BTW, I highly approve of people being allowed to fly the Confederate Battle Flag and the Nazi flag. People flying flags makes it easier to tell which people are the enemy.
How is this different than companies incorporating in, say, Delaware which has the most favorable laws for incorporation and then doing business in some other state?
Actually, most food pictures are not that manipulated. It is the "food" that is manipulated during the shoot. Hamburgers are seared on all sides by hand, cheese that is actually plastic or lard, "ice cream" that is colored shortening, etc.
Especially when one reads the very first line of the article (emphasis added):
The UMP member Valerie Boyer filed in the National Assembly a bill aimed to put a warning on the publicity photos where physical appearance was altered by software for image processing, it was reported Tuesday in his entourage.
To add to what others have said, The Kentucky Fried Chicken C&Ds were not about recipes. They were about the naming and look of the restaurants. KFC claimed that certain restaurants were trying to lure in customers by appearing to be a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant by using similar color schemes and names such ask Kennedy Fried Chicken and Kantacky Fried Chicken.
It was a trademark claim, not a copyright claim.
You don't seem to know the difference between trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights, and probably patents.
By definition, Champagne (the beverage) comes exclusively from the Champagne region of France. Everything else is "Sparkling white wine".
The United States have recognized the exclusive nature of this name, yet maintain a legal structure that allows longtime domestic producers of sparkling wine to continue to use the term "champagne" under specific circumstances. Some states have laws banning this usage.
If, for decades if not centuries, Maple syrup was only available from Vermont, from specific Maple trees whose export was banned, using a technique that was a secret known only to people from Vermont, as was the case for Champagne, then Maple syrup might be known as "Vermont".
That entire post of yours is nothing but an appeal to popularity and ridicule.
Violating other people's copy rights does not benefit the people who legally hold those rights.
The RIAA is made up of the record labels and other copyright holders. The labels buy the copyrights from the artists. They don't have to care about the artist's welfare. It is not their job. Caring about the artist's welfare is the job of the artist, the artist's agent, and the artist's lawyer.
Your argument boils down to "I want it and don't want to pay for it so it is OK for me to take it."
You need to grow up, child, and realize that the world does not revolve around you and your wants. You do not have the right to violate other peoples rights, be they copy rights or any other rights simply because you want something and can not afford to pay the asking price.
That may very well be an unfounded claim of copyright. The proceedings were the result of the government and public money. The question is "Can a work created by the government with the fund of the people, by the people, for the people fall under copyright law or is it in fact in the public domain?" Once again, this is something that either needs to be spelled out in the law, or decided by the courts.
Wrong again. Quoting your "work" to criticize it is a legitimate fair use. Your "work" is so small that the only way to quote it effectively is to quote it in toto. To do otherwise would be to misrepresent your "work" and miss-characterize both the criticism and your "work". Because you have already given away for free your "work", there is no effect on the possible market for it.
Oh yeah, because you certainly gave a thoughtful discourse on why n>1 copies are bad
If you start with 1 copy of a copyrighted work and you don't own the copyright or have permission to make copies and you end with more than one copy, you have made copies that are unauthorized. By law, you do not have that right.
That simple fact makes the rest of your post irrelevant.
Copyright is in the body of the Constitution in Article 2, section 8. The First Amendment was tacked on to the Constitution later. Copyright was not added to the Constitution as "an abridgment" to the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment and claiming so is disingenuous. At best, copyright could be said to limit the freedom of the press, but at the same time it strengthens the same freedom by allowing the press to make a living as the press.
Fair use existed only as common law in the U.S.until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, which would be about 200 years AFTER "it came time to implement copyright".
I suggest you actually read a history book some time.
However, the RIAA claims that format shifting is not fair use.
And, that is a question for the courts. They claim it isn't, others claim it is. It is up to the courts to interpret the law and decide the matter. The fact that you do not wish to go to court to decide the matter is irrelevant. Your two choices are "prove it in a court of law" and "change the law". If you can't do either, then you are just whining.
Resorting to straw man arguments will get you no where.
You do not address my argument that there is no fair use involved in "sharing" songs on the internet. Instead you try to change the subject. You personally attack me rather than making any argument You make unsupported claims about the RIAA, it's members, and corporations in general You state that I am harming myself but provide no proof of same You advocate destroying those you disagree with, but put forth no argument or evidence supporting such action You claim that I am on the "wrong" side of the argumen
So, you post is a red herring, an ad hominem attack, a straw man combined with an appeal to fear and ridicule, a false dilemma combined with an appeal to consequences of a belief, begging the question, and two wrongs making a right.
Your entire post is one fallacy after another. You apparently have no concept of how to argue. And, judging from the style of the post, I bet you are under the age of 23.
