I think you are missing that the iPlayer can work in a P2P mode, so the ISPs claim that the BBC does not pay its fair share (because it merely seeds the downloads). In this case, whoever's doing the uploading pays instead of the BBC. So the ISPs still get paid (unless they do something stupid, like sell unlimited flat-rate access).
Or can I call the case of a computer the "CPU", and talk about the "storage" in my CPU? Well... inside that box is where all the processing happens, and it certainly *seems* central in that everything plugs into it and in that nothing works without it.
The end user is the one creating the derivative work and as long as they don't distribute the software to anyone else once they've done this then they aren't violating copyright laws. It has nothing to do with whether they distribute the result (It says "prepare" instead of "distribute", and also think why does the FSF like the AGPL instead of saying it's stupid and that kind of restriction can't work?), it has to do with whether the modification is covered by "fair use" or some other exception. Which as I understand it, tends to not always be very clear-cut.
Ah, but he's not the one applying the patch and, therefore, he's not the one creating the derivative work. But he is contributing to whatever the end users are doing with his patches, so if they can be sued he probably can too. I know I've heard of that happening before.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the definition of derivative work before you respond any further. You mean this part?
The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based on that copyrighted item under 17 U.S.C.Â106(2).
Applying the patch modifies the drivers, which I'm pretty sure is preparing a derivative work. Only Creative is allowed to do this, unless there's an applicable exception.
I would assume that it has something to do with copyright giving control over making derivative works (ie, applying the patches), in addition to making copies. There are exceptions for software that you own, but I think this is part of the reason that EULAs tend to have "licensed, not sold" in there somewhere.
1) If you receive software and hardware together from a vendor, and the software is released under the GPLv3 license, you have legal assurance that they will not attempt through hardware to prevent you exercising your right to change the code and deploy your changes.
No, they can't do that anyway, you can always run it on non-crippled hardware. What it prevents them from doing is selling hardware that's crippled to only accept their version(s) of the software, ie the software license is dictating features of the hardware.
The only reason I see to have crossing guards is because the the parent has left the child to his / her own devices. If your child doesn't fully understand how to cross the street safely, or why, you probably shouldn't be letting him walk alone. Perhaps another reason to have crossing guards is so that parents can let the children walk alone. If a very small part of the walking is disproportiately dangerous, perhaps that part should be made safer so that the kids don't have to get hovered over for the rest of the walking.
Sounds sweet, but is it expensive in terms of energy/time/money? The article claims it will reduce energy usage. It's much faster, so it saves time. And because time is money, it also saves money. I'm going to make a wild guess that it'll be more expensive to manufacture, because wires and solder and very very easy to put down.
Does EMI become less of a problem on circuit boards? Yes, because you're no longer trying to send lots of high-frequency signals thru arrays of tiny antennas.
Will this make designer's lives easier? That would probably depend on what they're designing.
The main problem is that given MicroSoft's history, I'm not sure I trust it. Who's to say they won't try to use it to somehow force people to their proprietary stuff?
That's a pretty cool idea, but it has a couple problems:
Many people have dynamic IPs. ISPs apparently like to charge extra for a static IP, and at least some say that having one is "not recommended" unless you have special needs.
Probably because of this, blocklists often include ranges instead of individual IPs. So if I get caught by a spambot, maybe a couple hundred other people will also get told to fix their computer.
Hm... what would people think if ISPs were *required* to provide static IPs? Good for finding spambots and other malware infections, bad for privacy (could be partially offset by widespread encryption and tor/freenet/...), increased regulation...
Go tell a high performance computing guy that there's no need for 1k cores on a single chip and watch him collapse laughing at you. It seems pretty ridiculous, unless you can also cram in enough pins for 1k memory channels. Even current 4-core chips are enough to make memory the bottleneck on some workloads, and AIUI scientific computing often tends to be that sort of workload.
But it will demonstrate that past a certain point we won't know the difference between real intelligence and something attempting to appear intelligent.
And this demonstrates what, exactly?
The limits of our intelligence?
