Do you mean "There's no way you can turn this on" or "There is a way you can turn this off" or "There is no way you can turn this on" or "There is a way you can't turn this on" or what are you trying to say?
Go back and re-read what you're responding to. It was about moving bits into a buffer/DAC, etc. for sound playback, NOT about storing files on a hard drive.
Yes, they are. They are not statutes, but they are part of contract law. Additionally, they are something the buyer agrees to, so aside from legalities, buyers are ethically bound to those terms. No one is forced to buy MP3s.
"The doctrine of First Sale dictates that vendors cannot restrict the resale of products purchased for consumer use."
First sale only applies to the physical media. You purchase the medium of a book or CD, you do not purchase the content.
17 USC 1: First sale:
...the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
...
"Copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords..."Phonorecords" are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "phonorecords" includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed."
As I said elsewhere, it may be legal to sell your hard drive which contains the MP3s (because it is a "phonorecord"), but there is nothing which allows one to sell the bits (i.e. sell the file).
It's not debatable, except in the sense that a lawyer will debate any POV, regardless of its validity. From 17 USC 1:
"Phonorecords" are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
The temporal movement of bits to allow sound reproduction does not constitute "fixing." Note that there are specific restrictions on public performance, so a theater can't just buy a DVD and show that to a paying crowd.
"If I want to move an MP3 from one hard disk to another on my computer then I'm doing exactly the same. Am I not allowed to do this?"
Depends on the license you received with the MP3. Looking at the iTunes store terms (yea, they're technically not MP3, but this the the largest distributor, so good as an example):
(ii) You shall be authorized to use iTunes Products on five iTunes-authorized devices at any time...
(iii) You shall be able to store iTunes Products from up to five different Accounts at a time on compatible devices, provided that each iPhone may sync tone iTunes Products with only a single iTunes-authorized device at a time, and syncing an iPhone with a different iTunes-authorized device will cause tone iTunes Products stored on that iPhone to be erased.
(iv) You shall be authorized to burn an audio playlist up to seven times.
and Amazon
Upon payment for Music Content, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the Music Content only for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use, subject to the Agreement...you may not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, license or otherwise transfer or use the Music Content.
So, the both licenses allow you to make copies, to authorized devices and CDs (Apple), or "for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use" (Amazon). You're also allowed to make a backup copy.
The difference is that when you buy a CD, then play it, you're not making a copy (reading the CD and turning the bits into sound isn't considered copying under copyright law). When you sell that CD to another person, you're not making a copy. So, no copyright infringement is involved.
If you sell an MP3 by copying bits to someone else's media, you're making a copy even if you then delete the original. I suppose it could be legal to sell MP3's if you sold them on the media they were originally saved on, so no copying was involved. e.g. buy an MP3, store on media, then sell the media along with the MP3. But even there, if you stored it on a hard drive, then burned it on CD so you could sell it, that would involve making an unauthorized copy (since a license is needed for any further copying).
I'm not saying that's how it should work, but that's how the law appears to be written.
You obviously don't know the difference between a marine radio and a ham radio, that they are made to use different frequencies, or that they would use different antennas, tuned for the different frequencies.
Walbridge had decades at sea. Svendsen had worked tall ships prior to Bounty. The rest of the crew- so far it seems â" had an experience base of one:
The third mate, Dan Cleveland (25), came aboard from a career in landscaping. Bounty was his first wooden tall ship.
The Bosun, Laura Groves (28), had experience on smaller boats in the Keys. Bounty was her first wooden tall ship.
Joshua Scornavacchi (25), was on his first wooden tall ship.
Second mate Matt Sanders (37) had worked on a series of ships, including the schooner Margaret Todd, but Bounty was (wait for it) his first wooden tall ship.
Testifying Wednesday morning was Anna Sprague (20); of course it was her first wooden tall ship.
Claudene Christian (42) , was on her first wooden tall ship.
When the new cook, Jessica Black (34), put on her immersion suit to abandon ship on the 29th of October, she had been aboard Bounty - her first wooden tall ship - for a grand total of 45 hours.
"The summary makes it sound like they were exploiting a loophole in the regulations or something. "
There's more...including
The witness, Todd Kosakowski, looked at Coast Guard's evidence... Mr. Kosakowski - the lead shipwright and project manager for Boothbay Harbor Shipyards - was in charge of the last maintenance project ever to be done on Bounty...
The pictures were of rotted frames and fasteners (trunnels) he found under the planking during repairs. Kosakowski told NTSB investigator Captain Rob Jones that he believes 75% of the framing above the waterline on Bounty may have been rotten, but that the ship's representative in the yard, Captain Robin Walbridge, declined any further search for rotted wood...
Bounty was in a sort of regulatory no-man's-land. She was a recreational vessel, a well-crewed yacht, and it was none of big brother's business how she was maintained. Two things were making that true: 1. She wasn't nearly configured to pass inspection as a Coast Guard certificated passenger vessel, and 2: She was measured at under 300 regulatory tons - and that meant she didn't need an international load line certificate.
the rest of it is an interesting read, with more detail than the CNN article. No, they weren't an experienced crew, and yes, they were playing loose with the rules.
