Depending on what mood the court was in as to the interpration of what constitutes a derivitive work, fixing it would require at the very least open-source the steam client library or potentially all of steam.
Unbloody Likely! Not in any court in the USA or Europe! Now this is an example of Anti-GPL fearmongering. In the very worst case, doomsday scenario a judge might rule that: They had to stop distributing the software, immediately, and that they had to pay some quantity in damages to DOSBox developers.
That is all. The only way I can even imagine a judge threatening to order such a thing as the forced open sourcing of a piece of software, is if the offending company continued to distribute the software in direct violation of a Court Order. Even then I think it's about 100 times more likely for additional damages to be awarded.
There is no way that any corporation will ever be forced to open source their software in todays Corp-friendly world. Huge amounts of stuff would have to change before that would ever even be possible. It's just flat-out off the table.
I have to agree with you.
One of the first things I knew about law is that every contract has to be measurable in money. In this civil cases it is a similar thing. I you don't want to cooperate with the court, they cannot make you give the source code. But they can award damages to the offended party in the amounts written in the laws and in the contracts. So... yes, they can pry the code from your cold dead fingers, but the money they can take now.
Ok, I don't understand how they (are allowed to) do that. First sell it to you, then you have to agree to an EULA to use it. So, if you don't want to agree, you cannot use it, but you cannot take your money back. WTF?!
Point me to another provider that would give you more for less? Yeah, that's right. You can't. ... because everyone is lying. This madness must be stopped.
Get used to the fact that most telcom businesses survive by overselling their capacity. Don't like it? Suck it up. Unless you're dragging the fiber yourself, or pulling more spectrum out of the air, that's the way things are when you have limited resources available. Look, overselling is not a legal term, nor does it consern me at all. For all it matters, they could be stealing the wires, not paying license fees, whatever. I simply don't care - and I don't have to, and the law is there to protect me. All I want is to get for what I am promised in the ads. If the ads must be changed to accomplish that, they are legally and morally obliged to do it.
"UNLIMITED" with respect to internet access generally refers to your connect time, not your bandwidth usage.
The fact that the service is called 'unlimited' doesn't mean all aspects of the service need to be unlimited. Sorry, but this is deceptive practice. Actually, it is a plain lie. If the ad is written in a way that all normal people will think that sounds as unlimited bandwidth, then doing otherwise would be lying.
Suppose you had subscribed to an unlimited service contract - allowing you an unlimited number of support incidents per year for your server. And . then in the fine print you read that the service contract only applies to 1 server. Would you jump up and down because they won't provide you the 'unlimited support incidents' for any machine you want -- after all clearly that's a limit! The wording of the ads and contracts matter. If they disagree, the advertisement is lying.
Do you get mad when you order the 'unlimited buffet' for 9.95 and they won't let you make 20 trips bringing back a plate for everyone in your extended family? That they won't let you bring a cooler and fill it up with marshmallow salad? That you can't come back tomorrow and keep eating? The wording of the ads and contracts matter. If they disagree, the advertisement is lying.
Of course not! Of course?! The wording of the ads and contracts does matter. If they disagree, the advertisement is lying.
Moreover, in the case of bandwidth. The reason they don't specify a cap is because if they did it would be much lower than it would need to be. Suppose based on their revenue/expenses/etc they can *afford* to give *everyone* 1GB of bandwidth per month. Now the reality that most people don't come anywhere near needing that so they leave it as a soft cap -- if some people use 5 or 6GB per month, its really no big deal. Bull-fucking-shit. If they calculate that people will use 2 GB per month on average, they can still put 100GB on the ad and come out fine. The problem is they don't want to clutter the ads with useful information, they just want to lie, take your money and serve what they wish.
Then some guy comes along and uses 20GB per month, and starts straining part of the system so they advise him to throttle back because his usage is 'too high'. Now that guy screams bloody murder - "why didn't you tell me what the cap was in the contract" and the simple answer is that its in the customers best interest for that NOT to happen. If the ISP HAD to specify a cap they'd specify 1GB because that is all they can gaurantee. So if you wanted even 5GB you'd have to be paying extra for that. No, they don't want to tell you 5GB, because then you'd actually have a reason to switch to another provider, who's giving you more for less.
Please, tell me I did not read that correctly: they have ads that say one thing (or every sane person will think they say it, which as a matter of fact is the same when advertisement is involved in court), but the contracts say another thing, and people should just swallow their 1 year contracts?! And of course it is best when users don't know the actual limits, you want to keep people happy, and it is easier to achieve this if they don't know they're ripped off.
