I'm surprised that you don't realize that it's not what you will do, it's what you've done that matters in politics. If the population believes that Bush has done badly, he will not be elected. Similarly, if the population decides that Kerry was not sufficiently liberal/conservative/pro-business/anti-business/wh atever before he began to run for President, then Bush will not be elected. It's a simple game, and I think that you've misread the intelligence of the general public.
This is a red herring. While both sides of an issue will always cry out these sorts of statements, and so I won't mod you down. Instead, I'll try to post as middle-leaning a comment as possible.
These politicians that you are quoting are largely centrist Democrats, just like McCain is a centrist Republican. Therefore, their comments are actually null and void. Further, as this is a red herring, it does not excuse what the Bush administration has procured. It may have been a problem started with Clinton, or maybe one wants to traverse to the rise of Hussein to lay blame.
And now, I throw in a heart-felt statement. It doesn't take much to see that the United States has been imperialistic and an interventionist for more than a century, slowly moving to the level of World Police by the end of the second world war. Since that time, American troops have been deployed almost everywhere to serve to the "benefit" of society, when we usually just make things worse. British imperialism ultimately allowed Saddam Hussein to rise to power. So should we prosecute the British? No, and by that token we shouldn't prosecute our President. However, we need to learn from history and realize that imperialism and intervention only create more headaches that end up in imperialism and intervention (see World War I -> World War II for evidence).
Private companies are subject to the consumer. If consumers turn away from PayPal because they see it as a "sinful" company, then PayPal will have to make changes. Perhaps PayPal has received a fair number of suggestions and/or seen a drop in sales recently that have been attributed to their adult-industry clients, and as a result they have decided to drop-kick those companies from the PayPal database.
The money is technically in PayPal's name, so I assume that they are free to do with it what they please, as defined in the contracts that you "sign" by clicking the submit button.
Easier said than done, of course, since I'm still a student and looking to control the number of clients that I have. I currently am working on two websites, and that's even a bit too much, considering that I'm a full-time student and working part-time in the technology department for the local school district.
No, not necessary. However, I would block all incoming e-mails from unknown people, and for those that are not "in", provide them with a form on a website that would allow them to "join in". Please don't mistake this for a Verizon advertisement.
I rarely receive e-mails from more than a small group of people (hey, the web design world in North Dakota isn't exactly buzzing with potential clients), so it's no problem for me to first get the e-mail address of a client before I allow their incoming messages.
Yeah, you can rent an item as much as you want. That's the beauty of owning a copy of something, and that's exactly what you get when you buy a DVD. (Note, however, that when you rent a DVD, you can't in turn rent it yourself.)
With software, things are a bit different, as you technically do not own a copy, but rather a license for the software, this thanks to the EULAs that software titles carry. With the possibility of new rules in the digital rights field, I highly suspect that DVD and CD rights could be transformed to more closely align themselves with typical software EULAs, thereby even preventing a user to rent a CD to a friend. Seeing as it is as simple as five minutes with a CD ripper to make a copy of a copy, I don't see why copyright laws wouldn't shift to block the renting of DVDs/CDs.
...the legality of the actions taken. For, who actually owns the Olympic games? How can these rights be changed from country to country? I'm absolutely flustered by it all, especially since I thought that, in the first place, taking photos at an event was entirely legal.
I thought trademark was a right guaranteed with or without going through the trademark process. After her first "sale" (visit from an outsider), she would have held a trademark on her site.
Well, trade secrets are just that: secrets. They are only protected by law when someone steals the secret. Otherwise, they are entirely confidential within a company.
I did intend to write that a copyright can be reverse-engineered.
In this case, Real would be in violation of the software license on the iPod, and would not be infringing on the DMCA. I personally hate the sheer disgust associated with the DMCA, because it has its merits, even if it has a few shortcomings. The fact that ISP's can avoid complicity with just a few steps in crimes that are associated with the internet is awesome. The fact that it extends copyright law into areas previously viewed as fair use is a bit of a bummer, but that's what elections are for.
NOTE: Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have signed copyright laws into effect. Even the DMCA was signed under Clinton's presidency. So you'll have to vote Green or some other left-left-wing party if you want to revoke some of these laws.
You'll have to excuse that typo. I'm but a wee lad in the wide intellectual property world, and I must admit that aside from typos, there are probably a few factual errors in my post as well.
Yes, they are using AAC, but they are somehow binding their copy-protection to the songs. Does anyone have any clue as to their method? The way that they are going about this will likely make or break the legality of the entire issue. The license on the iPod is rather tough.
But then only if the user is reverse-engineering a copy-protection method. You are still allowed to make copies of a copyrighted work as long as the material is new to you (I know, I know, with exceptions, but as long as you can prove that you have done a reasonable level of work to bind yourself to the material, a near replica can still bear its own copyrights). Take the case of a photo. It's fairly easy to recreate a photo that bears a striking resemblance to an older photo. If I go to Mount Rushmore and take a few snaps with my camera, and it turns out that a photographer in Rapid City has the same shots, he can not sue me, as long as I have taken my steps to create an original work.
