So does XYZ.US count as an international domain name?
Seriously though . . . that was a poor post . . . internationalized/international; changes the entire meaning of the parent.
Though this may surprise some of the more 'jaded' readers, I am really surprised that this one slipped by the editors. . .
hose against the deal point out that Google may be planning to co-opt the encyclopedia as Googlepedia (by restricting access to the complete database).
Can they do that? The wikipedia is governed by the GNU Free Documentation License . ..wikipedia details here.
If you have trade secrets, you need to be very careful who you give them to, period. If a person you trust releases their secrets, its because you didn't do a good enough job of understanding that person.
True, but is this really relevant? Is it really reasonable to assume that a company "understands" all of its employees and agents well enough to entrust them beyond a shadow of a doubt?
That's why corporations have confidentiality agreements for employees . . . so that the employee understands their legal responsibility (assuming they've signed the document) in keeping trade secrets and other confidential information confidential. This also provides significant legal recourse for employers whose trade secrets are divulged by employees.
Having said that I don't think that Apple is going about this in a very mature manner. I hope that they are reminding employees of their employment agreements and making sure that they understand the potential consequences of breaking their employment agreement. Apple should recall that they have no agreement with the journalists in question . . . though they may be on some somewhat shaky legal ground to bully them around.
George Lucas has a Kaleidescape box . . . He mentions it in a Sound & Vison interview [soundandvisionmag.com] (Its on page four of the interview about halfway down the page. Just a brief mention.)
I guess Lucas is guilty of pirating his own films . . . The concept of extreme protection of digital content is really getting out of hand when someone like Lucas can't legally "backup" his films onto another media. I don't really understand this when no one prosecutes the average Joe from copying a CD to tape or CD to MP3 player for convenience . . . Isn't this all that the Kaleidescope box does? Copies from one media to another for ease and convenience?
If you can do it with music, then why can't you do it with movies?
Actually no . . . many contracts are written "For consideration received . . . "
This indicates an exchange of value even if no money has changed hands. This is done in photography for model releases (permission to publish a model's likeness) all the time. An acknowledgement of consideration received is all that is necessary . . . in photography the opportunity to model or to have a photographer attempt of even consider publication of a photo of a person can be construed as "consideration received." as defined in a model release form.
Additionally, the service of providing listings of flights for possible purchase is easily arguable as "consideration" that would make the Orbitz agreement legally binding.
Actually a collection of factual information is copyrightable in that organization of the collection is creative and can be copyrighted.
For example, tables of logarithms can be copyrighted. The logarithm values cannot be copyrighted (they are the "facts"), but the layout in the book, the organization of data, the paging, etc. make the work copyrightable.
If someone copies the values one could not claim infringment, but if one photocopied the pages . . . one may have a case for copyright infringment. Similarly, one may be able to argue copyright on the organization and presentation of information embedded in a URL . . . I'm not saying that one would win this case, but is arguable.
I don't understand why the selection of race for an unspecified character would not be artistic license . . . if one were to cast a tribesman from an tribe that cut grooves throughout their face for decoration, would that not be some level of artistic license? . . . especially because I don't remember anything in the radio show about the smoothness of Ford's skin. (And remember the Radio Show preceeded the book . . . it is the true original).
There is tremendous artistic license in any film version of a book . . . there are just too many visuals that are assumed in the book that have to be specified in the film. And these include the look of the characters. One must use some level of artistic license to fill these gaps.
But since your argument seems to be based on semantics perhaps I should respond in kind. I quote a person that uses more artistic license than you in their definition of artistic license. They conclude that artistic license is:
In sum, artistic license is:
* A tool.
* Entirely at the the artist's discretion.
* To be tolerated by the viewer.
* Neither "good" nor "bad".
* Useful for filling in gaps, whether they be compositional or historical.
* Used consciously, unconsciously, or both, simultaneously.
* There for the taking, and not subject to yearly renewal, inspection, fees or a bad snapshot on an ID card.
5 million+ people directly rely on the govt for food aid, plus god knows how more that have 'fell out of the system' and are struggling to eat.
