It's not foolish because you don't get to select the songs that play on these radio sites. If you enjoy only 10-30% of songs on radio, you're the foolish one wasting your life to save $10.
Suppose a subscriber does not listen to any music for one month and still pays $9.99. How will Apple distribute the 70-80% proceeds of the $9.99 to the copyright holders?
My analogy is not flawed. No human owns the rights to the genes in your seeds or pedigree dogs. So you are free to clone marketable things from those seeds/dogs. Also, making genetic copies, as you say, is quite time consuming and expensive since you have water the seeded land frequently and have to feed/maintain the pedigree dog before & after she gives birth to the puppies. It's nothing like the simple copy files command used to pirate music.
If you go to McDonalds and buy a big mac, and go home to eat it, but aren't actually that hungry and decide to share it with a family member, McDonalds should be able to sue you for unauthorized distribution of their property.
But when you share your big mac, you lose the opportunity to enjoy the part you gave away. So this sharing is different from music sharing, it's more like cut and distribute.
Suppose you bought a big mac and your family has 5 members including you. You placed the big mac in a food cloning machine and it generated 4 more big macs for the remaining family members. As you'd expect, McDonalds is going to sue you for paying for 1 big mac while consuming 5 big macs.
This analogy above is similar to a music sharing you know about -- buying one copy of a song and sharing free clones with dozens of friends and strangers.
Sure, but the menu price for the dish is 10 or 20 times the cost of these materials (negligible duplication cost) -- you're paying for the recipe, restaurant location and ambiance. The profit margin is not all that different from copyrighted music (i.e. you're not paying for the duplication cost, rather you are paying a price how much it benefits you).
Do you think only restaurants have a right to make a profit, not copyright holders?
This news site is hypocritical. One the one hand they encourage pirating IP of other companies, and on the other hand they charge advertising fees for their own IP (news articles). Pirate activists give activists a bad name.
To prevent the stream being taken down, you shouldn't use copyrighted content, or license the copyrighted content. If stream creators are being paid for their "work," why shouldn't the music copyright holders get paid as well?
MS has decades of experience in system software. Something like Oculus has to perform very efficiently with the OS and graphics drivers if they expect it satisfy users (eg: not cause nausea). So the partnership should result in positive changes in Oculus and Windows to achieve that goal.
"Proof of correctness" of code is a bit of nonsense.
Really? Something that mathematically proves the code is correct is nonsense? I don't think so. It may be incredibly tough and difficult, incredibly expensive, but it's not nonsense. Expect the aviation software to be 10x-100x more expensive if proofs were used. With code reuse, (i.e. reusing code that has already been proved valid), the cost of "proof of correctness" code will decrease over long periods.
Practically it comes down to "rite the code in two languages and prove they're equivalent", which does nothing for bad design assumptions.
What if both implementations have the same buggy response to an input or what if both implementations have a hole and don't implement the feature (eg: both implementations don't check for data files before starting propellers)? You've reduced the bugs by multiple implementations, but not eliminated them.
It's probably down to the way opcodes exploit common functionality
Yes, but even ARM chips have an ADD instruction whose byte encodings differ from x86 and not licensed from Intel, obviously. We're not talking about copyrighting core functionality (integer addition), but rather all the little copyrighted details like assembly language syntax, byte encoding of the instructions, functional description of instruction. There must be dozens of ways to do integer addition, but AMD follows Intel's x86 way for compatibility and has to obtain a copyright license to do so, unlike Google and the Java standard library.
1. rent/play whatever you want (like spotify 2. purchase whatever you want (like old school iTunes)
Isn't (2) a waste of money if you already pay for (1)? It's like paying twice for the same song unless you plan to discontinue using Apple Music in the near future.
3.4 Intel Copyright License to AMD. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation Section 5.2(e), Intel grants to AMD, for use in or with an AMD Licensed Product, licenses under Intel's copyrights in any Processor instruction mnemonic for an instruction developed by Intel, and the related opcodes, instruction operand mnemonics, byte format depictions and short form description (not to exceed 100 words) for those instructions, to copy, have copied, import, prepare derivative works of, perform, display and sell or otherwise distribute such mnemonics, opcodes and descriptions in user manuals and other technical documentation. No other copyright license to AMD is provided by this Agreement other than as set forth in this paragraph, either directly or by implication or estoppel.
If AMD has to obtain a copyright license to the x86 instruction set from Intel and instruction sets in the CPU world are similar to APIs in the programming language world, why shouldn't Google also be required to obtain a copyright license from Oracle for the Java Standard APIs?
