Is there really much difference between a web application running on a remote machine which presents it's users with a browser based interface and a normal X Window System client application running on a remote machine which presents it's users with an Xt/Qt/Gtk based interface?
The difference in practice is that on traditional installs, a person able to run X11 apps could also get to a command-shell or file-manager, and then could navigate over to the/usr/bin directory where the programs live, and make a copy of the binary. If that binary was GPL (which an interactive program must always mention in the splashscreen or about-box), then the user would know she has permission to redistribute the copy indefinately.
You are right in that the GPL does not expressly say "If you do not distribute the software, you do not have to distribute the source",
The answer to that is obvious, and is not what's being asked. The question here is "If you DO distribute the software, do you have a right to prohibit further redistribution?". And as GPL part 6 says pretty clearly, you cannot place additional restrictions after an authorized distribution.
Look hard at the description of that FAQ item: "Require Source Posted Public". The question it's answering is whether internal use obligates you to publish it to the world (it doesn't), which is separate from whether internal use obligates you to allow your employees to publish it under their own initiative (it does).
This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
Again, this doesn't answer the question. Certainly, if a few programmers modify some GPL code, their corporation isn't forced to create a website publishing that code to far and wide. But I argue they must permit that publication by their employees.
Situation A: My boss instructs me to edit Windows XP and hand it out to 10 co-workers. "Sorry boss, that would be copyright infringement. Get a specific contract with Bill Gates and we can do this"
Situation B: My boss instructs me to edit KDE and put it on 10 other computers. "Ok boss, that is legal according to the GPL, although me and anyone else with access to those files will be allowed to pass out further copies to whoever they want, and if you try to stop them we're back to copyright-infringement again"
Again, see how it is reiterated that unpublished or non-distributed modified derivative works are not required to release the source code of the modifications.
And once more, that's not the question.
Note that if my viewpoint is not accepted, then the GPL has been destroyed. Any other interpretations create a loophole the size of an aircraft-carrier. Want to put GPLed code into your proprietary software? Just declare that all customers are joining an "organization" when they place their order. (Such as incorporating a shell-company to for $200 in New Jersey). Then, go ahead and sell millions of copies of "Microsoft KDE", and deny customers their rights to source code because "you joined the organization, so this is all internal use".
No, the "horse's mouth" would be the GPL itself, or an attributed quote by Eben Moglen, or attribution to any person at all, or at the very least something with a smidgen of explaination beyond "I just said so".
This clarification tells us that in the licence "You" can apply to corporate entities, and that distribute means to third parties
That clarification is on the FSF's website. It is not valid or binding to any of the numerous non-FSF entities who attach the GPL to their software. Linux is bound only by the text of the GPL, not by random addenda published by other groups.
No, you haven't explained anything (you also paste much much too much irrelevant text; the ellipsis can be your friend!). Please try again- and especially, tell what you think "distribution" means, and why use by one corporation doesn't count.
Please note that if Wal-Mart buys 500,000 blue aprons and sends a carton to each store, they have technically "distributed" that material even if they haven't transferred ownership. In the English language, "distribution" applies as long as you are moving things around, even within a single organization.
If the licensee is a 3000-employee enterprise, the IT team is not obligated to distribute the changes to each employee as long as each employee is not permitted to take the software home (ie, if the firm is not distributing/licensing its changes to the employees).
What is your standard for decide this isn't "distribution"? Merely the fact that the recipients of the modified binaries haven't been given permission to take them elsewhere? That interpretation would render GPL-compliance wholely voluntary.
If that's the case, then exactly what stops me from modifying a GPL program like Mozilla and selling binary-only copies to random strangers?
If the licensee is a 3000-employee enterprise
Which is never the case. If a 3000-person enterprise walks into Fry's an buys a single copy of Microsoft Windows XP Professional, is "he" is really allowed to install it on 3000 PCs for "personal" use?
The goal of the GPL has always been to empower computer users to modify the programs they run: freedom for users and for code. RMS wanted to ensure that no author could be forced to pay for a modified copy of a program that he himself had released for free.
