Copyright doesn't stop you from using what you already obtained legally. It only stops you from distributing additional copies.
Violating the GPL doesn't stop you from using the software. It would only forbid *distribution* of additional copies, and under copyright law you don't have any distribution rights anyway.
So if they voided the EULA by failing to uphold their side of it, you would still be able to use the software according to normal copyright law (which allows resale, fair use, etc.).
The Supreme Court case that clarified the First Sale Doctrine had to do with sales of books.
Those book sales do not require any formal "title and ownership" in order for the First Sale Doctrine to be applicable. You pay your money, you walk out with the book, and the sale is complete; you own that copy of the book and can do anything with it except what is normally prohibited under copyright law.
What it is about software that causes it to be a "license" that requires additional "title and ownership" before First Sale rights can be exercised, when books don't have that restriction? Especially when the sale has already taken place before any agreement waiving those rights was presented to the customer?
This case has so many holes, I can't see how it can stand up to appeal. Unless the appeal judge(s) also smoke crack, like the judge in this case.
If you buy it, stop installing at the EULA, and attempt to get a refund within the 30 days but are refused, that should void the contract.
So go ahead, buy it, open it, and return it. If you get back your money, fine. If you don't get back your money, the agreement is broken by them and you can do whatever you want.
Cold is the absence of heat. So a vacuum can be cold.
Yes I know the temperature of the Hubble will vary wildly on both sides of zero degrees.
But you missed the point I was making, which is that 60 below in Antarctica is nothing compared to the sort of temperatures that have to be dealt with where the Hubble is.
"For a while there I could get three new movies every week quite reliably, but now they've started playing games: I'm sure the movies don't take any longer to come and go, but instead of three days each way it's becoming four and five and even six days from the time I send in my movies until I see the next "arriving soon" notices in my email. At this rate I'm going from "about 12 movies a month" for $23 to maybe 9 and possibly as few as six."
Nostalgia can be ruined by pushing quantity over quality. Since they'll be packing 85 games on the disk, there will be little incentive for players to play any one game for long enough to "master" it.'
They pack 85 games on it so you can find 5 or 10 that you actually like. And of course, not everybody will like the same 5 or 10.
If a journal wants to own all the publication rights for a piece of taxpayer-funded research, allow them to do that if they agree to refund the taxpayers for whatever amount the government spent on the research.
The amount of funding isn't the issue, it's the method of funding.
The more patents they approve is the more people and corporations that will apply for patents. The more applications they get, the more money they receive.
The system promotes a cycle in which they approve patents easily because they don't have the staff to do sufficient reviews, and the increased approval rates attract more patent applications, which makes it even more difficult to do sufficient reviews.
There needs to be an incentive to reject stupid patents. Any patent overturned in court should have the court costs paid by the patent office, and/or the examiner(s) who approved it should be somehow penalized.
"The reason most geeks don't want to manage is simple..It is HARDER than coding."
Management is not harder than coding per se. It is just harder for geeks whose talents and interests are more suited for coding. Most managers don't want to code, because for them it is HARDER than managing.
I would have loved one of these
on
Handtop Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Back when I was a consultant traveling around the place. Lugging that big ol' laptop around the city, in crowded subways, on airplanes, up stairs, etc. was a big annoyance.
With one of these handtops I'd be able to carry it in one hand like a book or even in my jacket pocket. And when on airplane I could easily stuff it into a backpack with my other stuff instead of carrying a separate Targus bag.
I'm not doing the consulting thing any more, but if I ever do it again I'd definitely look into getting a handtop.
"But until then, yes, the producer of a work has a monopoly on its distribution, and can sell pieces of that monopoly (regional distribution agreements) for whatever the market will bear."
Copyright does not give the producer a monopoly on distribution, it gives them a monopoly on copying. Copyright law doesn't control forms of distribution that don't involve making new copies, such as selling used discs or importing legally manufactured DVDs from another country. Ever heard of the doctrine of First Sale which was upheld by the Supreme Court?
