Even I (BASIC programmer because I'm too lazy to learn something new), was able to make a program in that environment. The community is great as well.
However, Apple being Apple, it is restricting Codea to only let the user enter his programs manually (ok, cut-n-paste is allowed too). Codea is being forced to revert some functionality that let it load external programs based on the
Pretty retarded by Apple if you ask me. I realize they do this to gain/maintain control over the applications the user can install, but their actions really rub me the wrong way.
Let's revisit that statement when one of your kids or family members get hooked on hard-drugs or when you or someone close to you comes home to a ransacked house...
That has a habit of changing one's mind toward crime. It's never really bad AS LONG AS IT HAPPENS TO OTHERS!
I guess I'm a right-wing bastard because I can only applaud the use cases quoted in the article.
Now, if they install this on journalist's PC or on the PCs of opposition groups (anti-nuclear, greens, etc) THEN you might have a serious beef with the nazis who put it on there.
I'm sure the majority here will indeed have no issue with the infringement of an incredibly one-sided copyright regime as long as it is for personnal use.
I'm equally sure most of us WOULD see an issue if this were done for commercial/for profit reasons (Selling Bootleg DVDs & CD's or cracked SW out of the boot of one's car at one end, bulk duplication of DVD masters by organized criminal gangs with webshops or even complicit retail outlets at the other end)
To infringe GPL on the other hand, one has to go quite a bit further than downloading it for personal use. Coorporations/people are free to download it and use it. They can even hack the hell out of it and use it througout their organisation. No infringement there....
The issue only arrises when a CHANGED copy of a GPLed SW is offered for sale with the changes NOT being available (even a small fee for processing and postage would still render it OK)
So the reason for these seemingly contradictory positions is simply that both 'infringements' are of a different level.
1. This baby has 2 cameras, one of which is a whopping 5Mpel! This wipes the floor with everything that came before!
2. It can now even do sci-fi like video calls (ok, Wifi only, but still...) Bet you never though of that one!
3. The ebook reader can even read PDF! Ha!! In your faces!
4. It even runs more than 1 program at the time! Emulate this, suckers!
Yes sir, visionary Steve (all blessings be upon him) did it again!
PS Just kidding. Look like real nice kit, but a tad too expesive for me.
Copright was from the time that multi-media was limited to books. So for books, the idea is still valid. One should have to pay the creator/writer for the right to print ('copy') his work for larger diffusion.
So, one could revise current copyright to say that copyright on books should be something like the livespan of the author or 40 year, whichever lasts longest.
Voila, author and family protected without going overboard.
The same could be extended to music, although this becomes difficult as you have the music and the performance(s). For the music itself, no problem. Music notation is almost like a book. That could get the same rights. Performance is a different thing. One could of course argue that the performer is already paid for his/her performance (certainly the case with live shows, they will have been paid for the music video etc) and thus no copytright needed whatsoever on the performance, just on the music itself. Music video's would be treated more like film. So, write music and get copyright protection lasting 40 years or lifespan.
In both cases, this copright protection would extend only to commercial copying (books, sheet-music) of the articles. No legal shenannigans like music in a Taxi, elevator music etc. Some negotiation could of course be done to see where non-commercial and commercial meet.
Note that I extend this copyright to the original author! Transfer of ownership of a copyrighted work to another entity (a company or maybe a benefactor wanting to help the author) would automatically lead to a copyright period of 10 years, not to exceed the copyight period that would have been the case were the item would remain property of the author. Same as for work done as a service, which is how I beliieve the music inustry works. The music creators 'create' for the company and are paid by the company for this. So no need for additioanl protection, they are already paid. Since however ownership of the copyrighted work does not reside with the creator but with the company, copyright would be limited to 10 years (and lets be fair, todays Lady Gaga song will have limite value in 2020...)
Now, films are a different matter. There is no single 'creator'. Usually, the rights will belong to a company. I would buy the argument that the film roll containing all the frames of the film is the same as a book and thus should get the same treatment, but in the absence of a single 'creator' and allowing fo the enormous cost of such a project, I would limit this to 30 years fix with a stipulation that a non-DRM encumbered verion needs to be deposited in a central 'storage' à la Library of Congress or so.
However, films can have 'additional' value. Take Star Wars... The initial film should already be public domain, free for anyone to copy, use excepts from, change the soundtrack etc. Public domain of the film and all its frames. This however would not extend to the characters. The StarWars 'franchise' is worth a lot more than the first movie itself. To a lesser extent the same is true for 'serial' books (Harry Potter, Hercule Poirot, Jack Ryan