The rationale behind the present copyright term is that those heirs who had had direct contact with an author are in the best position to know how the author wanted the work exploited. Hence a copyright term that approximates the life of the author's grandchildren. The 1990s extension from life plus 50 to life plus 70 didn't change the rationale as much as reflect increased life expectancy.
The source code only has to be available to the people you ship binaries to.
Consider the following excerpts from the GNU General Public License, versions 2 and 3:
(From GPLv2) b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange
This offer must be available to "any third party".
(From GPLv3) b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
This offer must be available to "anyone who possesses the object code", including someone who received a copy other than from you.
It was at one time an important milestone in the development of a new language once the language became self-compiling (that is, when you could write the compiler in the language to be compiled; this is known as bootstrapping). This usually necessitated that the initial compiler be written in some lower-level language, but once constructed could be used to re-write the compiler in it's own language, to be compiled and shipped.
But for security reasons, it's unwise to discard the lower-level language implementation. In the article "Reflections on Trusting Trust", Ken Thompson described how a self-replicating trojan might be added to a compiler. But if you have a compiler for your language in some widely implemented lower-level language, there are ways to ensure that the compiler is free of a Thompson trojan.
The first step is to ensure you have a trojan-free compiler for the lower-level language. This can be done through a method that David A. Wheeler called "diverse double-compiling": repeating the bootstrap process on two or more independent implementations of the language and comparing the resulting binaries. For example, compile GCC using Clang, MSVC, and old GCC. This gives you three different GCC binaries, containing different sequences of instructions but ideally with the same behavior. Then compile GCC using each of the resulting GCC binaries. The results should be identical because in the second step, you're compiling GCC with GCC each time. If they differ other than in timestamps, there's a compiler bug, if not a flat-out trojan. If they're the same, then either they're all clean or they all independently implemented the same trojan.
The second step is use a compiler verified as clean through DDC as a stepping stone toward a clean compiler for the target language. For example, you might use old GCC to compile the last version of g++ written in C (before the switch to C++), then use old g++ to compile modern g++. Or you might compile an OCaml compiler written in C, and then use that to compile the old Rust compiler written in OCaml, and finally use that to compile the modern Rust compiler.
But these methods to establish the lack of a Thompson trojan in a compiler will not work if the only publicly available implementation of a language is written in that same language.
I had to fax pay stubs to my home state when I applied for health insurance. I guess courts are more familiar with signing a document and then faxing it than with using PGP or S/MIME to sign an email.
will future computer understand the x86 and VESA standard?
The former can be handled by using MIPS (a patent-free RISC ISA) instead of patented, complex modern x86, and by including an in-own-words description of the entire MIPS architecture, along with enough of a Rosetta stone to document the human language in which MIPS is described. Video can be handled as if it were a dumb frame buffer, also described in-own-words.
Overall it does. In some specific situations, it does not. One category of these is a copyright owner deliberately keeping a previously published or publicly exhibited work out of print everywhere or in particular countries. An example of this is Song of the South. Another is uncertainty over whether a song you've written is legally original, as opposed to an accidental infringement of copyright in someone else's song. An example of this is "My Sweet Lord" by George Harrison. Why are those specific cases worth keeping?
Heck, I did something similar with a needle - just pierce a hole at random, then figure out which sectors are unreadable in my original. If you could read them, the floppy was not an original. And since it was at random, no two disks were alike. Writing data to the original wasn't a big deal - once you knew where the bad sectors were, skip over them.
Nintendo GameCube disc authentication works the same way: burn six evenly spaced pinholes in the lead-in at some random theta, and then mark in the Burst Cutting Area which sectors were burned.
Needs a stable, standard, unencumbered, free GUI -- windows, menus, toolbars, widgets, mouse, touch, etc. It'd be lovely if it was open source and not a barely-masked invitation to buy a new Porsche for some lawyer, too. IOW, no GPL infection.
Assuming that by "infection" you mean "causing [a larger work] to be distributable only under copyleft terms":
Both GTK+ widgets and Qt widgets are under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). Because LGPL is a weak copyleft, use of an LGPL library in a larger work does not "infect" it. It does, however, require an application's object to be available to a licensed user without digital restrictions management, which rules out a port to iOS or major video game consoles.
If they really wanted to copy the competition, Comcast would create their own channels and fund high-quality programming that isn't available elsewhere.
I think that was Comcast's strategy in buying NBCUniversal.
Same boss because once things start shifting the Cable TV companies will acquire Netflix/Hulu/youname it.
Hulu LLC is owned by Disney, Comcast, Fox, and Time Warner. All four companies own broadcast TV networks (ABC, NBC, Fox, and half of CW respectively) as well as mid-tier cable TV networks. Comcast is also a multichannel pay television provider.
