Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 If it ain't broke...break it!

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Apr 30, 2002
 Comments:
I found this* really funny. As many know Microsoft has alreasdy been found guilty of anti-competitive and monopolistic practices. The ongoing court case involving the nine unsettling states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah and West Virginia, plus Washington, D.C.) is meant to decide whether or not the Microsoft-DoJ punishment is appropriate. MS lawyers seems to think it's another chance to argue the entire antitrust case all over again.
diaries

More diaries by detikon
Trustworthy Computing !?!
Attn: Yoshi
Microsoft gives Korean developers little cause for worry
Microsoft [continues to fight a legal challenge in a consistent manner]
[ I just can't ] stop whining
Analysis of The Beast and a friendlier BG?
What is MS really saying?
Microsoft bloat and easter eggs?
* You can also read about it here.

[update by zikzak]
In related news, recent polls show that the vast majority of the world's population have developed meaningful lives where the majority of their free time is devoted to friends & family. When one survey participant was asked why he wasn't spending more of his life obsessing over the minutia of legal cases that didn't affect his or his acquaintances' lives one single bit he replied, "Huh? Are you serious?"

       
Tweet

Oh the controversy (none / 0) (#1)
by Icebox on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 08:19:03 AM PST
So you're pointing out that two Open Source advocacy sites wrote anti-Microsoft articles?

This is an incredible event, I will note it on my calendar.

You also seem suprised that MS executives and lawyers are attempting to act in the best interests of the company. Should they just accept whatever is handed to them? Maybe they should add in a few restrictions of their own. In addition to all these changes that will put their company out of business, results in thousands of jobs lost, and deprive the public of the greatest software ever written (as evidenced by the fact that despite the alternatives, a vast majority of people choose Microsoft), maybe they should ask that they be required to support all of their failing Open Source 'competitors' by making regular payments to them?

If only Microsoft would stop being so mean. They would still be successful. Thousands of Open Sourcers assure me of this.

Deletion Notice (none / 0) (#4)
by RobotSlave on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 10:17:16 AM PST
A comment by user "detikon" entitled "What!?!" has been deleted for Copyright Violation. A summary of detikon's rant is printed below.

  1. OSOpinion is not an OSS advocacy site
  2. Microsoft should be more open about their legal effort.
  3. A judge will decide the court case under discussion.
  4. Something about a delay in Microsoft "arguing the 100,000 version of Windows," whatever that means.
  5. An irrelevant link.
  6. People do not choose Windows
  7. Consumers such as "Joe Blow" are unaware of Apple computers
  8. "People don't choice[sic] MS software."



© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Please do tell us (none / 0) (#6)
by because it isnt on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 10:32:13 AM PST
whose copyrights were violated.

We'd like you a lot more if you were just honest and admitted to us "I've been an Adequacy groupie for ages, and I'm really chuffed to become an Adequacy editor. To celebrate, I'm going to arbitrarily delete a bunch of comments for no good reason, just because I can. I still hate the Onion because it's better than me."
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

a gedanken-experiment from a word in the parent: (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by nathan on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 10:44:07 AM PST
Oh... oh GODDDDD... oh, oh, mmmffuughhaaaa, OH OH OH g...g...ggGOD, uuuughhhhh, hhaghhhh, hhaghhhh, unnnggggg, oh, oh, ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

Man, you totally violated my copyrights.

Hhaghhh, hhaghhh, ummmmm, hoompf, hoompf, hoompfffff......



Yum.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Excuse me, (none / 0) (#8)
by derek3000 on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 10:50:11 AM PST
could you do me a favor and open up that window over there? I know we're on the first floor and all, but I still feel like jumping out right now.

You're really starting to freak me out.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

what's the matter? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by nathan on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 11:07:43 AM PST
My little turtledove.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
There, there dear... (none / 0) (#30)
by hauntedattics on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 03:22:06 PM PST
It's OK. Come to mama and get a hug.

----



 
As prophesised. (none / 0) (#25)
by because it isnt on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 02:27:38 AM PST
What I've noticed with my friends is that they can put off relationships for many years, but eventually they just go crazy and their every waking moment is spent looking for a partner.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
OK. (none / 0) (#9)
by RobotSlave on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 11:03:51 AM PST
The copyright of user "Icebox" was violated. Would you prefer it if we included this sort of information in Deletion Notices in the future?

The War on Copyright Violation is still in its initial phases, and we are open to feedback from adequate users.

You take The Onion lightly, but The Onion is nothing to be trifled with. The Onion is the most insidious organ of propaganda at work in America today. Not all of the editors understand the threat that The Onion poses, but they will. It is only a matter of time. Let us hope that they come to their senses before it is too late.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

how idiotic (none / 0) (#12)
by detikon on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 03:39:03 PM PST
Read the bottom of every page. What's that about comments being the property of the poster?

Everytime I visit this site some crack pot wannabe lawyer rights something dumb. According to Adequacy.org and RobotSlave anyone wishes to respond to a comment must the permission of the original poster before responding and offering up a rebuttal. This is a discussion forum moron!

Since you seem so willing to argue copyright then fine, let's do so. Seeing as how comments are owned by the poster no one, including the editors may be allowed to respond to or tamper with them without the owner's permission (this includes deletion, oh missed that one didn't ya?). Now I can continue into intellectual property, misrespresentation, blah blah blah. Get your head out of your asses and get off high horses you pimply faced pre-teen intellectual wannabe jackoffs. And by the way, no one is impressed when you site the DMCA when it has nothing to do with the situation.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

I will use small words for you (none / 0) (#14)
by RobotSlave on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 04:33:18 PM PST
Copyright Law is hard. Hard things take time. We will show you now what Copyright Law is.