I'm glad I'm reading this stuff finally, and I recommend that you all buy a quick primer (if they exist) on intellectual property. If you had, you'd know that the DMCA only prevents reverse-engineering of copy-protection methods. It does not prevent reverse-engineering of patents, and it does not remove the originality clauses of older IP laws. Therein, the DMCA will still allow Real to do whatever they want with the iPod.
The only problem that I might see is a license violation for every user that installs these songs onto their iPod. After all, the iPod has a software license, I'm sure, that limits use, and it will be interesting to see if Real is breaking that contract. I don't know how they are binding the Helix copy protection to the iPod without installing software on top of the iPod, but if they have found a legitimate work-around, I congratulate them.
I believe it would apply to four active stereos, regardless of what material is being played. However, who knows? I certainly don't yet, as I'm but a student, and don't yet have a significant background on intellectual property. However, my guess is that each radio would be a public performance of a copyrighted work, and certainly the four-speaker law would indicate no more than four "public performances" per room.
Also, for buildings of those sizes and smaller, fees do not have to be paid. This makes sense, as small establishments are usually just that: small. Therefore they do not even likely have the money to pay licensing fees in the first place and are exempt.
But that makes an interesting point. It is fair use for a company to have two speakers playing music in their building to constitute fair use. At the same time, I can play the radio in my home under fair use. Does the IP law liken a small business to a home?
I'm a law student, and something stood out in one of my text books:
In the section "Playing music in a store or business", it lists that a fee must be paid in restaurants and bars 3,750 square feet or under and retail outlets of 2,000 square feet or under. Or the establishment must not have any more than six speakers throughout, and not more than four per room.
It's funny, my post probably just violated fair use, as I very nearly copied the sections without quotes. Fortunately, in my case, my intent is education not profit, and the base material is federal law, which isn't copyrighted. Though it'd still be worth an argument, as, both fortunately and unfortunately, fair use is subjective, and therefore victim to the interpretation of a judge of the week.
Again, this is a case of the small business getting lumped with Big Business. Just like Bush saying Edwards is against small businesses; well, no, he's not. He's against corporations that break the law.
Slashdot Mirror
The Sunny Bono copyright act served to modernize the United States copyright law. The United States was matching our law to EUROPE's.
"can say without hesitation that in my opinion, POS is still far superior."
If it's so great, why do you keep calling it a piece of shit?
I'm surprised that you don't realize that it's not what you will do, it's what you've done that matters in politics. If the population believes that Bush has done badly, he will not be elected. Similarly, if the population decides that Kerry was not sufficiently liberal/conservative/pro-business/anti-business/wh atever before he began to run for President, then Bush will not be elected. It's a simple game, and I think that you've misread the intelligence of the general public.
This is a red herring. While both sides of an issue will always cry out these sorts of statements, and so I won't mod you down. Instead, I'll try to post as middle-leaning a comment as possible.
These politicians that you are quoting are largely centrist Democrats, just like McCain is a centrist Republican. Therefore, their comments are actually null and void. Further, as this is a red herring, it does not excuse what the Bush administration has procured. It may have been a problem started with Clinton, or maybe one wants to traverse to the rise of Hussein to lay blame.
And now, I throw in a heart-felt statement. It doesn't take much to see that the United States has been imperialistic and an interventionist for more than a century, slowly moving to the level of World Police by the end of the second world war. Since that time, American troops have been deployed almost everywhere to serve to the "benefit" of society, when we usually just make things worse. British imperialism ultimately allowed Saddam Hussein to rise to power. So should we prosecute the British? No, and by that token we shouldn't prosecute our President. However, we need to learn from history and realize that imperialism and intervention only create more headaches that end up in imperialism and intervention (see World War I -> World War II for evidence).
Private companies are subject to the consumer. If consumers turn away from PayPal because they see it as a "sinful" company, then PayPal will have to make changes. Perhaps PayPal has received a fair number of suggestions and/or seen a drop in sales recently that have been attributed to their adult-industry clients, and as a result they have decided to drop-kick those companies from the PayPal database.
The money is technically in PayPal's name, so I assume that they are free to do with it what they please, as defined in the contracts that you "sign" by clicking the submit button.
Communism != Dictatorship
Dictatorship == Monarchy
Easier said than done, of course, since I'm still a student and looking to control the number of clients that I have. I currently am working on two websites, and that's even a bit too much, considering that I'm a full-time student and working part-time in the technology department for the local school district.
No, not necessary. However, I would block all incoming e-mails from unknown people, and for those that are not "in", provide them with a form on a website that would allow them to "join in". Please don't mistake this for a Verizon advertisement.
I rarely receive e-mails from more than a small group of people (hey, the web design world in North Dakota isn't exactly buzzing with potential clients), so it's no problem for me to first get the e-mail address of a client before I allow their incoming messages.
How on Earth are users supposed to choose between DVD-A and DVDA? It simply baffles me.
