If this is correct, would it not be the case that the people making the copy would be protected against suit only if the copy was being made to media for which the surcharge was paid?
As I see it, the tax is just a compensation for the fair use right.
It's not that illogical, because it would be naive to think nobody would abuse, however IMHO the tax is too high here in France, but you then have the right to copy a media you've rent.
That's why we have media marked "not for rent" (don't know if you've the same in the US ?)
You're taking the sens of uploading with the sense of voluntarily putting a file on another computer (like with the PUT FTP command)
Technically, I would say that when one end is downloading, the other end is uploading.
That is, when you're putting a file on a site, you are distributing it, even if passively, and that is illegal if you do not own the rights over / have an agreement with the owner of this file.
However, downloading what is distributed is legal at least in some countries like Canada, France...
> unified DVD arch which could use "Blu-ray's disc structure and HD DVD software technology" (Sony's idea) or "HD DVD disc structure and employing Sony's multi-layer data-recording technology" (Toshiba's idea)"
Then we will have Blu-Ray (Sony), HD-DVD (Toshiba), and the two newer Blu+Ray (Sony/Toshiba) and HD+DVD (Toshiba/Sony)
And then will be the hell of writer's speeds: CD/CD-R/CD-RW/DVD/DVD-R/DVD+R/DVD-RW/DVD+RW/BR/ BR- R/BR-RW/HD/HD-R/HD-RW/BR+R/BR+RW/HD+R/HD+RW and do not forget the speed of 2nd layer when applicable...
And what about Philips's yet unrevealed new media ?
> Therefore, in your example, the solutions or processes of making your monitor or keyboard could be patented, but your web browser could not, and neither could the web browser's display and rendering of HTML and so on.
It's already covered by "classical" patents. The meaning is broader. Taking a similar exemple, you might be able to patent the software controlling a force-feedback joystick along with the hardware - that is, the software itself isn't patentable but software+hardware is.
But the border remains unclear (to me): What about the LZW algorith used in modem's hardware ? At a time Unisys policy was to "tax" only hardware application of the algorithm...
What about creating a force-feedback with similar algorithms? Software means nothing : it's already covered by copyright so it isn't useful to protect a company to prevent others to use the same software with another joystick, therefore you need to understand software as a set of algorithms, and then the other joystick-making company will be in trouble using a set of patented algorithms...
(There was recently an article on Slashdot about a force-feedback patent but I didn't find a link)
Slashdot Mirror
But 'making available' is distributing.
A store having illegal copies of a copyrighted work on the shelf can be sued even if it didn't effectively sold a single copy.
Therefore, 'simply having 20,000 MP3 files on your computer' is legal, but having them on a shared mount on a public network isn't.
As I see it, the tax is just a compensation for the fair use right.
It's not that illogical, because it would be naive to think nobody would abuse, however IMHO the tax is too high here in France, but you then have the right to copy a media you've rent.
That's why we have media marked "not for rent" (don't know if you've the same in the US ?)
Technically, I would say that when one end is downloading, the other end is uploading.
That is, when you're putting a file on a site, you are distributing it, even if passively, and that is illegal if you do not own the rights over / have an agreement with the owner of this file.
However, downloading what is distributed is legal at least in some countries like Canada, France...
Yeah, but nobody likes onions.
Let's cut cakes.
not an equivalence (A and B <=> C)
Therefore you have : not C => not A or not B
and that's the only other formulation guaranteed to be valid.
Hope this helps (some siblings are correct, some aren't...)
---
Now that's funny, in plain old text mode, Slashcode removes <=>
But now that slashdotters are aware of that, it WILL happen.
That or they are going to shut down servers after 999,999 downloads...
"Too bad Intel won't settle for a pdf"
Well, I think I might be able to print that pdf then send them the paper copy...
Will THAT be OK ?
> unified DVD arch which could use "Blu-ray's disc structure and HD DVD software technology" (Sony's idea) or "HD DVD disc structure and employing Sony's multi-layer data-recording technology" (Toshiba's idea)"
:/ BR- R/BR-RW/HD/HD-R/HD-RW/BR+R/BR+RW/HD+R/HD+RW
Then we will have Blu-Ray (Sony), HD-DVD (Toshiba), and the two newer Blu+Ray (Sony/Toshiba) and HD+DVD (Toshiba/Sony)
And then will be the hell of writer's speeds
CD/CD-R/CD-RW/DVD/DVD-R/DVD+R/DVD-RW/DVD+RW/BR
and do not forget the speed of 2nd layer when applicable...
And what about Philips's yet unrevealed new media ?
Well... what's wrong with pdf ? Specs are available here and that's why there are lots of PDF readers out there...
> Therefore, in your example, the solutions or processes of making your monitor or keyboard could be patented, but your web browser could not, and neither could the web browser's display and rendering of HTML and so on.
:
It's already covered by "classical" patents. The meaning is broader. Taking a similar exemple, you might be able to patent the software controlling a force-feedback joystick along with the hardware - that is, the software itself isn't patentable but software+hardware is.
But the border remains unclear (to me)
What about the LZW algorith used in modem's hardware ? At a time Unisys policy was to "tax" only hardware application of the algorithm...
What about creating a force-feedback with similar algorithms? Software means nothing : it's already covered by copyright so it isn't useful to protect a company to prevent others to use the same software with another joystick, therefore you need to understand software as a set of algorithms, and then the other joystick-making company will be in trouble using a set of patented algorithms...
(There was recently an article on Slashdot about a force-feedback patent but I didn't find a link)
The majority of the EP is already against software patents, but the (unelected) council will probably ignore their choice again and again.
> He was president of France from 1988 to 1991, how much higher can you go!
No, he was Prime Minister (as is Jean-Pierre Raffarin now)
President was François Mitterand (from 1981 to 1995)
You don't need to be elected to become minister.