They are not derivative works. They are latent forms of the original work, and not derivative. A derivative work is the result of an intelligent and non-automatable transformation of the original work -- like translating a book to another language or adding a new, different, verse to a song.
If I send you two emails, one that contains a numbered list of every word to "Happy Birthday" along with 1000 other words, in alphabetical order, and another email that contains the numbers of the words "Happy Birthday" in the order they appear in the song, the two together constitute a copyright violation.
A small correction: as I posted in a sibling post, it's not that "the two together constitute a copyright violation". The thing is that "when someone (*) reassemble the original work from the parts, then the sender had violated the copyright of the original owner". Subtle diff, huh?
(*) unless that someone is authorized by the copyright owner or by the law (like fair use exceptions, etc)
I posted this on the wiki, to you see why it doesn't make any difference.
Whenever the receiver completes its assembly of the work -- from a Torrent, or from the randomized bits on the OFF net -- the sender is "distributing one copy". Which, if (s)he has not the right to do, is copyright infringement.
The bits are not the work. The tape was not the work. The vinyl disk was not the work. The covers and the paper of a book are not the work. The canvas, the frame, and the paint in the Mona Lisa on the Louvre are not the work.
(cue revealing music!!)
They are... the media!
If you put a poem to be read by Patricia Arquette in Phoenix and Jennifer Love Hewitt transcribes it in Grandview, there was no intermediate copy (as is the case with OFF) but there was a copy nevertheless. And Medium is liable for copyright infringement. And Ghost Whisperer's copy is not a legitimate copy, so it cannot be sold or otherwise distributed.
If someone does an inside job of compromising a bank's certificate, how much time would you think the certificate would be on the wild without being revoked? I bet enough time to do a lot of damage.
www.compaq.xyz has zero value. I never even understood why.net was created either. I can understand.ORG, and maybe even.INFO, but not.NET.
Back in the day, Grasshopper, when people were civilized on the Internet, there were no ".info" and ".net" meant you have a shop that is a part of the Internet Infrastructure in some way. Like "ny-pop.att.net" to be some Point of Presence. This was in a time when people did not fear to reveal in their DNS records details of their network because there was no worm-maker to take advantage of such info. When I assembled one of the ISPs in my city, no matter which dial-up line you got, you were always with DNS "username.africanet.com.br". Good days.
The TLDs, theoretically, categorize content (com for commercial, org for non-profits, etc.). They do a lousy job.
Opening up the creation of new "categories" to anyone with a few thousand dollars will just lead to the.com rush all over again. Even a few thousand is no disincentive to multi-billion dollar companies. Just open up the root namespace. Instead of www.google.com, I type google. My email starts begin sergei@gmail. Let structured entities have subnames and do away with.com,.org. and.info altogether.
First race: Which of MS, Yahoo or Google will snag ".search" or ".srch" first? It's not a matter of cost, since we know any of them could afford the price. It's just which one manages to phone it in first. The verb is "to google":-) Google will win.:-)
I personally have never seen that happening. I don't remember right now what was the thing at Starbucks in Orlando [January this year], but last year when I have been to Germany all wifi hotspots were just fire-and-go and here in Brasil things are that way, too -- except in airports, where you have something like you described.
Was he up to no good? Not necessarily. Any iPhone owner could be charged with this felony, because the bloody phone will connect (by default) to ANY open wifi network it encounters from time to time and check the emails.
So, that is the story:
1. Go to AT&T, buy an iPhone, activate it. 2. Go near JoeClueless home, automagically download your emails. 3. Go to pound-me-in-the-a$$ prison because JoeClueless is, well, clueless... (cue to 4.... 5. Profit!!! jokes)
Why don't you try writing your submissions intelligently and professionally? Because then it would eliminate any chance of them going to the/. front page?:-)
Except things are different now, as 'content control' wasn't doable back then.
In the digital it is technically possible, and once all old machines are phased out it will be practicable too. In the digital is is exactly techinically impossible, and completely impracticable forever. Even if each bit went down the wires accompanied by a "digital affidavit of ownership and viewing rights", those would be counterfait in no time.
Do you know someplaces have 15-years old computers still running? Do you know people program FPGAs and DSPs today that can take the bits on the bus of a computer and record them without much effort? As I was telling in other post, in the worst scenario, you take a LCD TV, some CCRs, and some calibrating software and you have a digital, 100% faithful to the original bits, copy of some video. ADRM (attempted digital restrictions management) is a joke and a hoax. If one people spends the US$ 10,000 to make the described setup, it can distribute so many copies that the investment will be down to essentially nothing. Some of the "camera" copies of movies I have had the opportunity to see were filmed in an empty theatre and with the camera in a tripod in the center of the movie, with 6 channels of audio. What will they do? Stop paying minimum wage to all theatres' projectionists/security guards? I don't think so.
