I think people should drop office already, both libre and ms variants, more particularly writer/word. Most of time of using it is devoted to dicking around with fonts and text layout, something that should be done automatically by a typesetting system. It's really unfair that professionals get to use real typesetting systems while rank and file amateurs are stuck setting up all this manually. Amateur nature of this software and lack of proper standardization leads to formatting breakages when moving between libre and ms and between different versions of them, something that was handled properly in TeX, which is almost 40 years old already!
Of course it's not Microsoft Flight Simulator, but it's definitely a flight simulator. The article doesn't say if AI is driven by simulated data from radars and stuff or can read simulation data directly. If it's plugged into simulation directly then it has the same problem as all other game AIs. Since AI is omniscient with perfect reaction times it needs to be artificially made extremely dumb so humans could have any chance to win.
As Stalin used to say, confession is queen of all proofs. Though as far as investigators were concerned, Nomm wasn't very important to them. They didn't even interrogate him.
Is it really so? It can't be that ALL USA's manufacturing is done elsewhere. I'd at least expect them to be self-sufficient wrt housing, food and energy and that's enough to survive any crisis, perhaps not with the same government, but who cares about that..
You say it like it's entire Russia is doing that. Nothing could be farther from truth. As a Russian myself I consider any such law projects to be work of corrupted officials who don't know what they're doing. Duma is always full of blatantly dump law projects anyway.
Monitoring children, just like monitoring all people, has the same problem: you simply don't have time to sift through all irrelevant stuff. And there's no real way to determine what is harmful and what isn't. Most of things you'll find harmful will be so because of some kind of misunderstanding on your part and will make you look like a big idiot to your children. And you really can't do much upbringing if your children think you're an idiot. And if they decide to join some gang or something they'll find a way to bypass any surveillance methods for their communications..
"Based on" can mean many different things depending on the context, and examples given clarify what it means in this particular case. And not a single of them covers mere reuse of some lore elements, such as Klingons. In fact it implies a lot more stringent requirements on a work being considered derivative of other work. Thus Axanar could be only considered derivative work if, say, it was a remake of StarTrek The Motion Picture, or a movie combining several subplots taken away from various episodes of the series. But then it should be specified which exact motion pictures or episodes were ripped off. If it just reuses some lore elements
from the setting for a completely original story then it's not derivative work according to definition in the law.
There is a big difference between "your voice is worthless" and "the final decision is done by people who actually can do the job". Some contributors actually go way beyond the call of duty to help users. But their power isn't unlimited and tradeoffs must be made. Some users want sub-optimal or impractical decisions to be made, often decisions that would screw other users. And once they fail to make things go their way to everyone else's detriment they declare themselves "voiceless" and "powerless". But the truth is, final decisions are always done by people who do stuff, or at least on their behalf. This applies to everything, not only open source projects. Even a paid software house will tell you take a hike if you ask them to do something asinine. If you're lucky. If not, they'll agree at first, and later declare project to be a failure, but will pocket money anyway.
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Examples provided here guide me to conclude that only transformations are covered, and not works made from scratch. As long as those examples remain as they are there's no convincing me that completely new works reusing some characters and setting elements are derivative.
For some reason that wasn't much of issue in time of Sherlock Holmes, that's why all this stuff exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Copyright on individual characters is relatively new invention, and it needs to be fed through legislative branch before it'll become proper law, rather than some judge's fantasy.
Actually, trademark claims is what they should be pressing instead. Claiming copyright here is misuse. All this bogus legal situation exists only because people keep confusing trademark, patents and copyrights.
Well, it totally doesn't convince me. Character copyright just plain doesn't follow from the law as written, and people can't be expected to follow unwritten laws that is conveyed mostly via hearsay and can be changed by new interpretation at any new court case. Since it doesn't follow from the law the judge basically usurped role performed by legislative branch. Of course judges are expected to draft own interpretation, but this is going too far IMO. A change of such a magnitude should be vetted by society at large.
