Fair Use is an affirmative defense;/. posting an article claiming that something "Is Not Fair Use" is misleading and irresponsible - only a judge/court can determine if something is or is not Fair Use, and only if given the chance to do so.
Given that the video in question is a work of fan fiction, the following seems relevant:
"Works of fanfiction are more likely to constitute fair use if they are "transformative" with respect to the original work, if they are non-commercial, if they appropriate relatively little of the original work, and/or if they do not tend to detract from the potential market for or value of the original work.[9]"
Bennett Haselton doesn't seem to know how Fair Use works, and is dangerously and irresponsibly mischaracterizing it as something he himself can assess and negate/affirm. The non-commercial and transformative aspects of the Power Rangers video in question might in fact hold up in court; he doesn't know otherwise, and to insist that he does is legally misguided.
Given that the Supreme Court has already weighed in twice on the constitutionality of campaign finance reform (money = speech, etc.), is traditional legislation even enough - at this point isn't an actual amendment necessary, to overcome existing rulings?
And if so, by how much? It's one thing to say that flies perceive time differently than we do, but I'm curious as to whether:
1. Among many flies, there is variance from fly to fly (both independent and dependent of relative size), and if so, what that variance is...
2. For a single fly, whether there is variance based on age, environment, time of day, etc.
It's always seemed to me like those with an extraordinary talent at something, esp. an athletic or musical talent, are able to slow down time when performing this talent.
I'd tend to say that perception of time should more and more be considered a sense, like sight, sound, taste, etc.
http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?p=790254#790254
"In my opinion, the album art was not particularly more or less transformative than the music on the album. If the intent was commercial sale, and the music was licensed to be above board, as mentioned, the album art probably should have been treated the same way, right? I'm not saying the photographer's not being a douche, or that the sums asked for weren't inappropriate, or anything of that regard, I'm just saying, if you look at the album as comprised of two elements - the music, and the cover - the first was licensed for commercial sale, and the second was not, so if you make a fair use argument for the cover... why not the music as well? If you acknowledge that the music needed to be licensed in the first place, and hence did NOT fall under fair use, it seems odd to make the opposite argument for the album art. That's my only real point, but I feel it's worth making, because it seems like music is often treated very differently (MORE scrutiny & copyright concern) than images. My favorite example that hits close to home is video game fan art vs. video game fan mixes. Peeps been submitting drawings of Mario, Zelda, etc. to EGM before the Internet took over, but the second mixes became a thing, everyone was VERY concerned w/ copyright issues.
Again, no hate. We talk about fair use a lot here, it's relevant to us, and I'm pretty sure all of us read this article as a damn unfortunate thing happening to a good person. It's just... that doesn't make him right about the law, or fair use, and I just thought the inconsistency between the music being licensed and the image not was worth mentioning."
"Windows" makes sense as a trademark for an OPERATING SYSTEM because it is not particularly generic or obvious; yes, modern GUIs have "windows," and if they were trying to enforce that term outside the boundaries of OS names, it would be more problematic, but it's not the same as "App Store".
The functional trademark equivalent of "App Store" for an OS would be trademarking the phrase "Operating System".
Apple should lose.
I have a Macbook Pro, an iPod, an iPad, and 5 PCs.
Ignoring the expected language-wars comments for a second, this is actually really cool. These were solid, expensive pieces of software that will now reach a wider audience. Netbeans (which I don't use much) was always better than Eclipse in at least this one way - visually building GUIs. It will be nice to see Eclipse achieve parity or exceed its primary free rival in this regard, finally.
Excuse my ignorance, but to continue your supposedly improved analogy, if I post a comment that is nothing but spam, filled with links to malware, illegal torrents, or whatever, it doesn't get deleted, and/. readers can still see it? I would have expected otherwise, based simply on the potential legal repercussions & CYA policies... that's really what we're talking about, here - violations of law, or at least terms of service...
Hey, don't tell me, I know. But studies show people will basically answer "Yes" to anything, and there's no reason a BASIC level of scrutiny couldn't be applied to Android marketplace apps, especially those that do access account info, without going too far and blocking legitimate apps as Apple has.
Actually, there is a reason, and I suppose it has to do with cost and trying to juxtaposition Android as the "open" alternative, but "open" doesn't have to mean "jam-packed with spam apps & sexy wallpaper crap that steals data if you're not careful"...
Bad, knee-jerk analogy - removing this application from the marketplace isn't "punishing the few" - who on Earth would ever want it? Policies to prevent similar apps would only be beneficial, so long as they were *sanely* implemented, and specifically addressed security/deceptive practices, not profanity, obscenity, etc.
