Q7 "Legitimate access as authorized by the Copyright Act, will not be altered. Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however.
Sheesh make eveyone sign a declaration that they have permission from the owner of the copyright to make duplicates of the prints. As long as there is no clear watermark or sign that it isn't the customers property they can claim it wasn't willful and they took reasonable means to prevent such a problem.
Secondly it doesn't need to be any good or even a professional photograph to be illegal to duplicate. If you download my vacation photos you'd still be violating copyright to print them out... Even the blurry ones.
Using a computer program requires copying the program into the computer memory.
That is how they use copyright law to cover usage of the work.
Did that ruling ever get appealled away?
Re:What is wrong with GPL v2
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
How does it hurt others?
As long as I don't violate the terms of the GPL the author can't sue me for copyright violations.
It would be quite a court ruling for their judgement to overturn uncontested independant contracts between other individuals.
Re:What is wrong with GPL v2
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
If someone defeats the GPL (or any other copyright license) they simply lose the permissions granted to them by that license.
This basically knocks them back to being allowed to do pretty much nothing with the software.
I don't understand this obsession with invalidating the GPL, it only hurts those who don't agree with it, while doing nothing to those who choose to use it.
Re:What is wrong with GPL v2
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
This change would make a gaping hole in the GPL through which people who would seek to attack it might be successful in getting it invalidated completely.
The great thing about the GPL is it only gives permission to do things otherwise not permitted by law. Invalidate it or don't comply with the restrictions, you lose those permissions. There really is no benefit to invalidate it, nor is there a logical arguement that would invalidate it.
Feature not a bug
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The key feature of the GPL is that it is ONLY a distribution license, not an usage license (EULA).
A key idea behind free software is "use for any purpose". Usage restrictions of any type are a bad idea.
a patent holder cannot distribute a GPL'd program without agreeing to license, by implication, any patents covering the same program. Yes
Such a license would only apply to the program in question and direct derivations though that continue to use the same code. Yes
So if someone rewrites the code that the patent covers, writing new code that infringes the patent, the situation is legally ambigious. Yes again, however the granter of the patent license has given permission to modify and redistribute the work. If it is a modification or a derivative work, it should be covered by that same license. If it is "new code" and therefore not a derivative work it would not be covered by the same license.
Are you suggesting the author of a work should not be permitted to put their name on it?
For F**ks sake, he wrote it, it's his, he can put his name on it.
You can use it, copy it, distribute it, make fun of it, complain about it, print it out and feed it to gerbils. Having the author put his name on it isn't some sort of ego trip, most already do this.
Re:What is wrong with GPL v2
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
If you can not comply with the requirements of the GPL, you can not distribute it.
Thus if some law that applies to you does not allow you to fufil your requirements under the GPL, you can't use it.
The only arguement about dynamic linking of GPL code is on what constitutes a derivative work under copyright law. A new licence can NOT solve this as the library is an independant work.
Why should I trust the "independant" authority any more than the originating company.
Think about it, companies pay an "independant" to certify their goods. It is in their best interest to certify almost everything, when the occasional slip up happens, launch an investigation, blame something/someone, and continue.
I should be permitted my own expert and opportunity to argue against any evidence/opinion.
In the radar guy/DUI, perhaps the CPU entered sleep mode or something between sampling points, throwing off the time, resulting in bad data.
The point isn't to get off on charges, only to ensure that the innocent aren't punished.
I'm pretty happy with evolution except for one "features"
Deleting a message takes you to the next message, it doesn't close the window. This doesn't make any sense to me, and there is no option to fix it. The developers seem to think this is the correct behaviour.
Does anyone know of an equivalent mail program that solves that problem?
If the US has export controls on goods they carry over to Canada. For example, the US military has rules against on foreigners working on certain parts of military programs.
Canada is not considered "foreign" in some cases, which makes us exempt from some of these restrictions, however the factories must comply with the (arguably racist) US policy.
The way around this is that "Ethnic Origin" is a functional job requirement for these projects.
they have a good idea of where the sweet spot for sales v. price is. I would guess that they are pricing at that point, but it doesn't make it any easier on those of us who aren't currently making a ton of cash.
But they don't care about you because you don't have any money. You have two options, 1. Elect a socialist government who gives everything away for free. 2. Get money to pay for it. I recommend buying highly profitable companies. Use their earnings to buy their products. (Hint, this is why I don't care about gas prices)
Amount of profit is irrelevant. Most people I know go to Walmart because it is cheaper. They don't go to the other store because the price is higher.
They have no idea what the profit or loss is for that item at each store, and they don't care.
Many Rental and leasing agreements and laws are typically written as non transferable, or with conditions on transfer. It isn't like you own the software you are licensing.
Slashdot Mirror
Q7 "Legitimate access as authorized by the Copyright Act, will not be altered.
3 9796
Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however.
See the Copyright act section 80
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39673.html#rid-
At the very least they shouldn't lie in the FAQ describing a new law.
Time to contact your MP, remember it is free to snail mail them.
Sheesh make eveyone sign a declaration that they have permission from the owner of the copyright to make duplicates of the prints.
As long as there is no clear watermark or sign that it isn't the customers property they can claim it wasn't willful and they took reasonable means to prevent such a problem.
Secondly it doesn't need to be any good or even a professional photograph to be illegal to duplicate.
If you download my vacation photos you'd still be violating copyright to print them out... Even the blurry ones.
Using a computer program requires copying the program into the computer memory.
That is how they use copyright law to cover usage of the work.
Did that ruling ever get appealled away?
How does it hurt others?
