Traditional time shifting is justifiable because the broadcaster never made you sign an agreement saying that you would only watch a show within the narrow window that it is actually on the air. Nor can they use legal force to prevent you from skipping commercials. With both paid and free channels, it is understood that the broadcaster assumes the risk of their commercial breaks becoming worthless.
So you argue that time shifting should cross over to different consumers, and derive this right from the absurdity of enforcing intellectual property restrictions in the digital age? I guess the physical analog would be lending a chair to a friend when I'm not using it - now simply optimize that process so that it automatically goes to a complete stranger who needs it, whenever I stand up from it. So long as this chair-warping technology doesn't violate the laws of physics by being in two places at once, there is nothing wrong with this picture.
I'm trying to find the flaw in this argument, and I think it's that you probably can't time share with someone else who doesn't pay for the channel you recorded the show off of. Otherwise you're just ripping off the station's content, albeit with a significant lag.
As for your second point: I agree, the traditional model for distribution and consumption is totally broken by the digital world, and it just seems undeniably *wrong* to bend the world to the whims of the business (via DRM/litigation) instead of the other way around. But could someone please elaborate, or point me to an article somewhere, describing exactly how this alternative system would work? How do you make a profit selling content that can be legally redistributed by anyone to anyone? The same question applies to the GPL too - I never quite understood how a Free Software business can really exist, but I assume that the answers to the two questions are intertwined.
Last I read, other operating systems may sync at the end of a file transfer automatically, while linux will either not sync until ordered to do so or unmounted explicitly, unless of course it's mounted synchronously (a good way to destroy flash memory). I could be wrong though.
Does that really work? If there's a massive power outage (think East coast, August 2003), is it typical for cable internet service to function just fine so long as the local hardware has backup power? If so, it might be worth buying a UPS just so I have something to do in a blackout besides listening to the radio.
Yep. The entire point of aggressive DRM and litigation is not to actually make money (I'm almost certain it has to cost many times more to sue filesharers than they can possibly make out of settlements), but to solidify the idea that "This is our music, keep your grubby copying paws off!" They ??AAs win if they can successfully convince the public that filesharing is illegal, DRM is the norm, and copyrights are supposed to last two lifetimes. As long as our rights are taken away gradually enough, the public may not notice.
No, the fact that CDs are not encrypted does not mean that you are allowed to copy them without restriction. Fair Use allows you to make backup copies, or create copies for your car, or rip them to your computer, but you are not allowed to give a copy of the CD to someone else. That's unauthorized redistribution, and is not even close to a legitimate use. AFAIK lending the CD to a friend, provided that copies are not made, is fine. Although I suppose there might be an issue if you lend the CD while using a backup copy for yourself at the same time. I'm not sure.
You might be referring to time shifting devices, which were ruled legal decades ago.
The same Fair Use rights apply to DVDs. The difference is that the CSS encryption in commercial DVDs qualifies as an "effective technological measure" under the DMCA. Tools that are capable of breaching such technological measures cannot be distributed. So while you have a right to rip a DVD that you own to your hard drive under linux, it's illegal for someone else to make available to you the program needed to do that.
This article (or rather, its summary, as I did not RTFA) does not mention teen opinions of legitimate copies, but only illegal copying for friends.
Tell me this. How can the author be enticed to make more works for the public good if he or she is dead? Could you please anwser me that?
I can enlighten you on that point.
Increased copyright terms make ownership of the copyright more desirable, regardless of whether or not the original owner is dead. So the artist has more bargaining power with the label, because what he or she brings to the table is more valuable. The musician can't benefit from the song after his death, but he can get an advance on that profit from the label itself during his own life. I'm by no means saying that increasing the term was a good move - I lament it as one of the worst things to happen to culture, I'm just saying that we can't pretend that the artist does not benefit indirectly (at least in theory).
Ug. I think this was a bad move on the part of the developers. Unless I'm mistaken in my understanding of the GPL, this little addition costs the program license-compatibility with the rest of the GPL body of software, and IMO unity is very important to the free software community. While it should be legal if it consists of all original code (unless they made a technical screwup by reusing the actual text of the GPL itself), they've made a pointless statement against the military at the expense of additional confusion and headaches.
Also, was it absolutely necessary for the developers to make a joke out of this by quoting Asimov? I can just imagine lawyers spending hours over a science fiction novel trying to gain some context for interpretation. This additional clause is nowhere near as well-established as the rest of the license, and if I cared about this particular program then I would worry that the clause might introduce a loophole or ambiguity, allowing for abuse.
> [...] does the GPL not expressly prohibit the restriction of rights beyond what it already provides for (distribution)? It does not prohibit granting licensees additional rights (which is what the LGPL is, basically) [...]
