I've said it before and I'll say it again - When we give up our freedoms to fight for them, we've already lost.
And when we've given up our will to fight for our freedoms, we have also lost them.
THINK for a moment, man! The revolutionists who made this country possible petitioned both King and Parliment first. They made every effort to bring the situation back under control before they pulled out their weapons and opened fire. Had they done nothing but shout a big 'ole "FUCK YOU" to the British government, it is likely that they would not have gotten the support necessary to fight the war. In fact, it's just as likely that the American people would have seen the revolutionaries as dangerous men to be around, and never would have ratified the Lee Resolution - the official act of separation from Britain.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
[...]
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
[...]
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
Unless we get some honest politicians (I love throwing oxymorons into my posts), the situation is probably going to take a long time to correct.
I think you overestimate the corruption of the political system. Politicians may often be underhanded, sneaky, and less than honorable (despite the title bestowed on them), but that doesn't mean that they're all of one mind on issues. For right now they are still duly elected and answerable to the public. If you draw their attention to important matters like this, most of them will take action.
If we fail to take action on this issue, then I guarantee that the Congress we have today, with all its faults, will be replaced with a perfect congress. Perfect, as in they will be elected and responsible to no one but their secret masters: "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" -Adolf Hitler
Also remember that in our system the only way to challenge a law as unconstitutional is to break it.
"Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order." --Ed Howdershelt
This fellow did the right thing. He challenged it in court first. And he did get somewhere, but he's still under a gag order that he has not been able to change. Only then did he resort to breaking the law in order to challenge it.
Breaking the law comes with a lot of consequences, so choose your battles carefully. Only do it when you are sure you're getting the best bang for your buck. Otherwise you'll just waste away your ability to fight.
Having secret police and no accountability goes against the very grain of what the United States stands for, and what the Constitution says. Our forefathers explicitly ensured that we would have the rights necessary to overthrow our government if things got out of hand. The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.
If you haven't done so already, I highly recommend contacting your representatives, writing to your local newspaper, and otherwise telling anyone who will hear that this is unacceptable. We cannot have the government secretly snooping around in our private information and lives. Let's kick up a stormcloud and make sure this gets changed!
I don't think I am agreeing with your original post.
Apparently, that's because you refuse to read things in context. I said,
The length or exact portion of the copyrighted material does not matter. In fact, the key issues that a judge looks at is if the use is necessary to the contested work, and if the contested work shows enough original thought to be considered a separate entity. Direct copying of even a small snippet is very much illegal if there is no larger work around it.
[...]
However, one does need to keep in mind that a judge will consider whether the entire clip is necessary or not. If you put up the entire interview of Bill Gates on the Daily Show just to comment on how funny the cat's name portion was, you're still guilty of copyright infringement. A judge would be likely to find that you were using simplistic commentary to try and cover over your infringement, and that showing only the part dealing with the cat incident would have been sufficient to make your point.
If you take the one line out of context, of course you can disagree. Just like the fellow who took "I'm a tool" out of context with "Slashdotters get to decide whether I'm a tool or not based on the opinions I state". Doing so changes the meaning immensely.
That's what I keep trying to get at. If I use YouTube as the vehicle for my fair use, there's a Schroedinger's Cat involved; the video is both fair use (in the context of my larger work) and not fair use (outside of my work).
I don't understand what you mean by "outside" your work. The fair use chunk you used still belongs to the original copyright holder. Your work surrounding that one minute belongs to you. You may distribute the one minute in each of your works as long as those works show a need for that larger work. Combining your works together does not change those facts. You still have rights to prevent the distribution of the combined work, and you still have rights to release the combined work. The original copyright holder still has the rights to his work as well, even if you're using large portions of it.
That being said, you're pushing things too far in looking for an "answer". By taking things to an extreme, you're specifically testing an edge case that would not appear in real life. Should such an edge case appear in real life, a court might have to decide on it. Which if it was not a theoretical matter, might be found infringing simply because you'd be including non-necessary material like credits, stock footage of cars passing by, an unnecessary shot of a building, or other bits and pieces that could be construed by a judge to be direct attempts to circumvent copyright law. You'd have to prove that each of those clips you used was necessary in its entirity for your commentary to succeed. Which is an unlikely prospect in real world.
Also, I would like to make clear that Youtube itself is not a larger work containing many smaller works. The software that allows videos to be posted is a creative work unto itself. What it's used for is not part of that work. Each of the videos posted is viewed as a work unto itself. (In case that wasn't clear.)
