Would Mormons claim they believe both the Nicene and Apostle's Creed? Honest question. (Note accepting the Nicene Creed implicitly rejects Arianism and accepts the full Trinity doctrine.)
demanding that they demonstrate a new species every time they talk about evolution is nonsensical
Except that no one debates that selective breeding is possible. The term evolution only gets controversial when you claim that it is able to explain the origins of the species. The former has been directly demonstrated many many times and within human lifespans. The case for the later isn't so clear and direct.
Equivocating the two concepts muddles communication. If someone says they do or don't believe the theory of evolution, it is unlikely they are talking about variation among dog breeds. Either scientists need to stop using the term "evolution" to mean any (even minor) result of selective breaking or the media needs to stop using that term to mean the theory that selective breading lead to speciation. Unfortunately I don't think either group will change.
You keep using that word ("IP"), but I don't think it means what you think it means. You seem speak of something in addition to patent infringement (otherwise why say "not to mention"), but what is left?
Trademark? Unless they used your name or you have a trademark on that particular color, you don't have a case there.
Copyright? That only covers the artistic expression of the work. Not much of a case there either.
Trade secret? If it was as easy to reverse engineer as you claim it was, then it may not qualify for trade secret status. And even if it did, trade secret doesn't cover reverse engineering.
This is why the term "IP" should rarely if ever be used. It is a gloss term. It muddles both thought and communication. You claim they stole your IP, but other than patent, I see no law that they have broken. They didn't steal anything, they infringed a patent.
So either stop complaining about your "IP", or say what you mean instead of vaguely complaining about your IP.
So add a grace period at the start of the patent where you don't have to market it (say 2 years). After that if you haven't started selling it, then the patent expires.
The strings passed around the network or in files are not null terminated either. They have to deal with the possibility of there being actual null values in the strings. If anything they are closer to the type presented above because they use an out-of-band encoding (e.g. TCP, file-system meta-data) to determine where the strings terminate.
The 'string' struct is really just an out-of-band encoding for the 'data' portion of the struct. When you print a string you obviously wouldn't print the size at the front (unless the format you are printing needed it) just as you don't print the null at the end of the string.
Now your 16bit strings & 32bit strings are not portable across implementations, and you have to somehow know that which type of string you're using before you can use it.
'int' values aren't portable in C/C++ either. They could be 32bit or 64 bit (I think 16 and 8 bit are also legal).
That problem can be avoided at least today by using ptrdiff_t:
Apparently he initially showed the decrypted the files for the border agents then refused to provide those same decrypted files for a subpoena. The border agents will be able to recognize if the files are the same (or mostly similar). He might be able to make minor modifications with out them noticing, but if he produces completely clean files then the agents will just witness that he has produced the wrong files.
Good thing then, that they aren't objecting to private performances, merely devices that create said performances
And copyright law doesn't restrict those either. Copyright law only enumerates six rights that are exclusive to the creator (copying, distribution, derivative works, public performance, public display and public performance of digital audio) anything else is unrestricted(*).
(*) DMCA adds other restrictions but violating those isn't copyright infringement but rather a separate crime.
his is one of those hot potatoes that it's very difficult to argue against - anyone who does is likely to find themselves tarred as someone who's "sympathetic to paedophiles". This doesn't just apply to politicians - our mass media is just as capable of demonising people as anyone else's
What if the media were to spin it the other way? Then maybe you could get a fair fight. (Of course getting them to spin it the other way might be a little hard.)
I guess we should be lobbying media instead of lobbying the government.
In the US system the prosecutor is supposed to be after truth and he should drop the case if he becomes convinced that the defendant isn't guilty. But that is mostly in theory.
In practice the prosecutor has a vested interest in winning cases and being "hard on crime" (to get promotions). Meanwhile the defense has a vested interest in winning cases and being known as the "the best defense money can buy" (to get richer clients). Since those interests are archived based on the zero-sum game of conviction vs acquittal, naturally the US process is adversarial.
Now my question to you is how do other systems become cooperative? This is an honest question. I've only ever seen the US system and would like to understand alternative systems. However I don't see any way to avoid trial being a zero-sum game that leads to an adversarial approach.
Ah yes, after RTAing (hey, this is slashdot what did you expect), I see where you were coming from. Yeah, if they present the terms to you up front giving you a chance to accept or decline before any consideration has been given and before they allow you to have a copy then either that EULA is perfectly enforceable (since you agreed to it) or the copy wasn't legal in the first place (since you didn't have a license to download it) and you don't get 17 USC 117 protection.
What are your A and B? I don't understand your post.
That section says that it is not an infringement to make a new copy provided: (1) you own the old copy, (2) such a new copy is essential to utilizing the program and (3) utilizing the program is the only reason the new copy is made.
