This argument is so spurious it doesn't deserve its own article. ElcomSoft and other Internet-based companies don't exist in some otherworldly realm; they exist in real-world people and goods, and do business with other real-world people and goods. If enough such business is done in the U.S., the company will be subject to U.S. law. Simple, and certainly nothing new.
No undertone; you're reading things into my comment that aren't there. (Or trying to get an "Insightful" mod by having the insight that there's more to the world than the U.S., but now I'm reading things into your comment.) You also seem to think I disagree with the judgment, which isn't the case.
What I was saying is that, as I understand the case, the U.S. judge didn't need to supersede the law of his own jurisdiction to find that the registrants were acting in bad faith, contrary to what the Slashdot summary appeared to suggest, and this decision doesn't open the door to huge conflict-of-laws problems.
Quartz.com has nothing to worry about, at least not from this law. Quartz J.S. cannot claim a trademark on "quartz" for its crystal, as it's either generic (if it's made from the mineral) or likely to confuse (if it isn't). On the other hand, quartz.com appears be a U.S. trademark (since adding ".com" to a generic name apparently creates something unique) for the National Scientific Co.
Did the judge just look to Spanish law to help make his point, or did he specifically say that Spain had jurisdiction over the case?
If the former, so what? Judges are guided by all sorts of things in their opinions. It's only in the application of the laws of the judge's jurisdiction that stare decisis applies.
If the latter, why? The precedential effect will be in the choice of law, and why Spanish law was chosen over the ACPA is vitally important. (I get the impression that Spanish law was used merely to determine whether "Barcelona" was protectable by the ACPA.)
The article wasn't referring to worldwide gross, but to the gross in Japan.
From the summary: Sen to Chihiro is the most successful non-U.S. produced movie in the world. It has grossed about 30 billion yen ($226 million U.S.), which is more than Titanic (the previous record holder). (emphasis added)
No Amendment would be needed. Article I gives Congress the power to provide copyrights and patents, and gives a reason why it's doing that. There is no requirement that they provide such.
Yeah, that's my take too, but I think the Supreme Court could decide that Article I, Section 8 powers are Congressional duties, since the states can't do these things themselves. Are there any other powers that Congress can reasonably forgo? (Possibly the militia power, depending on how that's defined.)
4X games are generally regarded as turn-based games like Civ, Alpha Centauri and Master of Orion, not real-time games like Dune and *craft. From what I've seen of those games (admittedly not much; tried Warcraft 2 and got bored), there's not as much exploration or expansion, just a resource grab and all-out assault.
The whole idea of a copywright is so that if someone write a report or something then they can copywright it and if you use their ideas you are supposed to reference them. Copywright was made for documents like books and publications. We've since taken it to a bad place.
Absolutely not. Copyright has nothing to do with crediting people's ideas; ideas themselves are left unprotected by copyright. While it's true that you can sometimes quote the particular expression, credit has little to do with whether a use is fair or not. The idea behind copyright is to facilitate the creation of works by providing a property incentive. (Not that it's the best or only way to do this.)
I just assumed that the reporter, like most of the Slashdot crowd, thinks that trademarks are covered by copyright law. A copyright-infringement case will obviously lose under Acuff-Rose, while a trademark dilution case has a good chance of success (the Star Ballz case hasn't reached a point where the courts can apply it as precedent).
See other posts for details on the previous dispute, but this is a trademark dilution case, not a copyright infringement case.
If pleasure were wealth, beggars would masturbate
on
EverQuest and the UN
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Pleasure doesn't necessarily translate to wealth. I like to sing in the shower. My singing, though it gives me pleasure, generates no wealth in any commonly understood sense.
The only pleasure I can see attaching to the item (as opposed to that derived from the gameplay involved in acquiring it, which can't be given away or sold) is that of munchkinism, the idea that an RPG is more fun when your character has a +2 sword rather than a +1. (I don't understand it, but I'm not going to deny its existence.) This needs to be distinguished from both the pleasure derived from creating the item and the impact of the creation on the gameworld economy in any economic analysis.
While playing, I might turn a worthless bear skin into valuable armor, or spend time acquiring a Sword of Power. By bringing into the market these higher-value things, I am "accomplishing something...that increases the overall wealth of the system".
A distinction needs to be made between making wealth in the game (which is just manipulating bits, when it comes down to it), and creating wealth extrinsic to the game (which is what the report was trying to measure). The example given above only creates wealth for the characters, not for the players.
I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with it. I haven't read the appropriate CFRs lately, so I don't know the Copyright Office's attitude toward it, but I would be surprised if a binary merited a separate copyright, since there's no additional expression contained within.
