Now, if you want to say it was obvious from Dinon's actions that Smith wasn't welcome, we get into muddy water.
Indeed, one could say Smith's actions of attempting to conceal his leeching by closing his laptop when approached was indicative that he knew he shouldn't be doing that.
Then again, it is reasonable to think he was just protecting his own privacy from someone else's snooping as someone at a public hotspot might want to access with his screen unseen by others.
I wish stories would flag links that require that you accept their cookies. Refuse them for this one and you get a refresh loop every 20 seconds to the same page. (And when you visit so many news sites, it becomes a pain to search for all the references to refused cookies for a site in Mozilla's Cookie Manager's Cookie Sites tab.)
able-bodied males [17-45, 45+ with exception] who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
I thought there might be a typo or omission in there as it appears to say that women can't be part of a militia unless they are part of the National Guard, and if not part of a well-regulated militia, they can't bear arms, but searches reveal that the text is correct.
Also, females must actually be citizens and not just "have made a declaration of intention to become" citizens.
I find that quite interesting. (And I'm male.) Where's the ERA branch of the NRA?
So, what ages of females are excluded from the National Guard?
But then that's the difference between finding a previously published book in the trash and finding the original unpublished manuscript, or to take it back to the topic at hand, having a discarded copy of the software and having a discarded copy of its source code.
It would come down to good faith. A reasonable person would see throwing away the source code, runtime environment, and hardware as divesting oneself of the rights to the property as allowing its destruction would deprive even the supposed retainer of the rights of the very rights he seeks to deny to others.
If IP in the trash stays in the trash, then that would certainly be an unconstitutional extension of copyright to infinity by denying it to the public domain.
If any act would deprive all of humanity access to the work, including the rights holder, those rights should be forfeit to the public domain.
Alas, while I think my position is morally sound, section 104A - Copyright in restored works, effectively allows creators to retain copyright over works restored by others, and moral rights in copyright in the UK has similar provisions.
However, it does suggest that until the work is restored, it is in the public domain. Once the work is restored, rights apparently go back to the original destroyer of the work as "if it had never entered the public domain in the United States."
Unless I'm misunderstanding what they mean by "restored" in that section. Is it work restoration or copyright restoration?
Listen, lad. I built this sailing ship up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was space. Other agencies said I was daft to put a sailing ship above the atmosphere, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It fell into the atmosphere. So, I built a second one. That fell into the atmosphere. So, I built a third one. That lost a booster stage, lost its transmitter, then fell into the atmosphere, but the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest solar sail in this star system.
You wouldn't claim it as your work any more than you'd claim a discarded Tonka truck as manufactured by you, but I don't see why you couldn't publish it as what it is: a discarded work of Steven King.
But I think you'd get more interest if it were a book by Stephen King.;)
"I was a conservative. Then they changed what `conservative' was. Now what I am isn't conservative, and what is `conservative' seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you!" -- Ford
Probably the same way the cops can rummage through your garbage outside your home for evidence without a warrant: that which is discarded in the trash you have relinquished your rights.
You bring an interesting question. If the sole copy of a copyrighted work is thrown away by being placed in a trash recepticle on public land, is it as free to anyone taking it as any other discarded property?
One can certainly divest oneself of a copyright prior to its expiration by transfer to another party or to the public domain. Throwing the work away should certainly qualify.
The Beneficial Reuse Of Airwaves/ Defending Content to Assure Secure Television Act, or
Bringing Evocative New Entertainment For Interesting Content In A Legally Restricted Environment Under Social Exclusion Of Fanatical Anarchists In Revolt, With Authentic Values, Enduring Society's Demands Endeavouring For Equal New Devices In Normal Grand Communities Of New Testament Education, Now Threatened Today Online, Against State Sanctions Undermining Republican Empire Security Endangering Corporations Using Radical Exploitative Terrorist Engineering Leaving Everyone Violated, In Servitude, Invaded, Or Neutered Act?
Until this project is rendered illegal in the US under some DMCA-style bullshit.
More likely it would be something originating from the FCC. Unlawful use of radio bandwidth without a license, use of a class B device to intentionally generate interference (a competing unlicensed coherent signal is interference, but I may have the wrong class of device).
People, for some reason, seem to think intellectul property is different. But it's not, it's property; hence the word property in the name.
Yet it has the adjective "intellectual" attached to it, and adjectives modify nouns.
Intellectual property is an artificial property right that used to not be property at all, hence that before the adoption of the concept of copyright all works were and, created before copyright, still are public domain and freely copyable. (The rules to the very game of Monopoly are public domain!) Without law giving property rights to that which is intangible, you'd have no intellectual property.
