The bigger issue today is how not to be ID'd on the internet. This is where I feel Google crossed the line to the darkside with their insistent request for phone numbers and attempts to force their "new and improved" UIs on people. Everybody and their brothers are working on getting identifying information from users. Google used to be different before they switched from focusing on aggregating "anonomys" data to gathering personal information.
Ahh, so that's the rule then! Work most advance the progress of Science and Art to be protected. Is there a line on some form somewhere that must be filled out to justify why a work advances the sciences or arts?
Now we are getting somewhere! So to be worthy of copyright one most emit waves, not merely reflect them. That still doesn't explain why photographs are protected though.
So it was Mr. King's lack of creativity in choosing his attire that prevented him from claiming copyright on his public appearance? Seriously, your list does not define the logic in what is copyrightable and what is not.
Funny how the works you perform creating soundwaves in public are protected while the works you perform creating lightwaves are not. Certainly Mr. King put effort in both choosing his wardrobe and his words, did he not?
So a persons soundwaves are copyrighted while their lightwaves are not? Is that how it works? Seems odd to me if that is in fact how it is considering a person has no expectation of privacy in a public setting.
Re:How is it different from a play?
on
A Copyright Nightmare
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Are you saying the photographers subject retains the copyright then? If so, please provide a citation. Everything my searches are finding seem to indicate the copyright belongs to the person who clicked the button that caused the image to be made.
That doesn't explain why the photographer gets the copyright to photos of people going about their work in public. It makes no sense that Mr. King's performance is protected while John Q. Public's is not.
Since women have wombs naturally the path of least resistance leads to a female dominated society, and since women love baubles the economy will naturally improve. As for door opening, I take it you've never been to a lesbian bar. Men are superflous.
With women having all the essentials to reproduce and rear offspring and men having but one that may very well be the ultimate destiny of the human race.
What kind of person forces himself upon another when that other doesn't want him around? If Layar doesn't go away when it is not wanted, it is emulating that type of person.
Layar's creators are certainly free to post their code and insure that any doubts about their software's honor are assauged. The only thing about reality you need to know is that is that there are those who have no qualms about hurting you to help themeselves, and the best way to avoid those people is to to not interact with them.
It only makes sense for users to develop an obsessive dislike for software they don't understand running on their devices. Not doing so could very well lead to the leaking of private information to parties unknown.
The ability to bring up a terminal may very well be the ultimate sign that you are using a general purpose computer. Anything less implies the makers are dictating how users can interact with the device.
Python is no where near the perfect computer language. The perfect computer language would allow humans to decide what is and what is not correct syntax. I understand what "a + b" and "{a + b}" mean, why can't Python?c
Being a liberal I never bothered to read the book, but I have to say the movie really, really sucked! Seriously, we are supposed to feel empathy for people who want to suck their fellow human beings dry?c
I have to disagree. If Apple, IBM, Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, and every other large tech company refused to play the game then the game would simply not exist.c
All it takes to make a law inconsequential is for everyone to ignore the law. Every time Apple instead chooses to use law to its advantage it legitimizes the law. Think about that for a minute. When enough people refuse to enforce a law, there is in fact no such law. Czar Nicholas, King Louis, and King George can all explain to you what happens when they disagreed with this fact.
If only our third party choices weren't so limited! I faithfully voted Ralph Nader for nearly two decades and still we are barreling head long towards a society that is destined to value the dollar above the individual. Seriously, even Obamacare is designed to line corporate pockets. What in the world do we have to do to establish a society that both protects those that can't and rewards those that can? Seriously, this can't be that hard!
Back then you pretty much knew what you were dealing with when you signed up to AT&T. I remember their bills detailing line fees, equipment fees, long distance charges, etc. You knew they were going to rape you and and rape you good anytime you did business with them. They really didn't become dishonest and try to disguise their raping ways until they had to deal with honest competition.
Slashdot Mirror
The bigger issue today is how not to be ID'd on the internet. This is where I feel Google crossed the line to the darkside with their insistent request for phone numbers and attempts to force their "new and improved" UIs on people. Everybody and their brothers are working on getting identifying information from users. Google used to be different before they switched from focusing on aggregating "anonomys" data to gathering personal information.
