Assignment of rights does not universally mean that the contributors have surrendered ALL of them, particularly if the code is merged before the copyright is assigned, at which time the GPL is in effect. This entire time I have been saying nothing except that there *may* still be unmet requirements by the CUPS people and that the GPL for all its attempted simplicity is not simple at all once multiple developers' work gets merged into a single product. And once again, no one is claiming that the licensor must accept the terms of the GPL as a licensee when s/he holds the copyright. But assuming copyright does not invalidate prior obligations, particularly on a license in perpetuity as the GPL touts itself to be in the legal community--there is in fact a discussion on this in the comments to this very story.
Consider if a developer worked on GPL software and then decided to buy out all the other developers. For as long as that product was collaborative, he has purchased software which already HAD an interminable GPL license attached. That means that other developers can still request of him the source code, since they've licensed the product prior to its becoming closed (those other developers can sign away their individual rights to sue anyone for GPL violation by transferring copyright to someone else). That developer, copyright holder or not, is still obligated to fulfill his requirement to his licensees to provide the source. Assignment of copyright does not break legal obligations automatically and blindly. He is not required to GPL future works and he is not required to continue hosting the current GPL version (but he cannot interfere with the free distribution of that software and/or source), and he must fulfill all source requests made under the GPL prior to his announcement to terminate GPL support in lieu of an alternate license. The CUPS people, as I've said continually, may have met these obligations already and thus are done with the GPL years of the project.
The only point is that it's not so simple, and assigning all copyrights to a single developer makes things easier, but still not EASY, on a project of this size.
his reflects such a deep misunderstanding of licensing that I'm not even sure where to begin. You're missing the first part in licensing. A license is a legally binding agreement between TWO parties. Licensor is supplying software with the expectation that that license be upheld. The licensor in this case is not the sole developer. He has had those rights transferred to him from the respective developers, independent of the GPL. He is free to do that. However, that does not automatically mean that he is not bound by the GPL by those contributions. You are correct in that the ORIGINAL code for which he is the SOLE CREATOR, OWNER, AND DEVELOPER is not binding on him. However, CUPS is no longer that product, and depending on the specifics of what rights were transferred to him by those derivative developers, he may not have the authority to suspend the provision of that code. Further, he may have already met his obligations by distributing source in a single packed archive and thus the 3-year requirement may not apply to CUPS at all. That is all consistent with the point I've been trying to make and you continue to interfere with: this is not an automatic procedure or a simple sale, and it's not the case that releasing software under the GPL means that you as the developer have no obligations when improvements come BACK to you under the GPL.
The licensor is not bound by the terms imposed on the licensee and, in fact, if this were the case licenses would be worthless. No one ever said that. The licensor is bound by HIS END of the agreement, including such restrictions and guarantees as provided for in the license. An original developer has no obligations subsequent to the release of some source code. That does not continue to be manifestly true after derivative works from third parties have returned and become integrated into the original material.
The rest of your verbose post is countering some outside interpretation of some other argument, so it bears no addressing. No one is stating that the copyright holder is a licensee under the GPL. You consistently fail to recognize the basic requirement that a license is an agreement. It is a one-way grant but it most certainly imposes limitations on the licensor and both components are integral to the law of obligations. A license is at its most basic an AGREEMENT (requires more than one party) not to sue (limiting the power of the copyright holder in that s/he is bound to honor the terms of that license in re what permissions and obligations have been granted).
This reflects a misunderstanding of mechanics. If you release software with the GPL attached, that software is GPL'd for life. You, as the rightsholder, may distribute software via another license or grant exceptions to the GPL, but you continue to be obligated to honor the GPL on the software with which it was provided. If you choose to release anything under the GPL, you are bound by it. If you release software and declare it GPL but never provide any source, even if you are the original creator, you are violating the GPL.
You might think you can ignore it, but once you announce your intentions and place an agreement in effect, you become a party to that agreement. As long as you supply GPL software, you must comply with those terms as well.
Consider it not being the GPL for a moment. If you release a product that proclaims that it is free and modifiable, and as a result you attract people to create accessories and modifications for it, growing it into a commercially valuable endeavour based on the contributions of others, you can decide to make your new edition not free. You can't say, "I'm no longer allowing people to access the free version." You gave up that power when you made it free and distributable in the first place.
You can't wash your hands of it until your obligations are fulfilled. You've made a commitment to provide a product under the GPL. You must follow through on that. If you truly believe a license is not enforceable on the creator's side, then I hope you realize what that means for "fair use," personal use exceptions, and anti-DRM: they're all baseless. If you accept that creators of software aren't bound by the terms of its release, then creators of content aren't bound, either, and they have the legal and moral right to do whatever they want, including killing personal copying/backup copying/what Slashdotters call "fair use."
You may have missed this line from my original post: I didn't miss it. I refined it. You ARE obligated to continue offering the source to new licensees. You're NOT obligated to release FUTURE source to new licensees. You don't have to host the files on your public web space, but if the source and binaries are not conveyed in a single package/archive, you must continue to provide the source for three years.
f I am the copyright holder, I am not required to accept the GPL in order to distribute the software. You are required to honor your agreement made with all standing parties. If you have released GPL software, you must abide by your end of the GPL as long as it applies. You can't stop offering the software, make it closed source, and then pursue people who legitimately licensed it from you when it was GPL'd. If you release GPL software, you must uphold your end of the GPL. You can't attach the GPL to your code and then not meet the provider requirements in the GPL. A license is a contract between *two* parties; if it is not binding on one half (less any exceptions in the contract itself), it is not binding at all. You are free to ignore the GPL once all your obligations have been met. Depending on how you released your software, that may mean providing source for 3 years afterward.
No, their freedom to have control over their own actions and equipment. That's what a law does. Any law, about anything. It does not a good argument make. You're saying you should have the right to do anything you want with something you do not own completely. If you own 1% of a company, you don't get to make executive decisions on your own and you could very easily get shot down most of the time. Buying a DVD or a print of a painting is not entirely unlike buying stock. You get something (a licensed disc) but not the whole cow.
If it were really "private", I wouldn't know about it in the first place! A song that's been broadcast on the radio is public... You clearly didn't read the paragraph. A work when created is private property. WHEN THAT ARTIST CHOOSES TO SHARE IT WITH THE PUBLIC, it is at that time that rights begin to be assigned to others. You expect them to hand over all rights at that point, which makes no sense at all. It imposes a binary state where none exists.
