Since we all know it is wrong to jailbreak the iPhone, are these apps available through the store? I would really like to download them for my phone, it would be a lot of fun to try this out with my bomb disabling robot.
Consideration of Fair Use only happens after the fact. They are simply saying "They have used our material without our permission", which is true. It is then up to the person to prove to the judge that while they were using the material without permission, it is okay because it falls under fair use. Only a judge can determine if something is truly fair use.
Actually, you are incorrect. The problem is, Fair Use is a defense. If you are sued for use of copyrighted material, you can go to court and claim that what you were doing is Fair Use and you should not be penalized for it. They are not claiming what is there is not Fair Use, they are simply claiming that the video is using copyrighted material, which is correct. It is up to you to then prove that your use was Fair Use and okay.
1) I think there will be an appropriate amount of screaming about this (that is pretty much what this article is about. 2) There is a huge difference between this and your example, and the levels of screaming will be different. That difference being this is a proposed bill that may pass and may be abused later (which still is bad) and Bush was actively abusing our rights. So while there will be outcry, it will be (and should be)less since this is still all theoretical at this point.
It matters because it weakens the meaning of being in beta and confuses users. It used to be that beta was for testing. If you downloaded and installed a beta product, it was understood that there would be bugs and problems and they should be reported. With Google using beta as a constant tag (I remember ICQ used to do this back in the day to), users don't have a clear understanding of what a beta is anymore. They think beta is just a new product and don't expect bugs and don't report them. Open beta is a much harder thing to get useful information from if people judge your beta product just like they would a finished product, which is what is beginning to happen with places like Google tagging regular released like beta releases.
Of course none of the cited cases dealt with the ratios sought by the RIAA: 2,100 to 425,000 times the actual damages for an MP3 file.
I really get tired of saying this, but the damages have nothing to do with what it costs to purchase and download a song. These cases are not about a person downloading copyrighted materials (if it was, then the cost of the downloaded song would be correct to look at for damages). These cases are about uploading copyrighted material. The person is basically assuming the right to distribute the material. In these cases, the proper thing to look at is what the media company would charge someone if they wanted the purchase the rights to distribute the song, which is obviously going to much higher than the cost of purchasing a single download of the song.
If I call the RIAA and say that I want to purchase the right to put hit song X on my website for every visitor to my website to download for free and ask what it would cost to purchase this right, that is what the damages should be compared to. My guess is that this right would cost me much more than the cost of purchasing a single copy of the song, since I am basically buying the right to distribute as many copies as a I want. That is the right that is being infringed upon, and what the damages should be compared to.
Jane Q. Public molests small children. She has an overwhelming desire to have sex with them and cannot control herself and has in fact had sex with children in the past.
Now, I think we can say this is libelous, but how exactly do you disprove it? You simply can't prove this statement false, because there isn't enough detail to it. This is why in libel cases, the speaker of the statement has to prove that the statement is true and not the other way around. The statement should be pulled (assuming it does meet the standards of libel is untrue) until the speaker proves it is a true statement.
While this is true, it has to be balanced with the fact a lot of businesses will not touch anything GPLed because of these very cases. SO while there are a handful of cases of people being forced to release changes, how many companies that might have considered open source aren't for the very same reason? Is the net gain more than the net loss?
The GPL is to ensure that contributed code remains open. It's not about quantity.
The question is, does using the GPL actually increase the contributed code? I think it is a safe assumption that a lot of code changes to GPL projects are never distributed, so they aren't required to be released (one person mods it for their use, a company mods it for internal use, etc). Are these changes more likely to be contributed back if the code is under GPL as compared to a BSD license?
The original code is always open, whether you use GPL or BSD. It is always put out there that using the GPL encourages more sharing of modifications and that is a reason to use it. The question stands, has this ever really been looked into?
If this is going to be the only option, then it's crappy and destined to fail. But if this is going to be an additional option to purchasing Office (which I think is more the case) it may still fail, but is at least a decent idea. Most students use Office only for homework that requires it. If that is the only time you use it, what makes more sense, paying $200 for the full Office suite that you will rarely use (and definitely won't use half the programs) or paying $50 for the 50 hours you actually use it(which is probably being generous in the time students actually use Office)? And factor in that if you have an older computer, Office may run slowly versus this online version which (if done properly) should run smooth as long as you have good internet access.
