If that choice you want to make involves taking away the freedom of other people, then the answer to your question would be absolutely and 100% YES. The stipulation that comes with using copylefted free software is that you must pass ALL of the freedoms you have with the software on to everyone else. You may not turn a copylefted free program released under the GPL into a proprietary program. Plain and simple. What is so difficult to understand about this?
Personally, I have a pet peeve when the people who run Slashdot allow off-topic articles just because the topics of these articles are “hot”.
Slashdot is (or at least was) a Web site for geeks who like “open source”. Otherwise, Slashdot wouldn't be part of the Open Source Technology Group and wouldn't have such a strong focus on technology.
In the end, Slashdot isn't a geek news site. Slashdot is an advertisement delivery vehicle, and Slashdot's owners only care about what will attract the most people in order to deliver the most advertisements. In other words, if it'll get higher ratings, it gets posted. This is why I prefer sites like digg, del.icio.us, newsvine, Indymedia, etc. They are purely democratic. I only come to Slashdot to read the +5, Funnys.
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
The word "free" has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of "free software", we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of "free speech", not "free beer".) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.
Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from different places. The program is free regardless of the price, because users have freedom in using it.
[...]
Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.
Good examples of LGPL projects are the FFMPEG library, which the LGPL ensures it can be used for both commercial and non-commercial projects.
I assume you're attempting to make a comparison between the LGPL and the GPL, since this is an article about the GPL. The GPL would accomplish the same thing. As has been voiced elsewhere in this article's comments, the GPL is a commercial license. There is nothing in the GPL that states GPL-licensed software may only be used for non-commercial purposes. If the GPL didn't allow commercial applications of the software it covers, then you wouldn't be able to buy boxed copies of popular GNU+Linux distributions at your local computer retailer.
Re:"consumer products" only
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
As a free software advocate (some may say zealot), this is where I cannot support the actions of the FSF. This exception is extremely hypocritical. Part of the GPL spirit has been freedom for everyone, regardless of tax status. I agree with the root comment, only it's not just RMS who is thinking this way, as RMS isn't the sole author of GPLv3. The FSF officially stating that Tivoization is okay in any circumstance does not set a good example. They might as well be saying, "Yeah, we love freedom, but only most of the time."
Regardless of how you look at it, Tivoization turns free software into proprietary software. The FSF is blessing this. What happened to the Four Freedoms?
Quotes from two prominent FSF essays (emphasis mine):
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.
...
The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity.
...
Free software is about freedom, and enforcing the GPL is defending freedom. When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.
My question for the people at the FSF who've made the decision to allow the tivoisaztion exception: What happened?
What about the ability to directly add Samba shares to Amarok's Collection? Requiring root access to mount a Samba share in order to play music from it is ri-goddamn-diculous. So, while Amarok may be pretty to look at, it's completely useless for me. This is why I currently use either Rhythmbox or XMMS2. Neither has a problem with having a Samba share as my media library location, and they don't require me to mount it first.
Not always with open source drivers, but it will be able to be Linux-compatible.
While the Dell/Ubuntu deal is definitely a major victory in the name of “Linux” and Open Source, the inclusion of proprietary drivers will still prevent many people who value freedom--including me--from purchasing one of these machines. I run gNewSense, which is a distribution of GNU+Linux based on Ubuntu, minus the proprietary components (drivers, firmware, etc.) When I can purchase a machine that doesn't force me to use proprietary software in order to use any piece of its hardware, then I'll make a purchase. Until then, as some may say, “Close, but no cigar.”
For device types where a choice exists between a component with a non-Free driver and one with Free driver availability, in our Linux offering we'll opt to bundle the component with the Free driver. Wireless network adapters is one such example; Printers are another. We recommend Linux users buy our printers which have PostScript engines in them, as opposed to those which don't and for which no Linux drivers are yet available. The Tech Specs tab for each printer on dell.com show if it has PostScript or not.
Some components, particularly some video cards, have working 2-D open source drivers, open source 3-D drivers actively being clean-room written by the community, and closed-source 3-D drivers available from the video card manufacturer. In these instances, while we continue to encourage the development (by all parties) towards open source drivers, we will provide the closed-source drivers for people who wish to use them.
