Google came to a handful (like 5 or so) of libraries (major ones at that), with a plan to digitize out-of-copyright books and put their content on the internet.
If that was all that happened, nobody would be complaining. The problem is that it wasn't only out-of-copyright books, but every book in their collection, including those clearly in copyright. What's more, they require publishers who have issues with this copyright violation to opt out, and blanket opt-outs are not accepted - the publisher has to provide a list of EVERY book they publish to get each removed.
I think I understand the point behind REST (it follows the existing semantics of HTTP - GET means GET and POST means POST, and URLs are nouns, right?), but I do have a complaint: the return type for a given REST call varies from service to service; you need to write a parser to handle different kinds of XML coming from each REST API. In contrast, XML-RPC is dirt-simple for a developer: make a method call using syntax that resembles the programming language you're working in, and get back data in the appropriate type. All the hard stuff gets handled by the library.
Try NeoOffice. I normally complain about OO.o as much as the next guy. (I just switched away from Windows and Office 2003 this past October.) However, I've actually found myself very happy with NeoOffice's performance. The fact that the menus show up in the correct place is nice also:)
The Bible isn't a book of laws; it's a biography. Expecting it to cover every situation we encounter today is obviously not going to work - so much we take for granted in today's society was unfathomable in the first century. What we can do instead is try to understand God's example, apply it to our situation, and try to imitate him as best we can. A few years ago, everybody was wearing various kinds of clothing printed with "WWJD" - "What Would Jesus Do?" I think that phrase is a very succinct yet accurate statement of my faith.
I do listen to the voice in my head, once I read through relevant scriptures, and consider God's nature, to make sure I'm hearing accurately and truthfully. I make no apologies for this, and I'd like to think that despite all the mistakes I've made and continue to make, I'm still doing more good than harm in my lifetime.
Christianity is extremely appealing to me, because it's not a blind-faith religion. Christians think. Nobody in my church (and it's a large church) judges me for the conclusions I reach, and debate about the Bible and every other tenant of my faith is welcome and encouraged. One doesn't need to give up independence to be a Christian; in fact, I think that independence unifies us in the end.
What kind of idiot do you have to be to trust your business to a third party?
Sure, trusted computing is definitely not a good idea, but the conclusion you ultimately draw is just silly. The whole point of society is to simplify one's situation through dependence and trust on others. Every business runs on at least some degree of trust. Trust must be granted to suppliers, employees, credit card companies, banks, customers, and so forth. Regardless of stereotypes to the contrary, trust needs to be extended in today's society. Being alone won't cut it.
My initial interpretation to that was that all the other IPs were not Ms. Schwartz. Wouldn't this put even more doubt as to the credibility of the RIAA's supposed evidence?
I think you need to start reading from 18 USC 2319. When you do, ignore the first pair of links which read "506 (a)" because they go back to title 18, while the text seems to state that they should go to title 17.
Next, ignore 18 USC 2319 (b), because 17 USC 506 (a)(1) is talking about willful infringement "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain," which I think we can agree doesn't apply to P2P.
18 USC 2319 (c) is where things start to get tricky. That portion is stated out of order, but it seems to me that it says that if you copy or distribute over $1,000 worth of copies, you can go to jail for a year or more, depending on whether you reach a second $2,500 threshold and whether this is a repeat offense.
(a) Criminal Infringement.-- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully...(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000
P2P is clearly electronic distribution, and the recording industry could make the case that the "superservers" they're going after are distributing more than $1,000 worth of music. (That's roughly 67 CDs at $15 each. 14 tracks times 67 CDs is 938 total tracks. Notice also that it's "copies or phonorecords" - multiple copies of the same track count toward the $1,000.) I think one could make the argument that it's fairly easy for a P2P uploader to hit the criminal threshold.
I think the argument about seals is completely irrelevant, because that's the link I'm arguing is going to the wrong place and should be ignored. The text says it should go to title 17, but instead it goes to title 18.
I can also agree that none of this probably covers downloading, but that's not who the recording industry is going after. Their modus operandi is to connect to servers and sue people with tracks to download. I think the only reason we haven't seen criminal charges yet is that the evidence the RIAA has (going after the person paying the ISP bill instead of figuring out who the actual infringer is) wouldn't stand up to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement in a criminal trial.
In conclusion, I may have been a little sharp too, and I apologize. I think we both dislike the way the laws are taking us, even if we disagree on their exact meaning.
OK, smart ass. I didn't call you names. I'd appreciate if you'd extend me the same courtesy.
