Someone created a blog. He has a copyright on that blog. Someone inserted Javascript. Which created a derivative copyrighted work. Which (a) you are not allowed to store on Github, so that DMCA complaint and removal was 100% Ok, and (b) violated one of the exclusive rights of the blogger, namely the right to create derivative works, so he can take them to court for that.
Then why are anti-virus companies not sued for copyright infringement? They get a copy of the virus from a third-party, without permission of the virus author.
Because they can invite the copyright holder to meet them in court, and have the police waiting for him. This is like the guy who went to the police because someone stole his drugs. The police arrested both. Most virus authors are not _that_ stupid.
Yes, i agree - of course that is not a problem of German beer (you can find GREAT German pils/lagers plus others) but with the typical tourist (what the fuck is the need to have Bud in Germany?... IN GERMANY!? The same we have it in Greece: tourists!)
Bud in Germany is Ok. It's close enough to the Czech republic, so you will only get genuine Czech Budvar and not the pissing-contest winner from the USA.
Objective-C generics is a trivial update. If you have an NSArray, you can now specifiy that all elements are of type NSString. That means you get type checks when adding objects or reading objects, and most importantly when accessing the array from Swift, it is mapped to an array of string, and not an array of AnyObject. There is no code change, and very little in the compiler frontend to handle it.
Re:Does El Capitan Fix Major Problems?
on
WWDC 2015 Roundup
·
· Score: 1
And OS X isn't the worst for that. Windows 8.1 has this lovely thing where if you drag a file over the directory tree in Explorer, it will spin up every single goddamned disc and network drive and freeze the drag operation until it's done.
Apple tells its developers that disk I/O should always be done asynchronous for these reasons. Both Apple and Microsoft would do better following Apple's advice.
Re:Does El Capitan Fix Major Problems?
on
WWDC 2015 Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Of course, everyone who's ever worked in UI knows people like UIs to, well, not change - that some menu option will always be located in the same place, that things generally look the same. If there's a change, there had better be a damn good reason for the change.
Everyone in software development outside UI knows that. Everyone who works in UI desparetely believes that people want change, because that way the UI people they justify their existence. Hire someone new in UI, and the first thing they do is change the user interface.
This is almost a cliche, it's exactly what happened after Y2K.
Some time back in 1996, an employee at a British supermarket handling deliveries of goods tried to enter the best-before date of a can of beans. Tinned beans can be stored safely for a very, very long time. The beans that had been delivered were the first goods that supermarket received with a best-before date in 2000. The employee couldn't enter that date.
It was obvious then that if no action was taken, the supermarket would be in bad trouble in December 1999 and in deep shit in January 2000. It's also obvious that they were not stupid enough to let that happen.
Indeed. Apple didn't really turn "anti-DRM" until they got into trouble with market regulators...
The question is whether you are a clueless twat with no knowledge of history, or if you are spouting that nonsense intentionally.
DRM on music was never in Apple's interest. Apple didn't manage to get the rights to sell DRM free music from the record companies. Then EMI gave them the rights to sell EMI music without DRM; that was the first DRM free music from the big labels that you could buy online anywhere. Then, as a reaction, the other labels allowed Amazon to sell DRM free music, but withheld the right from Apple, blackmailing Apple into raising prices for more popular music. And that's where we are now.
If there was no DRM, you would just be able to save the streamed file, this is unlikely to be the case.
Not necessarily. A streaming music service might work by using an application, which just doesn't have the ability to save the streamed file. The app would just check that your subscription is currently paid for, which is not DRM because it doesn't involve any copyrighted material. The server just makes sure to stream music only to genuine apps with paid for subscriptions. Still no DRM because you have no music in your hands whose rights are managed.
"DRM is a means of limiting the distribution of a purchased (or licensed) digital file by the owner (or licensee)."
Well if you think about it locking it to Apple devices that is limiting the distribution by Apple so in a Sense it IS DRM.
Anything that controls how I can listen to music, or how I can watch a video, or how I can play a game, is DRM. By definition.
However, for a streaming music service, what you pay for is the ability to play the music you want, according to the clearly advertised terms of the service, as long as you pay for a service. DRM or just lack of interoperability that interferes with this is a defect. DRM that doesn't interfere with this is absolutely fine.
So if Apple sells a service that lets you listen to music on any Mac, iPhone, iPod or iPad, as long as you pay for the service, then they should clearly advertise exactly what they offer, and should deliver what they advertise, and that's it. If that music doesn't play on your Xbox and they never said it would and listed all the devices that you can use, that's fine. If you can't record it and play back after you stopped paying for the service, that's fine.
