If there was no copyright then there would be no need for the GPL. If there was no copyright then the GPL could not exist and the aims behind the GPL (That a people should be free to use, improve and then re-distribute GPL software) would fail. They would fail because all the code that is currently GPL would be taken up by companies, modified, improved (or just re-branded) and redistributed, in closed source form.
DRM would be even more prevalent and probably more effective, it would be seen as the only way to make money from any idea (software, artistic work etc..), Oh and that GPL material that had been closed sourced? that would be sat under layers of DRM too. Arguing for the total abolition of copyright is not a good and positive thing, not unless you could provide some other legislative or social mechanism to address the damage done.
The problem with current copyright legislation is the length of copyright and the terms associated with it - see one of my previous posts for more,
Or the paper would have handed it to the correct government agency and that government agency would have been able to (mis)use the information (maybe only for a short time, but still).
I think that this course of action, whilst not the best was probably taken to ensure that he wasn't seen as a spy, or a terrorist. Moreover I assume that once he had this information he had a hell of a time figuring out who he would be able to trust with it. If you don't know who to trust, don't want to start contacting the government then the best course of action is probably to publish anonymously.
Perhaps he thought doing it in a public manner would remove any doubt as to the completeness of the information and ensure that there could be no "NOTICE terrorists/spies have published this information lets arrest someone secretly and ship them to a secret detention centre and torture them...." After all most people get their idea of how government, and especially government security services work from Hollywood (including the government these days one might think).
Can I ask why you would come to that conclusion? It was the only one I ignored using the following reasoning:
The process to invalidate the patent was clearly initiated, surely it is in the public interest to remove invalid patents, regardless of the outcome of any particular case. Its not like the settlement would establish any sort of precedent, never mind the fact that Microsoft or Eolas's statements on the matter shouldn't have any bearing on whether the patent is valid or not, especially since there is an established method for testing the validity of patents.
Digital Rights Control? Digital Rights Cancellation? Draconian Restrictions (against our) Customers? Derideo (mei) Rectum Carmen (-- I know its a poor attempt)
I would hope that Apple is operating in a manner that ensures that their customers are able to make use of their purchases as long as the Apple service related to media distribution continues. I was under the impression that the issues with Google where that they were dismantling the infrastructure that supported their media offering and were therefore unable to honour their agreements with both their customers and the media producers. I would say that this shows that entertainment as a Service (EaaS anyone?) doesn't work if the customer wants to have long term access to their EaaS products and the content is held remote, or contains remotely managed DRM.
The assumption I am making here is that Apple's customers have local copies of the media that they purchased and that any DRM can still be managed in the same way as other Apple media. It would be interesting to see what happened if an Apple customer needed to get a copy of the things they had purchased, given that Apple may bno longer have the right to distribute the material.
In either case we will see soon how smart Apple has been with regard to the contracts it has with its media producers and how much effort they have put into protecting their customers.
That was my initial thought. The question really hinges on whether the patent remains valid given that Microsoft chose to settle, I hope someone better versed in US patent law could give us some sort of answer.
(although uninformed speculation may be more fun...:) )
Yeah AFAIK that's fairly standard, ensure there are no angles for blackmail and ensure that their financial position is OK.
So for people with access to sensitive information you do in depth and quite invasive checks, the more sensitive the information you have access to the more invasive the information required for clearance (well more comprehensive anyway)
For people with no access to sensitive information, carry out a minimal background check and ensure that there are no glaring issues and then ensure that they have support and feel that they can tell their employer about their gambling addiction/cross-dressing using some sort of sensitive mechanism (wont stop all blackmail but its a decent start and if they are blackmailed they cant give anything away anyway.)
Most important - make sure that those without clearances DO NOT have casual or informal access to information that they are not cleared to see.
Organisations should only be upgrading if there is a business case to do so, after all you don't replace your CCTV camera's just because a newer model is available (unless you find you need a new feature or its part of your normal hardware turnover (or they have a really good sales rep/you have a piss poor purchasing manager)).