Name one case brought by the RIAA which has been a criminal prosecution. ALL of these cases are civil cases. Yes, all the cases brought so far have been civil cases, but that wasn't what was implied. The parent was arguing that stealing is criminal, while copyright infringement is not. That's not accurate. You can be tried both ways under the law. Besides, doesn't the government have to prosecute criminal complaints?
Trying to weasel around doesn't change that salient fact. The only weasels here are the MAFIAA. I'm merely stating facts, and just because a law makes something a crime doesn't mean I think it should be.
They have managed to get their sock puppets in Congress to pass all sorts of laws over the years and the day may come when it is a criminal violation to hum a tune without paying royalties but we aren't there yet Agreed.
There is a criminal statute having to do with infringement which is on a commercial scale (from what I've read, I have not bothered to look up the statute). How convenient for you! If you'll click the link in the post above yours, you'll find that I pointed you to the relevant statute.
This would be in the case of one company against another where large sums of money changes hands. I suppose that's true, if you consider $1,000 a "large sum of money." (Relatively speaking, it's not.) However, the law applies to people and not "companies," so individuals are just as vulnerable to prosecution.
The fact remains that stealing is a crime and copyright infringement is a civil matter. Pretending otherwise is either dishonest or stupid. Neither choice applies.
If you read 18 USC 2319 it refers to physical goods that have a counterfeit seal: That seems to be a bad link. The text says "506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17" but the link goes to title 18. The second link (which reads "section 506 (a)(1) of title 17") goes to title 17, as expected. I took the liberty of reporting the problem to the webmaster.
I understand, and I'd completely agree that the media industry has definitely been taking things overboard in all sorts of ways, and that church performances help them far more than they lose in revenue. However, I don't know if I'd go as far as not paying attention to all laws - see Romans 13:1-7, for example.
Anyway, for the reference of everybody, I did my own research and CCLI claims you need a separate license for performance of movies. The license costs $50-$600 annually depending on which studios you license and your church's attendance, and it seems to imply that you must play clips off the original media - no dubbing allowed, even for production purposes.
I suppose one should let the Holy Spirit and one's fear of Roman/corporate punishment determine how to proceed. Best of luck regardless of what path you take.
Are you familiar with the fair use/DMCA implications? An administration organization that deals with Christian music says public performance is exempt from copyright restrictions, but does that also apply to DVDs?
One act is covered by criminal law and the other by civil law. Can you guess which is which?
Incorrect. Copyright infringement is covered by criminal law. See 18 USC 2319. (And yes, I know that doesn't cover all acts of copyright infringement. IANAL, but I can read.)
Nobody was evil here. The guy's site got hacked and spam links added, Google rightfully de-listed him, and then the webmaster found the problem, fixed it, and asked Google to re-list. Am I missing something?
IANAL, but it may be legal. Here is the relevant portion of the California Penal Code (on citizen's arrests). However, please don't try this. It would be colossally stupid. The police have guns, and you don't. They also know the law better than you. Note that the way many California police departments apparently suggest handling citizen's arrests is to sign a card with the complaint, and then letting the officer do all the hard work.
Again, regardless of whether this actually ends up being legal or not, I would strongly recommend that you do not try to arrest the police. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
There are a sizable number of ATMs that run Windows now. Two ATM specialists claim that "most manufacturers stopped shipping new ATMs with OS/2 in early 2005." With both NCR and Diebold committing to Windows for ATMs, it won't be long before they become even more prevalent. Some banks are migrating completely to Windows-based ATMs simply for the advantage of having a flashy screen with movies and full color next to the old, boring (unreliable?) ATM owned by the competition.
OS/2 once was the undisputed king of ATMs, and regardless of my views on the subject, that's rapidly changing. I've used Windows ATMs about as often as OS/2 ATMs recently.
Wikipedia says that they sold 67,641,000 iPods and 1.5 billion songs as of fourth quarter 2006. At that rate, they've sold about 22 songs per iPod.
There have been 28 different models of iPod, excluding different colors. The mean capacity of the iPod given those models is just under 18.5 gigabytes. Apple's marketing materials consider 1 gigabyte to hold 250 songs; therefore, the "average" iPod holds 4,625 songs.
Sorry, but 22 songs per iPod just doesn't strike me as a runaway success. I'm proof that the DRM is hindering sales - if it wasn't there, I'd be spending about $10 per month on iTunes content instead of $0. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Otherwise, why would copyright law list the right "to reproduce" and the right "to distribute" separately? Additionally, according to the EFF, "it's not clear how a court would rule on private, noncommercial format-shifting by an individual consumer who owns the music in another format."