In the ancient past, there was no Internet, and it was uncommon for someone to run software without it having been distributed to her. But in the future, a greater and greater number of apps will be solely accessed on remote servers, with compute-subscription payment plans. Under GPLv2, the end-users would have no right to the code they're using. The initial goal has been failed.
Seirously, taken literally this says that if I run a webapp on a GPLed server or even a GPLed OS
That comment has no relationship to the actual GPLv3 proposal.
but seeing "the little guy" beat up on Microsoft is certainly better than, say, Microsoft holding this pattent and beating up on a little guy.
If this patent holds up past the Supreme Court, then Microsoft can BUY any little guy (everyone has a price, and they've got $50,000,000,000 sitting around). Then they'll beat up on all the medium-size guys with it, including Apple, Sun, Linux, AOL, IBM, etc. Hurray!
the company currently has the right not to distribute the changes (since it's only running on their own machines).
No, they don't. Keyword that you used is "machines", plural. If they edit the software, they naturally need to distribute the executable to all their different server machines.
That would be copyright infringement, unless they also distribute the source code to all those machines. And that means giving the employee who installs software on those machines permission to take the modified source home with her and post it on the internet.
They may NOT prohibit the employee from doing that, or they'd be in violation of GPL section 6:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
This is actually an interesting problem the GPLv3 could clarify. Assorted FSF members (but not RMS) have at various times suggested that they believe the GPL gives companies an execption for "internal use only", when it really doesn't. The confusion arises because the GPL uses the word "distribute" (which applies to internal installation) instead of "publish" (which is only the case if some member of the public gets it).
If the GPL really intends to allow hundreds of thousands of people to purchase modified copies of a GPLed program and not recieve the source just because the vendor spent $185 to incorporate a new company specifically to limit distribution, they should spell it out.
The existing GPLv2 contains a different loophole. In reading about GPLv3 planes, I haven't yet seen any effort by the FSF to close it, but I wonder if anyone else has more info.
The exploit is this: When you modify and distribute a GPL program, you must provide the recipient the source code, in one of three ways. Either you give an "offer" to supply the code anytime in the next 3 years, or you let her download it from the same system as the binary, or you ship the source along with the binary.
That 3rd choice provides the loophole, although it requires two cooperating people to abuse it. PersonA hires PersonB to modify the program, and give him 100s or 1000s of matched discs of binaries and source. PersonA then takes out all the source discs and grinds them into powder, and then sells the binary-only discs to customers.
He's allowed to do this because of "first sale" rights, which state that someone who legally recieved a copyrighted work can redistribute it, even in damaged or partial form. The customers are buying a modified GPL program, but they didn't get the source included, nor did they get an offer to request the source later.
Note 1: To keep the loophole working, PersonA can never duplicate binary discs himself to sell. That would be copyright infringment. He must always buy new pairs of discs from PersonB, and keep on trashing the source code- although rewritable media will make it more affordable)
Note 2: PersonA must trust PersonB, because PersonB is allowed to give out GPL copies to 3rd parties if he chooses. There is no way PersonA can prevent this, except by enticement of future profitable sales.
That would make it a derivative work, which is an exclusive right of the copyright holder.
Unlike the AC respondent said, this is a grey area. Technically it is a derivative work, as B read the original file into RAM, commented out a few lines, and then saved a copy of that RAM back into disk. (which is a derivative "reproduction" and thus a copyright infringement unless authorized)
However, that copy is not redistributed further, and may be temporary in nature (ie, if the patch is dynamically applied each time the program loads), so this activity might fall under a fair-use exception. It also closely resembles the "right of first sale", which allows someone who legally acquired a copyrighted copy to modify that one copy.
The existing GPL said that if the derivative code stayed in-house, then you didn't have to release your changes.
No, the GPL never said that. Many, many people have said so, including some FSF personnel, but the GPL text itself says nothing of the kind. (in fact, it implies the opposite for most circumstances). If you think otherwise, go ahead and paste where the GPL says this.
there's not really "legal murder" (besides gov't executions)
No, executions aren't "legal murder". The definition of murder is "The unlawful killing of one human". If it was following the law, it's not murder.
