That's gotta be the best non-sequitor I've seen or heard of since my girlfriends 7 year old little daughter said "What time is it mommy? Pass the pickles." all in one breath.
The fact that our electorial system is slanted towards tyranny by the majority has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the government stops you from saying what you want.
Now if you had said "I haven't heard of any censorship" and than pointed out the case of Cretin's bodyguards pushing around the protestors at the G7 conference in BC several years back. Now that would have been making your point. Instead you get flamed by the likes of me and end up looking stupid.
(Editor's note, my example isn't technically censorship either but at least it's closer.)
While I totally agree that out right banning of books by name or subject matter is objectionable, the question comes down to, "Can you charge someone for knowingly stating a falsehood?" Since we know this is true about an individual(slander) than why can't you do it when the statements are against a group? To argue that no harm has been done against an individual assumes that the words have not incited hatred against an individual of the group. Yes, Yes I know the perpetrators of the violence should be responsible for their own crimes. But bear with me and I'm only playing devil's advocate.
For this type of crime it comes down to motive and the actual beliefs of the person. Motive is always important, so if you can PROVE the motive was to incite hatred and you can PROVE that they knowingly disseminated false statements than I don't see why you can't charge a person with a crime. It may not be easy to prove this but what's the chances that Ernst Zundel did not tell someone "Of course I know it's a lie, but I want all the damn jews to burn in hell!" Sure maybe not in those words but it takes a complete idiot or racist to deny the holocaust. So chances are you could catch him in the act if you had him bugged or pulled a sting etc. Nothing that isn't done for every other major crime in the books.
Don't believe it. For the RIAA to argue as the previous posted suggested would imply they are admitting to being either a monopoly or an oligopoly. In either case they would have their asses sued off in the time it took the court transcripts to dry.
I am absolutely sick and tired of this "I was born this way so I'm more deserving of being a victim than you!" attitude.
Substitute any religious affiliation for "black person" and than ask yourself if it was offensive!
The point is, treating a group in a certain way because of the actions of individuals of the group where those actions have no basis in the beliefs/precepts/identifying characteristic of the group is simply wrong.
Oh for crying out loud. This is a false dichotomy. Instead of "black community" than use "christian" or "jewish" or "insert religious group here" community.
yup. I agree fully. I could have gone into more detail and probably described how to fix it but I already wasted enough bandwidth.
The extended version makes it a little better but not much. In fact I missed the comment about "the elves having the power to reforge the sword that was broken" the first couple of times I watched it. There is mystery, a quiet dignity that you mention and the hint of unseen power that is missing from the Aragorn of the film that comes through entirely in the books.
Re:I wish they would make a version...
on
The Trilogy as One
·
· Score: 1
Sure Faramir was tempted but not nearly so strongly as to intice him to take Frodo to Gondor. It really wasn't called for and just wastes time better spent in developing each of the characters more fully. This goes with my whole theme that Jackson hasn't shown enough "good" in the films to make people really feel there is a reason to root for the good guys.
Secondly I thought the books did a good job of showing the subtleness of Boromir and the evil of the ring in drawing a good man to his downfall.
But at the same time, what's his name(sorry slips my memory) did an even better job in the movie. He was without a doubt the best actor in the LOTR, he played the part comendably, which doesn't surprise me as I had heard he did a lot of shakespearean acting. It really shows.
If I tried to remember how many copies of LOTR I've purcashed I'd probably puke. I've given them all away gladly, knowing I'd buy another copy. This is the one item in all my life that I would continue to pay even devils like the MPAA to experience. When I lose the wonder of experiencing this piece of art(book,film, whatever) I guess it will be time to leave this rock.
You don't try to fit the book into the film, you create a screen-play from the book. It is a "based on" type of thing. It is entirely possible to create a film that is as good or better than a book if you do it right.
Now having said that I was slightly disappointed with the way the films have portrayed the main point of the book, e.g. the destroying of evil to preserve good. Don't get me wrong I loved the films but they have lost a certain element that really comes through in the narrative of the books. Basically the films are much more dark than the books are. As dire as the book seems some times there always seems to be a chapter thrown in of happiness to reenforce just exactly what they are fighting for.
This didn't have to happen. Peter Jackson has done a great job of special effects and making this in to a great action flick but he lost some of the feeling and it was sooooo easy to fix. Instead of starting "The Fellowship of the Ring" with the story of the ring it should have started as the book did, Bilbo's birthday party. You can easily fill in the audience when Gandalf finds out exactly what the ring is. In fact this leaves some suspense for 1/2 hour while the audience is settling in and enjoying the scenery. Than when Gandalf comes back and tells Frodo the story you could have inserted the action sequence from the beginning of the film using Gandalf's voice for the voice over which would have lent more "harshness" to it.