Continued employment is insufficient consideration because the employer still retains the right to fire or lay off the employee at any time after signing (I remember reading about this reason being specifically given by the judge in a case). It's only if the continued employment was for a guaranteed nontrivial period that it might be deemed to be adequate consideration.
That is what the US government says about the terrorists.
But it would be more accurate to say that the US government hates other countries' freedoms. That's why they use military and economic muscle and deception to coerce other countries into passing legislation that removes freedoms from the citizens.
Australia already has IP in the form of trademarks, copyrights and patents. Making their IP stronger isn't necessary to create jobs or increase tax revenue.
"Second, turning in an implementation is both redundant (you already have to be able to implement the invention to file for a patent) and doesn't force the inventor to use it."
No you don't have to have an implementation to get a patent in the US. You just have to write about it. There are patents on things like antigravity and other stuff that may forever remain impossible.
"There is no reason to ever change the RDBMS once the application is put into production. If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
As long as the database vendor doesn't jack up licensing costs by 100%. It has happened before, and they do it because they know that their customers lock themselves in.
"No, you socialist twit. The only reason I don't work in a sweatshop is because technology and productivity as a result of that technology do not require it of me."
But the reason why that productivity-enhancing technology became available is because "overregulation" forced businesses to invest in technology so they could increase per-person productivity to a level that would support the higher wages and reduced hours.
When it is cheaper to increase production by hiring another batch of $1/day workers than it would cost to buy more sophisticated equipment and train the workers, they choose to hire another set of $1/day workers and per-person productivity remains low. That's why in many low-wage countries they still use outdated techniques and tools that are grossly inefficient on a per-person basis but are cost-efficient on a per-dollar basis.
"But when you're handing out IT support and the workers must have access to sensitive financial and proprietory information to do their job, this has to be something that crosses a managers mind."
Managers have little incentive to care. If the outsourcing company leaks customer information, it's the customers who suffer -- not the manager or the company that chose to outsource.
As far as trade secrets and other things that could hurt the company are concerned, they probably don't outsource those as much, and when they do, again the manager doesn't get penalized because nobody knows where the secret leaked from.
"The only people who will be safe will be those who don't consume the products of the RIAA/MPAA and others."
Not so simple. You want to play that home-burned CD from the local garage band? Sorry, because of this bill you can no longer purchase CD players that will play CDs that aren't digitally signed and encrypted by the copyright authorities. Only devices that play nothing but DRM'd MPAA/RIAA stuff will be legal.
"The short answer is, people are still paying money for that product."
People are still paying money for the product only because the law distorts the market by forcing the public to still keep paying for it if they want to access to it.
If the law was such that construction workers (or worse, construction companies) had to continue to be paid for 50+ years for use of the houses they built, and they also get paid for derivative works made by other people (e.g. future room additions), then people would be still paying them for the houses after 50 years.
The software and hardware industry and other industries have expanded greatly because of the Internet, and the Internet is mostly based on open source implementations of protocols, operating systems, and web/email servers.
It is just too bad for Microsoft that their products compete so closely with open source.
You can keep your trade secrets. Just leave me and other people alone to produce what we want without lawsuits. That freedom is much more valuable than learning a trade secret.
"However, just because something is simple does not mean that it is obvious."
I know that simple is not the same as obvious. Which is why I deliberately used the word "simple". My point is that if it is simple enough that somebody else is willing and able to implement it in a few weeks without the incentive of a patent and without knowing the details of the patent application, then the proposed invention does not need the incentive of a patent for it to see the light of day, even if it is nonobvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright doesn't stop you from using what you already obtained legally. It only stops you from distributing additional copies.
Violating the GPL doesn't stop you from using the software. It would only forbid *distribution* of additional copies, and under copyright law you don't have any distribution rights anyway.