For example this: http://copyright.gov/circs/cir... . I insist that any decision by court restricting the use of a character alone, irrespective of work, and in all works changes the meaning of copyright as defined in law, and thus the law must be updated for those decisions to make sense.
By itself "based" means little, the following examples("translation" etc) are there to define what "based" actually means. And examples there clearly suggest being based means something that transforms the original work in some way, and not original works reusing some elements from other works. So Axanar court case and many others like it suggest that judges were using different definition of "derivative work" than original law implied, and they either should stop doing that or copyright law should be updated to the definition they actually use.
Setting itself isn't copyrightable, and the assertion that any work in same setting is automatically derivative is blatantly wrong.There's simply no reason to believe that.
It's plain as day that they never intended to cover stories with same characters, overall setting elements etc. Otherwise two historical novels of same period would be derivative works of each other. I understand that authors might want to manage integrity of their setting but copyright isn't the right tool to enforce it.
Individual elements like that are explicitly not subject to copyright. Only complete works are subject to copyright. And as far as law is concerned there is only an issue if there is "is derivative work of" relation between two complete works, such as movies or novels. Axanar is single work, a movie, thus it much be in "is derivative work of" relation with some other work such as another movie or novel or whatever. Otherwise wording of law doesn't apply.
After reading exact piece of text you're linked to. It tells me that it must be same work transformed to other medium, or somehow extended or expanded a bit. But Axanar is totally different work. For example, it can't be considered dramatization because it's not based on existing novel under copyright of plaintiffs.
It's merely set in the same setting. Copyright law explicitly defines only adaptations, translations etc as derivative works. Works with plots set in the same settings are not derivative works.
But the whole point of lawyer job is to facilitate law compliance. It's the company's fault they got involved in the first place. If companies didn't behave like lunatic despots there wouldn't be need for class action lawsuits in the first place. Just forbidding them won't solve the original problem and thus class action suits should stay.
Slashdot Mirror
because taking a break essentially entails switching attention..
I think people should drop office already, both libre and ms variants, more particularly writer/word. Most of time of using it is devoted to dicking around with fonts and text layout, something that should be done automatically by a typesetting system. It's really unfair that professionals get to use real typesetting systems while rank and file amateurs are stuck setting up all this manually. Amateur nature of this software and lack of proper standardization leads to formatting breakages when moving between libre and ms and between different versions of them, something that was handled properly in TeX, which is almost 40 years old already!
Of course it's not Microsoft Flight Simulator, but it's definitely a flight simulator. The article doesn't say if AI is driven by simulated data from radars and stuff or can read simulation data directly. If it's plugged into simulation directly then it has the same problem as all other game AIs. Since AI is omniscient with perfect reaction times it needs to be artificially made extremely dumb so humans could have any chance to win.
Given that so called "nations", foreign or otherwise, are just glorified criminal outfits anyway, there isn't much dishonor in betraying them.
As Stalin used to say, confession is queen of all proofs. Though as far as investigators were concerned, Nomm wasn't very important to them. They didn't even interrogate him.
Is it really so? It can't be that ALL USA's manufacturing is done elsewhere. I'd at least expect them to be self-sufficient wrt housing, food and energy and that's enough to survive any crisis, perhaps not with the same government, but who cares about that..
Intellectual property is a scam. Betting everything on it is a slow suicide.
You say it like it's entire Russia is doing that. Nothing could be farther from truth. As a Russian myself I consider any such law projects to be work of corrupted officials who don't know what they're doing. Duma is always full of blatantly dump law projects anyway.
Monitoring children, just like monitoring all people, has the same problem: you simply don't have time to sift through all irrelevant stuff. And there's no real way to determine what is harmful and what isn't. Most of things you'll find harmful will be so because of some kind of misunderstanding on your part and will make you look like a big idiot to your children. And you really can't do much upbringing if your children think you're an idiot. And if they decide to join some gang or something they'll find a way to bypass any surveillance methods for their communications..
