doesn't a publicly funded institution have a responsibility to protect children from offensive and degrading material?
No, that's the parent's job. Public funding does not give libraries (or SCOTUS, for that matter) the permission to be proxy parents. I decide what is right and wrong for my kids, end of discussion. The decision was flat wrong, and there is no ambiguity.
Actually, copyright infringement can be a crime. See here and here for the details. Executive summary: anyone willfully infringing copyright for commercial gain can get prison, up to 10 years for repeat offenders. Basically, you have to be distributing 10 or more copyrighted works with a retail value of $2,500 or more. Any infringement can carry up to a year in jail, regardless of how many works are shared. I know no one here is doing any of this, right?
At least in the US, we have this law, which states:
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
In other words, all works created by public servants are automatically Public Domain.
According to this, the UK uses a system of Crown Copyright, which if I'm not mistaken also applies to software created by developers working for the UK government.
Observations for the UK government to note (should any representative thereof read this):
The GPL does not prevent modification of software for private (intragovernmental) use. All modifications are completely unencumbered, provided the Government does not distribute them.
GPL software and its derivatives may be sold commercially, and for a profit; however, any sales must be accompanied by an offer to provide complete source code for a reasonable shipping and media cost. For large projects especially, many customers prefer receiving a CD with the software, and are prepared to pay a premium for this method of delivery, rather than wait long periods for an Internet download to complete. The GPL in no way precludes commercial software offerings, despite any loud protest from industry groups.
Natalie just graduated from Harvard and is leaving Cambridge because she hates the harsh winters. I'm sure her fans will be happy to know that she's still 22.
The Russians have done a lot of thought about this subject, and the general conclusion is that it's not practical or ethical. Besides which, it'd be damn hard to do. It takes about 30 minutes just to use the toilet up there, because of the lack of gravity-induced friction (traction) forces. Sex is all about friction. You'd need to strap one party down, and the other one would need hand- and foot-holds just to maintain contact. It would take 10 minutes just to get into position, not to mention the fact that if I were another crew member and I saw ejaculate floating around or stuck in the air filters (or heaven forbid, any of the flight controls) I'd probably kick your ass... it just doesn't seem worth it.
This was part of a particular Caltech house initiation ritual almost 10 years ago, when I went thru it. It has probably been around much longer than that. A few years later, I set up a LN2 waterfall in the same house's courtyard with PVC piping, some foam insulation, and an awl. Nothing to see here, folxes, move along...
Yes, replying to my own post is lame, but lest all the unwashed masses think I dislike IBM, I'd like to point out that I'm never, ever going to buy any SCOX stock. Why drive up their stock value and give McBride a chance to cash out for more money? I'd rather give the 800# gorilla my hard-earned bucks. Besides, it'd be cool to show up at an IBM shareholders' meeting and spike the punch.
Try DVD price search. I've found all the best deals there, and they have a lot of obscure stuff. Many times it will be cheaper to order from Canada and pay shipping than to run down to the Best Buy. (Canada is also region 1, for those of you who haven't already hacked your player.)
Claim 80 is flat wrong. I quote (from the parent link):
80. Any software licensed under the GPL (including Linux) must, by its terms, not be held proprietary or confidential, and may not be claimed by any party as a trade secret or copyright property.
The GPL explicitly states that it is a license built upon the back of copyright. The relevant details can be found here. One particularly damning clause:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Each creater of a work must decide the conditions under which others may copy the work. For some people, the GPL provides those conditions. Importantly, for those who choose it, the GPL enumerates the exclusive rights (via the words "nothing else" in the second sentence) to copy a protected work, under certain conditions, given by the legal copyright holder. The "prohibitive law" referred to above is actually copyright law.
First, look at the purpose of patents: to provide a temporary monopoly in exchange for eventually giving the idea back to society. The contrapositive argument is that if someone isn't giving back to society, they shouldn't get a monopoly. With this in mind, the solution is easy: require the assignee to actually build the thing (or implement the process), or they lose their monopoly to a compulsory license. If an inventor must get the patent first before rounding up money, fine. Give inventors a regulatory time period to build the frob, with specific milestone dates. If they don't meet a milestone, they are bound by the compulsory licensing provision. Extensions should be allowed on a case-by-case basis.
If someone has a good idea, fine. If it blocks another inventor from innovating, that's bad for society.
