That's the first I've heard that registering a copyright does anything extra other than make it faster/easier/cheaper to prove the infringer should have known the content wasn't available for commercial exploitation, and who to ask for permission (ie, not an orphan). Do you have a citation into the law that shows registration is the only way to gain punitive damages?
Thanks for the support. It does matter, because it's not just fun standing up to someone ranting angrily at you who's killed people for a living, and is dehumanizing you the way they did the people they killed before.
But I'm not scared of them. I'd rather die than live in fear. I don't let bullies control my life. And I've found that standing up to them typically reveals them to be cowards so scared that all they know how to do is fight. They're sad, and all too human.
Shows of reasonable support from bystanders is a powerful reminder to these alienated bullies that people can get along without fighting. So I thank you twice, once for the bully who owes you, but could never admit it, for showing them how to act.
The point of the "Kinko's Rule" (I think it's a court interpretation, not explicitly a law of its own) is that the consumer's right to copy doesn't transfer to their agent to copy it for them. So the consumer could transform large content to fit their phone's screen with software they control, but their ISP cannot, because their ISP is their agent, without the right to copy, regardless of any contract between them. The publisher's ISP can transform if their contract with the publisher says they can, but not if it doesn't and the publisher complains.
Yeah, why wait until we've actually surveyed it for an existing ecosystem or other signs of life, when we can ensure there is life on Mars, if that's all we care about?
I mean, what value could learning about extraterrestrial life have, when it's at the closest planet for several light years likely to have some similar to ours? We'll study the next one, even though that means interstellar travel.
We've proven how carefully we protect environments when we don't understand them, right here on Earth, right?
So you have literal Iraqi and American blood on your hands.
I know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about you, who have so many reasons to know better, but don't. What else is different between Kuwaitis and Iraqis? Could it be that Kuwaitis are rich, Iraqis are poor, and that the US is occupying Iraq long enough to collapse it into Civil War, while Kuwaitis got the US to protect their sideways oil siphons into Iraqi territory?
What makes you a sick fool is that even watching war can't stop you from demanding more. Your Iraq is killing more people every day than Saddam's did. And that's Saddam goddamn Hussein - not the standard we measure the US as "not as bad as".
What I will do is everything I can short of kill to stop the killing you're wallowing in. Too bad that means impeaching the "prez" who you're so sure never ordered anyone to be tortured, though they somehow managed to get tortured. And tonight, calling you what you are: a sick fool who thinks we need more of your bloody work that makes us more insecure every day. I guess you like the job security, but it's doing me only harm.
Your hands are covered in the blood of both Americans and Iraqis. If there were any justice, you'd get drafted. Instead, you've got all the Rush Limbo you can eat.
Funny how the NSA that is tapping every phonecall and filtering every email and blog post (including this one you're reading right now) seems to have as much money as it can spend.
But the one defending the country from actual foreign enemies can't pay the light bill.
While Halliburton throws around $8 BILLION in untracked "footballs", atop their other mountains of Bush/Cheney cash.
Er, actually, that's not funny at all.
If Osama were in the White House, what would he have done differently from Bush/Cheney the past 6.5 years?
The fascists running the US government are working with our enemies to destroy our civilization. I don't care whether they think they're "doing the right thing" or whether they're actually coordinating their attacks.
Who cares why the invaders burned the Library of Alexandria, or sacked Rome or Constantinople, or leveled Persepolis? They're millennial-scale criminals, still hated by anyone with any sense of history. And we don't even have to live in those ruins. This gang of barbarians has even destroyed ancient ruins not even past millennia had erased. And they're adding the young USA to their hit list.
It's cheap to attack the US tech infrastructure, and expensive to defend against it. That's what asymmetric warfare, like terrorism, is all about. So 6 years into Bush's Terror War, and the government is still preparing to get started, while our enemies just surge around us.
The consumer has the fair use rights to the content which they're otherwise entitled to copy. That includes transforming them for consumption in another sense than that for which it was received, like braille from text. The "Kinko's Law" says that the ISP cannot transform that content on the consumer's behalf, because the ISP doesn't have the copyright, nor does the consumer have the right to transfer the copyright to the ISP. I doubt a judge would find any damages, and therefore probably throw out the case.