This comment is useless without some sort of metric for comparison in other countries . . . how many people receive aid from the government in other countries? How many "fell out of the system" in other countries? How about presenting the data per capita. Without meaningful comparison, its hard to know whether the US is making significant progress or is doing well compared with the rest of the world.
Not to mention Russia's education system is far superior to the USA one in terms of catering to all, even though it's the most expensive in the world in terms of $/student:
Again, there isn't enough information here to draw any meanful conclusions . . . Basic literacy is only one measure of educational success . . . how many people receive basic college degrees and advanced degrees? How many people attend trade schools? And how many of these people are able to apply this in the world after getting their education? If few people can apply their knowledge then the educational system may be promoting literacy, but it may not be meeting the needs of the people and the society.
Make your own conclusions from that.
The key problem is that based on the sketchy data presented in the post, I can't draw any reasonable and logical conclusions except that I would need more information to draw rational conclusions . . .
After 25 years of sleeping at the wheel as the Russians built new rocket motors, the US finally comes out with a new one . ..
The RS-68's on the Delta IV Heavy are the first new big rocket motor to be designed and built in the US in a long time (The space shuttle uses motors designed in the late sixties or very early seventies).
And for the record, I think a new rocket motor qualifies as sexy . . .
IANAL, but I thought that ideas were patented (such as an alogorithm, or 1 click shopping (groan), or a process to do something in a (supposedly) novel way). . . (I know, there are other things that can be patented but I don't think that software was one of them) Ideas that are implemented in software can be protected by patent so that another person cannot implement the same protected idea in another piece of software . . . but this protection of the idea, not the software.
Software is copyrighted in that the code itself is protected not the ideas. So one can write code to do the same thing but your code and my code can be filed under different copyrights and both be legal . . . so long as we don't copy one another's code even if the two piece of code perform equivalent tasks. In other words, two major encyclopedias or almanacs may be functionally equivalent, but they are not infringing upon one another from a copyright perspective unless one copied the other.
Since the European presidency is about to pass to Luxembourg, this has effectively killed the idea, at least for the immediate future.
Considering the fact that the Dutch hold the EU presidency for the remainder of the year (to be replaced by Lux. next year), is there any evidence that the Lux. presidency will take a different approach? I haven't been following the more subtle aspects of this issue, but Lux. is part of the Benelux trio (Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg) that often ally themselves for leverage against some of the larger EU countries. Is it likely that Lux. will take a different stance on this issue or continue down the same path?
At some point, no matter how high-tech the DRM gets, the data must be presented in a form humans can perceive. All the encryption in the world won't stop little Mikey from holding a microphone up to the outputs and making a non-DRM copy.
.
.
.
The original work was recorded from the air. The band actually played its song, or the actor actually did his thing. If similar technology is used to create the non-DRM copy, the loss will be negligible.
Do you have access to technology similar to that used by professional recording studios or hollywood production houses? I do not . . . so I cannot make a copy similar to the original because my tools are significantly inferior. A good example of this are the downloadable copies of films that were recorded in a movie theatre. The person that made the copy used somewhat similar technology in a somewhat controlled enviroment, but his copy was shite.
This is part of the incentive to buy the DVD . . . the DVD is a controlled copy with an acceptable standard of quality.
In this case, the solution is to use DVD Shrink and make a copy for yourself without all of that extra bullshit on it. There will ALWAYS be a software solution to this crap.
The buyer already owned a regular copy of the film. He bought this version because it had a HD format copy of the film in WMV9 format, but this version was DRM'ed.
If he DVD Shrink'ed the film, that would defeat the purpose of buying the better quality HD version.
We need more posts like this one . . . the only way the industry will get with the program on DRM is if people post their terrible experiences and we consumers vote with out wallets.
If sales of the DRM versions of films stink, then the powers that be won't be able to implement them profitably. We need to make sure that the cost in lost sales due to DRM techniques pissing of the customer exceed the lost sales due to the media being copiable. Of course this is easier said than done, as there are millions of customers that need to be organized versus just a few production companies that can easily rally together, but it is the only way that production companies will get the message.