If you seriously can't figure out why you can't do something to a file, try using "Process Explorer" (www.sysinternals.com). Then do a handle search for the file and it will tell you what is using it and preventing you from erasing it. This program will also allow you to manually close that handle if it can't be otherwise closed, whether the other program wants you to or not. Thanks for the information. I'd use that program.
Incidentally, most of the things you talk about as "Features" in Linux that Windows "can't do", Linux can't either. It isn't actually deleting open files - it just makes it look like it is. It isn't actually replacing running system files in a running system without stopping them - it has to *at least* stop them to replace them. First of all, if files cannot be opened, and even more, they can be replaced with new ones, I think that is deletion. You remain with handles which when closed the place taken will be reclaimed. Some programs actually used that to create temporary files. Anyway, I believe it is better than having some stupid file block the filesystem's operations, and in a normal OS install (without additions) you cannot unblock them, even as admin.
Of course you need to restart a program to update the binary (and libraries) in the memory. But you don't need to restart the whole system, which is kind of the whole point.
Also, I don't believe your claim that Vista rebooted 10 times for updates or installation. Anyone who has installed Vista will also know your claim "When I install slackware with two boots, and the second is because I want to remove the boot CD from the drive!" is equally valid for Vista. I have installed Vista dozens of times, and every one of them has been unattended after the installation began. It's really not that hard. Look, with normal installs I also restart Vista no more than four times, counting the ones for the additional software installation (which is more than on Linux), because I know what's going on and when I have problems I'll fix it as usual (reinstall the conflicting packages). But this particular factory restore DVD restarted the computer 10 times. Some kind of Toshiba laptop I think. I know they did it to be sure that updates do not mess with each other, which happens exactly because of the filesystem limitation. There were 10 restarts, some for fairly trivial thing such as video driver installations.
No it doesn't. They are locked for a reason. Perhaps its our AV software? Either way, its not random. FWIW, Vista allows you the option to Skip the file in question, which I agree is something that should have happened a long time ago.
I don't think its a smart idea though to allow files in use to be deleted. It likely means there's some problem that needs to be corrected.
No, this is indeed the worst feature in windows, and it has been there from the dark ages of windows 3.1 - the extension of DOS, which is after all a single user OS and has no need for concurent file deletion (or is deemed unnecessary, that is). And this is hitting hard sometimes. For example, I am extending a BSD licensed library (CLucene) and in the internal workings there are several hacks to ignore the problem with undeletable files. You split the database in segments. If you want to merge two segments, you have to create a new one and delete the old ones. But if you're reading from the old segments (a valid operation, because we don't want to interrupt the operation of the user during updates!) they cannot be deleted. Therefore they are written in a.del file, and deleted when the last reader is closed. This of course can lead to severe lack of disk space, because the database is about 1GB. In Linux of course there is no such problem.
Another example, I reinstalled a Vista computer with a recovery DVD yesterday. The system restarted about 10 times!!! Automatically, that is. Why? Because. Because updates and installations cannot be completed without reboot. Because you cannot replace system files in a running system. Security? Bull-shit. After all, a restart does the job fine. Just a limitation from the dark ages of computing.
And please, don't tell me that "You have moved your mouse. Please restart your computer for the changes to take effect..." is the future of computing. When I install slackware with two boots, and the second is because I want to remove the boot CD from the drive!
Some responsibility you say? Well, if they have the power to change the software, and I don't, why is it my fault that it is not working properly? Who says it is not working as intended, if I may ask? They should bear the whole responsibility, and just swallow the losses, like they always do. Otherwise they just won't do anything about it.
Nothing I said implied that's how it should be. I said the proper solution would be one that improves the care of those with poor care, without significantly adversely affecting the care of anyone else. So what?! Having universal medical coverage does not rule out private healthcare. You can always pay for a better doctor. Anyway, did it occur to you that people with shitty health also have less money, and even better, are not insured because no company wants them? Tell me how is that fare?
Everyone has the same service Yep, and it's a damned shame. I see, just because you turned well, you want others to suffer? It is your f*ckin health, for christ's sake! It affects your basic human right to live!!! There is something wrong with your country, if you let even 1/3 of the stuff on that movie happen to real people. And I know it is so, because I have friends there.
