Sounds like a pretty airtight case, if it could ever hit the courts.
Yes, it is... for Disney.
The copyright holder for Nadia must show that protectable elements of the work were taken. The artwork isn't close enough to be infringing, and the plot elements listed on the oldcrows page (e.g., "the bad guys are interested in Atlantis so they can capture and use the power source") are far too vague to be protectable. Furthermore, the guy who authored the page has added a link to the following statement:
After seeing Atlantis,
I must say that it is not Nadia. It doesn't really take much from Nadia at all. If anything, it is much closer to Laputa. Atlantis was a decent film, but too short in my opinion. It needed a bit more storytelling such as the 123 minutes of Laputa offered.
In six months or so, before Atlantis is out on video but well after the theatre run is over, perhaps Disney will put Laputa on the big screen for us. Of the three stories, Laputa is the masterpiece. Nadia had a great finale (and a great beginning), but way too much time was wasted in the middle. In fact, I see a lot more of Laputa in the finale of Atlantis than anything of Nadia in the rest of the film.
Furthermore, even if the holder of the Nadia copyright could somehow prove that Atlantis used protectable elements, all Disney has to show is that the authors of Atlantis were not exposed to Nadia. Constructive knowledge (i.e., "being in the animation business they should have known") isn't sufficient; they must have actually known about it, as copyright law (unlike patent law) doesn't protect against independent creation.
They own the disk drives, not the data stored on those drives. If I park my car in a free parking lot, the owner of the lot does not have the right to sell or scrap my car.
Here I gleefully purloin the knee-jerk criticism made by the anti-IP slashdot crowd and remind you that data is not a physical object.
Basically, it comes down to what you mean by "own" and "data". The owner of the storage medium owns the storage medium, and can do whatever she wants to the medium, including destroy it. (note: this applies only to the U.S.; many European countries have stronger "moral rights" protections that I haven't studied in sufficient depth to comment upon.) What she can't do is use the stored data in a way contrary to IP law (e.g., infringing copyright or patent).
If you want to make sure your data is protected, store it yourself. If you must use alternative storage, stipulate in the contract that they can't delete the data without your authorization.
Neither Congress nor the States shall make any law restricting the right of the People to do whatever they wish with electromagnetic waves.
This would be an exceptionally bad idea, and would set telecommunications law back at least 75 years (before Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting, which dealt with a dispute concerning two broadcasters using interfering wavelengths).
On the other hand, don't dismiss the entirety of property law because this is a "new frontier". (There are many instances of nontangible property, even if we don't want to awaken the IP trolls. Radio spectrum, for example.)
It reads fine (better than most articles from a certain Slashdot author I could mention). Sure, the leading's a bit off, but other than that what's the problem? There aren't even that many terms of art.
Programming is digital; law is analog. You don't have to worry about what your terms mean in programming, because you're using a language in which there is no ambiguity in meaning. Law is written in human language, which is ambiguous.
Programming is consistent but incomplete; law is complete but inconsistent. There is no "halting problem" in law; every case is decidable. However, decisions may be inconsistent with each other.
Programming is carried out by automata; law is carried out by human beings. You don't hear of people making a distinction between "the letter of the program" and "the spirit of the program," because the machines that run the program are unable to comprehend the latter. A "buggy" law (in which the letter and spirit differ) has a remedy via discretion.
Can someone point out to me where the article claims that nmap, or port scanning, is currently illegal? (Bonus points if you show evidence contrary to the claim. Hint: Moulton did not hold that port scanning was legal; it held that the claimant didn't show damages to the court's satisfaction, and specifically said that Moulton may be subject to criminal prosecution under the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act.)
When you take a CD from a store, that store has one less CD to sell. When you copy an mp3, no one has lost anything. The only thing "lost", and I put that in quotes because you can't lose something you never had, is a potential sale.
Well, if you're going to completely ignore IP law, then technically the only thing the store lost is a bunch of plastic and paper with information on it. Since they presumably have other identical copies of the CD, they can replace the lost copy and the accompanying notes for the cost of said plastic and paper.
Funny how it doesn't actually work this way. I wonder why that could be?
There's not a single instance of "(foo) [is|will become] The New (bar)" anywhere in the entire article...