I already have control, commercial and otherwise, over my own actions and equipment. No you don't. You have physical access and capability. You do not have legal control. I'm holding cash. I have the equipment and ability to create reasonable copies of it. The law is asking me to give up that control. Do you see how absurd that argument is?
But his rights stop there. He doesn't own the vibrations in the air that come out when he picks the strings, he doesn't own the sequence of notes that someone in the audience memorizes while listening to that performance, and he doesn't own the sounds that the audience member produces at home later that night with his own guitar and uploads to YouTube. A gross misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the law. You don't own information. You own the legal monopoly to use that information commercially. You can do whatever you want with that knowledge as long as you don't become a competitor in a commercial sphere. After the copyright expires (which I believe should be no longer than the greater of 15 years or until the artist's death, but that's beside the point), you can do absolutely anything you want with it.
something once under the GPL, when you are the copyright holder, does not abdicate your right to later change your mind and offer it under a different license instead, or to stop offering it at all. Not entirely accurate. If you look at my post history, you will see that I am no RMS zealot, and I hate them with all the passion of hell, but the GPL is okay for those who want to use it.
Here's the thing. You can't prevent the distribution of source. You can choose not to release future versions of the software to the public. You can choose to release future versions under a different license (though not GPL3, because it makes dual-licensing almost impossible--if you thought the GPL was too viral before, good luck to you!), and you can of course sell your code to whomever wants to pay for it. However, any code you released under GPL2 you must continue to provide for three years, per the license agreement.
The GPL is a bit tricky because RMS tried to create "copyleft" for the users--so it's sort of a guarantee of rights to end users, which is a legally stupid way to write a contract. By attaching the GPL to your work, you're agreeing to be bound to it as well, including providing the source for 3 years for anyone who asks for it. So Apple will have to provide source for the last GPL2 version of CUPS for 3 years, but then you're correct; they can stop dealing with GPL altogether.
If you don't want people to listen to your song, then keep it private or don't record it in the first place. False dichotomy. Your entire premise is based upon an all-or-nothing approach to rights. That's not the way it should be, however much more simple it makes your argument. If I want to specify specific partial terms to the release of my work, I should be able to do that, too. I could do that without copyright with standard form contracts, but to do so would be tedious. If I want to list some work of mine for $5 million, I should have the freedom and flexibility either to sell it for $5 million in toto or to sell copies a million times for $5. If you're not the "kind of jealous prick who cries foul when people value something less" then it stands to reason that you should have no problem with people who get a higher price than what you think is reasonable. You might not be a jealous prick, but you live in a world full of them. The law must reflect that. Contributing what you think is worthwhile to those who deserve it must go hand in hand with the artists and their agents being able to set the prices and terms as they see fit. It's only fair. You should get to pay what you feel is right, and they should be able to give up as much ownership as they feel that contribution is worth.
he problem is, that's fundamentally incompatible with everyone else's right to learn and share information that they come across in their daily lives. You're asking everyone else to cede control of their minds, mouths, hands, computers, and CD burners to these artists Their freedom to have control over someone else's work? Hardly. You don't have any rights by default--it's someone's private property. They're choosing to share that property with you under specific terms, which every legal theory in the world allows, with or without a default copyright agreement on the books. They are not giving up complete control by offering a portion up for sale, nor should they be expected to. If I own a building and convert it into townhomes, I can sell those townhomes to other people--they do not get to own the entire building for the sales price of that condo. What occurs is a joint ownership scenario, with limitations spelled by the person offering the goods. You don't get to take out loans against the entire building or remodel it to suit your tastes or sell it to someone else. You have specific and in many cases limited rights to the portion you paid for. If you didn't get the kind of control you wanted or felt was worth the agreed price, you should have purchased elsewhere. The RIAA is a manipulative cartel and should be dealt with, to be sure. But there's nothing wrong with artists specifying the terms and extent of control they're offering for a particular price. It doesn't step on anyone else's *right* to do anything. It's their work, plain and simple. Their terms.
No one is ceding control of anything. They're failing to gain commercial control over it. Knowledge continues to move uninterrupted in the minds of individuals. You only run into legal trouble when you cross into something that extends beyond the private sphere. You can write as much fan fiction as you want about $TV_SHOW as long as you keep it to yourself. You can think whatever you want. You can't interfere with the commercial interests of the rightsholder, is all. There are some problems with that balance, but that is a natural phenomenon that occurs with all laws.
Nobody has a copyright on the English language. It's public domain, and even if it were a fabrication of one man, the copyright would have lapsed centuries ago, not to mention when people starting speaking ModE, which of course is an independent work only loosely based on ME. In short, stop being or moron or stop posting.
Copyright does nothing to prevent your proposition. You and your friends can certainly commission a piece and release it to the world. That doesn't mean that people should be forced to give up everything. If 1/3 of the people on the street won't cough up money for the road, the cost per person is probably greater than the benefit. Taking away copyright is like forcing those other two thirds to pave the road, knowing full well that they're paying 50% more than what's fair.
I'm all for people giving things to the public domain. In fact, I have contributed money to a local sculpture project for the restoration of an historic building--I get no particular benefit from it, since I don't live in or near the building, but I'm a fan of the artist and I have money to spare. However, I don't believe that artists should be forced to cede control to the nonpaying masses under any circumstance. If someone creates a painting and wants to sell it in toto exclusively, that should be their right as the sole owner and creator. If they want to "license" it by preparing official copies and selling those prints at whatever price they choose to whomever will pay for them, they should be able to do that, too. If they want to release it into the public domain, they can do that too. If the terms of a given work are too restrictive or distasteful in some other way, you can buy your art elsewhere. It's quite simple, really.
Shakespeare had a tumultuous history with money. He died broke. In any case, artists in the classical sense sold their works once. Only the wealthiest of wealthy people could afford to commission them, and they were kept in private collections. Government got into the game in the 1700s to bring art to the people, by spreading the enormous cost of a custom piece of art across many people buying prints of it (or copies of a phonographic recording, or DVDs, or what have you). That system is largely successful, evidenced by the fact that you aren't apparently aware that original works by "legendary" artists cost the equivalent of millions (plural) of dollars in some cases (and that artists living today are often paid millions for their work as well--authors, actors, sculptors, painters, playwrights. Copyright protections allow for a "art co-op" to form so that normal people can enjoy it in their homes without spending more than they spent on their car (or possibly their home, in some cases).
