I DO NOT care about my rights to mass distribute media to anonymous people.
No one else here -- or at least no one you have ever responded to -- has implied otherwise. If you're going to disagree with someone, disagree with what they're saying.
And I think congress will start caring more about what "the people" think when "the people" start caring about suggesting solutions to piracy.
Selling decent products at a reasonable price takes care of it for the most part, anyone who checks my shelves could see that. And take advantage of, don't run in fear from, the new technology.
Personally, I think the solution is "the industry should have the right to track down illegal trading and sue their ass".
But that isn't what they are proposing. You think they should do X, but they're trying to do Y. So why are you objecting to those of us who object to Y?
Any time they want they can start up their own record companies.
The record companies use monopolistic practices that keep smaller companies out. Is your tiny record company going to get airplay, shelf space at Best Buy, etc.?
You want Microsoft to be held financially liable for bugs, yet Free Software should have no warranty if something blows up in the field?
I'd rather neither be liable than both.
I work on a proprietary software package. Mac OS 10.1.5 broke it one way (they made a system call work exactly as specified, could be our fault), Mac OS 10.2 another (their bug), Quicktime 6 (but not the final release candidate) broke it yet another (again, their bug.) And NVidia and ATI drivers have caused further problems (their bugs). Software is targeted at a moving and malfunctioning target. Even if you determine the cause, people often won't believe you if you claim it's not your fault and expect a workaround from you anyway. So I'd rather commercial software rely on reputation, reviews, and the desire for upgrades than to place such an onus on Free Software.
But regardless, by contract law, sellers of commercial software arrange a contract and thus have an obligation. Since you give nothing for free software, you have no contract. Unsurprisingly, contracts are viewed differently from the absence of a contract.
If the original is a computer program, right. If the original is a video tape, wrong.
"Wrong" is in the eyes of a lawyer.
First, fair use was carved out by case law, not this statute. If a judge could rule that fair use existed in the first place, he could extend it beyond that defined specifically by statute. Reading the Sony vs. MPAA suit might be particularly enlightening here.
Second, the section you quote says fair use includes specific purposes, but does not say it is strictly limited to those purposes.
Third, DVDs do include computer programs, and CDs could even be viewed as programs in a simple audio output language. The statute allowing computer backups could thus be given a penumbra that it should apply to all digital data, since the need for making those backups is equally valid.
As usual, IANAL, but my mind has been twisted by exposure to legal reasoning...
How is making copies of copyrighted videos fair use?
Aside from the backups already mentioned, there's transferring to a different format (I'm going back to Europe so I need something PAL-compatible), putting a bunch of stuff on one tape/DVD/etc. so I don't have to keep swapping, making a copy for use in the car (back-seat DVD player), copying a section for use in teaching a course, and probably more. It's intentionally distributing those copies that's rightly verboten. Oh, and copyrights do expire eventually.
For whatever its worth, the patent system in the U.S. is constitutional in origin, meaning if one wanted to eliminate it, it would require a constitutional amendment.
It could conceivably be eliminated effectively by making the "limited time" duration 20 minutes. Given that the Supreme Court has dodged the issue of the upper limit on how long copyrights can last, they might not rule that 20 minutes was unconstitutionally short.
If advertisers want people to watch commercials without needing to coerce them into doing it, they should make better commercials that are worth watching.
The problem is cost. Even the good commercials can only be tolerated for a few viewings, and typically they cost a lot. People aren't generally going out of their way to make bad commercials (although admittedly research has shown that annoying commercials can be more effective. Stating the product's name multiple times, for example, increases memorability.)
TiVo viewers (along with ReplayTV viewers) DON'T WATCH COMMERCIALS.
Actually, some do, or at least watch a reasonable percentage. I typically watch TV while on the computer, so even if I tape something I rarely remember to skip the ads. So I get at least some subliminal messages from them. There are TiVo'ers who almost always skip all the commercials, but I've seen articles that claimed they weren't the majority.
