He was going for something much more. But he has score a very significant victory none the less. The nation has decended into paranoia and being phobic about everything little thing.
Baloney. Unless they make me sign an agreement, I OWN the software. I own the software, which means I can use the software.
I think Blizzard only has a leg to stand on legally for WoW is that you access their game service. That can required an agreement to you must abide by in order to access the service. Before or after I stop paying for and accessing the server, it's my software, I can use/run it as I please. (Although I will admit that WoW w/o a game server isn't all that useful.)
Ummm. Excuse me, but I seem to recall a little company called [b]Netscape[/b] bringing the Internet of today to the masses. Microsoft at the time dismissed the Internet and TCP/IP in general. Then, the Internet growth exploded and use of the Web growing as well, and Netscape's Browser was the most widely used. Microsoft had to do a complete 180 and get in on the action. Windows at the time did NOT have a TCP/IP stack, not a Web Brower they could call their own. Then when the Web, Mozilla the browser and Java as the application stack were evolving to make the underlying Operating System irreleveant. Microsoft had an "OHS NOS" panic and pulled the shenanigans to drives Netscape into the ground. They got into Anti Trust trouble (upheld on appeal) in the Federal Courts to whom Microsoft is still under the heels of.
Yes you are exactly right. They can determine exactly how you can use their product. You buy it you agree to their terms. You drive on a road, you agree to stay under the speed limit and obey the rules of the road. If not, you are free to walk. If you don't like the fact that you can "context shift" or whatever it is you want to do, guess what doc? you don't have to use it.
I don't know where you guys come up with these arguments, or any of your arguments come to think about it. Once bought, you enter into an agreement on how you agree to use their product. plain and simple. you would be the same way if it was your product; especially if selling the product is how you made a living. You are SO wrong, I can't describe how much. I enter into NO agreement when I purchase something unless it's laided out in black and white in a contract, that I've read and most importantly signed.
Publishers have tried that crap for much long then you've and I've been alive. Books used to have boilerplate in them that said that you could not re-sell the book that you purchased. Their argument was just as your's is. "Use it my way, take it or leave it." Well that didn't site right with folks and they sued in court. What arose was a court decision that was later codified into law. It's called the First Sale Doctrine. It goes like this. According to the copyright privilege granted by law, you can dictate how you works are sold, marketed, used, etc. BUT after a work is SOLD to a costumer all of your rights to that particular copy are severed except for the copy right and public performance (if applicable). A publisher can't tell me I can read my book on Sundays before church. Nor can one tellme I can't listen to a CD I bought while flying cross country from one coast to the other. Nor can any say I can't lone my copy of said work to a friend. Nor can they prevent me from selling my copy of that work to someone else. And should also go without saying that if I sell a work, I need to delete or give to sellee, all of my fair use copies of that work. After I don't have it any more.
Now if I've not purchased a copy of a work, the copyright holders have a lot more control over how I peruse the work, for example pay per view events or cable network programs. But the right's holders rights are not absolute. I give you the Sony Betamax decision. Basically as a result of the decision it was not infringing for viewers to time shift programs (tape then when they aired, and then viewed them at a later date).
A better way to think about Fair Use is that the FU affirmative defense is an embodiment of our Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Rights. The Fair Use and First Sale Doctrines arose out of the tension between the Copy Right and Free Speech/Press clauses in the Constitution. On their face they are totally at odds with each other. But since both are in the Consitution you can't ignore one of the other. Hence, we have the limitations on the copyright monopoly that have been created by the Courts and in part codified into law by Congress. The Copright/Free Speech tango goes on even today: Sony Beatmax and Creative Rio decisions, DMCA, etc.
Sheesh. Don't schools teach Social Studies nowadays? We do have a Right to Privacy. And it IS in the Constitution. Read the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Right. It's out spelled in there. If you can't understand it's meaning, there is nothing I can say to make you get it.
However I will agree that it had been ground down a lot in the past few decades.
The article is wrong in one way and it's reaching a wrong conclusion because of it. The law's creates a statutory license for webcasters to use if they don't want to negiotate with each individual copyright holder. The lincense is compulsory for the copyright holders, and SoundExchange is the body that is tasked to collect and distribute the royalties collected under the statutory license.
However if a webcaster choses to negotiate with a music copyright holder, and they come to terms, it's a non-statutroy license. SoundExchange can't get involved music under those type of licenses. The terms can be whatever both sided agree to. You can even ignore those silly restrictions on information display, interactivity with listners, time restrictions, etc.