A basic level of review for security and some very OPEN standards would be a good thing. Doesn't/. moderate its comments for a reason??
I think it's time to explore the happy medium between the "Big Brother" Apple vision and the "Wild West" that is the Android marketplace... this is the type of bad PR that can & should change some policies.
Look, Ray Kurzweil promised me that in ten years we'll all just be brains in jars hooked up to virtual intarwebs of nanomachines, so this whole exercise thing is moot; the singularity is sedentary.
I'm gonna have to try that much harder in 2010... I know that, through my own personal hard work and dedication, I can get that figure down to $6,199,999,900,000...
"Quality" can be both objective and subjective, and it seems this post is leaning towards the latter in terms of what it's getting at... while I believe in having formalized guidelines of some kind, I've found the best way to seek out and improve the elements that can't be easily quantified is through (drum roll) code reviews/walkthroughs. It seems like these are rare, at least where I'm at, and it's hard to get buy-in when you're talking about contractors charging by the hour, but in my opinion a single quality code review can save TONS of time down the road and is necessary for projects over a certain size.
Also, read "The Pragmatic Programmer" and "Code Complete" for some of the best guidance on this topic.
I love it; it feels far more powerful than language-specific solutions like Smarty, it's W3C, and it's procedural and can be used to flatten/infer hierarchies and do all sorts of neat stuff, once you get over the learning curve.
Yeah, if your only exposure with it was on a fed contract, I can see why it might not seem like the bee's knees, but imo it's very underappreciated in the OSS community and a far better technical solution.
As an additional note, if you're reluctant for whatever reason to download, you can stream/preview at Last.fm and/or check out the theatrical trailer over on Youtube.
Our torrent tracker is indeed experiencing some load issues but we're working on getting the MP3s up in a single zip mediaupload/rapidshare fashion shortly, and individual MP3s are of course available at the site. The full torrent does include FLAC.
If running the site for almost ten years has told me one thing, it's that you can't please all the people all the time, but from a genre perspective at least this album features electronica, rock, orchestral, jazz, and much more. If Final Fantasy isn't your thing, please do check out the rest of our albums and individual mixes!
And, as a random side note, I administer/develop the site, it's LAMP, and I use Eclipse/PDT for all development and the Oxygen XML editor plugin for XSLT, which drives the frontend templating outside the wiki and forums. You know, just in case any one was wondering...
I *have* noticed that IE7 handles one very specific thing MUCH faster than Firefox - copying large amounts of tabular data. If I load up a table with ~5 columns and ~2000 rows, it takes FF3 much longer just to highlight all of those rows, and attempting to copy that data to the clipboard usually kills the browser entirely. IE7 just plains handles it, usually in a matter of seconds.
Not a common use case at all, and don't ask me why I'm even trying to do this, but as an FF fan I'd prefer it do EVERYTHING better than IE, and here's one instance where it doesn't.
Scary thing is, I've always found their doc decent... relative to other companies.
This judge needs to attempt to assemble some of the more ornate IKEA offerings - she'll have a new appreciation for MSDN/Technet...
As a Documentum developer, especially in light of the recent 6.0 release, I'd be remiss not to recommend it for such a purpose. It's expensive, rather complex, and requires solid development talent to implement, but is almost infinitely configurable and customizable, and there are separate components (at cost, of course) that can add on all sorts of fun functionality like collaboration, digital asset management, etc. It has the ability to auto-tag documents based on configurable rules using Content Intelligence Services and supports extensible object hierarchies, workflows, lifecycles, taxonomies, web services, you name it.
It's probably overkill for the user in question, and it's far from open source (although EMC is doing an admirable job at encouraging code exchange, and the new dev. environment is based on Eclipse), but it's pretty darn slick when you look at the ground it covers, functionally.
Unresponsiveness and inaction on /.'s part...
on
Microsoft FUD Watch
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I'm seeing more people respond negatively lately to what has gradually degenerated into a Microsoft hate-fest in terms of FUD accusations, etc. Rational *nix and Microsoft folk alike seem to acknowledge hypocrisy and finger-pointing, in this case manifesting itself in yet another utterly banal piece of journalistic blood from a stone, a Microsoft Watch "news item". Who-watches-the-watchers comments aside, are/. staff ever going to take steps to reduce this type of flotsam? I'm looking at the upper left corner of my screen right now, and right next to the/. logo is the purported mantra:
"News for nerds. Stuff that matters."
