The problem is, his permission means nothing because it's not his music he's making (fucked up, eh?), it belongs to his label. And as the label owns the music outright, you need their permission. So this is still a copyright violation. What a world:/
All of which is true.
But it's only true because he signed a contract with the label. No-one forced him to, there was no gun at his head, and as many people have pointed out there are many ways to self publish music these days. But no, he made the decision to sign with a label, to take their money (advance) and use their expertise and resources. He has no more right to go back on the deal than they do. How would we all be reacting if the label suddenly refused to pay him?
It was obviously an inside job. Banks' information security is designed much like their physical security - put everything in a huge impenetrable vault and lock the door. That doesn't work so well when you have a threat on the inside.
Assuming it's like the iPhone (and everything I've read says it is) then no - there's no way to store anything on it other than loading music/video etc through iTunes.
The warranty is the source of one of my favorite GameStop stories. There's a store near my office, and being basically the only place in downtown NY that sells anything game related (sidenote: MASSIVE untapped market there retail people!) I used to go there quite often at lunch to browse. So a couple of years ago they started this whole "Gameplay Guarantee" thing, but as usual with their offers there's really no descriptions written down anywhere of what you get for your $3. The first time I bought a game and they offered it to me, the clerk said that it was basically a 100% guarantee that allowed you to return it anytime in the first year for ANY reason. He said you could return it if you didn't like it, if you beat it, whatever - for a full refund. That seemed too good to miss, so I started adding the $3 on all my purchases (when they asked, half the time they added it without asking).
Roll forwards 6 months, and I have a bunch of old PSP games I no longer play. Of course I kept the receipts for the guarantee so in I go to get my refunds. I hadn't been in the store for a while but I noticed right away that all the staff were new, even the manager. I go up to the counter, explain that I'd like to return these games I'd finished playing, and the clerk starts telling me that the guarantee is only for DAMAGED games before the manager stops her, tells her to give me the refunds (over $200) and explains to me that the entire store were busted for mis-selling the guarantee (they were paid commission on each one) and were all fired. He says they were getting 2 or 3 people a day coming in with the same story and they were honouring the refunds as a sign of goodwill. It must have been costing them a fortune...
Now that Linux users, and most PVR users for that matter, are nearing the end of their last fetched TV guide
Umm...it's only a guess but I don't think that "most PVR users" are using Myth or anything similar. Most PVR users are using Tivo or a cable company provided SciAtlanta box - and we certainly aren't nearing the end of our last fetched TV guide.
I've done a bunch of rebates over the last couple of years and got my money in all but one case (I sent the wrong paperwork by mistake and had thrown out the correct one so I couldn't reapply - my fault). Most recently I just got a check for $200 from Tivo. I ignore the "$2.50 off a $20 mouse" rebates as they're not worth the effort, but $200 off a $600 unit? Too much to ignore!
Or you'll see people like me, who know perfectly well how to operate both BT and iTunes, but who find one largely immoral and the other just plain crappy (which is which is left as an exercise for the reader).
I often see the intent of GPL as "we prefer that there were not copyright laws but if you insist there are then you have to obey them with regard to this code".
Then I think you see a different intent than most people. What you are describing is much closer to BSD - here's the code, do what you like with it but just don't claim it's yours. The GPL makes use of copyright to ensure that you can only do certain things with the code - most notably that you must share the source of any modifications you make. Note that if copyright law didn't exist I could still quite happily give you a binary but keep the source to myself, which is now what the GPL wants.
2) Boot-legging MP3s and violating the terms of the GPL are both copyright violations.
Not true, AFAIK. First is copyright infringement, second one would be breach of contract.
Wrong. It's only a breach of contract if you have a contract, and the GPL is not a contract it's a license. The GPL says "you're allowed to do things which are normally forbidden if you abide by these rules". If you don't abide by the rules the GPL is irrelevent and you're infringing copyright - simple.
By the way, I never got an EULA with any CD/DVD I own. So? EULAs have nothing to do with copyright.
Fair Use still applies if I download an MP3 of a song I already have in a CD I bought, right? So your point wouldn't be correct
Don't know where you live but in the US (which is where the term "Fair Use" is usually used) downloading a copyrighted work (e.g. an mp3) without permission of the copyright holder is an infringement. Doesn't matter in the slightest whether you already own the CD - read up on the mp3.com lawsuit for more details.
