I don't see a lot of obviously derivative work that isn't parody
Do you know how many cartoons Beethoven has been in? Tom and Jerry is quite disturbing without a soundtrack, you know. Also, Shakespeare is quoted pretty often in various media.
Also, it was my understanding that there was quite a bit 'borrowed' by Shakespeare, Beethoven, and the like. There's also a good chance that the Canterbury Tales were based on the stories of some real people.
copyright is also the GOVERNMENT restricting actions that include speech and publication. You can argue that fair use predates the first amendment, but that doesn't mean that the first amendment doesn't also back fair use. I think going against the other conditions of the copyright clause is the central focus here, but this does sound like congress making a law that abridges free speech in a certain fashion, and this is definitely outside of the area that the copyright clause allows.
the constitution doesn't really talk about copyrights,
Actually, the constitution explicitly addresses copyrights, giving Congress the power
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Retroactive removal from the public domain cannot possibly benefit the public, so such a law would go against the constitutional basis of copyright law.
Both are restricting the liberties of individuals. Copyright is taking rights away from the public for a limited time, and the constitutional basis is that the public will eventually have more works to exercise their rights with.
US copyright exists for the public benefit. The idea is that by giving limited protections to authors, we will end up with more works in the public domain. Benefits to authors are merely a side effect. The 'sweat of the brow' doctrine has been rejected, which is why phonebooks can't be copyrighted.
They are allowed to operate, but their interests should not be overriding the interests of the general public. Retroactive copyright extensions and retroactive removal from the public domain can't possibly result in more works being produced (and thus producing SOME kind of public benefit).
You've got the reasoning wrong. Google doesn't really care about Flash or Adobe. However, Google cares about security and users care about flash content. In order to please users, they bundle Flash, so it's there and it's up to date. Flash is one of the biggest security holes in a browser, and they've taken a step to minimize this hole.
Less features doesn't necessarily mean crappy. Most PDF readers do less than Adobe Reader, but the subset they use covers virtually all sane, practical usage.
Google did write it themselves, but they have shown interest in implementing 'embedded media' supported by Adobe Reader. I DO NOT want a SWF in a PDF, or support for running arbitrary executables (which is part of the official PDF spec). I understand supporting PDF in the browser, but I don't want the features that are just bad practice and have no real world use besides infecting my machine.
This has gone too far. We are having a pointless discussion on who an idea 'belongs to' when we are all criticizing abusive copyright laws. You could argue that quite a few touched upon this issues during the Enlightenment, and that it was probably discussed a bit by Plato and his peers/successors (maybe less directly), and it very well may have been addressed before the formation of early governments.
They probably can, but it would take effort, and some headlines might be behind a paywall or not online at all. German news is a fairly small market for Google, given that news isn't that big for them, but Google indexing these headlines is very important to getting them more traffic. I do like adding adjectives, though. Maybe they could let you place your own adjectives for a certain party in headlines as a customization option, though.
And despite the pressure from the US media conglomerates, the US still has one of the largest areas of fair use/fair dealing and copyright exceptions. I would even go as far as to suggest that our media conglomerates formed largely because of the fair use and generally more lax copyright stance in the US.
The problem is that by paraphrasing they risk infringing on another newspaper that has similar language. Canning german newspapers would probably be simpler to implement, and would make the newspapers realize their folly faster.
Eventually they will get tired of this and stop reading newspapers altogether.
Hasn't that already happened? I mean, I thought newspapers being dead was why Rupert Murdoch was yelling about the internet and the end of the free ride. Maybe he's just off his meds.
We did resist it a very long time, though. It took 102 years to formally adopt, while one could argue that some other countries are adopting the laws US copyright holders are pushing before the US bothers to adopt them.
We could get to work on it now and get grandfathered in, at least, assuming that existing headlines are protected against future infringement but aren't subject to retroactive lawsuits.
I can see no reason why it wouldn't be the most up to date version.
The criticism seems to be that it has a clause regarding slavery (not really endorsing it) that has been nullified by a later amendment that explicitly forbids it. To me, that covers the issue better than disclaimer.
This is not the original version. If anybody is shipping the original version, they should be quickly notified that they are centuries out of date. Also, I'm pretty sure that the constitution hasn't ever said only men can vote. It just didn't guarantee the rights of women, 18-year olds, non-whites, etc. until there were amendments doing so.
Well, the constitution allows for that.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "
We aren't distributing the original constitution. We are distributing the current constitution, which had its last change in 1992. It effectively has a lot of the needed 'commentary' built in. I would agree that parents should talk to their children about this, although in many cases, the children will be more knowledgeable than the parents. I think a much bigger concern than outdated word choices and peculiar clauses that have lost relevance or have been amended is the mechanics of the constitution and the reasons why these things were chosen.
