Your point about exchanges is valid, but I wouldn't say your argument counters the one above it.
The currency system and barter/exchange is not related to the point they were making.
If things are shared for free, new values are created. Suddenly if you keep giving out music, people begin to realize you have good music (if you do). It can no longer be dictated by you requiring those who can afford it to compensate you (essentially by force is what patents and copyright amount to). Once something laves your mind, it is no longer your own property. You cannot control it as much as patents and copyright would like to employ, as it simply isn't realistic and an option. Your only true way to control your information is to make it only your own and not release it to anyone other than yourself, but in doing so you're keeping your contributions from society, this a drop in the ocean towards cultural decline.
I think your argument is sound but intangible objects only gain the value you give them; it is not something that was there originally, and is personal only to you.
Physical objects do have a more perceivable value value, we assign it no matter what, as it is external.
Example: insurance has no value other than to the insurance company and the insured...the rest of the world is out of that intangible aspect. Software itself can fit into that category too, although not an exact apples to apples comparison.
I admit this topic in general is extremely complicated and hard to have a true definition of which side of ownership issues fits more to modern society or not.
Just a FYI, the appeal on this would most likely win and find them guilty of nothing. Assuming they're smart enough to do so...which they probably won't, unfortunately.
If there is an appeal, then it will be a bigger deal on this one.
I understand what you mean here, but I think that the amount of people who have been following significant legal issues has been slowly increasing....I think it wouldn't be enough to make a drop in an ocean to johnson and johnson though, unfortunately.
I wish things were more straightforward but at the same time fear that "straightforward" doesn't mean accurate.
The whole for commercial use aspect is entirely acceptable and reasonable. However, how it's treated for personally use lately seems to be way too much of legal technicalities. IANAL and if someone else isn't either, its hard for them to know whether or not obtaining another copy of a CD they bought in the past is legal or not without doing serious research and they won't get a straightforward answer.
am I now? making available is a current grey area likely to also be legal, and just because people have been settling out of not wanting to go to court doesnt make something illegal. If downloading is so illegal tell that to TIVOs, dvd burners, any device that will take in audio in any form (not just record)....how long have people been recording off the radio again? RIAA may be fighting hard against but as example downloading a cd you own is not illegal regardless of permission of copyright holders. Fair Use much?
Or are you mistaken and calling it theft again, which it is not?
as this has been shown in courts for years(aka fair use), just because the copyright owner does not give permission does not mean by any stretch that fair use doesn't apply,fair use is to restrict copyright.
downloading copyrighted materials is 100% legal in all scenarios. Forget your wrong or right, this is an issue that is going through courts a lot lately.
If nobody can improve it further (which is the original reason for improvement patents), then it's hampering innovation in the first place.
If someone were to patent running processes on a computer, where do you think software innovation is going to go?
For drugs, the price is now dictated by the maker regardless of the cost of manufacturing...hello superexpensive medicines in africa? Whoops?
The millions and billions are collective research, not just solely put on one product. It's throwing money at the wall, waiting for some to stick, and suing the hell out of everyone once something does.
If nobody is competing, then we are all failing. Of course everyone wants to get rich as is and not step forward, but why would that exclude comcast?
Also, verizon as crappy as some of the things they've done are, have increased their speeds. FIOS 50/10 (I don't remember the exact number it might be 30/10) is not a bad deal, in places we can actually get it.
I don't think things will even start moving towards "not getting worse" until we see some real change, I digress. Especially for comcast since a majority of its customers have no other reasonable options as stated. This is like "pay for a BMW to get a kia or pay for a kia to get a bicycle". Not exactly in the same level...and if comcast waits until verizon creeps up on them, that would just be a very explicit example of horrible business sense. Waiting for your competition to crush you instead of building up better service so that they can't....this is what makes investors run away and why people are so critical of comcast, because everyone has been screaming and hollering for improvements for years. Responding when you have to by dragging your feet doesn't wipe away the "you've been doin jack shit for years" view.
If Mac had a stronger stranglehold on gaming and depending on how things go, isn't Apple based off Unix? So wouldn't that cause games to trickle down to Linux via people reverse engineering and other methods, as well?/correct me if I'm wrong, as said I don't know Mac for Jack
No, this not only will confuse (and easily scam) loads of people, but also create artificial price points that don't exist. It's an very capable way to create confusion and fight competition. Different service levels for difference prices is fine and logical as well, but this creates ways of having 2 different prices for the same service. That is not the same.
