I'm sorry, I was with you till you suggested that it would be silly for employees to be held responsible for criminal actions of the corporation. Since when do corporations do criminal acts on their own?!? Since when has it been a legal defence that 'The corporation made me do it'. Of course the employees who decide that a corporation should do something illegal should be held to account, surely?
The European Solution, of course, as encapsulated in the European Human Rights Act, is that we have freedom of/expression/, not freedom of speech. I'm unclear why there isn't more discussion of this. The point is that you're not protected whenever you say anything, you're protected whenever you express something. Sure there'll be time when courts decide this, but basically it means that if you say 'I think you should be allowed to burn black people', that's protected - they can't arrest you for expressing your opinion - but if you say 'Smoking is good for you', that's making a factual statement, and must be backed up.
Erm. No. You've got this the wrong way wrong. You're thinking of 'First sale doctrine' which basically says that once something's sold, it'd sold, and the previous owner (before the 'first sale') can't force any obligations onto the new owner... Not that anyone has a 'right' to the first sale, or something silly like that.
You know, if they really want to give something back to the community, the best thing they could go was try to stop distributors etc. screwing around with copyright laws and preventing people from seeing through the Linux / Hensen bond to the end. It seems soooo two faced of Disney et al to use OSS to their advantage to make their movies, whilst simultaneous bankrolling laws preventing the viewing of them on such platforms...
Hey, what about presuming innocence until proving guilty? Surely Blizzard has to prove they copied code, not bnetd guys proving they didn't?
Which, of course I don't know for sure. Probably the DMCA says if they accuse someone of piracy, the defendant has to prove that they never did anything wrong in their life and went to church every day.
The poster claims this is 'Kind of like arresting someone because they might get in a car accident 10 years down the road'. What? What are you on? So the reason it's not okay to sue over this is that it's jumping the gun, and suing before bnet has done something wrong????? Well no, why on earth would bnet making money be wrong / illegal / criminal.
I can completely understand why we might legislate against people driving if they were going to have an accident in 10 years time (though this would be a dreadful idea, except that:) and in a way this is exactly what requiring driving licences is about. But that's totally different to letting people sue to prevent someone else making money in future. Obviously.
The Independent News? Wot's that thar then? The newspaper is called 'The Independent'.
Sorry, but I still on 'Stunned by the Americacentrism' after the story where every man and his dog bemoaned a story that spoilt a television program before it has been shown in the whole of the *states*....
Are any games *actually* supported with this release? I think they're *still* being sneaky if they're claiming this is the second version of WineX that supports running Windows games under Linux. Famously, version 1.0 only 'supported' the Sims, and it turned out that meant that you have to have a semi-ported-to-Linux version, and that the Windows version wouldn't run.
Which begs the question: is the Sims now supported?
Ah, the beautiful irony! The DB guy says 'There's no chance to sue them in the US, you can put anything online there'. Of course, he's half right: you probably are allowed to put instructions for how to sabotage a train system on a website (whether you think that's a good thing or not is another matter). But boy-oh-boy, if you put something online that might affect the tiniest bit the record or movie industry's revenue, you'll be sued to hell.
Erm, I'm not sure what the relevance of the printing press is, but you are mistaken about your facts (probably principally about what the word 'free-loaders' means) if you think that's not what copyright is for. The point is that it is a society backed measure to spread artistic costs across society, rather than limiting them to certain benefactors. Yes, this is an attempt to increase the public domain, but yes, it is still everything to do with free-loaders.
Erm, complaints about people getting something for nothing are about as far as you can get from freeloader-politics. Try reading, say, Nagel.
Basically, you're agreeing with me. Society decides that it will be to its own benefit to have certain copyright laws, and that they are willing to be forced to pay for thing that otherwise would be free. My point is that such laws can only run so long as society decides that the pay / value ration holds.
Nothing to do with quasi-religious notions, all to do with society holding off free-loaders (a technical term).
I think things really have gone out of perspective. The thing that really needs to be remembered in all of this, is the fact that these bills really shouldn't be allowed to happen without support. The thing about copyright is that we have it because, believe it or not, people supposedly want it.
Essentially, copyright is there to protect society from freeloaders - of course people that/really/ like some pop group / film maker / etc. will pay in an attempt to make sure they make more of their product, but society has agreed that it shouldn't fall to the obsessed few, but instead anyone who gains enjoyment from this sort of thing should contribute - in just the same way everyone should have to pay for trains, not just those that/really/ believe in mass-transport.
The thing that is forgotten, however, is that this happens because society wants it. The moment the population decides that the cost / benefit proposition isn't good enough, they should be able to get rid of these laws. Hence, if people/really/ want to download music for free, and nobody is willing to pay for it, society should stop forcing people to. Perhaps some people will stop making music, but, as I say, there isn't some God-given right for them to do this for a living if society doesn't value it enough.
So basically, whilst many things obviously aren't put to the vote, since copyright can only be defended on the basis that if people really think about it they support it, if people really don't it can't be defended. So if people are really against this sort of bill, it would be ridiculous to pass it.
