Even if all they are doing is using Linux to get the machine in a know state, they are distributing that linux kernel with their product. As such they are required to include a copy of the GPL and make the source code available. If they have modified it, then they need to make the modified source code available. Depending on what they are doing, there might be a good chuck of their code that is not GPL, but they must still follow the GPL license for the parts that are not.
I was able to find the words "freedom of press" in the bill of rights without much trouble, but I am having trouble find which article of the constitution guaranteed the right of corporations to make money? When to publish advertisement data could be considered a coprorate stratagy, what the advertisement says is a fact and if it was not considered news worthy then this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. Things are not considered corporate secrets based on how much money they can make a company, they have to be a method or formula of some kind. A good rule of thumb is that a corporate secret is their to protect anything that is not covered under patent, copyright, or trademark laws. An ad would definately be covered under copyright, but it is balanced by fair use. There would be problems with reprinting the ad verbatium, but to list facts that are contained in a copyrighted work as part of a news story has a long history of being protected fair use. The company has a right to try and keep the information secret, but there is a good reason that our forefathers decided to protect the freedom of press with the hightest law of the land, and forcing journalist to reveal sources just because someone could have made more money does not justify throwing out the protections that are suppose to be inaleinable rights.
If it only offends a small subset of the community, who could it violate community standards? If that many people are looking at this stuff, then by definition it is no longer obsene.
Then may I suggest not arguing a point of being unethical by citing that the law is on their side.
As to your current example, In one you are talking about a physical conterfeit and the other about an electronic copy. If it an obvious conterfeit then the record store is under legal obligation to refuse the transaction. If it is a conterfeit of high enough quality to fool all but an expert, they are no longer under that obligation. While they both contain copied material, it is hardly an equal comparison. It would be nice if it was, because then the RIAA could reduce all of their pending lawsuits to a misdomeaner shoplifting of a $16 CD instead of $150,000 in copyright violations.
The reason that the law is currently the way it is is because their is no way for someone like google to know the copyright status of a video clip. If I make a home video with entirely original content it is automatically copyrighted to me. If my friend gets a copy and submits it without my permission then they have commited copyright fraud. Almost anything that is on the internet is copyrighted due to the current copyright terms being longer than the life of the internet. The question then becomes not if it is copyrighted, but wether or not the submitter had permission. If you can tell me a definative way that google can determine who is the copyright owner and wether or not they have given permission for that particular distribution you might have a valid point.
It's all nice to say that someone can obviously spot which material is a copyright violation, but that is usuing a few popular examples and extending it well beyond what is practical. It would be a bit like someone saying that they can always spot an actors or actresses on the street. They might be able to get the well known ones, and maybe even a handfull of walkons and extras, but that would only scratch the surface. The video clips that are that popular can easly be found and reported by the copyright holder, but I do think that it needs to apply per work, not per video clip or per copyright holder. If a TV studio says that they don't want a particular tv show, then google should remove anything that can reasonably be recognized as such. If a TV studio says , "remove anything that belong to us!" they should be told to take a hike unless they can provide a comprehensive list of what that is.
Because distributing the GPL license verbatium and not distributing the source code would be considered fraud. The preamble of GPL(v2) states " that you receive source code or can get it if you want it". If they do not change that statement but refuse to release the source code then they have commited fraud by stating that they would grant you source code with the program. If they change that statement then they have violated the copyright of the GPL license by not using it verbatium. My argument is that distributing something labeled as GPL without providing the source code can not be done legally. Either they violate the copyright which opens them up to legal action from the FSF, OR not fullfilling a license contract with the end user and opening them up to legal action from the end user. You can't just include a verbatium copy of the license and say it does not apply if you are making public statements that you are releasing that software under a GPL license.
You have managed to state that copyright law clearly places the responsibility of reporting the copyright violation onto the copyright holder, and state that YouTube is spitting in the copyright holders face by requiring them to report the violation as the law requires instead of doing it themselves.
The FSF could sue not for the source on the software, but for distributing a non-verbatim copy of the GPL license itself. The wording of the license is a copyrighted work that can not be copied without permision. The copyright holder of the software is free to license their software however they want, but they are not allowed to use the GPL as a license unless they agree to terms of the GPL.
A trademark is not required to be registered to be effective. If it is registered then it prevents the original holder from having the purden of proof that the mark is associated with their name and product. I think that their might be enough copies of the GPL license in use to establish that the GPL name is associated with the GPL license.