What you're really putting in public domain is the copyright. As far as I'm aware, one copyright covers both source and binaries. So if you put the copyright in the public domain, the source goes with it.
The article poster doesn't appear to understand the concepts of public domain and open source.
Releasing the binaries without licensing restrictions is not the same as putting the program in the public domain (I don't think you can put binaries in the public domain without putting source as well, as one copyright covers both). The major difference is whether derivative works require permission from a copyright holder.
If the program is in the public domain, open source licenses are inapplicable, because it's no longer anybody's to impose licensing restrictions on. Hence the question.
No, you're mistaken. After the passage of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (the Sonny Bono Act), copyright in the U.S. currently lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years, or for 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first, if the author is a corporation. See 17 U.S.C. 302 if you don't believe me.
Elvish is not based on Middle or Old English in the traditional sense; though the grammar and morphology may be similar (it's been a while since I've read Tolkien's appendices), the morphemes themselves are completely different.
What is worrying is that now business is trying, through the ever tightening web of copyrights, to take ownership of what deem to be demonstrated to be universal human myths.
Businesses don't create copyright law. Sure, they lobby for influence, but law is created by legislators and interpreted by the courts. At least in the U.S., the Constitution provides important checks on what monopolies can be granted through copyright.
The Constitution provides Congress the power to create copyrights for limited times only. Though life of the author plus 70 years is a long time, universal human myths are quite a bit older. (No, Star Wars is not a universal human myth, it just draws on them.)
Copyright protects only expression, not ideas. The story of a demigod undertaking a quest is unprotectable. The character of Hercules as found in Greek myth is in the public doman. Artwork from the Disney animation is protected by copyright--but Disney can't sue Renaissance Pictures for "Hercules: the Legendary Journeys" (or vice versa), because they don't use each other's protected ideas.
How is this selling out, and why would it be a bad thing? His duty to his employer doesn't extend to concealing any illegal activities the employer may have committed.
I understood "the spirits thing." I just thought it was dumb. That, combined with undeveloped characters, is why I didn't like it despite the beautiful rendering.
Slashdot Mirror
This argument is so spurious it doesn't deserve its own article. ElcomSoft and other Internet-based companies don't exist in some otherworldly realm; they exist in real-world people and goods, and do business with other real-world people and goods. If enough such business is done in the U.S., the company will be subject to U.S. law. Simple, and certainly nothing new.
No undertone; you're reading things into my comment that aren't there. (Or trying to get an "Insightful" mod by having the insight that there's more to the world than the U.S., but now I'm reading things into your comment.) You also seem to think I disagree with the judgment, which isn't the case.
What I was saying is that, as I understand the case, the U.S. judge didn't need to supersede the law of his own jurisdiction to find that the registrants were acting in bad faith, contrary to what the Slashdot summary appeared to suggest, and this decision doesn't open the door to huge conflict-of-laws problems.
Quartz.com has nothing to worry about, at least not from this law. Quartz J.S. cannot claim a trademark on "quartz" for its crystal, as it's either generic (if it's made from the mineral) or likely to confuse (if it isn't). On the other hand, quartz.com appears be a U.S. trademark (since adding ".com" to a generic name apparently creates something unique) for the National Scientific Co.
Did the judge just look to Spanish law to help make his point, or did he specifically say that Spain had jurisdiction over the case?
If the former, so what? Judges are guided by all sorts of things in their opinions. It's only in the application of the laws of the judge's jurisdiction that stare decisis applies.
If the latter, why? The precedential effect will be in the choice of law, and why Spanish law was chosen over the ACPA is vitally important. (I get the impression that Spanish law was used merely to determine whether "Barcelona" was protectable by the ACPA.)
The article wasn't referring to worldwide gross, but to the gross in Japan.
From the summary:
Sen to Chihiro is the most successful non-U.S. produced movie in the world. It has grossed about 30 billion yen ($226 million U.S.), which is more than Titanic (the previous record holder). (emphasis added)
That's an awfully deceptive context switch.
No Amendment would be needed. Article I gives Congress the power to provide copyrights and patents, and gives a reason why it's doing that. There is no requirement that they provide such.
Yeah, that's my take too, but I think the Supreme Court could decide that Article I, Section 8 powers are Congressional duties, since the states can't do these things themselves. Are there any other powers that Congress can reasonably forgo? (Possibly the militia power, depending on how that's defined.)
Can't abolish patents and copyrights on an FTC say-so; it takes at minimum an act of Congress, and most likely a Constitutional amendment.
4X games are generally regarded as turn-based games like Civ, Alpha Centauri and Master of Orion, not real-time games like Dune and *craft. From what I've seen of those games (admittedly not much; tried Warcraft 2 and got bored), there's not as much exploration or expansion, just a resource grab and all-out assault.