Well, if the radio didn't work, they couldn't use it to send emails.
There's a difference between the marine radio they had on board, and the ham radio. Ham radios generally don't cover the marine bands, at least for transmitting. You really should read the article to understand what happened.
I wasn't the one who brought up VHF, which wouldn't have helped, as the GP's flippant "use channel 16" claimed.
The article makes clear that their efforts to communicate using their marine radio were unsuccessful, while using the ham radio (almost certainly HF) worked.
BTW, I have an Extra class ham license, and am well aware of the capabilities and limitations of the various bands.
the safest place for a ship to be during a storm is at sea
Perhaps, but that doesn't make it the safest place for the crew. I'd also guess it's also safer for the ship to be in a harbor not in the path of a hurricane than at sea in a hurricane.
I know it's not considered proper to read the article before commenting, but since the GP did, you should have, too.
The ship's high frequency radio: no response.
Bounty's satellite phone: no response.
Finally, electrician Doug Faunt rigged a ham radio to send and receive e-mail. They e-mailed Bounty's home office, which in turn contacted the Coast Guard at 9 p.m. The crew learned a Coast Guard C-130 search aircraft was heading toward the Bounty.
If you knew as much as you think you do, you'd know that marine VHF is good for a maximum range about 110 km, with antennas at both ends mounted high and good conditions. The Bounty sank about 100 miles (160 km) offshore. There weren't a lot of other ships to contact in the area of the hurricane, I'd guess.
Not only that, but there is a very significant difference between bees communicating "with electric fields", and communicating by using electric fields.
You're quoting stats for typical hearing. When I was (much) younger, I could easily hear the "ultrasonic" motion detectors used for entry alarms at some mall stores. It was quite annoying. No one else I knew could, which I would expect if I was hearing a sub-harmonic. Those are typically over 30 KHz. I can't hear much over 16 KHz, now.
But, I don't doubt that there are a small minority of people who can hear the difference between 44.1, 48 and 96K sampling rates.
a distinction between a talking loudly at a conference and a twitter mention. IIRC, her twitter post was semi-private...OTOH, if you're talking loud enough to be overheard in a crowded conference hall that's far less private
You have it wrong. A twitter is permanent, deliberately documented, and publicly available. An overheard conversation is anything but. Your claim that twitter is somehow more private is ludicrous - this/. post wouldn't exist if it were. Likewise, their conversation wouldn't be known except for her publicizing it via twitter.
Free speech is good and well unless you don't agree with it or the reactions to it, right? Right-o.
And you don't see the irony? She obviously agrees with you. She thinks she has the right to post their pictures and quote a private conversation in public, but they're wrong for making a dirty joke (which wasn't directed or told to her) in private conversation?
People have no right to not be offended. They need to get over it and learn some tolerance.
She's a hypocrite. She's made the same sorts of jokes but in public, not as part of an overheard private conversation. From the article:
Incidentally, making off-color jokes in public doesn't necessarily make you a horrible human being who deserves public shaming, a point that Richards herself should appreciate as she recently joked with a fellow Twitter user about stuffing his pants with socks the next time he has to undergo a TSA pat-down.
Apparently, it's only sexist if done by men (which is a very sexist attitude for her to have).
DRM isn't directly about "no copy," and it isn't directly about controlling device manufacturers.
It's about getting around "first sale" rights. They don't want you to be able to sell what you bought to someone else (hence "no copy"), and they want you to re-purchase if you want it on a different device (hence the "device control"). They want you to rent, not own, content.
Slashdot Mirror
"Our public universities don't have a profit motive"
You don't follow college sports, do you?
You're as confused as the GP, claiming that if you turn something off, it can't be turned on afterwards.
You're also confusing state with action. Do or don't do, there is no try.
"There is no way you can't turn this off"
Huh? That's a triple negative.
Do you mean "There's no way you can turn this on" or "There is a way you can turn this off" or "There is no way you can turn this on" or "There is a way you can't turn this on" or what are you trying to say?
Go back and re-read what you're responding to. It was about moving bits into a buffer/DAC, etc. for sound playback, NOT about storing files on a hard drive.
Yes, they are. They are not statutes, but they are part of contract law. Additionally, they are something the buyer agrees to, so aside from legalities, buyers are ethically bound to those terms. No one is forced to buy MP3s.
"The doctrine of First Sale dictates that vendors cannot restrict the resale of products purchased for consumer use."
First sale only applies to the physical media. You purchase the medium of a book or CD, you do not purchase the content.
17 USC 1: First sale:
...
As I said elsewhere, it may be legal to sell your hard drive which contains the MP3s (because it is a "phonorecord"), but there is nothing which allows one to sell the bits (i.e. sell the file).