PS. This is it's impossible to translate the 6th Commandment into English. "Thou shall not kill" isn't right, because it includes plants and animals, but "shall not murder" is also incorrect, because it implies the government is always right. The original word, "ratsach", has no direct equivalent.
The revolution's controllers are laterally symmetrical. To enable left-handed use, all they need is a software toggle to swap the up/down left/right buttons on the controller.
And since the controller contains orientation-sensors, maybe the swap will happen automatically depending on how you hold it.
Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:
Correct, you may make a copy of the computer program. You may make the copy. If you make the backup from your own copy, you're fine. Downloading a copy from someone else is not allowed, according to the text you pasted.
Actually with a bit of effort I don't see any reason they couldn't transparently tunnel Trusted Network Connect(ions) through an ordinary router.
Well, yes they can do that, but only if there is at least one genuine Trusted computer as the endpoint. The person under discussion wants to operate his homebrew, non-audited Linux kernel.
The router is be unable to read or alter any of the encrypted data,
Routers, unlike hubs, do read the at least some of each packet coming through. Some router functions, especially NAT tricks, rely on reading application-level data, and will be blocked by encryption. Possibly even the destination headers could be somehow encrypted, although that does seem far-fetched.
But in general, if the data is heavily encrypted, then a fancy router becomes no more effective than a dumb hub: you are transparently tunnelling, but to little useful effect.
Fascinating. So you're saying that when I rip a CD that I own to my hard drive,
Of course not. That's a CD you own, not a TCP/IP packet reproduced from a CD you don't own.
And perhaps, also, when I reproduce the data from the disk into RAM for playback? Into the anti-skip buffer in my Discman? I don't think your understanding of copyright law is of the highest quality.
Copyright law gives certain "fair use" exceptions to the exclusive right to control reproduction. In particular, when a work is sold on a digital medium, the customer has implicitly been licensed to make whatever copies are necessary to view the work in the most normal way.
That's why you're allowed to load software into your computer memory, but there is no equivalent implicit license permitting you to download it off the internet.
If I'm horning in on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, I'm violating copyright. If I'm not, I'm not.
Yep, if you reproduce the work without permission, you're violating copyright. Downloading is reproduction. If you don't download, you're not violating.
What's so hard about this?
The only hard part is trying to guess why you act like you can't understand it. I'm leaning towards willful self-delusion.
What do you mean, "sped up or slower down" ? What kind of crazy ultra-high-quality anime do you watch that does this ?
No, anime that does that is low quality. It means that instead of paying an actor to do fifty takes of a single line to make it both sound good and match the video, they just do a few takes and then digitally arrange them to follow the face animation. A good, professional dubber like Disney movie corporation doesn't take cheap shortcuts like that.
Obviously, editing audio this way damages the emotional impact. The pitch changes a little bit (although the software is now pretty good at correcting for pitch). But changing the length and spacing of words is also an easy giveway that something is wrong. The speed of talking conveys emotion and attitude. And artificially inserted pauses between words is noticable as an awkward missed breathing pattern.
If you watch anime that has avoided these flaws, then you are a rather lucky one.
Or at least, I'm assuming it must be Maurice LaMarche. There's not many people who could be familiar enough with the voice acting business
Do you actually think CPM is in the same business as LaMarche or Chalk? Re-dubbing imported anime is a separate field from voicing original English cartoons*
Maurice and Gary do domestic productions. They don't dub anime, or at least I can't findany here. Conversely, most well-known anime VAs rarely work an original English cartoon. The two businesses seem to have mainly non-overlapping sets of actors.
And, the style of workflow is quite different. Original cartoons, for best results, will record the voices first and then draw animations to match (sometimes viewing the actor on video for guidelines). A little ad-libbing can be encouraged. For anime dubs, the process goes backwards, and the actors must struggle to talk in false voices while matching syllables to pre-existing face movements from a speaker in a different language. There are specific digital tools used for redubbing anime that have little place in original works, and which, though timesaving, cause noticable quality flaws.
