On the slashdot frontpage, a few stories back, another slashdot editor wrote: "It's a pretty scary scenario painted, but one can hardly take a speech from 2001 as serious evidence these days"
The music companies have been suing minors over filesharing, haven't they? Or is that (serious question) somehow different?
Given the cost of defending a lawsuit of this type, suing (say) the parents with no case seems just as effective as suing them with a strong case. Even if the hypothetical 3-year-old's parents have a rock-solid defense, someone still has to bear the cost of making that defense. Suing, even if you're sure to lose in court, is probably profitable.
Which is fine, until the software company sues the bejesus out of your wife, for breaking the inevitable condition that she wont let anybody else use the product.
You'll be fine though, if you have a good pre-nup.
Copyright basically prevents unauthorised publication, not the act of copying itself.
That's exactly wrong. Copyright restricts copying, not distribution. Once you have legitimately obtained a "copy" of a work, you may (generally) redistribute it. You may not make a second copy and redistribute that, however.
If you sold or eevn just gave away copies you certainly would be violating copyright
Yes, but it is making the "copies" that is illegal, not the redistribution.
Time-shifting is an explicit exception to copyright law (in my jurisdiction, at least) so this is quite different from making a backup. In some juristications there are also explicit exceptions for making a single backup (the U.S. is not one, I think).
Note that none of the above applies to (most) software, which is distributed under a license, so copyright law does not (usually) apply.
Well, I read The Dimaond Age, and I like the world and insight, but there was no story behing it, nothing interesting or believable at all. The end was really bad, no wonder it was the first book I got rid off with relief (I gave it to a friend on his birthday...).
It's horses for courses I guess; I thought the "larger story", from which the conclusion stems, was very well done. It was present, but since it wasn't relevant to the "charactor story" it wasn't explored--until the end, when it suddenly was very relevant to the character story.
The point is that Google DOES have the right to decide what it does and doesn't like, and DOES have the right to a "Google doesn't like these sites" list.
What Google does is publish their opinion. How they form their opinion is their business.
They are entitled to an opinion... aren't they?
The bit at the end about Google having grown large and important enough to be a special case is, in my opinion (Hurrah! I have one too!), stupid. Did the author think the same thing about AltaVista five years ago? Will he think the same about whoever replaces Google?
There's a (series of) Dilbert cartoon(s) where Dogbert gets his paws on star trek gizmos, so he starts zapping people who are standing in line in front of him in a line at the movie theatre, and things like that.
I think Dave Barry has covered this territory also.
Personally I don't think much of SOAP (too complex, the Java API hides you from it) or RTF (never formally defined, so there are hundreds of different versions).
The best Microsoft invention is the mouse-with-scroll-wheel.
Incumbent monopoly: Telecom New Zealand. New carrier: Clear Communications.
Same story.
The best part was when Clear started *paying* the ISPs something like 1c per minute out of the 3c per minute termination fee if they would stay on the Clear network. The ISPs passed this on in the form of free, toll-free internet access.
So Telecom was providing (and paying for) the service, and paying its competitors to pay their clients to pay the public to use as much of that service as they could.
And then the interconnection agreement expired and a new one was renegotiated, and Telecom did not make the same mistake again.
If I install an unlicensed ("pirated") copy of commercial software can I sue the vendor if it causes damage to my system? I have not agreed to any shrink-wrap or click-wrap license.
In this case it is the person you got the software from who made the illegal copies, not you. So yes, you are (probably) entitled to sue that person (but not the person who wrote the initial software, and whose work is being pirated).
Same here - installing LILO requires *copying* it to your hard disk. You are granted the right to do it under a specific license which includes the "thou shalt not sue" clause...
Again, it was the person who distributed the software to you who is deemed to have made the copy, and who accepted the licnse. You, as the user, have NOT accepted the license. You do not need to accept the license unless you choose to redistribute the software.
