Okay, it's official: I have a serious man-crush on Eben Moglen. I seriously suspect he's shielding his cards until he has a serious Killer App of a maneuver to unleash.
Will he immediately ask for an injunction to stop Novell from distributing any GPL-covered code? That'd be awesome.
This might be more fun: will OpenSuSE make a high-profile declaration that they are now distributing checksum-verified copies of Novell's non-patent-infringing distro?
MGM won grokster b/c of the latter's active inducement. Cuban is well aware that Gootube is not actively inducing infringement; quite the opposite. He is therefore doing his damnedest to expand the grokster decision beyond its actual holding, and to profit from the expansion, at the expense of the users.
the Supreme Court's Grokster opinion, properly interpreted, strikes an appropriate balance. It preserved secondary liability as a powerful tool against copyright infringement. At the same time, it declined to adopt theories of liability, offered by the content industry, that would have overturned or pared back the rule established in the 1984 Sony Betamax case that protects distributors of products with substantial noninfringing uses http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Perspectives/06_STLR _3/CDT-grokster.pdf
If true, that's an *incredibly cynical move by the man who said "software doesn't steal content, people steal content" w/r/t Grokster.
Google/YouTube don't 'steal' content, its users do. Unless I can make a few quid by suing Google/YouTube, in which case software does steal content now.
I remember liking him quite a bit on the Grokster case, e.g.
"When content went digital, the floodgates opened. Content could be delivered digitally in thousands of different ways, and the number of methods for distribution would only expand over time. To me this meant the power of the gatekeepers would diminish and the power of independent content creators and owners would increase"
but your narrative here really strikes me as the only explanation why he's gone over to the dark side... grokster lost so he figured he'd like to be a gatekeeper?
Well, if you use ideas or knowledge that they own, then you owe them money, don't you?
PS: I don't think the government should pretend that people can own ideas or knowledge, but that's a side issue.
"Consumers are the final arbiters because they can vote with their wallets," Usher added. "This is as it should be in any well-functioning market, and we believe the improvements in Windows Vista play to this strength."
You can reserve all rights to the song you create quite easily: do not, under any circumstances, perform it in the presence of other human beings (unless said beings are hearing-impaired).
Once you perform in front of -- say -- me, you don't control what I do with what I've heard unless you somehow obtain some rights over my brain . I'm a fairly polite guy, so I'm not going to reproduce it note-for-note, lie about who wrote the tune, and try to make a million bucks off of it. But I might, for example, really like the chord progression in the bridge and use a similar one in a song I write some day.
I get this right from the fact that I control my own thoughts. You retain all rights to your song insofar as I am not allowed to invent a thought-vacuum and suck the song out of your brain. But that's more to do with your right to control your brain than any property interest you have in the song.
Sorry to confuse you with the AC who initially opened fire. I don't have to point you anywhere because I know for a fact it *was an issue. With me. The campaign websites of the major candidates might be an indication, but it's not the only indication.
"Fair use" does not define a certain limited amount of copying that you have permission to do. It defines copying that you do *not have to ask permission for. You can try to prevent "fair use" technologically, but there is nothing in copyright law that prevents my circumventing that technical measure. Now I defer to a smarter man:
(Moglen on the DMCA): "You never read a case, because there never was a case, in which under the copyright law, somebody was charged with a federal legal offence of any kind for writing a book about how photocopiers work or for distributing blue prints of photocopiers or for manufacturing and selling photocopiers. When you see a legal regime that is engaged in trying to charge people for doing those things, you can be pretty sure it's not the copyright law, it's something else. The fact that they put the word copyright in the title doesn't make it a copyright law folks"
You don't entitle your article "The Farce Behind Digital Freedom". And you don't immediately open fire with loaded words like "extremist". I have little hope for the rest of TFA at this point...
Parent was serious, I think. Well, as serious as ACs ca be. There was not 'enough' outcry for himer, so therefore any talk of morality/ethics by Americans cannot have any merit. That's where I lost interest.
As for heroes, I can't decide between the cheerleader and the hottie from Final Destination (the latter uses Linux as we all know, but -- ick -- KDE. Any hope the cheerleader uses GNOME?)