I know Microsoft's promises aren't worth much, but just for the record, they've said that they "will not use activation as a tool to force people to upgrade" their OS, and that they "will likely provide an update that turns activation off at the end of [Windows XP]'s lifecycle". See http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_faq.msp x.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I understand the point behind REST (it follows the existing semantics of HTTP - GET means GET and POST means POST, and URLs are nouns, right?), but I do have a complaint: the return type for a given REST call varies from service to service; you need to write a parser to handle different kinds of XML coming from each REST API. In contrast, XML-RPC is dirt-simple for a developer: make a method call using syntax that resembles the programming language you're working in, and get back data in the appropriate type. All the hard stuff gets handled by the library.
Anybody care to place a friendly wager that they're not going to honor robots.txt?
What you're describing sounds a lot like DocBook. I had difficulty getting the tool chain set up, though, so I have no practical experience using it.
Try NeoOffice. I normally complain about OO.o as much as the next guy. (I just switched away from Windows and Office 2003 this past October.) However, I've actually found myself very happy with NeoOffice's performance. The fact that the menus show up in the correct place is nice also :)
The Bible isn't a book of laws; it's a biography. Expecting it to cover every situation we encounter today is obviously not going to work - so much we take for granted in today's society was unfathomable in the first century. What we can do instead is try to understand God's example, apply it to our situation, and try to imitate him as best we can. A few years ago, everybody was wearing various kinds of clothing printed with "WWJD" - "What Would Jesus Do?" I think that phrase is a very succinct yet accurate statement of my faith.
I do listen to the voice in my head, once I read through relevant scriptures, and consider God's nature, to make sure I'm hearing accurately and truthfully. I make no apologies for this, and I'd like to think that despite all the mistakes I've made and continue to make, I'm still doing more good than harm in my lifetime.
Christianity is extremely appealing to me, because it's not a blind-faith religion. Christians think . Nobody in my church (and it's a large church) judges me for the conclusions I reach, and debate about the Bible and every other tenant of my faith is welcome and encouraged. One doesn't need to give up independence to be a Christian; in fact, I think that independence unifies us in the end.
I wonder who's going to be driving the other cars? In the previous races, the robots were traveling through a closed course with no traffic.
My initial interpretation to that was that all the other IPs were not Ms. Schwartz. Wouldn't this put even more doubt as to the credibility of the RIAA's supposed evidence?
Are they real this time?
Next, ignore 18 USC 2319 (b), because 17 USC 506 (a)(1) is talking about willful infringement "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain," which I think we can agree doesn't apply to P2P.
18 USC 2319 (c) is where things start to get tricky. That portion is stated out of order, but it seems to me that it says that if you copy or distribute over $1,000 worth of copies, you can go to jail for a year or more, depending on whether you reach a second $2,500 threshold and whether this is a repeat offense.
Here's what 17 USC 506 (a)(2) reads:
P2P is clearly electronic distribution, and the recording industry could make the case that the "superservers" they're going after are distributing more than $1,000 worth of music. (That's roughly 67 CDs at $15 each. 14 tracks times 67 CDs is 938 total tracks. Notice also that it's "copies or phonorecords" - multiple copies of the same track count toward the $1,000.) I think one could make the argument that it's fairly easy for a P2P uploader to hit the criminal threshold.
I think the argument about seals is completely irrelevant, because that's the link I'm arguing is going to the wrong place and should be ignored. The text says it should go to title 17, but instead it goes to title 18.
I can also agree that none of this probably covers downloading, but that's not who the recording industry is going after. Their modus operandi is to connect to servers and sue people with tracks to download. I think the only reason we haven't seen criminal charges yet is that the evidence the RIAA has (going after the person paying the ISP bill instead of figuring out who the actual infringer is) wouldn't stand up to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement in a criminal trial.
In conclusion, I may have been a little sharp too, and I apologize. I think we both dislike the way the laws are taking us, even if we disagree on their exact meaning.
OK, smart ass.
I didn't call you names. I'd appreciate if you'd extend me the same courtesy.
Name one case brought by the RIAA which has been a criminal prosecution. ALL of these cases are civil cases.
Yes, all the cases brought so far have been civil cases, but that wasn't what was implied. The parent was arguing that stealing is criminal, while copyright infringement is not. That's not accurate. You can be tried both ways under the law. Besides, doesn't the government have to prosecute criminal complaints?
Trying to weasel around doesn't change that salient fact.
