On 08/06/18 18:34, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very least
one should pay for copyright protection. One €1 for the first year, €2
for the second, €4 for the third and so on exponentially.
Thoughts on the proposed new EU copyright laws are
Gregory Ewing wrote:
[...]
> * Charging money for copies of software is not the only way
> to make money from programming. You can charge for support
> services. You can charge for writing custom one-off
> software. There are people who make a good living from
> doing these things.
Microsoft
Gregory Ewing :
> * Charging money for copies of software is not the only way to make
> money from programming. You can charge for support services. You can
> charge for writing custom one-off software. There are people who make
> a good living from doing these things.
Maybe so. It can't be
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:40:47 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Gregory Ewing
> wrote:
>> There are some historical and present-day facts that don't support that
>> idea.
>>
>> * Software existed in the days before it became seen as something to be
>> sold for money
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> There are some historical and present-day facts that don't
> support that idea.
>
> * Software existed in the days before it became seen as
> something to be sold for money per-copy. Both computer
> companies and programmers seemed to to all
Chris Angelico wrote:
The bit you trimmed out was:
If the business model had always been "sell hardware, it comes fully
programmed", what would bring people to try to create third-party
software at all?
Maybe because they want to do things with the machine that
the manufacturer didn't
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 3:04:14 PM UTC-5, MRAB wrote:
>> The software is more like the fuel.
>
> How so?
>
> (01) Can energy be extracted from software?
Yes, absolutely.
> (02) If so, at what rate is software depleted as the hardware
>
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 3:04:14 PM UTC-5, MRAB wrote:
> On 2018-06-11 20:17, Rick Johnson wrote:
[...]
> > A dashboard is a horrible analogy. Software and hardware
> > are connected at the _hip_. A more correct analogy to
> > describe the relationship between computer hardware and
> >
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 21:03:59 +0100, MRAB wrote:
> On 2018-06-11 20:17, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:02:15 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>> You're trying to argue against my hypothetical statements about game
>>> publishing, and declaring that it's possible to use
On 2018-06-11 20:17, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:02:15 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
You're trying to argue against my hypothetical statements
about game publishing, and declaring that it's possible to
use software to encourage hardware sales. But my point was
that,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:17 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:02:15 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> You're trying to argue against my hypothetical statements
>> about game publishing, and declaring that it's possible to
>> use software to encourage hardware sales. But
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:02:15 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> You're trying to argue against my hypothetical statements
> about game publishing, and declaring that it's possible to
> use software to encourage hardware sales. But my point was
> that, absent copyright and the ability to
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Gregory Ewing
> wrote:
>> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>
>>> You cannot, to
>>> my knowledge, publish a game for the PS4 or Xbox 360 without
>>> permission from Nintendo or Microsoft.
>>
>>
>> That's because,
Chris Angelico wrote:
You trimmed key parts of my post,
I don't get this "You trimmed my post!11!" complaint that
people make. Trimming a post when replying is the *right*
thing to do. Just because someone doesn't quote a certain
part of what you wrote, doesn't mean that they didn't read
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 06:21:31 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
[...]
> Nice work there. You trimmed key parts of my post, and then responded to
> me out of context. Go back and read my actual post, then respond to what
> I actually said. Thanks!
I didn't trim any part of your post when I read it, but
On 2018-06-11 06:35:27 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Back in the 90s, my family sold books, many of them imported and/or
> exported. We had a few books by Earl Rodd, all looking like books and
> behaving like books. And we also had the "Rodd Papers", which are
> individual photocopied leaflets
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 12:25 AM, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> But with online distribution (not necessarily github) the boundaries
> become very fluid. When Debian still contained the Roxen webserver, it
> comprised over 100 packages: The maintainer had put every plugin into a
> separate package. I
On 2018-06-10 15:24:38 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:25:24 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> > Personally, I would let the author decide what constitutes one work.
>
> Ah yes...
