You are wrong again. You must get permission. Now, if you're doing this for yourself, then, well, who's to know? If you record something, but don't release it, then who's to know?
There are several different compulsory license provisions in United States copyright law , including for non-dramatic musical compositions,[9] public broadcasting,[10] retransmission by cable systems,[11] subscription digital audio transmission,[12] and non-subscription digital audio transmission such as Internet radio.[13] The compulsory license for non-dramatic musical compositions under Section 115 of the Copyright Act of 1976[14] allows a person to distribute a new sound recording of a musical work, if that has been previously distributed to the public, by or under the authority of the copyright owner
No larry here, you can check my IP address against that of larry if you dont believe these are my first posts here. I would like you to notice that all i am saying is supporting a member here with more than 1000 posts.
As the article say "stealing" is a criminal act. Patent infringement and copyright violations are not criminal acts and hence are not stealing.
You may say you do not care about the distinction and you view these violations are "stealing" but you should know that once you do that. Then you will logically start to argue for or against these violations/infringements as if the issue is a criminal matter and no good can come from that.
It is a very dangerous thing to knowingly use words in wrong context because you do not care about the context. Once you pass the stage where you made the decision of not caring,all your arguments will logically follow a path that isnt valid from that point forward.
OK, i have said my piece and i am going back to lurking.
The member you are supporting has 1,864 posts in a little over a month. You can click on his name and see a log of all his posts, You will find that most are argumentative, contrarian and frequently change arguments/positions -- always moving the goalposts and muddying the water. These actions typify troll behavior -- in fact, I mentioned that @gloudgaser reminds me of a troll from a few months ago.
BTW. I am a frequent poster and have double the amount of @gloudgazers posts in 4 years (compared to 1 month plus).
Wikipedia is a valuable source of information -- but I certainly would not use it (or any Internet source) for moral or legal advice.
I do care about distinction -- but decry weasel-words -- and parsing everything for esoteric meaning or gotchas.. Like most people, I do know when something is dishonest, unethical or immoral -- whatever the dictionary or wiki chooses to call it.
If I had a significant holding of GOOG stock (have been, not currently) and Google is found to have willfully infringed patents to the detriment of my investment, I would certainly be interested in any legal redress possible. Their actions would have stolen from me as a shareholder, IMO.
Finally, I did not really mean to insult you -- but your first post was contrary to the general attitude of this thread -- by some very well reasoned and respected contributors -- over a much longer time than @cloudgazer.
Perhaps, we would all have been better served if you had lurked a little longer or entered the discussion with less of an "in your face" attitude.
But, welcome aboard! I look forward to having reasoned discussions with one who can give as well as he takes.
The whole concept of "infringement as theft" is one popularised by big media who are seeking to be victims in whatever forum they can.
It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. You may deprive them of the revenue from that thing, but that is different. You might call that 'infringement of IP'.
I don't think anyone denies IP infringement is using something which is not yours to use, but it shouldn't be confused with theft. You are certainly interfering with rights which the IP owner is free to give and control by dint of copyright, patent and design statute, but's its not theft.
So, the clerk who pockets $50 out of the cash register is not stealing -- because the stuff sold was worth the full price -- and the stuff in inventory is still worth full price?
Can we start again, please?
..; you've said yourself: "you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved."
fair enough about not using wikipedia for definitions.
But the point i made is still valid. The government is responsible for criminals. "Stealing" is a criminal act. Calling somebody a thief by implication calls for the government to be involved.
One person may say "i dont care, i am calling them thieves" and then that person or somebody else will logically follow it up with "They are criminals" and then that person or somebody else will logically follow it up with "the government should do something, they are criminals and they belong in jail".
Do you see how these steps logically follow each other? MPAA and RIAA are doing the same thing. They throw around "thieves" and "stealing" when talking about copyright violations and sooner or later if it hasnt already happen, governments of the world will start doing their bidding using the resources of the state going after them. This is a logical step after you see somebody as being a thief since the government is responsible for dealing with thieves.
ps:
Either this forum doesnt work well with chrome or it has a strange way of quoting others i havent figured out yet
That makes no sense. They've already admitted that they're willing to pay Oracle to get this over with. They admitted in internal documents that they infringe. What you're saying is that they lay no claim to article 5.
Well the judge has requested that Oracle reduce the number of claims in the suit, so we'll see if Claim 5 on that patent makes the cut. I'm betting not.