What the article says thats wrong is that copyright holder can give their music away for free, and can't allow webcasters to use it for free. That's flat out wrong. SoundExchange can't stop that or even try to collect royalties for it. That would be interfence with the copyright holder's rights. I've love to see SoundExchance attempt to take that to court. Can you say "Crash and Burn!"
In regards to GPL'd/GFDL'd/CCL'd music, those are non-statutory licenses. The terms are already laid out. No need to negotiate. As longer as your agree to and follow the terms of the license, your use the music. And you can tell SoundExchance to go F... themselves.
As being a former contract developer it's all in the contact negotiation. If you have a standard set of code that you use in your contracting assignment, you make it part of the contract that you use code that you have developed, you maintain the copyright to that code. The client gets non-exclusive a license to use and even modify you code, but only on conjunction with running and maintain the contracted software. You can even make the license transferable attached to the contacted softwared as an assset. If the software if transfered or sold as an asset, the license for your code goes along with it. You have to be totally upfront about it, in that it saves them money as it's coding time they don't have to pay for.
Maemo-mapper is the mapping program the post referred to. I'm using a Pharon Bluetooth GPS receiver, a BT Internet enabled phone, and the N800 w/ maemo-mapper and flite. It's got all the functionaly of a GPS naviation unit. It's performed as well as M$ Streets and Trips in terms of map GPS resolution accuacy. I going try to nagivate using that combo on my next road trip.
I can't recall the name of the software, but what it's using is way better then XStroke. It uses a natural handwriting recognition. You can you writing the letters natrually using multiple strokes, and it will recognize them. Writing a captial E using a [ type stroke and then a short - to complete and viola. Or do a capiotal a with/, \ , - strokes or a ^ and - strokes. Or you can train it to use you recognize your handwriting.
From TFA: "The RIAA also argues that should the attorneys' fees award stand, it would deter other copyright owners from pursuing infringement claims."
Oh that is so funny. They are arguing against what is written in the copyright statutes. And against established court cases and precidents. The very purpose of attorney fee award in copyright cases is so that people [b]WILL[/b] be encouraged to litigate copright cases.
Don't be sure sure about the differences in the OS. Just to refresh some memories, HP's (was Compaq's) Cambridge Reseach Lab ported the Linux kernel to the Ipaq. The Ipaq was running X-Windows. A lot of development in X by Jim Gettys and Kieth Packard was initially running on the Ipaq.
The distribution of the Ipaq eventually mutated into a Debian variant. In fact most of the packages were stripped down.deb packages into a lighter weight package format. Any programs which could run on a smaller screen (and with no keyboard and lesser mouse controls;) ), you could run on the Ipaq. Heck, if the Ipaq was networked you could using remote X your Ipaq application windows over to your desktop machines. So I would not say fork, it's more like the desktop OS on a diet.
So, I guess Judge Paez lives in that fantasy world where the rights of the people must be explicitly given within the Constitution, or they don't have them
Sheesh. Doesn't anyone actually take the time to read and understand the US Constitution? We don't need to extrapolate, guess, nor look at it by squnting our eyes. The US Constitution does include ALL of our rights. It says so explicitly. I direct everyone to the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I think there should be some mandatory remedial Civics classes that people need to attend from time to time. And I include federal judges in that list as well. I think people tend to foundations the US was built on. Judges get caught up with seeing all of the trees of the forest and don't really see the forest.
I'm running with just 1GB of RAM and the game runs fine for me. I tend to zone faster than most of people I team with. And the frame rate is going to be slower then Quakes 4. CoV has far more object into then Q4 and CoH.
Ah yes, I did get my terms mixed up. I'm always mixing Depth of View and Point of Field together in my head.
There is now limited crafting in the game. For now it revolved around the Super/Vilain Group Bases. You craft raw material (which are drop in combat), basic building blocks, and from the building blocks you can craft things like a SG Base Computer, Transporters, base control sytems and defenses. From interview, Cryptic is planning on expanding the crafting into the crafting of temp super powers. And introduction a factior that will require the temp powers to defeat in combat.
The way PvP have been implemented do bring player skill to the forefront. Character's levels are raised/lowered to the same level as they enter the zone. There are no level differences. Now players with higher level characters will have something of an edge in terms of more abilites and more enhancerment. But it isn't that overpowering an edge in PvP combat.
There are griefers in the zones, but they effects are great minimized. There are no death penalties for being defeated in PvP combat. And there are consequences for continually picking on players with much less capable characters than your own.
The amount and quality of the graphics been increased in City of Villains. In addition, they've taken advantage of video feature of new video cards such as Water effects, Bloom and Depth of View. Yes these new feature require a higher end system, but you can turn off/down these settings and run it on a more modest system.