Software is not much different, if it does what you need, it is secure and its efficient, any additional features should only be seen as a requirement if there is a need, (of course Microsoft claim productivity benefits with every release, something I don't think is always true). With software you could even argue that the reverse is true, if yout Hardware has a 5-8 year life cycle sticking a more resource intensive piece of software on after 4 years is either cutting your hardware performance or forcing you to obsolete equipment with years of life left in it.
It's pretty clear now that Vista should not have even been released until Q1 of 2008. Or Microsoft feels that by releasing a service Pack they will boost confidence in an OS that currently (rightly or wrongly) doesn't inspire confidence. There are quite a few people out there who are claiming that they are waiting until SP1/SP2 before jumping, not to mention that XP gained a huge amount of stability with SP1 and even more with SP2(after the initial release issues...).
I cant see that AT&T or Apple have any basis for a complaint, if anything Apple should be quite happy with the PR (although they may b a little annoyed since it seems they got the tarting price for the iPhone wrong..)
To answer your question, its not a restriction. The problem is that it is then unclear as to how the file is licensed, more to the point, if I were issued a program with two separate licenses included I would assume I could use either and would choose whichever I deemed more useful (although I would take legal advice first..). That hampers the GPL's intent to restrict what can be done with the code, in this case add restrictions to the original license which allows itself to be restricted in a certain manner, it would mean, for example that I could take the code, modify it and then close it (as the BSD allows that), something that the GPL tries to prevent.
With licensing there must be clarity or you just create a quagmire.
The notion come from the fact that If I had taken the time in the first place I would have been able to post a more accurate and coherent post, rather than having to submit updates with corrections in, not good form.
really really bad form to reply again to my on post (but since when has that stopped me..), but reading further there is this:
- * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the - * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free - * Software Foundation. Not sure what should apply now, although in spirit releasing it under the GPL with the original author listed as copyright holder seems OK in spirit and probably OK legally too.. (IANAL)
The License says:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any - * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above - * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. Granted that section has been removed but the copyright notices referred to:
* Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis Are still there, it is then shown to have been newly licensed under the GPL (Which you can do with the BSD as I understand it, you could re-license a derivative or even the original code as you wish).
Personally I would have left in some detail to show that the code was initially issued under the BSD, I would find that meets with my own moral requirements, I would also include a link to the place the BSD code originated, but there is no requirement to do so. That is the difference between the BSD and the GPL, Previously this code could have been closed (and If BSD versions were lost then it would remain closed) under the GPL it now cannot be closed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I read the diff correctly.
I'm curious, Would that include turning over a complete copy of the RAM on the host or just the emulated client?
Moreover could you define what a "copy of the RAM" is? Is is a single one off or do you need to continually copy the RAM (maybe diff it??) to make it available? The point here is moot anyway, I would assume that the Judge in this case is perfectly well informed, the aim, after all, is to get the IP addresses of those connecting to the service, not the whole contents of the systems RAM. I am sure TorrentSpy handing over a list of User IP's would be sufficient.
I assume that is dependent on the geography and frequency of cell towers, mainly since I don't seem to have any problems with 3G/GSM data connectivity in fairly heavily wooded areas (in a moderately hilly area). In fact the only places I have really had issues with data (Vx works regardless) is in the middle of large tracts of farmland. IMHO Its the positioning and frequency of towers that is most important (frequency in terms oh how many and how far apart).
No one should be disputing the fact that the creator of a work should have some exclusive rights to it for a given period.
Every time I see threads regarding copyright it seems that there are two views,
Copyright infringement is theft, its stealing, its analogous to stealing a car, pinching a handbag, shoplifting etc..
Or
Copyright is wrong and we should just take what we want and make it available to whomever we chose.