They can not release their own code under the GPL and not release the source because the GPL itself is protected under copyright and trademark laws. By not releasing the source, then they are releasing under a different license but calling it GPL which dilutes the GPL trademark. They are free to distribute under the license of their choice, but they cannot change an existing license and call it the same thing. This would also be considered fraud, because the person receiving the binary would have a reasonable expectation that since it was advertised as GPL and GPL requires source that they advertised they would also provide the source code. If they want to make a new "MySQL" license that has 99% of the same things as the GPL with one or two restrictions, they are also free to do that, just don't try and call the new license GPL.
To answer the parent's parent, people distributing GPL code can charge whatever they want for the binary, the requirement is that they must also provide the source code with it, and cannot limit the distribution of the source except as provided by the GPL, so the first person buys it for $insane_dollars and then distributes the source to all his friends, family, and bittorrent. There is no requirement to make GPL code with no cost, it just has an inherent driving force that leads to that end
Most states have a law that states a BAC. A breathalyzer estimates your BAC based on the light absorbtion to determine the amount of alchol in your breath. The amount of alchol in your breath is an estimate of your BAC based on an everage person's metabolism. The source could is the only way to tell how they correlate the measured amount of light absorbtion to the estimated BAC of that specific person. Breathalyzers were intended to be a quick way of determining if someone was suspected of being intoxicated. Think about the revenue that is gained for the departments that have made the decision to use a breatalyzer as the defacto standard instead of running an actual BAC test from a blood sample before accepting that their decision was based on the accuracy of the measurement.
This is before factoring in that many organic compounds contain an alchol group that will absorb the same light spectrum. There have been cases of people reading over the limit that have witnesses to confirm that they were not drinking. The one that always comes to mind first, is the person that did fire breathing for a living. The lighter fluid that he used spiked the detector. This was only on his breath, it would have made him sick if he drank enough to raise his BAC, but they refused to draw an actual blood sample for testing. I have also had police officers tell me to always refuse the breathalyzer because they are not accurate. The fine and penalties for refusing are nothing compared to a false posative.
Would you please give some insite on why you have determined that these machines are accurate enough to ruin someones life without giving them the chance to even verify that there was not an error made in the mathmatical conversion or even a software bug? Do you even understand the full consequences of "just take the punishment" A DWI is one of the most serious offenses you can be convicted of. Would you expect someone that killed someone in self defense to just take the murder wrap instead of using evidenance that they were being attacked to prove it was self defense? The mere fact that this person is now in a position that he has to prove his innocence based on what a machine said should grant him the right to all evidence that might prove him innocent.
Re:The genius that is Microsoft...
on
MSN Censors Your IM
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I had the same problem.... I picked better friends.
Anyone that I have any relation with knows that I will not contact them via MSN, AIM, My Space, Live Journal or any of their like. If they wish to communicate they can call me on the phone or send an email. If they push the point, I suggest that they learn to use IRC or obtain a HAM radio license with a morse code rating, and I will gladly send them an instant message. Most have selected the telephone as their main choise, but one now holds a General class license. I view them pushing their "favorite" method onto me insulting and expect them to feel the same. If they do not find a medium that is commonly available and required for business communications as aceptable, then I really don't want to be associated with them.
To some slashdotters, neither is acceptable. I pay a little over $15/year for a mail account that lets me select what they filter and what they do not. No ads. No changing my email address every time I move or my broadband company gets bought out. I refuse to use msn, yahoo, hotmail, or any of the like because they decided to stop accepting email from anything hosted on a broadband IP even if it was not an open relay or a spambot. I personally beleive there was a lot more "people will have to sign up for our accounts and click on our EULA" than the whole we have to stop all the spambots on broadband. I will not use Google, because I do not want them to sniff my mail. I do not use Livejournal because they started claiming that you transfer all your copyrights to them as soon as you log in.
All of these things I can choose. I have alternatives and competition. I have two choices of broadband providers, DSL or Cable. Choosing the lesser of two evils between those two is almost as bad as trying to decide if I should vote Democrate or Republican. Having a choice doesn't work if they are both going to try and screw you over.
I'm confused.
Does hanging out with fat people make you fat, or does hanging out with skinny people make you skinny? Both? Then if a fat person and a skinny person hang out, which one is dominate?
I think that it is much more likely that people tend to gain weight rather than lose weight as they go through major life changes. As most people become less active, they don't change their diet to match. Most friends are going to be at about the same point in life with similar intersest. Maybe it isn't that one is overweight or skinny, but that they are making similar choices at similar times, but one has a slight lead.
The problem I see with this policy is that just about everything you could possibly download is copyrighted. By reading this post, you have downloaded copyrighted material. Scroll to the bottom of the page if you want to read the copyright notice. By automatically banning a student for downloading copyrighted material, you either have to ban everyone or this is something that the administration can use to pick and choose for what, for who, and when they enforce it.
