I think there are a number of tests, based on commercial significance, similarity and a few other factors. So if something is given away, the court will be a lot more lenient than if it was making money for a company.
If I took a few lines from a large work, that would be fair use, but if I took a few lines from a limerick, it probably wouldn't, since I'd have copied the whole thing. But percentages aren't a good way of going about things either. It strikes me that if I were to take say 20% of that limerick (i.e. one line), then nobody would mind, whereas if I were to copy 20% of a movie, hollywood would sue my ass off.
So how does it work? You seem to know the answers. I mean I could just as easily say "Yes, that is how it works, plus they owe me for my legal representation". It's not a lot of use without any backup.
Yes, but the next candidate will be slightly inferior, and all the adequate alternatives may have found alternative employment, requiring that they go through the considerable expense of going through the hiring process again.
It's always a gamble, but it's their call as to whether consistency is worth the money.
Re:I'm more amazed....
on
Baked Apple
·
· Score: 1
I remember some time ago reading about someone who did this with a palmpilot, which others had reported was succesful. He was intending to leave it in there at the minimum temperature, but someone baked a pizza without noticing.
Another poster mentioned using smoky glass and projecting upwards. For that, you would need to flip the projection or the image on the screen... but I don't imagine that would be too difficult to accomplish
You could simply use a mirror. Allows the projector to be kept level as well.
Probably not government regulation. There's no need for a law.
The industry settled on a gauge that Stephenson used because there's no real engineering reason not to, and a certain benefit to having compatibility with existing equipment. This allowed them to buy off the shelf engines and rolling stock. But it's just an industry standard. Just like all the other standards, such as VHS, TCP/IP, MPEG, there is no government mandate saying they must be used. Just an agreement within the industry.
Perhaps he should figure this out. Understanding the other parties mind a very good way of solving a problem and coming to a compromise. He could always go about asking people. I could explain it to him, and so could everyone else here.
Who gets the feeling that this guy has a VCR that's still flashing 12:00?
The summary up there is a little harsh. He would have approved of the VCR if they got a royalty for each tape. Okay. Fair due. Now I'll lay into him.
The fact that most of the "copying" that people do genuinely is for time shifiting does seem to have escaped him. Anyway, surely the money lost to piracy is more than made up for by the money gained by video sales. I really don't believe his figures. Losses of $3.5 billion!? This matches the sales of pre-recorded VHS tapes. Even if we use the MPAA calculations, this would mean that a pirate copy is sold for every legitimate copy.
I regularly spill coffee while at work. While a T-shirt is rather a nice thing to get, the utility of a cloth is much greater, and those companies that give them away are more likely to get my custom.
not only using the same train tracks installed by the British over a century ago, but they are still using the same trains. >
Most of the South coast uses trains from the 60's. Okay, less than a century old, but still pretty ancient. They'd only just stopped building steam engines at that stage.
Of course, the rest of the world's railways had the benefit of British engineers who had learned from the mistakes in building our own infrastructure.
If any Indians want to come over and take revenge on us by building an integrated rail network please feel free.
Please take into account the concept of tunnels before considering seating people on the roof. Or does that only happen in africa?
Okay, it wasn't a true troll, I just wanted to point out that a lot of the "facts" were more propoganda than historical fact. I didn't make any effort to check Fergusson's information. His research is interesting, but his conclusions are often a bit off. Still, I think he's more accurate than the standard story.
The same headline applied to any other industry would not surprise anyone. It's a little dishonest to use such obviously biased research to further political goals.
The taxes in the American colonies were roughly a twentieth of those in England, and were spent primarily on the defence of the colonies.
The Boston Tea Party was organised by smugglers,who were upset that duty had fallen, and their profitable smuggling trade was no longer viable.
The representation for the colonies in the House of Commons was as good as the representation of the average British Citizen in Liverpool or Manchester. Although that probably was more closely related to the main issue.
The House of Lords doesn't represent any specific area, so nobody is represented (except perhaps the church, and landed gentry).
Still, the basic point is correct. The people of the colonies felt that they should have their own local government determining taxation. A lesson learnt by the British Empire, allowing Great Britian to hang on to Australia and Canada simply by giving them their own assemblies.
I agree. Deciding not to see a film is not censorship, so deciding to skip parts of it is not censorship. Hell, most movies are already cut to achieve an appropriate rating anyway. And we can't see the deleted scenes from that even if we want to, unless the producers feel generous on the DVD release.
