The cannibalism disease that you refer to is kuru, another type of spongiform encephelopathy. As RandomCoil has posted earlier, kuru, BSE/Creutzfeldt-Jakob and Alzheimer's all belong to a family of diseases called amyloid diseases.
You can find a good article on amyloid diseases at Wikipedia. Basically, amyloids are structural "plaques" composed of proteoglycans and misfolded or truncated proteins.
I believe that only the spongiform encephelopathies are contagious, however. The protein involved in Alzheimer's, beta-A4, is not a prion.
IUTBABCBNIAAL (I used to be a biochemist but now I am a lawyer).
It depends on what you mean by "influential". Some of the authors you list above, especially Hitler and Orwell, have obviously had enormous influence in the spheres of political history and discourse.
If, however, "influential" is taken to mean influence on the evolution of literature, I think that writers such as James Joyce, Jack Kerouac, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez and others would rank much higher.
It's fair to say that in terms of economic and marketing influence, Tolkien is probably number one. Lord of the Rings effectively spawned the modern market for heroic fantasy, which was previously a marginal genre. The revenue from the Jackson films alone (over $1 B now?) is amazing.
If it weren't for the Lord of the Rings, there may never have been the mega-audiences for works such as Star Wars and Harry Potter.
I think that your question is extremely relevant. Noam Chomsky, for example, has said that part of the problem with trying to become an informed citizen is that no one has the time to conduct mini research projects on every important topic.
Regarding open source alternatives to Lexis-Nexis et. al., I think that we're starting to see the emergence of these sources with the Groklaw project. Groklaw right now is confined to a narrow issue, but it publishes primary source material and commentary that is superior to many paid services, and in an open source fashion. It is only possible for Groklaw to do this, however, by focusing on a single issue.
I hope that we will see more open source political projects like Groklaw in the future for other important issues.
That's a good question. The law on moral rights differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In Canada, moral rights are an author's residual interest in a creative work even if the author sold the copyright.
However, moral rights are limited. They are restricted to the rights of the artistic integrity of the work, not to the copying and distribution of it.
There was a case in Canada about twenty years ago involving a sculptor that sold a work to the Eatons Centre in Toronto. The Eatons Centre then altered the sculpture, to the artist's disapproval. The artist sued the Eatons Centre over the violation of his moral rights, even though he no longer possessed copyright of the work. As best I recall, the court held that the contract of sale did not take away the artist's moral rights over the work.
Since that case, contracts for the sale of artistic works routinely include a clause restricting the artist from exercising any claim for moral rights. I'm not an IP lawyer, so I don't know what the limits are on these types of clauses.
In Godwin's defence, I think that he is hedging precisely because he cannot give a certain answer.
Here in Canada, it is perfectly legal to backup a DVD that you own. The recent Supreme Court of Canada case, CCH v. Law Society of Upper Canada, although dealing with print media, suggests that private personal copying would fall under 'fair dealing' (we don't have 'fair use' in Canada). Note: this reasoning was applied in the subsequent Federal Court case regarding P2P downloading.
In the U.S., no one can precisely know unless they challenge the DMCA on the issue of fair use. However, the previous unsuccessful deCSS cases predict that although backing up a DVD may be fair use, circumventing CSS is still illegal.
This is precisely the concern expressed by Godwin: that ancillary legislation, ostensibly crafted to address technological concerns, are simply pretexts to erode rights Americans have enjoyed until now under existing copyright regimes.
Under common-law systems, authors have interests in creative works called moral rights, which are separate from copyrights.
Your comment is interesting, but we still need to address whether an author's rights in his or her own works, whether moral rights or copyrights, are alienable property interests.
If we decide that these interests are alienable (ie can be bought or sold), then it doesn't matter, for the purposes of determining the limits of copyright entitlement, whether the holder of the interests is the author personally, or some third party that purchased the author's interests.
Regarding the distinction between GPL and public domain: I wonder why so many people like Anderer, who perfectly understand the merits of patent cross-licencing, cannot see the GPL as a copyright analogue of the same principle.
Under the GPL, the code contributor still retains copyright ownership over their code, but "cross-licences" to the public at large in exchange for any code contributions that others may make in redistributing the software.
This is hardly public-domain charity. Software authors who use the GPL are deriving distinct value from the licence, even if it is "priceless".