This is called "social justice", something sorely lacking in the US. Riiiiiiight. It is "justice" to take away someone's liberty and force them to have a reduced standard of health care. That makes perfect sense! Who's liberty is taken when you pay taxes? Like the ones for public schools, libraries, roads? Why don't everyone just pave their own damned piece of road, and let everyone else suffer the consequences!
The "freedom" those measures take away would only benefit the top 0.01% of the population anyways. Not remotely. It's actually closer to about 30 percent, if not more. Really? So, having 200$ less to pay for taxes is really, really worth it if you screw the 70% of the country, the poor ones. Well, good for you.
So you advocate punitive rather than rehabilitative justice? What do you mean rehabilitative justice for serial killers or serial rapists? They had their chance, they blew it (pun intended). I say drop them in prison and let them rot to serve an example to others.
I think the GP was talking about that kind of crimes anyway.
So all these groups need to do is go "we'll make no deal" and they get free press on a bunch of geek news sites, more support from the community AND they get street cred?
Wow, who would side with MS when you can get 3 priceless things which your entire business model relies on? Which is very, very good indeed!
It shows that the community matters!
All you are really saying is that if they make a black hole the CERN campus won't get sucked in immediately. Over time, as the black hole absorbs more and more matter from the air around it then eventually it will have enough mass to suck in the CERN campus.
That is unless it 'evaporates' first. It's only a matter of time until we do something stupid that really does cause a planet-wide chain reaction (or locks up the Earth Simulator we are running in...). Yes, you're right, we have started it already - Global Warming. Anyway, the black hole at CERN will be like 1/100 the size of an atomic nucleus, how is is supposed to eat up one? Even better, it is going to evaporate almost instantaneously, because the smaller they are, the faster they disappear due to Hawking radiation.
What bothers me especially is that he will distort positions where the facts already support his claims, just to make them support him 'better'. For instance, in Bowling for Columbine, he presented gun-related fatality statistics for various countries, and stated that this demonstrates how that the US has 'more' gun crime than Japan and Canada (or wherever, I don't recall precisely). The US does in fact have more gun crimes per capita than Japan or Canada - but since it has a higher population, the contrast seems bigger if the numbers are presented as (meaningless) absolute values instead of values per capita. Yes, you're right, but the good thing when he says that this way is that people who notice and oppose this go and calculate it for themselves, and then see the gross misproportion of the gun deaths in USA vs the rest of the civilized world. The others... they already see the point so no need to enlighten them more.
No, I am doing very well, owning homes. Much more than you could understand. I own several homes in central FL, the prices of the homes are from $280,000 to $550,000. I guess by "adults" you mean "dicks that don't care about a human family"? Sorry, I am not a dick like you. If I lose $5,000 on the price of a home, but a good family is able to move in, I am happy. However, I am sure a dick like you would rather pocket that extra $5,000. Oh, well, there are dicks in this world and I am sure you are proud to be one. If you're so happy with you decision, quit bitching 'bout it!
OTOH, just imagine the dialogue: User: I want it fixed, now!
Company: No can't do, sir. We are prohibited by law to do this. ... and since the people does not control the legislators in the USA...
The GPL uses copyright law to make sure your work never becomes part of the farse of copyright.
No, it doesn't. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The GPL completely and utterly _relies_ on copyright to have any purpose. Without copyright, the GPL is meaningless and the restrictions it imposes would be impossible.
In other words, for licensing your code under the GPL to mean anything, your work *must* "become part of the farse[sic] of copyright".
In other words, we beat them at their own game! Tell me again, how is this part of the intent of copyright law???
Rape is a serious charge. And this blogger isn't even the defendant. But I am glad that, at least, the police are investigating. What is it with slashdotters that makes them all angry when someone in the U.S. is treated "guilty until found innocent," but then when someone in Europe complains and the police try to investigate (without assuming any guilt), all the slashdotters start to complain, "you can't investigate an internet crime!"
You can't have it both ways. The police are either going to just throw people in jail without a trial, or they are going to have to investigate complaints. Pick one. Actually, I'd pick for the police to STOP WASTING THEIR TIME (paid by us) ON STUPID ONLINE GAMES and go do some real work! As in the other thousands of cases of real rape, which are NOT imaginary.
Like the mason ring. You are not allowed to wear one if you are not a mason, but if you aren't a mason their rule doesn't apply to you, so you can wear one.