I "have a choice" and there is zero chance that I would waste my time downloading and burning movies when I can pay $17 and buy them at Future Shop
Indeed. The piracy that the **AAs fear really is only people with lots of free time and little money. Given the latter detail, they wouldn't be buying much anyway.
Ok, you can buy a PC or the bits and put it together, but I've fried a motherboard, a friend who homebuilt has a machine that sits for 10 minutes before deigning to boot, etc., and there's the also assumption there that your time is of no value, that you know the bits you need for the above, etc. Oh, and if you record during the times you would typically use your computer, you probably need a second computer, so all this costs you more than a TiVo.
Also, where do you find any mention of video quality from any of these cards? I'd love to see a review that actually speaks about it.
I would subscribe to Transgaming, if I got a legally binding promise, that the code I bought were released to LGPL after 1 year.
If I could figure out how to get a reasonably large number of people to "subscribe" to me, I'd love to sell the remainder of my lifetime's work effort to be devoted to open source coding of the subscriber's choice. I figure $1.5 million would be enough to replace my current income, and I'm sure it's less than people will pay for my (non-open-source) work, but I doubt I could fill a tip jar enough to switch.
Why do you think that, of the quarter of a million/. readers, they all agree with you and have the same "principles"?
If you don't think Vivendi's bullying is blatantly unethical, then I don't respect your principles or lack thereof. If you do think it's blatantly unethical but you're buying WarCraft III anyway, I respect you even less. There are plenty of games available from companies that aren't bullying their customers.
If you do not behave in a moral fashion, I will harangue you and feel justified in doing so.
That HP has said "Now that you've withdrawn your threat to release infor about us, we won't threaten to pull the DMCA on you" doesn't count as very much of an apology at all. In fact, it doesn't count as an apology.
They did at least assert a corporate position: "We can say emphatically that HP will not use the DMCA to stifle research or impede the flow of information that would benefit our customers and improve their system security"; that's more than a lot of other companies have said.
Forget USB, I want a KVM that doesn't make my video cards output look like crap on my LCD...
If your connection is DVI, there is at least one manual KVM that switches USB and DVI. (the Moniswitch DVI) Presumably DVI has the digital advantage that noise below a certain threshold is eliminated? If your LCD doesn't take DVI, of course, this doesn't help.
Because of course the world certainly needs newer, bigger, and better ways to cut down even more trees.
If they could harvest efficiently with this puppy without clear-cutting or requiring tractor-trailer-capable roads, it could actually be ecologically beneficial.
I can't for the life of me figure out why they put the same page you are looking at in the new window. I set my homepage to about:blank and new windows should be blank.
One possible situation where that could be useful is if you need to see a page and the page you viewed before it at the same time. Open a new page, then go back in the old window. Something similar could be achieved by going back and opening the link in a new window, but if the current window was opened via a button or something that does not support opening in a new window, that can be awkward.
Regardless, I think there's a better solution that I've never seen in any browser. What I want is to generate a record of where I go as I browse, and have a tree view that allows me to reopen old links from that view.
(Ok, there are lobbyists who truly believe in their cause, not in the big paydays for themselves and their friends. We speak of the seekers of lucre here.)
Are we to infer that the original inhabitants of North America had no map making skills?
Yup; possums, deer, and grizzly bears are particularly poor at cartography. (Eagles are quite good at it, but refuse to give away their secrets by drawing maps.)
Slashdot Mirror
I DO NOT care about my rights to mass distribute media to anonymous people.
No one else here -- or at least no one you have ever responded to -- has implied otherwise. If you're going to disagree with someone, disagree with what they're saying.
And I think congress will start caring more about what "the people" think when "the people" start caring about suggesting solutions to piracy.
Selling decent products at a reasonable price takes care of it for the most part, anyone who checks my shelves could see that. And take advantage of, don't run in fear from, the new technology.
Personally, I think the solution is "the industry should have the right to track down illegal trading and sue their ass".
