Oops, I cut the original ending I wrote for the post. I did back down and removed it, after several discussions with Harvard's General Counsel. However, he was willing to be satisfied with the most narrow interpretation possible of the request, and we agreed that I only needed to remove that one executable file, so that Harvard could cover their asses. Any other source code or content was fine. So I put everything else that could possibly offend the MPAA up on my site, including various forms of the DeCSS source code.:)
Hehe. I got cease and desisted by the MPAA for distributing DeCSS back when I was in college (I had a web page with a bunch of DVD-related downloads, including DeCSS, LiViD project info and so on). I did fight it, and publicize it - was written up in the Harvard Crimson. But you see, I was a senior at Harvard University, and it turned out I did have something to lose - my diploma at the end of the year. Thanks, DMCA. To the US Congress - suck my gonads.
Wrong. I hate to tell you but the ENTIRETY of American jurisprudence exists because rights aren't absolute, but rather exist in balance with each other. While I hold the First Amendment particularly dear to my heart (and I'm pretty sure there's a reason it comes first in the list), it still exists only in balance with other fundamental rights, as outlined by the constitution, common law practices, and jurisprudence. I think this basic principle is pretty much the same in the legal systems of all democratic countries.
I do not of course claim that the judicial system does a perfect or even near perfect job at upholding our rights, and often makes the fallacious assumption that a corporation's rights should be on par with the rights of large numbers of individual citizens, or often even superceding them. While corporations should be treated justly under the law, their "right to profit" or "right to not be criticized by individuals" don't exist in the constitution and should never be seen as higher priority than something as fundamental to our society as the First Amendment. But, that being said, there are laws about libel and slander, jurisprudence about the difference between commercial speech and political speech and so on that try to clarify all the intermediate grey areas and fill in the gaps that the Constitution doesn't specify. And that is, at its heart, a good thing. Perhaps we should push for more accountability in the judicial branch, and perhaps we should elect a President that will appoint judges who aren't fucking corporate whores, mmm?
You do know that the namespace URI is just that - it's a unique identifier for a namespace, NOT a URL that you can dereference to find anything. The topic of schema URIs (i.e. targetNamespaces) has been debated a million times and it's 100% possible to have a document that validates against a schema or DTD that is identified with a URI at which the DTD or schema CANNOT be downloaded, and which can be stored locally on a machine for validation purposes (the parser uses an internal map to correlate the URI with the schema/DTD).
I did read the article, you troll. The DoD is whining about "possible effects" of WiFi, though no such effects have been observed, and bitching about opening up the 5Ghz spectrum for further usage. But the cat's out of the bad already - 5Ghz is already being used by 802.11a, thus my point that they missed the boat and should have brought this up when 802.11a was in the standards process if they think it's a possible problem.
Didn't it occur to them to talk to the FCC about this, and the standards bodies that set up the 802.11a standard BEFORE products were out there on the market? If they missed the boat with this, then somebody's fucking head should roll. What a bunch of idiots. Fire whoever is responsible for failing to bring this up in the first place and make them personally liable for business losses to companies if they have to pull products off the market. That'll teach em.
CmdrTaco has been so busy with his new wife that he hasn't had time to read his own website. Kudos to Rob, living it up in conjugal bliss! In the meantime, maybe you should ask your coworkers when you come back from a night of playing "hide the potato sack" what they have posted over the last couple of days. Just an idea.
Your point has been raised a million times on Slashdot. The counterpoint has as well. NVidia has technology licensing agreements with third parties that, at least according to NVidia, do not allow them to Open Source portions of their drivers without violation of the agreements. Others have argued that surely NVidia could renegotiate those agreements. It has been pointed out that sometimes licensing agreements are with entities that don't even exist in the same form anymore, and renegotiating them may not be feasible. Undoubtedly, it could be an expensive proposition for a company with lots of such licensing agreements.
In the end, like any business decision, it's a marginal cost/marginal benefit based decision. What does NVidia get from Open Sourcing their drivers? Matrox has had the best support for Open Source over the years, open specs and the works. How far has that gotten them? Ummm... I am as much a proponent of Open Source as the next rabid slashbot, but the fact is for a hardware company concerned about giving out too many details of their hardware and intellectual property, that spends more time and money developing good drivers than other hardware companies do, their stance makes some sense. In a perfect world, we would recognize that a hardware company's business is selling hardware, and the driver software ain't part of their business, thus they should Open Source it. But the fact is they MIGHT give away proprietary information they don't want competitors to have if they did that. And that's more important to them than the small market represented by the most rabid Open Source zealots.
