And as I pointed out elsewhen, buying used CDs leaves you in possession of a piece of personal property, roughly worth what you payed for it.
You have reduced your liquidity, but actually retained net value, thus, in a sense, obtained the music for "free."
And as a piece of property you retain all legal property rights, such as resale (see above), to use wherever and in whatever playback device you wish, the right to loan, the right to make backups for personal use, The right to use as a frickin' frisbee or wall covering if you want.
Yes, I buy used books too. Lots and lots and lots of used books. Dirt cheap at library sales. Sometimes very expensive used books, because they're out of print and the publisher refuses to sell me a copy anyway.
What happens when your favorite download site withdraws part of the library? I've got stuff from mp3.com. Stuff that I think is outrageously good.
I'd give you a link, but. ..
Protect your right to consider your own property your own property. Buy used CDs and books.
You might even be doing your part to protect the intellectual property itself.
Of course this process can also be intentionally manipulated for comedic effect:
John Cameron Swasey: Laybird, I understand you are a great student of history. Tell me, what were the first words the Indians spoke to the Pilgrims as they landed on our shores.
Ladybird Johnson: Welcome to the LBJ Ranch!
That's one's always been one of my favorites.
Of course in retrospect some of these early comedic manipulations of live interviews can take on a sad irony.
JCS: Bobby, it's rumored that your brother Ted is going to run for president. How do you feel about that?
Bobby Kennedy: Well, if he wants to join me where I'm going, I'd be glad to have him along.
That was pretty funny circa 1965.
I remember sitting in front of a little B&W television all day watching reporters talk about the assasination attempt and the, ultimately futile, attempts to save Mr. Kennedey's life.
There were reporters sitting in the studio talking to reporters outside the hospital where the surgery was taking place. I always knew which were which. There was never some guy standing in front of a blue screen in the studio while a picture of the hospital was added behind him to simulate on the spot reporting.
Maybe I'm just turning into an old fart, but yes, I think that sort of thing is when you start going too far, even if you haven't "lied." It is still an intentional deception.
They've got you so focused on the carrot that they not only don't have to steal your steak surreptitiously, they've actually gotten you to praise them for the theft.
. . . you have to wait 20 minuite to see the effects of your command
Yeah, as an R/C racer that was pretty much my response to the editorial comment.
Ultimate R/C car?
I like a bit less lag time out of my control systems when I'm turning oval laps at 5 seconds a pop while drafting another car. If nothing else suspension bits and graphite plates are expensive.
On the other hand I might get slightly better results if the car had a bit of AI and didn't rely on my inputs to tell it what to do.
"Hey, dude. What the hell were you thinking when you pulled that move and took me out?"
"Well. If you want me to be completely honest, damned if I know."
I should probably call a good neurosurgeon and have some new firmware installed.
True, in WWII the French reputation suffered greatly in the eyes of the world.
It wasn't always that way though and the French have learned from their mistake and gotten back to basics.
In WWI the French were able to stem the German onslaught, transfering an entire army overnight in taxi cabs rounded up from the streets of Paris and deliver them where needed with pinpoint accuracy.
Only this time those cabs are all going to be filled with lawyers armed with the Code Napleon.
Think about that (but not too long if you're the squeamish sort). A whole army of lawyers. French lawyers. In French courts. Arguing the finer points of law dating from Charlamange.
After a few weeks smoke will pour out of SCO counsel's ears while they chant, "That does not compute. That does not compute."
That's how you deal with killer robots bent on "Sterilize! Sterilize!"ing.
And throw in the homeopathic "remedies" now sold as "medicine" in virtually every legitimate pharmacy in creation.
Personally I rather enjoyed that brief period in history when mainstream practitioners of medicine had given up on the concept of "Good Juju" as valid.
I must admit, however, that the water is completely safe from a food perspective. Completely uncontaminated by anything.
This is typical beauraucratic "extension of mandate."
If allowed it essentially says that American food safty regulations can encompass anything in the universe, since something somewhere might eat it and that something in turn get eatten by an American.
If I may quote their website, top 'o the page:
"Center for Food Safety works to protect human health and the environment. . .
Emphasis mine.
Hey guys? Yeah, you food Nazis, I'm talking to you.
We already have and agency to protect the enviroment and provide jobs for enviro Nazis.
