It's a shame that so many people immediately think you're a pro-slaver loon if you start talking about increased independence for states.
Or even worse, a conservative (I kid!).
I'm pretty far to the left (On the political compass, [-8, -7]), but I'm also a deontologist. For instance, I'm pro choice, but for the overturning of Roe v. Wade since it is a state issue.
Basically, if Kansas and Mississippi want to drive their states into the ground, that is fine with me. Just don't force the rest of us to do it via nationalization of state laws based on an overly broad reading of the commerce clause.
Oddly enough, up to good job, I was nodding my head in agreement. Eliminate the qualifier "good" and I pretty much agree with your sentiment. If happiness could be guaranteed, I'd be for that, too.
This is the reason why I believe in a limited federal government. People like me can have our "commie welfare state" in, say, Massachusetts, and you can have your "if you can't pay, you deserve to die" state in Texas. This way we will both be happy rather than one of us forcing the other to live by his desires.
So, why not sign the deal, make 11.1% for each song sold on iTunes, and then build a following so you can pack the arenas and make the big bucks?
The general feeling is that the label is essentially a middle man who contributes next to nothing to the product, but reaps most of the benefit. This middle man was necessary before the advent of the Internet. Before, you had to pay for enough money to press your own CDs/LPs/etc, pay for a publicist to let people know you made an album, and then try to bribe the disc jockeys more than what the major labels were paying to get the radio to play your album.
Now a minimal investment getting recording time at a studio is about all that is required. After the album is cut, put some files on a server somewhere, or better yet, set up a bittorrent tracker so your bandwith costs aren't so high. Enough web space for a blog and some promotional items is essentially free (see Myspace music).
The record industry is archaic and no longer needed. It is about time we upgraded to a better, more equitable system. It is my theory that the only reason it is still around is because it has effectively taught people that major label music is "good music". That is, if a particular band was "good", they would already be on a major label. People generally assume that the best music is on the radio. After all, wouldn't the radio station want to play the best music in order to gain listeners? This is obviously a flawed proposition, but one I think the public at large believes.
The sad thing is if the Dems gain control (which I don't think they will), they won't be going after Bush for the right reasons. It'll be for partisan gain, not because they actually care about the direction the country is headed.
It can easily be done. Many private tracker sites require a login and track user U/D ratios. Perhaps Jobs can give a call over to the admin at the empornium to see how he does it... or perhaps he already has an account and could just post on the forums;-)
I'm not sure of the actual law regarding EULAs if it is an actual contract.
My point is that any copyrighted work should be subject to the doctrine of first sale. Short of copying and then distributing the work in question, I should be able to do anything I wish with the work. I'm not sure if that holds up legally, but its my opinion. Similarly, I believe any non-commerical copying and distribution should not be illegal. Of course, that isn't the case.
The Unitary Executive Theory isn't totally bull. I can sympathesize with some of their arguments. For instance, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, so it is his job to execute any war that congress declares. Congress cannot pass a law that says "attack Basra with these weapons, using this platoon, etc." On the same token, some of its ideas are totally out of whack.
The constitution is rather vague about the powers of congress regarding executive oversight. I'd say that under UET, congress can still simply not fund certain projects that they don't agree with. That'd be the major way congress could still do reasonable oversight. If the president reallocates funds without the approval of congress, that would certainly be grounds for impeachment.
Bush also draws his authority to do the illegal wiretapping since congress passed the AUMF. Of course, it doesn't even tangentially allude to such power and even then, former senator Tom Dashcle was asked to slip a provision into the AUMF to do exactly that and he declined.
For those of you keeping score, the Bush administration asked for a specific provision in the AUMF to do domestic wiretapping. It was denied. They then turned around and said that the text of the AUMF as it stands allows them to do just that anyway. Obviously, this raises the question of why they needed a provision in the first place if the original text would do just fine.
