20TB for a home user is likely to be media data. It doesn't change much and it 's usually possible to recover - rerip, red/l, etc. so it's probably OK to live with a higher risk of loss than a business would need for their backup of 20TB of data. With those assumptions, I'd focus on minimizing the risk of loss and opt for snapshot raid. (If he wants true backup, backup to disk is my preferred option, using a decent backup program. If offsite is needed, carry the data that doesn[t change offsite and arrange to send to web the stuff that changes daily.)
True raid 5/6 seems like a good way to minimize the risk of loss, but it's not nearly as good as snapshot raid for media data. True raid is too likely to fail during a recovery when the disks and controller are heavily stressed. I've lost raid arrays from both controller failure and multiple disk failure. Plus, a loss beyond the redundancy level loses everything with true raid. Snapshot raid with pooling software is much better for media backup. You only lose the data on the disks that actually die if you have more than the redundancy/parity number of drives that fail. You can add additional parity drives at any time to increase redundancy.
For windows or *nix systems, Snapraid is a free snapshot raid option that works great. It comes with pooling capabilities that will make the entire array look like a single drive or, for more advanced pooling needs, there are multiple 3rd part options. Liquesce is free for Windows and there are even more free options for *nix systems that need pooling.
They're not going for criminal copyright violation
I don't understand why. They sold songs they didn't have legal rights to.
If any of us had done that, we'd have *AA lawyers hammering on our doors. So why in hell should a media company be given anything less than the full penalty for this?
But somehow an incompetent company who can't keep tabs on what they're licensed to sell is only going to be pursued for civil violations?
That makes no sense to me at all.
The *AA lawyers would only have been able to go after you for civil copyright infringement. Criminal copyright infringement means there is the chance of going to jail and having a criminal record. Only the federal government (U.S.) can go after you for criminal copyright infringement, and they seldom do. Civil copyright infringement is where the owner of the copyright goes after you for damages (or "statutory damages"). They can't put you in jail in a civil case, but they can take your money.
Why on earth would they want to do that, in a world without copyright?
For the same reason TiVo locks down their code with encryption/authentication, etc. - so everyone, including me, has to buy my work to get access to any improvements they make to it. Getting rid of copyright won't prevent companies from using DRM and other technological measures to lock down the code. The only way to make sure that my code stays free for all is to use copyright to require others to keep it free.
As pointed out; without copyright there would be little need to have the GPL.
You don't understand the GPL. I wrote code last week and contributed it to a GPL project. I don't want some big company taking my code, building on it and refusing to let me and others see the changes. That's why I used the GPL. The GPL lets me require that big company to do what I want them to do with my code - let others use it under the GPL. Without copyright, I can't require them to do anything.
A quote I like: If you want to give away your code: use BSD. If you want to share your code: use GPL.
This method is a solution to the problem known in cryptographic circles as "Traitor Tracing." The patent sounds awfully similar to the traitor tracing method used in Blu-ray discs and the old HD-DVD discs. It's a capability of the system licensed by the AACS Licensing Authority for encrypt those discs. Basically, they can substitute one of multiple short chunks of video at multiple places in the movie. After a decrypted movie is released, they can figure out what system was compromised. Interestingly, the traitor system has never been implemented, even though all licensed players must be able to handle it. That's probably because the AACSLA knows what system was compromised - it's one of the software Blu-Ray players.
The software players are all identical. The hardware players can be tracked down to a specific player. Isn't that nice to know.
Because it was needed during the war, it was shown to a US pharmaceutical(?) company who did patent the process, which meant that the original inventors would have to pay for their own invention.
What should have happened: You can't patent something you didn't invent. The patent issued to the "US pharmaceutical(?) company" should have been declared invalid under 35 USC 102(f) because the "inventor" named in the U.S. patent application "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented". (himself/herself: the U.S. laws are not written with politically correct wording.)
What might have happened: The US pharmaceutical(?) company developed a new method of bulk production and patented that. The original inventors felt that anyone who wanted to make penicillin should be free to do so, and the US pharmaceutical(?) company took them at their word, but didn't want others to use their new bulk production method. The inventors were free to use the original production method the they had "shown to a US pharmaceutical(?) company," but not the new bulk production method.
It's just like Tivoization of Open Source Software. If you want to prevent this sort of thing, you need to protect the original (software via copyright or penicillin via patent) then use a GPL v3 or equivalent license that prevents the Tivoization. Once the original is released to the public domain, people can do anything they want with it, even things the original inventor/author doesn't like.