It's like DIVX (no, not the video compression, the now defunct DVD competitor that had embedded DRM), DIVX movies were cheaper than DVD's but they had a limited license that had to be renewed for multiple viewing (like pay per view). Customers rejected it and it (thankfully) died an ugly death.
No surprise that you see your ego-centrist view as the "right" view of the world . . . that is often the case for people with a racist or supremicist mindset. Do you really think that Elf and Titanic were successful because they downplayed black actors . . . that's odd; I think that most people in the industry think that these movies were popular because they were good tight films with good acting, writing directing and production.
Why do you condemn producers that cast black artists as pricipal actors in their films? Is that somehow morally wrong to you? Don't these producers have the artistic license and more improtantly the right to cast whoever they want without feeling repercussions from people like yourself that believe that skin color should be the major consideration in the casting process?
Perhaps a racist like yourself beleives that the film industry would be better off without great black actors like Morgan Freeman, Sidney Poiter, and the world renound voice of James Earl Jones.
And to clench this, you claim that posting your ignorant opinion is brave . . . it is brave, like not wearing your seatbelt is brave, like drinking and driving is brave, like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is brave. It may be brave, but it is also irrational, childish, unreflective of modern societal norms, and just plain stupid.
Microsoft also claimed that the district court erred when deciding that its alleged patent infringement extended to foreign sales. If the appeals court buys that line of thinking, Microsoft could see its damages drop to less than $200 million.
Anyone know why Microsoft would think that the suit should not extend to foreign sales? I didn't see the reasoning for this in the article . . .
I think that this is indicative of a problem throughout the United States that has snuck up on the government.
Driver's Licenses were intended to be exactly that, a license or permit that demonstrates that one is legally permitted to drive. They happened to have a photo of the person on them . . . how this became an official government identification card was something of an accident. Private groups started using the driver's license as ID to cash checks becuase it provided some level of photo identification . . . but there was no common standard for confirming identity when applying for a license. Some states were very slack about this (For example, in Virginia until recently, one only needed a form from a lawyer asserting one's identity with no official documents whatsoever.)
It's good to see that states are recognizing that the driver's license is a de facto identification card in the US and they are taking counterfeiting seriously.
However you ignored the first clause of the sentence:
Thus if we are speaking about fair use and the copying of DVD's to the RAID
This bounded the scope of the statement to copying of DVD's to the aforementioned raid system . . . when you mentioned killing someone, you changed the scope of the argument . . . . But I will admit that I could have stated the bounds of the argument better . . .
the target is going to be folks who can pay more for a server than the software itself?
No, not really . . . They are suing the guy that makes the server not the person that bought the server. . . . and I think its even a little deeper than that. The evil movie protection folks don't want the producer of a movie server setting a precendent that it's OK to make a permanent copy of the movie on another medium. . . This would open the door to other movie-server appliance type devices that might be cheaper than the movies themselves.
Personally, I don't agree with the control freak movie studio folks, but based on past behavior, its not hard to figure out their behavior pattern . . .
Have I exercised fair use? Definitely. Have I broken some laws? Probably. But I'm not going to give up the fair use as a result.
The term fair use is a legal term. If you have exercised fair use in your copying DVD's to your RAID, then by definition, you haven't broken any laws. However, if your copying is not a valid "fair use" per US CODE Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107 (If you're in the USA). Then by definition, you are breaking the law.
Thus if we are speaking about fair use and the copying of DVD's to the RAID, it is impossible to excercise fair use and break the law at the same time . . .
George Lucas has a Kaleidescape box . . . He mentions it in a Sound & Vison interview in which he said that he had one of these boxes . . . (Its on page four of the interview about halfway down the page. Just a brief mention.)
I guess Lucas is guilty of pirating his own films . . .
Kind of a weird interview that really doesn't say much about anything . . .
I didn't say the system of mainland China is better than that on the island of Taiwan. But I can claim the result of main land China is better.
Hmm . . . sounds like more disinformation for me . . perhaps you beleive in censorship and other illiberal policies of the Chinese government.
From The Economist "The World in 2005" Which is available now in the US and most of the western world and eastern world (including Taiwan). The Economist is arguably the most well respected business news weekly in the world.