Doesn't mean that you won't be dealt with harshly if they catch you. Walk around a college campus wearing a shirt from a fraternity you don't belong to and see how long you last. If you have a real death wish, try the same with a Hells Angels jacket patch walking past their hangouts. Hells Angels can harm you, coz they are strong and many, and most of all, publicity will not be a problem for them. OTOH, masons...
I believe in our part of the world we call this "national sovereignty". But if you DO believe that taking someone else's property is provocation for WAR (as in the biggest crime invented so far), why cry when terrorists blow you up? Obviously you provoked them by taking their oil...
Why not try Creative Commons? AFAIK the licenses say nothing about the source, but the work itself. You have very large freedom of modifications to say exactly what you want to be done with your software.
Oh, you're right. I admit in both ways it is the owner's fault, but I tried to point out that the real argument should be: Who is guilty? As in - who broke the law with intent. I say noone did.
"My computer's default setup connects - it's not my fault"
and
"Their wrouter's default setup allows me to connect - it's their fault"
Did I miss something?
Otherwise: bzzt! It is not a querstion of fault. It is a question of guilt:
"My computer's default setup connects - I am not guilty"
"Their wrouter's default setup allows me to connect - I am still not guilty"
So there is no crime. Capiche?
A court order doesn't override the defendant's constitutional rights. If the prosecutor really wants the information badly enough, the defendant can be granted immunity or "use immunity". Then the defendant could be held in contempt of court if he refused to testify, the grant of immunity having negated the possibility of self-incrimination. Even then I believe you can refuse. Imagine a child-obscene picture case, held before a grand jury. If I know there are pictures there that will compromise my image, I don't want to reveal them, even for immunity. The public outrage and the possibility of loosing my reputations is too big. Now, substitute that for your petty (pretty major for some) crime and then talk to me about honestly.
Besides, what is the point of the pictures if I am granted immunity? To incriminate others... so either persuade me or go f#ck yourself, that is.
The Swedish Pirate Party, which I am a member of, advocates a reduction in the term of copyright to somewhere betweeh 5 or 20 years after the work has been produced, as well as a reduction in scope of copyright only to cover commercial copying.
I agree that copyrights should be reduced - do a survey, find out that 95% of all revenue occurs in the first X years and set it to that.
My concern is when you start giving a pass to certain interests (eg non-commercial) you start opening up loopholes in the system and there will be ways commercial interests will try to exploit the legislation. The big corps may be hurt, but they'll always find a way to exploit talent/customers to turn a dime; it's the individual creator that will end up the most hurt. Oh, sure!!! Right NOW the big companies are not exploiting the creators to the limit. Somehow they are giving them so much money, but since they are going to have less profit they are going to give them less! Please, tell me how could you think of that? You're not a businessman, are you?
Besides, the existance of loopholes is a problem in every law. Fair use is also a loophole for some, but we don't want it taken away, do we?
Slashdot Mirror
How the Hell is that a troll??? It is actually quite a picturesque view of the state of this particular OS.
Unbloody Likely! Not in any court in the USA or Europe! Now this is an example of Anti-GPL fearmongering. In the very worst case, doomsday scenario a judge might rule that: They had to stop distributing the software, immediately, and that they had to pay some quantity in damages to DOSBox developers.
That is all. The only way I can even imagine a judge threatening to order such a thing as the forced open sourcing of a piece of software, is if the offending company continued to distribute the software in direct violation of a Court Order. Even then I think it's about 100 times more likely for additional damages to be awarded.
There is no way that any corporation will ever be forced to open source their software in todays Corp-friendly world. Huge amounts of stuff would have to change before that would ever even be possible. It's just flat-out off the table.
I have to agree with you.One of the first things I knew about law is that every contract has to be measurable in money. In this civil cases it is a similar thing. I you don't want to cooperate with the court, they cannot make you give the source code. But they can award damages to the offended party in the amounts written in the laws and in the contracts. So
Ok, I don't understand how they (are allowed to) do that. First sell it to you, then you have to agree to an EULA to use it. So, if you don't want to agree, you cannot use it, but you cannot take your money back. WTF?!
The fact that the service is called 'unlimited' doesn't mean all aspects of the service need to be unlimited.