Copyright is fairly simple when you remember that it's merely whether a given person has the right to make a copy of something.
You are looking at the HTTP transaction, in a technical "layer", not the publishing transaction, in a contract layer. I explicitly contract with an ISP for publishing, though perhaps you're right that the "on URL requests" is implicit to my contracting HTTP service.
Various HTTP headers give me control (when available) over transformations of my content once its retrieved by the HTTPd. But if I don't complain, because a variety of technical exceptions all serve my contractual privileges of publishing to other people with various request/presentation technologies, that's my prerogative. If, however, an ISP (anywhere along the path) alters my content in a way that does something other than merely publish my content, they are doing so without a right to make that kind of copy. So I can complain, and expect remedy if damaged.
You missed the point I explained: if you are republishing only an unedited PD content set, then you do not have copyright control over it. Your control of the ISP rests exclusively in your contract with them for service. Which contract could also sign away your copyright control.
It doesn't matter whether or not you give a damn about a copyright you do not control. Only whether you have it and use it, or don't and can use something else. Which I also explained in my OP.
If your page contains any original content, even if what's original is just your composition of public domain content from more than a single source, you own the copyright on your original work.
If all you're doing is passing through one public domain content set, then you don't control the copyright on it, so you can't control your ISP's copying. The only right you have might be to the URL requests, which isn't copyright at all. Only if your contract with your ISP specifies "noncircumvention" do you have that control, which would trump all these copyright considerations, anyway.
If all you're serving is a single PD content set, how do you expect to control what happens downstream, since it's PD?
ISPs go on the principle that they can do anything until made to stop, regardless of rights. Their lawyers, if asked (rarely), usually advise that it's still the "Wild West" on the Internet, and then state the risks in such a way that the ISP directors decide to take it, if there's any money in it.
I ran an ISP for several years, and still deal with the CEOs and admins of several. They're not inclined to let lawyers constrain their bizmodel, and courts have not changed their minds much.
Proxy servers make copies as part of the publishing transaction.
This is not an atomic database transaction that happens immediately. It's a real world transaction, that can be ongoing and open-ended in time, like, say, an autorenwed newspaper delivery subscription. You agree to let the ISP copy your content to publish it. That includes proxies caching it for more efficient distribution after the initial request. The HTTP protocol includes "opt-out", in "NOPROXY" headers, so pages without them are implicitly granting the right to proxies in the permitted transaction. Even if the proxies are at (or towards) the requesting ISP end of the comms, with whom there is no explicit contract.
Anyway. I'm not sure if copyright should be the law preventing this
But copyright law does prohibit this abuse. It's up to you whether you take action under that law or not. You might take action under some other law prohibiting it. Or all the laws that do prohibit it.
The content in my pages is copyright implicitly, even if I don't register or even declare it in the pages. The right my ISP has to copy it is only for the purpose of publishing it in the transaction I have explicitly permitted: publishing it on URL requests.
If my ISP copies it for any other purpose, like inserting ads, or copies it into (or as) some other context, like an ad page, it's violating my copyright.
Every copyright violation - every page - makes them liable for a fine. That can really stack up, and costs a lot more than each page view generates in ad revenue.
Unless I've signed away my copyright in some contract with the ISP. Which I personally haven't. Nor should you.
If you have retained your copyright, and your ISP violates it, you should look forward to them handing over their business ownership to pay the damages. Email your lawyer from your other account and get the ball rolling. Why should corporate copyright holders have all the fun?
Slashdot Mirror
That's the first I've heard that registering a copyright does anything extra other than make it faster/easier/cheaper to prove the infringer should have known the content wasn't available for commercial exploitation, and who to ask for permission (ie, not an orphan). Do you have a citation into the law that shows registration is the only way to gain punitive damages?
Thanks for the support. It does matter, because it's not just fun standing up to someone ranting angrily at you who's killed people for a living, and is dehumanizing you the way they did the people they killed before.
But I'm not scared of them. I'd rather die than live in fear. I don't let bullies control my life. And I've found that standing up to them typically reveals them to be cowards so scared that all they know how to do is fight. They're sad, and all too human.