And the law demands that this distinction of property to the intangible be temporary and revert back to the public as it would have been in absence of copyright.
This is not the same as a house or land as that is tangible property.
You clearly have a vested interest in promoting there are more rights to intellectual property than actually exist.
And you can't "take" something from the public domain, but letting a copyright holder keep it. It's not something the public has any rights to in the first place.
Someone doesn't understand copyright. Remember it is to provide for your exclusive use of a work for a limited time. The fact that you have copyright is predicated upon that you must eventually let it go to the public domain. It is payback to society for its granting of your temporary monopoly over the work.
If you can withhold works from the public domain through copyright extension, then pirates can withhold paying for software until they have gotten their full use of it. Both are delays in the obligations.
If that doesn't seem fair to you then stop the perpetual extension of copyrights.
You're making the assumption that you actually own something which the government is taking away. There is no property being taken.
There is as much property being taken from the public domain by the extension of copyright as there is money lost by someone copying something he never would have paid for in the first place.
For the copyright holders, piracy is loss of potential profit (loss of something they could have had). For us, extension of copyright is loss of potential public domain works (loss of something we could have had).
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if you want to say it was obvious from Dinon's actions that Smith wasn't welcome, we get into muddy water.
Indeed, one could say Smith's actions of attempting to conceal his leeching by closing his laptop when approached was indicative that he knew he shouldn't be doing that.
Then again, it is reasonable to think he was just protecting his own privacy from someone else's snooping as someone at a public hotspot might want to access with his screen unseen by others.
Apple releases Mac OS X for Intel.
Microsoft releases XBOX 360 for PPC?
you can rest (un)assured) that they will be used against him.
Oh great! So how long until everyone gets Mirandized at birth?
I wish stories would flag links that require that you accept their cookies. Refuse them for this one and you get a refresh loop every 20 seconds to the same page. (And when you visit so many news sites, it becomes a pain to search for all the references to refused cookies for a site in Mozilla's Cookie Manager's Cookie Sites tab.)
Also, females must actually be citizens and not just "have made a declaration of intention to become" citizens.
I find that quite interesting. (And I'm male.) Where's the ERA branch of the NRA?
So, what ages of females are excluded from the National Guard?
Looks like a cross between an Asgard control panel and Professor Chronotis' abacus-controlled time machine. Good thing neither of them have patents.
But then that's the difference between finding a previously published book in the trash and finding the original unpublished manuscript, or to take it back to the topic at hand, having a discarded copy of the software and having a discarded copy of its source code.
It would come down to good faith. A reasonable person would see throwing away the source code, runtime environment, and hardware as divesting oneself of the rights to the property as allowing its destruction would deprive even the supposed retainer of the rights of the very rights he seeks to deny to others.
If IP in the trash stays in the trash, then that would certainly be an unconstitutional extension of copyright to infinity by denying it to the public domain.
If any act would deprive all of humanity access to the work, including the rights holder, those rights should be forfeit to the public domain.
Alas, while I think my position is morally sound, section 104A - Copyright in restored works, effectively allows creators to retain copyright over works restored by others, and moral rights in copyright in the UK has similar provisions.
However, it does suggest that until the work is restored, it is in the public domain. Once the work is restored, rights apparently go back to the original destroyer of the work as "if it had never entered the public domain in the United States."
Unless I'm misunderstanding what they mean by "restored" in that section. Is it work restoration or copyright restoration?
Listen, lad. I built this sailing ship up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was space. Other agencies said I was daft to put a sailing ship above the atmosphere, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It fell into the atmosphere. So, I built a second one. That fell into the atmosphere. So, I built a third one. That lost a booster stage, lost its transmitter, then fell into the atmosphere, but the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest solar sail in this star system.
You wouldn't claim it as your work any more than you'd claim a discarded Tonka truck as manufactured by you, but I don't see why you couldn't publish it as what it is: a discarded work of Steven King.
;)
But I think you'd get more interest if it were a book by Stephen King.
It's hard to tell how many since it becomes harder to tell when one announcement is just a dupe of another.
"I was a conservative. Then they changed what `conservative' was. Now what I am isn't conservative, and what is `conservative' seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you!"