It's amusing that personal privacy advocates are often the same ones screaming for government or corporate openness - while privacy exists, anyone handed power will have a screen to hide behind to hide abuses of said power.
It is not a contradiction to ask for personal privacy, while simultaneously asking for openness in collectives such as corporations or governments. In fact, the second half of your sentence proves the point.
It is an accepted fact that with power comes responsibility. The question which you have left unasked is, 'which actors in society have the power'. The obvious answer is collectives, such as corporations and governments (and professional societies, and trade groups, and political action committees, etc). As long as those with power (the collectives) have secrecy, they "will have a screen to hide behind". Individuals, wielding much less power, have lesser requirements for accountability. Whereas individuals may be granted a wide latitude in their dealings with others in society (whatever isn't forbidden is permitted), collectives should be more accountable for their actions (whatever isn't permitted is forbidden).
As long as we're calling spades, how about the end user who buys the buggy software for top dollar in the first place? Isn't he liable for (not) doing research, doing a cost/benefit analysis, making an informed decision? If a software company doesn't want a public bug disclosure process, as He Who Holds The Credit Card, I will make every effort to avoid their software. I consider that my personal responsibility.
What's to stop me from copyrighting my name, address, phone number, email, IP address, etc?
The Copyright Office. In particular, works not eligible for protection:
Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)
I went to Caltech, don't worry about the/. effect. They've got more bandwidth than you do, and their CS dept. is pretty keen on keeping their web sites up.
Don't I have the right to profit for the rest of my life from my work?
Maybe, but consider that deriving excess profits from copyright royalties is actually an economic disincentive to producing further creative works. Why bother to write the Next Big Thing when you can sit on a beach sipping Mai Tais and collecting royalty checks? I wish you luck in attaining that goal, but if you do achieve great success, what's my continuing benefit, as your reader? Copyright is all about balance.
What about my children?
What about them? Did they do anything creative or artistic in their own right to earn compensation from the Public? If you want to leave them some cash from your estate, or make gifts to them from your royalties, I applaud your familial devotion. But if you use the Public's shared works to live, then deprive the Public of the fruits of your labor when you die, you do everyone an injustice.
Also, beware of the following: After this law takes effect, people will be out to get you to put your phone number on all sorts of things (product registration, checks, etc.) because the fine print will say that by giving your phone number, you waive your DNC status with them and their partners.
Sorry. I can't waive my First Amendment rights in a civil contract. I can't waive FCC law through a contract, either. Anyone dumb enough to think that their fine print will get them out of trouble with the FCC deserves the lawsuit I file against them.
I can't believe no one has mentioned plate tectonics and geological phenomena. What happens after there's an earthquake, and your NAC now points to someone else's house, or a hole in the ground, or...?
Previous posters are right, this is unnecessary and confusing. The idea is elegant, but it's not suited to the real world. Remember, kiddies: in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
their 2002 patent is clearly nullified by the Content Hash Key first introduced in Freenet in 2001
Sorry, try again. It normally takes 2-3 years for a patent to make its way through the system, and patent protection begins the instant the application is filed (i.e., at the time of first public disclosure). Any prior art would have to come from before the application was filed, or from 31 Mar 1999 or earlier.
OTOH, I think it's really funny that the application was filed on 1 Apr 1999.
There are several Java versions in the works. I run the JTorrent project off SourceForge. Please have a look. We're currently working out an issue with our file releases, so you can't download a package yet, but feel free to check out the code from CVS.
Sorry, but your whole piece is flat-out wrong. Corporations are designed specifically to fulfill the requirements set out for their existance in their Articles. Stock doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. I know because I've personally incorporated twice.
Have you ever watched a movie? Almost all movies these days are owned by a corporation formed specifically to collect and distribute profits and royalties for that one movie. Those corps don't give a rat's ass about how much their 'stock' is worth, since they never intend to sell it on the open market anyway.
I have to respond, not because I disagree, but because I have a little devil on my shoulder saying "if you let this one slide, later tonight I'm gonna climb up your PJs and pitchfork you in the butt".
For crying out loud, if someone is speeding and causes an accident, they deserve to get stiffed by the law because they are a dangerous, arrogant, son-of-a-bitch. These people kill.
Absolutely, I agree 100%.
Having a box that records five seconds worth of data is not a problem.
That depends. Technology is amoral, the morality stems from who or what uses it. I tend to err on the side of mistrust of Big Brother, so I don't want this device, but that's IMHO.
