I may not want my work to be remixed by anyone, and if I decline permission, your whole effort will be wasted. Thus, with DRM or without, it will make sense to get consent before moving forward. If you are so sure I will approve for promotion of my own name or otherwise, then get permission.
Tough. Compulsory Licensing forces people to have the right to make remixes. If you don't want your work to be remixed by anyone, then don't publish it. All they have to do is tell you they're doing it and then send you royalties (I believe there's a statutory rate for that, or a different contract can be agreed to).
If they're trying to make any technology that can be used for copying illegal, then we lose VCRs, copiers, printers, scanners, sound cards with line-in, tape recorders, keyboards, glasses (they can help someone read a book that they might copy!), paper, and writing utensils. Welcome to the Stone Age!
yeah, he is. He even bolded the key phrase to clue you in to the fact that he was joking, I guess that wasn't enough for you. Oh well, bold AND italics next time
So what you're saying is this guy held up a multi billion dollar industry for twenty years for the sake of 3 million in royalities. If anything, this is a great example of why patents are so evil.
RFID is coming into use now because
manufacturing costs are down
Microchip technology has improved, making them smaller
Computer technology has improved, making them more useful.
Those seem to be mor pressing reasons than royalties for why RFID is just starting to come into use. Besides, wouldn't we have seen a big surge just when the patent expired to use RFID?
right, but one customer won't stay and pay. The usefulness of a network is proportional to the square of the number of users. Lose enough users, and it becomes not worth it for those left to stay and pay.
Speaking of watermarking, I've never understood how such schemes would work properly if two watermarks were added to the same piece of music successively. How would it react?
How would Just-in-time compilers and interpreters work? If I understand this correctly, you can't write data to executable areas of memory, but then how do you run instructions that are written to memory!?!? Could someone explain?
actually... birth also has a 100% death rate. Thankfully, that disease usually takes 70+ years to finally kill it's victim. Unfortunately, though, It appears that 90+% of the population is infected.
umm... you were the one throwing an accusation of them being insincere, so I'd expect you to be able to provide something to back it up. I've yet to see/hear anything to suggest that they are not honorable
Wouldn't a company who is claming the Anti-Evil high ground have been doing this from day one??????
They have been. only ads they allow are text ads. Now do you have any examples of Google NOT following those principles, even before they were published?
the person owning the higher-level domain has the rights to domains below it. i.e. microsoft has rights to anything such as foo.microsoft.com, etc. None of the public registrars have rights to sell those
I think you misunderstood what this is doing. This has the government sue people, but the RIAA et al get the money. The peoeple pay for the lawyers for the corporations, basically
There are two issues the industry is facing. The first is piracy, where people sell illegal copies of movies at a lower cost and give no compensation to the producers. The second is downloading, where consumers want to see a movie (probably poor quality) before plunking down $20 to buy the DVD. The one that costs the industry money is the first, not the second. But they're addressing the second. It seems like this program is counterproductive. Instead of getting people to reject piracy, they're trying to get people to reject downloading. This is a message that is more likely to get ignored, and as a result people are more willing to pirate movies. After all, "if I'm breaking the law already, I might as well make some money off of it"
Slashdot Mirror
Tough. Compulsory Licensing forces people to have the right to make remixes. If you don't want your work to be remixed by anyone, then don't publish it. All they have to do is tell you they're doing it and then send you royalties (I believe there's a statutory rate for that, or a different contract can be agreed to).
If they're trying to make any technology that can be used for copying illegal, then we lose VCRs, copiers, printers, scanners, sound cards with line-in, tape recorders, keyboards, glasses (they can help someone read a book that they might copy!), paper, and writing utensils. Welcome to the Stone Age!
yeah, he is. He even bolded the key phrase to clue you in to the fact that he was joking, I guess that wasn't enough for you. Oh well, bold AND italics next time
RFID is coming into use now because
- manufacturing costs are down
- Microchip technology has improved, making them smaller
- Computer technology has improved, making them more useful.
Those seem to be mor pressing reasons than royalties for why RFID is just starting to come into use. Besides, wouldn't we have seen a big surge just when the patent expired to use RFID?right, but one customer won't stay and pay. The usefulness of a network is proportional to the square of the number of users. Lose enough users, and it becomes not worth it for those left to stay and pay.
grep -r '^TODO:' source/
so complex.
And yet, I find it amusing that so many of the people who wish to comment on America's educational system commit so many glaring errors.
Teh Amreican Edumacational sistem is dubm!
Ehts, netwairking, aetho
as for usr, that's been explained as UNIX System Resources, not short for user, a bit of a coincidence there
Speaking of watermarking, I've never understood how such schemes would work properly if two watermarks were added to the same piece of music successively. How would it react?
How would Just-in-time compilers and interpreters work? If I understand this correctly, you can't write data to executable areas of memory, but then how do you run instructions that are written to memory!?!? Could someone explain?
it is a point of view that is bizarre to most people, hence needs to be justified, otherwise the mod was correct
You should consider using your powers of observation and judgement of character
And you should use yours to detect humor
actually... birth also has a 100% death rate. Thankfully, that disease usually takes 70+ years to finally kill it's victim. Unfortunately, though, It appears that 90+% of the population is infected.
The problem is that there are too many zombies. With MyDoom I immediately saw a jump in SPAMs I get. I get a couple messages an hour on one account.
Filter on custom header Content-Type. multipart/mixed implies a message with attachments
but the tinfoil hat crowd will most likely scream and shout about their privacy being invaded.
As the spokesperson for the tinfoil hat crowd... "OUR PRIVACY IS BEING INVADED!!!!!!!"
it's the default. so just type pine and it's set up to not download images
umm... you were the one throwing an accusation of them being insincere, so I'd expect you to be able to provide something to back it up. I've yet to see/hear anything to suggest that they are not honorable
They have been. only ads they allow are text ads. Now do you have any examples of Google NOT following those principles, even before they were published?
the person owning the higher-level domain has the rights to domains below it. i.e. microsoft has rights to anything such as foo.microsoft.com, etc. None of the public registrars have rights to sell those
That's the most ridiulous PR assertation I've seen in, well, the last 5 minutes at least.
Did you just finish reading a SCO press release 5 minutes ago or something?
I think you misunderstood what this is doing. This has the government sue people, but the RIAA et al get the money. The peoeple pay for the lawyers for the corporations, basically
Oops. I couldn't remember the word for it. You're right. (even though I disagree with such a negative word associated with file sharing)
There are two issues the industry is facing. The first is piracy, where people sell illegal copies of movies at a lower cost and give no compensation to the producers. The second is downloading, where consumers want to see a movie (probably poor quality) before plunking down $20 to buy the DVD. The one that costs the industry money is the first, not the second. But they're addressing the second. It seems like this program is counterproductive. Instead of getting people to reject piracy, they're trying to get people to reject downloading. This is a message that is more likely to get ignored, and as a result people are more willing to pirate movies. After all, "if I'm breaking the law already, I might as well make some money off of it"