I just RTFS but it looks like he gave his bank account info to Paypal, then gave his Paypal info to Skype. Technically, Skype charged his Paypal account not his bank.
IE may or may not die off, but if I can project on the person you replied to a bit, the absolute last place anyone with any sense is going go for guidance on what technology the general public is going to prefer in the future, is Slashdot. There aren't likely many other sites where the readership and staff sport a better record of missing the boat so completely.
But that record does not seem to discourage some, they continue undaunted.
You are on a short list of people who've read and understood the article. That list does not include Slashdot editors nor the AC who wrote the headline nor most of the people commenting here.
The licensing makes sense for certain uses but I don't see much advantage over the current system apart from the 'self serve' aspect. Licensing a photograph (which is the area I'm familiar with) for non-exclusive use is pretty straight forward and nearly always I or the client has some mutually acceptable boilerplate agreement that covers everything. Exclusive uses are more difficult and usually involve an IP attorney, but I don't see where his self-serve license would grant exclusivity.
Regardless, the biggest expense comes if you ever have to go to court to enforce a license, and that isn't changing here.
The comment I replied to is a good place to start.
Also all of the time I've spent in gun shops listening to stupidities flow from both sides of the counter. And gun shows. And from cops. And in the USMC from people who'd never seen combat. And the fact that caliber debates continue to rage on pretty much every gun forum on the internet. I base it on all the new gizmos that have little to no use that gun people keep buying. The rise of airsoft parts being used on real guns. Now that injection molded plastic parts are common, the emphasis on appearance and matching colors. The people who slap $500 Duracoat paint jobs on their guns. The XD having a ridiculously high bore axis yet still selling. The fact that everyone on the internet has a stock Savage 110 that shoot 3/4 MOA all day, but on range day none of those internet guys show up, or none of them have arrived to make my eat my words that they'll never clear even the 1 MOA Hardrock course. I base it on the fact that on opening day of gun season for deer I hear more multiple shot strings than I do single shots. On the popularity of poorly constructed bullets. On people choosing pistols for home defense. On the popularity of large, unwieldy handguns.
And contrary to gun owner (as opposed to gun user) hype they aren't a trump card you can pull out for an automatic win.
No doubt the basics can be taught in an afternoon, but repelling boarders from deck height on a commercial ship is well beyond the basics. Particularly if a crew of decent size were expected to safely coordinate some kind of defense on what could be multiple fronts. And even if shippers could do without crews while they spend a couple weeks training up their marksmanship and tactical skills, they'd still need to maintain those skill through regular use and more time away from doing what makes the company money.
I don't know Army requirements, but USMC Basic has about 400 hours of training directly applicable to the above. Wouldn't want to defend a boat with anyone fresh out of that, so I'd wait til after the 51 days of Infantry Field Training the 0311s and such get. Maybe then. If you wanted some precision fire, which seems like a good idea (but I am biased), you'd throw a couple of guys into Scout Sniper School for 98 days and then 16 days of high angle rifle for good measure.
Some farmers did that because that is what people wanted: Cheap corn, cheap ground beef, and plenty of it. And elected officials subsidize the behavior, CAFOs get help on both the feed end and fertilizer end.
On the positive side, this is how the world gets fed.
And there are still plenty enough non-factory farmers that not putting too much stock in what 'farmers' think is overbroad. Once the actual cost of factory farms is quantified we will likely need them.
And you can happily produce T shirts and the like using copyrighted material as long as the copyright holder allows it. People do it every day without fear of legal retribution.
People also exercise fair use without fear of legal retribution, every day, without rulings from a court for their specific use.
You don't need approval from a court to exercise fair use. Quite the opposite actually.
And you can't copyright the phrase you propose in any meaningful way. I think your choice of it, at the exclusion of better examples, reveals your desire to spread fear about the topic. TPB's Top 100 torrents point to 100 better examples, for instance, and I am not at all surprised you didn't select one of those.
But I would think, as a content creator, I'd much rather see people pirate my work than see them walk away.
You would think that or you do think that?
Regardless, if the latter, copyright law provides the means which you can allow people to freely copy your work and you can reserve certain other rights if you'd like. No pirating necessary.
Yes you can, unless by 'repeat' you mean 'distribute, unmodified, in its entirety, contrary to the will of the author'.
And if the original author doesn't mind he has several avenues available to make that clear.
Copying files is not at all about free speech. Regardless of your ability to copy the work of others you can still say or write anything you like.
And if you'd like others to freely copy work that you've done there is nothing standing in the way, at present. Even further, copyright law allows your work to be freely copied while imposing other restrictions of your choosing, like requiring anyone who releases derivative work in binary format to also release something tenuously related, like the encryption keys to the hardware that runs it.
Slashdot Mirror
I just RTFS but it looks like he gave his bank account info to Paypal, then gave his Paypal info to Skype. Technically, Skype charged his Paypal account not his bank.
But it looks like he gave it to Paypal, then gave his Paypal info to Skype.
IE may or may not die off, but if I can project on the person you replied to a bit, the absolute last place anyone with any sense is going go for guidance on what technology the general public is going to prefer in the future, is Slashdot. There aren't likely many other sites where the readership and staff sport a better record of missing the boat so completely.
But that record does not seem to discourage some, they continue undaunted.
You are on a short list of people who've read and understood the article. That list does not include Slashdot editors nor the AC who wrote the headline nor most of the people commenting here.