Yes. You can enter the PvP zones if you just have City of Heroes. And FYI, there are 3 PvP zone. 2 are Hero vs Villain only and the 3rd is a free-for-all zone. And their are goal related play in the zones as well. In you can can collector and refine meteor sample to get a temp power to summon a nifty pet, in another zone it's a battle for control of the zone between the NPC forces of Paragon City and the Rogue Islands. Players can affect the outcome of these battle. If you side can control the zone, you unlock a store where you can purchase temp powers.
Having City of Villains enables (in addition to the CoV game) getting 4 more characters slots (total 12) per servers and enables being able to build SuperGroup bases on the CoH side of the house.
I just can't sit this one out. First off you are correct Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Ergo the Matter and Energy of the Universe has been here since the Beginning of Time. The Beginning of Time according to latest Cosmological Theories is the moment of the Big Bang. Now where did all of the stuff of the Big Bang come from? What was before? We can't know because that it was before time zero. We don't know based upon out current scientific knowledge and theories. But not knowing doesn't invalidate the First Law of Thermodynamics.
And in regards to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you left off one big qualifier "Within a closed system...". At the scale of the entire Cosmos, the Universe is a closed system. If there Universe remains the same or keeps expanding, at some far, far point in the future the Universe will have achived Unity; Entropy equal to one; a dead, dark, lifeless universe.
Now on a much smaller scale and smaller system, lets take the Earth for example. According to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics a closed system will tend towards entropy. Now what is a closed system? A closed system is one in which energy is neither being added nor subtracted. Guess what? The Earth is NOT a closed system. There is an enormous amount of energy being added to the Earth from a local thermonuclear furnace (That would be the Sun for the less cluefull.) Any added energy into a system drives the Entropy of the system down to towards 0.
Well, yes, but those fair use priveleges exist by statute. (And they are privileges, not "rights".) Hence, the RIAA wants the statutes changed.
Wrong!!! Fair use, First Sale Doctrine, et al. are rights. (Sorry if this comes on a bit strong. But I care very deeply about these things.)
The Constitution gives a limited time monolopy to Inventions and Writings. The wording is very explicit. The Inventors and Creators have complete control over their work. Yet the US Constitution also gives the Right of Free Speech. "Congress shall pass no laws...". That wording is very explicit. Those two clauses of the US Constitution are at odds with each other. You cannot ignore one nor the other. So over time, the Courts have crafted and tweaked a number of legal doctrines. And in time Congress codified those doctrines into law.
Fair use, First Sale Doctrine, et al are statutory embodiments of our Right to Free Speech. So Fair Use is very much a "right". So many people tend to forget the genesis of these things.
That situation reaks! It really sounds like the IRS would classify you as an employee of the company you are working at. Part of the classifications that the IRS use for determinating employee vs. contractor is controls. As a contractor the company should have very little say in when, how and where you work.
Your statement is false. It is not discrimination because EVERY state has the opportunity to accept or reject the law.
And your point is irrelevant. States do NOT have the right of refusal for paying the money that goes into those Federal programs. So it is discrimatory. You don't play ball, you don't any of the monies, that you paid in, back.
First Sale Doctrine definately does apply in the case of my loaning MY CD to anyone else. A CD is just like a book. It is my property. I can fold, spindal, mutilate, playing, listen, frisbee, rip, time shift, and whatever else I think think up. The only rights the copyright own still keeps are the copy right and public performance.
The statutes that you are citing apply to those activity for commercial gain. Notice there are movie rental stores all over the place in the US. But also note there is not a single place where you can rent any type of music media (CD, albums, singles, etc.) Well you can thank the RIAA and the record labels for getting that little nugget added into the law.
Yet we can buy used music CDs. We thanks to the First Sale Doctrine. Thank goodness past courts did 'get it' when it comes to the copyright laws and the Constitution. My faith in current day courts have taken a lo of bruising.
You betcha this is complete and utter protection n a lawsuit. The law and courts have said that the conveying of the copyright or any other rights have to be in a written, clear and unambiguous. That copyright notice and License Agreement meets that those qualifiactions.
They can go into court and move for request a summary judgement and attorney's fees. I'd said that the Judge will grant it in record time.
Slashdot Mirror
He was going for something much more. But he has score a very significant victory none the less. The nation has decended into paranoia and being phobic about everything little thing.
Baloney. Unless they make me sign an agreement, I OWN the software. I own the software, which means I can use the software. I think Blizzard only has a leg to stand on legally for WoW is that you access their game service. That can required an agreement to you must abide by in order to access the service. Before or after I stop paying for and accessing the server, it's my software, I can use/run it as I please. (Although I will admit that WoW w/o a game server isn't all that useful.)
