And not just for the MPAA. Richard Stallman certainly doesn't want to see "original + binary patch" legally distinguished from "derivative work"! If CleanFlicks et. al. win this case, those who are presently seen as "GPL violators" could try to use the same technique and argument to get around the GPL.
It's pretty clear that a dvd patch is a dependant
work. It has no meaning aside from the dvd for
which it was created, but does that make it a
derivative work? You would need the copyright
holder's permission to publish an annotated
version of their work, but not to publish a study
guide or critical work about the original. In
the same manner a dvd
patch does not contain, alter, or reproduce the
original work in any way. It merely makes
comment, "skip this scene", "silence audio for
2 seconds here", and so on.
I'd be interested to see how someone could argue that the GPL can extend to "binary patches", whereas the movie studios have no control over "DVD patches".
Let's say someone created a "type and learn emacs"
that required an original copy of emacs and ran a
tutorial program that interacted with it and the
user. I don't think that the hypothetical program
would be subject to the GPL. A runtime linked
library that ran in the same process as emacs
and did the same thing probably would be subject
to the GPL.
Hmm... you mean like just before the French revolution ?
the difference means squat to the guy with an empty stomach.
I have experience living below the poverty line
in the U.S., as a child, and as a young student
on my own. I have read a fair amount of history
and can tell you that poverty in the U.S. is a
very different thing than poverty in 18th century
France or modern India. We are (as all nations
are) a nation driven by greed and self-interest,
and have realized that letting our people starve
to death is against our self-interest.
They are using otherwise reasonable-sounding arguments -- such as "director's vision" in the case against CleanFlicks
Slightly OT, but the case against CleanFlicks and
the like is not even remotely reasonable sounding.
Directors vision? Please. In the past parents have
had children leave the room or cover their eyes
for a single objectionable scene.
besides, the article says that the FBI is going to MONITOR file sharing, meaning they're not gonna do anything to anyone doing legit sharing.
From the article:
The bureau would also develop a warning, with the FBI seal, that copyright holders could issue to suspected violators.
This would result in the FBI giving RIAA
(and other industry groups)
a nice shiny badge
to flash at ISPs. They could also give copyright
holders the ability to do proxy calea requests.
The excuse
for giving RIAA faux law enforcement powers could
be that the massive piracy on p2p networks
will overwhelm the resources of the FBI, who
should be spending their time waging the war
on terror.
Check out
www.askclea.net
for details of what calea entails. Industry groups will certainly abuse this kind of access.
Plus, do you really want the FBI to become the
enforcement arm of the BSA or RIAA? Don't they
have better ways to spend tax money?
Their feeling seems to be that one we elect them they have no responsibility to the people that elected them -- just to the lobbyists that continue to pay them.
Exactly. That is why talk of bringing Democracy
to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere is ridiculous,
Democracy in the U.S. is very close to failure.
I realize that our form of government is a
Republic, but the ideals of representative
government, citizen participation, and the
protection of natural freedoms are what make the
U.S. a Democracy. I'm not even certain that
democratic principles can survive in a nation this
large and complex, especially when under attack by
ruthless scum who prefer to attack 'soft
targets' rather than face a millitary they could
never stand up to.
Heheh... what a great poke-in-the-eye to the legislators, and a great demonstration of what the issue was really about.
The problem is that civil servants (such as
these politicians) often believe that they are our
superiors. So most of them are incapable of
realizing that privacy laws are for everyone.
Instead they will look at creating a law or
applying an existing law in such a way as to
protect just themselves. That was exactly the
reaction of the civil servants involved in the
garbage search incident in Oregon.
We have egos at work too. I am not supposed to TOUCH anything my coworkers do, it is THEIR code and THEIRS to command, hands off! Even when I sneak a peek and find obvious bugs, I am not allowed to fix them because it violates territoriality.
Not sure how long you've worked at your current job, but this attitude might have developed
because of a bad experience
with an 'agile' methodology.
