irst off- as a body acting on behalf of the copyright holders, they have a right to download it. So them downloading it is non-infringing.
Wrong, because you are still infringing THEIR rights to distribution. Whether they are legally entitled to possess the file is totally irrelevant.
Secondly, it opens up arguments of entrapment.
Wrong again, only the government can engage in entrapment. There is no private entrapment. "Only a government official or agent can entrap a defendant." United States v. Emmert, 829 F.2d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 1987).
Thirdly, it means say goodbye to mass mailing of lawsuits, they have to dl every file from everyone they want to sue them over.
your claim seems to indicate that they didn't illegally distribute it by sending it to someone who had the right to have it.
Whether your recipient has a right to have it is totally irrelevant. YOU have to have the right to DISTRIBUTE it. You could distribute a copy back to the original owner, but if you don't have distribution rights, you are in violation of the law.
No. I would also encourage you to bear in mind this rule of thumb: not only is it usually impossible to escape the law by being clever, but those who work in the law are clever too, and won't be deterred by the likes of you.
+5 EXCELLENT ADVICE. Please, geeks, heed this warning.
That is an extremely serious flaw. The device sends its key to anyone claiming to forgot theirs? That is a great design. Why wouldn't it only resend the key if it recognized the ID as something it already paired with?
Why do you think japanese culture is becoming the awesome stuff that US geeks love?
Because geeks have questionable taste?
In all seriousness, my theory is that the reason that geeks are disproportionately attracted to Japanese popular culture is that Japanese popular culture is uniquely insular; by that I mean, more of it is designed to consumed alone, in private. Typical American games, by contrast, are more often designed to be played socially, with a group of friends, while hanging out together or as part of an online community.
As for this game, I can see why this would be attractive to people that can't afford/don't have the room for a real pet. But it seems...a little creepy...for people to start substituting inferior virtual representations of real-life things that are easily achievable to them. Maybe that's why these games come off as juvenile in the United States. If you buy this game when you could have a real dog, it makes you appear as incapable or unwilling to take on the responsibility or make the commitment or a real pet.
My thoughts exactly. My suspicion is that many Nintendo fanboys are actually just fans of Japanese popular culture, which Nintendo delivers more of than other consoles. What they sometimes may forget is that they are a decided minority, and that for people like myself, who are rather indifferent to Japanese popular culture, this emphasis can be a bug, not a feature.
Which should be kind of embarassing for Microsoft...
Ummm, why? Microsoft is (primarily) a software company. It's not like they could have used Microsoft(TM) PC's - they don't have any products in that market. So they used Apple hardware.
Now, if they were running OSX on that hardware instead of their own custom OS, THAT would be embarassing.
That is still significantly different from the BSD or GPL licenses.
Is it? What specifically do you foresee as the compatibility problem? As I recall, the GPL does not prohibit the use of patented methods, so long as the licensing is freely available.
Q. Can the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas be used by open source developers?
A.
Yes. Open source developers who wish to participate in a community development project can enter into the agreements and then work in a collaborative fashion on development of a program or programs.
Q. Can I distribute a program that can read and/or write files that support the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas in source code form?
A.
Yes. You can distribute your program in source code form. But, note that the patent and copyright provisions in the license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas require you to include a notice of attribution in your program.
Q. Can I distribute a licensed program under an open source software license?
A.
Yes. There are many open source licenses available in the developer community. One useful place to review the various licenses that have been approved by the open source community is at Open Source Initiative.
The terms and conditions of these licenses differ in material respects. We believe you can distribute your program under many open source software licenses so long as you include the notices described in the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas. On the other hand, some open source licenses may include specific constraints or restrictions that might preclude development under the Office 2003 XML Reference Schema licenses. You should check with your legal counsel if you have questions about a particular open source software license.
what if at least some people at Microsoft are starting to realize the same thing that businesses like IBM realized years ago -- that selling a powerful batch of tools to enhance the capabilities of the original applications is so much better than charging an arm and a leg for the original apps themselves.
This certainly seems to be their strategy for develeopors. With nothing more than a hotmail account, you can now download - for free - "express" versions of Visual Studio for "hobbyists" and such, with awesome documentation and powerful user tools. But of course, you aren't licensed to use them to write commercial software, as soon as you need the servers to deploy your apps on, prepare to shell out commercial-grade prices.
Consider this: remember the news about "Metro", Microsoft's open, XML-based page markup language that is supposed to be a PDF killer? Wasn't the next version of Office supposed to be able to output Metro? Perhaps the next-gen document format won't be.DOC at all.
