Given that anyone not accepting the offered Free Software license for a software package has no right to use it at all anyway I don't see the problem - either use it under the available terms or don't use it.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that governments then pass laws that allow the user to use the software and ignore certain terms of the license.
Yes, copyright is way out of whack today. (Personally, I'm for 20 years, and 5 for software with mandatory source code escrow.)
Yes, the content producers want to take away fair-use rights. (Meaning format-shifting, not what's commonly referred to as "file sharing" -- which is just unauthorized copying.)
Yes, it is true that spreading music files around can help lead to sales. (This is only right to do when the copyright holder authorizes it.)
Does that somehow make sharing copyright-protected material right? Most definitely not. I hope the EFF doesn't send the wrong message here.
Countering the suits against the infringers is exactly what should not be done. The copyright holders are finally doing the right thing by going after the actual infringers, instead of the service providers.
FWIW, the idea of the new installer is that it'll come with a bunch of frontends, much like debconf does today. You probably won't be dealing with the admittedly ugly text installer.
You're trying to be clever, I know, but you're failing miserably. The grandparent's point was that his system has smoothly upgraded without needing to be reinstalled throughout those four years.
dselect and installer do suck, yes. But it's worth the pain IMHO.
dselect sucks and is not worth the pain. aptitude, on the other hand, is Very Good. (Incidentally, I wonder if on Red Hat + APT, I can browse packages like I do with aptitude's UI...)
The RIAA represents the copyright holders. I'm sure in the actual suits, they will be XYZ Recording Co., PDQ Recording Co., Simian Records vs. Jim the Infringer, not RIAA vs same.
...if I give my friend access to my CD collection and he copies the CD, am I the one violating copyright or is he?
That's pretty easy: he is, because a copy of your CD does not need to be made in order for you to loan it to him.
Contrast that with the fact unless your software destroys all of your copies of a copyrighted work (including the original CD) when someone downloads your offered copy, the work has been illegally duplicated.
You are offering the work for loan if you loan your copy to your friend. You are offering the work for copying when you "share" it, and you are participating in the copy. It's that simple.
Actually, the idea was supposed to be that you couldn't create a software hack that fooled the user into giving up his logon information, based on the idea that you were supposed to train users only to logon after hitting Ctrl-Alt.Del.
It was a good idea, except for the massive overestimation of the intelligence of the Windows user base.
If they have the resources to provide a set of optimized binaries for various subarchs, I'm all for it. I'm not keen on constantly rebuilding new versions of packages, especially if they end up buggy. Debian has the scale to pull something like this off.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if you're dealing in copyright-free or distribution-unrestricted material, it's going to be patently obvious that's what you're doing, and they won't waste more than a few minutes on you. It would be a waste of lawyer time and money to do otherwise.
You can drag out the example of the guys who got form notices to stop sharing copyrighted material, but the difference between barriers to sending from a form notice to a lawsuit is quite a difference indeed.
If ever single copyrighted (with restriction on redistribution) MP3 disappeared from general availability, that'd be the "victory" you refer to. Redistribution-unrestricted MP3s are totally unaffected, unless you were referring to the former in the first place.
No. You act as if "online" is some new country where you have the right to spread copyright materials around without regard for a license from the copyright holder. This is simply not true. The laws have always applied; it is the enforcement that has been lacking. You now complain of the enforcement.
DRM is a step towards mandatory control of content. Legally mandated DRM is the logical extension of that. I will stand up when that rears it ugly head. I will not stand up when already illegal behavior is noticed by the police.
WHat if I don't know the person, but rip a cd for them? THat is (or should be) fair use. That's also basically what P2P is.
I keep seeing this (I assume you're the same AC repeatedly posting it), but it makes zero sense to me. Please enumerate the steps you are taking to make sure you are not duplicating the MP3s you ripped in your P2P environment to someone who is not a legitimate owner of the copyrighted material.
Only if you are the copyright holder of that software and all GPL-licensed dependencies. In addition, once you do, you're not licensing under the GPL anymore and can't link to anything GPL.
Well, Netflix used to have a "Mature" section. They don't today. Also, with rare exception, Netflix has the R-rated versions of movies where both R and unrated are available.
I don't think Netflix will have an advantage here.
As someone a very long way from retirement, I like stock prices going down. It means that my retirment fund will be able to buy more stock for the same amount of money.
Well, provided the stock then goes back up. If it continues going down, you've wasted your money.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that line of reasoning is that governments then pass laws that allow the user to use the software and ignore certain terms of the license.
You didn't have to do that. The Neuros will play over your FM radio. :-)
Yes, copyright is way out of whack today. (Personally, I'm for 20 years, and 5 for software with mandatory source code escrow.)
