And the other thing you've got to consider is whether people will actually support movies they like. I genuinely do like buying a movie in its box with a real video inside - which is why i don't tape things off tv that often. I guarentee that anybody that knows enough to look for movies on the net will know a good deal more about how movie-making works, and where the money goes than the man on the street, and will be more aware that they could put the moviemakers they love out of business.
of course, the studios don't really care about his - they just don't want piracy because it might cut into their ridiculous profits...
Erm, in that case people below the lowest income tax bracket *do* get free healthcare. The point is you don't have to pay personally for treatment you *need*.
Well quite! No European democracy is controlled by the religious right as much as America is. Whenever you talk to Americans they pride themselves on the separation between the church and the state, yet nowhere else does the church wield such enormous political power - not ever Italy. And anyway, freedom for the majority comes in part from restrictions of the minority. I/do/ consider myself more free because I won't get shot in the street (or by a co-worker) rather than if the state felt it necessary to ensure every madman or simply hostile person got to do whatever they like - sitting on the fence doesn't ensure freedom!
Ah yes, but what you misunderstand is that with Toys 'R' Us that's an American country deciding it. I can't help but think there wouldn't be so much outcry if an American court had objected to the sale of particular items...
And to be fair, I can't see how anyone in America can imagine they have any right to lecture the French on how to deal with (neo-)Nazis, since their experience 50 years ago was ENTIRELY different...
Oh this is ridiculous. The article quotes someone as saying 'Such links have been common online for years' or something like that, but the fact is they've been about a lot longer. You can't charge someone if they give a reference to another article in, for example, a scientific journal, and this is no different. The reason they give the name and publisher of an article is because they don't have a way to directly allow you to see the article quickly.
But presumably linking is different, because you just click, and there the article is. So can you just quote the reference (name and publisher - i.e. domain), or the URL, so long as it's not a hyperlink? I can't see how making people copy and paste protects their articles, it just makes fewer people read them!
Presumably names and publishers of articles are taken to be public domain, because you can't copyright a book title and publisher in such a way to prevent anyone referring to it (or selling it!) without your permission. And anyway, most copyright acts (certainly the UK one) specifically allows limited quotation...
Oh this is too stupid for words... So I've said rather too many!
The thing that really upsets me about the DVD zoning, on top of the principle (which we all knew was going to happen, Britain isn't going to stop being ripped off by American companies) is the practical results. I know/loads/ of people who were really looking forward to DVD because it would finally mean that if a video was released anywhere, we'd finally get to see it - so all those great things we'd always wanted to see again, but were available in PAL we'd finally see. I'm very glad the region-encoding has been cracked, though it kinda upsets me that we're finally getting to see good things we want to/in spite/ of the publishers, not because of them!
Sorry to be really ignorant, but that sounds quite big in terms of embedded stuff? Isn't that's like half most Palm's memories? How does that compare, with say, the barebones of Gecko?
Yet again we seem to be seeing the people who claim to be protecting their work rubber-stamping a company once they see they can make money out of it. Does Shawn Fanning really not see the irony in saying 'I am excited that Bertelsmann appreciates and values the uniqueness of the community Napster users have built.' of a company that is currently suing them.
So yet again we're being told that the only way we're allowed to have MP3s is if we personally encode them on our computers. I thought we were all supposed to be moving to a new computer model where the desktop computer and the Internet are inseparable and complement one another. Evidentally not.
So they're seriously suggesting that anyone who's ever worked for Microsoft or a licencee is not allowed to work on an Open Source project attempting to mimic functionality ever in their life? That can't be right, and if it is, isn't that a huge threat to individual freedom?
That is sooooooo worrying! Apparently 92 percent of people want porn filtered, whereas only 79 percent care about hate-speech being shown to minors. Glad we've all got our priorities right, eh!
I don't get this. Are things different in the US from here in the UK? Here nobody really makes any fuss about the word fuck anymore, which practically interperses speech on TV and film. The one word people still don't use, and which is definitely the most foul of the foul and still offends, it 'cunt' - does nobody use it in the US, or does it just not have the same impact it does here?
No, not at all. The fact is that photocopiers can be used for copying stuff; so can double-deck cassette recorders, or multi-stack stereos, but the makers of these things are not liable for enabling people to use these things which can be put to very good uses. The fact is that the Internet, http, etc. are just as useful for facilitating getting of pirated materials - that doesn't make the inventors thiefs, simply the users.
Oh no! Someone might alter your linux install and make it so that there are features that aren't documented!!! THANK GOD we have Windows to protect us from undocumented features!
How many times do the mozilla people have to say this before people actually listen? The vast majority of the work on Mozilla IS the browser. The HTML engine doesn't just render webpages, but the editor, the IRC client, the mail client etc. etc. Most of the work IS on the browser, and there is no evidence AT ALL that any more work would be done on the browser if they ditched the other parts, either temporarily or indefinitely.