The 3/5 compromise was for voting purposes, but it has been changed with the 14th amendment, which should be included in any publication of the constitution, along with the other amendments.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see a lot of obviously derivative work that isn't parody
Do you know how many cartoons Beethoven has been in? Tom and Jerry is quite disturbing without a soundtrack, you know. Also, Shakespeare is quoted pretty often in various media. Also, it was my understanding that there was quite a bit 'borrowed' by Shakespeare, Beethoven, and the like. There's also a good chance that the Canterbury Tales were based on the stories of some real people.
copyright is also the GOVERNMENT restricting actions that include speech and publication. You can argue that fair use predates the first amendment, but that doesn't mean that the first amendment doesn't also back fair use. I think going against the other conditions of the copyright clause is the central focus here, but this does sound like congress making a law that abridges free speech in a certain fashion, and this is definitely outside of the area that the copyright clause allows.
the constitution doesn't really talk about copyrights,
Actually, the constitution explicitly addresses copyrights, giving Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" Retroactive removal from the public domain cannot possibly benefit the public, so such a law would go against the constitutional basis of copyright law.
Both are restricting the liberties of individuals. Copyright is taking rights away from the public for a limited time, and the constitutional basis is that the public will eventually have more works to exercise their rights with.
US copyright exists for the public benefit. The idea is that by giving limited protections to authors, we will end up with more works in the public domain. Benefits to authors are merely a side effect. The 'sweat of the brow' doctrine has been rejected, which is why phonebooks can't be copyrighted.
They are allowed to operate, but their interests should not be overriding the interests of the general public. Retroactive copyright extensions and retroactive removal from the public domain can't possibly result in more works being produced (and thus producing SOME kind of public benefit).
You've got the reasoning wrong. Google doesn't really care about Flash or Adobe. However, Google cares about security and users care about flash content. In order to please users, they bundle Flash, so it's there and it's up to date. Flash is one of the biggest security holes in a browser, and they've taken a step to minimize this hole.
Less features doesn't necessarily mean crappy. Most PDF readers do less than Adobe Reader, but the subset they use covers virtually all sane, practical usage.
Google did write it themselves, but they have shown interest in implementing 'embedded media' supported by Adobe Reader. I DO NOT want a SWF in a PDF, or support for running arbitrary executables (which is part of the official PDF spec). I understand supporting PDF in the browser, but I don't want the features that are just bad practice and have no real world use besides infecting my machine.
This has gone too far. We are having a pointless discussion on who an idea 'belongs to' when we are all criticizing abusive copyright laws. You could argue that quite a few touched upon this issues during the Enlightenment, and that it was probably discussed a bit by Plato and his peers/successors (maybe less directly), and it very well may have been addressed before the formation of early governments.
They probably can, but it would take effort, and some headlines might be behind a paywall or not online at all. German news is a fairly small market for Google, given that news isn't that big for them, but Google indexing these headlines is very important to getting them more traffic. I do like adding adjectives, though. Maybe they could let you place your own adjectives for a certain party in headlines as a customization option, though.
And despite the pressure from the US media conglomerates, the US still has one of the largest areas of fair use/fair dealing and copyright exceptions. I would even go as far as to suggest that our media conglomerates formed largely because of the fair use and generally more lax copyright stance in the US.
The problem is that by paraphrasing they risk infringing on another newspaper that has similar language. Canning german newspapers would probably be simpler to implement, and would make the newspapers realize their folly faster.
Eventually they will get tired of this and stop reading newspapers altogether.
Hasn't that already happened? I mean, I thought newspapers being dead was why Rupert Murdoch was yelling about the internet and the end of the free ride. Maybe he's just off his meds.
We did resist it a very long time, though. It took 102 years to formally adopt, while one could argue that some other countries are adopting the laws US copyright holders are pushing before the US bothers to adopt them.
We could get to work on it now and get grandfathered in, at least, assuming that existing headlines are protected against future infringement but aren't subject to retroactive lawsuits.
I don't think Germany had the baby boom, and not many people would consider the Nazis the greatest generation
According to your source, It's much larger than the iPhone users they are bitching about
I can see no reason why it wouldn't be the most up to date version. The criticism seems to be that it has a clause regarding slavery (not really endorsing it) that has been nullified by a later amendment that explicitly forbids it. To me, that covers the issue better than disclaimer.
This is not the original version. If anybody is shipping the original version, they should be quickly notified that they are centuries out of date. Also, I'm pretty sure that the constitution hasn't ever said only men can vote. It just didn't guarantee the rights of women, 18-year olds, non-whites, etc. until there were amendments doing so.
Well, the constitution allows for that. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "
Not really, since the US is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
The constitution explicitly forbids slavery.
We aren't distributing the original constitution. We are distributing the current constitution, which had its last change in 1992. It effectively has a lot of the needed 'commentary' built in. I would agree that parents should talk to their children about this, although in many cases, the children will be more knowledgeable than the parents. I think a much bigger concern than outdated word choices and peculiar clauses that have lost relevance or have been amended is the mechanics of the constitution and the reasons why these things were chosen.
The 3/5 compromise was for voting purposes, but it has been changed with the 14th amendment, which should be included in any publication of the constitution, along with the other amendments.