Thank you, we know what a design patent is. How does that make it different such that the objections people have put forward here are not valid?
E.g., does that mean other people are free to design a similar interface? Of course not. In which case, they share the same property of other kinds of patents that people disagree with.
Put it another way - why does putting the word "design" in front make it okay?
To summarize, he says: 1) No design patent like this has ever been enforced 2) It basically provides rights very similar to a copyright (not a utility patent). 3) Even Google's own search page of Sept 3, 2009 "clearly would not infringe because of the differences between layout in the patent and the layout on the site." 4) Their own web page from a year earlier is prior art to this page, which severely limits its scope of protection.
The bottom line is that the word "design" dominates the word "patent"- it's not much like a patent at all.
Saying patents fuel software development (both free and proprietary, since both types are actually harmed by patents) may be a distortion, because it (misleadingly) implies that the patents help the overall situation, but on its face, the statement is literally true. Patents force people to work around patents. It's economically inefficient (just as hurricanes fuel the construction industry) and therefore probably not desirable, but it really does happen.
I regularly go to meetings where management asks the engineers for ideas to get around some competitor's patent. The company would just copy the competing product if possible, but the legal suits say it's too risky. The engineers absolutely love these meetings. Half the time, we come out with some fresh idea on how to make it better or cheaper. The next question the boss asks the suits is whether WE can get a patent.
You can't convince me that management would ever have taken the risk to improve the product or do something new without the driving necessity of a competitor's patent.
(1) math cannot be patented (2) all algorithms are math (3) all software is one or more algorithms and so follows that software cannot be patentable."
If I paraphrase this argument I get: (1) a law of nature cannot be patented (2) all physical principles are a law of nature (3) all machines are constructed and operate according to one or more law of nature or physical principle and so follows that machines cannot be patentable.
Simple logic is too simple to rely on (unless you think that nothing should be patentable). I know I'm in the minority, but I don't see any fundamental difference between an electrical circuit, a mechanical machine and a computer program. At one level each can be abstracted into its fundamental physical and mathematical principles and at another level it takes a tangible thing - a machine, a computer or a circuit board - to use it for anything.
The article says only 14% exceeded the cap in several months of testing. Some of the posts argue that complaining won't work because 50% of capacity is used by 5% of an ISP's users, so the ISP would be thrilled to have them leave.
The problem with these comments is that they both assume that the 14% or the 5% are the same people over time, but this isn't necessarily true. The 14% may well be distributed from month to month so almost every user will eventually get hit with a surprise overage charge. This pisses off the customer, who may well leave for a provider who doesn't hit them with surprise fees. Similarly, the 5% who allegedly use 50% of bandwidth aren't necessarily the same next month, so another 5% may be using 50% bandwidth next month.
Sure, it's true that some users do use more, on average, than others, but usage can vary quite widely.
You're not really explaining why you're entitled to other people's work. Video games don't just write themselves. If I spend hours and hours writing a game, why should I just give you a copy for free?
I will give you a copy of my money if you will give me a copy of your game.
See - there's a difference between a tangible and an intangible.
If you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot use the software. It is as simple as that.
Reply says:
See Section 9 of the GPL v3: (which says)
"You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."
I think it's worth noticing that the title of Section 9 is "9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies." That's a very odd title. It shows how much trouble they had in making the GPL do what they wanted it to do under current IP laws.
Of course you don't have to accept the GPL to "have" a copy. This section also says you don't need to agree to the GPL to "receive a copy." Well that's kind of obvious too. Copyright law doesn't prevent you from "having" or "receiving" a copy of a copyrighted program. It only prevents you from making a copy or distributing, etc. You never need to accept a license merely to possess or receive a copy.
So what is this section doing? Well, I think it's trying to do two things. It's trying to allow "ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission" and it's trying to allow you to "run" the program. Does it succeed?
The problem they faced with the GPL was that both of these things are considered by many (or most) courts to require making a copy, and for that you need a license from the copyright owner. The ancillary propagation is usually considered "distribution," and for that you also need a license. They are trying to give you some rights in a document called a "license," but not require you to accept it. Very odd.
