Ignoring your poor math, there are several other major problems with your argument. Your argument assumes that the owner of the iPod doesn't pay for their music and is looking at how much it would cost to re-purchase their entire collection of mp3 files.
The purpose of an iPod is not to be full, it is to carry the owner's entire music collection. When I bought my 20gb iPod, I only owned 10gb of music. I have no intention of attempting to fill it up. I'll just buy music when I feel like it. Assuming that the usable life of an iPod is 5 years, I'll probably fill it up about when it dies. If I buy music faster than that and fill up the iPod in 2 years, I will go buy a larger one with space to fit my growing music collection.
In my experience, buying an iPod is reasonable exactly because it costs so little compared to the retail value of the music it holds. The value of an iPod to me is proportional to the value of the music that it allows me to carry, but it was priced at a flat rate of $300. If I had 150 albums, an iPod costs only $2 per cd. Assuming that each cd costs $15, the iPod costs only 13% of the cost of the music that it initially held. As I buy more music this ratio will drop towards 6.5%. Essentially, an iPod has value to me because I buy cds. For someone who doesn't buy cds, an iPod will not be attractive because it will "require" them to buy music.
Buying an iPod is sort of like buying insurance for a cd collection because the iPod allows carrying a large music collection without risking loosing the music. Carrying a $300 music player is much safer than carrying $2,250 in cds.
The decision to write this couldn't have anything to do with Xgl being poorly structured. Running one X server over another one is obviously the best way to get accelerated compositing and window manager effects. The guys at RedHat are just too dumb to see the obviousness of everybody running 2 X servers. Don't get me started on their insistence on keeping the same window manager from release to release so that everybody's preferences keep working when they upgrade their box. Don't they know that linux is for l33t kids?
Couldn't you just use their credit/debit/check number to look up their transactions instead? The cashier could swipe the card and scan the item. The computer could quickly scan for a match and bring up the receipt. I would imagine it would be more efficient for the cashier and provide a better experience for the customer. Target has such a system and it works quite well. There has to be some other reason that radio shack prefers phone numbers.
Its called a shareholder lawsuit. Shareholder lawsuits are civil lawsuits against board members or CEO's to reover lost share value caused by negligent management decisions. Deciding not to do business in a large market like China would probably trigger such a lawsuit against the board members for tens of millions of dollars. I'm not sure if there is any specific law that enables them because they are no different than lawsuits against people who loose physical property they were entrusted with.
What county do you live in? While I have to admit that I skipped the last election, Montgomery county used touch screen systems for the last presidential election.
While you may be correct that the DMCA recognizes fair use, it prohibits the sale of technology that is capable of making the copies. Without some sort of DRM it isn't possible to design a program to only make fair use copies. Much of the deffinitions of what is fair use involve the intent of the copier. The DVD ripper can't just ask if you intend to use the copy for litterary criticism or for mass duplication and sale. Video game companies can get away with hiding the web pages for M rated games behind a birthday check page, but that is only because they are not legally required to keep minors out. While its purpose isn't to stop fair use, that would be the result if it was actually enforced.
The GPL doesn't need to use that definition, but it doesn't provide one of its own. The gpl is authorizing the user to distribute a copyrighted work. The user needs this permission because the copyright law forbids distribution. The kind of distribution that the license premits is logically the same kind that copyright law reserves for the author. A court of law would use the definition from the law. Is that simple enough for you? I don't know why I registered just to have this conversation with you.
No, not "aka publishing". "Distribution" and "publishing" are entirely different words. If the GPL really meant to say "publishing", they should fix that in the new version.
I'd still really like to see the definition of "distribute" you are using, because it's hard for me to imagine one that would both create an "in-house" exception to the GPL, but not also open a loophole permitting almost anyone to break the GPL by adding a little boilerplate ahead of every sale.
From page 195 of the copyright law [copyright.gov]:
(6) "Distribute" means to sell, lease, or assign a product to consumers in the United States, or to sell, lease, or assign a product in the United States for ul- timate transfer to consumers in the United States.
The only reason that internal distribution doesn't count as distribution is because the corporation isn't a customer of itself.
Yes, exactly. The GPL is not a "site license". It includes no text that applies specifically to a corporation or organization. Corporate licenses to software only happen when the license explicitly gives a corporate buyer more rights than an individual would have. The GPL doesn't do this.
The GPL is effectively a site license. Just because it gives the same rights to individuals doesn't mean that it doesn't work like a site license. Section 2 of the GPL gives rights to modify and copy the software. There is no limitation on the number of copies an entity can make. If a corporation is using the software, then "You" refers to the corporation.
Section 2 says: "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above". The claues makes no significant restrictions. This gives the entity agreeing to the license the right to make copies.
The only place the gpl that says you need to publish source code is section 3. It starts with, "You may copy and distribute the Program . . . in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:".
