"--Copyright is not intended to incentivise machines to create works."
"I think the various Sat Techs at places like Space Imaging, Digital Globe and Spot Image would take issue with that."
They would hardly take issue with the statement that a satellite cannot be an author. If the satellite isn't an author, it cannot earn a copyright. Only if these Sat Techs control the picture taking (or editing) a copyright is generated, and then it is owned by the Sat Techs or (most likely) the companies they work for, and then only if certain conditions are met. Sweat of the brow is probably not enough: the Sat Techs need to make creative choices as to how to display something.
I looked at a Google Maps image of the center of Dallas today. (For reference: This silhouette at Wikipedia shows some of the buildings too.) It took me a while to figure out what was going on there, it almost seemed like the city had been designed by Escher. Only after a few seconds I realized that some of the skyscrapers are leaning left, and others are leaning right.
Somebody must have made a decision on what to do in this case. If he or she made that decision per image, that may have generated a copyright.
"All photographs are copyright the photographer who took them."
If you had taken the trouble to follow the link I posted in my first message, you would have seen this is simply not true. A work must be original to be copyrighted. Original means that the author must bring his own interpretation and experience to the picture he takes.
A photographer who tries to make exact reproductions of paintings in a museum, does not earn a copyright, because the photo is not original: the author tries to put as little as possible of himself in the photo, and as much as possible of the painting.
Similarly, there is no self in a satellite, so the photos a satellite takes cannot be copyrighted.
"If you check Google Satellite it says so right on the map--"(c) 2005 DigitalGlobe, EarthSat""
Misrepresenting copyright status is illegal in some jurisdictions, but unfortunately not followed up enough.
"Can I sue them for showing my roof?"
I doubt it. The design of your roof may be property of the architect though, so if you designed your own house...
"Of course the satellite photos can be copyrighted. It is no different from someone taking a picture of a famous mountain or monument from the ground. The thing itself isn't copyrightable, but the photograph of it certainly is."
Not unless there was a photographer controlling the picture taking. Copyright is not intended to incentivise machines to create works.
Because a work needs an author to be copyrightable. Because a work needs to be original to be copyrightable. Because Google's goal with these satellite images is presumably to create a true reproduction of how earth looks from space.
"certainly these particular photographs represent a sizeable investment for the photographer"
Sizeable investments have nothing to do with copyright.
I am not sure how Google Sightseeing could be in trouble, except for trademark violation. They do not seem to be using the maps, but rather the satellite photos, which cannot be copyrighted.
" Which is why people wouldn't be allowed to use their patents to restrict other people from using their methods and inventions"
If you cannot use a patent to restrict other people, it is not a patent. Installing a patent system for the sake of having a patent system means more government and bureaucracy; bad.
Re:here are the technical specs
on
Juicebox Hacking
·
· Score: 1
"2.75 inch 240x160 color LCD"
That's both a better spatial and colour resolution than my 4 gray-scale 160 x 160 Palm Zire.
I mainly use the 100 euro Palm Zire for reading ebooks, so a 10 euro JuiceBox might actually do better.
"Patents are weapons. Just like guns. Gun control, like all other forms of prohibition, does more harm than good. The reasons for this apply to any weapon to a greater or lesser extent, so why do we not allow software patents?"
Allowing citizens to own and use guns is more liberty.
Disallowing citizens to use methods and inventions is less liberty.
"I don't understand how taking the entire rest of year to do drop tests for the Air Force is going to advance anything. Make a few bucks, sure. But make progress towards civilian orbital flight? If there's some strategy there I don't understand it."
From what I understand this is pretty much business as usual for him. You know, the sort of thing that is going to pay for that civilian orbital flight of yours?
Only if minimum wage were appropriate for the sort of work I do and for a person who has worked for the company as long as I have. They would have to demote me first. I even know of a case where somebody was demoted, but got to keep the same pay.
"change your job description to whatever they want,"
There are undoubtedly cases in which this is possible, but generally a party in a contract cannot unilaterly change the agreement. (It is not really an agreement, is it, if one side can change it.)
"move your hours so that you have shifts begining and ending at random times, but as long as they don't outright fire you, you have absolutely no recourse."
They can move my hours, but I can do the same thing. I could for instance request that I only work part-time during the day because I have got to take care of a child, and they would have difficulty trying to deny me.
You know the ways of PHB, but I know the ways of Wally.:-)
"If you refuse they will usually seek a court order, at least in the US."
And generally the courts won't hand these out as if they were M&Ms. The MPAA needs to present very real evidence that you have incriminating evidence, and it needs to show that there is a very real risk you will get rid of that evidence if given the chance.
"Being asked to resign is being fired. It is a minor PR issue, not a semantics issue. When your employer demands you leave, you are fired. That they let you claim "resignation" because it helps you find another job is a concession. But, it doesn't change the fact that the boss walks into the office and demands you be gone by then end of the day (you know, being fired)."