* That's part of the problem with dubbed anime, actually. If they had some of the voice/directoral/editing talent from American cartoons, it would turn out better. A voice track should never be considered finished unless it's at least marginally entertaining to hear with your eyes closed.
One of our generation's most versatile and distinguished voice acting talents!
There definitely are. Crispin Freeman springs to mind...
Maybe he's had formal training. And looking at the length of his resume, his dubbing is a full-time job. But the proof is in the results: none of the handful of dubbed DVDs I have with him are even close to acceptable listening quality.
Maybe that's not his fault- maybe it's just impatient or incompetent voice directors. Or it might just be my untrustworthy personal opinion. But notice that in that long list of jobs, he doesn't have one cartoon originally made in America (aside from game cutscenes). If he were that great, he'd at least have guest shots on comedy and childrens' toons.
The English-speaking world will not get good dubbed anime until the voice actors for anime are the same bunch of people as domestic toons like Samurai Jack, Batman, and The Simpsons. You want to see a truely professional American voice actor? Just look at Harry Shearer. The good ones don't stoop to work anime episodes: they stick with Disney, Warner Bros, Fox, Pixar, and Cartoon Network.
Notice that my post was in present tense? The Army of 1969 is not the same as 2005. They don't spray Agent Orange, they don't draft high-school students, and they don't plant landmines outside of Korea. That's all ancient history. Indeed, part of the reason the US Army doesn't use landmines is the experience of the Vietnam conflict showed they were too dangerous to be worthwhile.
(They do use timed aerial bombs, which sometimes can be confused with a landmine if the fusing is defective, but they're still different things)
Non-lawsuits do not legality make. If you really own scratched CDs of the programs you are downloading, it is highly improbable that the publisher will proceed with a suit (as it would be bad publicity, and they could easily find a less-sympathetic defendant to target). Nonetheless, your action is still in violation of the letter of the law.
I'm claiming the downloader is in the clear.
He's not. The person is making a copy of a work to which she hasn't been authorized, which is illegal. The fact that that work is identical to one which she has purchased doesn't change things.
This principle can also be demonstrated by looking at the state of ROMs downloaded for game emulation- even if you own the original cartridge, it's still illegal.
No! Downloading IS reproducing the work. The sender reproduces the work into TCP/IP packets, which come to your computer where the downloader reproduces them from RAM to disk. By the time the download is finished, you've already made a copyright-infringing reproduction.
From that point on, you are about equally able to make further reproductions as if you had bought it on disk- but the fact that the situations come into parity later doesn't excuse the accomplished infringement.
No more or less than purchasing the work does.
In truth, downloading leaves you even MORE able to make further reproductions, because it implies that any anti-copying provisions built into the physical media have already been defeated.
And like a lot of security-oriented systems, it's not that secure if you have physical acccess to the machine.
How many people do you know who can tear apart a silicon microchip and draw a complete schematic? More importantly, how common are the labs they need to do that work?
Remember, you're talking about the same consortium here that tried to prevent us from copying CDs by putting an autorun.bat file on them. They're not that freakin' smart!:)
No, they're not the same people at all. But regardless, hoping that your enemies will be indefinately moronic is a foolish strategy. Even if they made stupid mistakes before, they will learn from them, hire smarter people, and eventually get a technology that is good enough.
Bzzt, sorry, thanks for playing. The GPL is not an EULA. Since normal Slashdot readers (except for ad) alreadyknow this, by claiming that it is you have forfeited your right to be taken seriously on any subject for the next 23 posts.
The GPL is a "License", but an EULA is (allegedly) an "Agreement". Quite different things: a license is a gift, but an agreement is a trade. Even the GPL text itself explains that it isn't an EULA:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted
Since "running" the program is unrestricted, you can be an "end user" of the software without agreeing to (or even being aware of) the GPL. Therefore, the GPL is not an End User License Agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there really much difference between a web application running on a remote machine which presents it's users with a browser based interface and a normal X Window System client application running on a remote machine which presents it's users with an Xt/Qt/Gtk based interface?