I thought the LGPL was an expansion of rights that would *not* normally be allowed by the GPL, or else the GPL would not be famously "viral". I believe the preamble itself says something about imposing unremovable conditions to ensure that those you distribute the program to are given the same rights as you were (and no more or less).
Yeah, seriously, this is the third post I've seen from this AC trumpeting anonet as the panacea to all our woes. You can spread more propaganda if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that anonet's website comes off as shady/underground and its wikipedia article is slanted. Plus, the additional anonet-specific ".ano" TLD? It reminds me of those crappy alternate root DNS servers.
If I want a secure connection between two trusted hosts, I'll use TLS - which is what anonet uses anyway, via openvpn.
I actually checked out anonet two days ago after reading another slashdot comment about it - might've been another AC/yours for all I remember/know. I decided against joining because it seemed like a poorly coordinated project whose FAQ basically boasts "Feel free to be illegal" - they mentioned DeCSS and bnetd distribution as one of its benefits, for instance. Anonet, as far as I could tell, just provides an anonymous way to connect to a destination, with the side benefit of the VPN security. Why not just use that VPN to connect to a proxy not under your network admin's control, and surf the web from there? In both cases you're home-free if your admin doesn't block certain outgoing connections, and screwed if they really lock down your system.
At first I thought it odd that a well written (that is, grammatically correct), lengthy post should be modded -1 Troll, but by the time I finished reading your post it became clear that you are either grossly misinformed or deliberately spreading lies about the license. I believe it is the latter, since I doubt that any commercial legal department could interpret the GPL so poorly, when most slashdot readers are aware of these simple facts:
A: You are *NOT* under any obligation whatsoever to release your source code to anyone else so long as you do not distribute your modified binaries. If you do distribute your binaries, the GPL aims to make certain that the recipient also has access to the source code corresponding to it.
B: Programs compiled under GCC are not GPL'd. In fact, the output of any GPL program is never automatically covered by the GPL unless a significant portion of the output originated from said program. Also, the gcc libraries are LGPL'd, not GPL'd, so this concern doesn't even apply.
Er, the original quote is correct, you only restated half of it. He says both that the only method to play Apple's DRM'd files is through an Apple music player, and that the only DRM'd files an Apple music player can play come from Apple. Although the iPod plays MP3s, they don't count as a proprietary format.
Now here's something I've been wondering for a little while, about eMusic, that I wanted to know before I considered signing up. Obviously if they're distributing plain, non-drm'd mp3 files, they can't stop me from doing what I want with them, legal or not. But I'd still like to know A: whether I have the right of first sale over the music I purchase - that is, can I resell the tracks I download to someone else provided I delete my copy, so that it would be like selling a physical CD; and B: do any of my rights to the music I've already downloaded terminate when/if I end my subscription?
Because if I get *all* the rights that I would get if I had purchased the physical CD, well, that's a damn convincing argument to get me to sign up. I'm slightly concerned that if Apple ever opens up their DRM, eMusic might start using that, since they freely admit that they only chose the mp3 format for iPod compatibility and not out of any moral appreciation for unrestricted music. But if they ever do that I suppose I can just cancel the subscription.
You have no idea how relieved I am to see that I'm not the only person on the entire Internet who recognizes symbolism when he sees it - if not its exact nature in this film, then at the very least its existence. Your analysis was well thought-out; I only wish I had seen that particular connection first.
This film, despite its shortcomings in voice acting and other minor details, was absolutely saturated with imagery and clever allusions. I know it's a little hard to see it when watching for the first time, and I know that this is slashdot after all, so I shouldn't expect brilliant critiques about non-technical subjects, but I was taken aback by the sheer volume of negative responses. A lot of you seem to truly believe that the script was patched together as an afterthought. Maybe this wouldn't be the case if some of the details were reworked and presented in a more confident manner (especially the voice acting).
Oh well, who cares about the majority; the important thing is I'm not alone.;)
Oh it's supported, it just doesn't connect in kopete unless I send my password in plaintext, and doesn't work in gaim, period. But it's not like that would really help me get away from AIM anyway - no one I know uses anything else.
It's amazing that in the half decade I've been using AIM, the first screenname I've had to block was one of its own official accounts. I tolerated AOL's "Today Window" when it invaded my screen real estate, I wasn't too pissed off at its banner add, but it was when they started spamming me with VOICE ADS that I switched over to gaim/kopete. Now even that may not be enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Traditional time shifting is justifiable because the broadcaster never made you sign an agreement saying that you would only watch a show within the narrow window that it is actually on the air. Nor can they use legal force to prevent you from skipping commercials. With both paid and free channels, it is understood that the broadcaster assumes the risk of their commercial breaks becoming worthless.