You think you should have a right to endanger other people's lives and break the law? If you think the law on speeding is wrong, campaign against the law. If you think the speed limit is too low, campaign to raise the speed limit.
Your statement is a non-sequitur, but it gives me a chance to propose something that's been on my mind for awhile.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. I think speeding laws and seatbelt laws are a cheap ploy to raise money for the local police departments. How often is someone in an accident injured because the other guy wasn't wearing a seatbelt? I mean, if a guy is gonna take his life into his own hands by not wearing the belt, good for him. It's none of my business, and it's none of the government's either. Same goes for speeding. OTOH, if speeding is a contributing factor to an accident, the penalty should be tripled, and the guy should have his lead foot cut off.
My proposal is for a 'speeder's license', for which you have to go to a state-sponsored school and pass a proficiency exam, and which gives you the priviledge of speeding down the highway. You only get it for certain cars (it's another tag or star on the license plate), and it's only rated up to certain speeds. All the regular people can follow the normal speed limit, but you wouldn't have to. My plan has all the safety benefits of the normal speed limit, and allows those who are skilled with their vehicle to get to the airport in time to catch their flight. If you can demonstrate higher levels of skill and responsibility, you should be afforded greater priviledge, as with all things in life.
I would propose that it be much, MUCH harder to get a driver's license in the first place. That alone would cut the number of traffic accidents dramatically. Unfortunately, our society is enslaved to our machines.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's the parent's job. Public funding does not give libraries (or SCOTUS, for that matter) the permission to be proxy parents. I decide what is right and wrong for my kids, end of discussion. The decision was flat wrong, and there is no ambiguity.
Actually, copyright infringement can be a crime. See here and here for the details. Executive summary: anyone willfully infringing copyright for commercial gain can get prison, up to 10 years for repeat offenders. Basically, you have to be distributing 10 or more copyrighted works with a retail value of $2,500 or more. Any infringement can carry up to a year in jail, regardless of how many works are shared. I know no one here is doing any of this, right?
According to this, the UK uses a system of Crown Copyright, which if I'm not mistaken also applies to software created by developers working for the UK government.
Observations for the UK government to note (should any representative thereof read this):
Natalie just graduated from Harvard and is leaving Cambridge because she hates the harsh winters. I'm sure her fans will be happy to know that she's still 22.
The Russians have done a lot of thought about this subject, and the general conclusion is that it's not practical or ethical. Besides which, it'd be damn hard to do. It takes about 30 minutes just to use the toilet up there, because of the lack of gravity-induced friction (traction) forces. Sex is all about friction. You'd need to strap one party down, and the other one would need hand- and foot-holds just to maintain contact. It would take 10 minutes just to get into position, not to mention the fact that if I were another crew member and I saw ejaculate floating around or stuck in the air filters (or heaven forbid, any of the flight controls) I'd probably kick your ass... it just doesn't seem worth it.
This was part of a particular Caltech house initiation ritual almost 10 years ago, when I went thru it. It has probably been around much longer than that. A few years later, I set up a LN2 waterfall in the same house's courtyard with PVC piping, some foam insulation, and an awl. Nothing to see here, folxes, move along...
Yes, replying to my own post is lame, but lest all the unwashed masses think I dislike IBM, I'd like to point out that I'm never, ever going to buy any SCOX stock. Why drive up their stock value and give McBride a chance to cash out for more money? I'd rather give the 800# gorilla my hard-earned bucks. Besides, it'd be cool to show up at an IBM shareholders' meeting and spike the punch.
I've got $90, I'll buy a share of IBM.
This guy built a replica space shuttle cockpit, complete with missions to run.
Try DVD price search. I've found all the best deals there, and they have a lot of obscure stuff. Many times it will be cheaper to order from Canada and pay shipping than to run down to the Best Buy. (Canada is also region 1, for those of you who haven't already hacked your player.)
For a brief, shining moment, I imagined a society where just the opposite were true. Oh well...
If someone has a good idea, fine. If it blocks another inventor from innovating, that's bad for society.
It is not a contradiction to ask for personal privacy, while simultaneously asking for openness in collectives such as corporations or governments. In fact, the second half of your sentence proves the point.
It is an accepted fact that with power comes responsibility. The question which you have left unasked is, 'which actors in society have the power'. The obvious answer is collectives, such as corporations and governments (and professional societies, and trade groups, and political action committees, etc). As long as those with power (the collectives) have secrecy, they "will have a screen to hide behind". Individuals, wielding much less power, have lesser requirements for accountability. Whereas individuals may be granted a wide latitude in their dealings with others in society (whatever isn't forbidden is permitted), collectives should be more accountable for their actions (whatever isn't permitted is forbidden).