Section 9 of the GPL could be seen as any one of the following:
a) It possibly grants you a license for those two activities - but that's not what it says - it says you don't need to accept it.
b) It possibly unilaterally disclaims the right to sue anyone for making copies needed for those two activities. This would work, but unfortunately, it doesn't actually say this either. It doesn't say "we won't sue you," it says you don't need to accept this license to do those things. Do you have to get the rights needed to do those two things in some other license? It's silent on that. I suspect they did not want to encourage the view that running a program or doing P2P ancillary propagation involves making a copy or distributing that requires a license. This interpretation would not require acceptance of the GPL, but it doesn't actually guarantee that you have the legal right to run or P2P propagate the program.
c) Finally, it could be seen as an attempt to argue that running a program or doing P2P ancillary propagation does not involve making a copy and therefore does not require any license. I don't think courts will agree.
Practically, I doubt any of this makes any difference - the intent is clear. However, here is my analysis:
Suppose the author and sole owner of all copyright rights in a GPL'd program tried to sue you for copyright infringement because you ran and P2P propagated the program. Suppose he argued under (b) above that you needed "some other license" from him to do those things. You take the position that you never accepted the the GPL, which helps him to argue that the GPL did not give you any rights.
You could try to argue under (c) that he was wrong. You claim you don't need another license because running a program doesn't involve making a copy and ancillary propagation is not distribution. Unfortunately, the case law is against you. What are you left with?
I think you are left with arguing that you accept/accepted the GPL and have complied with all of its terms and that gives you all the rights you needed. I just don't see how you can get the rights you need unless you get them from the GPL. Saying you don't need to do A to do B (A=accept license, B=run program) is not the same as (!=) saying I grant you the right to do B.
Software on it's own as a separate entity is not useful as it does not do anything.
It's amazing to see several posts that say this. I don't know about yours, but my software is useful. If it wasn't useful, I doubt anyone would bother to try to get a patent. My software is at least as useful as a patented paperclip (requires papers) or a patented laser (requires electricity) or a patented car (needs driver and gas).
In fact, you can use GPL'd sofwtware without even agreeing to the license. You only have to agree to the GPL if you want to modify the software and then redistribute it. If you want to download, install and run GPL software, you need permission from the copyright owner, just as you need that permission for non-GPL software. You get that permission only by agreeing to the terms of the GPL license. If you don't agree to the terms of the GPL, then you have no right to make the copies needed to use it. There is a difference between "not agreeing to the terms of a license" and agreeing to terms that only affect you when you want to "modify the software and then redistribute it."
"This woman deserves to go to jail for her actions. IN our society is is generally considered unacceptable to prey upon those weaker than us, be it mentally or physically. This woman may not have beaten the girl to death with a hammer, but her actions are just as criminally culpable as if she had. She killed this girl, and her weapon was MySpace."
What she did is morally repugnant, but the prosecutors in the state she resides in have already looked at the facts and have concluded she committed no crime there (or at least not one they can prove.) Los Angeles prosecutors have decided she committed a crime by violating the terms of service of a website. That is truly scary. I'm not sure I even know the TOS of most sites I visit, and I surely don't want to be hauled across state lines to where some website server is located, stand trial and get sent to jail for violating the TOS.
You don't take care of your flying car and it breaks down at 5000' you die along with everyone else in the plane with you and whichever sorry bastard you hit on the way down.
Well I'm here how do you propose to develop an aircraft that can't descend to fast or doesn't flip over in midair? It's very unlikely for anyone to die just because it breaks down. By a factor of 10 to 1 the most common breakdown is the engine. With the engine off, an aircraft of this type is perfectly controllable, like a glider, and can glide 10 to 20 miles from 5000'. The actual distance depends on the final design, but aircraft capable of cruising at over 100 mph will have good streamlining. Even high drag older aircraft designs could glide 9 miles. Typical commercial passenger jets could glide 17-22 miles. Even with the minimum glide range of 10 miles they have over 300 square miles of available land to find a farmer's field, a road or some other landable area. With a 20:1 glide ratio (which is reasonable), they'd have over 1200 square miles to choose from.
If there isn't anywhere to set down they can use the parachute built in.
Aircraft don't "flip over in midair" just because they have a problem. In more than 90% of accidents there was no mechanical breakdown cause. In the less then 10% of accidents that have a mechanical failure, more than 90% of those are engine related, so we're down to 1% of accidents that are mechanical, but not engine related. Even within that 1%, there are only a few complete loss-of-control accidents, such as a major control failure or structural breakup.