By posting it on Youtube, you've made it available outside of your larger work. Thus your larger work is fine, but the Youtube usage is probably infringing. This is based on the fact that Youtube as a whole is a site for sharing videos amongst a community. Had you posted the video to a generic webserver (where it could possibly be downloaded individually, but is not presented except as a larger work), then you're more likely to be in the clear.
Of course, judges can be unpredictable. A judge might agree that you had a right to use Youtube as a storage location for part of your larger work. It all depends on the circumstances and how the case is presented.
Oh, and if you try this, you do so at your own risk. Remember, I'm not a lawyer. If you want to try something so potentially foolish, seek the council of someone who's actually passed the bar.;-)
That said, especially in a transformative use, a court will pay attention to whether you took more than you needed to. In parody cases, for example, you have to be able to take enough of the original to remind people of the original, but you can't easily copy the entire thing and claim a parody.
I hope you realize that you just restated exactly what I said in my original post. So indeed, you are agreeing with me. If you don't believe me, go back to my original post and read it again.
The specific case that decided this form of Fair Use (and the reason it was later codified) was Folsom v. Marsh. The judge commented:
[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy....
In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work...
So, it has been decided that a fair and bonbona fide abridgment of an original work, is not a piracy of the copyright of the author. See Dodsley v. Kinnersley, 1 Amb. 403; Whittingham v. Wooler, 2 Swanst. 428, 430, 431, note; Tonson v. Walker, 3 Swanst. 672-679, 681. It is clear, that a mere selection, or different arrangement of parts of the original work, so as to bring the work into a smaller compass, will not be held to be such an abridgment. There must be real, substantial condensation of the materials, and intellectual labor and judgment bestowed thereon; and not merely the facile use of the scissors; or extracts of the essential parts, constituting the chief value of the original work. See Gyles v. Wilcox, 2 Atk.
Again, this shows that the litmus test is whether the larger work using the material requires the amount used. The exact quantity used is primarily dependent on whether it is necessary to the larger work. As the judge says here, the intent of the author was not to use large portions to make his point. The judge felt that the extra commentary was merely a smokescreen for copyright infringement, and that the larger work had not required the quantity of text used.
But the judge also said that situtions exist where nearly all the work could be used in a Fair Use manner.
First, allow me to make clear that my original post does not address this matter. It was intended as a response to the WSJ author, and not a complete tretise on the state of copyright law. These screwy issues that people are coming up with are so far off the topic at hand as to be ludicrous.
Now, to answer your question. (To the best of my ability.) And that answer is in the form of a question, "Why did she pick the NFL Legal clip in specific?"
If you consider that question in detail, it should become obvious that the Legal clip shouldn't be copyrightable material. After all, it's a statement of fact. Why can't we share statements of fact? The answer is that we can freely share statements of fact. Copyrights are only provided for creative works. An impassioned speech given on the events of the Revolutionary War would be considered a creative work that derives from factual events. So it's copyrightable, though anyone is free to relate those facts in their own words. On the other hand, a statement of fact document in a legal case is pure fact, and is not a copyrightable work. (Not that such a limitation has stopped lawyers from trying to claim it's creative.)
So looked at as a whole, Ms. Seltzer's act was a very calculated maneuver intended to expose the problems with Viacom's position while simultaneuosly ensuring minimal legal liability. That's why she's the law professor, and I'm just a guy on Slashdot.;-)
So, suppose 45 volunteers ("The Commentators") each comment on one minute of a 45 minute TV show. Each quote includes a one-minute clip, along with discussion.
Fair Use. The is significant original work in relation to the fair use work, and the larger work depends on the fair use work.
Suppose another party ("The Distributor") publishes those clips and commentary on its website (such as youtube).
If the distributor owns the rights or has permission, then he's clear. Otherwise, he's violating the copyright. Simply shifting the media used to carry the content does not convey any original thought.
Suppose someone else ("The Programmer") writes software to piece together all 45 clips, and then output a full reconstruction of the TV show.
Again, naively splicing together full clips does not express an original thought. Therefore, there is no larger work. However, the programmer does have rights to the software he wrote. While its use is not original, the exact code is an original expression of an idea.
Suppose another person ("The User") takes The Programmer's software and runs it, recreating the show, and watches the show at home on his PC.
Assuming that neither component (software or video) is pirated, then the user is in the clear. He is free to use the content given to him for any* personal use he can come up with. He only gets in trouble if he redistributes either piece without permission.