It's called The Enviromental Protection Agency. Go figure.
Now be good little lads and go figure out what that nasty stuff is that makes Froot Loops glow and how to protect me from it.
Yes, yes, you'll get your traditional reward of a Ding Dong, with Cool Whip on it, with your glass of Tang at recess.
It's still just discovery. They aren't compelled to file evidence with the court yet, just provide it to the defendant. They're only required to file with the court a statement that have complied with the discovery order.We're still just in the "Ya gotta show me what ya got" phase.
So in that sense I mispoke, sloppy of me.IANAL, I just argue with lawyers a lot and occasionally play one in court when the stakes are lower than lawyer fees. So sometimes it takes me a couple rounds to get it right when it would trip off a lawyer's tounge without even thinking about it.
The ruling in December was that, since those documents IBM demanded required an explicit listing of trade secrets, they not be made public. Both reasonable and standard procedure.
It is now up to IBM to review the documents and challange their compliance with the discovery order. Then the court would review them. The court isn't interested in vetting every little bit of discovery when the parties are already both satisfied.
Nor was it necessarily proper of me to refer to the 60 pages as an index. That was a kneejerk response to the article posting. After sitting back a bit and reflecting at leisure for an hour or so the compliance document claims that the 60 pages are in full compliance with Interogatory 1.
IfSCO is officially claiming millions of lines of code in violation (as they have publicly) than they have submitted a line number index. If we are to take SCO at their word, however (HA!), then the number of violations they claim is actually quite small. No more than a few hundreds of lines (given that Interogatory 1 requires more information than the code lines as well).
(And citing the holidays as an excuse for those interogatories which they admit they've failed to comply with in a case they've been preparing for years, officially and unofficially, when the statements needed were going to be produced by working serfs who have to, and do, work right through those holidays when called upon to do so (a fact which the judge is well aware of, having been one of those working serfs on her way up) and the judge who set the time limit for compliance was perfectly aware of said holidays falling inside that time constraint (as did SCO who had every right to bring that issue up at the time if they so chose) is a rather cheap and shoddy ploy for time)
For all of this effort they are now asking that IBM, as defendant,to give up all of their lines of propriatary UNIX code so that they may go on a fishing expedition.
Well, it doesn't work like that. Not even in a civil case where the rules of discovery are much more lax than a criminal case.
Many, many, many years ago some smart aleck lawyers came up with the brilliant plan of making some minor claim and then using "discovery" to dig through everything the accused had to see if they could find more actionable dirt.
It didn't fly. It's not flying has been enacted into code. Onus is on the plaintif to show cause, provide supporting evidence, and showing that requested documents are relevant to the specific complaint.
You can't sue someone for an overcharge on an invoice and then demand that they turn over copies of all of their contracts and invoices.
They aren't relevant. They are private documents which you have no right to see.
SCO is claiming that IBM made public trade secrets, but also wish to claim that they don't know what those trade secrets are (Boy, now that's a trade secret).
The relevant documents are SCO's showing ownership of those trade secrets. If IBM is compelled by the terms of their UNIX license to turn over their propriatary UNIX code then SCO has no need to file for them as part of discovery. Since they have filed for them under the rules of discovery one might presume that IBM is not compelled by the terms of their license. If SCO wishes to claim that IBM is violating their contract by not turning over t
If you are looking to use a U2 song to advertise your product on television, no, you can't afford it if you have to ask.
Nonetheless you have to ask.
You have to ask because "matter of private contract" means "subject to negotiation."
In all matters subject to negotiation there is no such thing as a typical cost. What's the "typical" price a publishing house pays for a book?
You see? If you're John Irving it's one price. If you're John Irving after a couple sales duds it's quite another. If you're John Humperdink who wrote a "great American novel" after work at the steel mill it's quite another again.
The same when it comes time to negotiate the movie rights for the book, or the rights to use a piece of music for that movie.
You have a lawyer and an agent. They have a lawyer and an agent. Your "people" argue and sooner or later you determine a price that you won't budge above and another that they won't budge below. If the ranges overlap you've got yourself a deal. You can take it for granted though that each side is trying to soak the other as hard as they can. If your people aren't as good as theirs you can end up paying millions more than you had to.