The problem with DRM on music in the past was (1) you purchased the music or at least you were told you purchased it, but DRM stopped you from playing it, and (2) DRM stopped working and then you couldn't play the music at all, not even in the way that you were supposed to play it.
Simple solution to this problem. Find the person(s) who invented the concept of assignment operators, comments, and byte code and mount a major lawsuit against Sun for billions of dollars for copyright violation. Just front end them.
Concepts don't fall under copyright law, trademark law, patent law, or any other law. So that's where your great idea fails.
The GPL prevents linking via API to existing GPL'd libraries. It does not stop you from writing your own library with the exact same method declarations but your OWN implementation.
What google did is specifically NOT prevented by the GPL either.
I wouldn't put it that way. It's just that copying the library is very, very obvious covered by copyright law, and copying the API is much less obviously covered by copyright law. If it is covered by copyright law, then it is covered by GPL, and if it is not covered by copyright law then it isn't.
It probably wasn't even copied, it was written by the same developer, who happened to use the same variable names for an uncreative piece of boiler plate code.
And that's the important question, whether it was copied or not. Having identical code raises a strong suspicion of copying. However, if you threw away some code that I wrote last week and asked me to write it again, there's a good chance that the result would be identical. Especially for some trivial code like this, where the exact result of the function, including exceptions thrown, has been prescribed.
NB even if it is copyrightable, someone can still make an implementation under fair use: especially for interoperability purposes.
"Fair use" in copyright law has a different meaning than "I'm using it, and what I'm doing is fair". Google can make a parody of Java and claim fair use:-)
First, foremost, always and finally, API's are ultimately a collection of names. Names are not copyrightable entities.
What makes you think that names are not copyrightable? We are not talking about real names of persons here, but made up names of functions, constants, and so on. In principle, some text is not copyrightable if it had to be the way it is and didn't require any creative effort. So the New York phone book isn't copyrightable, because it contains (except for mistakes) exactly the text that it should contain. But the names in an API may very well be copyrightable, because the creator of the API could have used any name they wanted.
If a person is found not guilty in a murder trial, how is it that they can be charged in a civil trial for damages from a murder they are not guilty of? If you don't see that as double jeopardy you are either blind, or a complete idiot who should live inside of a box and not be allowed to participate in society.
In the murder trial, that person was found "not guilty beyond reasonable doubt". That is an extremely high standard. In the civil court, there is a much lower standard: The court just has to find that the person is more likely to be the murderer than not.
In the Simpson case, would you be willing to deny justice to the Goldman family because police didn't have enough evidence against Simpson? And if he had been convicted, would you deny justice to the Goldman family because Simpson was already convicted once? That's pathetic.
Nokia dumb phones also have a good reputation in the first and the second world countries. They are good for older people or for those who prefer simplicity and battery life.
They are good for people who want a phone to make phone calls and nothing else. They are also good for people who want to have an emergency phone in the car, for example, with a battery that lasts forever. Mine used to last more than half a year while not used. The carriers hated PAYG customers without a monthly contract. But for £20 + £10 one time payment for some minutes, you are always in contact with the world if everything else goes wrong.
I hope the people writing self-driving cars don't have the idiotic mindset that if they haven't enumerated the error it should be allowed to fail spectacularly.
There are cars in computers already, controlling your brakes, for example. What they have to do apart from being written in the most secure way possible is to detect that there is a problem with the software, and reboot very, very quickly to recover. If it is a hardware problem, they put your car into a "limp" mode where you can limp home or to the nearest garage at low speed.
Self-driving cars will have to be able to reboot at an amazing speed.
How do you install an older version on iOS? I don't think you can. At least I have no idea how you would do it. Unless Apple removes the latest version from the App Store.
Looks like someone at MoneyCNN has an axe to grind.
There has never been any evidence, or any good reason to believe that anyone hacked into iCloud to get pictures of "celebrities". On the other hand, plenty of evidence that there were easy to guess username / password combinations. Plus, the article title is "Tim Cook didn't address Apple's real privacy problem", when the first statement it makes is that Apple actually _did_ address a problem.
People always get it wrong. It's not privacy you want but anonymity.
I want both. If Google puts ads into my browser based on my browsing history, and the computer is shared with my wife, what good is anonymity?
Re:hexadecimal floating point numbers?
on
Perl 5.22 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
What's the use case for hexadecimal floating point numbers? Seems like a "Why not" feature.
Useful when you implement high quality transcendental functions and need floating-point constants that are guaranteed to be converted exactly as intended.
Slashdot Mirror
Another reason to get rid of DMCA alltogether.
More like "another reason to turn your brain on".
