If Google placed MP3 copies in the Android repository as is the case here, then yes, EMI should sue Google. =P

I think his point was that the files were still being distributed. Meaning Google would still be committing copyright infringement. Until the files can no longer be accessed from any method from Google, then Google will still be infringing the copyright and will there for be legally liable for the offense.

The GPL only conveys rights that the distributor has. In this case, if Google did not have the copyright (via creation or being granted directly or indirectly from the creator) then they can not grant those rights to others under the GPL. Further, anyone who distributed these sections could be found liable of copyright infringement.

In short, no.

You fail terribly at math. Less than zero means it is worth a NEGATIVE amount (example: -1). As in you OWE money. A good example of this is a loan certificate.

In your example the "100 dollar bill" has deprecated to a value of .8 of its original value. It still has a value greater than zero. It's value is just less than it was. To be specific its value is "$80". Clearly 80 is more than zero.

He said less than zero.

x < 0 =! x >= 0

On a side note my 100 billion Zimbabwe dollar bill always makes me chuckle.

Let me ask you another question in response. What steps should you take from being shot in your living room? Drunk idiots, gangs, random nut jobs go on shooting sprees all the time. I live in a safe neighbor hood where this has never happened before but I am really concerned. So , "... what steps should I take to prevent myself from coming up with the exact same thing at a later time through any method?"

The law is simply a set of equitable rules that apply to everyone. If you really can't fathom that concept I don't know what to saw to you.

We are talking about legal definitions in a contract. If you want to use a word in a discussion about either topic in any serious way you really need to be specific. Just look into the whole issue with the word "distribution" in GPLv2 to get an idea why.

Statistically speaking if you put 500 monkeys in a room with typewriters for an infinite amount of time they will eventually write character by character all of War And Peace. HOW something is created is irreverent.

If someone owns the copyright to something then it is theirs for the duration of the copyright. If you come up with the exact same thing at a later time through any method then you have re-created their work and not created your own work. That is how the system work, it is very clear. If you don't like it, then work to change copyright law.

It places many restrictions on both derivative work and on the source (not just source code) work. Lets list some of them (we can just stick with v3 for now):

1) If you want to give a copy of any part of a work (say the binary executable), you MUST also give the source code and additional resources (via one of many methods).

2) If you convey (see v3 definition of convey) the work then you agree that any patent you own is licensed royalty free to any recipient of the work (at least while it relates to this work or a derivative of this work).

3) Unless every copy of a work that you convey under the GPL also includes the full source and other required items, you are required to keep conveyable copies of that source for the lifetime of the license (or until you or your company ceases as a legal being). (See GPLv3 6 d)

4) You must include or maintain "instillation instructions" for the work. If you have ever maintained a large software project you will understand that this is not by any means a simple task.

5) You are required to use proper attribution to previous authors as noted in the license.

6) Section 7 also adds in multiple additional restrictions that are optional to each copyright holder to their works. These are restrictions that are specifically listed as being acceptable as part of the GPL.

Each of these items is by definition a restrictions on your "rights". I am NOT stating that this is bad. It is simply insane to try and prove your argument by stating things that are unarguably false. It hurts the case of the GPL and undermines the support of the OSS community (regardless of what camp you are in).

The GPL is a useful tool exactly because it DOES place specific restrictions on what you can do with a work and its derivations. Your argument should not be that it does not act in this way, it should be that the restrictions are reasonable, useful and outweigh any negative factors.

Again this is false. If I write a section of code and distribute it with a BSD license, no restriction can ever be placed on MY code by anyone else (I can still release it again with other conditions). Others can take my code and modify it and then place restrictions on what THEY wrote. But no restrictions can ever be placed on what *I* wrote. This is similar to me walking through the park and picking up litter, I don't care what other people use the park for, I am merely giving myself and everyone else a gift.

Again, I am sure you don't like this method, but that has nothing to do with statements of fact. In this case you weaken your argument (and that of the OSS community) by making statements that are simply and provably untrue.

