The internet radio stations don't allow you choose the songs you want to listen to whereas you choose the songs with music streaming services.
But I wonder if the 0.5 cents or whatever per song played given to the song copyright owners is enough money. Suppose iTunes and CD sales became obsolete, would streaming music pay enough to support artists financially?
Every programming language has a different API to provide the exact same functionality to apps. How difficult would it be for Google to create another set of API methods that are different from the Java lib, but provide the same functionality as the Java lib?
The functionality of the java library is not patented, rather the expression (syntax) of the functionality is copyrighted. You can use different method names and argument names and change the scope of the method and class to differentiate from Java. In fact, that is exactly what Microsoft did when it cloned.Net from Java.
I only said it would take more than just reciting nouns. The nouns would actually need to be *USED* in some kind of creative fashion, and facts (such as saying that a particular noun exists
It's not all nouns.
Class/Interface name: Noun or sentence fragment
Method name: verb, sentence fragment or noun
Method arguments: noun or sentence fragment
I fail to see how an API containing all nouns would be comprehensible to any programmer using the API.
How much would it cost for Google to license Java from Oracle? Also, why don't they use their "Go" language instead of Java if the intention is to save cost of licensing Java?
I don't think there is any case for interoperability since Android Java apps don't run on other platforms. Similarly, Java apps from other platforms don't run on Android OS.
Android is using an opensource Java interpreter that existed before the idea of Android even existed.
Not a problem if Oracle gives these distros a free license since it has few users. Android, on the other hand, has billions of users and Google has paid exactly $0 for Java the language or java the library.
Google copied the name and calling sequences in the API, not Oracle's code.
Technically, that API is also code because it's written in the Java language syntax. Why the double standards: API declaration code should not be copyrightable, it should be public domain, whereas API implementation can be copyrighted.
Since a code library is a functional extension of the language the API is for, Oracle is attempting to extend the concept of copyright to elements of the language itself.
False argument: a library is one functional extension of the language. You can create infinite different libraries for Java, and therefore the language has infinite different functional expressions.
Only a handful of classes are part of the language (java.lang.*), the rest are not part of the language.
If it can do that, we lose another big chunk of our freedoms.
What freedom is that? The freedom to copy other people's code for free?
You seem to be confusing copyright with patents. Copyright deals with preventing copying of "expressions of ideas," whereas patents deal with preventing copying of "basic structure or operations" of ideas. What creative expression has Java copied from Smalltalk or C++?
one generally needs to use far more than just nouns or proper nouns to produce a copyrightable creative work.
Because only literary works and works with sentences having proper grammar can be copyrighted? Who made up that rule?
This API issue is about creative expression, and with or without grammar, there is plenty of creative expression in designing APIs. Or is it a mindless and easy task so that you use can use a perl script to generate API for your library?
Copying the *name* of something is not ever a copyright infringement. Names are not copyrightable.
It's not just one name/word, but multiple names/words in a single API call, and thousands of API methods copied exactly, not just one or two.
Also, don't forget than an API declaration in Java syntax is useless without the API comment -- the documentation that tells you what the API does, what exactly are the inputs and outputs, and any limitations. That too was copied by Google.
We're not dealing with copying one word, but rather copying tens of thousands of words scattered throughout the Java Standard Library implementation.
A lot of effort goes into a well written and thought out interface. In fact, the interface is often half the design of a product. It deserves protection from those who think they can take anything they want if they just want it badly enough.
I fully agree with this. Designing a good API can often be far more difficult and creative task than implementing it, considering you can easily change the implementation later but not the API.
then Compaq's reverse engineered BIOS was illegal and the whole era of the PC Clone was a violation of IBM's IP rights.
Who knows if the decision to call it legal back then was okay, because software and the PC were very new. Everyone knows the importance of software today and you cant just rip off IP worth tens of millions for $0.
We'd need to pry the BIOS out of every PC Compatible in existence.