The last category is devices for which no open source drivers are available at all, such as software-based modems. In our desktops these are add-in cards, so you can substitute a hardware-based modem available from your local electronics store quite easliy. However, we can't substitute hardware-based modems in our notebooks without redesigning and significantly increasing the price of the system. If it's important to you to have a hardware-based modem, you would add one into your PC Card or ExpressCard slot.
My bone of contention comes from several decisions Dell has made:
Opting to go with ATI and NVIDIA instead of Intel for 3D graphics.
Using softmodems that don't have free drivers in these machines. There are softmodems available that have free drivers. For the desktops, hardware modems could've been used “out of the box”. Dell still chose the proprietary softmodem route across the board. While it is true that I could purchase one of their desktops and replace the modem, I would still be giving my money to the manufacturer of the proprietary hardware. I simply won't do that.
On the bright side, however, Dell did state the following directly after explaining the three “categories” of drivers (emphasis mine):
Dell recognizes the importance of open source, GPL-licensed drivers which are maintained upstream in kernel.org. They allow users the widest choice of Linux distributions, effectively taking the specific hardware and distribution out of the decision-making process and let you focus on solving your business problems. We will work with our hardware partners to develop, test, and maintain Free drivers, and continue to make progress towards that goal for all drivers. Most drivers are in good shape now, but there's clearly longer-term work to be done. Work that we're doing now at the driver level will pave the way for more Linux offerings in the future. There's no way to please everyone, but I'll continue to shar
I was working something like this out in my head about a week ago on my daily trip into Boston, only my idea involved a peer-to-peer WiFi network. Each unit would broadcast things such as level of speed (stopped, slow, moderate, fast) and information such as if the airbag's been deployed or if a sudden change in speed (say 60 to 0 in a second or so). If every car on the road had one of these units, up-to-the-second notification of an accident ahead would be possible for miles. The units would be able to suggest optimal speeds and voluntary lane closures to reduce the impact of an accident. They would also help reduce that caterpillar effect present in bumper-to-bumper traffic by suggesting an average speed instead of "speed up really fast, then slow down really fast, repeat". They could do this efficiently, because they'd be rougly aware of the average speeds of all the vehicles around them. Even if every car didn't have one of these units, the unit in any given car could still calculate trends. If the unit is installed in a car that has those nifty distance sensors in the bumpers, all the better.
The nice thing about a peer-to-peer system would be things like automatic map updates. If a road is closed for construction, for example, a central source could update this map and sign it with their private GPG key. As long as the matching public key were installed on every unit when shipped, then each unit could act as a map distributor. Think BitTorrent, only more secure.
All of the software would be free software (e.g.: GNU GPL). The main operational softare would have an orthogonal plug-in system built into it, so independent developers could extend the functionality of the unit. The possibilities would be endless. For example, because these units would communicate using radio waves, you could use it--coupled with a microphone--to chat with drivers around you, provided they had their chat modules turned on, too. Another thing: the units could have built-in radar detectors (that could be enabled or disabled). Not only would they alert you of a speed trap, because they'd also be GPS units, they would “remember” typical speed trap spots for you.
I think you're missing the point. By entering a patent deal with Microsoft, that set a precedent that Microsoft wouldn't sue people who got their distribution of GNU/Linux using these coupons. That consequently means that Microsoft may sue people who didn't get their distribution this way. This, in turn, gives certain distributions a status of supposed legitimacy over others.
On top of that, and most importantly, GNU/Linux distributions are free software. One of the freedoms that makes this software free is the freedom of redistribution. According to the GNU General Public License, I am free to redistribute SuSE without limit and without anyone's explicit permission. The Microsoft deal restricts this freedom.
There are legal and ethical issues with supplying proprietary technologies in a free (as in freedom) operating system. Proprietary (non-free) software cannot be supplied in a free operating system, otherwise the operating system as a whole is no longer free. It shouldn't matter if supplying the proprietary software would help people maintain their status quo. The goal behind free software is freedom, and proprietary technologies inhibit freedom.