So you argue that time shifting should cross over to different consumers, and derive this right from the absurdity of enforcing intellectual property restrictions in the digital age? I guess the physical analog would be lending a chair to a friend when I'm not using it - now simply optimize that process so that it automatically goes to a complete stranger who needs it, whenever I stand up from it. So long as this chair-warping technology doesn't violate the laws of physics by being in two places at once, there is nothing wrong with this picture.
I'm trying to find the flaw in this argument, and I think it's that you probably can't time share with someone else who doesn't pay for the channel you recorded the show off of. Otherwise you're just ripping off the station's content, albeit with a significant lag.
As for your second point: I agree, the traditional model for distribution and consumption is totally broken by the digital world, and it just seems undeniably *wrong* to bend the world to the whims of the business (via DRM/litigation) instead of the other way around. But could someone please elaborate, or point me to an article somewhere, describing exactly how this alternative system would work? How do you make a profit selling content that can be legally redistributed by anyone to anyone? The same question applies to the GPL too - I never quite understood how a Free Software business can really exist, but I assume that the answers to the two questions are intertwined.
Last I read, other operating systems may sync at the end of a file transfer automatically, while linux will either not sync until ordered to do so or unmounted explicitly, unless of course it's mounted synchronously (a good way to destroy flash memory). I could be wrong though.
Most religions tend to have their prophets and deities in alignment, not at each other's throats over interpretation of religious doctrine (v3).
Does that really work? If there's a massive power outage (think East coast, August 2003), is it typical for cable internet service to function just fine so long as the local hardware has backup power? If so, it might be worth buying a UPS just so I have something to do in a blackout besides listening to the radio.
Yep. The entire point of aggressive DRM and litigation is not to actually make money (I'm almost certain it has to cost many times more to sue filesharers than they can possibly make out of settlements), but to solidify the idea that "This is our music, keep your grubby copying paws off!" They ??AAs win if they can successfully convince the public that filesharing is illegal, DRM is the norm, and copyrights are supposed to last two lifetimes. As long as our rights are taken away gradually enough, the public may not notice.
No, the fact that CDs are not encrypted does not mean that you are allowed to copy them without restriction. Fair Use allows you to make backup copies, or create copies for your car, or rip them to your computer, but you are not allowed to give a copy of the CD to someone else. That's unauthorized redistribution, and is not even close to a legitimate use. AFAIK lending the CD to a friend, provided that copies are not made, is fine. Although I suppose there might be an issue if you lend the CD while using a backup copy for yourself at the same time. I'm not sure.
You might be referring to time shifting devices, which were ruled legal decades ago.
The same Fair Use rights apply to DVDs. The difference is that the CSS encryption in commercial DVDs qualifies as an "effective technological measure" under the DMCA. Tools that are capable of breaching such technological measures cannot be distributed. So while you have a right to rip a DVD that you own to your hard drive under linux, it's illegal for someone else to make available to you the program needed to do that.
This article (or rather, its summary, as I did not RTFA) does not mention teen opinions of legitimate copies, but only illegal copying for friends.
Please correct me if I said anything inaccurate.
I can enlighten you on that point.
Increased copyright terms make ownership of the copyright more desirable, regardless of whether or not the original owner is dead. So the artist has more bargaining power with the label, because what he or she brings to the table is more valuable. The musician can't benefit from the song after his death, but he can get an advance on that profit from the label itself during his own life. I'm by no means saying that increasing the term was a good move - I lament it as one of the worst things to happen to culture, I'm just saying that we can't pretend that the artist does not benefit indirectly (at least in theory).
Ug. I think this was a bad move on the part of the developers. Unless I'm mistaken in my understanding of the GPL, this little addition costs the program license-compatibility with the rest of the GPL body of software, and IMO unity is very important to the free software community. While it should be legal if it consists of all original code (unless they made a technical screwup by reusing the actual text of the GPL itself), they've made a pointless statement against the military at the expense of additional confusion and headaches.
Also, was it absolutely necessary for the developers to make a joke out of this by quoting Asimov? I can just imagine lawyers spending hours over a science fiction novel trying to gain some context for interpretation. This additional clause is nowhere near as well-established as the rest of the license, and if I cared about this particular program then I would worry that the clause might introduce a loophole or ambiguity, allowing for abuse.
> [...] does the GPL not expressly prohibit the restriction of rights beyond what it already provides for (distribution)? It does not prohibit granting licensees additional rights (which is what the LGPL is, basically) [...]