Sir, I humbly suggest to you and my fellow Americans that absolutely nothing short of open, armed rebellion against the federal government is the only thing that will fix our sordid state of affairs.
Unfortunately, people think that patriotism means loving one's government*, not loving one's country, and American Idol is on.
*so long as said government is Republican (not republican) in nature.
It has already been said, but from my sig (which has been my sig for months now to counter people like you):
Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.\1\ Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ``It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
Its amazing how many people don't actually read the 9th amendment.
Laws regarding software are so incredibly complex. You can copyright software; you can also patent specific algorithms contained in it. You can also distribute it with an attached EULA (in some jurisdictions, as you state).
Why is it that I cannot also patent a story? Why cannot I distribute a book with an EULA that restricts resale, and disallows any copying, even for fair use? Software EULAs do this. One of the central points in Blizzard v. Bnetd was that rights to reverse engineer for the purpose of interoperability was specifically allowed in the DMCA. The EULA took that right away, and the court upheld it.
The funny thing is that if I publish source code in a book and sell that book to a customer, I cannot control what he does with that book (except copy it) even though I hold the copyright over that code. He may resell it, throw it on the fire, etc. If I decide to sell my software code to a consumer, but do not publish it in a physical medium, I am free to put all kinds of arbitrary restrictions on what he/she may do with it. To me, the medium in which a work is published, should not change the copyright protection afforded to the work.
EULAs violate the doctrine of first sale. You can't license software any more than you can license a book. The GPL, BSD, and other such distribution agreements are not EULAs and are certainly fine.
Now, your only problem is to whom the copyright will go. The law says that a work for hire should go to the person who did the hiring. I don't agree with that, but its pretty much settled.
I have to agree with you. I think the GP is nearly saying the equivalent of PDF being a programming language. HTML is more of a document format than it is a language.
Some^H^H^H^H Most districts are so overwhelmingly gerrymandered that there is a snowball's chance in hell that the incumbent will lose. A friend mentioned that an incumbent is more likely to lose his/her seat by death or resignation than due to being voted out. I never got a source for that, but it seems to be correct over the past few elections.
For instance, Stephanie Tubbs Jones represents a district designed to elect a Democrat. I can guarantee you that if she did not campaign or raise any campaign contributions, she would still win at the very least by a 2-1 margin. She wins by default. Ohio (where I live) is among the worst gerrymandered states in the nation. I recall seeing a statistic that said something like 51% of all House of Representative votes across all districts went to Republicans, but they ended up with 66% of the delegation.
My rep (Dave Hobson) doesn't ever have to listen to a thing his constituents say. He's in a safe district. Quite a few Republicans and nearly all independents would have to vote for the Democratic challenger him to lose. It simply doesn't happen.
I always wondered what his position would be for using non-free/patented codecs and algorithms in countries that don't have software patents. For instance, if I live in the EU, is it morally permissible in RMS's eyes to use mp3s? As you say, lame is a good choice and is LGPL, so it should be permissible to use it under such a jurisdiction. Using mp3s doesn't hinder freedom in that respect, although a tangential argument would be that in some countries mp3s rely on patented technologies, so the program wouldn't be free the world over, which is a goal of the free software movement.
The overlooked problem is that the article doesn't look like it was submitted by anyone. It looks like Taco just wrote the summary himself. If that is the case, Taco is drunk or just pulled off one hell of a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
Are they banned from entering computer and book stores?
Well, "book learnin'" never was the forté of many a Wal-Mart customer.
Don't forget #9 either.
It's a shame that so many people immediately think you're a pro-slaver loon if you start talking about increased independence for states.
Or even worse, a conservative (I kid!).
I'm pretty far to the left (On the political compass, [-8, -7]), but I'm also a deontologist. For instance, I'm pro choice, but for the overturning of Roe v. Wade since it is a state issue.
Basically, if Kansas and Mississippi want to drive their states into the ground, that is fine with me. Just don't force the rest of us to do it via nationalization of state laws based on an overly broad reading of the commerce clause.