If this is an additional choice, I think this may be a decent idea (though I don't think it will be a hit).
While $200 is still about 600 times the amount of the actual damages, it's better than paying 26,000 times the actual damages, which is what the RIAA tried to squeeze out of Ms. Thomas. I really get tired of saying this, but the damages have nothing to do with what it costs to purchase and download a song. The case is not about a person downloading copyrighted materials (if it was, then the cost of the downloaded song would be correct to look at for damages). The case is about uploading copyrighted material. The person is basically assuming the right to distribute the material. In this case, the proper thing to look at is what the media company would charge someone if they wanted the purchase the rights to distribute the song, which is obviously going to much higher than the cost of purchasing a single download of the song.
If I call the RIAA and say that I want to purchase the right to put hit song X on my website for every visitor to my website to download for free and ask what it would cost to purchase this right, that is what the damages should be compared to. My guess is that this right would cost me much more than the cost of purchasing a single copy of the song, since I am basically buying the right to distribute as many copies as a I want. That is the right that is being infringed upon, and what the damages should be compared to.
Isn't this kind of like saying that since undercover cops are allowed to buy drugs in the course of an investigation, you shouldn't be allowed to be arrested for selling drugs (or weapons or whatever) to an undercover cop, since the cop is allowed to purchase it? If you don't know who is receiving the material, then the fact that you happen to give it to someone who is allowed to have it is coincidental. You didn't have the right to distribute the material to anyone. If I give out burned copies of a CD on the street to anyone who walks by, and the first person I happen to hand a copy of the burned CD to the copyright holder, can they not go after me unless they can prove I gave a copy of the burned CD to someone else? The intent to violate copyright is certainly there, and while they have the right to have the material, they never gave me the right to distribute the material to anyone, even to them.
I will repeat this again, for the slow among you. The cost to purchase the files has no bearing on the case. The people are not being sued for downloading the files. They are being sued for distributing them (or trying to, or nothing at all if the attempt to distribute doesn't stand up). What this means is that the cost is not what it would cost to purchase the files for your private use, but what they would charge someone if they wanted to distribute the songs. If I called the RIAA and said "I want to give away a free CD on the street and include new hit song X on it, what will it cost me to license the song for distribution from you, it will likely be a large amount of money. These people are distributing the songs without paying the licensing fee, which is what the penalty is based on (and should be based on, since they are assuming the rights to distribute the songs that they don't have).
Whether you agree with the RIAA tactics, or think they should win the cases is another matter entirely. But saying "the songs only cost X dollars to buy" is a pointless argument, since that isn't what the lawsuit is about. The people are not taking the copy of the song they download, they are taking the right to distribute music that they don't have, and that is what the penalty should be based on (assuming the RIAA does win the case).
Adds reader MarkusQ, "I know Dick Cheney has assured us that 'Deficits don't matter' [CC] but I can't help wondering if we should be fixing the problem rather than the sign."
The reason most people think the fines are unreasonable is they think of them in terms of what it costs to buy a song. The mistake though is that this isn't about a person downloading a song that they don't have the right to have a copy of, but it's about a person distributing a song they don't have the rights to distribute. You can't base the fine on what it costs to buy a song but what it would cost to have the rights to distribute the song. If I went to the RIAA (well technically to the label) and asked what it would cost for me have the rights to allow anyone who visits my website to download a copy of that song, what do you think it would cost (assuming they even would agree to it)? That is what the fine is (and should be) based on. It's not the cost of purchasing a song, but of distributing the song.
Unless they authorized the uploader to distribute the files, then it isn't a legal upload, no matter who is downloading it. The issue is that the person is distributing the songs and they do not have the authority to distribute them. IT doesn't matter who they distribute them to, they don't have the authority to distribute them to anyone at all. So unless the copyright holder tells them "yes, I authorize you to make a copy of that for me", it isn't legal for them to distribute it even to the copyright holder. This is especially true since the uploader doesn't know who is downloading from them, so they can't claim the RIAA gave them permission, as they didn't even know the RIAA was the ones downloading.
