Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac, PC: and I'm a PC Mac: So what is that your doing PC: Oh, just some copy editing stuff Mac: I can do those too PC: Yeah, but Writer's copy editing abilities are vastly inferior and a decade behind Word's Mac: Hmm, yeah, I guess you're right! Wow, I bet the increased productivity of Word 2002's track changes feature alone over OO.org's equivalent is worth the price of MS Office for editors! I'll go out and buy it!
Is such differentiated pay the right way to attract science graduates who can make much more in industry, or is it simply going to breed discontent among teachers?
Wikipedia today is as accurate or inaccurate as it was two weeks ago. If it was appropriate to use two weeks ago, it's still appropriate now, and likewise in the negative case.
This is true, but this is somewhat of a strawman argument. It may be that two weeks ago people's belief as to Wikipedia's authority was higher that it should be, and that this event has made people realize that the true authority is lower.
Not saying that this is the case, I'm just saying that your argument is somewhat specious.
The President is free to veto whatever he wants to.
He's also free to look really bad. Vetos generally don't look very good, especially if you do a lot of them. If the president looks bad, he hurts the party.
And while I think I'd be pretty happy for the most part if the president vetoed every bill that comes out of congress, I don't think that would make too many people too pleased.
This is overlooking the fact that dems are equally behind copyright crap like this, so he may not have WANTED to veto the DMCA. I'm just saying that you can't blame Clinton or the dems exclusively, because it was introduced into and passed by a wholly Republican Congress.
It's not about afordability. It's about expense that is inflated.
True, but what's the alternative? Price it at one penny and have every dictionary word snatched up in the next 5 minutes? Heck, at that price I could afford to buy the entire OED in domain names. Imagine what someone (or some company) with actual MONEY could do. If anything, it would reduce availability to most people because everything would be taken.
And besides, who's to say it's overpriced? People are willing to pay it -- and lots of people, including poor grad students -- therefore it's hard to argue that it's overpriced. The demand is there.
How much does it cost Cingular to have a customer? Certainly more than it would cost someone to register a domain; but the more I use my phone the more I pay Cingular. (I have a pay-as-you-go plan.) Does it cost them 10 cents more if I talk to someone 3 minutes instead of 2 minutes? Maybe they should be charging me 1/10 penny per minute instead of 10 cents.
My point is that it's far above cost for them, but so what? That isn't a bad thing, and it's not like it's priced so high that it's at ALL a hardship if you want one.
Ah, sorry. I opened that page, immediately scrolled down a little so the (a) and (1) were off the screen, saw the (C) belonging to the paragraph on the librarian of congress, and read that.
My mistake.
I'm still not sure that I buy that the DMCA doesn't affect fair use though. Even if it isn't illegal to circumvent for fair use purposes, it is still illegal to manufacture and market things that let you circumvent protections. Even if you could manufacture something that let you circumvent protections so that you could use it to bypass fair use with that being legal, you still can't sell anything, which means that the amount of tool support is diminished.
The court in the first Napster decision does a thorough job tearing apart the 'fair use' argument vis-a-vis copying entire songs.
The Napster case wasn't at all about backups. There's a lot more to the fair use guidelines than amount copied, so it could have failed on other counts. Unless the court actually said that copying full songs in and of itself is enough to throw out the fair use claim...
I addressed this in my first post. 117 applies only to "Computer programs." A motion picture is distinct from a computer program.
And yet you cited the Rio case, saying the courts argued that the time/space shifting was "analogous to" the AHRA's provisions. I was just saying that making backup copies of a DVD for instance could be viewed as "analogous to" 177's provisions.
Though now that you bring it up, I wonder how well arguing that a DVD is a computer program would work. It's clearly also an audiovisual work, but I wonder if the courts would buy it... (nah, probably not.)
look at the absurd pricing of the domains.. yes 9.99 a year is EXPENSIVE
What?
I'm a grad student. If I had gone out into industry I'd be making probably six times what I am while I'm in school. I'm cheap: I don't have a car, I have an apartment rather than a house, I'm using a mostly 4 1/2 year-old computer. The one thing I splurge on is living alone. And I don't think that $9.99/yr is expensive.