That's specifically why they won't just quote a price. Ya gotta haggle.:)
If you can't afford an agent and a lawyer to do the arguing, man, you really can't afford it.:)
As a general rule a contract matter such as this is not something you as an individual walk in off the street, ask the price of, and pay. Even if it were you'd still want the specific terms gone over by a lawyer and maybe have some of those terms changed. You just don't deal with IP at this level without legal counsel. They had legal counsel draw up a contract wholely and completely in [i]their[/i] benefit. To soak you. On purpose.
A lawyer is cheaper than the soaking. A lot cheaper, even given the rates lawyers charge. I know some people who lost the rights to their own band name simply because they didn't have a lawyer vet the managment contract. They were opening for Blue Oyster Cult, got a record deal, and lost every penny, as well as the right to make any more pennies.
They've got you by the short and curlys I'm afraid.
If you're a nonprofit looking to use a bit of obscure and unpopular music, well, the negotiations will likely set a fairly low price at reasonable terms at minimum legal fees. Maybe they'll even agree to "donate" it and take a tax write off of what they've been able to get out of someone else. For that matter if you represent a cause that someone rich and famous with a financially valuable piece of music feels strongly about you can very likely still get it donated. They get "payed" by the government for that too, and they know it. Boy do they know it. These are people who can often use a tax write off obtained at no actual personal expense.
So the "typical" cost is anywhere from millions up front and a royalty per performance, down to "donated" -- plus legal fees.
The exception to all of the above is if you're dealing with a "set" piece. One in which the music and movie/play are already associated. You don't have to go through all of that if you just want to put on a stage production of Little Shop of Horrors. The play and music are already conjoined at the hip and you do pretty much just ask the price, meekly accept their terms, sign the contract and pay it. It isn't a mechanical royalty per se, but it has the appearance of one because now you're dealing with a mass market product, not a "custom job."
There is this difference. When I am making a sound recording I am trying to achieve a particular sound and I wish the machine that plays it back be at least capable of reproducing that sound (what the "end" listener does with the sound is up to them).
Digital is best for this on all counts.
Whan I am making a photograph I am not trying to make as accurate an image of the subject as I can. I am making an image.As often as not one that I expect to exist in the world of the viewer of that image as a physical object. Sometimes digital is the only way I can achieve my desired effect. Sometimes film is.
Hell, sometimes it takes a mixture of the two.
When working with moving images sometimes video tape is what works, sometimes film. (And if you've never seen an old Warner Bros. cartoon reproduced by shining real light through a real bit of colored plastic you owe it to yourself to make an effort to seek one out.Better yet, Disney's Snow White. Yes, it's "warmer").
When the time comes that I can produce and reproduce every image I want digitally (as has already happened acoustically) I'll be happy as something that's really, really happy.
An abstract that merely refers to an unsubmitted index.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm, guys? That's not evidence.
The line listing is evidence.
You guys can make up any inhouse doofy theory of law you wish, but the fact of the matter is, and the court has made some attempt to explain this to you and placed you under compulsion, the claimant must produce the evidence that their claim is justified. The defendant need do nothing until such time because the defendant is only required to defend itself against the filed evidence.
Which part of this don't your high payed lawyers understand?
If you're lucky the judge will say, "Ummmmmmmm, nice try, you've got one more chance at getting it right. I presume counsel has had at least basic training in the rules of evidence?. . . Good. Please apply that knowledge in future."
If it were me I'd simply toss their asses out for noncompliance and a side order of legal arrogance.
The printed words are covered by mechanical copyright.
You've gotten this backward. The audio recording is covered by mechanical royalties. No permission is needed, per se, to record and sell a song, simply a remission of royalties due who's maximum is set by law (assuming the song has already been recorded. First right to record is a right held by the author or his agent). You need to arrange a license, but that license cannot be refused and its terms are preset.
Hence the term "mechanical."
Performance of ip (such as walking down the street and whistling a tune) is clearly of a different class than copying a written work and a recording of such which may be traded commercially is again of a clearly different class. Hence the modern invention of mechanical rights for recorded performance.
When you buy a play script all you have done is purchase a book. Standard copyright for printed matter applies. You may read it, recite it to yourself. Copy it within your fair use. Resell it for whatever the market will bear, etc.
It's just a book.
When you perform a play you owe royalties per performance.
So for sheet music. It's just a book until you sing it.
