I think your point is that web browsing isnt violating copyright because its not intentionally storing the copyrighted material permanently.
Sounds like a reasonable starting point, but i think there is still lots of room for debate.
It could be argued that its unintentional copyright violation, which is of course still a copyright violation.
And AFAIK temporary usage (or medium shifting or whatever) is only valid if you have a proper license for the medium your are moving it from, which isnt the case when browsing copyrighted material on the web.
Also, I see no problem in merely copying (that is, making copies) of GPL'd software. The license allows that. A completely different thing is what you do with these copies, of course.
Well yes, i could have said it better, but the point remains that you can only copy it if you are in compliance with the license, you cant copy it and ignore the terms of the license.
Maybe i dont get it, can you explain why its ok for a casual web user to copy copyrighted material that has been made available by the author, but the author not providing a copyright license.
Do you consider that if an author makes his/her copyrightable material available publicly that there are speical rules that allow it to be copied without a prior agreement with the author ?
So are you saying that if an author puts their GPL'ed software "online publicly" then anyone can copy it without worrying about a copyright agreement ?
"The thing that accused infringement-aiding sites have to prove is that they have significant non-infringing uses."
So your saying that google is ok because they only violate copyright law sometimes, whereas isohunt is bad because they violate copyright law most of the time ?
If a person sometimes steals (i know bad analogy), are they less guilt of theft than someone who steams most of the time ?
I find it really hard to believe that a position like that can have any serious legal standing...
Agreed, to legally use copyright material you have to get permission prior to usage.
When someone opens a webpage it copies copyrighted material without prior permission, that fact that the copyright holder has made it easily available to the public does not amount to a legal agreement authorizing the copying of the material.
Because everybody with an internet connection probably violates copyright every day, copyright law can only be enforced selectively, which is immoral (it may even be illegal to selectively enforce the law, IANAL).
Torrent sites are being judged badly because they are helping people to knowingly violate copyright. With google and the internet generally everyone is still ignorant about the fact that they are violating copyright.
I suggest we spread the word about the fact the using a web browser on any site is probably violating copyright, drag these people off their high horse.
Looking forward i think we need a clear legal separation between personal and commercial _use_ of an authors work.
The poll results from the mentioned article are below, 96% want him gone, he should have been pushed a long time ago, but at least he knows his time is up.
Thanks for voting! Are you happy that Michael Atkinson will no longer be South Australia's Attorney-General?
It is said that the only thing that has protected Australians from oppressive censorship over the decades has been the incompetence of the government in implementing it.
Could it be that Australia finally has a competent government, oh the tragedy....
Instead of blocking banned material maybe they should let it through so they can prosecute people for possession of it...
Also, thats just the political argument for imposing the filter, when its been implemented they will block a lot more, the filter they tested last year even blocked some dentists website, and they wont have the manpower to maintain an accurate banned list.
Once a filter is in, its a very small step to start censoring political material.
The time it takes to designing software is way more unpredictable than the time i spend programming it.
If the design is all done then programming should be very predictable, but the problem is that design is never done well.
Imagine if you asked a builder how long it will take for him to build you a new house, but you dont provide a design, you just give him a list of features (fireplace, stairs, 2 bedrooms etc etc), the builder has as much chance of estimating time to build as a programer has of estimating time to write.
Now i want you all to repeat aloud;
DESIGN IS MORE VALUABLE THAN CODE, DESIGN IS MORE VALUABLE THAN CODE, DESIGN IS MORE VALUABLE THAN CODE;p
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard the warmists use the "does not invalidate the science" line, I'd be retired to a nice, warm climate myself. Like maybe Costa Rica. Considering how many of these studies have turned out to be flawed, just would it take to "invalidate the science"?
How many studies have been overturned ?
There have been like 2 or 3 mistakes reported in the news, and suddenly the entire 3000 page document is invalidated ?
You do yourself no favors displaying your ignorance.
Sounds like you'd rather have someone waving their arms around chanting some mystical mumbo-jumbo than someone that understands the value and merits of the scientific method.
Hang on a sec, you claim the climate scientists are the ones sprouting "mystical mumbo-jumbo" and the denies are the upholders of scientific methods....
It is tragic for society that the fear and uncertainty of climate change inspires such ignorance.
I'm not an Australian, but as a fellow citizen of the Western world, I'm putting out a call to all Australians to do the right thing, and vote all of these fools out of power.
There is a grassroots organization trying hard to oppose this guy, hes the same guy opposed to violent video games.
SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has been the driving force behind moves to ban certain computer games from Australia for a long time. This dude is just bad news.
There is an organisation called Gamers for Croydon, who are locked in a feud with him him and his policies.
gamers4croydon, have a political candidate who will be standing against Atkinson for the seat of Croydon (in Adelaide) next election.
Good points, but everything has limits, even science.
I dont consider myself a peer of climatologists, i dont consider my opinion to be scientific in nature, im not trying to argue the science, im saying its possible to trust (believe was a bad word to use) people, even scientists.