Can they afford to pay as much or more than they hoped to earn as profit on each Android "license"?
That's going to be the real question. Sure, they can afford a lump sum settlement - but any kind of perpetual licensing fee - especially if it goes much above $15 - will effectively kill Android, given that Google has stated they anticipate $20 of earnings per phone from advertising.
Heck, $10 would probably tip the balance from worth it to unprofitable.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out!
Maybe, but it isn't in Oracle's best interest to kill Android. A low per device license that allows Android to be successful would earn much more money for Oracle.
So, the clerk who pockets $50 out of the cash register is not stealing -- because the stuff sold was worth the full price -- and the stuff in inventory is still worth full price?
Can we start again, please?
..; you've said yourself: "you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved."
Huh? That's clearly different, the Clerk is depriving the store of the $50. Now the clerk in the bookstore who reads the store's books during quiet times and then replaces them - he's not stealing.
The member you are supporting has 1,864 posts in a little over a month. You can click on his name and see a log of all his posts, You will find that most are argumentative, contrarian and frequently change arguments/positions -- always moving the goalposts and muddying the water. These actions typify troll behavior -- in fact, I mentioned that @gloudgaser reminds me of a troll from a few months ago.
You know another sign of trolls and fanboys? Ad hominems.
Maybe, but it isn't in Oracle's best interest to kill Android. A low per device license that allows Android to be successful would earn much more money for Oracle.
I guess the questions for manufacturers will be:
Here are three OSes Android, WP7, and WebOS
Which do you want to us and how much will you pay for the privilege?
I suspect that Android at a cost of $0 is quite a different question than Android Cost >= WP7 or WebOS.
Huh? That's clearly different, the Clerk is depriving the store of the $50. Now the clerk in the bookstore who reads the store's books during quiet times and then replaces them - he's not stealing.
Why do you bring bookstore into the equation -- obviously to muddy the waters.
We were discussing patent infringement and thieving not reading books on company time -- so as to be better able to recommend them to potential customers!
So, the clerk who pockets $50 out of the cash register is not stealing -- because the stuff sold was worth the full price -- and the stuff in inventory is still worth full price?
Can we start again, please?
What the hell are you talking about, man?
Quote:
..; you've said yourself: "you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved."
You've deprived the shop owner of 50 bucks. That's theft by any definition.
The whole concept of "infringement as theft" is one popularised by big media who are seeking to be victims in whatever forum they can.
It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. You may deprive them of the revenue from that thing, but that is different. You might call that 'infringement of IP'.
I don't think anyone denies IP infringement is using something which is not yours to use, but it shouldn't be confused with theft. You are certainly interfering with rights which the IP owner is free to give and control by dint of copyright, patent and design statute, but's its not theft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
What the hell are you talking about, man?
I am talking about your quote above: "It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. "
Quote:
You've deprived the shop owner of 50 bucks. That's theft by any definition.
Like it or not, it's simply not okay to rip off someone's protected intellectual property, slap an open-source license on it, and then give it away for free. If Google wants to give away Android for free that badly, let them build it from the ground up and expend some resources. Google knew that Java was protected IP. They chose to not license it. Instead, they used Java in Android and distributed it under the guise of an open-source license.
I wonder how Google would feel if someone were to figure out Google's search-engine algorithm and use that to create their own search engine. They will gladly use any tools at their disposal to defend that algorithm, as they should. I wouldn't blame them for it. That algorithm is the fruits of their hard work, and others shouldn't be able to piggyback off of it and make money on it. On the same token, Google should not cry foul when others try to defend the fruits of their hard work.
Also, there is this weird notion that a patent harms innovation. Suppose entity A has a patent on X technology. That means other entities cannot make things that use X technology, unless entity A says it's okay to do that. But what prevents others from innovating around entity A's patent on X technology? Why not invest resources in coming up with something that renders entity A's patent obsolete? This is the intent of patents.
Which do you want to us and how much will you pay for the privilege?
I suspect that Android at a cost of $0 is quite a different question than Android Cost >= WP7 or WebOS.
And that's why that post about "$50 bucks? So what?" is absurd. Even with that ASP chart, why in the world would handset makers (most of which are losing money every quarter) buy into android at that price when every one of them could get another OS for much less? Android isn't driving customers as much as it is a more purvasive alternative with little "stickiness" thus far (look at Android's tablet sales for partial evidence). If the cost gets too high due to lawsuits or licensing agreements, then I see little reason companies that make the hardware would continue utilizing Google's OS.