"Based on" can mean many different things depending on the context, and examples given clarify what it means in this particular case. And not a single of them covers mere reuse of some lore elements, such as Klingons. In fact it implies a lot more stringent requirements on a work being considered derivative of other work. Thus Axanar could be only considered derivative work if, say, it was a remake of StarTrek The Motion Picture, or a movie combining several subplots taken away from various episodes of the series. But then it should be specified which exact motion pictures or episodes were ripped off. If it just reuses some lore elements from the setting for a completely original story then it's not derivative work according to definition in the law.
There is a big difference between "your voice is worthless" and "the final decision is done by people who actually can do the job". Some contributors actually go way beyond the call of duty to help users. But their power isn't unlimited and tradeoffs must be made. Some users want sub-optimal or impractical decisions to be made, often decisions that would screw other users. And once they fail to make things go their way to everyone else's detriment they declare themselves "voiceless" and "powerless". But the truth is, final decisions are always done by people who do stuff, or at least on their behalf. This applies to everything, not only open source projects. Even a paid software house will tell you take a hike if you ask them to do something asinine. If you're lucky. If not, they'll agree at first, and later declare project to be a failure, but will pocket money anyway.
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Examples provided here guide me to conclude that only transformations are covered, and not works made from scratch. As long as those examples remain as they are there's no convincing me that completely new works reusing some characters and setting elements are derivative.
For some reason that wasn't much of issue in time of Sherlock Holmes, that's why all this stuff exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Copyright on individual characters is relatively new invention, and it needs to be fed through legislative branch before it'll become proper law, rather than some judge's fantasy.
Actually, trademark claims is what they should be pressing instead. Claiming copyright here is misuse. All this bogus legal situation exists only because people keep confusing trademark, patents and copyrights.
Well, it totally doesn't convince me. Character copyright just plain doesn't follow from the law as written, and people can't be expected to follow unwritten laws that is conveyed mostly via hearsay and can be changed by new interpretation at any new court case. Since it doesn't follow from the law the judge basically usurped role performed by legislative branch. Of course judges are expected to draft own interpretation, but this is going too far IMO. A change of such a magnitude should be vetted by society at large.
For example this: http://copyright.gov/circs/cir... . I insist that any decision by court restricting the use of a character alone, irrespective of work, and in all works changes the meaning of copyright as defined in law, and thus the law must be updated for those decisions to make sense.
By itself "based" means little, the following examples("translation" etc) are there to define what "based" actually means. And examples there clearly suggest being based means something that transforms the original work in some way, and not original works reusing some elements from other works. So Axanar court case and many others like it suggest that judges were using different definition of "derivative work" than original law implied, and they either should stop doing that or copyright law should be updated to the definition they actually use.
Setting itself isn't copyrightable, and the assertion that any work in same setting is automatically derivative is blatantly wrong.There's simply no reason to believe that.
It's plain as day that they never intended to cover stories with same characters, overall setting elements etc. Otherwise two historical novels of same period would be derivative works of each other. I understand that authors might want to manage integrity of their setting but copyright isn't the right tool to enforce it.
Individual elements like that are explicitly not subject to copyright. Only complete works are subject to copyright. And as far as law is concerned there is only an issue if there is "is derivative work of" relation between two complete works, such as movies or novels. Axanar is single work, a movie, thus it much be in "is derivative work of" relation with some other work such as another movie or novel or whatever. Otherwise wording of law doesn't apply.
After reading exact piece of text you're linked to. It tells me that it must be same work transformed to other medium, or somehow extended or expanded a bit. But Axanar is totally different work. For example, it can't be considered dramatization because it's not based on existing novel under copyright of plaintiffs.
According to definition in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... please tell me of which exact work is Axanar derivative?
It's merely set in the same setting. Copyright law explicitly defines only adaptations, translations etc as derivative works. Works with plots set in the same settings are not derivative works.
But the whole point of lawyer job is to facilitate law compliance. It's the company's fault they got involved in the first place. If companies didn't behave like lunatic despots there wouldn't be need for class action lawsuits in the first place. Just forbidding them won't solve the original problem and thus class action suits should stay.
I don't see why it shouldn't be left as an option, but forcing it to be the only option is unreasonable.