I don't see any B here that you might not be permitted to do. The only thing I could think of that you could mean is "utilizing the program". But copyright law does not restrict you from utilizing anything. (It only restricts copying, derivative works, distribution and public performance or display.) So what did you have in mind for B?
I meant to refer to section (a) subsection (1) which allows you to make copies essential to the utilization of the software. That is to say "if you bought it, you can install/run it". My point being that you do not need a license to run software that you (legally) own a copy of.
Your cat on the other hand might be a different story.
But seriously, how hard would it be for Boxee to just run the Hulu SWF file directly? Sure the interface might not be as cool, but it's not as if they can actually block it.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, 17 USC 117 says otherwise. Legal ownership of a physical copy of a program confers right to make copies that are essential to using it (i.e. install and run).
licensing is an attempt to avoid such transfers to customers
Note that to be effective they would have to license the physical copy(*). So if you bought the disks you have the right to install. In order for software vendors to dodge that, they would have to license the physical disks. This could only happen if they presented you with a contract at the point of sale. EULA after the fact doesn't cut it.
(*) 17 USC 117 protections apply to any owner of a copy of a computer program. A "copy" is defined in 17 USC 101 to be the physical tangible medium in which a work is fixed.
IANAL. If I this legal argument has a flaw I welcome being illuminated.
How does the legal system accomplish that? Is it the structure of the court proceedings? Ingrained culture?
I really am curious. It sounds nice, but I'm baffled how a court system with both prosecution and defense would not devolve into what you describe the Anglo-American system to be.
I think that legal theory goes out the window once you consider 17 USC 117 which gives you the right to make copies that are essential to the running of a program.
The way I understand it is that the idea of "licensing out" software instead of just selling it under existing contract of sale law is that you're granted a license to do all that copying...
16 USC 117 gives you the right to make any copies that are essential to the utilization of the program. No extra license is necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Would Mormons claim they believe both the Nicene and Apostle's Creed? Honest question. (Note accepting the Nicene Creed implicitly rejects Arianism and accepts the full Trinity doctrine.)
demanding that they demonstrate a new species every time they talk about evolution is nonsensical
Except that no one debates that selective breeding is possible. The term evolution only gets controversial when you claim that it is able to explain the origins of the species. The former has been directly demonstrated many many times and within human lifespans. The case for the later isn't so clear and direct.
Equivocating the two concepts muddles communication. If someone says they do or don't believe the theory of evolution, it is unlikely they are talking about variation among dog breeds. Either scientists need to stop using the term "evolution" to mean any (even minor) result of selective breaking or the media needs to stop using that term to mean the theory that selective breading lead to speciation. Unfortunately I don't think either group will change.
Not to mention the whole "theft of IP" issues
You keep using that word ("IP"), but I don't think it means what you think it means. You seem speak of something in addition to patent infringement (otherwise why say "not to mention"), but what is left?
Trademark? Unless they used your name or you have a trademark on that particular color, you don't have a case there.
Copyright? That only covers the artistic expression of the work. Not much of a case there either.
Trade secret? If it was as easy to reverse engineer as you claim it was, then it may not qualify for trade secret status. And even if it did, trade secret doesn't cover reverse engineering.
This is why the term "IP" should rarely if ever be used. It is a gloss term. It muddles both thought and communication. You claim they stole your IP, but other than patent, I see no law that they have broken. They didn't steal anything, they infringed a patent.
So either stop complaining about your "IP", or say what you mean instead of vaguely complaining about your IP.
So add a grace period at the start of the patent where you don't have to market it (say 2 years). After that if you haven't started selling it, then the patent expires.
The strings passed around the network or in files are not null terminated either. They have to deal with the possibility of there being actual null values in the strings. If anything they are closer to the type presented above because they use an out-of-band encoding (e.g. TCP, file-system meta-data) to determine where the strings terminate.
The 'string' struct is really just an out-of-band encoding for the 'data' portion of the struct. When you print a string you obviously wouldn't print the size at the front (unless the format you are printing needed it) just as you don't print the null at the end of the string.
Now your 16bit strings & 32bit strings are not portable across implementations, and you have to somehow know that which type of string you're using before you can use it.
'int' values aren't portable in C/C++ either. They could be 32bit or 64 bit (I think 16 and 8 bit are also legal).
That problem can be avoided at least today by using ptrdiff_t:
typedef struct _string_t {
ptrdiff_t length;
char *data;
} string_t;
This code will ways have the "right" number of bits at the front to represent the length.
Or if you don't like ptrdiff_t, or want something that works on older compilers you could just keep a pointer to both the front and the end like so:
typedef struct _string_t {
char *start;
char *end;
} string_t;
The key difference is that now they have a warrant.