For as great as the books are, and I absolutely love them, they still come down to good vs evil and we all know how that will end we just don't know the details. The point is to make those who don't know anything about the books to fall in love with the simplicity and naivety of the Shire(recalling childhood), the majesty of the elves(the ability to believe that there are benevolent "gods"), the incredible variety and wonder of nature(the absolute silliness but child like qualities of Tom Bombadil, Gandalf's friendship with Shadowfax, Legolas falling in love with Fanghorn, Gimli falling in love with Helm's deep). The idea that man is soooo small in compared to the age of the universe or even the earth, e.g. the Ents are Old beyond imagining but this doesn't come through.
Almost all of this went missing from the films.
And last but not least, how dare anyone but the King of Gondor touch the sword of Isildir! That was simply unneeded, sure it doesn't mean anything to a person who hasn't read the books but for those who have, that incident alone should make them question Jackson's real commitment to the character of the books. Hell, once again there was simply NO NEED FOR IT. Why didn't Aragorn have the sword when Frodo met him just like in the book? There's no need to explain in detail as the book did. It is the thing that makes Frodo "recognize" Aragorn and that's easily done in a line or two or three.
Anyway, enough analysis, suffice it to say that I think the books are great the films in their own way are great but that they miss the character of the book for no good reason.
Before they can win a case "against the GPL" they have to friggin well file a law suit against someone regarding it. They aren't doing this and it's obvious why. They have no legs to stand on.
I will continue to repeat this until I'm blue in the face. There are two different issues that SCO would like to obfuscate. There's the IBM "contract" dispute and there's every other piece of disinformation about supposed copyright infringement that they have been spouting.
Until such time that they bring suit against someone than everything else is meaningless.
No,No,No. The guy wasn't saying that SCO's claim was reasonable, he was saying that if you didn't know anything about the history of Unix & Linux they might sound reasonable. They should demonstrably not sound reasonable to any "reporter" of a tech journal who, if they are any good, would check on the facts of the claims before reporting them. But most reporters are either lazy or biased, this goes for mainstream reporters as well.
Look at it like this, you have 3 scenarios as a tech journalist, 1) You know the history of Unix & Linux and you know that SCO's claims are full of hot air == don't report them or report them with the proper context of history clearly showing them to be ludicrous. 2) You don't know the history but your good at your job, so you ask a knowledgeable technical historian or a member of the Linux community for their opinion of the claims. You report both sides once again showing that SCO's claims are bogus. 3) You don't care, you know that this is "good copy" so you report the claims without adding any background thereby implying that the claims have some merit. This can be especially damaging in a business journal where the PHB's don't know the history any more than the reporter.
Now use this same scenario with ALL mainstream reporting and you get the idea of what is really happening in the world. Don't ever believe anything the news "reports", it is always biased either maliciously or because of laziness. Given all the shit that happens in the world daily it makes it real difficult to decide who to trust.
Woh there. Don't confuse SCO's breach of contract lawsuit against IBM with SCO's general disregard for copyright law. SCO has yet to sue anyone over copyright infringement, they have just blustered. But the bluster has nothing,none,nahda to do with reality and they know it. That their bluster may scare some people in to paying them a license fee isn't my problem.
If SCO by some miracle wins the IBM lawsuit this should in no way be confused with their ability to win copyright infringement cases against any developer of Linux and has absolutely zilch to do with their ability to win a copyright infringement case against any user of Linux. The latter would go against the entire history of copyright law. Secondly the instant they sued any distributor of Linux they would be in deep shit precisely for the reasons I gave. What's worse is SCO knows this that is why they are threatening the users, they are trying to scare them in to paying for something they already have the rights to use.
If you've followed this story at all it will be obvious to you that SCO doesn't actually have a case against any distributor or developer for copyright infringement if they did they would have sued them already.
They are a commercial software company. They have coders whose job it is to look at this stuff. They have been in the business of distributing Linux for a number of years. They cannot just yell "Stop,wait, we didn't know this was in there!" They knew damn well what code was in Linux, they contributed code and they have repeatedly used the services of the community to conduct they're business. These are not cherry virgins who don't know how the world works. They know exactly what they are doing.
If your brakes were faulty by design, e.g. when turning right on a 90 degree day with 30% relative humidity your brakes fail, and you plowed through the crowd than the manufacturer of the car would be at fault and damn rights they would be forced to pay ALL damages. If you knew about a recall but hadn't done anything yet you also may be liable but I don't know.
In the software world we don't have either consequence so no-one has an insentive to ever fix anything. Microsoft is liable for sure right off the bat or at least they should be since it's a manufacturer's defect. Even with a fix out most people likely didn't know about it. With a vehicle a mandatory recall means the manufacturer has to inform you by all possible means. Microsoft only posts some snippets on their website and hopes that everyone sees it. Even with Windows Update the best you ever see is "There are updates available for your computer". Sorry that doesn't cut it. How about "There are critical updates for your computer that will likely cause widespread computer failure and major loss of money and possibly your data it is imperative you update now!"
The more I think about it the more it makes sense to me. If you pay money for a program the manufacturer must be held liable for "bugs"(e.g. defects) and no license should be able to remove that responsibility not even an Open source one. Note the requirement of paying gives any vendor/programmer a way out of liability as it should.
