Law 8078/90 (Brasilian "Consumer Defense Code"), art 39: "It is prohibited, to any supplier of products and services: I - to condition the supply of any product or service to the supply of another product or service" (this is called in Brasilian Consumer Law "venda casada" == "married sale", where one product/service only goes where the other goes). IOW: If I want to buy MacOS X, Apple cannot refuse to sell it to me, even if I don't own a Mac.
No, that means they can't require you to buy a Mac with your OSX. They could still require you to prove ownership of the Mac before selling you OSX. If it were otherwise, Ferrari wouldn't be able to condition the sale of an F50 on prior ownership of a Ferrari.
Often Mac advocates want to have it both ways, say that Macs are no more expensive AND say that selling the OS separately would destroy the hardware business and with it the company.
Well, Macs cost more, but they last longer and require less support, so it's a wash, maybe better. Their claim that selling the OS separately would destroy the company is based on cold hard facts - others have already provided background for the historically challenged.
What if your buying your first computer, how will you read the website until after you've got the machine up and running?
More to the point, why should I have to expend effort prior to the sale to determine the product's licensing restrictions? If Apple is so hot to make the EULA real, they should a) offer copies before you buy (on paper), b) inform you of their existence and c) require you to agree to the terms before you fork over cash. Post sale EULAs are crap.
In this case, the author does not want you to do either.
How are the author's wishes relevant? So long as you aren't distributing cracked copies of OSX, it's legal according to copyright, unless you want to say that the DMCA allows you to decide which machines your stuff runs on.
The article states that $900 is the cost to Sony. It won't cost that retail, they always take a hit. The original Xbox cost more to make, than it sold for. It's called a loss leader, look it up.
I'll need a cite for that. The Xbox was known to sell at a loss, but not the PS2.
So what you're saying is this. If you write a useful and clever program that sells well, and in 2008 there are still people lined up at your doorstep throwing wads of $50's at your head for that exact same program - even though you haven't written a single line of code since - you're going to say "No, no, folks - keep your money! I shouldn't expect to keep getting money for something that's two years old!
More or less. The point of Copyright is to improve the public domain - sitting back and collecting cash for years old work doesn't really motivate new work. You example is extreme, but it illustrates that point.
I'm talking about how is it different in terms of the end product in your hands?
I don't really care. I'm talking about the legal reality here - copying is different from theft, as copyright and patent protection are a wholly statutory right - they exist at the pleasure of the State./p.
im being on the same side as prostitutes in his mind is like when NAMBLA shows up at a gay rights/pride march: yes, technically, they are marching for your ideal
You haven't stolen/my/ car, but you have stolen the car from Ford. Why? Because the end result would be the same as if you stole it: You would be driving around in a car that you did not pay for. That car design cost millions to come up with. If they only sold one and the rest were "free copies", they would never make their money back, and consequently, they would never design another car!
No I haven't. I've infringed on a number of patents (potentially), and possibly diluted Ford's TM (unless I wholly debadge it), and licensing will be tricky, what with the duplicate VIN, but I havn't committed theft.
it seems that the gist of your argument is that since you haven't gotten your hands on a physical thing, you haven't stolen anything.
This is true. The definition of theft, so far as the law is concerned, requires a physical object to be stolen. Illegal copying is, ahem, illegal, but it is generally a civil tort, not a crime.
The functional definition of an addiction is an activity that interferes with you conducting your daily life.
By that definition, a lot of Heroin users aren't addicted. Sure, they'd go into withdrawal if they stopped, but they could hold down a job if the stuff was priced near what it cost to produce, they'd just have a couple of long weekends.
"Because you are taking measures that are only 99.999% effective against a threat, you are stupid for taking these measures because there is still a 0.001% chance that you will encounter the threat anyway."
No, I'm saying that you're exagerating the risk of downloaded software, as boxed software is also vulnerable. Downloaded software is just as safe as the stuff you buy in the store. You're still getting it from a company you don't quite know.
One hopes that the typical Muslim living in western Europe is more literate, better acquainted with the western tradition of not being killed for using humor/satire, and mostly... doesn't want to appear as crazy as the people throwing gas bombs at embassies, because they have to go to work the next day with their local European counterparts. One hopes.
Funny thing about that - the guys who flew airplanes ino the WTC four and a half years ago were normal, everyday guys. They weren't ignorant savages - for the most part, they were well educated, decent people.
How is a credit union non-commercial? It still lends money and operates checking services, it just has a different motive (maximizing profit is not the only goal).
Slashdot Mirror
Law 8078/90 (Brasilian "Consumer Defense Code"), art 39: "It is prohibited, to any supplier of products and services: I - to condition the supply of any product or service to the supply of another product or service" (this is called in Brasilian Consumer Law "venda casada" == "married sale", where one product/service only goes where the other goes). IOW: If I want to buy MacOS X, Apple cannot refuse to sell it to me, even if I don't own a Mac.
No, that means they can't require you to buy a Mac with your OSX. They could still require you to prove ownership of the Mac before selling you OSX. If it were otherwise, Ferrari wouldn't be able to condition the sale of an F50 on prior ownership of a Ferrari.