/usr/bin directory where the programs live, and make a copy of the binary. If that binary was GPL (which an interactive program must always mention in the splashscreen or about-box), then the user would know she has permission to redistribute the copy indefinately.
The difference in practice is that on traditional installs, a person able to run X11 apps could also get to a command-shell or file-manager, and then could navigate over to the
You are right in that the GPL does not expressly say "If you do not distribute the software, you do not have to distribute the source",
r eSourcePostedPublic
The answer to that is obvious, and is not what's being asked. The question here is "If you DO distribute the software, do you have a right to prohibit further redistribution?". And as GPL part 6 says pretty clearly, you cannot place additional restrictions after an authorized distribution.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequi
Look hard at the description of that FAQ item: "Require Source Posted Public". The question it's answering is whether internal use obligates you to publish it to the world (it doesn't), which is separate from whether internal use obligates you to allow your employees to publish it under their own initiative (it does).
This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
Again, this doesn't answer the question. Certainly, if a few programmers modify some GPL code, their corporation isn't forced to create a website publishing that code to far and wide. But I argue they must permit that publication by their employees.
Situation A: My boss instructs me to edit Windows XP and hand it out to 10 co-workers. "Sorry boss, that would be copyright infringement. Get a specific contract with Bill Gates and we can do this"
Situation B: My boss instructs me to edit KDE and put it on 10 other computers. "Ok boss, that is legal according to the GPL, although me and anyone else with access to those files will be allowed to pass out further copies to whoever they want, and if you try to stop them we're back to copyright-infringement again"
Again, see how it is reiterated that unpublished or non-distributed modified derivative works are not required to release the source code of the modifications.
And once more, that's not the question.
Note that if my viewpoint is not accepted, then the GPL has been destroyed. Any other interpretations create a loophole the size of an aircraft-carrier. Want to put GPLed code into your proprietary software? Just declare that all customers are joining an "organization" when they place their order. (Such as incorporating a shell-company to for $200 in New Jersey). Then, go ahead and sell millions of copies of "Microsoft KDE", and deny customers their rights to source code because "you joined the organization, so this is all internal use".
I'll go to the horse's mouth here
No, the "horse's mouth" would be the GPL itself, or an attributed quote by Eben Moglen, or attribution to any person at all, or at the very least something with a smidgen of explaination beyond "I just said so".
This clarification tells us that in the licence "You" can apply to corporate entities, and that distribute means to third parties
That clarification is on the FSF's website. It is not valid or binding to any of the numerous non-FSF entities who attach the GPL to their software. Linux is bound only by the text of the GPL, not by random addenda published by other groups.
Got it? IANAL & TINLA, but I am a paralegal.
No, you haven't explained anything (you also paste much much too much irrelevant text; the ellipsis can be your friend!). Please try again- and especially, tell what you think "distribution" means, and why use by one corporation doesn't count.
Please note that if Wal-Mart buys 500,000 blue aprons and sends a carton to each store, they have technically "distributed" that material even if they haven't transferred ownership. In the English language, "distribution" applies as long as you are moving things around, even within a single organization.
If the licensee is a 3000-employee enterprise, the IT team is not obligated to distribute the changes to each employee as long as each employee is not permitted to take the software home (ie, if the firm is not distributing/licensing its changes to the employees).
What is your standard for decide this isn't "distribution"? Merely the fact that the recipients of the modified binaries haven't been given permission to take them elsewhere? That interpretation would render GPL-compliance wholely voluntary.
If that's the case, then exactly what stops me from modifying a GPL program like Mozilla and selling binary-only copies to random strangers?
If the licensee is a 3000-employee enterprise
Which is never the case. If a 3000-person enterprise walks into Fry's an buys a single copy of Microsoft Windows XP Professional, is "he" is really allowed to install it on 3000 PCs for "personal" use?
The GPL covers distribution not use,
The goal of the GPL has always been to empower computer users to modify the programs they run: freedom for users and for code. RMS wanted to ensure that no author could be forced to pay for a modified copy of a program that he himself had released for free.