A homeless person freezing and starving in the winter could easily solve their problem of not having shelter or food by doing something to be imprisoned for some time. Why, then, don't we see more homeless people committing crimes and going to jail? Although jail would be an easy and convenient solution to the problem, it would come at the cost of freedom.
While the severity of proprietary technology distribution pales in comparison to that of a life-or-death scenario, the same fundamental principles remain. If anything, the act of tainting a free operating system with software that dilutes that freedom is what's defective.
Thank you. Really, I mean it. Isn't Slashdot supposed to be a member site of the Open Source Technology Group? What is it with all of this news about Microsoft?
(c) ANONYMOUS WORKS, PSEUDONYMOUS WORKS, AND WORKS MADE FOR HIRE.--In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. If, before the end of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection (a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose identity has been revealed. Any person having an interest in the copyright in an anonymous or pseudonymous work may at any time record, in records to be maintained by the Copyright Office for that purpose, a statement identifying one or more authors of the work; the statement shall also identify the person filing it, the nature of that person's interest, the source of the information recorded, and the particular work affected, and shall comply in form and content with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
This doesn't really take modern forms of distribution into account. Using the AC example, how could this be possible? Based on what I'm reading, an anonymous work would be in the public domain until the author claims the work. How would authorship be proven?
Hmm. You know what? I just realized something. Even though the tracks on the USB keys were distributed without stipulations, the files most likely were tagged with the author's name, so according to what I've read so far (far from an expert), NIN would legally hold the copyright. They weren't anonymous contributions. However this doesn't explain how the label can legally sue even though these tracks hadn't been released through the label yet. The band holds the copyright, and they were obviously (at least, it's obvious to me) intending for the tracks to be widely distributed, otherwise they would've used some other distribution medium, or they would'nt have distributed/leaked the tracks in the first place.
This would be like a label going after fans who independently host The Smashing Pumpkins' "Machina II", despite the band independently releasing and distributing the whole album at no cost via the Web. It just wouldn't hold ground. Why should this case with the NIN tracks?
Now, if someone decided to sell the tracks, that's an entirely different matter, although it would be up to the band to sue, not the RIAA (unless the band asked the RIAA to sue on their behalf).
Don't mind me. I'm more or less just thinking out loud. Feel free to rebut, explain, etc., though.
A public domain license does just that. A work without a license is off limits. You can't redistribute it.
Maybe I'm just misinformed, then. I was of the understanding that distributing your work out to the public without attribution or a set of "here's what you can do with this work" rules would place your work in the public domain. Sort of like if an Anonymous Coward answered someone's question on Ask Slashdot with code and didn't specify that the code may not actually be used for anything. Is there documentation somewhere that states otherwise? I'm looking, but I'm not able to find anything.
First off, donating money to a worthy cause doesn't automatically mean I have to be an expert in every field in which that particular organization is active. I think they fight a good fight, and I support them. I hardly think that making others aware of my support suddenly means I must be assimilated, so you need to back off.
Second, you can't tell me that if an Anonymous Coward posts their own solution to a complex problem as a comment on/. without attribution, then it wouldn't be public domain code. The very act of distributing the code without claim of authorship would, as far as I know, essentially create a public domain license. You hosting code on your Web site is different in that people are entering your domain to get the code. They know you're the author and they know who to contact to get permission to redistribute your code. If you, on the other hand, printed your copyrightless, authorless source code up as flyers and posted it all over your city square, you'd have a hard time defending your intellectual property rights over it when someone then decided to go a step further by photocopying it and further distributing it throughout all of your neighboring cities' squares. If you can honestly prove otherwise, I'd like to see a rebuttal, and will readily admit that I am wrong.
I don't use Outlook, but if search folders are what they sound like they are, then creating a filter in Gmail that automatically labels/tags a mail seems like it would do something similar (if not the same) as what the term “search folder” implies to me.
If/. geeks are getting this confused, I can see how the average banking customer would be misled. How about a.bank,.money, or.finance TLD? We already have.travel and.mobi.