Discover Magazine is $25/year. The cheaper of the two local papers has a special on delivery of $40/20 weeks ($104/year at the intro rate -- $214 normally) I pay about $10/month for phone; most people seem to pay at least 3x that if they have a cell
My hot water comes to about $10/month, my electricity and gas to $50/mth, my heat the last two bills to $90/month (and the newest bill will probably be rather more once I get it), and my rent to $625/month.
Most people have car payments plus insurance of (I think) over $100/mth.
$9.99/year is 83 cents/month. At federal minimum wage, that's 6 minutes 20 seconds per month.
If you think that's expensive, then you don't need a domain.
I mean, other companies like, say, Google would NEVER display ads on a search result page, and directing the user to a search page if they mistype a URL is such an annoying idea. (And I'm sure MS would never let you change which search engine these results go to.)
he DMCA on its face does not affect fair use -- see 17 USC 1201(c).
Um, this is full of crap. The DMCA on its face makes it illegal to circumvent protections, and doesn't provide any exemptions for fair use. This means that if you want to argue that it doesn't affect fair use, you have to argue that your fair use rights you're trying to exercise are constitutionally protected, and thus the DMCA provisions that outlawed them are unconstitutional.
The fact that the DMCA provides provisions for the LOC to specify exemptions doesn't mean that it doesn't affect fair use; it means that there's a way for fair use to be dis-affected in the future. The fact that the LOC has yet to provide for such an exemption demonstrates that the DMCA does in fact affect your fair use rights (or at least the arguments you use to put them forth).
(If instead the DMCA had said that the LOC specifies places where it's illegal, I would buy what you said; but the fact that the DMCA defaults exemption = illegal means that you're wrong.)
I don't believe any court anywhere has ever held that making a reproduction of an entire copyrighted work -- a 'backup' -- constitutes fair use...
Has it ever been tested?...unless it was analogous to a codified carve-out; the Diamond Rio decision compared "space shifting" to the private reproduction right conferred by the Audio Home Recording Act's carveout
Then we're in luck, because there's a codified carve-out for backups that you could reason from in an analogy. (See 17 USC 117 (a)(2).)
It would certainly be the easiest, most direct and error-free route to get a copy of a book's prepress files (PostScript or LaTeX or whatever) directly from O'Reilly, but I don't see anyone saying O'Reilly has to hand you the same, leaving you to manually copy the passages in via eyeball and keyboard (or scanner and OCR, etc).
This is a stupid analogy. The point is that if you're talking about, for instance, DVDs, the publisher does give you what you are seemingly saying is analogous to the preprocess files.
The "correct" analogy if you want to argue about how it compares to book copyrights is if the law said you couldn't use scanners to copy the book, and the only thing you could do with it was read it, and that hand copying even quotes puts you into very questionable legal territory.
Hey, it's not as bad as some others. For instance, The Daily Show made fun of the US-VISIT acronym when it came out. If you're not familiar, it stands for "Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology". After saying that, Stewart says "that name brought to you by the Federal Acronym Registration Team."
Remember, the last Democrat who was President signed the current bill......which was passed by a Republican congress. Presidents can't veto every bill that comes across their desk you know. And as much as we think the DMCA sucks, I'm sure that for most other bills that went through Clinton there's some segment that thinks the law is horrible and everyone should hate it.
Not to argue your overall thesis though; the Dems are unfortunately just as bad as Republicans on copyright. But you can't put blame for the DMCA on the Dems, because the GOP was more instrumental in it's creation and passing.
This post is SOOOO off topic, but I don't see another way to contact you 'cause your email's not public. I saw this post by you about doing a Windows port of FUSE. I don't know if I'll be able to help out or not, but I at least have some questions about it.
plenty of people don't care about having 200 channels of shit on the TV to choose from (choose from...choose from...choose from...)
The scary thing is that from what I've seen of satellite, that 200 is an underestimate.
(FWIW, I don't have cable because of the price. Most of the channels I want are in "expanded basic" cable (Discovery for Mythbusters, Spike and G4 for Star Trek, and Comedy Central for Stewart and Colbert), and that's $40 or $50 a month. If the OP considers that "cheap enough", I envy him. 'course, I'm a semi-poor grad student; that'd be a good 15% of my discretionary income. (I also can't really even take advantage of TV/internet bundles, because I get internet access in the rent.)