Basically, if this aircraft meets the Light Sport Aircraft rules, as they claim, then it will be light, and light aircraft land slowly. Slow landing speeds mean you will survive, even if you have to land in the trees or in water.
When you download RIAA music, you are stealing the chance that an RIAA company will be able to sell you that music. If they catch you, you have to pay the man.
Now some might argue: "Hey! The chance that I might buy their music belongs to me, not the RIAA. Why should I have to pay them for something that belongs to me? They want me to pay them for not doing something (not buying their cr*p) that I don't want to do just because they think I ought to do it."
Others might argue: "Hey! The value of the chance that I might buy their music is zero. I wouldn't pay a nickel for it. Why should I have to pay them for the loss of something that's not worth anything?"
These arguments are to no avail and the Judge will have your ass. In the RIAA mindthink: "All your base are belong to us!"
Making copies of works that you didn't create is illegal unless you are doing it for personal use... You've been brainwashed by the copyright lobby. The rule in the U.S. and everywhere else in the world is that authors get LIMITED protection against copying for a LIMITED time before their work falls into the public domain and becomes part of the common heritage of mankind - free for all to draw upon and copy for any purpose whatsoever. You've collapsed the entirety of the last 2000+ years of human authorship (minus a LIMITED copyright protection period) into non-existence. We have every right to copy works we didn't create ourselves. The entire purpose of copyright is to encourage production of works for the subsequent copying and benefit of the public under the theory that at least some of those works would not be created if not protected.
It's true that the copyright lobby wants you to believe you can't copy anything you didn't create - but you shouldn't give in to that brainwashing.
...the concept of "intellectual property" has to be dispensed with immediately. It creates the erroneous impression that trademarks, servicemarks, copyrights, and patents are all somehow related, and that they have something to do with the notion of real ownership of tangible things. But of course they are not related, and they having nothing to do with true ownership. The term "intellectual property" is quite useful for exactly the reason you object to it. It refers to property that is not tangible. It's useful to differentiate tangible property from intangible property no matter which side of the debate you are on. There are lots of different types of tangible property, from land to zebras, with all kinds of varying rules that apply to maintaining and transferring ownership, but we still consider all that stuff to be tangible property.
Terms like "real ownership" or "true ownership" don't do much to clarify the argument either. The concept of ownership is just as intangible as the concept of copyright. Theres nothing "real" or tangible about ownership. "Ownership" is just shorthand for legal rules that have developed in our society over thousands of years to prevent conflict. You are the "owner" of property when the rules say you are. Property is "property" because the rules say it is capable of being owned. Our current rules say that intangible items like copyright can be owned, so under our system it is intangible property created out of thin air by intellectual effort. Sounds like "intellectual property" to me.
If all they've done is apply for the trademark, are they still allowed to used the "TM" mark? Short answer: Yes. All it takes to obtain trademark or service mark rights in a mark is to start using it. Those rights are referred to as "commmon law" rights. Putting a TM (or SM) near the mark is just a way of emphasizing to the rest of the world that you claim the common law rights that the common law automatically gave you. You can even use the TM if you've never filed a trademark application and even if you've been denied registration. Microsoft used the TM next to Windows even though the US Trademark Office ruled that they were not entitled to registration.
Didn't Seti@Home used to have their own client/agent/whatever? Yes, and I personally found it to be much much better than the BOINC system they use now. I ran the original client for years on multiple 24/7 computers, tried BOINC a couple times on different machines but had too many problems with it. I was in the top 1% of data processors, but they lost me with the BOINC transition.
We are not required to track what goes on with our WiFi, but when we do notice someone doing something illegal, we are required to notify the authorities. I see no problem with this. It is kind of like saying I have to go and tell management if I see someone shoplifting at WalMart. So what?
I'm glad you know what's "illegal" the moment you see it.
Situation: Your neighbor has been laid off for 8 months and you've been letting him (and his kids and wife) use your open WiFi. You monitor and see he's d/'ling pr0n. Is it CP? How old is that girl in the image - legal age or not? Are you going to report him? Does the threat of a $300,000 fine for making the wrong decision bother you?
In fact, in most Berne-signatory states, it's more or less impossible to get rid of a copyright completely without first dying and then waiting 70 years. In some countries, even that isn't enough. For those who love to bash the United States, it's worth noting that the pre-Berne Convention copyright system in the U.S. gave creative copyrightable output to the public by default. All creative output automatically was free for the public to use unless the author placed a copyright notice on his work. The Berne convention was based on the European system where every creative work is locked into non-copyable copyrighted status by default. It's the difference between opt-in and opt-out.
