I think you misunderstand my point. It's not that Apple/RIAA et al now have copyright on your name, what is relevant is the copyright on the media.
You're also making the same assumption of the original article that the purpose of adding that information was to prevent copyright infringement...
What Apple/RIAA et al intended by adding the user data to the media file is immaterial. What matters is the intent of the company that wrote the software to strip the data. If they intended to facilitate illegal distribution, they can be held liable according to US law -- of course, being a French concern, there are some issues with jurisdiction. Familiarize yourself with the Napster case, and you'll see why this is true.
As to "No court in the land.", see 2. Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F. 2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971), which established contributory liability (as used as precedent in the Grokster case):
The standard definition for contributory copyright infringement is when the defendant, "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another."
.
Any court in the US could very easily, and would quite likely, find that the publishers of this software induce the infringing conduct of others -- again, depending on how the software is marketed and/or distributed.
Please, do some research before assuming that no court in the land would find against the company. The sad and scary truth is that the media cartels have persuaded the US government to uphold their interests over those of the consumer, with the force of law.
The software is perfectly legal. Why is this even in doubt?
Because US courts have ruled that a service provided for the purpose of breaking copyright is liable for civil damages (see Napster, et al). While anonymization services are theoretically not there to encourage copyright violation, it could be argued that this is exactly the purpose of this software -- a lot would fall to how the software is advertised.
As for this being illegal, note that copyright protection applies to media regardless of whether or not it's DRM'd. Just because it's DRM-free doesn't mean it's in the public domain, and it can certainly be argued that a tool primarily used to evade detection by those breaking the law is illegal.
Regardless of how we feel about it, all the outrage in the world doesn't change the facts of how the US legal system handles those who encourage a clearly illegal action.
Do you really think the agencies are there to protect the security and wealth of a nation?
Being a bit of a tin-foil-hatter myself, yet knowing quite a few people who work in the FBI & other agencies -- as institutions, they exist to further their existence and scope. Yet most indidivuals, at least the ones I know pretty well, really do have service to the nation as a prime motivation. Of course, job security etc are also motivators, but it's always refreshing to spend time with people who still believe in the concept of public service.
# Hold LAN parties, after hours, in libraries. (These are parties where many people bring their computers to play computer games, especially those involving teams, together.)
# Schedule support services on a 24/7/365 basis, not the hours currently in use at many college libraries, which were "set in 1963."
Maybe it's just my age showing, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous to think that a library would offer anything other than the most rudimentary support 24-7, or that they would allow students to use their facilities for recreation.
I feel that the suggestion to have college libraries host LAN parties is just ridiculous, unless the purpose is to drive up user traffic (which a lot of the time affects funding). It seems to me that hosting LAN parties for gaming is antithetical to the purpose of a library, and would be distracting to people using the library for work (even if it's in a separate, sound-proofed area -- the temptation would be distracting to me, I'm sure). If the library has resources to host parties after hours, then I believe those resources would be much better used keeping the library open for study longer.
As for 24-7 support services, wouldn't that be expensive? And why should a college library offer full services 24-7 other than making life easier for students? I know for certain that when I work late, I don't have full support from staff at my company. I think students should get used to the fact that not all resources at at our fingertips 24-7, and we should not expect them to be. Students need to learn to manage resources well, and that includes dealing with part-time access to them.
I don't ant to sound like I'm going off on a get-off-my-lawn tirade, but I truly feel that libraries should stick to their base functions as information repositories and access points. Does this mean that library use may drop, since the internet has become the prime access point for information among younger people? Sure. But rather than expand the scope of libraries, I'd rather see reduced expenditures (like shared acquisitions {when licensing permits}, more efficient use of technology (why keep all those little-used dead trees around when digital versions are both more useful and cheaper to deal with?).
Well, using their dominant market share in the browser space to kill off a competitor's product in a different space? They'd get hammered in a new anti-trust suit, regardless of what they are currently being held to as part of previous anti-trust decisions.
All this assuming, of course, that anti-trust laws in the US are still valid (which is debatable, due to selective and half-hearted enforcement).
Do you want the real answer (not likely), or some snark? It's Monday, so what you want is immaterial -- snark is all i'm capable of.
Silverlight, a Wiccan coven in North Carolina. Terry Silverlight, a drummer/composer/producer/arranger/educator. Silverlight, a weapon in the Runescape MMORPG.
Want more? I'm sure I could drag up plenty from the depths of search engine hell. Hell, I could even do a tag search on flickr, I'm sure that would be amusing.