The licensing makes sense for certain uses but I don't see much advantage over the current system apart from the 'self serve' aspect. Licensing a photograph (which is the area I'm familiar with) for non-exclusive use is pretty straight forward and nearly always I or the client has some mutually acceptable boilerplate agreement that covers everything. Exclusive uses are more difficult and usually involve an IP attorney, but I don't see where his self-serve license would grant exclusivity.
Regardless, the biggest expense comes if you ever have to go to court to enforce a license, and that isn't changing here.
Matters only if you believe your overlords are the people you elect.
What about the trial was flawed and what was politically tainted?
I'd like to see the guy with the bowtie run a chainsaw.
a.) I've had 5 or 6 iPods, now have an iPhone, and I have an Macbook Pro.
Feel free to begin the education process, I'll let you know when I begin to feel ashamed.
I use Wildblue as well, have for a few years, and it handles weather far better than Hughes did. It slows down some but has yet to go out entirely.
More like +1 Adequate
Voters don't need TV commercials, the candidate does because his opponent has them.
Also, if you don't think politicians are a step ahead of a law they passed to 'open' campaign contribution information you are fooling yourself.
After seeing the realism of actual combat there hasn't been a video game yet made that doesn't look like a video game, to me.
If they bother you you are right to avoid them. But becoming an evangelist of that line of thought I don't quite get.
You can add the Ninth Circuit Court's incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the list, momentum from Heller carried that.
ESR was giving him a run for it for a while, until he openly supported GWB.
Slashdot, after VA bought Andover, tried to generate some geek style hero worship around him and had some short lived success.
The comment I replied to is a good place to start.
Also all of the time I've spent in gun shops listening to stupidities flow from both sides of the counter. And gun shows. And from cops. And in the USMC from people who'd never seen combat. And the fact that caliber debates continue to rage on pretty much every gun forum on the internet. I base it on all the new gizmos that have little to no use that gun people keep buying. The rise of airsoft parts being used on real guns. Now that injection molded plastic parts are common, the emphasis on appearance and matching colors. The people who slap $500 Duracoat paint jobs on their guns. The XD having a ridiculously high bore axis yet still selling. The fact that everyone on the internet has a stock Savage 110 that shoot 3/4 MOA all day, but on range day none of those internet guys show up, or none of them have arrived to make my eat my words that they'll never clear even the 1 MOA Hardrock course. I base it on the fact that on opening day of gun season for deer I hear more multiple shot strings than I do single shots. On the popularity of poorly constructed bullets. On people choosing pistols for home defense. On the popularity of large, unwieldy handguns.
And quite a bit of other stuff.
And contrary to gun owner (as opposed to gun user) hype they aren't a trump card you can pull out for an automatic win.
No doubt the basics can be taught in an afternoon, but repelling boarders from deck height on a commercial ship is well beyond the basics. Particularly if a crew of decent size were expected to safely coordinate some kind of defense on what could be multiple fronts. And even if shippers could do without crews while they spend a couple weeks training up their marksmanship and tactical skills, they'd still need to maintain those skill through regular use and more time away from doing what makes the company money.
I don't know Army requirements, but USMC Basic has about 400 hours of training directly applicable to the above. Wouldn't want to defend a boat with anyone fresh out of that, so I'd wait til after the 51 days of Infantry Field Training the 0311s and such get. Maybe then. If you wanted some precision fire, which seems like a good idea (but I am biased), you'd throw a couple of guys into Scout Sniper School for 98 days and then 16 days of high angle rifle for good measure.
Some farmers did that because that is what people wanted: Cheap corn, cheap ground beef, and plenty of it. And elected officials subsidize the behavior, CAFOs get help on both the feed end and fertilizer end.
On the positive side, this is how the world gets fed.
And there are still plenty enough non-factory farmers that not putting too much stock in what 'farmers' think is overbroad. Once the actual cost of factory farms is quantified we will likely need them.
I gave you 100 examples you don't want.
And you can happily produce T shirts and the like using copyrighted material as long as the copyright holder allows it. People do it every day without fear of legal retribution.
People also exercise fair use without fear of legal retribution, every day, without rulings from a court for their specific use.
You don't need approval from a court to exercise fair use. Quite the opposite actually.
And you can't copyright the phrase you propose in any meaningful way. I think your choice of it, at the exclusion of better examples, reveals your desire to spread fear about the topic. TPB's Top 100 torrents point to 100 better examples, for instance, and I am not at all surprised you didn't select one of those.
The rule of law itself qualifies as well.
I suspect he means something like this. As if most of law isn't about balancing one person's freedom versus another's.
And as if we are here to discuss copying files from one directory to another on one's own personal computer.
But I would think, as a content creator, I'd much rather see people pirate my work than see them walk away.
You would think that or you do think that?
Regardless, if the latter, copyright law provides the means which you can allow people to freely copy your work and you can reserve certain other rights if you'd like. No pirating necessary.
Yes you can, unless by 'repeat' you mean 'distribute, unmodified, in its entirety, contrary to the will of the author'. And if the original author doesn't mind he has several avenues available to make that clear.
"copying files" and "copyright law" are not the same thing, if you are being even remotely topical.
Copying files is not at all about free speech. Regardless of your ability to copy the work of others you can still say or write anything you like.
And if you'd like others to freely copy work that you've done there is nothing standing in the way, at present. Even further, copyright law allows your work to be freely copied while imposing other restrictions of your choosing, like requiring anyone who releases derivative work in binary format to also release something tenuously related, like the encryption keys to the hardware that runs it.