The key word here is "accidentally". I already know that I don't want to "copy major elements from another tune"; how can I tell whether I have inadvertently done what I don't want to do?
It just seems unlikely that you'll be unlucky enough. Your comment suggested that there will always be a song that's sufficiently similar, wheras people are creating new music all the time. Of course, you could just adapt from esxisting free works and evolve from there. But you run this risk any time you create anything, commercially or otherwise. You just have to measure the risk. If it was as easy as you suggest when you said "music publishers can probably dig up some similar song from a decade ago to prove that the music was copied as opposed to original", then George Harrison could have found a song "She's so Fine" was similar to, bought the rights and then claimed his rights were violated. It's not like he can't afford it.
So is record labels suing individuals (e.g. Capitol v. Thomas), yet I don't want to be the ones that the labels choose to make an example of.
In that case, it's the lawsuits that are rare, not the infringing activity. It's a valid defence is the infringing work is based off work furnished by a third party that the defendent did have permission from, and the court does have discretion to elimnate all damages in this situation.
In which case a copyright owner can stifle creativity by replying that it does not extend such permission to individuals under any conditions. This happened to me in March 1999 when I asked for permission to make a derivative work based on an animated series intended for children, and a representative of the copyright owner rejected it out of fear that any derivative work might be defamatory against the original work's author. So what should I do when the first three or four companies that I contact either A. make such rejections or B. don't reply at all?
Find something in the creative commons. This is something that needs to be bootstrapped certainly but we could produce a rich world that encourages derivitive works.
Then couldn't Paramount have included a summary of the guidelines (even as short as "CC-BY-NC") in the works' credits themselves if it wanted to encourage non-commercial reuse?
I guess they have their own reasons for wanting tighter control than that You'll have to ask Paramount what those reasons are.
I mentioned the fan films as a proof of concept. You can have production values on a low budget not for profit basis. I can certainly find some CC Hugo award nominated novels.
So how can I tell whether or not I'm accidentally plagiarizing something before I release my own work? Is there a set of best practices to avoid musical plagiarism?
Best practice - don't copy major elements from another tune. This sort of thing is very rare.
In which document does Paramount express permission for Trek fan productions? I've seen MTV Networks, which shares a corporate parent with Paramount, send a bunch of takedown notices to YouTube about fan parodies of animated series shown on Nickelodeon and Comedy Central.
I believe the guys asked explicit permission. Paramount responded with a set of guidelines including that they are not allowed to make nay money from it at all. I thought this was about production standards though rather than permission though.
After the Beatles broke up, George Harrison wrote and recorded "My Sweet Lord". Then Bright Tunes Music successfully sued Harrison's publishing company about "My Sweet Lord" being too close to Ronald Mack's "He's So Fine" (recorded by the Chiffons). Nobody came out and sued Bright Tunes (or ABKCO, which subsequently bought Bright Tunes) about "He's So Fine".
Yeah, but since Harrison did pretty much plagarise substantial chinks of the other song, it's no surprise he lost.
Typically when you get this sort of speedup, it's by rewriting a tiny piece of code that gets called a lot. Sometimes you can get this sort of thing from a single variable, or for doing something odd like making a variable static.
They'll just say it's a sinkhole or something, then insist that Global Warming is real and then pretend The Earth is really much older than the 6000 years old we all know it to be and that we all evolved from monkeys and that The Earth really goes around the sun, and that pi is bigger than 3. I wouldn't believe a scientist!
As for Creative Commons licensed music, one of the major music publishers can probably dig up some similar song from a decade ago to prove that the music was copied as opposed to original
This isn't that likely. Proving this would be very difficult and expose the publisher to a similar lawsuit if it turns out there's someything even older.
Since when are there such shows with production values comparable to even non-free network TV, let alone non-free feature films?
Have you seen some of the Star Trek fan productions? It's incredible what you can do with consumer equipment these days.
Ah, right. I assumed it would be the IR camera mounted behind the screen type table and some trick which I'm guessing involves an extremely shallow depth of field to make sure fingers are only visible when actually on the screen. Although I wonder if it does work by image size. The way I see it, if the camera is slightly offset then it can determine how far away your hand is by comparing the offset of the image from the projected reference.