>
> Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Phantom Menace,
> Attack of the
On 2018-06-10, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Jon Ribbens writes:
>
>> I'd suggest that since the processes he's purporting to disallow are
>> entirely standard and automated and he knows full well they exist and
>> that there is no mechanism by which they could be affected by his
>> notice, the notice
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> You cannot, to
>> my knowledge, publish a game for the PS4 or Xbox 360 without
>> permission from Nintendo or Microsoft.
>
>
> That's because, since we *do* have copyright laws, the
> manufacturers of the
On Sunday 10 June 2018 14:42:02 Rick Johnson wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I rather like that idea. Unforch, who would be in charge of keeping
> > the books uptodate? The USTPO? Of course that would expand another
> > guvmnt agencies payroll x10, and its a waste of taxpayer dollars
> > since
Gene Heskett wrote:
> I rather like that idea. Unforch, who would be in charge of keeping the
> books uptodate? The USTPO? Of course that would expand another guvmnt
> agencies payroll x10, and its a waste of taxpayer dollars since Albert
> retired anyway.
What century are you trapped in pal?
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:34:58 PM UTC-5, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At
> the very least one should pay for copyright protection. One
> €1 for the first year, €2 for the second, €4 for the third
> and so on exponentially.
I like your idea of
Jon Ribbens writes:
> I'd suggest that since the processes he's purporting to disallow are
> entirely standard and automated and he knows full well they exist and
> that there is no mechanism by which they could be affected by his
> notice, the notice has little effect.
The Copyright notice is
Chris Angelico :
> It's easy to look back NOW and say "even if software had no copyright,
> this could still exist". It's not so easy to see that such things
> would have come about. [...] I doubt very much that anyone other than
> hobbyists would write software that they're unable to sell.
A lot
Steven D'Aprano :
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:25:24 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>
>> Personally, I would let the author decide what constitutes one work.
>
> Ah yes...
>
> Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Phantom Menace,
> Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, Rogue One,
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:25:24 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> Personally, I would let the author decide what constitutes one work.
Ah yes...
Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Phantom Menace,
Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, Rogue One, Force Awakens, Last
Jedi,
On 2018-06-09 10:15:43 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> > Chris Angelico :
> >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:59 AM, MRAB wrote:
> >>> So those with the most money can buy the most protection?
> >>
> >> Yes, or more specifically, those who believe
Chris Angelico wrote:
I doubt very much that anyone other than
hobbyists would write software that they're unable to sell.
Or, maybe, people who *use* the machines as part of their
livelihood, and have an incentive to produce good, reliable
software that does what they need.
I'm also not
Chris Angelico wrote:
You cannot, to
my knowledge, publish a game for the PS4 or Xbox 360 without
permission from Nintendo or Microsoft.
That's because, since we *do* have copyright laws, the
manufacturers of the consoles are able to make money by
selling the software as well as the hardware
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 13:36:34 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>>> That's all speculation. It's impossible to say how things would have
>>> turned out if copyrights didn't apply to software. Certainly different,
>>> but not necessarily worse.
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 13:36:34 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> That's all speculation. It's impossible to say how things would have
>> turned out if copyrights didn't apply to software. Certainly different,
>> but not necessarily worse.
>>
>> In the early days, computer manufacturers didn't worry
On 2018-06-08, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Yes, this is true. It's not copyright that is unenforceable, but the
> copyright notice in his message. Nobody is denying that he owns his
> own words; but by posting them on a public forum, he - like everyone
> else here - is implicitly granting us the
On Saturday 09 June 2018 20:33:06 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 13:48:17 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> > Richard Damon :
> >> Copyright law is not what makes something 'closed source' in the
> >> eyes of the Open Source community. For example, Microsoft doesn't
> >> use Copyright
Richard Damon :
> On 6/9/18 6:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> It would leak out with developers who move to new jobs. And that would
>> be good.