There is a huge difference between Microsoft and Debian. MS is specifically in the business of trying to make money from their software product. You sould have the right to sue them for damages caused by a defective product. Debian is a not-for-profit company giving away their software for FREE. Since there is no exchange of "equal value" between you and the Debian group you cannot expect the same protection under the law. In contract law it's called "equal consideration" or something like that, effectively both parties must be "getting something" from the deal.
With Debian you can than choose to pay somebody to keep your system up to date, patch it, add stuff to it or whatever. Generally this would be under a more mutually beneficial contract.
Now as for Redhat, regardless of the fact that I think highly of them due to their support of Open Source, they too would be under the same restrictions as Microsoft as long as you purchased their product and didn't just download it from the internet or whatever. I've only ever paid for one copy of Redhat but I've never complained about any bugs or default installs or things that I "don't like" because I simply don't have the right. I didn't pay for it so why should I have any consideration from them.
In the end I don't believe this change in practice would affect the "openness" of software in any way. It might change the nature of how people get their software. For instance Microsoft may choose to "give away" Windows to avoid multi Billion dollar lawsuits or you can pay a "super extra exhorbitant" price for it in order to have the right and expectation that the software would behave as designed and the right to sue for damages if it doesn't.
The market for software would likely change drastically but it might actually be for the better. I don't know that it would be for the better but it might.
One possible scenario would be that home users get the benefit of free (as in beer) software subsidized by companies & corporations who would pay larger sums of money in order to have "someone to sue". Software in general would possibly get better/more secure, in fact this would be more likely, as there would be a greater insentive to make it work correctly in order to maximize the return on investment eg. collect money for a "perfect" product and not pay anything out because "it just works".
As it is there is absolutely no insentive for Microsoft or any other for profit company to make their product secure because the customer can't do anything about it anyway.
Open source coders would be affected by this in that it would level the playing field. We give our software away for free because of the nature of how it's developed. It is packaged up by other companies and sold as a product. These companies should have to be the ones that ensure it is "safe". In fact I can see nothing but benefits in the long term for everyone if users had the right to sue the manufacturer for bugs in the software that caused damages as long as you payed your hard earned cash in consideration.
You know I see this comment all the time "it's just computer software, not the "world saviour, key to world peace, key to heaven etc..." ".
Tell you what, get rid of all the computer software in the world that was ever written, starting with punch cards. Than come back and tell me computer software isn't the "key" to anything.
Dammit, computers and the software written for them has the ability to bring man closer to "world peace", "everybody getting along" or what have you specifically because it allows us to do so much more, so much more quickly and accurately than we've ever been able to do before. Go ahead, analyze that DNA sequence in something less than eternity without a computer!
It sounds to me that you would like Americans & the rest of the world to think it's better here than it really is.
I don't know what part of the country your in but unless you live in a cave you couldn't possibly have missed the whole point of the "Romanow commission" (besides wasting money on yet another report I mean).
Health care in Canada is in dire straights. It will very soon break at the seams from the top heavy load of an ever growing and aging population. We have waiting lists for even life threatening maladies. In Saskatoon there will not be a General Pediatrician on call except for emergency purposes for something like 5 days this month. I know, "oh wow, 5 whole days", but why should there be noone on call ever!
The provinces are in bidding wars to attract surgeons,general practitioners, nurses, Radiation therapists, oncologists, you name it.
The ever increasing drug budget for the ever more expensive "new" drugs will eventually help to bankrupt the whole system.
Oh, and if your one of those that thinks having a "two-tiered" health care system is something to avoid. Ask yourself where do the rich Canadians get treated? Not in Canada that's for sure.
No there's no rationing in Canada, we all just get the same crappy level of service! Note that for emergency care it's probably no worse or better than anywhere else.
Far be it from me to come off as a professional audiofile but as a professional physicist I would think that the end result of compressing music that has been heavily clipped would be an even worse than usual reproduction. The point of clipping is that you actually remove signal that you think the listener won't notice. If you clip everything heavily you end up with nothing left. Easily compressed but no actual music remains.
But isn't that the first guys point. Sure it would compress better, "better" here meaning smaller. But the compressed audio would sound even more shitty than the original. Theoretically a single high pitch or low pitch note.
So by mastering the CD the way they did maybe they were hoping it would still sound "good enough" from CD but so shitty as an MP3 as to make it worthless in that format. Unfortunately it seems it's worthless in any format.
Um, when I initially read his statement I assumed the same semantics as you however what I think he means is,
"The solution is to abolish bad laws. The bad laws are those that are exploitable and just invite people to adopt force as a business model."
I'm fairly certain he wasn't inviting people to pick up a gun to settle corporate disputes. But than again a few well placed rounds in the heads of some corporate execs might actually change their attitudes. Hell this could be fun, it could make for a great sport. Rather than settle or go to court IBM and SCO could just have a WWF style tag team, no holds barred, cage match. They could probably make millions on the event.
An analogy with physical property would suggest that the government has the power to put any copyrighted work into "eminent domain" making that work a public work. Of course this analogy would imply that the government must pay restitution to the copyright holder just like with physical property under your constitution's 5th amendment (assuming your an American).
