Time is money. Time spent upgrading browsers is time that could have been spent earning money. When IE is required for intraweb sites, there's also the time spent making sure the site works in IE8: they can be very browser-dependent and not support any other browser or any other version of the one required browser. But even then, millions seems like a big stretch.
If I find the URL to the songs, I am allowed to make private copies of them even if I don't "own" them (so far that has remained legal under Dutch law), and you can be sued for distributing them to me. If I then make the URL public to others, according to this ruling, I may also be sued, but that does not get you off the hook.
"We will not accept content that is freely available on the web unless you are the copyright owner of that content." and "We do accept public domain content" are contradictory unless the latter is intended as an exception to the former (which is not what the text you quoted actually says), or only public domain content that isn't freely available on the web is accepted (which is clearly not how Amazon themselves interpret it). So the policies aren't as clear for the general case as you say they are; there are some real books where reasonable people will come to different conclusions about what the policy actually says. Linked, by the way. But they are indeed very clear for the specific book that this story is concerned with.
I can only speak for myself, but the HP TouchSmart I bought in May this year has an ATI graphics card that was recognised by one system component and wasn't by two others. If it had not been recgnised at all, things would work, albeit without hardware acceleration. But things being as they were, I got non-working applications and error messages instead. Although I managed to figure out what went wrong, and got that fixed in the other two components (all three components had a hardcoded list of PCI IDs, and my device's ID was only present in one of them), I think that qualifies as a "pain" nonetheless.
What makes you think it will no longer be useful as an emergency fallback mechanism?
Actually, what I mainly objected to, although I didn't state so in my message, was the "this is pointless since I won't use it". The code isn't written for the personal benefit of this particular Anonymous Coward.
Oh wait, if you meant your GRANT creates the user too, then I will certainly withdraw my objection. I see no harm in requiring a password when creating a user:)
That should work fine with Gentoo Prefix or NixOS.
Pre-emptive followup: admittedly they are both often (but not always) compiled from source, but it doesn't involve a manual configure && make && make install.
I'd say if the reference implementation doesn't include those goodies (whatever they are), then those goodies aren't part of Java. Bundled with and dependent on Oracle Java, perhaps, but not part of Java.
No, that isn't what you said. Allowing Google to access your site and asking Google to access your site are two different things. By neither opting in nor opting out, you're allowing Google to access your site, because the default is to allow it and you haven't told Google otherwise, but that's not opting in. Hint: what does opt mean? Who has chosen that the default is to allow anyone to visit your site? If it isn't you, then you didn't opt.
No, that's not what opting in means. Opting in means you're asking Google to visit your site. Opting out means you're asking Google not to visit your site. When you're not asking for anything, merely hoping, you're neither opting in nor opting out.
Adding -D command-line options is cheating, as it allows a single-character program to do literally anything: gcc -Dx='main() { puts("Hello, world!"); }' x.c where x.c consists of a single line containing the character x.
If your idea of a copy is exactly what the law considers a copy, your initial post is meaningless. You're saying the law should be changed to only restrict copying, and by copying you mean exactly what the law currently considers copying. So you want the law to... what? Remain unchanged?
And no, I absolutely did not claim (nor did I intend to claim) that reading a legally purchased book infringes on anyone's copyright.
If you record your voice, you create a copy of your voice. If your voice, when reading a book, is not producing a copy of that book, then if you record your voice, you're not copying that book. Since you seem to agree that the conclusion is flawed, either the premise or my logic must have a flaw, so how would you explain it?
Reading a book aloud is copying the copyrighted material. Should it be legal to buy a book, record yourself reading it, and sell that on a CD? Perhaps you will say yes, but plenty of people will say no. As for the story, this should be legal not because it isn't copying, but because copyright shouldn't restrict all forms of copying.
Slashdot Mirror
Time is money. Time spent upgrading browsers is time that could have been spent earning money. When IE is required for intraweb sites, there's also the time spent making sure the site works in IE8: they can be very browser-dependent and not support any other browser or any other version of the one required browser. But even then, millions seems like a big stretch.