The purpose of a modchip is to disable or circumvent a copy protection mechanism built into the console. The DMCA makes anything designed to do this expressly illegal.
Unlocking a phone has nothing to do with circumventing copyright and hence an iPhone modchip (if such a thing existed) would be legal. However, a software based unlock is more interesting as the DMCA also generally forbids modification of binary software (e.g. reverse engineering) except in certain circumstances. Luckily I believe one of those allowed circumstances is unlocking a phone for the specific purpose of switching network.
I would say that under Doctrine of First Sale, you can do what you want with it once you own it.
Indeed you can, in general. But it's also important to remember what you own and what you do not. In the case of the iPhone you own the device, but not the software it contains. You can do what you want with the phone, you can't do what you want with the software.
However, manufacturers have managed to prevent you from modding your game console after you own it, or at least prevent other people from selling you mod chips and modding services, so now it's murky.
Not at all. The DMCA makes modchips illegal because they are designed to disable copy protection mechanisms built into the console. You can modify your console all you want (paint it pink, add a window, hardwire the memory card) - but you can't legally own a chip designed as a circumvention device - regardless of whether you actually install it in a console or not. So again, the chips are illegal, the act of physically modifying your console is not.
Wouldn't Ford love to only have you put Genuine Ford Advantage replacement parts in your car? They can't. Nor can they force you to only buy Ford approved gasoline from licensed dealers.
Indeed they cannot. Likewise Nintendo cannot control who you buy electricity from and Microsoft can't stop me plugging an Apple product into my Xbox 360. They can refuse to honour the warranty if I tinker and break something, but then so can Ford.
Loan your new CD to your friend to listen to and the RIAA probably won't come knocking. Let him get the tracks through KaZaA and you may have an ugly time of it.
Loaning a CD to someone to listen to is entirely legal, as is lending them a book to read or a game to play. If they choose to make a copy of it they're breaking the law. If you knew they were going to copy it, you could be in trouble too. The fact is, of course, that it's unlikely anyone would know it even happened and hence you'd get away with it. Putting the ripped tracks online is like taking out a full page ad in the paper saying you're about to break the law - it doesn't make the crime any worse it just makes you easier to catch.
You're buying the physical phone. All the metal, glass, plastic and so on is yours, and yes - you can do whatever you like with it.
However - you don't own the software on it. Just as when you buy a copy of Vista you own the box and the plastic disc but not the software, or when buying Linux in a Nutshell you own the paper and ink but not the actual words.
If the unlock is purely hardware based (i.e. connect pin 2 to pin 3 and you're done) then I don't see how there could be an issue. You're not decompiling or modifying anything, and you're not trying to circumvent copyright or DRM. In the case of a software hack though, you're in a more dangerous area. The DMCA generally forbids modification of binaries, but does have an exception allowing you to modify software for the sole purpose of connecting to a phone network. The analysis I've seen seems to think that this will only hold for personal use - anyone trying to start a business based on unlocking phones would be in trouble as their motivation for the change would be profit rather than actually connecting _their_ phone to a different network - but none of this has been tested to the best of my knowledge.
Oh and BTW - if anyone complains about the illegality of console modchips which are, obviously, hardware based - the issue there is motivation. The purpose of a modchip is typically to defeat the copy protection/region coding mechanisms, and the DMCA forbids anything (hardware or software) which is designed to do that.
The RIAA/Labels have slapped down bands for putting up their own stuff on their own official websites.
Assuming those bands were signed to those labels with a standard contract, then the bands don't own their own music and therefore have no more right to distribute it than you or I do. Sucks, but hey - they signed the contract of their own free will. Don't like it, don't sign it.
If that's not the case, and you have evidence of some label sueing some random unrelated band for posting music that the band own, well that I'd very much like to read about:)
And what if these packets were distributed electronically by an e-mail that embedded the web-sourced stories inside framesets or iframes?
Personally I don't have a problem with that but I know there have been court cases about framing. It usually seems to come down to intent - were you trying to pass the content off as your own?
And what if the employees read them behind a proxy server that cached the remote articles?
Fine provided the proxy server respected the cache control headers in the original article (e.g. to prevent ads being cached).