As an American, the major issue I have with China is that they have the luxury of having seen how the rest of the developed world developed their science and technology industry, and can copy off of us. They're going to catch up with us very quickly. Feels like cheating.
Ever use paper? Useful for printing books to improve knowledge and to write down ideas and diagrams. Gunpowder was pretty useful in allowing European powers to increase their wealth and thus speed up scientific progress indirectly. Both Chinese inventions. The West didn't need to go through all the same trial and error to get them. We got them from China.
But anyway, they can only "cheat" if they're behind technologically. If they get ahead of us, then we can cheat right back.
156 (actually 156-190 depending on configuration) might not be as big as a typical wide body, but I think there are only a dozen or so aircraft currently in production that are larger.
You need that third dimension to do intersting stuff. Thr touch table actually used the third dimension. It was a very crude 1 bit Z-representation (finger is/isn't touching the screen) but without that you're a lot more limited. A finger painting application is very limited if you can't take the brush of the paper. Adding a camera adds more than a z position. It adds an image of the player as well. It is a camera after all. You can do fun stuff with that.
This is actually something you could conceivably do with the eye-toy. You'd need to print a specific pattern on each wheel but once that's done it's pretty easy to search for circles and see which ones match the reference.
Yeah, but it will take them at least 10-15 years to come up to speed.
COMAC are locked into their suppliers for at least 10 years. They'll need to get one in the air before they even consider switching supliers. It will still take them 5 years from there to switch to Chinese suppliers. GE gets paid all this time. In fact they're getting paid to develop their own technology that they can patent and sell to Boeing and Airbus. Otherwise, there are other avionics companies, or companies that resell used equipment. GE will make zero money off those.
And surely any company can take their technology and develop their own.
If the demand for the aircraft is there in 5 years they would have to buy US or EU planes. So GE is getting a few billion dollars and China is getting the ability to design and build it own fleet worth half a trillion dollars?
The partners are in the business of selling avionic equipment. They don't care what plane it goes in. When China develops its own avionics systems then that will be a new competitor to deal with but that will happen eventually anyway. Besides, China may still have trouble getting their avionics companies off the ground. China willl end up with the half trillion dollar fleet whether they're involved or now.
So there's the choice. Do nothing. Lose out now and hope and pray that no other company can provide the equipment needed and China is incapable of doing so under its own steam, or work with them and get billions of dollars out of COMAC.
which was itself a 737, 20 years too late. Boeing are still selling hundreds of 737s every year. Airbus are selling plenty of 320s, many of them to Chinese airlines. There's a market for this sort of aircraft.
There is no innovation here, just borrowing. That's OK though, right?
It's business. It's apparently legal, or not obviously illegal enough for any reprecussions, and it makes money. so yes, that's okay.
It's basic game theory. If you can make a profit out of something that will kill you, you might as well. At least your last few days wil be that little more comfortable. It's no like China can't set up its own avionics equipment companies. It's just easier to partner with US and european companies. COMAC could just design it to use 737 parts, which can be purchased off the shelf, and do a piecemeal replacement as they get their own avionics industry in shape.
It's unclear what compaints Wikipedia made to Verizon about this specific individual. Also not clear if those in charge of Wikipedia are involved or if this is just a community thing. Verizon won't act without a specific complaint. A complaint from a member of the public will have less weight.
It could have done but didn't. So what's your point? There are people on the kill list who have not shot anyone and evidence against them is circumstantial.
Slashdot Mirror
The key word here is "accidentally". I already know that I don't want to "copy major elements from another tune"; how can I tell whether I have inadvertently done what I don't want to do?
It just seems unlikely that you'll be unlucky enough. Your comment suggested that there will always be a song that's sufficiently similar, wheras people are creating new music all the time. Of course, you could just adapt from esxisting free works and evolve from there. But you run this risk any time you create anything, commercially or otherwise. You just have to measure the risk. If it was as easy as you suggest when you said "music publishers can probably dig up some similar song from a decade ago to prove that the music was copied as opposed to original", then George Harrison could have found a song "She's so Fine" was similar to, bought the rights and then claimed his rights were violated. It's not like he can't afford it.
