How quickly people forget what smartphones were like before the iPhone. Blackberry's CEO was quoted as saying he didn't believe the iPhone was real because what he saw couldn't really be done.
That's because touchscreen technology at the time wasn't mature enough. The iPhone was the first device to use the new touchscreen, but that wasn't an Apple innovation. They were just the first ones to use it in their product.
You mean multiple manufacturers build devices which perform a similar function, and they have similar traits in common (especially the obvious/trivial ones)? I'm shocked!
The potential victims are just huge multinational conglomerates that many people do not give a crap about. Whether or not any actual harm occurred is an entirely different conversation.
If the farmers found that their plants were roundup proof, used roundup for weed control, and sold the wheat -- then yes, apparently monstanto can win that case.
The farmer repeatedly sprayed his crops with a herbicide? You're right, that's very suspicious. I can't imagine any reason a farmer would be doing that.
What has the Motion Picture Association Assholes got to do with books?
Nothing, but they're going to get in the middle of it anyway. They're opposed to any exemptions that weaken monopolistic control over a copyrighted work, whether or not it directly effects them.
The MPAA/RIAA/AAP/etc. aren't naive enough to think that DRM is actually going to completely stop piracy.
The MPAA/RIAA don't use DRM to stop piracy (it's actually useless for stopping piracy), that's just a red herring to justify using it. The real goal with DRM is to eliminate fair use and first sale.
I'm still trying to figure out how a trivially editable text file can be used as "evidence". It's basically just their word against yours, does it really make a difference if they write their word down on a piece of paper? What's to stop them from just creating "log files" that say anything they want?
It was impossible to fully secure the weapon without first disabling that safety system.
It's obvious that the operator was not capable of fully securing the weapon, and had no business trying to do so. A lot of the blame belongs on the gun owner for improperly securing the weapon in the first place, but the babysitter should have never touched it.
They could have filed it as a "defensive" patent, and I doubt most people would have cared. But they're using it for offense, which is what makes them the bad guy.
there is a special statutory exception that explicitly allows this if you are the legitimate owner of a copy of a program
See above.
Making a copy so that you can sell it and then keeping the original, is obviously bad. However, making a necessary copy in order to sell it and not keeping the original shouldn't be any different than other forms of first sale.
99% of users are technically incompetent, and won't use the available tech to circumvent DRM.
They don't have to. It only takes one user to break the DRM and then upload it to TPB. After that, the 99% you're talking about can download it without having to do any circumvention.
You actually believe that will happen? Current interpretation essentially says that "infinity minus 1" is still "limited duration". At what point do you think the corporations will say "We've extended copyright long enough, we don't need to extend it again".
Slashdot Mirror
How quickly people forget what smartphones were like before the iPhone. Blackberry's CEO was quoted as saying he didn't believe the iPhone was real because what he saw couldn't really be done.
That's because touchscreen technology at the time wasn't mature enough. The iPhone was the first device to use the new touchscreen, but that wasn't an Apple innovation. They were just the first ones to use it in their product.
You mean multiple manufacturers build devices which perform a similar function, and they have similar traits in common (especially the obvious/trivial ones)? I'm shocked!
The potential victims are just huge multinational conglomerates that many people do not give a crap about. Whether or not any actual harm occurred is an entirely different conversation.
what exactly is wrong with just voting normally that voting online solves.
Cheating on a large scale is difficult with traditional voting. Online/Electronic voting solves that.
What makes you think that the people who make the decisions to buy electronic voting systems want it to be truly secure?
If the farmers found that their plants were roundup proof, used roundup for weed control, and sold the wheat -- then yes, apparently monstanto can win that case.
Which itself is quite ridiculous.
They plan on suing the wheat for it's illegal existence.
BSOD
The farmer repeatedly sprayed his crops with a herbicide? You're right, that's very suspicious. I can't imagine any reason a farmer would be doing that.
What has the Motion Picture Association Assholes got to do with books?
Nothing, but they're going to get in the middle of it anyway. They're opposed to any exemptions that weaken monopolistic control over a copyrighted work, whether or not it directly effects them.
The MPAA/RIAA/AAP/etc. aren't naive enough to think that DRM is actually going to completely stop piracy.
The MPAA/RIAA don't use DRM to stop piracy (it's actually useless for stopping piracy), that's just a red herring to justify using it. The real goal with DRM is to eliminate fair use and first sale.
Yep, that was the excuse given when the authors guild was trying to prevent e-book manufacturers from including a text-to-speech feature.
They're interested in helping copyright holders.
To be more specific, they're only interested in helping themselves. They couldn't care less about other copyright holders.
Because you often have to break the DRM in order for your text-to-speech program to access the content.
Who gave the logs to the Police in the first place?
I'm still trying to figure out how a trivially editable text file can be used as "evidence". It's basically just their word against yours, does it really make a difference if they write their word down on a piece of paper? What's to stop them from just creating "log files" that say anything they want?
He did.
It was impossible to fully secure the weapon without first disabling that safety system.
It's obvious that the operator was not capable of fully securing the weapon, and had no business trying to do so. A lot of the blame belongs on the gun owner for improperly securing the weapon in the first place, but the babysitter should have never touched it.
They could have filed it as a "defensive" patent, and I doubt most people would have cared. But they're using it for offense, which is what makes them the bad guy.
There is no world. All of your memories, as well as your perception of the present, are imaginary.
there is a special statutory exception that explicitly allows this if you are the legitimate owner of a copy of a program
See above.
Making a copy so that you can sell it and then keeping the original, is obviously bad. However, making a necessary copy in order to sell it and not keeping the original shouldn't be any different than other forms of first sale.
How did Bush, Cheney and the like profit?
Yeah, it's not like either of them is an ex-CEO of a private company that made billions off of government contracts as a direct result of the war.
99% of users are technically incompetent, and won't use the available tech to circumvent DRM.
They don't have to. It only takes one user to break the DRM and then upload it to TPB. After that, the 99% you're talking about can download it without having to do any circumvention.
DRM is nothing but a modern version of 'copy protection'.
DRM is nearly useless as 'copy protection'. You've fallen for the propaganda.
once a DRM'd work does fall into public domain
You actually believe that will happen? Current interpretation essentially says that "infinity minus 1" is still "limited duration". At what point do you think the corporations will say "We've extended copyright long enough, we don't need to extend it again".