They can still patent developments from genes. They simply can't patent the genes themselves. There is a big difference between isolating the genes responsible for a certain type of heart complaint, and using those genes to develop a treatment. They still get repayed for their investment. It's just that the bar has been raised. They need something with a direct application rather than something that may or may not be required for a certain application.
This does mean that they may be obliged to discover the genes themselves before developing the treatment, but they have the ability to do this. They can simply rely on trade secrets laws to prevent others from using the gene sequence, and equally, they can licence trade secrets. Their payoff is from the patent on the treatment, not the genes.
The benefit is that this does still encourage information sharing, but also prevents extortionate charging for the root IP. You can choose to licence the information, or if the other company charges too much, you can simply rediscover it yourself. The risk that another company would start charging unfair amounts was a disincentive to actually develop anything based on publically available genes.
If you completed the work perfectly, you would get 70%. A very good mark on the scale we worked on. To get the other 30%, you had to go above and beyond what was asked. Essentially, show an interest in the topic, work out what the further implications are, and do some work to investigate that.
An example would be a maze solving algorithm using the left hand rule. 70% if you solve the maze, and explain how the program works fully. You could get some of the other 30% by suggesting optimisations for the naive algorithm, or discuss expanding it to 3 dimensions.
Contrary to the class warfare rhetoric attacking the President's plan,
the proposal helps everyone who pays taxes, and especially the middle
class. This year alone, 92 million taxpayers will receive an immediate
tax cut averaging $1,083 and 46 million married couples will get
back an average of $1,714. That's not pocket change for a family
struggling through uncertain economic times. Combined with the
president's new initiatives to help the unemployed, this plan gets
people back to work and helps every sector of our economy.
Click on the links. You will find many people agree with me.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there are a number of tests, based on commercial significance, similarity and a few other factors. So if something is given away, the court will be a lot more lenient than if it was making money for a company.
If I took a few lines from a large work, that would be fair use, but if I took a few lines from a limerick, it probably wouldn't, since I'd have copied the whole thing. But percentages aren't a good way of going about things either. It strikes me that if I were to take say 20% of that limerick (i.e. one line), then nobody would mind, whereas if I were to copy 20% of a movie, hollywood would sue my ass off.
Why, how useful.
So how does it work? You seem to know the answers. I mean I could just as easily say "Yes, that is how it works, plus they owe me for my legal representation". It's not a lot of use without any backup.
Who buys a TiVo in a country with like 2 TV channels?
Nobody. Obviously. What's your point?
Ummm. Most 16 year olds that I know are allowed to stay up after the Watershed.
Yes, but the next candidate will be slightly inferior, and all the adequate alternatives may have found alternative employment, requiring that they go through the considerable expense of going through the hiring process again.
It's always a gamble, but it's their call as to whether consistency is worth the money.
I remember some time ago reading about someone who did this with a palmpilot, which others had reported was succesful. He was intending to leave it in there at the minimum temperature, but someone baked a pizza without noticing.
Challenger was a much greater tragedy. My *god*, get some priorities here!
Another poster mentioned using smoky glass and projecting upwards. For that, you would need to flip the projection or the image on the screen... but I don't imagine that would be too difficult to accomplish
You could simply use a mirror. Allows the projector to be kept level as well.
Probably not government regulation. There's no need for a law.
The industry settled on a gauge that Stephenson used because there's no real engineering reason not to, and a certain benefit to having compatibility with existing equipment. This allowed them to buy off the shelf engines and rolling stock. But it's just an industry standard. Just like all the other standards, such as VHS, TCP/IP, MPEG, there is no government mandate saying they must be used. Just an agreement within the industry.
It's this bit that struck me:
That isn't wrong to them. Why? I don't know."
Perhaps he should figure this out. Understanding the other parties mind a very good way of solving a problem and coming to a compromise. He could always go about asking people. I could explain it to him, and so could everyone else here.
Who gets the feeling that this guy has a VCR that's still flashing 12:00?
The summary up there is a little harsh. He would have approved of the VCR if they got a royalty for each tape. Okay. Fair due. Now I'll lay into him.
The fact that most of the "copying" that people do genuinely is for time shifiting does seem to have escaped him. Anyway, surely the money lost to piracy is more than made up for by the money gained by video sales. I really don't believe his figures. Losses of $3.5 billion!? This matches the sales of pre-recorded VHS tapes. Even if we use the MPAA calculations, this would mean that a pirate copy is sold for every legitimate copy.
