I suspect you're perfectly well aware of both the Constitutional justification for copyrights and patents, and the extent of the abuse to which that innocuous little line has been subjected, but choose to pretend otherwise because you're hoping to join the trolls' ranks yourself one of these days.
Patents? Now you are confusing patents and copyright because you keep talking about "intellectual property." This is about copyrights. Patents have nothing in common with copyrights.
Copyrights protect specific creations, not entire classes of ideas like patents do. If someone creates something and copyrights it, then I fully support their freedom to do as they wish with their creation, be that to destroy it, use it, sell it to someone else, or assign rights to another party to protect their creation. No one else's rights are infringed. Another person can still create what they want as long as it's not an duplicate of a copyrighted work. If I were to deny someone else those rights to their creation I deny myself those rights, which I do not wish to do.
The people that are being sued are copying the entirety of a copyrighted work without permission. That's not fair use. And it's a news article, for Pete's sake. Has our educational system faltered so much that people cannot write, in their own words, a summary of a news article rather than illegally reproduce it in its entirety? It seems even more absurd given that most of the infringers could have likely linked to the original articles, like Slashdot does, rather than reproduce them. I fully support going after people for such flagrant violations. I would certainly want someone to respect my copyrights. That's why I don't infringe copyrights. It's not okay with me to freely download movies, music, and software without paying for them if I haven't been given permission to do so by the copyright holder. I hold the same feelings toward written works such as photographs, books, and newspaper articles.
There's nothing trollish about that. In fact, I find it to be very important because copyright enforcement is one of the tools that are used to protect open source and free software. The Free Software Foundation performs a function not unlike that described in the article. People assign copyrights for their programs and contributions to the Free Software Foundation who then actively enforces those copyrights when the licensing is violated. The Software Freedom Law Center performs a similar function.
But, of course, you have already stated that you find such actions to be only performed by trolls. Well, go back to your sociopathic behavior of taking everything you can without permission and thinking you are giving the finger to the trolls or "the man." Your actions and lack of respect for others will ultimately make the world a worse place for the rest of us who create things, whether we sell them or give them away freely under specific licenses (CC, GPL, etc.).
It's quite relevant if you consider the actual purpose of IP law as spelled out in the Constitution.
There is no "IP law" in the Constitution.
We have no interest whatsoever in protecting the "rights" of those who buy old content and use it for trolling.
In other words, you only want certain classes of people to have rights while others do not. I'm all for protecting everyone's rights. If someone wants to create something and allow me to purchase it to use as I wish, I certainly don't want Daniel Dvorkin taking away my right to do so. In your world view, a business owner who hires a graphic design company to develop a logo and graphic identity for their company wouldn't be able to acquire the rights to the design and use them as they please. Likewise, a musician who hires a video production company and producer to make a music video for their song wouldn't be able to acquire the rights to the video.
No thanks!
It appears as if they don't actually produce any of the content.
That's completely irrelevant. If they own the rights to the content then they own the rights. It doesn't matter if they are producing it or not. Many companies purchase exclusive rights to things they did not create.
They buy an exclusive license to redistribute on speculation that someone will intentionally or inadvertently infringe, then they sue for enough money to make them money, but not enough to make it worth fighting in court.
So what? Good for them. Copyrights aren't like patents. No one is going to "inadvertently infringe" an entire copyrighted work. If you need to reference an entire work, link to the primary source. There's no need to copy the entire thing to your forum, blog, or whatever. This isn't difficult to understand. If you do it and get sued, consider it an expensive education in using others' works without permission.
They don't sound like trolls to me. They find someone infringing their copyright and take steps to protect their work. There's nothing wrong with that. Besides, it's just as easy to find a link to an article rather than repost the entire text of an article. Reposting the whole article is not fair use.
Transcriber is the tool that you are looking for. It plays the file and you type and annotate. It's in the Ubuntu repositories so I assume it's in Debian's as well.
Thanks. I can't wait until this is released.
Not only that, but the author couldn't even use proper English in the addon description
That doesn't mean much. Cmdrtaco's English is atrocious but he still managed to hack out Slashcode and use it to create a very popular web site.
e.g. The use/implementation of "profiles", which are a work-around to the problem of running on a system that does not support multiple user accounts
I'm glad the profiles are enabled the way that they are. I have several Firefox profile that I use for different types of browsing:
Each profile is set up differently with different bookmarks, add-ons, and general configuration. For example, I use Zotero for collecting research information in my school profile, but I don't need that add-on in my default profile.
I'd hate to have to log out of my session and log in as another user just to change my web browser's environment.
Maybe you just re-install every 6 months when the new media set is released?
Just like with Ubuntu and Fedora.
Exactly. And emails from your domains will still have a higher score than domains that are over a year old. It will also stop "domain tasting" or whatever it is called where spammers get domains for less than 24 hours without paying for them.
yes it runs on 64 bit (RTFA !
;D)
Can you provide a link to back that up? I did read the article. There's nothing in there about supporting 64-bit. The text "64" doesn't even appear in the page when I do a find in Firefox.
When someone uses "open source", and knows what he is talking about, he means OSI open source.
"And knows what he is talking about?" What could mean anything. Talk about being non-specific. There is no agreed upon definition of what "open source" means. You prefer your OSI-related definition. Others may disagree.
If you analyse anything, you destroy it. -- Arthur Miller