Now lets say they really meant downloading copyrighted material illegally. Then it needs to be determined if it is fair use before they are banned. It is legal to use copyrighted material for educational purposes, and portions of copyrighted material for reporting type use. There are a lot of cases of people trying to enforce copyright, and the courts saying "NO" for reasons of abuse by the copyright holder or fair use on behalf of the suspected infringer, so just getting a letter from someone claiming you did not have their permission should not be taken as the final say.
If they want to ban someone for unacceptable downloading of copyrighted material, they need to have a system setup which details what is acceptable, and some kind of review to determine if a particular case was acceptable or not. There are still a lot of grey areas in copyright law, and that is why a no tolerance, no warning before punishment system is bad. Even better, if you see someone downloading something, give them and everyone else a warning that it is not acceptable to download that type of material and then add it to the list of banned downloads.
You don't need to list each peice of work, but need to be very specific in the details. "Downloading copyrighted songs" would be a very ridiculous rule. There are sites that play a tune as soon as you open them. "Downloading recorded music that is still under copyright laws of the United States or other countries which the United States has copyright treaties in affect without the permission of the copyright holder for commercial or personal use is a bannable offense". The "personal use" is a small but very important phrase. If I am using it as part of a research paper, that is not for my personal use. If someone else has it autoload as part of their website, it is not for personal use. This is just a crude example, this is something that would have to be written by a lawyer. When you make rules that have no warnings and no chance for clarification after the fact, then you make it a neccessity to clear up all the loopholes upfront.
and if you fall under it's affects, then you have no money to defend yourself and an attorney is not allowed to help you, because that is considered aiding a terrorist. It falls under the same catagory of not being able to file against secret wiretaping so long as it is secret. It doesn't matter if something is illegal if the courts are not allowed to rule on it.
If you don't think that this order will be abused, do some research into what happens when money is seized on the grounds of it being drug money, but then all drug related charges dropped. The money ends up in a legal limbo. They get told they can have it back as soon as the courts find them not guilty.
I personal feel that the right to play a DVD is not free. I paid for that right when I purchased the DVD. If I want to pay someone else for the time it takes to write a software player, then I will. If someone wants to write a software player out of kindness instead of cash, then why should they have to pay a licensing fee to allow the watching of something that a license was already paid for?
I have run into the same problem with DSL through various phone companies and Roadrunner through Time Warner. I found the easiest solution is to set up an old win98 computer and let them install all the spyware crap they want onto it, then go write down the settings that they said could not be installed manually, and had to be installed with a windows installation disk. Plug those into my XP and Linux machines. Once I have verfied everything is running and that I will not need to call them for technical support, I will format the win98 machine.
I don't know if it is an issue anymore, but I always made sure that I told the company I did not have a USB port. They still came in and plugged a USB Only, Windows only modem in. After that, I make sure the computer does not have any working USB ports so that when it doesn't work, they are forced to read the ticket, then go back and grab a modem with an ethernet port that can be installed on a linux system or a router.
I actually think that making money off an idea is a good thing. Making money off of ideas will keep the ideas coming, and allow technology and methods to get better. The problem that I have with patents, is when they are used to prevent someone from using an idea. When people start issuing lawsuits for an "idea" that they own, but are not using just to rake in the cash, then something is wrong.
The fundementals behind patents and copyrights have lasted a long time and worked for hundereds of years, corporations have just pushed to change the laws so they can use them to make money without having to create new works or make new ideas. They need to go back to a sensible time frame. Anything so long that the people living today will not be able to enjoy it is indefinite. They need to go back having to invent something instead of just thinking ideas to patent in case someone else actually figures out how to make it work.
Even if you eliminate patents and copyrights, you can still make money on an idea when you have to compete in a free market. Look at Dell, he had an idea of selling computers without using a store. I think it is fair to say that he made money off that idea. That doesn't mean it should be patented so that everyone else is forced to use a brick and morter store. I think that Amazon should be allowed to make money off of using their "one click" idea. It is a good idea, and should make using their website easier, and attrack more customers. What I don't think is that is should suddenly be unlawfull for someone else to use this very obvious idea to make money. Amazon should have to compete on their customer service, not use their idea to force any wouldbe competition into legal oblivion.