And how is this best of Mozilla? It needs GNOME so isn't cross-platform at all. Wasn't that part of the point?
If this is the case, it seems you will have done far less that the author that sets his art free. What you are saying is that people can only think about the words that are written on the page, and would have to phone the author if they ever wanted to know anything else. They have done something far more amazing if by writing a book they've set free characters to have their own life - so people can imagine their pasts, how they feel when they don't say it, what their motivations are, etc. etc..
Surely you'd say you intended it to represent a sailboat - few artists would be arrogant enough to say 'This represents a sailboat', and the idea of an emperor's new clothes type situation where an artist says 'Can't you see this represents life itself, sitting in a teacup?' is a cliche, and intended to amuse!
It's *art*. It's *literature*. It is not *real*. There is no truth about it, only interpretation, and I can't see why his interpretation should be valued any more highly than any other!
I don't mean to be contrary, but why does the director of a film get any special priviledge to decide its interpretation. The film is a piece of art, of literature, and stands as itself. Nobody can just decide the he is a replicant any more than they can decide that he's not.
We would all go 'oh, okay, that's that sorted' if he came out and said 'In fact, there weren't any replicants at all' - he just doesn't have the power to do that. The clues are there (or not, as the case may be) in the film, and it is only on the basis of the contents of the film that we can say either way.
It's like the way you can read a book, and then find a new illustrated version and say 'nope, the characters just don't look like that' and your interpretation can't be any less valid (if you've read and considered the book) that the author or the illustrator. The argument 'that's how I imagined them when I wrote it' just doesn't cut the mustard - (and if you argue that it does, surely the book Blade Runner is based on decides it, so it isn't the director's choice after all!
I'm not terribly convinced that these examples are as vague as he is trying to suggest. It is possible, as people have suggested, for people to rewrite entire programs, and thus avoid GPL protection - surely what this shows is that all the matters for something to be a single program is the basic codebase - i.e. if a program shares any executable code with the GPL originator, it is GPLed - therefore other programs, regardless of how they interact, are not...
Erm, don't worry about incompatibility with other versions, because everyone's going to fork out masses for ech device for new zippy compatible software!
Slashdot Mirror
And the other thing you've got to consider is whether people will actually support movies they like. I genuinely do like buying a movie in its box with a real video inside - which is why i don't tape things off tv that often. I guarentee that anybody that knows enough to look for movies on the net will know a good deal more about how movie-making works, and where the money goes than the man on the street, and will be more aware that they could put the moviemakers they love out of business.
of course, the studios don't really care about his - they just don't want piracy because it might cut into their ridiculous profits...
Erm, in that case people below the lowest income tax bracket *do* get free healthcare. The point is you don't have to pay personally for treatment you *need*.
Well quite! No European democracy is controlled by the religious right as much as America is. Whenever you talk to Americans they pride themselves on the separation between the church and the state, yet nowhere else does the church wield such enormous political power - not ever Italy. And anyway, freedom for the majority comes in part from restrictions of the minority. I /do/ consider myself more free because I won't get shot in the street (or by a co-worker) rather than if the state felt it necessary to ensure every madman or simply hostile person got to do whatever they like - sitting on the fence doesn't ensure freedom!
Ah yes, but what you misunderstand is that with Toys 'R' Us that's an American country deciding it. I can't help but think there wouldn't be so much outcry if an American court had objected to the sale of particular items...
And to be fair, I can't see how anyone in America can imagine they have any right to lecture the French on how to deal with (neo-)Nazis, since their experience 50 years ago was ENTIRELY different...
Oh this is ridiculous. The article quotes someone as saying 'Such links have been common online for years' or something like that, but the fact is they've been about a lot longer. You can't charge someone if they give a reference to another article in, for example, a scientific journal, and this is no different. The reason they give the name and publisher of an article is because they don't have a way to directly allow you to see the article quickly.
But presumably linking is different, because you just click, and there the article is. So can you just quote the reference (name and publisher - i.e. domain), or the URL, so long as it's not a hyperlink? I can't see how making people copy and paste protects their articles, it just makes fewer people read them!
Presumably names and publishers of articles are taken to be public domain, because you can't copyright a book title and publisher in such a way to prevent anyone referring to it (or selling it!) without your permission. And anyway, most copyright acts (certainly the UK one) specifically allows limited quotation...
Oh this is too stupid for words... So I've said rather too many!
The thing that really upsets me about the DVD zoning, on top of the principle (which we all knew was going to happen, Britain isn't going to stop being ripped off by American companies) is the practical results. I know /loads/ of people who were really looking forward to DVD because it would finally mean that if a video was released anywhere, we'd finally get to see it - so all those great things we'd always wanted to see again, but were available in PAL we'd finally see. I'm very glad the region-encoding has been cracked, though it kinda upsets me that we're finally getting to see good things we want to /in spite/ of the publishers, not because of them!
that's why I asked about Gecko...