The only weasels here are the MAFIAA. I'm merely stating facts, and just because a law makes something a crime doesn't mean I think it should be.
They have managed to get their sock puppets in Congress to pass all sorts of laws over the years and the day may come when it is a criminal violation to hum a tune without paying royalties but we aren't there yet
Agreed.
There is a criminal statute having to do with infringement which is on a commercial scale (from what I've read, I have not bothered to look up the statute).
How convenient for you! If you'll click the link in the post above yours, you'll find that I pointed you to the relevant statute.
This would be in the case of one company against another where large sums of money changes hands.
I suppose that's true, if you consider $1,000 a "large sum of money." (Relatively speaking, it's not.) However, the law applies to people and not "companies," so individuals are just as vulnerable to prosecution.
The fact remains that stealing is a crime and copyright infringement is a civil matter. Pretending otherwise is either dishonest or stupid.
Neither choice applies.
If you read 18 USC 2319 it refers to physical goods that have a counterfeit seal:
That seems to be a bad link. The text says "506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17" but the link goes to title 18. The second link (which reads "section 506 (a)(1) of title 17") goes to title 17, as expected. I took the liberty of reporting the problem to the webmaster.
You're firing blanks.
If you say so.
I understand, and I'd completely agree that the media industry has definitely been taking things overboard in all sorts of ways, and that church performances help them far more than they lose in revenue. However, I don't know if I'd go as far as not paying attention to all laws - see Romans 13:1-7, for example.
Anyway, for the reference of everybody, I did my own research and CCLI claims you need a separate license for performance of movies. The license costs $50-$600 annually depending on which studios you license and your church's attendance, and it seems to imply that you must play clips off the original media - no dubbing allowed, even for production purposes.
I suppose one should let the Holy Spirit and one's fear of Roman/corporate punishment determine how to proceed. Best of luck regardless of what path you take.
Are you familiar with the fair use/DMCA implications? An administration organization that deals with Christian music says public performance is exempt from copyright restrictions, but does that also apply to DVDs?
Nobody was evil here. The guy's site got hacked and spam links added, Google rightfully de-listed him, and then the webmaster found the problem, fixed it, and asked Google to re-list. Am I missing something?
That's not what Coward said. S/he said licenses are not valid unless signed by both parties.
IANAL, but it may be legal. Here is the relevant portion of the California Penal Code (on citizen's arrests). However, please don't try this. It would be colossally stupid. The police have guns, and you don't. They also know the law better than you. Note that the way many California police departments apparently suggest handling citizen's arrests is to sign a card with the complaint, and then letting the officer do all the hard work.
Again, regardless of whether this actually ends up being legal or not, I would strongly recommend that you do not try to arrest the police. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
There are a sizable number of ATMs that run Windows now. Two ATM specialists claim that "most manufacturers stopped shipping new ATMs with OS/2 in early 2005." With both NCR and Diebold committing to Windows for ATMs, it won't be long before they become even more prevalent. Some banks are migrating completely to Windows-based ATMs simply for the advantage of having a flashy screen with movies and full color next to the old, boring (unreliable?) ATM owned by the competition.
OS/2 once was the undisputed king of ATMs, and regardless of my views on the subject, that's rapidly changing. I've used Windows ATMs about as often as OS/2 ATMs recently.
Some of us think OS/2 is still pretty decent, at least given its age. :-) :)
I'm glad it's working out for both of you.
I wish I was a subscriber. This is by far the most blatant slashvertisment I've ever seen. It should be tagged as such.
Wikipedia says that they sold 67,641,000 iPods and 1.5 billion songs as of fourth quarter 2006. At that rate, they've sold about 22 songs per iPod.
There have been 28 different models of iPod, excluding different colors. The mean capacity of the iPod given those models is just under 18.5 gigabytes. Apple's marketing materials consider 1 gigabyte to hold 250 songs; therefore, the "average" iPod holds 4,625 songs.
Sorry, but 22 songs per iPod just doesn't strike me as a runaway success. I'm proof that the DRM is hindering sales - if it wasn't there, I'd be spending about $10 per month on iTunes content instead of $0. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Otherwise, why would copyright law list the right "to reproduce" and the right "to distribute" separately? Additionally, according to the EFF, "it's not clear how a court would rule on private, noncommercial format-shifting by an individual consumer who owns the music in another format."
I know Microsoft's promises aren't worth much, but just for the record, they've said that they "will not use activation as a tool to force people to upgrade" their OS, and that they "will likely provide an update that turns activation off at the end of [Windows XP]'s lifecycle". See http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_faq.msp x.