If I'm handing out copies of the latest Josh Grobin CD and I hand one to Josh Grobin himself (he's probably the only one who would take it) that doesn't suddenly make it okay for me to be handing them out, even to him. He didn't give me permission to distribute, I just happened to hand it to the one person who could give me permission.
While this sounds like a really great system, unless they slash the fee, there is no way it will ever be a Paypal killer, or even serious competitor. The secret behind Paypal has always been the low fee, which means huge volume. You can use it for almost any transaction, no matter the size. This system sounds great, but how many transactions large enough to make the $1.50 reasonable are actually going on over the net, especially when compared to the millions of small transactions just done by eBay?
As a buyer, I use Paypal a lot even for places that take credit cards just because it is convenient. I can just log into Paypal and send the money versus having to go and get my credit card to enter all of the information. The fee for me is nothing and the fee for the seller is small enough that they still use it. All of those type transaction dry up with this system unfortunately.
It's not about copying, it's about distribution. The uploader is distributing the file to others, which they don't have the legal right to do. Even if I have the right to make copies of a file for myself, I still don't have the right to distribute any of the files to other people, which is what uploading is.
Think of it in terms of a CD. If I buy a CD, I have the legal right to make a copy of that CD for myself. I can make an infinite number of copies for myself or even rip it to MP3 for myself legally. But I don't have the legal right to give one of those copies away, because that is distributing the music to other people, which I don't have the right to do.
It's not about who ends up with the file (or copy of the file) it is about who the file came from.
It doesn't matter if MediaSentry is allowed to make copies, the person uploading the file still does not have permission to distribute the file. It doesn't matter who they are distributing to, it matters that they can't legally distribute the file. Unless the copyright holder explicitly gives me permission to distribute the file, I can't legally make a copy for anyone, even if they can legally have or make a copy.
Difference 2: If you sell me your ranch, the ranch is mine to do with as I please. If you sell me your song, shouldn't the song be mine to do with as I please? After some profitability, songs and other intellectual property should go into the public domain, especially if a large portion of the public have paid for it.
If I sell you the actual songs (i.e. all rights I have to the song) you can do what you want with it. This is usually what musicians do with the record companies, which is why they have control of the song instead of the artist. IF I sell you the right to come on my ranch and look around, you don't have full rights to my ranch either.
This is actually a very good analogy for how music works. When you buy a CD, you are not buying the actual song, it is more like buying a ticket to a theme park. You have some limited rights based on what you paid them, but you certainly didn't buy and own the theme park.
What exactly are the record companies supposed to do for you to add "value" (and isn't the music the value in itself)? The can put a bonus DVD in there, which immediately gets ripped and is available for free. They can have some extra songs you can download with a code from the CD, which are immediately put up for free. They can let you stream some extra stuff from their site, which will either be ripped and offered for free or people will complain because they can only stream it from the website. They can offer a booklet, which will be scanned and offered for free.
So what exactly could they possibly offer that wouldn't just be made available for free?
How do you figure they failed to create a "viable model of distribution in the digital age"? Here I was thinking that iTunes and Amazon were fine distribution models for people to use (granted the RIAA didn't invent them, but they are certainly using them). They have a distribution model where people can pay a small amount and receive a digital copy of a song they can keep forever, where exactly has this distribution model gone wrong?
The problem isn't the distribution model, it's the fact people feel they are entitled to things and don't want to pay. The RIAA is certainly scummy and their tactics underhanded (and sometimes possibly illegal), but blaming their problems on not having a distribution model doesn't hold up. Just because you can do something (like download music) doesn't mean you should or it is right. It's like blaming the convenience store for not having a better system to stop shoplifters.
I don't know for sure how they will do the billing, but I would guess it will be the same way they do it for the CD trading part of Lala. You have a credit card on file, and once a month they bill that for anything you did in the past month. So if you added 10 songs to your locker, downloaded 3 MP3s, and traded 5 CDs, it would all be charged to your credit card at the end of the month.
As for the selection, so far it looks incredible. I am right now listening to Lifter Puller on the streaming service (for free, I haven't purchased it). Lala is well known for supporting indie musicians (which their purchase of WOXY shows) so I assume their selection would continue to be really good.
Slashdot Mirror
Since we all know it is wrong to jailbreak the iPhone, are these apps available through the store? I would really like to download them for my phone, it would be a lot of fun to try this out with my bomb disabling robot.
