Albini is wrong because people who create teh stuff own teh stuff. Not you, not me, not the govt. The creator owns it until he sells it someone. Under what logical basis can a person who had nothing to creating something own the same thing? The common consumer did nothing to own any creative work. He just pays for his use of teh stuff.
Why can't creators/owners own their music perpetually, and rent it out to listeners the way hotels rooms or apartments are rented out?
Does this mean pirated movies are transformative if you add a border containing weird art? Can you re-sell Beatles music if you "transform" it by adding a track containing cowbell?
The photo seems embedded within a new "format". How is this transformation? It should be called embedding (otherwise known as stealing) an unmodified/untransformed photo.
In patent law, adding improvements to an existing patent X, with another patent Y, does not give you the right to infringe patent X. So transforming an image should not strip of the original copyright holder's right of the transformed image. The transformed image should be jointly copyrighted by original and new copyright owner.
BTW, adding a few lines of text below a photo is not transformative (looks like a webpage)... looks more like an excuse for theft.
For the Nth time, I know what an API is: /* API method description goes here... */ method_attributes method_return_type methodName(Type1 arg1, Type2 arg2, Type3 arg3,...)
In no way I'm talking about implementation. There are numerous combinations to break up classes, methods, method arguments that differ from vendor to vendor, developer to developer. That is, different vendors can and should produce different APIs. Get it Now?? Or how I have to spell everything out like you're 5 years old?
Then minimum 11 of that dozen programmers are incompetent.
Are you implying there is exactly ONE MIDDLEWARE API (like Java) to access services of the OS? That's bullshit. Are you also implying that there is no creativity and design involved in designing an API?
Seems you are mixing up API with implementation anyway in your post.
Just because there are multiple ways to implement an API does not mean there is only one API for a given area of computing. Why are there posts after posts like yours repeating the same falsehood over and over again?
And why should developers and other companies "benefit from Java API's good design with $0 license payment"?
But these developers are not re-selling a modified version of the Java plaform -- they are just using/calling the APIs to write their apps. Google is reimplementing Java APIs and that's completely different.
That main() and swap() API are not copyrightable because they are too short. It would be like copyrighting individual words of the English language, which is not permitted.
C++ header implementation is controlled by the C++ committee.
I can write a Java program that works on Android and on Linux only if the APIs are the same.
Wait, why do you want Java programs to execute on both Linux and Android? Both platforms seem incompatible, especially the GUI stuff (and there's no cmd line on Android unless you are rooted, I'm not sure). So, there's no hard reason for Google's Java API to exactly match Oracle's standard Java API.
Java is middleware and you don't need to copy Java API headers to access the functionality of the Android OS. So why doesn't Google design their own Java API for Android or license it from Oracle?
Re: the OpenGL/Direct3D example, both APIs provide the same functionality and run on the same hardware. But the syntactic format and scope of functions is quite different. If Microsoft can invest resources to create an API, why can't Google?
It may be a lot of work to create a phone directory (at least it used to be), but the listings aren't copyrightable.
Sorry, but APIs are not fixed format like directories: "name: ph. number." As I stated above, there are plenty of subjective and creative design decisions that go into creating an API. This is very similar to the subjective and creative decisions that go into writing a novel. Hence both APIs and books should receive copyright protection.
For example, both OpenGL and DirectX are 3D APIs that can be used to write 3D games. However, the design decisions and structure of API is quite different.
Only extremely trivial problem spaces yield fixed APIs. Massive APIs like the Java API which contains thousands of methods are not trivial and should receive copyright protection. Why should Google benefit from Java API's good design with $0 license payment?
Plenty of cheapskates would drive tires with worn out treads resulting in spinarounds in wet weather and inefficient braking/skids on dry roads.
This [tax on tires] would lead to people pushing the limits of their tires, resulting in a lot more tire blowouts on the roadway. Blown out tires can cause cars to go out of control and lead to accidents, or at the very least result in pedestrians needing to leave their vehicle in close proximity to the roadway to change to a spare. Neither of these situations are safe, and we shouldnâ(TM)t implement a policy that will likely increase these instances.
Tax, tax, tax...there are too many taxes already and the total tax demands is an overburden on the average/middle class wage earner.
If you don't pay this tax at the electric meter, the Oregon govt (and other states in the future) will fit GPS devices into your car to track how many miles you drove inside the state and charge you a road tax based on the in-state miles.