Yes, the content producers want to take away fair-use rights. (Meaning format-shifting, not what's commonly referred to as "file sharing" -- which is just unauthorized copying.)
Yes, it is true that spreading music files around can help lead to sales. (This is only right to do when the copyright holder authorizes it.)
Does that somehow make sharing copyright-protected material right? Most definitely not. I hope the EFF doesn't send the wrong message here.
Countering the suits against the infringers is exactly what should not be done. The copyright holders are finally doing the right thing by going after the actual infringers, instead of the service providers.
FWIW, the idea of the new installer is that it'll come with a bunch of frontends, much like debconf does today. You probably won't be dealing with the admittedly ugly text installer.
You're trying to be clever, I know, but you're failing miserably. The grandparent's point was that his system has smoothly upgraded without needing to be reinstalled throughout those four years.
I have the same experience with my laptop.
Just to nitpick, I think you got those from Christian Marillat's apt source; they're not in Debian proper.
dselect sucks and is not worth the pain. aptitude, on the other hand, is Very Good. (Incidentally, I wonder if on Red Hat + APT, I can browse packages like I do with aptitude's UI...)
That's a pretty uninformed argument.
The RIAA represents the copyright holders. I'm sure in the actual suits, they will be XYZ Recording Co., PDQ Recording Co., Simian Records vs. Jim the Infringer, not RIAA vs same.
That's pretty easy: he is, because a copy of your CD does not need to be made in order for you to loan it to him.
Contrast that with the fact unless your software destroys all of your copies of a copyrighted work (including the original CD) when someone downloads your offered copy, the work has been illegally duplicated.
You are offering the work for loan if you loan your copy to your friend. You are offering the work for copying when you "share" it, and you are participating in the copy. It's that simple.
You are no doubt one of those people who are continually crying that people use "theft" to describe copyright infringement.
It would be wise, in that case, to not try to use an argument regarding physical theft when we're talking about copyright infringement.
Actually, the idea was supposed to be that you couldn't create a software hack that fooled the user into giving up his logon information, based on the idea that you were supposed to train users only to logon after hitting Ctrl-Alt.Del.
It was a good idea, except for the massive overestimation of the intelligence of the Windows user base.
If they have the resources to provide a set of optimized binaries for various subarchs, I'm all for it. I'm not keen on constantly rebuilding new versions of packages, especially if they end up buggy. Debian has the scale to pull something like this off.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if you're dealing in copyright-free or distribution-unrestricted material, it's going to be patently obvious that's what you're doing, and they won't waste more than a few minutes on you. It would be a waste of lawyer time and money to do otherwise.
You can drag out the example of the guys who got form notices to stop sharing copyrighted material, but the difference between barriers to sending from a form notice to a lawsuit is quite a difference indeed.
If ever single copyrighted (with restriction on redistribution) MP3 disappeared from general availability, that'd be the "victory" you refer to. Redistribution-unrestricted MP3s are totally unaffected, unless you were referring to the former in the first place.
How is this "extortion", exactly?
I'm puzzled why you're even asking this. Why are you sharing your legitimately created -- but still illegitimate to share -- MP3s?
No. You act as if "online" is some new country where you have the right to spread copyright materials around without regard for a license from the copyright holder. This is simply not true. The laws have always applied; it is the enforcement that has been lacking. You now complain of the enforcement.
DRM is a step towards mandatory control of content. Legally mandated DRM is the logical extension of that. I will stand up when that rears it ugly head. I will not stand up when already illegal behavior is noticed by the police.
Stopping copyright violation is going to "destroy what is left of the Internet"?
I've never fired up any of those file "sharing" programs, and I use the Internet just fine, daily.
I keep seeing this (I assume you're the same AC repeatedly posting it), but it makes zero sense to me. Please enumerate the steps you are taking to make sure you are not duplicating the MP3s you ripped in your P2P environment to someone who is not a legitimate owner of the copyrighted material.
Nice try. Perhaps you've heard of something called "broadcast rights"?
Only if you are the copyright holder of that software and all GPL-licensed dependencies. In addition, once you do, you're not licensing under the GPL anymore and can't link to anything GPL.
Unless they're determined to be in violation of the DMCA, trafficking in "circumvention devices".
Yeah, okay. Some people died, so let's make sure the people that didn't are also out of work. Great strategy.
Well, Netflix used to have a "Mature" section. They don't today. Also, with rare exception, Netflix has the R-rated versions of movies where both R and unrated are available.
I don't think Netflix will have an advantage here.
Another reason not to use Word, and its "I've never seen that word before, so you must have spelled it wrong" tactics.
Well, provided the stock then goes back up. If it continues going down, you've wasted your money.
Just adding a little sunshine :-)