If I find the URL to the songs, I am allowed to make private copies of them even if I don't "own" them (so far that has remained legal under Dutch law), and you can be sued for distributing them to me. If I then make the URL public to others, according to this ruling, I may also be sued, but that does not get you off the hook.
"We will not accept content that is freely available on the web unless you are the copyright owner of that content." and "We do accept public domain content" are contradictory unless the latter is intended as an exception to the former (which is not what the text you quoted actually says), or only public domain content that isn't freely available on the web is accepted (which is clearly not how Amazon themselves interpret it). So the policies aren't as clear for the general case as you say they are; there are some real books where reasonable people will come to different conclusions about what the policy actually says. Linked, by the way. But they are indeed very clear for the specific book that this story is concerned with.
I can only speak for myself, but the HP TouchSmart I bought in May this year has an ATI graphics card that was recognised by one system component and wasn't by two others. If it had not been recgnised at all, things would work, albeit without hardware acceleration. But things being as they were, I got non-working applications and error messages instead. Although I managed to figure out what went wrong, and got that fixed in the other two components (all three components had a hardcoded list of PCI IDs, and my device's ID was only present in one of them), I think that qualifies as a "pain" nonetheless.
What makes you think it will no longer be useful as an emergency fallback mechanism? Actually, what I mainly objected to, although I didn't state so in my message, was the "this is pointless since I won't use it". The code isn't written for the personal benefit of this particular Anonymous Coward.
If you don't use the console, this shouldn't bother you, since it shouldn't affect you.
Oh wait, if you meant your GRANT creates the user too, then I will certainly withdraw my objection. I see no harm in requiring a password when creating a user :)
Wow, I need to know a user's password in order to grant that user additional permissions? That's just stupid, I hope MySQL is alone in that.
Pre-emptive followup: admittedly they are both often (but not always) compiled from source, but it doesn't involve a manual configure && make && make install.
That should work fine with Gentoo Prefix or NixOS.
I'd say if the reference implementation doesn't include those goodies (whatever they are), then those goodies aren't part of Java. Bundled with and dependent on Oracle Java, perhaps, but not part of Java.
No, that isn't what you said. Allowing Google to access your site and asking Google to access your site are two different things. By neither opting in nor opting out, you're allowing Google to access your site, because the default is to allow it and you haven't told Google otherwise, but that's not opting in. Hint: what does opt mean? Who has chosen that the default is to allow anyone to visit your site? If it isn't you, then you didn't opt.
No, that's not what opting in means. Opting in means you're asking Google to visit your site. Opting out means you're asking Google not to visit your site. When you're not asking for anything, merely hoping, you're neither opting in nor opting out.
No one's paid to do anything illegal. Is paying people to do the jobs they're supposed to do really covered by FCPA? It doesn't appear to be.
That's impossible. Where in heaven would Jobs have found a lawyer?
Adding -D command-line options is cheating, as it allows a single-character program to do literally anything: gcc -Dx='main() { puts("Hello, world!"); }' x.c where x.c consists of a single line containing the character x.
Huh? Whether the act is criminal will not be affected by a civil suit.
What's most wrong with that is the suggestion that one might use phpmyadmin for fun.
Get with the times, even C has a bool type now.
I think you out a verb.
If your idea of a copy is exactly what the law considers a copy, your initial post is meaningless. You're saying the law should be changed to only restrict copying, and by copying you mean exactly what the law currently considers copying. So you want the law to... what? Remain unchanged?
And no, I absolutely did not claim (nor did I intend to claim) that reading a legally purchased book infringes on anyone's copyright.
Yes, and cosmetic features are important when you want the result to look nice.
Congratulations, you just advocated killing the possibility of releasing works into the public domain, and you probably don't even realise it.
If you record your voice, you create a copy of your voice. If your voice, when reading a book, is not producing a copy of that book, then if you record your voice, you're not copying that book. Since you seem to agree that the conclusion is flawed, either the premise or my logic must have a flaw, so how would you explain it?
Reading a book aloud is copying the copyrighted material. Should it be legal to buy a book, record yourself reading it, and sell that on a CD? Perhaps you will say yes, but plenty of people will say no. As for the story, this should be legal not because it isn't copying, but because copyright shouldn't restrict all forms of copying.