You can get damages for prior violations, and prevent distribution or force compliance with terms for the future.
I understand this. What I meant is that I don't think ceasing future distribution is enough to satisfy the forgiveness part of the GPLv3 which would restore distribution rights. Yes, it's copyright you'd have to deal with, that is just how GPL works, but if you actually repair the violation you can avoid that end of the stick too.
The GPLv3 isn't entirely clear on this, but I suspect "ceasing all violation" might mean that you have to honor the terms of license for existing distribution. Otherwise you could violate for a while, make your profit and be clear 60 days after.
The internet as we know it is highly decentralized and barely restricted, just about anyone can connect a device a device and do whatever as long as they don't cause significant interference. And while "the internet" is highly available, individual nodes are anybodies guess. A system that relies on the availability of a large number of individual nodes to render pages (or whatever you want to call them) will have to deal with that.
And perhaps more importantly, what is the "problem" in the first place?
You are positioning a problem to be solved.
Which is not "Amazon", "eBay" or dial-a-wank porn sites. But frankly, they're just business ; you're welcome to them.
Good news, Facebook is fast picking up all the juicy bits of Xanadu: information (on the users anyway) is well categorized, you can interlink like crazy since it's all under one umbrella, everyone is unique and authenticated, etc. How about *you* keep the walled garden and we keep the crappy, non-visionary, hacked together WWW?
No, it's a core design issue for anything used on the internet. If you just want to run Xanadu on your LAN and have an isolated cluster of information then you are correct. Of course that doesn't require massive PR campaigns, it requires a deployable
The gap between the "semantic" storage and communication of ideas and "document-based" storage and communication of ideas is... "wide" is not enough, "gaping" or "yawning" (as in "abyss") might be better.
No, that is the gap between the pipedream of a WWW replacement and something that can actually cope with a net that is not under the control of one or a few monolith gatekeepers.
BTW, if you don't like it, feel free to propose something better yourself.
Suggesting something better then infeasible? Just about anything we have can cope with outages and removed sites better, so I propose we continue onwards to HTML5, since it is better suited for the internet as we know it.
Downloads are not CDs though, which "files" strongly implies. If you make the mix-CD out of your own CDs you'd have to loan those as well as deleting copies you've made so as to not retain a copy.
I'll just repeat. This is what you actually claimed:
Again, copyright infringement involves violation of the limitations on the right to make a copy. No copy of the DVD made, no copyright infringement.
Not that lending wasn't covered, no, that nothing outside of copying was.
And yes, lending (for a fee) is actually covered under copyright laws in some (many?) jurisdictions, but please feel free to say that you clearly only meant the specific instance when making general claims, just like you are now.
I doubt the ISP will have a complete log of what you actually copied. We've seen false positives with DMCA takedown notices, there will be basically no protection against that here. Realistically a claim is all that they need.
It sounds a ton better if nothing else. Though I have never been able to figure out if mumble actually encrypts the voice data, or just uses SSL for authentication...
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need gallons of pure vinegar to kill yourself. Most anything you can buy is heavily diluted to avoid this problem.
You seem to have the human body all figured out. So how does one heal cancer with math and willpower?
I understand this. What I meant is that I don't think ceasing future distribution is enough to satisfy the forgiveness part of the GPLv3 which would restore distribution rights. Yes, it's copyright you'd have to deal with, that is just how GPL works, but if you actually repair the violation you can avoid that end of the stick too.
Because the proprietor doesn't have the "right" to distribute GPLv3 code without following the terms of the license.
The GPLv3 isn't entirely clear on this, but I suspect "ceasing all violation" might mean that you have to honor the terms of license for existing distribution. Otherwise you could violate for a while, make your profit and be clear 60 days after.
Well if it's only in the default firmware, it's like they didn't distribute at all! Right? Right?
You are positioning a problem to be solved.
Good news, Facebook is fast picking up all the juicy bits of Xanadu: information (on the users anyway) is well categorized, you can interlink like crazy since it's all under one umbrella, everyone is unique and authenticated, etc. How about *you* keep the walled garden and we keep the crappy, non-visionary, hacked together WWW?
Great Firewall? Gone for the same reason...
Maybe people just don't want unexpected dependency problems? Nah, that's just silly.
No, it's a core design issue for anything used on the internet. If you just want to run Xanadu on your LAN and have an isolated cluster of information then you are correct. Of course that doesn't require massive PR campaigns, it requires a deployable
No, that is the gap between the pipedream of a WWW replacement and something that can actually cope with a net that is not under the control of one or a few monolith gatekeepers.
Suggesting something better then infeasible? Just about anything we have can cope with outages and removed sites better, so I propose we continue onwards to HTML5, since it is better suited for the internet as we know it.
I searched around with that a little and this says that since 1.1 everything is encrypted: http://sourceforge.net/blog/potm-200911/
How about you don't get all snarky on people with literal interpretations of a law that isn't interpreted literally by the courts then?
Downloads are not CDs though, which "files" strongly implies. If you make the mix-CD out of your own CDs you'd have to loan those as well as deleting copies you've made so as to not retain a copy.
Not that lending wasn't covered, no, that nothing outside of copying was. And yes, lending (for a fee) is actually covered under copyright laws in some (many?) jurisdictions, but please feel free to say that you clearly only meant the specific instance when making general claims, just like you are now.
Not unless 99% of the complexity was optional...
Not to mention guaranteed availability of all referenced content. That is what actually makes it impossible to do well.
Assuming they host an older version. Hell, assuming they are up.
I doubt the ISP will have a complete log of what you actually copied. We've seen false positives with DMCA takedown notices, there will be basically no protection against that here. Realistically a claim is all that they need.
Backpedal away.
Even if you delete all your copies, if the license (what you actually buy) prohibits transfer of itself you are out of luck.
There is the small mater of having to bring evidence for a negative. "I didn't download that" presumably doesn't count as evidence.
Oddly enough, showing a movie to 100 people doesn't involve any copying either. Want to try that with the copyright argument on a judge?
More evidence that FLOSS only copies and can't innovate!
Doesn't the test linked in the summary put Vorbis almost up to par with Nero's encoder? With both of them smoking AAC-LC?
It sounds a ton better if nothing else. Though I have never been able to figure out if mumble actually encrypts the voice data, or just uses SSL for authentication...