Maybe it originated like that, but the fork/exec model of starting a new process has another really big benefit as compared to, say, Windows's CreateProcesses, which is that it's easier to control the execution environment of the child process.
Running as root and want to start the process with lower privileges? Do fork - setuid - exec. Want to open pipes to the child? Do pipe - fork - a couple calls in the child to connect the pipes to stdin/out - exec.
By contrast, Windows has to encapsulate anything you want to be able to do to set up the child's environment in the CreateProcess call. That's why it takes 9 arguments, one of which is a flags argument where there are 15 flags, and one of which is a pointer to a struct with 17 fields (one of which takes another 9 flags).
This was for a college extracurricular project I was working on, a rocket payload. We were flying a camera to take pictures during the flight, and the camera wouldn't run on anything but XP with their own software that required.Net.
It didn't work all that well, and it was a pain to get set up, and I definitely should have said "trying to do this with this equipment is stupid" but that was already the second camera I was given (the first didn't work at all) after being brought on with less than a year to launch, so... XP Embedded* it was.
* There should have been a cap E in my previous post
Actually I have a semi-impressive result in this area I think. I got Windows XP embedded running on a PC-104 stack with I think a 500 MHz processor and 256 megs RAM. Not so bad, huh?
But it also had only 384 megs of flash storage, and about 40 of that had to be free for other stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
How much of that is due to a catch 22 of no one making software (e.g. Final Cut) for it?
Crap, I was late. Mod me redundant if you'd like.
I guess we know what material Hotblack Desiato used to make his stunt ship...
Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac,
PC: and I'm a PC
Mac: So what is that your doing
PC: Oh, just some copy editing stuff
Mac: I can do those too
PC: Yeah, but Writer's copy editing abilities are vastly inferior and a decade behind Word's
Mac: Hmm, yeah, I guess you're right! Wow, I bet the increased productivity of Word 2002's track changes feature alone over OO.org's equivalent is worth the price of MS Office for editors! I'll go out and buy it!
It's news because it's more evidence of the monopoly abuse that MS was obviously guilty of.
Um, not really. Perhaps you didn't notice, but they didn't actually do it.
Is such differentiated pay the right way to attract science graduates who can make much more in industry, or is it simply going to breed discontent among teachers?
Why can't it be both?
Wikipedia today is as accurate or inaccurate as it was two weeks ago. If it was appropriate to use two weeks ago, it's still appropriate now, and likewise in the negative case.
This is true, but this is somewhat of a strawman argument. It may be that two weeks ago people's belief as to Wikipedia's authority was higher that it should be, and that this event has made people realize that the true authority is lower.
Not saying that this is the case, I'm just saying that your argument is somewhat specious.
That's because there isn't a law making it illegal. There is a law making circumvention software illegal. (17 USC 1201 (a)(2))
No, see, you're thinking about laws rationally. Stop it.
The President is free to veto whatever he wants to.
He's also free to look really bad. Vetos generally don't look very good, especially if you do a lot of them. If the president looks bad, he hurts the party.
And while I think I'd be pretty happy for the most part if the president vetoed every bill that comes out of congress, I don't think that would make too many people too pleased.
This is overlooking the fact that dems are equally behind copyright crap like this, so he may not have WANTED to veto the DMCA. I'm just saying that you can't blame Clinton or the dems exclusively, because it was introduced into and passed by a wholly Republican Congress.
It's not about afordability. It's about expense that is inflated.
True, but what's the alternative? Price it at one penny and have every dictionary word snatched up in the next 5 minutes? Heck, at that price I could afford to buy the entire OED in domain names. Imagine what someone (or some company) with actual MONEY could do. If anything, it would reduce availability to most people because everything would be taken.
And besides, who's to say it's overpriced? People are willing to pay it -- and lots of people, including poor grad students -- therefore it's hard to argue that it's overpriced. The demand is there.
How much does it cost Cingular to have a customer? Certainly more than it would cost someone to register a domain; but the more I use my phone the more I pay Cingular. (I have a pay-as-you-go plan.) Does it cost them 10 cents more if I talk to someone 3 minutes instead of 2 minutes? Maybe they should be charging me 1/10 penny per minute instead of 10 cents.
