Per your helpful citation, there is another possibility:
"To display the copyrighted work publicly, 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 work"
Google is diplaying portions of the copyrighted work.
Actually I think there is some kind of contingency fee in effect, or Boies is taking a certain percentage of the firm's stock, which amounts to the same thing.
I thought you were working as a heavy equipment mechanic, because you were unable to find work as a programmer in your town, or at least so you said on September 26. Do you get over $1000 per day as a heavy equipment mechanic? If so, kudos to you!
Good question! I think a lot poor are poor because they are lazy. I think a lot of poor are poor because they work hard, but are short sighted or are too unwilling to take risks. I think some poor are poor because they got unlucky somehow in life. I think some poor are poor because they made some bad decisions.
Of course, the poor you are hinting at are the ones who started out so disdvantaged, they did not have too much of an opportunity to climb out, even though they worked as hard as they could scrubbing floors all their life. I admit, these people are out there. However, about these poor, I say this - it is better to have our capitalistic system, where a poor disadvantaged person does have a realistic shot at making it (and making it big - look at Bill Clinton or Oprah or numerous others), than a system that coddles all the economic classes so much that no one really works hard and everyone becomes much worse off.
One other thing, your use of the word "parasite" is really offensive. You should see just how hard most entrepreneurs have to work. A line employee puts in their 8 hours and they are done. The owner has to worry about making payroll, paying the IRS (and not just filing a return once per year, but monthly employment taxes and the like), watching costs, dealing with legal liabilities. And yes, they skim profits from the labor of their employees, but they burden all the risks associated with the business. Remember, if the business does not pan out, they are stuck with whatever debt it took to launch the business, and that debt is very often attaches to them personally, not just the business.
"But now it merely does a better and better job of siphoning profits to those who own, and contributes no productivity."
How short-sighted!
You forget that "those who own" and those who "don't own" are not permanent conditions. At one time in my life, I was a worker bee. Now I own a business. I advanced because I had the incentive to do so, and there is no doubt that I am contributing more to the economy of my town than I was before. I employ people. Without capitalism and it's incentives, I would not have done that - I would have been content to be a worker bee forever, and probably eventually slacked off when the realization of the futility of trying harder really set in. Incentive in life is everything. Capitalism is the only proven economic system because it taps everyone's selfish interests, you commie.
I do not know if you are typical, but I am really surprised you are playing past 60. Once I hit 60, I just had this epiphany about how pointless it all was and how I should be spending my time trying to get real life loot instead of that staff of omnipotence or whatnot.
I cannot see how a consumer would have standing to sue. Malicious prosecution causes of action probably exist in most states, and this would be the proper remedy for anyone sued by this guy. You, however, are probably too far removed to have anything to sue over.
The concept is not the same at all. A trademark allows the owner to dictate its use in identifying a particular type of product. It does not protect other types of products. If Apple Computer did not exist, I could trademark Apple Computer, and likely prevent someone else from coming out with a brand of computers and similarly calling it Apple, even though that word is commonly in use today. I would not be able to trademark the term Apple in reference to actual apples.
Interesting? Don't mod up self-serving jackaninnies like that shill. And he even suggests signing up for free credit cards on his website, while neglecting to tell you that every such attempt is reflected in your credit rating, potentially affecting your ability to get real credit, like maybe for a house. Scum.
Doh, you are correct! To me this raises the question - if Yahoo does not infringe on the copyright by copying anything, but simply deletes the account, have they even violated any rights, even absent a "death" clause? I would say, no.
Windows is so not network enabled it isn't well suited to be in a network? Are you stark raving looney? While you may have many legitimate criticisms of Windows, this surely is not one of them.
While not preinstalled, Windows has come with a Client for Netware Networks for as long as I can remember. I know that Novell recommends its client, but I have not had any issues with the MS client whenever I have used it.
Anyway, Novell was king of the network hill for a good while. It should have leveraged this position while it had it to put out its own desktop back then. It will be an uphill battle now.
1. It is true that individuals that download often would not have bought the works in the first place, but many would, perhaps not in the volumes they are downloading, but in some quantity. It is obvious they are fans of the subject. Moreover, mass downloading is fostering a new attitude in our youth - no one should ever pay for music. So it entirely possible that peer-to-peer sharing is changing people's perceptions toward buying at a psychological level - they may feel that to pay anything, even a dollar per album, is inherently a rip-off. If you think I am kidding, talk to some school kids.
2. A dollar not earned is still lost revenue. In the bookstore example, you forgot to mention that the bookstore owner bought the book from the publisher with the expectation of being able to sell it. If his stock does not sell because everyone has already illegally obtained a copy, that is a very real loss. You are just playing with words. A penny saved is a penny earned, after all.