At that point (when you redistribute) you are deemed to have accepted the license and can then in principle be sued by the persons you distribute the work to.
Of course, IANAL, but that's how I interpret the FSFs comments (quoted elsewhere in these comments) on this issue.
Reasons why a book database is much harder than a CD database:
1. There is generally only one editiion of every CD. There must be hundreds of Editions of (say) Pride and Prejudice. Do you keep one record in your database, or many.
2. How do you uniquely identify a book? CDs have track number and lengths (and maybe digital IDs?) which are always the same. Some books even change their titles between editions. Loc Control numbers and ISBNs only apply on a per-edition basis
3. Performing lookups will be much harder because you have to figure out the ID beforehand and enter it manually, as opposed to just popping a CD in the tray and letting the computer figure out the ID. This will mean fewer people adopt the the syatem. (Bar cide scanners are your friend, in this case.)
This is why library science is such a huge discipline.
Actually, Z39.50 is one of the ugliest, stupidest standards I have ever had the misfourtune to use.
You are correct that it is in widespread use.
However, it is barely "standardized": it was created, as near as I can tell, by taking two huge ugly committee-designed standards, munging them together as a hideous compromise, and making everything optional. Thus not every Z39.50 client and server can communicate.
Generally you do okay though if you copy the parts the LoC uses.
I have read niether book. But I have to say that this quote (my emphasis) sums up why Katz is so offensive:
Referring to super-intelligent, curious, passionate, often introverted, talented individuals as "geeks" is outdated. Although Einsteins can call colleagues "geeks," it is not appropriate or cool for non-Einsteins to refer to computer, technology, systems or software geniuses as geeks. (page 217)
On a side note, when can we get a prop auction or something?
My parents visted Weta Creature Shop the other week (long story) and they said that they still have hundreds of big containers of props sitting around, just in case Peter Jackson decides to reshoot a scene and needs things exactly as they were.
I've heard that, in the end, the props will be split 50-50 between Weta and the movie distributer who put up the cash (and whose name I forget - doh). The movie company is expected to flog their s to the highest bidder; I don't know about Weta, but I hope they'll attempt to sell to Te Papa (Museum of New Zealand) or something.
BTW, everyone at Weta is working on upscale merchandising, apparently. They gave Mum and Dad a Gandalf statue. Very nice folks, from what I hear.
If someone loses the rights to use the original codebase (by violating the license, say), they don't suddenly regain that right via being given rights to the modified code of a derivative work...
I guess this is the crucial point: the way I read Article 6 of the GPL is that they do suddenly regain that right.
From the GPL (my emphasis):
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
But we weren't talking about the GPL being an invalid license.
We were talking about a specific individual/organisation being in violation of the GPL: a "garden-variety violation of the GNU GPL" in the qwords of the FSF.
In that case, why can't the violator's right to distribute be reinstated by getting a new copy of the GPLed software from a third party?
The one interesting thing here I observe is that once you have been found in violation of the GPL only the holder of the copyright can reinstate your ability to distribute derivative works-- and there is no obligation to do so.
This doesn't seem right. Why can't I, a random person with a fresh copy of MySQL plus source, modify MySQL very slightly then pass this derived work onto the defendant under the GPL, thus reinstating their right to redistribute.
The article refers to article 4 of the GPL, but there's nothing there that makes special reference to the copyright holder. In fact, clause 6 says that if I redistribute the program then the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.
Surely that means that even if NuSphere were once in violation of the GPL, the copyright holders cannot take away their right to distribute derivative works so long as someone (e.g. Red Hat, Debian, the cat's mother...) is willing to distribute to them.
Paul Lyons at Massey University (google is your friend) also describes ways for CS people to fake it - though from the presentation I saw, many "harmonious" colour combinations are not high-contrast, which seems to be what the question is about.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny.
On the slashdot frontpage, a few stories back, another slashdot editor wrote: "It's a pretty scary scenario painted, but one can hardly take a speech from 2001 as serious evidence these days"
Maybe that applies here too?
