If he didn't have a problem with it, then I don't think he would have used the CC no derived works license. It also belies the last statement of the summary above: "In keeping with his wishes, it's being made available only in ogg."
If you tried to do this, the studios could simply recast their agreements such that the artists become employees and the works are made for hire.
If copyrights are non-transferable, and if works cannot be owned by employers, then the whole software industry will fall apart, so I don't think you reasonably prevent that sort of arrangement from happening.
Someone should transcode the ogg and upload it to YouTube just to make a point. It would be fair use - a means to provide the content to those who cannot, for whatever reasons, play ogg streams (iPhone users, if no one else). I can just see the cognitive dissonance Stallman would experience: to demand a take-down and remain pure to doctrine (but at the same time join league with the copyright cartels he decries) or leave it alone and allow people to actually hear the message.
I'd do it, but I'm just not that interested in what Stallman has to say.
Taking your ideas on is fine. But how do you feel if someone takes something you wrote, changes the byline (and nothing else) and posts it as their own? That would be perfectly ok with you because it would demonstrate how much they totally agree with you?
You're saying that if an artist posts his art for free online he has no right to insist that some other asswipe not take his art and post it as their own on some other site?
Did I miss the part where the person posting the video about Yuri on YouTube violated copyright law (as opposed to the fucktards who ripped off my video)?
While copyright itself does not require registration, if you don't care enough to register it, you shouldn't care enough to try to take it down afterwards.
I call bullshit.
I recorded a video of my cat a while ago and posted it to YouTube. Copies of it have sprouted up far and wide, uploaded to YouTube and Google Video and all sorts of other places. It got so bad that someone started sending around a bogus e-mail with the video attached.
It's just a cat flushing the toilet, right? Why should I care?
Well, damnit, it's my cat, and all I want is credit for my own work. It's intolerable to me for others to get to take the credit, but any procedure more costly or onerous than the takedown procedure already in place would not be worth it. And the result would be that I would be disincented to create works and post them to YouTube. So much for promoting the useful arts.
I do agree that those who abuse the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA and send bogus take-down notices need to be walloped. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
I believe every year since about 2002 has been THE year of Linux on the Desktop. Keep predicting it and one of these years you may wind up being right.
Amen! Because no salesman working on commission has ever made a ton of money off repeat business from satisfied customers. In my experience, no, they haven't.
I have bought things more than once from the same store (as a notable example, the AT&T nee' Cingular store in question), but I typically don't get the same salesman twice in a row, and in any event my satisfaction is in spite of such salesmen universally trying to pad the deal with crap I don't want. This goes for cars, TVs, everything. I am thinking of getting a custom T-shirt that says, "No, I don't want the extended warranty."
I think I dimly remember having an account on crash, but if I did, I wasn't very active. I was very young at the time and was much more connected with the BBS scene.
Now, I do think AT&T employees should have been better about informaing the line as to what was going on
But if people at the end of the line know that the store is out of iPhones, they might go somewhere else and the store employees would not get their commission. Their goal was to try and get people still in line after they ran out to place orders to get iPhones shipped to them (again, so they could get the commission). Someone familiar with Apple stores will have to confirm whether or not Apple store employees are on commission or not, but I would speculate that any difference in behavior could be attributed to them not getting commissions.
Salesmen on commission simply can never be counted on to act in the customer's interest in any way.
I went to the AT&T store in Santa Clara. I showed up at 4 and was about 40th or so in line. I estimate that by 6 there were probably only about 100-150 total in line. The line went very slowly once 6 o'clock came around. I attribute this to two things:
1. The staff was trying to upsell accessories and AT&T DSL service.
2. Their computers were bogged down due to the event.
I had (have) a Cingular RAZR already, and he identified me in the computer. I don't know for sure, but pre-opening announcements were made to the effect that they were going to set you up with an account in the store prior to your iTunes activation, probably as a means to prevent eBay arbitrage.
After I paid, he dropped the phone in a bag and actually sealed it. Not sure what the point of that is/was.
The last oddity was that a store employee was stationed by the door and was locking and unlocking the door as people would enter and exit. I pointed out to them (on the way out - I'm no fool) that the fire marshal would have a fit if he caught them doing that. Crowd control is understandable, but locking the only means of egress from a retail space when customers are present is a bit of a no-no.
When I got home, the iTunes activation procedure with the phone was everything they promised it would be. It was only a couple minutes before the iPhone was up and running.
I'll assume for the moment that the Twins didn't specify whether or not they used a standalone CD recorder (which would certainly qualify under the act) or a computer. Presumably you would have to agree both that it is indeed a plausible possibility that that is what they did, and that if section 1008 is as limited as you say it is that it would still at least cover burning copies for personal household use using such a device. That being the case, the troll lawyer and/or RIAA would still have insufficient grounds for action since they have no evidence that the copy was not made legally.
Personally, I think it much more likely that the troll lawyer was ignorant of section 1008 and was just trying, as trolls do, to start a messy debate.
Private, noncommercial copies by consumers using "digital audio recording devices" are explicitly protected by [section] 1008. The Senate report defines noncommercial as "not for direct or indirect commercial advantage," offering examples such as making copies for a family member, or copies for use in a car or portable tape player.
The American Home Recording Act allows people to rip, mix and burn media not protected by a DMCA covered protection mechanism, so long as it remains within the same household. The twins being the President's immediate family would certainly qualify.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Render to what? Images? That means no copy/paste for you.
2. How will Javascript work?
3. What about other plug-ins? Flash? embedded audio/video?
Without support for at least Javascript, you're going to wind up with a very, very static browsing experience, to say the least.
A lightweight browser for windows? I believe a beta is already out.