-- Ford
Some excerpts from my userContent.css ad filters:
// If only this one would work!
a[href*="doubleclick.net/"] img { display: none ! important }
*[width="729"][height="90"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="728"][height="90"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="550"][height="150"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="468"][height="60"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="336"][height="90"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="336"][height="280"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="300"][height="250"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="220"][height="120"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="180"][height="150"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="160"][height="600"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="150"][height="60"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="125"][height="125"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="120"][height="600"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="125"][height="300"] { display: none ! important }
a img[src*="468x60"] { display: none ! important }
img[onload] { display: none ! important; }
iframe[src] { display: none ! important; }
body script { display: none ! important; }
div.contextclick a[name^="ra"] {
text-decoration: none ! important;
border-bottom: 0px ! important;
color: inherit ! important;
}
#DCol { display: none ! important }
#CCol { display: none ! important }
div.showcases { display: none ! important }
div.showcase { display: none ! important }
div.scSpon { display: none ! important }
div[style="border: 2px solid rgb(51, 102, 153); padding: 6px; margin-bottom: 10px;"] { display: none ! important; }
span.artText P.ArticleBody + P[align="right"] + table[width="180"][align="left"] {
display: none ! important;
}
object[codebase*=flash] { display: none ! important; }
object[code-base*=flash] { display: none ! important; }
embed[type*=flash] { display: none ! important; }
And that's just what slashcode only slightly mangles.
If somebody uses a 0-day exploit to craft a worm, then I don't believe Microsoft can really be held accountable.
No, it would still depend on the obviousness of the exploit used.
But if you use the definition of obviousness at use in the USPTO, Microsoft will still be safe from accountability.
Probably the same way the cops can rummage through your garbage outside your home for evidence without a warrant: that which is discarded in the trash you have relinquished your rights.
IANAL nor would I want to have to fund a defense.
You bring an interesting question. If the sole copy of a copyrighted work is thrown away by being placed in a trash recepticle on public land, is it as free to anyone taking it as any other discarded property?
One can certainly divest oneself of a copyright prior to its expiration by transfer to another party or to the public domain. Throwing the work away should certainly qualify.
Who would want to rent bits?
Beneficial
Reuse
Of
Airwaves/
Defending
Content to
Assure
Secure
Television
Act, or
Restricted Environment Under Social Exclusion
Of Fanatical
Anarchists In Revolt, With Authentic Values, Enduring Society's
Demands Endeavouring For Equal New Devices In Normal Grand
Communities Of New Testament Education, Now Threatened Today Online,
Against State Sanctions Undermining Republican Empire
Security Endangering Corporations Using Radical Exploitative
Terrorist Engineering Leaving Everyone Violated, In Servitude, Invaded, Or Neutered
Act?
Yes, iNumbers, for when your accounting books are in fact imaginary.
It could also be a database for keeping track of telephone numbers.
Until this project is rendered illegal in the US under some DMCA-style bullshit.
More likely it would be something originating from the FCC. Unlawful use of radio bandwidth without a license, use of a class B device to intentionally generate interference (a competing unlicensed coherent signal is interference, but I may have the wrong class of device).
People, for some reason, seem to think intellectul property is different. But it's not, it's property; hence the word property in the name.
Yet it has the adjective "intellectual" attached to it, and adjectives modify nouns.
Intellectual property is an artificial property right that used to not be property at all, hence that before the adoption of the concept of copyright all works were and, created before copyright, still are public domain and freely copyable. (The rules to the very game of Monopoly are public domain!) Without law giving property rights to that which is intangible, you'd have no intellectual property.
And the law demands that this distinction of property to the intangible be temporary and revert back to the public as it would have been in absence of copyright.
This is not the same as a house or land as that is tangible property.
You clearly have a vested interest in promoting there are more rights to intellectual property than actually exist.
And you can't "take" something from the public domain, but letting a copyright holder keep it. It's not something the public has any rights to in the first place.
Someone doesn't understand copyright. Remember it is to provide for your exclusive use of a work for a limited time. The fact that you have copyright is predicated upon that you must eventually let it go to the public domain. It is payback to society for its granting of your temporary monopoly over the work.
If you can withhold works from the public domain through copyright extension, then pirates can withhold paying for software until they have gotten their full use of it. Both are delays in the obligations.
If that doesn't seem fair to you then stop the perpetual extension of copyrights.
Gnome is better.... You can even copy mp3 off you iPod. Something OS X have problems with.
You misspelled "probdrms".
You're making the assumption that you actually own something which the government is taking away. There is no property being taken.
There is as much property being taken from the public domain by the extension of copyright as there is money lost by someone copying something he never would have paid for in the first place.
For the copyright holders, piracy is loss of potential profit (loss of something they could have had). For us, extension of copyright is loss of potential public domain works (loss of something we could have had).