Does open source Swift mean we finally don't have to buy a mac machine just to run XCode to develop iOS apps? Does Apple have plans to release an open source iOS simulator, so we can simulate iOS apps on Windows/Linux etc?
So how many of the people complaining about this actually pay Mozilla anything?
But why should the complainers pay anything? The open source deal implies, the developer gets paid little to nothing for his work and the users get free software. Isn't that why these products become popular in the first place ($0 price tag)? The developers can't pull a bait-and-switch afterwards saying they're tired of providing free software and want to add changes to the software that make them money but are harmful to the users.
The virus victim hasn't signed any EULA that would prevent them distributing the binaries.
A typical bittorrent user downloading software or a movie also hasn't agreed to a EULA either. That doesn't mean he is free of copyright infringement.
The AV company doesn't distribute the binaries.
Program machine code falls under copyright (just like binaries of commercial software) and the act of copying the virus binary from the virus victim's computer to a machine owned by the AV company is considered copyright violation, under normal circumstances.
So why can the AV companies copy the virus code to its computers, but we can't copy the virus/malware/whatever javascript code from Flash technologies?
Because they can invite the copyright holder to meet them in court, and have the police waiting for him.
You're dodging the question.. Why do the AV companies copy the virus code without the virus author's permission? Two wrongs don't make a right. You have to agree that malware/virus does not enjoy copyright protection.
People bitch just as much about it as they do proprietary software.
But open source is supposed to be about what the users want. Firefox lately seems to be more about how many more millions Mozilla can make off their users and they care little about users (since they pay $0).
So Firefox is less of a free sort of software, rather it is has become a commercial product with revenues from ads and other commercial deals with for-profit companies.
"You can change the source, you have the power!" Yeah, not so much...
What good is open source if users can't/won't change 2 or 3 lines of code?
Then why are anti-virus companies not sued for copyright infringement? They get a copy of the virus from a third-party, without permission of the virus author.
In general, you can't redistribute text or code that you find on the Web
Even if the code was illegally inserted by hackers into your website? This is no different from a virus code; i.e. malicious code that affects the behavior of your program with no benefit to you.
I don't think copyright applies to viruses, otherwise how do you transmit that virus code to an anti-virus company for scan/virus removal development without the permission of the anonymous virus writer?
Re:Yes, but what will you need to run that crap?
on
WWDC 2015 Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Why don't they just provide bug fixes to those old devices? FYI, bug fixes for older devices go away once iOS9 is released. Also stop forcing new apps to be link to the new iOS9. 9 operating system versions in 9 years is crazy fast versioning. Are they planning on slowing down with stable APIs?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not foolish because you don't get to select the songs that play on these radio sites. If you enjoy only 10-30% of songs on radio, you're the foolish one wasting your life to save $10.
What happens in this case? Does Apple still pay some fixed amount to the copyright holders for each song played or does it reduce payment per song?
Suppose a subscriber does not listen to any music for one month and still pays $9.99. How will Apple distribute the 70-80% proceeds of the $9.99 to the copyright holders?
My analogy is not flawed. No human owns the rights to the genes in your seeds or pedigree dogs. So you are free to clone marketable things from those seeds/dogs. Also, making genetic copies, as you say, is quite time consuming and expensive since you have water the seeded land frequently and have to feed/maintain the pedigree dog before & after she gives birth to the puppies. It's nothing like the simple copy files command used to pirate music.
But when you share your big mac, you lose the opportunity to enjoy the part you gave away. So this sharing is different from music sharing, it's more like cut and distribute.
Suppose you bought a big mac and your family has 5 members including you. You placed the big mac in a food cloning machine and it generated 4 more big macs for the remaining family members. As you'd expect, McDonalds is going to sue you for paying for 1 big mac while consuming 5 big macs.
This analogy above is similar to a music sharing you know about -- buying one copy of a song and sharing free clones with dozens of friends and strangers.
IOW, your analogy is flawed.
Sure, but the menu price for the dish is 10 or 20 times the cost of these materials (negligible duplication cost) -- you're paying for the recipe, restaurant location and ambiance. The profit margin is not all that different from copyrighted music (i.e. you're not paying for the duplication cost, rather you are paying a price how much it benefits you).
Do you think only restaurants have a right to make a profit, not copyright holders?
This news site is hypocritical. One the one hand they encourage pirating IP of other companies, and on the other hand they charge advertising fees for their own IP (news articles). Pirate activists give activists a bad name.
Maybe because they collaborate on several missions?
To prevent the stream being taken down, you shouldn't use copyrighted content, or license the copyrighted content. If stream creators are being paid for their "work," why shouldn't the music copyright holders get paid as well?