IMHO, there should be a much more defined domain hierarchy, like the way dmoz is structured.
I still don't know anybody who has an HDTV. I doubt I'll be making the upgrade anytime soon. I saw an HDTV set in a Best Buy once, sitting next to a standard LCD TV, and I just didn't see much of a difference. Definitely not enough to warrant that much of a price difference.
Even if I ever did get an HDTV and an HD media player (e.g.: HD-DVD), I wouldn't re-buy all of the movies I already have. My DVDs are more than enough. Suggesting that I buy the same thing all over again is akin to suggesting that I give my paycheck away to that disabled veteran single parent panhandler begging weekends in the middle of the sidewalk, despite knowing that he has no kids, was a draft-dodger in his youth, and has a $60K salary during the week in construction. It just ain't happenin'. Know what I'm sayin'?
The big difference is that the book contains copyright notices in it. AFAIK, there was no such copyright notice on on the USB drive or as a disclaimer recorded in the beginning or end of the track(s).
If I give you the source code of a program I write, and that source code is not accompanied by a copyright notice or a license, that would essentially put that source code in the public domain. I would be distributing the source code to which I hold the copyright (NIN distributed the keys with their own songs on them) without any mention of what may or may not be done with the code.
Here's a question for those more in the know: Were these songs distributed via the USB keys before or after they were released on an RIAA label? My guess would be before, which would have placed them in the public domain before the RIAA held any supposed rights to them.
I can back this up. I've never heard of Serenity or Firefly, either. When I think of “Firefly”, I think of that cute little cell phone for kids. There was a Firefly sci-fi series? I had to Google for "firefly" to find out what it was even about, and I did come across a SCIFI channel page for the series, but I've not once ever seen it play on SCIFI. Of course, things could be different now and I just might be unaware of it. I don't watch much TV other than the occasional news channel lately.
. . .
Actually, now that I've skimmed the Wikipedia article on the series, I do remember hearing about it once. There were a couple reasons I didn't watch it:
The one commercial I remember seeing for the series was hyping up that it was from the producer of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. This Buffy/Angel hype led me to believe Firefly was a Drama series mixed with Sci-Fi elements.
I don't watch FOX. It's banned from my channel listing.
Slashdot Mirror
-1, Troll, eh?
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Right. I don't understand it when people refer to Macs and PCs, as if Macs are somehow not PCs. Anyone?
Personally, I have a pet peeve when the people who run Slashdot allow off-topic articles just because the topics of these articles are “hot”.
Slashdot is (or at least was) a Web site for geeks who like “open source”. Otherwise, Slashdot wouldn't be part of the Open Source Technology Group and wouldn't have such a strong focus on technology.
In the end, Slashdot isn't a geek news site. Slashdot is an advertisement delivery vehicle, and Slashdot's owners only care about what will attract the most people in order to deliver the most advertisements. In other words, if it'll get higher ratings, it gets posted. This is why I prefer sites like digg, del.icio.us, newsvine, Indymedia, etc. They are purely democratic. I only come to Slashdot to read the +5, Funnys.
See also the FSF/GNU essay titled Selling Free Software. An excerpt of it follows:
Regardless of how you look at it, Tivoization turns free software into proprietary software. The FSF is blessing this. What happened to the Four Freedoms?
Quotes from two prominent FSF essays (emphasis mine):My question for the people at the FSF who've made the decision to allow the tivoisaztion exception: What happened?
I'm guessing “obligatory”.
What about the ability to directly add Samba shares to Amarok's Collection? Requiring root access to mount a Samba share in order to play music from it is ri-goddamn-diculous. So, while Amarok may be pretty to look at, it's completely useless for me. This is why I currently use either Rhythmbox or XMMS2. Neither has a problem with having a Samba share as my media library location, and they don't require me to mount it first.
(No, the Samba share is not on a Windows machine. It's on a Maxtor Shared Storage drive.)
