Guns aren't really effective at doing anything other than killing (which is, usually, considered immoral)--I mean if you want to make holes in a inanimate object, you'd use a drill, because guns really aren't all that accurate.
Whereas, DVD decryption software is necessary to *playback* DVDs--even where you have the permission of the copyright holder to play the movie *and* you have bought it from them, and playing movies you have bought rom the copyright holder is usually considered moral. (In fact, copying movies without the permission of the copyright holder usually is too; however, you don't need to decrypt the movie in order to copy it--just to play it back.)
Maybe he meant it is not fair to the vast majority of copyright holders--and, more improtantly, copiers--who are not monopolistic multi-national industrial corporations.
Germany's copyright law is actually considerably worse for the GNU GPL in most of the areas that it matters (e.g.: license v. contract, termination of rights) and the GNU GPL was designed for US law--as is explained in the Munich Court's judgement.
That is probably why the defendant (Sitecom) went so far--an injunction then a court order before stopping--unlike US companies who cease and desist when first informed.
What exactly do you want from such a decision? What are you claiming is wrong with the GNU GPL (except that--like nearly all other copyright licenses--all breaches in the US have been settled without litigation)?
Even if this did have any truth in it, `Bob' is the FSF in this case, and I doubt the FSF are going to say `Go ahead. We don't mind you breaking the terms of the GNU GPL.'
As someone with a sad life, and, thereby, experience in this system, this is how it really works:
1. Make stupid comments.
2. Get mod points.
3. Use mod points.
4. If 3 is done in a way that is sad and irrational enough for those who have reached 6, "1" will occur more often.
5. Loop through 1 to 4 loads of times (because you don't have anything better to do with your sad life).
5. Get to meta-moderate.
6. Meta-mod down people who have less sad lifes than you.
7. Go to 6.
Please can some serious lawyer come up with a critique of the GNU GPL that makes some legal or logical sense. It would make a change from the normal the-GNU-GPL-is-evil-therefore-everything-under-it- is-public-domain-never-mind-what-the-law-says stuff being spouted by bribed, failed lawyers and journalists everywhere.
Here are my 2 cents:
The GPL may be difficult to enforce...
The GNU GPL is not a contract or agreement as it does not require that the reciever of the software do anything that they would have been legally able to do anyway (and it is not agreed to). Therefore, by its very nature, it cannot ever be enforced by the copyright holder against the receiver as
the receiver never agreed to it
there is nothing in it that they could agree to
and it states that it cannot be agreed to
[The modal verbs of ability (e.g.: can, could, cannot) above are used in their strongest sense to indicate logical possibility (as opposed to only physical possibility according to the constraints of the laws of physics or society).]
due to a lack of clarity over who owns the copyright to the software
If there is a lack of clarity over who holds [legally, copyright cannot be owned] the copyright (which, in my experience, is always made clear with copylefted software unlike other works of literature where it is usually unclear), then:
this has nothing to do with the GNU GPL as it is a license which gives permission to copy a given work after the software licensor has obtained the exclusive copying rights to said work
this would not make it difficult for the copyright holders to enforce their rights as their rights exist (under the Berne Convention) regardless of the extent to which they inform anyone that they hold those rights.
In summary, the GNU GPL does not and a license cannot remove the rights of the copyright holder. The premise for this statement is also untrue, as the GNU GPL, being a general public license (to be used for multiple works), does not state who the copyright holders are. If the premise were true and the statement were true, the statement would not logically follow from the premise, as the clarity is in no way connected with the ability of the copyright holders to enforce their rights.
the GPL should clarify who is the author of the software to ensure that open source software distributed under this licence receives legal protection
The GPL cannot clarify who the author of the software is as it used by multiple authors (who specify who they are themselves). Regardless of whether the authors are specified, the software still remains under copyright (which is I assume what the nutty professor means by `protection', implying that software is some kind animate object with feelings) under the Berne Convention. Nothing in the law, says that one has to specify who the copyright holders are (although this would make it even less obvious whether one was receiving the license from the true copyright holder if one didn't even know who one was receieving it from, so people may avoid distributing such software--although the proprietary software world indicates that this is not considered a problem as no one knows who owns the copyright on, say, much of the software published by Microsoft).