You already get access to the work for dirt cheap. A DVD even at $50 would still be an insanely good deal to commissioning your own film, even with 300 of your best friends. Asking for lower prices is one thing, but asking to have it for free is just as greedy and immoral as the RIAA.
No it's not. Copyright is for the creator (as, logically, it should be, since it's their private property and copyright is one of a number of tools designed to get people to share their property with society [not their contemporaries, but society itself, so immediate benefits are not meant to be realized]). It's a restriction (and a partial, temporary one) on the other half. All laws restrict someone from something. If they didn't, what would they accomplish?
Your premise is faulty. A motion picture is not a live event. It is a digital recording which only makes money if people pay for viewing it, either in the theater or through official copies. It is not a play, or a concert, or a live sporting event. People would not pay to have someone else show them a digital recording were it legal to download perfect copies online for free. There are not enough people in the world who love the sticky-seat, low-quality furniture experience of a 35 foot screen to make a major blockbuster worthwhile. Patronage and fame don't bring in money for movies--they pay out money as a result. A famouse person doing a movie demands payment. Where does that money come from? Advertising costs money. If you're referring to putting in commercials before, during, and after films, well you're just kicking a dead horse. They certainly won't pay for an ad-studded film if they get the commercial-free one. Product placement is in poor taste, but it's the only option you give that's logically feasible. Are you really suggesting that studios should make films full of product placement every five seconds (grossly offensive movies now wouldn't even begin to cover it--I, Robot would look ad-free) to pay for your freeloading?
You don't need the film. They don't need to give it to you for free. You shouldn't have any rights to anyone else's work just because you want it. Otherwise, I'm coming to live in your house. I don't make a distinction between work to build a sunroom and work to edit a film. You want to draw a line in there so that you don't have to feel like you're stealing; I draw no such line. Almost none of us has a job that produces anything. You should stop asking for a pay check, since you want these people to work for nothing, too. After all, if non-tangible products aren't property and shouldn't be charged for, you're just stealing money from the company where you work.
This is the part of your argument where you assert that calling someone a troll is true/correct/justified. No, it's the part where I assert that identifying a troll post and calling it so is not an insult. If you call a mentally handicapped person a retard, it's not an insult. It's wrong on several fronts, it's mean, it's in poor taste, and it's offensive, but it's not an insult, because it's an observation of fact. However, it is mean only because the recipient is deserving of sympathy. Coddling a troll post for the sake of some bizarre moral superiority points is completely pointless. Are you opposed to calling convicted felons criminals because it hurts their feelings? Is 'murderer' an unfair insult to those who kill people?
What you're saying is that other people will know it's a troll and call it a troll and moderate it a troll, but it's wrong for someone to reply vocalizing that thought. That's utterly absurd. It's only an insult and namecalling if it's intended to belittle a person in the course of an argument. If it's an observation of fact, it doesn't qualify. "You're a troll" in response to such a post doesn't demean or belittle anyone, because there is no substance or human psychological investment TO demean or belittle in the first place.
Movie piracy has a negligible effect on sales now because lots of the bootlegs are terrible, torrents can be painfully slow, and because people know it's against the law. Some will still do it, but most "pirates" are occasional ones. The movie industry doesn't really care if some random person downloads one or two of their movies. It's basically a wash anyway, because some will later buy it who otherwise wouldn't, and others will get frustrated by waiting two weeks when they can just as well go to Blockbuster and pay the $3. That doesn't mean they should just go ahead and allow it.
Legalizing the sharing would decimate every means of making money to recoup the cost of films. If people were suddenly allowed to download whatever they wanted, the services would move directly into the mainstream, increasing bandwidth consumption for one, and absolutely would impact DVD sales and rental businesses and even box office sales. What possible reason would you have to pay for something you could legally get for free? Making it not illegal to perform digital transfers off digital films would further basically guarantee that there'd never be a profitable blockbuster ever again.
What people here on Slashdot also usually fail to realize is that the profits from those movie studios are invested in other things. Some of it goes to finance the next movie in the pipe; lots of it goes into medical research, banking investments, massive tax revenue for government services (at local, state, and federal levels), and venture capital firms which provide the startup money for all sorts of small businesses.
So while it might be fun to talk about the demise of a multibillion dollary industry that makes you pay for things, what would you do when getting a loan became harder because bank revenue streams dried up or when valuable government services get cut back because the hundreds of millions of dollars they collect from studios disappeared? It wouldn't kill the economy by any means, but if the bank declines just 1 million new home loans to make up the difference, that could have a real impact on your life. Is that worth not having to pay $15 for a DVD? These companies are an important asset to the economy, like Microsoft or IBM or Walmart. How does getting free movies help you out at all? Take the companies out the equation without replacing those profits and government revenues and you're making things *worse* and not better. A few greedy and crooked people got insanely rich from some distasteful business practices. That's the story of almost any major corporation. How that translates into moral outrage that you have to buy DVDs and pay for movie tickets is beyond me.
They absolutely can continue to distribute GPLv2 code as long as there are machines capable of running it. The GPL cannot bind you to unknown future revisions. What it can do, like the mistaken post further up about the clause about license changes to Microsoft software, is require that when upgrading, you accept the new license. Thus, SP2 might have a different license. If you choose to upgrade to SP2, you must accept that new license, which may be different from what shipped with your original XP software. They may change the licensing terms at any time and tie it into any systemwide software update. They cannot force you to accept new terms out of the blue, however.
Same with the GPL. You can't be forced to comply with GPLv3 requirements unless you distribute code that was given to you under the GPLv3 license. If you're using a current version of software, licensed to you under GPL 2.1, you can continue to use that software and abide by those terms forever. The mere existence of newer code with a newer license has no binding effect on you, period. The developers can smoke you out with protocol changes or authentication changes if it's a network service, or they can break compatibility with functions or let the GPL2 version die off, neglected...but they can't force you to accept a new license simply because it has come into existence (regardless of whether drafts of the future version were circulating at the time you entered into the agreement).