Some shops have used this
as an excuse for chaos, and instead of peer review
and pair programming you get people changing
code they don't understand or arguing about
'for (;;)' vs. 'while (1)' or tabs vs. spaces
or a config parser or any other silly thing.
It could also be caused by of favoritism or
management with an agenda.
It's not always just ego that drives programmers
to act like this, sometimes people are driven
to it by group politics and mistrust.
You could try making your suggestions directly to
the code owner rather than in front of your peers.
It might make them less likely to react
defensively.
this is in referance to one of the best movies ever, The Princess Bride...
Thanks, and to make sure no one ever get
lost in the future...
In stories about India the 3 or 4 +5 Funny 'Apu'
jokes are in reference to the Simpsons character
who owns the local Quik-E Mart.
In stories about OSS bugs the 3 or 4 +5 Funny
jokes that proclaim 'Use the source!', those are
about Star Wars. Remember, Obi Wan said 'Use the
Force!' to Luke.
In stories that reference a story on a server that
has been crushed by hordes of/. readers the 20 or
30 +5 Funny jokes about a large scale DDOS attack
are a reference to the 'Slashdot effect'.
What privacy? It's not like he was doing 114 in his own home! He was doing it in public.
Knowledge of the fact that he was doing 114 is not an
invasion of his privacy, the fact that his own property
can be accessed in such a way as to testify against him
is an invasion of privacy.
I recognize that there are circumstances in which you must
give up some expectation of privacy. Getting on a
commercial airliner, applying to work in a sensitive
position, applying for credit, and so on. Being suspected of
being involved in a crime is one of those cirumstances. You
still have natural rights, including an expectation of privacy
in those areas that do not directly involve the matter under
consideration. The danger is that by prejudging the guilt
of anyone accused of a crime we will excuse a greater
invasion of privacy than is called for.
I've never stated that this search of his property was wrong,
but that it is an invasion of privacy, just as any police
search of your property is an invasion of privacy, regardless
of guilt or innocence. Many people seem to be making the
statement that since he is guilty the search is ok. That
dangerous (and flawed) reasoning is what I was responding
to.
I'm sorry, but if you're pulling 114 in a neighborhood
You are presuming guilt. "This guy is a
sleazebag and it was okay to violate his
privacy".
The use of these things for determining the
facts in an accident is valid, but thinking
that tools like these are okay simply because
they are only used on bad people is dangerous.
Don't call in or anything, just show up at the normal start time, leave at the normal day's end.
One game that my program managers have pulled in the
past is 7am or 5+pm meetings. I decline them all,
but still - how rude. Bastards probably think they
are being subtle or something.
Some of us are quite capable of seperating reality from televised entertainment programs.
That was not his point. The point was that most
people are not as self aware as they think they
are. Children especially are often unaware of
their motivations or reasons for their actions,
but most people who don't spend much time in
introspection are subject to not understanding or
recognizing their own behaviour.
Except BN.com has inventory problems and incompetant customer service.
I make a lot of purchases from bn.com and
the only circumstance in which I've run into
inventory problems has been with used books
listed for offline used book stores. The two times
I've contacted customer service they were
courteous and competent.
BN also actually honors the allowed
contact methods you give them and don't have a
privacy policy subject to change with no notice
and applied retroactively, both of which are
provisions of Amazon's policy.
United is the only U.S. airline I have flown...perhaps someone would like to comment...are the U.S. airlines like this?
Not all of them are quite as bad as United. Flying
packed into a UA cattle car qualifies as some of
my worst travel experience. If you have *any*
choice do not fly United.
Some of the regional U.S. airlines are not bad.
I'm sure that any of those that become sucessful
are taken over by money men and drop the service
levels to those of United.
I would agree, (except that maybe assembler isn't as easy these days, using modern processors.)
Since you are teaching theory I think targeting
something like xspim or x86 real mode is
just fine. You are teaching the concepts and
avoid overwhelming students with the details of
modern processors (which can be taught in advanced
architecture).
But once you can do machine level coding, you can do anything you want. Even write a new language.
