...chances are I'll be coping with the moral taint and heading back to KDE.
I guess I'm confused as to why you this there's a moral taint to KDE. KDE is GPL'd. QT X11 (including for Linux) is GPL'd. QT for Mac OS X is GPL'd. QT Embedded is GPL'd. QT/KDE on Cygwin is GPL'd, and lets you run KDE apps on Windows.
The only non-free aspect to QT is the commercial licensed version of QT Windows. GTK was ported from X11 to Windows. There is nothing to keep you, me, or anyone else from porting one of the GPL'd QT toolkits to Windows (as the KDE on Cygwin people have done). The existance of a non-free licenced version of QT does not make the free-licenced versions any less free.
I use KDE because I think it does a better job than Gnome and because I think it's easier to use. If you prefer KDE, I encourage you to use it, too.
This brings up a good point. Are there open source hardware projects out there?
There are lots of software engineers working on free (as in speech) software projects. Are also computer engineers working on free (as in speech) hardware projects?
I never claimed that fair use lets me copy at will. I claimed that fair use grants me some rights. You had previously stated that I have no rights under copyright law.
The legality of circumventing copy protections in order to protect fair use is uncertain. Title 17, Ch 12, Sec. 1201 describes the limitations on copy protection circumvention, but paragraph (A)(1)(c) explicitly states that fair-use should be protected. The effect of this hasn't been fully tested by the courts, but my bet is that the courts will hold that fair-use trumps copy-protection.
You have NO rights to the copyrighted material, only the copyright owner has any rights to it.
Not true. Fair use provisions of copyright law describe just some of the rights that I possess. Also note that the Fair Use provisions are not trumped by chapter 12, which is where the DMCA is.
If the copyright holder holds as many rights over the use of the work as you say, then explain this one for me (from Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec 114):
The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording. The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording.
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1)
to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2)
to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3)
to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4)
in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5)
in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6)
in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
* To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
* To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
* To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
* To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
* To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
* In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, "Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts."
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.
You seem to assume that I have some sort of contractual agreement with the copyright owner. I don't.
The prior assumption for copyright discussion is that everyone can do anything with a work. Copyright law steps in and says "In order to encourage people to create, content creators will have the exclusive right to make copies of the creations."
Buying a DVD is no different, under copyright law, than buying a painting, a sculpture, or a book. In all of those cases, I do not have the right to copy the work. But I do have the right to use the work. And the copyright holder has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with the work after I purchase it unless I entered into a contract that had such restricting provisions. When I purchase a DVD, a video tape, an audio CD, an audio cassette, or a book, I have not entered into any contract, nor have I agreed to any license. I am bound by law not to copy the work without the permission of the copyright holder. But I am not bound in my use of the work.
You seem to assume that copyright holders hold almighty power over all copies of their creations. That is simply not true, at least not in the USA. The DMCA has moved copyright law in a new direction by forbidding me from circumventing any copy-protection measures put in place by the copyright holder. It does not repeal my rights to use the work nor my rights of fair-use for research, parody, etc.
This country and its laws are based on the rights and duties of citizens, not the (much weaker) rights of corporations and copyright holders. Even though some of our recent laws have moved to strengthen corporations, the foundation of citizen rights still remains.
The fact is if you CONSUME their material (yes, it is THEIRS) they have every right to tell you how you can use it.
Sorry, wrong answer!
The copyright owner has exclusive right to copy the copyrighted material for a limited period of time. That is the extent of it. You, and everyone with a legitimately acquired copy of the copyrighted material have numerous rights of use of the material. The copyright owner has little rights over what you can and cannot do, other than that you can't make unauthorized copies of the material.
Stop trying to drive this politically...you're going to lose and cry yourself dry wondering why the world doesn't work the way you want it to.
Ah, but the writers of the U.S. Constitution beg to differ....
Copyright is granted by Congress. Congress has the authority to grant copyright from the Constitution. The Constitution makes clear that the purpose of copyright is to promote the arts and sciences.
Article 1, Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Copyright statutes, as well as common law, have established that persons other than copyright holders do have rights to copyrighted material. Copyright is, after all, the exclusive right to copy a work.
