I went to Google and found this... It literally took me 30 seconds to find it.
Next time, if you're reporting a Google result, please give the query string that you used. This way, people who read your comment become better users of the Google search engine.
BTW, manuals have an useful feature called "index". Maybe you could try using it.
Grandparent wrote that many manuals aren't well-indexed: "The problem with 'Can I blah' being looked up in a manual, among other things, is that often there are numerous synonyms for 'blah', and only one of them is ever used in the book, especially the index" (my emphasis).
Tangent: Disney hypocritically borrowing from the public domain but closing the door behind it with the Bono Act, to Disney's use of trademark law to close the door, to trademarks on "Pinocchio" owned by Disney, to the validity of trademark on "Pinocchio" brand dolls.
[Dolls are] one of the more lucrative markets for merchandise based upon the book.
That worried me too when I read it. I see a possible attack against this trademark: make the USPTO realize that there is more to Pinocchio than Disney's film, just as there is more to windows than Microsoft's operating system. In practice, Disney may have allowed the mark to become generic by not pursuing Woodard's Wood Products, William Van Dorin, Beatrice Perini, Luigi Tacchi, or Madame Alexander, who all sell their "Pinocchio" dolls in the United States.
How about finding another ISP (and telling them WHY you are changing to someone else too).
Often, only one company provides high-speed Internet access to residential customers in a given geographic area. This is often the telephone company or the cable television company. So in effect, you may have instructed Franklin_DeMatto to either 1. downgrade to dial-up or ISDN, 2. buy a ridiculously expensive T1 line, or 3. sell one's house and move.
Given that the only "vacuum tube" in a modern PC is the cathode ray tube in a traditional display, you might want to try looking into an LCD panel with twice the life (even longer if you replace the internal light) one-third the footprint, one-third the weight, one-third the power consumption, and one-third the eyestrain of a CRT. Even though an LCD may cost more up front, you will save money in the long run by going with an LCD.
In the European Union, font designs can be copyrighted. In the United States, only the programs (.ttf, etc) that generate those programs can be copyrighted, but the designs themselves can be patented.
DisneyCo owns trademark on WALT DISNEY'S PINOCCHIO for cosmetics. DisneyCo owns trademark on PINOCCHIO only for dolls. Thus, the only thing DisneyCo can use trademark law to stop competing film publishers from doing is "moichandizing", as Yogurt put it in Spaceballs.
Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland.
More likely on WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Of course, they have no grounds to prevent the sale of AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE brand video games based on the QUAKE III ARENA brand graphics engine.
But who do you quote to support various renditions of FTL travel??
If both our universe and the fictional universe have the law in common, they may have the physicist in common. Otherwise, quote fictional physicists and engineers. For example, in the Star Trek universe, "Zefram Cochrane invented warp drive in 2063".
You can't have it both ways. Either fictional universes subscribe to real world physics that we know about OR They subscribe to physics that we don't know about
There's no reason that a fictional universe can't take some physical laws from our universe but invent others, as long as the combination remains consistent. For instance, even if they have lots of bullsh*t physics, SF worlds still have the attraction of one mass to another, which we call "gravity" in our physics. I brought up Heisenberg because it was the first explanation that came to mind for the limitations of teleporters. Perhaps you meant: "either a fictional universe has zero BS physics, or it has at least one BS law of physics."
How about the even sinmpler fact that it is a TV show and that would spoil all the writers plots??
The "fourth wall" refers to the separation of a fantasy world (the "earth") from the world of its creator (the "heaven"). It's generally considered bad form to break the fourth wall unless, as in The Truman Show, eXistenZ, The Matrix, and Holy Bible, the fourth wall itself is a plot point. Even bullsh*t science that explains something within the story's universe modulo suspension of disbelief is preferred to "I made it this way because it would spoil my plot otherwise." A good SF plot has to sit on a good consistent foundation of rules of the universe.
Thus, the Heisenberg copy protection on most SF universes' teleportation devices. It serves a purpose in the plot, but it makes sense.
Which is why when I refer to the tetramino game in the generic, I call it the tetramino game. In the same way, the game played on a Hasbro(R) SORRY!(R) board is called "slide pursuit", a variation of the earlier game "ludo" played on a Popomatic Trouble(R) board. I was in a way responding to the fact that this article called the game "Tetris(R)".