While the Dell/Ubuntu deal is definitely a major victory in the name of “Linux” and Open Source, the inclusion of proprietary drivers will still prevent many people who value freedom--including me--from purchasing one of these machines. I run gNewSense, which is a distribution of GNU+Linux based on Ubuntu, minus the proprietary components (drivers, firmware, etc.) When I can purchase a machine that doesn't force me to use proprietary software in order to use any piece of its hardware, then I'll make a purchase. Until then, as some may say, “Close, but no cigar.”
From yesterday's direct2dell blog post on the topic:
My bone of contention comes from several decisions Dell has made:
On the bright side, however, Dell did state the following directly after explaining the three “categories” of drivers (emphasis mine):
Wow. Great minds think alike: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=236065&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=19266935#192678 43 (I didn't see your comment when I made mine because it was initially below my threshold.)
Want to help me develop this? More importantly, know of any generous venture capitalists?
I was working something like this out in my head about a week ago on my daily trip into Boston, only my idea involved a peer-to-peer WiFi network. Each unit would broadcast things such as level of speed (stopped, slow, moderate, fast) and information such as if the airbag's been deployed or if a sudden change in speed (say 60 to 0 in a second or so). If every car on the road had one of these units, up-to-the-second notification of an accident ahead would be possible for miles. The units would be able to suggest optimal speeds and voluntary lane closures to reduce the impact of an accident. They would also help reduce that caterpillar effect present in bumper-to-bumper traffic by suggesting an average speed instead of "speed up really fast, then slow down really fast, repeat". They could do this efficiently, because they'd be rougly aware of the average speeds of all the vehicles around them. Even if every car didn't have one of these units, the unit in any given car could still calculate trends. If the unit is installed in a car that has those nifty distance sensors in the bumpers, all the better.
The nice thing about a peer-to-peer system would be things like automatic map updates. If a road is closed for construction, for example, a central source could update this map and sign it with their private GPG key. As long as the matching public key were installed on every unit when shipped, then each unit could act as a map distributor. Think BitTorrent, only more secure.
All of the software would be free software (e.g.: GNU GPL). The main operational softare would have an orthogonal plug-in system built into it, so independent developers could extend the functionality of the unit. The possibilities would be endless. For example, because these units would communicate using radio waves, you could use it--coupled with a microphone--to chat with drivers around you, provided they had their chat modules turned on, too. Another thing: the units could have built-in radar detectors (that could be enabled or disabled). Not only would they alert you of a speed trap, because they'd also be GPS units, they would “remember” typical speed trap spots for you.
Etc., etc..
I disagree. I think we have every right to complain about a broken patent system that is being used to take away our “digital” rights and freedoms.
Are you suggesting that freedom isn't a worthy goal, or that it's somehow impractical?
I think you're missing the point. By entering a patent deal with Microsoft, that set a precedent that Microsoft wouldn't sue people who got their distribution of GNU/Linux using these coupons. That consequently means that Microsoft may sue people who didn't get their distribution this way. This, in turn, gives certain distributions a status of supposed legitimacy over others.
On top of that, and most importantly, GNU/Linux distributions are free software. One of the freedoms that makes this software free is the freedom of redistribution. According to the GNU General Public License, I am free to redistribute SuSE without limit and without anyone's explicit permission. The Microsoft deal restricts this freedom.
You call this a favor?
There are legal and ethical issues with supplying proprietary technologies in a free (as in freedom) operating system. Proprietary (non-free) software cannot be supplied in a free operating system, otherwise the operating system as a whole is no longer free. It shouldn't matter if supplying the proprietary software would help people maintain their status quo. The goal behind free software is freedom, and proprietary technologies inhibit freedom.
A homeless person freezing and starving in the winter could easily solve their problem of not having shelter or food by doing something to be imprisoned for some time. Why, then, don't we see more homeless people committing crimes and going to jail? Although jail would be an easy and convenient solution to the problem, it would come at the cost of freedom.
While the severity of proprietary technology distribution pales in comparison to that of a life-or-death scenario, the same fundamental principles remain. If anything, the act of tainting a free operating system with software that dilutes that freedom is what's defective.
