The primary reason for registration is to ensure that a copy remains for the public domain post copyright. The limited time for non-registered copyright is to encourage registering.
I'm sure the Berne Convention folks can get back together to agree on the specifics of registration, since they've already been so willing to sign previous agreements.
If it takes you a minimum of 2 years to figure out if someone is incompetent, you ought to be fired. In various aspects of IT, it will take between 2-5 weeks if they're really really good bluffers to figure out if someone's worth their salt. That usually falls well inside the 60-90 day probationary period in effect at many companies. If you haven't figured it out in this timeframe, you're not trying. (assuming you're competent)
Most of the major projects I've been involved with have run 6-18 months. That's from inception to delivery of a UA tested product.
Then again, at some companies I've seen, you won't even get access to a computer for 30-60 days.... For some reason, their projects never finish "on time" either and run in the 24+ months timeframes. It must be a coincidence.
I don't recall seeing any of that verbage in the EFF or GPL.
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
I've had very little turnover in my years of managing, and have had people who seek jobs for companies I go to work for to work for me again. Guess I'm doing something right.:-)
Well, you're doing half your job right. If you were doing the other half right, you wouldn't be jumping companies.
Or, it could be that Apple didn't think Vista's market share worthy of testing. After all, MS has even declared Vista a failure (or so Maximum PC would have you think).
But, conspiracy charges? Not unless they can prove that iTunes has code along the lines of
if (os == vista) inject_BSOD_Payload
similar to MS's Windows code running on DRDOS. And even then, it runs on everything but the most unpopular version of windows since... well, even ME was more liked.
Also, there'd be no injunction or fine. What would be the basis? We didn't support a niche product? Should we also test on BeOS and Minix?
Seriously, have you checked the numbers on that rival's product? it's less than 16% of the total market after 2 years and an all but guaranteed pipeline on all new PC sales. It's been labeled a dismal failure in the media.
Itunes works fine on the other 85% or so percent of the market. So they just add one more nail into Vista's coffin and give people one more hesitation to move to Vista, or it's successor, Windows 7, which builds on Vista but wait, will make you coffee in the morning and take out the garbage.
It might just have been done on purpose, which you would have concluded had you thought it through.
THink of the bad press for MS this heaps ontop of Vista. What are people going to remember? iTunes crashes Vista? Or Vista crashes when you plugin an iPod?
They usually run on different protocols. Data runs on something like GPRS, while SMS is a specific protocol running inline with voice, IIRC. I could ask the guy sitting next to me, but he's away at the moment.
Wow, bummer. Guess the penthouse offices and separate elevator were getting too pricey? I'd like to know how many of the true "core" ensemble employees they keep, and how many actually go off to a new venture.
Email is great. I only answer it on odd mornings. Turn off all those silly popups and sounds, and it is quite unobtrusive. The same thing goes for IM, and your cell's SMS notifications.
I agree with you, GP is wrong. Giving it a 1 star rating with the statement that the overly restrictive 3 "free" installs before you've got to depend on a person to install is perfectly valid.
Now I don't know what kind of DRM this is, but it apparently registers with a central DB when you install it, which implies network connectivity or a phone call, and what happens if you install it once and EA goes out of business and takes their activation process with them?
No, I'd have to say skip Spore entirely, despite the cracks available. If you bought it, make sure to download the crack immediately. I wouldn't buy this game until the registration/activation piece is removed.
I'd say registered with at least one of the members of the Berne Convention would be fine, assuming that they share their catalogs. (which is the entire purpose with saved DRM-free digital works anyways, IMHO).
I also wasn't concerned with all other countries operations, just the US one with the huge downwind stink its policies are creating.
If a longer copyright term (such as 50 years) were adopted, then there should be an early expiry mechanism for copyright. For example, if a work has been in copyright for more than 12 years, then if 4 years pass without the work or a direct derivative being distributed, then it would lapse into the public domain. Note that works under GPL would not be weakened by this requirement, since they are being frequently distributed.
Interesting, you just made an argument for shorter terms than 50 years.:) Although I really really like the concept of "making available" as a clause to copyright. This would prevent Disney's current habit of removing items for 5-10 years to create artificial scarcity. I'd make the argument that once published, you have to remain available within a 2 year period or it lapses into the public domain. After all, that was the goal of copyright, to encourage the creation of works to enrich the public domain, not to enrich the coffers of individuals nor artists.