Would it have been legal if they bought enough physical newspapers with the stories in them and clipped them for each packet?
Yes. Just as it's legal to buy 100 copies of a CD and give it away to 100 friends.
What if they clipped them, made a single copy of each for better presentation in the packet, and retained the original clipping as a backup, having one secured original for every copy (i.e. fair-use copying for archival purpose)?
Somewhat grey area. Probably not OK because although they bought all the papers, they also made copies, and AFAIK fair use doesn't really apply here, it's not actually a backup copy it's just a copy.
I know you're trying to point out how absurd all this is, but really it's not. There's a very easy solution to this, and it's to approach the publisher and pay them to license the content. Usually that'll be a lot cheaper than buying thousands of copies and it will make sure that everyone's happy and the author continues to get paid.
The advertiser's actual return on investment has never been the content provider's concern.
Of course it has. If, as an advertiser, I get better ROI from one publication than another, guess where my dollars are going? You're right that the publisher is concerned only with how much money they can get out of the advertiser, but that is dependent on how effective advertising with you is (or more accurately, how effective it's perceived to be). That's why print adverts often have the "call and quote code ABCX1" - it's to measure not only how many eyeballs see the ad (how many copies of the magazine was sold) but what proportion of those people become customers. It's much easier to track this stuff online, and you can be sure that the advertisers are concerned not only with page impressions but with click-throughs and resultant transactions. In fact, IIRC, Google AdWords only pays out for clickthroughs, not impressions.
Because no drugs were sold. The equivalent to this would be the undercover cops asking you to sell him drugs, you agreeing, but him arresting you before the actual transaction took place.
You think? Here's a history lesson. The generation currently in power were all pot-smoking hippies back in the 60's and 70's, but anti-drug laws just keep on getting stronger. Teenagers and 20-somethings have always had this wacky belief that they are heralding a new way of thinking, and eventually when all the old gas-bags die we'll have a utopia. Somehow it never seems to happen.
Those are the ideas behind the 'universal' menu bar, and were borne out in studies. Another interesting aspect of the studies was that many people thought that in-window menus were faster, despite the actual measurement showing the opposite. A good point, one must never underestimate the power of self denial - "I swear I didn't change a thing in that code, it just suddenly stopped working!";)
I can only blindly throw the cursor to a corner. To hit an actual menu item I have two dimensions to worry about, and whilst one may be constrained (by the top of the screen) the other certainly isn't. And again, as a previous poster correctly pointed out, having made my selection I now have to get back to where I was and (probably) hit a button or something. Only now I have to do it over a much bigger distance, hence it's slower. I've used large- and small-screen Macs, and it matters much less (i.e. not at all) on something like a laptop. With a 30" display (or even worse, multiple screens) it drives me crazy.
The way I like to use a computer is to have multiple apps open, side by side and self contained. The Mac-style menu bar stops me working the way I want to, and no number of HCI experts telling me I'm wrong will change that:)
360 does if you're using the VGA connection. It doesn't over component (not allowed to, as with other upconverting players). I assume (though I don't know for sure) that the Elite would upconvert over it's HDMI connection.
Or you could sit patiently in your seat and laugh at all the people frantically scrambling to get off the plane...so they can rush and push and crush their way to the baggage carousels. Where they then wait for 20 minutes...
Spoken like someone who doesn't deal with the joy that is the non-citizen immigration line at JFK on a frequent basis:) Believe me, getting out of the plane ahead of everyone can save a LOT more than 20 minutes.
Just as another data point I also recently got an S3 (for $400 after rebates, very nice price). I was actually dreading the card installation after having read all the stories, but it went very smoothly. Total time including the firmware updates was about an hour and it's worked flawlessly since installation.
I was upgrading from a cable company supplied DVR (Sci Atlanta 8300HD) and for me, the cost of the Tivo is VERY much worth it. The thing is faster, everything works better from an interface perspective, and most importantly the thing is reliable and predictable. The WAF on this thing is very high! I actually also like the OLED for novelty value, but not sure how much I'd miss it.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, his permission means nothing because it's not his music he's making (fucked up, eh?), it belongs to his label. :/
And as the label owns the music outright, you need their permission.
So this is still a copyright violation. What a world
All of which is true.