The music companies have been suing minors over filesharing, haven't they? Or is that (serious question) somehow different?
Given the cost of defending a lawsuit of this type, suing (say) the parents with no case seems just as effective as suing them with a strong case. Even if the hypothetical 3-year-old's parents have a rock-solid defense, someone still has to bear the cost of making that defense. Suing, even if you're sure to lose in court, is probably profitable.
Which is fine, until the software company sues the bejesus out of your wife, for breaking the inevitable condition that she wont let anybody else use the product.
You'll be fine though, if you have a good pre-nup.
In the case of BladeRunner, Ridley Scott paid for the rigts to use Nourse's title.
u nnern ner-faq/
See, for eample:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Blade_R
or
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/movies/bladeru
Anyone know what sort of things Dr Neilson has patented?
First, its important to note that the copyright holder is Professor Usher.
Given that, the RIAA is largely irrelevant to the question.
...which would be more-or-less equivalent to the longest uptiime, I guess.
l
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.htm
Copyright basically prevents unauthorised publication, not the act of copying itself.
That's exactly wrong. Copyright restricts copying, not distribution. Once you have legitimately obtained a "copy" of a work, you may (generally) redistribute it. You may not make a second copy and redistribute that, however.
If you sold or eevn just gave away copies you certainly would be violating copyright
Yes, but it is making the "copies" that is illegal, not the redistribution.
Time-shifting is an explicit exception to copyright law (in my jurisdiction, at least) so this is quite different from making a backup. In some juristications there are also explicit exceptions for making a single backup (the U.S. is not one, I think).
Note that none of the above applies to (most) software, which is distributed under a license, so copyright law does not (usually) apply.
Well, I read The Dimaond Age, and I like the world and insight, but there was no story behing it, nothing interesting or believable at all. The end was really bad, no wonder it was the first book I got rid off with relief (I gave it to a friend on his birthday...).
It's horses for courses I guess; I thought the "larger story", from which the conclusion stems, was very well done. It was present, but since it wasn't relevant to the "charactor story" it wasn't explored--until the end, when it suddenly was very relevant to the character story.
Before you ask: yes, I do like ambiguous endings.
And I think the poster reveals hideous taste.
screenshot
Did you read the article?
The point is that Google DOES have the right to decide what it does and doesn't like, and DOES have the right to a "Google doesn't like these sites" list.
What Google does is publish their opinion. How they form their opinion is their business.
They are entitled to an opinion... aren't they?
The bit at the end about Google having grown large and important enough to be a special case is, in my opinion (Hurrah! I have one too!), stupid. Did the author think the same thing about AltaVista five years ago? Will he think the same about whoever replaces Google?
And everyone called him a radical.
There's a (series of) Dilbert cartoon(s) where Dogbert gets his paws on star trek gizmos, so he starts zapping people who are standing in line in front of him in a line at the movie theatre, and things like that.
I think Dave Barry has covered this territory also.
Have one. Can't get 2.4 kernel to boot. Bah.
Personally I don't think much of SOAP (too complex, the Java API hides you from it) or RTF (never formally defined, so there are hundreds of different versions).
The best Microsoft invention is the mouse-with-scroll-wheel.
New Zealand:
Incumbent monopoly: Telecom New Zealand.
New carrier: Clear Communications.
Same story.
The best part was when Clear started *paying* the ISPs something like 1c per minute out of the 3c per minute termination fee if they would stay on the Clear network. The ISPs passed this on in the form of free, toll-free internet access.
So Telecom was providing (and paying for) the service, and paying its competitors to pay their clients to pay the public to use as much of that service as they could.
And then the interconnection agreement expired and a new one was renegotiated, and Telecom did not make the same mistake again.
At that point (when you redistribute) you are deemed to have accepted the license and can then in principle be sued by the persons you distribute the work to.
