Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:But I said all that years ago (Score 1) 688

by GasparGMSwordsman (#36980588) Attached to: Was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET All a Mistake?

But I do see .NET for what it could have been -- the application programming API for the migration to the next Windows OS which isn't Win32/64 compatible. Microsoft still doesn't have the balls to shift to a brand new OS the way Apple did. But they should have done that a long, long time ago.

It isn't that they don't "have the balls". The issue is that Microsoft cares more about keeping their clients/end users happy than they do about forcing you to buy a new OS. If you doubt this read Raymond Chen's blog some time. He has all kinds of stories regaling the lengths MS goes to make sure that random stupid ass program works on every OS version.

Comment: Re:I'm using the 105Mbit service and the cap is re (Score 1) 372

by GasparGMSwordsman (#35858904) Attached to: Comcast's 105MBit Service Comes With Data Cap
I average 280GB per month. The vast majority of it comes from netflix streaming to my xbox attached to the TV in my living room. I have no TV reception and don't want to pay 60+ for cable. Maybe 60 GB combined comes from other sources such as file transfers between work and home or the like.

Comment: Re:Hmm (Score 1) 379

by GasparGMSwordsman (#35858488) Attached to: DOJ Seizes Online Poker Site Domains

Online gambling is not a Federal crime (some States have laws prohibiting it). The 2006 UIGA only prohibits international money transfers. Further the same day as the seizure and arrests, Congress passed a law specifically setting the tax rate for online gambling in Washington, District of Columbia.

I can say this as someone who has read the law numerous times since its passage and followed this issue and the relevant case law for years.

You can read it for your self in 31 U.S.C. ÂÂ 5361â"5367:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5361.html

Comment: Re:What if a copy of "All You Need is Love" mp3 is (Score 1) 223

by GasparGMSwordsman (#34989368) Attached to: Google Didn't Ship Relicensed Java Code After All

found in the unit test area? Does that mean EMI (who owns the copyrights for the Beatles songs) could sue Google for copyright violation and get a percentage for each android handset even though the song "All You Need is Love" is not used in Android in any way whatsoever?

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

Comment: Re:I was *not* plain wrong -- unlike some 'rebutta (Score 1) 223

by GasparGMSwordsman (#34989324) Attached to: Google Didn't Ship Relicensed Java Code After All

Wow Florian, that's a creative interpretation of "not deleted". I presume that you mean, a user can still check out an older repository version and that version would contain the files in question. Let me make an equally creative counter-proposition. If the files were deleted from the tip of the repository but not from the history, that simply provides a historical record of exactly what was deleted. You can't make the information vanish from the past you know, unless you are also proposing some kind of time travel. You can only make information vanish from the present, that is, tip of tree.

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.

Comment: Re:Relevant (Score 1) 223

by GasparGMSwordsman (#34989216) Attached to: Google Didn't Ship Relicensed Java Code After All

Google cannot stop distributing the code to Android if there is GPL in there, right? Must they not make it available per the GPL license?

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.

Comment: Re:Obvious Missing - GOLD (Score 1) 868

by GasparGMSwordsman (#34958198) Attached to: I'd rather my paycheck be denominated in ...

$100 today is $80 the next day that makes that money worth -20% or less than zero.

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.

Comment: Re:Obvious Missing - GOLD (Score 1) 868

by GasparGMSwordsman (#34955976) Attached to: I'd rather my paycheck be denominated in ...

Oh, I don't think it can go much below zero.

Really?

It has been used as wall paper, swept off the streets like rubbish, and in Germany, was used to burn to keep warm because it was cheaper than the amount of wood it would buy. It *can* be worth zero, or very nearly.

He said less than zero.

x < 0 =! x >= 0

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

Prof. Hanke's HHIZ measure indicated that the inflation peaked at an annual rate of 89.7 sextillion percent (89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000%) in mid-November 2008.

Comment: Re:The Wind Done Gone (Score 1) 378

by GasparGMSwordsman (#34885510) Attached to: Why Sony Cannot Stop PS3 Pirates

Then what steps should I take to prevent myself from coming up with the exact same thing at a later time through any method?

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.

Comment: Re:The Wind Done Gone (Score 1) 378

by GasparGMSwordsman (#34884214) Attached to: Why Sony Cannot Stop PS3 Pirates
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.

Comment: Re:Enough with the "Evil" hyperbole (Score 1) 378

by GasparGMSwordsman (#34883118) Attached to: Why Sony Cannot Stop PS3 Pirates
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.

This fixes a fatal flaw in BSD: in BSD, anyone can place copyright restrictions back.

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.

Comment: Re:The Wind Done Gone (Score 1) 378

by GasparGMSwordsman (#34882582) Attached to: Why Sony Cannot Stop PS3 Pirates

It has happened. See SunTrust v. Houghton Mifflin over The Wind Done Gone .

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.

Good luck getting to that first motion on an indie budget, and good luck defending the appeals of the throwing out.

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.)

So how do I prevent copies of my work from being sold in Great Britain and Northern Ireland so as not to attract British jurisdiction? How should I know in advance which jurisdictions are least friendly to criticism of a copyrighted work?

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.

...then magical unicorns exist. Substantially pro-consumer changes to United States copyright law aren't going to happen in the next decade because the MPAA-owned news media control who can run for Congress.

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.

What was Harrison supposed to have done first in order not to get sued by Mack's publisher?

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.

Comment: Re:Enough with the "Evil" hyperbole (Score 1) 378

by GasparGMSwordsman (#34880234) Attached to: Why Sony Cannot Stop PS3 Pirates

If you create and publish a work critical of another work, expect the copyright owner of the other work to sue you. Sure, such suits are winnable, but only for people who have beaucoup bucks for a good lawyer.

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).

Copyright on the firmware of a computing platform allows the firmware to be used as a technical protection measure, restricting who may talk using that platform. And if all similar platforms have analogous restrictions, such as all major set-top video game consoles using signature verification and blanket policies against individual developers working from home, it restricts who may talk.

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.

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"

Working...