The right to print and to sell that printed matter is strictly a matter of private contract.
(Now if you perform music during a play or movie things change again. There are no mechanical royalties for this. You pay what is called a "Sychronization Fee" which is strictly a matter of private contract. The soundtrack recording of that music, however, is subject to mechanical royalties. See, clear as mud.:) )
I'd add that virtually every record label also owns a publishing house, and if the music/lyric author is not aware of these issues he may find that he has assigned his copyright of the written work as well as the recorded one.
Always consult your own private lawyer, i.e. not even the one the label "recommends" to you.
Rule number one: The rep is not your friend Rule number two: The rep's job is not to inform you Rule number three: The rep's job is to extract money from you by whatever means won't get the company charged criminally Rule number four: "Hey, but that would mean he was lying!" Rule number five: Please return to rule number one and press start again
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know. I got a D in undergraduate thermo after sleeping through it.
It's actually in my transcript that I must have picked up something by osmosis, so there Mr. Potential Employer.
Didn't work so well in vector calc. The prof actually gave tests and shit. What's wit dat?
KFG
Maybe Thinkgeek could sell a "Natalie Portman in Hot Grits" version?
They were workin' on it, but the prototypes kept petrifying.
KFG
And as I pointed out elsewhen, buying used CDs leaves you in possession of a piece of personal property, roughly worth what you payed for it.
.
You have reduced your liquidity, but actually retained net value, thus, in a sense, obtained the music for "free."
And as a piece of property you retain all legal property rights, such as resale (see above), to use wherever and in whatever playback device you wish, the right to loan, the right to make backups for personal use, The right to use as a frickin' frisbee or wall covering if you want.
Yes, I buy used books too. Lots and lots and lots of used books. Dirt cheap at library sales. Sometimes very expensive used books, because they're out of print and the publisher refuses to sell me a copy anyway.
What happens when your favorite download site withdraws part of the library? I've got stuff from mp3.com. Stuff that I think is outrageously good.
I'd give you a link, but. .
Protect your right to consider your own property your own property. Buy used CDs and books.
You might even be doing your part to protect the intellectual property itself.
KFG
Of course this process can also be intentionally manipulated for comedic effect:
John Cameron Swasey: Laybird, I understand you are a great student of history. Tell me, what were the first words the Indians spoke to the Pilgrims as they landed on our shores.
Ladybird Johnson: Welcome to the LBJ Ranch!
That's one's always been one of my favorites.
Of course in retrospect some of these early comedic manipulations of live interviews can take on a sad irony.
JCS: Bobby, it's rumored that your brother Ted is going to run for president. How do you feel about that?
Bobby Kennedy: Well, if he wants to join me where I'm going, I'd be glad to have him along.
That was pretty funny circa 1965.
I remember sitting in front of a little B&W television all day watching reporters talk about the assasination attempt and the, ultimately futile, attempts to save Mr. Kennedey's life.
There were reporters sitting in the studio talking to reporters outside the hospital where the surgery was taking place. I always knew which were which. There was never some guy standing in front of a blue screen in the studio while a picture of the hospital was added behind him to simulate on the spot reporting.
Maybe I'm just turning into an old fart, but yes, I think that sort of thing is when you start going too far, even if you haven't "lied." It is still an intentional deception.
Knock it off.
KFG
They've got you so focused on the carrot that they not only don't have to steal your steak surreptitiously, they've actually gotten you to praise them for the theft.
I hope it turns out to be a mighty tasty carrot
KFG
. . . you have to wait 20 minuite to see the effects of your command
Yeah, as an R/C racer that was pretty much my response to the editorial comment.
Ultimate R/C car?
I like a bit less lag time out of my control systems when I'm turning oval laps at 5 seconds a pop while drafting another car. If nothing else suspension bits and graphite plates are expensive.
On the other hand I might get slightly better results if the car had a bit of AI and didn't rely on my inputs to tell it what to do.
"Hey, dude. What the hell were you thinking when you pulled that move and took me out?"
"Well. If you want me to be completely honest, damned if I know."
I should probably call a good neurosurgeon and have some new firmware installed.
No Java though. I'm an APL kinda guy.
KFG
True, in WWII the French reputation suffered greatly in the eyes of the world.
It wasn't always that way though and the French have learned from their mistake and gotten back to basics.
