Didn't George end up having to pay the money to Allen B. Klein, who had been his manager when he recorded "My Sweet Lord" and who had acquired the rights to "He's So Fine" while the case was pending?
Librarians do not work for the government. That's slander, that is.
after a bunch of government requests on lender history, libraries started routinely destroying the record after the book is returned.
That was an excellent opportunity for you to offer citations, but, even if you have any, it may be smoke up your (and mine) eyes to make us believe, library computers are saf — because of the heroic librarians. I'd just use tor.
"RESOLVED, That the American Library Association urges all libraries to adopt and implement patron privacy and record retention policies that affirm that "the collection of personally identifiable information should only be a matter of routine or policy when necessary for the fulfillment of the mission of the library" (ALA Privacy: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights); and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the American Library Association considers sections of the USA PATRIOT Act are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users and urges the United States Congress to:
provide active oversight of the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and other related measures, and the revised Attorney General Guidelines to the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
hold hearings to determine the extent of the surveillance on library users and their communities; and
amend or change the sections of these laws and the guidelines that threaten or abridge the rights of inquiry and free expression..."
"The library will do its utmost to uphold the privacy and confidentiality of patrons’ free access to information. The library follows the laws and library policies to control behavior that involves public safety or criminal behavior.
Does the “Patriot Act” Change Things?
Yes, and this is a dilemma for the North Adams Public Library. The library has the responsibility of protecting the privacy of its patrons while responding to national security concerns.
Should library records be requested under the USA Patriot Act, the law states that in certain circumstances, library staff cannot inform the person about whom the information is requested, cannot speak to co-workers, the media or other government officials about the inquiry. Such requests, should they occur, may only be reported to the appropriate higher authority within the library. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, failure to comply with the search warrant, or of other applicable terms of those acts, is a felony.
...
The NAPL Procedures Regarding Information Access and Confidentiality
...
Once a search has been conducted, the software does not retain a copy of the search, and therefore no record of the search will exist.
...
Patrons use their library card to check out a computer but the record of this use is cleared when the next person logs on to the computer. When the patron logs off the Gates computers the software erases all history of their research and activity. The Dell computers keep the history for 24 hours after a patron has logged off.
...
When a hold is placed on a patron’s account, by the patron or a library staff member, the system creates a link to that item. No long-term record of the hold is retained by C/WMARS beyond the point of the circulation transaction.
...
Interlibrary Loan Records: These transactions are for requested items that do not appear in the C/W MARS network libraries. The NAPL tracks these items until they are returned to the owning library then all paper records are destroyed.
(http://www.naplibrary.com/policies/patriotact/)
"In protecting the privacy rights and the confidentiality rights of library us
The Three Laws of Robotics IIRC were actually something John W. Campbell thought up on the fly in a meeting with the young Asimov, giving them to him as a story challenge. It is interesting how what was basically a quick and dirty plot device has become so firmly entrenched in the general consciousness that so many people think they're real.
As I recall in Max Headroom it was illegal to turn off your television. Some people got a bit of respite by throwing a blanket over their set. This was to ensure you kept watching, it didn't have anything to do with the system's surveillance capabilities, whose only obvious manifestation I think was that Max could see and hear through any monitor. Of course in the quaint world of twenty minutes into the future, the set had to be on. Now, we know that that's just silly.
The big problem is, you can do all your due diligence and claim Fair Use in your usage of copyrighted material, but Fair Use doesn't actually exist until someone sues you for infringement and loses because a judge agrees with you. If you cannot defend yourself in court, you only have Fair Use until you lose an infringement suit.
Copy machines in libraries tend to be out of sight of the librarian's station. This is so the librarian can't see if you're violating someone's copyright by copying entire works rather than a few fair-use pages. There will probably be a warning against copyright infringement posted on or near the machine itself. This way, the liability is yours as the copier, and not the librarian's/library's, as the "facilitator" of the copying. A lame solution to a lame problem, but the alternative is no copiers, which would lead to an unending stream of complaints that there are no copiers.
Copyright in the US starts at the moment of creation. I don't know if this is further defined anywhere. At the very least it means when a work is first completed. Publication is irrelevant.