Page 86: Taiwan ranks 21 in the worldwide quality of life index. China ranks 60.
Page 82: In a world poll, people ranked "Political and Civil Liberty in Your Country" as the third most important thing for personal happiness. Only "Personal Health" and "Family Relations" ranked higher. I won't even bother to get into details of China's record on Civil Liberties compared with Taiwan. I think that the lack of free elections in China and the fact that you mocked the free elections in Taiwan speak for themself.
Page 36:Average Gross Wages China under US$200/month. Taiwan over US$1500/month.
Its quite clear to me which country has done the better job of taking care of its people. The success of China is limited to a small economic region. The overall population of China is still very very poor.
I don't know where you get your information from, but I would suggest searching out some unbiased sources for information when comparing China to Taiwan. I can only assume that growing up in China, your information may not be impartial . . .
As the presidency of Taiwan, Jacky Chan said my words, "the biggest joke in the world."
Come on . . . that was taken out of context and you know it. The presidency of Taiwan was not what Jackie Chan was referring to. He was referring to the presidential election process during the last election. After the results were announced the losing major opposition party appealed to the Taiwanese Constitutional court to nullify the election because of alleged impropriety. I was in Taiwan during this time.
This is not that different from the Florida event in the US that happened during the 2000 presidential election (Which I will admit was quite a fiasco).
Please don't spread misinformation about the Taiwanese electoral process . . . its much much much more democratic than the mainland Chinese governmental process.
Slashdot Mirror
Though this may surprise some of the more 'jaded' readers, I am really surprised that this one slipped by the editors. . .
Having said that, I would still agree that it was indeed a good interview overall.
Can they do that? The wikipedia is governed by the GNU Free Documentation License . . .wikipedia details here.
True, but is this really relevant? Is it really reasonable to assume that a company "understands" all of its employees and agents well enough to entrust them beyond a shadow of a doubt?
That's why corporations have confidentiality agreements for employees . . . so that the employee understands their legal responsibility (assuming they've signed the document) in keeping trade secrets and other confidential information confidential. This also provides significant legal recourse for employers whose trade secrets are divulged by employees.
Having said that I don't think that Apple is going about this in a very mature manner. I hope that they are reminding employees of their employment agreements and making sure that they understand the potential consequences of breaking their employment agreement. Apple should recall that they have no agreement with the journalists in question . . . though they may be on some somewhat shaky legal ground to bully them around.
I guess Lucas is guilty of pirating his own films . . . The concept of extreme protection of digital content is really getting out of hand when someone like Lucas can't legally "backup" his films onto another media. I don't really understand this when no one prosecutes the average Joe from copying a CD to tape or CD to MP3 player for convenience . . . Isn't this all that the Kaleidescope box does? Copies from one media to another for ease and convenience?
If you can do it with music, then why can't you do it with movies?
This indicates an exchange of value even if no money has changed hands. This is done in photography for model releases (permission to publish a model's likeness) all the time. An acknowledgement of consideration received is all that is necessary . . . in photography the opportunity to model or to have a photographer attempt of even consider publication of a photo of a person can be construed as "consideration received." as defined in a model release form.
Additionally, the service of providing listings of flights for possible purchase is easily arguable as "consideration" that would make the Orbitz agreement legally binding.
If someone copies the values one could not claim infringment, but if one photocopied the pages . . . one may have a case for copyright infringment. Similarly, one may be able to argue copyright on the organization and presentation of information embedded in a URL . . . I'm not saying that one would win this case, but is arguable.
I use a v66 dumbphone. It makes phone calls It stores phone numbers. It does voice dialing But I haven't figured that part out yet.
There is tremendous artistic license in any film version of a book . . . there are just too many visuals that are assumed in the book that have to be specified in the film. And these include the look of the characters. One must use some level of artistic license to fill these gaps.
But since your argument seems to be based on semantics perhaps I should respond in kind. I quote a person that uses more artistic license than you in their definition of artistic license. They conclude that artistic license is:
In sum, artistic license is:
* A tool.
* Entirely at the the artist's discretion.
