Microblog
in reply to @ 2015-343 15:49 UTCI am going to go through and comment on the ones that are not theirs directing people to the official release
That is the best solution
in reply to @ 2015-343 13:19 UTCThey can't really prevent it from happening — even if they had "all rights reserved" that only gives them the legal right to have it take down and/or sue. You can never fully prevent it.
As it is, their best bet is probably to post their own music for sale themselves, and use their brand and fanbase to make their official postings the most popular ones. The people posting their music are doing nothing wrong, and especially if the band is not listed on that platform yet are doing a service exactly in the spirit of the license.
in reply to @ 2015-343 01:57 UTCI have an X60 running libreboot. One of the best machines I ever had (except the battery life)
in reply to @ 2015-342 18:16 UTCPitivi or OpenShot, the former is the simplest, but the latter has more features
in reply to @ 2015-342 18:13 UTCThat article advocates a particular business model (proprietary re-licensing) which only applies to a limited number of project types. Many projects find that simply charging for the actual binaries is more effective.
in reply to @ 2015-342 03:49 UTCYou don't lose it, but if you never enforce it's functionally the same as not having it at all.
in reply to @ 2015-341 13:38 UTC+1 openmailbox
in reply to @ 2015-340 21:13 UTC
in reply to @ 2015-339 18:08 UTCas long as in (1) "You" are the copyright holder, then it can be like that, if you want. Though the suing part is expensive
in reply to @ 2015-338 23:04 UTCWhat youtube videos? can you link an example?
in reply to @ 2015-338 20:37 UTCundetected for 18 months
Instead of forever. Pretty good
in reply to @ 2015-338 20:36 UTCa lot of YouTube videos and shows don't play without Flashplayer
Are you posting this from the past?
in reply to @ 2015-338 20:24 UTCFirefox is the best
in reply to @ 2015-338 13:17 UTCThese companies routinely bind themselves to contracts and NDAs with proprietary vendors where failure to meet specific obligations can be very costly. As a result they are careful to adhere to those obligations. They don't bother to try with the GPL because they know they won't get caught, and if they do no enforcement action is going to ask them for more than compliance.
in reply to @ 2015-338 13:13 UTCEveryone would transition to FreeBSD or a Linux kernel with a BSD userland rather than risk the penalty.
So you're saying they only use Linux because they know they can get away with their copyright infringements? Al the more reason to put a fire they understand (losses to the bottom line) under them