"You just can't copy GPL-licensed code into your program unless it's also GPL-licensed. I don't see how this is viral."
Hmmm, let's see here. My code is not GPLed. I insert some GPL code into my code. Now, the whole thing, including my code, is GPLed.
Yup, sounds pretty "viral" to me.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the GPL. If you don't like it, don't use it. But, while the word "viral" tends to have negative connotations, it is actually a pretty accurate word in this instance. I cannot put GPLed code into my own project without the GPLed nature of that code "infecting" the rest of my code, and forcing it to become GPLed as well. That's "viral".
Don't think "viral" as in HIV, think "viral" as in AAV (a "benevolent virus" used to treat Hemophilia).:)
Okay, change "everyone" in my previous post to "virtually everyone". There might be one or two people out there in Kazaa-Land who've been so completely living under a rock that they actually don't know anything about copyright. Maybe.
"I hope my post made sense... it's past my bedtime"
It made sense, but it's past my bedtime too, so who knows if it'll make sense in the morning.:)
Just one note, though:
"...you'd be an accessory to the crime for allowing such use of the machine..."
I agree with the "accessory" part. I disagree with the "crime" part. This is something the folks at the RIAA consistently ignore, and everyone else is starting to forget it too. Copyright infringement is not a crime. It is a tort (civil), not criminal, matter. At least, for now...:(
If someone has a catalogue of files shared on Kazaa that are appropriately named to appear to be a massive collection of copyrighted works, it would be reasonable to assume that this is precisely what they are. I don't think the RIAA would need to download every single one of them to confirm it. Nevertheless, if they were to download at least some of them for the sake of confirmation, I would think that this would not be a violation of copyright, simply because the RIAA is an organization that represents the holders of those copyrights, and is ostensibly acting on their behalf, with their consent.
"As far as the downloader knows, the person sending the file is doing so perfectly legally."
Um, no. Let's be serious, nobody actually logs onto Kazaa, searches for the latest drivel from Britney Spears, finds it on some user's hard drive, and thinks to themselves "This person must have the legal authority to distribute this song, otherwise it wouldn't be there."
Everyone who downloads from Kazaa knows they're violating copyright.
Here is what I would see as being a better analogy (although still admittedly flawed). I have a newspaper press on my front porch. You come by, fire up the press, and make yourself a copy of the newspaper. Now, who has violated copyright law: you or me?
The technical use of the word "request" is actually quite different than the use of that word in a real-world context. The act of clicking a web link or selecting to download in Kazaa is, technically, a "request", but it is more analogous to the pressing of the "Copy" button on a photocopier (and thus "requesting" the machine make you a copy), than actually requesting that an individual make the copy for you. In a P2P situation, you, the downloader, are copying a file from somebody else's hard drive. As I said before, they are complicit in that they made it available, but you still committed the act of violating the copyright.
I realize that what I'm arguing is not the "conventional legal" opinion. My point is that I disagree with that conventional opinion. People should be held responsible for what they do, not for what others do. Basically, there's a hierarchy in this. At the top, the furthest removed from the actual so-called "criminal" act, is the provider of the service (ie. Kazaa, Napster, etc). Under them are the providers of the content (file sharers). At the bottom, closest to the actual activity, the ones who initiate the violation, are the downloaders themselves.
But, lawsuits naturally gravitate to the top, because it's easier and more lucrative.
You're absolutely correct. And I did not say that distributing a copyrighted work is not a violation of copyright as well.
The thing is, it is the downloader who is actually infringing the copyright by actively initiating the copy process.
Let me put it this way: If I were to share somebody else's copyrighted material on Kazaa, but nobody actually downloaded it, then has a copyright violation occurred? I don't know what a court would say about that (though, given the corrupt way American courts have traditionally treated this issue, I'm fairly certain they would say "yes"), but I would say that, assuming the act of making the copy to place on the computer's hard drive in the first place falls within "fair use", then no copyright violation has occurred. The violation would occur the moment somebody else came along and chose to download.