Musical styles evolve like biological species evolve, in response to their environment. Musical ideas flourish -- or die off -- depending on how well their human creators are rewarded. A big factor in the evolution of musical style is us, the listeners; the next sound is cool, some old sounds are lame, Artist X now gets our dollars while Artist Y goes back to working as a waitress. Style marches on. But dollars just help steer the evolution of the machine. It's technology that decides where it can go.
Admittedly, the style is a bit more readable, but it's got the specious--no pun intended--comparison to science (it's just like evolution!), the pandering to the perceived audience (you teenaged MTV-watchers are important, yes you are!), and the overemphasis of the importance of technology (forget creativity and marketing, it's really about neato gadgets!). And that's just in the first paragraph.
Bandwidth isn't infinite, and therefore isn't free. It's a variable cost. But consumers prefer it as a fixed cost, so companies tend to charge a flat rate, with light users effectively subsidizing heavier users. There are a couple of problems with this:
Some light users who realize they're subsidizing heavier users will leave the pool, driving up the cost for the rest of the users, forcing more light users to back out, further driving up the cost, and so on.
Since none of the marginal cost of bandwidth is passed on, everyone has the incentive to use more bandwidth than they would in a metered plan. While this may have significant noneconomic benefits, it results in a "tragedy of the commons" where the existing structure is overburdened.
There are two obvious short-term solutions to this (laying more cable being the long-term solution):
Raise the flat-rate price to the point where demand falls enough to relieve the burden on the network (this is the end result of the upward spiral described in the first point above). This would result in a lot of light users being forced into variable-rate programs or off the net altogether, and result in heavier users paying more than they currently do.
Cap the flat rate, and have heavier users "pay their share." This would halt the upward-spiral effect by limiting the degree to which light users subsidize heavier users.
I personally believe that a reasonable flat-rate cap is preferable, because it's more important that a large number of people have access to low-bandwidth services (e.g., email) than a few have access to ultra-high-bandwidth services (e.g., streaming video).
(Apologies in advance for an American-centric post, and for responding to such an obvious troll...)
I'm not an obvious troll; an obvious troll posts goatsex links. I just try to let people know when they're seriously misinformed about the law.
The point is that it's possible to express an algorithm in a "natural" language; when you do so, it is considered protected speech by the courts. When you express it in an another language, though, the courts have decided that it it *not* protected speech.
And my point is that where this statement isn't just plain wrong (something is not automatically protected speech just because it can be expressed in a natural language), it's meaningless (protected against what?).
In other words, the courts have opined that *how* you say something is at least as important as *what* you say; and even if what you have uttered what would normally be considered protected speech under the 1st amendment, if you don't say it the right way, then you lose your 1st amendment rights.
Well, obviously. Time, place and manner restrictions have always worked this way.
Here's a comparison with the legal status of the DeCSS algorithm: the DeCSS algorithm is the subject of a lawsuit because it circumvents an encryption scheme and may therefore be illegal under the DMCA. The Doomsday algorithm is not the subject of any lawsuit, has nothing to do with encryption, and the DMCA has no bearing on it. Conclusion: the Doomsday algorithm does not affect the DeCSS case in the slightest.
Free and protected how? The protection 2600 was talking about was based on the First Amendment; they claimed free-speech concerne overrode the DMCA's provisions against disseminating the DeCSS code.
This isn't an example of that kind of First Amendment protection, because nobody has tried to prohibit this speech.
Algorithms aren't (supposed to be) patentable. Mechanisms or processes which employ algorithms may be patentable. It's a subtle distinction (and one that's let a few algorithms slip through), but I don't think this would be patentable, as it can be done by head and hand (see Gottschalk v. Benson).
The other speech commentary is sheer idiocy. So it's a copyrightable poem; so what? Copyright would only protect the poem, not the algorithm. Free speech is a complete non-issue.
Timothy, if you don't understand what "royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive license" means (and that's understandable given the number of terms of art involved), get someone to explain it to you before posting claims about it. As has been pointed out already, such a license does not transfer ownership of the post, but simply means that you can't try to collect royalties a la Tasini v. New York Times (holding that a database of articles is a separate entity, requiring separate royalty payment). I believe recognizing the incorrect claim about what a license does falls within the concept of "basic fact checking" (which is why this is addressed to timothy and not michaelmalak).
In addition, the flamebait headlie (okay, that started out as a typo, but it's too apropos to change) is unnecessary, as the fact that Google Groups now has posting capability is sufficiently newsworthy in itself. A title like "Google Groups Implements Posting" would be a a more fair headline, and would have made a more interesting discussion possible.