Repeated in my own words in case I misunderstood: Your middle-school-age nephew is buying used products at thrift stores in other cities with his dad's transportation and consigning the products to his dad to flip on eBay, and that's how he affords to buy legit music.
If I understood your post correctly, that's little different from his dad giving him an allowance, as his dad is providing free transportation and free use of his eBay seller account. Both the transportation and the eBay seller account require being 18 or older. The only labor the nephew contributes is deciding which products are worth flipping.
How does the nephew determine what to buy to flip? I ask because I'm trying to evaluate how well this sort of business would work for my cousins.
the rightful owners, who legally have the right to decide who they sell to in the first place
I don't understand how refusing to sell at any price (e.g. Song of the South) fulfills copyright's purpose: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
And activate the downloaded copy of Windows with what legitimate product key? Otherwise, you're replacing piracy with piracy: infringement of copyright in non-free music with infringement of copyright in a non-free operating system.
Do current browsers allow enough access to get a Youtube video into a blob that can be processed with Javascript?
Running JavaScript on a web page is subject to the server's cross-origin request policy. Running JavaScript from the command line using Node or cscript/wscript isn't.
those same idiots will be suing everyone who simply listens and remembers a piece of new music
They're already doing that and calling it "plagiarism lawsuits". See Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music ("My Sweet Lord"), Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton ("Love Is a Wonderful Thing"), Gaye v. Thicke ("Blurred Lines"), Wolfe v. Led Zeppelin ("Stairway to Heaven"), and Ed Sheeran getting sued twice. This is not to mention other cases that you don't hear so much about because they're settled out of court: "Stay With Me" by Sam Smith is too close to "I Won't Back Down" by Tom Petty
You are being given what you want, so what exactly is stopping you from paying?
"Not available in your country". Region coding is one of those things that'll probably still be around for decades until old contracts and old businessmen die off.
iTunes sells non-DRM'ed music files in AAC at 256kbps.
Have you or anyone else reading this been able to make a purchase in iTunes in Wine? If not, making a purchase requires first purchasing Apple hardware or a Microsoft operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
The rationale behind the present copyright term is that those heirs who had had direct contact with an author are in the best position to know how the author wanted the work exploited. Hence a copyright term that approximates the life of the author's grandchildren. The 1990s extension from life plus 50 to life plus 70 didn't change the rationale as much as reflect increased life expectancy.
Oh and the new Word documents are more difficult since they're zipped. Would proabaly be easier to figure out how to run a VM then.
Or at least APPNOTE.TXT which describes the PKZIP format in English, or the Info-ZIP distribution, which describes it in machine-readable C.
The source code only has to be available to the people you ship binaries to.
Consider the following excerpts from the GNU General Public License, versions 2 and 3:
This offer must be available to "any third party".
This offer must be available to "anyone who possesses the object code", including someone who received a copy other than from you.
It was at one time an important milestone in the development of a new language once the language became self-compiling (that is, when you could write the compiler in the language to be compiled; this is known as bootstrapping). This usually necessitated that the initial compiler be written in some lower-level language, but once constructed could be used to re-write the compiler in it's own language, to be compiled and shipped.
But for security reasons, it's unwise to discard the lower-level language implementation. In the article "Reflections on Trusting Trust", Ken Thompson described how a self-replicating trojan might be added to a compiler. But if you have a compiler for your language in some widely implemented lower-level language, there are ways to ensure that the compiler is free of a Thompson trojan.
The first step is to ensure you have a trojan-free compiler for the lower-level language. This can be done through a method that David A. Wheeler called "diverse double-compiling": repeating the bootstrap process on two or more independent implementations of the language and comparing the resulting binaries. For example, compile GCC using Clang, MSVC, and old GCC. This gives you three different GCC binaries, containing different sequences of instructions but ideally with the same behavior. Then compile GCC using each of the resulting GCC binaries. The results should be identical because in the second step, you're compiling GCC with GCC each time. If they differ other than in timestamps, there's a compiler bug, if not a flat-out trojan. If they're the same, then either they're all clean or they all independently implemented the same trojan.
The second step is use a compiler verified as clean through DDC as a stepping stone toward a clean compiler for the target language. For example, you might use old GCC to compile the last version of g++ written in C (before the switch to C++), then use old g++ to compile modern g++. Or you might compile an OCaml compiler written in C, and then use that to compile the old Rust compiler written in OCaml, and finally use that to compile the modern Rust compiler.
But these methods to establish the lack of a Thompson trojan in a compiler will not work if the only publicly available implementation of a language is written in that same language.
I guess it's a matter of how much your carrier charges you per year for the privilege of being able to connect your cell phone to its network.
A bootstrap issue:
the CC number generated is shown half on your computer, half on your registered cellphone (SMS).
Then how do you pay your cellphone bill?
Do you also use a fax machine instead of email?