Do you really want that? Isn't eliminating big-brother tracking your car worth paying road tax at the point where you charge your EV (just like gas cars pay road tax at the gas pump)?
Then start working building these ad-free sites. Find other volunteers who will code, host and maintain many other sites, for free. Nobody's stopping you... your ad-free utopian websites are only a few thousand lines of code away.
That is, unless you are one of those commies, who wants other people to build you these free sites, for free.
A copyright is supposed to protect the EXPRESSION of AN idea, however header files are merely a list of names, arguments, variables, etc. Nothing at all expressive in that.
I disagree. APIs are a valid expression of an idea. Given an area of computing (regex, networking), there are dozens if not hundreds of ways you can design the API -- so it's a creative form of expression which is what copyright laws are supposed to protect.
There are plenty of different ways to define class names (and their responsibilities), method names and arguments. If you asked a dozen programmers to independently design a dozen APIs for the same area of computing, the result will be a dozen different APIs.
Copyright for APIs is also good because it prevents other companies from leeching of genius and expense of creating the APIs. Say Sun spent tens of millions to design the APIs, and Google spent how much to copy paste the class definitions? Maybe a few thousands, and that's leeching. They should spend the money and do the hard work of designing their own Java APIs.
He's talking about solar DC -> AC conversion: 20% loss, for AC appliances. Then another 20% loss for converting the converted AC back to DC: 40% total loss for connecting to DC appliances.
* Sun generates 12VDC via the solar panel
* Solar panels push power to a battery
* The battery or the solar panel push 12VDC to a DC to AC converter (20% loss of power).
* AC is distributed throughout the house
* Many devices then convert the power BACK to DC (20% loss of power)
* This all seems pretty silly to lose this much power. I am sure it is less than a cumulative loss of 40 percent power, but when your trying to free yourself of the power company, this really adds up.
Shouldn't there be an option for the battery to generate AC or DC based on the type of appliance that is connecting to it? That would mean 20% conversion loss for DC to AC, for AC appliances, and 0% loss for connecting to DC appliances. The main point is we need both AC and DC sockets connected to this battery.
Can't the electric company supply both AC (for home appliances) and DC (for electric cars)? They could also add a state tax to the DC meter charging 1.5 cents road tax for certain amount of kWh charged by the vehicle. Gasoline cars pay 30 cents per gallon for road tax, so it's time for EVs to start paying too.
The internet was not established to allow or promote businesses. Capitalism is like a cancer that oozes its way into places that it should not touch.
That's naive and retarded. If capitalism is so evil why don't we try an experiment: integrate adblock within all browsers and it should be hard to disable this integrated adblock. Then wait and see how much of the internet survives, since most of them will have put "GOING OUT OF BUSINESS" signs and left.
What will remain of the internet after the experiment is not what you, the internet viewer, wants but rather what the person posting on the internet personally cares about. That typically would be cat videos, their selfies, their inane opinions about stuff you don't care and boring details of their personal life you don't care about. That's the vision of your capitalism-free, socialist/communist utopia.
Capitalism is better than freeloading-communism because it serves the customer in exchange for some form of payment (ads).
Sadly advertising is not simple. It often involves forms of brain washing.
Such is life. Can you prove your boss or company, the ones paying your salary, don't engage in brain-washing ads? No, you can't. So some of your salary is due to brain-washing.
Unless there are laws against manipulating viewers, there will always be brain-washing. I mean even slashdot has tons of brain-washing. For example, the/. groupthink thinks they have a legal and ethical right to deprive website owners of income by adblocking their ads, because it's their god-given right to not care about anyone but themselves.
We have to get off this stupid idea that inventors are unique snowflakes who invent unique stuff that nobody else could ever discover and we therefore owe them.
Do you have solid proof lots of people can come up with the same patented idea?
Just to reiterate, this was not any kind of auto-driving failure.
Really? Suppose he was using the "auto park" feature in the car to park and hit someone in the process, it would not be not be an "auto-driving failure"? That's stupid and wrong: they should not sell the "auto park" feature without the "pedestrian detection" feature.
That's a good idea although it makes the patent holder wonder what he paid all that attorney, filing and maintenance fees for if it turns out his patent is invalid, years after being accepted.
