Apple screwed up the license when it wanted MS to deveop programs for the Mac OS. Bad lawyering yes, but Jobs and Co. never intended that MS be able to copy the "look and feel" of the Mac OS.
Unfortunately, their licensing agreement let MS do just that, and the rest is history.
Apple ripped off the idea from PARC" is overly simplistic
How about, "Apple bought some ideas from Xerox for millions in cash and stock?"
This "Apple ripped off PARC" thing is nonsense. Just because the PARC group didn't like that their company sold the GUI rights doesn't make it a rip-off.
Yes, Buffy and Angel seem done, but Whedon has mentioned many times his desire to spin off Spike (my personal fav). They mention in the Season 7 DVDs of Buffy (er, according to my girlfriend?) that they actually constructed a scene with Spike and Faith together (in the basement, on Spike's bed) to show their chemistry together in anticipation of a possible spinoff.
Now Spike and Faith, there's a show that I would Season Pass (hey, TiVos are still a lot cheaper than the home brews).
Whedon had two long-running shows in Buffy and Angel. Seems they had much bigger built-in audiences than Firefly, and Buffy is iconic even among those who didn't watch the show (does anyone not know that Sarah Michelle Gellar was Buffy?).
The only thing I can think is that being a SciFi/space genre, it fits the big screen better. But this is just speculation. How did Joss get a studio to green light on a show that didn't make it out of its first season?
Maybe I am asking the wrong crowd here about mass market appeal, since many of you think that Linux will topple Windows any day now...
the fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright.
Fair use is a defense to copyright. A defense is a condition precedent, meaning the burden is on the alleged infringer to prove he is entitled to the defense. The defense requires that all the 4 factors be used. Almost never will a 100% use be deemed fair use.
The law to which you reffer really only says one single thing with binding legal effect, and that is: the fair use of a copyrighted work [] is not an infringement of copyright.
No, the law I refer to is extensive, well-settled case law. The U.S. legal system relies on interpretations of statutes by courts, which are just as binding as statutes are, and SCOTUS cases are clear. All four factors must be used (shall means must, BTW).
That law, secotion 107, really doesn't impose any other restrictions or limitations.
Again, court interpretations are clear. The U.S. Code is not the only authority in U.S. law.
The part I clipped out of the middle was a nonbinding list of examples of Fair Use. The part at the end, the four listed factors, those are also actually nonbinding.
Nonsense. Bullshit. SCOTUS has ruled that they are, in fact binding. Did you not see the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music case in your cut-and-paste lawyering? The four factors test is well-settled law. Read the links you cite please.
They are merely a list of four factors which shall be considered. The courts are free to consider other factors as well, and routinely do so. For example they often also consider whether a use is "transformative".
And the essence of transformative is whether there is artistic change, or literal reproduction of the material. By cutting and pasting copyrighted images, that is not transformative. Add something to the images with Photoshop, maybe. But using all of Wal Mart's images with no change other than smart assed comments on other parts of the Web page is not transformative.
I suggest you study the constitution and copyright law, and most specifically the important Supreme Court cases on the subject. I can provide you with links to Supreme Court cases if you actually intend to read them. Cases where the Supreme Court explains there there is no inherent right to have a copyright, that the copyright holder only has the rights explicitly granted to him,
IAAL and I don't need your suggestions on legal education (perhaps you might want to extend your legal education beyond Wikipedia and wishful thinking).
Regardless of whether copyright is an inherent or a granted right is irrelevant. Copyright is a protected right under the law, and the Constitution requires the Congress to create such rights in Article 1, Section 8.
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Or does the religion of open source not believe that the U.S. Constitution is an authority on U.S. law?
And for those multinationals out there, the U.N. and most countries have passed IP laws and resolutions.
All four factors must be analyzed, Mr. Jailhouse Lawyer.
Another factor is the amount of the work used:
3 - The amount and importance of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
Fair use does not allow one to completely copy a Web site images and HTML, nor does non-profit or parody use completely exempt one from infringement liabilty.
Man, you open-source fanatics really think people don't have any rights in their IP. Fortunately, the US Constitution and US Copyright law disagree.
You/.ers don't realize the point of a patent is to encouage innovation. The company gets a 20 year monopoly in exchange for making the invention public after. What possible incentive will drug companies have to spend billions on R&D if you take away this incentive?
This socialist approach will discourage the investment of capital in drug companies, and discourage the investment of drug companies on R&D.
This was oral argument for crissakes. The court hasn't ruled yet. Yes, the judges got tough with the FCC, but that doesn't mean squat. Some judges challenge the side they are siding with in arguments just to convince themselves that they are doing the right thing.
Man, typical bad BBC reportage, and everyone here seems to have bought it hook, line, and sinker.
The Constitution requires that the federal government provide for defense, and is silent on local control or funding of schools.
Others here have talked about what a rathole money has gone down to no avail in public schools. How about
1) Offering the Oakland families some "choice" like charter schools? 2) Eliminating the teachers unions which have turned the public schools into political and multicultural advocacy centers, instead of places to learn?