Ummm. Excuse me, but I seem to recall a little company called [b]Netscape[/b] bringing the Internet of today to the masses. Microsoft at the time dismissed the Internet and TCP/IP in general. Then, the Internet growth exploded and use of the Web growing as well, and Netscape's Browser was the most widely used. Microsoft had to do a complete 180 and get in on the action. Windows at the time did NOT have a TCP/IP stack, not a Web Brower they could call their own. Then when the Web, Mozilla the browser and Java as the application stack were evolving to make the underlying Operating System irreleveant. Microsoft had an "OHS NOS" panic and pulled the shenanigans to drives Netscape into the ground. They got into Anti Trust trouble (upheld on appeal) in the Federal Courts to whom Microsoft is still under the heels of.
Publishers have tried that crap for much long then you've and I've been alive. Books used to have boilerplate in them that said that you could not re-sell the book that you purchased. Their argument was just as your's is. "Use it my way, take it or leave it." Well that didn't site right with folks and they sued in court. What arose was a court decision that was later codified into law. It's called the First Sale Doctrine. It goes like this. According to the copyright privilege granted by law, you can dictate how you works are sold, marketed, used, etc. BUT after a work is SOLD to a costumer all of your rights to that particular copy are severed except for the copy right and public performance (if applicable). A publisher can't tell me I can read my book on Sundays before church. Nor can one tellme I can't listen to a CD I bought while flying cross country from one coast to the other. Nor can any say I can't lone my copy of said work to a friend. Nor can they prevent me from selling my copy of that work to someone else. And should also go without saying that if I sell a work, I need to delete or give to sellee, all of my fair use copies of that work. After I don't have it any more.
Now if I've not purchased a copy of a work, the copyright holders have a lot more control over how I peruse the work, for example pay per view events or cable network programs. But the right's holders rights are not absolute. I give you the Sony Betamax decision. Basically as a result of the decision it was not infringing for viewers to time shift programs (tape then when they aired, and then viewed them at a later date).
A better way to think about Fair Use is that the FU affirmative defense is an embodiment of our Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Rights. The Fair Use and First Sale Doctrines arose out of the tension between the Copy Right and Free Speech/Press clauses in the Constitution. On their face they are totally at odds with each other. But since both are in the Consitution you can't ignore one of the other. Hence, we have the limitations on the copyright monopoly that have been created by the Courts and in part codified into law by Congress. The Copright/Free Speech tango goes on even today: Sony Beatmax and Creative Rio decisions, DMCA, etc.
However I will agree that it had been ground down a lot in the past few decades.
However if a webcaster choses to negotiate with a music copyright holder, and they come to terms, it's a non-statutroy license. SoundExchange can't get involved music under those type of licenses. The terms can be whatever both sided agree to. You can even ignore those silly restrictions on information display, interactivity with listners, time restrictions, etc.
What the article says thats wrong is that copyright holder can give their music away for free, and can't allow webcasters to use it for free. That's flat out wrong. SoundExchange can't stop that or even try to collect royalties for it. That would be interfence with the copyright holder's rights. I've love to see SoundExchance attempt to take that to court. Can you say "Crash and Burn!"
In regards to GPL'd/GFDL'd/CCL'd music, those are non-statutory licenses. The terms are already laid out. No need to negotiate. As longer as your agree to and follow the terms of the license, your use the music. And you can tell SoundExchance to go F... themselves.
As being a former contract developer it's all in the contact negotiation. If you have a standard set of code that you use in your contracting assignment, you make it part of the contract that you use code that you have developed, you maintain the copyright to that code. The client gets non-exclusive a license to use and even modify you code, but only on conjunction with running and maintain the contracted software. You can even make the license transferable attached to the contacted softwared as an assset. If the software if transfered or sold as an asset, the license for your code goes along with it. You have to be totally upfront about it, in that it saves them money as it's coding time they don't have to pay for.
Maemo-mapper is the mapping program the post referred to. I'm using a Pharon Bluetooth GPS receiver, a BT Internet enabled phone, and the N800 w/ maemo-mapper and flite. It's got all the functionaly of a GPS naviation unit. It's performed as well as M$ Streets and Trips in terms of map GPS resolution accuacy. I going try to nagivate using that combo on my next road trip.
I can't recall the name of the software, but what it's using is way better then XStroke. It uses a natural handwriting recognition. You can you writing the letters natrually using multiple strokes, and it will recognize them. Writing a captial E using a [ type stroke and then a short - to complete and viola. Or do a capiotal a with /, \ , - strokes or a ^ and - strokes. Or you can train it to use you recognize your handwriting.