ADRM is a nuisance to the paying customer, and thats all it is and all it will ever be. The danger of ADRM is that the *AA make DMCA-style legislation a global thing and turn every state of the world in a 1984-style police state. Because if you can't distribute all information freely, that's what you have: a police state. And I speak for experience that it's not a pretty thing to have.
... in a movie theatre, it would be the last time I would watch anything there. I don't abide even to the "do not bring your own popcorn" rules. If I want to enter the theatre with my Happy Meal inside my backpack, nobody can take a peek at it without a search warrant. Oh, they can give me my money back and impede my entering the premises, but they will lose their pants in court if they try that.
Yet somehow we still have no clear laws against most of the 'alternative' crap. But "make doctors accountable for mistakes" would be very good, but in practice (pun intended?) what happens quite often is "their insurance premiums go up a little".
I suppose the failed-suicide-survivors can at least eliminate the "this will not work" (on, in the case of gunshots to the temple, "this is not guaranteed to work") and the "this has put me thru a lot of pain, and I will still die ten days from now crying like a little girl because I don't have a stomach anymore" (like swallowing leech).
Case: I want to copy the contents of my(*) Blade Runner HD-DVD to my(*) AppleTV so I can watch it as much as my heart wants, conveniently at the touch of a remote control. I want to watch it at full 1080p 16x9 5.1Dolby resolution in my(*) LCD 40" TV.
my(*) == I paid for it with my hard-earned cash.
The plaintiff rests.
The need is undeniable. The need for Trek-like food replicators is also undeniable, but it's not gonna happen anytime soon. DRM is not gonna happen ever because it is a mathematical impossibility and impraticality.
A lesson in history: when computer DAT tape drives appeared, the cat pretty much went out of the bag. Because soon, people started to realize that the equipment to generate (and copy with fidelity) high-quality audio (and a little bit later, video) became accessible to their budgets. In 1970, if you wanted to record a vinyl LP, your investment was in the US$ 500,000 range [citation needed]. In 2008, if you want to record a high-quality CD, your investment is in the US$ 10,000 range tops. To copy a vinyl, in 1970, you would spend the same half million, if you wanted a hi-fidelity copy. Today, you can copy a CD for as low as an US$ 100 investment (for an old, crappy but with CDR drive computer). The thing that was the main obstacle for a common person to generate high-quality content was also the main obstacle for a common person to copy high-quality content: price of equipment.
The only way to make DRM practical (for content distributors) again is to jack up the prices to high-res content generating tools (like next-next-gen-bluray writers or somesuch). No crypto-based ADRM (attempted DRM) will work, ever, because once you can see/hear something you can capture the bits again. I'm sorry.
That or you could just learn Russian... Which would give you an advantage, if you ever have to pilot a bleeding-edge mind-controlled Russian jet fighter.
Slashdot Mirror
They are not derivative works. They are latent forms of the original work, and not derivative. A derivative work is the result of an intelligent and non-automatable transformation of the original work -- like translating a book to another language or adding a new, different, verse to a song.
The song "Happy Birthday" is under copyright.
If I send you two emails, one that contains a numbered list of every word to "Happy Birthday" along with 1000 other words, in alphabetical order, and another email that contains the numbers of the words "Happy Birthday" in the order they appear in the song, the two together constitute a copyright violation.
A small correction: as I posted in a sibling post, it's not that "the two together constitute a copyright violation". The thing is that "when someone (*) reassemble the original work from the parts, then the sender had violated the copyright of the original owner". Subtle diff, huh?
(*) unless that someone is authorized by the copyright owner or by the law (like fair use exceptions, etc)
I posted this on the wiki, to you see why it doesn't make any difference.
Whenever the receiver completes its assembly of the work -- from a Torrent, or from the randomized bits on the OFF net -- the sender is "distributing one copy". Which, if (s)he has not the right to do, is copyright infringement.
The bits are not the work. The tape was not the work. The vinyl disk was not the work. The covers and the paper of a book are not the work. The canvas, the frame, and the paint in the Mona Lisa on the Louvre are not the work.
(cue revealing music!!)
They are ... the media!
If you put a poem to be read by Patricia Arquette in Phoenix and Jennifer Love Hewitt transcribes it in Grandview, there was no intermediate copy (as is the case with OFF) but there was a copy nevertheless. And Medium is liable for copyright infringement. And Ghost Whisperer's copy is not a legitimate copy, so it cannot be sold or otherwise distributed.
If someone does an inside job of compromising a bank's certificate, how much time would you think the certificate would be on the wild without being revoked? I bet enough time to do a lot of damage.