This would be like an ISP where one has a 250GB cap with a transfer rate cap at 6MB/s and the other just has an 8MB/s connection; people will be confused by the comparison, and I'd bet my wallet it would definitely be compared deceptively like that, intentionally.
Either way you still have a real theoretical cap; just put it on there and be done with it. If your cap is 300GB a month, then let the connection go as fast as possible; people will cap out either way and the market will show that people want higher speeds and are willing to pay for such, which will show that infrastructure needs to be built out more. Of course we already know of DOCSIS limitations on that, but whose fault is that for not researching ways to increase speeds, or for example doubling the number of cable lines.
Yes, but once the cap starts it can be raised/lowered. There's a big significance here as far as stating a limit/not, and suddenly you're not just paying for speed but graduated usage as well.
If they happened to offer maximum speed at all caps and had a variable rate of cap is one thing, but that's not the case here, it creates an artificial discrepancy.
Also, yeah consumers are typically not even close to slashdot-smart so I wouldn't be surprised if plenty are confused by the changes or don't even understand the big deal.
Surprise factor here = 0. Comcast just wants to milk people more instead of improve service or actually make their service attractive, since they know they have effective monopolies in many areas and states as nobody else offers a competing service.
Re:Also tortious contract interference
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
I totally disagree here.
The only reason for statutory damages here, when it doesn't exist, is so that they can prevent an appeal; since wowglider would have to post the money before they appeal (even though I'd be on wowglider winning the appeal if it were to get to that point).
Statutory damages when used alongside punitive damages are such a horrible one-two part of the US court system.
This doesn't put anyone on notice, this is a US court, and companies outside the US are not on the same level of things in this regard.
Some games do have methods to get around the whole cheating issue though, such as Eve, where time is the only true form of things obtained in the game and nothing can speed up or slow that down past a certain point, so cheating becomes unable to circumvent that. Sure, they have in game currency, but the age of the character bears infinitely more significance than the in game currency.
Re:This is getting stupid.
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually, it's still a grey area as far as accepting a EULA.
Note on the wiki for EULA software licenses, that post-purchase licenses are have been ruled both ways before. I think this example applies to Blizzard, however:
"In Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., however, the licensee was able to download and install the software without first being required to review and positively assent to the terms of the agreement, and so the license was held to be unenforceable."
You have the software before you agree, so I suspect it may not be enforceable. I'm not a lawyer, please correct me if I am wrong.
Just because you pay for the service doesn't mean you can't use it any way you see fit. You absolutely can.
Blizzard of course, can reject your business and has refund plans set up for that, but it's their responsibility to set and/or enforce whatever guidelines that they come up with; not the player's responsibilities.
I thought about what I posted a bit though, and since IANAL I don't know if it's different if the request is "withdrawn" since it wasn't officially withdrawn, it was more like the company saying "whoops, sorry" (as noted in the subheadline for the article about sorry for the nuke.
Wasn't there some part of DMCA that said like you can sue for DMCA misuse or abuse or something though?
People unfortunately probably go to lawyers first, a little bit of knowledge goes a long way.
However, DMCA misuse is something that can be sued for and withdrawing the already DMCA'd request doesn't lift that vulnerability in court...there is a provision for DMCA misuse.
You siad "I believe most countries have laws similar to to the DMCA" and what I'm saying is that places such as Israel indeed, do not. Many countries do not follow DMCA and outright refuse it, even Australia in many cases.
Not "exactly" the same sure, no country has that, but many actually do not allow the same level of infringement and takedowns that the US has.
Actually no, most countries do not use or follow a DMCA law. Israel for example, outright refuses it, as it allows abuse in the form of takedowns. Israel has like a "notify 3x before takedown" type scenario.
Nope, you just didn't dig deep enough to read that it would enable the US to censor absolutely anything they want, since as usual they use very loose wording.
Summary alone: ' Unfortunately, there's also a giant loophole: the president would be allowed to waive the provisions of the Act for national security purposes.'
Slashdot Mirror
Your point about exchanges is valid, but I wouldn't say your argument counters the one above it.
The currency system and barter/exchange is not related to the point they were making.
If things are shared for free, new values are created. Suddenly if you keep giving out music, people begin to realize you have good music (if you do). It can no longer be dictated by you requiring those who can afford it to compensate you (essentially by force is what patents and copyright amount to). Once something laves your mind, it is no longer your own property. You cannot control it as much as patents and copyright would like to employ, as it simply isn't realistic and an option.