Apparently he initially showed the decrypted the files for the border agents then refused to provide those same decrypted files for a subpoena. The border agents will be able to recognize if the files are the same (or mostly similar). He might be able to make minor modifications with out them noticing, but if he produces completely clean files then the agents will just witness that he has produced the wrong files.
Good thing then, that they aren't objecting to private performances, merely devices that create said performances
And copyright law doesn't restrict those either. Copyright law only enumerates six rights that are exclusive to the creator (copying, distribution, derivative works, public performance, public display and public performance of digital audio) anything else is unrestricted(*).
(*) DMCA adds other restrictions but violating those isn't copyright infringement but rather a separate crime.
It's not much of a streach to call it a performance but as long as the performance is private, copyright doesn't restrict it.
It's the writers who are objecting to having their e-books turned into audio books and not getting paid.
They can object all they want, but copyright law doesn't restrict private performance.
his is one of those hot potatoes that it's very difficult to argue against - anyone who does is likely to find themselves tarred as someone who's "sympathetic to paedophiles". This doesn't just apply to politicians - our mass media is just as capable of demonising people as anyone else's
What if the media were to spin it the other way? Then maybe you could get a fair fight. (Of course getting them to spin it the other way might be a little hard.)
I guess we should be lobbying media instead of lobbying the government.
Thank you, that helps quite a bit. (And having a keyword ("inquisitorial system") I can google also helps.)
In the US system the prosecutor is supposed to be after truth and he should drop the case if he becomes convinced that the defendant isn't guilty. But that is mostly in theory.
In practice the prosecutor has a vested interest in winning cases and being "hard on crime" (to get promotions). Meanwhile the defense has a vested interest in winning cases and being known as the "the best defense money can buy" (to get richer clients). Since those interests are archived based on the zero-sum game of conviction vs acquittal, naturally the US process is adversarial.
Now my question to you is how do other systems become cooperative? This is an honest question. I've only ever seen the US system and would like to understand alternative systems. However I don't see any way to avoid trial being a zero-sum game that leads to an adversarial approach.
Ah yes, after RTAing (hey, this is slashdot what did you expect), I see where you were coming from. Yeah, if they present the terms to you up front giving you a chance to accept or decline before any consideration has been given and before they allow you to have a copy then either that EULA is perfectly enforceable (since you agreed to it) or the copy wasn't legal in the first place (since you didn't have a license to download it) and you don't get 17 USC 117 protection.
What are your A and B? I don't understand your post.
That section says that it is not an infringement to make a new copy provided: (1) you own the old copy, (2) such a new copy is essential to utilizing the program and (3) utilizing the program is the only reason the new copy is made.
I don't see any B here that you might not be permitted to do. The only thing I could think of that you could mean is "utilizing the program". But copyright law does not restrict you from utilizing anything. (It only restricts copying, derivative works, distribution and public performance or display.) So what did you have in mind for B?
I meant to refer to section (a) subsection (1) which allows you to make copies essential to the utilization of the software. That is to say "if you bought it, you can install/run it". My point being that you do not need a license to run software that you (legally) own a copy of.
Your cat on the other hand might be a different story.
My plugin is a browser you insensitive clod.
But seriously, how hard would it be for Boxee to just run the Hulu SWF file directly? Sure the interface might not be as cool, but it's not as if they can actually block it.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, 17 USC 117 says otherwise. Legal ownership of a physical copy of a program confers right to make copies that are essential to using it (i.e. install and run).
So you still have no license to use it...
17 USC 117 seems to claim otherwise.
licensing is an attempt to avoid such transfers to customers
Note that to be effective they would have to license the physical copy(*). So if you bought the disks you have the right to install. In order for software vendors to dodge that, they would have to license the physical disks. This could only happen if they presented you with a contract at the point of sale. EULA after the fact doesn't cut it.
(*) 17 USC 117 protections apply to any owner of a copy of a computer program. A "copy" is defined in 17 USC 101 to be the physical tangible medium in which a work is fixed.
IANAL. If I this legal argument has a flaw I welcome being illuminated.
How does the legal system accomplish that? Is it the structure of the court proceedings? Ingrained culture?
I really am curious. It sounds nice, but I'm baffled how a court system with both prosecution and defense would not devolve into what you describe the Anglo-American system to be.
After Vista drove me to Linux, I was considering giving Windows 7 a chance, but news like this means I'll probably skip it and wait for Windows 8.
I guess I'll have to keep the XP machine I use for games running a little while longer.
I think that legal theory goes out the window once you consider 17 USC 117 which gives you the right to make copies that are essential to the running of a program.
The way I understand it is that the idea of "licensing out" software instead of just selling it under existing contract of sale law is that you're granted a license to do all that copying...
16 USC 117 gives you the right to make any copies that are essential to the utilization of the program. No extra license is necessary.