* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Nonwithstanding that the bootleg itself would not fall under fair use, I should think one could make an argument for the screenshots falling under the parody clause of fair use. They don't take all that much from the film, do they? Maybe AOL-TW would say the screens are a parody of the illegal bootleg and not the original movie, but they could as easily be construed the other way, no? I'd be interested to see WB's e-mail.
Let's give Taco what he asked for and all flood his inbox (or the inbox of whoever posts the next dupe) next time this happens--then maybe we'll see a little change.:-)
The two stories were posted 1:34 hours apart...I daresay it's reasonable to expect Taco to check if the story's been posted in a time interval that big. If one were posted almost immediately after the other I'd be more forgiving.
During these hostile and trying times and what-not, OpenBSD may your family's only line of defense! Only line of def-def-def...Only line of def-def-de-df-df-df-df!
Be sure to download the openBSD theme songs if you haven't already.:-)
I thought this was a troll at first, but it appears not to be.
Is it right to elect the CEO of a major corporation as president? Corporations have more than enough political power in America as it is. Something like this blatantly caters to vested interests. I suppose this isn't much worse wrt vested interests than electing Bush as president in light of his interests in the oil business, but that doesn't legitimize doing it again. I would regard a major industry leader running for president with deep suspicion. Even if he/she ostensibly broke off all ties with his/her company and the industry, I am doubtful they would be able to eliminate any and all bias.
You have no idea how deeply this offends all us other Michael Robertson's. We would like to issue a collective apology for our kinsman, who seems to have given us a a bad name. Appropriate actions will be taken to silence him.
-Michael Robertson
"As we read the framers' instruction, the copyright clause empowers Congress to determine the intellectual property regimes that, over all, in that body's judgment, will serve the ends of the clause..."
Perhaps she meant to say the end of the clause. That would make more sense in my mind, since Congress seems more disposed to disposing of it than 'serving its ends.'
Why would I want to do that? My AMD dual-functions very well as a space heater, thank you very much.
Looks like the submitter messed up on the URL--the RACHAL link should be http://www.computerexhaust.com
I must say I was rather upset with the quality of the linked to reviews. The most annoying thing was that few, if any, of the reviewers appear to have read the books. The authors of the reviews on comingsoon.com and salon.com plainly state that they had not read the trilogy (although at least they are honest). It seemed fairly obvious the author of the slate article, which read more like poorly written flaimbait than a decent review, hadn't read the series and didn't plan to: "I didn't learn all these damn names to be deprived of a big finale." Not to mention "If I have misspelled or mischaracterized any of the above, please send corrections to eatme@Idontgiveashit.com." Shouldn't one expect more from professional journalism?
Not reading/viewing a work a film is based on no doubt gives one a less biased perspective and lets one view a film as a film, not as something to be constantly compared to its parent work. However, having read the orginal also gives one a richer understanding of the derivative, and in this case comparisons are inevitable and almost necessary, in light of how the movie was intended to hold as true to the book as possible. Not having read Tolkien's saga prevents one from making any judgements as to whether the film in this succeeded, and in the end limits one's perspective on the film as a whole.
The film itself, by the way, was excellent. A great improvement on the first, IMHO. Go see it for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone want to make a screensaver of that? :-)
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Nonwithstanding that the bootleg itself would not fall under fair use, I should think one could make an argument for the screenshots falling under the parody clause of fair use. They don't take all that much from the film, do they? Maybe AOL-TW would say the screens are a parody of the illegal bootleg and not the original movie, but they could as easily be construed the other way, no? I'd be interested to see WB's e-mail.
Let's give Taco what he asked for and all flood his inbox (or the inbox of whoever posts the next dupe) next time this happens--then maybe we'll see a little change. :-)
The two stories were posted 1:34 hours apart...I daresay it's reasonable to expect Taco to check if the story's been posted in a time interval that big. If one were posted almost immediately after the other I'd be more forgiving.
During these hostile and trying times and what-not, OpenBSD may your family's only line of defense! Only line of def-def-def...Only line of def-def-de-df-df-df-df!
:-)
Be sure to download the openBSD theme songs if you haven't already.
Glancing at a few of his comments and the google cache of his webpage(?), I'd say he's serious. Ah, well, stuff like this is good once in a while.
"It's funny. Laugh."
I thought this was a troll at first, but it appears not to be.
Is it right to elect the CEO of a major corporation as president? Corporations have more than enough political power in America as it is. Something like this blatantly caters to vested interests. I suppose this isn't much worse wrt vested interests than electing Bush as president in light of his interests in the oil business, but that doesn't legitimize doing it again. I would regard a major industry leader running for president with deep suspicion. Even if he/she ostensibly broke off all ties with his/her company and the industry, I am doubtful they would be able to eliminate any and all bias.
Now, Stallman, on the other hand...;p
You have no idea how deeply this offends all us other Michael Robertson's. We would like to issue a collective apology for our kinsman, who seems to have given us a a bad name. Appropriate actions will be taken to silence him. -Michael Robertson
"As we read the framers' instruction, the copyright clause empowers Congress to determine the intellectual property regimes that, over all, in that body's judgment, will serve the ends of the clause..."
Perhaps she meant to say the end of the clause. That would make more sense in my mind, since Congress seems more disposed to disposing of it than 'serving its ends.'
Tom7's haiku still takes the cake with regards to brevity:
The OS/2 chunk
has a bit for embedding.
Set it to zero.
52, by my count, counting spaces--beat that!
Why would I want to do that? My AMD dual-functions very well as a space heater, thank you very much.
Looks like the submitter messed up on the URL--the RACHAL link should be http://www.computerexhaust.com
www.progressquest.com I know it changed mine.
I must say I was rather upset with the quality of the linked to reviews. The most annoying thing was that few, if any, of the reviewers appear to have read the books. The authors of the reviews on comingsoon.com and salon.com plainly state that they had not read the trilogy (although at least they are honest). It seemed fairly obvious the author of the slate article, which read more like poorly written flaimbait than a decent review, hadn't read the series and didn't plan to: "I didn't learn all these damn names to be deprived of a big finale." Not to mention "If I have misspelled or mischaracterized any of the above, please send corrections to eatme@Idontgiveashit.com." Shouldn't one expect more from professional journalism? Not reading/viewing a work a film is based on no doubt gives one a less biased perspective and lets one view a film as a film, not as something to be constantly compared to its parent work. However, having read the orginal also gives one a richer understanding of the derivative, and in this case comparisons are inevitable and almost necessary, in light of how the movie was intended to hold as true to the book as possible. Not having read Tolkien's saga prevents one from making any judgements as to whether the film in this succeeded, and in the end limits one's perspective on the film as a whole. The film itself, by the way, was excellent. A great improvement on the first, IMHO. Go see it for yourself.