But that isn't what they are proposing. You think they should do X, but they're trying to do Y. So why are you objecting to those of us who object to Y?
Any time they want they can start up their own record companies.
The record companies use monopolistic practices that keep smaller companies out. Is your tiny record company going to get airplay, shelf space at Best Buy, etc.?
You want Microsoft to be held financially liable for bugs, yet Free Software should have no warranty if something blows up in the field?
I'd rather neither be liable than both.
I work on a proprietary software package. Mac OS 10.1.5 broke it one way (they made a system call work exactly as specified, could be our fault), Mac OS 10.2 another (their bug), Quicktime 6 (but not the final release candidate) broke it yet another (again, their bug.) And NVidia and ATI drivers have caused further problems (their bugs). Software is targeted at a moving and malfunctioning target. Even if you determine the cause, people often won't believe you if you claim it's not your fault and expect a workaround from you anyway. So I'd rather commercial software rely on reputation, reviews, and the desire for upgrades than to place such an onus on Free Software.
But regardless, by contract law, sellers of commercial software arrange a contract and thus have an obligation. Since you give nothing for free software, you have no contract. Unsurprisingly, contracts are viewed differently from the absence of a contract.
We apologise for the fault in the
above posting. Those responsible have been
sacked.
Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...
The majority (75% I guess) of new VCRs sold in the UK can (supposedly) play back NTSC videos
How do you know my originals aren't SECAM, smarty?
If the original is a computer program, right. If the original is a video tape, wrong.
"Wrong" is in the eyes of a lawyer.
First, fair use was carved out by case law, not this statute. If a judge could rule that fair use existed in the first place, he could extend it beyond that defined specifically by statute. Reading the Sony vs. MPAA suit might be particularly enlightening here.
Second, the section you quote says fair use includes specific purposes, but does not say it is strictly limited to those purposes.
Third, DVDs do include computer programs, and CDs could even be viewed as programs in a simple audio output language. The statute allowing computer backups could thus be given a penumbra that it should apply to all digital data, since the need for making those backups is equally valid.
As usual, IANAL, but my mind has been twisted by exposure to legal reasoning...
Couldn't you lend him one of yours?
How is making copies of copyrighted videos fair use?
Aside from the backups already mentioned, there's transferring to a different format (I'm going back to Europe so I need something PAL-compatible), putting a bunch of stuff on one tape/DVD/etc. so I don't have to keep swapping, making a copy for use in the car (back-seat DVD player), copying a section for use in teaching a course, and probably more. It's intentionally distributing those copies that's rightly verboten. Oh, and copyrights do expire eventually.
According to this, cells are around 15% efficient, with optimal laboratory results in the 30-40% range.
For whatever its worth, the patent system in the U.S. is constitutional in origin, meaning if one wanted to eliminate it, it would require a constitutional amendment.
It could conceivably be eliminated effectively by making the "limited time" duration 20 minutes. Given that the Supreme Court has dodged the issue of the upper limit on how long copyrights can last, they might not rule that 20 minutes was unconstitutionally short.
If advertisers want people to watch commercials without needing to coerce them into doing it, they should make better commercials that are worth watching.
The problem is cost. Even the good commercials can only be tolerated for a few viewings, and typically they cost a lot. People aren't generally going out of their way to make bad commercials (although admittedly research has shown that annoying commercials can be more effective. Stating the product's name multiple times, for example, increases memorability.)
You didn't remember what automaker it was for!
Maybe he did, but saying "Remember the Volkswagen commercial" doesn't nail it down enough. (And, I note, *you* remembered the automaker...)
(Like the car commercial where the guy interrupts the wedding... is there ever going to be a sequal to that?)
I dunno, but who's the woman in that? She's drop-dead gorgeous. The interrupter looks like James Spader.
TiVo viewers (along with ReplayTV viewers) DON'T WATCH COMMERCIALS.