Finally, a suggestion for the Powers That Be: would it be possible to add a -1, Incorrect moderation (here the article itself deserves it, but many posts do as well)? Some things that are posted aren't actually trolls or flamebait, but are just misinformed.
Re:I listen to launch all day at work..
on
Launchcast Sued
·
· Score: 1
It's a pretty good service, but it really isn't all that customizable.. I mean, I still get rap songs and garage about 5% of the time, when I have them crossed off of my genre list.
That's probably because you Launchcast has a strange way of defining genres. If something is listed as both rap and pop, you've got to cross off both to get rid of the song. And since just about everything is pop or rock, you'll get a lot of random songs if you rate those genres high. (I had most genres I liked at 20 or 30, rating songs higher by hand. Gave me a good mix, which is why I'm pissed that Launch caved into their injunction-by-letter.)
The Launchcast app is nice in that, though it hasn't open-sourced its selection algorithm, it at least tells you why it picked the song it did so that you can refine your choices.
(Stupid interface design...)
Because that's not how the law works. Snippets aren't legal because they're below a certain length, they're legal because they're being fairly used. Simply using them to circumvent the distribution right of the copyright holder isn't a fair use.
Or you can simply wait until late at night, when the standards concerning what can be broadcast are more loose. (It's called time, place and manner restrictions.)
Re:Well they did sign an agreement
on
Launchcast Sued
·
· Score: 1
Launch could have signed something that said that the user can't select what songs to play.
On Launch, the user can't select what songs to play--only what songs not to play, what songs to put in heavy rotation, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is... for Disney.
The copyright holder for Nadia must show that protectable elements of the work were taken. The artwork isn't close enough to be infringing, and the plot elements listed on the oldcrows page (e.g., "the bad guys are interested in Atlantis so they can capture and use the power source") are far too vague to be protectable. Furthermore, the guy who authored the page has added a link to the following statement:
Furthermore, even if the holder of the Nadia copyright could somehow prove that Atlantis used protectable elements, all Disney has to show is that the authors of Atlantis were not exposed to Nadia. Constructive knowledge (i.e., "being in the animation business they should have known") isn't sufficient; they must have actually known about it, as copyright law (unlike patent law) doesn't protect against independent creation.
Here I gleefully purloin the knee-jerk criticism made by the anti-IP slashdot crowd and remind you that data is not a physical object.
Basically, it comes down to what you mean by "own" and "data". The owner of the storage medium owns the storage medium, and can do whatever she wants to the medium, including destroy it. (note: this applies only to the U.S.; many European countries have stronger "moral rights" protections that I haven't studied in sufficient depth to comment upon.) What she can't do is use the stored data in a way contrary to IP law (e.g., infringing copyright or patent).
If you want to make sure your data is protected, store it yourself. If you must use alternative storage, stipulate in the contract that they can't delete the data without your authorization.
This would be an exceptionally bad idea, and would set telecommunications law back at least 75 years (before Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting, which dealt with a dispute concerning two broadcasters using interfering wavelengths).
On the other hand, don't dismiss the entirety of property law because this is a "new frontier". (There are many instances of nontangible property, even if we don't want to awaken the IP trolls. Radio spectrum, for example.)
It reads fine (better than most articles from a certain Slashdot author I could mention). Sure, the leading's a bit off, but other than that what's the problem? There aren't even that many terms of art.
Repeat after me:
Legislating is not programming.
Here's why:
Can someone point out to me where the article claims that nmap, or port scanning, is currently illegal? (Bonus points if you show evidence contrary to the claim. Hint: Moulton did not hold that port scanning was legal; it held that the claimant didn't show damages to the court's satisfaction, and specifically said that Moulton may be subject to criminal prosecution under the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act.)
I predict that this could set the record for the highest percentage of replies from people who didn't read the article.
More than you'd think. Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Cos. is the premier case concerning "moral rights" in U.S. copyright law.
Well, if you're going to completely ignore IP law, then technically the only thing the store lost is a bunch of plastic and paper with information on it. Since they presumably have other identical copies of the CD, they can replace the lost copy and the accompanying notes for the cost of said plastic and paper.
Funny how it doesn't actually work this way. I wonder why that could be?