* To be tolerated by the viewer.
* Neither "good" nor "bad".
* Useful for filling in gaps, whether they be compositional or historical.
* Used consciously, unconsciously, or both, simultaneously.
* There for the taking, and not subject to yearly renewal, inspection, fees or a bad snapshot on an ID card.
This comment is useless without some sort of metric for comparison in other countries . . . how many people receive aid from the government in other countries? How many "fell out of the system" in other countries? How about presenting the data per capita. Without meaningful comparison, its hard to know whether the US is making significant progress or is doing well compared with the rest of the world.
Not to mention Russia's education system is far superior to the USA one in terms of catering to all, even though it's the most expensive in the world in terms of $/student:
Again, there isn't enough information here to draw any meanful conclusions . . . Basic literacy is only one measure of educational success . . . how many people receive basic college degrees and advanced degrees? How many people attend trade schools? And how many of these people are able to apply this in the world after getting their education? If few people can apply their knowledge then the educational system may be promoting literacy, but it may not be meeting the needs of the people and the society.
Make your own conclusions from that.
The key problem is that based on the sketchy data presented in the post, I can't draw any reasonable and logical conclusions except that I would need more information to draw rational conclusions . . .
The RS-68's on the Delta IV Heavy are the first new big rocket motor to be designed and built in the US in a long time (The space shuttle uses motors designed in the late sixties or very early seventies).
And for the record, I think a new rocket motor qualifies as sexy . . .
IANAL, but I thought that ideas were patented (such as an alogorithm, or 1 click shopping (groan), or a process to do something in a (supposedly) novel way). . . (I know, there are other things that can be patented but I don't think that software was one of them) Ideas that are implemented in software can be protected by patent so that another person cannot implement the same protected idea in another piece of software . . . but this protection of the idea, not the software.
Software is copyrighted in that the code itself is protected not the ideas. So one can write code to do the same thing but your code and my code can be filed under different copyrights and both be legal . . . so long as we don't copy one another's code even if the two piece of code perform equivalent tasks. In other words, two major encyclopedias or almanacs may be functionally equivalent, but they are not infringing upon one another from a copyright perspective unless one copied the other.
Considering the fact that the Dutch hold the EU presidency for the remainder of the year (to be replaced by Lux. next year), is there any evidence that the Lux. presidency will take a different approach? I haven't been following the more subtle aspects of this issue, but Lux. is part of the Benelux trio (Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg) that often ally themselves for leverage against some of the larger EU countries. Is it likely that Lux. will take a different stance on this issue or continue down the same path?
Do you have access to technology similar to that used by professional recording studios or hollywood production houses? I do not . . . so I cannot make a copy similar to the original because my tools are significantly inferior. A good example of this are the downloadable copies of films that were recorded in a movie theatre. The person that made the copy used somewhat similar technology in a somewhat controlled enviroment, but his copy was shite.
This is part of the incentive to buy the DVD . . . the DVD is a controlled copy with an acceptable standard of quality.
The buyer already owned a regular copy of the film. He bought this version because it had a HD format copy of the film in WMV9 format, but this version was DRM'ed.
If he DVD Shrink'ed the film, that would defeat the purpose of buying the better quality HD version.
If sales of the DRM versions of films stink, then the powers that be won't be able to implement them profitably. We need to make sure that the cost in lost sales due to DRM techniques pissing of the customer exceed the lost sales due to the media being copiable. Of course this is easier said than done, as there are millions of customers that need to be organized versus just a few production companies that can easily rally together, but it is the only way that production companies will get the message.
It's like DIVX (no, not the video compression, the now defunct DVD competitor that had embedded DRM), DIVX movies were cheaper than DVD's but they had a limited license that had to be renewed for multiple viewing (like pay per view). Customers rejected it and it (thankfully) died an ugly death.
Why do you condemn producers that cast black artists as pricipal actors in their films? Is that somehow morally wrong to you? Don't these producers have the artistic license and more improtantly the right to cast whoever they want without feeling repercussions from people like yourself that believe that skin color should be the major consideration in the casting process?