* As usual, absolutes are not absolute. Use of both pieces is potentially subject to other laws. For example, if the software could be used to circumvent copy protection schemes in violation of the DMCA, then there is a technical violation of the law. In practical terms, however, that portion of the DMCA is unenforcable until the user in question attempts to redistribute the material. Then he's hit with a double-whammy of copyright infringement AND a DMCA violation.
Key wording: in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
i.e. If the larger work is a substantial enough work AND it depends upon the amount of infringing material in use, then that amount of infringement is "fair use". The exact length of that infringement does not matter as long as it's found to be substantively required by the larger use.
What if I build a 15-minute commentary around a 30-second TV ad and it's clear there's nothing that can be cut?
Apply common sense. Is it necessary for you to show the entire ad? If it is, then you're probably in the clear. Obviously it's a case by case situation, but genericly, you'd be in the clear.
As a nonlawyer, I think these clips seem like "fair use," an old copyright concept that seems to have weakened under the advent of the new laws. Under fair use, as most nonlawyers have understood it, you could quote this sentence in another publication without permission, though you'd need the permission of the newspaper to reprint the entire column or a large part of it. A two-minute portion of a 30-minute TV show seems like the same thing to me.
I'm afraid that our friend over at WSJ misunderstands the law a bit. The length or exact portion of the copyrighted material does not matter. In fact, the key issues that a judge looks at is if the use is necessary to the contested work, and if the contested work shows enough original thought to be considered a separate entity. Direct copying of even a small snippet is very much illegal if there is no larger work around it.
For example, if I had only quoted that paragraph above and smacked the "submit" button, I'd be guilty of copyright infringement. I'd also be looked upon as a tool by the Slashdot community as a whole. But by including this commentary about the quoted work, I'm creating a greater work that requires the fair use of someone else's work. And Slashdotters get to decide whether I'm a tool or not based on the opinions I state in the larger work rather than some silly action.
It's the same for videos. Taking a 2 minute clip and copying it verbatim is pretty much copyright infringement. Using that same clip for purposes of video or text commentary, on the other hand, would be perfectly acceptable "fair use". Similarly, creating a fan trailer, a movie review video, or generally commenting on the state of whatever would also allow you to make fair use of the video clip.
However, one does need to keep in mind that a judge will consider whether the entire clip is necessary or not. If you put up the entire interview of Bill Gates on the Daily Show just to comment on how funny the cat's name portion was, you're still guilty of copyright infringement. A judge would be likely to find that you were using simplistic commentary to try and cover over your infringement, and that showing only the part dealing with the cat incident would have been sufficient to make your point.
Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to point out that the DMCA is actually a positive in this situation. (I know, I know. How could I defend Slashdot's favorite whipping boy?) The Safe Harbor and common-carrier provisions of the law ensure that sites like Youtube can exist. Without those provisions, Viacom would have a much stronger case against Youtube.
Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, only an individual with an interest in the law.
I have a feeling that he'll be commenting here soon, so "Hi Bruce!":-)
What Novell did is not illegal but it is a matter of bad faith, Perens contended. The result could doom Novell to becoming a Microsoft subsidiary, he said, because Novell does not write its own software but gets it instead from those small independents.
Hovsepian scoffed at that scenario. "Them [Microsoft] buying us? I think that's deep in the conspiracy theory bucket."
Is it just me, or did Hovsepian intentionally misunderstand that statement? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I read your statement to mean that Novell would effectively become a subsidiary to Microsoft without actually being bought out. Much in the same way that Microsoft "Partners" tend to exist only so long as it amuses Microsoft. When Microsoft grows tired of them, they do something that completely undermines the trust and business model of those partners. (See: PlaysForSure, OS/2, Sybase, Spyglass, Citrix, etc.)
It amazes me that companies still fall for that trick, but there you go. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Bye Novell, it was nice knowing you.:-/
That actually makes a lot of sense. Still, he needs to get a handle on things real quick, or the company is going to burn up whatever little goodwill it still has left.
If the 133-T model sold well, then Microsoft could consider a new $1000 model with nothing extra except chrome trimmings. They could ID it as the 10-T model.
I think the simple answer to this is that "messy" is in the eye of the beholder. For the (productive) person creating the mess, it's not a mess. Everything makes sense to them. Only an outside observer, who didn't understand the messy person's system, would consider it a mess.
I agree whole heartedly. Though I would like to make one point: While the Boeing repair shops may be kept spotless and clean, the amount of activity going on does create a similar impression of a "mess" to an outside observer. The variety of tool carts, diagnostic machines, loose diagrams, and people flowing every which way belies the true order sitting in the middle of the chaos.