Your only true way to control your information is to make it only your own and not release it to anyone other than yourself, but in doing so you're keeping your contributions from society, this a drop in the ocean towards cultural decline.
I think your argument is sound but intangible objects only gain the value you give them; it is not something that was there originally, and is personal only to you.
Physical objects do have a more perceivable value value, we assign it no matter what, as it is external.
Example: insurance has no value other than to the insurance company and the insured...the rest of the world is out of that intangible aspect. Software itself can fit into that category too, although not an exact apples to apples comparison.
I admit this topic in general is extremely complicated and hard to have a true definition of which side of ownership issues fits more to modern society or not.
Just a FYI, the appeal on this would most likely win and find them guilty of nothing. Assuming they're smart enough to do so...which they probably won't, unfortunately.
If there is an appeal, then it will be a bigger deal on this one.
I understand what you mean here, but I think that the amount of people who have been following significant legal issues has been slowly increasing....I think it wouldn't be enough to make a drop in an ocean to johnson and johnson though, unfortunately.
well written and I agree with you.
I wish things were more straightforward but at the same time fear that "straightforward" doesn't mean accurate.
The whole for commercial use aspect is entirely acceptable and reasonable. However, how it's treated for personally use lately seems to be way too much of legal technicalities. IANAL and if someone else isn't either, its hard for them to know whether or not obtaining another copy of a CD they bought in the past is legal or not without doing serious research and they won't get a straightforward answer.
am I now? making available is a current grey area likely to also be legal, and just because people have been settling out of not wanting to go to court doesnt make something illegal. If downloading is so illegal tell that to TIVOs, dvd burners, any device that will take in audio in any form (not just record)....how long have people been recording off the radio again?
RIAA may be fighting hard against but as example downloading a cd you own is not illegal regardless of permission of copyright holders. Fair Use much?
Or are you mistaken and calling it theft again, which it is not?
as this has been shown in courts for years(aka fair use), just because the copyright owner does not give permission does not mean by any stretch that fair use doesn't apply,fair use is to restrict copyright.
downloading copyrighted materials is 100% legal in all scenarios. Forget your wrong or right, this is an issue that is going through courts a lot lately.
If nobody can use something, it's still useless.
If nobody can improve it further (which is the original reason for improvement patents), then it's hampering innovation in the first place.
If someone were to patent running processes on a computer, where do you think software innovation is going to go?
For drugs, the price is now dictated by the maker regardless of the cost of manufacturing...hello superexpensive medicines in africa? Whoops?
The millions and billions are collective research, not just solely put on one product. It's throwing money at the wall, waiting for some to stick, and suing the hell out of everyone once something does.
If nobody is competing, then we are all failing. Of course everyone wants to get rich as is and not step forward, but why would that exclude comcast?
Also, verizon as crappy as some of the things they've done are, have increased their speeds. FIOS 50/10 (I don't remember the exact number it might be 30/10) is not a bad deal, in places we can actually get it.
I don't think things will even start moving towards "not getting worse" until we see some real change, I digress. Especially for comcast since a majority of its customers have no other reasonable options as stated. This is like "pay for a BMW to get a kia or pay for a kia to get a bicycle". Not exactly in the same level...and if comcast waits until verizon creeps up on them, that would just be a very explicit example of horrible business sense. Waiting for your competition to crush you instead of building up better service so that they can't....this is what makes investors run away and why people are so critical of comcast, because everyone has been screaming and hollering for improvements for years. Responding when you have to by dragging your feet doesn't wipe away the "you've been doin jack shit for years" view.
Things are starting to look up where?
Has comcast ever increased its speeds to a competitive level lately? Have they done anything out of the ordinary to show good business ethics?
We already have SLAs, everyone has one in the way that they agree to comcast's services. It's just not a whole lot is guaranteed.
Do we deserve a helluva lot more than we're getting, and are we getting scammed in that aspect? completely.
So, as I still don't understand,
would that enable "mac games" to be ported as "linux games" or not necessarily? Especially for graphics intensive games.
If Mac had a stronger stranglehold on gaming and depending on how things go, isn't Apple based off Unix? So wouldn't that cause games to trickle down to Linux via people reverse engineering and other methods, as well? /correct me if I'm wrong, as said I don't know Mac for Jack
No, this not only will confuse (and easily scam) loads of people, but also create artificial price points that don't exist. It's an very capable way to create confusion and fight competition. Different service levels for difference prices is fine and logical as well, but this creates ways of having 2 different prices for the same service. That is not the same.