Of course I personally don't fully like this analogy because I don't believe in "intellectual property". But for the sake of this discussion I'm going to ignore my disdain of the concept.
A different but equally valid "common sense" argument would follow exactly what the court decreed. Specifically that a copyrighted work remains the property of the copyright holder until such time that the government enacts it in to law either directly or by reference. Since the law is the property of the people once enacted into law the copyrighted work becomes the property of the people or at least that "version" of it does. This makes totally good common sense. Especially when you add the fact that it is purely by government decree that the idea of copyright exists anyway.
It would not have been "common sense" for the courts to have ruled otherwise. Since than the people are subject to the tyranny of a private individual or group and their own whims as to how the laws should read.
If you mean by "includes GPL'd code" that you must include the source code of a GPL'd work with your own before it becomes a derivative work than that's wrong. A derivative work under the GPL would be anything that even just links to the GPL'd code. This is the reason there is an LGPL.
In other words linking to a GPL work makes your code a "derivative work" and subject to the GPL. This would be exactly what SCO would imply by having to link to UNIX System V work. In each case it doesn't matter if the code you wrote was done independently, once you link it to the GPL'd or UNIX System V libraries it becomes a derivative work.
Normally a person wouldn't worry about it as far as GPL code goes because the usual method is to include code from a GPL work in your own and it becomes obvious it is than a derivative work. As well most programs are GPL'd while most libraries are under the LGPL which is much less restrictive. The one case that I know of that doesn't follow this behaviour is the readline library, this is still explicitly GPL'd and any program that links to it must be GPL'd as well. This is rather a "famous" counter example as it is one of the few libraries that is actually GPL'd rather than LGPL'd.
In any case it is concievable that just linking to UNIX System V work makes your program a "derivative work" and subject to the same license that covers the UNIX System V work. This is why it is a scary thought to me, it is conceivable that such a license exists because I already know of 1 that does. In the case of the GPL however it is structured to make the work less restrictive, less hidden, but there's no reason the license couldn't be written to force you to keep your code closed.
Ignore all of the bluster that SCO has been spewing about copyright's and patents, what you are left with is a supposed contract dispute between IBM and SCO. SCO is trying to claim ownership over derivative works of UNIX which they are apparently trying to claim is anything that uses UNIX services. Thus anything that is a derivitive work is supposedly covered under the license that SCO and their predecessors made UNIX available under.
Now compare this to the GPL. When you release a piece of software under the GPL you must make all derivitive works available under the same license as the GPL. Sound awful familiar? I thought so too.
So...if SCO is going to compare their license to the GPL and claim, "if the GPL can do it why can't we?" than what is the result? I have read the GPL and think I understand it as well as anyone. Not being a lawyer I can't claim authority in that respect but I believe it to be a totally fair and appropriate license. So why can't SCO claim the same thing? The license they released UNIX under may be vague in this respect but if it comes down to "any derivitive work of UNIX must be released under this same license" than how can the GPL be lawful and the SCO UNIX license not be lawful? Both can't be true.
There is one aspect that may be different between these two cases. The GPL has no exclusivity clause. Thus although the copyright holder is forced to make the source available under the terms of the GPL they can also make the program available under any other license they choose. In fact this is sometimes done so that the community can work on the GPL'ed code and the copyright holder can make money by selling to companies that want to hide their code changes.
Now I don't know that the SCO license has an exclusivity clause but there's no reason it couldn't. It's certainly fathomable that the GPL could include a clause that said "you must make the source available ONLY under the GPL" but I think it would be much less useful and certainly not as widely accepted. Anyway, the point is that SCO could have an exclusivity clause in the license. The end result being that indeed anything that uses UNIX services or runs on top of UNIX could be considered a derivitive work and thus subject to the terms of that license. In which case IBM and others would be libel for damages since they broke SCO's license by releasing code that by copyright belonged to them but that they gave up control over.
So...this is just a thought, as I write it already I see ways to argue against it. But it would be a sorry day in hell if either "derivitive work" was restricted such that only code that used code from another program was a derivitive work. Effectively this would put all GPL code under the LGPL. A particularly unscrupulous company...SCO*cough*SCO... could take GPL code put it in a library release the library under the GPL and than simply link to it and keep all work that linked to it proprietary.
Furthermore, if SCO has no exclusivity clause in the license than the point is moot. As the copyright holder is certainly within their rights to release the software under other licensing terms.
I'm not sure what kind of probability to put on this scenario. But I've heard of stranger things. It's entirely possible SCO wouldn't mind going to court either to restrict the term "derivitive work" or even somehow in a backhanded manner, invalidate the GPL all in an attempt to avoid copyright infringement for work they have placed in to the SCO Unix offerings. Invalidating the GPL wouldn't get them anywhere though since than they would have to deal with the actual copyright holders and I'm thinking they wouldn't be too beholdin' to SCO.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy christ!
.)
That's gotta be the best non-sequitor I've seen or heard of since my girlfriends 7 year old little daughter said "What time is it mommy? Pass the pickles." all in one breath.