Actually, there's a reason why it's called "copyright". It has to do with the "right" to "copy". Only the copyright holder has the right to copy the original work.
The downloader is the one making a copy. The sharer is only making it available for the downloader to make that copy. They are enabling the copyright infringement, but not actually doing it. The downloader does that part.
Plus, if you wrote the solution, then when something goes wrong, you actually understand the solution, and can therefore attempt to sort it out. On the other hand, if you didn't write it, then you'll have to figure out somebody else's solution in order to find what went wrong.
Sometimes, that's simple. I think a lot of developers just don't even want to have to try to understand somebody else's solution.
You won't hear any such defense of copyright from me. I agree with copyright protection as it was originally set out, but the very idea that AOL-TW can sit back and collect something like $2 million every year on royalties from "Happy Birthday", well over 100 years after the melody was originally penned, and long after the death of its creators, is just frikkin' stupid. Anyone who can honestly defend such a system is either equally stupid, or an AOL-TW executive. But I repeat myself.:)
"That's your own silly fault for signing such a contract."
You're absolutely right.
It's unfortunate, but the simple fact is that at the time, I was a bit eager to take the job, and just didn't fully consider the ramifications of the contract I was signing -- if I even bothered to read it at all. I don't remember if I did.
But now time has passed, and I've come to fully realize what I've gotten myself into, and I realize that it really sucks. Unfortunately, I also like my job a lot, so I'm not willing to quit just to get out of the contract.
Believe me, I'll never sign a similar contract in the future.
That's good to hear. I live in Manitoba (ie. Canada), and I will ask a lawyer about that. I'd like to know if I can be held to that agreement. It's not that I expect to come up with a multi-billion-dollar idea or anything, but just on principle, I'd like to know that my ideas are actually my ideas.
Generally, these contracts go much further than that. It is the case, for example, with my own contract that any code I write on my own time, using my own equipment, for my own use, based entirely on my own ideas, belongs to the company I work for.
If I have a spark of creativity one Saturday afternoon whilst drinking a beer on my deck, and it's such a good idea that I think I can quit my job and start a company based on the idea, I will have to get my employer's permission to use that idea, or else cut them in on the profits, because the idea, legally, belongs to them.
I'm pretty sure that applies to our friend Justin as well. Welcome to the world of Corporate Domination of our Very Existence.
"The keywords, loop structures and basic structure are all the same or very similar to VB6"
The key words are "or very similar". I noticed a number of basic structure things that have migrated away from the old VB style and look more like Java or C++, like 0-based arrays, or using "return" rather than assigning a value to the function name, or the elimination of that silly "set".
Obviously, there's no curly braces and you still "dim" your variables. But there seems to be a lot of old VB syntax that was thrown out in favour of more Java-like (or C-like, if you prefer) syntax.
"VB.NET is a powerful, fully OO, programming language that is easy to learn and easy to easy to develop with."
Ya, but it still sucks.:)
I'm primarily a Java developer, but I'm on a VB.NET project right now. I did some VB 6 work a few years ago, so I've got some basic VB background. I think I'd be pretty pissed off if I was a serious VB developer who started moving into the.NET world. With.NET, VB is a whole new language. There's little that even resembles early VB. Which is funny, because I've read MS marketing material that brags about how "with.NET you don't need to learn a new language" (intended to be a stab at the fact that J2EE is language-centric). But VB.NET looks more like Java than it looks like VB 6.
Anyway,.NET isn't bad, and VS.NET is a relatively decent IDE -- though I do have a few compaints about it. But I'll be happy to get back to writing Java. And as impressive as some aspects of VS.NET are, it's no comparison to Eclipse.
Now they just need to make one big enough to store all the Windows 98 CABs.