Furthermore, many of the problems folks have had over the years with breaking NVidia drivers are directly attributable to the fucktard kernel devs who don't seem to have a concept of a stable ABI/API for kernel drivers. This is one area that Windows technically seems to shine over Linux. Kernel modules should work seemlessly across minor kernel versions. Not to encourage binary only modules, but to encourage ease of use and upgrading of Linux systems. If I upgrade Windows 2000 to Service Pack 18 or whatever, I don't have to go download new drivers. This is just silly. The contract between driverland and kernel land should be well-specified and stable, not "the driver can muck around with any kernel structures it fucking pleases".
You mean sluts don't love jism? Oh, sorry.:) Every human being compartmentalizes. I mean, otherwise how do you explain women who are very serious professional career women when they are at work, but yet, when in the bedroom they screw like minxes and scream holler and yell "fuck me harder". People are different in the bedroom. The state of sexual arousal undoutedly does lead people to do things and look at things that they compartmentalize out of the rest of their lives. This, I think, is one of the realities of being human. Whether you are a Freudian and believe that the "id" takes over or whatever matters not to me. Hormones flow freely, testosterone starts pumping, adrenaline is flowing, whatever it is.
Then afterwards, people go back to their normal boring lives. So I honestly don't see how you think this is so abnormal. Compartmentalization is actually an evolved defense mechanism that lets us live with all sorts of logical inconsistencies and dillemmas and other sorts of misery in our day-to-day lives and still function normally.
An excellent analogy and excellent point. However, I would like to take slight issue with your characterization of pornography. It's certainly unarguably true that it does replace the real and intractable differences between the sexes with supple, willing women, who, well, act exactly the way guys would like them to act.
But this is only ethically deviant if the people watching pornography conceive of it as a depiction of reality, or even how they would want reality to ACTUALLY be. The difference from religious fundamentalism is clear. People who are followers of religious fundamentalist movements or causes don't put their religious fundamentalism back in the drawer after a wank, and don't forget about religious fundamentalism when they are interacting with other real human beings. Religious fundamentalism isn't a momentary escape from reality that releases sexual tensions and frustration. Religious fundamentalism is a way of life and set of viewpoints that as you point out, replaces logical reasoning and rational argument with argument by authority. The porn goes back in the drawer.
Do some people take away bad ideas about women from pornography? Probably. This is why we generally say that kids shouldn't have porn, because they may not understand that it's a fantasy and not a reality. I guess we don't want them to be too depressed when they get a real chick's clothes off and start humpin' that it's just not like what they saw in Exotic Amateurs 3 (note: I think hiding this stuff from teenagers at least is useless and crazy - just make sure they understand that it isn't reality).
Funny that, my father is German and English and my mother is Jewish. Does that mean I am inclined to launch rockets at my own house, then inter myself in a concentration camp and retaliate by getting my neighbor to carpet bomb my domicile?
Agreed. For example, I just saw somebody the other day look up some article references from a Published Works section in somebody's CV so they didn't have to bother with typing out the bothersome format of a journal article reference. If somebody else already did it, what the heck is wrong with cutting and pasting? In this case the woman I am referring to was one of the authors of the article, so I am quite certain she read it. But some typo or mistake in the source CV would have been propagated through to her CV and other locations where she was plopping it down.
True, this is PR for his company (which WAS Loudcloud, a mega-ASP, until it seems they decided that market sucked, and now they want to make large-scale server management tools). Frankly, I think there is a very real market for their product, though, and I think the issue goes beyond PR. Look at some of the big players (IBM for example) with initiatives in what they call Autonomic Computing. It's pretty clear all around that as IT becomes a commodity, if you can lower the costs of managing servers by reducing the amount of human intervention required, you can make a big win in this space.
However, as I see it, there are two categories of features: those that are fairly generic (like all the features the Opsware guys have) seem naturally amenable to integration into the Operating System - patch deployment, app deployment, app tracking, and so on. Making these products for Windows seems like a losing proposition since MS will just assimilate the features into the next server OS release. But I would say there's a robust market for such products for the Unices.