The fact that our electorial system is slanted towards tyranny by the majority has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the government stops you from saying what you want.
Now if you had said "I haven't heard of any censorship" and than pointed out the case of Cretin's bodyguards pushing around the protestors at the G7 conference in BC several years back. Now that would have been making your point. Instead you get flamed by the likes of me and end up looking stupid.
(Editor's note, my example isn't technically censorship either but at least it's closer
While I totally agree that out right banning of books by name or subject matter is objectionable, the question comes down to, "Can you charge someone for knowingly stating a falsehood?" Since we know this is true about an individual(slander) than why can't you do it when the statements are against a group? To argue that no harm has been done against an individual assumes that the words have not incited hatred against an individual of the group. Yes, Yes I know the perpetrators of the violence should be responsible for their own crimes. But bear with me and I'm only playing devil's advocate.
For this type of crime it comes down to motive and the actual beliefs of the person. Motive is always important, so if you can PROVE the motive was to incite hatred and you can PROVE that they knowingly disseminated false statements than I don't see why you can't charge a person with a crime. It may not be easy to prove this but what's the chances that Ernst Zundel did not tell someone "Of course I know it's a lie, but I want all the damn jews to burn in hell!" Sure maybe not in those words but it takes a complete idiot or racist to deny the holocaust. So chances are you could catch him in the act if you had him bugged or pulled a sting etc. Nothing that isn't done for every other major crime in the books.
WTF, didn't you catch the thank you?
Pointing out to someone that which he has already thanked you for is rude(I'm Canadian, politeness is supposed to be in our genes).
Don't believe it. For the RIAA to argue as the previous posted suggested would imply they are admitting to being either a monopoly or an oligopoly. In either case they would have their asses sued off in the time it took the court transcripts to dry.
You mean it isn't?
The only thing it doesn't have are government sponsored tax exemptions and temples funded from shearing the faithful.
I am absolutely sick and tired of this "I was born this way so I'm more deserving of being a victim than you!" attitude.
Substitute any religious affiliation for "black person" and than ask yourself if it was offensive!
The point is, treating a group in a certain way because of the actions of individuals of the group where those actions have no basis in the beliefs/precepts/identifying characteristic of the group is simply wrong.
Oh for crying out loud. This is a false dichotomy. Instead of "black community" than use "christian" or "jewish" or "insert religious group here" community.
Is that better?
yup. I agree fully. I could have gone into more detail and probably described how to fix it but I already wasted enough bandwidth.
The extended version makes it a little better but not much. In fact I missed the comment about "the elves having the power to reforge the sword that was broken" the first couple of times I watched it. There is mystery, a quiet dignity that you mention and the hint of unseen power that is missing from the Aragorn of the film that comes through entirely in the books.
Sure Faramir was tempted but not nearly so strongly as to intice him to take Frodo to Gondor. It really wasn't called for and just wastes time better spent in developing each of the characters more fully. This goes with my whole theme that Jackson hasn't shown enough "good" in the films to make people really feel there is a reason to root for the good guys.
Secondly I thought the books did a good job of showing the subtleness of Boromir and the evil of the ring in drawing a good man to his downfall.
But at the same time, what's his name(sorry slips my memory) did an even better job in the movie. He was without a doubt the best actor in the LOTR, he played the part comendably, which doesn't surprise me as I had heard he did a lot of shakespearean acting. It really shows.
Ah your loss than.
If I tried to remember how many copies of LOTR I've purcashed I'd probably puke. I've given them all away gladly, knowing I'd buy another copy. This is the one item in all my life that I would continue to pay even devils like the MPAA to experience. When I lose the wonder of experiencing this piece of art(book,film, whatever) I guess it will be time to leave this rock.
You don't try to fit the book into the film, you create a screen-play from the book. It is a "based on" type of thing. It is entirely possible to create a film that is as good or better than a book if you do it right.
Now having said that I was slightly disappointed with the way the films have portrayed the main point of the book, e.g. the destroying of evil to preserve good. Don't get me wrong I loved the films but they have lost a certain element that really comes through in the narrative of the books. Basically the films are much more dark than the books are. As dire as the book seems some times there always seems to be a chapter thrown in of happiness to reenforce just exactly what they are fighting for.
This didn't have to happen. Peter Jackson has done a great job of special effects and making this in to a great action flick but he lost some of the feeling and it was sooooo easy to fix. Instead of starting "The Fellowship of the Ring" with the story of the ring it should have started as the book did, Bilbo's birthday party. You can easily fill in the audience when Gandalf finds out exactly what the ring is. In fact this leaves some suspense for 1/2 hour while the audience is settling in and enjoying the scenery. Than when Gandalf comes back and tells Frodo the story you could have inserted the action sequence from the beginning of the film using Gandalf's voice for the voice over which would have lent more "harshness" to it.
