IANAL, this is just how I understand it. The DMCA prohibits the act of circumventing a technological measure used by copyright owners to control access to their works (from EFF DMCA page). So basically, if the fair uses that you want require you to go through some sort of encryption (of which DRM is almost always an example), it is illegal because you have to break the DMCA to use your rights.
But see, I don't want to burn CDs. I want music that will play anywhere. And I don't want to have to go through some complicated process like burning to CDs first then ripping the CDs, or using some obscure program to strip the DRM.
This is not a flame; this is simply why I won't buy something from a service encumbered by DRM restrictions.
The Opera giveaway converted me. As much as I dislike the zealots who basically are walking ads for Opera and think they can do no wrong, it does seem to be much faster on this computer, the download manager is much better, and there are several features built into the tab system that aren't readily available in Firefox. I think I'll be silently using this for a while.
See, this is why, if I were the RIAA, I would sue EVERYONE who came across our of my Kazaa searchbots and say "You can settle for $1000, or go to court for $1,000,000,000 (based on files x estimated downloads)." I'd be richer than a king!
The EFF used to have a searchable subpoena database but have shut that down now because the new suits are filed against anonymous persons, who are only revealed (if I understand it correctly, IANAL) after the courts have determined that the copyright infringement did in fact take place.
Aww, c'mon, you're not thinking like Microsoft! They could put out a Linux distribution simply called "Linux Linux", so as to make average consumers link their product, more than any other distro, to the word Linux. Then, they could fill it with bugs in EVERY SINGLE KERNEL MODULE! The thing would panic more than Windows BSOD'd! And of course, they'd then sell it beside Windows in every retail outlet so people knew that there was competition, it just simply wasn't as good....I really need to own a business.
It's not going to work. I can already think of several ways to get these books permanently for free, including stripping the DRM from the file while the license is still valid (there are programs that can do this) or recording the file through the analog hole. This reminds me of those companies that would rent floppy disk PC games back in the day. Ah, those were the days...
A lot of mods won't mod +1, Funny in order to be fair to the original poster. You see, +1, Funny doesn't actually add karma to the user's account. Then, if another mod came along and modded the article down, say, -1, Overrated (because they don't think humour should be modded up, like a lot of mods on here, which is their prerogative), the end user then has a NET LOSS of -1 karma. Repeat this a few times, especially for a funny comment posted near the first post of an article, and you have a situation where someone's karma can be blown completely out of the water due to the brokenness of the +1, Funny moderation.
This should really be fixed in Slash by now, but that's just my (and a bunch of other moderators') opinion.
Yet one interesting point he throws out has me pondering, is a Creative Commons License permanently irrevocable once it's put out there?
In answer, this is from the CC Attribution-NonCommercial license (bold and italics added for emphasis):
3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work...
So clearly it *is* permanantly irrevocable, which is a good thing. If it weren't, how could the end user be assured that her or his freedoms to use the software (or whatever) under the license would still be there in the future? This way, an author can't just say "this isn't working out for me, now you have to pay me $10 to keep using [whatever]," as that would be tantamount to extortion.
Additionally, from the linked Register article:
The use of an irrevocable Commons license, which effectively ends any hope of the artist being compensated by the creative industries, doesn't seem fair or sensible for most readers.
This is why there is a Non-Commercial version of the license. And this is also why having a work distributed under a CC license doesn't prevent you from ALSO licensing it under other licenses! That's the whole idea of the NC versions of the license: if someone wants to use your work commercially, they can contact you to work out another arrangement so that you would get some form of compensation for the profits that they might make off of your work.
But seriously, if you don't like the license, make your own! Nobody's forcing people to use these licenses and I don't see why this person seems to think that they're creating a "crisis" of sorts. Creative Commons licenses are just an easy way of having your work distributed the way you want, and with a license written by a lawyer so that there are no possible loopholes for which someone could take advantage.
Next election, I see a critical mass of people voting for a third party. The Democrats and Republicans are just getting too similar for people to keep accepting the choice between two of the same.
If the US went far enough, the root DNS servers could be moved elsewhere (there are some outside the US right now anyway, and there have been alt roots in the past). It would require a lot of rewiring to say the least, but the US wouldn't be able to (permanently) shut off the internet, so to speak, even if they wanted to. The unfortunate thing is that the people (and controlling companies) decide how far the US government can go, and are giving them more and more control as time goes on.
The US government should stay the hell out of the way; the whole POINT of a.xxx domain is that it would (in theory) differentiate pornographic content from the rest of the web so it would be easy to identify AND block! The idea that it would create an "online red-light district" is absurd: people wouldn't be able to just type in ".xxx" and get access to all the pornography they wanted (though if they wanted that, all they need to do is turn off SafeSearch in Google or use a file sharing application).