The whole idea of a copywright is so that if someone write a report or something then they can copywright it and if you use their ideas you are supposed to reference them. Copywright was made for documents like books and publications. We've since taken it to a bad place.
Absolutely not. Copyright has nothing to do with crediting people's ideas; ideas themselves are left unprotected by copyright. While it's true that you can sometimes quote the particular expression, credit has little to do with whether a use is fair or not. The idea behind copyright is to facilitate the creation of works by providing a property incentive. (Not that it's the best or only way to do this.)
I just assumed that the reporter, like most of the Slashdot crowd, thinks that trademarks are covered by copyright law. A copyright-infringement case will obviously lose under Acuff-Rose, while a trademark dilution case has a good chance of success (the Star Ballz case hasn't reached a point where the courts can apply it as precedent).
The main story's article doesn't even mention the word "copyright".
Probably because any potential action's not based in copyright, but in trademark.
See other posts for details on the previous dispute, but this is a trademark dilution case, not a copyright infringement case.
Pleasure doesn't necessarily translate to wealth. I like to sing in the shower. My singing, though it gives me pleasure, generates no wealth in any commonly understood sense.
The only pleasure I can see attaching to the item (as opposed to that derived from the gameplay involved in acquiring it, which can't be given away or sold) is that of munchkinism, the idea that an RPG is more fun when your character has a +2 sword rather than a +1. (I don't understand it, but I'm not going to deny its existence.) This needs to be distinguished from both the pleasure derived from creating the item and the impact of the creation on the gameworld economy in any economic analysis.
While playing, I might turn a worthless bear skin into valuable armor, or spend time acquiring a Sword of Power. By bringing into the market these higher-value things, I am "accomplishing something...that increases the overall wealth of the system".
A distinction needs to be made between making wealth in the game (which is just manipulating bits, when it comes down to it), and creating wealth extrinsic to the game (which is what the report was trying to measure). The example given above only creates wealth for the characters, not for the players.
I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with it. I haven't read the appropriate CFRs lately, so I don't know the Copyright Office's attitude toward it, but I would be surprised if a binary merited a separate copyright, since there's no additional expression contained within.
I should have bolded "just."
What you're really putting in public domain is the copyright. As far as I'm aware, one copyright covers both source and binaries. So if you put the copyright in the public domain, the source goes with it.
You can't put just the binaries in the public domain. You can release them under an unrestricted license, but that's not the same thing.
The article poster doesn't appear to understand the concepts of public domain and open source.
Releasing the binaries without licensing restrictions is not the same as putting the program in the public domain (I don't think you can put binaries in the public domain without putting source as well, as one copyright covers both). The major difference is whether derivative works require permission from a copyright holder.
If the program is in the public domain, open source licenses are inapplicable, because it's no longer anybody's to impose licensing restrictions on. Hence the question.
If you're not following the terms of the license, you're violating copyright. That has criminal penalties as well as civil.
Actually, it's probably there to intice them to make the correction.
You mean the first message another species receives from us is a troll?
...life plus 90 years...
No, you're mistaken. After the passage of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (the Sonny Bono Act), copyright in the U.S. currently lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years, or for 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first, if the author is a corporation. See 17 U.S.C. 302 if you don't believe me.
Elvish is not based on Middle or Old English in the traditional sense; though the grammar and morphology may be similar (it's been a while since I've read Tolkien's appendices), the morphemes themselves are completely different.
What is worrying is that now business is trying, through the ever tightening web of copyrights, to take ownership of what deem to be demonstrated to be universal human myths.
Typical uninformed Slashdot copyright-bashing. Here's why it's wrong:
Businesses don't create copyright law. Sure, they lobby for influence, but law is created by legislators and interpreted by the courts. At least in the U.S., the Constitution provides important checks on what monopolies can be granted through copyright.
The Constitution provides Congress the power to create copyrights for limited times only. Though life of the author plus 70 years is a long time, universal human myths are quite a bit older. (No, Star Wars is not a universal human myth, it just draws on them.)
Copyright protects only expression, not ideas. The story of a demigod undertaking a quest is unprotectable. The character of Hercules as found in Greek myth is in the public doman. Artwork from the Disney animation is protected by copyright--but Disney can't sue Renaissance Pictures for "Hercules: the Legendary Journeys" (or vice versa), because they don't use each other's protected ideas.
How is this selling out, and why would it be a bad thing? His duty to his employer doesn't extend to concealing any illegal activities the employer may have committed.
I understood "the spirits thing." I just thought it was dumb. That, combined with undeveloped characters, is why I didn't like it despite the beautiful rendering.