That's why smart inventors are very careful with what they name their inventions
Of course, Google makes it much easier nowadays to do a search for possible trademark collisions.
and are sure to get the trademark before going to market.
Actually, to get a trademark registration in the United States, you must have already used the mark in interstate commerce, or you must be able to prove a "good faith intent" (the details of which I do not know because I am not a lawyer) to use the mark in interstate commerce.
books in the Public Domain that have been hijacked by Disney, and are aggressively defended by them.
The Walt Disney Company does not own the rights to the novel Pinocchio or to the name "Pinocchio". DisneyCo owns only the copyright on its film adaptation[1], including the likenesses of the characters as drawn by Disney animators, and has no grounds to prevent other publishers' film adaptations of the original novel. DisneyCo most definitely does not own the rights to "Noddy", a character created by Enid Blyton that may have been inspired by Pinocchio.
The Jungle Book - Kipling
Which exemplifies . No less than one year after The Jungle Book went PD in a major market, DisneyCo published a film adaptation. The company was obviously waiting for the copyright to run out. Now DisneyCo has closed the door behind itself by pushing copyright term extensions through Congress.
Peter Pan
NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN WORLDWIDE! The European Union recognizes a monopoly on literary works for the life of the last surviving author, plus the remainder of the calendar year, plus 70 years. Because J. M. Barrie, the author of Peter Pan, died in 1937, copyright in Peter Pan does not expire in the European Union until 2007, and DisneyCo has to pay GOSH a royalty for every Peter Pan and Return to Never Land disc sold in the EU. In fact, the United Kingdom has granted a statutory perpetual copyright on the work, with royalties going to a children's hospital.
[1] DisneyCo may lose even that if the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft happens to strike down the 1976 extension along with the Bono Act.
But how, before buying the article, are we supposed to know whether that story is worth $4.50? And how, before buying the article, are we supposed to know whether the PDF will come with restrictions on use with text-to-speech apps?
Ever notice that the Trekkie philosophy of not making multiple copies of something with the transporter is just DRM in disguise?
Actually, it's Heisenberg's quantum reality. As you measure the quantum state of the object you're transporting, you also destroy that state. Think of it as God's DRM.
So does "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson, which predicts the unavoidable consequence of perpetual copyright: eventually, every pleasing combination of n notes is owned by somebody. Copyrights become like land in that it's possible to own them but not create new ones.
This is why Americans do not need copyright term extensions such as the Bono Act.
having a computer read an e-book (aloud or otherwise) and having a person read a book (aloud or otherwise) both involve making copies - one in software/hardware, the other in wetware. Of course there are differences
The difference is that United States copyright law considers RAM to be a tangible medium in which a work can be fixed; thus, reading a file into RAM is copying. The brain is not such a medium.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO justification for charging extra for a CD vs. a tape.
While you were writing this question, I was composing such a justification. First: bonus tracks on early CDs. Second: little demand for cassettes nowadays.
I would agree that DVD's many times add stuff on that would be worth the extra cost.
In the early days of Compact Disc Digital Audio, CDs had extras that one could almost call "deleted songs" by analogy with DVD Video's "deleted scenes". For instance, Bad by Michael Jackson contained an extra track called "Leave Me Alone" that wasn't available on the vinyl, cassette, or 8-track version of the album. (Yes, Bad was one of the last albums on 8-track.) They could put extras on a CD because a 74-minute CD could hold as much as 3 24-minute sides of an LP. However, with CD becoming the dominant format, the typical album went from being 48 minutes long to being 60 to 72 minutes long, and they had to be pressed on four 18-minute sides of an LP. Cassettes, on the other hand, could be expanded to 40 minutes a side to hold the whole CD. The increased capacity of the medium could have quite a bit to do with why new albums have more filler than old albums.
But looking at my experience with CD's I don't think that is that case.
It isn't that the price of CDs hasn't dropped; it has. $15 in 2002 dollars is much cheaper than $15 in 1983 dollars. It's that the price of cassettes has dropped even further, due to reduced demand.
It costs money to produce the "making of" extra, the "deleted scenes" extra, and all the other extras that typically come on a CD. It costs money to license the MPEG and Dolby patents involved in DVD Video technology (many of the VHS patents have expired by now).
