An extension to 500,000 years would still be "limited", and thus constitutional. Whether or not Congress should be limited by some judge's idea of what's a "Useful Art" is certainly a debatable, but I doubt any reasonable Supreme Court would be comfortable telling Congress that the current copyright law is unconstitutionally broad because it protects some useless stuff (besides, I don't really want the government deciding what art is useful enough to deserve protection).
As for 1st Amendment issues, there are none. If Congress tried to prohibit the press for reporting on copyrighted works, there would be an issue. But your freedom of speech is hardly infringed if you're not allowed to copy someone else's published "speech", especially with the fair use provisions of copyright law covering pretty much any reasonable use that could be considered protected speech.
No problem. We'll just pick up our huge university hospital and drop it off somewhere else! neener neener!
Re:An EULA is no real contract in Germany
on
The Basics of EULAs
·
· Score: 1
Whether the EULA is binding or not has nothing to do with whether it's illegal to pirate software. If you're in the United States, pirating software is illegal because federal law says it is. I'd imagine it's illegal in Germany, too.
X11R4 was in wide use when I first started using unix workstations back in 1992. X11R2 and X11R3 were before my time, but they did exist. Remember, those were the days before everyone thought a higher version number is automatically better, even if you're talking about a different app, which is why there was no Netscape 5. And why everyone switched to using a year or some random letters instead of version numbers (Photoshop CS or Fireworks MX both sound like they could be the best image editor out there, but no one's going to buy Fireworks v.2.0 instead of Photoshop 7.0. Photoshop is 5 better!)
The OS X distribution of OpenOffice comes with a handy.app that starts up X and openoffice at the same time, just like you're running a normal mac application. It's a nice idea, even if I don't like OO.o that much on the whole. This might be the sort of thing you're looking for.
On the other hand, it requires your end users to have X11 already installed and configured, which might be more of an issue for you, depending on your target audience.
Well, the article does go into more detail than that and it's probably useful to someone starting out with X11. On the other hand, I'm not sure how this qualifies for/.'s front page.
I should try submitting "Apple posts technical Q&A on variable arguments in Objective-C methods" as a slashdot article, if every update to the ADC website needs its own story.
The Stanley Cup trustees should just announce that they're going to go back to awarding the cup to the best amateur team in Canada instead of to the winner of the NHL's playoffs if the 2 sides can't salvage this season.
Look all of you LAMP users... You can do the same thing using Ruby that you can do with whichever P in LAMP you prefer (PHP, Perl, or Python)! Can we change our name to onLAM{P,R} now?
I don't think a denial by Fox News is very credible. Next they'll be telling us they didn't try to sue Al Franken, either. They don't want to look incredibly stupid, so they'll deny that it ever happened.
For the same reason, I don't accept Bill Gate's denial that he ever said "640K ought to be enough for anyone" as proof that he didn't say it. No one likes to be made to look stupid, and if no one can conclusively prove they are, they'll deny it every time.
And I'm going to hate the day when there's only one major league in each sport, because the NFL, NHL, NBA, and major league baseball have exclusive deals with the TV networks. Oh wait.
That's ok, it will be a bad day for Falcons, Patriots, and Steelers fans too... all of the heavy drinking in celebration or lamentation makes for a big hangover.
There's never been a journalist-source privilege. Journalists have been ordered by the courts to reveal their sources and gone to jail for contempt rather than breach their professional ethics.
However, that's probably unlikely in a civil case. And in any event, this case isn't dealing with a subpoena for information about his source; he's being sued for tortious interference. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple offered to drop the charge in exchange for the name of his source, but I would be surprised if he's ordered to reveal it. I'd think that if Apple won they'd be awarded punitive monetary damages.
I can't find the localization specifications for iWork on Apple's website, but most Apple software has Brazilian Portuguese localization built in. iWork is not yet a full replacement for Office, but Pages looks to be promising as a Word replacement, and we've already seen that Keynote is a fine replacement for PowerPoint. If she doesn't need Access and Excel, this is no longer a convincing argument against switching to a Mac.