And then there are features of software itself that needs to be self-managing and self-monitoring. This is substantially harder - we tried to make an application at my last company that would control its own clustering, assigning workload to application instances in an app cluster appropriately (it was the kind of thing not amenable to some kludgy EJB-type solution - it needed real workload partitioning at the application level). Better software toolkits are needed to support this, J2EE just doesn't come close. But I don't know if anybody will make money making such a toolkit. Perhaps.
You were on target - then you lost it. Clicks don't matter. Period. I don't interrupt my TV watching experience to go "click" on something for an ad. Frankly, I don't really _watch_ ads on TV either, but when I do happen to see an interesting ad, it doesn't make me interrupt my train of thought and what I was doing before. It creates a mental impression that MAY at some later time result in me using a particular vendor for a service or buying a particular product. PERIOD.
That's all internet advertising is going to do for you too. Clickthrough rates aren't a measure of much. Most ads should be designed to briefly catch eyeballs and get a name out there. If you hope for more, you are hoping against hope. Measuring success by how many idiots can be tricked into throwing aside whatever they were working on and clicking on something totally different is insane.
Just to point out - the US has similar annoying employer fees too. They are FICA and FUMA and so on - mandatory unemployment and social security taxes of 15% that are split between employer and employee. Also, benefits are hugely expensive over here, especially medical insurance. Thus, when we put together financial projections for a business we usually tack on 30% or so of overhead for these taxes and benefits. Not quite 50%, but it's much more expensive to employ somebody than their salary alone suggests. And here in Massachusetts (Taxachusetts), people pay Federal and State income taxes, and the other half of that 15% out of their own pocket. Hell, if you are self-employed here, your marginal tax rate is over 50% (figure 33% Federal income, 15% "employment taxes" as mentioned above, 5% state income and some other misc. crap).
In short, though the US doesn't have a 90%+ marginal income tax rate bracket like it used many years ago, all the other taxes heaped on to those of us in the upper middle classes/income brackets give us a pretty thorough reaming out at the hands of Uncle Sam and friends.
Several posters have pointed out that in the longer term this may lead to a resurgence of interest in algorithmic efficiency, parallel algorithm development to take advantage of available parallelism (clustering, SMP, etc.). Certainly there is merit to these arguments, and I do think interest in these topics will increase greatly over the next few years, at least for problems where they are necessary (i.e. where computational power is a limiting reagent, which isn't really the case in most business software).
Honestly, I think a bigger trend will be to take advantage of formalisms that let developers develop more reliable and stable software. Now, I know and you know that things like functional programming have been out there for years, and haven't succeeded because first, they were too slow and therefore wasted too many processor cycles. This is obviously much less of a problem now - Java "wastes" lots of processor cycles, but for a lot of software needs, saves so many human "thinking" cycles that it pays off in spades for businesses that need business or enterprise software to Do Stuff for the back-end sides of industry.
So what big problem(s) are left in the software world? Well, people still bitch about how fucking unreliable most software is. In particular, core, critical system areas, like the interface between hardware and software - as more hardware is out there, and more drivers are developed, and backwards compatibility is an issue, hardware interactions have not become substantially more reliable. And frankly a lot of applications themselves, have become substantially less reliable - the big problem is that adding features and changing GUIs seems to break too many things and introduce too many potential problems (look at Outlook XP vs. Outlook 2000 - fixed some security holes, made a prettier GUI, and made the damn thing crash all the time).
Look at a lot of the academic work being done in computer science, especially in programming language design, operating system design, parallel algorithms and parallel languages. Sometimes researchers head off down dead-end paths, but sometimes they have it right, and it just takes a while for industry to see what they need this stuff for. That being said, it'll always be cheaper to teach people "Programming in Java 101" in India and then hire 1000 of them to hack away at code, admitted usually for the most uninteresting and repetitive types of development work (at least, this will hold until economic parity in the third world becomes a reality).
Exactly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And what was that about Occam's razor? Is it not possible there are explanations for the observed phenomenon here (abnormal energy levels in plasmas) than "hydrinos" that fly in the face of very well established theories that (in their relevant domain and length scales) have been proved accurate in thousands of experiments in the past (E&M, basic QM principles)? I'm not saying that these formulae are absolute doctrine and cannot be refuted - by definition all science must be disprovable, or it's not science at all. But until there was not only evidence of abnormal phenomena, but also no other reasonable explanation posited by the scientific community AND several years of proven replication of the experiment AND similar experiments designed to test the "hydrino" hypothesis via other mechanisms, well, I wouldn't accept the otherwise quite outrageous claims.