Hmm... how about a different test: can the computer tell whether it's talking to a person or another computer, better than a person can?
I'm not convinced that there's any essential difference between software and business method patents and regular patents, they all say "I own this knowledge". Software is just a new enough field to make it very obvious that a particular piece of knowledge can originate from multiple sources.
Perhaps independent invention (regardless of being first) should be a valid defense against infringement suits, and maybe it should even invalidate the patent (especially if it happens multiple times).
Perhaps the obviousness requirement should be based on *current* obviousness instead of obviousness as the time of invention, so that patents are only good on things that are truly ahead of the industry, and can't hold back innovation by locking up things that are now well understood. I guess this is about the same as the independent invention idea, really...
If you've already sent them, why can't we just wait and loot them when they get here? Now maybe if you were *ready* to send them, but needed a buyer (with a down payment) first...
DMCA aside, the only time one violates copyright is when one copies a work so there are two copies of the work and then gives one copy to someone else and keeps the other for one's self. This is false, try reading 17 USC sometime. Modifying or copying something is a copyright violation regardless of whether you distribute the result. There are a few exceptions (like fair use), but they don't reduce things to what you claim.
And no, Singularity doesn't work like that. Far as I've heard, it's based on safety through proofs, themselves based on advanced type theory. Nothing like KeyKOS, which basically had to arbitrate everything through the MMU with page faults (or maybe that's just EROS). Sure, but my understanding is that it still uses the same basic model. Whether other processes and your capabilites are protected by type theory or an MMU is an implementation detail. A very cool one with nice effects on performance and maybe portability, but still just an implementation detail.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that that doesn't help as long as you have write permissions to your own ~, yes?
But now it can be 0wned, which is almost a good.
I would assume that it has something to do with copyright giving control over making derivative works (ie, applying the patches), in addition to making copies. There are exceptions for software that you own, but I think this is part of the reason that EULAs tend to have "licensed, not sold" in there somewhere.
...wouldn't the better reply be to *legalize* copyright "piracy", to use basic economics to drive their profit margins to zero?
...thats over 2k projects that are not free to be distributed with certain hardware.
I thought the majority of software jobs were for writing purely in-house (neither open nor closed, since they never get distributed) applications.
Hmm... how much of this is due to pushing by the mass media? Do wimps make good consumers and wage-slaves?
Don't worry, nobody ever got around to writing a billing module.
The main problem is that given MicroSoft's history, I'm not sure I trust it. Who's to say they won't try to use it to somehow force people to their proprietary stuff?
- Many people have dynamic IPs. ISPs apparently like to charge extra for a static IP, and at least some say that having one is "not recommended" unless you have special needs.
- Probably because of this, blocklists often include ranges instead of individual IPs. So if I get caught by a spambot, maybe a couple hundred other people will also get told to fix their computer.
Hm... what would people think if ISPs were *required* to provide static IPs? Good for finding spambots and other malware infections, bad for privacy (could be partially offset by widespread encryption and tor/freenet/...), increased regulation...And this demonstrates what, exactly?
The limits of our intelligence?
Hmm... how about a different test: can the computer tell whether it's talking to a person or another computer, better than a person can?
I'm not convinced that there's any essential difference between software and business method patents and regular patents, they all say "I own this knowledge". Software is just a new enough field to make it very obvious that a particular piece of knowledge can originate from multiple sources.
Perhaps independent invention (regardless of being first) should be a valid defense against infringement suits, and maybe it should even invalidate the patent (especially if it happens multiple times).
Perhaps the obviousness requirement should be based on *current* obviousness instead of obviousness as the time of invention, so that patents are only good on things that are truly ahead of the industry, and can't hold back innovation by locking up things that are now well understood. I guess this is about the same as the independent invention idea, really...
If you've already sent them, why can't we just wait and loot them when they get here? Now maybe if you were *ready* to send them, but needed a buyer (with a down payment) first...
Because approximately nothing surrounding illegal drugs is logical.
My understanding is that the security model is actually pretty old, and has been around since at least 1979.