Is it ironic or evidence of something shady that a problem with a Microsoft product is the reason for not ditching Windows? I hardly think withholding Portuguese support from an otherwise functional Mac product shows a conspiracy by Microsoft to prevent Brazilians from switching, but you never know.
Every Congressman takes a similar oath. Should they be arrested if they vote in favor of a measure that's unconstitutional? Should the arrest happen right after the vote, based on the opinion of the DC Metro police as to the bill's constitutionality, or should we wait until after the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional, and then arrest all of its supporters in Congress?
What about a congressman who votes for a bill that was probably unconstitutional, but never passed? Should the Supreme Court also review failed legislation, so we know who to arrest?
And what about the Supreme Court justices? They take an oath too. Should we impeach 4 of them every time there's a 5-4 vote on whether something's unconstitutional? The minority opinion is incorrect, as a matter of law (after the decision is final, the opinion of the majority IS the definitive statement on whether the law in question was constitutional or not), so the dissenting justices are not upholding the constitution.
Actually, you can thank the Republican-controlled Congress for the law.
You can also read President Clinton's statement made when he signed it, where he stated that the Dept. of Justice advised him that certain provisions of the DMCA were probably unconstitutional, and ordered the Register of Copyrights only to perform the requirements of the DMCA insofar as they are consistent with constitutional principals. Source: Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, v. 34, no. 44, page 2169.
But feel free to blame whomever you want; it's a free country.
Re:An EULA is no real contract in Germany
on
The Basics of EULAs
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, my sarcastic comment obviously needed to be developed more.
"Real laws" permit you to enter into the sort of contracts found in EULAs. If you don't agree with the terms, you shouldn't agree to the contract.
Now, asserting that someone has agreed to a contract by opening a shrinkwrapped box containing that contract, which wasn't readable through the shrinkwrap is clearly ridiculous. That's definitely a valid complaint against EULAs.
However, the assertion that one can't be bound by a contract that's agreed to by clicking a button on a computer screen I have a problem with. Why should your bank trust their computer when it says you want to transfer money to someone else's account, if computers are so untrustworthy that they can't be used to enter into binding contracts?
For that matter, can someone in Germany buy good online? How can a contract to buy something from amazon.de be legal if German law really says that clicking on the 1-click button can't create a binding contract? Either the grandparent poster is making up stuff about what German law really says, or German law is really stupid.
As opposed to now, when you can just buy legislators outright.
Really, if my legislator is going to vote for a corporation's interests because they're willing to pay, I'd rather get the money than have it go to him. That's just me, though.
Slashdot Mirror
As for 1st Amendment issues, there are none. If Congress tried to prohibit the press for reporting on copyrighted works, there would be an issue. But your freedom of speech is hardly infringed if you're not allowed to copy someone else's published "speech", especially with the fair use provisions of copyright law covering pretty much any reasonable use that could be considered protected speech.
No problem. We'll just pick up our huge university hospital and drop it off somewhere else! neener neener!
Whether the EULA is binding or not has nothing to do with whether it's illegal to pirate software. If you're in the United States, pirating software is illegal because federal law says it is. I'd imagine it's illegal in Germany, too.
X11R4 was in wide use when I first started using unix workstations back in 1992. X11R2 and X11R3 were before my time, but they did exist. Remember, those were the days before everyone thought a higher version number is automatically better, even if you're talking about a different app, which is why there was no Netscape 5. And why everyone switched to using a year or some random letters instead of version numbers (Photoshop CS or Fireworks MX both sound like they could be the best image editor out there, but no one's going to buy Fireworks v.2.0 instead of Photoshop 7.0. Photoshop is 5 better!)
Umm, right above the screenshot of XGalaga, it shows you how to start xgalaga, which is an X app.
On the other hand, it requires your end users to have X11 already installed and configured, which might be more of an issue for you, depending on your target audience.