That is why I think learning more than the "commercial" languages (C++ and Java) is a great
idea. A student who has learned assembler and
scheme is going to be able to pick up any language
and will have a good start on any new technique
or technology that becomes available.
*I* started in BASIC, but there are plenty of other people who started in, say, C or Java. Particularly younger programmers.
I was lucky enough to get started with the
excellent
turbo-c from Borland. Nice IDE to keep from
distracting you with the plumbing, but kept me
close enough to the machine that learning x86
assembly as a second
language was very easy and natural. Because of
early experience with multi-language programming,
encapsulation and data hiding were natural
"student discoveries", quite unlike the giant
tangled mess that basic seems to encourage in
students.
I still believe that C or assembler are good early
languages, but I think Python is probably the best
teaching language available. I'm surprised that
CS programs don't seem to have picked up on this
yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Kentucky? Must be a Fark partisan.
The definitive reference
It's pretty clear that a dvd patch is a dependant work. It has no meaning aside from the dvd for which it was created, but does that make it a derivative work? You would need the copyright holder's permission to publish an annotated version of their work, but not to publish a study guide or critical work about the original. In the same manner a dvd patch does not contain, alter, or reproduce the original work in any way. It merely makes comment, "skip this scene", "silence audio for 2 seconds here", and so on.
I'd be interested to see how someone could argue that the GPL can extend to "binary patches", whereas the movie studios have no control over "DVD patches".
Let's say someone created a "type and learn emacs" that required an original copy of emacs and ran a tutorial program that interacted with it and the user. I don't think that the hypothetical program would be subject to the GPL. A runtime linked library that ran in the same process as emacs and did the same thing probably would be subject to the GPL.
the difference means squat to the guy with an empty stomach.
I have experience living below the poverty line in the U.S., as a child, and as a young student on my own. I have read a fair amount of history and can tell you that poverty in the U.S. is a very different thing than poverty in 18th century France or modern India. We are (as all nations are) a nation driven by greed and self-interest, and have realized that letting our people starve to death is against our self-interest.
Slightly OT, but the case against CleanFlicks and the like is not even remotely reasonable sounding. Directors vision? Please. In the past parents have had children leave the room or cover their eyes for a single objectionable scene.
From the article:
This would result in the FBI giving RIAA (and other industry groups) a nice shiny badge to flash at ISPs. They could also give copyright holders the ability to do proxy calea requests. The excuse for giving RIAA faux law enforcement powers could be that the massive piracy on p2p networks will overwhelm the resources of the FBI, who should be spending their time waging the war on terror.Check out www.askclea.net for details of what calea entails. Industry groups will certainly abuse this kind of access. Plus, do you really want the FBI to become the enforcement arm of the BSA or RIAA? Don't they have better ways to spend tax money?
Exactly. That is why talk of bringing Democracy to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere is ridiculous, Democracy in the U.S. is very close to failure. I realize that our form of government is a Republic, but the ideals of representative government, citizen participation, and the protection of natural freedoms are what make the U.S. a Democracy. I'm not even certain that democratic principles can survive in a nation this large and complex, especially when under attack by ruthless scum who prefer to attack 'soft targets' rather than face a millitary they could never stand up to.
The problem is that civil servants (such as these politicians) often believe that they are our superiors. So most of them are incapable of realizing that privacy laws are for everyone. Instead they will look at creating a law or applying an existing law in such a way as to protect just themselves. That was exactly the reaction of the civil servants involved in the garbage search incident in Oregon.
Not sure how long you've worked at your current job, but this attitude might have developed because of a bad experience with an 'agile' methodology. Some shops have used this as an excuse for chaos, and instead of peer review and pair programming you get people changing code they don't understand or arguing about 'for (;;)' vs. 'while (1)' or tabs vs. spaces or a config parser or any other silly thing. It could also be caused by of favoritism or management with an agenda.
It's not always just ego that drives programmers to act like this, sometimes people are driven to it by group politics and mistrust.
You could try making your suggestions directly to the code owner rather than in front of your peers. It might make them less likely to react defensively.
Thanks, and to make sure no one ever get lost in the future...