So if they voided the EULA by failing to uphold their side of it, you would still be able to use the software according to normal copyright law (which allows resale, fair use, etc.).
The Supreme Court case that clarified the First Sale Doctrine had to do with sales of books.
Those book sales do not require any formal "title and ownership" in order for the First Sale Doctrine to be applicable. You pay your money, you walk out with the book, and the sale is complete; you own that copy of the book and can do anything with it except what is normally prohibited under copyright law.
What it is about software that causes it to be a "license" that requires additional "title and ownership" before First Sale rights can be exercised, when books don't have that restriction? Especially when the sale has already taken place before any agreement waiving those rights was presented to the customer?
This case has so many holes, I can't see how it can stand up to appeal. Unless the appeal judge(s) also smoke crack, like the judge in this case.
If you buy it, stop installing at the EULA, and attempt to get a refund within the 30 days but are refused, that should void the contract.
So go ahead, buy it, open it, and return it. If you get back your money, fine. If you don't get back your money, the agreement is broken by them and you can do whatever you want.
"But, you are getting something in return: A right to use their software.. ( presumably that is something of value, sometimes its debatable )"
You already paid for the right to use the software when you paid the purchase price. Otherwise, what were you paying for? The packaging?
Cold is the absence of heat. So a vacuum can be cold.
Yes I know the temperature of the Hubble will vary wildly on both sides of zero degrees.
But you missed the point I was making, which is that 60 below in Antarctica is nothing compared to the sort of temperatures that have to be dealt with where the Hubble is.
"I doubt too it would be easy to maintain in the winter, where there is NO light for 6 months, at minus 60 something Celcius..."
In case you aren't aware, the temperature in space where the Hubble sits is colder than -200 Celsius.
"For a while there I could get three new movies every week quite reliably, but now they've started playing games: I'm sure the movies don't take any longer to come and go, but instead of three days each way it's becoming four and five and even six days from the time I send in my movies until I see the next "arriving soon" notices in my email. At this rate I'm going from "about 12 movies a month" for $23 to maybe 9 and possibly as few as six."
There is experimental evidence that suggests Netflix progressively slows down their service to you when you rent more and more movies from them.
Nostalgia can be ruined by pushing quantity over quality. Since they'll be packing 85 games on the disk, there will be little incentive for players to play any one game for long enough to "master" it.'
They pack 85 games on it so you can find 5 or 10 that you actually like. And of course, not everybody will like the same 5 or 10.
If a journal wants to own all the publication rights for a piece of taxpayer-funded research, allow them to do that if they agree to refund the taxpayers for whatever amount the government spent on the research.
The amount of funding isn't the issue, it's the method of funding.
The more patents they approve is the more people and corporations that will apply for patents. The more applications they get, the more money they receive.
The system promotes a cycle in which they approve patents easily because they don't have the staff to do sufficient reviews, and the increased approval rates attract more patent applications, which makes it even more difficult to do sufficient reviews.
There needs to be an incentive to reject stupid patents. Any patent overturned in court should have the court costs paid by the patent office, and/or the examiner(s) who approved it should be somehow penalized.
"The reason most geeks don't want to manage is simple..It is HARDER than coding."
Management is not harder than coding per se. It is just harder for geeks whose talents and interests are more suited for coding. Most managers don't want to code, because for them it is HARDER than managing.
Back when I was a consultant traveling around the place. Lugging that big ol' laptop around the city, in crowded subways, on airplanes, up stairs, etc. was a big annoyance.
With one of these handtops I'd be able to carry it in one hand like a book or even in my jacket pocket. And when on airplane I could easily stuff it into a backpack with my other stuff instead of carrying a separate Targus bag.
I'm not doing the consulting thing any more, but if I ever do it again I'd definitely look into getting a handtop.
"But until then, yes, the producer of a work has a monopoly on its distribution, and can sell pieces of that monopoly (regional distribution agreements) for whatever the market will bear."