At any rate, you've all the resources at your fingertips to know what Silverlight is in TFA's context -- even more so if you read TFA.
All they have to do is yank iexplore32 and flash dies overnight.
At which point every federal prosecutor and his brother will be jumping at the chance to head up the anti-trust suit -- never mind how quickly MS would be bitch-slapped in Europe.
Do the ESRB have equal power? I don't think they do.
No, you're right, they don't have that power, since participation by member publishers is completely voluntary, whereas the DVD CCA member orgs are contractually bound.
Although, should be said that the DVD CCA has nothing about content standards in its organizational notes, so it would be hard for them to justify it without a new agreement by the member companies.
Hogwash. Contracts are binding agreements, even though they are subject to change -- if it is agreed upon by both parties (which, in effect, replaces the old contract with a new one). Yes, they can be contested, but there must be a basis in law for the the contestation.
As for them not able to be invalidated, perhaps you have no understanding of what entering a contract means. If you enter a contract, and fail to fulfill your material obligations as part of the contract, the other party in the contract has legal recourse against you. This is fact in the US. Should you contest some part of the contract, you can have the legal system adjudicate your dispute. This is also fact -- but, you would need to demonstrate to the court that the part of the contract that you are contesting runs afoul of the law or standard business practices. Tpyically in the US, the remainder of the contract remains in force.
In Canada, if you successfully contest part of the contract, the contract is null and void, meaning you have no legal obligation to fulfill non-accrued obligations unde the contract.
Example: A rental agreement for a residential property, where the tentant are required to pay for heat, although the tenants do not have access to the thermostat. In most states (if not all), this clause is unenforceable. If brought before the court, a judge would likely rule that the lease is still in effect to the end of its term, but the tenants do not have to pay for heat. If the tenant moves out prior to the end of the term due to the ill will stemming from the dispute, the landlord can still sue them for the unpaid portion of the lease (however many months are remaining); he will win, assuming there are no other problems, provided that he demonstrates to the court that he made an effort in good faith to get new tenants.
In Canada, however, the clause regarding the heating bill would be considered unenforceable, and as a result, typically the entire lease would be held as unenforceable -- the parties could choose to draw up a new lease (which includes amending the current one), or they could choose to sever their business relationship. If the latter, the tenant is not obligated to pay the rent for future months, even if the landlord cannot get a new tenant.
There is a reason that contract law is basically a profession in and of itself.
You're right, and it's because contracts are legally enforceable.
So, a general question for you: did you bother to think about what I wrote, or did you make a knee-jerk reaction based upon the fact that any legal agreement can be changed with the consent of the involved parties, which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that contracts deemed to be invalid in part by Canadian courts are deemed to be invalid in whole unless otherwise stipulated in the contract?
Shouldn't the inbuilt browser be able to view YouTube anyways?
FTFS (you don't have to even read TFA):
...it will take advantage of the iPhone's screen design and touch capabilities much more than watching videos in the iPhone's version of Safari would.
It is really interesting, from a marketing point of view, how Apple takes things that would be ho-hum for any other brand or company, and suddenly turns it into front page news with the whole "mystery feature" game.
That's not interesting from a marketing point of view, that's basic marketing. You don't think other companies do the same thing? Features TBA on product release announcements happen all the time.
I mean, realistically, it's just another smartphone in an already overcrowded market. But it's front page news every day.
That's probably because of how Apple changed the face of the music player industry by making them popular for the masses. The same is quite possible for smartphones.
If that's targeted at kids, how much allowance do they have today, and could I get adopted please?
Well, first off, it's very common for parents to buy the console as a birthday/holiday gift. Second, kids have *loads* of discretionary income -- why do you think the music with the highest sales is geared towards teens? Kids don't pay rent, don't pay utilities, etc. If they work, then what they take home is gravy. Even 20 years ago, I took home over $60 a week working weekends only as a kid.
I don't really think the majority of games sold these days are bought by parents.
True, which is why parents want a console that has no AO content -- their kids are buying the games, not them.
True, but it requires that the judge or arbitrator actually edit the contract. Typically, a judge would address all the issues brought before the court, and no others.
In Canada, if part of the contract is unenforceable, the entire contract is void by default (not sure if this can be avoided), so the contracting parties need to draw up a new contract.
US contracts do not have that problem; they include a clause that if any part of the agreement is declared invalid, the rest of the agreement will remain in force. This is why even very similar items in a contract are given separate clauses.
The real answer is "just get the f***ing job done."
I'd say the real answer is, "just get the f***ing job done more efficiently".