The normality thing doesn't mean dick. Though true that any sequence of numbers will appear somewhere in the expansion if you had the countably infinite decimals of the expansion all at your disposal. However, as humans capable only of dealing hands-on with the finite, we can only ever obtain a finite portion of the decimal expansion, which thus represents an infinitesimal portion of the entire expansion. Therefore, only an infinitesimal portion of all possible sequences can ever be found in any finite subset of the expansion. If one such subset was so clearly representative of the formula for calculating the number itself, while it could of course be coincidence, it would be a very strange coincidence indeed (and you can calculate the odds of such a non-random ordering occuring based on its size and how far out you had to search for it in the "normal" sequence).
Your assertion that pi is the same in all possible universes seems quite silly to me. Assuming that those universes have two spatial dimensions and that the symmetry of that universe causes 360 degrees to subtend a full, symmetric rotation in those dimensions. In short, just because it represents the only kind of universe you and I can commonly conceive of doesn't mean shit, because everythin on the basis of which we conceive of that is part and parcel of the universe itself, including the laws of physics.
And I respect a company's right to protect their strategy INCLUDING their pricing strategy. And they have the right to fire somebody who has leaked a trade secret, or sue them. Or if another firm is under NDA and they leak it, again, it's grounds for a lawsuit. However, once a trade secret is leaked, you can't suppress it using the DMCA or any other law. The person repeating a rumor or piece of information is by no means breaking any law - they are under no contract, and there is no fundamental protection for the piece of information itself. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous, and trying to hide underneath copyright law, which was created to protect original works of art and writing is patently absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, I cut the original ending I wrote for the post. I did back down and removed it, after several discussions with Harvard's General Counsel. However, he was willing to be satisfied with the most narrow interpretation possible of the request, and we agreed that I only needed to remove that one executable file, so that Harvard could cover their asses. Any other source code or content was fine. So I put everything else that could possibly offend the MPAA up on my site, including various forms of the DeCSS source code. :)
Hehe. I got cease and desisted by the MPAA for distributing DeCSS back when I was in college (I had a web page with a bunch of DVD-related downloads, including DeCSS, LiViD project info and so on). I did fight it, and publicize it - was written up in the Harvard Crimson. But you see, I was a senior at Harvard University, and it turned out I did have something to lose - my diploma at the end of the year. Thanks, DMCA. To the US Congress - suck my gonads.
I do not of course claim that the judicial system does a perfect or even near perfect job at upholding our rights, and often makes the fallacious assumption that a corporation's rights should be on par with the rights of large numbers of individual citizens, or often even superceding them. While corporations should be treated justly under the law, their "right to profit" or "right to not be criticized by individuals" don't exist in the constitution and should never be seen as higher priority than something as fundamental to our society as the First Amendment. But, that being said, there are laws about libel and slander, jurisprudence about the difference between commercial speech and political speech and so on that try to clarify all the intermediate grey areas and fill in the gaps that the Constitution doesn't specify. And that is, at its heart, a good thing. Perhaps we should push for more accountability in the judicial branch, and perhaps we should elect a President that will appoint judges who aren't fucking corporate whores, mmm?
You do know that the namespace URI is just that - it's a unique identifier for a namespace, NOT a URL that you can dereference to find anything. The topic of schema URIs (i.e. targetNamespaces) has been debated a million times and it's 100% possible to have a document that validates against a schema or DTD that is identified with a URI at which the DTD or schema CANNOT be downloaded, and which can be stored locally on a machine for validation purposes (the parser uses an internal map to correlate the URI with the schema/DTD).
Okay, okay, ouch, ouch, you don't think I'm funny, but no need to mod-slam me for fuck's sake!
One is a Red Hat in the black, and the other is a black hat in the red.
Ba-doom-ching!
The music finds you!!!
Thanks for the tip to the Cambridge crew. I'll check it out next time I'm cruising Mem Drive.
