FAQs don't make authoritative links for legal arguments. Sure, they can save you a little typing of repetitive points, but they don't constitute proof on their own.
Just because it's hosted by a government webserve doesn't make it trustworthy- government agencies have often twisted selective laws in their own favor. (Similarly, the GPL FAQ on GNU.org makes a few claims that are directly in violation of the text of its own licenses)
Law codes or legal rulings count as evidence, but copyright.gov is barely more authoritative than your own postings.
Copying, according to the letter of the law, is making a physical copy, not downloading.
Congratulations! So now, by downloading the file, you've not only infringed copyright law, but lost ownership of your whole hard drive.
The disk to which you download is certainly a material object... in which the work is fixed... and can be percieved, reproduced, and communicated.
(If you later burn a CD-R, then the work is even more strongly "fixed")
If, as you seem to imply, digital files to not constitute "copies" (even though they are of necessity held on SOME material device), then uploading and downloading would be equally legal.
If you save this HTML page to your local disk drive, you'd have a hard time convincing someone you didn't copy it.
An argument can be made that a download isn't copying, that the file has to be copied by the server and the client is just storing the copy it receives. An argument can also be made that the copy is made by the client, because the server is just reading the file like it would any other file.
Actually, both the uploader and downloader sides make multiple copies of the file during the process of transmitting it from one place to another. But most of those files are just temporary. Once everything's done, the only copy that's kept around is the one written by the download software.
Depending on how you view things, you could say that both the sender and reciever are copying the file, cooperatively. Or you could interpret it as the reciever making a copy that the sender has distributed. But either way, both sides are violating the law.
The truth is, copyright went down the tubes when the courts supported a software copyright holder giving a license to copy the program for the purposes of executing it on the computer.
Oh, you're British? Or Australian?
Because the courts of the USA ruled the opposite. Americans CAN execute programs without agreeing to EULAs. (Specifically, they have the right to "make temporary copies necessary to view the work in the most normal way")
Copyright infringement is when you infringe on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
Yep.
So, no it's not illegal to download copyrighted material from an unauthorized distributer.
Nope. That's infringing on the copyright holder's right to authorize all copying.
Before you download a file, there are N copies in existence. After you download, there are N+1. Therefore you, by downloading, made a copy. Therefore you have infringed copyright. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
The rights controlled by a copyright holder, by the way, are: to reproduce the work, to create derivative works, to distribute copies, to perform publically, to display publically, or to transmit digital audio.
Arguably, a downloader is only infringing 1 of those rights, while an uploader is violating 2 of them... but they're still both lawbreakers.
The Napster decision is what determined that uploading is illegal, but downloading is not.
Uh, no. The Napster case didn't touch either of those.
It found that intentionally promoting uploading was illegal. Just because one trial didn't call something illegal doesn't make it legal! Kodak v Polaroid didn't find murder illegal, so I'm going to kill you...
Downloading is legal, always has been, and hopefully always will be.
Wrong. Neither "uploading" or "downloading" is mentioned by name in the US law. What's illegal is "copying", and both uploading and downloading are forms of copying.
I often see people argue that downloading a file isn't copying. THEY must be the crackheads...
I'd like to follow up on this, please cite the relevant sections of copyright law.
Sure, if you're in the USA. Look at the Copyright Act of 1976, section 106.
Copyright holders have the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords
That means that without permission, making a copy of a protected work is illegal. When you download a file from someplace, you are making a copy of it on your own hard drive.
(If you upload a file somewhere, you are making a copy of it on a remote hard drive. And if you share a file on Kazaa, then both the uploader and downloader are cooperating together to make that one copy, which is illegal for both of them)
Some people try to claim that only the person doing the uploading is making copies, but that just doesn't hold up. If I run a web server and then walk away, no copies are made until people start downloading. One copy per download. By placing the file in a downloadable place, I am an accessory to copyright infringement (which may get you in just as much trouble), but the infringement hasn't happened until someone downloads.