Seriously, I'm quite impressed with this watch, and really want one. I would most likely use it to carry around utilities for those "hey can you fix my computer" moments. But it would be really cool if, instead of a built in 128MB drive, it had an SD slot. 128MB is cool, but I'm a geek -- I NEED MORE!:)
Just a thought that came to mind when reading your post. You state:
One is that the simple fact someone has an interest in obtaining these items should be a red flag, both to them and to anyone else privy to such information. Since the sole use of any pornography is to fantasize about the events depicted in the pornography, the person interested in such things is not only thinking about re-enacting these events, but enjoys the re-enactment. They are thinking at least on some level that harming children is good or enjoyable, at least for them. Another important difference is they are likely to act on these urges if they remain unchecked, and the victim will be an innocent child.
Now, what I propose is that you re-read that section, changing the appropriate words so that the subject is not child pornography, but violent video games instead. You point out two issues that distinguish the child porn issue from other possession laws. I would argue that the first point absolutely applies to violent video games. The second point is debatable, on both issues. I don't know what the statistics are regarding the number of gamers who commit violent acts (not just the high-profile Columbine-style acts, but violent acts in general), but I suspect they're rather low. I also don't know the statistics regarding the number of consumers of child porn who commit abusive acts on children, but I suspect it's much lower than most would guess.
There's no doubt it's a thorny issue. In any issue, I tend to lean toward the idea of punishing those who act, and not those who have the potential to act.
The difference is this: In your car example, you willingly and intentionally invited your friend into your car, thereby accepting responsibility for him, his posessions, and his actions. The analogy would only work if the trojan was willingly and intentionally invited into (ie. installed on) the man's computer.
I don't know what the law would say if, in your car example, the person with the drugs was hiding in the trunk without the driver's knowledge, but I'd bet there'd be plenty of lawyers willing to argue that the driver can't be held responsible for passengers he didn't even know were there.
Any lawyers out there want to offer an opinion on that?
Re:Thinking this through...
on
The Virus Did It
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"The consumer of child pornography has a mental problem"
It is important to recognize, however, that the legal system is not an appropriate place to deal with medical issues. It does no good to this consumer, nor to society at large, and in particular the children within society, to deal with that person's mental problem, if it is such, by putting the person in prison. However, this is the approach that our society prefers to take, primarily, I presume, because it's easier than actually dealing with the real problem. The same holds true with current drug laws.
"It is important to recognize that in our society it is unacceptable not only to abuse children, but to enjoy abusing children... That is why these laws are important."
It should never be illegal simply to enjoy something. If I happen to enjoy killing, that's one thing. If I actually go out and kill someone, that's another thing entirely. We have laws against that, and I don't propose that those laws be changed. But to simply be a person who enjoys killing, and not actually do it, should never be illegal. I should, in that case, seek professional help as a preventive measure. But let's not throw people in prison for thoughts, ideas, and desires -- even if those thoughts, ideas and desires are diseased.
Let the medical profession deal with diseases, and the police deal with criminal acts.
I don't know, maybe this falls under the category of hardware, and the article is primarily about software, but sometimes, when I'm working on someone else's computer trying to solve their endless problems, I really wish I had a sledgehammer.
"... at the current state of IT development any unpredictable output can be pulled apart, debugged, and repaired."
Quite true. Every problem encountered by a computer user has a logical explanation. However, sometimes that explanation eludes us. So we tend to attribute that to "neurosis" or some other "human" issue. I guess it's easier than just admitting that we can't figure the damn thing out.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm, let's see here. My code is not GPLed. I insert some GPL code into my code. Now, the whole thing, including my code, is GPLed.
Yup, sounds pretty "viral" to me.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the GPL. If you don't like it, don't use it. But, while the word "viral" tends to have negative connotations, it is actually a pretty accurate word in this instance. I cannot put GPLed code into my own project without the GPLed nature of that code "infecting" the rest of my code, and forcing it to become GPLed as well. That's "viral".