Yeah, you can rent an item as much as you want. That's the beauty of owning a copy of something, and that's exactly what you get when you buy a DVD. (Note, however, that when you rent a DVD, you can't in turn rent it yourself.)
With software, things are a bit different, as you technically do not own a copy, but rather a license for the software, this thanks to the EULAs that software titles carry. With the possibility of new rules in the digital rights field, I highly suspect that DVD and CD rights could be transformed to more closely align themselves with typical software EULAs, thereby even preventing a user to rent a CD to a friend. Seeing as it is as simple as five minutes with a CD ripper to make a copy of a copy, I don't see why copyright laws wouldn't shift to block the renting of DVDs/CDs.
...the legality of the actions taken. For, who actually owns the Olympic games? How can these rights be changed from country to country? I'm absolutely flustered by it all, especially since I thought that, in the first place, taking photos at an event was entirely legal.
I thought trademark was a right guaranteed with or without going through the trademark process. After her first "sale" (visit from an outsider), she would have held a trademark on her site.
Netware was a pain in the ass... thank god our school district is switching to this as soon as possible.
Well, trade secrets are just that: secrets. They are only protected by law when someone steals the secret. Otherwise, they are entirely confidential within a company.
I did intend to write that a copyright can be reverse-engineered.
In this case, Real would be in violation of the software license on the iPod, and would not be infringing on the DMCA. I personally hate the sheer disgust associated with the DMCA, because it has its merits, even if it has a few shortcomings. The fact that ISP's can avoid complicity with just a few steps in crimes that are associated with the internet is awesome. The fact that it extends copyright law into areas previously viewed as fair use is a bit of a bummer, but that's what elections are for.
NOTE: Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have signed copyright laws into effect. Even the DMCA was signed under Clinton's presidency. So you'll have to vote Green or some other left-left-wing party if you want to revoke some of these laws.
You'll have to excuse that typo. I'm but a wee lad in the wide intellectual property world, and I must admit that aside from typos, there are probably a few factual errors in my post as well.
Yes, they are using AAC, but they are somehow binding their copy-protection to the songs. Does anyone have any clue as to their method? The way that they are going about this will likely make or break the legality of the entire issue. The license on the iPod is rather tough.
But then only if the user is reverse-engineering a copy-protection method. You are still allowed to make copies of a copyrighted work as long as the material is new to you (I know, I know, with exceptions, but as long as you can prove that you have done a reasonable level of work to bind yourself to the material, a near replica can still bear its own copyrights). Take the case of a photo. It's fairly easy to recreate a photo that bears a striking resemblance to an older photo. If I go to Mount Rushmore and take a few snaps with my camera, and it turns out that a photographer in Rapid City has the same shots, he can not sue me, as long as I have taken my steps to create an original work.
I'm glad I'm reading this stuff finally, and I recommend that you all buy a quick primer (if they exist) on intellectual property. If you had, you'd know that the DMCA only prevents reverse-engineering of copy-protection methods. It does not prevent reverse-engineering of patents, and it does not remove the originality clauses of older IP laws. Therein, the DMCA will still allow Real to do whatever they want with the iPod.
The only problem that I might see is a license violation for every user that installs these songs onto their iPod. After all, the iPod has a software license, I'm sure, that limits use, and it will be interesting to see if Real is breaking that contract. I don't know how they are binding the Helix copy protection to the iPod without installing software on top of the iPod, but if they have found a legitimate work-around, I congratulate them.
I believe it would apply to four active stereos, regardless of what material is being played. However, who knows? I certainly don't yet, as I'm but a student, and don't yet have a significant background on intellectual property. However, my guess is that each radio would be a public performance of a copyrighted work, and certainly the four-speaker law would indicate no more than four "public performances" per room.
Also, for buildings of those sizes and smaller, fees do not have to be paid. This makes sense, as small establishments are usually just that: small. Therefore they do not even likely have the money to pay licensing fees in the first place and are exempt.
But that makes an interesting point. It is fair use for a company to have two speakers playing music in their building to constitute fair use. At the same time, I can play the radio in my home under fair use. Does the IP law liken a small business to a home?
I'm a law student, and something stood out in one of my text books:
In the section "Playing music in a store or business", it lists that a fee must be paid in restaurants and bars 3,750 square feet or under and retail outlets of 2,000 square feet or under. Or the establishment must not have any more than six speakers throughout, and not more than four per room.
It's funny, my post probably just violated fair use, as I very nearly copied the sections without quotes. Fortunately, in my case, my intent is education not profit, and the base material is federal law, which isn't copyrighted. Though it'd still be worth an argument, as, both fortunately and unfortunately, fair use is subjective, and therefore victim to the interpretation of a judge of the week.
Maybe they actually are both renaming.
Web ~= internet Software Update certainly accesses Apple's servers to find new updates.
No.... corporations did.
Again, this is a case of the small business getting lumped with Big Business. Just like Bush saying Edwards is against small businesses; well, no, he's not. He's against corporations that break the law.