Companies are making money off of patents. They just don't do it directly. All they have to do is lock their customers into that one area that their competition is not allowed to compete, and they can persuade them into making sure they have the rest of their business. In the plastic industry, it is common to license a patent for a particular structure. As part of the license you stipulate that they are not allowed to use that structure unless they purchase the base material from you. Suddenly the value of that patent increase exponentially to what the actual licensing fee was. In the control and automation industry, they will patent a connector where you plug in a laptop. To get that cable you have to buy the complete setup of software, cable, connector and sometimes even a support aggrement. Price of $0.15 connector with licensing fee -> $50.00, amount company made off of single use of patent -> $4000.00
The hardware portion of a PC might not be anymore reliable than a cellphone, but to date I have not complete any of the following acts with my desktop
Had it fallen out of my shirt pocket into a comode
Forgoten to take it out of the pocket in my shorts before going swimming
Had to remove a shorting battery because the desktop was in my pocket when the canoe tipped over
Left my desktop on the table at a restraunt
Left my desktop sitting on the roof of my car while I drove off
Had my desktop fall out of my pocket while getting into the car
Had someone steal a desktop out of my car
Desktops make a good quick backup because the are not intended to be mobile. A lot of things happen to small items when you start to carry them around everywhere you go. PDA's would not be a good backup for this reason. You backup to the computer, then you back up the data on your computer and you have two backups. If a company is concerned about data loss or lack of administration, specify which folder the information is to be backed up, and then include that folder in the list of things that get covered on the nightly backups.
What would be wrong with $5000 in 2007 dollars (increases with inflation) or 5% of income received from the copyrighted material. Whichever is greater Now the people that want to make $Gillions, can offset some tax dollars from the people that are being denied the public domain rights for a work that should have expired. The people that are making money can pay the money, the people that just want to hang onto their rights have the option to do so, and by adjusting for inflation, the law does not need to be rewritten in future when a couple of $5000 bills will by you a seat in a movie theater.
As I see it, the two main things that are gained form licensing something under GPL 2.0 was that it insured that someone could fork a project if the current project started eliminating the needs of one group over another, and that everyone involved in future projects could benefit from any code that was contributed. i.e. when you fork a project, you can still use any code improvements from the other branch that are still compatible with the goals of your branch.
Sweet released the code under the GPL2, thus granting the privlidge of being able to fork his code. The only ethical problem that I have ever seen from forking GPL code, is when you "steal" the programmers from the original branch thus hindering future progress, but even then, their is a reason that they left. If you lose so many contributers due to a fork, maybe you weren't listening to the people that were contributing. There is nothing that requires a primary developer to listen, but there is also nothing that requires contributers to help.
Someone mentioned that they didn't think the Primary developer didn't have the right to change the license of his code. I think they missed the importance of the words "his code". The primary developer does not have the right to relicense other peoples code under the GPL. If those people granted the primary developer those rights outside the GPL, then they are free to do so. It really doesn't matter wether he was the primary developer or not. Just like the other contributers granted Sweet the right to relicense their code, he has now granted Apple the right to relicense his code. The one think he cannot do is revoke the license that has already been granted under the GPL2. Wich means there is no problem ethically or legally of forking the code and appointing a new primary developer. What they cannot do is relicense the code. Only Sweet and now Apple have that right. This includes moving the code to GPL3. Depending on the wording of the contract either Sweet or Apple has the right to move it to the GPL3 if they wish. At that point anyone is free to make a GPL2 only fork, but only the copyright holder or someone with permission from the copyright holder may fork into a GPL3 version.
The only benifit I can see from Apple is if they want to include propritary code. If they just wanted to avoid GPL3, they were free to start their own fork. With all the mess about printer companies trying to use the DMCA to prevent people from making refill cartridges, I can see where having a proprietary printer driver and avoid GPL3 like the plague might make the printer manufactuers feel more comfortable.
I see a lot of replies about just buying the Vista version and installing Linux would artificially boost Vista numbers. I would be much more worried about having to reinstall Vista just to get tech support if you have a hardware failure. Laptops are the one item I will actually purchase the extended warrenty and there is a decent chance I will need to use it. Last time I had to get hardware replaced by Dell, I had to jump through all the stupid hoops for a week before they would replace the failed harddrive. When I asked about erasing the data (I had unfiled patent information and information that was covered under Non-disclosure agreements), they told me just to format it, I explained the drive was not accessible, and gave them the URL to their own web site stating that a format was not considered a secure means of erasing data. That took two more weeks to resolve. (I am now a firm beliver in Truecrypt partitions on laptops and removable drives). I can't even imagining trying to explain that I do not need the latest Vista driver for their CD writer in order to make the door open when I press the physical eject button on a machine that does not even have Vista anymore.
Maybe a better solution would be to outsource a reverse call center. You call and give them a description of the problem, then they call the warrenty company and spend the hours on the phone pretending to do all the stupid things designed to make you just give up on the claim. Would also be usefull for dealing with phone and electrical companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if all they are doing is using Linux to get the machine in a know state, they are distributing that linux kernel with their product. As such they are required to include a copy of the GPL and make the source code available. If they have modified it, then they need to make the modified source code available. Depending on what they are doing, there might be a good chuck of their code that is not GPL, but they must still follow the GPL license for the parts that are not.