Why? Is there only one novel about cowboys? You can easily create another standard BIOS API that does not violate IBM's rights. But you'd have to recompile the OS and all the DOS apps to use the new API. Of course, all this is expensive for app developers, which is why apps should not use proprietary, OS specific APIs to code their apps. Rather they should call vendor-neutral standard APIs such that any vendor's software components can be replaced without recompiling the app. For example, you can choose Intel or AMD CPUs to execute your x86 instructions.
Instead of using standardized APIs, your solution is to steal someone else's IP (API) because it's convenient.
The java API IS a standard API that all competing vendors can share for reimplementation.
Sorry, those APIs are still owned by Oracle, unless it is offering that free-of-charge for anyone to reimplement. If you want free-to-implement APIs, create a standards organization like IEEE or W3C that publishes standard APIs. Reimplementing some company's proprietary API is stupid anyway. You're entirely dependent on that company for your APIs.
Second, yes, using the same titles is, in fact, okay [copyright.gov].
The pdf states "Copyright not available for titles and short phrases." But the table of contents of a book is not one phrase, rather it is a sequence of dozens of phrases. So it should be copyrightable, like API.
Google has copied the premise of the book (Java platform), its table of contents (API) and rewritten the text within the chapters (reimplementing API) but keeping the same ToC. It should license the stuff it copied (API/ToC).
Fourth, what does it take to be a standard in your mind? What is your opinion on the Java platform documentation?
Oracle still owns the standard. Just because something is standardized by a company, does not mean it is free to use by other entities.
It is also not about whether you can use an API for interoperability purposes. That is covered by fair use,
Sorry, but ripping the entire API and reimplementing it is not fair use. The copycat did not spend any effort in designing the API, so is not entitled to use it for free. If you want to share APIs, create a standard API that all competing vendors can share for reimplementation.
Only in scientific and technical fields, but not for the layman. They don't to go fully metric, but at least display both units like: 32F / 18.3C or 5'5" / 165cm.
Looks like they are doing it to handle security issues. For example, when you insert a DVD on Win7, it autoruns software loaded from the DVD. That software could steal data from the PC or install a virus.
This is what I warned about before: major OS upgrades that turn your PC/mobile device into a slow, fat pig. For example, Google Android forces you to upgrade your OS (say from KitKat to Lollipop with nag screens every 5-10 minutes if you refuse to upgrade). New OSes are designed for new, faster hardware. If you install a new OS update on an older machine, it becomes very slow and unusable.
This is the same (forced obsolescence) strategy used by OSX, iOS, Android and now Win10. You don't have much choice against this strategy: a) You install a major OS update: your machine becomes very slow and unusable although you can still install the latest apps. b) You refuse to install the OS update: On OS X/iOS you can't install new apps because they are compiled for the latest OS update. On Android you get a nag screen every few minutes to "upgrade" your OS. c) You give up and sell/throw away your perfectly working machine to purchase a new one so you can run the latest OS and therefore the latest apps.
As you can see, we need to protest against deprecating deferred updates. Non-deferred updates = forced obsolescence. We need to separate bug fix upgrades from major OS (feature) upgrades.
What they're trying to do is cover their own asses
No, this is big brother technology. They can now map the serial numbers of the currency from the ATM to a person. One step closer to cashless, surveillance society.
Although it could also be used to prevent a thief with stolen debit card and password trying to cash out someone else's money. But then how would a thief get somebody's PIN.
Why do people who create music, books and films feel entitled to earn more then their fans would over multiple lifetimes?
Why do hotels and apartments charge rent for rooms over multiple lifetimes? Why do farmers make profit off the same land for multiple generations? The answer to all these questions is: the assets provide value to customers over multiple generations. That's why.
Originally copyright protection was for X years then it became public domain. THen it was X+10, X+50, etc.... Sometimes 'retroactive' protecting work whcih should have been public domain.
Originally copyright was owned by the authors of books. And since authors were ordinary working class folks, the lawmakers probably wrote copyright laws to limit the amount of wealth to match that of a working class man. But as time passed, publishers began to own the copyright of books, so the lawmakers rewrote laws to be more suitable for ruling class (capitalists).