One person may say "i dont care, i am calling them thieves" and then that person or somebody else will logically follow it up with "They are criminals" and then that person or somebody else will logically follow it up with "the government should do something, they are criminals and they belong in jail".
Infringement is closer to murder than theft, because it kills the creative spirit. As such, the death penalty is appropriate.
Huh? That's clearly different, the Clerk is depriving the store of the $50. Now the clerk in the bookstore who reads the store's books during quiet times and then replaces them - he's not stealing.
That is not theft; it is embezzlement. If he hadn't read that, he would have paid for it.
I realize that I am on the edge of a personal criticism -- but after a while, the tedium grates a bit.
I'll match my record against yours -- any day!
Well at least you stopped claiming that all the patents were unequivocally valid, though the continued attempts to redefine the word theft are certainly tedious.
Why do you bring bookstore into the equation -- obviously to muddy the waters.
We were discussing patent infringement and thieving not reading books on company time -- so as to be better able to recommend them to potential customers!
Someone on the Internet is definitely wrong!
I was trying to offer you a valid analogy since you seemed to be having trouble. By all means try again yourself though.
No larry here, you can check my IP address against that of larry if you dont believe these are my first posts here. I would like you to notice that all i am saying is supporting a member here with more than 1000 posts.
As the article say "stealing" is a criminal act. Patent infringement and copyright violations are not criminal acts and hence are not stealing.
You may say you do not care about the distinction and you view these violations are "stealing" but you should know that once you do that. Then you will logically start to argue for or against these violations/infringements as if the issue is a criminal matter and no good can come from that.
It is a very dangerous thing to knowingly use words in wrong context because you do not care about the context. Once you pass the stage where you made the decision of not caring,all your arguments will logically follow a path that isnt valid from that point forward.
OK, i have said my piece and i am going back to lurking.
Comments
You are wrong again. You must get permission. Now, if you're doing this for yourself, then, well, who's to know? If you record something, but don't release it, then who's to know?
There are several different compulsory license provisions in United States copyright law , including for non-dramatic musical compositions,[9] public broadcasting,[10] retransmission by cable systems,[11] subscription digital audio transmission,[12] and non-subscription digital audio transmission such as Internet radio.[13] The compulsory license for non-dramatic musical compositions under Section 115 of the Copyright Act of 1976[14] allows a person to distribute a new sound recording of a musical work, if that has been previously distributed to the public, by or under the authority of the copyright owner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license
No larry here, you can check my IP address against that of larry if you dont believe these are my first posts here. I would like you to notice that all i am saying is supporting a member here with more than 1000 posts.
Wikipedia has an article of "stealing" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
This other wikipedia entry relates "stealing" with "theft". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_%28disambiguation%29
As the article say "stealing" is a criminal act. Patent infringement and copyright violations are not criminal acts and hence are not stealing.
You may say you do not care about the distinction and you view these violations are "stealing" but you should know that once you do that. Then you will logically start to argue for or against these violations/infringements as if the issue is a criminal matter and no good can come from that.
It is a very dangerous thing to knowingly use words in wrong context because you do not care about the context. Once you pass the stage where you made the decision of not caring,all your arguments will logically follow a path that isnt valid from that point forward.
OK, i have said my piece and i am going back to lurking.
The member you are supporting has 1,864 posts in a little over a month. You can click on his name and see a log of all his posts, You will find that most are argumentative, contrarian and frequently change arguments/positions -- always moving the goalposts and muddying the water. These actions typify troll behavior -- in fact, I mentioned that @gloudgaser reminds me of a troll from a few months ago.
BTW. I am a frequent poster and have double the amount of @gloudgazers posts in 4 years (compared to 1 month plus).
Wikipedia is a valuable source of information -- but I certainly would not use it (or any Internet source) for moral or legal advice.
I do care about distinction -- but decry weasel-words -- and parsing everything for esoteric meaning or gotchas.. Like most people, I do know when something is dishonest, unethical or immoral -- whatever the dictionary or wiki chooses to call it.
If I had a significant holding of GOOG stock (have been, not currently) and Google is found to have willfully infringed patents to the detriment of my investment, I would certainly be interested in any legal redress possible. Their actions would have stolen from me as a shareholder, IMO.