As for the rest of the world, yeah, they were sympathetic until we actually did something, which is exaclty why we should never let the UN interfere with our national security. You know, the same UN which refuses to pass even a resolution condemning terrorism?
I'd rather be feared than loved, if that's what these Islamic nations stand for.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, their licensing agreement let MS do just that, and the rest is history.
There was, however, no "changing of minds."
How about, "Apple bought some ideas from Xerox for millions in cash and stock?"
This "Apple ripped off PARC" thing is nonsense. Just because the PARC group didn't like that their company sold the GUI rights doesn't make it a rip-off.
Bought and paid for.
Keep wasting your mod points on Anonymous Coward posts, you partisan liberal fags.
More agenda-setting, just like with Augusta and the Masters not allowing women members. Only a "controversy" because the NYT ran 100 piece on it.
Yawn.
Now Spike and Faith, there's a show that I would Season Pass (hey, TiVos are still a lot cheaper than the home brews).
The only thing I can think is that being a SciFi/space genre, it fits the big screen better. But this is just speculation. How did Joss get a studio to green light on a show that didn't make it out of its first season?
Maybe I am asking the wrong crowd here about mass market appeal, since many of you think that Linux will topple Windows any day now...
Fair use is a defense to copyright. A defense is a condition precedent, meaning the burden is on the alleged infringer to prove he is entitled to the defense. The defense requires that all the 4 factors be used. Almost never will a 100% use be deemed fair use.
The law to which you reffer really only says one single thing with binding legal effect, and that is: the fair use of a copyrighted work [] is not an infringement of copyright.
No, the law I refer to is extensive, well-settled case law. The U.S. legal system relies on interpretations of statutes by courts, which are just as binding as statutes are, and SCOTUS cases are clear. All four factors must be used (shall means must, BTW).
That law, secotion 107, really doesn't impose any other restrictions or limitations.
Again, court interpretations are clear. The U.S. Code is not the only authority in U.S. law.
The part I clipped out of the middle was a nonbinding list of examples of Fair Use. The part at the end, the four listed factors, those are also actually nonbinding.
Nonsense. Bullshit. SCOTUS has ruled that they are, in fact binding. Did you not see the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music case in your cut-and-paste lawyering? The four factors test is well-settled law. Read the links you cite please.
They are merely a list of four factors which shall be considered. The courts are free to consider other factors as well, and routinely do so. For example they often also consider whether a use is "transformative".
And the essence of transformative is whether there is artistic change, or literal reproduction of the material. By cutting and pasting copyrighted images, that is not transformative. Add something to the images with Photoshop, maybe. But using all of Wal Mart's images with no change other than smart assed comments on other parts of the Web page is not transformative.
I suggest you study the constitution and copyright law, and most specifically the important Supreme Court cases on the subject. I can provide you with links to Supreme Court cases if you actually intend to read them. Cases where the Supreme Court explains there there is no inherent right to have a copyright, that the copyright holder only has the rights explicitly granted to him,
IAAL and I don't need your suggestions on legal education (perhaps you might want to extend your legal education beyond Wikipedia and wishful thinking).
Regardless of whether copyright is an inherent or a granted right is irrelevant. Copyright is a protected right under the law, and the Constitution requires the Congress to create such rights in Article 1, Section 8.
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Or does the religion of open source not believe that the U.S. Constitution is an authority on U.S. law?
And for those multinationals out there, the U.N. and most countries have passed IP laws and resolutions.
Another factor is the amount of the work used:
3 - The amount and importance of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
Fair use does not allow one to completely copy a Web site images and HTML, nor does non-profit or parody use completely exempt one from infringement liabilty.
Man, you open-source fanatics really think people don't have any rights in their IP. Fortunately, the US Constitution and US Copyright law disagree.
Stop being so paranoid. Hey, what is that pulling on my l
In this case, the entire human race was stored on a copper wire, which is a lot of DVDs.
This socialist approach will discourage the investment of capital in drug companies, and discourage the investment of drug companies on R&D.
Terrible idea! Stick to software people!
Man, typical bad BBC reportage, and everyone here seems to have bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Please, a nuke being detonated in America - hey, what is that bright flash outside of my win
.
Or maybe, Legality of 'Deep Linking' Remains Deeply Complicated
BTW, anyone who reads this post owes me $20, that's my TOS.
When the revised DFI 479 board comes out, it will SMOKE AMDs and Pentiums alike.
Now that would get the heart going!
Others here have talked about what a rathole money has gone down to no avail in public schools. How about
1) Offering the Oakland families some "choice" like charter schools? 2) Eliminating the teachers unions which have turned the public schools into political and multicultural advocacy centers, instead of places to learn?
polls.
As for the rest of the world, yeah, they were sympathetic until we actually did something, which is exaclty why we should never let the UN interfere with our national security. You know, the same UN which refuses to pass even a resolution condemning terrorism?
I'd rather be feared than loved, if that's what these Islamic nations stand for.