So is record labels suing individuals (e.g. Capitol v. Thomas), yet I don't want to be the ones that the labels choose to make an example of.
In that case, it's the lawsuits that are rare, not the infringing activity. It's a valid defence is the infringing work is based off work furnished by a third party that the defendent did have permission from, and the court does have discretion to elimnate all damages in this situation.
In which case a copyright owner can stifle creativity by replying that it does not extend such permission to individuals under any conditions. This happened to me in March 1999 when I asked for permission to make a derivative work based on an animated series intended for children, and a representative of the copyright owner rejected it out of fear that any derivative work might be defamatory against the original work's author. So what should I do when the first three or four companies that I contact either A. make such rejections or B. don't reply at all?
Find something in the creative commons. This is something that needs to be bootstrapped certainly but we could produce a rich world that encourages derivitive works.
Then couldn't Paramount have included a summary of the guidelines (even as short as "CC-BY-NC") in the works' credits themselves if it wanted to encourage non-commercial reuse?
I guess they have their own reasons for wanting tighter control than that You'll have to ask Paramount what those reasons are.
I mentioned the fan films as a proof of concept. You can have production values on a low budget not for profit basis. I can certainly find some CC Hugo award nominated novels.
So how can I tell whether or not I'm accidentally plagiarizing something before I release my own work? Is there a set of best practices to avoid musical plagiarism?
Best practice - don't copy major elements from another tune. This sort of thing is very rare.
In which document does Paramount express permission for Trek fan productions? I've seen MTV Networks, which shares a corporate parent with Paramount, send a bunch of takedown notices to YouTube about fan parodies of animated series shown on Nickelodeon and Comedy Central.
I believe the guys asked explicit permission. Paramount responded with a set of guidelines including that they are not allowed to make nay money from it at all. I thought this was about production standards though rather than permission though.
No I didn't. I went wrong by not going into more detail.
After the Beatles broke up, George Harrison wrote and recorded "My Sweet Lord". Then Bright Tunes Music successfully sued Harrison's publishing company about "My Sweet Lord" being too close to Ronald Mack's "He's So Fine" (recorded by the Chiffons). Nobody came out and sued Bright Tunes (or ABKCO, which subsequently bought Bright Tunes) about "He's So Fine".
Yeah, but since Harrison did pretty much plagarise substantial chinks of the other song, it's no surprise he lost.
Yeah, like infringe Paramount's copyrights
Paramount permits this.
Uhm... I went wrong by not explaining my point in excruciting detail?
Typically when you get this sort of speedup, it's by rewriting a tiny piece of code that gets called a lot. Sometimes you can get this sort of thing from a single variable, or for doing something odd like making a variable static.
He says he doesn't do anything that requires math (or video documented animal husbandary).
RTFA. He appreciates the irony.
They'll just say it's a sinkhole or something, then insist that Global Warming is real and then pretend The Earth is really much older than the 6000 years old we all know it to be and that we all evolved from monkeys and that The Earth really goes around the sun, and that pi is bigger than 3. I wouldn't believe a scientist!
(Sorry. Am I being too mean here?)
I agree, but...
As for Creative Commons licensed music, one of the major music publishers can probably dig up some similar song from a decade ago to prove that the music was copied as opposed to original
This isn't that likely. Proving this would be very difficult and expose the publisher to a similar lawsuit if it turns out there's someything even older.
Since when are there such shows with production values comparable to even non-free network TV, let alone non-free feature films?
Have you seen some of the Star Trek fan productions? It's incredible what you can do with consumer equipment these days.
Okay. It's a simple game. Pick a box.
Box 1, you spend the next 10 years as a pauper, possibly dying of starvation. If you survive, I shoot you with my own gun.
Box 2, you live in luxury for 10 years then I shoot you with your own gun.
Also if you escape (which is more likely with box 2) you get another 10 years under the same terms.
Ah, right. I assumed it would be the IR camera mounted behind the screen type table and some trick which I'm guessing involves an extremely shallow depth of field to make sure fingers are only visible when actually on the screen. Although I wonder if it does work by image size. The way I see it, if the camera is slightly offset then it can determine how far away your hand is by comparing the offset of the image from the projected reference.