Finally, I did not really mean to insult you -- but your first post was contrary to the general attitude of this thread -- by some very well reasoned and respected contributors -- over a much longer time than @cloudgazer.
Perhaps, we would all have been better served if you had lurked a little longer or entered the discussion with less of an "in your face" attitude.
But, welcome aboard! I look forward to having reasoned discussions with one who can give as well as he takes.
The whole concept of "infringement as theft" is one popularised by big media who are seeking to be victims in whatever forum they can.
It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. You may deprive them of the revenue from that thing, but that is different. You might call that 'infringement of IP'.
I don't think anyone denies IP infringement is using something which is not yours to use, but it shouldn't be confused with theft. You are certainly interfering with rights which the IP owner is free to give and control by dint of copyright, patent and design statute, but's its not theft.
So, the clerk who pockets $50 out of the cash register is not stealing -- because the stuff sold was worth the full price -- and the stuff in inventory is still worth full price?
Can we start again, please?
..; you've said yourself: "you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved."
fair enough about not using wikipedia for definitions.
But the point i made is still valid. The government is responsible for criminals. "Stealing" is a criminal act. Calling somebody a thief by implication calls for the government to be involved.
One person may say "i dont care, i am calling them thieves" and then that person or somebody else will logically follow it up with "They are criminals" and then that person or somebody else will logically follow it up with "the government should do something, they are criminals and they belong in jail".
Do you see how these steps logically follow each other? MPAA and RIAA are doing the same thing. They throw around "thieves" and "stealing" when talking about copyright violations and sooner or later if it hasnt already happen, governments of the world will start doing their bidding using the resources of the state going after them. This is a logical step after you see somebody as being a thief since the government is responsible for dealing with thieves.
ps:
Either this forum doesnt work well with chrome or it has a strange way of quoting others i havent figured out yet
That makes no sense. They've already admitted that they're willing to pay Oracle to get this over with. They admitted in internal documents that they infringe. What you're saying is that they lay no claim to article 5.
Well the judge has requested that Oracle reduce the number of claims in the suit, so we'll see if Claim 5 on that patent makes the cut. I'm betting not.
Can they afford to pay as much or more than they hoped to earn as profit on each Android "license"?
That's going to be the real question. Sure, they can afford a lump sum settlement - but any kind of perpetual licensing fee - especially if it goes much above $15 - will effectively kill Android, given that Google has stated they anticipate $20 of earnings per phone from advertising.
Heck, $10 would probably tip the balance from worth it to unprofitable.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out!
Maybe, but it isn't in Oracle's best interest to kill Android. A low per device license that allows Android to be successful would earn much more money for Oracle.
So, the clerk who pockets $50 out of the cash register is not stealing -- because the stuff sold was worth the full price -- and the stuff in inventory is still worth full price?
Can we start again, please?
..; you've said yourself: "you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved."
Huh? That's clearly different, the Clerk is depriving the store of the $50. Now the clerk in the bookstore who reads the store's books during quiet times and then replaces them - he's not stealing.
The member you are supporting has 1,864 posts in a little over a month. You can click on his name and see a log of all his posts, You will find that most are argumentative, contrarian and frequently change arguments/positions -- always moving the goalposts and muddying the water. These actions typify troll behavior -- in fact, I mentioned that @gloudgaser reminds me of a troll from a few months ago.
You know another sign of trolls and fanboys? Ad hominems.
Maybe, but it isn't in Oracle's best interest to kill Android. A low per device license that allows Android to be successful would earn much more money for Oracle.
I guess the questions for manufacturers will be:
Here are three OSes Android, WP7, and WebOS
Which do you want to us and how much will you pay for the privilege?
I suspect that Android at a cost of $0 is quite a different question than Android Cost >= WP7 or WebOS.
Huh? That's clearly different, the Clerk is depriving the store of the $50. Now the clerk in the bookstore who reads the store's books during quiet times and then replaces them - he's not stealing.
Why do you bring bookstore into the equation -- obviously to muddy the waters.
We were discussing patent infringement and thieving not reading books on company time -- so as to be better able to recommend them to potential customers!
Someone on the Internet is definitely wrong!
So, the clerk who pockets $50 out of the cash register is not stealing -- because the stuff sold was worth the full price -- and the stuff in inventory is still worth full price?