A.
The license is not restricted to particular individuals or entities. It is available for customers, governments, academics, hobbyists, and IT companies.
...
Q. How much does the license cost?
A.
The license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas is being made available free of charge.
Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) is conventionally used for a first program to communicate information to a second program that may be running simultaneously on the same computer as the first program or on two different computers that may or may not be running the same operating system. In that regard, SOAP is used for encoding, or serializing, defined data structures. For example, SOAP specifies exactly how an HTTP header and an XML file are serialized so that one program can send a request to another program, passing information in the request.
Nevertheless, what is needed is a way to serialize an object having an arbitrary structure into an XML document so that the structure and the information contained in the object can be communicated between two programs that may be running simultaneously on the same computer or may be running on different computers that may or may not be running different operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Even that would be entrapment. Only a government official or agent can entrap someone.
Wrong, because you are still infringing THEIR rights to distribution. Whether they are legally entitled to possess the file is totally irrelevant.
Secondly, it opens up arguments of entrapment.
Wrong again, only the government can engage in entrapment. There is no private entrapment. "Only a government official or agent can entrap a defendant." United States v. Emmert, 829 F.2d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 1987).
Thirdly, it means say goodbye to mass mailing of lawsuits, they have to dl every file from everyone they want to sue them over.
Well, one out of three isn't bad.
Whether your recipient has a right to have it is totally irrelevant. YOU have to have the right to DISTRIBUTE it. You could distribute a copy back to the original owner, but if you don't have distribution rights, you are in violation of the law.
+5 EXCELLENT ADVICE. Please, geeks, heed this warning.
IF you're looking for a reason, blame the GPL. Apple's software is one of its pillars of strength. They're not going to piss it away.
We'd all love to see the plans.
No, no, THIS is the robotic claw they're using.
This probe is vital to national security. We cannot risk further terrorist attacks on our turbinium mining operations.
Trees?
This has to be Microsoft's fault somehow.
Because geeks have questionable taste?
In all seriousness, my theory is that the reason that geeks are disproportionately attracted to Japanese popular culture is that Japanese popular culture is uniquely insular; by that I mean, more of it is designed to consumed alone, in private. Typical American games, by contrast, are more often designed to be played socially, with a group of friends, while hanging out together or as part of an online community.
As for this game, I can see why this would be attractive to people that can't afford/don't have the room for a real pet. But it seems...a little creepy...for people to start substituting inferior virtual representations of real-life things that are easily achievable to them. Maybe that's why these games come off as juvenile in the United States. If you buy this game when you could have a real dog, it makes you appear as incapable or unwilling to take on the responsibility or make the commitment or a real pet.
My thoughts exactly. My suspicion is that many Nintendo fanboys are actually just fans of Japanese popular culture, which Nintendo delivers more of than other consoles. What they sometimes may forget is that they are a decided minority, and that for people like myself, who are rather indifferent to Japanese popular culture, this emphasis can be a bug, not a feature.
Ummm, why? Microsoft is (primarily) a software company. It's not like they could have used Microsoft(TM) PC's - they don't have any products in that market. So they used Apple hardware.
Now, if they were running OSX on that hardware instead of their own custom OS, THAT would be embarassing.
If the "core element" of a portable music device is not "sound production," then what is it?
Escape from Castle Algebra? Unreal Number Munchers Tournament III? GTA: Mathmagic Land?
It makes indoctrination of Proper Opinions much, much simpler.
It was funny the first time. Now, not so much.
Is it? What specifically do you foresee as the compatibility problem? As I recall, the GPL does not prohibit the use of patented methods, so long as the licensing is freely available.
From the FAQ:
XML Reference Schemas License Overview
Contains the legal notice, patent license agreement, and license update information.
http://www.microsoft.com/Office/xml/faq.mspx
This certainly seems to be their strategy for develeopors. With nothing more than a hotmail account, you can now download - for free - "express" versions of Visual Studio for "hobbyists" and such, with awesome documentation and powerful user tools. But of course, you aren't licensed to use them to write commercial software, as soon as you need the servers to deploy your apps on, prepare to shell out commercial-grade prices.
Consider this: remember the news about "Metro", Microsoft's open, XML-based page markup language that is supposed to be a PDF killer? Wasn't the next version of Office supposed to be able to output Metro? Perhaps the next-gen document format won't be .DOC at all.
Or not.
http://www.microsoft.com/Office/xml/faq.mspx