The "or later versions" line refers to end user choice, as the GPL is written to the "licensee" in keeping with the "consumer" slant. A developer can't retroactively apply a new license to old software distributed under an old license. The recipient of GPL2 software can, as of the launch of GPLv3, choose to use GPL2 OR GPL3. The provider of said GPL2 software cannot retroactively make it GPL3 software; they must introduce new software distinguishable in some way (even if just changing the version number). They can then pull the GPL2 files from their servers and distribute solely in GPL3 from that point on, but they must still provide the old GPL2 source as required by the GPL--for three years, to anyone who asks for it.
You make the mistaken assumption that "troll" is name-calling. It's not a good thing to be, but considering that it is a moderation tag, it's a fairly direct and matter-of-fact assessment, not an insult. It's only an insult if misdirected, slung in the face of a disagreeable comment in the course of an actual discussion. Then, I agree it is childish. If, however, the post is a troll, it's a troll. What would be your morally superior way of making that statement?
The truth value of "fanboy" doesn't have any material impact on the validity of a comment. The truth value of "troll," however, does. It is a fairly simple distinction to make. At any rate, it's not worth arguing over.
You realize that I didn't call anyone any names, right?
Also, calling a troll a troll isn't name-calling. It's moderation. It's what the troll tag exists for. There's a difference between having a civilized discussion between two reasonable people, where resorting to name calling is indeed petty and childish, and being attacked by an internet troll with no interest in a real dialogue, posting a comment that amounts to nothing more productive than a goatse link.
1. A CD is a manifestly licensed copy. Having the official CD is both necessary and sufficient evidence of being a licensee. I have already said this in prior posts. You only require an invoice for digital files (or have an active account with a service that can confirm your license to the work, e.g. iTunes or Rhapsody).
2. If the CDs the artist is distributing are remixed or live performances, the artist still owns the copyright. You can't sign away your right to create derivative works of your own creation. While you could technically run into trouble by performing your song without label authorization, there would have to be extenuating circumstances for a court to rule against an artist performing his or her own work despite having surrendered the copyright to their current label. If we're talking about something from a former label, then things get more tricky, but that is outside the scope of anything related to the current issue or the original analogy.
Now, if this were really a stolen ring you'd have to return it, but if it comes to light that the store were acting as an agent of the original owner, but was not explicitly authorized to sell the ring, you would maintain ownership. No, because the agent in this case is not authorized to sell or to license. They are authorized to investigate. Whatever they do in the course of that investigation does not affect the fact that they are not authorized to cause new licenses to come into existence. Furthermore, media sentry is not representing itself *as* giving you a license to the work. No license exists without an invoice, or an account which clearly maps an individual to a copyrighted work, or the possession of a physical license (e.g. an official CD). MediaSentry isn't selling you something that's too good to be true--they're not selling it at all. They're presenting it. I suppose my example is flawed in that way, so you can amend it to say that the store clerk offers to give you the ring for free. The reason I didn't do that the first time is because no clerk would have motivation to do so because they'd gain nothing from it, and the "too good to be true" part is the critical one.
A (signed) recording artist does a few shows and sells CDs out of the trunk of his car afterwards, not realizing (or not caring) about the exclusive distributer clause in his recording contract. If you buy a CD from him, even if you didn't recognize him as the artist, your copy is still a legal copy, because the artist is an agent of the copyright holder. The copyright holder can then only go after the unauthorized distributor, but not the holder of the unauthorized copies. No. That copy is legitimate because CDs are manifestly licensed by virtue of being official copies. Your right to resale of that CD cannot be contracted away, and that CD is legitimate, period. The artist can give it away or sell it to you, provided that those CDs were the artist's property to begin with (either purchased or given to him by the label/distributor/manufacturer/anyone who owned the pile of CDs). If the artist *stole* the CDs from their owner, then you're right back at "being in possession of stolen goods" and you'd have to give the CD back to the legitimate owner, even though you didn't know the CD was stolen.
It *is* stolen. Stealing is merely the taking of something that you are not entitled to. What it is not is theft. And regardless of how you want to engage in the semantics of it, I used the terms "misappropriated," "unlawfully acquired," and similar to describe the actual acts in their digital form. You can call it whatever you like; it's against the law to distribute or otherwise gain access to copyrighted items to which you are not entitled (that is, licensed or an owner of a licensed copy).
That depends on their agency to the copyright holders. Is the agent authorized to transfer rights to third parties on behalf of the copyright holder? With regard to Media Sentry, the answer is clearly "no." You can't license works through them under normal circumstances, and as far as I can tell, they are not making any claims about their relationship to the rightsholders or about the legality/legitimacy of their service.
Simply knowing that Media Sentry is associated with the RIAA does not afford you any new rights. You know that the work is copyrighted and you know that the fake service is not providing you with any sort of license or authorization. If you are accused of being in possession of unlawfully acquired content, you must be able to rebut by showing a) possession of a licensed copy (e.g. official DVD) or of a digital license (e.g. an iTunes invoice or account which can be confirmed to be authorized). Acquiring it from any service which does not provide either of those lacks legitimacy. Any service providing anonymous access to non-public domain works is dubious. You cannot infer that because a business relationship exists, that it automatically follows that it's sanctioned usage.
You would have cause of action against Media Sentry if they made express claims that the service was legitimate or legal or otherwise authorized. But look at it this way:
If you're shopping at a jewelry store, and the sales clerk (an agent of the jeweler) offers to sell you an engagement ring for $500 that clearly retails for $4000, and then asks for cash and doesn't provide you with a receipt or get your name for warranty coverage, you know something's wrong. If you go through with that clearly illicit deal, you're still guilty of stealing that engagement ring, even though an agent of the store gave it to you. You have a separate cause of action against the clerk which you can pursue in the legal system, and there might be some small leniency granted due to the circumstances, but you would still be responsible.
Now, if on the other hand you were explicitly deceived and provided with a fraudulent invoice, that would be a pretty sound defense, but you'll still suffer (you lose the ring and the $500, until you can recoup the money from the clerk). You might get lucky and be awarded damages that make that engagement ring cheaper than free, but there's a lot of hassle in the mean time. Unfortunately, Media Sentry doesn't appear to be deceiving anyone--their relationship to the RIAA by itself proves nothing and individuals are still responsible for complying with the law.