In the U.S. prior to Berne, if you wanted to know whether you could freely use something you could check to see if there was a copyright notice. If not, it was not protected by default. If there was, you could check the date on the notice to see if copyright had expired. It wasn't a perfect system, but IMHO it was better for the public and it was saner than the Berne convention system that the U.S. unwillingly accepted in exchange for recognition of U.S. copyright rights outside the U.S.
No, licences do not automatically apply, the *PL and CC* licences are not viral. If I copy your work and disregard the licence, then I have violated your copyright, and you can take me to court. If you released it under a particular licence, then that is pretty much irrelevant to me - if I didn't follow the licence, then I have simply violated your copyright. If you violated the copyright, then you are liable for damages. The measure of damages is calculated based on a variety of factors, one of which is what the author charges for the copied work in the marketplace. That "charge" or fee is usually the *minimum* liability for infringing the author's rights. In this case, the author's "charge" is a license to copy the rest of the work under the LGPL/CC. That charge is highly relevant to the measure of damages suffered by the author.
it would be unreasonable for the [infringing] author's entire book to become freely available under the LGPL due to his carelessness in not checking the actions of a third party. You may think it's unreasonable, but others might not. The infringing author had an obligation to supervise third party created works and not to infringe. I place a high value on the rights granted to the public under LGPL and CC licenses and comparatively much less value on private copyright rights to prevent the public from copying.
Third, Clinton didn't perjure himself. Go research the Clinton perjury myth. I don't care what your politics are. That website and the argument it makes is stupid. It argues that Clinton truthfully testified he did not have "sexual relations" with Lewinsky because he did not touch her genitalia when he got the blow job (he only touched her mouth) and he didn't have "sexual relations" when he used the cigar because he held the cigar by the tip and only the cigar touched her genitalia.
Slashdot Mirror
20TB for a home user is likely to be media data. It doesn't change much and it 's usually possible to recover - rerip, red/l, etc. so it's probably OK to live with a higher risk of loss than a business would need for their backup of 20TB of data. With those assumptions, I'd focus on minimizing the risk of loss and opt for snapshot raid. (If he wants true backup, backup to disk is my preferred option, using a decent backup program. If offsite is needed, carry the data that doesn[t change offsite and arrange to send to web the stuff that changes daily.) True raid 5/6 seems like a good way to minimize the risk of loss, but it's not nearly as good as snapshot raid for media data. True raid is too likely to fail during a recovery when the disks and controller are heavily stressed. I've lost raid arrays from both controller failure and multiple disk failure. Plus, a loss beyond the redundancy level loses everything with true raid. Snapshot raid with pooling software is much better for media backup. You only lose the data on the disks that actually die if you have more than the redundancy/parity number of drives that fail. You can add additional parity drives at any time to increase redundancy. For windows or *nix systems, Snapraid is a free snapshot raid option that works great. It comes with pooling capabilities that will make the entire array look like a single drive or, for more advanced pooling needs, there are multiple 3rd part options. Liquesce is free for Windows and there are even more free options for *nix systems that need pooling.
I don't understand why. They sold songs they didn't have legal rights to.
If any of us had done that, we'd have *AA lawyers hammering on our doors. So why in hell should a media company be given anything less than the full penalty for this?
But somehow an incompetent company who can't keep tabs on what they're licensed to sell is only going to be pursued for civil violations?
That makes no sense to me at all.
The *AA lawyers would only have been able to go after you for civil copyright infringement. Criminal copyright infringement means there is the chance of going to jail and having a criminal record. Only the federal government (U.S.) can go after you for criminal copyright infringement, and they seldom do. Civil copyright infringement is where the owner of the copyright goes after you for damages (or "statutory damages"). They can't put you in jail in a civil case, but they can take your money.
Why on earth would they want to do that, in a world without copyright?
For the same reason TiVo locks down their code with encryption/authentication, etc. - so everyone, including me, has to buy my work to get access to any improvements they make to it. Getting rid of copyright won't prevent companies from using DRM and other technological measures to lock down the code. The only way to make sure that my code stays free for all is to use copyright to require others to keep it free.
You don't understand the GPL. I wrote code last week and contributed it to a GPL project. I don't want some big company taking my code, building on it and refusing to let me and others see the changes. That's why I used the GPL. The GPL lets me require that big company to do what I want them to do with my code - let others use it under the GPL. Without copyright, I can't require them to do anything.