There is no fair use involved in making unauthorized copies of a work. I don't care what you call it. If you start with one copy of a copyrighted work and end up with n copies of a work, where n is greater than 1, in the hands of m people, where m is greater than 1, without the permission of the copyright holder, then unauthorized copies have been made. There is no fair use defense, because there is no fair use for that situation.
Yes, because if you were on trial accused of dealing drugs, you would want the jury to know you were arrested for smoking pot even though the judge in the trial said it was not relevant to the case. And, then when they found you guilty, even though you were innocent because they had developed a biased opinion of you from their internet research, I am sure you will have no problem with it.
Just like if you were arrested at 17 for statutory rape of your 18yo girlfriend (yes, this is possible), you would want the jury to know that you were arrested for rape when a woman IDs you as her rapist, even though there is no physical evidence and little circumstantial evidence and the judge has ruled that your previous arrest (and possible conviction) is not germane to the case.
OH, and I am sure you would want jurors reading blogs that say "He did it! We know he did it! The police just screwed up the case!" while deciding your fate.
you aren't allowed to get outside information about the case you are hearing, but apparently the iPhone makes it far too easy to ignore this advice.
Not getting outside information about a case is not "advice" to the jury. It is a requirement and can lead to innocent people being convicted, guilty people being set free, and mistrials.
A juror is to make his decision based on the evidence presented in court. He should not be basing his judgments on the opinions, rumors, and other information that may not true or relevant to the case at hand. The judge in a case determines what evidence and information is relevant to the case, not the jurors, not the prosecutors, and not the defense.
Unfortunately for you, the Theory of Evolution has huge amounts of scientific evidence and made predictions that have come to pass, and is falsifiable.
In contrast, the primary competing suggestions have no evidence, make no predictions, and are not even falsifiable and thus are not even hypotheses let alone Theories. In fact, those suggestion are fallacious because the assumption they are correct is built into them. This is known as "Begging the question". They also work off of circular reasoning and appeal to authority (divinity) and appeal to belief.
The problem is not questioning the Theory of Evolution. It is in claiming, without proof, that the Theory is wrong because it proves your fairy tale is incorrect.
There is this thing called targeted advertising. One makes an ad targeted to a specific demographic. This ad is targeted specifically at companies using Sun hardware and Solaris.
It does not mention MySql because the ad is not targeted at MySQL users. Granted, the set of "Sun hardware and Solaris users" and the set of "MySQL" users can and probably do overlap, but that is beside the point.
Remember, lack of evidence for something (no mention of MySQL in that ad) is not evidence against said thing nor is it evidence for something else (Oracle is planning to do something bad to MySql).
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, I highly approve of people being allowed to fly the Confederate Battle Flag and the Nazi flag. People flying flags makes it easier to tell which people are the enemy.
I see you are in favor of censorship. How un-American of you.
How is this different than companies incorporating in, say, Delaware which has the most favorable laws for incorporation and then doing business in some other state?
Actually, most food pictures are not that manipulated. It is the "food" that is manipulated during the shoot. Hamburgers are seared on all sides by hand, cheese that is actually plastic or lard, "ice cream" that is colored shortening, etc.
While I agree with you, I think you forgot you are posting on slashdot.
How is this affecting anyone's rights on line?
Especially when one reads the very first line of the article (emphasis added):
Seems to me this is a tempest in a teapot.
To add to what others have said, The Kentucky Fried Chicken C&Ds were not about recipes. They were about the naming and look of the restaurants. KFC claimed that certain restaurants were trying to lure in customers by appearing to be a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant by using similar color schemes and names such ask Kennedy Fried Chicken and Kantacky Fried Chicken.
It was a trademark claim, not a copyright claim.
You don't seem to know the difference between trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights, and probably patents.
By definition, Champagne (the beverage) comes exclusively from the Champagne region of France. Everything else is "Sparkling white wine".
The United States have recognized the exclusive nature of this name, yet maintain a legal structure that allows longtime domestic producers of sparkling wine to continue to use the term "champagne" under specific circumstances. Some states have laws banning this usage.
If, for decades if not centuries, Maple syrup was only available from Vermont, from specific Maple trees whose export was banned, using a technique that was a secret known only to people from Vermont, as was the case for Champagne, then Maple syrup might be known as "Vermont".
That entire post of yours is nothing but an appeal to popularity and ridicule.
Violating other people's copy rights does not benefit the people who legally hold those rights.
The RIAA is made up of the record labels and other copyright holders. The labels buy the copyrights from the artists. They don't have to care about the artist's welfare. It is not their job. Caring about the artist's welfare is the job of the artist, the artist's agent, and the artist's lawyer.
Your argument boils down to "I want it and don't want to pay for it so it is OK for me to take it."
You need to grow up, child, and realize that the world does not revolve around you and your wants. You do not have the right to violate other peoples rights, be they copy rights or any other rights simply because you want something and can not afford to pay the asking price.