This would be like an ISP where one has a 250GB cap with a transfer rate cap at 6MB/s and the other just has an 8MB/s connection; people will be confused by the comparison, and I'd bet my wallet it would definitely be compared deceptively like that, intentionally.
Either way you still have a real theoretical cap; just put it on there and be done with it. If your cap is 300GB a month, then let the connection go as fast as possible; people will cap out either way and the market will show that people want higher speeds and are willing to pay for such, which will show that infrastructure needs to be built out more. Of course we already know of DOCSIS limitations on that, but whose fault is that for not researching ways to increase speeds, or for example doubling the number of cable lines.
Yes, but once the cap starts it can be raised/lowered. There's a big significance here as far as stating a limit/not, and suddenly you're not just paying for speed but graduated usage as well.
If they happened to offer maximum speed at all caps and had a variable rate of cap is one thing, but that's not the case here, it creates an artificial discrepancy.
Also, yeah consumers are typically not even close to slashdot-smart so I wouldn't be surprised if plenty are confused by the changes or don't even understand the big deal.
Surprise factor here = 0. Comcast just wants to milk people more instead of improve service or actually make their service attractive, since they know they have effective monopolies in many areas and states as nobody else offers a competing service.
I totally disagree here.
The only reason for statutory damages here, when it doesn't exist, is so that they can prevent an appeal; since wowglider would have to post the money before they appeal (even though I'd be on wowglider winning the appeal if it were to get to that point).
Statutory damages when used alongside punitive damages are such a horrible one-two part of the US court system.
This doesn't put anyone on notice, this is a US court, and companies outside the US are not on the same level of things in this regard.
Some games do have methods to get around the whole cheating issue though, such as Eve, where time is the only true form of things obtained in the game and nothing can speed up or slow that down past a certain point, so cheating becomes unable to circumvent that. Sure, they have in game currency, but the age of the character bears infinitely more significance than the in game currency.
Actually, it's still a grey area as far as accepting a EULA.
Note on the wiki for EULA software licenses, that post-purchase licenses are have been ruled both ways before. I think this example applies to Blizzard, however:
"In Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., however, the licensee was able to download and install the software without first being required to review and positively assent to the terms of the agreement, and so the license was held to be unenforceable."
You have the software before you agree, so I suspect it may not be enforceable. I'm not a lawyer, please correct me if I am wrong.
Just because you pay for the service doesn't mean you can't use it any way you see fit. You absolutely can.
Blizzard of course, can reject your business and has refund plans set up for that, but it's their responsibility to set and/or enforce whatever guidelines that they come up with; not the player's responsibilities.
I thought about what I posted a bit though, and since IANAL I don't know if it's different if the request is "withdrawn" since it wasn't officially withdrawn, it was more like the company saying "whoops, sorry" (as noted in the subheadline for the article about sorry for the nuke.
Wasn't there some part of DMCA that said like you can sue for DMCA misuse or abuse or something though?
There are even sites out there to generate your own DMCA counterclaim quick and fast.
One such is: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html or here: http://www.ucmo.edu/dmca/counter.html
People unfortunately probably go to lawyers first, a little bit of knowledge goes a long way.
However, DMCA misuse is something that can be sued for and withdrawing the already DMCA'd request doesn't lift that vulnerability in court...there is a provision for DMCA misuse.
Hi Bob,
You siad "I believe most countries have laws similar to to the DMCA" and what I'm saying is that places such as Israel indeed, do not. Many countries do not follow DMCA and outright refuse it, even Australia in many cases.
Not "exactly" the same sure, no country has that, but many actually do not allow the same level of infringement and takedowns that the US has.
Actually no, most countries do not use or follow a DMCA law. Israel for example, outright refuses it, as it allows abuse in the form of takedowns. Israel has like a "notify 3x before takedown" type scenario.
I've still not gotten an invite ever for this, so don't forget about that aspect either.
Nope, you just didn't dig deep enough to read that it would enable the US to censor absolutely anything they want, since as usual they use very loose wording.
Summary alone: ' Unfortunately, there's also a giant loophole: the president would be allowed to waive the provisions of the Act for national security purposes.'
Mission accomplished.
yep, everyone gets screwed.
I want to object to the class action, but I wouldn't even know where to get started.
I think this is why the companies do class actions - the only one who makes anything is the lawyers.