As far as progress being mythical, I think there's a semantic problem that makes a world of difference.
Progress without a goal is meaningless. So, the generic term "progress" when referring to technology in itself means nothing, it's a catch phrase to intimate that somehow things are incrementally better than previously. Note that "better" is an amorphous term as well.
However, when you get down to the philosophical basis of it, "progress" is the incremental approach towards some goal -- be it a platonic ideal (which is pretty much how I consider the term to be generally used) or towards a specific goal. Complexity is not a prerequisite for progress at all, and I think that it's a bit misleading to equate the two. Efficiency would be a better analogue to progress -- and that fits in with your biological metaphor pretty well. Those individuals that more efficiently accomplish the tasks of gaining food and surviving will be the ones most likely to survive and reproduce successfully (since they'll have more resources to devote to reproduction and care of young if applicable).
Similarly, those "innovations" that enable us to more efficiently achieve our goals (be it resource production/extraction/conservation, killing of enemies, attract members of the opposite sex, get all the housework done quicker/more thoroughly, or impress our neighbors) will be the ones that are adopted. These are the ones that can be classified as "progress".
Wait...So console makers do the whole "morality police" thing regarding what games are released on their consoles? WTF?
No. Console makers do the whole "sales protection" thing regarding what games are released. Their motivation is not to police morality, but to ensure they don't alienate a large portion of the market.
Like it or not, a lot of parents factor in whether content is appropriate when deciding what to buy their kids. And if one console says they won't allow AO content, then a lot of parents will choose that console. This is especially relevant since kids are able to download content for the 360.
The simple fact is that a significant portion of the US market responds well to actions like this. If you don't like it, then your options are to not buy that console, or to change the viewpoint of the market.
My point is that you shouldn't get annoyed with MS for this; you should be annoyed with the segment of the US population who factor it into their purchase decisions.
Since we were discussing why they would give *early* notice, how is that differentiated from giving notice when the cartridge is really about to be empty?
Yeah, yeah, you can talk about selling extra cartridges due to people tossing half-full cartridges, but given TFS and TFA, why would I bother posting something so redundant?
but given the problems we have had with that same model and HP accusing us of theft because a brand new HP cartridge out of the box was determined to be not authentic by the stupid machine...well I assume they are just out for blood.
Just want to note that it's possible you bought a counterfeit cartridge, we've had issues with these at my office -- had to change suppliers.
Another thing that comes to mind is the issue that came up a lot a few years ago, where empty cartridges seriously screwed with inkjet printers -- because of the lower fluid volume, the ink was able to dry out completely, jamming the ink system in the printer. More often than not, the solution to this problem was -- you guessed it -- to buy a new printer.
Given that HP et al lose money on the printers they sell, I woludn't be surprised if part of the early warning to buy another cartridge has to do with
(1) Giving the user adequate notice to buy a new catridge, and (2) Preventing the cartridge from drying up & killing the printer.
Is it deceptive? Yes. Should a smart consumer know to keep the replacement cartridge on hold until their cartridge actually runs low and print quality suffers? Yes, that's just common sense.
One other note -- the varying "pages left" numbers you received could have much to do with the saturation of the pages you were printing. That number will change based upon whether you're printing pages with a few lines of text or a page full of grayscale images.
I agree, mostly. Except the seller determines the price at which they feel their job is worth their time. The buyer agrees that the price is worth paying to have something done better and faster.
I just wanted to point out that this is inaccurate. The seller determines the price at which they think they can maximize profits, depending on how much he thinks the buyers will be willing to pay. A seller does not determine pricing based upon the value of his/her time; a seller may decide if it's worth producing and selling a good based on whether they get a fair return on their time invested, but the actual pricing decision should have nothing to do with that.
This is about overturning aspects of the 1986 Stored Communications Act. FTA:
'The Stored Communications Act is very important,' former federal prosecutor and counter-terrorism specialist Andrew McCarthy told United Press International. But the future of the law now hangs in the balance.
[snip]
Some observers warned that the ruling might hamper federal counter-terrorism efforts. [snip]
'The USA Patriot Act broke down the wall between intelligence and law enforcement. Criminal prosecutors can now share information with the intelligence side of the house,' [McCarthy] said.
But if the ruling stopped prosecutors from gathering information, it could not be passed along. 'If you can`t get it, you can`t share it,' he said.
Is it just me, or would it have been a little smarter for the government to use a mouthpiece with a name other than McCarthy when discussing tactics for terrorist witch-hunts?