As one of the slim majority of Americans who considers himself ethical and didn't have anything to do with Abu Ghraib I don't think your post is actually very insightful. Especially this bit: "'Tis time to jettison the notion of "Christmas" "... which I can't really even figure out.
"Torvalds has achieved fame as the godfather of the open-source movement, in which software code is shared and developed in a collaborative effort rather than being kept locked up by a single owner"
I agree with you 100% and feel that "intellectual property" is a bogus concept, but I don't understand how you can call this a "communist regulation". It's the opposite, if anything: communism opposes illegitimate private property, while the "copyright regime" tries to make property out of ideas.. "Protectionist regulation" would, I think be better. This notion is diatemtrically opposed to libertarianism and communism.
"I don't know of much free software that is really competitive because truly free software doesn't have the support that it needs to compete with software that does have support."
I swear to god I *can't wait for this guy's comeuppance.
Don't try to parse this guy's BS too carefully. What he means here is quite simple: you get better support from -underpaid phone help... working from a script.. that cannot see the inner workings of the software they're helping you with
than you do from -several million independently working professionals with intimate knowledge of the software they use, who share their solutions to various problems with the whole world.
"iPod wannakill" ... saves some space, too (n/t)
on
The Zune Cometh
·
· Score: 1
Every hour MS spends on WGA, DRM, and the like is an hour they could've spent making my machine run better. Admittedly, it's only the/. prefilter that makes us think MS's development efforts go solely into technological control measures, but the point stands that F/OSS basically never goes near this realm.
Question: without all the control measures that benefit only MS and its partners (Cf. the "content industry") would Vista still require all that processing power?
And furthermore, I think it's funny how they say "We don't claim to own yr stuff," and then explain how they have the right to do *every single thing that the owner of yr stuff is supposed to have exclusive right to do.
I imagine they're right about one thing: this site will be an awful lot like myspace (throngs of idiots posting drivel)
Slashdot Mirror
heh. whatever.
Okay, it's official: I have a serious man-crush on Eben Moglen. I seriously suspect he's shielding his cards until he has a serious Killer App of a maneuver to unleash.
Will he immediately ask for an injunction to stop Novell from distributing any GPL-covered code? That'd be awesome.
This might be more fun: will OpenSuSE make a high-profile declaration that they are now distributing checksum-verified copies of Novell's non-patent-infringing distro?
... what's with the quotes in the headline? The word "infringe" does not appear in TFA.
MGM won grokster b/c of the latter's active inducement. Cuban is well aware that Gootube is not actively inducing infringement; quite the opposite. He is therefore doing his damnedest to expand the grokster decision beyond its actual holding, and to profit from the expansion, at the expense of the users.
R _3/CDT-grokster.pdf
the Supreme Court's Grokster opinion, properly interpreted, strikes an appropriate balance. It preserved secondary liability as a powerful tool against copyright infringement. At the same time, it declined to adopt theories of liability, offered by the content industry, that would have overturned or pared back the rule established in the 1984 Sony Betamax case that protects distributors of products with substantial noninfringing uses
http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Perspectives/06_STL
If true, that's an *incredibly cynical move by the man who said "software doesn't steal content, people steal content" w/r/t Grokster. Google/YouTube don't 'steal' content, its users do. Unless I can make a few quid by suing Google/YouTube, in which case software does steal content now.
I remember liking him quite a bit on the Grokster case, e.g.
u th-be-told-mgm-vs-grokster/
"When content went digital, the floodgates opened. Content could be delivered digitally in thousands of different ways, and the number of methods for distribution would only expand over time. To me this meant the power of the gatekeepers would diminish and the power of independent content creators and owners would increase"
http://www.blogmaverick.com/2005/03/26/let-the-tr
but your narrative here really strikes me as the only explanation why he's gone over to the dark side... grokster lost so he figured he'd like to be a gatekeeper?
Well, if you use ideas or knowledge that they own, then you owe them money, don't you? PS: I don't think the government should pretend that people can own ideas or knowledge, but that's a side issue.
"Consumers are the final arbiters because they can vote with their wallets," Usher added. "This is as it should be in any well-functioning market, and we believe the improvements in Windows Vista play to this strength."
... can result from State *or private actions. Discuss.