That's a little absurd. If you pass a flyer on the street giving you directions to an alley full of stolen or otherwise misappropriated goods, and you go to that alley and walk away with something, you're in possession of stolen goods and have committed a crime. You can't get out of that by claiming "I was only going there to get some stuff to hand over to the police" and slip out of being charged, because all you would have had to do would be to tell the police about the alley and let them take care of it.
If you want to cover your ass, announce your intention in advance. That's what undercover journalists do, in case they should get busted while doing a piece on, say, prostitution.
Likewise, you can't go to a site offering clearly unlawful media content and think that you're not breaking any laws. You're there to get something you know is prohibited. "It's on the Internet, so I assumed I could have it" has never been a reasonable excuse. If you "find" a spreadsheet of social security numbers on the internet and store it on your computer, even if you don't commit fraud, you're not obeying the law, and you're in possession of unauthorized data and depending on what you have, may have committed a crime simply by having it.
No, it's not. If the socialized care is inadequate -- and it will be (see other countries systems) -- to get decent care you'll have to go private, paying it out of your own pocket. I'm sorry. Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't? Care is hardly inadequate in other countries. That's not to say that it's perfect and without problems.
How, precisely, would you be hurt by national and guaranteed health insurance for basic services? You know, prescriptions, checkups, urgent care, sports injuries, minor illnesses? The costs for these services are too high in the US, and you can scarcely call the service "inadequate" or that private health insurance is a superior solution.
As for emergency care, it's emergency care and it has to be provided. Part of the reason costs for the upper middle class are so high is because it's wrong not to provide emergency care to those who need it, even if they can't afford it. Someone has to pay for those losses those, and it's those who can pay for fancy private health care who have to foot that bill. Incorporating it into a tax-funded government service would only lower premiums for the middle class, now relieved of that burden.
You claim that you'd pay double if you needed superior care to what the government plan offered. That's simply not true. Look at the numbers in those "inadequate" other countries; for those with supplemental private insurance, are they paying any more than you are now in the US? Nope. If you desired more coverage or special treatment, you'd be paying the difference of the two. Your $11,000 health insurance plan is obviously superior to a government plan at $3000 per year. But if you had those basic and emergency services covered, $3000 of that plan would be paid for you, and the "free market" can be used to patch the holes with an $8000 plan. You'd be an idiot to buy a health insurance plan that duplicated government services where "inadequacy of care" is irrelevant. ER care is ER care, no matter how good your insurance is. Basic care is pretty tough to screw up. It's the middle part where national health care might be lacking, and why wouldn't the "free market" respond to that with services to meet those needs? What would be the purpose of them offering services you already get as a taxpayer?
If your response is that the insurance companies are greedy and would use it as a "free profit machine" then perhaps part of the national health care plan would include a ban on insurance companies charging for basic care in their premiums. The "free market" would then price the "differential insurance" at what the market would bear. If their pricing works for you now, it should work for you there, as well.
Calling a troll a troll is just saying like it is. What's your point?
If the best you've got is calling someone a fanboy without any substance otherwise (as in the current context), you are indeed just trolling. Here is the comment, since you've apparently not read it: "Way to have an unbiased reaction yourself there fanboy." AC did a reasonable job of explaining 'unbiased' in response to what is unequivocally a trolling post. He did not label everyone who disagreed with him a troll, nor does the post imply that all Gizmodo users are trolls. Calling someone a fanboy for lack of actual rebuttal does, indeed, identify you as an ignorant troll, so yes, that would be a reasoned comment in the context of the current thread.
"Fanboy" status has no bearing on the validity of statements. Conversely, a "troll" is by definition something without substance or relevance, so it DOES have bearing on validity. Slashdot moderators have come to use the troll tag as "saying something bad I don't like," which is an unfortunate state of affairs. If you've got a problem with the statement, respond to it. But crying "fanboy" doesn't suddenly make a statement any more or less true, valid, and/or relevant. It's an ad hominem attack designed to distract from not being able to come up with a reasoned response. If you can't deal with the substance and have an adult discussion on the merits, you come off sounding like a petulant child. That sort of thing is rewarded in Slashdot theater, but there is a real world out there, though it too is increasingly debased.
That said, there ARE empty fanboy posts as well, free of substance or reasoning. The post in question clearly is not one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Assignment of rights does not universally mean that the contributors have surrendered ALL of them, particularly if the code is merged before the copyright is assigned, at which time the GPL is in effect. This entire time I have been saying nothing except that there *may* still be unmet requirements by the CUPS people and that the GPL for all its attempted simplicity is not simple at all once multiple developers' work gets merged into a single product. And once again, no one is claiming that the licensor must accept the terms of the GPL as a licensee when s/he holds the copyright. But assuming copyright does not invalidate prior obligations, particularly on a license in perpetuity as the GPL touts itself to be in the legal community--there is in fact a discussion on this in the comments to this very story.
Consider if a developer worked on GPL software and then decided to buy out all the other developers. For as long as that product was collaborative, he has purchased software which already HAD an interminable GPL license attached. That means that other developers can still request of him the source code, since they've licensed the product prior to its becoming closed (those other developers can sign away their individual rights to sue anyone for GPL violation by transferring copyright to someone else). That developer, copyright holder or not, is still obligated to fulfill his requirement to his licensees to provide the source. Assignment of copyright does not break legal obligations automatically and blindly. He is not required to GPL future works and he is not required to continue hosting the current GPL version (but he cannot interfere with the free distribution of that software and/or source), and he must fulfill all source requests made under the GPL prior to his announcement to terminate GPL support in lieu of an alternate license. The CUPS people, as I've said continually, may have met these obligations already and thus are done with the GPL years of the project.
The only point is that it's not so simple, and assigning all copyrights to a single developer makes things easier, but still not EASY, on a project of this size.
The rest of your verbose post is countering some outside interpretation of some other argument, so it bears no addressing. No one is stating that the copyright holder is a licensee under the GPL. You consistently fail to recognize the basic requirement that a license is an agreement. It is a one-way grant but it most certainly imposes limitations on the licensor and both components are integral to the law of obligations. A license is at its most basic an AGREEMENT (requires more than one party) not to sue (limiting the power of the copyright holder in that s/he is bound to honor the terms of that license in re what permissions and obligations have been granted).