As long as we're calling spades, how about the end user who buys the buggy software for top dollar in the first place? Isn't he liable for (not) doing research, doing a cost/benefit analysis, making an informed decision? If a software company doesn't want a public bug disclosure process, as He Who Holds The Credit Card, I will make every effort to avoid their software. I consider that my personal responsibility.
The Copyright Office. In particular, works not eligible for protection:
- Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
- Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)
Creative idea, but impossible to implement.I went to Caltech, don't worry about the /. effect. They've got more bandwidth than you do, and their CS dept. is pretty keen on keeping their web sites up.
Maybe, but consider that deriving excess profits from copyright royalties is actually an economic disincentive to producing further creative works. Why bother to write the Next Big Thing when you can sit on a beach sipping Mai Tais and collecting royalty checks? I wish you luck in attaining that goal, but if you do achieve great success, what's my continuing benefit, as your reader? Copyright is all about balance.
What about my children?
What about them? Did they do anything creative or artistic in their own right to earn compensation from the Public? If you want to leave them some cash from your estate, or make gifts to them from your royalties, I applaud your familial devotion. But if you use the Public's shared works to live, then deprive the Public of the fruits of your labor when you die, you do everyone an injustice.
Sorry. I can't waive my First Amendment rights in a civil contract. I can't waive FCC law through a contract, either. Anyone dumb enough to think that their fine print will get them out of trouble with the FCC deserves the lawsuit I file against them.
Previous posters are right, this is unnecessary and confusing. The idea is elegant, but it's not suited to the real world. Remember, kiddies: in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
Sorry, try again. It normally takes 2-3 years for a patent to make its way through the system, and patent protection begins the instant the application is filed (i.e., at the time of first public disclosure). Any prior art would have to come from before the application was filed, or from 31 Mar 1999 or earlier.
OTOH, I think it's really funny that the application was filed on 1 Apr 1999.
There are several Java versions in the works. I run the JTorrent project off SourceForge. Please have a look. We're currently working out an issue with our file releases, so you can't download a package yet, but feel free to check out the code from CVS.
Have you ever watched a movie? Almost all movies these days are owned by a corporation formed specifically to collect and distribute profits and royalties for that one movie. Those corps don't give a rat's ass about how much their 'stock' is worth, since they never intend to sell it on the open market anyway.
To me, it will always be F-octothorpe!
For crying out loud, if someone is speeding and causes an accident, they deserve to get stiffed by the law because they are a dangerous, arrogant, son-of-a-bitch. These people kill.
Absolutely, I agree 100%.
Having a box that records five seconds worth of data is not a problem.
That depends. Technology is amoral, the morality stems from who or what uses it. I tend to err on the side of mistrust of Big Brother, so I don't want this device, but that's IMHO.
You think you should have a right to endanger other people's lives and break the law? If you think the law on speeding is wrong, campaign against the law. If you think the speed limit is too low, campaign to raise the speed limit.
Your statement is a non-sequitur, but it gives me a chance to propose something that's been on my mind for awhile.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. I think speeding laws and seatbelt laws are a cheap ploy to raise money for the local police departments. How often is someone in an accident injured because the other guy wasn't wearing a seatbelt? I mean, if a guy is gonna take his life into his own hands by not wearing the belt, good for him. It's none of my business, and it's none of the government's either. Same goes for speeding. OTOH, if speeding is a contributing factor to an accident, the penalty should be tripled, and the guy should have his lead foot cut off.
My proposal is for a 'speeder's license', for which you have to go to a state-sponsored school and pass a proficiency exam, and which gives you the priviledge of speeding down the highway. You only get it for certain cars (it's another tag or star on the license plate), and it's only rated up to certain speeds. All the regular people can follow the normal speed limit, but you wouldn't have to. My plan has all the safety benefits of the normal speed limit, and allows those who are skilled with their vehicle to get to the airport in time to catch their flight. If you can demonstrate higher levels of skill and responsibility, you should be afforded greater priviledge, as with all things in life.
I would propose that it be much, MUCH harder to get a driver's license in the first place. That alone would cut the number of traffic accidents dramatically. Unfortunately, our society is enslaved to our machines.