But most libraries do make photocopiers available to their patrons.
Of course they expect that you only copy as much as you're allowed under Fair Use.
It's really the same thing with P2P. The actual copy only happens when a downloader does indeed store the works on his own hard disk (rather than listening to it immediately, when it is streamed from the source, and not keep a copy).
I'd argue that it's broadcast even though each connection only goes to one user.
The thing here is that also the "uploader" made the files available, it's not he who decides whether an actual copy happens or not. He only set up his folder such that a third party might initiate a copy, if it so wishes.
But he did so in the clear intent and knowledge that the files get copied. I'm pretty sure there's a law against helping others with what you know is illegal.
It's not even a broadcast, as no data is transferred if nobody is interested in the works.
That would mean you could stream anything, no matter who owns it. Would mean Youtube could upload copies of all popular movies and not pay a cent for them, hell, you could even set up a warez distribution website and just blame it all on the users who should have known better than downloading what you offer. I really don't think that's how it works and I doubt the definition of broadcast requires that the broadcaster is unaware of the number of users listening.
I don't think that's the kind of making available the article is talking about. A library still only hands you a physical copy that was created by an authorized copier. What's being argued is whether it's illegal to make a file you aren't authorized to copy available for upload to a P2P application. AFAIK anything in a shared folder is considered public so I'd assume this would fall under either a public performance or a broadcast, both of which require authorization by the copyright holder.
The Telekom is a former monopoly and still subject to antitrust laws. As such they aren't allowed to refuse services to competitors that are willing to pay the fees.
Ask them where to draw the line. When is something a different species? When is something "macroevolution"? Perhaps illustrate it with a bunch of micro steps that sum up to what they consider a macro step.
Heaven is a concept to quiet the masses, to prevent them from asking themselves "what am I doing with my life?" and realizing that they will never find the happyness they aspire to if they continue to do labour for the rich just to stay alive. If they believe in Heaven they don't care that their entire life sucked, they get told that the more their life sucks the better it will be after they die. That prevents them from being willing to "get rich or die trying", i.e. fight for a better life at the risk of dying in the process (hey, that life sucked anyway!). The American Dream works in a similar way, people believe that just by working hard they have a chance to get a rich life themselves some day even though they see everyone else failing at that goal. Add to that all the fiction with its happy endings and morals about life being fair and the good always being rewarded and even without the concept of Heaven you can pacify a large population.
We should have an inalienable right to communicate as we wish, by whatever means we wish.
No because then you couldn't stop people e.g. using megaphones to talk with their friends three blocks down or burning loads of stuff to make smoke signal while covering the neighbourhood in smoke.
I'd prefer if browsers didn't allow access to focus() at all because I can't think of a good reason to use it vs. lots of bad ones. If I want to focus something I'll give it the focus myself.
You're going to invade anyway, whether you hit the facilities with a nuclear first strike or use infantry to take them. Just wrecking the facilities isn't guaranteed to have disabled their weapons production but it is guaranteed to tell them that if they want to use those weapons they have to do so now. In Iran's case that would mean you have to finish them before they complete enough nukes to hit Israel. Or you let them build up and let MAD handle the peacekeeping. Their rulers would like to see Israel gone but not at the cost of dying themselves.
I have yet to see a hypermarket with a games selection that can compete even with the most pathetic department stores. That alone prevents hypermarkets like Wal-Mart already from destroying other stores that sell games.
Employees can "borrow" a game for a few days, it still gets sold as new after that. The dimwits didn't even bother to wipe the save file (I got a GBA cart like that) and the idiot at the counter even said "look, still in it's original packaging" when a blind man with a crutch could tell that the game was rewrapped. The game worked fine but they're not making any friends like that.
I do pretty much the opposite, with Gamestop's small shelves for unused games and tendency to put games on shelves later than others I'd rather look into another store first, never mind that those tend to be cheaper and less annoying in general (Gamestop pricetags are placed conveniently so that you have to crouch to see them on the lower rows as the shelf will block your view of them, games tend to be unwrapped with the employees pulling the disc out of a drawer when you buy them, cramped stores and I still don't know whether you're supposed to take the game from the shelf to the counter or just tell the clerk what you want). It's pretty rare that Gamestop has something I want that I can't get elsewhere.
Of course, if you're looking for Izuna I'd recommend you buy a porn mag and pin that next to your screen while playing Nethack instead...
Thousands? I'd assume US forces are quite a bit better than Iranian forces when it comes to CQB, especially since they can safely assume that anyone who doesn't wear a US uniform is an enemy.
IP can be freely traded like other property so the rights term wouldn't really say as much although it is quite common to say "company X got the rights to Y" when referring to IP. However, IP is the standardized legal term and not as ambiguous as other terms.
Slashdot Mirror
But most libraries do make photocopiers available to their patrons.
Of course they expect that you only copy as much as you're allowed under Fair Use.
It's really the same thing with P2P. The actual copy only happens when a downloader does indeed store the works on his own hard disk (rather than listening to it immediately, when it is streamed from the source, and not keep a copy).
I'd argue that it's broadcast even though each connection only goes to one user.
The thing here is that also the "uploader" made the files available, it's not he who decides whether an actual copy happens or not. He only set up his folder such that a third party might initiate a copy, if it so wishes.
