To be fair, pharmaceutical companies foot less than half the R&D bill, and the perverse incentives of patents make more than half the money spent be spent on low priority me-too drugs. If we just left things up to government funding and universities, we could spend the same amount and get just as much or even more useful drugs.
Fair use has allowed entire copyrighted works to be used even without modifications under certain circumstances (a recent Righthaven lawsuit had them lose a suit despite the accused reposting the entire article .
As for the frames part, I was just having fun with your odd mention of 'making video frames' and that you were technically wrong about it. I was not debating that the source material was copyrighted.
You don't need permission for fair use. That's the entire purpose of fair use. If you have permission, you can do whatever the hell you want. Fair use covers the uses that one doesn't need to ask permission for. And technically speaking, the video itself is modified by added subtitles (which would require re-encoding), so he did make those frames (or at least the frames that Youtube used to make the video as it appears on the site)
No, there is not a limit on the length of a parody. A 30 second limit isn't anywhere in law, but it's a common practice that is usually applied for audio previews, like on iTunes and Amazon.
And he did not 'stole copyrighted video frames.' For starters, that's not even coherent. Furthermore, he is being accused of copyright infringement, which is not theft, and he most likely isn't actually commiting copyright infringement because he's covered by fair use.
This guy seems to be creating original music and lyrics, and the basis for it is bad lip reading, so a new video would miss the entire point. That's actually more original than Weird Al's parodies. He's using the video, but even Hitler understands that fair use can use existing video and audio.
You left out commercial copyright infringement here, where another publisher undercuts your publisher, and you get no money from those copies. That would be a lot more detrimental to your sales, but it can be practically enforced, unlike copyright on a personal scale.
Of course, this is hypothetical, because books that are pretty good get $0 in royalties. All their payment is in the advance, and enough royalties aren't made to get money past the advance. In practice, authors were better off with a lump sum payment for a manuscript (in regions without copyright) over a smaller advance with the false hope of royalties (in regions with copyright). Incidentally, those without copyright got more books for much cheaper prices as well. Publishers were the real beneficiaries of copyright.
You are correct that there is a difference between force and duration, although I don't see a good argument for forceful copyright. The majority of the value for an author is in preventing commercial copying, which is something that would be present in the weakest copyright regimes. Strong copyright limits personal copying and derivative works. Harshly limiting those typically do little for authors, let alone the public. The fact that rightsholders often do stupid things when given power probably doesn't help much either.
The enforceability of laws is quite important. Prohibition and the war on drugs may have had good effects if they could be reasonably enforced, but because they couldn't be effectively enforced, laws against them do more harm than good. While weapons technology has increased, so has medical technology and standard of living, which affect the number of people who die and are shot, respectively.
And the entitlement is on the side of the rightsholders. I don't think many 'pirates' think they should be able to get what they want without paying. I can speak for myself, and I only think I can get what I can get without paying. If someone makes something I want freely available, I will likely get it. If nobody makes it available, I will not get it.
You don't need STRONG copyright for that. 10 years has that covered easily if you hold that notion to be true. Also, copyright is a weird holdover from medieval economics. Legal monopolies pretty much only make sense for utilities, and the economics of artistic works is the polar opposite.
How about we make being a child a crime punishable by death? There's plenty of issues that children have to be protected from: sexual predators, illegal drugs, viewing pornography that has adults in it, sexting, political dissent, etc.. However, if there are no children to think of, then "think of the children" is no longer an excuse for anything. Besides, children are mostly social parasites without jobs.
Again, you are pointing to a lot of work, but nothing creative. Complicated and creative are completely independent of each other. That they have to go to a lot of sources and note a lot of differences doesn't make it creative. Creative would be arranging the names of the cities so they spell out CAPRICORN, AQUARIUS, or something along those lines. If you want a creative database, try this (although there are other copyrighted elements here as well) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNUDDaEOvuY
However, in both the examples, the database would be pretty much useless in the given format.