In the ancient past, there was no Internet, and it was uncommon for someone to run software without it having been distributed to her. But in the future, a greater and greater number of apps will be solely accessed on remote servers, with compute-subscription payment plans. Under GPLv2, the end-users would have no right to the code they're using. The initial goal has been failed.
Seirously, taken literally this says that if I run a webapp on a GPLed server or even a GPLed OS
That comment has no relationship to the actual GPLv3 proposal.
but seeing "the little guy" beat up on Microsoft is certainly better than, say, Microsoft holding this pattent and beating up on a little guy.
If this patent holds up past the Supreme Court, then Microsoft can BUY any little guy (everyone has a price, and they've got $50,000,000,000 sitting around). Then they'll beat up on all the medium-size guys with it, including Apple, Sun, Linux, AOL, IBM, etc. Hurray!
No, they don't. Keyword that you used is "machines", plural. If they edit the software, they naturally need to distribute the executable to all their different server machines.
That would be copyright infringement, unless they also distribute the source code to all those machines. And that means giving the employee who installs software on those machines permission to take the modified source home with her and post it on the internet.
They may NOT prohibit the employee from doing that, or they'd be in violation of GPL section 6:
This is actually an interesting problem the GPLv3 could clarify. Assorted FSF members (but not RMS) have at various times suggested that they believe the GPL gives companies an execption for "internal use only", when it really doesn't. The confusion arises because the GPL uses the word "distribute" (which applies to internal installation) instead of "publish" (which is only the case if some member of the public gets it).
If the GPL really intends to allow hundreds of thousands of people to purchase modified copies of a GPLed program and not recieve the source just because the vendor spent $185 to incorporate a new company specifically to limit distribution, they should spell it out.
The existing GPLv2 contains a different loophole. In reading about GPLv3 planes, I haven't yet seen any effort by the FSF to close it, but I wonder if anyone else has more info.
The exploit is this:
When you modify and distribute a GPL program, you must provide the recipient the source code, in one of three ways. Either you give an "offer" to supply the code anytime in the next 3 years, or you let her download it from the same system as the binary, or you ship the source along with the binary.
That 3rd choice provides the loophole, although it requires two cooperating people to abuse it. PersonA hires PersonB to modify the program, and give him 100s or 1000s of matched discs of binaries and source. PersonA then takes out all the source discs and grinds them into powder, and then sells the binary-only discs to customers.
He's allowed to do this because of "first sale" rights, which state that someone who legally recieved a copyrighted work can redistribute it, even in damaged or partial form. The customers are buying a modified GPL program, but they didn't get the source included, nor did they get an offer to request the source later.
Note 1: To keep the loophole working, PersonA can never duplicate binary discs himself to sell. That would be copyright infringment. He must always buy new pairs of discs from PersonB, and keep on trashing the source code- although rewritable media will make it more affordable)
Note 2: PersonA must trust PersonB, because PersonB is allowed to give out GPL copies to 3rd parties if he chooses. There is no way PersonA can prevent this, except by enticement of future profitable sales.
That would make it a derivative work, which is an exclusive right of the copyright holder.
Unlike the AC respondent said, this is a grey area. Technically it is a derivative work, as B read the original file into RAM, commented out a few lines, and then saved a copy of that RAM back into disk. (which is a derivative "reproduction" and thus a copyright infringement unless authorized)
However, that copy is not redistributed further, and may be temporary in nature (ie, if the patch is dynamically applied each time the program loads), so this activity might fall under a fair-use exception. It also closely resembles the "right of first sale", which allows someone who legally acquired a copyrighted copy to modify that one copy.
Judges could easily go either way on this.
The existing GPL said that if the derivative code stayed in-house, then you didn't have to release your changes.
No, the GPL never said that. Many, many people have said so, including some FSF personnel, but the GPL text itself says nothing of the kind. (in fact, it implies the opposite for most circumstances). If you think otherwise, go ahead and paste where the GPL says this.
Linux will get periodic random blue screens if you install xscreensaver with the bsod module. (Or, it may randomly be a Sad Mac or Guru Meditation)
there's not really "legal murder" (besides gov't executions)
No, executions aren't "legal murder". The definition of murder is "The unlawful killing of one human". If it was following the law, it's not murder.