I had to fax pay stubs to my home state when I applied for health insurance. I guess courts are more familiar with signing a document and then faxing it than with using PGP or S/MIME to sign an email.
will future computer understand the x86 and VESA standard?
The former can be handled by using MIPS (a patent-free RISC ISA) instead of patented, complex modern x86, and by including an in-own-words description of the entire MIPS architecture, along with enough of a Rosetta stone to document the human language in which MIPS is described. Video can be handled as if it were a dumb frame buffer, also described in-own-words.
Then engrave a set of illustrated children's books and a basic dictionary. These should bootstrap the language for future archaeologists.
What steps should a songwriter take to prevent a similar mistake?
Copyright law still benefits people.
Overall it does. In some specific situations, it does not. One category of these is a copyright owner deliberately keeping a previously published or publicly exhibited work out of print everywhere or in particular countries. An example of this is Song of the South. Another is uncertainty over whether a song you've written is legally original, as opposed to an accidental infringement of copyright in someone else's song. An example of this is "My Sweet Lord" by George Harrison. Why are those specific cases worth keeping?
Heck, I did something similar with a needle - just pierce a hole at random, then figure out which sectors are unreadable in my original. If you could read them, the floppy was not an original. And since it was at random, no two disks were alike. Writing data to the original wasn't a big deal - once you knew where the bad sectors were, skip over them.
Nintendo GameCube disc authentication works the same way: burn six evenly spaced pinholes in the lead-in at some random theta, and then mark in the Burst Cutting Area which sectors were burned.
Assuming that by "infection" you mean "causing [a larger work] to be distributable only under copyleft terms":
Both GTK+ widgets and Qt widgets are under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). Because LGPL is a weak copyleft, use of an LGPL library in a larger work does not "infect" it. It does, however, require an application's object to be available to a licensed user without digital restrictions management, which rules out a port to iOS or major video game consoles.
If they really wanted to copy the competition, Comcast would create their own channels and fund high-quality programming that isn't available elsewhere.
I think that was Comcast's strategy in buying NBCUniversal.
Same boss because once things start shifting the Cable TV companies will acquire Netflix/Hulu/youname it.
Hulu LLC is owned by Disney, Comcast, Fox, and Time Warner. All four companies own broadcast TV networks (ABC, NBC, Fox, and half of CW respectively) as well as mid-tier cable TV networks. Comcast is also a multichannel pay television provider.
Repeated in my own words in case I misunderstood: Your middle-school-age nephew is buying used products at thrift stores in other cities with his dad's transportation and consigning the products to his dad to flip on eBay, and that's how he affords to buy legit music.
If I understood your post correctly, that's little different from his dad giving him an allowance, as his dad is providing free transportation and free use of his eBay seller account. Both the transportation and the eBay seller account require being 18 or older. The only labor the nephew contributes is deciding which products are worth flipping.
How does the nephew determine what to buy to flip? I ask because I'm trying to evaluate how well this sort of business would work for my cousins.
Is current law worth keeping on the books if it fails to benefit the public?
the rightful owners, who legally have the right to decide who they sell to in the first place
I don't understand how refusing to sell at any price (e.g. Song of the South) fulfills copyright's purpose: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
The labor to produce software isn't proportional to the number of installs. Why should its revenue be?
FSF agrees with you. That's why I asked.
And activate the downloaded copy of Windows with what legitimate product key? Otherwise, you're replacing piracy with piracy: infringement of copyright in non-free music with infringement of copyright in a non-free operating system.
Do current browsers allow enough access to get a Youtube video into a blob that can be processed with Javascript?
Running JavaScript on a web page is subject to the server's cross-origin request policy. Running JavaScript from the command line using Node or cscript/wscript isn't.
The labor to produce a song isn't proportional to the number of views. Why should its revenue be?
Anyone can make a recording of their garage band playing an original song
If I write a song, how can I tell whether it's original, as opposed to an accidental infringement on an existing song?
those same idiots will be suing everyone who simply listens and remembers a piece of new music
They're already doing that and calling it "plagiarism lawsuits". See Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music ("My Sweet Lord"), Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton ("Love Is a Wonderful Thing"), Gaye v. Thicke ("Blurred Lines"), Wolfe v. Led Zeppelin ("Stairway to Heaven"), and Ed Sheeran getting sued twice. This is not to mention other cases that you don't hear so much about because they're settled out of court: "Stay With Me" by Sam Smith is too close to "I Won't Back Down" by Tom Petty
You are being given what you want, so what exactly is stopping you from paying?
"Not available in your country". Region coding is one of those things that'll probably still be around for decades until old contracts and old businessmen die off.
iTunes sells non-DRM'ed music files in AAC at 256kbps.
Have you or anyone else reading this been able to make a purchase in iTunes in Wine? If not, making a purchase requires first purchasing Apple hardware or a Microsoft operating system.