Hey, is it any surprise campus security are afraid of Command Line Interface Terrorism?
Is this a tiny offshoot of the Linux Advocates Buying Internet Ads movement?
Consideration of Fair Use only happens after the fact. They are simply saying "They have used our material without our permission", which is true. It is then up to the person to prove to the judge that while they were using the material without permission, it is okay because it falls under fair use. Only a judge can determine if something is truly fair use.
Actually, you are incorrect. The problem is, Fair Use is a defense. If you are sued for use of copyrighted material, you can go to court and claim that what you were doing is Fair Use and you should not be penalized for it. They are not claiming what is there is not Fair Use, they are simply claiming that the video is using copyrighted material, which is correct. It is up to you to then prove that your use was Fair Use and okay.
1) I think there will be an appropriate amount of screaming about this (that is pretty much what this article is about.
2) There is a huge difference between this and your example, and the levels of screaming will be different. That difference being this is a proposed bill that may pass and may be abused later (which still is bad) and Bush was actively abusing our rights. So while there will be outcry, it will be (and should be)less since this is still all theoretical at this point.
It matters because it weakens the meaning of being in beta and confuses users. It used to be that beta was for testing. If you downloaded and installed a beta product, it was understood that there would be bugs and problems and they should be reported. With Google using beta as a constant tag (I remember ICQ used to do this back in the day to), users don't have a clear understanding of what a beta is anymore. They think beta is just a new product and don't expect bugs and don't report them. Open beta is a much harder thing to get useful information from if people judge your beta product just like they would a finished product, which is what is beginning to happen with places like Google tagging regular released like beta releases.
Of course none of the cited cases dealt with the ratios sought by the RIAA: 2,100 to 425,000 times the actual damages for an MP3 file.
I really get tired of saying this, but the damages have nothing to do with what it costs to purchase and download a song. These cases are not about a person downloading copyrighted materials (if it was, then the cost of the downloaded song would be correct to look at for damages). These cases are about uploading copyrighted material. The person is basically assuming the right to distribute the material. In these cases, the proper thing to look at is what the media company would charge someone if they wanted the purchase the rights to distribute the song, which is obviously going to much higher than the cost of purchasing a single download of the song.
If I call the RIAA and say that I want to purchase the right to put hit song X on my website for every visitor to my website to download for free and ask what it would cost to purchase this right, that is what the damages should be compared to. My guess is that this right would cost me much more than the cost of purchasing a single copy of the song, since I am basically buying the right to distribute as many copies as a I want. That is the right that is being infringed upon, and what the damages should be compared to.
Jane Q. Public molests small children. She has an overwhelming desire to have sex with them and cannot control herself and has in fact had sex with children in the past.
Now, I think we can say this is libelous, but how exactly do you disprove it? You simply can't prove this statement false, because there isn't enough detail to it. This is why in libel cases, the speaker of the statement has to prove that the statement is true and not the other way around. The statement should be pulled (assuming it does meet the standards of libel is untrue) until the speaker proves it is a true statement.
While this is true, it has to be balanced with the fact a lot of businesses will not touch anything GPLed because of these very cases. SO while there are a handful of cases of people being forced to release changes, how many companies that might have considered open source aren't for the very same reason? Is the net gain more than the net loss?
The GPL is to ensure that contributed code remains open. It's not about quantity.
The question is, does using the GPL actually increase the contributed code? I think it is a safe assumption that a lot of code changes to GPL projects are never distributed, so they aren't required to be released (one person mods it for their use, a company mods it for internal use, etc). Are these changes more likely to be contributed back if the code is under GPL as compared to a BSD license?
The original code is always open, whether you use GPL or BSD. It is always put out there that using the GPL encourages more sharing of modifications and that is a reason to use it. The question stands, has this ever really been looked into?
If this is going to be the only option, then it's crappy and destined to fail. But if this is going to be an additional option to purchasing Office (which I think is more the case) it may still fail, but is at least a decent idea. Most students use Office only for homework that requires it. If that is the only time you use it, what makes more sense, paying $200 for the full Office suite that you will rarely use (and definitely won't use half the programs) or paying $50 for the 50 hours you actually use it(which is probably being generous in the time students actually use Office)? And factor in that if you have an older computer, Office may run slowly versus this online version which (if done properly) should run smooth as long as you have good internet access.
