A "written escrow agreement" is meaningless unless there is actually a third-party escrow trustee involved from the beginning. This is what escrowing is. (See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=escrow)
The whole point of escrow is that the source is already in the possession of the escrow trustee, which would not likely be a firm that would just vanish overnight.
"Can you imagine missing the last two weeks of 24, The West Wing, ER or whatever you're hooked on because some silly timestamped restriction is set to one week (or less)?"
If one is hooked on West Wing or ER, one has much bigger problems than the broadcast bit.
Just take "under God" out for the version that the teachers use to lead the class, and any kid who wants to say "under God" can just insert those words in between "one nation" and "indivisible" if he or she wants to, which of course is perfectly legal in any case. Only the teacher cannot (if the high court rules in favor of the 9th circuit.)
Hourly rate if you can. Projects ALWAYS take long than you think. Fixed price negotiations are generally bad news for "small shops" and individuals. I've got 22 years under my belt, and this is my experience.
The right to speak does implicitely include the right to be heard
By whom? Not simply by anyone you choose. To know the intent of the law you must study the history of the law. Free speech and free press were primarily designed to grant unlimited *political* speech. You can go in public and shout your brains out. You can picket the U.S. Capitol. You can start your own newspaper and print whatever you want (mostly.) (No guarantee anyone will buy it.) You have the right to redress the government. You have *no* right to be heard by private citizens who wish to deflect your voice, by either shouting you down, wearing headphones to drown you out, or by entering into their private property.
Calling someone on the phone essentially violates privacy. You are not physically allowed to enter someone's home without their permission just because you think you have the right to an audience of your "free speech." And if the judges are consistent they will come down on privacy rights. Privacy trumps the "freedoms" of others in many ways every day. Just try violating a restraining order and see what happens when you insist on your free speech "rights."
There are criminal penalties for certain levels of copying. See U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec. 506 [cornell.edu] for the offenses and Title 18, Chapter 113, Sec 2319 [cornell.edu] for the penalties.
The obvious moral to your little story is that trying to make money in the music business is a bad gamble. Is somebody forcing artists into it? No. They are usually driven by pipedream fantasies to the point of being stupid.
The music business is a *business*. Get a lawyer. If it's a bad deal, go into a another line of work. If artists did this, the music business as it is would die. It's the unwise artists that keep feeding the machine.
Right of First Sale rulings do not affect the explicit rights given copyright holders regarding the *transmission* of the material. Which is why I said that it seems that the guy would be in his rights if he sold the song *including* the medium where the song resides (which in this case would be his computer.) This would be analogous to selling a CD that you bought. Selling the song would selling the medium would constitute *copying* and/or *transmitting*, something which Right for First Sale judgements do not grant beyond the copyright laws themselves. If you have a specific ruling that contradicts this, I would be interested in it.
The copyright law expressly addresses the issue of transmission of intellectual property. When this guy paid his.99 cents, I would bet he was not given a license to retransmit this song by any medium whatsoever, but was limited to personal use. The wierd thing about this is that if the song were downloaded to the man's computer, he could sell the computer, INCLUDING the song, and that would be legal, and he could make backup copies for himself. But it is not legal to distribute the song any other way.
When the amount of pirated works is over certain amounts during a certain period, there are criminal penalities. Only the worst offenders are eligible. See U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec. 506 [cornell.edu] for the offenses and Title 18, Chapter 113, Sec 2319 [cornell.edu] for the penalties.
Isn't that what Lindos tries to be? At any rate, this whole GUI issue is one issue that has bothered me (a fanatic Linux developer and user) for quite some time. Some consensus with the average consumer in mind needs to occur. This will greatly enhance acceptibilty.
End users (including corporations) want it easy to use, and cheap. The wants and desires of the average Linux junkie is irrelevant here.
This would require a different business model, because as I said, any version of Linux that M$ would distribute would be freely copyable in the world at large. (Remember that any IP they put into the kernel would be GPL'd.) Their Linux business would basically end up like RedHat's, which Microsoft hates and is vigorously opposing. (And scared shitless of, I might add.) It would basically be their Windows competing their version of Linux (with much less revenue, but much more distribution). This does not sound at all plausible. M$ hates Linux. They don't want to help it. They want to destroy it.
It would seem to me that if one user buys into the SCO Group shakedown, er, license, then that copy of Linux is "ligit", from SCO point of view, and constitutes a tacit acceptance of the GPL (yet again), and can be duplicated to the world for free.
Why would M$ want to do that? If they made a Linux it would be freely distributable like anyone else's. That's precisely what M$ doesn't want.
Moreover, there is no way for M$ or anyone else to make Linux "illegal." The only "illegal" versions of Linux are versions that have unauthorized IP, which is what SCO claims the 2.4 kernel has. And even if this does turn out to be true, any offending code will be rewritten within days of the disclosure, putting the mess to bed once and for all.
Linux will prevail.
Slashdot Mirror
A "written escrow agreement" is meaningless unless there is actually a third-party escrow trustee involved from the beginning. This is what escrowing is. (See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=escrow)
The VARs and SIs should have known better.
The whole point of escrow is that the source is already in the possession of the escrow trustee, which would not likely be a firm that would just vanish overnight.
"At least home users of Linux can take solace in knowing that they don't have to pay up yet."
Yet? This announcement from SCO Group is irrelevant to the question of whether *anyone* will have to "pay up", "yet" or otherwise.