My point is that it's far above cost for them, but so what? That isn't a bad thing, and it's not like it's priced so high that it's at ALL a hardship if you want one.
Did you even *read* 17 USC 1201(c)? http://www.google.com/search?q=17+USC+1201(c) and the first link, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u sc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html: "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use . . ."
Ah, sorry. I opened that page, immediately scrolled down a little so the (a) and (1) were off the screen, saw the (C) belonging to the paragraph on the librarian of congress, and read that.
My mistake.
I'm still not sure that I buy that the DMCA doesn't affect fair use though. Even if it isn't illegal to circumvent for fair use purposes, it is still illegal to manufacture and market things that let you circumvent protections. Even if you could manufacture something that let you circumvent protections so that you could use it to bypass fair use with that being legal, you still can't sell anything, which means that the amount of tool support is diminished.
The court in the first Napster decision does a thorough job tearing apart the 'fair use' argument vis-a-vis copying entire songs.
The Napster case wasn't at all about backups. There's a lot more to the fair use guidelines than amount copied, so it could have failed on other counts. Unless the court actually said that copying full songs in and of itself is enough to throw out the fair use claim...
I addressed this in my first post. 117 applies only to "Computer programs." A motion picture is distinct from a computer program.
And yet you cited the Rio case, saying the courts argued that the time/space shifting was "analogous to" the AHRA's provisions. I was just saying that making backup copies of a DVD for instance could be viewed as "analogous to" 177's provisions.
Though now that you bring it up, I wonder how well arguing that a DVD is a computer program would work. It's clearly also an audiovisual work, but I wonder if the courts would buy it... (nah, probably not.)
look at the absurd pricing of the domains.. yes 9.99 a year is EXPENSIVE
What?
I'm a grad student. If I had gone out into industry I'd be making probably six times what I am while I'm in school. I'm cheap: I don't have a car, I have an apartment rather than a house, I'm using a mostly 4 1/2 year-old computer. The one thing I splurge on is living alone. And I don't think that $9.99/yr is expensive.
Discover Magazine is $25/year.
The cheaper of the two local papers has a special on delivery of $40/20 weeks ($104/year at the intro rate -- $214 normally)
I pay about $10/month for phone; most people seem to pay at least 3x that if they have a cell
My hot water comes to about $10/month, my electricity and gas to $50/mth, my heat the last two bills to $90/month (and the newest bill will probably be rather more once I get it), and my rent to $625/month.
Most people have car payments plus insurance of (I think) over $100/mth.
$9.99/year is 83 cents/month. At federal minimum wage, that's 6 minutes 20 seconds per month.
If you think that's expensive, then you don't need a domain.
This cash grab is confined to software that can easily be switched from.
And not just that, but confined to a set of options in that software that you can easily change. You don't even have to change from IE.
I mean, other companies like, say, Google would NEVER display ads on a search result page, and directing the user to a search page if they mistype a URL is such an annoying idea. (And I'm sure MS would never let you change which search engine these results go to.)
OMG M$ TEH EV1L!
he DMCA on its face does not affect fair use -- see 17 USC 1201(c).
...unless it was analogous to a codified carve-out; the Diamond Rio decision compared "space shifting" to the private reproduction right conferred by the Audio Home Recording Act's carveout
Um, this is full of crap. The DMCA on its face makes it illegal to circumvent protections, and doesn't provide any exemptions for fair use. This means that if you want to argue that it doesn't affect fair use, you have to argue that your fair use rights you're trying to exercise are constitutionally protected, and thus the DMCA provisions that outlawed them are unconstitutional.
The fact that the DMCA provides provisions for the LOC to specify exemptions doesn't mean that it doesn't affect fair use; it means that there's a way for fair use to be dis-affected in the future. The fact that the LOC has yet to provide for such an exemption demonstrates that the DMCA does in fact affect your fair use rights (or at least the arguments you use to put them forth).
(If instead the DMCA had said that the LOC specifies places where it's illegal, I would buy what you said; but the fact that the DMCA defaults exemption = illegal means that you're wrong.)