A quote I like:
If you want to give away your code: use BSD.
If you want to share your code: use GPL.
I wanted to "share," not "give away."
This method is a solution to the problem known in cryptographic circles as "Traitor Tracing." The patent sounds awfully similar to the traitor tracing method used in Blu-ray discs and the old HD-DVD discs. It's a capability of the system licensed by the AACS Licensing Authority for encrypt those discs. Basically, they can substitute one of multiple short chunks of video at multiple places in the movie. After a decrypted movie is released, they can figure out what system was compromised. Interestingly, the traitor system has never been implemented, even though all licensed players must be able to handle it. That's probably because the AACSLA knows what system was compromised - it's one of the software Blu-Ray players.
The software players are all identical. The hardware players can be tracked down to a specific player. Isn't that nice to know.
Because it was needed during the war, it was shown to a US pharmaceutical(?) company who did patent the process, which meant that the original inventors would have to pay for their own invention.
What should have happened: You can't patent something you didn't invent. The patent issued to the "US pharmaceutical(?) company" should have been declared invalid under 35 USC 102(f) because the "inventor" named in the U.S. patent application "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented". (himself/herself: the U.S. laws are not written with politically correct wording.)
What might have happened: The US pharmaceutical(?) company developed a new method of bulk production and patented that. The original inventors felt that anyone who wanted to make penicillin should be free to do so, and the US pharmaceutical(?) company took them at their word, but didn't want others to use their new bulk production method. The inventors were free to use the original production method the they had "shown to a US pharmaceutical(?) company," but not the new bulk production method.
It's just like Tivoization of Open Source Software. If you want to prevent this sort of thing, you need to protect the original (software via copyright or penicillin via patent) then use a GPL v3 or equivalent license that prevents the Tivoization. Once the original is released to the public domain, people can do anything they want with it, even things the original inventor/author doesn't like.
Thank you, we know what a design patent is. How does that make it different such that the objections people have put forward here are not valid?
E.g., does that mean other people are free to design a similar interface? Of course not. In which case, they share the same property of other kinds of patents that people disagree with.
Put it another way - why does putting the word "design" in front make it okay?
People here pretty clearly don't know much about design patents. Take a look at what a lawyer who specializes in this type of law thinks about this patent. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/09/googles-patent-on-its-googlecom-home-page.html
To summarize, he says:
1) No design patent like this has ever been enforced
2) It basically provides rights very similar to a copyright (not a utility patent).
3) Even Google's own search page of Sept 3, 2009 "clearly would not infringe because of the differences between layout in the patent and the layout on the site."
4) Their own web page from a year earlier is prior art to this page, which severely limits its scope of protection.
The bottom line is that the word "design" dominates the word "patent"- it's not much like a patent at all.
Saying patents fuel software development (both free and proprietary, since both types are actually harmed by patents) may be a distortion, because it (misleadingly) implies that the patents help the overall situation, but on its face, the statement is literally true. Patents force people to work around patents. It's economically inefficient (just as hurricanes fuel the construction industry) and therefore probably not desirable, but it really does happen.
I regularly go to meetings where management asks the engineers for ideas to get around some competitor's patent. The company would just copy the competing product if possible, but the legal suits say it's too risky. The engineers absolutely love these meetings. Half the time, we come out with some fresh idea on how to make it better or cheaper. The next question the boss asks the suits is whether WE can get a patent. You can't convince me that management would ever have taken the risk to improve the product or do something new without the driving necessity of a competitor's patent.
(1) math cannot be patented
(2) all algorithms are math
(3) all software is one or more algorithms and so follows that software cannot be patentable."
If I paraphrase this argument I get:
(1) a law of nature cannot be patented
(2) all physical principles are a law of nature
(3) all machines are constructed and operate according to one or more law of nature or physical principle and so follows that machines cannot be patentable.
Simple logic is too simple to rely on (unless you think that nothing should be patentable). I know I'm in the minority, but I don't see any fundamental difference between an electrical circuit, a mechanical machine and a computer program. At one level each can be abstracted into its fundamental physical and mathematical principles and at another level it takes a tangible thing - a machine, a computer or a circuit board - to use it for anything.