The only way you could seriously argue that the reciever of infringing copies was innocent was if they had somehow gotten onto his computer without his help (like if they came in unsolicited email attachments)
That's far short of binary compatability across time.
Wrong. Linux upholds binary compatibility for userspace applications across time. (Watch what he does when someone proposes to remove obselete syscalls... those things stick around FOREVER, in the name of "Don't break userspace")
What Linus doesn't support is compatibility for binary kernel modules.
Or at least the ones on which you will be responsible for installing and maintaining the system and software.
No, it's not obvious. If a person has a user account on a Linux computer, and is able to place files there, mark them as executable, and run them, then he SHOULD be able to install packages as well.
The user can do the workaround of manually extracting the package with an archiver tool and then moving around the contents to appropriate positions- but there is no good reason to disallow someone from running rpm or dpkg to install programs to ~/bin.
but you're more likely to encounter this standard than not.
And that's not true. Most Linux systems don't have them. Maybe within the realm of what YOU encounter, it's true. But that's your limitation, then.
Like a consistent set of tools and binary compatibility?
Desktop Windows runs on only one CPU system, as opposed to 7 (or more?) CPUs compatible with Linux.
But within a CPU family, binary compatibility can happen today, without any "consistent set of tools". Application developers can release statically linked, zero-dependency packages if they wish.
A completely different standard for securing tires to your car that varies from model to model or something a little standardized?
Considering that I said "vehicle" and not car, and that airplanes have drastically different tyre needs than an automobile, I'd prefer the solution that allows air-travel to remain safe. That means non-standardized.
Re:Not to self-aggrandize...
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
Condorcet is really impressive in practice. It's too bad no one has managed to apply it where it really matters.
The core flaw of Condorcet is the name. Few people have even heard that word before- and if they do know what it means, they probably still can't guess how the voting works.
IRV has the serious advantage (in terms of ever being implemented in major elections) because just saying the words "Instant Runoff" enables an average listener to deduce how it works: "Ok, like a runoff vote, but instantaneously... so we must vote our second choices ahead of time."
(Of course, IRV is not really like a runoff, because in a traditional runoff you wouldn't have to pre-buffer all your votes. You pick your 2nd choice only after the loser of the first round is known, giving a stabler result)
If God had a known mailing address, then absolutely yes, He would get lawsuits!
I think Microsoft has a case when they claim that they did not have much of a choice because in the old days
If they had no choice, then they wouldn't today have a choice to offer Service Packs to fix these things. But the fact is, they do usually fix security holes after they're found- meaning they could've done it better the first time, if they had enough incentive.
Re:that's not true
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Furthermore, many members of a president's own party won't support a veto override
The president was a Democrat, and the Democratic party was a minority of Congress. Sonny Bono got upwards of 90% approval- there was no way a Clinton veto would stop it.
Hasn't distributions like Lindows and Xandros addressed these problems?
Yes they have, but they've got a small marketshare amoung Linux distribs. The reason Linspire & Xandros can solve these things easily is they're commercial, so they're not afraid of a few patent-license fees.
Distribs like Red Hat Fedora, on the other hand, intentionally remove standard multimedia apps from their normal package list, because of potential intellectual-property violations. Can't double-click to play an MP3 in Red Hat!
The underlying reason that it's (slightly) hard to install a DVD player on Linux is because of the DMCA. If DVD players weren't legally dubious, then all standard Linux distros would install them by default.
In the unix fashion, applications are dedicated to what they need to do.
Technically, none of what you're talking about are "applications". They are "utilities". An application is something that does real work- that you might actually buy a new computer just to run.
Utilities are things that help applications work.
It's insane (and sad) to call apt-get a "killer application".
That IN NO WAY hinders you, jusdisgi, from altering your distribution to do whatever wacky crap you feel necessary.
Do you even know what "distribution" means? We call them "distributions" because the whole focus of their work is "distributing" files; aka "packaging".
The argument to have a "standard package format" is exactly the same as asking for there to be only one distribution.
