Data cannot be granted a copyright, ever. Copyrights can only be granted for the expression of an idea (data is an idea), such as a trivia book or non-fictional work of literature (historical novels for instance).
It's not the player stats, it's the player names and likenesses that are being licensed. That being said, I don't think it's good for tha gaming industry to have any one company being granted exclusive rights to stuff like this but there's little that can be done about it and still remain fair to all parties involved.
It is a copyright issue simply because copyrights are nothing more than the original expression of an idea (which is not necessarily original) fixed in a tangible medium. Copyrights aren't specific to art or science in any way though they are certainly more valuable in these fields. E-mail messages are most certainly expressions of an idea in a tangible medium, therefore the owner, or their surviving family, should be given the e-mails as Yahoo has little legal claim to them. The question the courts will answer is whether or not Yahoo can legally take ownership of the intellectual property under their TOS.
communism: the political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of a community.
By definition, isn't Gates right to a certain extent? Why is it when someone uses the word communist slashbots everywhere hound on this word incessantly without stopping to even consider if it's used correctly or not? Bill Gates never said those who believe intellectual property to be bad for society and will do everything in their power to subvert the rights of copyright and patent holders want an entire political system based on communism, they simply want to communalize the expression of ideas. He's right for the most part, though obviously his choice of words is rather charged and he could have picked a better one. For a community whose ranks are supposed to be rather intelligent, there certainly are a rather large number of dumb fucks who speak for you.
Hardly. Who do you think will provide the ISPs and ASPs with their software? What do you think it's going to run on? Microsoft Office will become a subscription service running on Windows servers.
"In fact, Forest freely admits to being a supplier. "I have bought everything from hard drives to complete computers for various people in the scene. I've probably bought 15 camcorders alone." He says he considers it a business expense, and writes it off on his taxes."
Wouldn't this be tax fraud? I'd think the FBI could pull a Capone on his ass and use him as the link to the topsites. I don't think the IRS would consider copyright violation a legitimate business. I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if he were busted for either copyright violation or tax fraud.
That's because most people don't use their computers to watch DVDs. When the DVD players fail to play DVDs because of DRM then you might have a problem.
"Sitting behind a two-way mirror, watching first-time users struggle with our software, reminded me that programmers are the least qualified people to design software for novices. Humbled after five days of this, Greg and I went back and painstakingly added feedback to the software, as if we were standing next to users, explaining it ourselves."
I really wish more programmers, engineers, and managers understood this.
I swear to god, if I never hear a slashbot use the phrase flawed business model again I'd be a very happy man. People who use this phrase typically don't know what the fuck they are talking about and I'm guessing you're one of them.
Same here except I still use IE because I simply have no problems with it. I'm also a graphic designer whose skill as a computer admins grew out of personal responsibility to keep spyware and viruses off my system. I had one problem with an open FTP site in IIS 5.1 but when I realized what I had done I closed the site and deleted the files stored there (warez most likely but damn was that a bitch to clean). What amazes me is the amount of time people are willing to spend locking down their Linux boxes but not their Windows boxes. Secure computing practices are required regardless of OS.
"...for what essentially amounts to the distribution of ideas."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Ideas CANNOT be copyrighted, only the expression of an idea can. This is a VERY important distinction to understand and clearly you do not. Once I've fixed my expression of an idea in a tangible form it's mine. You can still express this very same idea in a different way and not violate my copyright. A great example of this is the way Pixar and Dreamworks both did films about ants. A Bug's Life and Antz both told the story of how a single ant was able to save their colony from disaster. The core ideas of the film were very much the same but the expression of this story was very different. A Bug's Life could even be a tribute to the old ant and the grasshopper fable, once again proving that there are still valuable works in the public domain even if copyright lasts as long as it does.
"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying."
The judge erred, in my opinion, when he stated placing files in a shared directory did not constitute infringement if the above quote from the article is true. Also note he said "it did not appear..." by the way not "it is a fact that..." or something similar. According to the judge, distribution required "positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying." Putting files into a shared directory with knowledge that others may actively search them and make copies should fall under a "positive act". The mere act of placing files within the shared P2P directory "advertises" they be allowed to be indexed by the P2P app and listed during searches by others. I'd keep the champagne corked until after the appeal.
The EULA will have little impact on this. If a user were filing a law suit or class action against Direct Revenue for removing the software from AvenueMedia then there may be a chance of addressing EULA landmines. However, AvenueMedia is suing Direct Revenue for removing their software, not for telling users about it first, then doing it.
If one can think and have their thoughts converted to actions, why have a mouse cursor? Why not just think "click the OK button" or "open $application"? It's interesting that they were able to convert thought to commands used to control a computer but why not think about the GUI along side the SUI (Solid User Interface)?
