For one, copyright laws tend to have a special clause inside them for public libraries. This group hasn't been classified as a public library;) Another point is that libraries (as a rule) don't photocopy books and then give them away to people indefinitely. Instead they legally buy copies of a book, which they lend out for a finite period of time.
Will it automatically provide full text or scanned image files for works that have gone out of copyright?
If by "automatic" you mean after it's been scanned by someone, the images processed, placed onto the server and put into the system. Then yes, it will; automatically provide the scanned image files.
nd do the restrictions against scanning , storage or reproduction also lapse when copyright lapses?
Yes, because it becomes a public domain work. You can do anything (from publishing it unchanged, creating your own version of the tale, writing a sequel, etc) you want to it.
This would be massive.
Not as massive as you seem to think. Project Guttenberg (google it) has been doing this for quite some time now.
Lots of publishers just reissue old work with new copyrights attached to them.
I'm fairly certain that doing so doesn't mean that you have to respect that copyright. I know it's done, but I don't think that "Copyright 2005. All rights reserved" is legal, because they have no rights TO reserve. I believe that for the publisher to claim a new copyright on a public domain work. They have to make sufficient changes. I believe this can be done by having someone edit it (and edit it enough that it is classed to have enough original content to be a new work) which I believe is done on a fairly common basis.
For example I'm looking for Perry Rhodan (anything past #128) in English, which is out of print and maybe in old book stores or garage sales though I'm not in the U.S. now.
Then this project won't help you. From what I can see his work is still copyrighted. Web searching is fine but the most important part is to be able to get the works digitized. Then make freely available what is not in copyright, and make it easy to purchase what is.
Aaah, Internet Archive can't scan in books (even out of print books) and then sell them, if the book is still in copyright. There is no article (that I can see) to read, but I doubt they'll be scanning in copyrighted books (which I believe they can do technically) and then sitting on the scan until the copyright passes and then release it.
I bet you'll see publishers rushing towards that when they start seeing dollars rolling in.
Electronic books aren't anything new (which is what these are, in a way). They've been around for some time now, and the major publishers aren't jumping on it quite as much as you seem to think. It's still a niche, although it is steadily growing. But there hasn't been any major move to the format yet.
Maybe you mean to recopy the data every few years,
That is called periodic storage, and for anything you wish to preserve, it is necessary. You're argument is a bit weak, considering that any information in book or electronic format needs to be recopied periodically. Books need to be done so less then electronic copies, however electronic copies are cheaper and easier to store, which offsets the costs.
The OP wasn't saying to burn the paper books after their stored, merely to put them in electronic format ASAP because some of them might not be around for too long (funny how those books that are in danger of becoming extinct haven't been backed up in paper format, even though paper lasts for so long).
I'm pretty sure PG has no advertising, so there is no profit factor. And I'm fairly certain that someone could come along for PG and use the Internet Archive's images to convert into text.
Internet Archive doesn't have to specifically give them the images though.
Man, I thought it was for people that wanted to play fun games. Looks like I should tell all my 20+ friends to get rid of their kiddie toy along with me!
But that would require you to leave your parent's basement... oh wait. I forgot. You can probably Skype.. oh no. Does that have a Linux client? Well you can always msn the... oh yeah. Forgot. Linux. Well you can always e-mail them.
It all depends on what you want. Do you want the same old games we've been getting for years now, updated with flashy graphics? Or do you want a new gameplay experience with an innovative remote allowing for a unique experience?
If the control is used well, and not used as a gimmick, then I can see the Revolution being a hell of a lot better then PS3 and Xbox 360. But it has to be used to good effect. Of course, those that will lap up whatever "XXX 200X" gamecompanies spew out, will of course like their flashy graphics, because for them that's one of the few ways a game can improve in.
I'm just hoping the Revolution gets a good healthy library from a large range of developers, and isn't inundated with gimmicky games and Mario Bros XX.
Wait, you're saying ID is actually taught in Australian schools? Which ones? I finished school not that long ago, and never even heard of ID, and wasn't taught any origin story except evolution.
The lesson: don't be stupid about what you post on publicly viewable websites, such as blogs. You never know who's going to read it.</I><BR><BR> Actually, I believe the lesson is "before exercising your first ammendment right, consider whether or not any private institutions are going to use it to discriminate against you." <BR><BR> I personally find it sickening that the First Ammendment is viewed with such dismissal in America, but hey. It's your country, your constitution. Do whatever you want with it.
