Yes, one could do the stone-age thing and do a piss-poor export to some graphics format first, and then embed that. And pray to the dark gods that you don't end with some piss-poor conversion and/or scaling artefacts when printing. Just like in the bad old days.
The word processor could quite well embed the image at printing quality for you.
'Social contracts' have no bearing whatsoever to ads. Ads are unidirectional, from a very small subset of people to the population at large, and hence they can't possibly be part of any social contract.
Why couldn't there be component of the social contract: "I watch your adds and you provide me with entertainment/information, and you watch my adds and I provide you with e/i"?
Social contracts are not contracts, but critters that act similarly. They have some of the properties of a contract (an exchange) but do lack the enforcement aspect.
Right, and as the prior poster said it does that by curtail[ing] the rights of publishers.
All rights other than "publishing" and public performance are retained by the public.
If you look, it says "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". So yes it was intended to apply to the noncommercial activities of ordinary individuals. It was designed to promote progress by limited sheltering. There is nothing about publishing and nothing about one's commercial status.
Copyright law was made to curtail the rights of publishers, and protect the rights of consumers.
Not at all. Copyright law is supposed to promote the "progress of the useful arts and sciences"[1]. Better, it is supposed to increase the amount of art produced (benefiting the people) by making it possible for artists to make a living off their works (benefiting the artists). It can hurt the people if it is made longer than it needs to be to get the artists to create.
No where in here do publishers matter. If every time something is created, everyone gets it free through p2p, then people can't make a living off creating art in the way they're used to. That may or may not be a bad thing, but it is a fundamental change. Perhaps we would switch from having a creative class to a distributed system where everyone creates?
Please explain to us how they would make a proprietary Linux in the absence of copyright law.
I took "proprietary" in the sense of "Synonym for
closed-source, e.g. software issued in binary without source and
under a restructive license."[1], with the emphasis on the lack of source. The presence of source is really important, as without it all of the things MS does that are harmful can continue. Being able to pass around closed source binaries doesn't really help us much.
The FSF core party line: "Without copyright, the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary".
That's more like what a BSD-liscenser would say. The GPL makes it so if MS ever wanted to sell their own version of Linux, they would have to release their modified code. Without copyright, there would be nothing keeping them from distributing their product without source code. So we need the GPL or we need a law that gives GPL-like rights to authors.
No they couldn't, there would be no law to allow them to do so.
You don't need a law to allow you to do something. Laws prohibit things or make exceptions to previous prohibitions. Is there a law that says you may run an open-source operating system? There's no law to allow you to do so. Without IP law any released code would be public domain.
They are a company like Reuters or the AP. They make their business by selling news articles to newspapers. These newspapers put the articles into their print newspapers and up on their websites. Then Google News comes along, makes a summary and maybe takes thumbnail, and then distributes these on their website with links back to the newspaper's website. So Google is using the copyrighted content of the news agency and the agency gets nothing. The agency also has no technological control over what the newspapers do with their content; they rely on copyright law to protect them.
So password protecting the content is out, as they are selling it for redistribution. And they already maintain a subscription service and charge money, its just that the people who they sell to are not end-readers but newspapers.
But we're talking about a news agency, not a website. They provide content to large numbers of companies that publish newspapers and sites. But they retain copyright.
Whether Google is making money off Google News is likely to be completely relevant. Google will probably try to claim "fair use" is the images and text, and the bounds on non-commercial fair-use are weaker. This is why Google has always kept ads off the news page.
Congrats! Great minds indeed think alike. You've just re-invented Elektra. Read the original article. (-: Seriously! Go read it! You'll laugh at how similar Elektra is.
Looks to me like he was describing our current/etc system. Is Elektra just XML metadata bolted onto an/etc like filesystem?
This caused some pause in the Music Industry, but caused an even bigger ruckus in the Educational Market, since many a university bandwidth was being ate up by music streaming. Tons of Universities complained, I know most of the CSC at my campus block it if they have that level of control.
Universities already have to deal with p2p and other large uses of bandwidth and so most places have a bandwidth shaper set up. Blocking a set of protocalls or ports is a really poor long-term choice for a network manager but putting hard limits in the software is just as bad a way to deal with the bandwidth problem. The good system is to use a QoS system and put a reasonable limit on the traffic for each user.
Apple may have good reasons to limit their music sharing product in this way, but consideration for universities is not one of them.
For instance, we have an inability to know Pi with absolute precision. Perhaps a god could know Pi with perfect precision, or perhaps not... but there are proofs that it cannot be known within human experience.
It's all a matter of how you think of it. If you think of it as just a long string of numbers, then no, you can't know all of it. But try thinking of it as "the integral of 4*sqrt(1-x*x)) on [0,1]". That's a notation of it to infinite precision, in terms of finitely many well-defined quantities. So here we are, knowing PI with absolute precision.
Another instance: not only can we not measure our ability to use our human imagination, we cannot even conceive of a yardstick that would allow such a measure. We are limited in our ability to comprehend this core part of our nature.
What's stopping us from experimenting? We could select a set of random words from the dictionary and ask people to make a sentence using all of them and explain a context in which it would make sense. Then we look at the average percent of the time people can do it. And I'm sure a psycologist or someone who had any training could come up with better experments.
