My post was not meant to be a legal definition, hence the, "in layman's terms". You'll notice that the quotes that I took directly from the U.S. Copyright Office's post also use the word, "property". If it bothers you, substitute, "copyright", and, "copyright holder".
As for tapers, they usually have the permission of the band, which constitutes an oral contract.
Unfortunately, you're wrong. Copyright law in the US does not say that what you write is yours.
No, he's correct. It says in layman's terms that:
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
So, if you write something, you own the copyright. You may notice in the article you linked to that Courtney specifically mentions print authors owning copyrights for their works. You can do what you want with the copyright, however, and that's where the confusion lies.
More often than not, what you write belongs to the publisher. That's why you see musicians complaining bitterly that "the band owns none of its work" (quoted directly from that article).
If you read the article, you'd know that the band owns none of its work, because it sold the copyright for its work to a record company in return for distribution, promotion, and royalties. That's the beauty of copyright. As an author, you can do what you want with your property. You do NOT have to sell it to a record company, and they can't TAKE it from you. You can, however, sign a recording contract wherein you stipulate that you relinquish certain rights in return for the record company's services. Note that many musicians *do* own the copyrights for the music they created. You may give up your copyright in two ways:
You can create a work for hire:
In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author...if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
You can transfer the copyright:
Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement.
In Courtney's case, she transferred her property by signing a recording contract.
The contrast between the US Constitution (which favors authors and inventors) and US law (which favors publishers and employers) could not be more striking.
It's only striking, because you misunderstand the Constitution. The Constitution provides for copyright, but more importantly, doesn't stipulate what you can or cannot do with your property. Thus, the laws regarding transfer and works for hire fit perfectly within the bounds of the Constitution. There is no disagreement or hypocrisy.
Odd, buddy of mine also got one of the first-gen PS2s, and he needed to buy the remote and included software to get it to play DVDs.
Well, obviously your buddy either wanted the remote or was misinformed.
A DVD could be played without the remote package just fine. The DVD player software was in ROM, and playback was controlled with the DualShock. It's all documented in the manual.
In fact, the early PS2 remote's IR unit plugged into the controller port, and could be used in some games as a controller.
I wish people would concentrate on the positive rather than the negative things I present. TrekStore has made the simple player so many people want and I expect there's much more where that came from.
I saw the positive. I even clicked on the affiliate link without sanitizing it first!;)
I took a look at TrekStor's site, and I'm pretty impressed with what they offer. Thanks for the information. I'm looking for an upgrade for my ancient Archos (works with Linux/Windows/Mac and has been very reliable).
It's got MP3 for those who ripped to that format before license and royalty free ogg.
One of TrekStor's other products, the Vibez also plays FLAC! None of their products appear to support AAC (in case anyone wants to know).
License encumbered formats are not something I really care for
It's very hard to find something that doesn't play some license encumbered format. In TrekStor's case they support WMA-DRM9 and WMA-DRM10 (Janus).
Having been mod bombed again, I'm going to re post with controversial portions edited out.
I think you got bombed, because of your comment about the iPod not being able to play anything other than AAC without transcoding. You might have been thinking of Sony music players, which for a very long time didn't support playing anything other than native Sony formats without transcoding.
You can argue that SCO are stalling, you could also argue that IBM are holding up the trial by demanding evidence up front.
LOL. That's what you're supposed to do. It's called discovery. You can't file a claim against someone without showing them the evidence you have against them regarding that claim. This enables them to mount a defense. Both SCO and IBM have asked for evidence as part of the discovery process.
On December 12, 2003, SCO was ordered by Judge Wells, "...to identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM". SCO claimed that they couldn't do this without access to IBM's code, and requested the entire source base to both AIX and Dynix including all versions and changes. SCO's motion was granted by Judge wells.
On March 18, 2005, IBM delivered to SCO everything they had requested. The 80 GB of code and a server machine to put it on was was delivered on time. SCO, then claimed that this information wasn't enough.
SCO has been objecting in one way or another to a judge's order for almost three years.
..which means you now have to have an insecure file on your computer storing your different made-up answer for each site...
I hope to god that's encrypted and password-protected out the wazoo.
Researchers at UC Santa Barbara have found that women have a remarkable ability to assess a man's testosterone levels and his interest in fathering children by looking at his facial features. Sixty-nine percent...
Funny that you mention this, because I haven't a good idea on how to install acroread for XP. Do you go to superdownloads.com for that, or should you buy a CD at CompUSA? Who sells this "acroread", how can I install it in XP if all I know is the software's name?
By "arcoread", do you mean Adobe Acrobat? It's in the "Start" menu, and was there when I bought the PC. I didn't have to install it. It's made by Adobe, BTW.