From the context of his statement, I believe he's talking about patent infringement, not copyright infringement.
However, he is mistaken that "GPL type licence agreements push the liablity to the users." The GPL specifically puts the patent onus on the code contributor.
As far as end-user liability goes, I fail to see the difference between the GPL and the EULAs of closed software. While GPL projects are certainly vulnerable, there have already been significant successful patent infringement claims against closed software that may affect the end-users of that software.
that the Wired story did not reference Richard Dawkins, who coined the term "meme" in the Selfish Gene, and drew an analogy between the transmission of information with the transmission of viruses.
Then again, I don't know if Richard Dawkins got the idea from William S. Burroughs or vice versa.
There is a Knoppix-derived LiveCD version of SQL-Ledger. Although it seems to be default German, you might be able to boot it into English with the 'knoppix lang=en' boot option.
http://www.knoppix.net/docs/index.php/KnoppixCusto mizations
Look for it here:
http://www.cb-bc.gc.ca
From an article on the site:
"Consumers who suspect they have been the victim of deceptive telemarketing practices or who want information on the application of the Competition Act, should contact the Bureau's Information Centre at 1 800 348-5358, or visit our Web site at www.cb-bc.gc.ca.
The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that ensures all Canadians enjoy the benefits of a competitive economy. It oversees the application of the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Textile Labelling Act and the Precious Metals Marking Act.
For media enquiries, please contact:
Maureen McGrath
Senior Communications Advisor
Communications Branch
(819) 953-8982, or (613) 296-2187 (cell)
For general enquiries, please contact:
Information Centre
Competition Bureau
1 800 348-5358
"
Following the link on NZHeretic's lwn article, I did googled Trillian and SCO, and came across this article from the Register, 20 July 2000 by Andrew Orlowski.
The opening paragraph is interesting:
"According to reports - well, one anyway - Caldera Systems and the Santa Cruz Operation are in discussions which could see the Linux company acquire SCO's OpenServer and UnixWare operating systems. SCO also owns the rights to the Unix trademark, and sits atop a pile of ye originale AT&T Unix code, some of which it's been judiciously leaking as open source over the past year."
Anyone have any idea what AT&T Unix code the old SCO "judiciously" leaked as open source?
Slashdot Mirror
You can find a good article on amyloid diseases at Wikipedia. Basically, amyloids are structural "plaques" composed of proteoglycans and misfolded or truncated proteins.
I believe that only the spongiform encephelopathies are contagious, however. The protein involved in Alzheimer's, beta-A4, is not a prion.
IUTBABCBNIAAL (I used to be a biochemist but now I am a lawyer).
If, however, "influential" is taken to mean influence on the evolution of literature, I think that writers such as James Joyce, Jack Kerouac, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez and others would rank much higher.
It's fair to say that in terms of economic and marketing influence, Tolkien is probably number one. Lord of the Rings effectively spawned the modern market for heroic fantasy, which was previously a marginal genre. The revenue from the Jackson films alone (over $1 B now?) is amazing.
If it weren't for the Lord of the Rings, there may never have been the mega-audiences for works such as Star Wars and Harry Potter.
Regarding open source alternatives to Lexis-Nexis et. al., I think that we're starting to see the emergence of these sources with the Groklaw project. Groklaw right now is confined to a narrow issue, but it publishes primary source material and commentary that is superior to many paid services, and in an open source fashion. It is only possible for Groklaw to do this, however, by focusing on a single issue.
I hope that we will see more open source political projects like Groklaw in the future for other important issues.
However, moral rights are limited. They are restricted to the rights of the artistic integrity of the work, not to the copying and distribution of it.
There was a case in Canada about twenty years ago involving a sculptor that sold a work to the Eatons Centre in Toronto. The Eatons Centre then altered the sculpture, to the artist's disapproval. The artist sued the Eatons Centre over the violation of his moral rights, even though he no longer possessed copyright of the work. As best I recall, the court held that the contract of sale did not take away the artist's moral rights over the work.
Since that case, contracts for the sale of artistic works routinely include a clause restricting the artist from exercising any claim for moral rights. I'm not an IP lawyer, so I don't know what the limits are on these types of clauses.
