What's a CAD? If I didn't know what it was, nor never heard of Autodesk, I would've assumed it was something for my car, just not sure what. Probably that wiggly-diggly under the hood of my car, with which I check my oil-level.
And what's a ROM? A better name for that one would've been "Nero disc-burning suite" And even that's a stretch.
Last time I checked, getting an extra life was just a case of a slight headache from hitting a block that's hanging in the sky, and eating a green mushroom.
What is this 'momentum' you speak off? What do you mean by that? That people can't think for themselves? And that they'll vote for whomever won the previous primaries?
Do you honestly think that?
btw, what's wrong with being able to vote for ALL candidates? Right now, there were more candidates in the beginning, but because they lost the first primary, they just stepped out, because of "momentum".
Right, a real balanced system that is(!)
Just have one set date, on which the whole nation will vote who they want as their president, and have all candidates run for it. You get more diversity, and also independents will have a chance, and it'll be cheaper for all the candidates to run, which means that they don't have to make as many concessions to the 'party-sponsors'... which in turn leads to less corruption.
Indeed, you meant a third party off site backup service. Which is mostly used by people anyway.
To wit, every work that is in any way being published is under copyright. And thus prohibited from redistribution under current laws, with noted exceptions such as fair use, first sale doctrine, and where the artist/writer gives explicit permission to republish. I think that this scheme can be fit right into the fair use. It's content that YOU own that YOU store somewhere remotely, on a location that only YOU have access to, so that YOU have access to that information wherever you are. No matter whether it's music, movies, books, or just word documents. For me, this is not illegal.
And if it's in any way illegal, it should be YOU who's liable, because YOU distribute the works to that service, and not the service itself.
But I might have a rather simplistic view on this situation.
So, what you are saying is that you can't use a remote backup service for copyrighted works (ie, almost everything)? That just seems rather ludicrous to me. But indeed an interesting test case, with potential dramatic ramifications for S3, and all those other remote backup services.
Oh I already am acting like a customer. Just not theirs. I haven't bought a RIAA-labeled cd in about a year.
I have paid a few bucks for some songs off of magnatune,com and indiestore.7digital.com and a cd off of cdbaby.com. But CDs from a big label record, I no longer buy those.
I might reconsider if they start acting less greedy. But so far I'm not missing anything. For the record, that also means I haven't downloaded any tracks without permission off of P2P networks. I have grabbed a number of albums from artists who put them there themselves. That were released under a CC license.
How is storing something remotely the same as distributing it? The only thing I see this service do, is offer you a location somewhere else to store your music, so that you can listen to it on a different computer (such as for instance a work-pc). They don't distribute it to anyone else. Each user has his/her own password protected account on which they can store their music or any other file-type for that matter, it's not limited to music, I don't think.
So, saying that is illegal, will make for instance Amazon's S3 storage solutions also illegal, or other off-site storage solutions.
Are the record labels so scared of promotion that they want to kill it? That they want nothing to do with it?
Yes, copyright infringement is illegal, but paying to shift formats (from disc to any more portable format) should fall under fair use. And DJs already pay royalties to be allowed to play the music. So why should they have to pay twice?
Yellow tinted glasses (for instance certain sunglasses) are what keeps me awake. Though I do not drive my car in the night with sunglasses on, but you have these special yellow-tinted driving glasses that seems to help people.
I can't help but think that that email had been mentioned before in some IT news show. (at least I remember hearing about it, somewhere) And if Jimmy Wales is as immoral as Calacanis depicted him, I fear for the future of Wikipedia.
How about just relying on 'good old' copyright to protect your code, instead of software patents? I know, copyright laws are also under fire, but still, I think that using patents to protect code is a cure worse than the disease. And it's too drastic and largely unnecessary.
And also those 'theatre thugs' still have to proof you actually filmed (part of) the performance/movie. I hope the Canadian courts still believe that you are innocent until proven guilty. And I hope that'll never get reversed.
still a bad analogy. Contrary to what all those 'mandatory viewing' promos and trailers on DVDs say, copyright infringement is not equal to theft. Yes, it's a crime, but it's definitely not theft.
Indeed, in a few years time the US will have a generation of bankrupt twenty-to-thirty-somethings. And then we'll hear the media conglomerates complaining again and start suing the next generation.
Is the US government actually saying that copying files from one device to another is the same as looking through suitcases? Then, in that aspect the whole argument of the RIAA that 'copying cds is illegal' is debunked by the US government. You could easily say the following: 'Copying CDs is the same as looking at them in a store' and get away with it.
sadly yes, if it were up to the MAFIAAs, new-born children would get their ears stuffed, to prevent them from hearing someone infringe on copyright laws.
Slashdot Mirror
What's a CAD? If I didn't know what it was, nor never heard of Autodesk, I would've assumed it was something for my car, just not sure what. Probably that wiggly-diggly under the hood of my car, with which I check my oil-level.
And what's a ROM? A better name for that one would've been "Nero disc-burning suite" And even that's a stretch.
Last time I checked, getting an extra life was just a case of a slight headache from hitting a block that's hanging in the sky, and eating a green mushroom.