PS. This is it's impossible to translate the 6th Commandment into English. "Thou shall not kill" isn't right, because it includes plants and animals, but "shall not murder" is also incorrect, because it implies the government is always right. The original word, "ratsach", has no direct equivalent.
The revolution's controllers are laterally symmetrical. To enable left-handed use, all they need is a software toggle to swap the up/down left/right buttons on the controller.
And since the controller contains orientation-sensors, maybe the swap will happen automatically depending on how you hold it.
Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:
Correct, you may make a copy of the computer program. You may make the copy. If you make the backup from your own copy, you're fine. Downloading a copy from someone else is not allowed, according to the text you pasted.
Actually with a bit of effort I don't see any reason they couldn't transparently tunnel Trusted Network Connect(ions) through an ordinary router.
Well, yes they can do that, but only if there is at least one genuine Trusted computer as the endpoint. The person under discussion wants to operate his homebrew, non-audited Linux kernel.
The router is be unable to read or alter any of the encrypted data,
Routers, unlike hubs, do read the at least some of each packet coming through. Some router functions, especially NAT tricks, rely on reading application-level data, and will be blocked by encryption. Possibly even the destination headers could be somehow encrypted, although that does seem far-fetched.
But in general, if the data is heavily encrypted, then a fancy router becomes no more effective than a dumb hub: you are transparently tunnelling, but to little useful effect.
Fascinating. So you're saying that when I rip a CD that I own to my hard drive,
Of course not. That's a CD you own, not a TCP/IP packet reproduced from a CD you don't own.
And perhaps, also, when I reproduce the data from the disk into RAM for playback? Into the anti-skip buffer in my Discman? I don't think your understanding of copyright law is of the highest quality.
Copyright law gives certain "fair use" exceptions to the exclusive right to control reproduction. In particular, when a work is sold on a digital medium, the customer has implicitly been licensed to make whatever copies are necessary to view the work in the most normal way.
That's why you're allowed to load software into your computer memory, but there is no equivalent implicit license permitting you to download it off the internet.
If I'm horning in on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, I'm violating copyright. If I'm not, I'm not.
Yep, if you reproduce the work without permission, you're violating copyright. Downloading is reproduction. If you don't download, you're not violating.
What's so hard about this?
The only hard part is trying to guess why you act like you can't understand it. I'm leaning towards willful self-delusion.
someone has not seen this!
I'd suggest this instead, but that'd be cheating.
What do you mean, "sped up or slower down" ? What kind of crazy ultra-high-quality anime do you watch that does this ?
No, anime that does that is low quality. It means that instead of paying an actor to do fifty takes of a single line to make it both sound good and match the video, they just do a few takes and then digitally arrange them to follow the face animation. A good, professional dubber like Disney movie corporation doesn't take cheap shortcuts like that.
Obviously, editing audio this way damages the emotional impact. The pitch changes a little bit (although the software is now pretty good at correcting for pitch). But changing the length and spacing of words is also an easy giveway that something is wrong. The speed of talking conveys emotion and attitude. And artificially inserted pauses between words is noticable as an awkward missed breathing pattern.
If you watch anime that has avoided these flaws, then you are a rather lucky one.
Or at least, I'm assuming it must be Maurice LaMarche. There's not many people who could be familiar enough with the voice acting business
Do you actually think CPM is in the same business as LaMarche or Chalk? Re-dubbing imported anime is a separate field from voicing original English cartoons*
Maurice and Gary do domestic productions. They don't dub anime, or at least I can't find any here. Conversely, most well-known anime VAs rarely work an original English cartoon. The two businesses seem to have mainly non-overlapping sets of actors.
And, the style of workflow is quite different. Original cartoons, for best results, will record the voices first and then draw animations to match (sometimes viewing the actor on video for guidelines). A little ad-libbing can be encouraged. For anime dubs, the process goes backwards, and the actors must struggle to talk in false voices while matching syllables to pre-existing face movements from a speaker in a different language. There are specific digital tools used for redubbing anime that have little place in original works, and which, though timesaving, cause noticable quality flaws.