For as great as the books are, and I absolutely love them, they still come down to good vs evil and we all know how that will end we just don't know the details. The point is to make those who don't know anything about the books to fall in love with the simplicity and naivety of the Shire(recalling childhood), the majesty of the elves(the ability to believe that there are benevolent "gods"), the incredible variety and wonder of nature(the absolute silliness but child like qualities of Tom Bombadil, Gandalf's friendship with Shadowfax, Legolas falling in love with Fanghorn, Gimli falling in love with Helm's deep). The idea that man is soooo small in compared to the age of the universe or even the earth, e.g. the Ents are Old beyond imagining but this doesn't come through.
Almost all of this went missing from the films.
And last but not least, how dare anyone but the King of Gondor touch the sword of Isildir! That was simply unneeded, sure it doesn't mean anything to a person who hasn't read the books but for those who have, that incident alone should make them question Jackson's real commitment to the character of the books. Hell, once again there was simply NO NEED FOR IT. Why didn't Aragorn have the sword when Frodo met him just like in the book? There's no need to explain in detail as the book did. It is the thing that makes Frodo "recognize" Aragorn and that's easily done in a line or two or three.
Anyway, enough analysis, suffice it to say that I think the books are great the films in their own way are great but that they miss the character of the book for no good reason.
Before they can win a case "against the GPL" they have to friggin well file a law suit against someone regarding it. They aren't doing this and it's obvious why. They have no legs to stand on.
I will continue to repeat this until I'm blue in the face. There are two different issues that SCO would like to obfuscate. There's the IBM "contract" dispute and there's every other piece of disinformation about supposed copyright infringement that they have been spouting.
Until such time that they bring suit against someone than everything else is meaningless.
No,No,No. The guy wasn't saying that SCO's claim was reasonable, he was saying that if you didn't know anything about the history of Unix & Linux they might sound reasonable. They should demonstrably not sound reasonable to any "reporter" of a tech journal who, if they are any good, would check on the facts of the claims before reporting them. But most reporters are either lazy or biased, this goes for mainstream reporters as well.
Look at it like this, you have 3 scenarios as a tech journalist,
1) You know the history of Unix & Linux and you know that SCO's claims are full of hot air == don't report them or report them with the proper context of history clearly showing them to be ludicrous.
2) You don't know the history but your good at your job, so you ask a knowledgeable technical historian or a member of the Linux community for their opinion of the claims. You report both sides once again showing that SCO's claims are bogus.
3) You don't care, you know that this is "good copy" so you report the claims without adding any background thereby implying that the claims have some merit. This can be especially damaging in a business journal where the PHB's don't know the history any more than the reporter.
Now use this same scenario with ALL mainstream reporting and you get the idea of what is really happening in the world. Don't ever believe anything the news "reports", it is always biased either maliciously or because of laziness. Given all the shit that happens in the world daily it makes it real difficult to decide who to trust.
Woh there. Don't confuse SCO's breach of contract lawsuit against IBM with SCO's general disregard for copyright law. SCO has yet to sue anyone over copyright infringement, they have just blustered. But the bluster has nothing,none,nahda to do with reality and they know it. That their bluster may scare some people in to paying them a license fee isn't my problem.
If SCO by some miracle wins the IBM lawsuit this should in no way be confused with their ability to win copyright infringement cases against any developer of Linux and has absolutely zilch to do with their ability to win a copyright infringement case against any user of Linux. The latter would go against the entire history of copyright law. Secondly the instant they sued any distributor of Linux they would be in deep shit precisely for the reasons I gave. What's worse is SCO knows this that is why they are threatening the users, they are trying to scare them in to paying for something they already have the rights to use.
If you've followed this story at all it will be obvious to you that SCO doesn't actually have a case against any distributor or developer for copyright infringement if they did they would have sued them already.
Duped my ass!
They are a commercial software company. They have
coders whose job it is to look at this stuff. They have been in the business of distributing Linux for a number of years. They cannot just yell "Stop,wait, we didn't know this was in there!" They knew damn well what code was in Linux, they contributed code and they have repeatedly used the services of the community to conduct they're business. These are not cherry virgins who don't know how the world works. They know exactly what they are doing.
Duped! Yeah Right.
If your brakes were faulty by design, e.g. when turning right on a 90 degree day with 30% relative humidity your brakes fail, and you plowed through the crowd than the manufacturer of the car would be at fault and damn rights they would be forced to pay ALL damages. If you knew about a recall but hadn't done anything yet you also may be liable but I don't know.
In the software world we don't have either consequence so no-one has an insentive to ever fix anything. Microsoft is liable for sure right off the bat or at least they should be since it's a manufacturer's defect. Even with a fix out most people likely didn't know about it. With a vehicle a mandatory recall means the manufacturer has to inform you by all possible means. Microsoft only posts some snippets on their website and hopes that everyone sees it. Even with Windows Update the best you ever see is "There are updates available for your computer". Sorry that doesn't cut it. How about "There are critical updates for your computer that will likely cause widespread computer failure and major loss of money and possibly your data it is imperative you update now!"
The more I think about it the more it makes sense to me. If you pay money for a program the manufacturer must be held liable for "bugs"(e.g. defects) and no license should be able to remove that responsibility not even an Open source one. Note the requirement of paying gives any vendor/programmer a way out of liability as it should.