Is that how it goes in Spain?
In my country, if I quit, I get no severance pay, I get no unemployment benefits, and my story of being censored will probably lose much of its sting (quiting is admitting guilt).
Whereas if I get fired, I get to fight my case in court, may get awarded a huge bonus by the judge, and will impress everyone as an honest guy when I plead my case of censorship.
"Of course, in your world, no one will actually make multimillion dollar films, because they are unable to make money off your legal and ethical distribution channels."
"At the risk of sounding like the schoolyard bully pleading with the teacher... who started it?"
Ah well, that is all clearly documented. Modern copyright law started with the statute of Anne, and was intended to deter the illegal dealings of the likes of the MPAA.
"For years, we had an economy that was quite happy supporting both purchase and rental of videos. They didn't come with huge amounts of crap you couldn't skip at the start, they weren't copy protected, and no-one complained if you taped a programme off TV and kept it in your collection for another day."
"Along comes Generation I-Want-It-So-I'll-Take-It, blatantly and offensively flouting the law and ripping people off, and now those of us who cough up the going rate when we want to buy something have to put up with all of the above rubbish, as the media industries defend their business the only way they know how."
Are you on crack or something? The Video Tape Recorder was the P2P of the 1970s, and the MPAA fought it tooth and nail. And unlike P2P, there was no real legal application of the VTR in its early days.
Slashdot Mirror
"--Copyright is not intended to incentivise machines to create works."
"I think the various Sat Techs at places like Space Imaging, Digital Globe and Spot Image would take issue with that."
They would hardly take issue with the statement that a satellite cannot be an author. If the satellite isn't an author, it cannot earn a copyright. Only if these Sat Techs control the picture taking (or editing) a copyright is generated, and then it is owned by the Sat Techs or (most likely) the companies they work for, and then only if certain conditions are met. Sweat of the brow is probably not enough: the Sat Techs need to make creative choices as to how to display something.
I looked at a Google Maps image of the center of Dallas today. (For reference: This silhouette at Wikipedia shows some of the buildings too.) It took me a while to figure out what was going on there, it almost seemed like the city had been designed by Escher. Only after a few seconds I realized that some of the skyscrapers are leaning left, and others are leaning right.
Somebody must have made a decision on what to do in this case. If he or she made that decision per image, that may have generated a copyright.
"All photographs are copyright the photographer who took them."
If you had taken the trouble to follow the link I posted in my first message, you would have seen this is simply not true. A work must be original to be copyrighted. Original means that the author must bring his own interpretation and experience to the picture he takes.
A photographer who tries to make exact reproductions of paintings in a museum, does not earn a copyright, because the photo is not original: the author tries to put as little as possible of himself in the photo, and as much as possible of the painting.
Similarly, there is no self in a satellite, so the photos a satellite takes cannot be copyrighted.
"If you check Google Satellite it says so right on the map--"(c) 2005 DigitalGlobe, EarthSat""
Misrepresenting copyright status is illegal in some jurisdictions, but unfortunately not followed up enough.
"Can I sue them for showing my roof?"
I doubt it. The design of your roof may be property of the architect though, so if you designed your own house...
"Of course the satellite photos can be copyrighted. It is no different from someone taking a picture of a famous mountain or monument from the ground. The thing itself isn't copyrightable, but the photograph of it certainly is."
Not unless there was a photographer controlling the picture taking. Copyright is not intended to incentivise machines to create works.
"Why not?"
Because a work needs an author to be copyrightable. Because a work needs to be original to be copyrightable. Because Google's goal with these satellite images is presumably to create a true reproduction of how earth looks from space.
"certainly these particular photographs represent a sizeable investment for the photographer"
Sizeable investments have nothing to do with copyright.
I am not sure how Google Sightseeing could be in trouble, except for trademark violation. They do not seem to be using the maps, but rather the satellite photos, which cannot be copyrighted.
Brian Pipa has posted method and sample photo at his blog.
Have you done this? I'd be curious to see a photo, just to see what it's like.
" Which is why people wouldn't be allowed to use their patents to restrict other people from using their methods and inventions"
If you cannot use a patent to restrict other people, it is not a patent. Installing a patent system for the sake of having a patent system means more government and bureaucracy; bad.
"2.75 inch 240x160 color LCD"
That's both a better spatial and colour resolution than my 4 gray-scale 160 x 160 Palm Zire.
I mainly use the 100 euro Palm Zire for reading ebooks, so a 10 euro JuiceBox might actually do better.
"Patents are weapons. Just like guns. Gun control, like all other forms of prohibition, does more harm than good. The reasons for this apply to any weapon to a greater or lesser extent, so why do we not allow software patents?"
Allowing citizens to own and use guns is more liberty.
Disallowing citizens to use methods and inventions is less liberty.
"Just because the stuff is intangible doesn't make it any less property."