ReplayTV DVRs had a pretty good auto-commercial-skip function for a time. They were sued. They eliminated the function. No DVR company is going to implement such a function in the future.
Fair use doesn't apply here. If a band plays a cover song live, the venue is responsible for having paid a license fee to ASCAP or BMI or whomever. If the band records and distributes recordings of a cover song, they are responsible for paying a license fee, usually to the Harry Fox Agency which almost exclusively handles publishing royalties for cover recordings.
The band doesn't get sued because it's in the songwriter's financial interests to have as many different people as possible play and record the song, because he or she gets a cut each time. At least that's how it's supposed to work.
I don't think Teler would have protested his competitor adopting the trick itself (magician interacts with shadow on screen but affecting the physical object casintg the shadow) -- he'd have expected credit ("This trick was invented by Teller") but wouldn't have claimed legal ownership. But Teller should be able own the theatre he creates.
The process would have been, the guy asks for Teller's permission. Maybe Teller grants it, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he sells a license to the guy. Same as with any other theatrical performance. But selling the trick to other people is akin to putting your name on the script to a recent play, running off copies and it and selling them.
Wait, he did patent it? Well then the method is his, he owns it, case closed. Whether you can read the patent, build the equipment in your garage, and perform it in your backyard is immaterial. Mass-producing it and selling it is patent infringement.
Going after the guy for copyright infringement is icing on the cake. And that depends on whether Teller published it with a copyright symbol on it, or registered it with the copyright office, way back when. (Since 1989 registration hasn't been necessary.) It's possible a situation exists where the routine is in the public domain, but the method of achieving the illusion is patent protected. All Dogge needed to do in that case was figure out a *different* way of doing the trick... which is, ironically, most of Penn & Teller's act.
Slashdot Mirror
I misread the headline as "Coming Sex-Bot Mandate" and therefore can't muster up any interest in the real story.
And TODAY is the day I don't have mod points.
Didn't George end up having to pay the money to Allen B. Klein, who had been his manager when he recorded "My Sweet Lord" and who had acquired the rights to "He's So Fine" while the case was pending?
That was an excellent opportunity for you to offer citations, but, even if you have any, it may be smoke up your (and mine) eyes to make us believe, library computers are saf — because of the heroic librarians. I'd just use tor.
"RESOLVED, That the American Library Association urges all libraries to adopt and implement patron privacy and record retention policies that affirm that "the collection of personally identifiable information should only be a matter of routine or policy when necessary for the fulfillment of the mission of the library" (ALA Privacy: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights); and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the American Library Association considers sections of the USA PATRIOT Act are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users and urges the United States Congress to:
provide active oversight of the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and other related measures, and the revised Attorney General Guidelines to the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
hold hearings to determine the extent of the surveillance on library users and their communities; and amend or change the sections of these laws and the guidelines that threaten or abridge the rights of inquiry and free expression..."
(http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=ifresolutions&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11891)
"The library will do its utmost to uphold the privacy and confidentiality of patrons’ free access to information. The library follows the laws and library policies to control behavior that involves public safety or criminal behavior.
Does the “Patriot Act” Change Things?
Yes, and this is a dilemma for the North Adams Public Library. The library has the responsibility of protecting the privacy of its patrons while responding to national security concerns.
Should library records be requested under the USA Patriot Act, the law states that in certain circumstances, library staff cannot inform the person about whom the information is requested, cannot speak to co-workers, the media or other government officials about the inquiry. Such requests, should they occur, may only be reported to the appropriate higher authority within the library. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, failure to comply with the search warrant, or of other applicable terms of those acts, is a felony.
The NAPL Procedures Regarding Information Access and Confidentiality
Once a search has been conducted, the software does not retain a copy of the search, and therefore no record of the search will exist.
Patrons use their library card to check out a computer but the record of this use is cleared when the next person logs on to the computer. When the patron logs off the Gates computers the software erases all history of their research and activity. The Dell computers keep the history for 24 hours after a patron has logged off.
When a hold is placed on a patron’s account, by the patron or a library staff member, the system creates a link to that item. No long-term record of the hold is retained by C/WMARS beyond the point of the circulation transaction.
Interlibrary Loan Records: These transactions are for requested items that do not appear in the C/W MARS network libraries. The NAPL tracks these items until they are returned to the owning library then all paper records are destroyed.