Got any links to rulings where the school has been allowed to expel someone for writing a school newspaper article that was criticle about a state school?
The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology
This is good. Evolution isn't dogma. It SHOULD be challenged. And the problems with it SHOULD be taught. If there is scientific evidence that the current theory on evolution has problems, this shouldn't be ignored in the classroom.
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
But they go one step too far. I wanted to make a post on how this was a good day for science and education. How the Kansas education board was looking forward, and not turning evolution into a dogma that mustn't be questioned. That it didn't matter who was the driving force behind this positive change. However they went too far when they redefined science. They've injected their religion into it. This isn't a good thing. It's a real shame, that they had to turn a positive thing, into such a negative thing.
People wonder why the world has difficulty taking America seriously anymore. The only thing that America can be taken seriously in, is their weapons. America's good at blowing things up (not so good at building things though). I hope y'all are proud (minus those who agree that this is a bad thing;)).
Actually, the term Production Prototype *usually* means the first version actually built by manufacturing
I didn't know that. But even so, it's 5 to 7 months before the production prototype is even built, and they're claiming it's ready to become commercially available NOW. It isn't ready to become commercially available now. It might be ready in 5 to 7 months, but that isn't now.
Ron Taylor of Cheyenne (windy) Wyoming is ready to take his vertical axis wind turbine into commercial production......Production prototype completion expected in 5-7 months.
Now being the old fuddy duddy I am (at the tender age of 21) I'm obviously using an old and outdated definition for "ready for commercial production." See, the definition I'm using is one where the prototyping stage is over, and these things are being made in some factory and are about to be sold to companies/people. Now obviously not being up-to-date with the latest definitions, I was quite excited when I read it was ready, only to have my hopes dashed by the end of the summary.
Why don't you call us old-timers when you actually have a commercial product?
NASA is setting up the ISS to fail. Watch, in a couple of years they'll announce that they will no longer provide funds to get it built, because it won't be serving any scientific purposes for them.
I don't blame NASA, with the Bush administration's promises (to get people onto the Moon and Mars) that NASA has to desperately keep, while in the same breath the administration announces NASA's funds being cut, they're desperate to do anything. This is because the Bush administration is setting NASA up to fail. I won't be surprised if in 15 years time, NASA simply won't exist anymore. I just hope that by that time, there isn't a need for it.
Whilever the American government's greed and paralyzing fear continues to determine it's policies concerning space, America will continue to fall behind other nations. America just better hope the private space industry takes off, with American corporations at the helm, because at the rate it's going, the government will be useless when it comes to space.
America isn't really the land of the free, because not anyone can vote in an election. To provide leadership, even America has to lock down it's election process. Not only do you have to be an American citizen to vote, you have to be over 18 and be registered with a particular party, and also provide your home of residence and keep it up to date.
They have to lock things down to provide value," Matusow said. "As open source becomes commercialized, it becomes less open."
Biased much? No, to provide value they don't need to lock things down (although last I heard DRM wasn't intalled on Linux distro's, you don't need a registration key to use a distro, you don't have to call up to register your installation. I'd hate to see what Matusow claims Windows is, if he believes Linux is locked down). To provide SUPPORT they need to lock it down. Linux has been able to offer value in it's distro's for years without locking it down. Although value is subjective, so I'm sure many MS cronies will disagree.
What TFA is saying (while being overly general) is that when you move outside of the box to an unsupported configuration, you lose support -- and if you want support, you'll pay through the nose for it.
It should be noted that by "unsupported configuration" the OP means "Grabbing the source code, making various changes, recompiling the code and installing it." He doesn't mean going into the menu and unticking a box.
Once you make a modification, your code base is no longer the "standard" distribution, be it RedHat, gentoo, or Slack. Therefore you really can't get support for it, free or otherwise
No of course you can't. That's like me saying "I created a program on my computer, can someone offer me support without seeing the code or knowing much about it?" However if you distribute your software, and it gains a wide customer base, then people will be able to offer support on it, and nothing stops you from offering your customers support for your derivative.