I consider myself a nerd of sorts, I suppose, but I fail to see how Microsoft issuing generic press releases that would compare equitably to any other company, software or otherwise, "news for me." I also have a hard time grasping how it could possibly "matter", given the frequency and quantity at which it occurs.
It's certainly "stuff", no argument there...
Bottom line, this seems to be a never-ending cycle that only/. staff can break. If they don't attempt to deliver on the site's motto, I don't know who's going to.
While from my experience a lot of fed workstations and servers are indeed running Windows, they have it so locked down and neutered that it's almost secure by virtue of being unusable. I've witnessed some pretty Draconian measures for locking down machines, red tape up the wazoo for change management, and detailed Certification & Accreditation procedures for moving IT systems into production and changing them. Relative to quite a bit of what I've seen in private industry, there's actually better security measures in place at multiple levels...
Furthermore, in many cases security policies and systems themselves are being developed and certified by private industry contractors, many of whom are really rather sharp. They have no interest in being lazy when it comes to finding things to make more secure or criticize, because it means more revenue. I'd question how most private companies would fair if analyzed under these same FISMA regulations, or - since the article's on The Register - how the British government would rate.
The line about Windows support being "experimental" was REMOVED from the official Apache documentation a long while ago, from everything I can see, so unless they intended on running something earlier than the latest stable version - which is inadvisable on ANY OS, by the way - it didn't apply. Someone from the Apache Foundation should respond and officially clarify this apparently erroneous and highly misleading post. Isn't the OSS community just as "bad" as Microsoft if it resorts to posting FUD that quotes inaccurate "research" which seems to have involved blindly Googling for anything negative to do with Windows and Apache? This article is more likely to HURT the impression of OSS and Apache than help it, as it seems to suggest the Apache Foundation is knowingly providing "experimental" and unreliable software and calling it "stable". Also, from a logical perspective, one could infer from the original message that Oracle was just as much a piece of the problem as Apache/Win32, meaning they should... run MSSQL on Windows Server 2003?
There's just no logic here. It's more embarassing than Oracle's own "PHP vs. ASP.NET" garbage from awhile back, misleading to anyone running Apache on Win32 in production, who might switch to IIS if swapping out the entire OS isn't an option, etc.
Some oversight on these types of extremely goofy posts would be appreciated; simply mentioning any IT department's bad experience with Microsoft, especially when it seems like said IT staff have dubious research skills, shouldn't constitute newsworthiness.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the video in question is a work of fan fiction, the following seems relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... http://www.copyright.gov/title...
Bennett Haselton doesn't seem to know how Fair Use works, and is dangerously and irresponsibly mischaracterizing it as something he himself can assess and negate/affirm. The non-commercial and transformative aspects of the Power Rangers video in question might in fact hold up in court; he doesn't know otherwise, and to insist that he does is legally misguided.
Given that the Supreme Court has already weighed in twice on the constitutionality of campaign finance reform (money = speech, etc.), is traditional legislation even enough - at this point isn't an actual amendment necessary, to overcome existing rulings?
And if so, by how much? It's one thing to say that flies perceive time differently than we do, but I'm curious as to whether: 1. Among many flies, there is variance from fly to fly (both independent and dependent of relative size), and if so, what that variance is... 2. For a single fly, whether there is variance based on age, environment, time of day, etc. It's always seemed to me like those with an extraordinary talent at something, esp. an athletic or musical talent, are able to slow down time when performing this talent. I'd tend to say that perception of time should more and more be considered a sense, like sight, sound, taste, etc.
http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?p=790254#790254 "In my opinion, the album art was not particularly more or less transformative than the music on the album. If the intent was commercial sale, and the music was licensed to be above board, as mentioned, the album art probably should have been treated the same way, right? I'm not saying the photographer's not being a douche, or that the sums asked for weren't inappropriate, or anything of that regard, I'm just saying, if you look at the album as comprised of two elements - the music, and the cover - the first was licensed for commercial sale, and the second was not, so if you make a fair use argument for the cover... why not the music as well? If you acknowledge that the music needed to be licensed in the first place, and hence did NOT fall under fair use, it seems odd to make the opposite argument for the album art. That's my only real point, but I feel it's worth making, because it seems like music is often treated very differently (MORE scrutiny & copyright concern) than images. My favorite example that hits close to home is video game fan art vs. video game fan mixes. Peeps been submitting drawings of Mario, Zelda, etc. to EGM before the Internet took over, but the second mixes became a thing, everyone was VERY concerned w/ copyright issues. Again, no hate. We talk about fair use a lot here, it's relevant to us, and I'm pretty sure all of us read this article as a damn unfortunate thing happening to a good person. It's just... that doesn't make him right about the law, or fair use, and I just thought the inconsistency between the music being licensed and the image not was worth mentioning."