I thought the LGPL was an expansion of rights that would *not* normally be allowed by the GPL, or else the GPL would not be famously "viral". I believe the preamble itself says something about imposing unremovable conditions to ensure that those you distribute the program to are given the same rights as you were (and no more or less).
Yeah, seriously, this is the third post I've seen from this AC trumpeting anonet as the panacea to all our woes. You can spread more propaganda if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that anonet's website comes off as shady/underground and its wikipedia article is slanted. Plus, the additional anonet-specific ".ano" TLD? It reminds me of those crappy alternate root DNS servers.
If I want a secure connection between two trusted hosts, I'll use TLS - which is what anonet uses anyway, via openvpn.
I actually checked out anonet two days ago after reading another slashdot comment about it - might've been another AC/yours for all I remember/know. I decided against joining because it seemed like a poorly coordinated project whose FAQ basically boasts "Feel free to be illegal" - they mentioned DeCSS and bnetd distribution as one of its benefits, for instance. Anonet, as far as I could tell, just provides an anonymous way to connect to a destination, with the side benefit of the VPN security. Why not just use that VPN to connect to a proxy not under your network admin's control, and surf the web from there? In both cases you're home-free if your admin doesn't block certain outgoing connections, and screwed if they really lock down your system.
At first I thought it odd that a well written (that is, grammatically correct), lengthy post should be modded -1 Troll, but by the time I finished reading your post it became clear that you are either grossly misinformed or deliberately spreading lies about the license. I believe it is the latter, since I doubt that any commercial legal department could interpret the GPL so poorly, when most slashdot readers are aware of these simple facts:
A: You are *NOT* under any obligation whatsoever to release your source code to anyone else so long as you do not distribute your modified binaries. If you do distribute your binaries, the GPL aims to make certain that the recipient also has access to the source code corresponding to it.
B: Programs compiled under GCC are not GPL'd. In fact, the output of any GPL program is never automatically covered by the GPL unless a significant portion of the output originated from said program. Also, the gcc libraries are LGPL'd, not GPL'd, so this concern doesn't even apply.
But you already knew that, didn't you.
Er, the original quote is correct, you only restated half of it. He says both that the only method to play Apple's DRM'd files is through an Apple music player, and that the only DRM'd files an Apple music player can play come from Apple. Although the iPod plays MP3s, they don't count as a proprietary format.
Now here's something I've been wondering for a little while, about eMusic, that I wanted to know before I considered signing up. Obviously if they're distributing plain, non-drm'd mp3 files, they can't stop me from doing what I want with them, legal or not. But I'd still like to know A: whether I have the right of first sale over the music I purchase - that is, can I resell the tracks I download to someone else provided I delete my copy, so that it would be like selling a physical CD; and B: do any of my rights to the music I've already downloaded terminate when/if I end my subscription?
Because if I get *all* the rights that I would get if I had purchased the physical CD, well, that's a damn convincing argument to get me to sign up. I'm slightly concerned that if Apple ever opens up their DRM, eMusic might start using that, since they freely admit that they only chose the mp3 format for iPod compatibility and not out of any moral appreciation for unrestricted music. But if they ever do that I suppose I can just cancel the subscription.
You have no idea how relieved I am to see that I'm not the only person on the entire Internet who recognizes symbolism when he sees it - if not its exact nature in this film, then at the very least its existence. Your analysis was well thought-out; I only wish I had seen that particular connection first. This film, despite its shortcomings in voice acting and other minor details, was absolutely saturated with imagery and clever allusions. I know it's a little hard to see it when watching for the first time, and I know that this is slashdot after all, so I shouldn't expect brilliant critiques about non-technical subjects, but I was taken aback by the sheer volume of negative responses. A lot of you seem to truly believe that the script was patched together as an afterthought. Maybe this wouldn't be the case if some of the details were reworked and presented in a more confident manner (especially the voice acting). Oh well, who cares about the majority; the important thing is I'm not alone. ;)
Really? Because I can send mine at 300,000,000 m/s instead of .001 c. ;)
Oh it's supported, it just doesn't connect in kopete unless I send my password in plaintext, and doesn't work in gaim, period. But it's not like that would really help me get away from AIM anyway - no one I know uses anything else.
I guess I should've seen this coming.
It's amazing that in the half decade I've been using AIM, the first screenname I've had to block was one of its own official accounts. I tolerated AOL's "Today Window" when it invaded my screen real estate, I wasn't too pissed off at its banner add, but it was when they started spamming me with VOICE ADS that I switched over to gaim/kopete. Now even that may not be enough.
I really wish gtalk worked on my clients. Sigh.