Ahh, so that's the rule then! Work most advance the progress of Science and Art to be protected. Is there a line on some form somewhere that must be filled out to justify why a work advances the sciences or arts?
Now we are getting somewhere! So to be worthy of copyright one most emit waves, not merely reflect them. That still doesn't explain why photographs are protected though.
So it was Mr. King's lack of creativity in choosing his attire that prevented him from claiming copyright on his public appearance? Seriously, your list does not define the logic in what is copyrightable and what is not.
The question though is why is one protected and the other is not? Both the painting and the public appearance took effort to produce.
Funny how the works you perform creating soundwaves in public are protected while the works you perform creating lightwaves are not. Certainly Mr. King put effort in both choosing his wardrobe and his words, did he not?
So a persons soundwaves are copyrighted while their lightwaves are not? Is that how it works? Seems odd to me if that is in fact how it is considering a person has no expectation of privacy in a public setting.
Are you saying the photographers subject retains the copyright then? If so, please provide a citation. Everything my searches are finding seem to indicate the copyright belongs to the person who clicked the button that caused the image to be made.
That doesn't explain why the photographer gets the copyright to photos of people going about their work in public. It makes no sense that Mr. King's performance is protected while John Q. Public's is not.
Insightful comment, but please use paragraphs so that more people will take the effort to read it too.c
A leads to B leads to C. Women's motivation to get rid of men is a lot higher than men's motivation to get rid of women.
Since women have wombs naturally the path of least resistance leads to a female dominated society, and since women love baubles the economy will naturally improve. As for door opening, I take it you've never been to a lesbian bar. Men are superflous.
With women having all the essentials to reproduce and rear offspring and men having but one that may very well be the ultimate destiny of the human race.
What kind of person forces himself upon another when that other doesn't want him around? If Layar doesn't go away when it is not wanted, it is emulating that type of person.
Layar's creators are certainly free to post their code and insure that any doubts about their software's honor are assauged. The only thing about reality you need to know is that is that there are those who have no qualms about hurting you to help themeselves, and the best way to avoid those people is to to not interact with them.
It only makes sense for users to develop an obsessive dislike for software they don't understand running on their devices. Not doing so could very well lead to the leaking of private information to parties unknown.
The ability to bring up a terminal may very well be the ultimate sign that you are using a general purpose computer. Anything less implies the makers are dictating how users can interact with the device.
So now what hackable devices should I be recommending my friends buy?
Python is no where near the perfect computer language. The perfect computer language would allow humans to decide what is and what is not correct syntax. I understand what "a + b" and "{a + b}" mean, why can't Python?c
Being a liberal I never bothered to read the book, but I have to say the movie really, really sucked! Seriously, we are supposed to feel empathy for people who want to suck their fellow human beings dry?c
I have to disagree. If Apple, IBM, Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, and every other large tech company refused to play the game then the game would simply not exist.c
All it takes to make a law inconsequential is for everyone to ignore the law. Every time Apple instead chooses to use law to its advantage it legitimizes the law. Think about that for a minute. When enough people refuse to enforce a law, there is in fact no such law. Czar Nicholas, King Louis, and King George can all explain to you what happens when they disagreed with this fact.
If only our third party choices weren't so limited! I faithfully voted Ralph Nader for nearly two decades and still we are barreling head long towards a society that is destined to value the dollar above the individual. Seriously, even Obamacare is designed to line corporate pockets. What in the world do we have to do to establish a society that both protects those that can't and rewards those that can? Seriously, this can't be that hard!
Back then you pretty much knew what you were dealing with when you signed up to AT&T. I remember their bills detailing line fees, equipment fees, long distance charges, etc. You knew they were going to rape you and and rape you good anytime you did business with them. They really didn't become dishonest and try to disguise their raping ways until they had to deal with honest competition.
You are wrong, being told you can't say something unrestricted is censorship and both trademark and copyright law do exactly that.