If you buy the cheap stock to liquidate the computers, does it come with an source license?
I was able to find the words "freedom of press" in the bill of rights without much trouble, but I am having trouble find which article of the constitution guaranteed the right of corporations to make money? When to publish advertisement data could be considered a coprorate stratagy, what the advertisement says is a fact and if it was not considered news worthy then this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. Things are not considered corporate secrets based on how much money they can make a company, they have to be a method or formula of some kind. A good rule of thumb is that a corporate secret is their to protect anything that is not covered under patent, copyright, or trademark laws. An ad would definately be covered under copyright, but it is balanced by fair use. There would be problems with reprinting the ad verbatium, but to list facts that are contained in a copyrighted work as part of a news story has a long history of being protected fair use. The company has a right to try and keep the information secret, but there is a good reason that our forefathers decided to protect the freedom of press with the hightest law of the land, and forcing journalist to reveal sources just because someone could have made more money does not justify throwing out the protections that are suppose to be inaleinable rights.
If it only offends a small subset of the community, who could it violate community standards? If that many people are looking at this stuff, then by definition it is no longer obsene.
Then may I suggest not arguing a point of being unethical by citing that the law is on their side.
As to your current example, In one you are talking about a physical conterfeit and the other about an electronic copy. If it an obvious conterfeit then the record store is under legal obligation to refuse the transaction. If it is a conterfeit of high enough quality to fool all but an expert, they are no longer under that obligation. While they both contain copied material, it is hardly an equal comparison. It would be nice if it was, because then the RIAA could reduce all of their pending lawsuits to a misdomeaner shoplifting of a $16 CD instead of $150,000 in copyright violations.
The reason that the law is currently the way it is is because their is no way for someone like google to know the copyright status of a video clip. If I make a home video with entirely original content it is automatically copyrighted to me. If my friend gets a copy and submits it without my permission then they have commited copyright fraud. Almost anything that is on the internet is copyrighted due to the current copyright terms being longer than the life of the internet. The question then becomes not if it is copyrighted, but wether or not the submitter had permission. If you can tell me a definative way that google can determine who is the copyright owner and wether or not they have given permission for that particular distribution you might have a valid point.
It's all nice to say that someone can obviously spot which material is a copyright violation, but that is usuing a few popular examples and extending it well beyond what is practical. It would be a bit like someone saying that they can always spot an actors or actresses on the street. They might be able to get the well known ones, and maybe even a handfull of walkons and extras, but that would only scratch the surface. The video clips that are that popular can easly be found and reported by the copyright holder, but I do think that it needs to apply per work, not per video clip or per copyright holder. If a TV studio says that they don't want a particular tv show, then google should remove anything that can reasonably be recognized as such. If a TV studio says , "remove anything that belong to us!" they should be told to take a hike unless they can provide a comprehensive list of what that is.
Because distributing the GPL license verbatium and not distributing the source code would be considered fraud. The preamble of GPL(v2) states " that you receive source code or can get it if you want it". If they do not change that statement but refuse to release the source code then they have commited fraud by stating that they would grant you source code with the program. If they change that statement then they have violated the copyright of the GPL license by not using it verbatium. My argument is that distributing something labeled as GPL without providing the source code can not be done legally. Either they violate the copyright which opens them up to legal action from the FSF, OR not fullfilling a license contract with the end user and opening them up to legal action from the end user. You can't just include a verbatium copy of the license and say it does not apply if you are making public statements that you are releasing that software under a GPL license.
You have managed to state that copyright law clearly places the responsibility of reporting the copyright violation onto the copyright holder, and state that YouTube is spitting in the copyright holders face by requiring them to report the violation as the law requires instead of doing it themselves.
This may help to clarify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
The FSF could sue not for the source on the software, but for distributing a non-verbatim copy of the GPL license itself. The wording of the license is a copyrighted work that can not be copied without permision. The copyright holder of the software is free to license their software however they want, but they are not allowed to use the GPL as a license unless they agree to terms of the GPL.
A trademark is not required to be registered to be effective. If it is registered then it prevents the original holder from having the purden of proof that the mark is associated with their name and product. I think that their might be enough copies of the GPL license in use to establish that the GPL name is associated with the GPL license.