You, sir, are a troll. Copyright discussions are political by their very nature. The view that copyright owners have exclusive control over all uses of copyrighted content is absurd, and backed by neither the Constitution nor by copyright law. I have a right to use material that I legally obtain from a copyright holder. They have no more right to prevent or regulate my private use of that material than I have to make and distribute further copies of the copyrighted material.
..that intervideo cannot release an end user player for Linux because they would end up running afoul of the GPL inorder to do it. They would need to link with Libs that are GPL, and in so doing would be obligated to expose things that the DVD licenses will not allow them to expose.
Hmmm.... I doubt it. An end user player shouldn't be significantly different than LinDVD, their product for embedded Linux devices. They shouldn't have to link against GPL'd libs if they aren't now. And, if LinDVD isn't licenced under a GPL-compatible license (it's not) then they shouldn't be linking against GPL libs now.
>It's nice to see that some governmental anti-trust bodies have the backbone to stand up to Microsoft.
This isn't towards the poster, but more to the moderaters.
My original post was meant as a jab at the US Department of Justice under King George II.
I fully recognize that the fine is a drop in the bucket of MS's finances. I also recognize that this is both better than nothing, and better than what the US did.
Slapping them on the wrist? How much is a mere 1/2 Billion going to set someone like Mr. Gates back? I would see the fine as more of a warning than a real punishment.
Compared with the terms of the USDOJ settlement, this is nice to see. Could have the punishment here been harsher? Certainly. Should have it been harsher? Possibly. Is a 500m euro file harsher punishment than a US settlement that allows donations of a monopoly's product in partial lieu of payments? Definitely.
It's nice to see that some governmental anti-trust bodies have the backbone to stand up to Microsoft. Rather than finding them guilty of anti-trust laws, then slapping them on the wrist....
I think other distros need to look to Mandrake as the leader it is in making free software easy-to-use. Mandrake's distro isn't perfect, but it has come a long way in helping me to enjoy my Linux use.
Yup. I guess I should have read the article, then posted my reply rather than the reverse.:} But yes, the NPR story was talking about the same Duke research.
Yes, this has been tested. A week or so ago I heard a story on NPR where researchers connected a monkey's brain to a computer. The monkey had a joystick in its hands which controlled a robotic arm. Eventually, the monkey figured out that it could set down the joystick and continue to control the robotic arm using nothing but its brain.
Slashdot Mirror
That's great! I love that she did the control panel for the original Mac OS, and for Windows 3.0. :)
I guess I'm confused as to why you this there's a moral taint to KDE. KDE is GPL'd. QT X11 (including for Linux) is GPL'd. QT for Mac OS X is GPL'd. QT Embedded is GPL'd. QT/KDE on Cygwin is GPL'd, and lets you run KDE apps on Windows.
The only non-free aspect to QT is the commercial licensed version of QT Windows. GTK was ported from X11 to Windows. There is nothing to keep you, me, or anyone else from porting one of the GPL'd QT toolkits to Windows (as the KDE on Cygwin people have done). The existance of a non-free licenced version of QT does not make the free-licenced versions any less free.
I use KDE because I think it does a better job than Gnome and because I think it's easier to use. If you prefer KDE, I encourage you to use it, too.
What phones will work with my provider? I have Verizon, and it would be pointless for me to get a phone that didn't work with them.
There are lots of software engineers working on free (as in speech) software projects. Are also computer engineers working on free (as in speech) hardware projects?
The legality of circumventing copy protections in order to protect fair use is uncertain. Title 17, Ch 12, Sec. 1201 describes the limitations on copy protection circumvention, but paragraph (A)(1)(c) explicitly states that fair-use should be protected. The effect of this hasn't been fully tested by the courts, but my bet is that the courts will hold that fair-use trumps copy-protection.
That's right! Congress gets to dictate what the rules are. And fortunately, Congress disagrees with you.
Not true. Fair use provisions of copyright law describe just some of the rights that I possess. Also note that the Fair Use provisions are not trumped by chapter 12, which is where the DMCA is.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/index.html
If the copyright holder holds as many rights over the use of the work as you say, then explain this one for me (from Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec 114):
The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording. The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording.
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission
WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
* To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
* To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
* To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
* To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
* To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
* In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, "Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts."