The article says only 14% exceeded the cap in several months of testing. Some of the posts argue that complaining won't work because 50% of capacity is used by 5% of an ISP's users, so the ISP would be thrilled to have them leave. The problem with these comments is that they both assume that the 14% or the 5% are the same people over time, but this isn't necessarily true. The 14% may well be distributed from month to month so almost every user will eventually get hit with a surprise overage charge. This pisses off the customer, who may well leave for a provider who doesn't hit them with surprise fees. Similarly, the 5% who allegedly use 50% of bandwidth aren't necessarily the same next month, so another 5% may be using 50% bandwidth next month. Sure, it's true that some users do use more, on average, than others, but usage can vary quite widely.
You're not really explaining why you're entitled to other people's work. Video games don't just write themselves. If I spend hours and hours writing a game, why should I just give you a copy for free?
I will give you a copy of my money if you will give me a copy of your game. See - there's a difference between a tangible and an intangible.
First post says:
If you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot use the software. It is as simple as that.
Reply says:
See Section 9 of the GPL v3: (which says)
"You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."
I think it's worth noticing that the title of Section 9 is "9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies." That's a very odd title. It shows how much trouble they had in making the GPL do what they wanted it to do under current IP laws.
Of course you don't have to accept the GPL to "have" a copy. This section also says you don't need to agree to the GPL to "receive a copy." Well that's kind of obvious too. Copyright law doesn't prevent you from "having" or "receiving" a copy of a copyrighted program. It only prevents you from making a copy or distributing, etc. You never need to accept a license merely to possess or receive a copy.
So what is this section doing? Well, I think it's trying to do two things. It's trying to allow "ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission" and it's trying to allow you to "run" the program. Does it succeed?
The problem they faced with the GPL was that both of these things are considered by many (or most) courts to require making a copy, and for that you need a license from the copyright owner. The ancillary propagation is usually considered "distribution," and for that you also need a license. They are trying to give you some rights in a document called a "license," but not require you to accept it. Very odd.
Section 9 of the GPL could be seen as any one of the following:
a) It possibly grants you a license for those two activities - but that's not what it says - it says you don't need to accept it.
b) It possibly unilaterally disclaims the right to sue anyone for making copies needed for those two activities. This would work, but unfortunately, it doesn't actually say this either. It doesn't say "we won't sue you," it says you don't need to accept this license to do those things. Do you have to get the rights needed to do those two things in some other license? It's silent on that. I suspect they did not want to encourage the view that running a program or doing P2P ancillary propagation involves making a copy or distributing that requires a license. This interpretation would not require acceptance of the GPL, but it doesn't actually guarantee that you have the legal right to run or P2P propagate the program.
c) Finally, it could be seen as an attempt to argue that running a program or doing P2P ancillary propagation does not involve making a copy and therefore does not require any license. I don't think courts will agree.
Practically, I doubt any of this makes any difference - the intent is clear. However, here is my analysis:
Suppose the author and sole owner of all copyright rights in a GPL'd program tried to sue you for copyright infringement because you ran and P2P propagated the program. Suppose he argued under (b) above that you needed "some other license" from him to do those things. You take the position that you never accepted the the GPL, which helps him to argue that the GPL did not give you any rights.
You could try to argue under (c) that he was wrong. You claim you don't need another license because running a program doesn't involve making a copy and ancillary propagation is not distribution. Unfortunately, the case law is against you. What are you left with?
I think you are left with arguing that you accept/accepted the GPL and have complied with all of its terms and that gives you all the rights you needed. I just don't see how you can get the rights you need unless you get them from the GPL. Saying you don't need to do A to do B (A=accept license, B=run program) is not the same as (!=) saying I grant you the right to do B.
Software on it's own as a separate entity is not useful as it does not do anything.
It's amazing to see several posts that say this. I don't know about yours, but my software is useful. If it wasn't useful, I doubt anyone would bother to try to get a patent. My software is at least as useful as a patented paperclip (requires papers) or a patented laser (requires electricity) or a patented car (needs driver and gas).
"This woman deserves to go to jail for her actions. IN our society is is generally considered unacceptable to prey upon those weaker than us, be it mentally or physically. This woman may not have beaten the girl to death with a hammer, but her actions are just as criminally culpable as if she had. She killed this girl, and her weapon was MySpace." What she did is morally repugnant, but the prosecutors in the state she resides in have already looked at the facts and have concluded she committed no crime there (or at least not one they can prove.) Los Angeles prosecutors have decided she committed a crime by violating the terms of service of a website. That is truly scary. I'm not sure I even know the TOS of most sites I visit, and I surely don't want to be hauled across state lines to where some website server is located, stand trial and get sent to jail for violating the TOS.