If this is an additional choice, I think this may be a decent idea (though I don't think it will be a hit).
While $200 is still about 600 times the amount of the actual damages, it's better than paying 26,000 times the actual damages, which is what the RIAA tried to squeeze out of Ms. Thomas.
I really get tired of saying this, but the damages have nothing to do with what it costs to purchase and download a song. The case is not about a person downloading copyrighted materials (if it was, then the cost of the downloaded song would be correct to look at for damages). The case is about uploading copyrighted material. The person is basically assuming the right to distribute the material. In this case, the proper thing to look at is what the media company would charge someone if they wanted the purchase the rights to distribute the song, which is obviously going to much higher than the cost of purchasing a single download of the song.
If I call the RIAA and say that I want to purchase the right to put hit song X on my website for every visitor to my website to download for free and ask what it would cost to purchase this right, that is what the damages should be compared to. My guess is that this right would cost me much more than the cost of purchasing a single copy of the song, since I am basically buying the right to distribute as many copies as a I want. That is the right that is being infringed upon, and what the damages should be compared to.
Isn't this kind of like saying that since undercover cops are allowed to buy drugs in the course of an investigation, you shouldn't be allowed to be arrested for selling drugs (or weapons or whatever) to an undercover cop, since the cop is allowed to purchase it? If you don't know who is receiving the material, then the fact that you happen to give it to someone who is allowed to have it is coincidental. You didn't have the right to distribute the material to anyone. If I give out burned copies of a CD on the street to anyone who walks by, and the first person I happen to hand a copy of the burned CD to the copyright holder, can they not go after me unless they can prove I gave a copy of the burned CD to someone else? The intent to violate copyright is certainly there, and while they have the right to have the material, they never gave me the right to distribute the material to anyone, even to them.
I will repeat this again, for the slow among you. The cost to purchase the files has no bearing on the case. The people are not being sued for downloading the files. They are being sued for distributing them (or trying to, or nothing at all if the attempt to distribute doesn't stand up). What this means is that the cost is not what it would cost to purchase the files for your private use, but what they would charge someone if they wanted to distribute the songs. If I called the RIAA and said "I want to give away a free CD on the street and include new hit song X on it, what will it cost me to license the song for distribution from you, it will likely be a large amount of money. These people are distributing the songs without paying the licensing fee, which is what the penalty is based on (and should be based on, since they are assuming the rights to distribute the songs that they don't have).
Whether you agree with the RIAA tactics, or think they should win the cases is another matter entirely. But saying "the songs only cost X dollars to buy" is a pointless argument, since that isn't what the lawsuit is about. The people are not taking the copy of the song they download, they are taking the right to distribute music that they don't have, and that is what the penalty should be based on (assuming the RIAA does win the case).
Adds reader MarkusQ, "I know Dick Cheney has assured us that 'Deficits don't matter' [CC] but I can't help wondering if we should be fixing the problem rather than the sign."
Why does this guy hate America so much?
The reason most people think the fines are unreasonable is they think of them in terms of what it costs to buy a song. The mistake though is that this isn't about a person downloading a song that they don't have the right to have a copy of, but it's about a person distributing a song they don't have the rights to distribute. You can't base the fine on what it costs to buy a song but what it would cost to have the rights to distribute the song. If I went to the RIAA (well technically to the label) and asked what it would cost for me have the rights to allow anyone who visits my website to download a copy of that song, what do you think it would cost (assuming they even would agree to it)? That is what the fine is (and should be) based on. It's not the cost of purchasing a song, but of distributing the song.
Unless they authorized the uploader to distribute the files, then it isn't a legal upload, no matter who is downloading it. The issue is that the person is distributing the songs and they do not have the authority to distribute them. IT doesn't matter who they distribute them to, they don't have the authority to distribute them to anyone at all. So unless the copyright holder tells them "yes, I authorize you to make a copy of that for me", it isn't legal for them to distribute it even to the copyright holder. This is especially true since the uploader doesn't know who is downloading from them, so they can't claim the RIAA gave them permission, as they didn't even know the RIAA was the ones downloading.