It's effectively the same as the mechanic down the street. The primary difference is that the mechanic down the street uses his own mind as his organizational system, while the larger operations of Boeing require that organizational information be kept in easily accessible files external to any one person. In both cases, the most effective solution has been chosen for the work being done.:-)
...is that he's the first Sony exec we've heard from that appears to be coming across from a reasonable position. So reasonable, in fact, that it's amazing that Sony got into this pickle in the first place.
Then you read between the lines of his "Sony Silo" comments, and realize that he's no more in charge of the company than a sheep herder is in charge of a clowder of cats. i.e. Every section is still doing its own thing. The only difference is that the video game section is currently "top dog", so they get to mark their territory on behalf of the entire company.:-/
So, if you let it become too cluttered, your priority queue degrades into a bubble sort?
Actually, it's more of a Most Recently Used sort. The more recent the item, the more likely it is to be at the top of the pile. Which gives a best-case search time of O(1) and a worst-case search time of O(n). Average search time is application dependent, but it's usually quite good.
Another algorithm that I love using is Generational Garbage Collection. Unimportant stuff that I've downloaded or have created quickly gets placed in a temporary folder. If it grows to a reasonable level of importance, I move it somewhere else. The remaining junk is then flushed on occasion by deleting the entire contents of the temp directory. Very fast and tidy.;-)
letting some other dickhead take 3 hrs to replace your battery.
I hate to break it to you, but in Real Life(TM) it's not always so easy to replace a battery yourself. Especially when you need it done NOW (battery failure), the wife thinks you're too absent minded to do the job without hurting yourself (probably true), and the only place open on Sunday requires that they do the replacement themselves. Such is the way of life.
You don't win an argument by fucking lying and citing exceptions as examples.
Who pissed in your corn flakes? I have not lied in the slightest. I am relating an experience that happened to me about a month ago when my van's battery gave up the ghost due to the cold weather. (It was the original part, and the van had been used in warmer climates before we acquired it.)
I spoke with a few coworkers and friends about it later, and it would seem that they had similar issues with the corporate chains. Especially the big service centers like Walmart and Sears. Yes, they're neat and tidy. But don't think for a minute that their average service level is anything above "paltry".
Of course, the most amusing issue was when I took an old Caddy into a GM service center for what appeared to be engine flooding problems. They looked at it with their fancy equipment and computers, decided that they couldn't help me, and then referred me to a local mechanic who kept a far less attractive shop. Same thing happened when I needed an engine rebuilt. I had to find a mechanic out in podunk-nowhere to get it done, but he did do a spectacular job with it.
Go so a good mechanic; the shop is organized and neat.
I respectfully disagree with you on this point. Some of the best mechanics I've seen have spare parts, dismantled vehicles, and toolboxes seemingly strewn about in a haphazard fashion. Yet they can diagnose and repair an issue inside 15 minutes. They even know how to bring a past-its-prime vehicle back from the dead.
On the other hand, the corporate meathead mechanics (who couldn't diagnose a flat tire without a computer telling them that it's flat) tend to keep incredibly clean shops. All their tools are put away neatly, old parts are never kept as spares, oil is cleaned up as soon as its spilled, and all the new parts are safely warehoused in their original boxes. Very neat and tidy, but utterly useless to the customer. Especially when it takes then three and a half hours to put a new battery in a vehicle.:-/
As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In my experience, being a bit messy can improve productivity by shunting unimportant tasks away from your center of attention. For example, if I receive a bunch of fluff memos, they're going in the kill-file pile until I get around to reading them in detail. (Which may never happen.) But I haven't disposed of them yet, so I can still retrieve them if necessary.
The problem is that if you let the mess grow too large, it *WILL* impact your ability to operate efficiently. So every once in a while you need to do a house cleaning of your different paper stacks, your email, your desktop files, and whatever other info you use on a regular basis.
Which gets me to another point. It's not that the "slobs" aren't organized. In fact, they may have a very good organization system. It's just that they allow the system to be strained to the breaking point before reorganizing. For example, I might start with an email folder called "work". That's going to grow too large in short order. But when it does grow too large, then it becomes clear whether it makes more sense to reorganize around department or by project. So I organize around the most effective order until that order also breaks down.
My point is that order is a good thing. It merely comes in many forms.