MS has decades of experience in system software. Something like Oculus has to perform very efficiently with the OS and graphics drivers if they expect it satisfy users (eg: not cause nausea). So the partnership should result in positive changes in Oculus and Windows to achieve that goal.
Really? Something that mathematically proves the code is correct is nonsense? I don't think so. It may be incredibly tough and difficult, incredibly expensive, but it's not nonsense. Expect the aviation software to be 10x-100x more expensive if proofs were used. With code reuse, (i.e. reusing code that has already been proved valid), the cost of "proof of correctness" code will decrease over long periods.
What if both implementations have the same buggy response to an input or what if both implementations have a hole and don't implement the feature (eg: both implementations don't check for data files before starting propellers)? You've reduced the bugs by multiple implementations, but not eliminated them.
Uber effectively pays this much:
$5 - 2.80 = $2.20.
So driver and accomplice make $2.20/2 = $1.40 each.
Yes, but even ARM chips have an ADD instruction whose byte encodings differ from x86 and not licensed from Intel, obviously. We're not talking about copyrighting core functionality (integer addition), but rather all the little copyrighted details like assembly language syntax, byte encoding of the instructions, functional description of instruction. There must be dozens of ways to do integer addition, but AMD follows Intel's x86 way for compatibility and has to obtain a copyright license to do so, unlike Google and the Java standard library.
Isn't (2) a waste of money if you already pay for (1)? It's like paying twice for the same song unless you plan to discontinue using Apple Music in the near future.
From the link:
3.4 Intel Copyright License to AMD. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation Section 5.2(e), Intel grants to AMD, for use in or with an AMD Licensed Product, licenses under Intel's copyrights in any Processor instruction mnemonic for an instruction developed by Intel, and the related opcodes, instruction operand mnemonics, byte format depictions and short form description (not to exceed 100 words) for those instructions, to copy, have copied, import, prepare derivative works of, perform, display and sell or otherwise distribute such mnemonics, opcodes and descriptions in user manuals and other technical documentation. No other copyright license to AMD is provided by this Agreement other than as set forth in this paragraph, either directly or by implication or estoppel.
If AMD has to obtain a copyright license to the x86 instruction set from Intel and instruction sets in the CPU world are similar to APIs in the programming language world, why shouldn't Google also be required to obtain a copyright license from Oracle for the Java Standard APIs?
Pandora = internet radio
Apple music = spotify = you rent and play whatever songs you want.
Don't forget royalties to copyright holders/labels (although not necessarily artists) -- that's the biggest chunk of expenditure.
Does open source Swift mean we finally don't have to buy a mac machine just to run XCode to develop iOS apps? Does Apple have plans to release an open source iOS simulator, so we can simulate iOS apps on Windows/Linux etc?
But why should the complainers pay anything? The open source deal implies, the developer gets paid little to nothing for his work and the users get free software. Isn't that why these products become popular in the first place ($0 price tag)? The developers can't pull a bait-and-switch afterwards saying they're tired of providing free software and want to add changes to the software that make them money but are harmful to the users.
A typical bittorrent user downloading software or a movie also hasn't agreed to a EULA either. That doesn't mean he is free of copyright infringement.
Program machine code falls under copyright (just like binaries of commercial software) and the act of copying the virus binary from the virus victim's computer to a machine owned by the AV company is considered copyright violation, under normal circumstances.
So why can the AV companies copy the virus code to its computers, but we can't copy the virus/malware/whatever javascript code from Flash technologies?
You're dodging the question.. Why do the AV companies copy the virus code without the virus author's permission? Two wrongs don't make a right. You have to agree that malware/virus does not enjoy copyright protection.
But open source is supposed to be about what the users want. Firefox lately seems to be more about how many more millions Mozilla can make off their users and they care little about users (since they pay $0).
So Firefox is less of a free sort of software, rather it is has become a commercial product with revenues from ads and other commercial deals with for-profit companies.
What good is open source if users can't/won't change 2 or 3 lines of code?
Then why are anti-virus companies not sued for copyright infringement? They get a copy of the virus from a third-party, without permission of the virus author.
Even if the code was illegally inserted by hackers into your website? This is no different from a virus code; i.e. malicious code that affects the behavior of your program with no benefit to you.
I don't think copyright applies to viruses, otherwise how do you transmit that virus code to an anti-virus company for scan/virus removal development without the permission of the anonymous virus writer?
Why don't they just provide bug fixes to those old devices? FYI, bug fixes for older devices go away once iOS9 is released. Also stop forcing new apps to be link to the new iOS9. 9 operating system versions in 9 years is crazy fast versioning. Are they planning on slowing down with stable APIs?