Both arguments are flawed. The basis of copyright law should be based on some moral common sense, that is that if you spend time creating a work of art, or developing something, you may require a period of exclusivity to try to profit from it, if you can, then maybe you will advance your art and be able to continue to do so, if you are successful you may even inspire others to try.
That is not too much to ask, and most people would probably agree that if you produce something, even something intangible such as a work of art you should have a chance to gain from its creation (you have no right to make a profit but you should be able to try if you wish). What is badly askew at present is that the period of exclusivity is far too long.
On top of that the terms associated with "intellectual property" are so restrictive that inspiration can often not be used for fear of legal repercussion, I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to write a book that parallels the Harry Potter series, it would be a natural furthering of the work, potentially an innovation in itself. I would bet that legal action would be taken against the author (if possible). After all the owner should only have rights regarding the work produced, not of works that have similar themes. That is what I would see as a common sense approach.
To me it seems that it would be sensible to reduce the period of protection granted to works under copyright, especially since global distribution can now be affected not only extremely, but also cheaply. Moreover we are in an age where works are almost disposable, a book may be a best seller for a week, a song may be at the top of the charts for a few days, as such the value of each item has been reduced.
Copyright (as with any legislation) should reflect the social and cultural changes occurring in the area it seeks to benefit (within reason), instead it seems that it is being used as a big stick to maintain unsustainable business models, and being extended in a manner that is antithetical to its stated purpose.
Sadly I am sure that even if copyright lengths were immediately reduced, the violation of copyright holders rights would continue albeit without the moral justification that those rights are excessive and damaging.
A reduction of copyright lengths, a reduction of the penalties associated with violations, together with serious changes in the business models of organisations that provide copyrighted works (especially culturally related works)and more strenuous enforcement of copyright law may be more effective.
At the end of the day its about common sense and being fair, but then that does not seem to apply to many of the actions carried out by individuals, corporations or governments at this time.
But hey - I'm rambling again, I'll go and get some sleep:) .
Slashdot Mirror
DRM would be even more prevalent and probably more effective, it would be seen as the only way to make money from any idea (software, artistic work etc..), Oh and that GPL material that had been closed sourced? that would be sat under layers of DRM too. Arguing for the total abolition of copyright is not a good and positive thing, not unless you could provide some other legislative or social mechanism to address the damage done.
The problem with current copyright legislation is the length of copyright and the terms associated with it - see one of my previous posts for more,
Or the paper would have handed it to the correct government agency and that government agency would have been able to (mis)use the information (maybe only for a short time, but still).
I think that this course of action, whilst not the best was probably taken to ensure that he wasn't seen as a spy, or a terrorist. Moreover I assume that once he had this information he had a hell of a time figuring out who he would be able to trust with it. If you don't know who to trust, don't want to start contacting the government then the best course of action is probably to publish anonymously.
Perhaps he thought doing it in a public manner would remove any doubt as to the completeness of the information and ensure that there could be no "NOTICE terrorists/spies have published this information lets arrest someone secretly and ship them to a secret detention centre and torture them...." After all most people get their idea of how government, and especially government security services work from Hollywood (including the government these days one might think).
Can I ask why you would come to that conclusion? It was the only one I ignored using the following reasoning:
The process to invalidate the patent was clearly initiated, surely it is in the public interest to remove invalid patents, regardless of the outcome of any particular case. Its not like the settlement would establish any sort of precedent, never mind the fact that Microsoft or Eolas's statements on the matter shouldn't have any bearing on whether the patent is valid or not, especially since there is an established method for testing the validity of patents.
I may be being naive of course.
Digital Rights Control?
Digital Rights Cancellation?
Draconian Restrictions (against our) Customers?