Uh, copyright does expire. Albeit after something like 75 years.
The basic copyright term in the United States for works made for hire and works published before 1978 was extended to 95 years four years ago. And Congress reserves the right to add twenty more years every twenty years. Sick.
Remember that quite a few electronic dance music DJs read Slashdot. Those DJs still typically use vinyl by tradition. Only a few DJs have begun to move to Compact Disc based systems.
Honestly, how many of us would burn far fewer CDs if they cost only $3 or $4?
CDs at $3.99 new... That won't happen. A typical CD contains 12 songs, and federal law mandates a royalty to the songwriter of eight cents per song.
However, at $17 a CD and $25 a DVD many of us cannot afford the level of entertainment being thrown at us.
Even without considering the bandwidth issue, movie piracy isn't as big as music piracy because unlike music CDs, movies can be rented inexpensively through Blockbuster or Netflix.
If Photoshop were $25 or could be used on a charge per time basis how many people would sit for hours trying to download it?
I'd guess that most of the people who pirate Photoshop plan to use it for web graphics. But I can get you a legitimate copy of most of the retail version of Photoshop for $99.95. It's called Photoshop Elements, and it has everything its big $600 brother has except support for some high-end operations used only in print publishing.
Slashdot Mirror
I went to Google and found this ... It literally took me 30 seconds to find it.
Next time, if you're reporting a Google result, please give the query string that you used. This way, people who read your comment become better users of the Google search engine.
BTW, manuals have an useful feature called "index". Maybe you could try using it.
Grandparent wrote that many manuals aren't well-indexed: "The problem with 'Can I blah' being looked up in a manual, among other things, is that often there are numerous synonyms for 'blah', and only one of them is ever used in the book, especially the index" (my emphasis).
Tangent: Disney hypocritically borrowing from the public domain but closing the door behind it with the Bono Act, to Disney's use of trademark law to close the door, to trademarks on "Pinocchio" owned by Disney, to the validity of trademark on "Pinocchio" brand dolls.
[Dolls are] one of the more lucrative markets for merchandise based upon the book.
That worried me too when I read it. I see a possible attack against this trademark: make the USPTO realize that there is more to Pinocchio than Disney's film, just as there is more to windows than Microsoft's operating system. In practice, Disney may have allowed the mark to become generic by not pursuing Woodard's Wood Products, William Van Dorin, Beatrice Perini, Luigi Tacchi, or Madame Alexander, who all sell their "Pinocchio" dolls in the United States.
Eat it Eisner.
How about finding another ISP (and telling them WHY you are changing to someone else too).
Often, only one company provides high-speed Internet access to residential customers in a given geographic area. This is often the telephone company or the cable television company. So in effect, you may have instructed Franklin_DeMatto to either 1. downgrade to dial-up or ISDN, 2. buy a ridiculously expensive T1 line, or 3. sell one's house and move.
one of the tubes in my computer died.
Given that the only "vacuum tube" in a modern PC is the cathode ray tube in a traditional display, you might want to try looking into an LCD panel with twice the life (even longer if you replace the internal light) one-third the footprint, one-third the weight, one-third the power consumption, and one-third the eyestrain of a CRT. Even though an LCD may cost more up front, you will save money in the long run by going with an LCD.
No less than one year
Oops... I meant "About one year on the nose".
In particular, no renewed U.S. copyrights expired in 1966.
I referred to "a major market" existing in several European countries, not the United States.
Fonts can be copyrighted too
In the European Union, font designs can be copyrighted. In the United States, only the programs (.ttf, etc) that generate those programs can be copyrighted, but the designs themselves can be patented.
I went to TESS, looked up word mark PINOCCHIO, and found the following live trademark registrations (links are to TARR because TESS expires URLs):
Pinocchio's Pizza Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIOS PIZZA REAL PIZZA, REAL CHEESE, REAL FAST for pizza restaurants and PINOCCHIOS for pizza restaurants outside of Maryland.
Sandra Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO'S for pizza restaurants in Maryland.
ACR Shoeland Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for children's shoes.
Hermstedt GmbH owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for modem cards.
Escalon Packers Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for canned tomato products and more canned tomato products.