Notice that in this case the author was found to have plagiarized and copied large parts of the story. Or in other words, they were substantially guilty of what they were accused of. Finally the case was settled with the author and publishing company paying the plaintiff in order to continue publishing the book. Also note that in this case the issue of fair-use as a parody were brought up. The court held that in large part the new work failed to qualify as such.

I think your a bit unclear on how such a motion works and what can be appealed. The appeals process does not examine the facts it examines if the proper procedure was followed (defined by both statutory and case law). They can also be asked to clarify an issue if multiple precedents exist, but mainly just by picking between the existing precedents. If the issue is as simple as the one you first suggested then the appeal will never be granted. (The higher court has to agree to examine the case before you need to do anything.)

This is irrelevant, if you are not in Britain (or the EU) then you are not subject to their foreign libel laws. More specifically if you are a US citizen then this issue has been recently re-codified in Title 28, USC. For an interesting look at the issue in more detail look into the debate in the EU and EU Parliament.

I do agree that change is not likely. I disagree as to why. The reason is not that a group owns the media. It is that no one cares. 15 years ago 99% of people did not understand or care one wit about copyright. The majority of those that did were pro-copyright. Now 95% of people do not know or care about copyright. The majority that do know or care still support the current system (although the numbers have balanced out much more). (By people I am stating US citizens with voting rights, those who actually vote are even more apathetic on this issue.) Unless you can get people to care about this subject at all then there will be no change ever.

Not use the other person's song. Facts: Person A writes a song. Person B uses parts of that song. Person B pays royalties to person A. That is how the system is supposed to work. Just because Harrison copied the works by accident does not change the fact that he did copy work by another person and should pay that person for it.

Not really, this just does not happen. If it did any such action is almost certainly going to be thrown out on the first motion (assuming US jurisdiction - in Brittan your fucked). You basically don't hear about cases such as you've described unless it is disgustingly messy, the person is guilty or the plaintiff is insane (which ALWAYS looses and fast, usually on the first motion which costs pennies to have prepared).

This you have a point with (again assuming US jurisdiction), but only since the DMCA. If the DMCA's anti-circumvention clauses gets removed then this is no longer a copyright issue.

That is patently false. The point of the GPL is to place copyright restrictions on further use of said work. If you wanted to prevent copyright restrictions on derivations of your work, then you want to use a close sourced license as you then have complete control of how it is used (including the right to give up that control). If you wanted to place no restrictions then you should release it to the public domain or use a BSD style license.

I am a fan of the GPL so don't get me wrong and misinterpret this as anti-GPL. That is not the point here, simply put most people have a very skewed understanding of what it does and how it works.

The GPL simply places specific restrictions on expansions of the work. Among those restrictions is adding additional restrictions via the GPL (if you obtain non-GPL copyrights then you can still add additional restrictions via non-GPL contract).

Lastly I have to point out that the GPL depends on copyright law (at least in the US) and as such it is only enforceable for the lifetime of the copyright. Any thoughts that the GPL forever protects anything is also misunderstood.

Actually if you look at the total personal budget for the life time of the Apollo missions it actually take considerably more time than 34,000 man years. First you take the actual NASA teams which included the mission staff, engineers, astronauts, support personnel and backup teams. Next you include all of the personnel needed to design, manufacture, transport and assemble all of the equipment. Lastly you have all of the military and recovery personnel.

The best number I have found quotes that more than 400,000 people were involved in the project for about 10 years. That gives us a total of about 4 million man years. (Citations 48 and 49)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Critical_examination_of_hoax_accusations

I hosted a 300+ person MMO server from 2003 to 2005 on a home computer (not even a beefy one either). It never even came close to max load (peak was about 40% of CPU/RAM with almost all users on at once). They take less resources than you would think.

So what your really saying is that many of us younger /.ers could be great bosses some day... =P