Here in Canada, it is perfectly legal to backup a DVD that you own. The recent Supreme Court of Canada case, CCH v. Law Society of Upper Canada, although dealing with print media, suggests that private personal copying would fall under 'fair dealing' (we don't have 'fair use' in Canada). Note: this reasoning was applied in the subsequent Federal Court case regarding P2P downloading.
In the U.S., no one can precisely know unless they challenge the DMCA on the issue of fair use. However, the previous unsuccessful deCSS cases predict that although backing up a DVD may be fair use, circumventing CSS is still illegal.
This is precisely the concern expressed by Godwin: that ancillary legislation, ostensibly crafted to address technological concerns, are simply pretexts to erode rights Americans have enjoyed until now under existing copyright regimes.
Your comment is interesting, but we still need to address whether an author's rights in his or her own works, whether moral rights or copyrights, are alienable property interests.
If we decide that these interests are alienable (ie can be bought or sold), then it doesn't matter, for the purposes of determining the limits of copyright entitlement, whether the holder of the interests is the author personally, or some third party that purchased the author's interests.
The Plone LiveCD is based on Knoppix and will run without needing a hard-drive installation.
Regarding the distinction between GPL and public domain: I wonder why so many people like Anderer, who perfectly understand the merits of patent cross-licencing, cannot see the GPL as a copyright analogue of the same principle.
Under the GPL, the code contributor still retains copyright ownership over their code, but "cross-licences" to the public at large in exchange for any code contributions that others may make in redistributing the software.
This is hardly public-domain charity. Software authors who use the GPL are deriving distinct value from the licence, even if it is "priceless".
However, he is mistaken that "GPL type licence agreements push the liablity to the users." The GPL specifically puts the patent onus on the code contributor.
As far as end-user liability goes, I fail to see the difference between the GPL and the EULAs of closed software. While GPL projects are certainly vulnerable, there have already been significant successful patent infringement claims against closed software that may affect the end-users of that software.
For example, Timeline recently won a patent infringement suit against Microsoft that potentially could require licencing royalties from developers and even end-users of SQL Server.
There is also Eolas' successful suit against Microsoft for Internet Explorer, which Anderer refers to.
BTW, when Anderer says that MSFT has 50 patent lawsuits waiting in the queue, I read that as saying Microsoft will be the defendant in those suits.
If that is true, then it would have been far more effective if they had leaked e-mail from Microsoft, rather from Mike Anders.
that the Wired story did not reference Richard Dawkins, who coined the term "meme" in the Selfish Gene, and drew an analogy between the transmission of information with the transmission of viruses. Then again, I don't know if Richard Dawkins got the idea from William S. Burroughs or vice versa.
It's in a Newsforge article titled "CA says it didn't pay SCO no stinking Linux tax", and links to the weblog of the source at CA.
There is a Knoppix-derived LiveCD version of SQL-Ledger. Although it seems to be default German, you might be able to boot it into English with the 'knoppix lang=en' boot option. http://www.knoppix.net/docs/index.php/KnoppixCusto mizations
Look for it here:
http://www.cb-bc.gc.ca From an article on the site: "Consumers who suspect they have been the victim of deceptive telemarketing practices or who want information on the application of the Competition Act, should contact the Bureau's Information Centre at 1 800 348-5358, or visit our Web site at www.cb-bc.gc.ca. The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that ensures all Canadians enjoy the benefits of a competitive economy. It oversees the application of the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Textile Labelling Act and the Precious Metals Marking Act. For media enquiries, please contact: Maureen McGrath Senior Communications Advisor Communications Branch (819) 953-8982, or (613) 296-2187 (cell) For general enquiries, please contact: Information Centre Competition Bureau 1 800 348-5358 "
Following the link on NZHeretic's lwn article, I did googled Trillian and SCO, and came across this article from the Register, 20 July 2000 by Andrew Orlowski. The opening paragraph is interesting: "According to reports - well, one anyway - Caldera Systems and the Santa Cruz Operation are in discussions which could see the Linux company acquire SCO's OpenServer and UnixWare operating systems. SCO also owns the rights to the Unix trademark, and sits atop a pile of ye originale AT&T Unix code, some of which it's been judiciously leaking as open source over the past year." Anyone have any idea what AT&T Unix code the old SCO "judiciously" leaked as open source?