I certainly don't intend for this to substitute fair use, rather to supplement it.
as for sampling, Bridgeport was far too strict on it, but sampling 30 seconds of master recordings probably isn't going to fly. A good set of ground rules for sampling would probably be nice, though.
substantially is a complex matter, although it seems quite likely that had The Nation not been the first publisher, they would have gotten away with it (that and those meddling kids). Not applying this safe zone to usurping the first publication rights might be the best answer. I'm not sure if you could even reasonably come up with a bright line rule for substantially, but if we are conservative with amount, substantiality concerns would probably be minimal.
What I had worked out was that total use of a work had to be 30 seconds or less of audio of a musical recording, 1 minute or less of audio/video, 500 gross words or less of text, or a cover at 1/4 or less of the physical resolution. In addition, outside of covers, the usage must be less than 10% of the work in total, and isn't protected if it's part of a 'concerted effort' (i.e. 11 parties host consecutive 30 second samples of the same 3:24 song) In at least music, the work must be 'of a different nature' than the original work. In other words, this defense does not apply to sampling.
The exact numbers could be tweaked a bit (and probably should), but it seems like a solid basis for a safe zone where people won't have to worry at all. Within these terms, I don't see any real room for usage to be unfair, the biggest concern being a possibility for ambiguity in the way certain bands gamed label contracts by making songs like 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond' technically consist of 9 parts to get the full royalties for the album.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that, as a lot of the costs associated with producing an innovative product are licensing from others.
The pharmaceutical argument is pure junk. Under Bayh-Dole, Pharmaceutical companies are having the government front most of the bill anyway, and are shifting focus of research (and federal research funds) to low priority drugs that aren't particularly useful to society, but can bring in signficant profits.
Despite it's drawbacks, the US has some of the most expansive exceptions to copyright. In fact, I would even go so far to say that the powerful US entertainment industry is so powerful largely because for most of the 20th century, the US had about the most permissive copyright laws in the industrialized world, which allowed creative industries to flourish. Then flourishing creative industries led to lobbying into the ridiculous situation we have today.
Fair use is largely rooted in the First Amendment, so yes you do have a right to do what you've done, and if a certain usage is covered by fair use, it is NOT infringement.
It may be best expressed under a different doctrine, but I would think that a nice, clear set of rules exists for which a use is unquestionably deemed fair, and that anybody that has the gall to sue under something within that box is hit with hefty fines. For more ambiguous usage, we'd still have the four factor test.
I haven't tried it, so I won't knock it. I will however, stand over there uncomfortably when others are discussing MLP .
Adult targeted jokes in children's shows, either through secretly naughty bits, pop culture references children won't get, or best of all, secretly naughty pop culture reference bits children won't get, are quite enjoyable, although I'm not sure if I can reach the same appreciation without it being a show I watched as a kid myself.
I see a line of cars and they're all painted white
Not so hot in the sun and clearly seen at night
I see people shake their heads, call it monotonous
It's more ecological, but not good as the bus
The NCAA is the National Collegiate Athletic Association. It's the organization that all serious college sports teams in the US belong to. If your sport or college is not part of the NCAA, you almost certainly aren't going to get a scholarship for it.
They put just enough work in to keep a really serious effort into alternatives at bay. I don't see a reason to be grateful for that, as it's in their best interest to do so. I was actually quite pleased when the first 64 bit plugin came out, but when they abandoned it, I lost all hope in Adobe. That, and what is apparently their only GNU/Linux dev spending half of his time writing in his blog bitching.
The work was probably contracted out to private business, but there probably wasn't any competition within bids. I wouldn't be surprised if the money was given directly to established ISPs, who got to retain ownership and control of the lines and were pretty much given blank checks and minimal accountability.
I think most of the companies MS has attacked also had desktop markets, where abandoning Windows isn't that viable. HTC didn't, but WinMo was a huge chunk of their business for a while.
Your specific case on a blanket ban doesn't seem to suggest that it's that important to not do so. AFAIK, Opera didn't get a patent on tabs, nor did it actually invent tabs, even in browsers. It doesn't appear that anyone has successfully managed to wield a patent on tabs against others, either, so it seems like we managed to get tabs without patents.
It is indeed troubling behavior, and it is straight up extortion. Perhaps one solution is to codify something into law that says NDAs can't prevent disclosure of patent numbers that are part of a settlement. That would make invalidating or working around the patents much easier.
Legally preventing another SCO might be a bit trickier, though, but I doubt that a similar threat to the FOSS ecosystem could happen, just because the Unix model of proprietary code with source code widely available doesn't seem to be as common these days.
Why invest millions of dollars in R&D if your competitor can simply debug your secret formula and replicate it with no significant investment of their own?
The question is whether or not an investor can get a return that justifies that investment and encourages further investment in the time it takes another company to reverse engineer. If you can without patents, than the investment is justified without patents. Also worth considering is whether or not software patents do anything in practice that actually results in more investment in actual research, and the overhead costs dealing with and avoiding patents bring to an innovator.
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly don't intend for this to substitute fair use, rather to supplement it.
as for sampling, Bridgeport was far too strict on it, but sampling 30 seconds of master recordings probably isn't going to fly. A good set of ground rules for sampling would probably be nice, though.
substantially is a complex matter, although it seems quite likely that had The Nation not been the first publisher, they would have gotten away with it (that and those meddling kids). Not applying this safe zone to usurping the first publication rights might be the best answer. I'm not sure if you could even reasonably come up with a bright line rule for substantially, but if we are conservative with amount, substantiality concerns would probably be minimal.