Well I'm here how do you propose to develop an aircraft that can't descend to fast or doesn't flip over in midair? It's very unlikely for anyone to die just because it breaks down. By a factor of 10 to 1 the most common breakdown is the engine. With the engine off, an aircraft of this type is perfectly controllable, like a glider, and can glide 10 to 20 miles from 5000'. The actual distance depends on the final design, but aircraft capable of cruising at over 100 mph will have good streamlining. Even high drag older aircraft designs could glide 9 miles. Typical commercial passenger jets could glide 17-22 miles. Even with the minimum glide range of 10 miles they have over 300 square miles of available land to find a farmer's field, a road or some other landable area. With a 20:1 glide ratio (which is reasonable), they'd have over 1200 square miles to choose from.
If there isn't anywhere to set down they can use the parachute built in.
Aircraft don't "flip over in midair" just because they have a problem. In more than 90% of accidents there was no mechanical breakdown cause. In the less then 10% of accidents that have a mechanical failure, more than 90% of those are engine related, so we're down to 1% of accidents that are mechanical, but not engine related. Even within that 1%, there are only a few complete loss-of-control accidents, such as a major control failure or structural breakup.
Basically, if this aircraft meets the Light Sport Aircraft rules, as they claim, then it will be light, and light aircraft land slowly. Slow landing speeds mean you will survive, even if you have to land in the trees or in water.
When you download RIAA music, you are stealing the chance that an RIAA company will be able to sell you that music. If they catch you, you have to pay the man.
Now some might argue: "Hey! The chance that I might buy their music belongs to me, not the RIAA. Why should I have to pay them for something that belongs to me? They want me to pay them for not doing something (not buying their cr*p) that I don't want to do just because they think I ought to do it."
Others might argue: "Hey! The value of the chance that I might buy their music is zero. I wouldn't pay a nickel for it. Why should I have to pay them for the loss of something that's not worth anything?"
These arguments are to no avail and the Judge will have your ass. In the RIAA mindthink: "All your base are belong to us!"
It's true that the copyright lobby wants you to believe you can't copy anything you didn't create - but you shouldn't give in to that brainwashing.
...the concept of "intellectual property" has to be dispensed with immediately. It creates the erroneous impression that trademarks, servicemarks, copyrights, and patents are all somehow related, and that they have something to do with the notion of real ownership of tangible things. But of course they are not related, and they having nothing to do with true ownership. The term "intellectual property" is quite useful for exactly the reason you object to it. It refers to property that is not tangible. It's useful to differentiate tangible property from intangible property no matter which side of the debate you are on. There are lots of different types of tangible property, from land to zebras, with all kinds of varying rules that apply to maintaining and transferring ownership, but we still consider all that stuff to be tangible property.Terms like "real ownership" or "true ownership" don't do much to clarify the argument either. The concept of ownership is just as intangible as the concept of copyright. Theres nothing "real" or tangible about ownership. "Ownership" is just shorthand for legal rules that have developed in our society over thousands of years to prevent conflict. You are the "owner" of property when the rules say you are. Property is "property" because the rules say it is capable of being owned. Our current rules say that intangible items like copyright can be owned, so under our system it is intangible property created out of thin air by intellectual effort. Sounds like "intellectual property" to me.
We are not required to track what goes on with our WiFi, but when we do notice someone doing something illegal, we are required to notify the authorities. I see no problem with this. It is kind of like saying I have to go and tell management if I see someone shoplifting at WalMart. So what?
I'm glad you know what's "illegal" the moment you see it. Situation: Your neighbor has been laid off for 8 months and you've been letting him (and his kids and wife) use your open WiFi. You monitor and see he's d/'ling pr0n. Is it CP? How old is that girl in the image - legal age or not? Are you going to report him? Does the threat of a $300,000 fine for making the wrong decision bother you?In the U.S. prior to Berne, if you wanted to know whether you could freely use something you could check to see if there was a copyright notice. If not, it was not protected by default. If there was, you could check the date on the notice to see if copyright had expired. It wasn't a perfect system, but IMHO it was better for the public and it was saner than the Berne convention system that the U.S. unwillingly accepted in exchange for recognition of U.S. copyright rights outside the U.S.