In WWI the French were able to stem the German onslaught, transfering an entire army overnight in taxi cabs rounded up from the streets of Paris and deliver them where needed with pinpoint accuracy.
Only this time those cabs are all going to be filled with lawyers armed with the Code Napleon.
Think about that (but not too long if you're the squeamish sort). A whole army of lawyers. French lawyers. In French courts. Arguing the finer points of law dating from Charlamange.
After a few weeks smoke will pour out of SCO counsel's ears while they chant, "That does not compute. That does not compute."
That's how you deal with killer robots bent on "Sterilize! Sterilize!"ing.
KFG
And throw in the homeopathic "remedies" now sold as "medicine" in virtually every legitimate pharmacy in creation.
Personally I rather enjoyed that brief period in history when mainstream practitioners of medicine had given up on the concept of "Good Juju" as valid.
I must admit, however, that the water is completely safe from a food perspective. Completely uncontaminated by anything.
Including juju.
KFG
This is typical beauraucratic "extension of mandate."
If allowed it essentially says that American food safty regulations can encompass anything in the universe, since something somewhere might eat it and that something in turn get eatten by an American.
If I may quote their website, top 'o the page:
"Center for Food Safety works to protect human health and the environment. . .
Emphasis mine.
Hey guys? Yeah, you food Nazis, I'm talking to you.
We already have and agency to protect the enviroment and provide jobs for enviro Nazis.
It's called The Enviromental Protection Agency. Go figure.
Now be good little lads and go figure out what that nasty stuff is that makes Froot Loops glow and how to protect me from it.
Yes, yes, you'll get your traditional reward of a Ding Dong, with Cool Whip on it, with your glass of Tang at recess.
KFG
The problem is, of course, that broadcasting 4'33" is rougly akin to broadcasting a Marcel Marceau performance.
You really kinda gotta be there for the full effect.
And I'm trying to imagine the poor, poor people trying to tune in, unaware of the current selection.
KFG
I know I'm a young, but Doctor Who?
Ummmmm, first base?
KFG
They should take all the "lost" ones and put them on a dvd collection.
:)
You can get the complete set of "lost" episodes at any Best Buy.
They call them "blanks."
Reminds me of an old LP entitled "Requiem For Silence."
Yep, 45 minutes of groove without so much as a wiggle in it.
KFG
And then the oral. . . ummmmm, arguments. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. All along.
KFG
Well whatdaya expect in a world where you can major in Home Ec?
KFG
It's still just discovery. They aren't compelled to file evidence with the court yet, just provide it to the defendant. They're only required to file with the court a statement that have complied with the discovery order.We're still just in the "Ya gotta show me what ya got" phase.
So in that sense I mispoke, sloppy of me.IANAL, I just argue with lawyers a lot and occasionally play one in court when the stakes are lower than lawyer fees. So sometimes it takes me a couple rounds to get it right when it would trip off a lawyer's tounge without even thinking about it.
The ruling in December was that, since those documents IBM demanded required an explicit listing of trade secrets, they not be made public. Both reasonable and standard procedure.
It is now up to IBM to review the documents and challange their compliance with the discovery order. Then the court would review them. The court isn't interested in vetting every little bit of discovery when the parties are already both satisfied.
Nor was it necessarily proper of me to refer to the 60 pages as an index. That was a kneejerk response to the article posting. After sitting back a bit and reflecting at leisure for an hour or so the compliance document claims that the 60 pages are in full compliance with Interogatory 1.
IfSCO is officially claiming millions of lines of code in violation (as they have publicly) than they have submitted a line number index. If we are to take SCO at their word, however (HA!), then the number of violations they claim is actually quite small. No more than a few hundreds of lines (given that Interogatory 1 requires more information than the code lines as well).
(And citing the holidays as an excuse for those interogatories which they admit they've failed to comply with in a case they've been preparing for years, officially and unofficially, when the statements needed were going to be produced by working serfs who have to, and do, work right through those holidays when called upon to do so (a fact which the judge is well aware of, having been one of those working serfs on her way up) and the judge who set the time limit for compliance was perfectly aware of said holidays falling inside that time constraint (as did SCO who had every right to bring that issue up at the time if they so chose) is a rather cheap and shoddy ploy for time)
For all of this effort they are now asking that IBM, as defendant,to give up all of their lines of propriatary UNIX code so that they may go on a fishing expedition.