On another note, I absolutely love the way GMail handles my email. Rather than moving things to different folders automatically (where I'll never even realize that new messages have arrived), its tagging and filtering system allows me to auto-tag emails from mailing lists, board members, fellow project workers, etc. So I can view it in my inbox, then archive it without having to worry that I'll never find it again. The result is that my GMail account has kept more organized than any other email account that I've ever used. Now if only I could get a time machine to obtain time to respond to the lower-priority stuff.:-P
With Enlightenment, Gnome, KDE, Beryl, and the whole of Freedesktop.org, though, I'd be worried that the desktop environment pool might become diluted. Free software hasn't established desktop supremacy with the consumer-at-large yet.
Choice is the epitome of Open Source. Learn to deal with it.
My understanding was that the implementations of those APIs were often buggy and left too many holes for possible exploit.
Considering that most of those bugs are actually in the Win32 APIs, I'm not exactly sure what you're complaining about. Windows sucks? Yeah, we know that. Internet Explorer sucks? Yeah, we know that too.
What I've seen on the open internet, with the number of pages which don't port well from one browser to the next, the number of exploits allowed, the number of things which are flat out broken (and still deployed), I'm not encouraged about the robustness of JS.
This is an example of taking a complex issue (the general evolution of the web and web technologies) and blaming it on a single scapegoat: Javascript. Unsurprisingly, you're wrong again. What was semi-valid in HTML 3.0 is not valid according to the HTML 4.0/CSS standards. What worked in Internet Explorer thanks to non-standard & windows-specific extensions is not going to work in a general purpose browser. And what was programmed poorly to begin with (e.g. assuming that only IE would support feature X) is going to show through in more robust, modern browsers. Sorry, but the web is only as good as those who develop for it. And as I pointed out in my previous post, the majority don't know the first thing.
Okay, so where do those perceived performance problems come from? You've got to give something somewhere. It's not a hallucination.
Actually, that's exactly what it is. Perceived performance problems are performance issues that don't exist, but "feel" like they do. When a Java application refreshes the controls too quickly, it doesn't "feel" right. When a Java program shows an unpainted box while pulling itself from cache, it doesn't "feel" right. The underlying code and GUI systems are actually operating at a greater speed than their native cousins, but because they don't work the same they cause user frustration. That's a separate issue from the actual performance of the code.
The C64 did not JIT the BASIC code...the code was at no point compiled for native execution
It was all the same. The interpreter was in the hardware chips and everything used the same core processor.
Seriously, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The C64 was a 6502-based system. The BASIC symbols were about as far from 6502 code as you can get. All they were was a transmutation of a symbol like "PRINT" to a code like "42". Obviously, the latter takes less memory. But you've still got to interpret it with "lda nextSymbol; cmp 42; beq PRINT_API;" type of code. Which is a far cry from a simple (and fast) "jmp PRINT_API".
In any case, your assertion that "the interpreter was in the hardware chips" is a non-sensical statement. The BASIC interpreter was preloaded into ROM. That effectively meant that it was always in memory. (Which is unsuprising given that BASIC was effectively the Operating System.) It did NOT convey any special processing capabilities any more than loading a Java program on a USB Flash Drive (i.e. rewritable ROM) JITs a Java program.
You've posted quite a bit of advertising material
I repeat, you are not up to date on the latest technology. What I mentioned was not "advertising material". It was real, quantifiable advantages that are used on a daily basis.
I write a calculator app in both C and Java, and then independently translate each one to the other (hard to do if I've written both to begin with, but fake it a little), what's the d
Slashdot Mirror
And when we've given up our will to fight for our freedoms, we have also lost them.
THINK for a moment, man! The revolutionists who made this country possible petitioned both King and Parliment first. They made every effort to bring the situation back under control before they pulled out their weapons and opened fire. Had they done nothing but shout a big 'ole "FUCK YOU" to the British government, it is likely that they would not have gotten the support necessary to fight the war. In fact, it's just as likely that the American people would have seen the revolutionaries as dangerous men to be around, and never would have ratified the Lee Resolution - the official act of separation from Britain.
Soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Get the order right.
You are correct. "One people" is the correct translation, though the meaning is effectively the same. Sorry 'bout that.
I think you overestimate the corruption of the political system. Politicians may often be underhanded, sneaky, and less than honorable (despite the title bestowed on them), but that doesn't mean that they're all of one mind on issues. For right now they are still duly elected and answerable to the public. If you draw their attention to important matters like this, most of them will take action.
If we fail to take action on this issue, then I guarantee that the Congress we have today, with all its faults, will be replaced with a perfect congress. Perfect, as in they will be elected and responsible to no one but their secret masters: "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" -Adolf Hitler
* Translation: One World, One State, One Leader
"Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order." --Ed Howdershelt
This fellow did the right thing. He challenged it in court first. And he did get somewhere, but he's still under a gag order that he has not been able to change. Only then did he resort to breaking the law in order to challenge it.
