"they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen"
You do not need a license to use, watch or listen. You need a copyright license to copy, distribute it or to perform i publicly. The publisher is the one who copies and distributes it and needs a license. The purchaser does not. (US law)
Swedish law precedent is that you make a copy of a program or music within the computer when you use it and you need a license for that copy. Which is really a pervertion of swedish copyright law.
Here in Sweden ISPs have warned and disconnected people accused of copyright infringement. However in recent time people have been aware of the issue and some ISPs has gone against the practice. Nowadays ISPs here are reluctant to be known as a party to disconnect you because of those reasons. Customers simply move away from their services.
Ok. Here is a crappy translation of the swedish article to english.
The US government behind closing of site
The US government was behind the raid against the filesharing network Pirate Bay yesterday, according to sources to the SVT news program Rapport.
In april a delegation with members of the justice department and the police met up with american authorities who brought the issue up by request of the MPAA. The interest organisation of Hollywood.
The justice department then requested the police and prosecutors to act. When they replied that the legal issues where unclear the minister of justice's secretary of state contacted the state prosecutor and the state chief of police who in turn ordered action.
Minister rule The Pirate Bay has openly challenged right-holders within the film and music industry. Nevertheless many in the internet society are surprised of the actions of the swedish authorities.
This is what happened according to sources. The american interest organisation MPAA contacted the gorvernment in the white house. The american department of foreign affairs then contacted the swedish department of foreign affairs and demanded the issue with Pirate bay be solved.
According to the source the prosecutor and the police was ordered to act and describes the actions of the secretary of state as minister rule.
The article says the racism bothered leading officials and goverment parties. But that the formal reason was non-compliance with some media-regulation. The non-compliance is implied to be unlinked to the rasistic content.
You cannot rip someone off if you dont have a deal with them in the first place.
I dont agree with much of the copyright legislation. As I dont agree with the legislation the argument that it is immoral fails. It might be illegal but not immoral.
Sweden is listed there (SE).
But as far as I know (swedish) we do not accept software patents, yet.
AFAIK nobody has tried to pull a software patent into the courts here.
True that commercial is not a great word to use. It was to describe the targeted audience for the licence.
Nitpicking. Never heard the term "freesource". Proprietary is not the opposite of open source software I would say closed source software is. I belive you can have proprietary open source software.
I dont agree with the statement that open source and free software is the same thing except in rare cases. I would define free software to be software that can be used for whatever purpose without royalties and includes source code. With used in this context I also mean giving it away and modifying.
Open source is software does not guarantee you are free to use it as you see fit. However it gets bundled with the source.
I believe it depends on your values whether there is a big difference between open source software and free software. (nitpicking even further. All free software is also open source software but not all open source software is free software)
Slashdot Mirror
"they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen"
You do not need a license to use, watch or listen.
You need a copyright license to copy, distribute it or to perform i publicly.
The publisher is the one who copies and distributes it and needs a license.
The purchaser does not. (US law)
Swedish law precedent is that you make a copy of a program or music within the computer when you use it and you need a license for that copy. Which is really a pervertion of swedish copyright law.
Here in Sweden ISPs have warned and disconnected people accused of copyright infringement.
However in recent time people have been aware of the issue and some ISPs has gone against the practice.
Nowadays ISPs here are reluctant to be known as a party to disconnect you because of those reasons.
Customers simply move away from their services.
"and/or OWN content"
Artists and producers do not own the content.
They have a state-sponsored distibution-monopoly on the content.
AFAIK the price for a tune is apx. the same as for itunes.
If you consider the exchange rates.
Read how they figured stuff out att http://www.samba.org./
You cannot program for the network if you do not know the api they use.
Ok. Here is a crappy translation of the swedish article to english.
The US government behind closing of site
The US government was behind the raid against the filesharing network Pirate Bay yesterday, according to sources to the SVT news program Rapport.
In april a delegation with members of the justice department and the police met up with american authorities who brought the issue up by request of the MPAA. The interest organisation of Hollywood.
The justice department then requested the police and prosecutors to act. When they replied that the legal issues where unclear the minister of justice's secretary of state contacted the state prosecutor and the state chief of police who in turn ordered action.
Minister rule
The Pirate Bay has openly challenged right-holders within the film and music industry. Nevertheless many in the internet society are surprised of the actions of the swedish authorities.
This is what happened according to sources. The american interest organisation MPAA contacted the gorvernment in the white house. The american department of foreign affairs then contacted the swedish department of foreign affairs and demanded the issue with Pirate bay be solved.
According to the source the prosecutor and the police was ordered to act and describes the actions of the secretary of state as minister rule.
To the RIAA: In sovjet russia we screw YOU!
The article implies the rasistic part of the show was legal.
The broadcasting was not legal.
As such the government could fine anybody that does hold their values.
Even if there is no law for it.
Everybody is guilty but only some are chosen to get fined.
The article says the racism bothered leading officials and goverment parties.
But that the formal reason was non-compliance with some media-regulation.
The non-compliance is implied to be unlinked to the rasistic content.
You cannot rip someone off if you dont have a deal with them in the first place.
I dont agree with much of the copyright legislation.
As I dont agree with the legislation the argument that it is immoral fails.
It might be illegal but not immoral.
Of course we can different moral values.
My ethics say that if someone treat you poorly you dont support them.
They are not only treating me poorly but every other customer.
Thus they are boycotted.
Having to have the cd in the drive is ridiculous.
No sale for me then. I just use bittorrent and no-cd. Thank you very much.
And I am not a cheapie.. I have a good job and money to burn.
I just dont like to be treated like a turd.
As Google is a US Corporation it should use the policy that US has for naming. A corporation of a country should not have its own foreign policy.
And in some state it is illegal not to pay taxes on illegal drugs.
Yes.. its true.
Sweden is listed there (SE). But as far as I know (swedish) we do not accept software patents, yet. AFAIK nobody has tried to pull a software patent into the courts here.
The mark has been in use for a very long time without any intervention by the said trademark holder.
This is like submarine patents.. everybody can use it and then suddenly you have to pay royalties.
I dont care if it is Linus or Ghandhi that does bad things.. This is a bad thing. Shame on you.
As said in grandparent it is not a sanbox.
:)
But if you run it under a non-privileged account under linux you will have it (sort of) in a sandbox enviroment.
Guess you could put it in user-mode linux too.. if you are really paranoid
Same as all other advertisers. Viaqra and gambling sites.
This is why you want to keep your mp3-recorder going on important meetings.
OSCA was asked by the US to come. They where invited.
OSCA has a policy to always accept these invitations.
Acctually they are able to prevent fair use. In this case parody.
They can use the costs of a lawsuit against the performers.
There is a big difference in being right and getting right.
Lyx and texmacs is what my university used when creating written material for their math-courses.
True that commercial is not a great word to use. It was to describe the targeted audience for the licence.
Nitpicking. Never heard the term "freesource". Proprietary is not the opposite of open source software I would say closed source software is. I belive you can have proprietary open source software.
I dont agree with the statement that open source and free software is the same thing except in rare cases. I would define free software to be software that can be used for whatever purpose without royalties and includes source code. With used in this context I also mean giving it away and modifying.
Open source is software does not guarantee you are free to use it as you see fit. However it gets bundled with the source.
I believe it depends on your values whether there is a big difference between open source software and free software. (nitpicking even further. All free software is also open source software but not all open source software is free software)
apt-cache search helix yields no appropriate results.
https://helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl
Open source or free software? An evaluation would be nice.