But it's only true because he signed a contract with the label. No-one forced him to, there was no gun at his head, and as many people have pointed out there are many ways to self publish music these days. But no, he made the decision to sign with a label, to take their money (advance) and use their expertise and resources. He has no more right to go back on the deal than they do. How would we all be reacting if the label suddenly refused to pay him?
It was obviously an inside job. Banks' information security is designed much like their physical security - put everything in a huge impenetrable vault and lock the door. That doesn't work so well when you have a threat on the inside.
Assuming it's like the iPhone (and everything I've read says it is) then no - there's no way to store anything on it other than loading music/video etc through iTunes.
The warranty is the source of one of my favorite GameStop stories. There's a store near my office, and being basically the only place in downtown NY that sells anything game related (sidenote: MASSIVE untapped market there retail people!) I used to go there quite often at lunch to browse. So a couple of years ago they started this whole "Gameplay Guarantee" thing, but as usual with their offers there's really no descriptions written down anywhere of what you get for your $3. The first time I bought a game and they offered it to me, the clerk said that it was basically a 100% guarantee that allowed you to return it anytime in the first year for ANY reason. He said you could return it if you didn't like it, if you beat it, whatever - for a full refund. That seemed too good to miss, so I started adding the $3 on all my purchases (when they asked, half the time they added it without asking).
Roll forwards 6 months, and I have a bunch of old PSP games I no longer play. Of course I kept the receipts for the guarantee so in I go to get my refunds. I hadn't been in the store for a while but I noticed right away that all the staff were new, even the manager. I go up to the counter, explain that I'd like to return these games I'd finished playing, and the clerk starts telling me that the guarantee is only for DAMAGED games before the manager stops her, tells her to give me the refunds (over $200) and explains to me that the entire store were busted for mis-selling the guarantee (they were paid commission on each one) and were all fired. He says they were getting 2 or 3 people a day coming in with the same story and they were honouring the refunds as a sign of goodwill. It must have been costing them a fortune...
Now that Linux users, and most PVR users for that matter, are nearing the end of their last fetched TV guide
Umm...it's only a guess but I don't think that "most PVR users" are using Myth or anything similar. Most PVR users are using Tivo or a cable company provided SciAtlanta box - and we certainly aren't nearing the end of our last fetched TV guide.
It's not the format which gives (or doesn't give) you the right to do as you please with the movies, it's the copyright holders.
I've done a bunch of rebates over the last couple of years and got my money in all but one case (I sent the wrong paperwork by mistake and had thrown out the correct one so I couldn't reapply - my fault). Most recently I just got a check for $200 from Tivo. I ignore the "$2.50 off a $20 mouse" rebates as they're not worth the effort, but $200 off a $600 unit? Too much to ignore!
Or you'll see people like me, who know perfectly well how to operate both BT and iTunes, but who find one largely immoral and the other just plain crappy (which is which is left as an exercise for the reader).
Copyright has only recently been automatic, prior to that you had to explicitly register copyright to be protected.
I often see the intent of GPL as "we prefer that there were not copyright laws but if you insist there are then you have to obey them with regard to this code".
Then I think you see a different intent than most people. What you are describing is much closer to BSD - here's the code, do what you like with it but just don't claim it's yours. The GPL makes use of copyright to ensure that you can only do certain things with the code - most notably that you must share the source of any modifications you make. Note that if copyright law didn't exist I could still quite happily give you a binary but keep the source to myself, which is now what the GPL wants.
2) Boot-legging MP3s and violating the terms of the GPL are both copyright violations.
Not true, AFAIK. First is copyright infringement, second one would be breach of contract.
Wrong. It's only a breach of contract if you have a contract, and the GPL is not a contract it's a license. The GPL says "you're allowed to do things which are normally forbidden if you abide by these rules". If you don't abide by the rules the GPL is irrelevent and you're infringing copyright - simple.
By the way, I never got an EULA with any CD/DVD I own.
So? EULAs have nothing to do with copyright.
Fair Use still applies if I download an MP3 of a song I already have in a CD I bought, right? So your point wouldn't be correct
Don't know where you live but in the US (which is where the term "Fair Use" is usually used) downloading a copyrighted work (e.g. an mp3) without permission of the copyright holder is an infringement. Doesn't matter in the slightest whether you already own the CD - read up on the mp3.com lawsuit for more details.