As a die hard Red Sox fan I can say the apocalypse is not coming just yet. In fact, it looks like we've narrowly averted the apocalypse by missing out on a Chicago Cubs/ Boston Red Sox World Series last year. Now that the Red Sox have won a World Series and ended their 86 year drought, it looks like they can't trigger an apocalypse for at least another 86 years.
They would stil be innocent until they shot a gun and a judge and jury was given the opportunity to view the taped evidence, thus proving they are no longer innocent and can be fitted for a new orange jumpsuit.
Half-life 2 is not an idea, it is an expression of an idea fixed in a tangible medium. You're free to get off your lazy ass and develop a game based in a post-apocalyptic world ravaged by aliens from another dimension and give it away for free if you wish. An idea and its expression are two very different things and the sooner you grasp this concept, the sooner you will understand copyright.
This is so true. Often, Slashdotters want to change the problem entirely, not solve the original problem. It seems as if geeks have played SimCity far too much and think the world operates by adjusting a couple issues here and there and balance is once again maintained. It's truly mind-boggling behavior from a group of people who are theoretically intelligent, at least book smart (intelligence, in my mind, requires an equilibrium between book smarts and common sense).
How are they deterring competition? You are free to capture your own expression of an idea in a fixed medium and distribute it on the open market. What you cannot do is take someone else's expression of an idea and distribute it on the open market without permission. No one is stopping you from being creative. Why this concept is so difficult for people to understand is truly mind boggling. Call me a troll if that helps you sleep better at night knowing your argument is weak at best but there it is, the truth laid out before you. What you do with it is wholly up to you. I'm betting you continue to think violating copyrights is exercising your misunderstanding of freedom and liberty.
Here's another thing to think about too. What about my rights, enumerated in the US Constitution as you have already stated, which protect my expression of an idea? Why should I lose these rights because you are a cheap fucking bastard? Your rights to fair use only exist in case law and interpretation of US Copyright law through the judicial system.
I don't know, Slashdot has a peer review system and look at allthe crap that gets modded up as +5 Insightful while proven facts get modded down to -1 Troll or Flamebait.
Slashdot Mirror
Data cannot be granted a copyright, ever. Copyrights can only be granted for the expression of an idea (data is an idea), such as a trivia book or non-fictional work of literature (historical novels for instance).
It's not the player stats, it's the player names and likenesses that are being licensed. That being said, I don't think it's good for tha gaming industry to have any one company being granted exclusive rights to stuff like this but there's little that can be done about it and still remain fair to all parties involved.
It is a copyright issue simply because copyrights are nothing more than the original expression of an idea (which is not necessarily original) fixed in a tangible medium. Copyrights aren't specific to art or science in any way though they are certainly more valuable in these fields. E-mail messages are most certainly expressions of an idea in a tangible medium, therefore the owner, or their surviving family, should be given the e-mails as Yahoo has little legal claim to them. The question the courts will answer is whether or not Yahoo can legally take ownership of the intellectual property under their TOS.
...will the US extradite him given our decreasing friendly relations with France?
communism: the political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of a community.
By definition, isn't Gates right to a certain extent? Why is it when someone uses the word communist slashbots everywhere hound on this word incessantly without stopping to even consider if it's used correctly or not? Bill Gates never said those who believe intellectual property to be bad for society and will do everything in their power to subvert the rights of copyright and patent holders want an entire political system based on communism, they simply want to communalize the expression of ideas. He's right for the most part, though obviously his choice of words is rather charged and he could have picked a better one. For a community whose ranks are supposed to be rather intelligent, there certainly are a rather large number of dumb fucks who speak for you.
Hardly. Who do you think will provide the ISPs and ASPs with their software? What do you think it's going to run on? Microsoft Office will become a subscription service running on Windows servers.
"In fact, Forest freely admits to being a supplier. "I have bought everything from hard drives to complete computers for various people in the scene. I've probably bought 15 camcorders alone." He says he considers it a business expense, and writes it off on his taxes."
Wouldn't this be tax fraud? I'd think the FBI could pull a Capone on his ass and use him as the link to the topsites. I don't think the IRS would consider copyright violation a legitimate business. I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if he were busted for either copyright violation or tax fraud.
"Personally I think the Ariane 5 and 'Satan' are way sexier..."
I think the nick-bts needs to get out more.
That's because most people don't use their computers to watch DVDs. When the DVD players fail to play DVDs because of DRM then you might have a problem.
"Sitting behind a two-way mirror, watching first-time users struggle with our software, reminded me that programmers are the least qualified people to design software for novices. Humbled after five days of this, Greg and I went back and painstakingly added feedback to the software, as if we were standing next to users, explaining it ourselves."
I really wish more programmers, engineers, and managers understood this.