They can not release their own code under the GPL and not release the source because the GPL itself is protected under copyright and trademark laws. By not releasing the source, then they are releasing under a different license but calling it GPL which dilutes the GPL trademark. They are free to distribute under the license of their choice, but they cannot change an existing license and call it the same thing. This would also be considered fraud, because the person receiving the binary would have a reasonable expectation that since it was advertised as GPL and GPL requires source that they advertised they would also provide the source code. If they want to make a new "MySQL" license that has 99% of the same things as the GPL with one or two restrictions, they are also free to do that, just don't try and call the new license GPL.
To answer the parent's parent, people distributing GPL code can charge whatever they want for the binary, the requirement is that they must also provide the source code with it, and cannot limit the distribution of the source except as provided by the GPL, so the first person buys it for $insane_dollars and then distributes the source to all his friends, family, and bittorrent. There is no requirement to make GPL code with no cost, it just has an inherent driving force that leads to that end
Most states have a law that states a BAC. A breathalyzer estimates your BAC based on the light absorbtion to determine the amount of alchol in your breath. The amount of alchol in your breath is an estimate of your BAC based on an everage person's metabolism. The source could is the only way to tell how they correlate the measured amount of light absorbtion to the estimated BAC of that specific person. Breathalyzers were intended to be a quick way of determining if someone was suspected of being intoxicated. Think about the revenue that is gained for the departments that have made the decision to use a breatalyzer as the defacto standard instead of running an actual BAC test from a blood sample before accepting that their decision was based on the accuracy of the measurement.
This is before factoring in that many organic compounds contain an alchol group that will absorb the same light spectrum. There have been cases of people reading over the limit that have witnesses to confirm that they were not drinking. The one that always comes to mind first, is the person that did fire breathing for a living. The lighter fluid that he used spiked the detector. This was only on his breath, it would have made him sick if he drank enough to raise his BAC, but they refused to draw an actual blood sample for testing. I have also had police officers tell me to always refuse the breathalyzer because they are not accurate. The fine and penalties for refusing are nothing compared to a false posative.
Would you please give some insite on why you have determined that these machines are accurate enough to ruin someones life without giving them the chance to even verify that there was not an error made in the mathmatical conversion or even a software bug? Do you even understand the full consequences of "just take the punishment" A DWI is one of the most serious offenses you can be convicted of. Would you expect someone that killed someone in self defense to just take the murder wrap instead of using evidenance that they were being attacked to prove it was self defense? The mere fact that this person is now in a position that he has to prove his innocence based on what a machine said should grant him the right to all evidence that might prove him innocent.
I had the same problem.... I picked better friends.
Anyone that I have any relation with knows that I will not contact them via MSN, AIM, My Space, Live Journal or any of their like. If they wish to communicate they can call me on the phone or send an email. If they push the point, I suggest that they learn to use IRC or obtain a HAM radio license with a morse code rating, and I will gladly send them an instant message. Most have selected the telephone as their main choise, but one now holds a General class license. I view them pushing their "favorite" method onto me insulting and expect them to feel the same. If they do not find a medium that is commonly available and required for business communications as aceptable, then I really don't want to be associated with them.
To some slashdotters, neither is acceptable. I pay a little over $15/year for a mail account that lets me select what they filter and what they do not. No ads. No changing my email address every time I move or my broadband company gets bought out. I refuse to use msn, yahoo, hotmail, or any of the like because they decided to stop accepting email from anything hosted on a broadband IP even if it was not an open relay or a spambot. I personally beleive there was a lot more "people will have to sign up for our accounts and click on our EULA" than the whole we have to stop all the spambots on broadband. I will not use Google, because I do not want them to sniff my mail. I do not use Livejournal because they started claiming that you transfer all your copyrights to them as soon as you log in.
All of these things I can choose. I have alternatives and competition. I have two choices of broadband providers, DSL or Cable. Choosing the lesser of two evils between those two is almost as bad as trying to decide if I should vote Democrate or Republican. Having a choice doesn't work if they are both going to try and screw you over.
I'm confused.
Does hanging out with fat people make you fat, or does hanging out with skinny people make you skinny? Both? Then if a fat person and a skinny person hang out, which one is dominate?
I think that it is much more likely that people tend to gain weight rather than lose weight as they go through major life changes. As most people become less active, they don't change their diet to match. Most friends are going to be at about the same point in life with similar intersest. Maybe it isn't that one is overweight or skinny, but that they are making similar choices at similar times, but one has a slight lead.
No, but 12 generation old people tend to not look so well, most of them have been decaying for a few years.
The problem I see with this policy is that just about everything you could possibly download is copyrighted. By reading this post, you have downloaded copyrighted material. Scroll to the bottom of the page if you want to read the copyright notice. By automatically banning a student for downloading copyrighted material, you either have to ban everyone or this is something that the administration can use to pick and choose for what, for who, and when they enforce it.