Breaking the law comes with a lot of consequences, so choose your battles carefully. Only do it when you are sure you're getting the best bang for your buck. Otherwise you'll just waste away your ability to fight.
Having secret police and no accountability goes against the very grain of what the United States stands for, and what the Constitution says. Our forefathers explicitly ensured that we would have the rights necessary to overthrow our government if things got out of hand. The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.
If you haven't done so already, I highly recommend contacting your representatives, writing to your local newspaper, and otherwise telling anyone who will hear that this is unacceptable. We cannot have the government secretly snooping around in our private information and lives. Let's kick up a stormcloud and make sure this gets changed!
See my response to your other post for the answer to this.
Apparently, that's because you refuse to read things in context. I said,
If you take the one line out of context, of course you can disagree. Just like the fellow who took "I'm a tool" out of context with "Slashdotters get to decide whether I'm a tool or not based on the opinions I state". Doing so changes the meaning immensely.
I don't understand what you mean by "outside" your work. The fair use chunk you used still belongs to the original copyright holder. Your work surrounding that one minute belongs to you. You may distribute the one minute in each of your works as long as those works show a need for that larger work. Combining your works together does not change those facts. You still have rights to prevent the distribution of the combined work, and you still have rights to release the combined work. The original copyright holder still has the rights to his work as well, even if you're using large portions of it.
That being said, you're pushing things too far in looking for an "answer". By taking things to an extreme, you're specifically testing an edge case that would not appear in real life. Should such an edge case appear in real life, a court might have to decide on it. Which if it was not a theoretical matter, might be found infringing simply because you'd be including non-necessary material like credits, stock footage of cars passing by, an unnecessary shot of a building, or other bits and pieces that could be construed by a judge to be direct attempts to circumvent copyright law. You'd have to prove that each of those clips you used was necessary in its entirity for your commentary to succeed. Which is an unlikely prospect in real world.
Also, I would like to make clear that Youtube itself is not a larger work containing many smaller works. The software that allows videos to be posted is a creative work unto itself. What it's used for is not part of that work. Each of the videos posted is viewed as a work unto itself. (In case that wasn't clear.)
By posting it on Youtube, you've made it available outside of your larger work. Thus your larger work is fine, but the Youtube usage is probably infringing. This is based on the fact that Youtube as a whole is a site for sharing videos amongst a community. Had you posted the video to a generic webserver (where it could possibly be downloaded individually, but is not presented except as a larger work), then you're more likely to be in the clear.
;-)
Of course, judges can be unpredictable. A judge might agree that you had a right to use Youtube as a storage location for part of your larger work. It all depends on the circumstances and how the case is presented.
Oh, and if you try this, you do so at your own risk. Remember, I'm not a lawyer. If you want to try something so potentially foolish, seek the council of someone who's actually passed the bar.
I hope you realize that you just restated exactly what I said in my original post. So indeed, you are agreeing with me. If you don't believe me, go back to my original post and read it again.
The specific case that decided this form of Fair Use (and the reason it was later codified) was Folsom v. Marsh. The judge commented:
Again, this shows that the litmus test is whether the larger work using the material requires the amount used. The exact quantity used is primarily dependent on whether it is necessary to the larger work. As the judge says here, the intent of the author was not to use large portions to make his point. The judge felt that the extra commentary was merely a smokescreen for copyright infringement, and that the larger work had not required the quantity of text used.
But the judge also said that situtions exist where nearly all the work could be used in a Fair Use manner.
First, allow me to make clear that my original post does not address this matter. It was intended as a response to the WSJ author, and not a complete tretise on the state of copyright law. These screwy issues that people are coming up with are so far off the topic at hand as to be ludicrous.
;-)
Now, to answer your question. (To the best of my ability.) And that answer is in the form of a question, "Why did she pick the NFL Legal clip in specific?"
If you consider that question in detail, it should become obvious that the Legal clip shouldn't be copyrightable material. After all, it's a statement of fact. Why can't we share statements of fact? The answer is that we can freely share statements of fact. Copyrights are only provided for creative works. An impassioned speech given on the events of the Revolutionary War would be considered a creative work that derives from factual events. So it's copyrightable, though anyone is free to relate those facts in their own words. On the other hand, a statement of fact document in a legal case is pure fact, and is not a copyrightable work. (Not that such a limitation has stopped lawyers from trying to claim it's creative.)