Slashdot Mirror
What Apple/RIAA et al intended by adding the user data to the media file is immaterial. What matters is the intent of the company that wrote the software to strip the data. If they intended to facilitate illegal distribution, they can be held liable according to US law -- of course, being a French concern, there are some issues with jurisdiction. Familiarize yourself with the Napster case, and you'll see why this is true.
As to "No court in the land.", see 2. Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F. 2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971), which established contributory liability (as used as precedent in the Grokster case):.
Any court in the US could very easily, and would quite likely, find that the publishers of this software induce the infringing conduct of others -- again, depending on how the software is marketed and/or distributed.
Please, do some research before assuming that no court in the land would find against the company. The sad and scary truth is that the media cartels have persuaded the US government to uphold their interests over those of the consumer, with the force of law.
Sure, because a program made in France is impossible to use in the US. And because Slashdot is (like it or not) a US-centric site.
As for this being illegal, note that copyright protection applies to media regardless of whether or not it's DRM'd. Just because it's DRM-free doesn't mean it's in the public domain, and it can certainly be argued that a tool primarily used to evade detection by those breaking the law is illegal.
Regardless of how we feel about it, all the outrage in the world doesn't change the facts of how the US legal system handles those who encourage a clearly illegal action.
No, I'm suggesting digital access to media. Not print-on-demand, but view-on-demand. The whole point is to eliminate paper.
I feel that the suggestion to have college libraries host LAN parties is just ridiculous, unless the purpose is to drive up user traffic (which a lot of the time affects funding). It seems to me that hosting LAN parties for gaming is antithetical to the purpose of a library, and would be distracting to people using the library for work (even if it's in a separate, sound-proofed area -- the temptation would be distracting to me, I'm sure). If the library has resources to host parties after hours, then I believe those resources would be much better used keeping the library open for study longer.
As for 24-7 support services, wouldn't that be expensive? And why should a college library offer full services 24-7 other than making life easier for students? I know for certain that when I work late, I don't have full support from staff at my company. I think students should get used to the fact that not all resources at at our fingertips 24-7, and we should not expect them to be. Students need to learn to manage resources well, and that includes dealing with part-time access to them.
I don't ant to sound like I'm going off on a get-off-my-lawn tirade, but I truly feel that libraries should stick to their base functions as information repositories and access points. Does this mean that library use may drop, since the internet has become the prime access point for information among younger people? Sure. But rather than expand the scope of libraries, I'd rather see reduced expenditures (like shared acquisitions {when licensing permits}, more efficient use of technology (why keep all those little-used dead trees around when digital versions are both more useful and cheaper to deal with?).
Well, using their dominant market share in the browser space to kill off a competitor's product in a different space? They'd get hammered in a new anti-trust suit, regardless of what they are currently being held to as part of previous anti-trust decisions.
All this assuming, of course, that anti-trust laws in the US are still valid (which is debatable, due to selective and half-hearted enforcement).
Do you want the real answer (not likely), or some snark? It's Monday, so what you want is immaterial -- snark is all i'm capable of.
Silverlight, a Wiccan coven in North Carolina.
Terry Silverlight, a drummer/composer/producer/arranger/educator.
Silverlight, a weapon in the Runescape MMORPG.
Want more? I'm sure I could drag up plenty from the depths of search engine hell. Hell, I could even do a tag search on flickr, I'm sure that would be amusing.
At any rate, you've all the resources at your fingertips to know what Silverlight is in TFA's context -- even more so if you read TFA.
Although, should be said that the DVD CCA has nothing about content standards in its organizational notes, so it would be hard for them to justify it without a new agreement by the member companies.
Makes sense to me, although I tend to lean towards the nihilist side ;)
No, iTunes along with the iPod did change the face of the portable music player industry.
Music distribution is now part of the portable player industry.
It's getting iOld now -- and where're the quotes?.
Now that's fUnny.
As for them not able to be invalidated, perhaps you have no understanding of what entering a contract means. If you enter a contract, and fail to fulfill your material obligations as part of the contract, the other party in the contract has legal recourse against you. This is fact in the US. Should you contest some part of the contract, you can have the legal system adjudicate your dispute. This is also fact -- but, you would need to demonstrate to the court that the part of the contract that you are contesting runs afoul of the law or standard business practices. Tpyically in the US, the remainder of the contract remains in force.
In Canada, if you successfully contest part of the contract, the contract is null and void, meaning you have no legal obligation to fulfill non-accrued obligations unde the contract.