Derideo (mei) Rectum Carmen (-- I know its a poor attempt)
Utterly uniformed speculation follows:
I would hope that Apple is operating in a manner that ensures that their customers are able to make use of their purchases as long as the Apple service related to media distribution continues. I was under the impression that the issues with Google where that they were dismantling the infrastructure that supported their media offering and were therefore unable to honour their agreements with both their customers and the media producers. I would say that this shows that entertainment as a Service (EaaS anyone?) doesn't work if the customer wants to have long term access to their EaaS products and the content is held remote, or contains remotely managed DRM.
The assumption I am making here is that Apple's customers have local copies of the media that they purchased and that any DRM can still be managed in the same way as other Apple media. It would be interesting to see what happened if an Apple customer needed to get a copy of the things they had purchased, given that Apple may bno longer have the right to distribute the material.
In either case we will see soon how smart Apple has been with regard to the contracts it has with its media producers and how much effort they have put into protecting their customers.
That was my initial thought.
:) )
The question really hinges on whether the patent remains valid given that Microsoft chose to settle, I hope someone better versed in US patent law could give us some sort of answer.
(although uninformed speculation may be more fun...
Yeah AFAIK that's fairly standard, ensure there are no angles for blackmail and ensure that their financial position is OK.
So for people with access to sensitive information you do in depth and quite invasive checks, the more sensitive the information you have access to the more invasive the information required for clearance (well more comprehensive anyway)
For people with no access to sensitive information, carry out a minimal background check and ensure that there are no glaring issues and then ensure that they have support and feel that they can tell their employer about their gambling addiction/cross-dressing using some sort of sensitive mechanism (wont stop all blackmail but its a decent start and if they are blackmailed they cant give anything away anyway.)
Most important - make sure that those without clearances DO NOT have casual or informal access to information that they are not cleared to see.
Parent is right, they should have used a voting machine.... Maybe one of these
Organisations should only be upgrading if there is a business case to do so, after all you don't replace your CCTV camera's just because a newer model is available (unless you find you need a new feature or its part of your normal hardware turnover (or they have a really good sales rep/you have a piss poor purchasing manager)).
Software is not much different, if it does what you need, it is secure and its efficient, any additional features should only be seen as a requirement if there is a need, (of course Microsoft claim productivity benefits with every release, something I don't think is always true). With software you could even argue that the reverse is true, if yout Hardware has a 5-8 year life cycle sticking a more resource intensive piece of software on after 4 years is either cutting your hardware performance or forcing you to obsolete equipment with years of life left in it.
Personally - I'll stick with Debian.
I hate people like you on public transport. :)
I cant see that AT&T or Apple have any basis for a complaint, if anything Apple should be quite happy with the PR (although they may b a little annoyed since it seems they got the tarting price for the iPhone wrong..)
To answer your question, its not a restriction. The problem is that it is then unclear as to how the file is licensed, more to the point, if I were issued a program with two separate licenses included I would assume I could use either and would choose whichever I deemed more useful (although I would take legal advice first..). That hampers the GPL's intent to restrict what can be done with the code, in this case add restrictions to the original license which allows itself to be restricted in a certain manner, it would mean, for example that I could take the code, modify it and then close it (as the BSD allows that), something that the GPL tries to prevent.
With licensing there must be clarity or you just create a quagmire.
kat - an evergreen shrub, Catha edulis, of Arabia and Africa, the leaves of which are used as a narcotic when chewed or made into a beverage.
Source: (dictionary.com)
Although I have only ever seen it spelled as Qat in the UK (Handy for scrabble if you have a Q but no U).
The notion come from the fact that If I had taken the time in the first place I would have been able to post a more accurate and coherent post, rather than having to submit updates with corrections in, not good form.
- * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
- * Software Foundation. Not sure what should apply now, although in spirit releasing it under the GPL with the original author listed as copyright holder seems OK in spirit and probably OK legally too.. (IANAL)
Replying to own post - I need reading comprehension lessons. They shouldn't have removed the permission bit. So yeah, its wrong.
- * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
- * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. Granted that section has been removed but the copyright notices referred to: * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis Are still there, it is then shown to have been newly licensed under the GPL (Which you can do with the BSD as I understand it, you could re-license a derivative or even the original code as you wish).
Personally I would have left in some detail to show that the code was initially issued under the BSD, I would find that meets with my own moral requirements, I would also include a link to the place the BSD code originated, but there is no requirement to do so. That is the difference between the BSD and the GPL, Previously this code could have been closed (and If BSD versions were lost then it would remain closed) under the GPL it now cannot be closed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I read the diff correctly.
I'm curious, Would that include turning over a complete copy of the RAM on the host or just the emulated client?
Moreover could you define what a "copy of the RAM" is? Is is a single one off or do you need to continually copy the RAM (maybe diff it??) to make it available? The point here is moot anyway, I would assume that the Judge in this case is perfectly well informed, the aim, after all, is to get the IP addresses of those connecting to the service, not the whole contents of the systems RAM. I am sure TorrentSpy handing over a list of User IP's would be sufficient.
Ignore?
Enforce?
Obey?
Invalidate?
Disagree With?
Agree With?
(All of the above I would say, selectively.)
I assume that is dependent on the geography and frequency of cell towers, mainly since I don't seem to have any problems with 3G/GSM data connectivity in fairly heavily wooded areas (in a moderately hilly area). In fact the only places I have really had issues with data (Vx works regardless) is in the middle of large tracts of farmland. IMHO Its the positioning and frequency of towers that is most important (frequency in terms oh how many and how far apart).
I thought the same thing, but I thought I'd ask - just in case...
..the only thing that IS illegal is using BitTorrent to download files. Why?No one should be disputing the fact that the creator of a work should have some exclusive rights to it for a given period.
:) .
Every time I see threads regarding copyright it seems that there are two views,
Copyright infringement is theft, its stealing, its analogous to stealing a car, pinching a handbag, shoplifting etc..
Or
Copyright is wrong and we should just take what we want and make it available to whomever we chose.
Both arguments are flawed. The basis of copyright law should be based on some moral common sense, that is that if you spend time creating a work of art, or developing something, you may require a period of exclusivity to try to profit from it, if you can, then maybe you will advance your art and be able to continue to do so, if you are successful you may even inspire others to try.
That is not too much to ask, and most people would probably agree that if you produce something, even something intangible such as a work of art you should have a chance to gain from its creation (you have no right to make a profit but you should be able to try if you wish). What is badly askew at present is that the period of exclusivity is far too long.
On top of that the terms associated with "intellectual property" are so restrictive that inspiration can often not be used for fear of legal repercussion, I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to write a book that parallels the Harry Potter series, it would be a natural furthering of the work, potentially an innovation in itself. I would bet that legal action would be taken against the author (if possible). After all the owner should only have rights regarding the work produced, not of works that have similar themes. That is what I would see as a common sense approach.
To me it seems that it would be sensible to reduce the period of protection granted to works under copyright, especially since global distribution can now be affected not only extremely, but also cheaply. Moreover we are in an age where works are almost disposable, a book may be a best seller for a week, a song may be at the top of the charts for a few days, as such the value of each item has been reduced.
Copyright (as with any legislation) should reflect the social and cultural changes occurring in the area it seeks to benefit (within reason), instead it seems that it is being used as a big stick to maintain unsustainable business models, and being extended in a manner that is antithetical to its stated purpose.
Sadly I am sure that even if copyright lengths were immediately reduced, the violation of copyright holders rights would continue albeit without the moral justification that those rights are excessive and damaging.
A reduction of copyright lengths, a reduction of the penalties associated with violations, together with serious changes in the business models of organisations that provide copyrighted works (especially culturally related works)and more strenuous enforcement of copyright law may be more effective.
At the end of the day its about common sense and being fair, but then that does not seem to apply to many of the actions carried out by individuals, corporations or governments at this time.
But hey - I'm rambling again, I'll go and get some sleep