Distributions don't DO anything except handle packaging. That's their whole job.
That's not true at all. I listed an example of a distribution-wide "standard" in another post: the availability of basic command line tools like cd, ls, grep, cat, more, etc. You take these for granted, right?
False. There are plenty of Linux systems without those tools, and even without command lines at all.
You keep asking for "Linux" to have features needed only on interactive desktops ("workstations"). That's not what Linux is- it's not limited in the way (you think) Microsoft's Windows line is.
These are just basic, low-level issues that SHOULD be addressed so distributions can be compatible on a LOW level. They would still be free to be unique
Sorry, you don't even know what "LOW level" means.
All tyres should be 41 cm radius. That's just a basic, low-level issue that SHOULD be addressed so vehicles can be compatible on a LOW level. They would still be free to be unique.
can basically download any application installer and it will work on Windows
False. Photoshop will NOT install on Windows CE. There are DIFFERENT versions of Windows that are TOTALLY, 100% incompatible with each other.
"Linux in general" refers to a range of systems that can be even more different from each other than than WinXP is from WinCE. Asking them both to work with the same packages is STUPID.
My real-life windows are easily breakable with a brick 'exploit' and a robber could easily break in and steal my posessions, but that's not the fault of the glaziers.
It's not their fault because they couldn't have done anything better. Punishing the glaziers will not cause future windows to be any stronger.
In the case of Microsoft, they COULD have done better. Punishing the programmers will cause future software to be more secure.
Re:Intellectual Property is a Recent Invention
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
The only kind of "ip" which has existed from ancient times are trade secrets.
No. There's also heresy, by which the author of an unapproved derived version can be tortured and executed (often simultaneously).
That's a lot, but not yet enough to impact the upcoming election, especially since the readers are from all over the world, not just the US.
Maybe I haven't examined that long article closely enough- but although I find many descriptions of your desire to get it read prior to the federal election, I can nowhere see a suggestion as to which party or candidates you prefer.
Do you think it's too obvious to bear mentioning? I certainly can't see IP listed as a platform on either johnkerry.com or georgewbush.com*. The only occurence of "intellectual property" on either site is the same quote from John Kerry, where he excoriates China for bootlegging. Although, George W Bush has demonstrated a willingness to violate copyright in campaign advertisements... but he's a "do as I say, not as I do" fellow.
Or do you not have an opinion, and just want to "get out the vote" to encourage political engagement that could lead to future change?
* As a side note, I observed numerous and systematic HTML violations on georgewbush.com, which will surely influence my own vote!
They bloody well did. There were a couple dozen Japanese people who never got the orders and stayed in the jungles trying to fight, but that's about it.
Indeed, the murder rate for US soldiers occupying Germany in 1945 had them around 15x as likely to be killed by another American soldier as a German.
When a firm, well-disciplined hierarchy surrenders, they stay surrendered.
Re:those statistics don't tell everything
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
He was the single person in the best position to stop these laws, and he signed them into law.
Wrong. He had no ability to stop it. The Sonny Bono Act garnered more than 66% Congressional approval, enough to override any veto.
All Clinton could've done is delay things a few weeks, which would've been nothing more than a high-profile message. And while I'd have preferred if he took an anti-copyright stance on principle, his powers amounted to no more than the free speech belonging to each citizen (multiplied by his astounding fame)
The pace of technological change before the adoption of IP laws was non-existent.
At best, you conflate cause and effect. At worse... well, if your argument hadn't been couched in such absolute terms ("non-existent"), then it wouldn't have been completely destroyed by a 117 year error in measuring dates.
Strip away the protection of IP laws
Still pounding at that strawman, huh? Keep at it, he's on the ropes!
Slashdot Mirror
And you want a link for that? Sure, here it is.
FAQs don't make authoritative links for legal arguments. Sure, they can save you a little typing of repetitive points, but they don't constitute proof on their own.
