That is the mantra at every company that sells DRM to these PHBs. "It will protect your valuable precious IP (TM,C,Patent Pending)". Although DRM doesn't prevent piracy, it does keep the honest from reselling the crap on the net. The thing is, pirated copies of games can be removed from sale sites with the added bonus of getting the user banned from said site. So while pirated copies can be had, the resold/rented market dries up. Do you think a place like GameStop is going to put pirated copies on their shelves? Although the GP is bitching about the right of first sale, it really is the rental market that activation DRM is targeted for.
That's the rub. Many businesses go out of business, some of them more spectacularly than others, and there was no mention of a government bailout of them now was there. It is the same asshats that scream "Free Market" when they perceive a wrong against the corporation that are now screaming to not allow the market to work as it should. AIG knew the market risks when they offered their IPO. Investors knew the risks when they purchased the stock. The company certainly knew the risks when it lobbied Congress to change the laws and lastly the Congress knew the risks when it deregulated everything at the behest of the company. Why should the public be forced to take on the risk these same asshats assumed solely because the asshats screamed "free markets" to get the regulations that would have protected the public voided and the agencies charged with oversight gutted? You didn't see AIG investors protesting the profits they were getting when times where better so why protest when they go belly up? It is corporate welfare pure and simple.
How is it solving problems? Exactly how does the purchase of an OS ONLY benefit those that can't afford it? These computers have XP on them and a scaled down version at that. You aren't honestly suggesting they will be able to run any program made for XP are you? That "educational software" you keep talking about only increases the price. How is having to pay multiple license fees, not to say anything about the now needed resources to track those licenses just to keep the BSA at bay, of a benefit?
No, this move on OLPC was another example of the drug dealer's motto; The first hit is always free...
Here's the problem though. When you go through it I saw where "publicly" had been dropped in quite a few instances and when you go to the definitions you see "publicly performed" defines as well as simply "performed". Yes, it is just the tip of the iceburg as I tried to point out since about 15 other laws modify, dovetail or "enhance" Title 17. The problem as I see it is - it is an "exclusive right" which means, as I understand it, a right that is granted in such a way that any assumed right not expressly given is reserved for the holder of the right. This is what makes the GPL enforceable. I think there are still plenty of untested waters in this area though so I could very well be wrong....
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted works;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion picture or other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publically by means of a digital audio transmission.
You could conceivably run afoul of #4, #5, and #6. The right to perform as well as perform publicly *IS* a protected right.
I suggest everyone imposing their interpretation of Title 17 at least read it. The problem is Title 17 has been modified so many times, it is just about impossible to make coherent sense out of it as the author of the linked document states. Simply looking at Title 17 is a sure way to run afoul of another existing act. In the front of that document I linked to it lists all the various acts that either changed or impact Title 17.
You got his pending ruling wrong. It wasn't that AT&T was estopped by non-enforcement it was they were folding changes from BSD back into the UNIX base making distinction between the two difficult if not impossible. Also a huge chunk of UNIX code was never registered with the copyright office as required at the time. That was the deciding factor.
One hundred thirty-seven (137) developing countries have ratified the protocol, including Brazil, China and India, but have no obligation beyond monitoring and reporting emissions. The United States is the only developed country that has not ratified the treaty and is one of the significant greenhouse gas emitters.
Did you spot the exceptions? First, the obligations don't require those developing countries to do anything above monitoring and reporting and of course the US hasn't ratified this protocol at all. The means exist today to reduce pollution in the form of greenhouse gasses if it is only implemented.
Even TFS says they have always had a limit but are just now getting around to publishing it in the TOS. That kind of makes your whole statement null & void since they still are advertising it as unlimited.
For a basic level of residential service, 250 gigs per month isn't that bad... 2 full length movies per day basically... I bet their top 1% of users dont use half of that on average..
And what about that user that wants to see 3-5 movies a day? You see, they sold the service as "unlimited" then introduced limits. So maybe they should remove the bold red 150 point "UNLIMITED" from their advertisements. It's all about truth in advertising. If you have a limit, it isn't unlimited.
That is not something you do over the phone! What is wrong with you?!?! Ever hear about phishing? You make them come into the office, provide identification and in the scenario you suggested, a death certificate, and work it in the office.
I've got a better idea. Ban the collection of personal information beyond the time required for the transaction. I don't but it that companies somehow need to store all this info on people especially years after the transaction has occurred. If you are going to be light on them when they lose it, then be heavy on what they can keep.
VP doesn't set policy - they're the left hand of the President. Obama needed a strong 'experience' and 'foreign policy' answer to make it through the campaign, so he picked one.
The VP most certainly does set policy especially considering he is the one who carries a tie breaking vote in the Senate. He is the only person in the Executive Branch that has direct voting power in the legislative. Given the lame duck Senate we have today, that tie breaker vote does set policy.
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
In scientific terms they have produced nothing, in economic terms they produce nothing except oil, and in military terms, none of them could take on Israel in a fight.