>
> If you plan on eliminating not only copyright, but trade secret and
> non-disclosure laws, sure, maybe. Yes probably some limited stuff
> would
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> Our current computing environment grew out of the ability for companies
>> to make a profit out of the sales of software. Without the base of
>> commercial software, the demand for inexpensive hardware to run it on
Richard Damon wrote:
Our current computing environment grew out of the ability for companies
to make a profit out of the sales of software. Without the base of
commercial software, the demand for inexpensive hardware to run it on
wouldn't be there, and computers then would be expensive, and a
Richard Damon wrote:
If software providers could no longer depend on Copyright law, then you
would see much more use of the hobbling copy protection technologies,
Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with open source, since,
as you say, the sort of people that don't want their binaries
copied
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> I think the wise thing is to have *just enough* copyright but not too
> much. Zero is not enough, but what we have now is too much.
>
Agreed. If copyright lapsed by default after ten years but could be
extended through paid registration
On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 13:02:30 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/18 6:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Richard Damon :
>>> Copyright law is not what makes something 'closed source' in the eyes
>>> of the Open Source community. For example, Microsoft doesn't use
>>> Copyright to keep the source
On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 13:48:17 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Richard Damon :
>> Copyright law is not what makes something 'closed source' in the eyes
>> of the Open Source community. For example, Microsoft doesn't use
>> Copyright to keep the source code for Windows secret, they just don't
>>
Richard Damon :
> In the comparison to science, I would say that my guess is that a LOT
> more science is being done by private companies being encouraged by
> the promise of Patent protection than by the support of the general
> public. Admittedly, there are likely significant differences in
On 6/9/18 3:06 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Richard Damon :
>
>> On 6/9/18 6:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> It would leak out with developers who move to new jobs. And that would
>>> be good.
>>
>> If you plan on eliminating not only copyright, but trade secret and
>> non-disclosure laws, sure,
On 6/9/18 6:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Richard Damon :
>> Copyright law is not what makes something 'closed source' in the eyes
>> of the Open Source community. For example, Microsoft doesn't use
>> Copyright to keep the source code for Windows secret, they just don't
>> provide it.
> It would
Richard Damon :
> Copyright law is not what makes something 'closed source' in the eyes
> of the Open Source community. For example, Microsoft doesn't use
> Copyright to keep the source code for Windows secret, they just don't
> provide it.
It would leak out with developers who move to new jobs.
On 6/9/18 1:07 AM, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Open source would not exist without copyright,because it is
>> copyright law that gives license terms their meaning.
>
> That statement doesn't make any sense. If there were no
> copyright laws, there would be no need for licences
On Friday 08 June 2018 23:11:22 Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > The courts weren't amused. I don't know as any of us ever cut those
> > patent troll turkey's a check,
>
> Patent troll turkeys: Don't cut them checks, cut their necks!
>
> (Insert suitable stock photo of a turkey
Chris Angelico wrote:
Open source would not exist without copyright,because it is
copyright law that gives license terms their meaning.
That statement doesn't make any sense. If there were no
copyright laws, there would be no need for licences to
distribute software.
You seem to be saying
MRAB wrote:
So those with the most money can buy the most protection?
That's the way it works with patents...
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Gene Heskett wrote:
The courts weren't amused. I don't know as any of us ever cut those
patent troll turkey's a check,
Patent troll turkeys: Don't cut them checks, cut their necks!
(Insert suitable stock photo of a turkey about to have its
head removed.)
--
Greg
--
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 03:54:25 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> (Whether linking to a third-party Youtube video is itself a violation of
>> the original author's copyright is even more complicated. IANAL and I am
>> not going to even think
On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 03:54:25 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Right. Imagine if I write a poem, just like you say, and then I have the
> words posted on a gigantic billboard. In small print in the bottom
> corner of the billboard, I say "Copyright 2018 Chris Angelico. Taking
> photographs of this
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:59 AM, MRAB wrote:
>>> So those with the most money can buy the most protection?
>>
>> Yes, or more specifically, those who believe they can make the most
>> money from that protection.