Often Mac advocates want to have it both ways, say that Macs are no more expensive AND say that selling the OS separately would destroy the hardware business and with it the company.
Well, Macs cost more, but they last longer and require less support, so it's a wash, maybe better. Their claim that selling the OS separately would destroy the company is based on cold hard facts - others have already provided background for the historically challenged.
What if your buying your first computer, how will you read the website until after you've got the machine up and running?
More to the point, why should I have to expend effort prior to the sale to determine the product's licensing restrictions? If Apple is so hot to make the EULA real, they should a) offer copies before you buy (on paper), b) inform you of their existence and c) require you to agree to the terms before you fork over cash. Post sale EULAs are crap.
In this case, the author does not want you to do either.
How are the author's wishes relevant? So long as you aren't distributing cracked copies of OSX, it's legal according to copyright, unless you want to say that the DMCA allows you to decide which machines your stuff runs on.
The article states that $900 is the cost to Sony. It won't cost that retail, they always take a hit. The original Xbox cost more to make, than it sold for. It's called a loss leader, look it up.
I'll need a cite for that. The Xbox was known to sell at a loss, but not the PS2.
Sounds like a government mandate just waiting to happen. Won't somebody think of the children?
Nah, they weigh too much.
You can be insulting in any language.
So what you're saying is this. If you write a useful and clever program that sells well, and in 2008 there are still people lined up at your doorstep throwing wads of $50's at your head for that exact same program - even though you haven't written a single line of code since - you're going to say "No, no, folks - keep your money! I shouldn't expect to keep getting money for something that's two years old!
More or less. The point of Copyright is to improve the public domain - sitting back and collecting cash for years old work doesn't really motivate new work. You example is extreme, but it illustrates that point.
compared to french, english is extremely limitated insult and swears wise so I'm not that surprised :)
You're just not trying. English has a very broad capacity for insults - just ask Ambrose Bierce or Churchhill.
On a hard disk you could fsck forever.
Get a real journaled FS and you'll be fine.
I've often wondered if it would be possible to port Doom to a high-speed printer
Already been done, mostly. There exists a vt100 doom port, which could be easily converted to a line printer and timed to a strobe.
I'm talking about how is it different in terms of the end product in your hands?
I don't really care. I'm talking about the legal reality here - copying is different from theft, as copyright and patent protection are a wholly statutory right - they exist at the pleasure of the State./p.
Tell me how the end result for you is different?
Civil tort vs. felony car theft.
im being on the same side as prostitutes in his mind is like when NAMBLA shows up at a gay rights/pride march: yes, technically, they are marching for your ideal
Yeah, same cause.
Remember, according to Jack Valenti "fair use is not in the law".
He's right. It's an affirmative defense.
You haven't stolen /my/ car, but you have stolen the car from Ford. Why? Because the end result would be the same as if you stole it: You would be driving around in a car that you did not pay for. That car design cost millions to come up with. If they only sold one and the rest were "free copies", they would never make their money back, and consequently, they would never design another car!
No I haven't. I've infringed on a number of patents (potentially), and possibly diluted Ford's TM (unless I wholly debadge it), and licensing will be tricky, what with the duplicate VIN, but I havn't committed theft.
it seems that the gist of your argument is that since you haven't gotten your hands on a physical thing, you haven't stolen anything.
This is true. The definition of theft, so far as the law is concerned, requires a physical object to be stolen. Illegal copying is, ahem, illegal, but it is generally a civil tort, not a crime.
The functional definition of an addiction is an activity that interferes with you conducting your daily life.
By that definition, a lot of Heroin users aren't addicted. Sure, they'd go into withdrawal if they stopped, but they could hold down a job if the stuff was priced near what it cost to produce, they'd just have a couple of long weekends.
Why buy up all these other database alternatives?
To screw with competitors like Mysql.
Ever looked into buying a new car that is particularly popular? They never have one for the MSRP.
Yeah they do. They only exceptions I've seen have been the Lotus Elise and Porsche Cayman.
"Because you are taking measures that are only 99.999% effective against a threat, you are stupid for taking these measures because there is still a 0.001% chance that you will encounter the threat anyway."
No, I'm saying that you're exagerating the risk of downloaded software, as boxed software is also vulnerable. Downloaded software is just as safe as the stuff you buy in the store. You're still getting it from a company you don't quite know.
I'd buy a boxed copy myself. If you download music, or other media, there's not the trojan threat that you get from downloading software.
You poor naive child. Every few years some large software house gets in trouble because they shipped a product with a bundled in virus.
One hopes that the typical Muslim living in western Europe is more literate, better acquainted with the western tradition of not being killed for using humor/satire, and mostly... doesn't want to appear as crazy as the people throwing gas bombs at embassies, because they have to go to work the next day with their local European counterparts. One hopes.
Funny thing about that - the guys who flew airplanes ino the WTC four and a half years ago were normal, everyday guys. They weren't ignorant savages - for the most part, they were well educated, decent people.
Boys and girls, can you say "credit union"?
How is a credit union non-commercial? It still lends money and operates checking services, it just has a different motive (maximizing profit is not the only goal).
It's a credit union.
So's my bank. Notice the .com