Oddly enough, up to good job, I was nodding my head in agreement. Eliminate the qualifier "good" and I pretty much agree with your sentiment. If happiness could be guaranteed, I'd be for that, too.
This is the reason why I believe in a limited federal government. People like me can have our "commie welfare state" in, say, Massachusetts, and you can have your "if you can't pay, you deserve to die" state in Texas. This way we will both be happy rather than one of us forcing the other to live by his desires.
On the first count ... they mean approximately the same thing.
... yes, they do. Of course, I wanted to spare a possible Simpsons reference. :-)
On the second count
And then someone would complain about the title "Ubisoft Enjoins Tremblay For Joining Vivendi".
First they joined, then they enjoined? Valuable means the same thing as invaluable? What a silly language!
So, why not sign the deal, make 11.1% for each song sold on iTunes, and then build a following so you can pack the arenas and make the big bucks?
The general feeling is that the label is essentially a middle man who contributes next to nothing to the product, but reaps most of the benefit. This middle man was necessary before the advent of the Internet. Before, you had to pay for enough money to press your own CDs/LPs/etc, pay for a publicist to let people know you made an album, and then try to bribe the disc jockeys more than what the major labels were paying to get the radio to play your album.
Now a minimal investment getting recording time at a studio is about all that is required. After the album is cut, put some files on a server somewhere, or better yet, set up a bittorrent tracker so your bandwith costs aren't so high. Enough web space for a blog and some promotional items is essentially free (see Myspace music).
The record industry is archaic and no longer needed. It is about time we upgraded to a better, more equitable system. It is my theory that the only reason it is still around is because it has effectively taught people that major label music is "good music". That is, if a particular band was "good", they would already be on a major label. People generally assume that the best music is on the radio. After all, wouldn't the radio station want to play the best music in order to gain listeners? This is obviously a flawed proposition, but one I think the public at large believes.
The sad thing is if the Dems gain control (which I don't think they will), they won't be going after Bush for the right reasons. It'll be for partisan gain, not because they actually care about the direction the country is headed.
It can easily be done. Many private tracker sites require a login and track user U/D ratios. Perhaps Jobs can give a call over to the admin at the empornium to see how he does it ... or perhaps he already has an account and could just post on the forums ;-)
I'm not sure of the actual law regarding EULAs if it is an actual contract.
My point is that any copyrighted work should be subject to the doctrine of first sale. Short of copying and then distributing the work in question, I should be able to do anything I wish with the work. I'm not sure if that holds up legally, but its my opinion. Similarly, I believe any non-commerical copying and distribution should not be illegal. Of course, that isn't the case.
The Unitary Executive Theory isn't totally bull. I can sympathesize with some of their arguments. For instance, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, so it is his job to execute any war that congress declares. Congress cannot pass a law that says "attack Basra with these weapons, using this platoon, etc." On the same token, some of its ideas are totally out of whack.
The constitution is rather vague about the powers of congress regarding executive oversight. I'd say that under UET, congress can still simply not fund certain projects that they don't agree with. That'd be the major way congress could still do reasonable oversight. If the president reallocates funds without the approval of congress, that would certainly be grounds for impeachment.
Bush also draws his authority to do the illegal wiretapping since congress passed the AUMF. Of course, it doesn't even tangentially allude to such power and even then, former senator Tom Dashcle was asked to slip a provision into the AUMF to do exactly that and he declined.
For those of you keeping score, the Bush administration asked for a specific provision in the AUMF to do domestic wiretapping. It was denied. They then turned around and said that the text of the AUMF as it stands allows them to do just that anyway. Obviously, this raises the question of why they needed a provision in the first place if the original text would do just fine.
Sir, I humbly suggest to you and my fellow Americans that absolutely nothing short of open, armed rebellion against the federal government is the only thing that will fix our sordid state of affairs.