I regularly spill coffee while at work. While a T-shirt is rather a nice thing to get, the utility of a cloth is much greater, and those companies that give them away are more likely to get my custom.
I had the right, and I excercised it. They have now removed that right. This is their right. Notice how this is all about rights.
So this is about your rights.
You don't have the right to use trademarks without permission. Should we have this right? well, we have a forum to discuss whether or not we should.
Here it is: Found it on google groups
not only using the same train tracks installed by the British over a century ago, but they are still using the same trains. >
Most of the South coast uses trains from the 60's. Okay, less than a century old, but still pretty ancient. They'd only just stopped building steam engines at that stage.
Of course, the rest of the world's railways had the benefit of British engineers who had learned from the mistakes in building our own infrastructure.
If any Indians want to come over and take revenge on us by building an integrated rail network please feel free.
Please take into account the concept of tunnels before considering seating people on the roof. Or does that only happen in africa?
I was trolling. See the sig:)
Okay, it wasn't a true troll, I just wanted to point out that a lot of the "facts" were more propoganda than historical fact. I didn't make any effort to check Fergusson's information. His research is interesting, but his conclusions are often a bit off. Still, I think he's more accurate than the standard story.
The same headline applied to any other industry would not surprise anyone. It's a little dishonest to use such obviously biased research to further political goals.
Were you a fan of Yes, Minister?
Actually..
The taxes in the American colonies were roughly a twentieth of those in England, and were spent primarily on the defence of the colonies.
The Boston Tea Party was organised by smugglers,who were upset that duty had fallen, and their profitable smuggling trade was no longer viable.
The representation for the colonies in the House of Commons was as good as the representation of the average British Citizen in Liverpool or Manchester. Although that probably was more closely related to the main issue.
The House of Lords doesn't represent any specific area, so nobody is represented (except perhaps the church, and landed gentry).
Still, the basic point is correct. The people of the colonies felt that they should have their own local government determining taxation. A lesson learnt by the British Empire, allowing Great Britian to hang on to Australia and Canada simply by giving them their own assemblies.
I agree. Deciding not to see a film is not censorship, so deciding to skip parts of it is not censorship. Hell, most movies are already cut to achieve an appropriate rating anyway. And we can't see the deleted scenes from that even if we want to, unless the producers feel generous on the DVD release.
They can still patent developments from genes. They simply can't patent the genes themselves. There is a big difference between isolating the genes responsible for a certain type of heart complaint, and using those genes to develop a treatment. They still get repayed for their investment. It's just that the bar has been raised. They need something with a direct application rather than something that may or may not be required for a certain application.
This does mean that they may be obliged to discover the genes themselves before developing the treatment, but they have the ability to do this. They can simply rely on trade secrets laws to prevent others from using the gene sequence, and equally, they can licence trade secrets. Their payoff is from the patent on the treatment, not the genes.
The benefit is that this does still encourage information sharing, but also prevents extortionate charging for the root IP. You can choose to licence the information, or if the other company charges too much, you can simply rediscover it yourself. The risk that another company would start charging unfair amounts was a disincentive to actually develop anything based on publically available genes.
Well, exams perhaps, but not course work.
If you completed the work perfectly, you would get 70%. A very good mark on the scale we worked on. To get the other 30%, you had to go above and beyond what was asked. Essentially, show an interest in the topic, work out what the further implications are, and do some work to investigate that.
An example would be a maze solving algorithm using the left hand rule. 70% if you solve the maze, and explain how the program works fully. You could get some of the other 30% by suggesting optimisations for the naive algorithm, or discuss expanding it to 3 dimensions.
In return, the US should implement Australian style restrictions on corporate donations to political parties, and European style data protection laws.
When it comes to the economy, President Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership. The economic growth package he recently proposed takes us in the right direction by accelerating the successful tax cuts of 2001, providing marriage penalty relief, and providing incentives for individuals and small businesses to save and invest.
Contrary to the class warfare rhetoric attacking the President's plan, the proposal helps everyone who pays taxes, and especially the middle class. This year alone, 92 million taxpayers will receive an immediate tax cut averaging $1,083 and 46 million married couples will get back an average of $1,714. That's not pocket change for a family struggling through uncertain economic times. Combined with the president's new initiatives to help the unemployed, this plan gets people back to work and helps every sector of our economy.
Click on the links. You will find many people agree with me.