Try doing that with Windows and see how far you get.
the core of the OS in general doesn't need to be messed with, most tweaks and alterations do/should occur at the application level.
And open source IS open, because if someone were to make changes to the OS, if the changes were good enough and the people distributing it professional enough, it would gain widespread use, and the other Linux distro's would be welcome to come along, grab his changes, and implement it within their own distributions.
To me, the MS PR person seems to have created a straw-man more then anything. But then again, why is this a surprise? Microsoft appears to hate the GPL and Linux, because it see's them as a valid threat to their own virtual monopoly. Whenever a MS person speaks, be very careful. He might be speaking the truth, but the likelihood of a spin is great. You should also be careful whenever there's a Microsoft article on Slashdot, because while the summary might be saying the truth, the likelihood of a spin is great. In this case, the summary gave the impression the article was primarily about Open Source not being open, when in reality, it's about Microsoft's shared source license.
Actually, I'd be much happier with an ending that didn't involve a deus ex machina (it was IMO definitely artificial, yes good science, but bad literary device). Any other ending couldn't have been worse. Having the martians have factions, with a faction opposed to the war, and finally stopping the invasion. Having the machines use be extremely old and eventually fail. Hell, have the martians win.
No matter how you slice it, the ending sucks. It hears/reads/looks like the creator went "Well shit. The baddies are undefeatable, and humanity doesn't have a hope. But I have to finish this in 10minutes/pages, I know! I'll have all of the aliens suddenly die. Now what's a good reason, ooh! A virus. And it's scientific, so everyone will think I'm oh so clever."
Sure, it's scientifically plausible. But as a novel/play, it sucks. It sucks big time. Just because something is scientifically plausible, doesn't mean it's good. And it's the one consistent element in every incarnation of War of the Worlds. I thought Hollywood, being Hollywood, would change it. But they didn't. Typical.
Slashdot Mirror
For one, copyright laws tend to have a special clause inside them for public libraries. This group hasn't been classified as a public library ;) Another point is that libraries (as a rule) don't photocopy books and then give them away to people indefinitely. Instead they legally buy copies of a book, which they lend out for a finite period of time.
Will it automatically provide full text or scanned image files for works that have gone out of copyright?
If by "automatic" you mean after it's been scanned by someone, the images processed, placed onto the server and put into the system. Then yes, it will; automatically provide the scanned image files.
nd do the restrictions against scanning , storage or reproduction also lapse when copyright lapses?
Yes, because it becomes a public domain work. You can do anything (from publishing it unchanged, creating your own version of the tale, writing a sequel, etc) you want to it.
This would be massive.
Not as massive as you seem to think. Project Guttenberg (google it) has been doing this for quite some time now.
Lots of publishers just reissue old work with new copyrights attached to them.
I'm fairly certain that doing so doesn't mean that you have to respect that copyright. I know it's done, but I don't think that "Copyright 2005. All rights reserved" is legal, because they have no rights TO reserve. I believe that for the publisher to claim a new copyright on a public domain work. They have to make sufficient changes. I believe this can be done by having someone edit it (and edit it enough that it is classed to have enough original content to be a new work) which I believe is done on a fairly common basis.
For example I'm looking for Perry Rhodan (anything past #128) in English, which is out of print and maybe in old book stores or garage sales though I'm not in the U.S. now.
Then this project won't help you. From what I can see his work is still copyrighted.
Web searching is fine but the most important part is to be able to get the works digitized. Then make freely available what is not in copyright, and make it easy to purchase what is.
Aaah, Internet Archive can't scan in books (even out of print books) and then sell them, if the book is still in copyright. There is no article (that I can see) to read, but I doubt they'll be scanning in copyrighted books (which I believe they can do technically) and then sitting on the scan until the copyright passes and then release it.
I bet you'll see publishers rushing towards that when they start seeing dollars rolling in.
Electronic books aren't anything new (which is what these are, in a way). They've been around for some time now, and the major publishers aren't jumping on it quite as much as you seem to think. It's still a niche, although it is steadily growing. But there hasn't been any major move to the format yet.
Maybe you mean to recopy the data every few years,
That is called periodic storage, and for anything you wish to preserve, it is necessary. You're argument is a bit weak, considering that any information in book or electronic format needs to be recopied periodically. Books need to be done so less then electronic copies, however electronic copies are cheaper and easier to store, which offsets the costs.