3. In your last point, you seem to try to say that the concept of copyright should be changed to make it so that anyone can copy anything. If I am wrong, please correct me. So what exactly should copyright protect then? It seems you have taken away all rights. I think what you are really trying to say is "I want to copy whatever I want legally and screw everyone else." Surely, you realize that if people are not rewarded for their work (sometimes years of work on a single project), they will stop working. Sure, a few will do it purely out of love, but then they will realize their savings are gone and they have to take some other full time job, and hey, pretty soon they are down to half hour per day of creative work.
Hate to reply to a sig, but first, you are breaking the law by selling your vote. Second, you are an embarrasment to all conservatives for offering to sell yourself so cheap. Third, you are promoting a pyramid scam. Bah!
There is no question that gambling within online games, even if ruled illegal by U.S. standards, can take place, assuming that the hosting company jumps through enough hoops. Currently however, no hoops need to be jumped through, as the players are not gambling with anything of real value, much like anyone can legally set up a gambling site that only uses play money. I was just wondering if this can remain the status quo, with respect to MMOGs.
Re:World of Warcraft is by far the best MMORPG.
on
Online World News
·
· Score: 1
All the TOS could do is officially prohibit a player from selling in-game currency. However, there are many websites where players can do exactly this, and the game companies are powerless to stop this and, in some instances, may not want to, as it would decrease the popularity of that particular game. I think it can be established that despite the TOS, many in-game currencies have very real value.
That really makes me question when this kind of thing is going to run afoul of U.S. gaming laws. Ultimately, if it can be shown that virtual currency has quantifiable value and and exchange rate with real world currency, would this not constitute real gambling? I am aware that Lineage may not be hosted in the U.S., but many online games are. Any opinions from lawyers or others who may be knowledgable?
A great idea, but have you considered copyright issues? You are hosting Google ads I see, so this venture may generate revenue and may fall outside some fair use safety harbours.
"His solution scales until there's an old dipshit on his cul-de-sac waking him up at 3 AM screaming because something went wrong and today's Oprah got cut off."
I was wondering about the exact same thing! This is all great but is he set up to handle the annoying customer complaints? This is the main thing that would stop me from trying to do it for my neighbors.
Your mistake is that you associate obtaining software with owning it. With most software, you never actually own it. If you owned it, you would control the copyright, and that is never the case. What you do have is a license to use it, the terms of which are spelled out in the license agreement.
How many times does this have to be pointed out? No matter how much you want to transfer your system, you did not pay for that kind of license. If you REALLY REALLY wanted to transfer Windows, you should have bought a full version, not OEM. Dell offers desktops with no OS at all, and it is obviously no problem to go to a local builder or build the machine yourself without having to pay for an OEM OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is diplaying portions of the copyrighted work.
Actually I think there is some kind of contingency fee in effect, or Boies is taking a certain percentage of the firm's stock, which amounts to the same thing.
I thought you were working as a heavy equipment mechanic, because you were unable to find work as a programmer in your town, or at least so you said on September 26. Do you get over $1000 per day as a heavy equipment mechanic? If so, kudos to you!
How long is the warranty on that pyramid-scheme free ipod? Do you sell Hebalife too?
Great point! People have this nebulous notion that the UN is this peaceful benevolent organization, but in reality, many members are tyrants.
Of course, the poor you are hinting at are the ones who started out so disdvantaged, they did not have too much of an opportunity to climb out, even though they worked as hard as they could scrubbing floors all their life. I admit, these people are out there. However, about these poor, I say this - it is better to have our capitalistic system, where a poor disadvantaged person does have a realistic shot at making it (and making it big - look at Bill Clinton or Oprah or numerous others), than a system that coddles all the economic classes so much that no one really works hard and everyone becomes much worse off.
One other thing, your use of the word "parasite" is really offensive. You should see just how hard most entrepreneurs have to work. A line employee puts in their 8 hours and they are done. The owner has to worry about making payroll, paying the IRS (and not just filing a return once per year, but monthly employment taxes and the like), watching costs, dealing with legal liabilities. And yes, they skim profits from the labor of their employees, but they burden all the risks associated with the business. Remember, if the business does not pan out, they are stuck with whatever debt it took to launch the business, and that debt is very often attaches to them personally, not just the business.
How short-sighted!
You forget that "those who own" and those who "don't own" are not permanent conditions. At one time in my life, I was a worker bee. Now I own a business. I advanced because I had the incentive to do so, and there is no doubt that I am contributing more to the economy of my town than I was before. I employ people. Without capitalism and it's incentives, I would not have done that - I would have been content to be a worker bee forever, and probably eventually slacked off when the realization of the futility of trying harder really set in. Incentive in life is everything. Capitalism is the only proven economic system because it taps everyone's selfish interests, you commie.