But you're right, since the USPTO can't afford to spend too much time researching all the patent claims, the person being sued for infringement should have the right to prove that some or many claims in the patent are trivial, obvious or frivolous and therefore, invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
Albini is wrong because people who create teh stuff own teh stuff. Not you, not me, not the govt. The creator owns it until he sells it someone. Under what logical basis can a person who had nothing to creating something own the same thing? The common consumer did nothing to own any creative work. He just pays for his use of teh stuff.
Why can't creators/owners own their music perpetually, and rent it out to listeners the way hotels rooms or apartments are rented out?
Does this mean pirated movies are transformative if you add a border containing weird art? Can you re-sell Beatles music if you "transform" it by adding a track containing cowbell?
The photo seems embedded within a new "format". How is this transformation? It should be called embedding (otherwise known as stealing) an unmodified/untransformed photo.
In patent law, adding improvements to an existing patent X, with another patent Y, does not give you the right to infringe patent X. So transforming an image should not strip of the original copyright holder's right of the transformed image. The transformed image should be jointly copyrighted by original and new copyright owner.
BTW, adding a few lines of text below a photo is not transformative (looks like a webpage) ... looks more like an excuse for theft.
For the Nth time, I know what an API is:
/* API method description goes here ... */ ...)
method_attributes method_return_type methodName(Type1 arg1, Type2 arg2, Type3 arg3,
In no way I'm talking about implementation. There are numerous combinations to break up classes, methods, method arguments that differ from vendor to vendor, developer to developer. That is, different vendors can and should produce different APIs. Get it Now?? Or how I have to spell everything out like you're 5 years old?
The same amount you get paid every time you play a video game.
Are you implying there is exactly ONE MIDDLEWARE API (like Java) to access services of the OS? That's bullshit. Are you also implying that there is no creativity and design involved in designing an API?
Just because there are multiple ways to implement an API does not mean there is only one API for a given area of computing. Why are there posts after posts like yours repeating the same falsehood over and over again?
My point is, If a tire tax is passed, there will more cars on the road with bald tires, than if they stick to a per gallon/kWh tax.
But these developers are not re-selling a modified version of the Java plaform -- they are just using/calling the APIs to write their apps. Google is reimplementing Java APIs and that's completely different.
That main() and swap() API are not copyrightable because they are too short. It would be like copyrighting individual words of the English language, which is not permitted.
C++ header implementation is controlled by the C++ committee.
Wait, why do you want Java programs to execute on both Linux and Android? Both platforms seem incompatible, especially the GUI stuff (and there's no cmd line on Android unless you are rooted, I'm not sure). So, there's no hard reason for Google's Java API to exactly match Oracle's standard Java API.
Java is middleware and you don't need to copy Java API headers to access the functionality of the Android OS. So why doesn't Google design their own Java API for Android or license it from Oracle?
Re: the OpenGL/Direct3D example, both APIs provide the same functionality and run on the same hardware. But the syntactic format and scope of functions is quite different. If Microsoft can invest resources to create an API, why can't Google?
Sorry, but APIs are not fixed format like directories: "name: ph. number." As I stated above, there are plenty of subjective and creative design decisions that go into creating an API. This is very similar to the subjective and creative decisions that go into writing a novel. Hence both APIs and books should receive copyright protection.
For example, both OpenGL and DirectX are 3D APIs that can be used to write 3D games. However, the design decisions and structure of API is quite different.
Only extremely trivial problem spaces yield fixed APIs. Massive APIs like the Java API which contains thousands of methods are not trivial and should receive copyright protection. Why should Google benefit from Java API's good design with $0 license payment?
Plenty of cheapskates would drive tires with worn out treads resulting in spinarounds in wet weather and inefficient braking/skids on dry roads.
This [tax on tires] would lead to people pushing the limits of their tires, resulting in a lot more tire blowouts on the roadway. Blown out tires can cause cars to go out of control and lead to accidents, or at the very least result in pedestrians needing to leave their vehicle in close proximity to the roadway to change to a spare. Neither of these situations are safe, and we shouldnâ(TM)t implement a policy that will likely increase these instances.
user comment from http://freakonomics.com/2013/0...
If you don't pay this tax at the electric meter, the Oregon govt (and other states in the future) will fit GPS devices into your car to track how many miles you drove inside the state and charge you a road tax based on the in-state miles.