This reflects a misunderstanding of mechanics. If you release software with the GPL attached, that software is GPL'd for life. You, as the rightsholder, may distribute software via another license or grant exceptions to the GPL, but you continue to be obligated to honor the GPL on the software with which it was provided. If you choose to release anything under the GPL, you are bound by it. If you release software and declare it GPL but never provide any source, even if you are the original creator, you are violating the GPL.
You might think you can ignore it, but once you announce your intentions and place an agreement in effect, you become a party to that agreement. As long as you supply GPL software, you must comply with those terms as well.
Consider it not being the GPL for a moment. If you release a product that proclaims that it is free and modifiable, and as a result you attract people to create accessories and modifications for it, growing it into a commercially valuable endeavour based on the contributions of others, you can decide to make your new edition not free. You can't say, "I'm no longer allowing people to access the free version." You gave up that power when you made it free and distributable in the first place.
You can't wash your hands of it until your obligations are fulfilled. You've made a commitment to provide a product under the GPL. You must follow through on that. If you truly believe a license is not enforceable on the creator's side, then I hope you realize what that means for "fair use," personal use exceptions, and anti-DRM: they're all baseless. If you accept that creators of software aren't bound by the terms of its release, then creators of content aren't bound, either, and they have the legal and moral right to do whatever they want, including killing personal copying/backup copying/what Slashdotters call "fair use."
Here's the thing. You can't prevent the distribution of source. You can choose not to release future versions of the software to the public. You can choose to release future versions under a different license (though not GPL3, because it makes dual-licensing almost impossible--if you thought the GPL was too viral before, good luck to you!), and you can of course sell your code to whomever wants to pay for it. However, any code you released under GPL2 you must continue to provide for three years, per the license agreement.
The GPL is a bit tricky because RMS tried to create "copyleft" for the users--so it's sort of a guarantee of rights to end users, which is a legally stupid way to write a contract. By attaching the GPL to your work, you're agreeing to be bound to it as well, including providing the source for 3 years for anyone who asks for it. So Apple will have to provide source for the last GPL2 version of CUPS for 3 years, but then you're correct; they can stop dealing with GPL altogether.
No one is ceding control of anything. They're failing to gain commercial control over it. Knowledge continues to move uninterrupted in the minds of individuals. You only run into legal trouble when you cross into something that extends beyond the private sphere. You can write as much fan fiction as you want about $TV_SHOW as long as you keep it to yourself. You can think whatever you want. You can't interfere with the commercial interests of the rightsholder, is all. There are some problems with that balance, but that is a natural phenomenon that occurs with all laws.
Nobody has a copyright on the English language. It's public domain, and even if it were a fabrication of one man, the copyright would have lapsed centuries ago, not to mention when people starting speaking ModE, which of course is an independent work only loosely based on ME. In short, stop being or moron or stop posting.
Copyright does nothing to prevent your proposition. You and your friends can certainly commission a piece and release it to the world. That doesn't mean that people should be forced to give up everything. If 1/3 of the people on the street won't cough up money for the road, the cost per person is probably greater than the benefit. Taking away copyright is like forcing those other two thirds to pave the road, knowing full well that they're paying 50% more than what's fair.
I'm all for people giving things to the public domain. In fact, I have contributed money to a local sculpture project for the restoration of an historic building--I get no particular benefit from it, since I don't live in or near the building, but I'm a fan of the artist and I have money to spare. However, I don't believe that artists should be forced to cede control to the nonpaying masses under any circumstance. If someone creates a painting and wants to sell it in toto exclusively, that should be their right as the sole owner and creator. If they want to "license" it by preparing official copies and selling those prints at whatever price they choose to whomever will pay for them, they should be able to do that, too. If they want to release it into the public domain, they can do that too. If the terms of a given work are too restrictive or distasteful in some other way, you can buy your art elsewhere. It's quite simple, really.
Shakespeare had a tumultuous history with money. He died broke. In any case, artists in the classical sense sold their works once. Only the wealthiest of wealthy people could afford to commission them, and they were kept in private collections. Government got into the game in the 1700s to bring art to the people, by spreading the enormous cost of a custom piece of art across many people buying prints of it (or copies of a phonographic recording, or DVDs, or what have you). That system is largely successful, evidenced by the fact that you aren't apparently aware that original works by "legendary" artists cost the equivalent of millions (plural) of dollars in some cases (and that artists living today are often paid millions for their work as well--authors, actors, sculptors, painters, playwrights. Copyright protections allow for a "art co-op" to form so that normal people can enjoy it in their homes without spending more than they spent on their car (or possibly their home, in some cases).
You already get access to the work for dirt cheap. A DVD even at $50 would still be an insanely good deal to commissioning your own film, even with 300 of your best friends. Asking for lower prices is one thing, but asking to have it for free is just as greedy and immoral as the RIAA.
No it's not. Copyright is for the creator (as, logically, it should be, since it's their private property and copyright is one of a number of tools designed to get people to share their property with society [not their contemporaries, but society itself, so immediate benefits are not meant to be realized]). It's a restriction (and a partial, temporary one) on the other half. All laws restrict someone from something. If they didn't, what would they accomplish?
Your premise is faulty. A motion picture is not a live event. It is a digital recording which only makes money if people pay for viewing it, either in the theater or through official copies. It is not a play, or a concert, or a live sporting event. People would not pay to have someone else show them a digital recording were it legal to download perfect copies online for free. There are not enough people in the world who love the sticky-seat, low-quality furniture experience of a 35 foot screen to make a major blockbuster worthwhile. Patronage and fame don't bring in money for movies--they pay out money as a result. A famouse person doing a movie demands payment. Where does that money come from? Advertising costs money. If you're referring to putting in commercials before, during, and after films, well you're just kicking a dead horse. They certainly won't pay for an ad-studded film if they get the commercial-free one. Product placement is in poor taste, but it's the only option you give that's logically feasible. Are you really suggesting that studios should make films full of product placement every five seconds (grossly offensive movies now wouldn't even begin to cover it--I, Robot would look ad-free) to pay for your freeloading?