Example: A rental agreement for a residential property, where the tentant are required to pay for heat, although the tenants do not have access to the thermostat. In most states (if not all), this clause is unenforceable. If brought before the court, a judge would likely rule that the lease is still in effect to the end of its term, but the tenants do not have to pay for heat. If the tenant moves out prior to the end of the term due to the ill will stemming from the dispute, the landlord can still sue them for the unpaid portion of the lease (however many months are remaining); he will win, assuming there are no other problems, provided that he demonstrates to the court that he made an effort in good faith to get new tenants.
In Canada, however, the clause regarding the heating bill would be considered unenforceable, and as a result, typically the entire lease would be held as unenforceable -- the parties could choose to draw up a new lease (which includes amending the current one), or they could choose to sever their business relationship. If the latter, the tenant is not obligated to pay the rent for future months, even if the landlord cannot get a new tenant.
You're right, and it's because contracts are legally enforceable.
So, a general question for you: did you bother to think about what I wrote, or did you make a knee-jerk reaction based upon the fact that any legal agreement can be changed with the consent of the involved parties, which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that contracts deemed to be invalid in part by Canadian courts are deemed to be invalid in whole unless otherwise stipulated in the contract?
That's not interesting from a marketing point of view, that's basic marketing. You don't think other companies do the same thing? Features TBA on product release announcements happen all the time.
That's probably because of how Apple changed the face of the music player industry by making them popular for the masses. The same is quite possible for smartphones.
True, which is why parents want a console that has no AO content -- their kids are buying the games, not them.
True, but it requires that the judge or arbitrator actually edit the contract. Typically, a judge would address all the issues brought before the court, and no others.
In Canada, if part of the contract is unenforceable, the entire contract is void by default (not sure if this can be avoided), so the contracting parties need to draw up a new contract.
US contracts do not have that problem; they include a clause that if any part of the agreement is declared invalid, the rest of the agreement will remain in force. This is why even very similar items in a contract are given separate clauses.
As far as progress being mythical, I think there's a semantic problem that makes a world of difference.
Progress without a goal is meaningless. So, the generic term "progress" when referring to technology in itself means nothing, it's a catch phrase to intimate that somehow things are incrementally better than previously. Note that "better" is an amorphous term as well.
However, when you get down to the philosophical basis of it, "progress" is the incremental approach towards some goal -- be it a platonic ideal (which is pretty much how I consider the term to be generally used) or towards a specific goal. Complexity is not a prerequisite for progress at all, and I think that it's a bit misleading to equate the two. Efficiency would be a better analogue to progress -- and that fits in with your biological metaphor pretty well. Those individuals that more efficiently accomplish the tasks of gaining food and surviving will be the ones most likely to survive and reproduce successfully (since they'll have more resources to devote to reproduction and care of young if applicable).
Similarly, those "innovations" that enable us to more efficiently achieve our goals (be it resource production/extraction/conservation, killing of enemies, attract members of the opposite sex, get all the housework done quicker/more thoroughly, or impress our neighbors) will be the ones that are adopted. These are the ones that can be classified as "progress".
Like it or not, a lot of parents factor in whether content is appropriate when deciding what to buy their kids. And if one console says they won't allow AO content, then a lot of parents will choose that console. This is especially relevant since kids are able to download content for the 360.
The simple fact is that a significant portion of the US market responds well to actions like this. If you don't like it, then your options are to not buy that console, or to change the viewpoint of the market.
My point is that you shouldn't get annoyed with MS for this; you should be annoyed with the segment of the US population who factor it into their purchase decisions.
Since we were discussing why they would give *early* notice, how is that differentiated from giving notice when the cartridge is really about to be empty?
Yeah, yeah, you can talk about selling extra cartridges due to people tossing half-full cartridges, but given TFS and TFA, why would I bother posting something so redundant?
Another thing that comes to mind is the issue that came up a lot a few years ago, where empty cartridges seriously screwed with inkjet printers -- because of the lower fluid volume, the ink was able to dry out completely, jamming the ink system in the printer. More often than not, the solution to this problem was -- you guessed it -- to buy a new printer.
Given that HP et al lose money on the printers they sell, I woludn't be surprised if part of the early warning to buy another cartridge has to do with
(1) Giving the user adequate notice to buy a new catridge, and
(2) Preventing the cartridge from drying up & killing the printer.
Is it deceptive? Yes. Should a smart consumer know to keep the replacement cartridge on hold until their cartridge actually runs low and print quality suffers? Yes, that's just common sense.
One other note -- the varying "pages left" numbers you received could have much to do with the saturation of the pages you were printing. That number will change based upon whether you're printing pages with a few lines of text or a page full of grayscale images.