I did read the article, you troll. The DoD is whining about "possible effects" of WiFi, though no such effects have been observed, and bitching about opening up the 5Ghz spectrum for further usage. But the cat's out of the bad already - 5Ghz is already being used by 802.11a, thus my point that they missed the boat and should have brought this up when 802.11a was in the standards process if they think it's a possible problem.
Didn't it occur to them to talk to the FCC about this, and the standards bodies that set up the 802.11a standard BEFORE products were out there on the market? If they missed the boat with this, then somebody's fucking head should roll. What a bunch of idiots. Fire whoever is responsible for failing to bring this up in the first place and make them personally liable for business losses to companies if they have to pull products off the market. That'll teach em.
CmdrTaco has been so busy with his new wife that he hasn't had time to read his own website. Kudos to Rob, living it up in conjugal bliss! In the meantime, maybe you should ask your coworkers when you come back from a night of playing "hide the potato sack" what they have posted over the last couple of days. Just an idea.
In the end, like any business decision, it's a marginal cost/marginal benefit based decision. What does NVidia get from Open Sourcing their drivers? Matrox has had the best support for Open Source over the years, open specs and the works. How far has that gotten them? Ummm... I am as much a proponent of Open Source as the next rabid slashbot, but the fact is for a hardware company concerned about giving out too many details of their hardware and intellectual property, that spends more time and money developing good drivers than other hardware companies do, their stance makes some sense. In a perfect world, we would recognize that a hardware company's business is selling hardware, and the driver software ain't part of their business, thus they should Open Source it. But the fact is they MIGHT give away proprietary information they don't want competitors to have if they did that. And that's more important to them than the small market represented by the most rabid Open Source zealots.
Furthermore, many of the problems folks have had over the years with breaking NVidia drivers are directly attributable to the fucktard kernel devs who don't seem to have a concept of a stable ABI/API for kernel drivers. This is one area that Windows technically seems to shine over Linux. Kernel modules should work seemlessly across minor kernel versions. Not to encourage binary only modules, but to encourage ease of use and upgrading of Linux systems. If I upgrade Windows 2000 to Service Pack 18 or whatever, I don't have to go download new drivers. This is just silly. The contract between driverland and kernel land should be well-specified and stable, not "the driver can muck around with any kernel structures it fucking pleases".
This guy needs to close his analog hole too.
Then afterwards, people go back to their normal boring lives. So I honestly don't see how you think this is so abnormal. Compartmentalization is actually an evolved defense mechanism that lets us live with all sorts of logical inconsistencies and dillemmas and other sorts of misery in our day-to-day lives and still function normally.
But this is only ethically deviant if the people watching pornography conceive of it as a depiction of reality, or even how they would want reality to ACTUALLY be. The difference from religious fundamentalism is clear. People who are followers of religious fundamentalist movements or causes don't put their religious fundamentalism back in the drawer after a wank, and don't forget about religious fundamentalism when they are interacting with other real human beings. Religious fundamentalism isn't a momentary escape from reality that releases sexual tensions and frustration. Religious fundamentalism is a way of life and set of viewpoints that as you point out, replaces logical reasoning and rational argument with argument by authority. The porn goes back in the drawer.
Do some people take away bad ideas about women from pornography? Probably. This is why we generally say that kids shouldn't have porn, because they may not understand that it's a fantasy and not a reality. I guess we don't want them to be too depressed when they get a real chick's clothes off and start humpin' that it's just not like what they saw in Exotic Amateurs 3 (note: I think hiding this stuff from teenagers at least is useless and crazy - just make sure they understand that it isn't reality).
Funny that, my father is German and English and my mother is Jewish. Does that mean I am inclined to launch rockets at my own house, then inter myself in a concentration camp and retaliate by getting my neighbor to carpet bomb my domicile?
Agreed. For example, I just saw somebody the other day look up some article references from a Published Works section in somebody's CV so they didn't have to bother with typing out the bothersome format of a journal article reference. If somebody else already did it, what the heck is wrong with cutting and pasting? In this case the woman I am referring to was one of the authors of the article, so I am quite certain she read it. But some typo or mistake in the source CV would have been propagated through to her CV and other locations where she was plopping it down.
However, as I see it, there are two categories of features: those that are fairly generic (like all the features the Opsware guys have) seem naturally amenable to integration into the Operating System - patch deployment, app deployment, app tracking, and so on. Making these products for Windows seems like a losing proposition since MS will just assimilate the features into the next server OS release. But I would say there's a robust market for such products for the Unices.