If I'm handing out copies of the latest Josh Grobin CD and I hand one to Josh Grobin himself (he's probably the only one who would take it) that doesn't suddenly make it okay for me to be handing them out, even to him. He didn't give me permission to distribute, I just happened to hand it to the one person who could give me permission.
While this sounds like a really great system, unless they slash the fee, there is no way it will ever be a Paypal killer, or even serious competitor. The secret behind Paypal has always been the low fee, which means huge volume. You can use it for almost any transaction, no matter the size. This system sounds great, but how many transactions large enough to make the $1.50 reasonable are actually going on over the net, especially when compared to the millions of small transactions just done by eBay?
As a buyer, I use Paypal a lot even for places that take credit cards just because it is convenient. I can just log into Paypal and send the money versus having to go and get my credit card to enter all of the information. The fee for me is nothing and the fee for the seller is small enough that they still use it. All of those type transaction dry up with this system unfortunately.
It's not about copying, it's about distribution. The uploader is distributing the file to others, which they don't have the legal right to do. Even if I have the right to make copies of a file for myself, I still don't have the right to distribute any of the files to other people, which is what uploading is.
Think of it in terms of a CD. If I buy a CD, I have the legal right to make a copy of that CD for myself. I can make an infinite number of copies for myself or even rip it to MP3 for myself legally. But I don't have the legal right to give one of those copies away, because that is distributing the music to other people, which I don't have the right to do.
It's not about who ends up with the file (or copy of the file) it is about who the file came from.
It doesn't matter if MediaSentry is allowed to make copies, the person uploading the file still does not have permission to distribute the file. It doesn't matter who they are distributing to, it matters that they can't legally distribute the file. Unless the copyright holder explicitly gives me permission to distribute the file, I can't legally make a copy for anyone, even if they can legally have or make a copy.
Difference 2: If you sell me your ranch, the ranch is mine to do with as I please. If you sell me your song, shouldn't the song be mine to do with as I please? After some profitability, songs and other intellectual property should go into the public domain, especially if a large portion of the public have paid for it.
If I sell you the actual songs (i.e. all rights I have to the song) you can do what you want with it. This is usually what musicians do with the record companies, which is why they have control of the song instead of the artist. IF I sell you the right to come on my ranch and look around, you don't have full rights to my ranch either.
This is actually a very good analogy for how music works. When you buy a CD, you are not buying the actual song, it is more like buying a ticket to a theme park. You have some limited rights based on what you paid them, but you certainly didn't buy and own the theme park.
It's so nice to have a new immigrant to our country, how long have you been in the US? One week or two?
What exactly are the record companies supposed to do for you to add "value" (and isn't the music the value in itself)? The can put a bonus DVD in there, which immediately gets ripped and is available for free. They can have some extra songs you can download with a code from the CD, which are immediately put up for free. They can let you stream some extra stuff from their site, which will either be ripped and offered for free or people will complain because they can only stream it from the website. They can offer a booklet, which will be scanned and offered for free.
So what exactly could they possibly offer that wouldn't just be made available for free?
How do you figure they failed to create a "viable model of distribution in the digital age"? Here I was thinking that iTunes and Amazon were fine distribution models for people to use (granted the RIAA didn't invent them, but they are certainly using them). They have a distribution model where people can pay a small amount and receive a digital copy of a song they can keep forever, where exactly has this distribution model gone wrong?
The problem isn't the distribution model, it's the fact people feel they are entitled to things and don't want to pay. The RIAA is certainly scummy and their tactics underhanded (and sometimes possibly illegal), but blaming their problems on not having a distribution model doesn't hold up. Just because you can do something (like download music) doesn't mean you should or it is right. It's like blaming the convenience store for not having a better system to stop shoplifters.
I don't know for sure how they will do the billing, but I would guess it will be the same way they do it for the CD trading part of Lala. You have a credit card on file, and once a month they bill that for anything you did in the past month. So if you added 10 songs to your locker, downloaded 3 MP3s, and traded 5 CDs, it would all be charged to your credit card at the end of the month.
As for the selection, so far it looks incredible. I am right now listening to Lifter Puller on the streaming service (for free, I haven't purchased it). Lala is well known for supporting indie musicians (which their purchase of WOXY shows) so I assume their selection would continue to be really good.