Just because it's hosted by a government webserve doesn't make it trustworthy- government agencies have often twisted selective laws in their own favor. (Similarly, the GPL FAQ on GNU.org makes a few claims that are directly in violation of the text of its own licenses)
Law codes or legal rulings count as evidence, but copyright.gov is barely more authoritative than your own postings.
Copying, according to the letter of the law, is making a physical copy, not downloading.
... in which the work is fixed ... and can be percieved, reproduced, and communicated.
Congratulations! So now, by downloading the file, you've not only infringed copyright law, but lost ownership of your whole hard drive.
The disk to which you download is certainly a material object
(If you later burn a CD-R, then the work is even more strongly "fixed")
If, as you seem to imply, digital files to not constitute "copies" (even though they are of necessity held on SOME material device), then uploading and downloading would be equally legal.
If you save this HTML page to your local disk drive, you'd have a hard time convincing someone you didn't copy it.
An argument can be made that a download isn't copying, that the file has to be copied by the server and the client is just storing the copy it receives. An argument can also be made that the copy is made by the client, because the server is just reading the file like it would any other file.
Actually, both the uploader and downloader sides make multiple copies of the file during the process of transmitting it from one place to another. But most of those files are just temporary. Once everything's done, the only copy that's kept around is the one written by the download software.
Depending on how you view things, you could say that both the sender and reciever are copying the file, cooperatively. Or you could interpret it as the reciever making a copy that the sender has distributed. But either way, both sides are violating the law.
The truth is, copyright went down the tubes when the courts supported a software copyright holder giving a license to copy the program for the purposes of executing it on the computer.
Oh, you're British? Or Australian?
Because the courts of the USA ruled the opposite. Americans CAN execute programs without agreeing to EULAs. (Specifically, they have the right to "make temporary copies necessary to view the work in the most normal way")
Copyright infringement is when you infringe on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
Yep.
So, no it's not illegal to download copyrighted material from an unauthorized distributer.
Nope. That's infringing on the copyright holder's right to authorize all copying.
Before you download a file, there are N copies in existence. After you download, there are N+1. Therefore you, by downloading, made a copy. Therefore you have infringed copyright. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
The rights controlled by a copyright holder, by the way, are: to reproduce the work, to create derivative works, to distribute copies, to perform publically, to display publically, or to transmit digital audio.
Arguably, a downloader is only infringing 1 of those rights, while an uploader is violating 2 of them... but they're still both lawbreakers.
The Napster decision is what determined that uploading is illegal, but downloading is not.
Uh, no. The Napster case didn't touch either of those.
It found that intentionally promoting uploading was illegal. Just because one trial didn't call something illegal doesn't make it legal! Kodak v Polaroid didn't find murder illegal, so I'm going to kill you...
Downloading is legal, always has been, and hopefully always will be.
Wrong. Neither "uploading" or "downloading" is mentioned by name in the US law. What's illegal is "copying", and both uploading and downloading are forms of copying.
I often see people argue that downloading a file isn't copying. THEY must be the crackheads...
Sure, if you're in the USA. Look at the Copyright Act of 1976, section 106.
That means that without permission, making a copy of a protected work is illegal. When you download a file from someplace, you are making a copy of it on your own hard drive.
(If you upload a file somewhere, you are making a copy of it on a remote hard drive. And if you share a file on Kazaa, then both the uploader and downloader are cooperating together to make that one copy, which is illegal for both of them)
Some people try to claim that only the person doing the uploading is making copies, but that just doesn't hold up. If I run a web server and then walk away, no copies are made until people start downloading. One copy per download. By placing the file in a downloadable place, I am an accessory to copyright infringement (which may get you in just as much trouble), but the infringement hasn't happened until someone downloads.
The only way you could seriously argue that the reciever of infringing copies was innocent was if they had somehow gotten onto his computer without his help (like if they came in unsolicited email attachments)
That's far short of binary compatability across time.