Now we need realtime implementation in ZSNES....
... our local file station burnt down.
"Windows" makes sense as a trademark for an OPERATING SYSTEM because it is not particularly generic or obvious; yes, modern GUIs have "windows," and if they were trying to enforce that term outside the boundaries of OS names, it would be more problematic, but it's not the same as "App Store".
The functional trademark equivalent of "App Store" for an OS would be trademarking the phrase "Operating System".
Apple should lose.
I have a Macbook Pro, an iPod, an iPad, and 5 PCs.
Ignoring the expected language-wars comments for a second, this is actually really cool. These were solid, expensive pieces of software that will now reach a wider audience. Netbeans (which I don't use much) was always better than Eclipse in at least this one way - visually building GUIs. It will be nice to see Eclipse achieve parity or exceed its primary free rival in this regard, finally.
Excuse my ignorance, but to continue your supposedly improved analogy, if I post a comment that is nothing but spam, filled with links to malware, illegal torrents, or whatever, it doesn't get deleted, and /. readers can still see it? I would have expected otherwise, based simply on the potential legal repercussions & CYA policies... that's really what we're talking about, here - violations of law, or at least terms of service...
Hey, don't tell me, I know. But studies show people will basically answer "Yes" to anything, and there's no reason a BASIC level of scrutiny couldn't be applied to Android marketplace apps, especially those that do access account info, without going too far and blocking legitimate apps as Apple has. Actually, there is a reason, and I suppose it has to do with cost and trying to juxtaposition Android as the "open" alternative, but "open" doesn't have to mean "jam-packed with spam apps & sexy wallpaper crap that steals data if you're not careful"...
Bad, knee-jerk analogy - removing this application from the marketplace isn't "punishing the few" - who on Earth would ever want it? Policies to prevent similar apps would only be beneficial, so long as they were *sanely* implemented, and specifically addressed security/deceptive practices, not profanity, obscenity, etc. A basic level of review for security and some very OPEN standards would be a good thing. Doesn't /. moderate its comments for a reason??
I think it's time to explore the happy medium between the "Big Brother" Apple vision and the "Wild West" that is the Android marketplace... this is the type of bad PR that can & should change some policies.
... and share their ideas freely. No really: he does.
Look, Ray Kurzweil promised me that in ten years we'll all just be brains in jars hooked up to virtual intarwebs of nanomachines, so this whole exercise thing is moot; the singularity is sedentary.
I'm gonna have to try that much harder in 2010... I know that, through my own personal hard work and dedication, I can get that figure down to $6,199,999,900,000...
"Quality" can be both objective and subjective, and it seems this post is leaning towards the latter in terms of what it's getting at... while I believe in having formalized guidelines of some kind, I've found the best way to seek out and improve the elements that can't be easily quantified is through (drum roll) code reviews/walkthroughs. It seems like these are rare, at least where I'm at, and it's hard to get buy-in when you're talking about contractors charging by the hour, but in my opinion a single quality code review can save TONS of time down the road and is necessary for projects over a certain size. Also, read "The Pragmatic Programmer" and "Code Complete" for some of the best guidance on this topic.
I love it; it feels far more powerful than language-specific solutions like Smarty, it's W3C, and it's procedural and can be used to flatten/infer hierarchies and do all sorts of neat stuff, once you get over the learning curve.
Yeah, if your only exposure with it was on a fed contract, I can see why it might not seem like the bee's knees, but imo it's very underappreciated in the OSS community and a far better technical solution.
I just wish XSLT 2.0 was more widely supported...
As an additional note, if you're reluctant for whatever reason to download, you can stream/preview at Last.fm and/or check out the theatrical trailer over on Youtube.
Our torrent tracker is indeed experiencing some load issues but we're working on getting the MP3s up in a single zip mediaupload/rapidshare fashion shortly, and individual MP3s are of course available at the site. The full torrent does include FLAC.
If running the site for almost ten years has told me one thing, it's that you can't please all the people all the time, but from a genre perspective at least this album features electronica, rock, orchestral, jazz, and much more. If Final Fantasy isn't your thing, please do check out the rest of our albums and individual mixes!