Don't they have better things to focus on? (/me avoids the obvious flamebait by not mentioning liberation;^)
I am one such user who has never tried iTunes. I've never had a need to do so, and I don't like the idea of my music being locked via DRM to a single computer (trust me, I move my MP3s around my network a lot). Music I want to buy legally (and there are bands I want to support), I'll get their CD and work around the copy protection to rip it.
[And before you say "but you can move them through (X limited / complicated process)!", I don't care, I should just be able to move the files without the hassle.]
Anyway, to get back to the article's topic, I think Google will start including iTunes files in search results. You know how if you type in an equation, you get the result at the top of the page, or if you type in a phone number you get a reverse directory lookup? I think the same thing will happen if you search for something that Google recognizes as a song title, and you'll get a link to the online iTunes store to buy it, as well as your normal search results.
Which, if you think as I do, makes this absolutely massive. There are a lot of people like me who don't use iTunes, but nearly all of us use Google on a daily basis. I think having those links at the top might just be the inspiration (and convenience) necessary to convince some to click them, if just to find out what the experience is like. I probably won't be one of them unless the DRM is removed, but I think this is definitely going to be a good thing for Apple if this is, indeed, how the agreement will work out.
I was thinking about modding the parent down, but I think a reply would be a better response. This information was READILY AVAILABLE. The journalist didn't abuse any privileges they had as a reporter, they just used Google searches to find information that ANYONE could have found. Journalistic ethics weren't really involved; what was someone going to do, go attack the CEO or something? He probably has guards as it is.
This is just the CEO being pissed that information that he didn't want publicized was, and responding in a manner FAR beyond what any sane person would have done. He should have said he didn't agree; banning CNet from the world's largest search engine is needlessly crippling it so that he can personally have his revenge. This has definitely made me look at Google in a different light, and I don't think I'll ever look at them the same again.
This is why they'll likely have per-player keys, or at least per-manufacturer keys. If they had one key for the entire Blu-Ray medium, that would be pretty stupid. The idea is that they can revoke said player keys, preventing any player with the leaked key from being able to play discs (as it wouldn't be able to connect to the server).
Slashdot Mirror
What if the non-contract version was sold for $1,000,000 each? Is it still a fair agreement, or was the agreement forced?
But if I destroy my printer because my refilled cartridge is not "up to specs," then it's also my fault.
;^)
And if Lexmark programs your printer to destroy itself because your cartridge is not "up to specs", it's also... your fault?
IANAL, this is just how I understand it. The DMCA prohibits the act of circumventing a technological measure used by copyright owners to control access to their works (from EFF DMCA page). So basically, if the fair uses that you want require you to go through some sort of encryption (of which DRM is almost always an example), it is illegal because you have to break the DMCA to use your rights.
(Again, I am thankful I am Canadian.)
But see, I don't want to burn CDs. I want music that will play anywhere. And I don't want to have to go through some complicated process like burning to CDs first then ripping the CDs, or using some obscure program to strip the DRM.
This is not a flame; this is simply why I won't buy something from a service encumbered by DRM restrictions.
The Opera giveaway converted me. As much as I dislike the zealots who basically are walking ads for Opera and think they can do no wrong, it does seem to be much faster on this computer, the download manager is much better, and there are several features built into the tab system that aren't readily available in Firefox. I think I'll be silently using this for a while.
+1, Interesting in spirit. I'd mod you up if I had the points.
See, this is why, if I were the RIAA, I would sue EVERYONE who came across our of my Kazaa searchbots and say "You can settle for $1000, or go to court for $1,000,000,000 (based on files x estimated downloads)." I'd be richer than a king!
I do believe the adequate response to that would be "pwned."
The EFF used to have a searchable subpoena database but have shut that down now because the new suits are filed against anonymous persons, who are only revealed (if I understand it correctly, IANAL) after the courts have determined that the copyright infringement did in fact take place.
Aww, c'mon, you're not thinking like Microsoft! They could put out a Linux distribution simply called "Linux Linux", so as to make average consumers link their product, more than any other distro, to the word Linux. Then, they could fill it with bugs in EVERY SINGLE KERNEL MODULE! The thing would panic more than Windows BSOD'd! And of course, they'd then sell it beside Windows in every retail outlet so people knew that there was competition, it just simply wasn't as good. ...I really need to own a business.
It's not going to work. I can already think of several ways to get these books permanently for free, including stripping the DRM from the file while the license is still valid (there are programs that can do this) or recording the file through the analog hole. This reminds me of those companies that would rent floppy disk PC games back in the day. Ah, those were the days...
A lot of mods won't mod +1, Funny in order to be fair to the original poster. You see, +1, Funny doesn't actually add karma to the user's account. Then, if another mod came along and modded the article down, say, -1, Overrated (because they don't think humour should be modded up, like a lot of mods on here, which is their prerogative), the end user then has a NET LOSS of -1 karma. Repeat this a few times, especially for a funny comment posted near the first post of an article, and you have a situation where someone's karma can be blown completely out of the water due to the brokenness of the +1, Funny moderation.