You seem to be arguing that the authors can have a copyright on it because they worked so hard on it. It doesn't matter if they put a billion manhours into it, because US copyright is based on originality, not the sweat of the brow doctrine. That's why I mentioned Feist v. Rural.
No, the differences here are very important. Unoriginal data isn't eligible for copyright, but a method for handling data could be, at least in lower courts. Also, copyright has independent conception as a defense, while patents do not.
This lawsuit is a no-brainer. Time zone data would without a doubt be an unoriginal database, meaning that under Feist v. Rural, it isn't eligible for copyright in the US.
The disorder, disease, or syndrome label works under the assumption that there is something wrong with the person in question. However, many things classed as those don't mean the person thinks incorrectly, but rather differently. It wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder in the DSM.
I could see some real problems with that. There are situations where someone's heart can stop without them being actually dead. Second, the wristband's battery might fail or some other failure might occur. Sending your loved ones false messages of your death is rather cruel.
I would suspect that ephebophiles outnumber genuine pedophiles by quit a large number. Hell, sexting is probably at least an order of magnitude more common than porn involve what most people would consider real child porn.
He has a very bright image among many people. That's why there was so much adulation from him coming from various sources. His recent role was also one of very strict control, which many fans of Apple products have stood strongly behind. I've heard a fair amount of arguments that jailbreakers are dirty crooks for trying to exert greater control over products they own. However, phreaking was far more anti-authority than this, making him far worse than jailbreakers, and probably worse than those dirty patent infringers and 'ripoffs' of elements Apple doesn't have any legal protection for.
We can't have current owners of Apple products find out that Jobs was once at least tagging along with someone who liked to hack. It would tarnish his image.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, pharmaceutical companies foot less than half the R&D bill, and the perverse incentives of patents make more than half the money spent be spent on low priority me-too drugs. If we just left things up to government funding and universities, we could spend the same amount and get just as much or even more useful drugs.
no they don't. The relevant Congressional power is to regulate interstate and international commerce. This doesn't fall within regulation.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Fair use has allowed entire copyrighted works to be used even without modifications under certain circumstances (a recent Righthaven lawsuit had them lose a suit despite the accused reposting the entire article .
As for the frames part, I was just having fun with your odd mention of 'making video frames' and that you were technically wrong about it. I was not debating that the source material was copyrighted.
You don't need permission for fair use. That's the entire purpose of fair use. If you have permission, you can do whatever the hell you want. Fair use covers the uses that one doesn't need to ask permission for. And technically speaking, the video itself is modified by added subtitles (which would require re-encoding), so he did make those frames (or at least the frames that Youtube used to make the video as it appears on the site)
No, there is not a limit on the length of a parody. A 30 second limit isn't anywhere in law, but it's a common practice that is usually applied for audio previews, like on iTunes and Amazon.
And he did not 'stole copyrighted video frames.' For starters, that's not even coherent. Furthermore, he is being accused of copyright infringement, which is not theft, and he most likely isn't actually commiting copyright infringement because he's covered by fair use.
Except the RIAA will gladly cut off its nose to spite it's face.
This guy seems to be creating original music and lyrics, and the basis for it is bad lip reading, so a new video would miss the entire point. That's actually more original than Weird Al's parodies. He's using the video, but even Hitler understands that fair use can use existing video and audio.
You left out commercial copyright infringement here, where another publisher undercuts your publisher, and you get no money from those copies. That would be a lot more detrimental to your sales, but it can be practically enforced, unlike copyright on a personal scale.
Of course, this is hypothetical, because books that are pretty good get $0 in royalties. All their payment is in the advance, and enough royalties aren't made to get money past the advance. In practice, authors were better off with a lump sum payment for a manuscript (in regions without copyright) over a smaller advance with the false hope of royalties (in regions with copyright). Incidentally, those without copyright got more books for much cheaper prices as well. Publishers were the real beneficiaries of copyright.