But he did so in the clear intent and knowledge that the files get copied. I'm pretty sure there's a law against helping others with what you know is illegal.
It's not even a broadcast, as no data is transferred if nobody is interested in the works.
That would mean you could stream anything, no matter who owns it. Would mean Youtube could upload copies of all popular movies and not pay a cent for them, hell, you could even set up a warez distribution website and just blame it all on the users who should have known better than downloading what you offer. I really don't think that's how it works and I doubt the definition of broadcast requires that the broadcaster is unaware of the number of users listening.
Hey Nintendo! Where are the damn games! I can't think of a SINGLE non-Nintendo game in all of 2007 that is worth buying.
Why are you blaming Nintendo for the quality of non-Nintendo games?
I don't think that's the kind of making available the article is talking about. A library still only hands you a physical copy that was created by an authorized copier. What's being argued is whether it's illegal to make a file you aren't authorized to copy available for upload to a P2P application. AFAIK anything in a shared folder is considered public so I'd assume this would fall under either a public performance or a broadcast, both of which require authorization by the copyright holder.
The Telekom is a former monopoly and still subject to antitrust laws. As such they aren't allowed to refuse services to competitors that are willing to pay the fees.
To be fair, they aren't expected to share those for free. Still it's not nice to pull a 180 like that on someone.
My cave runs Linux!
Depends on your definition of fun. To me fun and enjoyable mean the same thing, something I like to do.
What? I've seen Viva Pinata compared to Dungeon Keeper but Animal Crossing?
Great idea, could just as well disable the sound your cellphone makes when you get a message and ignore them.
Exactly how you could commit any significant sin whilst in there and at such an early stage of development was left as an exercise for the reader.
Oh, that's what we have crimethink for.
Ask them where to draw the line. When is something a different species? When is something "macroevolution"? Perhaps illustrate it with a bunch of micro steps that sum up to what they consider a macro step.
Heaven is a concept to quiet the masses, to prevent them from asking themselves "what am I doing with my life?" and realizing that they will never find the happyness they aspire to if they continue to do labour for the rich just to stay alive. If they believe in Heaven they don't care that their entire life sucked, they get told that the more their life sucks the better it will be after they die. That prevents them from being willing to "get rich or die trying", i.e. fight for a better life at the risk of dying in the process (hey, that life sucked anyway!). The American Dream works in a similar way, people believe that just by working hard they have a chance to get a rich life themselves some day even though they see everyone else failing at that goal. Add to that all the fiction with its happy endings and morals about life being fair and the good always being rewarded and even without the concept of Heaven you can pacify a large population.
We should have an inalienable right to communicate as we wish, by whatever means we wish.
No because then you couldn't stop people e.g. using megaphones to talk with their friends three blocks down or burning loads of stuff to make smoke signal while covering the neighbourhood in smoke.
Well, he IS an atheist and as such his belief is that theism is a mass delusion.
Probably because the comparison is stupid. We're talking about locking down the software, not limiting your hardware choice.
When I try that the input field that's supposed to contain the filename just collapses to a 2 pixel wide line and nothing else happens.
I'd prefer if browsers didn't allow access to focus() at all because I can't think of a good reason to use it vs. lots of bad ones. If I want to focus something I'll give it the focus myself.
That's because I tampered with the DNA evidence.
You're going to invade anyway, whether you hit the facilities with a nuclear first strike or use infantry to take them. Just wrecking the facilities isn't guaranteed to have disabled their weapons production but it is guaranteed to tell them that if they want to use those weapons they have to do so now. In Iran's case that would mean you have to finish them before they complete enough nukes to hit Israel. Or you let them build up and let MAD handle the peacekeeping. Their rulers would like to see Israel gone but not at the cost of dying themselves.
I have yet to see a hypermarket with a games selection that can compete even with the most pathetic department stores. That alone prevents hypermarkets like Wal-Mart already from destroying other stores that sell games.
Employees can "borrow" a game for a few days, it still gets sold as new after that. The dimwits didn't even bother to wipe the save file (I got a GBA cart like that) and the idiot at the counter even said "look, still in it's original packaging" when a blind man with a crutch could tell that the game was rewrapped. The game worked fine but they're not making any friends like that.
I do pretty much the opposite, with Gamestop's small shelves for unused games and tendency to put games on shelves later than others I'd rather look into another store first, never mind that those tend to be cheaper and less annoying in general (Gamestop pricetags are placed conveniently so that you have to crouch to see them on the lower rows as the shelf will block your view of them, games tend to be unwrapped with the employees pulling the disc out of a drawer when you buy them, cramped stores and I still don't know whether you're supposed to take the game from the shelf to the counter or just tell the clerk what you want). It's pretty rare that Gamestop has something I want that I can't get elsewhere.
Of course, if you're looking for Izuna I'd recommend you buy a porn mag and pin that next to your screen while playing Nethack instead...
Thousands? I'd assume US forces are quite a bit better than Iranian forces when it comes to CQB, especially since they can safely assume that anyone who doesn't wear a US uniform is an enemy.
IP can be freely traded like other property so the rights term wouldn't really say as much although it is quite common to say "company X got the rights to Y" when referring to IP. However, IP is the standardized legal term and not as ambiguous as other terms.
while introducing their own tri-axis sensor controller as the "Xmote" or something.
They'll call it Microsoft Sidewinder Freestyle Pro.