So looked at as a whole, Ms. Seltzer's act was a very calculated maneuver intended to expose the problems with Viacom's position while simultaneuosly ensuring minimal legal liability. That's why she's the law professor, and I'm just a guy on Slashdot.
Fair Use. The is significant original work in relation to the fair use work, and the larger work depends on the fair use work.
If the distributor owns the rights or has permission, then he's clear. Otherwise, he's violating the copyright. Simply shifting the media used to carry the content does not convey any original thought.
Again, naively splicing together full clips does not express an original thought. Therefore, there is no larger work. However, the programmer does have rights to the software he wrote. While its use is not original, the exact code is an original expression of an idea.
Assuming that neither component (software or video) is pirated, then the user is in the clear. He is free to use the content given to him for any* personal use he can come up with. He only gets in trouble if he redistributes either piece without permission.
* As usual, absolutes are not absolute. Use of both pieces is potentially subject to other laws. For example, if the software could be used to circumvent copy protection schemes in violation of the DMCA, then there is a technical violation of the law. In practical terms, however, that portion of the DMCA is unenforcable until the user in question attempts to redistribute the material. Then he's hit with a double-whammy of copyright infringement AND a DMCA violation.
Key wording: in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
i.e. If the larger work is a substantial enough work AND it depends upon the amount of infringing material in use, then that amount of infringement is "fair use". The exact length of that infringement does not matter as long as it's found to be substantively required by the larger use.
Apply common sense. Is it necessary for you to show the entire ad? If it is, then you're probably in the clear. Obviously it's a case by case situation, but genericly, you'd be in the clear.
I'm afraid that our friend over at WSJ misunderstands the law a bit. The length or exact portion of the copyrighted material does not matter. In fact, the key issues that a judge looks at is if the use is necessary to the contested work, and if the contested work shows enough original thought to be considered a separate entity. Direct copying of even a small snippet is very much illegal if there is no larger work around it.
For example, if I had only quoted that paragraph above and smacked the "submit" button, I'd be guilty of copyright infringement. I'd also be looked upon as a tool by the Slashdot community as a whole. But by including this commentary about the quoted work, I'm creating a greater work that requires the fair use of someone else's work. And Slashdotters get to decide whether I'm a tool or not based on the opinions I state in the larger work rather than some silly action.
It's the same for videos. Taking a 2 minute clip and copying it verbatim is pretty much copyright infringement. Using that same clip for purposes of video or text commentary, on the other hand, would be perfectly acceptable "fair use". Similarly, creating a fan trailer, a movie review video, or generally commenting on the state of whatever would also allow you to make fair use of the video clip.
However, one does need to keep in mind that a judge will consider whether the entire clip is necessary or not. If you put up the entire interview of Bill Gates on the Daily Show just to comment on how funny the cat's name portion was, you're still guilty of copyright infringement. A judge would be likely to find that you were using simplistic commentary to try and cover over your infringement, and that showing only the part dealing with the cat incident would have been sufficient to make your point.
Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to point out that the DMCA is actually a positive in this situation. (I know, I know. How could I defend Slashdot's favorite whipping boy?) The Safe Harbor and common-carrier provisions of the law ensure that sites like Youtube can exist. Without those provisions, Viacom would have a much stronger case against Youtube.
Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, only an individual with an interest in the law.
Is it just me, or did Hovsepian intentionally misunderstand that statement? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I read your statement to mean that Novell would effectively become a subsidiary to Microsoft without actually being bought out. Much in the same way that Microsoft "Partners" tend to exist only so long as it amuses Microsoft. When Microsoft grows tired of them, they do something that completely undermines the trust and business model of those partners. (See: PlaysForSure, OS/2, Sybase, Spyglass, Citrix, etc.)
It amazes me that companies still fall for that trick, but there you go. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Bye Novell, it was nice knowing you.
That actually makes a lot of sense. Still, he needs to get a handle on things real quick, or the company is going to burn up whatever little goodwill it still has left.
If the 133-T model sold well, then Microsoft could consider a new $1000 model with nothing extra except chrome trimmings. They could ID it as the 10-T model.
I agree whole heartedly. Though I would like to make one point: While the Boeing repair shops may be kept spotless and clean, the amount of activity going on does create a similar impression of a "mess" to an outside observer. The variety of tool carts, diagnostic machines, loose diagrams, and people flowing every which way belies the true order sitting in the middle of the chaos.