That roadmap isn't actually new. Just look at the revision date, the last thing on the document. Mitchell Baker has indeed promised a new roadmap, but that aint it yet.
The link's still good, though - that's where it'll be when it's done, but don't get confused because that's been there about three weeks now...
Debateably the best sci-fi? Wot? Who on Earth would say that?
Sorry not trying to flamebait, but could someone please explain to me what the attraction to this series is supposed to be - I genuinely can't see it. It's like Doctor Who rickety sets with the muppets in space. As comedy, yes, sure, I get it, but serious sci-fi? What?
I think one important thing that's been missed is that people simply aren't going to comply with this legislation. I'm assuming that nobody/actually/ thinks that all the developers working on Linux and every other open source project out there is just going to pack up and move to Redmond. The fact is that people aren't going to adjust their behaviour because of this. And even if it does have an impact, that will be to force developers to move elsewhere - to Europe or just hop across the border to Canada.
Either way, it isn't going to make a difference to people who can import these DRM-free devices - and they'll be back to charging/offenders/ for copyright infringement, not makers of technology.
Erm, I think the reply is obvious. Microsoft shows, quite clearly, how your whole world view is wrong. Sure - if people accept free market etc., they can't complain about Microsoft, but they'd be wrong if they did so. Only mad Ayn Rand followers actually believe that a company can do no wrong, and that market forces always select the best product - everyone else sees that in the real world things don't always work that way.
Erm no, you're just plain wrong. The non-settling states are *demanding* that a stripped down version be cheaper (though it isn't clear how this would be calculated) - that's why it would be cheaper.
Er - because for one thing the stripped down version would be *cheaper*! Why would an OEM use other options when they already have to pay for IE, WMP, etc., bundled into the price of Windows? The point is that with every release, MS ups the price of Windows to pay for the development of their browser / media play / IM system - usually worse than the current competition - and users end up with a system with bloat installed, and in many cases *running* regardless of whether they use it or not...
Yeah, but they didn't bother to slaughter all the natives so they could form their own self-righteous, godly country and escape the evils of their own;-);-)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, I was with you till you suggested that it would be silly for employees to be held responsible for criminal actions of the corporation. Since when do corporations do criminal acts on their own?!? Since when has it been a legal defence that 'The corporation made me do it'. Of course the employees who decide that a corporation should do something illegal should be held to account, surely?
The European Solution, of course, as encapsulated in the European Human Rights Act, is that we have freedom of /expression/, not freedom of speech. I'm unclear why there isn't more discussion of this. The point is that you're not protected whenever you say anything, you're protected whenever you express something. Sure there'll be time when courts decide this, but basically it means that if you say 'I think you should be allowed to burn black people', that's protected - they can't arrest you for expressing your opinion - but if you say 'Smoking is good for you', that's making a factual statement, and must be backed up.
Erm. No. You've got this the wrong way wrong. You're thinking of 'First sale doctrine' which basically says that once something's sold, it'd sold, and the previous owner (before the 'first sale') can't force any obligations onto the new owner... Not that anyone has a 'right' to the first sale, or something silly like that.
The what? Since when has there been a 'right to first sale'???? Huh?!?!?
You know, if they really want to give something back to the community, the best thing they could go was try to stop distributors etc. screwing around with copyright laws and preventing people from seeing through the Linux / Hensen bond to the end. It seems soooo two faced of Disney et al to use OSS to their advantage to make their movies, whilst simultaneous bankrolling laws preventing the viewing of them on such platforms...
Oh yes, civil case, obviously.
Oh, and it's *presumed* innocent until proven guilty. It really would be nice if people remembered that since there's an enormous difference...
Hey, what about presuming innocence until proving guilty? Surely Blizzard has to prove they copied code, not bnetd guys proving they didn't?
Which, of course I don't know for sure. Probably the DMCA says if they accuse someone of piracy, the defendant has to prove that they never did anything wrong in their life and went to church every day.
The poster claims this is 'Kind of like arresting someone because they might get in a car accident 10 years down the road'. What? What are you on? So the reason it's not okay to sue over this is that it's jumping the gun, and suing before bnet has done something wrong????? Well no, why on earth would bnet making money be wrong / illegal / criminal.
I can completely understand why we might legislate against people driving if they were going to have an accident in 10 years time (though this would be a dreadful idea, except that:) and in a way this is exactly what requiring driving licences is about. But that's totally different to letting people sue to prevent someone else making money in future. Obviously.
The Independent News? Wot's that thar then? The newspaper is called 'The Independent'.
Sorry, but I still on 'Stunned by the Americacentrism' after the story where every man and his dog bemoaned a story that spoilt a television program before it has been shown in the whole of the *states*....
Are any games *actually* supported with this release? I think they're *still* being sneaky if they're claiming this is the second version of WineX that supports running Windows games under Linux. Famously, version 1.0 only 'supported' the Sims, and it turned out that meant that you have to have a semi-ported-to-Linux version, and that the Windows version wouldn't run.