To be fair, the only reason Israel is still on the map is because of US military support. Israel couldn't defend itself without the arms, both conventional and nuclear, that the US gives them. And since you are going on about production, what exactly has Israel produced for the world except a continued source of strife in the middle east? It is the continued support the US gives to Israel, even when Israel is the aggressor, that is the real root cause of much anti-US sentiments in the middle east.
This goes to a major flaw in the author's thinking:
The commons leads to overuse and destruction; the anticommons leads to underuse and waste.
The first part of that is only true of finite resources like the field he uses as an example. For things like the music in your DVD, those are not finite resources since when they are used it doesn't take anything away from the original. However, I agree with his second part that too much ownership, especially for as long as we are talking about for copyright, does lead to underuse and waste as your DVD story shows. It also leads to waste of a different kind namely the waste of resources, time and money in litigating violations.
The fix is simple then. Don't accept "throw away" email addresses for list subscriptions. This would include yahoo, hotmail and gmail. If they are interested enough, they will use a real email address.
If you serve on a trial of any length you'd hear the judge say that to keep an open mind at least twice daily.
And therein lies the bug in the jury system. People are people and can't just dump what they hear or see to/dev/null. Once something is spoken or shown in court, no matter if it was on purpose or not, it is out there impossible to retract. People will be swayed by it even if instructed to ignore it. Add to that the lower bar of "preponderance of the evidence" and it is a recipe for wacky verdicts.
The entity that made the loan did not get paid what they were promised.
Actually, the entity that made the loan most certainly did get the full payment from the brokerage firm they sold the mortgage to. The housing bubble burst is an accumulation of factors including ridiculous ARMs, mortgage trading, banking/brokerage fee fraud and out and out fraud on the part of the agents representations to the potential homeowner.
The temperature of the coffee was high because a lot of people order it, leave and drink it only 10 minutes later. As those people don't want to drink cold coffee, the coffee temperature had to be high.
Enough to cause 3rd degree burns requiring 2 years of treatment and skin grafting?
Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[8] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[9] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.
The lower the fine the more likely they are to be able to pass sweeping legislation which makes it easier to charge people. If downloading were like parking tickets and as easily enforceable then I think you see a much larger drop in piracy than threatening to sue millions of dollars.
That is twisted logic because parking tickets aren't a deterrent. If they were, you'd see a decline in parking tickets issued which, if anything, they have increased. In fact, there was a story not long ago that had people purposely getting tickets because it was cheaper to pay the fine than to pay for parking in the city garages.
No, ticketing systems allows you to enforce laws that would otherwise be unenforceable if they had to process you in the traditional way (arrest).
Well the problem in this case,and I'm not trying to flame here, is that way too many folks in the media and Mac fans have built up this whole "Temple of Steve" thing to the point that i have no doubt that if Steve Jobs was to get killed in a car crash tomorrow that their stocks would take a significant hit.
And I would call that a correction in an over valued stock. Any company that is that volatile that their stock would take a significant hit if the CEO were to go tits up is over valued. It means people don't have faith in the company or its products enough to trust the job to anyone else. The high value you are seeing then isn't in the company in that case but instead is in the individual CEO.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's marketing stupid...."
That is the mantra at every company that sells DRM to these PHBs. "It will protect your valuable precious IP (TM,C,Patent Pending)". Although DRM doesn't prevent piracy, it does keep the honest from reselling the crap on the net. The thing is, pirated copies of games can be removed from sale sites with the added bonus of getting the user banned from said site. So while pirated copies can be had, the resold/rented market dries up. Do you think a place like GameStop is going to put pirated copies on their shelves? Although the GP is bitching about the right of first sale, it really is the rental market that activation DRM is targeted for.
That's the rub. Many businesses go out of business, some of them more spectacularly than others, and there was no mention of a government bailout of them now was there. It is the same asshats that scream "Free Market" when they perceive a wrong against the corporation that are now screaming to not allow the market to work as it should. AIG knew the market risks when they offered their IPO. Investors knew the risks when they purchased the stock. The company certainly knew the risks when it lobbied Congress to change the laws and lastly the Congress knew the risks when it deregulated everything at the behest of the company. Why should the public be forced to take on the risk these same asshats assumed solely because the asshats screamed "free markets" to get the regulations that would have protected the public voided and the agencies charged with oversight gutted? You didn't see AIG investors protesting the profits they were getting when times where better so why protest when they go belly up? It is corporate welfare pure and simple.
How is it solving problems? Exactly how does the purchase of an OS ONLY benefit those that can't afford it? These computers have XP on them and a scaled down version at that. You aren't honestly suggesting they will be able to run any program made for XP are you? That "educational software" you keep talking about only increases the price. How is having to pay multiple license fees, not to say anything about the now needed resources to track those licenses just to keep the BSA at bay, of a benefit?
No, this move on OLPC was another example of the drug dealer's motto; The first hit is always free...
"So we'll have a license agreement but we won't think of it as a EULA.'"
They still don't get it. Anything you have to agree to with an "I agree" button, no matter what they call it, is a EULA.