Based on section 2, verybody has the right to produce unlimited numbers of copies. Section 3 says that if you transfer the copies to a consumer in any way, you need to provide source code. If you don't give a copy to a consumer, you still have the right to make copies based on section 2. This is why the GPL faq says that private modifications are ok
Slashdot Mirror
Ignoring your poor math, there are several other major problems with your argument. Your argument assumes that the owner of the iPod doesn't pay for their music and is looking at how much it would cost to re-purchase their entire collection of mp3 files.
The purpose of an iPod is not to be full, it is to carry the owner's entire music collection. When I bought my 20gb iPod, I only owned 10gb of music. I have no intention of attempting to fill it up. I'll just buy music when I feel like it. Assuming that the usable life of an iPod is 5 years, I'll probably fill it up about when it dies. If I buy music faster than that and fill up the iPod in 2 years, I will go buy a larger one with space to fit my growing music collection.
In my experience, buying an iPod is reasonable exactly because it costs so little compared to the retail value of the music it holds. The value of an iPod to me is proportional to the value of the music that it allows me to carry, but it was priced at a flat rate of $300. If I had 150 albums, an iPod costs only $2 per cd. Assuming that each cd costs $15, the iPod costs only 13% of the cost of the music that it initially held. As I buy more music this ratio will drop towards 6.5%. Essentially, an iPod has value to me because I buy cds. For someone who doesn't buy cds, an iPod will not be attractive because it will "require" them to buy music.
Buying an iPod is sort of like buying insurance for a cd collection because the iPod allows carrying a large music collection without risking loosing the music. Carrying a $300 music player is much safer than carrying $2,250 in cds.
The decision to write this couldn't have anything to do with Xgl being poorly structured. Running one X server over another one is obviously the best way to get accelerated compositing and window manager effects. The guys at RedHat are just too dumb to see the obviousness of everybody running 2 X servers. Don't get me started on their insistence on keeping the same window manager from release to release so that everybody's preferences keep working when they upgrade their box. Don't they know that linux is for l33t kids?
Couldn't you just use their credit/debit/check number to look up their transactions instead? The cashier could swipe the card and scan the item. The computer could quickly scan for a match and bring up the receipt. I would imagine it would be more efficient for the cashier and provide a better experience for the customer. Target has such a system and it works quite well. There has to be some other reason that radio shack prefers phone numbers.
Its called a shareholder lawsuit. Shareholder lawsuits are civil lawsuits against board members or CEO's to reover lost share value caused by negligent management decisions. Deciding not to do business in a large market like China would probably trigger such a lawsuit against the board members for tens of millions of dollars. I'm not sure if there is any specific law that enables them because they are no different than lawsuits against people who loose physical property they were entrusted with.
What county do you live in? While I have to admit that I skipped the last election, Montgomery county used touch screen systems for the last presidential election.
While you may be correct that the DMCA recognizes fair use, it prohibits the sale of technology that is capable of making the copies. Without some sort of DRM it isn't possible to design a program to only make fair use copies. Much of the deffinitions of what is fair use involve the intent of the copier. The DVD ripper can't just ask if you intend to use the copy for litterary criticism or for mass duplication and sale. Video game companies can get away with hiding the web pages for M rated games behind a birthday check page, but that is only because they are not legally required to keep minors out. While its purpose isn't to stop fair use, that would be the result if it was actually enforced.
I think they call it Normal Trade Relations now. The government has stopped pretending that it is some kind of special status.
The GPL doesn't need to use that definition, but it doesn't provide one of its own. The gpl is authorizing the user to distribute a copyrighted work. The user needs this permission because the copyright law forbids distribution. The kind of distribution that the license premits is logically the same kind that copyright law reserves for the author. A court of law would use the definition from the law. Is that simple enough for you? I don't know why I registered just to have this conversation with you.
Oops. The link got lost. Copyright law
I'd still really like to see the definition of "distribute" you are using, because it's hard for me to imagine one that would both create an "in-house" exception to the GPL, but not also open a loophole permitting almost anyone to break the GPL by adding a little boilerplate ahead of every sale.
From page 195 of the copyright law [copyright.gov]:
The only reason that internal distribution doesn't count as distribution is because the corporation isn't a customer of itself.
Yes, exactly. The GPL is not a "site license". It includes no text that applies specifically to a corporation or organization. Corporate licenses to software only happen when the license explicitly gives a corporate buyer more rights than an individual would have. The GPL doesn't do this.
The GPL is effectively a site license. Just because it gives the same rights to individuals doesn't mean that it doesn't work like a site license. Section 2 of the GPL gives rights to modify and copy the software. There is no limitation on the number of copies an entity can make. If a corporation is using the software, then "You" refers to the corporation.
Section 2 says: "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above". The claues makes no significant restrictions. This gives the entity agreeing to the license the right to make copies.
The only place the gpl that says you need to publish source code is section 3. It starts with, "You may copy and distribute the Program . . . in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:".
Based on section 2, verybody has the right to produce unlimited numbers of copies. Section 3 says that if you transfer the copies to a consumer in any way, you need to provide source code. If you don't give a copy to a consumer, you still have the right to make copies based on section 2. This is why the GPL faq says that private modifications are ok