Shows of reasonable support from bystanders is a powerful reminder to these alienated bullies that people can get along without fighting. So I thank you twice, once for the bully who owes you, but could never admit it, for showing them how to act.
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
Hey TrollMod, where's Osama?
How often do those crush zones save the passengers, anyway?
Sell the lower seats cheaper, call it "steerage", advertise it with clips from _Titanic_ (but without that nasty sinking scene).
4. Profit!
The point of the "Kinko's Rule" (I think it's a court interpretation, not explicitly a law of its own) is that the consumer's right to copy doesn't transfer to their agent to copy it for them. So the consumer could transform large content to fit their phone's screen with software they control, but their ISP cannot, because their ISP is their agent, without the right to copy, regardless of any contract between them. The publisher's ISP can transform if their contract with the publisher says they can, but not if it doesn't and the publisher complains.
The Mideast is a lot bigger than Iraq, stupid shit.
That's your last free clue. Goodbye.
Yeah, why wait until we've actually surveyed it for an existing ecosystem or other signs of life, when we can ensure there is life on Mars, if that's all we care about?
I mean, what value could learning about extraterrestrial life have, when it's at the closest planet for several light years likely to have some similar to ours? We'll study the next one, even though that means interstellar travel.
We've proven how carefully we protect environments when we don't understand them, right here on Earth, right?
Standing in front of tanks in the Mideast is what's keeping us part of their civil war. I look forward to you getting a clue.
OK, coward, come to NYC and I'll explain it to you in person. When will you arrive?
I'll make you understand that flying in front of the warring forces is exactly what's keeping our part of their civil war going.
Stupid fucking bitch is a parody of their own stupid comment about bravery behind a keyboard, without even a userID's worth of courage.
So you have literal Iraqi and American blood on your hands.
I know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about you, who have so many reasons to know better, but don't. What else is different between Kuwaitis and Iraqis? Could it be that Kuwaitis are rich, Iraqis are poor, and that the US is occupying Iraq long enough to collapse it into Civil War, while Kuwaitis got the US to protect their sideways oil siphons into Iraqi territory?
What makes you a sick fool is that even watching war can't stop you from demanding more. Your Iraq is killing more people every day than Saddam's did. And that's Saddam goddamn Hussein - not the standard we measure the US as "not as bad as".
What I will do is everything I can short of kill to stop the killing you're wallowing in. Too bad that means impeaching the "prez" who you're so sure never ordered anyone to be tortured, though they somehow managed to get tortured. And tonight, calling you what you are: a sick fool who thinks we need more of your bloody work that makes us more insecure every day. I guess you like the job security, but it's doing me only harm.
Hey, where's Osama?
You are a sick fool.
Your hands are covered in the blood of both Americans and Iraqis. If there were any justice, you'd get drafted. Instead, you've got all the Rush Limbo you can eat.
Disgusting Republican slave.
Funny how the NSA that is tapping every phonecall and filtering every email and blog post (including this one you're reading right now) seems to have as much money as it can spend.
But the one defending the country from actual foreign enemies can't pay the light bill.
While Halliburton throws around $8 BILLION in untracked "footballs", atop their other mountains of Bush/Cheney cash.
Er, actually, that's not funny at all.
If Osama were in the White House, what would he have done differently from Bush/Cheney the past 6.5 years?
The fascists running the US government are working with our enemies to destroy our civilization. I don't care whether they think they're "doing the right thing" or whether they're actually coordinating their attacks.
Who cares why the invaders burned the Library of Alexandria, or sacked Rome or Constantinople, or leveled Persepolis? They're millennial-scale criminals, still hated by anyone with any sense of history. And we don't even have to live in those ruins. This gang of barbarians has even destroyed ancient ruins not even past millennia had erased. And they're adding the young USA to their hit list.
I want to log into that machine and run some quantum Perl scripts on it. Nothing like an existing library of code to kickstart a new architecture.
Every US "Cybersecurity Czar" has quit in disgust. The Homeland Security agency can't even find someone to run the office, because it's a total joke.
Meanwhile, the US has already been under siege by China in a full-blown cyberwar for several years.