Don't think "viral" as in HIV, think "viral" as in AAV (a "benevolent virus" used to treat Hemophilia). :)
Okay, change "everyone" in my previous post to "virtually everyone". There might be one or two people out there in Kazaa-Land who've been so completely living under a rock that they actually don't know anything about copyright. Maybe.
Yes. But good luck going after them. They're the RIAA. They'll crush you.
It made sense, but it's past my bedtime too, so who knows if it'll make sense in the morning. :)
Just one note, though:
"...you'd be an accessory to the crime for allowing such use of the machine..."
I agree with the "accessory" part. I disagree with the "crime" part. This is something the folks at the RIAA consistently ignore, and everyone else is starting to forget it too. Copyright infringement is not a crime. It is a tort (civil), not criminal, matter. At least, for now... :(
Just a guess, though.
Um, no. Let's be serious, nobody actually logs onto Kazaa, searches for the latest drivel from Britney Spears, finds it on some user's hard drive, and thinks to themselves "This person must have the legal authority to distribute this song, otherwise it wouldn't be there."
Everyone who downloads from Kazaa knows they're violating copyright.
The technical use of the word "request" is actually quite different than the use of that word in a real-world context. The act of clicking a web link or selecting to download in Kazaa is, technically, a "request", but it is more analogous to the pressing of the "Copy" button on a photocopier (and thus "requesting" the machine make you a copy), than actually requesting that an individual make the copy for you. In a P2P situation, you, the downloader, are copying a file from somebody else's hard drive. As I said before, they are complicit in that they made it available, but you still committed the act of violating the copyright.
I realize that what I'm arguing is not the "conventional legal" opinion. My point is that I disagree with that conventional opinion. People should be held responsible for what they do, not for what others do. Basically, there's a hierarchy in this. At the top, the furthest removed from the actual so-called "criminal" act, is the provider of the service (ie. Kazaa, Napster, etc). Under them are the providers of the content (file sharers). At the bottom, closest to the actual activity, the ones who initiate the violation, are the downloaders themselves.
But, lawsuits naturally gravitate to the top, because it's easier and more lucrative.
The thing is, it is the downloader who is actually infringing the copyright by actively initiating the copy process.
Let me put it this way: If I were to share somebody else's copyrighted material on Kazaa, but nobody actually downloaded it, then has a copyright violation occurred? I don't know what a court would say about that (though, given the corrupt way American courts have traditionally treated this issue, I'm fairly certain they would say "yes"), but I would say that, assuming the act of making the copy to place on the computer's hard drive in the first place falls within "fair use", then no copyright violation has occurred. The violation would occur the moment somebody else came along and chose to download.
The downloader is the one making a copy. The sharer is only making it available for the downloader to make that copy. They are enabling the copyright infringement, but not actually doing it. The downloader does that part.
Sometimes, that's simple. I think a lot of developers just don't even want to have to try to understand somebody else's solution.
Oh ya, and then there's that ego thing.
You won't hear any such defense of copyright from me. I agree with copyright protection as it was originally set out, but the very idea that AOL-TW can sit back and collect something like $2 million every year on royalties from "Happy Birthday", well over 100 years after the melody was originally penned, and long after the death of its creators, is just frikkin' stupid. Anyone who can honestly defend such a system is either equally stupid, or an AOL-TW executive. But I repeat myself. :)
You're absolutely right.
It's unfortunate, but the simple fact is that at the time, I was a bit eager to take the job, and just didn't fully consider the ramifications of the contract I was signing -- if I even bothered to read it at all. I don't remember if I did.
But now time has passed, and I've come to fully realize what I've gotten myself into, and I realize that it really sucks. Unfortunately, I also like my job a lot, so I'm not willing to quit just to get out of the contract.
Believe me, I'll never sign a similar contract in the future.
That's good to hear. I live in Manitoba (ie. Canada), and I will ask a lawyer about that. I'd like to know if I can be held to that agreement. It's not that I expect to come up with a multi-billion-dollar idea or anything, but just on principle, I'd like to know that my ideas are actually my ideas.