I dont have to practice or be a part of the the scientific process to trust the scientific process.
to follow the agenda of the environ whackos, they better have it fucking laid out song and verse and if I have questions they damned well better not call me names. If the don't and then do, they and you can go fuck yourself.
So you call me stupid, all environmentalists are 'whackos', and that if we dont do what you say we can go fuck ourselves.
In the middle of all that you warn people not to call YOU names.
Do you still wonder why people dont take people like you seriously ?
And you think your maths and computer knowledge makes you an expert on climate change ?
For the record i have a comp science degree, it has nothing to do with climate change, i dont believe it makes my opinion any more qualified than the next person.
I know enough about science to give scientists the benefit of the doubt, i believe them unless i have a reason not to.
There is nothing wrong with being sceptical. There is something wrong with being sceptical and ignorant, demanding that other people conveniently show you the truth in a manner you request.
and hence open themselves up to doubt in the listener's mind.
There you have hit the nail on the head, it doesnt matter how you talk to the person who will not hear.
The general population just doesnt have the scientific background to understand or question the correctness of climate change (or most other scientific research fields).
Scientists arent teachers, scientists should be expected to share knowledge and open themselves up to criticism from their peers, its the job of educators to spread the message to the general public.
There are psychological reasons why some individuals disbelieve in climate change and some people will just never agree because they like to different or argue, scientists cant be held responsible for them flawed understanding.
And anything that dares to contradict the AGW-believers is treated with derision and actively attacked, instead of investigated. You know, exactly the opposite of science.
So scientist are bad because they arent treating the un-scientific criticism of their work in a scientific manner ?
I used it as the late 90's, there was enough supported hardware that it wasnt a limitation (for me at least), but yes you did have to double check for Linux support before buying hardware.
There is a lot of polish now'a'days, but back then it catered for a different demographic (more computer literate). Users were often capable of using the command line, edit config files and even compiling their own kernel.
To go out on a limb i would say that GNOME and KDE have advanced the cause of GNU/Linux much more than the kernel in the last 10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your point is that web browsing isnt violating copyright because its not intentionally storing the copyrighted material permanently.
Sounds like a reasonable starting point, but i think there is still lots of room for debate.
It could be argued that its unintentional copyright violation, which is of course still a copyright violation.
And AFAIK temporary usage (or medium shifting or whatever) is only valid if you have a proper license for the medium your are moving it from, which isnt the case when browsing copyrighted material on the web.
Also, I see no problem in merely copying (that is, making copies) of GPL'd software. The license allows that. A completely different thing is what you do with these copies, of course.
Well yes, i could have said it better, but the point remains that you can only copy it if you are in compliance with the license, you cant copy it and ignore the terms of the license.
Maybe i dont get it, can you explain why its ok for a casual web user to copy copyrighted material that has been made available by the author, but the author not providing a copyright license.
Do you consider that if an author makes his/her copyrightable material available publicly that there are speical rules that allow it to be copied without a prior agreement with the author ?
It does, when they put it online publicly
So are you saying that if an author puts their GPL'ed software "online publicly" then anyone can copy it without worrying about a copyright agreement ?
"The thing that accused infringement-aiding sites have to prove is that they have significant non-infringing uses."
So your saying that google is ok because they only violate copyright law sometimes, whereas isohunt is bad because they violate copyright law most of the time ?
If a person sometimes steals (i know bad analogy), are they less guilt of theft than someone who steams most of the time ?
I find it really hard to believe that a position like that can have any serious legal standing...
Making stuff available does not give people legal permission to copy it.
Agreed, to legally use copyright material you have to get permission prior to usage.
When someone opens a webpage it copies copyrighted material without prior permission, that fact that the copyright holder has made it easily available to the public does not amount to a legal agreement authorizing the copying of the material.
Because everybody with an internet connection probably violates copyright every day, copyright law can only be enforced selectively, which is immoral (it may even be illegal to selectively enforce the law, IANAL).
Torrent sites are being judged badly because they are helping people to knowingly violate copyright. With google and the internet generally everyone is still ignorant about the fact that they are violating copyright.
I suggest we spread the word about the fact the using a web browser on any site is probably violating copyright, drag these people off their high horse.
Looking forward i think we need a clear legal separation between personal and commercial _use_ of an authors work.
The poll results from the mentioned article are below, 96% want him gone, he should have been pushed a long time ago, but at least he knows his time is up.
Thanks for voting!
Are you happy that Michael Atkinson will no longer be South Australia's Attorney-General?
* Yes 96.57% (1211 votes)
* No 3.43% (43 votes)
Total votes: 1254
There is precisely one correct answer to getting out of the fine, but don't use it too often as you won't be believed on your second or third attempt.
Oh great, a riddler...
FINE, ill ask, what is the word ?
Why would the company sell them at a prices that is lower than is needed to compete with the current cheapest electricity generation method ?
Why should the company help society more than is required by legislation, the whole patent argument again...
especially due to the "clone wars" series on the cartoon network (which i also like). kids really like the clones for some reason.
I enjoy the cartoon series almost as much as the movies, some episodes are really good. They are very "full", lots happens in a short time.