* That's part of the problem with dubbed anime, actually. If they had some of the voice/directoral/editing talent from American cartoons, it would turn out better. A voice track should never be considered finished unless it's at least marginally entertaining to hear with your eyes closed.
One of our generation's most versatile and distinguished voice acting talents!
Who's the fanboy around here again?
There definitely are. Crispin Freeman springs to mind...
Maybe he's had formal training. And looking at the length of his resume, his dubbing is a full-time job. But the proof is in the results: none of the handful of dubbed DVDs I have with him are even close to acceptable listening quality.
Maybe that's not his fault- maybe it's just impatient or incompetent voice directors. Or it might just be my untrustworthy personal opinion. But notice that in that long list of jobs, he doesn't have one cartoon originally made in America (aside from game cutscenes). If he were that great, he'd at least have guest shots on comedy and childrens' toons.
The English-speaking world will not get good dubbed anime until the voice actors for anime are the same bunch of people as domestic toons like Samurai Jack, Batman, and The Simpsons. You want to see a truely professional American voice actor? Just look at Harry Shearer. The good ones don't stoop to work anime episodes: they stick with Disney, Warner Bros, Fox, Pixar, and Cartoon Network.
In December 1969
[Bzzzzt] IRRELEVANT.
Notice that my post was in present tense? The Army of 1969 is not the same as 2005. They don't spray Agent Orange, they don't draft high-school students, and they don't plant landmines outside of Korea. That's all ancient history. Indeed, part of the reason the US Army doesn't use landmines is the experience of the Vietnam conflict showed they were too dangerous to be worthwhile.
(They do use timed aerial bombs, which sometimes can be confused with a landmine if the fusing is defective, but they're still different things)
Lawsuits do not illegality make.
Non-lawsuits do not legality make. If you really own scratched CDs of the programs you are downloading, it is highly improbable that the publisher will proceed with a suit (as it would be bad publicity, and they could easily find a less-sympathetic defendant to target). Nonetheless, your action is still in violation of the letter of the law.
I'm claiming the downloader is in the clear.
He's not. The person is making a copy of a work to which she hasn't been authorized, which is illegal. The fact that that work is identical to one which she has purchased doesn't change things.
This principle can also be demonstrated by looking at the state of ROMs downloaded for game emulation- even if you own the original cartridge, it's still illegal.
No more or less than purchasing the work does.
No! Downloading IS reproducing the work. The sender reproduces the work into TCP/IP packets, which come to your computer where the downloader reproduces them from RAM to disk. By the time the download is finished, you've already made a copyright-infringing reproduction.
From that point on, you are about equally able to make further reproductions as if you had bought it on disk- but the fact that the situations come into parity later doesn't excuse the accomplished infringement.
No more or less than purchasing the work does.
In truth, downloading leaves you even MORE able to make further reproductions, because it implies that any anti-copying provisions built into the physical media have already been defeated.
And like a lot of security-oriented systems, it's not that secure if you have physical acccess to the machine.
:)
How many people do you know who can tear apart a silicon microchip and draw a complete schematic? More importantly, how common are the labs they need to do that work?
Remember, you're talking about the same consortium here that tried to prevent us from copying CDs by putting an autorun.bat file on them. They're not that freakin' smart!
No, they're not the same people at all. But regardless, hoping that your enemies will be indefinately moronic is a foolish strategy. Even if they made stupid mistakes before, they will learn from them, hire smarter people, and eventually get a technology that is good enough.
Bzzt, sorry, thanks for playing. The GPL is not an EULA. Since normal Slashdot readers (except for ad) already know this, by claiming that it is you have forfeited your right to be taken seriously on any subject for the next 23 posts.
The GPL is a "License", but an EULA is (allegedly) an "Agreement". Quite different things: a license is a gift, but an agreement is a trade. Even the GPL text itself explains that it isn't an EULA:
Since "running" the program is unrestricted, you can be an "end user" of the software without agreeing to (or even being aware of) the GPL. Therefore, the GPL is not an End User License Agreement.