There is a huge difference between Microsoft and Debian. MS is specifically in the business of trying to make money from their software product. You sould have the right to sue them for damages caused by a defective product. Debian is a not-for-profit company giving away their software for FREE. Since there is no exchange of "equal value" between you and the Debian group you cannot expect the same protection under the law. In contract law it's called "equal consideration" or something like that, effectively both parties must be "getting something" from the deal.
With Debian you can than choose to pay somebody to keep your system up to date, patch it, add stuff to it or whatever. Generally this would be under a more mutually beneficial contract.
Now as for Redhat, regardless of the fact that I think highly of them due to their support of Open Source, they too would be under the same restrictions as Microsoft as long as you purchased their product and didn't just download it from the internet or whatever. I've only ever paid for one copy of Redhat but I've never complained about any bugs or default installs or things that I "don't like" because I simply don't have the right. I didn't pay for it so why should I have any consideration from them.
In the end I don't believe this change in practice would affect the "openness" of software in any way. It might change the nature of how people get their software. For instance Microsoft may choose to "give away" Windows to avoid multi Billion dollar lawsuits or you can pay a "super extra exhorbitant" price for it in order to have the right and expectation that the software would behave as designed and the right to sue for damages if it doesn't.
The market for software would likely change drastically but it might actually be for the better. I don't know that it would be for the better but it might.
One possible scenario would be that home users get the benefit of free (as in beer) software subsidized by companies & corporations who would pay larger sums of money in order to have "someone to sue". Software in general would possibly get better/more secure, in fact this would be more likely, as there would be a greater insentive to make it work correctly in order to maximize the return on investment eg. collect money for a "perfect" product and not pay anything out because "it just works".
As it is there is absolutely no insentive for Microsoft or any other for profit company to make their product secure because the customer can't do anything about it anyway.
Open source coders would be affected by this in that it would level the playing field. We give our software away for free because of the nature of how it's developed. It is packaged up by other companies and sold as a product. These companies should have to be the ones that ensure it is "safe". In fact I can see nothing but benefits in the long term for everyone if users had the right to sue the manufacturer for bugs in the software that caused damages as long as you payed your hard earned cash in consideration.
You know I see this comment all the time "it's just computer software, not the "world saviour, key to world peace, key to heaven etc..." ".
Tell you what, get rid of all the computer software in the world that was ever written, starting with punch cards. Than come back and tell me computer software isn't the "key" to anything.
Dammit, computers and the software written for them has the ability to bring man closer to "world peace", "everybody getting along" or what have you specifically because it allows us to do so much more, so much more quickly and accurately than we've ever been able to do before. Go ahead, analyze that DNA sequence in something less than eternity without a computer!
It sounds to me that you would like Americans & the rest of the world to think it's better here than it really is.
I don't know what part of the country your in but unless you live in a cave you couldn't possibly have missed the whole point of the "Romanow commission" (besides wasting money on yet another report I mean).
Health care in Canada is in dire straights. It will very soon break at the seams from the top heavy load of an ever growing and aging population. We have waiting lists for even life threatening maladies. In Saskatoon there will not be a General Pediatrician on call except for emergency purposes for something like 5 days this month. I know, "oh wow, 5 whole days", but why should there be noone on call ever!
The provinces are in bidding wars to attract surgeons,general practitioners, nurses, Radiation therapists, oncologists, you name it.
The ever increasing drug budget for the ever more expensive "new" drugs will eventually help to bankrupt the whole system.
Oh, and if your one of those that thinks having a "two-tiered" health care system is something to avoid. Ask yourself where do the rich Canadians get treated? Not in Canada that's for sure.
No there's no rationing in Canada, we all just get the same crappy level of service! Note that for emergency care it's probably no worse or better than anywhere else.
Far be it from me to come off as a professional audiofile but as a professional physicist I would think that the end result of compressing music that has been heavily clipped would be an even worse than usual reproduction. The point of clipping is that you actually remove signal that you think the listener won't notice. If you clip everything heavily you end up with nothing left. Easily compressed but no actual music remains.
But isn't that the first guys point. Sure it would compress better, "better" here meaning smaller. But the compressed audio would sound even more shitty than the original. Theoretically a single high pitch or low pitch note.
So by mastering the CD the way they did maybe they were hoping it would still sound "good enough" from CD but so shitty as an MP3 as to make it worthless in that format. Unfortunately it seems it's worthless in any format.
Um, when I initially read his statement I assumed the same semantics as you however what I think he means is,
"The solution is to abolish bad laws. The bad laws are those that are exploitable and just invite people to adopt force as a business model."
I'm fairly certain he wasn't inviting people to pick up a gun to settle corporate disputes. But than again a few well placed rounds in the heads of some corporate execs might actually change their attitudes. Hell this could be fun, it could make for a great sport. Rather than settle or go to court IBM and SCO could just have a WWF style tag team, no holds barred, cage match. They could probably make millions on the event.
Well actually this is common sense.