The distribution of the Ipaq eventually mutated into a Debian variant. In fact most of the packages were stripped down .deb packages into a lighter weight package format. Any programs which could run on a smaller screen (and with no keyboard and lesser mouse controls ;) ), you could run on the Ipaq. Heck, if the Ipaq was networked you could using remote X your Ipaq application windows over to your desktop machines. So I would not say fork, it's more like the desktop OS on a diet.
Sheesh. Doesn't anyone actually take the time to read and understand the US Constitution? We don't need to extrapolate, guess, nor look at it by squnting our eyes. The US Constitution does include ALL of our rights. It says so explicitly. I direct everyone to the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I think there should be some mandatory remedial Civics classes that people need to attend from time to time. And I include federal judges in that list as well. I think people tend to foundations the US was built on. Judges get caught up with seeing all of the trees of the forest and don't really see the forest.
Ah yes, I did get my terms mixed up. I'm always mixing Depth of View and Point of Field together in my head.
There is now limited crafting in the game. For now it revolved around the Super/Vilain Group Bases. You craft raw material (which are drop in combat), basic building blocks, and from the building blocks you can craft things like a SG Base Computer, Transporters, base control sytems and defenses. From interview, Cryptic is planning on expanding the crafting into the crafting of temp super powers. And introduction a factior that will require the temp powers to defeat in combat.
There are griefers in the zones, but they effects are great minimized. There are no death penalties for being defeated in PvP combat. And there are consequences for continually picking on players with much less capable characters than your own.
The amount and quality of the graphics been increased in City of Villains. In addition, they've taken advantage of video feature of new video cards such as Water effects, Bloom and Depth of View. Yes these new feature require a higher end system, but you can turn off/down these settings and run it on a more modest system.
Having City of Villains enables (in addition to the CoV game) getting 4 more characters slots (total 12) per servers and enables being able to build SuperGroup bases on the CoH side of the house.
And in regards to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you left off one big qualifier "Within a closed system...". At the scale of the entire Cosmos, the Universe is a closed system. If there Universe remains the same or keeps expanding, at some far, far point in the future the Universe will have achived Unity; Entropy equal to one; a dead, dark, lifeless universe.
Now on a much smaller scale and smaller system, lets take the Earth for example. According to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics a closed system will tend towards entropy. Now what is a closed system? A closed system is one in which energy is neither being added nor subtracted. Guess what? The Earth is NOT a closed system. There is an enormous amount of energy being added to the Earth from a local thermonuclear furnace (That would be the Sun for the less cluefull.) Any added energy into a system drives the Entropy of the system down to towards 0.
Wrong!!! Fair use, First Sale Doctrine, et al. are rights. (Sorry if this comes on a bit strong. But I care very deeply about these things.)
The Constitution gives a limited time monolopy to Inventions and Writings. The wording is very explicit. The Inventors and Creators have complete control over their work. Yet the US Constitution also gives the Right of Free Speech. "Congress shall pass no laws...". That wording is very explicit. Those two clauses of the US Constitution are at odds with each other. You cannot ignore one nor the other. So over time, the Courts have crafted and tweaked a number of legal doctrines. And in time Congress codified those doctrines into law.
Fair use, First Sale Doctrine, et al are statutory embodiments of our Right to Free Speech. So Fair Use is very much a "right". So many people tend to forget the genesis of these things.
That situation reaks! It really sounds like the IRS would classify you as an employee of the company you are working at. Part of the classifications that the IRS use for determinating employee vs. contractor is controls. As a contractor the company should have very little say in when, how and where you work.
And your point is irrelevant. States do NOT have the right of refusal for paying the money that goes into those Federal programs. So it is discrimatory. You don't play ball, you don't any of the monies, that you paid in, back.
The statutes that you are citing apply to those activity for commercial gain. Notice there are movie rental stores all over the place in the US. But also note there is not a single place where you can rent any type of music media (CD, albums, singles, etc.) Well you can thank the RIAA and the record labels for getting that little nugget added into the law.
Yet we can buy used music CDs. We thanks to the First Sale Doctrine. Thank goodness past courts did 'get it' when it comes to the copyright laws and the Constitution. My faith in current day courts have taken a lo of bruising.
They can go into court and move for request a summary judgement and attorney's fees. I'd said that the Judge will grant it in record time.
I plead lack of caffeine. I posted about 1/2 hour after I woke up, and I didn't have my first injestion of caffeine for the day.