Of course, IANAL, but that's how I interpret the FSFs comments (quoted elsewhere in these comments) on this issue.
Reasons why a book database is much harder than a CD database:
1. There is generally only one editiion of every CD. There must be hundreds of Editions of (say) Pride and Prejudice. Do you keep one record in your database, or many.
2. How do you uniquely identify a book? CDs have track number and lengths (and maybe digital IDs?) which are always the same. Some books even change their titles between editions. Loc Control numbers and ISBNs only apply on a per-edition basis
3. Performing lookups will be much harder because you have to figure out the ID beforehand and enter it manually, as opposed to just popping a CD in the tray and letting the computer figure out the ID. This will mean fewer people adopt the the syatem. (Bar cide scanners are your friend, in this case.)
This is why library science is such a huge discipline.
A trivial point, but I can't let this pass:
Z39.50 is a pretty decent standard,...
Actually, Z39.50 is one of the ugliest, stupidest standards I have ever had the misfourtune to use.
You are correct that it is in widespread use.
However, it is barely "standardized": it was created, as near as I can tell, by taking two huge ugly committee-designed standards, munging them together as a hideous compromise, and making everything optional. Thus not every Z39.50 client and server can communicate.
Generally you do okay though if you copy the parts the LoC uses.
I have read niether book. But I have to say that this quote (my emphasis) sums up why Katz is so offensive:
Referring to super-intelligent, curious, passionate, often introverted, talented individuals as "geeks" is outdated. Although Einsteins can call colleagues "geeks," it is not appropriate or cool for non-Einsteins to refer to computer, technology, systems or software geniuses as geeks. (page 217)
On a side note, when can we get a prop auction or something?
My parents visted Weta Creature Shop the other week (long story) and they said that they still have hundreds of big containers of props sitting around, just in case Peter Jackson decides to reshoot a scene and needs things exactly as they were.
I've heard that, in the end, the props will be split 50-50 between Weta and the movie distributer who put up the cash (and whose name I forget - doh). The movie company is expected to flog their s to the highest bidder; I don't know about Weta, but I hope they'll attempt to sell to Te Papa (Museum of New Zealand) or something.
BTW, everyone at Weta is working on upscale merchandising, apparently. They gave Mum and Dad a Gandalf statue. Very nice folks, from what I hear.
If someone loses the rights to use the original codebase (by violating the license, say), they don't suddenly regain that right via being given rights to the modified code of a derivative work...
I guess this is the crucial point: the way I read Article 6 of the GPL is that they do suddenly regain that right.
From the GPL (my emphasis):
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
But then , IANAL either.
But we weren't talking about the GPL being an invalid license.
We were talking about a specific individual/organisation being in violation of the GPL: a "garden-variety violation of the GNU GPL" in the qwords of the FSF.
In that case, why can't the violator's right to distribute be reinstated by getting a new copy of the GPLed software from a third party?
The one interesting thing here I observe is that once you have been found in violation of the GPL only the holder of the copyright can reinstate your ability to distribute derivative works-- and there is no obligation to do so.
This doesn't seem right. Why can't I, a random person with a fresh copy of MySQL plus source, modify MySQL very slightly then pass this derived work onto the defendant under the GPL, thus reinstating their right to redistribute.
The article refers to article 4 of the GPL, but there's nothing there that makes special reference to the copyright holder. In fact, clause 6 says that if I redistribute the program then the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.
Surely that means that even if NuSphere were once in violation of the GPL, the copyright holders cannot take away their right to distribute derivative works so long as someone (e.g. Red Hat, Debian, the cat's mother...) is willing to distribute to them.
Sorry, I have sigs turned off.
But re. automated colour scheme generation:
Paul Lyons at Massey University (google is your friend) also describes ways for CS people to fake it - though from the presentation I saw, many "harmonious" colour combinations are not high-contrast, which seems to be what the question is about.