You don't need the film. They don't need to give it to you for free. You shouldn't have any rights to anyone else's work just because you want it. Otherwise, I'm coming to live in your house. I don't make a distinction between work to build a sunroom and work to edit a film. You want to draw a line in there so that you don't have to feel like you're stealing; I draw no such line. Almost none of us has a job that produces anything. You should stop asking for a pay check, since you want these people to work for nothing, too. After all, if non-tangible products aren't property and shouldn't be charged for, you're just stealing money from the company where you work.
What you're saying is that other people will know it's a troll and call it a troll and moderate it a troll, but it's wrong for someone to reply vocalizing that thought. That's utterly absurd. It's only an insult and namecalling if it's intended to belittle a person in the course of an argument. If it's an observation of fact, it doesn't qualify. "You're a troll" in response to such a post doesn't demean or belittle anyone, because there is no substance or human psychological investment TO demean or belittle in the first place.
Movie piracy has a negligible effect on sales now because lots of the bootlegs are terrible, torrents can be painfully slow, and because people know it's against the law. Some will still do it, but most "pirates" are occasional ones. The movie industry doesn't really care if some random person downloads one or two of their movies. It's basically a wash anyway, because some will later buy it who otherwise wouldn't, and others will get frustrated by waiting two weeks when they can just as well go to Blockbuster and pay the $3. That doesn't mean they should just go ahead and allow it.
Legalizing the sharing would decimate every means of making money to recoup the cost of films. If people were suddenly allowed to download whatever they wanted, the services would move directly into the mainstream, increasing bandwidth consumption for one, and absolutely would impact DVD sales and rental businesses and even box office sales. What possible reason would you have to pay for something you could legally get for free? Making it not illegal to perform digital transfers off digital films would further basically guarantee that there'd never be a profitable blockbuster ever again.
What people here on Slashdot also usually fail to realize is that the profits from those movie studios are invested in other things. Some of it goes to finance the next movie in the pipe; lots of it goes into medical research, banking investments, massive tax revenue for government services (at local, state, and federal levels), and venture capital firms which provide the startup money for all sorts of small businesses.
So while it might be fun to talk about the demise of a multibillion dollary industry that makes you pay for things, what would you do when getting a loan became harder because bank revenue streams dried up or when valuable government services get cut back because the hundreds of millions of dollars they collect from studios disappeared? It wouldn't kill the economy by any means, but if the bank declines just 1 million new home loans to make up the difference, that could have a real impact on your life. Is that worth not having to pay $15 for a DVD? These companies are an important asset to the economy, like Microsoft or IBM or Walmart. How does getting free movies help you out at all? Take the companies out the equation without replacing those profits and government revenues and you're making things *worse* and not better. A few greedy and crooked people got insanely rich from some distasteful business practices. That's the story of almost any major corporation. How that translates into moral outrage that you have to buy DVDs and pay for movie tickets is beyond me.
They absolutely can continue to distribute GPLv2 code as long as there are machines capable of running it. The GPL cannot bind you to unknown future revisions. What it can do, like the mistaken post further up about the clause about license changes to Microsoft software, is require that when upgrading, you accept the new license. Thus, SP2 might have a different license. If you choose to upgrade to SP2, you must accept that new license, which may be different from what shipped with your original XP software. They may change the licensing terms at any time and tie it into any systemwide software update. They cannot force you to accept new terms out of the blue, however.
Same with the GPL. You can't be forced to comply with GPLv3 requirements unless you distribute code that was given to you under the GPLv3 license. If you're using a current version of software, licensed to you under GPL 2.1, you can continue to use that software and abide by those terms forever. The mere existence of newer code with a newer license has no binding effect on you, period. The developers can smoke you out with protocol changes or authentication changes if it's a network service, or they can break compatibility with functions or let the GPL2 version die off, neglected...but they can't force you to accept a new license simply because it has come into existence (regardless of whether drafts of the future version were circulating at the time you entered into the agreement).
The "or later versions" line refers to end user choice, as the GPL is written to the "licensee" in keeping with the "consumer" slant. A developer can't retroactively apply a new license to old software distributed under an old license. The recipient of GPL2 software can, as of the launch of GPLv3, choose to use GPL2 OR GPL3. The provider of said GPL2 software cannot retroactively make it GPL3 software; they must introduce new software distinguishable in some way (even if just changing the version number). They can then pull the GPL2 files from their servers and distribute solely in GPL3 from that point on, but they must still provide the old GPL2 source as required by the GPL--for three years, to anyone who asks for it.
Half a tonne? What are they driving, a golf cart? ;)
You make the mistaken assumption that "troll" is name-calling. It's not a good thing to be, but considering that it is a moderation tag, it's a fairly direct and matter-of-fact assessment, not an insult. It's only an insult if misdirected, slung in the face of a disagreeable comment in the course of an actual discussion. Then, I agree it is childish. If, however, the post is a troll, it's a troll. What would be your morally superior way of making that statement?
The truth value of "fanboy" doesn't have any material impact on the validity of a comment. The truth value of "troll," however, does. It is a fairly simple distinction to make. At any rate, it's not worth arguing over.
You realize that I didn't call anyone any names, right?
Also, calling a troll a troll isn't name-calling. It's moderation. It's what the troll tag exists for. There's a difference between having a civilized discussion between two reasonable people, where resorting to name calling is indeed petty and childish, and being attacked by an internet troll with no interest in a real dialogue, posting a comment that amounts to nothing more productive than a goatse link.
Two things:
1. A CD is a manifestly licensed copy. Having the official CD is both necessary and sufficient evidence of being a licensee. I have already said this in prior posts. You only require an invoice for digital files (or have an active account with a service that can confirm your license to the work, e.g. iTunes or Rhapsody).
2. If the CDs the artist is distributing are remixed or live performances, the artist still owns the copyright. You can't sign away your right to create derivative works of your own creation. While you could technically run into trouble by performing your song without label authorization, there would have to be extenuating circumstances for a court to rule against an artist performing his or her own work despite having surrendered the copyright to their current label. If we're talking about something from a former label, then things get more tricky, but that is outside the scope of anything related to the current issue or the original analogy.