The copyright of the actual text of the GPL is owned by the Free Software Foundation, but the author owns the copyright to the GPL-licensed software.
News@11....I mean congratulations on saying something factually accurate.
Guibault told ZDNet UK that it may not be enough to have the copyright statement in the code.
If that is not enough, what about the vast majority of proprietary software out there that comes with...gasp...no source code at all, and...gasp...without a
Once again, the MPAA talks nonsense about everyone and anyone (including networking protocols) been morally responsible for the fact that their unlawful hegomonic Mafia-style protection racket hasn't had an increase in profits recently despite increasing blackmail, bribery, anti-trust violations, &c...news at 11!
Ummmm...how is this news and why is Slashdot giving a voice to this organisation's constant bullshit (that we've all heard before) by quoting the MPAA all the time. I must admit that the nonsense being spouted by the MPAA today does make a lot more sense than some of their previous crazy claims. Maybe they are running out of cash to buy their spokespeople the the normal stuff that they are under the influence of.
FTR, I think that unlawful copying--which the MPAA and members of its protection racket have also been involved in on numerous occasions--is wrong and don't do it myself, but I don't think this is the MPAA's core problem with their `bussiness'.
I'm bored, so let's analyse this shit:
the MPAA's press release (.doc)
Oh, the irony of the MPAA using a file format on their WWW site which it is unlawful for users of its site to read or interpret in many jurisdictions (due to the MPAA's own `copyright circumvention device' legislation, as well as, arguably, various patents).
blaming the BitTorrent protocol for the leak of Episode III.
Since when did protocols have moral responsibility. Can one put them in jail?
Another oft used (also P2P) networking protocol known as TCP/IP could be in even bigger problem. As the core protocol of the Internet it has been responsible for not only the distribution of all unauthorised copies of anything on the Internet, but, no doubt, exabytes of pornographic images, communications between criminals including what Bush calls `terrorists', &c. Why has this protocol not been brought before a caught of law?
In fact, an even older real-life protocol called trade (i.e.: buying and selling) has been responsible for the exchange of trillions of dollars worth of pornography, drugs, laundered money and many other illicit or unlawful materials. Another one, the spoken word, dates back even further...
Where shall I begin on this quote. Let's take it word by word:
"There is no better example of how theft[1] dims[2] the magic[3] of the movies for everyone than this report[4] today regarding BitTorrent providing[5] users with illegal copies of Revenge of the Sith. The unfortunate fact is this type of theft[6] happens on a regular basis on peer to peer networks[7] all over the world."
I think if the MPAA look in a dictionary (interesting device contaning meanings of words) or their jurisdiction's laws (those things that you aren't supposed to break or you'll go to jail--you know--though I don't think the MPAA take much notice of them) they'll will find that theft is:
intentionally and permanently depriving someone of a physical object under their possession
The protocol definitely had no "intent" to break the law as last time I checked communication protocols did not count as being sentient beings (and in many cases the actual users are also unaware).
This does not "deprive" (let alone "permanently") the MPAA et al of their copy of the film
The film is not a "physical object". (Anyway, think of the slippery slope if depriving someone of abstract concepts (feelings, information, copyrights) counted as theft.)
The film itself is not under the possession of the MPAA et al. (It cannot be anyway, as it is not a physical object.)
The MPAA would probably argue that theft, in their vocabulary, means "doing something that results in someone [e.g.: the MPAA] having less money". Of course, as well as being untrue, this is an invalid argumentu
The fact that you have further commented and added to my comment implies it wasn't that "dumb". Actually, my being dumb would've been not talking at all;-).
The MoD sent troops to war at the request of the UK government, some people say illegally, so you reckon that they should worry about a bit of music ?
That is the point. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I think that, in this day and age, unfortunately, society--esp. our legal system--is in such a mess that the Priminister lying to Parliament and taking us on an unlawful war doesn't raise an eyelid, whereas troops (who are being killed and forced to murder people because of this decision) copying a bit of music is more likely to result in some legal action due to our hegemonic music mafia (even though they wouldn't have a case IMO--IANAL--as it it is covered by the pastiche fair-use clause of the EU copyright directive).
I guess this law creates genuine thought crime in the US.