If I have a spark of creativity one Saturday afternoon whilst drinking a beer on my deck, and it's such a good idea that I think I can quit my job and start a company based on the idea, I will have to get my employer's permission to use that idea, or else cut them in on the profits, because the idea, legally, belongs to them.
I'm pretty sure that applies to our friend Justin as well. Welcome to the world of Corporate Domination of our Very Existence.
The key words are "or very similar". I noticed a number of basic structure things that have migrated away from the old VB style and look more like Java or C++, like 0-based arrays, or using "return" rather than assigning a value to the function name, or the elimination of that silly "set".
Obviously, there's no curly braces and you still "dim" your variables. But there seems to be a lot of old VB syntax that was thrown out in favour of more Java-like (or C-like, if you prefer) syntax.
Ya, but it still sucks. :)
I'm primarily a Java developer, but I'm on a VB.NET project right now. I did some VB 6 work a few years ago, so I've got some basic VB background. I think I'd be pretty pissed off if I was a serious VB developer who started moving into the .NET world. With .NET, VB is a whole new language. There's little that even resembles early VB. Which is funny, because I've read MS marketing material that brags about how "with .NET you don't need to learn a new language" (intended to be a stab at the fact that J2EE is language-centric). But VB.NET looks more like Java than it looks like VB 6.
Anyway, .NET isn't bad, and VS.NET is a relatively decent IDE -- though I do have a few compaints about it. But I'll be happy to get back to writing Java. And as impressive as some aspects of VS.NET are, it's no comparison to Eclipse.
Seriously, I'm quite impressed with this watch, and really want one. I would most likely use it to carry around utilities for those "hey can you fix my computer" moments. But it would be really cool if, instead of a built in 128MB drive, it had an SD slot. 128MB is cool, but I'm a geek -- I NEED MORE! :)
There's no doubt it's a thorny issue. In any issue, I tend to lean toward the idea of punishing those who act, and not those who have the potential to act.
Definitely an interesting discussion.
I don't know what the law would say if, in your car example, the person with the drugs was hiding in the trunk without the driver's knowledge, but I'd bet there'd be plenty of lawyers willing to argue that the driver can't be held responsible for passengers he didn't even know were there.
Any lawyers out there want to offer an opinion on that?
It is important to recognize, however, that the legal system is not an appropriate place to deal with medical issues. It does no good to this consumer, nor to society at large, and in particular the children within society, to deal with that person's mental problem, if it is such, by putting the person in prison. However, this is the approach that our society prefers to take, primarily, I presume, because it's easier than actually dealing with the real problem. The same holds true with current drug laws.
"It is important to recognize that in our society it is unacceptable not only to abuse children, but to enjoy abusing children ... That is why these laws are important."
It should never be illegal simply to enjoy something. If I happen to enjoy killing, that's one thing. If I actually go out and kill someone, that's another thing entirely. We have laws against that, and I don't propose that those laws be changed. But to simply be a person who enjoys killing, and not actually do it, should never be illegal. I should, in that case, seek professional help as a preventive measure. But let's not throw people in prison for thoughts, ideas, and desires -- even if those thoughts, ideas and desires are diseased.
Let the medical profession deal with diseases, and the police deal with criminal acts.
Um, it's Unified Modelling Language. But you're right, the article is talking about "the other" UML.
And when the hard drive crashes, bye-bye data.
Whether using "old-fashioned" hard drives or "newfangled" solid-state storage, the lesson remains: always backup your data.
I don't know, maybe this falls under the category of hardware, and the article is primarily about software, but sometimes, when I'm working on someone else's computer trying to solve their endless problems, I really wish I had a sledgehammer.
Quite true. Every problem encountered by a computer user has a logical explanation. However, sometimes that explanation eludes us. So we tend to attribute that to "neurosis" or some other "human" issue. I guess it's easier than just admitting that we can't figure the damn thing out.
Precisely.