Wrong. Linux upholds binary compatibility for userspace applications across time. (Watch what he does when someone proposes to remove obselete syscalls... those things stick around FOREVER, in the name of "Don't break userspace")
What Linus doesn't support is compatibility for binary kernel modules.
Or at least the ones on which you will be responsible for installing and maintaining the system and software.
No, it's not obvious. If a person has a user account on a Linux computer, and is able to place files there, mark them as executable, and run them, then he SHOULD be able to install packages as well.
The user can do the workaround of manually extracting the package with an archiver tool and then moving around the contents to appropriate positions- but there is no good reason to disallow someone from running rpm or dpkg to install programs to ~/bin.
but you're more likely to encounter this standard than not.
And that's not true. Most Linux systems don't have them. Maybe within the realm of what YOU encounter, it's true. But that's your limitation, then.
Like a consistent set of tools and binary compatibility?
Desktop Windows runs on only one CPU system, as opposed to 7 (or more?) CPUs compatible with Linux.
But within a CPU family, binary compatibility can happen today, without any "consistent set of tools". Application developers can release statically linked, zero-dependency packages if they wish.
A completely different standard for securing tires to your car that varies from model to model or something a little standardized?
Considering that I said "vehicle" and not car, and that airplanes have drastically different tyre needs than an automobile, I'd prefer the solution that allows air-travel to remain safe. That means non-standardized.
Condorcet is really impressive in practice. It's too bad no one has managed to apply it where it really matters.
The core flaw of Condorcet is the name. Few people have even heard that word before- and if they do know what it means, they probably still can't guess how the voting works.
IRV has the serious advantage (in terms of ever being implemented in major elections) because just saying the words "Instant Runoff" enables an average listener to deduce how it works: "Ok, like a runoff vote, but instantaneously... so we must vote our second choices ahead of time."
(Of course, IRV is not really like a runoff, because in a traditional runoff you wouldn't have to pre-buffer all your votes. You pick your 2nd choice only after the loser of the first round is known, giving a stabler result)
you don't get to sue God (or whatever deity)
If God had a known mailing address, then absolutely yes, He would get lawsuits!
I think Microsoft has a case when they claim that they did not have much of a choice because in the old days
If they had no choice, then they wouldn't today have a choice to offer Service Packs to fix these things. But the fact is, they do usually fix security holes after they're found- meaning they could've done it better the first time, if they had enough incentive.
Furthermore, many members of a president's own party won't support a veto override
The president was a Democrat, and the Democratic party was a minority of Congress. Sonny Bono got upwards of 90% approval- there was no way a Clinton veto would stop it.
overriding their party's leader.
The President is not the leader of his party.
Hasn't distributions like Lindows and Xandros addressed these problems?
Yes they have, but they've got a small marketshare amoung Linux distribs. The reason Linspire & Xandros can solve these things easily is they're commercial, so they're not afraid of a few patent-license fees.
Distribs like Red Hat Fedora, on the other hand, intentionally remove standard multimedia apps from their normal package list, because of potential intellectual-property violations. Can't double-click to play an MP3 in Red Hat!
The underlying reason that it's (slightly) hard to install a DVD player on Linux is because of the DMCA. If DVD players weren't legally dubious, then all standard Linux distros would install them by default.
In the unix fashion, applications are dedicated to what they need to do.
Technically, none of what you're talking about are "applications". They are "utilities". An application is something that does real work- that you might actually buy a new computer just to run.
Utilities are things that help applications work.
It's insane (and sad) to call apt-get a "killer application".
That IN NO WAY hinders you, jusdisgi, from altering your distribution to do whatever wacky crap you feel necessary.
Do you even know what "distribution" means? We call them "distributions" because the whole focus of their work is "distributing" files; aka "packaging".
The argument to have a "standard package format" is exactly the same as asking for there to be only one distribution.
Distributions don't DO anything except handle packaging. That's their whole job.
That's not true at all. I listed an example of a distribution-wide "standard" in another post: the availability of basic command line tools like cd, ls, grep, cat, more, etc. You take these for granted, right?