Which museum was it? I feel an urge to visit.
As an American, the major issue I have with China is that they have the luxury of having seen how the rest of the developed world developed their science and technology industry, and can copy off of us. They're going to catch up with us very quickly. Feels like cheating.
Ever use paper? Useful for printing books to improve knowledge and to write down ideas and diagrams. Gunpowder was pretty useful in allowing European powers to increase their wealth and thus speed up scientific progress indirectly. Both Chinese inventions. The West didn't need to go through all the same trial and error to get them. We got them from China.
But anyway, they can only "cheat" if they're behind technologically. If they get ahead of us, then we can cheat right back.
156 (actually 156-190 depending on configuration) might not be as big as a typical wide body, but I think there are only a dozen or so aircraft currently in production that are larger.
It's a relative term. There are only a dozen or so larger models in production.
You need that third dimension to do intersting stuff. Thr touch table actually used the third dimension. It was a very crude 1 bit Z-representation (finger is/isn't touching the screen) but without that you're a lot more limited. A finger painting application is very limited if you can't take the brush of the paper. Adding a camera adds more than a z position. It adds an image of the player as well. It is a camera after all. You can do fun stuff with that.
This is actually something you could conceivably do with the eye-toy. You'd need to print a specific pattern on each wheel but once that's done it's pretty easy to search for circles and see which ones match the reference.
they produced the hardware, locked it to a platform, and then threatened to sue anyone who used it without a pre-existing agreement with them.
Who, specifically, did they threaten to sue?
Yeah, but it will take them at least 10-15 years to come up to speed.
COMAC are locked into their suppliers for at least 10 years. They'll need to get one in the air before they even consider switching supliers. It will still take them 5 years from there to switch to Chinese suppliers. GE gets paid all this time. In fact they're getting paid to develop their own technology that they can patent and sell to Boeing and Airbus. Otherwise, there are other avionics companies, or companies that resell used equipment. GE will make zero money off those.
And surely any company can take their technology and develop their own.
If the demand for the aircraft is there in 5 years they would have to buy US or EU planes. So GE is getting a few billion dollars and China is getting the ability to design and build it own fleet worth half a trillion dollars?
The partners are in the business of selling avionic equipment. They don't care what plane it goes in. When China develops its own avionics systems then that will be a new competitor to deal with but that will happen eventually anyway. Besides, China may still have trouble getting their avionics companies off the ground. China willl end up with the half trillion dollar fleet whether they're involved or now.
So there's the choice. Do nothing. Lose out now and hope and pray that no other company can provide the equipment needed and China is incapable of doing so under its own steam, or work with them and get billions of dollars out of COMAC.
The C919 is an Airbus 320 20 years too late
which was itself a 737, 20 years too late. Boeing are still selling hundreds of 737s every year. Airbus are selling plenty of 320s, many of them to Chinese airlines. There's a market for this sort of aircraft.
There is no innovation here, just borrowing. That's OK though, right?
It's business. It's apparently legal, or not obviously illegal enough for any reprecussions, and it makes money. so yes, that's okay.
It's basic game theory. If you can make a profit out of something that will kill you, you might as well. At least your last few days wil be that little more comfortable. It's no like China can't set up its own avionics equipment companies. It's just easier to partner with US and european companies. COMAC could just design it to use 737 parts, which can be purchased off the shelf, and do a piecemeal replacement as they get their own avionics industry in shape.
Your right to freedom os speech steps on my right not to be offended.
Your right to your property steps on my right to take your property.
Your right not to be searched arbitrarily steps on my right to personal safety.
It's unclear what compaints Wikipedia made to Verizon about this specific individual. Also not clear if those in charge of Wikipedia are involved or if this is just a community thing. Verizon won't act without a specific complaint. A complaint from a member of the public will have less weight.
In that case, the OP should ditch his computer, and find a resource neutral means of employment.
It could have done but didn't. So what's your point? There are people on the kill list who have not shot anyone and evidence against them is circumstantial.