Someone created a blog. He has a copyright on that blog. Someone inserted Javascript. Which created a derivative copyrighted work. Which (a) you are not allowed to store on Github, so that DMCA complaint and removal was 100% Ok, and (b) violated one of the exclusive rights of the blogger, namely the right to create derivative works, so he can take them to court for that.
Then why are anti-virus companies not sued for copyright infringement? They get a copy of the virus from a third-party, without permission of the virus author.
Because they can invite the copyright holder to meet them in court, and have the police waiting for him. This is like the guy who went to the police because someone stole his drugs. The police arrested both. Most virus authors are not _that_ stupid.
Yes, i agree - of course that is not a problem of German beer (you can find GREAT German pils/lagers plus others) but with the typical tourist (what the fuck is the need to have Bud in Germany?... IN GERMANY!? The same we have it in Greece: tourists!)
Bud in Germany is Ok. It's close enough to the Czech republic, so you will only get genuine Czech Budvar and not the pissing-contest winner from the USA.
Objective-C generics is a trivial update. If you have an NSArray, you can now specifiy that all elements are of type NSString. That means you get type checks when adding objects or reading objects, and most importantly when accessing the array from Swift, it is mapped to an array of string, and not an array of AnyObject. There is no code change, and very little in the compiler frontend to handle it.
And OS X isn't the worst for that. Windows 8.1 has this lovely thing where if you drag a file over the directory tree in Explorer, it will spin up every single goddamned disc and network drive and freeze the drag operation until it's done.
Apple tells its developers that disk I/O should always be done asynchronous for these reasons. Both Apple and Microsoft would do better following Apple's advice.
Of course, everyone who's ever worked in UI knows people like UIs to, well, not change - that some menu option will always be located in the same place, that things generally look the same. If there's a change, there had better be a damn good reason for the change.
Everyone in software development outside UI knows that. Everyone who works in UI desparetely believes that people want change, because that way the UI people they justify their existence. Hire someone new in UI, and the first thing they do is change the user interface.
This is almost a cliche, it's exactly what happened after Y2K.
Some time back in 1996, an employee at a British supermarket handling deliveries of goods tried to enter the best-before date of a can of beans. Tinned beans can be stored safely for a very, very long time. The beans that had been delivered were the first goods that supermarket received with a best-before date in 2000. The employee couldn't enter that date.
It was obvious then that if no action was taken, the supermarket would be in bad trouble in December 1999 and in deep shit in January 2000. It's also obvious that they were not stupid enough to let that happen.
Personally, I drive a larger vehicle than I would like. I do so because I feel that I need to ability to haul things around occasionally.
Don't get it. When I need it, I hire a truck. 7.5 ton truck for a day is quite cheap. And that's something I'd never want to drive on a daily basis.
So when Mozart wrote down his music, it wasn't music? What about music that Beethoven wrote when he was totally deaf?
Indeed. Apple didn't really turn "anti-DRM" until they got into trouble with market regulators...
The question is whether you are a clueless twat with no knowledge of history, or if you are spouting that nonsense intentionally.
DRM on music was never in Apple's interest. Apple didn't manage to get the rights to sell DRM free music from the record companies. Then EMI gave them the rights to sell EMI music without DRM; that was the first DRM free music from the big labels that you could buy online anywhere. Then, as a reaction, the other labels allowed Amazon to sell DRM free music, but withheld the right from Apple, blackmailing Apple into raising prices for more popular music. And that's where we are now.
If there was no DRM, you would just be able to save the streamed file, this is unlikely to be the case.
Not necessarily. A streaming music service might work by using an application, which just doesn't have the ability to save the streamed file. The app would just check that your subscription is currently paid for, which is not DRM because it doesn't involve any copyrighted material. The server just makes sure to stream music only to genuine apps with paid for subscriptions. Still no DRM because you have no music in your hands whose rights are managed.
"DRM is a means of limiting the distribution of a purchased (or licensed) digital file by the owner (or licensee)."
Well if you think about it locking it to Apple devices that is limiting the distribution by Apple so in a Sense it IS DRM.
Anything that controls how I can listen to music, or how I can watch a video, or how I can play a game, is DRM. By definition.
However, for a streaming music service, what you pay for is the ability to play the music you want, according to the clearly advertised terms of the service, as long as you pay for a service. DRM or just lack of interoperability that interferes with this is a defect. DRM that doesn't interfere with this is absolutely fine.
So if Apple sells a service that lets you listen to music on any Mac, iPhone, iPod or iPad, as long as you pay for the service, then they should clearly advertise exactly what they offer, and should deliver what they advertise, and that's it. If that music doesn't play on your Xbox and they never said it would and listed all the devices that you can use, that's fine. If you can't record it and play back after you stopped paying for the service, that's fine.