Intent.
The purpose of a modchip is to disable or circumvent a copy protection mechanism built into the console. The DMCA makes anything designed to do this expressly illegal.
Unlocking a phone has nothing to do with circumventing copyright and hence an iPhone modchip (if such a thing existed) would be legal. However, a software based unlock is more interesting as the DMCA also generally forbids modification of binary software (e.g. reverse engineering) except in certain circumstances. Luckily I believe one of those allowed circumstances is unlocking a phone for the specific purpose of switching network.
I would say that under Doctrine of First Sale, you can do what you want with it once you own it.
:)
Indeed you can, in general. But it's also important to remember what you own and what you do not. In the case of the iPhone you own the device, but not the software it contains. You can do what you want with the phone, you can't do what you want with the software.
However, manufacturers have managed to prevent you from modding your game console after you own it, or at least prevent other people from selling you mod chips and modding services, so now it's murky.
Not at all. The DMCA makes modchips illegal because they are designed to disable copy protection mechanisms built into the console. You can modify your console all you want (paint it pink, add a window, hardwire the memory card) - but you can't legally own a chip designed as a circumvention device - regardless of whether you actually install it in a console or not. So again, the chips are illegal, the act of physically modifying your console is not.
Wouldn't Ford love to only have you put Genuine Ford Advantage replacement parts in your car? They can't. Nor can they force you to only buy Ford approved gasoline from licensed dealers.
Indeed they cannot. Likewise Nintendo cannot control who you buy electricity from and Microsoft can't stop me plugging an Apple product into my Xbox 360. They can refuse to honour the warranty if I tinker and break something, but then so can Ford.
Loan your new CD to your friend to listen to and the RIAA probably won't come knocking. Let him get the tracks through KaZaA and you may have an ugly time of it.
Loaning a CD to someone to listen to is entirely legal, as is lending them a book to read or a game to play. If they choose to make a copy of it they're breaking the law. If you knew they were going to copy it, you could be in trouble too. The fact is, of course, that it's unlikely anyone would know it even happened and hence you'd get away with it. Putting the ripped tracks online is like taking out a full page ad in the paper saying you're about to break the law - it doesn't make the crime any worse it just makes you easier to catch.
Nobody knows the real rules any longer!
Well, some people do
You're buying the physical phone. All the metal, glass, plastic and so on is yours, and yes - you can do whatever you like with it.
However - you don't own the software on it. Just as when you buy a copy of Vista you own the box and the plastic disc but not the software, or when buying Linux in a Nutshell you own the paper and ink but not the actual words.
If the unlock is purely hardware based (i.e. connect pin 2 to pin 3 and you're done) then I don't see how there could be an issue. You're not decompiling or modifying anything, and you're not trying to circumvent copyright or DRM. In the case of a software hack though, you're in a more dangerous area. The DMCA generally forbids modification of binaries, but does have an exception allowing you to modify software for the sole purpose of connecting to a phone network. The analysis I've seen seems to think that this will only hold for personal use - anyone trying to start a business based on unlocking phones would be in trouble as their motivation for the change would be profit rather than actually connecting _their_ phone to a different network - but none of this has been tested to the best of my knowledge.
Oh and BTW - if anyone complains about the illegality of console modchips which are, obviously, hardware based - the issue there is motivation. The purpose of a modchip is typically to defeat the copy protection/region coding mechanisms, and the DMCA forbids anything (hardware or software) which is designed to do that.
The RIAA/Labels have slapped down bands for putting up their own stuff on their own official websites.
:)
Assuming those bands were signed to those labels with a standard contract, then the bands don't own their own music and therefore have no more right to distribute it than you or I do. Sucks, but hey - they signed the contract of their own free will. Don't like it, don't sign it.
If that's not the case, and you have evidence of some label sueing some random unrelated band for posting music that the band own, well that I'd very much like to read about
And what if these packets were distributed electronically by an e-mail that embedded the web-sourced stories inside framesets or iframes?
Personally I don't have a problem with that but I know there have been court cases about framing. It usually seems to come down to intent - were you trying to pass the content off as your own?
And what if the employees read them behind a proxy server that cached the remote articles?