As long as I don't violate the terms of the GPL the author can't sue me for copyright violations.
It would be quite a court ruling for their judgement to overturn uncontested independant contracts between other individuals.
If someone defeats the GPL (or any other copyright license) they simply lose the permissions granted to them by that license.
This basically knocks them back to being allowed to do pretty much nothing with the software.
I don't understand this obsession with invalidating the GPL, it only hurts those who don't agree with it, while doing nothing to those who choose to use it.
This change would make a gaping hole in the GPL through which people who would seek to attack it might be successful in getting it invalidated completely.
The great thing about the GPL is it only gives permission to do things otherwise not permitted by law. Invalidate it or don't comply with the restrictions, you lose those permissions.
There really is no benefit to invalidate it, nor is there a logical arguement that would invalidate it.
The key feature of the GPL is that it is ONLY a distribution license, not an usage license (EULA).
A key idea behind free software is "use for any purpose". Usage restrictions of any type are a bad idea.
a patent holder cannot distribute a GPL'd program without agreeing to license, by implication, any patents covering the same program.
Yes
Such a license would only apply to the program in question and direct derivations though that continue to use the same code.
Yes
So if someone rewrites the code that the patent covers, writing new code that infringes the patent, the situation is legally ambigious.
Yes again, however the granter of the patent license has given permission to modify and redistribute the work. If it is a modification or a derivative work, it should be covered by that same license. If it is "new code" and therefore not a derivative work it would not be covered by the same license.
Are you suggesting the author of a work should not be permitted to put their name on it?
For F**ks sake, he wrote it, it's his, he can put his name on it.
You can use it, copy it, distribute it, make fun of it, complain about it, print it out and feed it to gerbils.
Having the author put his name on it isn't some sort of ego trip, most already do this.
If you can not comply with the requirements of the GPL, you can not distribute it.
Thus if some law that applies to you does not allow you to fufil your requirements under the GPL, you can't use it.
The only arguement about dynamic linking of GPL code is on what constitutes a derivative work under copyright law. A new licence can NOT solve this as the library is an independant work.
If a GPL program implements a patented procedure two things can happen.
1. The patent holder does not grant a licence to use and distribute it. The GPL software can not be distributed.
2. The patent holder does grant a license to use and distribute. The software can be redistributed and used.
What is the problem?
If they make any changes, no they won't.
If v3 removes a restriction on v2, or adds a further restriction, it would be incompatible.
That being said many people have licenced their code under "GPLv2 or any later version".
What problem will v3 solve?
Unless there is some sort of benefit, why would anyone use it?
Why should I trust the "independant" authority any more than the originating company.
Think about it, companies pay an "independant" to certify their goods. It is in their best interest to certify almost everything, when the occasional slip up happens, launch an investigation, blame something/someone, and continue.
I should be permitted my own expert and opportunity to argue against any evidence/opinion.
In the radar guy/DUI, perhaps the CPU entered sleep mode or something between sampling points, throwing off the time, resulting in bad data.
The point isn't to get off on charges, only to ensure that the innocent aren't punished.
When the message is open in its own window (not the preview pane). And you delete it, the next email shows up in that window.
I can't think of any other email program that works this way.
I'm pretty happy with evolution except for one "features"
Deleting a message takes you to the next message, it doesn't close the window.
This doesn't make any sense to me, and there is no option to fix it. The developers seem to think this is the correct behaviour.
Does anyone know of an equivalent mail program that solves that problem?
I liked the book Snow Crash. It has some very interesting ideas.
I like this idea of multiple overlaid data sources. Thought it was useful in the book, we'll have to see what happens in reality.
I think it would be really cool to have flightgear generate scenery from all this new satellite data.
I didn't realize that the auto industry was devastated by the Japanese.
I thought that the foreign automakers (notably Korean and Japanese) are setting up more North American design and production.
As for China, all the automakers are working on expanding in there.
In time global pricing will equalize, if China frees its currency, this will happen faster.
If the US has export controls on goods they carry over to Canada.
For example, the US military has rules against on foreigners working on certain parts of military programs.
Canada is not considered "foreign" in some cases, which makes us exempt from some of these restrictions, however the factories must comply with the (arguably racist) US policy.
The way around this is that "Ethnic Origin" is a functional job requirement for these projects.
You might be called a traitor for speaking out against the war, but you will not be prosecuted as one.
But if you speak out against the war, someone might call you a traitor and attack you.
Then the police might choose to not notice you need assistance.
I remember reports of some police attacking, and some of police not assisting victims of attack.
I consider selective actions like this suppression.
You say the contract was finished.
A nice clean agreable break isn't a bad thing.
In America at least we are generally pretty protective of the right to debate ideas
Did you look outside during the beginning of the Iraq war?
they have a good idea of where the sweet spot for sales v. price is. I would guess that they are pricing at that point, but it doesn't make it any easier on those of us who aren't currently making a ton of cash.
But they don't care about you because you don't have any money.
You have two options,
1. Elect a socialist government who gives everything away for free.
2. Get money to pay for it. I recommend buying highly profitable companies. Use their earnings to buy their products. (Hint, this is why I don't care about gas prices)
If my cost is $100 I'd rather sell 10 at $500 than 50 at $200.
Amount of profit is irrelevant.
Most people I know go to Walmart because it is cheaper.
They don't go to the other store because the price is higher.
They have no idea what the profit or loss is for that item at each store, and they don't care.
Many Rental and leasing agreements and laws are typically written as non transferable, or with conditions on transfer.
It isn't like you own the software you are licensing.