What is this 'momentum' you speak off?
What do you mean by that?
That people can't think for themselves? And that they'll vote for whomever won the previous primaries?
Do you honestly think that?
btw, what's wrong with being able to vote for ALL candidates? Right now, there were more candidates in the beginning, but because they lost the first primary, they just stepped out, because of "momentum".
Right, a real balanced system that is(!)
Just have one set date, on which the whole nation will vote who they want as their president, and have all candidates run for it.
You get more diversity, and also independents will have a chance, and it'll be cheaper for all the candidates to run, which means that they don't have to make as many concessions to the 'party-sponsors'... which in turn leads to less corruption.
Indeed, you meant a third party off site backup service.
Which is mostly used by people anyway.
To wit, every work that is in any way being published is under copyright. And thus prohibited from redistribution under current laws, with noted exceptions such as fair use, first sale doctrine, and where the artist/writer gives explicit permission to republish.
I think that this scheme can be fit right into the fair use. It's content that YOU own that YOU store somewhere remotely, on a location that only YOU have access to, so that YOU have access to that information wherever you are. No matter whether it's music, movies, books, or just word documents. For me, this is not illegal.
And if it's in any way illegal, it should be YOU who's liable, because YOU distribute the works to that service, and not the service itself.
But I might have a rather simplistic view on this situation.
So, what you are saying is that you can't use a remote backup service for copyrighted works (ie, almost everything)?
:)
That just seems rather ludicrous to me.
But indeed an interesting test case, with potential dramatic ramifications for S3, and all those other remote backup services.
Does EMI hate freedom?
Oh I already am acting like a customer. Just not theirs.
I haven't bought a RIAA-labeled cd in about a year.
I have paid a few bucks for some songs off of magnatune,com and indiestore.7digital.com and a cd off of cdbaby.com.
But CDs from a big label record, I no longer buy those.
I might reconsider if they start acting less greedy. But so far I'm not missing anything.
For the record, that also means I haven't downloaded any tracks without permission off of P2P networks.
I have grabbed a number of albums from artists who put them there themselves. That were released under a CC license.
How is storing something remotely the same as distributing it?
The only thing I see this service do, is offer you a location somewhere else to store your music, so that you can listen to it on a different computer (such as for instance a work-pc).
They don't distribute it to anyone else.
Each user has his/her own password protected account on which they can store their music or any other file-type for that matter, it's not limited to music, I don't think.
So, saying that is illegal, will make for instance Amazon's S3 storage solutions also illegal, or other off-site storage solutions.
But Richard Who?
How is this 'informative'?
It's a link to one of this years Think Geek April Fools prank.
Did the moderators even look at the URL?
Are the record labels so scared of promotion that they want to kill it? That they want nothing to do with it?
Yes, copyright infringement is illegal, but paying to shift formats (from disc to any more portable format) should fall under fair use. And DJs already pay royalties to be allowed to play the music. So why should they have to pay twice?
Yellow tinted glasses (for instance certain sunglasses) are what keeps me awake. Though I do not drive my car in the night with sunglasses on, but you have these special yellow-tinted driving glasses that seems to help people.
Blue just makes me want to go to sleep.
500MB should be enough for 1 browser...
I can't help but think that that email had been mentioned before in some IT news show. (at least I remember hearing about it, somewhere)
And if Jimmy Wales is as immoral as Calacanis depicted him, I fear for the future of Wikipedia.
It's a scary time. Especially if all of Jason Calacanis' predictions made on this week's This Week In Tech regarding Wikipedia become true. :(
$64,000 should be enough for everyone!
Can Source Forge perhaps sue Microsoft for infringing on the trademark Sourceforge? (it's at least a closer approximation than Mike Row Soft)
I thought you couldn't patent an idea, but only the application of an idea.
How about just relying on 'good old' copyright to protect your code, instead of software patents?
I know, copyright laws are also under fire, but still, I think that using patents to protect code is a cure worse than the disease. And it's too drastic and largely unnecessary.
It's simple. Offer Linux for 300 dollars in stores, or for free on the web. If these mcNewbies want to pay for it, then by all means. :)
Still not a theft. :)
And also those 'theatre thugs' still have to proof you actually filmed (part of) the performance/movie. I hope the Canadian courts still believe that you are innocent until proven guilty. And I hope that'll never get reversed.
still a bad analogy. Contrary to what all those 'mandatory viewing' promos and trailers on DVDs say, copyright infringement is not equal to theft. Yes, it's a crime, but it's definitely not theft.
Indeed, in a few years time the US will have a generation of bankrupt twenty-to-thirty-somethings. And then we'll hear the media conglomerates complaining again and start suing the next generation.
Is the US government actually saying that copying files from one device to another is the same as looking through suitcases?
Then, in that aspect the whole argument of the RIAA that 'copying cds is illegal' is debunked by the US government.
You could easily say the following: 'Copying CDs is the same as looking at them in a store' and get away with it.
But the villain wasn't running a Windows box, unless GNU has released a Windows version that we don't know about...
sadly yes, if it were up to the MAFIAAs, new-born children would get their ears stuffed, to prevent them from hearing someone infringe on copyright laws.