Fine provided the proxy server respected the cache control headers in the original article (e.g. to prevent ads being cached).
Would it have been legal if they bought enough physical newspapers with the stories in them and clipped them for each packet?
Yes. Just as it's legal to buy 100 copies of a CD and give it away to 100 friends.
What if they clipped them, made a single copy of each for better presentation in the packet, and retained the original clipping as a backup, having one secured original for every copy (i.e. fair-use copying for archival purpose)?
Somewhat grey area. Probably not OK because although they bought all the papers, they also made copies, and AFAIK fair use doesn't really apply here, it's not actually a backup copy it's just a copy.
I know you're trying to point out how absurd all this is, but really it's not. There's a very easy solution to this, and it's to approach the publisher and pay them to license the content. Usually that'll be a lot cheaper than buying thousands of copies and it will make sure that everyone's happy and the author continues to get paid.
The advertiser's actual return on investment has never been the content provider's concern.
Of course it has. If, as an advertiser, I get better ROI from one publication than another, guess where my dollars are going? You're right that the publisher is concerned only with how much money they can get out of the advertiser, but that is dependent on how effective advertising with you is (or more accurately, how effective it's perceived to be). That's why print adverts often have the "call and quote code ABCX1" - it's to measure not only how many eyeballs see the ad (how many copies of the magazine was sold) but what proportion of those people become customers. It's much easier to track this stuff online, and you can be sure that the advertisers are concerned not only with page impressions but with click-throughs and resultant transactions. In fact, IIRC, Google AdWords only pays out for clickthroughs, not impressions.
Because no drugs were sold. The equivalent to this would be the undercover cops asking you to sell him drugs, you agreeing, but him arresting you before the actual transaction took place.
You think? Here's a history lesson. The generation currently in power were all pot-smoking hippies back in the 60's and 70's, but anti-drug laws just keep on getting stronger. Teenagers and 20-somethings have always had this wacky belief that they are heralding a new way of thinking, and eventually when all the old gas-bags die we'll have a utopia. Somehow it never seems to happen.
Those are the ideas behind the 'universal' menu bar, and were borne out in studies. Another interesting aspect of the studies was that many people thought that in-window menus were faster, despite the actual measurement showing the opposite. ;)
A good point, one must never underestimate the power of self denial - "I swear I didn't change a thing in that code, it just suddenly stopped working!"
I can only blindly throw the cursor to a corner. To hit an actual menu item I have two dimensions to worry about, and whilst one may be constrained (by the top of the screen) the other certainly isn't. And again, as a previous poster correctly pointed out, having made my selection I now have to get back to where I was and (probably) hit a button or something. Only now I have to do it over a much bigger distance, hence it's slower. I've used large- and small-screen Macs, and it matters much less (i.e. not at all) on something like a laptop. With a 30" display (or even worse, multiple screens) it drives me crazy.
:)
The way I like to use a computer is to have multiple apps open, side by side and self contained. The Mac-style menu bar stops me working the way I want to, and no number of HCI experts telling me I'm wrong will change that
360 does if you're using the VGA connection. It doesn't over component (not allowed to, as with other upconverting players). I assume (though I don't know for sure) that the Elite would upconvert over it's HDMI connection.
And even more importantly on trading floors is heat, a cluster of 6 CRTs on every desk generates a hell of a lot of heat and that costs a lot to cool.
Or you could sit patiently in your seat and laugh at all the people frantically scrambling to get off the plane...so they can rush and push and crush their way to the baggage carousels. Where they then wait for 20 minutes...
:) Believe me, getting out of the plane ahead of everyone can save a LOT more than 20 minutes.
Spoken like someone who doesn't deal with the joy that is the non-citizen immigration line at JFK on a frequent basis
Just as another data point I also recently got an S3 (for $400 after rebates, very nice price). I was actually dreading the card installation after having read all the stories, but it went very smoothly. Total time including the firmware updates was about an hour and it's worked flawlessly since installation.
I was upgrading from a cable company supplied DVR (Sci Atlanta 8300HD) and for me, the cost of the Tivo is VERY much worth it. The thing is faster, everything works better from an interface perspective, and most importantly the thing is reliable and predictable. The WAF on this thing is very high! I actually also like the OLED for novelty value, but not sure how much I'd miss it.