I do not know if you are typical, but I am really surprised you are playing past 60. Once I hit 60, I just had this epiphany about how pointless it all was and how I should be spending my time trying to get real life loot instead of that staff of omnipotence or whatnot.
I cannot see how a consumer would have standing to sue. Malicious prosecution causes of action probably exist in most states, and this would be the proper remedy for anyone sued by this guy. You, however, are probably too far removed to have anything to sue over.
The concept is not the same at all. A trademark allows the owner to dictate its use in identifying a particular type of product. It does not protect other types of products. If Apple Computer did not exist, I could trademark Apple Computer, and likely prevent someone else from coming out with a brand of computers and similarly calling it Apple, even though that word is commonly in use today. I would not be able to trademark the term Apple in reference to actual apples.
Interesting? Don't mod up self-serving jackaninnies like that shill. And he even suggests signing up for free credit cards on his website, while neglecting to tell you that every such attempt is reflected in your credit rating, potentially affecting your ability to get real credit, like maybe for a house. Scum.
Doh, you are correct! To me this raises the question - if Yahoo does not infringe on the copyright by copying anything, but simply deletes the account, have they even violated any rights, even absent a "death" clause? I would say, no.
This is not a copyright issue.
While not preinstalled, Windows has come with a Client for Netware Networks for as long as I can remember. I know that Novell recommends its client, but I have not had any issues with the MS client whenever I have used it.
Anyway, Novell was king of the network hill for a good while. It should have leveraged this position while it had it to put out its own desktop back then. It will be an uphill battle now.
1. It is true that individuals that download often would not have bought the works in the first place, but many would, perhaps not in the volumes they are downloading, but in some quantity. It is obvious they are fans of the subject. Moreover, mass downloading is fostering a new attitude in our youth - no one should ever pay for music. So it entirely possible that peer-to-peer sharing is changing people's perceptions toward buying at a psychological level - they may feel that to pay anything, even a dollar per album, is inherently a rip-off. If you think I am kidding, talk to some school kids.
2. A dollar not earned is still lost revenue. In the bookstore example, you forgot to mention that the bookstore owner bought the book from the publisher with the expectation of being able to sell it. If his stock does not sell because everyone has already illegally obtained a copy, that is a very real loss. You are just playing with words. A penny saved is a penny earned, after all.
3. In your last point, you seem to try to say that the concept of copyright should be changed to make it so that anyone can copy anything. If I am wrong, please correct me. So what exactly should copyright protect then? It seems you have taken away all rights. I think what you are really trying to say is "I want to copy whatever I want legally and screw everyone else." Surely, you realize that if people are not rewarded for their work (sometimes years of work on a single project), they will stop working. Sure, a few will do it purely out of love, but then they will realize their savings are gone and they have to take some other full time job, and hey, pretty soon they are down to half hour per day of creative work.
Hate to reply to a sig, but first, you are breaking the law by selling your vote. Second, you are an embarrasment to all conservatives for offering to sell yourself so cheap. Third, you are promoting a pyramid scam. Bah!
Thanks for the link, that is a really great article. I urge moderators to mod parent up.
There is no question that gambling within online games, even if ruled illegal by U.S. standards, can take place, assuming that the hosting company jumps through enough hoops. Currently however, no hoops need to be jumped through, as the players are not gambling with anything of real value, much like anyone can legally set up a gambling site that only uses play money. I was just wondering if this can remain the status quo, with respect to MMOGs.
What makes it so great?
All the TOS could do is officially prohibit a player from selling in-game currency. However, there are many websites where players can do exactly this, and the game companies are powerless to stop this and, in some instances, may not want to, as it would decrease the popularity of that particular game. I think it can be established that despite the TOS, many in-game currencies have very real value.
That really makes me question when this kind of thing is going to run afoul of U.S. gaming laws. Ultimately, if it can be shown that virtual currency has quantifiable value and and exchange rate with real world currency, would this not constitute real gambling? I am aware that Lineage may not be hosted in the U.S., but many online games are. Any opinions from lawyers or others who may be knowledgable?
A great idea, but have you considered copyright issues? You are hosting Google ads I see, so this venture may generate revenue and may fall outside some fair use safety harbours.
I was wondering about the exact same thing! This is all great but is he set up to handle the annoying customer complaints? This is the main thing that would stop me from trying to do it for my neighbors.
Your mistake is that you associate obtaining software with owning it. With most software, you never actually own it. If you owned it, you would control the copyright, and that is never the case. What you do have is a license to use it, the terms of which are spelled out in the license agreement.
How many times does this have to be pointed out? No matter how much you want to transfer your system, you did not pay for that kind of license. If you REALLY REALLY wanted to transfer Windows, you should have bought a full version, not OEM. Dell offers desktops with no OS at all, and it is obviously no problem to go to a local builder or build the machine yourself without having to pay for an OEM OS.