For instance, what happened with XFree. It was stagnating, so a group of developers decided to take the current tree, and work on it separately. Result is that we now have an actually active development in Xorg.
The problem with XFree was a liscence change. So while Xorg has been innovative, that was neither its main purpose nor the reason that distros are switching to it.
Not at all. The IA-64 is Intel's Itanium architecture which was massively redesigned. It is not compatable at all with x86 or AMD64 and is actually closer to the PowerPC, as both are RISC chips. The Itanium hasn't done very well (IBM just stopped selling it for their own POWER arch) but it it still used, and probably is at least #4 on servers.
But look at all the companies that offer DSl; you don't have to buy it in full from your phone company. To offer DSL to consumers, you'd have to lease the loops from the phone company, but the service you'd provide would not be in their control.
Slashdot Mirror
The word processor could quite well embed the image at printing quality for you.
Why couldn't there be component of the social contract: "I watch your adds and you provide me with entertainment/information, and you watch my adds and I provide you with e/i"?
Social contracts are not contracts, but critters that act similarly. They have some of the properties of a contract (an exchange) but do lack the enforcement aspect.
And that is a far easier switch to make.
If you look, it says "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". So yes it was intended to apply to the noncommercial activities of ordinary individuals. It was designed to promote progress by limited sheltering. There is nothing about publishing and nothing about one's commercial status.
[1] US constitution, I.8.8
Not at all. Copyright law is supposed to promote the "progress of the useful arts and sciences"[1]. Better, it is supposed to increase the amount of art produced (benefiting the people) by making it possible for artists to make a living off their works (benefiting the artists). It can hurt the people if it is made longer than it needs to be to get the artists to create.
No where in here do publishers matter. If every time something is created, everyone gets it free through p2p, then people can't make a living off creating art in the way they're used to. That may or may not be a bad thing, but it is a fundamental change. Perhaps we would switch from having a creative class to a distributed system where everyone creates?
[1] From the jargon file: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/P/proprietary .html
I took "proprietary" in the sense of "Synonym for closed-source, e.g. software issued in binary without source and under a restructive license."[1], with the emphasis on the lack of source. The presence of source is really important, as without it all of the things MS does that are harmful can continue. Being able to pass around closed source binaries doesn't really help us much.
That's more like what a BSD-liscenser would say. The GPL makes it so if MS ever wanted to sell their own version of Linux, they would have to release their modified code. Without copyright, there would be nothing keeping them from distributing their product without source code. So we need the GPL or we need a law that gives GPL-like rights to authors.
You don't need a law to allow you to do something. Laws prohibit things or make exceptions to previous prohibitions. Is there a law that says you may run an open-source operating system? There's no law to allow you to do so. Without IP law any released code would be public domain.
Why exactly can't you send them a cheque?
So password protecting the content is out, as they are selling it for redistribution. And they already maintain a subscription service and charge money, its just that the people who they sell to are not end-readers but newspapers.
But we're talking about a news agency, not a website. They provide content to large numbers of companies that publish newspapers and sites. But they retain copyright.
Whether Google is making money off Google News is likely to be completely relevant. Google will probably try to claim "fair use" is the images and text, and the bounds on non-commercial fair-use are weaker. This is why Google has always kept ads off the news page.
There are no ads on the "news" page.
Looks to me like he was describing our current /etc system. Is Elektra just XML metadata bolted onto an /etc like filesystem?
Universities already have to deal with p2p and other large uses of bandwidth and so most places have a bandwidth shaper set up. Blocking a set of protocalls or ports is a really poor long-term choice for a network manager but putting hard limits in the software is just as bad a way to deal with the bandwidth problem. The good system is to use a QoS system and put a reasonable limit on the traffic for each user.
Apple may have good reasons to limit their music sharing product in this way, but consideration for universities is not one of them.
It's all a matter of how you think of it. If you think of it as just a long string of numbers, then no, you can't know all of it. But try thinking of it as "the integral of 4*sqrt(1-x*x)) on [0,1]". That's a notation of it to infinite precision, in terms of finitely many well-defined quantities. So here we are, knowing PI with absolute precision.
Another instance: not only can we not measure our ability to use our human imagination, we cannot even conceive of a yardstick that would allow such a measure. We are limited in our ability to comprehend this core part of our nature.
What's stopping us from experimenting? We could select a set of random words from the dictionary and ask people to make a sentence using all of them and explain a context in which it would make sense. Then we look at the average percent of the time people can do it. And I'm sure a psycologist or someone who had any training could come up with better experments.
It is costing ~$16K to litigate each case, but the loser pays. And Welte is pretty confident.
The problem with XFree was a liscence change. So while Xorg has been innovative, that was neither its main purpose nor the reason that distros are switching to it.
Perhaps you mean ad nominum attacks?
Not at all. The IA-64 is Intel's Itanium architecture which was massively redesigned. It is not compatable at all with x86 or AMD64 and is actually closer to the PowerPC, as both are RISC chips. The Itanium hasn't done very well (IBM just stopped selling it for their own POWER arch) but it it still used, and probably is at least #4 on servers.
No, that wouldn't be, as rotation has to be gradual. It may be the best approximation we can do, but the graduallness of rotation is needed.
But look at all the companies that offer DSl; you don't have to buy it in full from your phone company. To offer DSL to consumers, you'd have to lease the loops from the phone company, but the service you'd provide would not be in their control.