It's being paid for by whatever method is being used to feed the data into the Japan-based box. The example given is an antenna, so it's being paid for by commercial views.
It prevents copyright owners from being lost. There are many copyrighted works for which the owner is currently unknown, so it is impossible for people to create derivitive works. This act would force those into the public domain by default.
I played this great little game Willy the Worm 2 on my old Tandy. I've tried various slowdown programs on modern computers, but they a) don't slow down the gameplay appreciably, and b) slow down the sound dramatically. So the game is over in a flash, but the "death splat" noise goes on for a minute and a half. Alas, the memory of games lost.
What's the cover story? That it's a search engine? It is. It doesn't make things available that weren't avalable otherwise. To use your analogy, there were "free stuff" tables out there, containing lots of guns, among other stuff, and this guy was passing out neatly-formatted inventories that he collected while walking about. Whether he had a table himself (which he probably did) is irrelevant. That's not what he was being accused of.
Setting aside the fact that search engines aren't a regulated product, are you trying to imply that a university is an unsafe and irresponsible location to make a search engine available?
If I were choosing an edition of The Hobbit with or without Tolkien's illustrations, I'd choose the one with them. Likewise the Alice books and Tenniel's illustrations. A format that allows illustrations doesn't require them.
However, there is certainly an important place for plain text ebooks - they are easy to convert to more complete formats. The efforts of Project Gutenberg aren't wasted.
Yes, but if there are no dumpster-diving laws, someone could sell those original master recordings on eBay. They just couldn't make and distribute copies.
100 people want an ocean-font home. One is sold. Therefore 99 homes were pirated. No attempt is made to see how many homes actually changed hands, and the figure '100' was just made up.
Not really... Let's assume there isn't enough demand for the CD to be available. Now let's assume the copyright magically expires. The
record companies (that still have physical possession of the master recordings) have even less incentive to produce a CD of it (since anyone
could duplicate it).
There are a ton of "Alice in Wonderland" books published, despite this. (more importantly, there are derivitive works)
The only answer is to copy it from kazaa, buy an "as-seen-on-tv" collection, or a service like iTunes (since the record company doesn't have
production or distribution costs, they can make less-popular stuff available).
That's all that is needed, and all that is requested.
The author (or whoever buys the copyright) has copyright to the blueprints of the work. The copyright gives them exclusive rights to make physical or electronic (or arbitrary future tech) copies of the work. Similarly, the architect has copyright to the blueprints of the house, and once the copyright expires, anyone can make copies.
Copyright isn't ownership of ideas. It's the exclusive right to make copies. Each individual copy becomes property, like the house.
Only if you can give the house to EVERYBODY. In fact, if physical objects were as easy to transfer and duplicate as ideas, there would be no moral justification for NOT giving them to everybody.
The low fee is an attempt to get the thing passed, to limit opposition by the monied interests. If the fee climbed, the monied interests would be hurt more than individuals. Someone we'd designate a 'monied interest' is more likely to hold many times more copyrights than an individual.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's the obscured term. The actual secure word is 'fubar'.
Try the Gap stories by the same author.
They're not marketing it in the US. And the parent wasn't referring to legality, but "morally sway"ing users to view what they are doing as wrong.
It's being paid for by whatever method is being used to feed the data into the Japan-based box. The example given is an antenna, so it's being paid for by commercial views.
You'd think people would put alittle effort into these things.
It prevents copyright owners from being lost. There are many copyrighted works for which the owner is currently unknown, so it is impossible for people to create derivitive works. This act would force those into the public domain by default.
Is this something that concerns you?
I played this great little game Willy the Worm 2 on my old Tandy. I've tried various slowdown programs on modern computers, but they a) don't slow down the gameplay appreciably, and b) slow down the sound dramatically. So the game is over in a flash, but the "death splat" noise goes on for a minute and a half. Alas, the memory of games lost.
I think you're probably thinkng base 36, not hex.
What's the cover story? That it's a search engine? It is. It doesn't make things available that weren't avalable otherwise. To use your analogy, there were "free stuff" tables out there, containing lots of guns, among other stuff, and this guy was passing out neatly-formatted inventories that he collected while walking about. Whether he had a table himself (which he probably did) is irrelevant. That's not what he was being accused of.
Setting aside the fact that search engines aren't a regulated product, are you trying to imply that a university is an unsafe and irresponsible location to make a search engine available?
(or 1cent coins if they're still valid in the US).
They are indeed.
That's probably closer to manslaughter or, at most, negligent homicide.
If I were choosing an edition of The Hobbit with or without Tolkien's illustrations, I'd choose the one with them. Likewise the Alice books and Tenniel's illustrations. A format that allows illustrations doesn't require them.
However, there is certainly an important place for plain text ebooks - they are easy to convert to more complete formats. The efforts of Project Gutenberg aren't wasted.
Have you seen the new sewing machines? They're pretty damn cool. Just last night I purchased a Bernina #8 Jeans foot and some sewing machine oil.
OK. It was my mom's birthday.
Yes, but if there are no dumpster-diving laws, someone could sell those original master recordings on eBay. They just couldn't make and distribute copies.
100 people want an ocean-font home. One is sold. Therefore 99 homes were pirated. No attempt is made to see how many homes actually changed hands, and the figure '100' was just made up.
How do you think it works now? Copyrights are inheritable.
I might go along with this if it were something like: return all copyright and patent durations to their original, Constitutional assigned lengths,
There's no such thing. But I wouldn't mind going back to the earlier Congressionally assigned lenghths.
Not really... Let's assume there isn't enough demand for the CD to be available. Now let's assume the copyright magically expires. The record companies (that still have physical possession of the master recordings) have even less incentive to produce a CD of it (since anyone could duplicate it).
There are a ton of "Alice in Wonderland" books published, despite this. (more importantly, there are derivitive works)
The only answer is to copy it from kazaa, buy an "as-seen-on-tv" collection, or a service like iTunes (since the record company doesn't have production or distribution costs, they can make less-popular stuff available).
That's all that is needed, and all that is requested.
50 years is the minimum unencumbered limit for copyright for signers of the Berne copyright treaty.
The author (or whoever buys the copyright) has copyright to the blueprints of the work. The copyright gives them exclusive rights to make physical or electronic (or arbitrary future tech) copies of the work. Similarly, the architect has copyright to the blueprints of the house, and once the copyright expires, anyone can make copies.
Copyright isn't ownership of ideas. It's the exclusive right to make copies. Each individual copy becomes property, like the house.
Only if you can give the house to EVERYBODY. In fact, if physical objects were as easy to transfer and duplicate as ideas, there would be no moral justification for NOT giving them to everybody.
The low fee is an attempt to get the thing passed, to limit opposition by the monied interests. If the fee climbed, the monied interests would be hurt more than individuals. Someone we'd designate a 'monied interest' is more likely to hold many times more copyrights than an individual.
Whoops. Sorry.