And, as a random side note, I administer/develop the site, it's LAMP, and I use Eclipse/PDT for all development and the Oxygen XML editor plugin for XSLT, which drives the frontend templating outside the wiki and forums. You know, just in case any one was wondering...
I *have* noticed that IE7 handles one very specific thing MUCH faster than Firefox - copying large amounts of tabular data. If I load up a table with ~5 columns and ~2000 rows, it takes FF3 much longer just to highlight all of those rows, and attempting to copy that data to the clipboard usually kills the browser entirely. IE7 just plains handles it, usually in a matter of seconds. Not a common use case at all, and don't ask me why I'm even trying to do this, but as an FF fan I'd prefer it do EVERYTHING better than IE, and here's one instance where it doesn't.
Scary thing is, I've always found their doc decent... relative to other companies. This judge needs to attempt to assemble some of the more ornate IKEA offerings - she'll have a new appreciation for MSDN/Technet...
As a Documentum developer, especially in light of the recent 6.0 release, I'd be remiss not to recommend it for such a purpose. It's expensive, rather complex, and requires solid development talent to implement, but is almost infinitely configurable and customizable, and there are separate components (at cost, of course) that can add on all sorts of fun functionality like collaboration, digital asset management, etc. It has the ability to auto-tag documents based on configurable rules using Content Intelligence Services and supports extensible object hierarchies, workflows, lifecycles, taxonomies, web services, you name it. It's probably overkill for the user in question, and it's far from open source (although EMC is doing an admirable job at encouraging code exchange, and the new dev. environment is based on Eclipse), but it's pretty darn slick when you look at the ground it covers, functionally.
I'm seeing more people respond negatively lately to what has gradually degenerated into a Microsoft hate-fest in terms of FUD accusations, etc. Rational *nix and Microsoft folk alike seem to acknowledge hypocrisy and finger-pointing, in this case manifesting itself in yet another utterly banal piece of journalistic blood from a stone, a Microsoft Watch "news item". Who-watches-the-watchers comments aside, are /. staff ever going to take steps to reduce this type of flotsam? I'm looking at the upper left corner of my screen right now, and right next to the /. logo is the purported mantra:
"News for nerds. Stuff that matters."
I consider myself a nerd of sorts, I suppose, but I fail to see how Microsoft issuing generic press releases that would compare equitably to any other company, software or otherwise, "news for me." I also have a hard time grasping how it could possibly "matter", given the frequency and quantity at which it occurs.
It's certainly "stuff", no argument there...
Bottom line, this seems to be a never-ending cycle that only /. staff can break. If they don't attempt to deliver on the site's motto, I don't know who's going to.
While from my experience a lot of fed workstations and servers are indeed running Windows, they have it so locked down and neutered that it's almost secure by virtue of being unusable. I've witnessed some pretty Draconian measures for locking down machines, red tape up the wazoo for change management, and detailed Certification & Accreditation procedures for moving IT systems into production and changing them. Relative to quite a bit of what I've seen in private industry, there's actually better security measures in place at multiple levels... Furthermore, in many cases security policies and systems themselves are being developed and certified by private industry contractors, many of whom are really rather sharp. They have no interest in being lazy when it comes to finding things to make more secure or criticize, because it means more revenue. I'd question how most private companies would fair if analyzed under these same FISMA regulations, or - since the article's on The Register - how the British government would rate.
The line about Windows support being "experimental" was REMOVED from the official Apache documentation a long while ago, from everything I can see, so unless they intended on running something earlier than the latest stable version - which is inadvisable on ANY OS, by the way - it didn't apply. Someone from the Apache Foundation should respond and officially clarify this apparently erroneous and highly misleading post. Isn't the OSS community just as "bad" as Microsoft if it resorts to posting FUD that quotes inaccurate "research" which seems to have involved blindly Googling for anything negative to do with Windows and Apache? This article is more likely to HURT the impression of OSS and Apache than help it, as it seems to suggest the Apache Foundation is knowingly providing "experimental" and unreliable software and calling it "stable". Also, from a logical perspective, one could infer from the original message that Oracle was just as much a piece of the problem as Apache/Win32, meaning they should... run MSSQL on Windows Server 2003?
There's just no logic here. It's more embarassing than Oracle's own "PHP vs. ASP.NET" garbage from awhile back, misleading to anyone running Apache on Win32 in production, who might switch to IIS if swapping out the entire OS isn't an option, etc.
Some oversight on these types of extremely goofy posts would be appreciated; simply mentioning any IT department's bad experience with Microsoft, especially when it seems like said IT staff have dubious research skills, shouldn't constitute newsworthiness.