The OP wasn't saying to burn the paper books after their stored, merely to put them in electronic format ASAP because some of them might not be around for too long (funny how those books that are in danger of becoming extinct haven't been backed up in paper format, even though paper lasts for so long).
I'm pretty sure PG has no advertising, so there is no profit factor. And I'm fairly certain that someone could come along for PG and use the Internet Archive's images to convert into text.
Internet Archive doesn't have to specifically give them the images though.
Man, I thought it was for people that wanted to play fun games. Looks like I should tell all my 20+ friends to get rid of their kiddie toy along with me!
But that would require you to leave your parent's basement... oh wait. I forgot. You can probably Skype.. oh no. Does that have a Linux client? Well you can always msn the... oh yeah. Forgot. Linux. Well you can always e-mail them.
It all depends on what you want. Do you want the same old games we've been getting for years now, updated with flashy graphics? Or do you want a new gameplay experience with an innovative remote allowing for a unique experience?
If the control is used well, and not used as a gimmick, then I can see the Revolution being a hell of a lot better then PS3 and Xbox 360. But it has to be used to good effect. Of course, those that will lap up whatever "XXX 200X" gamecompanies spew out, will of course like their flashy graphics, because for them that's one of the few ways a game can improve in.
I'm just hoping the Revolution gets a good healthy library from a large range of developers, and isn't inundated with gimmicky games and Mario Bros XX.
Wow, that sucks. Big time.
Wait, you're saying ID is actually taught in Australian schools? Which ones? I finished school not that long ago, and never even heard of ID, and wasn't taught any origin story except evolution.
The lesson: don't be stupid about what you post on publicly viewable websites, such as blogs. You never know who's going to read it.</I><BR><BR>
Actually, I believe the lesson is "before exercising your first ammendment right, consider whether or not any private institutions are going to use it to discriminate against you."
<BR><BR>
I personally find it sickening that the First Ammendment is viewed with such dismissal in America, but hey. It's your country, your constitution. Do whatever you want with it.
Got any links to rulings where the school has been allowed to expel someone for writing a school newspaper article that was criticle about a state school?
The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology
;)).
This is good. Evolution isn't dogma. It SHOULD be challenged. And the problems with it SHOULD be taught. If there is scientific evidence that the current theory on evolution has problems, this shouldn't be ignored in the classroom.
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
But they go one step too far. I wanted to make a post on how this was a good day for science and education. How the Kansas education board was looking forward, and not turning evolution into a dogma that mustn't be questioned. That it didn't matter who was the driving force behind this positive change. However they went too far when they redefined science. They've injected their religion into it. This isn't a good thing. It's a real shame, that they had to turn a positive thing, into such a negative thing.
People wonder why the world has difficulty taking America seriously anymore. The only thing that America can be taken seriously in, is their weapons. America's good at blowing things up (not so good at building things though). I hope y'all are proud (minus those who agree that this is a bad thing
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea how those people became Foed. It was rather disturbing actually.
Actually, the term Production Prototype *usually* means the first version actually built by manufacturing
I didn't know that. But even so, it's 5 to 7 months before the production prototype is even built, and they're claiming it's ready to become commercially available NOW. It isn't ready to become commercially available now. It might be ready in 5 to 7 months, but that isn't now.
That was my beef
Congratulations, I had no idea how to foe people. But I learnt just so I could foe you. Now I won't need to ever read your racist drivel.
Ron Taylor of Cheyenne (windy) Wyoming is ready to take his vertical axis wind turbine into commercial production......Production prototype completion expected in 5-7 months.
Now being the old fuddy duddy I am (at the tender age of 21) I'm obviously using an old and outdated definition for "ready for commercial production." See, the definition I'm using is one where the prototyping stage is over, and these things are being made in some factory and are about to be sold to companies/people. Now obviously not being up-to-date with the latest definitions, I was quite excited when I read it was ready, only to have my hopes dashed by the end of the summary.
Why don't you call us old-timers when you actually have a commercial product?
NASA is setting up the ISS to fail. Watch, in a couple of years they'll announce that they will no longer provide funds to get it built, because it won't be serving any scientific purposes for them.