Well, it doesn't work like that. Not even in a civil case where the rules of discovery are much more lax than a criminal case.
Many, many, many years ago some smart aleck lawyers came up with the brilliant plan of making some minor claim and then using "discovery" to dig through everything the accused had to see if they could find more actionable dirt.
It didn't fly. It's not flying has been enacted into code. Onus is on the plaintif to show cause, provide supporting evidence, and showing that requested documents are relevant to the specific complaint.
You can't sue someone for an overcharge on an invoice and then demand that they turn over copies of all of their contracts and invoices.
They aren't relevant. They are private documents which you have no right to see.
SCO is claiming that IBM made public trade secrets, but also wish to claim that they don't know what those trade secrets are (Boy, now that's a trade secret).
The relevant documents are SCO's showing ownership of those trade secrets. If IBM is compelled by the terms of their UNIX license to turn over their propriatary UNIX code then SCO has no need to file for them as part of discovery. Since they have filed for them under the rules of discovery one might presume that IBM is not compelled by the terms of their license. If SCO wishes to claim that IBM is violating their contract by not turning over t
Oh. Damn. Well, that let's me out.
I guess it's Idaho then.
KFG
If you are looking to use a U2 song to advertise your product on television, no, you can't afford it if you have to ask.
:)
:)
Nonetheless you have to ask.
You have to ask because "matter of private contract" means "subject to negotiation."
In all matters subject to negotiation there is no such thing as a typical cost. What's the "typical" price a publishing house pays for a book?
You see? If you're John Irving it's one price. If you're John Irving after a couple sales duds it's quite another. If you're John Humperdink who wrote a "great American novel" after work at the steel mill it's quite another again.
The same when it comes time to negotiate the movie rights for the book, or the rights to use a piece of music for that movie.
You have a lawyer and an agent. They have a lawyer and an agent. Your "people" argue and sooner or later you determine a price that you won't budge above and another that they won't budge below. If the ranges overlap you've got yourself a deal. You can take it for granted though that each side is trying to soak the other as hard as they can. If your people aren't as good as theirs you can end up paying millions more than you had to.
That's specifically why they won't just quote a price. Ya gotta haggle.
If you can't afford an agent and a lawyer to do the arguing, man, you really can't afford it.
As a general rule a contract matter such as this is not something you as an individual walk in off the street, ask the price of, and pay. Even if it were you'd still want the specific terms gone over by a lawyer and maybe have some of those terms changed. You just don't deal with IP at this level without legal counsel. They had legal counsel draw up a contract wholely and completely in [i]their[/i] benefit. To soak you. On purpose.
A lawyer is cheaper than the soaking. A lot cheaper, even given the rates lawyers charge. I know some people who lost the rights to their own band name simply because they didn't have a lawyer vet the managment contract. They were opening for Blue Oyster Cult, got a record deal, and lost every penny, as well as the right to make any more pennies.
They've got you by the short and curlys I'm afraid.
If you're a nonprofit looking to use a bit of obscure and unpopular music, well, the negotiations will likely set a fairly low price at reasonable terms at minimum legal fees. Maybe they'll even agree to "donate" it and take a tax write off of what they've been able to get out of someone else. For that matter if you represent a cause that someone rich and famous with a financially valuable piece of music feels strongly about you can very likely still get it donated. They get "payed" by the government for that too, and they know it. Boy do they know it. These are people who can often use a tax write off obtained at no actual personal expense.
So the "typical" cost is anywhere from millions up front and a royalty per performance, down to "donated" -- plus legal fees.
The exception to all of the above is if you're dealing with a "set" piece. One in which the music and movie/play are already associated. You don't have to go through all of that if you just want to put on a stage production of Little Shop of Horrors. The play and music are already conjoined at the hip and you do pretty much just ask the price, meekly accept their terms, sign the contract and pay it. It isn't a mechanical royalty per se, but it has the appearance of one because now you're dealing with a mass market product, not a "custom job."
KFG
There is this difference. When I am making a sound recording I am trying to achieve a particular sound and I wish the machine that plays it back be at least capable of reproducing that sound (what the "end" listener does with the sound is up to them).
Digital is best for this on all counts.