This should really be fixed in Slash by now, but that's just my (and a bunch of other moderators') opinion.
Yet one interesting point he throws out has me pondering, is a Creative Commons License permanently irrevocable once it's put out there?
In answer, this is from the CC Attribution-NonCommercial license (bold and italics added for emphasis):
So clearly it *is* permanantly irrevocable, which is a good thing. If it weren't, how could the end user be assured that her or his freedoms to use the software (or whatever) under the license would still be there in the future? This way, an author can't just say "this isn't working out for me, now you have to pay me $10 to keep using [whatever]," as that would be tantamount to extortion.
Additionally, from the linked Register article:
This is why there is a Non-Commercial version of the license. And this is also why having a work distributed under a CC license doesn't prevent you from ALSO licensing it under other licenses! That's the whole idea of the NC versions of the license: if someone wants to use your work commercially, they can contact you to work out another arrangement so that you would get some form of compensation for the profits that they might make off of your work.
But seriously, if you don't like the license, make your own! Nobody's forcing people to use these licenses and I don't see why this person seems to think that they're creating a "crisis" of sorts. Creative Commons licenses are just an easy way of having your work distributed the way you want, and with a license written by a lawyer so that there are no possible loopholes for which someone could take advantage.
First laugh out loud comment on Slashdot for me in a few days. You'd get a +1, Underrated if I had some mod points.
Mr. Shatner, I didn't know you posted on Slashdot! Can I have your autograph?
Next election, I see a critical mass of people voting for a third party. The Democrats and Republicans are just getting too similar for people to keep accepting the choice between two of the same.
If the US went far enough, the root DNS servers could be moved elsewhere (there are some outside the US right now anyway, and there have been alt roots in the past). It would require a lot of rewiring to say the least, but the US wouldn't be able to (permanently) shut off the internet, so to speak, even if they wanted to. The unfortunate thing is that the people (and controlling companies) decide how far the US government can go, and are giving them more and more control as time goes on.
The US government should stay the hell out of the way; the whole POINT of a .xxx domain is that it would (in theory) differentiate pornographic content from the rest of the web so it would be easy to identify AND block! The idea that it would create an "online red-light district" is absurd: people wouldn't be able to just type in ".xxx" and get access to all the pornography they wanted (though if they wanted that, all they need to do is turn off SafeSearch in Google or use a file sharing application).
;^)
Don't they have better things to focus on? (/me avoids the obvious flamebait by not mentioning liberation
Hmm, clearly I was confused, and I apologize for that. I may try iTunes some time; for now, I'm happy with Winamp (and CDex).
I am one such user who has never tried iTunes. I've never had a need to do so, and I don't like the idea of my music being locked via DRM to a single computer (trust me, I move my MP3s around my network a lot). Music I want to buy legally (and there are bands I want to support), I'll get their CD and work around the copy protection to rip it.
[And before you say "but you can move them through (X limited / complicated process)!", I don't care, I should just be able to move the files without the hassle.]
Anyway, to get back to the article's topic, I think Google will start including iTunes files in search results. You know how if you type in an equation, you get the result at the top of the page, or if you type in a phone number you get a reverse directory lookup? I think the same thing will happen if you search for something that Google recognizes as a song title, and you'll get a link to the online iTunes store to buy it, as well as your normal search results.
Which, if you think as I do, makes this absolutely massive. There are a lot of people like me who don't use iTunes, but nearly all of us use Google on a daily basis. I think having those links at the top might just be the inspiration (and convenience) necessary to convince some to click them, if just to find out what the experience is like. I probably won't be one of them unless the DRM is removed, but I think this is definitely going to be a good thing for Apple if this is, indeed, how the agreement will work out.
Why would they file a patent for it, but then allow Apple to develop, create, and market the device? You must be new here.
I was thinking about modding the parent down, but I think a reply would be a better response. This information was READILY AVAILABLE. The journalist didn't abuse any privileges they had as a reporter, they just used Google searches to find information that ANYONE could have found. Journalistic ethics weren't really involved; what was someone going to do, go attack the CEO or something? He probably has guards as it is.
This is just the CEO being pissed that information that he didn't want publicized was, and responding in a manner FAR beyond what any sane person would have done. He should have said he didn't agree; banning CNet from the world's largest search engine is needlessly crippling it so that he can personally have his revenge. This has definitely made me look at Google in a different light, and I don't think I'll ever look at them the same again.
This is why they'll likely have per-player keys, or at least per-manufacturer keys. If they had one key for the entire Blu-Ray medium, that would be pretty stupid. The idea is that they can revoke said player keys, preventing any player with the leaked key from being able to play discs (as it wouldn't be able to connect to the server).
I did say in their right minds ;^)
Errr... I'd say it's a long way from being complete, but it's very much in existance.