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.
The prior assumption for copyright discussion is that everyone can do anything with a work. Copyright law steps in and says "In order to encourage people to create, content creators will have the exclusive right to make copies of the creations."
Buying a DVD is no different, under copyright law, than buying a painting, a sculpture, or a book. In all of those cases, I do not have the right to copy the work. But I do have the right to use the work. And the copyright holder has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with the work after I purchase it unless I entered into a contract that had such restricting provisions. When I purchase a DVD, a video tape, an audio CD, an audio cassette, or a book, I have not entered into any contract, nor have I agreed to any license. I am bound by law not to copy the work without the permission of the copyright holder. But I am not bound in my use of the work.
You seem to assume that copyright holders hold almighty power over all copies of their creations. That is simply not true, at least not in the USA. The DMCA has moved copyright law in a new direction by forbidding me from circumventing any copy-protection measures put in place by the copyright holder. It does not repeal my rights to use the work nor my rights of fair-use for research, parody, etc.
This country and its laws are based on the rights and duties of citizens, not the (much weaker) rights of corporations and copyright holders. Even though some of our recent laws have moved to strengthen corporations, the foundation of citizen rights still remains.
Sorry, wrong answer!
The copyright owner has exclusive right to copy the copyrighted material for a limited period of time. That is the extent of it. You, and everyone with a legitimately acquired copy of the copyrighted material have numerous rights of use of the material. The copyright owner has little rights over what you can and cannot do, other than that you can't make unauthorized copies of the material.
Ah, but the writers of the U.S. Constitution beg to differ....
Copyright is granted by Congress. Congress has the authority to grant copyright from the Constitution. The Constitution makes clear that the purpose of copyright is to promote the arts and sciences.
Copyright statutes, as well as common law, have established that persons other than copyright holders do have rights to copyrighted material. Copyright is, after all, the exclusive right to copy a work.
You, sir, are a troll. Copyright discussions are political by their very nature. The view that copyright owners have exclusive control over all uses of copyrighted content is absurd, and backed by neither the Constitution nor by copyright law. I have a right to use material that I legally obtain from a copyright holder. They have no more right to prevent or regulate my private use of that material than I have to make and distribute further copies of the copyrighted material.
Hmmm.... I doubt it. An end user player shouldn't be significantly different than LinDVD, their product for embedded Linux devices. They shouldn't have to link against GPL'd libs if they aren't now. And, if LinDVD isn't licenced under a GPL-compatible license (it's not) then they shouldn't be linking against GPL libs now.
This isn't towards the poster, but more to the moderaters.
My original post was meant as a jab at the US Department of Justice under King George II.
I fully recognize that the fine is a drop in the bucket of MS's finances. I also recognize that this is both better than nothing, and better than what the US did.
Compared with the terms of the USDOJ settlement, this is nice to see. Could have the punishment here been harsher? Certainly. Should have it been harsher? Possibly. Is a 500m euro file harsher punishment than a US settlement that allows donations of a monopoly's product in partial lieu of payments? Definitely.
It's nice to see that some governmental anti-trust bodies have the backbone to stand up to Microsoft. Rather than finding them guilty of anti-trust laws, then slapping them on the wrist....
Check http://www.xe.com for exchange rates...
I think other distros need to look to Mandrake as the leader it is in making free software easy-to-use. Mandrake's distro isn't perfect, but it has come a long way in helping me to enjoy my Linux use.
:)
Off to join MandrakeClub...
Yup. I guess I should have read the article, then posted my reply rather than the reverse. :} But yes, the NPR story was talking about the same Duke research.
Yes, this has been tested. A week or so ago I heard a story on NPR where researchers connected a monkey's brain to a computer. The monkey had a joystick in its hands which controlled a robotic arm. Eventually, the monkey figured out that it could set down the joystick and continue to control the robotic arm using nothing but its brain.
Please reply if you get any results. Thanks...
Most of the albums still are $9.99
Anybody have bets on when someone gets this to work in wine? ;)
I spoke with Joe Trippi, the campaign manager, and he said that Dean would do a /. interview if I could arrange it.
Rob, or whoever else is out there... might this be possible? I submitted an interview request on the story submission page and it got rejected.
Maybe someday....