You are correct that there is a difference between force and duration, although I don't see a good argument for forceful copyright. The majority of the value for an author is in preventing commercial copying, which is something that would be present in the weakest copyright regimes. Strong copyright limits personal copying and derivative works. Harshly limiting those typically do little for authors, let alone the public. The fact that rightsholders often do stupid things when given power probably doesn't help much either.
The enforceability of laws is quite important. Prohibition and the war on drugs may have had good effects if they could be reasonably enforced, but because they couldn't be effectively enforced, laws against them do more harm than good. While weapons technology has increased, so has medical technology and standard of living, which affect the number of people who die and are shot, respectively. And the entitlement is on the side of the rightsholders. I don't think many 'pirates' think they should be able to get what they want without paying. I can speak for myself, and I only think I can get what I can get without paying. If someone makes something I want freely available, I will likely get it. If nobody makes it available, I will not get it.
You don't need STRONG copyright for that. 10 years has that covered easily if you hold that notion to be true. Also, copyright is a weird holdover from medieval economics. Legal monopolies pretty much only make sense for utilities, and the economics of artistic works is the polar opposite.
He's an ephebophile, not a pedophile or a paedophile. This law doesn't cover him, and he likely isn't a high school teacher anyway.
How about we make being a child a crime punishable by death? There's plenty of issues that children have to be protected from: sexual predators, illegal drugs, viewing pornography that has adults in it, sexting, political dissent, etc.. However, if there are no children to think of, then "think of the children" is no longer an excuse for anything. Besides, children are mostly social parasites without jobs.
ACTA doesn't help 'the little guy', it helps the multinational conglomerates.
Again, you are pointing to a lot of work, but nothing creative. Complicated and creative are completely independent of each other. That they have to go to a lot of sources and note a lot of differences doesn't make it creative. Creative would be arranging the names of the cities so they spell out CAPRICORN, AQUARIUS, or something along those lines. If you want a creative database, try this (although there are other copyrighted elements here as well) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNUDDaEOvuY
However, in both the examples, the database would be pretty much useless in the given format.
You seem to be arguing that the authors can have a copyright on it because they worked so hard on it. It doesn't matter if they put a billion manhours into it, because US copyright is based on originality, not the sweat of the brow doctrine. That's why I mentioned Feist v. Rural.
The key word there being 'should.' Unfortunately, reality doesn't reflect that.
No, the differences here are very important. Unoriginal data isn't eligible for copyright, but a method for handling data could be, at least in lower courts. Also, copyright has independent conception as a defense, while patents do not.
This lawsuit is a no-brainer. Time zone data would without a doubt be an unoriginal database, meaning that under Feist v. Rural, it isn't eligible for copyright in the US.
The disorder, disease, or syndrome label works under the assumption that there is something wrong with the person in question. However, many things classed as those don't mean the person thinks incorrectly, but rather differently. It wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder in the DSM.
I could see some real problems with that. There are situations where someone's heart can stop without them being actually dead. Second, the wristband's battery might fail or some other failure might occur. Sending your loved ones false messages of your death is rather cruel.
I would suspect that ephebophiles outnumber genuine pedophiles by quit a large number. Hell, sexting is probably at least an order of magnitude more common than porn involve what most people would consider real child porn.
He has a very bright image among many people. That's why there was so much adulation from him coming from various sources. His recent role was also one of very strict control, which many fans of Apple products have stood strongly behind. I've heard a fair amount of arguments that jailbreakers are dirty crooks for trying to exert greater control over products they own. However, phreaking was far more anti-authority than this, making him far worse than jailbreakers, and probably worse than those dirty patent infringers and 'ripoffs' of elements Apple doesn't have any legal protection for.
We can't have current owners of Apple products find out that Jobs was once at least tagging along with someone who liked to hack. It would tarnish his image.