However, at least, in the US, it is not possible (at all) for (wetware) thinking or memory to violate copyright law, as it is, at least theoretically, in the UK--where I am.
Not only the second largest software company, but the largest (by employees and revenues, for a long time, if not forever) and oldest (founded 1888) IT company in the world; incidentally, well known for their hordes of IP lawyers and scrupulous precautions wrt copyright, trade secrets and patents.
I think TSG's logic here was that, if TSG took on Big Blue, the stockholders would assume that there must be a really good case, as otherwise the TSG directors would have to be insane.
Unfortunately, some unlucky stockholders severely underestimated McBride's insanity.
What about the unlawfully copied background music. If I was the MOD, I would worry more about the music industry than the embarrassment of the mail servers going down.
I don't know about any "morbid fascination", but it is universally acknowledged that the US government is on a "manic...plot to undermine [this] foreign societ[y]".
I actually thought it was going to be plain crap. As I'm on a MSW XP machine ATM I thought I'd try it for a laugh, and...I underestimated the ability of NS--it is so crap it should get an award.
Full of spyware and shit..puke themed..not intuitive at all..lots of confusing things all over the UI. The installer broke first time so had to try again. When it first open I get a dialog box with no text in it which I have to click OK on. Even if I tell it to never use IEs rendering engine it still does. Options are confusing and badly designed.
And that is far as I've got. Only had it installed for few secs.
Uhh....a cheap laser printer. They're pretty much the same price these days (say $25~$50 for something reasonable) but have a tiny proportion of the running cost.
Also, use a long plastic thing that keeps the pages together (or a stapler--more fiddly) for binding. Else, you could get a binding machine that makes holes that you put the prongs of one of those cylindrical plastic binding thingies through--that will last forever.
The really easy option for binding is to just print booklet style (using your printer drivers or printing system--failing that use a PS/PDF convertor like impose+, mpage or poster first) so the pages will then stay together when folded (esp. if helped along with the odd staple).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe he meant it is not fair to the vast majority of copyright holders--and, more improtantly, copiers--who are not monopolistic multi-national industrial corporations.
That is probably why the defendant (Sitecom) went so far--an injunction then a court order before stopping--unlike US companies who cease and desist when first informed.
What exactly do you want from such a decision? What are you claiming is wrong with the GNU GPL (except that--like nearly all other copyright licenses--all breaches in the US have been settled without litigation)?
I think I've found the court order. There is a translation into English for the German-impaired.
Copyright is about making things legally uncopyable then.
RTFA (or look at any popular news service). I don't think the court order is available online.
"enforcing the creator of a product's right to determine who is allowed to copy his work"="making anything uncopyable".
What about the fact that the court ordered that the violators stop distributing the software?
Even if this did have any truth in it, `Bob' is the FSF in this case, and I doubt the FSF are going to say `Go ahead. We don't mind you breaking the terms of the GNU GPL.'
As someone with a sad life, and, thereby, experience in this system, this is how it really works: 1. Make stupid comments. 2. Get mod points. 3. Use mod points. 4. If 3 is done in a way that is sad and irrational enough for those who have reached 6, "1" will occur more often. 5. Loop through 1 to 4 loads of times (because you don't have anything better to do with your sad life). 5. Get to meta-moderate. 6. Meta-mod down people who have less sad lifes than you. 7. Go to 6.
Here are my 2 cents:
The GNU GPL is not a contract or agreement as it does not require that the reciever of the software do anything that they would have been legally able to do anyway (and it is not agreed to). Therefore, by its very nature, it cannot ever be enforced by the copyright holder against the receiver as
[The modal verbs of ability (e.g.: can, could, cannot) above are used in their strongest sense to indicate logical possibility (as opposed to only physical possibility according to the constraints of the laws of physics or society).]
If there is a lack of clarity over who holds [legally, copyright cannot be owned] the copyright (which, in my experience, is always made clear with copylefted software unlike other works of literature where it is usually unclear), then:
In summary, the GNU GPL does not and a license cannot remove the rights of the copyright holder. The premise for this statement is also untrue, as the GNU GPL, being a general public license (to be used for multiple works), does not state who the copyright holders are. If the premise were true and the statement were true, the statement would not logically follow from the premise, as the clarity is in no way connected with the ability of the copyright holders to enforce their rights.