In (K)Ubuntu I know it's very simple: click on the button at the lower left corner of the screen, go to the "System -> Packet Manager" menu, type the system password, type "acroread" in the box labelled "quick filter" and click on the button labelled "install package". It's the same way for every one of the 18000 or so packages that are available in the standard KUbuntu distribution.
Hmm, I'd never remember all that. Everytime I want to run something I just go to the Start menu. Sometimes I can't find what I want there, but I can always get it at the store. Like that time I wanted to play, "Super Hi-Res Chess 2.2", but it wasn't in the Start menu. I just bought it at CompUSA, and now it's in my Start menu.
I don't even have to know the name of the software, if I want to a software to run my scanner, for instance, I type "scanner" in the quick filter and Adept will show me all the packages which have scanner either in the name or the description. By reading the respective descriptions, I can tell the picture scanners apart from the virus scanners.
Oh yeah, I have a scanner too. It came with a software disk. There's some really cool stuff on there that can take my typed documents and scan them right into a Word file. It's, like, totally killer.
For anyone who can read and understand plain English (or whatever is the language in his installation), Ubuntu is more ready for the mass market than XP. Only power users know exactly where to get those CDs from which they rum "setup.exe" to install software.
I don't know about the "setup.exe" rum, but when I want to install software in my Start menu, I just put the disk in and a box pops up that does it for me.
In theory, using XML would be enough to guarantee useful extensibility. In reality that's not so.
I feel that's a problem with the application, and not with the XML format.
OpenOffice makes no such effort.
That needs to be changed if they're going to move forward.
The ODF spec permits apps to do this, and in fact doesn't even suggest that they might do anything else. The format specification needs to require that applications preserve foreign markup in order to comply with the spec; failure to do so means one can never know if any given app will strip out parts of your document.
That's a good idea. If this isn't already in the specification, then perhaps you should join the committee and suggest this. They would probably value your input, because you're exactly right.
That said, I just think they need to recognise that they just can't anticipate every possible thing that people might need from the format, and plan for really solid extensibility, rather than just trying to add support for the technology-of-the-day as they go along. I'm astonished and impressed that Microsoft "gets" this, while the ODF folks don't really seem to.
See, that's the thing that I think should really be handled by the mere fact that a specification is XML. If there's any extensions, they get added in as namespaces, and any application that doesn't recognize the new elements just grabs the schema for it and preserves the elements. This should be done instead of making explicit elements for extension. In this way, I think that Microsoft doesn't "get" XML.
Slashdot Mirror
See, people, this is what happens when you don't heed General Mills' warning:
TRIX ARE FOR KIDS!!!!!
My switch nukes everything from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
My post was not meant to be a legal definition, hence the, "in layman's terms". You'll notice that the quotes that I took directly from the U.S. Copyright Office's post also use the word, "property". If it bothers you, substitute, "copyright", and, "copyright holder".
As for tapers, they usually have the permission of the band, which constitutes an oral contract.
No, he's correct. It says in layman's terms that:
So, if you write something, you own the copyright. You may notice in the article you linked to that Courtney specifically mentions print authors owning copyrights for their works. You can do what you want with the copyright, however, and that's where the confusion lies.
If you read the article, you'd know that the band owns none of its work, because it sold the copyright for its work to a record company in return for distribution, promotion, and royalties. That's the beauty of copyright. As an author, you can do what you want with your property. You do NOT have to sell it to a record company, and they can't TAKE it from you. You can, however, sign a recording contract wherein you stipulate that you relinquish certain rights in return for the record company's services. Note that many musicians *do* own the copyrights for the music they created. You may give up your copyright in two ways:
You can create a work for hire:
You can transfer the copyright:
In Courtney's case, she transferred her property by signing a recording contract.It's only striking, because you misunderstand the Constitution. The Constitution provides for copyright, but more importantly, doesn't stipulate what you can or cannot do with your property. Thus, the laws regarding transfer and works for hire fit perfectly within the bounds of the Constitution. There is no disagreement or hypocrisy.
Source: U.S. Copyright Office
Well, obviously your buddy either wanted the remote or was misinformed.
A DVD could be played without the remote package just fine. The DVD player software was in ROM, and playback was controlled with the DualShock. It's all documented in the manual.
In fact, the early PS2 remote's IR unit plugged into the controller port, and could be used in some games as a controller.
This brings a whole new meaning to, "hung like a baby".
6 pounds 8 ounces and 20 inches long!
I saw the positive. I even clicked on the affiliate link without sanitizing it first! ;)
I took a look at TrekStor's site, and I'm pretty impressed with what they offer. Thanks for the information. I'm looking for an upgrade for my ancient Archos (works with Linux/Windows/Mac and has been very reliable).
One of TrekStor's other products, the Vibez also plays FLAC! None of their products appear to support AAC (in case anyone wants to know).