That may very well be an unfounded claim of copyright. The proceedings were the result of the government and public money. The question is "Can a work created by the government with the fund of the people, by the people, for the people fall under copyright law or is it in fact in the public domain?" Once again, this is something that either needs to be spelled out in the law, or decided by the courts.
Wrong again. Quoting your "work" to criticize it is a legitimate fair use. Your "work" is so small that the only way to quote it effectively is to quote it in toto. To do otherwise would be to misrepresent your "work" and miss-characterize both the criticism and your "work". Because you have already given away for free your "work", there is no effect on the possible market for it.
You lose all around.
If you start with 1 copy of a copyrighted work and you don't own the copyright or have permission to make copies and you end with more than one copy, you have made copies that are unauthorized. By law, you do not have that right.
That simple fact makes the rest of your post irrelevant.
Apparently you are too stupid to read, so I will not bother with you anymore.
Copyright is in the body of the Constitution in Article 2, section 8. The First Amendment was tacked on to the Constitution later. Copyright was not added to the Constitution as "an abridgment" to the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment and claiming so is disingenuous. At best, copyright could be said to limit the freedom of the press, but at the same time it strengthens the same freedom by allowing the press to make a living as the press.
Fair use existed only as common law in the U.S.until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, which would be about 200 years AFTER "it came time to implement copyright".
I suggest you actually read a history book some time.
And, that is a question for the courts. They claim it isn't, others claim it is. It is up to the courts to interpret the law and decide the matter. The fact that you do not wish to go to court to decide the matter is irrelevant. Your two choices are "prove it in a court of law" and "change the law". If you can't do either, then you are just whining.
Resorting to straw man arguments will get you no where.
Cherry picking. Go back and read the whole post and try again.
Let us examine your post:
So, you post is a red herring, an ad hominem attack, a straw man combined with an appeal to fear and ridicule, a false dilemma combined with an appeal to consequences of a belief, begging the question, and two wrongs making a right.
Your entire post is one fallacy after another. You apparently have no concept of how to argue. And, judging from the style of the post, I bet you are under the age of 23.
You fail at "parody, artistically arranging, education and research purposes".
Personal use does not fall into any of those categories.
Quoting you would be fair use because of the nature of the use and the nature of the work.
There is no fair use involved in making unauthorized copies of a work. I don't care what you call it. If you start with one copy of a copyrighted work and end up with n copies of a work, where n is greater than 1, in the hands of m people, where m is greater than 1, without the permission of the copyright holder, then unauthorized copies have been made. There is no fair use defense, because there is no fair use for that situation.
That is why you are not a lawyer or a judge.
Yes, because if you were on trial accused of dealing drugs, you would want the jury to know you were arrested for smoking pot even though the judge in the trial said it was not relevant to the case. And, then when they found you guilty, even though you were innocent because they had developed a biased opinion of you from their internet research, I am sure you will have no problem with it.
Just like if you were arrested at 17 for statutory rape of your 18yo girlfriend (yes, this is possible), you would want the jury to know that you were arrested for rape when a woman IDs you as her rapist, even though there is no physical evidence and little circumstantial evidence and the judge has ruled that your previous arrest (and possible conviction) is not germane to the case.
OH, and I am sure you would want jurors reading blogs that say "He did it! We know he did it! The police just screwed up the case!" while deciding your fate.
Not getting outside information about a case is not "advice" to the jury. It is a requirement and can lead to innocent people being convicted, guilty people being set free, and mistrials.
A juror is to make his decision based on the evidence presented in court. He should not be basing his judgments on the opinions, rumors, and other information that may not true or relevant to the case at hand. The judge in a case determines what evidence and information is relevant to the case, not the jurors, not the prosecutors, and not the defense.
Unfortunately for you, the Theory of Evolution has huge amounts of scientific evidence and made predictions that have come to pass, and is falsifiable.
In contrast, the primary competing suggestions have no evidence, make no predictions, and are not even falsifiable and thus are not even hypotheses let alone Theories. In fact, those suggestion are fallacious because the assumption they are correct is built into them. This is known as "Begging the question". They also work off of circular reasoning and appeal to authority (divinity) and appeal to belief.
The problem is not questioning the Theory of Evolution. It is in claiming, without proof, that the Theory is wrong because it proves your fairy tale is incorrect.
There is this thing called targeted advertising. One makes an ad targeted to a specific demographic. This ad is targeted specifically at companies using Sun hardware and Solaris.
It does not mention MySql because the ad is not targeted at MySQL users. Granted, the set of "Sun hardware and Solaris users" and the set of "MySQL" users can and probably do overlap, but that is beside the point.
Remember, lack of evidence for something (no mention of MySQL in that ad) is not evidence against said thing nor is it evidence for something else (Oracle is planning to do something bad to MySql).
Ok, now imagine being locked up in your flat for 100 days with your flatmates. That is what space will REALLY smell like.