Which begs the question: is the Sims now supported?
Ah, the beautiful irony! The DB guy says 'There's no chance to sue them in the US, you can put anything online there'. Of course, he's half right: you probably are allowed to put instructions for how to sabotage a train system on a website (whether you think that's a good thing or not is another matter). But boy-oh-boy, if you put something online that might affect the tiniest bit the record or movie industry's revenue, you'll be sued to hell.
Erm, I'm not sure what the relevance of the printing press is, but you are mistaken about your facts (probably principally about what the word 'free-loaders' means) if you think that's not what copyright is for. The point is that it is a society backed measure to spread artistic costs across society, rather than limiting them to certain benefactors. Yes, this is an attempt to increase the public domain, but yes, it is still everything to do with free-loaders.
Erm, complaints about people getting something for nothing are about as far as you can get from freeloader-politics. Try reading, say, Nagel.
Basically, you're agreeing with me. Society decides that it will be to its own benefit to have certain copyright laws, and that they are willing to be forced to pay for thing that otherwise would be free. My point is that such laws can only run so long as society decides that the pay / value ration holds.
Nothing to do with quasi-religious notions, all to do with society holding off free-loaders (a technical term).
I think things really have gone out of perspective. The thing that really needs to be remembered in all of this, is the fact that these bills really shouldn't be allowed to happen without support. The thing about copyright is that we have it because, believe it or not, people supposedly want it.
/really/ like some pop group / film maker / etc. will pay in an attempt to make sure they make more of their product, but society has agreed that it shouldn't fall to the obsessed few, but instead anyone who gains enjoyment from this sort of thing should contribute - in just the same way everyone should have to pay for trains, not just those that /really/ believe in mass-transport.
/really/ want to download music for free, and nobody is willing to pay for it, society should stop forcing people to. Perhaps some people will stop making music, but, as I say, there isn't some God-given right for them to do this for a living if society doesn't value it enough.
Essentially, copyright is there to protect society from freeloaders - of course people that
The thing that is forgotten, however, is that this happens because society wants it. The moment the population decides that the cost / benefit proposition isn't good enough, they should be able to get rid of these laws. Hence, if people
So basically, whilst many things obviously aren't put to the vote, since copyright can only be defended on the basis that if people really think about it they support it, if people really don't it can't be defended. So if people are really against this sort of bill, it would be ridiculous to pass it.
Erm, yes... i.e. after this story was posted, and after I wrote my comment. I did check!
Hence the 'This link is correct because that's where the document will be'!
/has/ been updated. It hadn't been when this story was posted, or when I wrote my comment ;-)
We're both right - the roadmap now
That roadmap isn't actually new. Just look at the revision date, the last thing on the document. Mitchell Baker has indeed promised a new roadmap, but that aint it yet.
The link's still good, though - that's where it'll be when it's done, but don't get confused because that's been there about three weeks now...
...and it doesn't load components that you don't use, so the calendar isn't hogging memory if you never use it...
Debateably the best sci-fi? Wot? Who on Earth would say that?
Sorry not trying to flamebait, but could someone please explain to me what the attraction to this series is supposed to be - I genuinely can't see it. It's like Doctor Who rickety sets with the muppets in space. As comedy, yes, sure, I get it, but serious sci-fi? What?
I think one important thing that's been missed is that people simply aren't going to comply with this legislation. I'm assuming that nobody /actually/ thinks that all the developers working on Linux and every other open source project out there is just going to pack up and move to Redmond. The fact is that people aren't going to adjust their behaviour because of this. And even if it does have an impact, that will be to force developers to move elsewhere - to Europe or just hop across the border to Canada.
/offenders/ for copyright infringement, not makers of technology.
Either way, it isn't going to make a difference to people who can import these DRM-free devices - and they'll be back to charging
Erm... wasn't that Whitney Houston?
Erm, I think the reply is obvious. Microsoft shows, quite clearly, how your whole world view is wrong. Sure - if people accept free market etc., they can't complain about Microsoft, but they'd be wrong if they did so. Only mad Ayn Rand followers actually believe that a company can do no wrong, and that market forces always select the best product - everyone else sees that in the real world things don't always work that way.
Erm no, you're just plain wrong. The non-settling states are *demanding* that a stripped down version be cheaper (though it isn't clear how this would be calculated) - that's why it would be cheaper.
Er - because for one thing the stripped down version would be *cheaper*! Why would an OEM use other options when they already have to pay for IE, WMP, etc., bundled into the price of Windows? The point is that with every release, MS ups the price of Windows to pay for the development of their browser / media play / IM system - usually worse than the current competition - and users end up with a system with bloat installed, and in many cases *running* regardless of whether they use it or not...
Yeah, but they didn't bother to slaughter all the natives so they could form their own self-righteous, godly country and escape the evils of their own ;-) ;-)