Whan I am making a photograph I am not trying to make as accurate an image of the subject as I can. I am making an image.As often as not one that I expect to exist in the world of the viewer of that image as a physical object. Sometimes digital is the only way I can achieve my desired effect. Sometimes film is.
Hell, sometimes it takes a mixture of the two.
When working with moving images sometimes video tape is what works, sometimes film. (And if you've never seen an old Warner Bros. cartoon reproduced by shining real light through a real bit of colored plastic you owe it to yourself to make an effort to seek one out.Better yet, Disney's Snow White. Yes, it's "warmer").
When the time comes that I can produce and reproduce every image I want digitally (as has already happened acoustically) I'll be happy as something that's really, really happy.
That time hasn't come yet.
KFG
Please refer to Interogatory Number Frickin' One.
Please note the last three words of that interogatory.
Please note that the document they filed does not contain said evidence, but only refers to an index (not submitted) of that evidence.
Please note that full compliance with the interogatory not including those three words would almost certainly exceed 60 pages.
And that's just Interogatory Number 1.
No, I'm afraid I can't concede that they've responded "fully."
What's more, IBM need not answer any of SCO's "questions" per se. They need only respond to the evidence submitted.
It is not IBM's job to "submit" evidence, as such. It is only their job to refute the evidence that SCO submits.
Even in a civil action you aren't compelled to supply an unasked for rope to hang yourself with.
KFG
Because if it comes to 60 pages and one paragraph the sworn document would contain a legal falsity.
Pretty simple really.
They're using the largest round number possible (to impress) without looking silly or lying.
KFG
what they have done is produce an abstract.
An abstract that merely refers to an unsubmitted index.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm, guys? That's not evidence.
The line listing is evidence.
You guys can make up any inhouse doofy theory of law you wish, but the fact of the matter is, and the court has made some attempt to explain this to you and placed you under compulsion, the claimant must produce the evidence that their claim is justified. The defendant need do nothing until such time because the defendant is only required to defend itself against the filed evidence.
Which part of this don't your high payed lawyers understand?
If you're lucky the judge will say, "Ummmmmmmm, nice try, you've got one more chance at getting it right. I presume counsel has had at least basic training in the rules of evidence?. . . Good. Please apply that knowledge in future."
If it were me I'd simply toss their asses out for noncompliance and a side order of legal arrogance.
KFG
Don't do it.
KFG
The printed words are covered by mechanical copyright.
:) )
You've gotten this backward. The audio recording is covered by mechanical royalties. No permission is needed, per se, to record and sell a song, simply a remission of royalties due who's maximum is set by law (assuming the song has already been recorded. First right to record is a right held by the author or his agent). You need to arrange a license, but that license cannot be refused and its terms are preset.
Hence the term "mechanical."
Performance of ip (such as walking down the street and whistling a tune) is clearly of a different class than copying a written work and a recording of such which may be traded commercially is again of a clearly different class. Hence the modern invention of mechanical rights for recorded performance.
When you buy a play script all you have done is purchase a book. Standard copyright for printed matter applies. You may read it, recite it to yourself. Copy it within your fair use. Resell it for whatever the market will bear, etc.
It's just a book.
When you perform a play you owe royalties per performance.
So for sheet music. It's just a book until you sing it.
The right to print and to sell that printed matter is strictly a matter of private contract.
(Now if you perform music during a play or movie things change again. There are no mechanical royalties for this. You pay what is called a "Sychronization Fee" which is strictly a matter of private contract. The soundtrack recording of that music, however, is subject to mechanical royalties. See, clear as mud.
I'd add that virtually every record label also owns a publishing house, and if the music/lyric author is not aware of these issues he may find that he has assigned his copyright of the written work as well as the recorded one.
Always consult your own private lawyer, i.e. not even the one the label "recommends" to you.
KFG
I understand.
Does your contract read as the other gentleman's does?
KFG
Indeed. Perhaps it is just your local rep.
Tell me, what does it say in the contract?
Rule number one: The rep is not your friend
Rule number two: The rep's job is not to inform you
Rule number three: The rep's job is to extract money from you by whatever means won't get the company charged criminally
Rule number four: "Hey, but that would mean he was lying!"
Rule number five: Please return to rule number one and press start again
Thank you for calling Dell, and have a nice day.
KFG