It's very hard to find something that doesn't play some license encumbered format. In TrekStor's case they support WMA-DRM9 and WMA-DRM10 (Janus).
I think you got bombed, because of your comment about the iPod not being able to play anything other than AAC without transcoding. You might have been thinking of Sony music players, which for a very long time didn't support playing anything other than native Sony formats without transcoding.
Again, thanks for the links...
LOL. That's what you're supposed to do. It's called discovery. You can't file a claim against someone without showing them the evidence you have against them regarding that claim. This enables them to mount a defense. Both SCO and IBM have asked for evidence as part of the discovery process.
On December 12, 2003, SCO was ordered by Judge Wells, "...to identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM". SCO claimed that they couldn't do this without access to IBM's code, and requested the entire source base to both AIX and Dynix including all versions and changes. SCO's motion was granted by Judge wells.
On March 18, 2005, IBM delivered to SCO everything they had requested. The 80 GB of code and a server machine to put it on was was delivered on time. SCO, then claimed that this information wasn't enough.
SCO has been objecting in one way or another to a judge's order for almost three years.
Who is holding up the trial again?
It's butch lasses like you that ruin the premise of a perfectly fine article. ;)
KeePass
Not to mention, he is also a philatelist! Probity is one thing, but philatelism? That is just sick .
You don't recall correctly.
Oh yeah? After booting Apple DOS 3.3 type the following at the AppleSoft BASIC prompt:
Now you can't read or write to a disk. Now that's malware!Free karma if you can name what routine I disabled.
Wii do you say that?
I've never Kippled. What's it like?
Q: What's the difference between a drummer and a violist?
A: The drummer sustained brain damage after taking up the instrument.
Apparently you don't know how to use the Three Seashells (tm).
You must be using a new form of, "amusing", that I was previously unaware of.
But it wants to be.
Sorry, I just couldn't concentrate.
Funny that you mention this, because I haven't a good idea on how to install acroread for XP. Do you go to superdownloads.com for that, or should you buy a CD at CompUSA? Who sells this "acroread", how can I install it in XP if all I know is the software's name?
By "arcoread", do you mean Adobe Acrobat? It's in the "Start" menu, and was there when I bought the PC. I didn't have to install it. It's made by Adobe, BTW.
In (K)Ubuntu I know it's very simple: click on the button at the lower left corner of the screen, go to the "System -> Packet Manager" menu, type the system password, type "acroread" in the box labelled "quick filter" and click on the button labelled "install package". It's the same way for every one of the 18000 or so packages that are available in the standard KUbuntu distribution.
Hmm, I'd never remember all that. Everytime I want to run something I just go to the Start menu. Sometimes I can't find what I want there, but I can always get it at the store. Like that time I wanted to play, "Super Hi-Res Chess 2.2", but it wasn't in the Start menu. I just bought it at CompUSA, and now it's in my Start menu.
I don't even have to know the name of the software, if I want to a software to run my scanner, for instance, I type "scanner" in the quick filter and Adept will show me all the packages which have scanner either in the name or the description. By reading the respective descriptions, I can tell the picture scanners apart from the virus scanners.
Oh yeah, I have a scanner too. It came with a software disk. There's some really cool stuff on there that can take my typed documents and scan them right into a Word file. It's, like, totally killer.
For anyone who can read and understand plain English (or whatever is the language in his installation), Ubuntu is more ready for the mass market than XP. Only power users know exactly where to get those CDs from which they rum "setup.exe" to install software.
I don't know about the "setup.exe" rum, but when I want to install software in my Start menu, I just put the disk in and a box pops up that does it for me.
</DEVILSADVOCATE>
Kudos to anyone who spots the Apple reference!
I feel that's a problem with the application, and not with the XML format.
OpenOffice makes no such effort.
That needs to be changed if they're going to move forward.
The ODF spec permits apps to do this, and in fact doesn't even suggest that they might do anything else. The format specification needs to require that applications preserve foreign markup in order to comply with the spec; failure to do so means one can never know if any given app will strip out parts of your document.
That's a good idea. If this isn't already in the specification, then perhaps you should join the committee and suggest this. They would probably value your input, because you're exactly right.
That said, I just think they need to recognise that they just can't anticipate every possible thing that people might need from the format, and plan for really solid extensibility, rather than just trying to add support for the technology-of-the-day as they go along. I'm astonished and impressed that Microsoft "gets" this, while the ODF folks don't really seem to.
See, that's the thing that I think should really be handled by the mere fact that a specification is XML. If there's any extensions, they get added in as namespaces, and any application that doesn't recognize the new elements just grabs the schema for it and preserves the elements. This should be done instead of making explicit elements for extension. In this way, I think that Microsoft doesn't "get" XML.
Well, they are more than meets the eye.