On Friday 08 June 2018 16:01:06 Larry Martell wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Marko Rauhamaa
wrote:
> > At the moment nobody pays
> > the government to enforce copyrights.
>
> No, everyone pays for what the government does, poorly.
There, I fixed it for you Larry. :)
--
Cheers, Gene
Chris Angelico :
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:59 AM, MRAB wrote:
>> So those with the most money can buy the most protection?
>
> Yes, or more specifically, those who believe they can make the most
> money from that protection. Ownership becomes pay-to-win, literally.
In the words of Scrooge
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:59 AM, MRAB wrote:
> On 2018-06-08 19:11, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>
>> Chris Angelico :
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very
least one should pay for copyright
On 2018-06-08 19:11, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris Angelico :
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very
least one should pay for copyright protection. One €1 for the first
year, €2 for the second, €4 for the third
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> At the moment nobody pays
> the government to enforce copyrights.
No, everyone pays for what the government does.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Gene Heskett :
> On Friday 08 June 2018 13:34:44 Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very
>> least one should pay for copyright protection. One €1 for the first
>> year, €2 for the second, €4 for the third and so on exponentially.
>
> I rather
On Friday 08 June 2018 13:34:44 Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Gene Heskett :
> > On Friday 08 June 2018 08:18:19 Chris Angelico wrote:
> >> Are news servers guaranteed to carry the X-Copyright header in all
> >> transmissions? If not, the copyright notice isn't part of the
> >> message, and is most
Chris Angelico :
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very
>> least one should pay for copyright protection. One €1 for the first
>> year, €2 for the second, €4 for the third and so on exponentially.
>
> Why
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Gene Heskett :
>> On Friday 08 June 2018 08:18:19 Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> Are news servers guaranteed to carry the X-Copyright header in all
>>> transmissions? If not, the copyright notice isn't part of the message,
>>> and is most likely
On 08/06/18 14:13, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 6/8/18 2:34 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
>> On 07/06/18 22:36, Peter Pearson wrote:
>>
>>> X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 2018 Stefan Ram. All rights reserved.
>>> Distribution through any means
>>> other than regular usenet channels is forbidden. It is
Gene Heskett :
> On Friday 08 June 2018 08:18:19 Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Are news servers guaranteed to carry the X-Copyright header in all
>> transmissions? If not, the copyright notice isn't part of the message,
>> and is most likely unenforceable.
>
> As the courts have so found when this has
On Friday 08 June 2018 08:18:19 Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:13 PM, Ned Batchelder
wrote:
> > On 6/8/18 2:34 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> >> On 07/06/18 22:36, Peter Pearson wrote:
> >>> X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 2018 Stefan Ram. All rights reserved.
> >>> Distribution
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:13 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 6/8/18 2:34 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
>>
>> On 07/06/18 22:36, Peter Pearson wrote:
>>
>>> X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 2018 Stefan Ram. All rights reserved.
>>> Distribution through any means
>>>other than regular usenet channels is
On 6/8/18 2:34 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
On 07/06/18 22:36, Peter Pearson wrote:
X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 2018 Stefan Ram. All rights reserved. Distribution
through any means
other than regular usenet channels is forbidden. It is forbidden to publish
this article in the
Web, to
On 07/06/18 22:36, Peter Pearson wrote:
> X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 2018 Stefan Ram. All rights reserved. Distribution
> through any means
> other than regular usenet channels is forbidden. It is forbidden to publish
> this article in the
> Web, to change URIs of this article into links,
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Peter Pearson wrote:
> Here's the full header, as received by slrn from news.individual.net:
>
> X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 2018 Stefan Ram. All rights reserved. Distribution
> through any means
> other than regular usenet channels is forbidden. It is forbidden
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 01:23:31 + (UTC), Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Disclaimer: Ido not see Stefan's original post. I recall that he has set
> some sort of header on his posts which means they are not processed by
> Gmane, but unfortunately I no longer have any of his posts in my cache
> where I
70 matches
Mail list logo