"Can you imagine missing the last two weeks of 24, The West Wing, ER or whatever you're hooked on because some silly timestamped restriction is set to one week (or less)?"
If one is hooked on West Wing or ER, one has much bigger problems than the broadcast bit.
Get a life - Kill your TV.
Just take "under God" out for the version that the teachers use to lead the class, and any kid who wants to say "under God" can just insert those words in between "one nation" and "indivisible" if he or she wants to, which of course is perfectly legal in any case. Only the teacher cannot (if the high court rules in favor of the 9th circuit.)
Hourly rate if you can. Projects ALWAYS take long than you think. Fixed price negotiations are generally bad news for "small shops" and individuals. I've got 22 years under my belt, and this is my experience.
The right to speak does implicitely include the right to be heard
By whom? Not simply by anyone you choose. To know the intent of the law you must study the history of the law. Free speech and free press were primarily designed to grant unlimited *political* speech. You can go in public and shout your brains out. You can picket the U.S. Capitol. You can start your own newspaper and print whatever you want (mostly.) (No guarantee anyone will buy it.) You have the right to redress the government. You have *no* right to be heard by private citizens who wish to deflect your voice, by either shouting you down, wearing headphones to drown you out, or by entering into their private property.
Calling someone on the phone essentially violates privacy. You are not physically allowed to enter someone's home without their permission just because you think you have the right to an audience of your "free speech." And if the judges are consistent they will come down on privacy rights. Privacy trumps the "freedoms" of others in many ways every day. Just try violating a restraining order and see what happens when you insist on your free speech "rights."
I wonder if they tell the kids the artists are starving since the RIAA gives them $0.00000083 for every CD sold.
I wonder if they tell than that with such a bad deal as that, they should study hard and enter a profession with much better chance of success.
There are criminal penalties for certain levels of copying. See U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec. 506 [cornell.edu] for the offenses and Title 18, Chapter 113, Sec 2319 [cornell.edu] for the penalties.
The obvious moral to your little story is that trying to make money in the music business is a bad gamble. Is somebody forcing artists into it? No. They are usually driven by pipedream fantasies to the point of being stupid. The music business is a *business*. Get a lawyer. If it's a bad deal, go into a another line of work. If artists did this, the music business as it is would die. It's the unwise artists that keep feeding the machine.
And who is going to fund this utopia?
I wonder if he would make me a TRS-80 and a pair of high-top sneakers. That would be great. Thanks. Sarcasm mode OFF
Right of First Sale rulings do not affect the explicit rights given copyright holders regarding the *transmission* of the material. Which is why I said that it seems that the guy would be in his rights if he sold the song *including* the medium where the song resides (which in this case would be his computer.) This would be analogous to selling a CD that you bought. Selling the song would selling the medium would constitute *copying* and/or *transmitting*, something which Right for First Sale judgements do not grant beyond the copyright laws themselves. If you have a specific ruling that contradicts this, I would be interested in it.
The copyright law expressly addresses the issue of transmission of intellectual property. When this guy paid his .99 cents, I would bet he was not given a license to retransmit this song by any medium whatsoever, but was limited to personal use. The wierd thing about this is that if the song were downloaded to the man's computer, he could sell the computer, INCLUDING the song, and that would be legal, and he could make backup copies for himself. But it is not legal to distribute the song any other way.
IANAL
As P.T. Barnum (of the circus fame) once said, "there's sucker born every minute."
AOL sucks. Boycott them.
You *could* do this if with a big enough dictionary appended to the hash. But that would be really, really stupid. :)
When the amount of pirated works is over certain amounts during a certain period, there are criminal penalities. Only the worst offenders are eligible. See U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec. 506 [cornell.edu] for the offenses and Title 18, Chapter 113, Sec 2319 [cornell.edu] for the penalties.
Isn't that what Lindos tries to be? At any rate, this whole GUI issue is one issue that has bothered me (a fanatic Linux developer and user) for quite some time. Some consensus with the average consumer in mind needs to occur. This will greatly enhance acceptibilty.
End users (including corporations) want it easy to use, and cheap. The wants and desires of the average Linux junkie is irrelevant here.
ROFL. As a guitarist and Linux hack, I am tickled by this.
The Niacinimide form is better, less liver stress, and no flushing.
This would require a different business model, because as I said, any version of Linux that M$ would distribute would be freely copyable in the world at large. (Remember that any IP they put into the kernel would be GPL'd.) Their Linux business would basically end up like RedHat's, which Microsoft hates and is vigorously opposing. (And scared shitless of, I might add.) It would basically be their Windows competing their version of Linux (with much less revenue, but much more distribution). This does not sound at all plausible. M$ hates Linux. They don't want to help it. They want to destroy it.
It would seem to me that if one user buys into the SCO Group shakedown, er, license, then that copy of Linux is "ligit", from SCO point of view, and constitutes a tacit acceptance of the GPL (yet again), and can be duplicated to the world for free.
Who's gonna be the sucker?
For SCO Group to make an accusation like that is like tar calling sand black. Am I the only one who fell off his chair?
Why would M$ want to do that? If they made a Linux it would be freely distributable like anyone else's. That's precisely what M$ doesn't want. Moreover, there is no way for M$ or anyone else to make Linux "illegal." The only "illegal" versions of Linux are versions that have unauthorized IP, which is what SCO claims the 2.4 kernel has. And even if this does turn out to be true, any offending code will be rewritten within days of the disclosure, putting the mess to bed once and for all. Linux will prevail.