It *is* stolen. Stealing is merely the taking of something that you are not entitled to. What it is not is theft. And regardless of how you want to engage in the semantics of it, I used the terms "misappropriated," "unlawfully acquired," and similar to describe the actual acts in their digital form. You can call it whatever you like; it's against the law to distribute or otherwise gain access to copyrighted items to which you are not entitled (that is, licensed or an owner of a licensed copy).
That depends on their agency to the copyright holders. Is the agent authorized to transfer rights to third parties on behalf of the copyright holder? With regard to Media Sentry, the answer is clearly "no." You can't license works through them under normal circumstances, and as far as I can tell, they are not making any claims about their relationship to the rightsholders or about the legality/legitimacy of their service.
Simply knowing that Media Sentry is associated with the RIAA does not afford you any new rights. You know that the work is copyrighted and you know that the fake service is not providing you with any sort of license or authorization. If you are accused of being in possession of unlawfully acquired content, you must be able to rebut by showing a) possession of a licensed copy (e.g. official DVD) or of a digital license (e.g. an iTunes invoice or account which can be confirmed to be authorized). Acquiring it from any service which does not provide either of those lacks legitimacy. Any service providing anonymous access to non-public domain works is dubious. You cannot infer that because a business relationship exists, that it automatically follows that it's sanctioned usage.
You would have cause of action against Media Sentry if they made express claims that the service was legitimate or legal or otherwise authorized. But look at it this way:
If you're shopping at a jewelry store, and the sales clerk (an agent of the jeweler) offers to sell you an engagement ring for $500 that clearly retails for $4000, and then asks for cash and doesn't provide you with a receipt or get your name for warranty coverage, you know something's wrong. If you go through with that clearly illicit deal, you're still guilty of stealing that engagement ring, even though an agent of the store gave it to you. You have a separate cause of action against the clerk which you can pursue in the legal system, and there might be some small leniency granted due to the circumstances, but you would still be responsible.
Now, if on the other hand you were explicitly deceived and provided with a fraudulent invoice, that would be a pretty sound defense, but you'll still suffer (you lose the ring and the $500, until you can recoup the money from the clerk). You might get lucky and be awarded damages that make that engagement ring cheaper than free, but there's a lot of hassle in the mean time. Unfortunately, Media Sentry doesn't appear to be deceiving anyone--their relationship to the RIAA by itself proves nothing and individuals are still responsible for complying with the law.
That's a little absurd. If you pass a flyer on the street giving you directions to an alley full of stolen or otherwise misappropriated goods, and you go to that alley and walk away with something, you're in possession of stolen goods and have committed a crime. You can't get out of that by claiming "I was only going there to get some stuff to hand over to the police" and slip out of being charged, because all you would have had to do would be to tell the police about the alley and let them take care of it.
If you want to cover your ass, announce your intention in advance. That's what undercover journalists do, in case they should get busted while doing a piece on, say, prostitution.
Likewise, you can't go to a site offering clearly unlawful media content and think that you're not breaking any laws. You're there to get something you know is prohibited. "It's on the Internet, so I assumed I could have it" has never been a reasonable excuse. If you "find" a spreadsheet of social security numbers on the internet and store it on your computer, even if you don't commit fraud, you're not obeying the law, and you're in possession of unauthorized data and depending on what you have, may have committed a crime simply by having it.
How, precisely, would you be hurt by national and guaranteed health insurance for basic services? You know, prescriptions, checkups, urgent care, sports injuries, minor illnesses? The costs for these services are too high in the US, and you can scarcely call the service "inadequate" or that private health insurance is a superior solution.
As for emergency care, it's emergency care and it has to be provided. Part of the reason costs for the upper middle class are so high is because it's wrong not to provide emergency care to those who need it, even if they can't afford it. Someone has to pay for those losses those, and it's those who can pay for fancy private health care who have to foot that bill. Incorporating it into a tax-funded government service would only lower premiums for the middle class, now relieved of that burden.
You claim that you'd pay double if you needed superior care to what the government plan offered. That's simply not true. Look at the numbers in those "inadequate" other countries; for those with supplemental private insurance, are they paying any more than you are now in the US? Nope. If you desired more coverage or special treatment, you'd be paying the difference of the two. Your $11,000 health insurance plan is obviously superior to a government plan at $3000 per year. But if you had those basic and emergency services covered, $3000 of that plan would be paid for you, and the "free market" can be used to patch the holes with an $8000 plan. You'd be an idiot to buy a health insurance plan that duplicated government services where "inadequacy of care" is irrelevant. ER care is ER care, no matter how good your insurance is. Basic care is pretty tough to screw up. It's the middle part where national health care might be lacking, and why wouldn't the "free market" respond to that with services to meet those needs? What would be the purpose of them offering services you already get as a taxpayer?
If your response is that the insurance companies are greedy and would use it as a "free profit machine" then perhaps part of the national health care plan would include a ban on insurance companies charging for basic care in their premiums. The "free market" would then price the "differential insurance" at what the market would bear. If their pricing works for you now, it should work for you there, as well.
Calling a troll a troll is just saying like it is. What's your point?
If the best you've got is calling someone a fanboy without any substance otherwise (as in the current context), you are indeed just trolling. Here is the comment, since you've apparently not read it: "Way to have an unbiased reaction yourself there fanboy." AC did a reasonable job of explaining 'unbiased' in response to what is unequivocally a trolling post. He did not label everyone who disagreed with him a troll, nor does the post imply that all Gizmodo users are trolls. Calling someone a fanboy for lack of actual rebuttal does, indeed, identify you as an ignorant troll, so yes, that would be a reasoned comment in the context of the current thread.
"Fanboy" status has no bearing on the validity of statements. Conversely, a "troll" is by definition something without substance or relevance, so it DOES have bearing on validity. Slashdot moderators have come to use the troll tag as "saying something bad I don't like," which is an unfortunate state of affairs. If you've got a problem with the statement, respond to it. But crying "fanboy" doesn't suddenly make a statement any more or less true, valid, and/or relevant. It's an ad hominem attack designed to distract from not being able to come up with a reasoned response. If you can't deal with the substance and have an adult discussion on the merits, you come off sounding like a petulant child. That sort of thing is rewarded in Slashdot theater, but there is a real world out there, though it too is increasingly debased.
That said, there ARE empty fanboy posts as well, free of substance or reasoning. The post in question clearly is not one of them.