Sorry, but this is deceptive practice. Actually, it is a plain lie. If the ad is written in a way that all normal people will think that sounds as unlimited bandwidth, then doing otherwise would be lying. Suppose you had subscribed to an unlimited service contract - allowing you an unlimited number of support incidents per year for your server. And . then in the fine print you read that the service contract only applies to 1 server. Would you jump up and down because they won't provide you the 'unlimited support incidents' for any machine you want -- after all clearly that's a limit!
The wording of the ads and contracts matter. If they disagree, the advertisement is lying. Do you get mad when you order the 'unlimited buffet' for 9.95 and they won't let you make 20 trips bringing back a plate for everyone in your extended family? That they won't let you bring a cooler and fill it up with marshmallow salad? That you can't come back tomorrow and keep eating?
The wording of the ads and contracts matter. If they disagree, the advertisement is lying. Of course not!
Of course?! The wording of the ads and contracts does matter. If they disagree, the advertisement is lying. Moreover, in the case of bandwidth. The reason they don't specify a cap is because if they did it would be much lower than it would need to be. Suppose based on their revenue/expenses/etc they can *afford* to give *everyone* 1GB of bandwidth per month. Now the reality that most people don't come anywhere near needing that so they leave it as a soft cap -- if some people use 5 or 6GB per month, its really no big deal.
Bull-fucking-shit. If they calculate that people will use 2 GB per month on average, they can still put 100GB on the ad and come out fine. The problem is they don't want to clutter the ads with useful information, they just want to lie, take your money and serve what they wish. Then some guy comes along and uses 20GB per month, and starts straining part of the system so they advise him to throttle back because his usage is 'too high'. Now that guy screams bloody murder - "why didn't you tell me what the cap was in the contract" and the simple answer is that its in the customers best interest for that NOT to happen. If the ISP HAD to specify a cap they'd specify 1GB because that is all they can gaurantee. So if you wanted even 5GB you'd have to be paying extra for that.
No, they don't want to tell you 5GB, because then you'd actually have a reason to switch to another provider, who's giving you more for less.
Please, tell me I did not read that correctly: they have ads that say one thing (or every sane person will think they say it, which as a matter of fact is the same when advertisement is involved in court), but the contracts say another thing, and people should just swallow their 1 year contracts?! And of course it is best when users don't know the actual limits, you want to keep people happy, and it is easier to achieve this if they don't know they're ripped off.
Thanks for the information. I'd use that program. Incidentally, most of the things you talk about as "Features" in Linux that Windows "can't do", Linux can't either. It isn't actually deleting open files - it just makes it look like it is. It isn't actually replacing running system files in a running system without stopping them - it has to *at least* stop them to replace them.
First of all, if files cannot be opened, and even more, they can be replaced with new ones, I think that is deletion. You remain with handles which when closed the place taken will be reclaimed. Some programs actually used that to create temporary files. Anyway, I believe it is better than having some stupid file block the filesystem's operations, and in a normal OS install (without additions) you cannot unblock them, even as admin.
Of course you need to restart a program to update the binary (and libraries) in the memory. But you don't need to restart the whole system, which is kind of the whole point. Also, I don't believe your claim that Vista rebooted 10 times for updates or installation. Anyone who has installed Vista will also know your claim "When I install slackware with two boots, and the second is because I want to remove the boot CD from the drive!" is equally valid for Vista. I have installed Vista dozens of times, and every one of them has been unattended after the installation began. It's really not that hard. Look, with normal installs I also restart Vista no more than four times, counting the ones for the additional software installation (which is more than on Linux), because I know what's going on and when I have problems I'll fix it as usual (reinstall the conflicting packages). But this particular factory restore DVD restarted the computer 10 times. Some kind of Toshiba laptop I think. I know they did it to be sure that updates do not mess with each other, which happens exactly because of the filesystem limitation. There were 10 restarts, some for fairly trivial thing such as video driver installations.
I don't think its a smart idea though to allow files in use to be deleted. It likely means there's some problem that needs to be corrected.
No, this is indeed the worst feature in windows, and it has been there from the dark ages of windows 3.1 - the extension of DOS, which is after all a single user OS and has no need for concurent file deletion (or is deemed unnecessary, that is). And this is hitting hard sometimes. For example, I am extending a BSD licensed library (CLucene) and in the internal workings there are several hacks to ignore the problem with undeletable files. You split the database in segments. If you want to merge two segments, you have to create a new one and delete the old ones. But if you're reading from the old segments (a valid operation, because we don't want to interrupt the operation of the user during updates!) they cannot be deleted. Therefore they are written in a
Another example, I reinstalled a Vista computer with a recovery DVD yesterday. The system restarted about 10 times!!! Automatically, that is. Why? Because. Because updates and installations cannot be completed without reboot. Because you cannot replace system files in a running system. Security? Bull-shit. After all, a restart does the job fine. Just a limitation from the dark ages of computing.