If you write something, you can Copyright it. This means that it is yours. No-one is allowed to copy it without your permission. Copyright means "the right to copy." Here, only authors have the right to copy what they write. They are Copyright holders.

A copyright holder does not have the right to publication. A journal or forum may or may not choose to publish copyrighted material submitted by a copyright holder. When Adequacy deletes a comment or diary, Adequacy has decided not to publish the material. Deciding not to publish an Author's work is not an infringement on copyright.

Responding to an Author's work does not infringe on that Author's copyright. Copying an Author's work in your own post does violate that Author's copyright. You may discuss an Author's work without permission. You may not copy without permission.

A summary is not a copy. You may summarize an Author's argument in your work without violating that Author's copyright.

OK, that was a lot of words. They may be hard to understand. It is OK to read them over again if you did not understand them the first time. Read them as many times as you need to.

If you still have trouble, try to think of the words "copy" and "right." Think about what each word means. Now try putting them together.

Copy, right. Copy... right. Copy-right. Copyright.

Repeat this until it starts to make sense.

Did this help, or do you need help that is not so hard?


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

good job but... (none / 0) (#16)
by detikon on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 05:40:42 PM PST
...you forgetting a few things.

Minors may claim copyright, but state laws may regulate the business dealings involving copyrights owned by minors. For information on relevant state laws, consult an attorney.

Ah don't cry. But it gets even better.

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Now that's gotta be a real kick in the ass.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

not ass enough (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 05:50:36 PM PST
You should have mentioned the reproductions of various works by TS Eliot.

Seeing as how there are no comments, critisms, and such from the poster nor is it relavent to any news posting. So it's my belief that section would not apply. I'm fairly sure that a "teaching" excuse would fail to hold up at all.

That's fine (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 10:28:35 PM PST
The Waste land has been in the public domain under United States law since January 1, 1998.

 
Have you spoken to a Lawyer yet? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by RobotSlave on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 07:01:14 PM PST
Did you notice the list of factors to be used in determining Fair Use? No? Let's step through those slowly, shall we?

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Adequacy is an aggressively commercial concern, and the decision to publish comments submitted by the public is part of a carefully considered financial strategy;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

The controversial comments published by Adequacy, as stated above, are a valuable part of an expertly crafted business plan;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

In each and every case of comment deletion for reasons of Copyright Violation at Adequacy, the copied content has represented an excessively large portion of the original material in question, both in substance and in volume;

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

One aspect of the business plan of Adequacy is anchored in a commitment to original content, and even slight dilution of originality via flagrant disregard for copyright will be detrimental to the business.


It looks to me like your claim of Fair Use doesn't have a leg to stand on. Even if it did, Adequacy would still retain the right to refuse, rescind, or retract publication of any Work for any reason, barring contractual exceptions, including but not limited to a much narrower interpretation of the Fair Use provision of Copyright Law.

Your citation of applicability of Copyright to minors is immaterial here. Original work copyrighted by minors is just as important to the Adequacy as any other copyrighted material, and is treated as such.

If you want to argue Law with the Adequacy, we strongly suggest you retain the services of attorney, just as your first citation so wisely recommended.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

The Law... (none / 0) (#21)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 08:00:48 PM PST
...is only as good as the lawyer you can afford.


Well then clearly Dikhedcon (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 09:04:45 PM PST
should butt out because if he can't even afford a decent OS how can he ever hope to afford a lawyer?

Everyone can afford... (none / 0) (#24)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 11:19:32 PM PST
...$0.30 for a blank CD. So the choice of the prefered OS in non-business environment is rather the matter of preferences than of money. In quite many cases you also need several OSs, especially if you want to (or have to) master them all.

If you can pick between not caring much about money and just taking the software and spend the time learning it instead of making money to afford it, you will end up with more knowledge than if you'd waste your time in some McJob to make some unnamed corporation a few bucks richer.

I never ever heard about an employer wondering if you learned what you know in a "honest" way. The economy is increasingly knowledge-based. So if you learn more for less cost, you gain an advantage. Which can be pretty important, especially in the current cutthroat environment.


summary (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 01:30:07 PM PST
Basically arguing the financial status of a person based solely on their choice of operating systems is rather...well, dumb. I could have $1 billion in my pocket now and decide to choose an operating system other then Windows. My choice to use Windows 2000 Professional is simple. It came with the computer.

 
Why do you hate vegetables? (none / 0) (#13)
by because it isnt on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 03:40:16 PM PST
Would you prefer it if we included this sort of information in Deletion Notices in the future?

I would indeed. I do hope this "quoting a question in order to answer it" isn't frowned upon by the grand high poo-bahs of the Adequacy legal department.

You take The Onion lightly

I do indeed. It is nothing more than a bunch of dumb Yanks who can't write anything ironic.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Your mom... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by derek3000 on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 08:29:48 AM PST
seems to have a monopoly on 8th and Tioga, but I don't give her shit about it.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

I wonder why ... (none / 0) (#11)
by Narcissus on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 12:54:04 PM PST
if you took that case to court then you'd be even more reclusive and desparate than you already are. Don't be so damn hateful.




--------------------------------
Ok, who picked the flower???

Oh, look at you! (none / 0) (#26)
by derek3000 on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 05:29:53 AM PST
I almost forgot it was time to put you to bed. What's this mess all over your face? Come here and let's get you cleaned up...


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.