There's absolutely no reason copyright should not be infinite years, other than the limit the amount of wealth to copyright holders. The limited length of copyright law is a scam to deprive the creative class of people of their richly deserved wealth, and you are an even bigger scammer to want to further reduce the copyright years.
Slashdot Mirror
The internet radio stations don't allow you choose the songs you want to listen to whereas you choose the songs with music streaming services.
But I wonder if the 0.5 cents or whatever per song played given to the song copyright owners is enough money. Suppose iTunes and CD sales became obsolete, would streaming music pay enough to support artists financially?
Every programming language has a different API to provide the exact same functionality to apps. How difficult would it be for Google to create another set of API methods that are different from the Java lib, but provide the same functionality as the Java lib?
The functionality of the java library is not patented, rather the expression (syntax) of the functionality is copyrighted. You can use different method names and argument names and change the scope of the method and class to differentiate from Java. In fact, that is exactly what Microsoft did when it cloned .Net from Java.
It's not all nouns. Class/Interface name: Noun or sentence fragment Method name: verb, sentence fragment or noun Method arguments: noun or sentence fragment I fail to see how an API containing all nouns would be comprehensible to any programmer using the API.
How much would it cost for Google to license Java from Oracle? Also, why don't they use their "Go" language instead of Java if the intention is to save cost of licensing Java?
I don't think there is any case for interoperability since Android Java apps don't run on other platforms. Similarly, Java apps from other platforms don't run on Android OS.
Not a problem if Oracle gives these distros a free license since it has few users. Android, on the other hand, has billions of users and Google has paid exactly $0 for Java the language or java the library.
For what? For Implementing standard POSIX APIs?
POSIX.1-2008 is simultaneously IEEE Std 1003.1â-2008 and The Open Group Technical Standard Base Specifications, Issue 7.
I don't think any single company owns a IEEE standard.
Technically, that API is also code because it's written in the Java language syntax. Why the double standards: API declaration code should not be copyrightable, it should be public domain, whereas API implementation can be copyrighted.
False argument: a library is one functional extension of the language. You can create infinite different libraries for Java, and therefore the language has infinite different functional expressions.
Only a handful of classes are part of the language (java.lang.*), the rest are not part of the language.
What freedom is that? The freedom to copy other people's code for free?
You seem to be confusing copyright with patents. Copyright deals with preventing copying of "expressions of ideas," whereas patents deal with preventing copying of "basic structure or operations" of ideas. What creative expression has Java copied from Smalltalk or C++?
Because only literary works and works with sentences having proper grammar can be copyrighted? Who made up that rule?
This API issue is about creative expression, and with or without grammar, there is plenty of creative expression in designing APIs. Or is it a mindless and easy task so that you use can use a perl script to generate API for your library?
Based on what exactly? You're completely wrong.
Copyright encourages people/companies to create stuff by ensuring no one can copy/use their creation without payment, i.e., it blocks freeloaders.
It's not just one name/word, but multiple names/words in a single API call, and thousands of API methods copied exactly, not just one or two.
Also, don't forget than an API declaration in Java syntax is useless without the API comment -- the documentation that tells you what the API does, what exactly are the inputs and outputs, and any limitations. That too was copied by Google.
We're not dealing with copying one word, but rather copying tens of thousands of words scattered throughout the Java Standard Library implementation.
I fully agree with this. Designing a good API can often be far more difficult and creative task than implementing it, considering you can easily change the implementation later but not the API.
Who knows if the decision to call it legal back then was okay, because software and the PC were very new. Everyone knows the importance of software today and you cant just rip off IP worth tens of millions for $0.
Why? Is there only one novel about cowboys? You can easily create another standard BIOS API that does not violate IBM's rights. But you'd have to recompile the OS and all the DOS apps to use the new API. Of course, all this is expensive for app developers, which is why apps should not use proprietary, OS specific APIs to code their apps. Rather they should call vendor-neutral standard APIs such that any vendor's software components can be replaced without recompiling the app. For example, you can choose Intel or AMD CPUs to execute your x86 instructions.