You're trying to apply the dictionary definition of "copying" to copyright law, which has its own definition.
The temporal movement of bits to allow sound reproduction does not constitute "fixing." Note that there are specific restrictions on public performance, so a theater can't just buy a DVD and show that to a paying crowd.
"If I want to move an MP3 from one hard disk to another on my computer then I'm doing exactly the same. Am I not allowed to do this?"
Depends on the license you received with the MP3. Looking at the iTunes store terms (yea, they're technically not MP3, but this the the largest distributor, so good as an example):
and Amazon
So, the both licenses allow you to make copies, to authorized devices and CDs (Apple), or "for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use" (Amazon). You're also allowed to make a backup copy.
The difference is that when you buy a CD, then play it, you're not making a copy (reading the CD and turning the bits into sound isn't considered copying under copyright law). When you sell that CD to another person, you're not making a copy. So, no copyright infringement is involved.
If you sell an MP3 by copying bits to someone else's media, you're making a copy even if you then delete the original. I suppose it could be legal to sell MP3's if you sold them on the media they were originally saved on, so no copying was involved. e.g. buy an MP3, store on media, then sell the media along with the MP3. But even there, if you stored it on a hard drive, then burned it on CD so you could sell it, that would involve making an unauthorized copy (since a license is needed for any further copying).
I'm not saying that's how it should work, but that's how the law appears to be written.
That sounds right, Intel always had their operands backwards.
;store the bread in the cupboard
;move onto the table the bread
6800/6500: STA $add
8000: mov ax,[bx]
You obviously don't know the difference between a marine radio and a ham radio, that they are made to use different frequencies, or that they would use different antennas, tuned for the different frequencies.
Well, about that...
-- Bounty hearings.
"The summary makes it sound like they were exploiting a loophole in the regulations or something. "
There's more...including
the rest of it is an interesting read, with more detail than the CNN article. No, they weren't an experienced crew, and yes, they were playing loose with the rules.
There's a difference between the marine radio they had on board, and the ham radio. Ham radios generally don't cover the marine bands, at least for transmitting. You really should read the article to understand what happened.
There are. It doesn't do any good if the radio doesn't work, or the antenna blew down, though.
I wasn't the one who brought up VHF, which wouldn't have helped, as the GP's flippant "use channel 16" claimed.
The article makes clear that their efforts to communicate using their marine radio were unsuccessful, while using the ham radio (almost certainly HF) worked.
BTW, I have an Extra class ham license, and am well aware of the capabilities and limitations of the various bands.
Perhaps, but that doesn't make it the safest place for the crew. I'd also guess it's also safer for the ship to be in a harbor not in the path of a hurricane than at sea in a hurricane.
If you knew as much as you think you do, you'd know that marine VHF is good for a maximum range about 110 km, with antennas at both ends mounted high and good conditions. The Bounty sank about 100 miles (160 km) offshore. There weren't a lot of other ships to contact in the area of the hurricane, I'd guess.
"this may suggest that our ever increasing use of EM may be responsible for colony collapse disorders."
Except, it doesn't. Maybe if the bees wore tin foil hats?
Not only that, but there is a very significant difference between bees communicating "with electric fields", and communicating by using electric fields.
"Bees Communicate With Electric Fields"
So, what do the electric fields have to say? Should we be welcoming our electric field overlords?
You're quoting stats for typical hearing. When I was (much) younger, I could easily hear the "ultrasonic" motion detectors used for entry alarms at some mall stores. It was quite annoying. No one else I knew could, which I would expect if I was hearing a sub-harmonic. Those are typically over 30 KHz. I can't hear much over 16 KHz, now.
But, I don't doubt that there are a small minority of people who can hear the difference between 44.1, 48 and 96K sampling rates.
Mine goes to fiveier.
You have it wrong. A twitter is permanent, deliberately documented, and publicly available. An overheard conversation is anything but. Your claim that twitter is somehow more private is ludicrous - this /. post wouldn't exist if it were. Likewise, their conversation wouldn't be known except for her publicizing it via twitter.
And you don't see the irony? She obviously agrees with you. She thinks she has the right to post their pictures and quote a private conversation in public, but they're wrong for making a dirty joke (which wasn't directed or told to her) in private conversation?
People have no right to not be offended. They need to get over it and learn some tolerance.
Apparently, it's only sexist if done by men (which is a very sexist attitude for her to have).
DRM isn't directly about "no copy," and it isn't directly about controlling device manufacturers.
It's about getting around "first sale" rights. They don't want you to be able to sell what you bought to someone else (hence "no copy"), and they want you to re-purchase if you want it on a different device (hence the "device control"). They want you to rent, not own, content.
"what the heck are you doing on your employer's network? Are you browsing the web?"
No. Unlike you, I do actual work.
"What are you doing from your server? Browse the web? Oh-oh - that server has it's own cookies"
No. It's a server, fool. I do sometimes browse it's web server, though. Which, BTW, does not push cookies.