Thank you. Really, I mean it. Isn't Slashdot supposed to be a member site of the Open Source Technology Group? What is it with all of this news about Microsoft?
They could just release the source code under a free software license. Then they wouldn't have to worry about porting binaries.
Specifically:This doesn't really take modern forms of distribution into account. Using the AC example, how could this be possible? Based on what I'm reading, an anonymous work would be in the public domain until the author claims the work. How would authorship be proven?
Hmm. You know what? I just realized something. Even though the tracks on the USB keys were distributed without stipulations, the files most likely were tagged with the author's name, so according to what I've read so far (far from an expert), NIN would legally hold the copyright. They weren't anonymous contributions. However this doesn't explain how the label can legally sue even though these tracks hadn't been released through the label yet. The band holds the copyright, and they were obviously (at least, it's obvious to me) intending for the tracks to be widely distributed, otherwise they would've used some other distribution medium, or they would'nt have distributed/leaked the tracks in the first place.
This would be like a label going after fans who independently host The Smashing Pumpkins' "Machina II", despite the band independently releasing and distributing the whole album at no cost via the Web. It just wouldn't hold ground. Why should this case with the NIN tracks?
Now, if someone decided to sell the tracks, that's an entirely different matter, although it would be up to the band to sue, not the RIAA (unless the band asked the RIAA to sue on their behalf).
Don't mind me. I'm more or less just thinking out loud. Feel free to rebut, explain, etc., though.
First off, donating money to a worthy cause doesn't automatically mean I have to be an expert in every field in which that particular organization is active. I think they fight a good fight, and I support them. I hardly think that making others aware of my support suddenly means I must be assimilated, so you need to back off.
/. without attribution, then it wouldn't be public domain code. The very act of distributing the code without claim of authorship would, as far as I know, essentially create a public domain license. You hosting code on your Web site is different in that people are entering your domain to get the code. They know you're the author and they know who to contact to get permission to redistribute your code. If you, on the other hand, printed your copyrightless, authorless source code up as flyers and posted it all over your city square, you'd have a hard time defending your intellectual property rights over it when someone then decided to go a step further by photocopying it and further distributing it throughout all of your neighboring cities' squares. If you can honestly prove otherwise, I'd like to see a rebuttal, and will readily admit that I am wrong.
Second, you can't tell me that if an Anonymous Coward posts their own solution to a complex problem as a comment on
Don't you just love homonyms?
/. geeks are getting this confused, I can see how the average banking customer would be misled. How about a .bank, .money, or .finance TLD? We already have .travel and .mobi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe
NOT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety
If
IMHO, there should be a much more defined domain hierarchy, like the way dmoz is structured.
I still don't know anybody who has an HDTV. I doubt I'll be making the upgrade anytime soon. I saw an HDTV set in a Best Buy once, sitting next to a standard LCD TV, and I just didn't see much of a difference. Definitely not enough to warrant that much of a price difference.
Even if I ever did get an HDTV and an HD media player (e.g.: HD-DVD), I wouldn't re-buy all of the movies I already have. My DVDs are more than enough. Suggesting that I buy the same thing all over again is akin to suggesting that I give my paycheck away to that disabled veteran single parent panhandler begging weekends in the middle of the sidewalk, despite knowing that he has no kids, was a draft-dodger in his youth, and has a $60K salary during the week in construction. It just ain't happenin'. Know what I'm sayin'?
The big difference is that the book contains copyright notices in it. AFAIK, there was no such copyright notice on on the USB drive or as a disclaimer recorded in the beginning or end of the track(s).
If I give you the source code of a program I write, and that source code is not accompanied by a copyright notice or a license, that would essentially put that source code in the public domain. I would be distributing the source code to which I hold the copyright (NIN distributed the keys with their own songs on them) without any mention of what may or may not be done with the code.
Here's a question for those more in the know: Were these songs distributed via the USB keys before or after they were released on an RIAA label? My guess would be before, which would have placed them in the public domain before the RIAA held any supposed rights to them.
. . .
Actually, now that I've skimmed the Wikipedia article on the series, I do remember hearing about it once. There were a couple reasons I didn't watch it: