No, I'm not confusing it with an exclusive licence. I was attempting to clarify my understanding of the OP. My original understanding was exactly as you put it - that even if you don't want a station to play your music, they are permitted to do so under a "compulsory licence". Which seems wholly in contradiction to the principles of fairness & intellectual property - hence why I was confused.
In other words, if they refuse to negotiate with individual licence holders, and you want them to play your music, the only way to achieve this is to submit the music under the compulsory licence?
If so, the word "compulsory" is misleading - the copyright holder *had* the option of licensing it under another arrangement, but this was rejected by the broadcaster.
"The license is compulsory for the copyright holders"
This is where I don't understand your post. You're saying that, if a copyright holder wants to give music to a broadcaster in return for a royalty, they are required to submit the music under the compulsory licence?
IANA(American)L, but I'm quite sure the same principles will apply. These constitutional amendments don't apply to the rules of private bodies, contracts and what-have-you. Hence if you join a Darts Club, the club agreement can state that you may not say anything which might contradict the professional committee (just a hypothetical). The question here is whether the University could be considered an instrument of government. Even then, it is doubtful whether the first amendment would apply - would be similar to the Department of Whatever entering into a commercial contract for the sale of widgets, on condition that the supplier not disclose the terms of that transaction.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
You missed the first five words there - "Congress shall make no law". There's no law here being made.
The summary of the article is slightly misleading.
FTA:
The chips have "actually been shipping in smaller amounts for a number of weeks before the debut of this official announcement."
"A number of weeks in small amounts" != "Shipping since earlier this year"
I don't really think that he was saying Macs == teh doomed, and to all hail our new iPod-bearing overlords.
More to the point, and I think in fact that most sane people would agree - the iPod has been a revolution for Apple. It is the exact bandwagon they need to bring their other products (i.e. Macintosh computers) to a wide consumer audience.
From TFA:
"If you read all the way to the bottom of this article, and you think that my basic thesis is that "the Mac is doomed and Apple is planning to quit selling personal computers," or some other such fatuous nonsense, then you need serious remedial help with reading comprehension."
Luke force chokes the guards on his way into Jabba's palace in Return of the Jedi. I suppose you could interpret this as a use of the dark side of the Force.
I'm undivided as to whether it was Vader or Luke who brings balance to the Force, and thus fulfilled the prophecy. I'd probably lean towards Luke at the moment, but that really is in no way definitive.
I don't even believe that one should be required to justify's one use of tools which protect one's privacy. There is no need to say why I choose to use Tor (such as commercial secrets or pornography, as you have stated). The simple fact remains that I should be entitled to my privacy.
But, it does appear that you would agree with my opinion, so this isn't really directed at (or attacking) what you are saying.
The problem with the large volume of sub-par games being churned out today is the budget. From TFA, millions of dollars to develop a game is no longer unreasonable.
The problem is where this money is directed. I'm pretty sure the code monkeys at EA aren't seeing much of this. Distribution/production costs I'm sure haven't changed in the past 5 years (and if they have, I would be certain that they would have decreased). Ridiculous amounts of money are being shoved at top level executives and art designers.
If the focus is shifted from game art back into development of the actual game concepts themselves, then innovation will return. Naturally that's not to discount the necessity or preference for the look of a game, but it should never come at the cost of gameplay. This is why HL2 was received quite well, but Doom III wasn't. The latter looked slick, but all in all felt like House of the Dead in a 2 metre wide corridor. The former looked gorgeous, was amazingly engaging and interesting.
Independent development and (to an extent) open source game design can assist in these areas. Honestly, a successful publishing company would trawl the net looking for innovative independent developers, snatch them up and give them a budget to produce a game. The industry has outgrown itself and needs to consolidate to remember what games are for: FUN.
How can this be called backwards compatibility? If this is true, then this really is a poor showing from MS.
The only way they may avoid pissing too many people off, and making such a system viable is to offer the recompiled versions available for free download for people who have already purchased that particular game.
As TFA states, though, backwards compatibility for a small class of games is idiotic.
I believe some people are missing the point, and aren't looking at the underlying issue. The relative disparity between economic growth, 'market' (I use the term loosely) functionality and political stability over the past 50 years has meant that while the US has enjoyed sustained and profitable economic growth, China has only turned around a number of its economic policies in the last decade or so; it is thus only recently beginning to develop technologically.
The essence of a comparison is that while the US has proved a hegemonic economic superpower for half a century, a late starter such as China (with a small GDP per capita nowadays, compared to the US, and one which was even smaller 10 years ago) is still able to outstrip the number of broadband connections (clearly indicia of technological advancement and economic modernity).
In one sense, people here are decrying this report as comparing apples and oranges (gross number of connections as opposed to percentages), while simultaneously expounding a similar methodology (comparing countries with gross disparities between GDP and economic histories).
Agile is also the sister company to Internode (one of the ISPs involved with the Citylan project), and is managed by the same person. They're probably trying to get some recognition of the company name while they can.
And to whoever commented about the tardy rollout of ADSL2+, I suggest they take note of the monopolistic and anti-competitive practices of the nationwide telco, Telstra (as someone posted a link to before). Given the relative youth of consumer broadband in Australia, I applaud Internode's initiative in kickstarting the next generation of broadband connections.
I also find it somewhat amusing that Adelaide seems to be leading the ADSL2+ movement, given the perception of the city as slow and unimaginative. Personally, I'm looking forward to my 24mbit connection which I should have by the end of the month.
Err, hate to reply to myself, but I mean to clarify: the price tag they quote is AUD$430. This seems incredibly high compared with the price one could get by importing (slightly over AUD$300). Hence I foresee slow uptake on release date.
Australia & New Zealand are listed as one of the countries on the European site (yourpsp.com), and from what I gather the release date will be the same for Australia. I guess we should be happy we even got that small bit of information:)
More importantly, I wonder whether the cost will be prohibitive. A price tag over AUD$300 might see a very lukewarm reception. I still expect to see an aggressive marketing campaign late July, mid August (strangely enough, right around the time of my birthday:D)
Can someone please explain how he distinguishes computer controlled technical inventions from "computer programs"? I really see no particular distinction. The difference between the term 'computer-controlled' and 'computer-implemented' to me seems to merely be an issue of semantics.
Perhaps there's some particular scientific viewpoint he has in mind.
FTA: "Rocard explains the difference between applied natural science and data processing."
I agree here - SunRays seem to be the major contender (although admittedly I have little experience in large server situations). Our University employs SunRays for about half of student access computers, the other half being HP workstations. I really have no idea why they don't expand the SunRays - I've *NEVER* seen a SunRay out of order, but on any given day 1 of every 5 HP is down.
Here's a suggestion: it's FREE. The government is in no way restricting anyone's rights - if you want porn access, you can freakin' well pay for it.
This is a very fundamental distinction between positive and negative rights. Your right to porn is negative (noone may take it away), NOT positive (the government must give it to you). The difference is quite important.
On the other hand, the trend in PC gaming nowadays is towards high budget, large production/development teams & heavily art focussed endeavours. These publishers & developers tend to have large resources at their disposal anyway, so distribution costs don't pose a great obstacle.
Independent PC games, on the other, will be subsumed by the wave of commercial products (particularly due to marketing budgets), and tend to be laid by the wayside of consumer interest. The frequent technology advances also mean that it is more difficult for independent developers to adapt to newer implementations as they are released.
I would suggest that if the major, well-funded PC games developers go down, then that would spell the end of PC gaming.
Wow, she could always just...not smoke that joint.
People tend to forget when lambasting the three strikes rule is that an offender always has a choice. They (I am sure) are aware of the three strikes rule, and thus should also be aware that by breaching a law, they shall be held liable under that same scheme.
That said, I do disagree with the concept of mandatory imprisonment. But it's something to keep in mind nonetheless.
Perhaps the law regarding equitable estoppel differs in the States (although fundamentally you are correct), but such an argument would not survive in Australia.
Firstly, IANAL, but I am a law student. There needs to be a causal link between the promise made and the detrimental reliance engaged upon. The reliance needs to be more than ancillary to the promise, and needs to be (even if implicitly) encouraged by the promisor.
For example, if you promise to buy me lunch tomorrow and I go and buy a car, clearly these are not connected. I would suggest that the promise of provision of network services at a University is not fundamental to the nature of the contract with the University.
The importance of this is my second point. In Australia, damages will not be awarded for a successful case of promissory estoppel. Only the cost incurred for acting to one's detriment will the promisor be liable for.
But then again, naturally there will be differences in the law, and it would not surprise me if estoppel functioned in a fundamentally different manner.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm not confusing it with an exclusive licence. I was attempting to clarify my understanding of the OP. My original understanding was exactly as you put it - that even if you don't want a station to play your music, they are permitted to do so under a "compulsory licence". Which seems wholly in contradiction to the principles of fairness & intellectual property - hence why I was confused.
In other words, if they refuse to negotiate with individual licence holders, and you want them to play your music, the only way to achieve this is to submit the music under the compulsory licence? If so, the word "compulsory" is misleading - the copyright holder *had* the option of licensing it under another arrangement, but this was rejected by the broadcaster.
"The license is compulsory for the copyright holders"
This is where I don't understand your post. You're saying that, if a copyright holder wants to give music to a broadcaster in return for a royalty, they are required to submit the music under the compulsory licence?
IANA(American)L, but I'm quite sure the same principles will apply. These constitutional amendments don't apply to the rules of private bodies, contracts and what-have-you. Hence if you join a Darts Club, the club agreement can state that you may not say anything which might contradict the professional committee (just a hypothetical). The question here is whether the University could be considered an instrument of government. Even then, it is doubtful whether the first amendment would apply - would be similar to the Department of Whatever entering into a commercial contract for the sale of widgets, on condition that the supplier not disclose the terms of that transaction.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
You missed the first five words there - "Congress shall make no law". There's no law here being made.
The summary of the article is slightly misleading. FTA: The chips have "actually been shipping in smaller amounts for a number of weeks before the debut of this official announcement." "A number of weeks in small amounts" != "Shipping since earlier this year"
I don't really think that he was saying Macs == teh doomed, and to all hail our new iPod-bearing overlords.
More to the point, and I think in fact that most sane people would agree - the iPod has been a revolution for Apple. It is the exact bandwagon they need to bring their other products (i.e. Macintosh computers) to a wide consumer audience.
From TFA:
"If you read all the way to the bottom of this article, and you think that my basic thesis is that "the Mac is doomed and Apple is planning to quit selling personal computers," or some other such fatuous nonsense, then you need serious remedial help with reading comprehension."
Luke force chokes the guards on his way into Jabba's palace in Return of the Jedi. I suppose you could interpret this as a use of the dark side of the Force.
I'm undivided as to whether it was Vader or Luke who brings balance to the Force, and thus fulfilled the prophecy. I'd probably lean towards Luke at the moment, but that really is in no way definitive.
I don't even believe that one should be required to justify's one use of tools which protect one's privacy. There is no need to say why I choose to use Tor (such as commercial secrets or pornography, as you have stated). The simple fact remains that I should be entitled to my privacy.
But, it does appear that you would agree with my opinion, so this isn't really directed at (or attacking) what you are saying.
The problem with the large volume of sub-par games being churned out today is the budget. From TFA, millions of dollars to develop a game is no longer unreasonable.
The problem is where this money is directed. I'm pretty sure the code monkeys at EA aren't seeing much of this. Distribution/production costs I'm sure haven't changed in the past 5 years (and if they have, I would be certain that they would have decreased). Ridiculous amounts of money are being shoved at top level executives and art designers.
If the focus is shifted from game art back into development of the actual game concepts themselves, then innovation will return. Naturally that's not to discount the necessity or preference for the look of a game, but it should never come at the cost of gameplay. This is why HL2 was received quite well, but Doom III wasn't. The latter looked slick, but all in all felt like House of the Dead in a 2 metre wide corridor. The former looked gorgeous, was amazingly engaging and interesting.
Independent development and (to an extent) open source game design can assist in these areas. Honestly, a successful publishing company would trawl the net looking for innovative independent developers, snatch them up and give them a budget to produce a game. The industry has outgrown itself and needs to consolidate to remember what games are for: FUN.
...as your finances allow.
:)
For some reason I read this as "as your fiancees allow."
Eh, I guess it applies both ways
How can this be called backwards compatibility? If this is true, then this really is a poor showing from MS.
The only way they may avoid pissing too many people off, and making such a system viable is to offer the recompiled versions available for free download for people who have already purchased that particular game.
As TFA states, though, backwards compatibility for a small class of games is idiotic.
I believe some people are missing the point, and aren't looking at the underlying issue. The relative disparity between economic growth, 'market' (I use the term loosely) functionality and political stability over the past 50 years has meant that while the US has enjoyed sustained and profitable economic growth, China has only turned around a number of its economic policies in the last decade or so; it is thus only recently beginning to develop technologically.
The essence of a comparison is that while the US has proved a hegemonic economic superpower for half a century, a late starter such as China (with a small GDP per capita nowadays, compared to the US, and one which was even smaller 10 years ago) is still able to outstrip the number of broadband connections (clearly indicia of technological advancement and economic modernity).
In one sense, people here are decrying this report as comparing apples and oranges (gross number of connections as opposed to percentages), while simultaneously expounding a similar methodology (comparing countries with gross disparities between GDP and economic histories).
Just something to keep in mind.
Agile is also the sister company to Internode (one of the ISPs involved with the Citylan project), and is managed by the same person. They're probably trying to get some recognition of the company name while they can.
And to whoever commented about the tardy rollout of ADSL2+, I suggest they take note of the monopolistic and anti-competitive practices of the nationwide telco, Telstra (as someone posted a link to before). Given the relative youth of consumer broadband in Australia, I applaud Internode's initiative in kickstarting the next generation of broadband connections.
I also find it somewhat amusing that Adelaide seems to be leading the ADSL2+ movement, given the perception of the city as slow and unimaginative. Personally, I'm looking forward to my 24mbit connection which I should have by the end of the month.
Err, hate to reply to myself, but I mean to clarify: the price tag they quote is AUD$430. This seems incredibly high compared with the price one could get by importing (slightly over AUD$300). Hence I foresee slow uptake on release date.
Australia & New Zealand are listed as one of the countries on the European site (yourpsp.com), and from what I gather the release date will be the same for Australia. I guess we should be happy we even got that small bit of information :)
:D)
More importantly, I wonder whether the cost will be prohibitive. A price tag over AUD$300 might see a very lukewarm reception. I still expect to see an aggressive marketing campaign late July, mid August (strangely enough, right around the time of my birthday
Can someone please explain how he distinguishes computer controlled technical inventions from "computer programs"? I really see no particular distinction. The difference between the term 'computer-controlled' and 'computer-implemented' to me seems to merely be an issue of semantics.
Perhaps there's some particular scientific viewpoint he has in mind.
FTA:
"Rocard explains the difference between applied natural science and data processing."
I'm still unsure as to what it means.
I agree here - SunRays seem to be the major contender (although admittedly I have little experience in large server situations). Our University employs SunRays for about half of student access computers, the other half being HP workstations. I really have no idea why they don't expand the SunRays - I've *NEVER* seen a SunRay out of order, but on any given day 1 of every 5 HP is down.
It just seems to make administrative sense.
Here's a suggestion: it's FREE. The government is in no way restricting anyone's rights - if you want porn access, you can freakin' well pay for it.
This is a very fundamental distinction between positive and negative rights. Your right to porn is negative (noone may take it away), NOT positive (the government must give it to you). The difference is quite important.
Unconstitutional? How is this unconstitutional? Last time I checked the US Bill of Rights, I don't remember a guarantee of access to free porn.
If there is free access provided then I would suggest that they are perfectly within their rights to restrict it in some ways.
FTA:
"France's ISPs seemed to have rolled over already."
Why does this not surprise me?
(Ok ok, now I'll turn off the bigotry.)
On the other hand, the trend in PC gaming nowadays is towards high budget, large production/development teams & heavily art focussed endeavours. These publishers & developers tend to have large resources at their disposal anyway, so distribution costs don't pose a great obstacle.
Independent PC games, on the other, will be subsumed by the wave of commercial products (particularly due to marketing budgets), and tend to be laid by the wayside of consumer interest. The frequent technology advances also mean that it is more difficult for independent developers to adapt to newer implementations as they are released.
I would suggest that if the major, well-funded PC games developers go down, then that would spell the end of PC gaming.
Wow, she could always just...not smoke that joint.
People tend to forget when lambasting the three strikes rule is that an offender always has a choice. They (I am sure) are aware of the three strikes rule, and thus should also be aware that by breaching a law, they shall be held liable under that same scheme.
That said, I do disagree with the concept of mandatory imprisonment. But it's something to keep in mind nonetheless.
Perhaps the law regarding equitable estoppel differs in the States (although fundamentally you are correct), but such an argument would not survive in Australia.
Firstly, IANAL, but I am a law student. There needs to be a causal link between the promise made and the detrimental reliance engaged upon. The reliance needs to be more than ancillary to the promise, and needs to be (even if implicitly) encouraged by the promisor.
For example, if you promise to buy me lunch tomorrow and I go and buy a car, clearly these are not connected. I would suggest that the promise of provision of network services at a University is not fundamental to the nature of the contract with the University.
The importance of this is my second point. In Australia, damages will not be awarded for a successful case of promissory estoppel. Only the cost incurred for acting to one's detriment will the promisor be liable for.
But then again, naturally there will be differences in the law, and it would not surprise me if estoppel functioned in a fundamentally different manner.
Heh, I wonder if recent history (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/08/23412 13&tid=172&tid=146) is anything to go by.
It's still data freely available on the Internet but with no explicit authorisation to download.
Kinda makes you think, no?