Ah, the RIAA shill. I thought I recognized the stench. Next time, please log in before you post? It makes it so much easier to ignore you.
Anyway, as you and your masters know, Stallman's stance on copyright is actually quite nuanced.
"I don't understand how taking the entire rest of year to do drop tests for the Air Force is going to advance anything. Make a few bucks, sure. But make progress towards civilian orbital flight? If there's some strategy there I don't understand it."
From what I understand this is pretty much business as usual for him. You know, the sort of thing that is going to pay for that civilian orbital flight of yours?
[If what I said is true]
:-)
"They could demote you to minimum wage,"
Only if minimum wage were appropriate for the sort of work I do and for a person who has worked for the company as long as I have. They would have to demote me first. I even know of a case where somebody was demoted, but got to keep the same pay.
"change your job description to whatever they want,"
There are undoubtedly cases in which this is possible, but generally a party in a contract cannot unilaterly change the agreement. (It is not really an agreement, is it, if one side can change it.)
"move your hours so that you have shifts begining and ending at random times, but as long as they don't outright fire you, you have absolutely no recourse."
They can move my hours, but I can do the same thing. I could for instance request that I only work part-time during the day because I have got to take care of a child, and they would have difficulty trying to deny me.
You know the ways of PHB, but I know the ways of Wally.
"If you refuse they will usually seek a court order, at least in the US."
And generally the courts won't hand these out as if they were M&Ms. The MPAA needs to present very real evidence that you have incriminating evidence, and it needs to show that there is a very real risk you will get rid of that evidence if given the chance.
(IANAL, IANAA)
"Being asked to resign is being fired. It is a minor PR issue, not a semantics issue. When your employer demands you leave, you are fired. That they let you claim "resignation" because it helps you find another job is a concession. But, it doesn't change the fact that the boss walks into the office and demands you be gone by then end of the day (you know, being fired)."
Is that how it goes in Spain?
In my country, if I quit, I get no severance pay, I get no unemployment benefits, and my story of being censored will probably lose much of its sting (quiting is admitting guilt).
Whereas if I get fired, I get to fight my case in court, may get awarded a huge bonus by the judge, and will impress everyone as an honest guy when I plead my case of censorship.
"What about if you were the owner of the Ferrari dealership who lost many sales to the wave of the hand trick, would you be able to stay in business?"
Ah yes, the "we need to build a roof over the world or else all the tanning studios will go bankrupt" argument.
Who cares?!
"The point is that they aren't claiming you are stealing in the official sense, so attacking the word "theft" is irrelevant to the core matter."
I must have missed the bit in the MPAA statement where they explained they were using hyperbole.
"There's no question who holds the moral high ground between the RotS downloader and the MPAA."
Indeed, the RotS downloader does.
"There is an exemption that clearly covers this use in every jurisdiction I know about."
Which jurisdictions and how is the exemption called?
By quoting your parent you infringed on his copyrights. That is life too.
"Of course, in your world, no one will actually make multimillion dollar films, because they are unable to make money off your legal and ethical distribution channels."
So?
"At the risk of sounding like the schoolyard bully pleading with the teacher... who started it?"
Ah well, that is all clearly documented. Modern copyright law started with the statute of Anne, and was intended to deter the illegal dealings of the likes of the MPAA.
"For years, we had an economy that was quite happy supporting both purchase and rental of videos. They didn't come with huge amounts of crap you couldn't skip at the start, they weren't copy protected, and no-one complained if you taped a programme off TV and kept it in your collection for another day."
"Along comes Generation I-Want-It-So-I'll-Take-It, blatantly and offensively flouting the law and ripping people off, and now those of us who cough up the going rate when we want to buy something have to put up with all of the above rubbish, as the media industries defend their business the only way they know how."
Are you on crack or something? The Video Tape Recorder was the P2P of the 1970s, and the MPAA fought it tooth and nail. And unlike P2P, there was no real legal application of the VTR in its early days.
"Sorry, but you're going to need very solid statistics to convince me that that's even close to true."
Why?
You said there was no statistical evidence for what you claimed, so you had to go with personal experience.
Somebody who replied to you used that exact same method.
Now you claim that in your opponent's case, going for personal experience is not allowed.
What is it that makes you so special that you do not need to come up with real evidence, but people who disagree with you do?
"This is Slashdot's favorite strawman argument. It goes something like this:"
"They claim I am stealing, and I am obviously not stealing because I haven't deprived them of anything. Therefore, I am right and they are wrong."
"You set up the strawman, "They claim I am stealing", and then you attack it to win the argument. That's pure logical fallacy."
"It's true that they often use words that are technically incorrect."
In which case it is no longer a strawman argument.
What's your point? I lost you somewhere half-way.
Apparently it is still being fought. Perhaps because no-one has won during that long time.
"--Wow, are you saying someone is actually TAKING the copyright from someone else when they copy?"
"No"
Ah, now you have reverted to lying. How sad.