False. There are plenty of Linux systems without those tools, and even without command lines at all.
You keep asking for "Linux" to have features needed only on interactive desktops ("workstations"). That's not what Linux is- it's not limited in the way (you think) Microsoft's Windows line is.
These are just basic, low-level issues that SHOULD be addressed so distributions can be compatible on a LOW level. They would still be free to be unique
Sorry, you don't even know what "LOW level" means.
All tyres should be 41 cm radius. That's just a basic, low-level issue that SHOULD be addressed so vehicles can be compatible on a LOW level. They would still be free to be unique.
can basically download any application installer and it will work on Windows
False. Photoshop will NOT install on Windows CE. There are DIFFERENT versions of Windows that are TOTALLY, 100% incompatible with each other.
"Linux in general" refers to a range of systems that can be even more different from each other than than WinXP is from WinCE. Asking them both to work with the same packages is STUPID.
linux is the only OS to date where a user is expected to magically know the location of appropriate documentation,
And how about MacOS X, where the user must magically not need documentation, because it doesn't exist?
there's a solution to the DLL and .so hell -- mac OSX uses frameworks
That's no solution at all. You may as well just link the application statically, if you're going to have it use specific DLLs in a non-global place.
The advantages of dynamic linking are: (1) less disk space, (2) common upgrades.
Both static linking and "frameworks" lose those advantages, in exchange for (often) more reliable maintennance.
My real-life windows are easily breakable with a brick 'exploit' and a robber could easily break in and steal my posessions, but that's not the fault of the glaziers.
It's not their fault because they couldn't have done anything better. Punishing the glaziers will not cause future windows to be any stronger.
In the case of Microsoft, they COULD have done better. Punishing the programmers will cause future software to be more secure.
The only kind of "ip" which has existed from ancient times are trade secrets.
No. There's also heresy, by which the author of an unapproved derived version can be tortured and executed (often simultaneously).
That's a lot, but not yet enough to impact the upcoming election, especially since the readers are from all over the world, not just the US.
Maybe I haven't examined that long article closely enough- but although I find many descriptions of your desire to get it read prior to the federal election, I can nowhere see a suggestion as to which party or candidates you prefer.
Do you think it's too obvious to bear mentioning? I certainly can't see IP listed as a platform on either johnkerry.com or georgewbush.com*. The only occurence of "intellectual property" on either site is the same quote from John Kerry, where he excoriates China for bootlegging. Although, George W Bush has demonstrated a willingness to violate copyright in campaign advertisements... but he's a "do as I say, not as I do" fellow.
Or do you not have an opinion, and just want to "get out the vote" to encourage political engagement that could lead to future change?
* As a side note, I observed numerous and systematic HTML violations on georgewbush.com, which will surely influence my own vote!
They bloody well did. There were a couple dozen Japanese people who never got the orders and stayed in the jungles trying to fight, but that's about it.
Indeed, the murder rate for US soldiers occupying Germany in 1945 had them around 15x as likely to be killed by another American soldier as a German.
When a firm, well-disciplined hierarchy surrenders, they stay surrendered.
He was the single person in the best position to stop these laws, and he signed them into law.
Wrong. He had no ability to stop it. The Sonny Bono Act garnered more than 66% Congressional approval, enough to override any veto.
All Clinton could've done is delay things a few weeks, which would've been nothing more than a high-profile message. And while I'd have preferred if he took an anti-copyright stance on principle, his powers amounted to no more than the free speech belonging to each citizen (multiplied by his astounding fame)
Intellectual property laws were established in the 1740s and 1750s,
Wrong. The Statute of Monopolies was enacted in 1623.
The pace of technological change before the adoption of IP laws was non-existent.
At best, you conflate cause and effect. At worse... well, if your argument hadn't been couched in such absolute terms ("non-existent"), then it wouldn't have been completely destroyed by a 117 year error in measuring dates.
Strip away the protection of IP laws
Still pounding at that strawman, huh? Keep at it, he's on the ropes!