Exactly what bearing do the rest have on US copyright? Read the conditions of the Berne Convention signatories carefully, you might be surprised.
We have the situation you are describing already with the mistaken conception that the world is relevant to what occurs internally in a country. For instance, Steamboat Willy was, I'm sure, also published/displayed in the UK. As such, it can be copied in the UK at will as it has been more than 50 years and thus it out of copyright in the UK but it cannot be imported into the US, for instance, as it is still under copyright in the US.
The only clause of real effect is that copyright for international works must be treated the same as those of internal works.
I never said copyright law was wrong. I said the terms should be reverted to something more in line with the original intent of the US founders. As for a work being open and free, what makes you think anyone should have the right to profit from their work after they've sold it once? (This is the primary purpose of copyright by the way, to give a creator the ability to sell something more than once, thus gaining greater value from it)
BTW, those original terms (28 years) is just about the average working lifespan of a normal person. There are no fees I'm aware of currently or in the past. However, a trivial fee is warranted if the income is enough to sustain someone for almost 30 years.
The mere fact that something can generate revenue is not enough reason for them to continue to be under copyright. Or are you proposing that Newton's Pricipia or Archimedes The Method of Mechanical Theorems should still be under copyright? After all, just about everything in the modern world works off of principals of both works. Copyright was established to combat the secretive nature of guilds, which passed knowledge on from master to apprentice (usually father to son) and kept it from the public. By giving the creator a limited monopoly, it encouraged them to publish. After the monopoly period, the creation went to the public domain for use by all.
The DMCA is in effect adding a federally enforced trade secret concept on top of a copyright. And said trade secret keeps the item hidden. Or do you think that organizations like the MLB that had their MLB season servers go dark and thus removing all their paid customers ability to see previous games is the "right" way to be?
If I buy something, I expect to "own" it, just like a book. I can cut it, chop it, paste it, display it (yes, you can display a book) and pretty much do anything that's not commercial with it.
Why should I expect anything less for any other copyrighted material?
Let me rephrase it: the only tolerable DMCA is a dead DMCA.
Now, let me expand on that thought: the DMCA is purely about preventing people to have access by governmental fiat. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone as the real copyright violators, "pirates", will break DMCA laws while breaking existing laws. The normal citizen, who today can timeshift and format shift legally, becomes a criminal under DMCA.
So, essentially my point is that existing laws are already in place to deal with real piracy. The copyright owners could do wonders with properly utilizing a vast new marketing arm (the internet) by distributing their new works via 128kb/s mp3s (these suck in quality btw, but would be equivalent to free airplay for the masses). The current "distributors" might be marginalized, but that would be progress (in my own personal view, and would actually extend the copyright to whom it should belong to - the creator, not some sleazy fat leech that actually detracts from the creative process)
As for time periods, 28 years total is plenty. The automatic one year grant would address most issues regarding the registration process. The registration process ensures that a copy now exists with the government and can be shared via the library system.
Lastly, you should remember this: copyright was created to promote creativity in individuals by giving them a temporary monopoly on distributorship after which it was to pass into the public domain for the greater good of the public.
The DMCA and current copyright law pretty much contradicts those intentions.
Make it tolerable... By rejecting it and rolling back copyrights to their original limited lifespan of 14 years after registration. (Although I don't mind the automatic copyright granted which should last for no more than one year pending registration, nor the application/grant of one extension for another 14 years)
Oh, and I would increase registration requirements and a provision to provide library copies with actual submissions in open source storage formats completely free of DRM.
Flash drives can't cost-effectively replace the media content distributors want to sell, and the public still likes to buy. Yes, we all know you can download shows/movies blah blah blah. So, how many have downloaded an HD DVD/BD full quality movie? 15-25GB a bit much? What about the new 2K, 3K, and 4K screens they're talking about? They'll need higher res content, and you know it won't be long before they'll be talking about 10K or 20K and up.
So the 5 year BD lifespan seems about right, not neglecting the fact that it may "fail" like Vista failed long before then.
Slashdot Mirror
Exchange is one of the better performing mail server/collaboration solutions available if you take a small amount of time to configure it properly.
Exchange sucks at either option. The combination with Outlook makes the common end user perceive that it is a better solution.
The primary reason for registration is to ensure that a copy remains for the public domain post copyright. The limited time for non-registered copyright is to encourage registering.
I'm sure the Berne Convention folks can get back together to agree on the specifics of registration, since they've already been so willing to sign previous agreements.