(http://www.naplibrary.com/policies/patriotact/)
"In protecting the privacy rights and the confidentiality rights of library us
You know spies. Bunch of bitchy little girls.
The Three Laws of Robotics IIRC were actually something John W. Campbell thought up on the fly in a meeting with the young Asimov, giving them to him as a story challenge. It is interesting how what was basically a quick and dirty plot device has become so firmly entrenched in the general consciousness that so many people think they're real.
"Jenny's pads her boobs, I know because she showed me last night" gets into the exact same privacy issues as Glass, does it not?
"Pics or it didn't happen."
As I recall in Max Headroom it was illegal to turn off your television. Some people got a bit of respite by throwing a blanket over their set. This was to ensure you kept watching, it didn't have anything to do with the system's surveillance capabilities, whose only obvious manifestation I think was that Max could see and hear through any monitor. Of course in the quaint world of twenty minutes into the future, the set had to be on. Now, we know that that's just silly.
I would also like to know this, because the word "spiderface" is awesome.
And my mod points expired yesterday!
The big problem is, you can do all your due diligence and claim Fair Use in your usage of copyrighted material, but Fair Use doesn't actually exist until someone sues you for infringement and loses because a judge agrees with you. If you cannot defend yourself in court, you only have Fair Use until you lose an infringement suit.
Copy machines in libraries tend to be out of sight of the librarian's station. This is so the librarian can't see if you're violating someone's copyright by copying entire works rather than a few fair-use pages. There will probably be a warning against copyright infringement posted on or near the machine itself. This way, the liability is yours as the copier, and not the librarian's/library's, as the "facilitator" of the copying. A lame solution to a lame problem, but the alternative is no copiers, which would lead to an unending stream of complaints that there are no copiers.
Copyright in the US starts at the moment of creation. I don't know if this is further defined anywhere. At the very least it means when a work is first completed. Publication is irrelevant.
And today is the day my mod points expire :p XD
But what many people don't know is that private non-governmental agencies are not bound by these rules
Also known as the Batman exception.
If the cops in NJ were all high, things would be a lot more relaxed on the turnpike.
Where are my mod points when I really need them? :D
Nylon is called NYlon because it was debuted at the N.Y. World's Fair.
ReplayTV DVRs had a pretty good auto-commercial-skip function for a time. They were sued. They eliminated the function. No DVR company is going to implement such a function in the future.
Fair use doesn't apply here. If a band plays a cover song live, the venue is responsible for having paid a license fee to ASCAP or BMI or whomever. If the band records and distributes recordings of a cover song, they are responsible for paying a license fee, usually to the Harry Fox Agency which almost exclusively handles publishing royalties for cover recordings. The band doesn't get sued because it's in the songwriter's financial interests to have as many different people as possible play and record the song, because he or she gets a cut each time. At least that's how it's supposed to work.
Nudity is not required for an image to be deemed 'explicitly sexual' under Federal regulations.
But he didn't run straight to lawyers.
Teller apparently registered copyright in 1983. Therefore it must be fixed in some form. Your argument is moot.
I don't think Teler would have protested his competitor adopting the trick itself (magician interacts with shadow on screen but affecting the physical object casintg the shadow) -- he'd have expected credit ("This trick was invented by Teller") but wouldn't have claimed legal ownership. But Teller should be able own the theatre he creates.
The process would have been, the guy asks for Teller's permission. Maybe Teller grants it, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he sells a license to the guy. Same as with any other theatrical performance. But selling the trick to other people is akin to putting your name on the script to a recent play, running off copies and it and selling them.
Wait, he did patent it? Well then the method is his, he owns it, case closed. Whether you can read the patent, build the equipment in your garage, and perform it in your backyard is immaterial. Mass-producing it and selling it is patent infringement.
Going after the guy for copyright infringement is icing on the cake. And that depends on whether Teller published it with a copyright symbol on it, or registered it with the copyright office, way back when. (Since 1989 registration hasn't been necessary.) It's possible a situation exists where the routine is in the public domain, but the method of achieving the illusion is patent protected. All Dogge needed to do in that case was figure out a *different* way of doing the trick... which is, ironically, most of Penn & Teller's act.