The GPL cannot clarify who the author of the software is as it used by multiple authors (who specify who they are themselves). Regardless of whether the authors are specified, the software still remains under copyright (which is I assume what the nutty professor means by `protection', implying that software is some kind animate object with feelings) under the Berne Convention. Nothing in the law, says that one has to specify who the copyright holders are (although this would make it even less obvious whether one was receiving the license from the true copyright holder if one didn't even know who one was receieving it from, so people may avoid distributing such software--although the proprietary software world indicates that this is not considered a problem as no one knows who owns the copyright on, say, much of the software published by Microsoft).
News@11....I mean congratulations on saying something factually accurate.
If that is not enough, what about the vast majority of proprietary software out there that comes with...gasp...no source code at all, and...gasp...without a
Semantics is necessary for translation (by human or machine).
NASA's FLOSS World Wind (which I've used and looks really good).
Ummmm...how is this news and why is Slashdot giving a voice to this organisation's constant bullshit (that we've all heard before) by quoting the MPAA all the time. I must admit that the nonsense being spouted by the MPAA today does make a lot more sense than some of their previous crazy claims. Maybe they are running out of cash to buy their spokespeople the the normal stuff that they are under the influence of.
FTR, I think that unlawful copying--which the MPAA and members of its protection racket have also been involved in on numerous occasions--is wrong and don't do it myself, but I don't think this is the MPAA's core problem with their `bussiness'.
I'm bored, so let's analyse this shit:
Oh, the irony of the MPAA using a file format on their WWW site which it is unlawful for users of its site to read or interpret in many jurisdictions (due to the MPAA's own `copyright circumvention device' legislation, as well as, arguably, various patents).
Since when did protocols have moral responsibility. Can one put them in jail?
Another oft used (also P2P) networking protocol known as TCP/IP could be in even bigger problem. As the core protocol of the Internet it has been responsible for not only the distribution of all unauthorised copies of anything on the Internet, but, no doubt, exabytes of pornographic images, communications between criminals including what Bush calls `terrorists', &c. Why has this protocol not been brought before a caught of law?
In fact, an even older real-life protocol called trade (i.e.: buying and selling) has been responsible for the exchange of trillions of dollars worth of pornography, drugs, laundered money and many other illicit or unlawful materials. Another one, the spoken word, dates back even further...
Where shall I begin on this quote. Let's take it word by word:
The MPAA would probably argue that theft, in their vocabulary, means "doing something that results in someone [e.g.: the MPAA] having less money". Of course, as well as being untrue, this is an invalid argumentu
However, at least, in the US, it is not possible (at all) for (wetware) thinking or memory to violate copyright law, as it is, at least theoretically, in the UK--where I am.
ROFLMAO. So very true of the US of A these days, unfortunately.
I think TSG's logic here was that, if TSG took on Big Blue, the stockholders would assume that there must be a really good case, as otherwise the TSG directors would have to be insane.
Unfortunately, some unlucky stockholders severely underestimated McBride's insanity.
What about the unlawfully copied background music. If I was the MOD, I would worry more about the music industry than the embarrassment of the mail servers going down.
I don't know about any "morbid fascination", but it is universally acknowledged that the US government is on a "manic...plot to undermine [this] foreign societ[y]".
One cannot argue with a straight face that, given free choice, the US people would still have Bush in power. I digress.
Full of spyware and shit..puke themed..not intuitive at all..lots of confusing things all over the UI. The installer broke first time so had to try again. When it first open I get a dialog box with no text in it which I have to click OK on. Even if I tell it to never use IEs rendering engine it still does. Options are confusing and badly designed.
And that is far as I've got. Only had it installed for few secs.
Also, use a long plastic thing that keeps the pages together (or a stapler--more fiddly) for binding. Else, you could get a binding machine that makes holes that you put the prongs of one of those cylindrical plastic binding thingies through--that will last forever.
The really easy option for binding is to just print booklet style (using your printer drivers or printing system--failing that use a PS/PDF convertor like impose+, mpage or poster first) so the pages will then stay together when folded (esp. if helped along with the odd staple).