Instead of using standardized APIs, your solution is to steal someone else's IP (API) because it's convenient.
LOL, a logical conclusion without any logic stated?
So the implied logic here is Google only copied certain things, but not the whole thing, so it's okay to copy it for free?
You can't copyright generic and short phrases like chapter 1, chapter 2 anyway. There is no creative expression of ideas there.
Sorry, those APIs are still owned by Oracle, unless it is offering that free-of-charge for anyone to reimplement. If you want free-to-implement APIs, create a standards organization like IEEE or W3C that publishes standard APIs. Reimplementing some company's proprietary API is stupid anyway. You're entirely dependent on that company for your APIs.
The pdf states "Copyright not available for titles and short phrases." But the table of contents of a book is not one phrase, rather it is a sequence of dozens of phrases. So it should be copyrightable, like API.
Google has copied the premise of the book (Java platform), its table of contents (API) and rewritten the text within the chapters (reimplementing API) but keeping the same ToC. It should license the stuff it copied (API/ToC).
Oracle still owns the standard. Just because something is standardized by a company, does not mean it is free to use by other entities.
Sorry, but ripping the entire API and reimplementing it is not fair use. The copycat did not spend any effort in designing the API, so is not entitled to use it for free. If you want to share APIs, create a standard API that all competing vendors can share for reimplementation.
Only in scientific and technical fields, but not for the layman. They don't to go fully metric, but at least display both units like: 32F / 18.3C or 5'5" / 165cm.
Unfortunately, some mingling did occur resulting in some smartphone features:
the $30 Nokia 215 is "Internet-ready" and comes with Facebook and Twitter apps.
Looks like they are doing it to handle security issues. For example, when you insert a DVD on Win7, it autoruns software loaded from the DVD. That software could steal data from the PC or install a virus.
This is what I warned about before: major OS upgrades that turn your PC/mobile device into a slow, fat pig. For example, Google Android forces you to upgrade your OS (say from KitKat to Lollipop with nag screens every 5-10 minutes if you refuse to upgrade). New OSes are designed for new, faster hardware. If you install a new OS update on an older machine, it becomes very slow and unusable.
This is the same (forced obsolescence) strategy used by OSX, iOS, Android and now Win10. You don't have much choice against this strategy:
a) You install a major OS update: your machine becomes very slow and unusable although you can still install the latest apps.
b) You refuse to install the OS update: On OS X/iOS you can't install new apps because they are compiled for the latest OS update. On Android you get a nag screen every few minutes to "upgrade" your OS.
c) You give up and sell/throw away your perfectly working machine to purchase a new one so you can run the latest OS and therefore the latest apps.
As you can see, we need to protest against deprecating deferred updates. Non-deferred updates = forced obsolescence. We need to separate bug fix upgrades from major OS (feature) upgrades.
No, this is big brother technology. They can now map the serial numbers of the currency from the ATM to a person. One step closer to cashless, surveillance society.
Although it could also be used to prevent a thief with stolen debit card and password trying to cash out someone else's money. But then how would a thief get somebody's PIN.
Why do hotels and apartments charge rent for rooms over multiple lifetimes? Why do farmers make profit off the same land for multiple generations? The answer to all these questions is: the assets provide value to customers over multiple generations. That's why.
Originally copyright was owned by the authors of books. And since authors were ordinary working class folks, the lawmakers probably wrote copyright laws to limit the amount of wealth to match that of a working class man. But as time passed, publishers began to own the copyright of books, so the lawmakers rewrote laws to be more suitable for ruling class (capitalists).
There's absolutely no reason copyright should not be infinite years, other than the limit the amount of wealth to copyright holders. The limited length of copyright law is a scam to deprive the creative class of people of their richly deserved wealth, and you are an even bigger scammer to want to further reduce the copyright years.
So how is 20% distributed amongst manufacturers, distributors and retailers? LOL