Sorry to be really ignorant, but that sounds quite big in terms of embedded stuff? Isn't that's like half most Palm's memories? How does that compare, with say, the barebones of Gecko?
Yet again we seem to be seeing the people who claim to be protecting their work rubber-stamping a company once they see they can make money out of it. Does Shawn Fanning really not see the irony in saying 'I am excited that Bertelsmann appreciates and values the uniqueness of the community Napster users have built.' of a company that is currently suing them.
So yet again we're being told that the only way we're allowed to have MP3s is if we personally encode them on our computers. I thought we were all supposed to be moving to a new computer model where the desktop computer and the Internet are inseparable and complement one another. Evidentally not.
So they're seriously suggesting that anyone who's ever worked for Microsoft or a licencee is not allowed to work on an Open Source project attempting to mimic functionality ever in their life? That can't be right, and if it is, isn't that a huge threat to individual freedom?
That is sooooooo worrying! Apparently 92 percent of people want porn filtered, whereas only 79 percent care about hate-speech being shown to minors. Glad we've all got our priorities right, eh!
I don't get this. Are things different in the US from here in the UK? Here nobody really makes any fuss about the word fuck anymore, which practically interperses speech on TV and film. The one word people still don't use, and which is definitely the most foul of the foul and still offends, it 'cunt' - does nobody use it in the US, or does it just not have the same impact it does here?
So presumably no user to user protocol can ever be used to exchange stuff legally? Because that's what you're suggesting must be outlawed.
No, not at all. The fact is that photocopiers can be used for copying stuff; so can double-deck cassette recorders, or multi-stack stereos, but the makers of these things are not liable for enabling people to use these things which can be put to very good uses. The fact is that the Internet, http, etc. are just as useful for facilitating getting of pirated materials - that doesn't make the inventors thiefs, simply the users.
Oh no! Someone might alter your linux install and make it so that there are features that aren't documented!!! THANK GOD we have Windows to protect us from undocumented features!
How many times do the mozilla people have to say this before people actually listen? The vast majority of the work on Mozilla IS the browser. The HTML engine doesn't just render webpages, but the editor, the IRC client, the mail client etc. etc. Most of the work IS on the browser, and there is no evidence AT ALL that any more work would be done on the browser if they ditched the other parts, either temporarily or indefinitely.
And how is this best of Mozilla? It needs GNOME so isn't cross-platform at all. Wasn't that part of the point?
If this is the case, it seems you will have done far less that the author that sets his art free. What you are saying is that people can only think about the words that are written on the page, and would have to phone the author if they ever wanted to know anything else. They have done something far more amazing if by writing a book they've set free characters to have their own life - so people can imagine their pasts, how they feel when they don't say it, what their motivations are, etc. etc..
Surely the fact that it's so abitrary shows that this is too simplistic a model to use?
Surely you'd say you intended it to represent a sailboat - few artists would be arrogant enough to say 'This represents a sailboat', and the idea of an emperor's new clothes type situation where an artist says 'Can't you see this represents life itself, sitting in a teacup?' is a cliche, and intended to amuse!
It's *art*. It's *literature*. It is not *real*. There is no truth about it, only interpretation, and I can't see why his interpretation should be valued any more highly than any other!
What's to say he didn't *fail* in his attempt to paint Deckard as a replicant? He may just have failed to put enough in...
I don't mean to be contrary, but why does the director of a film get any special priviledge to decide its interpretation. The film is a piece of art, of literature, and stands as itself. Nobody can just decide the he is a replicant any more than they can decide that he's not.
We would all go 'oh, okay, that's that sorted' if he came out and said 'In fact, there weren't any replicants at all' - he just doesn't have the power to do that. The clues are there (or not, as the case may be) in the film, and it is only on the basis of the contents of the film that we can say either way.
It's like the way you can read a book, and then find a new illustrated version and say 'nope, the characters just don't look like that' and your interpretation can't be any less valid (if you've read and considered the book) that the author or the illustrator. The argument 'that's how I imagined them when I wrote it' just doesn't cut the mustard - (and if you argue that it does, surely the book Blade Runner is based on decides it, so it isn't the director's choice after all!
I'm not terribly convinced that these examples are as vague as he is trying to suggest. It is possible, as people have suggested, for people to rewrite entire programs, and thus avoid GPL protection - surely what this shows is that all the matters for something to be a single program is the basic codebase - i.e. if a program shares any executable code with the GPL originator, it is GPLed - therefore other programs, regardless of how they interact, are not...
I mean, obviously they'd have this document, it's just that they chose to share it with us that's changed!
Erm, don't worry about incompatibility with other versions, because everyone's going to fork out masses for ech device for new zippy compatible software!