Isn't it sweet? Opt-in and all. Just like it was back in Rome and Athens.
www.compaq.xyz has zero value. I never even understood why .net was created either. I can understand .ORG, and maybe even .INFO, but not .NET.
Back in the day, Grasshopper, when people were civilized on the Internet, there were no ".info" and ".net" meant you have a shop that is a part of the Internet Infrastructure in some way. Like "ny-pop.att.net" to be some Point of Presence. This was in a time when people did not fear to reveal in their DNS records details of their network because there was no worm-maker to take advantage of such info. When I assembled one of the ISPs in my city, no matter which dial-up line you got, you were always with DNS "username.africanet.com.br". Good days.I personally have never seen that happening. I don't remember right now what was the thing at Starbucks in Orlando [January this year], but last year when I have been to Germany all wifi hotspots were just fire-and-go and here in Brasil things are that way, too -- except in airports, where you have something like you described.
to the underused things under said unclean undergarments :-)
So, that is the story:
1. Go to AT&T, buy an iPhone, activate it.
2. Go near JoeClueless home, automagically download your emails.
3. Go to pound-me-in-the-a$$ prison because JoeClueless is, well, clueless...
(cue to 4.
?!
(cue to "typical
by corporations that each have 100s of them. I somehow doubt they are scraping for pennies as you stated.
In the digital it is technically possible, and once all old machines are phased out it will be practicable too. In the digital is is exactly techinically impossible, and completely impracticable forever. Even if each bit went down the wires accompanied by a "digital affidavit of ownership and viewing rights", those would be counterfait in no time.
Do you know someplaces have 15-years old computers still running? Do you know people program FPGAs and DSPs today that can take the bits on the bus of a computer and record them without much effort? As I was telling in other post, in the worst scenario, you take a LCD TV, some CCRs, and some calibrating software and you have a digital, 100% faithful to the original bits, copy of some video. ADRM (attempted digital restrictions management) is a joke and a hoax. If one people spends the US$ 10,000 to make the described setup, it can distribute so many copies that the investment will be down to essentially nothing. Some of the "camera" copies of movies I have had the opportunity to see were filmed in an empty theatre and with the camera in a tripod in the center of the movie, with 6 channels of audio. What will they do? Stop paying minimum wage to all theatres' projectionists/security guards? I don't think so.
ADRM is a nuisance to the paying customer, and thats all it is and all it will ever be. The danger of ADRM is that the *AA make DMCA-style legislation a global thing and turn every state of the world in a 1984-style police state. Because if you can't distribute all information freely, that's what you have: a police state. And I speak for experience that it's not a pretty thing to have.
You do know that only a few countries have DMCA-style idiotic legislation, don't you?
... in a movie theatre, it would be the last time I would watch anything there. I don't abide even to the "do not bring your own popcorn" rules. If I want to enter the theatre with my Happy Meal inside my backpack, nobody can take a peek at it without a search warrant. Oh, they can give me my money back and impede my entering the premises, but they will lose their pants in court if they try that.
is enough people.
obviously :-)
they don't accept contributions without copyright assignment, so... the own the whole kaboodle.
I suppose the failed-suicide-survivors can at least eliminate the "this will not work" (on, in the case of gunshots to the temple, "this is not guaranteed to work") and the "this has put me thru a lot of pain, and I will still die ten days from now crying like a little girl because I don't have a stomach anymore" (like swallowing leech).
my(*) == I paid for it with my hard-earned cash.
The plaintiff rests. The need is undeniable. The need for Trek-like food replicators is also undeniable, but it's not gonna happen anytime soon. DRM is not gonna happen ever because it is a mathematical impossibility and impraticality.
A lesson in history: when computer DAT tape drives appeared, the cat pretty much went out of the bag. Because soon, people started to realize that the equipment to generate (and copy with fidelity) high-quality audio (and a little bit later, video) became accessible to their budgets. In 1970, if you wanted to record a vinyl LP, your investment was in the US$ 500,000 range [citation needed]. In 2008, if you want to record a high-quality CD, your investment is in the US$ 10,000 range tops. To copy a vinyl, in 1970, you would spend the same half million, if you wanted a hi-fidelity copy. Today, you can copy a CD for as low as an US$ 100 investment (for an old, crappy but with CDR drive computer). The thing that was the main obstacle for a common person to generate high-quality content was also the main obstacle for a common person to copy high-quality content: price of equipment.
The only way to make DRM practical (for content distributors) again is to jack up the prices to high-res content generating tools (like next-next-gen-bluray writers or somesuch). No crypto-based ADRM (attempted DRM) will work, ever, because once you can see/hear something you can capture the bits again. I'm sorry.
The definition of cryptography is that you want Adam to send a message to Bob without Eve eavesdropping. The definition of DRM is that Bob IS Eve.