Can we start again, please?
What the hell are you talking about, man?
..; you've said yourself: "you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved."
You've deprived the shop owner of 50 bucks. That's theft by any definition.
You know another sign of trolls and fanboys? Ad hominems.
I realize that I am on the edge of a personal criticism -- but after a while, the tedium grates a bit.
I'll match my record against yours -- any day!
The whole concept of "infringement as theft" is one popularised by big media who are seeking to be victims in whatever forum they can.
It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. You may deprive them of the revenue from that thing, but that is different. You might call that 'infringement of IP'.
I don't think anyone denies IP infringement is using something which is not yours to use, but it shouldn't be confused with theft. You are certainly interfering with rights which the IP owner is free to give and control by dint of copyright, patent and design statute, but's its not theft.
What the hell are you talking about, man?
I am talking about your quote above: "It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. "
You've deprived the shop owner of 50 bucks. That's theft by any definition.
Exactly! Theft is theft -- by any definition!
I wonder how Google would feel if someone were to figure out Google's search-engine algorithm and use that to create their own search engine. They will gladly use any tools at their disposal to defend that algorithm, as they should. I wouldn't blame them for it. That algorithm is the fruits of their hard work, and others shouldn't be able to piggyback off of it and make money on it. On the same token, Google should not cry foul when others try to defend the fruits of their hard work.
Also, there is this weird notion that a patent harms innovation. Suppose entity A has a patent on X technology. That means other entities cannot make things that use X technology, unless entity A says it's okay to do that. But what prevents others from innovating around entity A's patent on X technology? Why not invest resources in coming up with something that renders entity A's patent obsolete? This is the intent of patents.
I guess the questions for manufacturers will be:
Here are three OSes Android, WP7, and WebOS
Which do you want to us and how much will you pay for the privilege?
I suspect that Android at a cost of $0 is quite a different question than Android Cost >= WP7 or WebOS.
And that's why that post about "$50 bucks? So what?" is absurd. Even with that ASP chart, why in the world would handset makers (most of which are losing money every quarter) buy into android at that price when every one of them could get another OS for much less? Android isn't driving customers as much as it is a more purvasive alternative with little "stickiness" thus far (look at Android's tablet sales for partial evidence). If the cost gets too high due to lawsuits or licensing agreements, then I see little reason companies that make the hardware would continue utilizing Google's OS.
One person may say "i dont care, i am calling them thieves" and then that person or somebody else will logically follow it up with "They are criminals" and then that person or somebody else will logically follow it up with "the government should do something, they are criminals and they belong in jail".
Infringement is closer to murder than theft, because it kills the creative spirit. As such, the death penalty is appropriate.
Huh? That's clearly different, the Clerk is depriving the store of the $50. Now the clerk in the bookstore who reads the store's books during quiet times and then replaces them - he's not stealing.
That is not theft; it is embezzlement. If he hadn't read that, he would have paid for it.
I realize that I am on the edge of a personal criticism -- but after a while, the tedium grates a bit.
I'll match my record against yours -- any day!
Well at least you stopped claiming that all the patents were unequivocally valid, though the continued attempts to redefine the word theft are certainly tedious.
Why do you bring bookstore into the equation -- obviously to muddy the waters.
We were discussing patent infringement and thieving not reading books on company time -- so as to be better able to recommend them to potential customers!
Someone on the Internet is definitely wrong!
I was trying to offer you a valid analogy since you seemed to be having trouble. By all means try again yourself though.
No larry here, you can check my IP address against that of larry if you dont believe these are my first posts here. I would like you to notice that all i am saying is supporting a member here with more than 1000 posts.
Wikipedia has an article of "stealing" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
This other wikipedia entry relates "stealing" with "theft". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_%28disambiguation%29
As the article say "stealing" is a criminal act. Patent infringement and copyright violations are not criminal acts and hence are not stealing.
You may say you do not care about the distinction and you view these violations are "stealing" but you should know that once you do that. Then you will logically start to argue for or against these violations/infringements as if the issue is a criminal matter and no good can come from that.
It is a very dangerous thing to knowingly use words in wrong context because you do not care about the context. Once you pass the stage where you made the decision of not caring,all your arguments will logically follow a path that isnt valid from that point forward.
OK, i have said my piece and i am going back to lurking.
Thanks.