The problem with DRM on music in the past was (1) you purchased the music or at least you were told you purchased it, but DRM stopped you from playing it, and (2) DRM stopped working and then you couldn't play the music at all, not even in the way that you were supposed to play it.
Simple solution to this problem. Find the person(s) who invented the concept of assignment operators, comments, and byte code and mount a major lawsuit against Sun for billions of dollars for copyright violation. Just front end them.
Concepts don't fall under copyright law, trademark law, patent law, or any other law. So that's where your great idea fails.
You can't copyright generic and short phrases like chapter 1, chapter 2 anyway. There is no creative expression of ideas there.
So what about this:
Chapter 1, in which Phileas Fogg and Passepartout accept each other, the one as master, the other as man.
The GPL prevents linking via API to existing GPL'd libraries. It does not stop you from writing your own library with the exact same method declarations but your OWN implementation. What google did is specifically NOT prevented by the GPL either.
I wouldn't put it that way. It's just that copying the library is very, very obvious covered by copyright law, and copying the API is much less obviously covered by copyright law. If it is covered by copyright law, then it is covered by GPL, and if it is not covered by copyright law then it isn't.
It probably wasn't even copied, it was written by the same developer, who happened to use the same variable names for an uncreative piece of boiler plate code.
And that's the important question, whether it was copied or not. Having identical code raises a strong suspicion of copying. However, if you threw away some code that I wrote last week and asked me to write it again, there's a good chance that the result would be identical. Especially for some trivial code like this, where the exact result of the function, including exceptions thrown, has been prescribed.
NB even if it is copyrightable, someone can still make an implementation under fair use: especially for interoperability purposes.
"Fair use" in copyright law has a different meaning than "I'm using it, and what I'm doing is fair". Google can make a parody of Java and claim fair use :-)
First, foremost, always and finally, API's are ultimately a collection of names. Names are not copyrightable entities.
What makes you think that names are not copyrightable? We are not talking about real names of persons here, but made up names of functions, constants, and so on. In principle, some text is not copyrightable if it had to be the way it is and didn't require any creative effort. So the New York phone book isn't copyrightable, because it contains (except for mistakes) exactly the text that it should contain. But the names in an API may very well be copyrightable, because the creator of the API could have used any name they wanted.
If a person is found not guilty in a murder trial, how is it that they can be charged in a civil trial for damages from a murder they are not guilty of? If you don't see that as double jeopardy you are either blind, or a complete idiot who should live inside of a box and not be allowed to participate in society.
In the murder trial, that person was found "not guilty beyond reasonable doubt". That is an extremely high standard. In the civil court, there is a much lower standard: The court just has to find that the person is more likely to be the murderer than not.
In the Simpson case, would you be willing to deny justice to the Goldman family because police didn't have enough evidence against Simpson? And if he had been convicted, would you deny justice to the Goldman family because Simpson was already convicted once? That's pathetic.
Nokia dumb phones also have a good reputation in the first and the second world countries. They are good for older people or for those who prefer simplicity and battery life.
They are good for people who want a phone to make phone calls and nothing else. They are also good for people who want to have an emergency phone in the car, for example, with a battery that lasts forever. Mine used to last more than half a year while not used. The carriers hated PAYG customers without a monthly contract. But for £20 + £10 one time payment for some minutes, you are always in contact with the world if everything else goes wrong.
I hope the people writing self-driving cars don't have the idiotic mindset that if they haven't enumerated the error it should be allowed to fail spectacularly.
There are cars in computers already, controlling your brakes, for example. What they have to do apart from being written in the most secure way possible is to detect that there is a problem with the software, and reboot very, very quickly to recover. If it is a hardware problem, they put your car into a "limp" mode where you can limp home or to the nearest garage at low speed.
Self-driving cars will have to be able to reboot at an amazing speed.
How do you install an older version on iOS? I don't think you can. At least I have no idea how you would do it. Unless Apple removes the latest version from the App Store.
Looks like someone at MoneyCNN has an axe to grind.
There has never been any evidence, or any good reason to believe that anyone hacked into iCloud to get pictures of "celebrities". On the other hand, plenty of evidence that there were easy to guess username / password combinations. Plus, the article title is "Tim Cook didn't address Apple's real privacy problem", when the first statement it makes is that Apple actually _did_ address a problem.
People always get it wrong. It's not privacy you want but anonymity.
I want both. If Google puts ads into my browser based on my browsing history, and the computer is shared with my wife, what good is anonymity?
What's the use case for hexadecimal floating point numbers? Seems like a "Why not" feature.
Useful when you implement high quality transcendental functions and need floating-point constants that are guaranteed to be converted exactly as intended.