DisneyCo owns trademark on WALT DISNEY'S PINOCCHIO for cosmetics. DisneyCo owns trademark on PINOCCHIO only for dolls. Thus, the only thing DisneyCo can use trademark law to stop competing film publishers from doing is "moichandizing", as Yogurt put it in Spaceballs.
Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland.
More likely on WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Of course, they have no grounds to prevent the sale of AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE brand video games based on the QUAKE III ARENA brand graphics engine.
But who do you quote to support various renditions of FTL travel??
If both our universe and the fictional universe have the law in common, they may have the physicist in common. Otherwise, quote fictional physicists and engineers. For example, in the Star Trek universe, "Zefram Cochrane invented warp drive in 2063".
You can't have it both ways. Either fictional universes subscribe to real world physics that we know about OR They subscribe to physics that we don't know about
There's no reason that a fictional universe can't take some physical laws from our universe but invent others, as long as the combination remains consistent. For instance, even if they have lots of bullsh*t physics, SF worlds still have the attraction of one mass to another, which we call "gravity" in our physics. I brought up Heisenberg because it was the first explanation that came to mind for the limitations of teleporters. Perhaps you meant: "either a fictional universe has zero BS physics, or it has at least one BS law of physics."
How about the even sinmpler fact that it is a TV show and that would spoil all the writers plots??
The "fourth wall" refers to the separation of a fantasy world (the "earth") from the world of its creator (the "heaven"). It's generally considered bad form to break the fourth wall unless, as in The Truman Show, eXistenZ, The Matrix, and Holy Bible, the fourth wall itself is a plot point. Even bullsh*t science that explains something within the story's universe modulo suspension of disbelief is preferred to "I made it this way because it would spoil my plot otherwise." A good SF plot has to sit on a good consistent foundation of rules of the universe.
Thus, the Heisenberg copy protection on most SF universes' teleportation devices. It serves a purpose in the plot, but it makes sense.
And they have every right to.
Which is why when I refer to the tetramino game in the generic, I call it the tetramino game. In the same way, the game played on a Hasbro(R) SORRY!(R) board is called "slide pursuit", a variation of the earlier game "ludo" played on a Popomatic Trouble(R) board. I was in a way responding to the fact that this article called the game "Tetris(R)".
That's why smart inventors are very careful with what they name their inventions
Of course, Google makes it much easier nowadays to do a search for possible trademark collisions.
and are sure to get the trademark before going to market.
Actually, to get a trademark registration in the United States, you must have already used the mark in interstate commerce, or you must be able to prove a "good faith intent" (the details of which I do not know because I am not a lawyer) to use the mark in interstate commerce.
Pinocchio - Grim
The Adventures of Pinocchio is not by the Grimm Bros. but rather by Carlo "Collodi" Lorenzini. You can read about Collodi, or read an English translation of Pinocchio .
books in the Public Domain that have been hijacked by Disney, and are aggressively defended by them.
The Walt Disney Company does not own the rights to the novel Pinocchio or to the name "Pinocchio". DisneyCo owns only the copyright on its film adaptation[1], including the likenesses of the characters as drawn by Disney animators, and has no grounds to prevent other publishers' film adaptations of the original novel. DisneyCo most definitely does not own the rights to "Noddy", a character created by Enid Blyton that may have been inspired by Pinocchio.
The Jungle Book - Kipling
Which exemplifies . No less than one year after The Jungle Book went PD in a major market, DisneyCo published a film adaptation. The company was obviously waiting for the copyright to run out. Now DisneyCo has closed the door behind itself by pushing copyright term extensions through Congress.
Peter Pan
NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN WORLDWIDE! The European Union recognizes a monopoly on literary works for the life of the last surviving author, plus the remainder of the calendar year, plus 70 years. Because J. M. Barrie, the author of Peter Pan, died in 1937, copyright in Peter Pan does not expire in the European Union until 2007, and DisneyCo has to pay GOSH a royalty for every Peter Pan and Return to Never Land disc sold in the EU. In fact, the United Kingdom has granted a statutory perpetual copyright on the work, with royalties going to a children's hospital.
[1] DisneyCo may lose even that if the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft happens to strike down the 1976 extension along with the Bono Act.
But how, before buying the article, are we supposed to know whether that story is worth $4.50? And how, before buying the article, are we supposed to know whether the PDF will come with restrictions on use with text-to-speech apps?