And please, don't tell me that "You have moved your mouse. Please restart your computer for the changes to take effect..." is the future of computing. When I install slackware with two boots, and the second is because I want to remove the boot CD from the drive!
Some responsibility you say?
Well, if they have the power to change the software, and I don't, why is it my fault that it is not working properly? Who says it is not working as intended, if I may ask?
They should bear the whole responsibility, and just swallow the losses, like they always do. Otherwise they just won't do anything about it.
Really? So, having 200$ less to pay for taxes is really, really worth it if you screw the 70% of the country, the poor ones. Well, good for you.
Wow, who would side with MS when you can get 3 priceless things which your entire business model relies on? Which is very, very good indeed! It shows that the community matters!
That is unless it 'evaporates' first. It's only a matter of time until we do something stupid that really does cause a planet-wide chain reaction (or locks up the Earth Simulator we are running in...). Yes, you're right, we have started it already - Global Warming. Anyway, the black hole at CERN will be like 1/100 the size of an atomic nucleus, how is is supposed to eat up one? Even better, it is going to evaporate almost instantaneously, because the smaller they are, the faster they disappear due to Hawking radiation.
OTOH, just imagine the dialogue:
... and since the people does not control the legislators in the USA ...
User: I want it fixed, now!
Company: No can't do, sir. We are prohibited by law to do this.
The GPL uses copyright law to make sure your work never becomes part of the farse of copyright.
No, it doesn't. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The GPL completely and utterly _relies_ on copyright to have any purpose. Without copyright, the GPL is meaningless and the restrictions it imposes would be impossible.
In other words, for licensing your code under the GPL to mean anything, your work *must* "become part of the farse[sic] of copyright".
In other words, we beat them at their own game! Tell me again, how is this part of the intent of copyright law???You can't have it both ways. The police are either going to just throw people in jail without a trial, or they are going to have to investigate complaints. Pick one. Actually, I'd pick for the police to STOP WASTING THEIR TIME (paid by us) ON STUPID ONLINE GAMES and go do some real work! As in the other thousands of cases of real rape, which are NOT imaginary.
Doesn't mean that you won't be dealt with harshly if they catch you. Walk around a college campus wearing a shirt from a fraternity you don't belong to and see how long you last. If you have a real death wish, try the same with a Hells Angels jacket patch walking past their hangouts. Hells Angels can harm you, coz they are strong and many, and most of all, publicity will not be a problem for them. OTOH, masons...
I believe in our part of the world we call this "national sovereignty". But if you DO believe that taking someone else's property is provocation for WAR (as in the biggest crime invented so far), why cry when terrorists blow you up? Obviously you provoked them by taking their oil...
Why not try Creative Commons? AFAIK the licenses say nothing about the source, but the work itself. You have very large freedom of modifications to say exactly what you want to be done with your software.
Oh, you're right. I admit in both ways it is the owner's fault, but I tried to point out that the real argument should be: Who is guilty? As in - who broke the law with intent. I say noone did.
Your argument is:
"My computer's default setup connects - it's not my fault"
and
"Their wrouter's default setup allows me to connect - it's their fault"
Did I miss something?
Otherwise: bzzt! It is not a querstion of fault. It is a question of guilt:
"My computer's default setup connects - I am not guilty"
"Their wrouter's default setup allows me to connect - I am still not guilty"
So there is no crime. Capiche?
Besides, what is the point of the pictures if I am granted immunity? To incriminate others... so either persuade me or go f#ck yourself, that is.
My concern is when you start giving a pass to certain interests (eg non-commercial) you start opening up loopholes in the system and there will be ways commercial interests will try to exploit the legislation. The big corps may be hurt, but they'll always find a way to exploit talent/customers to turn a dime; it's the individual creator that will end up the most hurt. Oh, sure!!! Right NOW the big companies are not exploiting the creators to the limit. Somehow they are giving them so much money, but since they are going to have less profit they are going to give them less! Please, tell me how could you think of that? You're not a businessman, are you? Besides, the existance of loopholes is a problem in every law. Fair use is also a loophole for some, but we don't want it taken away, do we?