You can reserve all rights to the song you create quite easily: do not, under any circumstances, perform it in the presence of other human beings (unless said beings are hearing-impaired).
Once you perform in front of -- say -- me, you don't control what I do with what I've heard unless you somehow obtain some rights over my brain . I'm a fairly polite guy, so I'm not going to reproduce it note-for-note, lie about who wrote the tune, and try to make a million bucks off of it. But I might, for example, really like the chord progression in the bridge and use a similar one in a song I write some day.
I get this right from the fact that I control my own thoughts. You retain all rights to your song insofar as I am not allowed to invent a thought-vacuum and suck the song out of your brain. But that's more to do with your right to control your brain than any property interest you have in the song.
It's made of ether. Not the flammable kind of ether, the luminiferous one
Sorry to confuse you with the AC who initially opened fire. I don't have to point you anywhere because I know for a fact it *was an issue. With me. The campaign websites of the major candidates might be an indication, but it's not the only indication.
"Fair use" does not define a certain limited amount of copying that you have permission to do. It defines copying that you do *not have to ask permission for. You can try to prevent "fair use" technologically, but there is nothing in copyright law that prevents my circumventing that technical measure. Now I defer to a smarter man:
(Moglen on the DMCA): "You never read a case, because there never was a case, in which under the copyright law, somebody was charged with a federal legal offence of any kind for writing a book about how photocopiers work or for distributing blue prints of photocopiers or for manufacturing and selling photocopiers. When you see a legal regime that is engaged in trying to charge people for doing those things, you can be pretty sure it's not the copyright law, it's something else. The fact that they put the word copyright in the title doesn't make it a copyright law folks"
You don't entitle your article "The Farce Behind Digital Freedom". And you don't immediately open fire with loaded words like "extremist". I have little hope for the rest of TFA at this point...
Parent was serious, I think. Well, as serious as ACs ca be. There was not 'enough' outcry for himer, so therefore any talk of morality/ethics by Americans cannot have any merit. That's where I lost interest.
As for heroes, I can't decide between the cheerleader and the hottie from Final Destination (the latter uses Linux as we all know, but -- ick -- KDE. Any hope the cheerleader uses GNOME?)
As one of the slim majority of Americans who considers himself ethical and didn't have anything to do with Abu Ghraib I don't think your post is actually very insightful. Especially this bit: "'Tis time to jettison the notion of "Christmas" " ... which I can't really even figure out.
"Torvalds has achieved fame as the godfather of the open-source movement, in which software code is shared and developed in a collaborative effort rather than being kept locked up by a single owner"
you know that stings...
...i.e. they might've put him in the category "Inpirations and Explorers". Time magazine can't afford proofreaders?
I agree with you 100% and feel that "intellectual property" is a bogus concept, but I don't understand how you can call this a "communist regulation". It's the opposite, if anything: communism opposes illegitimate private property, while the "copyright regime" tries to make property out of ideas.. "Protectionist regulation" would, I think be better. This notion is diatemtrically opposed to libertarianism and communism.
"I don't know of much free software that is really competitive because truly free software doesn't have the support that it needs to compete with software that does have support."
... working from a script .. that cannot see the inner workings of the software they're helping you with
I swear to god I *can't wait for this guy's comeuppance.
Don't try to parse this guy's BS too carefully. What he means here is quite simple: you get better support from
-underpaid phone help
than you do from
-several million independently working professionals with intimate knowledge of the software they use, who share their solutions to various problems with the whole world.
no, text. no.
Every hour MS spends on WGA, DRM, and the like is an hour they could've spent making my machine run better. Admittedly, it's only the /. prefilter that makes us think MS's development efforts go solely into technological control measures, but the point stands that F/OSS basically never goes near this realm.
Question: without all the control measures that benefit only MS and its partners (Cf. the "content industry") would Vista still require all that processing power?
And furthermore, I think it's funny how they say "We don't claim to own yr stuff," and then explain how they have the right to do *every single thing that the owner of yr stuff is supposed to have exclusive right to do.
I imagine they're right about one thing: this site will be an awful lot like myspace (throngs of idiots posting drivel)
omg, dude, let it go. The original *should have used 'that' instead of 'which'.