Ever notice that the Trekkie philosophy of not making multiple copies of something with the transporter is just DRM in disguise?
Actually, it's Heisenberg's quantum reality. As you measure the quantum state of the object you're transporting, you also destroy that state. Think of it as God's DRM.
So does "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson, which predicts the unavoidable consequence of perpetual copyright: eventually, every pleasing combination of n notes is owned by somebody. Copyrights become like land in that it's possible to own them but not create new ones.
This is why Americans do not need copyright term extensions such as the Bono Act.
having a computer read an e-book (aloud or otherwise) and having a person read a book (aloud or otherwise) both involve making copies - one in software/hardware, the other in wetware. Of course there are differences
The difference is that United States copyright law considers RAM to be a tangible medium in which a work can be fixed; thus, reading a file into RAM is copying. The brain is not such a medium.
they don't sue all of the people who make and sell cheap clones of it and call it "Wibble" or something?
They can't. They don't have a patent. It's the same reason Adobe can't sue the GIMP developers, because they didn't call it "GPhotoshop".
take the little Cappuciono PC and fill it with top notch hardware
But will you be able to get it down to $150 to compete with the Nintendo GameCube?
They programmed Tetris and Space Invaders for their console using a system they call CASM.
In Soviet Russia, Alexey Pajitnov invented Tetris.
In the United States of America, The Tetris Company will sue you if your game's name is too similar to "Tetris".
There is ABSOLUTELY NO justification for charging extra for a CD vs. a tape.
While you were writing this question, I was composing such a justification. First: bonus tracks on early CDs. Second: little demand for cassettes nowadays.
I would agree that DVD's many times add stuff on that would be worth the extra cost.
In the early days of Compact Disc Digital Audio, CDs had extras that one could almost call "deleted songs" by analogy with DVD Video's "deleted scenes". For instance, Bad by Michael Jackson contained an extra track called "Leave Me Alone" that wasn't available on the vinyl, cassette, or 8-track version of the album. (Yes, Bad was one of the last albums on 8-track.) They could put extras on a CD because a 74-minute CD could hold as much as 3 24-minute sides of an LP. However, with CD becoming the dominant format, the typical album went from being 48 minutes long to being 60 to 72 minutes long, and they had to be pressed on four 18-minute sides of an LP. Cassettes, on the other hand, could be expanded to 40 minutes a side to hold the whole CD. The increased capacity of the medium could have quite a bit to do with why new albums have more filler than old albums.
But looking at my experience with CD's I don't think that is that case.
It isn't that the price of CDs hasn't dropped; it has. $15 in 2002 dollars is much cheaper than $15 in 1983 dollars. It's that the price of cassettes has dropped even further, due to reduced demand.
$18 DVD vs. $10 VHS Tape
It costs money to produce the "making of" extra, the "deleted scenes" extra, and all the other extras that typically come on a CD. It costs money to license the MPEG and Dolby patents involved in DVD Video technology (many of the VHS patents have expired by now).
Uh, copyright does expire. Albeit after something like 75 years.
The basic copyright term in the United States for works made for hire and works published before 1978 was extended to 95 years four years ago. And Congress reserves the right to add twenty more years every twenty years. Sick.
When was the last time you bought a record
Remember that quite a few electronic dance music DJs read Slashdot. Those DJs still typically use vinyl by tradition. Only a few DJs have begun to move to Compact Disc based systems.
Honestly, how many of us would burn far fewer CDs if they cost only $3 or $4?
CDs at $3.99 new... That won't happen. A typical CD contains 12 songs, and federal law mandates a royalty to the songwriter of eight cents per song.
However, at $17 a CD and $25 a DVD many of us cannot afford the level of entertainment being thrown at us.
Even without considering the bandwidth issue, movie piracy isn't as big as music piracy because unlike music CDs, movies can be rented inexpensively through Blockbuster or Netflix.
If Photoshop were $25 or could be used on a charge per time basis how many people would sit for hours trying to download it?
I'd guess that most of the people who pirate Photoshop plan to use it for web graphics. But I can get you a legitimate copy of most of the retail version of Photoshop for $99.95. It's called Photoshop Elements, and it has everything its big $600 brother has except support for some high-end operations used only in print publishing.