And then there are features of software itself that needs to be self-managing and self-monitoring. This is substantially harder - we tried to make an application at my last company that would control its own clustering, assigning workload to application instances in an app cluster appropriately (it was the kind of thing not amenable to some kludgy EJB-type solution - it needed real workload partitioning at the application level). Better software toolkits are needed to support this, J2EE just doesn't come close. But I don't know if anybody will make money making such a toolkit. Perhaps.
That's all internet advertising is going to do for you too. Clickthrough rates aren't a measure of much. Most ads should be designed to briefly catch eyeballs and get a name out there. If you hope for more, you are hoping against hope. Measuring success by how many idiots can be tricked into throwing aside whatever they were working on and clicking on something totally different is insane.
In short, though the US doesn't have a 90%+ marginal income tax rate bracket like it used many years ago, all the other taxes heaped on to those of us in the upper middle classes/income brackets give us a pretty thorough reaming out at the hands of Uncle Sam and friends.
Honestly, I think a bigger trend will be to take advantage of formalisms that let developers develop more reliable and stable software. Now, I know and you know that things like functional programming have been out there for years, and haven't succeeded because first, they were too slow and therefore wasted too many processor cycles. This is obviously much less of a problem now - Java "wastes" lots of processor cycles, but for a lot of software needs, saves so many human "thinking" cycles that it pays off in spades for businesses that need business or enterprise software to Do Stuff for the back-end sides of industry.
So what big problem(s) are left in the software world? Well, people still bitch about how fucking unreliable most software is. In particular, core, critical system areas, like the interface between hardware and software - as more hardware is out there, and more drivers are developed, and backwards compatibility is an issue, hardware interactions have not become substantially more reliable. And frankly a lot of applications themselves, have become substantially less reliable - the big problem is that adding features and changing GUIs seems to break too many things and introduce too many potential problems (look at Outlook XP vs. Outlook 2000 - fixed some security holes, made a prettier GUI, and made the damn thing crash all the time).
Look at a lot of the academic work being done in computer science, especially in programming language design, operating system design, parallel algorithms and parallel languages. Sometimes researchers head off down dead-end paths, but sometimes they have it right, and it just takes a while for industry to see what they need this stuff for. That being said, it'll always be cheaper to teach people "Programming in Java 101" in India and then hire 1000 of them to hack away at code, admitted usually for the most uninteresting and repetitive types of development work (at least, this will hold until economic parity in the third world becomes a reality).
Well, both of those images are all about "accessibility" so in some very twisted way, it makes sense. Ugh.
Exactly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And what was that about Occam's razor? Is it not possible there are explanations for the observed phenomenon here (abnormal energy levels in plasmas) than "hydrinos" that fly in the face of very well established theories that (in their relevant domain and length scales) have been proved accurate in thousands of experiments in the past (E&M, basic QM principles)? I'm not saying that these formulae are absolute doctrine and cannot be refuted - by definition all science must be disprovable, or it's not science at all. But until there was not only evidence of abnormal phenomena, but also no other reasonable explanation posited by the scientific community AND several years of proven replication of the experiment AND similar experiments designed to test the "hydrino" hypothesis via other mechanisms, well, I wouldn't accept the otherwise quite outrageous claims.
Your assertion that pi is the same in all possible universes seems quite silly to me. Assuming that those universes have two spatial dimensions and that the symmetry of that universe causes 360 degrees to subtend a full, symmetric rotation in those dimensions. In short, just because it represents the only kind of universe you and I can commonly conceive of doesn't mean shit, because everythin on the basis of which we conceive of that is part and parcel of the universe itself, including the laws of physics.
And I respect a company's right to protect their strategy INCLUDING their pricing strategy. And they have the right to fire somebody who has leaked a trade secret, or sue them. Or if another firm is under NDA and they leak it, again, it's grounds for a lawsuit. However, once a trade secret is leaked, you can't suppress it using the DMCA or any other law. The person repeating a rumor or piece of information is by no means breaking any law - they are under no contract, and there is no fundamental protection for the piece of information itself. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous, and trying to hide underneath copyright law, which was created to protect original works of art and writing is patently absurd.