I should try submitting "Apple posts technical Q&A on variable arguments in Objective-C methods" as a slashdot article, if every update to the ADC website needs its own story.
The Stanley Cup trustees should just announce that they're going to go back to awarding the cup to the best amateur team in Canada instead of to the winner of the NHL's playoffs if the 2 sides can't salvage this season.
Thanks. That should help if google gets slashdotted and we can't find information on our own.
Look all of you LAMP users... You can do the same thing using Ruby that you can do with whichever P in LAMP you prefer (PHP, Perl, or Python)! Can we change our name to onLAM{P,R} now?
For the same reason, I don't accept Bill Gate's denial that he ever said "640K ought to be enough for anyone" as proof that he didn't say it. No one likes to be made to look stupid, and if no one can conclusively prove they are, they'll deny it every time.
Dear God,
Please do not let Madden curse my Steelers. Peyton Manning is already cursed, just put him on the cover.
And I'm going to hate the day when there's only one major league in each sport, because the NFL, NHL, NBA, and major league baseball have exclusive deals with the TV networks. Oh wait.
Wow... my school system sucked. We only had 2 years of physics, instead of 12.
That's ok, it will be a bad day for Falcons, Patriots, and Steelers fans too... all of the heavy drinking in celebration or lamentation makes for a big hangover.
The evidence for that is inconclusive. About half of all people haven't died, so I like my odds.
However, that's probably unlikely in a civil case. And in any event, this case isn't dealing with a subpoena for information about his source; he's being sued for tortious interference. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple offered to drop the charge in exchange for the name of his source, but I would be surprised if he's ordered to reveal it. I'd think that if Apple won they'd be awarded punitive monetary damages.
Considering he's being sued by Apple, not charged with a crime, yes, it will be a huge travesty of justice if he gets sent to jail.
Don't let your clients near the Big Red Button without an escort. Preferably an armed one.
Is it ironic or evidence of something shady that a problem with a Microsoft product is the reason for not ditching Windows? I hardly think withholding Portuguese support from an otherwise functional Mac product shows a conspiracy by Microsoft to prevent Brazilians from switching, but you never know.
What about a congressman who votes for a bill that was probably unconstitutional, but never passed? Should the Supreme Court also review failed legislation, so we know who to arrest?
And what about the Supreme Court justices? They take an oath too. Should we impeach 4 of them every time there's a 5-4 vote on whether something's unconstitutional? The minority opinion is incorrect, as a matter of law (after the decision is final, the opinion of the majority IS the definitive statement on whether the law in question was constitutional or not), so the dissenting justices are not upholding the constitution.
The film "Amazon Women on the Moon" used the term "video pirates" in 1987. It's hardly a new usage.
You can also read President Clinton's statement made when he signed it, where he stated that the Dept. of Justice advised him that certain provisions of the DMCA were probably unconstitutional, and ordered the Register of Copyrights only to perform the requirements of the DMCA insofar as they are consistent with constitutional principals. Source: Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, v. 34, no. 44, page 2169.
But feel free to blame whomever you want; it's a free country.
"Real laws" permit you to enter into the sort of contracts found in EULAs. If you don't agree with the terms, you shouldn't agree to the contract.
Now, asserting that someone has agreed to a contract by opening a shrinkwrapped box containing that contract, which wasn't readable through the shrinkwrap is clearly ridiculous. That's definitely a valid complaint against EULAs.
However, the assertion that one can't be bound by a contract that's agreed to by clicking a button on a computer screen I have a problem with. Why should your bank trust their computer when it says you want to transfer money to someone else's account, if computers are so untrustworthy that they can't be used to enter into binding contracts?
For that matter, can someone in Germany buy good online? How can a contract to buy something from amazon.de be legal if German law really says that clicking on the 1-click button can't create a binding contract? Either the grandparent poster is making up stuff about what German law really says, or German law is really stupid.
Really, if my legislator is going to vote for a corporation's interests because they're willing to pay, I'd rather get the money than have it go to him. That's just me, though.