In stories about India the 3 or 4 +5 Funny 'Apu' jokes are in reference to the Simpsons character who owns the local Quik-E Mart.
In stories about OSS bugs the 3 or 4 +5 Funny jokes that proclaim 'Use the source!', those are about Star Wars. Remember, Obi Wan said 'Use the Force!' to Luke.
In stories that reference a story on a server that has been crushed by hordes of /. readers the 20 or
30 +5 Funny jokes about a large scale DDOS attack
are a reference to the 'Slashdot effect'.
Playing UT taught me that I hate teenagers. I'm amazed that more parents don't eat their young.
Give violaters two warning and then take em out. I think this is the only way to teach some people about representative government.
Nothing suceeds like inertia. Except maybe entropy.
Knowledge of the fact that he was doing 114 is not an invasion of his privacy, the fact that his own property can be accessed in such a way as to testify against him is an invasion of privacy.
I recognize that there are circumstances in which you must give up some expectation of privacy. Getting on a commercial airliner, applying to work in a sensitive position, applying for credit, and so on. Being suspected of being involved in a crime is one of those cirumstances. You still have natural rights, including an expectation of privacy in those areas that do not directly involve the matter under consideration. The danger is that by prejudging the guilt of anyone accused of a crime we will excuse a greater invasion of privacy than is called for.
I've never stated that this search of his property was wrong, but that it is an invasion of privacy, just as any police search of your property is an invasion of privacy, regardless of guilt or innocence. Many people seem to be making the statement that since he is guilty the search is ok. That dangerous (and flawed) reasoning is what I was responding to.
You are presuming guilt. "This guy is a sleazebag and it was okay to violate his privacy".
The use of these things for determining the facts in an accident is valid, but thinking that tools like these are okay simply because they are only used on bad people is dangerous.
One game that my program managers have pulled in the past is 7am or 5+pm meetings. I decline them all, but still - how rude. Bastards probably think they are being subtle or something.
Easier to bully. Cheaper.
I take it "Fortune" is not a big fan of Bush's economic policy.
That was not his point. The point was that most people are not as self aware as they think they are. Children especially are often unaware of their motivations or reasons for their actions, but most people who don't spend much time in introspection are subject to not understanding or recognizing their own behaviour.
I make a lot of purchases from bn.com and the only circumstance in which I've run into inventory problems has been with used books listed for offline used book stores. The two times I've contacted customer service they were courteous and competent.
BN also actually honors the allowed contact methods you give them and don't have a privacy policy subject to change with no notice and applied retroactively, both of which are provisions of Amazon's policy.
Not all of them are quite as bad as United. Flying packed into a UA cattle car qualifies as some of my worst travel experience. If you have *any* choice do not fly United.
Some of the regional U.S. airlines are not bad. I'm sure that any of those that become sucessful are taken over by money men and drop the service levels to those of United.
Some people hate Smalltalk no matter how you dress it up.
Since you are teaching theory I think targeting something like xspim or x86 real mode is just fine. You are teaching the concepts and avoid overwhelming students with the details of modern processors (which can be taught in advanced architecture).
But once you can do machine level coding, you can do anything you want. Even write a new language.
That is why I think learning more than the "commercial" languages (C++ and Java) is a great idea. A student who has learned assembler and scheme is going to be able to pick up any language and will have a good start on any new technique or technology that becomes available.
I've run into a few recent grads who used it in their CS program for prototypes, does not seem to be common though.
At least one employer, Google, was hiring Python programmers. I agree that HR departments don't yet have it on their list of things to look for.
I was lucky enough to get started with the excellent turbo-c from Borland. Nice IDE to keep from distracting you with the plumbing, but kept me close enough to the machine that learning x86 assembly as a second language was very easy and natural. Because of early experience with multi-language programming, encapsulation and data hiding were natural "student discoveries", quite unlike the giant tangled mess that basic seems to encourage in students.
I still believe that C or assembler are good early languages, but I think Python is probably the best teaching language available. I'm surprised that CS programs don't seem to have picked up on this yet.