I swear to god, if I never hear a slashbot use the phrase flawed business model again I'd be a very happy man. People who use this phrase typically don't know what the fuck they are talking about and I'm guessing you're one of them.
Same here except I still use IE because I simply have no problems with it. I'm also a graphic designer whose skill as a computer admins grew out of personal responsibility to keep spyware and viruses off my system. I had one problem with an open FTP site in IIS 5.1 but when I realized what I had done I closed the site and deleted the files stored there (warez most likely but damn was that a bitch to clean). What amazes me is the amount of time people are willing to spend locking down their Linux boxes but not their Windows boxes. Secure computing practices are required regardless of OS.
In your example you are sued for circumventing encryption (DeCSS, and also an expression of an idea by the way) used to protect intellectual property.
"...for what essentially amounts to the distribution of ideas."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Ideas CANNOT be copyrighted, only the expression of an idea can. This is a VERY important distinction to understand and clearly you do not. Once I've fixed my expression of an idea in a tangible form it's mine. You can still express this very same idea in a different way and not violate my copyright. A great example of this is the way Pixar and Dreamworks both did films about ants. A Bug's Life and Antz both told the story of how a single ant was able to save their colony from disaster. The core ideas of the film were very much the same but the expression of this story was very different. A Bug's Life could even be a tribute to the old ant and the grasshopper fable, once again proving that there are still valuable works in the public domain even if copyright lasts as long as it does.
Does the monopoly status of the NFL allow it to exclusively grant rights to its brand like that?
"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying."
The judge erred, in my opinion, when he stated placing files in a shared directory did not constitute infringement if the above quote from the article is true. Also note he said "it did not appear..." by the way not "it is a fact that..." or something similar. According to the judge, distribution required "positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying." Putting files into a shared directory with knowledge that others may actively search them and make copies should fall under a "positive act". The mere act of placing files within the shared P2P directory "advertises" they be allowed to be indexed by the P2P app and listed during searches by others. I'd keep the champagne corked until after the appeal.
Danny Elfman is doing the score. In fact, Danny Elfman does most of Tim Burton's film scores.
The EULA will have little impact on this. If a user were filing a law suit or class action against Direct Revenue for removing the software from AvenueMedia then there may be a chance of addressing EULA landmines. However, AvenueMedia is suing Direct Revenue for removing their software, not for telling users about it first, then doing it.
If one can think and have their thoughts converted to actions, why have a mouse cursor? Why not just think "click the OK button" or "open $application"? It's interesting that they were able to convert thought to commands used to control a computer but why not think about the GUI along side the SUI (Solid User Interface)?
"Red Sox won World Series as well."
As a die hard Red Sox fan I can say the apocalypse is not coming just yet. In fact, it looks like we've narrowly averted the apocalypse by missing out on a Chicago Cubs/ Boston Red Sox World Series last year. Now that the Red Sox have won a World Series and ended their 86 year drought, it looks like they can't trigger an apocalypse for at least another 86 years.
They would stil be innocent until they shot a gun and a judge and jury was given the opportunity to view the taped evidence, thus proving they are no longer innocent and can be fitted for a new orange jumpsuit.
Half-life 2 is not an idea, it is an expression of an idea fixed in a tangible medium. You're free to get off your lazy ass and develop a game based in a post-apocalyptic world ravaged by aliens from another dimension and give it away for free if you wish. An idea and its expression are two very different things and the sooner you grasp this concept, the sooner you will understand copyright.
This is so true. Often, Slashdotters want to change the problem entirely, not solve the original problem. It seems as if geeks have played SimCity far too much and think the world operates by adjusting a couple issues here and there and balance is once again maintained. It's truly mind-boggling behavior from a group of people who are theoretically intelligent, at least book smart (intelligence, in my mind, requires an equilibrium between book smarts and common sense).
How are they deterring competition? You are free to capture your own expression of an idea in a fixed medium and distribute it on the open market. What you cannot do is take someone else's expression of an idea and distribute it on the open market without permission. No one is stopping you from being creative. Why this concept is so difficult for people to understand is truly mind boggling. Call me a troll if that helps you sleep better at night knowing your argument is weak at best but there it is, the truth laid out before you. What you do with it is wholly up to you. I'm betting you continue to think violating copyrights is exercising your misunderstanding of freedom and liberty.
Here's another thing to think about too. What about my rights, enumerated in the US Constitution as you have already stated, which protect my expression of an idea? Why should I lose these rights because you are a cheap fucking bastard? Your rights to fair use only exist in case law and interpretation of US Copyright law through the judicial system.
I don't know, Slashdot has a peer review system and look at allthe crap that gets modded up as +5 Insightful while proven facts get modded down to -1 Troll or Flamebait.