Actually, some do, or at least watch a reasonable percentage. I typically watch TV while on the computer, so even if I tape something I rarely remember to skip the ads. So I get at least some subliminal messages from them. There are TiVo'ers who almost always skip all the commercials, but I've seen articles that claimed they weren't the majority.
I "have a choice" and there is zero chance that I would waste my time downloading and burning movies when I can pay $17 and buy them at Future Shop
Indeed. The piracy that the **AAs fear really is only people with lots of free time and little money. Given the latter detail, they wouldn't be buying much anyway.
Can we have fewer scenes - Phantom Edit II? Get rid of all that sappy shit and a real movie emerges.
One possibility would be to create a format and an app that will customize the playing of a DVD, playing it in a user-specified edit.
exactlly what is missing in the current PC PVRs?
Where do you buy it?
Ok, you can buy a PC or the bits and put it together, but I've fried a motherboard, a friend who homebuilt has a machine that sits for 10 minutes before deigning to boot, etc., and there's the also assumption there that your time is of no value, that you know the bits you need for the above, etc. Oh, and if you record during the times you would typically use your computer, you probably need a second computer, so all this costs you more than a TiVo.
Also, where do you find any mention of video quality from any of these cards? I'd love to see a review that actually speaks about it.
I would subscribe to Transgaming, if I got a legally binding promise, that the code I bought were released to LGPL after 1 year.
If I could figure out how to get a reasonably large number of people to "subscribe" to me, I'd love to sell the remainder of my lifetime's work effort to be devoted to open source coding of the subscriber's choice. I figure $1.5 million would be enough to replace my current income, and I'm sure it's less than people will pay for my (non-open-source) work, but I doubt I could fill a tip jar enough to switch.
Why do you think that, of the quarter of a million /. readers, they all agree with you and have the same "principles"?
If you don't think Vivendi's bullying is blatantly unethical, then I don't respect your principles or lack thereof. If you do think it's blatantly unethical but you're buying WarCraft III anyway, I respect you even less. There are plenty of games available from companies that aren't bullying their customers.
If you do not behave in a moral fashion, I will harangue you and feel justified in doing so.
That HP has said "Now that you've withdrawn your threat to release infor about us, we won't threaten to pull the DMCA on you" doesn't count as very much of an apology at all. In fact, it doesn't count as an apology.
They did at least assert a corporate position: "We can say emphatically that HP will not use the DMCA to stifle research or impede the flow of information that would benefit our customers and improve their system security"; that's more than a lot of other companies have said.
Forget USB, I want a KVM that doesn't make my video cards output look like crap on my LCD...
If your connection is DVI, there is at least one manual KVM that switches USB and DVI. (the Moniswitch DVI) Presumably DVI has the digital advantage that noise below a certain threshold is eliminated? If your LCD doesn't take DVI, of course, this doesn't help.
Because of course the world certainly needs newer, bigger, and better ways to cut down even more trees.
If they could harvest efficiently with this puppy without clear-cutting or requiring tractor-trailer-capable roads, it could actually be ecologically beneficial.
I can't for the life of me figure out why they put the same page you are looking at in the new window. I set my homepage to about:blank and new windows should be blank.
One possible situation where that could be useful is if you need to see a page and the page you viewed before it at the same time. Open a new page, then go back in the old window. Something similar could be achieved by going back and opening the link in a new window, but if the current window was opened via a button or something that does not support opening in a new window, that can be awkward.
Regardless, I think there's a better solution that I've never seen in any browser. What I want is to generate a record of where I go as I browse, and have a tree view that allows me to reopen old links from that view.
Actually, he said "The business of America is business." Similar, but not quite the same meaning.
lobbyists are people too
Technically, perhaps.
(Ok, there are lobbyists who truly believe in their cause, not in the big paydays for themselves and their friends. We speak of the seekers of lucre here.)
Are we to infer that the original inhabitants of North America had no map making skills?
Yup; possums, deer, and grizzly bears are particularly poor at cartography. (Eagles are quite good at it, but refuse to give away their secrets by drawing maps.)