An analogy with physical property would suggest that the government has the power to put any copyrighted work into "eminent domain" making that work a public work. Of course this analogy would imply that the government must pay restitution to the copyright holder just like with physical property under your constitution's 5th amendment (assuming your an American).
Of course I personally don't fully like this analogy because I don't believe in "intellectual property". But for the sake of this discussion I'm going to ignore my disdain of the concept.
A different but equally valid "common sense" argument would follow exactly what the court decreed. Specifically that a copyrighted work remains the property of the copyright holder until such time that the government enacts it in to law either directly or by reference. Since the law is the property of the people once enacted into law the copyrighted work becomes the property of the people or at least that "version" of it does. This makes totally good common sense. Especially when you add the fact that it is purely by government decree that the idea of copyright exists anyway.
It would not have been "common sense" for the courts to have ruled otherwise. Since than the people are subject to the tyranny of a private individual or group and their own whims as to how the laws should read.
If you mean by "includes GPL'd code" that you must include the source code of a GPL'd work with your own before it becomes a derivative work than that's wrong. A derivative work under the GPL would be anything that even just links to the GPL'd code. This is the reason there is an LGPL.
In other words linking to a GPL work makes your code a "derivative work" and subject to the GPL. This would be exactly what SCO would imply by having to link to UNIX System V work. In each case it doesn't matter if the code you wrote was done independently, once you link it to the GPL'd or UNIX System V libraries it becomes a derivative work.
Normally a person wouldn't worry about it as far as GPL code goes because the usual method is to include code from a GPL work in your own and it becomes obvious it is than a derivative work. As well most programs are GPL'd while most libraries are under the LGPL which is much less restrictive. The one case that I know of that doesn't follow this behaviour is the readline library, this is still explicitly GPL'd and any program that links to it must be GPL'd as well. This is rather a "famous" counter example as it is one of the few libraries that is actually GPL'd rather than LGPL'd.
In any case it is concievable that just linking to UNIX System V work makes your program a "derivative work" and subject to the same license that covers the UNIX System V work. This is why it is a scary thought to me, it is conceivable that such a license exists because I already know of 1 that does. In the case of the GPL however it is structured to make the work less restrictive, less hidden, but there's no reason the license couldn't be written to force you to keep your code closed.
Try this one on for size...
...SCO*cough*SCO... could take GPL code put it in a library release the library under the GPL and than simply link to it and keep all work that linked to it proprietary.
Ignore all of the bluster that SCO has been spewing about copyright's and patents, what you are left with is a supposed contract dispute between IBM and SCO. SCO is trying to claim ownership over derivative works of UNIX which they are apparently trying to claim is anything that uses UNIX services. Thus anything that is a derivitive work is supposedly covered under the license that SCO and their predecessors made UNIX available under.
Now compare this to the GPL. When you release a piece of software under the GPL you must make all derivitive works available under the same license as the GPL. Sound awful familiar? I thought so too.
So...if SCO is going to compare their license to the GPL and claim, "if the GPL can do it why can't we?" than what is the result? I have read the GPL and think I understand it as well as anyone. Not being a lawyer I can't claim authority in that respect but I believe it to be a totally fair and appropriate license. So why can't SCO claim the same thing? The license they released UNIX under may be vague in this respect but if it comes down to "any derivitive work of UNIX must be released under this same license" than how can the GPL be lawful and the SCO UNIX license not be lawful? Both can't be true.
There is one aspect that may be different between these two cases. The GPL has no exclusivity clause. Thus although the copyright holder is forced to make the source available under the terms of the GPL they can also make the program available under any other license they choose. In fact this is sometimes done so that the community can work on the GPL'ed code and the copyright holder can make money by selling to companies that want to hide their code changes.
Now I don't know that the SCO license has an exclusivity clause but there's no reason it couldn't. It's certainly fathomable that the GPL could include a clause that said "you must make the source available ONLY under the GPL" but I think it would be much less useful and certainly not as widely accepted. Anyway, the point is that SCO could have an exclusivity clause in the license. The end result being that indeed anything that uses UNIX services or runs on top of UNIX could be considered a derivitive work and thus subject to the terms of that license. In which case IBM and others would be libel for damages since they broke SCO's license by releasing code that by copyright belonged to them but that they gave up control over.
So...this is just a thought, as I write it already I see ways to argue against it. But it would be a sorry day in hell if either "derivitive work" was restricted such that only code that used code from another program was a derivitive work. Effectively this would put all GPL code under the LGPL. A particularly unscrupulous company
Furthermore, if SCO has no exclusivity clause in the license than the point is moot. As the copyright holder is certainly within their rights to release the software under other licensing terms.
I'm not sure what kind of probability to put on this scenario. But I've heard of stranger things. It's entirely possible SCO wouldn't mind going to court either to restrict the term "derivitive work" or even somehow in a backhanded manner, invalidate the GPL all in an attempt to avoid copyright infringement for work they have placed in to the SCO Unix offerings. Invalidating the GPL wouldn't get them anywhere though since than they would have to deal with the actual copyright holders and I'm thinking they wouldn't be too beholdin' to SCO.
Anyway, it's just a thought.