I don't blame NASA, with the Bush administration's promises (to get people onto the Moon and Mars) that NASA has to desperately keep, while in the same breath the administration announces NASA's funds being cut, they're desperate to do anything. This is because the Bush administration is setting NASA up to fail. I won't be surprised if in 15 years time, NASA simply won't exist anymore. I just hope that by that time, there isn't a need for it.
Whilever the American government's greed and paralyzing fear continues to determine it's policies concerning space, America will continue to fall behind other nations. America just better hope the private space industry takes off, with American corporations at the helm, because at the rate it's going, the government will be useless when it comes to space.
America isn't really the land of the free, because not anyone can vote in an election. To provide leadership, even America has to lock down it's election process. Not only do you have to be an American citizen to vote, you have to be over 18 and be registered with a particular party, and also provide your home of residence and keep it up to date.
NOTE: This was intended as satire.
They have to lock things down to provide value," Matusow said. "As open source becomes commercialized, it becomes less open."
Biased much? No, to provide value they don't need to lock things down (although last I heard DRM wasn't intalled on Linux distro's, you don't need a registration key to use a distro, you don't have to call up to register your installation. I'd hate to see what Matusow claims Windows is, if he believes Linux is locked down). To provide SUPPORT they need to lock it down. Linux has been able to offer value in it's distro's for years without locking it down. Although value is subjective, so I'm sure many MS cronies will disagree.
What TFA is saying (while being overly general) is that when you move outside of the box to an unsupported configuration, you lose support -- and if you want support, you'll pay through the nose for it.
It should be noted that by "unsupported configuration" the OP means "Grabbing the source code, making various changes, recompiling the code and installing it." He doesn't mean going into the menu and unticking a box.
Once you make a modification, your code base is no longer the "standard" distribution, be it RedHat, gentoo, or Slack. Therefore you really can't get support for it, free or otherwise
No of course you can't. That's like me saying "I created a program on my computer, can someone offer me support without seeing the code or knowing much about it?" However if you distribute your software, and it gains a wide customer base, then people will be able to offer support on it, and nothing stops you from offering your customers support for your derivative.
Try doing that with Windows and see how far you get.
the core of the OS in general doesn't need to be messed with, most tweaks and alterations do/should occur at the application level.
And open source IS open, because if someone were to make changes to the OS, if the changes were good enough and the people distributing it professional enough, it would gain widespread use, and the other Linux distro's would be welcome to come along, grab his changes, and implement it within their own distributions.
To me, the MS PR person seems to have created a straw-man more then anything. But then again, why is this a surprise? Microsoft appears to hate the GPL and Linux, because it see's them as a valid threat to their own virtual monopoly. Whenever a MS person speaks, be very careful. He might be speaking the truth, but the likelihood of a spin is great. You should also be careful whenever there's a Microsoft article on Slashdot, because while the summary might be saying the truth, the likelihood of a spin is great. In this case, the summary gave the impression the article was primarily about Open Source not being open, when in reality, it's about Microsoft's shared source license.
No I'd say the people he sold the "deeds" to are lunatics. This guy appears to be one rich bastard.
Actually, I'd be much happier with an ending that didn't involve a deus ex machina (it was IMO definitely artificial, yes good science, but bad literary device). Any other ending couldn't have been worse. Having the martians have factions, with a faction opposed to the war, and finally stopping the invasion. Having the machines use be extremely old and eventually fail. Hell, have the martians win.
Any sources online for the original version? I'd be quite happy to read a good ending for once :D
Is there any way to surf at -1 and still filter out ACs? Cause I'm having a lot of trouble with it, and can't work out how to do it.
(MODS: Mod this down to -1 Offtopic)
No matter how you slice it, the ending sucks. It hears/reads/looks like the creator went "Well shit. The baddies are undefeatable, and humanity doesn't have a hope. But I have to finish this in 10minutes/pages, I know! I'll have all of the aliens suddenly die. Now what's a good reason, ooh! A virus. And it's scientific, so everyone will think I'm oh so clever."
Sure, it's scientifically plausible. But as a novel/play, it sucks. It sucks big time. Just because something is scientifically plausible, doesn't mean it's good. And it's the one consistent element in every incarnation of War of the Worlds. I thought Hollywood, being Hollywood, would change it. But they didn't. Typical.