Now lets say they really meant downloading copyrighted material illegally. Then it needs to be determined if it is fair use before they are banned. It is legal to use copyrighted material for educational purposes, and portions of copyrighted material for reporting type use. There are a lot of cases of people trying to enforce copyright, and the courts saying "NO" for reasons of abuse by the copyright holder or fair use on behalf of the suspected infringer, so just getting a letter from someone claiming you did not have their permission should not be taken as the final say.
If they want to ban someone for unacceptable downloading of copyrighted material, they need to have a system setup which details what is acceptable, and some kind of review to determine if a particular case was acceptable or not. There are still a lot of grey areas in copyright law, and that is why a no tolerance, no warning before punishment system is bad. Even better, if you see someone downloading something, give them and everyone else a warning that it is not acceptable to download that type of material and then add it to the list of banned downloads.
You don't need to list each peice of work, but need to be very specific in the details. "Downloading copyrighted songs" would be a very ridiculous rule. There are sites that play a tune as soon as you open them. "Downloading recorded music that is still under copyright laws of the United States or other countries which the United States has copyright treaties in affect without the permission of the copyright holder for commercial or personal use is a bannable offense". The "personal use" is a small but very important phrase. If I am using it as part of a research paper, that is not for my personal use. If someone else has it autoload as part of their website, it is not for personal use. This is just a crude example, this is something that would have to be written by a lawyer. When you make rules that have no warnings and no chance for clarification after the fact, then you make it a neccessity to clear up all the loopholes upfront.
and if you fall under it's affects, then you have no money to defend yourself and an attorney is not allowed to help you, because that is considered aiding a terrorist. It falls under the same catagory of not being able to file against secret wiretaping so long as it is secret. It doesn't matter if something is illegal if the courts are not allowed to rule on it.
If you don't think that this order will be abused, do some research into what happens when money is seized on the grounds of it being drug money, but then all drug related charges dropped. The money ends up in a legal limbo. They get told they can have it back as soon as the courts find them not guilty.
I personal feel that the right to play a DVD is not free. I paid for that right when I purchased the DVD. If I want to pay someone else for the time it takes to write a software player, then I will. If someone wants to write a software player out of kindness instead of cash, then why should they have to pay a licensing fee to allow the watching of something that a license was already paid for?
I have run into the same problem with DSL through various phone companies and Roadrunner through Time Warner. I found the easiest solution is to set up an old win98 computer and let them install all the spyware crap they want onto it, then go write down the settings that they said could not be installed manually, and had to be installed with a windows installation disk. Plug those into my XP and Linux machines. Once I have verfied everything is running and that I will not need to call them for technical support, I will format the win98 machine.
I don't know if it is an issue anymore, but I always made sure that I told the company I did not have a USB port. They still came in and plugged a USB Only, Windows only modem in. After that, I make sure the computer does not have any working USB ports so that when it doesn't work, they are forced to read the ticket, then go back and grab a modem with an ethernet port that can be installed on a linux system or a router.
I actually think that making money off an idea is a good thing. Making money off of ideas will keep the ideas coming, and allow technology and methods to get better. The problem that I have with patents, is when they are used to prevent someone from using an idea. When people start issuing lawsuits for an "idea" that they own, but are not using just to rake in the cash, then something is wrong.
The fundementals behind patents and copyrights have lasted a long time and worked for hundereds of years, corporations have just pushed to change the laws so they can use them to make money without having to create new works or make new ideas. They need to go back to a sensible time frame. Anything so long that the people living today will not be able to enjoy it is indefinite. They need to go back having to invent something instead of just thinking ideas to patent in case someone else actually figures out how to make it work.
Even if you eliminate patents and copyrights, you can still make money on an idea when you have to compete in a free market. Look at Dell, he had an idea of selling computers without using a store. I think it is fair to say that he made money off that idea. That doesn't mean it should be patented so that everyone else is forced to use a brick and morter store. I think that Amazon should be allowed to make money off of using their "one click" idea. It is a good idea, and should make using their website easier, and attrack more customers. What I don't think is that is should suddenly be unlawfull for someone else to use this very obvious idea to make money. Amazon should have to compete on their customer service, not use their idea to force any wouldbe competition into legal oblivion.