It's cheap to attack the US tech infrastructure, and expensive to defend against it. That's what asymmetric warfare, like terrorism, is all about. So 6 years into Bush's Terror War, and the government is still preparing to get started, while our enemies just surge around us.
The consumer has the fair use rights to the content which they're otherwise entitled to copy. That includes transforming them for consumption in another sense than that for which it was received, like braille from text. The "Kinko's Law" says that the ISP cannot transform that content on the consumer's behalf, because the ISP doesn't have the copyright, nor does the consumer have the right to transfer the copyright to the ISP. I doubt a judge would find any damages, and therefore probably throw out the case.
Copyright is fairly simple when you remember that it's merely whether a given person has the right to make a copy of something.
I didn't say it did. I just said what happens when you publish something that you got from the public domain.
You are looking at the HTTP transaction, in a technical "layer", not the publishing transaction, in a contract layer. I explicitly contract with an ISP for publishing, though perhaps you're right that the "on URL requests" is implicit to my contracting HTTP service.
Various HTTP headers give me control (when available) over transformations of my content once its retrieved by the HTTPd. But if I don't complain, because a variety of technical exceptions all serve my contractual privileges of publishing to other people with various request/presentation technologies, that's my prerogative. If, however, an ISP (anywhere along the path) alters my content in a way that does something other than merely publish my content, they are doing so without a right to make that kind of copy. So I can complain, and expect remedy if damaged.
You missed the point I explained: if you are republishing only an unedited PD content set, then you do not have copyright control over it. Your control of the ISP rests exclusively in your contract with them for service. Which contract could also sign away your copyright control.
It doesn't matter whether or not you give a damn about a copyright you do not control. Only whether you have it and use it, or don't and can use something else. Which I also explained in my OP.
If your page contains any original content, even if what's original is just your composition of public domain content from more than a single source, you own the copyright on your original work.
If all you're doing is passing through one public domain content set, then you don't control the copyright on it, so you can't control your ISP's copying. The only right you have might be to the URL requests, which isn't copyright at all. Only if your contract with your ISP specifies "noncircumvention" do you have that control, which would trump all these copyright considerations, anyway.
If all you're serving is a single PD content set, how do you expect to control what happens downstream, since it's PD?
ISPs go on the principle that they can do anything until made to stop, regardless of rights. Their lawyers, if asked (rarely), usually advise that it's still the "Wild West" on the Internet, and then state the risks in such a way that the ISP directors decide to take it, if there's any money in it.
I ran an ISP for several years, and still deal with the CEOs and admins of several. They're not inclined to let lawyers constrain their bizmodel, and courts have not changed their minds much.
Proxy servers make copies as part of the publishing transaction.
This is not an atomic database transaction that happens immediately. It's a real world transaction, that can be ongoing and open-ended in time, like, say, an autorenwed newspaper delivery subscription. You agree to let the ISP copy your content to publish it. That includes proxies caching it for more efficient distribution after the initial request. The HTTP protocol includes "opt-out", in "NOPROXY" headers, so pages without them are implicitly granting the right to proxies in the permitted transaction. Even if the proxies are at (or towards) the requesting ISP end of the comms, with whom there is no explicit contract.
But copyright law does prohibit this abuse. It's up to you whether you take action under that law or not. You might take action under some other law prohibiting it. Or all the laws that do prohibit it.
The content in my pages is copyright implicitly, even if I don't register or even declare it in the pages. The right my ISP has to copy it is only for the purpose of publishing it in the transaction I have explicitly permitted: publishing it on URL requests.
If my ISP copies it for any other purpose, like inserting ads, or copies it into (or as) some other context, like an ad page, it's violating my copyright.
Every copyright violation - every page - makes them liable for a fine. That can really stack up, and costs a lot more than each page view generates in ad revenue.
Unless I've signed away my copyright in some contract with the ISP. Which I personally haven't. Nor should you.
If you have retained your copyright, and your ISP violates it, you should look forward to them handing over their business ownership to pay the damages. Email your lawyer from your other account and get the ball rolling. Why should corporate copyright holders have all the fun?
Is he a "liberal"? How can you tell?