That is utterly incontrovertible. And so yes... he copied something. He copied the idea. But that is *ALL* that he copied. The original photographer does not own a copyright on that idea, he owns a copyright on the photo.
The second photographer did not copy the original photographer's photo. He copied the *IDEA* that the original photographer had.
"'Controlling' an autonomous vehicle" is a contradiction in terms. If the vehicle is autonomous, then by definition, it drives itself.
While OnStar or other similar services could definitely add features to control an otherwise autonomous vehicle, doing so would mean that the vehicle was no longer autonomous whenever they were controlling it, and there is little to no reason to presume that they likely would actually add such a thing anyways... if the car can drive itself already, why would a company like OnStar need to add any ability to control it at all?
In fact, autonomous cars could be *LESS* susceptible to the problem than people are, since they must consider local environmental factors as taking priority over any other data it might have (because things like other cars, emergency vehicles or operations, or pedestrians will not be on any map or direction data, and an autonomous car must navigate correctly in the presence of such conditions).
Okay... so it has to download a map from a server somewhere. That's a pretty far cry from being able to direct it to whereever you want to go. And considering immediate conditions will always take priority over any map data anyways (to account for objects on the road which a map will not show, such as other cars, pedestrians, etc), I'm not entirely sure how a person who even gets cars to download fake maps is going to be able to reliably direct them to an arbitrary location.
Please look up the meaning of "autonomous". It seems to me that you are misunderstanding the concept of the term. Nowhere in its definition does it require that something which is autonomous get any of its operating instructions remotely. In fact, "autonomous" implies exactly the opposite.
For clarification, I did the aforementioned experiment in my parent's backyard... not actually *IN* the house, which is how, rereading it, I can see it might be interpreted.
In 1976, I found a compressed CO2 canister in my schoolyard. When I got home, being the aspiring evil genius that I was, I secured it with tape and contact cement onto the back of one of my GI Joe figures (the 12" ones, not the dopey little 5" ones), and then I used some pliers to cut the end off.
I heard a small "woosh", and then I never saw it again. I have no idea how high it went.
I'm pretty sure that jet aircraft are only something like 15 or 20 feet high, measuring from the base. 80,000 feet is considerably higher than three times that distance.
If you mean to say 3 times the maximum altitude of most jet aircraft, say so.
No... that's incorrect. The conservatives, who are the only ones in parliament that actually are supporting C-11, are utterly against the levy (for exactly the reasons you allude to... it would be double dipping, and the levy's continued existence would compromise the ability to keep C-11's anti-circumvention provisions intact).
You misunderstand. The purpose of the levy is to compensate for private use copying, not piracy.
It is simply a matter of (entirely unsurprising) coincidence that people who pirate exploit these "private use" copying privileges to make themselves a copy, and then disregard the notion of "private", sharing the copies freely.
The fact that it's effectively unworkable to actually catch most of these people breaking the law does not mean that it is not actually against the law, any more than the fact that an overwhelming majority of people who drive faster than the speed limit and are not actually caught makes it legal to speed.
C11 contains explicit exemptions to copyright infringement under a "fair dealings" guideline, but simultaneously effectively revokes all of those exemptions if or whenever the work in question has any form of digital lock. It has absolutely no fair use exemptions to circumventing digital locks. You can be breaking the law under C-11 even without violating copyright! C11 is *FAR* more restrictive than the DMCA, which contains fair use exemptions to its provisions.
I am qualified to positively assert that XCode 3 did *NOT* come with Snow Leopard... or at least did not in Feb 2011, which is when I got my current Mac.
No... nothing's changed. XCode is perfectly free to download, and always has been. This is entirely separte from the developer license you need to install apps on a physical device. That does cost money.
Were they *really* derivatives of any particular model? While clearly inspired by designs of Warhammer figures, inspiration from another work alone is not a sufficient basis for copyright infringement. If it were, Apple would have won their "look & feel" lawsuit against Microsoft before most of the general public had ever heard of Windows.
I mean, why not start with, say, a basic template for that sort of figure, and add in your own detail with a 3d modelling program, and create an original figure that you can then "print" out and utilize? I mean, what on earth makes having a duplicate of that particular figure so worthwhile that one should be inclined to even *want* to copy it?
I know if I had that sort of tech at home, I'd be making all kinds of customization to figures, rather than wanting to duplicate something that somebody else has done. And while granted, not everybody has the time or the inclination to want to do that sort of thing, I still find myself at a loss to understand why a person would rather copy something commercial than something somebody else might have made for free. Especially considering that home 3d printers generally can't actually do the kinds of fine detail that typically goes into metal figures of that size.
There was an international cooperation of people running websites all over the world protesting SOPA in the USA... how many will do likewise for Canada?
There was an international cooperation of people running websites all over the world protesting SOPA in the USA... how many will do likewise for Canada?
Slashdot Mirror
Except for one key fact...
You cannot copyright an idea.
That is utterly incontrovertible. And so yes... he copied something. He copied the idea. But that is *ALL* that he copied. The original photographer does not own a copyright on that idea, he owns a copyright on the photo.
The second photographer did not copy the original photographer's photo. He copied the *IDEA* that the original photographer had.