Perhaps a racist like yourself beleives that the film industry would be better off without great black actors like Morgan Freeman, Sidney Poiter, and the world renound voice of James Earl Jones.
And to clench this, you claim that posting your ignorant opinion is brave . . . it is brave, like not wearing your seatbelt is brave, like drinking and driving is brave, like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is brave. It may be brave, but it is also irrational, childish, unreflective of modern societal norms, and just plain stupid.
Microsoft also claimed that the district court erred when deciding that its alleged patent infringement extended to foreign sales. If the appeals court buys that line of thinking, Microsoft could see its damages drop to less than $200 million.
Anyone know why Microsoft would think that the suit should not extend to foreign sales? I didn't see the reasoning for this in the article . . .
Driver's Licenses were intended to be exactly that, a license or permit that demonstrates that one is legally permitted to drive. They happened to have a photo of the person on them . . . how this became an official government identification card was something of an accident. Private groups started using the driver's license as ID to cash checks becuase it provided some level of photo identification . . . but there was no common standard for confirming identity when applying for a license. Some states were very slack about this (For example, in Virginia until recently, one only needed a form from a lawyer asserting one's identity with no official documents whatsoever.)
It's good to see that states are recognizing that the driver's license is a de facto identification card in the US and they are taking counterfeiting seriously.
Thus if we are speaking about fair use and the copying of DVD's to the RAID
This bounded the scope of the statement to copying of DVD's to the aforementioned raid system . . . when you mentioned killing someone, you changed the scope of the argument . . . . But I will admit that I could have stated the bounds of the argument better . . .
No, not really . . . They are suing the guy that makes the server not the person that bought the server. . . . and I think its even a little deeper than that. The evil movie protection folks don't want the producer of a movie server setting a precendent that it's OK to make a permanent copy of the movie on another medium. . . This would open the door to other movie-server appliance type devices that might be cheaper than the movies themselves.
Personally, I don't agree with the control freak movie studio folks, but based on past behavior, its not hard to figure out their behavior pattern . . .
The term fair use is a legal term. If you have exercised fair use in your copying DVD's to your RAID, then by definition, you haven't broken any laws. However, if your copying is not a valid "fair use" per US CODE Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107 (If you're in the USA). Then by definition, you are breaking the law.
Thus if we are speaking about fair use and the copying of DVD's to the RAID, it is impossible to excercise fair use and break the law at the same time . . .
I guess Lucas is guilty of pirating his own films . . .
Kind of a weird interview that really doesn't say much about anything . . .
Hmm . . . sounds like more disinformation for me . . perhaps you beleive in censorship and other illiberal policies of the Chinese government.
From The Economist "The World in 2005" Which is available now in the US and most of the western world and eastern world (including Taiwan). The Economist is arguably the most well respected business news weekly in the world.
Page 86: Taiwan ranks 21 in the worldwide quality of life index. China ranks 60.
Page 82: In a world poll, people ranked "Political and Civil Liberty in Your Country" as the third most important thing for personal happiness. Only "Personal Health" and "Family Relations" ranked higher. I won't even bother to get into details of China's record on Civil Liberties compared with Taiwan. I think that the lack of free elections in China and the fact that you mocked the free elections in Taiwan speak for themself.
Page 36:Average Gross Wages China under US$200/month. Taiwan over US$1500/month.
Its quite clear to me which country has done the better job of taking care of its people. The success of China is limited to a small economic region. The overall population of China is still very very poor.
I don't know where you get your information from, but I would suggest searching out some unbiased sources for information when comparing China to Taiwan. I can only assume that growing up in China, your information may not be impartial . . .
Come on . . . that was taken out of context and you know it. The presidency of Taiwan was not what Jackie Chan was referring to. He was referring to the presidential election process during the last election. After the results were announced the losing major opposition party appealed to the Taiwanese Constitutional court to nullify the election because of alleged impropriety. I was in Taiwan during this time.
This is not that different from the Florida event in the US that happened during the 2000 presidential election (Which I will admit was quite a fiasco).
Please don't spread misinformation about the Taiwanese electoral process . . . its much much much more democratic than the mainland Chinese governmental process.