Here's the problem though. When you go through it I saw where "publicly" had been dropped in quite a few instances and when you go to the definitions you see "publicly performed" defines as well as simply "performed". Yes, it is just the tip of the iceburg as I tried to point out since about 15 other laws modify, dovetail or "enhance" Title 17. The problem as I see it is - it is an "exclusive right" which means, as I understand it, a right that is granted in such a way that any assumed right not expressly given is reserved for the holder of the right. This is what makes the GPL enforceable. I think there are still plenty of untested waters in this area though so I could very well be wrong....
Title 17 Section 106:
You could conceivably run afoul of #4, #5, and #6. The right to perform as well as perform publicly *IS* a protected right.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
I suggest everyone imposing their interpretation of Title 17 at least read it. The problem is Title 17 has been modified so many times, it is just about impossible to make coherent sense out of it as the author of the linked document states. Simply looking at Title 17 is a sure way to run afoul of another existing act. In the front of that document I linked to it lists all the various acts that either changed or impact Title 17.
You got his pending ruling wrong. It wasn't that AT&T was estopped by non-enforcement it was they were folding changes from BSD back into the UNIX base making distinction between the two difficult if not impossible. Also a huge chunk of UNIX code was never registered with the copyright office as required at the time. That was the deciding factor.
The problem is the wiggle words "good faith and belief". Those terms have different meanings in legal circles than they do in regular English.
That part is already done with two glaring exceptions...
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Did you spot the exceptions? First, the obligations don't require those developing countries to do anything above monitoring and reporting and of course the US hasn't ratified this protocol at all. The means exist today to reduce pollution in the form of greenhouse gasses if it is only implemented.
Even TFS says they have always had a limit but are just now getting around to publishing it in the TOS. That kind of makes your whole statement null & void since they still are advertising it as unlimited.
And what about that user that wants to see 3-5 movies a day? You see, they sold the service as "unlimited" then introduced limits. So maybe they should remove the bold red 150 point "UNLIMITED" from their advertisements. It's all about truth in advertising. If you have a limit, it isn't unlimited.
Maybe you should read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes
I really don't think that was the bad part of his speech. The bad part was:
"an Internet was sent by my staff"
This from the guy who is supposed to be overseeing the ISPs.
That is not something you do over the phone! What is wrong with you?!?! Ever hear about phishing? You make them come into the office, provide identification and in the scenario you suggested, a death certificate, and work it in the office.
I've got a better idea. Ban the collection of personal information beyond the time required for the transaction. I don't but it that companies somehow need to store all this info on people especially years after the transaction has occurred. If you are going to be light on them when they lose it, then be heavy on what they can keep.
The VP most certainly does set policy especially considering he is the one who carries a tie breaking vote in the Senate. He is the only person in the Executive Branch that has direct voting power in the legislative. Given the lame duck Senate we have today, that tie breaker vote does set policy.
To be fair, the only reason Israel is still on the map is because of US military support. Israel couldn't defend itself without the arms, both conventional and nuclear, that the US gives them. And since you are going on about production, what exactly has Israel produced for the world except a continued source of strife in the middle east? It is the continued support the US gives to Israel, even when Israel is the aggressor, that is the real root cause of much anti-US sentiments in the middle east.
Even better. Sell it on ebay and make some money off it. This is exactly what one suspect did (can't recall the /. link) IIRC.
This goes to a major flaw in the author's thinking:
The first part of that is only true of finite resources like the field he uses as an example. For things like the music in your DVD, those are not finite resources since when they are used it doesn't take anything away from the original. However, I agree with his second part that too much ownership, especially for as long as we are talking about for copyright, does lead to underuse and waste as your DVD story shows. It also leads to waste of a different kind namely the waste of resources, time and money in litigating violations.
The fix is simple then. Don't accept "throw away" email addresses for list subscriptions. This would include yahoo, hotmail and gmail. If they are interested enough, they will use a real email address.
And therein lies the bug in the jury system. People are people and can't just dump what they hear or see to /dev/null. Once something is spoken or shown in court, no matter if it was on purpose or not, it is out there impossible to retract. People will be swayed by it even if instructed to ignore it. Add to that the lower bar of "preponderance of the evidence" and it is a recipe for wacky verdicts.
I agree with most of what you said except:
Actually, the entity that made the loan most certainly did get the full payment from the brokerage firm they sold the mortgage to. The housing bubble burst is an accumulation of factors including ridiculous ARMs, mortgage trading, banking/brokerage fee fraud and out and out fraud on the part of the agents representations to the potential homeowner.
Enough to cause 3rd degree burns requiring 2 years of treatment and skin grafting?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
That is twisted logic because parking tickets aren't a deterrent. If they were, you'd see a decline in parking tickets issued which, if anything, they have increased. In fact, there was a story not long ago that had people purposely getting tickets because it was cheaper to pay the fine than to pay for parking in the city garages.
No, ticketing systems allows you to enforce laws that would otherwise be unenforceable if they had to process you in the traditional way (arrest).
Ummm...Then how do you explain this:
http://p2pnet.net/story/3773
A choice line form that same article...
And I would call that a correction in an over valued stock. Any company that is that volatile that their stock would take a significant hit if the CEO were to go tits up is over valued. It means people don't have faith in the company or its products enough to trust the job to anyone else. The high value you are seeing then isn't in the company in that case but instead is in the individual CEO.