... then why didn't Apple win their "look&feel" lawsuit against Microsoft when they came out with Windows?
"'Controlling' an autonomous vehicle" is a contradiction in terms. If the vehicle is autonomous, then by definition, it drives itself.
While OnStar or other similar services could definitely add features to control an otherwise autonomous vehicle, doing so would mean that the vehicle was no longer autonomous whenever they were controlling it, and there is little to no reason to presume that they likely would actually add such a thing anyways... if the car can drive itself already, why would a company like OnStar need to add any ability to control it at all?
In fact, autonomous cars could be *LESS* susceptible to the problem than people are, since they must consider local environmental factors as taking priority over any other data it might have (because things like other cars, emergency vehicles or operations, or pedestrians will not be on any map or direction data, and an autonomous car must navigate correctly in the presence of such conditions).
Okay... so it has to download a map from a server somewhere. That's a pretty far cry from being able to direct it to whereever you want to go. And considering immediate conditions will always take priority over any map data anyways (to account for objects on the road which a map will not show, such as other cars, pedestrians, etc), I'm not entirely sure how a person who even gets cars to download fake maps is going to be able to reliably direct them to an arbitrary location.
Please look up the meaning of "autonomous". It seems to me that you are misunderstanding the concept of the term. Nowhere in its definition does it require that something which is autonomous get any of its operating instructions remotely. In fact, "autonomous" implies exactly the opposite.
"Autonomous" does is neither a superset nor subset of "remote control".
For clarification, I did the aforementioned experiment in my parent's backyard... not actually *IN* the house, which is how, rereading it, I can see it might be interpreted.
In 1976, I found a compressed CO2 canister in my schoolyard. When I got home, being the aspiring evil genius that I was, I secured it with tape and contact cement onto the back of one of my GI Joe figures (the 12" ones, not the dopey little 5" ones), and then I used some pliers to cut the end off.
I heard a small "woosh", and then I never saw it again. I have no idea how high it went.
I'm pretty sure that jet aircraft are only something like 15 or 20 feet high, measuring from the base. 80,000 feet is considerably higher than three times that distance.
If you mean to say 3 times the maximum altitude of most jet aircraft, say so.
No... that's incorrect. The conservatives, who are the only ones in parliament that actually are supporting C-11, are utterly against the levy (for exactly the reasons you allude to... it would be double dipping, and the levy's continued existence would compromise the ability to keep C-11's anti-circumvention provisions intact).
You misunderstand. The purpose of the levy is to compensate for private use copying, not piracy.
It is simply a matter of (entirely unsurprising) coincidence that people who pirate exploit these "private use" copying privileges to make themselves a copy, and then disregard the notion of "private", sharing the copies freely.
The fact that it's effectively unworkable to actually catch most of these people breaking the law does not mean that it is not actually against the law, any more than the fact that an overwhelming majority of people who drive faster than the speed limit and are not actually caught makes it legal to speed.
C11 contains explicit exemptions to copyright infringement under a "fair dealings" guideline, but simultaneously effectively revokes all of those exemptions if or whenever the work in question has any form of digital lock. It has absolutely no fair use exemptions to circumventing digital locks. You can be breaking the law under C-11 even without violating copyright! C11 is *FAR* more restrictive than the DMCA, which contains fair use exemptions to its provisions.
I am qualified to positively assert that XCode 3 did *NOT* come with Snow Leopard... or at least did not in Feb 2011, which is when I got my current Mac.
No... nothing's changed. XCode is perfectly free to download, and always has been. This is entirely separte from the developer license you need to install apps on a physical device. That does cost money.
Were they *really* derivatives of any particular model? While clearly inspired by designs of Warhammer figures, inspiration from another work alone is not a sufficient basis for copyright infringement. If it were, Apple would have won their "look & feel" lawsuit against Microsoft before most of the general public had ever heard of Windows.
Xcode is a free download, period. You don't have to be a member of anything. See http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/xcode/id448457090?mt=12#
If they are *HIS* models, then what right does Warhammer have to request their removal?
Sound approximately as legal as affiliate scammers that you see every so often in the job ads.
XCode 4 doesn't cost a dime. You only need to pay money if you want to deploy your app via the App Store.
I mean, why not start with, say, a basic template for that sort of figure, and add in your own detail with a 3d modelling program, and create an original figure that you can then "print" out and utilize? I mean, what on earth makes having a duplicate of that particular figure so worthwhile that one should be inclined to even *want* to copy it?
I know if I had that sort of tech at home, I'd be making all kinds of customization to figures, rather than wanting to duplicate something that somebody else has done. And while granted, not everybody has the time or the inclination to want to do that sort of thing, I still find myself at a loss to understand why a person would rather copy something commercial than something somebody else might have made for free. Especially considering that home 3d printers generally can't actually do the kinds of fine detail that typically goes into metal figures of that size.
It's contempt of court to forget something? Sure, they might not believe you, but still...
There was an international cooperation of people running websites all over the world protesting SOPA in the USA... how many will do likewise for Canada?
D'oh! Posted in the wrong story! Mod down. Offtopic.
There was an international cooperation of people running websites all over the world protesting SOPA in the USA... how many will do likewise for Canada?