Unfortunately, people think that patriotism means loving one's government*, not loving one's country, and American Idol is on.
*so long as said government is Republican (not republican) in nature.
Its amazing how many people don't actually read the 9th amendment.
Laws regarding software are so incredibly complex. You can copyright software; you can also patent specific algorithms contained in it. You can also distribute it with an attached EULA (in some jurisdictions, as you state).
Why is it that I cannot also patent a story? Why cannot I distribute a book with an EULA that restricts resale, and disallows any copying, even for fair use? Software EULAs do this. One of the central points in Blizzard v. Bnetd was that rights to reverse engineer for the purpose of interoperability was specifically allowed in the DMCA. The EULA took that right away, and the court upheld it.
The funny thing is that if I publish source code in a book and sell that book to a customer, I cannot control what he does with that book (except copy it) even though I hold the copyright over that code. He may resell it, throw it on the fire, etc. If I decide to sell my software code to a consumer, but do not publish it in a physical medium, I am free to put all kinds of arbitrary restrictions on what he/she may do with it. To me, the medium in which a work is published, should not change the copyright protection afforded to the work.
Any true Muslim wouldn't mind at all since Jews (and Christians) are People of the Book
EULAs violate the doctrine of first sale. You can't license software any more than you can license a book. The GPL, BSD, and other such distribution agreements are not EULAs and are certainly fine.
Now, your only problem is to whom the copyright will go. The law says that a work for hire should go to the person who did the hiring. I don't agree with that, but its pretty much settled.
Well if you redefine words, you can make them mean whatever you want.
HTML isn't a programming language, but it is certainly a code.
I have to agree with you. I think the GP is nearly saying the equivalent of PDF being a programming language. HTML is more of a document format than it is a language.
Its really not even that.
Some^H^H^H^H Most districts are so overwhelmingly gerrymandered that there is a snowball's chance in hell that the incumbent will lose. A friend mentioned that an incumbent is more likely to lose his/her seat by death or resignation than due to being voted out. I never got a source for that, but it seems to be correct over the past few elections.
For instance, Stephanie Tubbs Jones represents a district designed to elect a Democrat. I can guarantee you that if she did not campaign or raise any campaign contributions, she would still win at the very least by a 2-1 margin. She wins by default. Ohio (where I live) is among the worst gerrymandered states in the nation. I recall seeing a statistic that said something like 51% of all House of Representative votes across all districts went to Republicans, but they ended up with 66% of the delegation.
My rep (Dave Hobson) doesn't ever have to listen to a thing his constituents say. He's in a safe district. Quite a few Republicans and nearly all independents would have to vote for the Democratic challenger him to lose. It simply doesn't happen.
I always wondered what his position would be for using non-free/patented codecs and algorithms in countries that don't have software patents. For instance, if I live in the EU, is it morally permissible in RMS's eyes to use mp3s? As you say, lame is a good choice and is LGPL, so it should be permissible to use it under such a jurisdiction. Using mp3s doesn't hinder freedom in that respect, although a tangential argument would be that in some countries mp3s rely on patented technologies, so the program wouldn't be free the world over, which is a goal of the free software movement.
The overlooked problem is that the article doesn't look like it was submitted by anyone. It looks like Taco just wrote the summary himself. If that is the case, Taco is drunk or just pulled off one hell of a troll.
RMS usually prefers Ogg Theora. All the stuff on audio-video.gnu.org is in that format.
LOL ... we all posted basicially the same thing (albeit, in different ways) at almost exactly the same time.
The Barenaked Ladies have a song that is called "If I had $1,000,000".
Some of the lyrics of the song are:
If I had $1,000,000, we wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner (aka macaroni and cheese)
But we would still eat Kraft Dinner, we'd just eat more
The only thing Canadian about it is the term "Kraft Dinner". AFAIK, macaroni and cheese is generically refered to as Kraft Dinner there.