What I had worked out was that total use of a work had to be 30 seconds or less of audio of a musical recording, 1 minute or less of audio/video, 500 gross words or less of text, or a cover at 1/4 or less of the physical resolution. In addition, outside of covers, the usage must be less than 10% of the work in total, and isn't protected if it's part of a 'concerted effort' (i.e. 11 parties host consecutive 30 second samples of the same 3:24 song) In at least music, the work must be 'of a different nature' than the original work. In other words, this defense does not apply to sampling.
The exact numbers could be tweaked a bit (and probably should), but it seems like a solid basis for a safe zone where people won't have to worry at all. Within these terms, I don't see any real room for usage to be unfair, the biggest concern being a possibility for ambiguity in the way certain bands gamed label contracts by making songs like 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond' technically consist of 9 parts to get the full royalties for the album.
Child molestation is built into the bittorent and gnutella protocols. Duh.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that, as a lot of the costs associated with producing an innovative product are licensing from others. The pharmaceutical argument is pure junk. Under Bayh-Dole, Pharmaceutical companies are having the government front most of the bill anyway, and are shifting focus of research (and federal research funds) to low priority drugs that aren't particularly useful to society, but can bring in signficant profits.
Newzbin isn't exactly for casual downloaders
Despite it's drawbacks, the US has some of the most expansive exceptions to copyright. In fact, I would even go so far to say that the powerful US entertainment industry is so powerful largely because for most of the 20th century, the US had about the most permissive copyright laws in the industrialized world, which allowed creative industries to flourish. Then flourishing creative industries led to lobbying into the ridiculous situation we have today.
Fair use is largely rooted in the First Amendment, so yes you do have a right to do what you've done, and if a certain usage is covered by fair use, it is NOT infringement.
It may be best expressed under a different doctrine, but I would think that a nice, clear set of rules exists for which a use is unquestionably deemed fair, and that anybody that has the gall to sue under something within that box is hit with hefty fines. For more ambiguous usage, we'd still have the four factor test.
I haven't tried it, so I won't knock it. I will however, stand over there uncomfortably when others are discussing MLP .
Adult targeted jokes in children's shows, either through secretly naughty bits, pop culture references children won't get, or best of all, secretly naughty pop culture reference bits children won't get, are quite enjoyable, although I'm not sure if I can reach the same appreciation without it being a show I watched as a kid myself.
and humans make horrible PC components.
I see a line of cars and they're all painted white
Not so hot in the sun and clearly seen at night
I see people shake their heads, call it monotonous
It's more ecological, but not good as the bus
Of course the USA owns space. We won the space race, and to the victor goes the spoils.
The NCAA is the National Collegiate Athletic Association. It's the organization that all serious college sports teams in the US belong to. If your sport or college is not part of the NCAA, you almost certainly aren't going to get a scholarship for it.
Now, small children will get a taste for human flesh. You've doomed us all, you bastards
They put just enough work in to keep a really serious effort into alternatives at bay. I don't see a reason to be grateful for that, as it's in their best interest to do so. I was actually quite pleased when the first 64 bit plugin came out, but when they abandoned it, I lost all hope in Adobe. That, and what is apparently their only GNU/Linux dev spending half of his time writing in his blog bitching.
The work was probably contracted out to private business, but there probably wasn't any competition within bids. I wouldn't be surprised if the money was given directly to established ISPs, who got to retain ownership and control of the lines and were pretty much given blank checks and minimal accountability.
Broadband does describe the bandwidth. However, I'm pretty sure congressional lobbying has changed the meaning a few times.
Some people want to be left alone to themselves and their high definition midget porn
I think Steve Jobs, at least in his current role, is probably more like Lore when he led the confused Borg.
I think most of the companies MS has attacked also had desktop markets, where abandoning Windows isn't that viable. HTC didn't, but WinMo was a huge chunk of their business for a while.
If you only have a problem, you nail it by getting hammered
or something like that..
Your specific case on a blanket ban doesn't seem to suggest that it's that important to not do so. AFAIK, Opera didn't get a patent on tabs, nor did it actually invent tabs, even in browsers. It doesn't appear that anyone has successfully managed to wield a patent on tabs against others, either, so it seems like we managed to get tabs without patents.
It is indeed troubling behavior, and it is straight up extortion. Perhaps one solution is to codify something into law that says NDAs can't prevent disclosure of patent numbers that are part of a settlement. That would make invalidating or working around the patents much easier.
Legally preventing another SCO might be a bit trickier, though, but I doubt that a similar threat to the FOSS ecosystem could happen, just because the Unix model of proprietary code with source code widely available doesn't seem to be as common these days.
MS was under close scrutiny for a few years, but by the time the first Android devices were launched, it didn't seem they were watched as closely.
The question is whether or not an investor can get a return that justifies that investment and encourages further investment in the time it takes another company to reverse engineer. If you can without patents, than the investment is justified without patents. Also worth considering is whether or not software patents do anything in practice that actually results in more investment in actual research, and the overhead costs dealing with and avoiding patents bring to an innovator.