If it takes you a minimum of 2 years to figure out if someone is incompetent, you ought to be fired. In various aspects of IT, it will take between 2-5 weeks if they're really really good bluffers to figure out if someone's worth their salt. That usually falls well inside the 60-90 day probationary period in effect at many companies. If you haven't figured it out in this timeframe, you're not trying. (assuming you're competent)
Most of the major projects I've been involved with have run 6-18 months. That's from inception to delivery of a UA tested product.
Then again, at some companies I've seen, you won't even get access to a computer for 30-60 days.... For some reason, their projects never finish "on time" either and run in the 24+ months timeframes. It must be a coincidence.
I've been twittered. Hooray!
I don't recall seeing any of that verbage in the EFF or GPL.
I've had very little turnover in my years of managing, and have had people who seek jobs for companies I go to work for to work for me again. Guess I'm doing something right. :-)
Well, you're doing half your job right. If you were doing the other half right, you wouldn't be jumping companies.
and they'll hang up and go "great! One more sucker's $"
It all depends upon what's in the EULA. Most EULA's have as a core piece what their software is not suitable for, which is pretty much everything.
Or, it could be that Apple didn't think Vista's market share worthy of testing. After all, MS has even declared Vista a failure (or so Maximum PC would have you think).
But, conspiracy charges? Not unless they can prove that iTunes has code along the lines of
if (os == vista) inject_BSOD_Payload
similar to MS's Windows code running on DRDOS. And even then, it runs on everything but the most unpopular version of windows since... well, even ME was more liked.
Also, there'd be no injunction or fine. What would be the basis? We didn't support a niche product? Should we also test on BeOS and Minix?
Nice moniker!
Seriously, have you checked the numbers on that rival's product? it's less than 16% of the total market after 2 years and an all but guaranteed pipeline on all new PC sales. It's been labeled a dismal failure in the media.
Itunes works fine on the other 85% or so percent of the market. So they just add one more nail into Vista's coffin and give people one more hesitation to move to Vista, or it's successor, Windows 7, which builds on Vista but wait, will make you coffee in the morning and take out the garbage.
It might just have been done on purpose, which you would have concluded had you thought it through.
copyright is about distribution, not what you do in your own house. If you don't distribute, you're fine.
Maybe Apple did QA it properly.
THink of the bad press for MS this heaps ontop of Vista. What are people going to remember? iTunes crashes Vista? Or Vista crashes when you plugin an iPod?
There is no spoon....
Unless you're The Tick!
They usually run on different protocols. Data runs on something like GPRS, while SMS is a specific protocol running inline with voice, IIRC. I could ask the guy sitting next to me, but he's away at the moment.
Wow, bummer. Guess the penthouse offices and separate elevator were getting too pricey? I'd like to know how many of the true "core" ensemble employees they keep, and how many actually go off to a new venture.
Email is great. I only answer it on odd mornings. Turn off all those silly popups and sounds, and it is quite unobtrusive. The same thing goes for IM, and your cell's SMS notifications.
I agree with you, GP is wrong. Giving it a 1 star rating with the statement that the overly restrictive 3 "free" installs before you've got to depend on a person to install is perfectly valid.
Now I don't know what kind of DRM this is, but it apparently registers with a central DB when you install it, which implies network connectivity or a phone call, and what happens if you install it once and EA goes out of business and takes their activation process with them?
No, I'd have to say skip Spore entirely, despite the cracks available. If you bought it, make sure to download the crack immediately. I wouldn't buy this game until the registration/activation piece is removed.
I'd say registered with at least one of the members of the Berne Convention would be fine, assuming that they share their catalogs. (which is the entire purpose with saved DRM-free digital works anyways, IMHO).
I also wasn't concerned with all other countries operations, just the US one with the huge downwind stink its policies are creating.
If a longer copyright term (such as 50 years) were adopted, then there should be an early expiry mechanism for copyright. For example, if a work has been in copyright for more than 12 years, then if 4 years pass without the work or a direct derivative being distributed, then it would lapse into the public domain. Note that works under GPL would not be weakened by this requirement, since they are being frequently distributed.
Interesting, you just made an argument for shorter terms than 50 years. :) Although I really really like the concept of "making available" as a clause to copyright. This would prevent Disney's current habit of removing items for 5-10 years to create artificial scarcity. I'd make the argument that once published, you have to remain available within a 2 year period or it lapses into the public domain. After all, that was the goal of copyright, to encourage the creation of works to enrich the public domain, not to enrich the coffers of individuals nor artists.