Except that the article is incorrect. The sample size is so low as to be laughably anecdotal.
If he didn't have a problem with it, then I don't think he would have used the CC no derived works license. It also belies the last statement of the summary above: "In keeping with his wishes, it's being made available only in ogg."
Perhaps the only thing worse is when they don't even sign their name.
If you tried to do this, the studios could simply recast their agreements such that the artists become employees and the works are made for hire.
If copyrights are non-transferable, and if works cannot be owned by employers, then the whole software industry will fall apart, so I don't think you reasonably prevent that sort of arrangement from happening.
Someone should transcode the ogg and upload it to YouTube just to make a point. It would be fair use - a means to provide the content to those who cannot, for whatever reasons, play ogg streams (iPhone users, if no one else). I can just see the cognitive dissonance Stallman would experience: to demand a take-down and remain pure to doctrine (but at the same time join league with the copyright cartels he decries) or leave it alone and allow people to actually hear the message.
I'd do it, but I'm just not that interested in what Stallman has to say.
Where do you draw the line?
Which, from what I've seen on YouTube, happens pretty routinely when schmucks rip people off and post copies.
My guess is that you didn't realise the video would be popular, and didn't bother with the effort to put a caption on the video.
No, I actually didn't put a title on the video because I'm not a pretentious douche-bag.
I don't see why there should be laws to retrospectively protect your oversight/naivety/laziness.
Thank God, then, that it's not up to you.
Taking your ideas on is fine. But how do you feel if someone takes something you wrote, changes the byline (and nothing else) and posts it as their own? That would be perfectly ok with you because it would demonstrate how much they totally agree with you?
Are we actually having the same conversation?
You're saying that if an artist posts his art for free online he has no right to insist that some other asswipe not take his art and post it as their own on some other site?
Did I miss the part where the person posting the video about Yuri on YouTube violated copyright law (as opposed to the fucktards who ripped off my video)?
I didn't think so.
The cat didn't hold the camera. Or post the video to YouTube, for that matter.
I call bullshit.
I recorded a video of my cat a while ago and posted it to YouTube. Copies of it have sprouted up far and wide, uploaded to YouTube and Google Video and all sorts of other places. It got so bad that someone started sending around a bogus e-mail with the video attached.
It's just a cat flushing the toilet, right? Why should I care?
Well, damnit, it's my cat, and all I want is credit for my own work. It's intolerable to me for others to get to take the credit, but any procedure more costly or onerous than the takedown procedure already in place would not be worth it. And the result would be that I would be disincented to create works and post them to YouTube. So much for promoting the useful arts.
I do agree that those who abuse the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA and send bogus take-down notices need to be walloped. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
I believe every year since about 2002 has been THE year of Linux on the Desktop. Keep predicting it and one of these years you may wind up being right.
With a population not quite as numerous as California, I would have to say that, yes, Canada is a small country.
I have bought things more than once from the same store (as a notable example, the AT&T nee' Cingular store in question), but I typically don't get the same salesman twice in a row, and in any event my satisfaction is in spite of such salesmen universally trying to pad the deal with crap I don't want. This goes for cars, TVs, everything. I am thinking of getting a custom T-shirt that says, "No, I don't want the extended warranty."
I think I dimly remember having an account on crash, but if I did, I wasn't very active. I was very young at the time and was much more connected with the BBS scene.
But if people at the end of the line know that the store is out of iPhones, they might go somewhere else and the store employees would not get their commission. Their goal was to try and get people still in line after they ran out to place orders to get iPhones shipped to them (again, so they could get the commission). Someone familiar with Apple stores will have to confirm whether or not Apple store employees are on commission or not, but I would speculate that any difference in behavior could be attributed to them not getting commissions.
Salesmen on commission simply can never be counted on to act in the customer's interest in any way.
Uh, that joke was originally about Apple and IBM, and was coined the second time ago that an IBM/Apple merger was being talked about.
I went to the AT&T store in Santa Clara. I showed up at 4 and was about 40th or so in line. I estimate that by 6 there were probably only about 100-150 total in line. The line went very slowly once 6 o'clock came around. I attribute this to two things:
1. The staff was trying to upsell accessories and AT&T DSL service.
2. Their computers were bogged down due to the event.
I had (have) a Cingular RAZR already, and he identified me in the computer. I don't know for sure, but pre-opening announcements were made to the effect that they were going to set you up with an account in the store prior to your iTunes activation, probably as a means to prevent eBay arbitrage.
After I paid, he dropped the phone in a bag and actually sealed it. Not sure what the point of that is/was.
The last oddity was that a store employee was stationed by the door and was locking and unlocking the door as people would enter and exit. I pointed out to them (on the way out - I'm no fool) that the fire marshal would have a fit if he caught them doing that. Crowd control is understandable, but locking the only means of egress from a retail space when customers are present is a bit of a no-no.
When I got home, the iTunes activation procedure with the phone was everything they promised it would be. It was only a couple minutes before the iPhone was up and running.
My last computer cost $25,000, and required you to program in COBOL with toggle switches on the front panel and lasted 30 years.
And you try telling that to the young people of today, and they won't believe you!
Personally, I think it much more likely that the troll lawyer was ignorant of section 1008 and was just trying, as trolls do, to start a messy debate.
And, actually, it does exempt home copying:
Private, noncommercial copies by consumers using "digital audio recording devices" are explicitly protected by [section] 1008. The Senate report defines noncommercial as "not for direct or indirect commercial advantage," offering examples such as making copies for a family member, or copies for use in a car or portable tape player.The American Home Recording Act allows people to rip, mix and burn media not protected by a DMCA covered protection mechanism, so long as it remains within the same household. The twins being the President's immediate family would certainly qualify.