Companies are making money off of patents. They just don't do it directly. All they have to do is lock their customers into that one area that their competition is not allowed to compete, and they can persuade them into making sure they have the rest of their business. In the plastic industry, it is common to license a patent for a particular structure. As part of the license you stipulate that they are not allowed to use that structure unless they purchase the base material from you. Suddenly the value of that patent increase exponentially to what the actual licensing fee was. In the control and automation industry, they will patent a connector where you plug in a laptop. To get that cable you have to buy the complete setup of software, cable, connector and sometimes even a support aggrement. Price of $0.15 connector with licensing fee -> $50.00, amount company made off of single use of patent -> $4000.00
The hardware portion of a PC might not be anymore reliable than a cellphone, but to date I have not complete any of the following acts with my desktop
Had it fallen out of my shirt pocket into a comode
Forgoten to take it out of the pocket in my shorts before going swimming
Had to remove a shorting battery because the desktop was in my pocket when the canoe tipped over
Left my desktop on the table at a restraunt
Left my desktop sitting on the roof of my car while I drove off
Had my desktop fall out of my pocket while getting into the car
Had someone steal a desktop out of my car
Desktops make a good quick backup because the are not intended to be mobile. A lot of things happen to small items when you start to carry them around everywhere you go. PDA's would not be a good backup for this reason. You backup to the computer, then you back up the data on your computer and you have two backups. If a company is concerned about data loss or lack of administration, specify which folder the information is to be backed up, and then include that folder in the list of things that get covered on the nightly backups.
What would be wrong with $5000 in 2007 dollars (increases with inflation) or 5% of income received from the copyrighted material. Whichever is greater Now the people that want to make $Gillions, can offset some tax dollars from the people that are being denied the public domain rights for a work that should have expired. The people that are making money can pay the money, the people that just want to hang onto their rights have the option to do so, and by adjusting for inflation, the law does not need to be rewritten in future when a couple of $5000 bills will by you a seat in a movie theater.
As I see it, the two main things that are gained form licensing something under GPL 2.0 was that it insured that someone could fork a project if the current project started eliminating the needs of one group over another, and that everyone involved in future projects could benefit from any code that was contributed. i.e. when you fork a project, you can still use any code improvements from the other branch that are still compatible with the goals of your branch.
Sweet released the code under the GPL2, thus granting the privlidge of being able to fork his code. The only ethical problem that I have ever seen from forking GPL code, is when you "steal" the programmers from the original branch thus hindering future progress, but even then, their is a reason that they left. If you lose so many contributers due to a fork, maybe you weren't listening to the people that were contributing. There is nothing that requires a primary developer to listen, but there is also nothing that requires contributers to help.
Someone mentioned that they didn't think the Primary developer didn't have the right to change the license of his code. I think they missed the importance of the words "his code". The primary developer does not have the right to relicense other peoples code under the GPL. If those people granted the primary developer those rights outside the GPL, then they are free to do so. It really doesn't matter wether he was the primary developer or not. Just like the other contributers granted Sweet the right to relicense their code, he has now granted Apple the right to relicense his code. The one think he cannot do is revoke the license that has already been granted under the GPL2. Wich means there is no problem ethically or legally of forking the code and appointing a new primary developer. What they cannot do is relicense the code. Only Sweet and now Apple have that right. This includes moving the code to GPL3. Depending on the wording of the contract either Sweet or Apple has the right to move it to the GPL3 if they wish. At that point anyone is free to make a GPL2 only fork, but only the copyright holder or someone with permission from the copyright holder may fork into a GPL3 version.
The only benifit I can see from Apple is if they want to include propritary code. If they just wanted to avoid GPL3, they were free to start their own fork. With all the mess about printer companies trying to use the DMCA to prevent people from making refill cartridges, I can see where having a proprietary printer driver and avoid GPL3 like the plague might make the printer manufactuers feel more comfortable.
All the people I voted for are NOT in office. Why do I have to take the blame because the majority of people around me are idiots.
I see a lot of replies about just buying the Vista version and installing Linux would artificially boost Vista numbers. I would be much more worried about having to reinstall Vista just to get tech support if you have a hardware failure. Laptops are the one item I will actually purchase the extended warrenty and there is a decent chance I will need to use it. Last time I had to get hardware replaced by Dell, I had to jump through all the stupid hoops for a week before they would replace the failed harddrive. When I asked about erasing the data (I had unfiled patent information and information that was covered under Non-disclosure agreements), they told me just to format it, I explained the drive was not accessible, and gave them the URL to their own web site stating that a format was not considered a secure means of erasing data. That took two more weeks to resolve. (I am now a firm beliver in Truecrypt partitions on laptops and removable drives). I can't even imagining trying to explain that I do not need the latest Vista driver for their CD writer in order to make the door open when I press the physical eject button on a machine that does not even have Vista anymore.
Maybe a better solution would be to outsource a reverse call center. You call and give them a description of the problem, then they call the warrenty company and spend the hours on the phone pretending to do all the stupid things designed to make you just give up on the claim. Would also be usefull for dealing with phone and electrical companies.
For some reason you comment makes me think of the census long form and now I can't stop twitching.