Hell yeah! I loved DPaint's "brushes", as duplicated by every other Amiga paint package. Being able to use any chunk of the image as a brush, usable with any drawing function was extremely useful.
This is a financial disagreement between two commercial organisations. Why should I choose to punish them, punish my hypothetical readers, or sacrifice some hypothetical ad revenue just because Google have decided to disagree on what a fair market rate is for the music they use?
The law says that you own the copyright to your work, so you do deserve something from it.
Perhaps the law is wrong, but nobody was making that argument. For now the social contract of the legal system says that he is entitled to a cut and that the PRS can demand what that cut should be.
I heard PRS royalties were paid per second - i.e. if you play half a track you only pay for half of it. I wonder how many of those 100 million plays were for the first few seconds.
Still, it does seem insanely low. It seems the BBC pays around £20-£55 per play, so on a comparable pricing structure, he would be owed some £340. I wonder what the royalty was, and what youTube's income and profit are per play.
youTube's owners, Google is worth considerably more than him. If youTube make money from his work, then it's only fair that he should get a cut for his contribution.
It sounds like such a good idea in principle. How good that people don't get away with technicalities. Then it gets implemented and people realise that the side effect is punishment on technicalities.
You have no idea whether they remove access controls or not, so you have no idea whether the games will still run or not. That was the point of the original premise. We don't know. Now that Valve have said that access controls will be removed, we don't know. Hence we're in the same position as we were before and Valve's statement is worthless.
No. Actually the DMCA does allow fair use exceptions for exactly this sort of thing, and the copyright office is permitted to make explicit exceptions.
It is just an extract, but really quite a large extract (13% of the "work"), and that's pretty much the content of the post. Just a huge segment of a copyrighted work. It's not even highlights. It's an extract.
Certainly the responses add a little context, but I'm not sure that's enough.
This tells us that Brenda Ann Spencer was clearly not a school shooter being female and having never played a first person shooter, and thus must have been entirely fabricated to sell a single for the Boomtown Rats.
They'd have some machine tools at least. It's possible to use those to produce more machine tools. They'd also have at least some information about how to make things, a vast amount of high quality scrap metal, and why so dismissive about pumps? Pumps are great! You can use them to extract water from wells.
So why not just execute the perpetrator? At what point to damages become disproportionate?
And this is not intended to be punitive! That would be punitive damages. This is statutory damages. They're intended to compensate the victim for losses.
They were playing slightly safer than they needed to. After confirming that everything was safe they laughed about it and didn't slam anyone with a trumped up charge to justify their hysteria.
Hell, it took them an hour and everything was back to normal.
True. Microsoft's long filename patent is on a specific implementation of FAT32 that allows compatibility with 8.3 filenames. The thing is, there are probably many ways of achieving this without violating the patent but none would be Windows compatible.
So Microsoft have a patent on windows file system compatibility.
Slashdot Mirror
They are. The Council can quite effectively ignore the EP by afgreeing to implement the measures as part of national policy.
It's a shame. The EP is the only democratically elected part of the organisation, and the genuinely seem to have our best interests at heart.
Hell yeah! I loved DPaint's "brushes", as duplicated by every other Amiga paint package. Being able to use any chunk of the image as a brush, usable with any drawing function was extremely useful.
Fair point.
But the morality of it is based on an assumption that the PRS have exclusive rights to the song. A position that both youTube and the PRS accept.
If you don't accept this as assumption then they have no moral rights at all, but then the PRS would also have no moral right to exist in any form.
Why?
This is a financial disagreement between two commercial organisations. Why should I choose to punish them, punish my hypothetical readers, or sacrifice some hypothetical ad revenue just because Google have decided to disagree on what a fair market rate is for the music they use?
The law says that you own the copyright to your work, so you do deserve something from it.
Perhaps the law is wrong, but nobody was making that argument. For now the social contract of the legal system says that he is entitled to a cut and that the PRS can demand what that cut should be.
I heard PRS royalties were paid per second - i.e. if you play half a track you only pay for half of it. I wonder how many of those 100 million plays were for the first few seconds.
Still, it does seem insanely low. It seems the BBC pays around £20-£55 per play, so on a comparable pricing structure, he would be owed some £340. I wonder what the royalty was, and what youTube's income and profit are per play.
youTube's owners, Google is worth considerably more than him. If youTube make money from his work, then it's only fair that he should get a cut for his contribution.
youTube aren't using their music because they can't afford it. PRS seems to want to force them to use it.
There's an explicit exemption for obsolete computer software.
It sounds like such a good idea in principle. How good that people don't get away with technicalities. Then it gets implemented and people realise that the side effect is punishment on technicalities.
You have no idea whether they remove access controls or not, so you have no idea whether the games will still run or not. That was the point of the original premise. We don't know. Now that Valve have said that access controls will be removed, we don't know. Hence we're in the same position as we were before and Valve's statement is worthless.
No. Actually the DMCA does allow fair use exceptions for exactly this sort of thing, and the copyright office is permitted to make explicit exceptions.
It is just an extract, but really quite a large extract (13% of the "work"), and that's pretty much the content of the post. Just a huge segment of a copyrighted work. It's not even highlights. It's an extract.
Certainly the responses add a little context, but I'm not sure that's enough.
if the guy hadn't had access to inordinate amounts of bullets (you can't kill 15 people with less than 15 bullets)
True* but how do you arrange this?
if the guy hadn't had access to a gun that was stored outside the legally required locked safe
But he did and it wasn't.
if the guy hadn't been given weapons training even though his diagnosed mental condition (again, this was against the law)
But, once again, he was.
The laws are useless if they're not enforced.
*well, technically you could line people up or club them with the rifle.
This tells us that Brenda Ann Spencer was clearly not a school shooter being female and having never played a first person shooter, and thus must have been entirely fabricated to sell a single for the Boomtown Rats.
Yes, I have both a phone and a universal remote. I use the phone for telephone calls and the remote for controlling my TV.
Am I just considerably more wealthy than I thought? Neither of these devices was particularly expensive.
They'd have some machine tools at least. It's possible to use those to produce more machine tools. They'd also have at least some information about how to make things, a vast amount of high quality scrap metal, and why so dismissive about pumps? Pumps are great! You can use them to extract water from wells.
But that didn't have to happen did it? The writers would have needed another way to end the battle but I rather like the idea.
Yup.
So why not just execute the perpetrator? At what point to damages become disproportionate?
And this is not intended to be punitive! That would be punitive damages. This is statutory damages. They're intended to compensate the victim for losses.
Surely they've already rewritten copyright law and paid lots of politicians to be able to do so.
No they didn't.
They were playing slightly safer than they needed to. After confirming that everything was safe they laughed about it and didn't slam anyone with a trumped up charge to justify their hysteria.
Hell, it took them an hour and everything was back to normal.
How did their early products work? This predates GPS.
True. Microsoft's long filename patent is on a specific implementation of FAT32 that allows compatibility with 8.3 filenames. The thing is, there are probably many ways of achieving this without violating the patent but none would be Windows compatible.
So Microsoft have a patent on windows file system compatibility.
All we seem to know is that one of them is for long filenames.