I don't believe any court anywhere has ever held that making a reproduction of an entire copyrighted work -- a 'backup' -- constitutes fair use...
Has it ever been tested?
Then we're in luck, because there's a codified carve-out for backups that you could reason from in an analogy. (See 17 USC 117 (a)(2).)
It would certainly be the easiest, most direct and error-free route to get a copy of a book's prepress files (PostScript or LaTeX or whatever) directly from O'Reilly, but I don't see anyone saying O'Reilly has to hand you the same, leaving you to manually copy the passages in via eyeball and keyboard (or scanner and OCR, etc).
This is a stupid analogy. The point is that if you're talking about, for instance, DVDs, the publisher does give you what you are seemingly saying is analogous to the preprocess files.
The "correct" analogy if you want to argue about how it compares to book copyrights is if the law said you couldn't use scanners to copy the book, and the only thing you could do with it was read it, and that hand copying even quotes puts you into very questionable legal territory.
Hey, it's not as bad as some others. For instance, The Daily Show made fun of the US-VISIT acronym when it came out. If you're not familiar, it stands for "Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology". After saying that, Stewart says "that name brought to you by the Federal Acronym Registration Team."
Remember, the last Democrat who was President signed the current bill... ...which was passed by a Republican congress. Presidents can't veto every bill that comes across their desk you know. And as much as we think the DMCA sucks, I'm sure that for most other bills that went through Clinton there's some segment that thinks the law is horrible and everyone should hate it.
Not to argue your overall thesis though; the Dems are unfortunately just as bad as Republicans on copyright. But you can't put blame for the DMCA on the Dems, because the GOP was more instrumental in it's creation and passing.
This post is SOOOO off topic, but I don't see another way to contact you 'cause your email's not public. I saw this post by you about doing a Windows port of FUSE. I don't know if I'll be able to help out or not, but I at least have some questions about it.
plenty of people don't care about having 200 channels of shit on the TV to choose from (choose from...choose from...choose from...)
The scary thing is that from what I've seen of satellite, that 200 is an underestimate.
(FWIW, I don't have cable because of the price. Most of the channels I want are in "expanded basic" cable (Discovery for Mythbusters, Spike and G4 for Star Trek, and Comedy Central for Stewart and Colbert), and that's $40 or $50 a month. If the OP considers that "cheap enough", I envy him. 'course, I'm a semi-poor grad student; that'd be a good 15% of my discretionary income. (I also can't really even take advantage of TV/internet bundles, because I get internet access in the rent.)
Maybe it originated like that, but the fork/exec model of starting a new process has another really big benefit as compared to, say, Windows's CreateProcesses, which is that it's easier to control the execution environment of the child process.
Running as root and want to start the process with lower privileges? Do fork - setuid - exec. Want to open pipes to the child? Do pipe - fork - a couple calls in the child to connect the pipes to stdin/out - exec.
By contrast, Windows has to encapsulate anything you want to be able to do to set up the child's environment in the CreateProcess call. That's why it takes 9 arguments, one of which is a flags argument where there are 15 flags, and one of which is a pointer to a struct with 17 fields (one of which takes another 9 flags).
I don't know why the Windows equivalent of fork() is slower than the Unix fork(). Perhaps it is a historical thing.
I don't know the technical reasons, but NT inherits a lot of design principles from VMS, where process creation was also a heavy operation.
This was for a college extracurricular project I was working on, a rocket payload. We were flying a camera to take pictures during the flight, and the camera wouldn't run on anything but XP with their own software that required .Net.
It didn't work all that well, and it was a pain to get set up, and I definitely should have said "trying to do this with this equipment is stupid" but that was already the second camera I was given (the first didn't work at all) after being brought on with less than a year to launch, so... XP Embedded* it was.
* There should have been a cap E in my previous post
Oh, and that 40 megs doesn't include space for the .net framework.
Ahh, that was... fun.
Actually I have a semi-impressive result in this area I think. I got Windows XP embedded running on a PC-104 stack with I think a 500 MHz processor and 256 megs RAM. Not so bad, huh?
But it also had only 384 megs of flash storage, and about 40 of that had to be free for other stuff.