Exactly what bearing do the rest have on US copyright? Read the conditions of the Berne Convention signatories carefully, you might be surprised.
We have the situation you are describing already with the mistaken conception that the world is relevant to what occurs internally in a country. For instance, Steamboat Willy was, I'm sure, also published/displayed in the UK. As such, it can be copied in the UK at will as it has been more than 50 years and thus it out of copyright in the UK but it cannot be imported into the US, for instance, as it is still under copyright in the US.
The only clause of real effect is that copyright for international works must be treated the same as those of internal works.
actually, electricians usually do create brilliant works. Last time I checked, lights ranged between bright and brilliant.
while you're trolling....
I never said copyright law was wrong. I said the terms should be reverted to something more in line with the original intent of the US founders. As for a work being open and free, what makes you think anyone should have the right to profit from their work after they've sold it once? (This is the primary purpose of copyright by the way, to give a creator the ability to sell something more than once, thus gaining greater value from it)
BTW, those original terms (28 years) is just about the average working lifespan of a normal person. There are no fees I'm aware of currently or in the past. However, a trivial fee is warranted if the income is enough to sustain someone for almost 30 years.
The mere fact that something can generate revenue is not enough reason for them to continue to be under copyright. Or are you proposing that Newton's Pricipia or Archimedes The Method of Mechanical Theorems should still be under copyright? After all, just about everything in the modern world works off of principals of both works. Copyright was established to combat the secretive nature of guilds, which passed knowledge on from master to apprentice (usually father to son) and kept it from the public. By giving the creator a limited monopoly, it encouraged them to publish. After the monopoly period, the creation went to the public domain for use by all.
The DMCA is in effect adding a federally enforced trade secret concept on top of a copyright. And said trade secret keeps the item hidden. Or do you think that organizations like the MLB that had their MLB season servers go dark and thus removing all their paid customers ability to see previous games is the "right" way to be?
If I buy something, I expect to "own" it, just like a book. I can cut it, chop it, paste it, display it (yes, you can display a book) and pretty much do anything that's not commercial with it.
Why should I expect anything less for any other copyrighted material?
Let me rephrase it: the only tolerable DMCA is a dead DMCA.
Now, let me expand on that thought: the DMCA is purely about preventing people to have access by governmental fiat. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone as the real copyright violators, "pirates", will break DMCA laws while breaking existing laws. The normal citizen, who today can timeshift and format shift legally, becomes a criminal under DMCA.
So, essentially my point is that existing laws are already in place to deal with real piracy. The copyright owners could do wonders with properly utilizing a vast new marketing arm (the internet) by distributing their new works via 128kb/s mp3s (these suck in quality btw, but would be equivalent to free airplay for the masses). The current "distributors" might be marginalized, but that would be progress (in my own personal view, and would actually extend the copyright to whom it should belong to - the creator, not some sleazy fat leech that actually detracts from the creative process)
As for time periods, 28 years total is plenty. The automatic one year grant would address most issues regarding the registration process. The registration process ensures that a copy now exists with the government and can be shared via the library system.
Lastly, you should remember this: copyright was created to promote creativity in individuals by giving them a temporary monopoly on distributorship after which it was to pass into the public domain for the greater good of the public.
The DMCA and current copyright law pretty much contradicts those intentions.
Make it tolerable ... By rejecting it and rolling back copyrights to their original limited lifespan of 14 years after registration. (Although I don't mind the automatic copyright granted which should last for no more than one year pending registration, nor the application/grant of one extension for another 14 years)
Oh, and I would increase registration requirements and a provision to provide library copies with actual submissions in open source storage formats completely free of DRM.
IOW, the only tolerable DMCA is a dead DMCA.
Damn, where's mod points when you need them?
Flash drives can't cost-effectively replace the media content distributors want to sell, and the public still likes to buy. Yes, we all know you can download shows/movies blah blah blah. So, how many have downloaded an HD DVD/BD full quality movie? 15-25GB a bit much? What about the new 2K, 3K, and 4K screens they're talking about? They'll need higher res content, and you know it won't be long before they'll be talking about 10K or 20K and up.
So the 5 year BD lifespan seems about right, not neglecting the fact that it may "fail" like Vista failed long before then.