Admittedly, the style is a bit more readable, but it's got the specious--no pun intended--comparison to science (it's just like evolution!), the pandering to the perceived audience (you teenaged MTV-watchers are important, yes you are!), and the overemphasis of the importance of technology (forget creativity and marketing, it's really about neato gadgets!). And that's just in the first paragraph.
I thought I deselected JonKatz...
Bandwidth isn't infinite, and therefore isn't free. It's a variable cost. But consumers prefer it as a fixed cost, so companies tend to charge a flat rate, with light users effectively subsidizing heavier users. There are a couple of problems with this:
There are two obvious short-term solutions to this (laying more cable being the long-term solution):
I personally believe that a reasonable flat-rate cap is preferable, because it's more important that a large number of people have access to low-bandwidth services (e.g., email) than a few have access to ultra-high-bandwidth services (e.g., streaming video).
I'm not an obvious troll; an obvious troll posts goatsex links. I just try to let people know when they're seriously misinformed about the law.
And my point is that where this statement isn't just plain wrong (something is not automatically protected speech just because it can be expressed in a natural language), it's meaningless (protected against what?).
Well, obviously. Time, place and manner restrictions have always worked this way.
Here's a comparison with the legal status of the DeCSS algorithm: the DeCSS algorithm is the subject of a lawsuit because it circumvents an encryption scheme and may therefore be illegal under the DMCA. The Doomsday algorithm is not the subject of any lawsuit, has nothing to do with encryption, and the DMCA has no bearing on it. Conclusion: the Doomsday algorithm does not affect the DeCSS case in the slightest.
Free and protected how? The protection 2600 was talking about was based on the First Amendment; they claimed free-speech concerne overrode the DMCA's provisions against disseminating the DeCSS code.
This isn't an example of that kind of First Amendment protection, because nobody has tried to prohibit this speech.
Algorithms aren't (supposed to be) patentable. Mechanisms or processes which employ algorithms may be patentable. It's a subtle distinction (and one that's let a few algorithms slip through), but I don't think this would be patentable, as it can be done by head and hand (see Gottschalk v. Benson).
The other speech commentary is sheer idiocy. So it's a copyrightable poem; so what? Copyright would only protect the poem, not the algorithm. Free speech is a complete non-issue.
If the real reviewers are media whores, does that make this a case of media masturbation?
Timothy, if you don't understand what "royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive license" means (and that's understandable given the number of terms of art involved), get someone to explain it to you before posting claims about it. As has been pointed out already, such a license does not transfer ownership of the post, but simply means that you can't try to collect royalties a la Tasini v. New York Times (holding that a database of articles is a separate entity, requiring separate royalty payment). I believe recognizing the incorrect claim about what a license does falls within the concept of "basic fact checking" (which is why this is addressed to timothy and not michaelmalak).
In addition, the flamebait headlie (okay, that started out as a typo, but it's too apropos to change) is unnecessary, as the fact that Google Groups now has posting capability is sufficiently newsworthy in itself. A title like "Google Groups Implements Posting" would be a a more fair headline, and would have made a more interesting discussion possible.
Finally, a suggestion for the Powers That Be: would it be possible to add a -1, Incorrect moderation (here the article itself deserves it, but many posts do as well)? Some things that are posted aren't actually trolls or flamebait, but are just misinformed.
That's probably because you Launchcast has a strange way of defining genres. If something is listed as both rap and pop, you've got to cross off both to get rid of the song. And since just about everything is pop or rock, you'll get a lot of random songs if you rate those genres high. (I had most genres I liked at 20 or 30, rating songs higher by hand. Gave me a good mix, which is why I'm pissed that Launch caved into their injunction-by-letter.)
The Launchcast app is nice in that, though it hasn't open-sourced its selection algorithm, it at least tells you why it picked the song it did so that you can refine your choices.
(Stupid interface design...) Because that's not how the law works. Snippets aren't legal because they're below a certain length, they're legal because they're being fairly used. Simply using them to circumvent the distribution right of the copyright holder isn't a fair use.
Because that's not how the
Or you can simply wait until late at night, when the standards concerning what can be broadcast are more loose. (It's called time, place and manner restrictions.)
On Launch, the user can't select what songs to play--only what songs not to play, what songs to put in heavy rotation, etc.
Just because I'm male doesn't mean I can't find comments like that offensive.