I dont know why they would bother with a "real actors" series when the cartoon is going strong.
It is said that the only thing that has protected Australians from oppressive censorship over the decades has been the incompetence of the government in implementing it.
Could it be that Australia finally has a competent government, oh the tragedy....
Instead of blocking banned material maybe they should let it through so they can prosecute people for possession of it...
Also, thats just the political argument for imposing the filter, when its been implemented they will block a lot more, the filter they tested last year even blocked some dentists website, and they wont have the manpower to maintain an accurate banned list.
Once a filter is in, its a very small step to start censoring political material.
Oh, i had not heard of Buckminster Fuller, time to do some reading...
Thanks
The time it takes to designing software is way more unpredictable than the time i spend programming it.
If the design is all done then programming should be very predictable, but the problem is that design is never done well.
Imagine if you asked a builder how long it will take for him to build you a new house, but you dont provide a design, you just give him a list of features (fireplace, stairs, 2 bedrooms etc etc), the builder has as much chance of estimating time to build as a programer has of estimating time to write.
Now i want you all to repeat aloud;
DESIGN IS MORE VALUABLE THAN CODE, ;p
DESIGN IS MORE VALUABLE THAN CODE,
DESIGN IS MORE VALUABLE THAN CODE
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard the warmists use the "does not invalidate the science" line, I'd be retired to a nice, warm climate myself. Like maybe Costa Rica. Considering how many of these studies have turned out to be flawed, just would it take to "invalidate the science"?
How many studies have been overturned ?
There have been like 2 or 3 mistakes reported in the news, and suddenly the entire 3000 page document is invalidated ?
You do yourself no favors displaying your ignorance.
Sounds like you'd rather have someone waving their arms around chanting some mystical mumbo-jumbo than someone that understands the value and merits of the scientific method.
Hang on a sec, you claim the climate scientists are the ones sprouting "mystical mumbo-jumbo" and the denies are the upholders of scientific methods....
It is tragic for society that the fear and uncertainty of climate change inspires such ignorance.
I'm not an Australian, but as a fellow citizen of the Western world, I'm putting out a call to all Australians to do the right thing, and vote all of these fools out of power.
There is a grassroots organization trying hard to oppose this guy, hes the same guy opposed to violent video games.
They have a nice website at gamers4croydon.org
SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has been the driving force behind moves to ban certain computer games from Australia for a long time. This dude is just bad news.
There is an organisation called Gamers for Croydon, who are locked in a feud with him him and his policies.
gamers4croydon, have a political candidate who will be standing against Atkinson for the seat of Croydon (in Adelaide) next election.
If your interested in the politics of games, checkout their website at http://www.gamers4croydon.org/
They have a steam group also ;)
Good points, but everything has limits, even science.
I dont consider myself a peer of climatologists, i dont consider my opinion to be scientific in nature, im not trying to argue the science, im saying its possible to trust (believe was a bad word to use) people, even scientists.
I dont have to practice or be a part of the the scientific process to trust the scientific process.
to follow the agenda of the environ whackos, they better have it fucking laid out song and verse and if I have questions they damned well better not call me names. If the don't and then do, they and you can go fuck yourself.
So you call me stupid, all environmentalists are 'whackos', and that if we dont do what you say we can go fuck ourselves.
In the middle of all that you warn people not to call YOU names.
Do you still wonder why people dont take people like you seriously ?
And you think your maths and computer knowledge makes you an expert on climate change ?
For the record i have a comp science degree, it has nothing to do with climate change, i dont believe it makes my opinion any more qualified than the next person.
I know enough about science to give scientists the benefit of the doubt, i believe them unless i have a reason not to.
There is nothing wrong with being sceptical. There is something wrong with being sceptical and ignorant, demanding that other people conveniently show you the truth in a manner you request.
and hence open themselves up to doubt in the listener's mind.
There you have hit the nail on the head, it doesnt matter how you talk to the person who will not hear.
The general population just doesnt have the scientific background to understand or question the correctness of climate change (or most other scientific research fields).
Scientists arent teachers, scientists should be expected to share knowledge and open themselves up to criticism from their peers, its the job of educators to spread the message to the general public.
There are psychological reasons why some individuals disbelieve in climate change and some people will just never agree because they like to different or argue, scientists cant be held responsible for them flawed understanding.
And anything that dares to contradict the AGW-believers is treated with derision and actively attacked, instead of investigated. You know, exactly the opposite of science.
So scientist are bad because they arent treating the un-scientific criticism of their work in a scientific manner ?
I used it as the late 90's, there was enough supported hardware that it wasnt a limitation (for me at least), but yes you did have to double check for Linux support before buying hardware.
There is a lot of polish now'a'days, but back then it catered for a different demographic (more computer literate). Users were often capable of using the command line, edit config files and even compiling their own kernel.
To go out on a limb i would say that GNOME and KDE have advanced the cause of GNU/Linux much more than the kernel in the last 10 years.
Can someone tell me what this means?
It means there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
If historians start quoting statistics then its even worse.
I find it strange that the grand parents message was lost, but it is school holidays i guess...