Do you really want that? Isn't eliminating big-brother tracking your car worth paying road tax at the point where you charge your EV (just like gas cars pay road tax at the gas pump)?
Visit this link for the new GPS tracking system:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
Then start working building these ad-free sites. Find other volunteers who will code, host and maintain many other sites, for free. Nobody's stopping you... your ad-free utopian websites are only a few thousand lines of code away.
That is, unless you are one of those commies, who wants other people to build you these free sites, for free.
But it says "status: withdrawn", so was the salary for withdrawn cases used in the statistics?
2014
H-1B Senior Software Engineer $7,278,870,000 Year $63,294 Philadelphia, PA Unknown 1 Withdrawn 15-1131
http://data.jobsintech.io/comp...
I disagree. APIs are a valid expression of an idea. Given an area of computing (regex, networking), there are dozens if not hundreds of ways you can design the API -- so it's a creative form of expression which is what copyright laws are supposed to protect.
There are plenty of different ways to define class names (and their responsibilities), method names and arguments. If you asked a dozen programmers to independently design a dozen APIs for the same area of computing, the result will be a dozen different APIs.
Copyright for APIs is also good because it prevents other companies from leeching of genius and expense of creating the APIs. Say Sun spent tens of millions to design the APIs, and Google spent how much to copy paste the class definitions? Maybe a few thousands, and that's leeching. They should spend the money and do the hard work of designing their own Java APIs.
He's talking about solar DC -> AC conversion: 20% loss, for AC appliances. Then another 20% loss for converting the converted AC back to DC: 40% total loss for connecting to DC appliances.
* Sun generates 12VDC via the solar panel
* Solar panels push power to a battery
* The battery or the solar panel push 12VDC to a DC to AC converter (20% loss of power).
* AC is distributed throughout the house
* Many devices then convert the power BACK to DC (20% loss of power)
* This all seems pretty silly to lose this much power.
I am sure it is less than a cumulative loss of 40 percent power, but when your trying to free yourself of the power company, this really adds up.
Shouldn't there be an option for the battery to generate AC or DC based on the type of appliance that is connecting to it? That would mean 20% conversion loss for DC to AC, for AC appliances, and 0% loss for connecting to DC appliances. The main point is we need both AC and DC sockets connected to this battery.
Can't the electric company supply both AC (for home appliances) and DC (for electric cars)? They could also add a state tax to the DC meter charging 1.5 cents road tax for certain amount of kWh charged by the vehicle. Gasoline cars pay 30 cents per gallon for road tax, so it's time for EVs to start paying too.
That's naive and retarded. If capitalism is so evil why don't we try an experiment: integrate adblock within all browsers and it should be hard to disable this integrated adblock. Then wait and see how much of the internet survives, since most of them will have put "GOING OUT OF BUSINESS" signs and left.
What will remain of the internet after the experiment is not what you, the internet viewer, wants but rather what the person posting on the internet personally cares about. That typically would be cat videos, their selfies, their inane opinions about stuff you don't care and boring details of their personal life you don't care about. That's the vision of your capitalism-free, socialist/communist utopia.
Capitalism is better than freeloading-communism because it serves the customer in exchange for some form of payment (ads).
Such is life. Can you prove your boss or company, the ones paying your salary, don't engage in brain-washing ads? No, you can't. So some of your salary is due to brain-washing.
Unless there are laws against manipulating viewers, there will always be brain-washing. I mean even slashdot has tons of brain-washing. For example, the /. groupthink thinks they have a legal and ethical right to deprive website owners of income by adblocking their ads, because it's their god-given right to not care about anyone but themselves.
Do you have solid proof lots of people can come up with the same patented idea?
Really? Suppose he was using the "auto park" feature in the car to park and hit someone in the process, it would not be not be an "auto-driving failure"? That's stupid and wrong: they should not sell the "auto park" feature without the "pedestrian detection" feature.
Well, how do propose we avoid a repeat of hanging doors and pregnant chads, like in the Bush/Florida election, without computers?
That's a good idea although it makes the patent holder wonder what he paid all that attorney, filing and maintenance fees for if it turns out his patent is invalid, years after being accepted.
But you're right, since the USPTO can't afford to spend too much time researching all the patent claims, the person being sued for infringement should have the right to prove that some or many claims in the patent are trivial, obvious or frivolous and therefore, invalid.