Copyright does not give the producer a monopoly on distribution, it gives them a monopoly on copying. Copyright law doesn't control forms of distribution that don't involve making new copies, such as selling used discs or importing legally manufactured DVDs from another country. Ever heard of the doctrine of First Sale which was upheld by the Supreme Court?
Continued employment is insufficient consideration because the employer still retains the right to fire or lay off the employee at any time after signing (I remember reading about this reason being specifically given by the judge in a case). It's only if the continued employment was for a guaranteed nontrivial period that it might be deemed to be adequate consideration.
As usual, IANAL.
That is what the US government says about the terrorists.
But it would be more accurate to say that the US government hates other countries' freedoms. That's why they use military and economic muscle and deception to coerce other countries into passing legislation that removes freedoms from the citizens.
Australia already has IP in the form of trademarks, copyrights and patents. Making their IP stronger isn't necessary to create jobs or increase tax revenue.
"Second, turning in an implementation is both redundant (you already have to be able to implement the invention to file for a patent) and doesn't force the inventor to use it."
No you don't have to have an implementation to get a patent in the US. You just have to write about it. There are patents on things like antigravity and other stuff that may forever remain impossible.
"There is no reason to ever change the RDBMS once the application is put into production. If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
As long as the database vendor doesn't jack up licensing costs by 100%. It has happened before, and they do it because they know that their customers lock themselves in.
"No, you socialist twit. The only reason I don't work in a sweatshop is because technology and productivity as a result of that technology do not require it of me."
But the reason why that productivity-enhancing technology became available is because "overregulation" forced businesses to invest in technology so they could increase per-person productivity to a level that would support the higher wages and reduced hours.
When it is cheaper to increase production by hiring another batch of $1/day workers than it would cost to buy more sophisticated equipment and train the workers, they choose to hire another set of $1/day workers and per-person productivity remains low. That's why in many low-wage countries they still use outdated techniques and tools that are grossly inefficient on a per-person basis but are cost-efficient on a per-dollar basis.
"But when you're handing out IT support and the workers must have access to sensitive financial and proprietory information to do their job, this has to be something that crosses a managers mind."
Managers have little incentive to care. If the outsourcing company leaks customer information, it's the customers who suffer -- not the manager or the company that chose to outsource.
As far as trade secrets and other things that could hurt the company are concerned, they probably don't outsource those as much, and when they do, again the manager doesn't get penalized because nobody knows where the secret leaked from.
"The only people who will be safe will be those who don't consume the products of the RIAA/MPAA and others."
Not so simple. You want to play that home-burned CD from the local garage band? Sorry, because of this bill you can no longer purchase CD players that will play CDs that aren't digitally signed and encrypted by the copyright authorities. Only devices that play nothing but DRM'd MPAA/RIAA stuff will be legal.
"The short answer is, people are still paying money for that product."
People are still paying money for the product only because the law distorts the market by forcing the public to still keep paying for it if they want to access to it.
If the law was such that construction workers (or worse, construction companies) had to continue to be paid for 50+ years for use of the houses they built, and they also get paid for derivative works made by other people (e.g. future room additions), then people would be still paying them for the houses after 50 years.
The software and hardware industry and other industries have expanded greatly because of the Internet, and the Internet is mostly based on open source implementations of protocols, operating systems, and web/email servers.
It is just too bad for Microsoft that their products compete so closely with open source.
You can keep your trade secrets. Just leave me and other people alone to produce what we want without lawsuits. That freedom is much more valuable than learning a trade secret.
"However, just because something is simple does not mean that it is obvious."
I know that simple is not the same as obvious. Which is why I deliberately used the word "simple". My point is that if it is simple enough that somebody else is willing and able to implement it in a few weeks without the incentive of a patent and without knowing the details of the patent application, then the proposed invention does not need the incentive of a patent for it to see the light of day, even if it is nonobvious.