have a book, a toaster or a chewing gum."
Toasters and chewing gum have nothing to do with copyright. Books do.
You mean a license to make copies? Again, in the case of Canada, that is not needed for copying for personal/private use (according to my understanding)
No. A license to have it in the first place. If you are allowed to copy it after that isn't the issue. When you buy a CD at the store, you buy a license. It's fine to make as many copies for personal use of anything you have a license for.
You also forgot about subsection (2) which says:
- (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
- (a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
- (b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
- (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
- (d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
You don't think that sharing your music via P2P is exactly what 80.2.c is? "communicating to the public by telecommunication"So, any copying I do, for my own personal use, is ok.
How did you get that recording? Was the person who gave it to you allowed to do so?
You still need to have a license for the recording before you copied it.
Oh, well. I live in Canada, where P2P is legal, and the stores still sell music.
Of course P2P is legal. Stealing copyrighted works is not. We are still required to enforce copyright law. The U.S. will attack us if we don't.
You are probably referring to the case where CIRA tried to force the ISPs to divulge information about its subscribers. It's entirely a different issue for whether it is legal for people to steal copyrighted works. Remember the quote from the judge that there was little difference between P2P and libraries who put photocopiers in the lobby? Note the judge didn't say anything about people who photocopy an entire book to save a few bucks. He was talking about legality of P2P in general. As in the people who write eMule, aren't any more responsible for theft than Xerox is, and the library isn't any more responsible than the ISPs are. In both cases, it's still illegal though.
people can no longer in the next breath defend copyright infringement on P2P networks.
Now what's it going to take to make people realize that you're bound to run across many different viewpoints, and that they don't form a collective just because they happen to be a different viewpoint than yours. Copyright infringement is bad no matter who's copyright it is. Just because the RIAA/MPAA are evil, doesn't make it okay to steal the works of the artists they represent. It does justify not buying or stealing them though.
A well commented config file with inline examples is even better.
I don't see the problem with the man pages. Except when they are non-obvious. But anything that simply doesn't have one should be filed as a bug IMHO.
damn, beat me to it.
No, they beat you to it.
Then that is a different issue entirely. That isn't happening here.
Hopefully, Yahoo! Mail will also fix their Firefox problems in the file attachment downloading area
Could you please enlighten me as to what those are? I don't use Yahoo's mail but others in my family do and they claim there is a problem too, but I've never been able to find one. Click an attachment, and it asks you if you want to save it to disk. On my mom's computer I have avi/mpeg associated with mplayer, so she can just click open and it the movie begins playing.
What's it supposed to do that it isn't already?
I wish Yahoo had worded it like that. Instead they make false statements like:
The reality is exactly as you say, and Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape all share a rendering engine that is NOT new technology, but has been in use for a very long time now.
The "viewers" are users of their browser software in my eyes. The HTML users are the ones writing the HTML. The person viewing the page is no more an HTML user than he is a C++ user, XUL user, and/or whatever user. Chances are he has no idea what language the browser or the web page are written in.
Let the broken pages die. Good riddance to bad practices.
I'll second the scratch resistance.. But on the label side mainly. I lose more discs to damage on that side than the reflective one.
Yeah, if you approach someone with a comment like "Hey, I love your web page but $PROBLEM prevents me from going there anymore", you'll probably get a favourable response. If your first contact with them is a full out rant about Microsoft being out to destroy the internet, it probably won't go so well. Save that for later.
Quite a lot of the space on a non-video/audio CD is dedicated to error correction.
Yeah, I'm just saying a little more couldn't hurt. I don't have very much luck with my recordable media after about 6 months, but I don't treat them very well either.
Funny.. Seriously though I'd be happy if some of this new space went to more redundancy if it meant the discs would be more reliable than DVD/CD media is. I'd sacrifice some space for better chances to read it later. If part of whatever standard wins allowed for the data to be stored twice on the media, readers could check the other track if one was damaged.
yeah. ALL THE PROJECTS ARE ON SOURCEFORGE!
Good point. Because Sourceforge, Freshmeat, and Slashdot are all OSTG pages. This is nice to see Google taking an interest in OSTG, not competing with it.
No, just that the developer is aware of users who are unable to view his work. Or failing that, his boss being aware of him/her not caring.
Yes it does matter. Think back to when this thread started. You said Microsoft's version of HTML was a de facto standard. If Microsoft is committed to the w3c, for all the reasons that they were committed back when they had the smaller market share, then they don't set a standard of any kind. It simply fails to comply with the standard.
IE7 will hopefully bring them closer to the goal of being compliant with the standard. Bugs are not features, I don't care what the marketing dept tells you.
Microsoft are part of the W3C. You are a fool.
"Also, it's"...
Not this time.