It's effectively the same as the mechanic down the street. The primary difference is that the mechanic down the street uses his own mind as his organizational system, while the larger operations of Boeing require that organizational information be kept in easily accessible files external to any one person. In both cases, the most effective solution has been chosen for the work being done.
...is that he's the first Sony exec we've heard from that appears to be coming across from a reasonable position. So reasonable, in fact, that it's amazing that Sony got into this pickle in the first place.
:-/
Then you read between the lines of his "Sony Silo" comments, and realize that he's no more in charge of the company than a sheep herder is in charge of a clowder of cats. i.e. Every section is still doing its own thing. The only difference is that the video game section is currently "top dog", so they get to mark their territory on behalf of the entire company.
Actually, it's more of a Most Recently Used sort. The more recent the item, the more likely it is to be at the top of the pile. Which gives a best-case search time of O(1) and a worst-case search time of O(n). Average search time is application dependent, but it's usually quite good.
Another algorithm that I love using is Generational Garbage Collection. Unimportant stuff that I've downloaded or have created quickly gets placed in a temporary folder. If it grows to a reasonable level of importance, I move it somewhere else. The remaining junk is then flushed on occasion by deleting the entire contents of the temp directory. Very fast and tidy.
I hate to break it to you, but in Real Life(TM) it's not always so easy to replace a battery yourself. Especially when you need it done NOW (battery failure), the wife thinks you're too absent minded to do the job without hurting yourself (probably true), and the only place open on Sunday requires that they do the replacement themselves. Such is the way of life.
Who pissed in your corn flakes? I have not lied in the slightest. I am relating an experience that happened to me about a month ago when my van's battery gave up the ghost due to the cold weather. (It was the original part, and the van had been used in warmer climates before we acquired it.)
I spoke with a few coworkers and friends about it later, and it would seem that they had similar issues with the corporate chains. Especially the big service centers like Walmart and Sears. Yes, they're neat and tidy. But don't think for a minute that their average service level is anything above "paltry".
Of course, the most amusing issue was when I took an old Caddy into a GM service center for what appeared to be engine flooding problems. They looked at it with their fancy equipment and computers, decided that they couldn't help me, and then referred me to a local mechanic who kept a far less attractive shop. Same thing happened when I needed an engine rebuilt. I had to find a mechanic out in podunk-nowhere to get it done, but he did do a spectacular job with it.
I respectfully disagree with you on this point. Some of the best mechanics I've seen have spare parts, dismantled vehicles, and toolboxes seemingly strewn about in a haphazard fashion. Yet they can diagnose and repair an issue inside 15 minutes. They even know how to bring a past-its-prime vehicle back from the dead.
On the other hand, the corporate meathead mechanics (who couldn't diagnose a flat tire without a computer telling them that it's flat) tend to keep incredibly clean shops. All their tools are put away neatly, old parts are never kept as spares, oil is cleaned up as soon as its spilled, and all the new parts are safely warehoused in their original boxes. Very neat and tidy, but utterly useless to the customer. Especially when it takes then three and a half hours to put a new battery in a vehicle.
As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In my experience, being a bit messy can improve productivity by shunting unimportant tasks away from your center of attention. For example, if I receive a bunch of fluff memos, they're going in the kill-file pile until I get around to reading them in detail. (Which may never happen.) But I haven't disposed of them yet, so I can still retrieve them if necessary.
:-P
The problem is that if you let the mess grow too large, it *WILL* impact your ability to operate efficiently. So every once in a while you need to do a house cleaning of your different paper stacks, your email, your desktop files, and whatever other info you use on a regular basis.
Which gets me to another point. It's not that the "slobs" aren't organized. In fact, they may have a very good organization system. It's just that they allow the system to be strained to the breaking point before reorganizing. For example, I might start with an email folder called "work". That's going to grow too large in short order. But when it does grow too large, then it becomes clear whether it makes more sense to reorganize around department or by project. So I organize around the most effective order until that order also breaks down.
My point is that order is a good thing. It merely comes in many forms.
On another note, I absolutely love the way GMail handles my email. Rather than moving things to different folders automatically (where I'll never even realize that new messages have arrived), its tagging and filtering system allows me to auto-tag emails from mailing lists, board members, fellow project workers, etc. So I can view it in my inbox, then archive it without having to worry that I'll never find it again. The result is that my GMail account has kept more organized than any other email account that I've ever used. Now if only I could get a time machine to obtain time to respond to the lower-priority stuff.
Choice is the epitome of Open Source. Learn to deal with it.
Considering that most of those bugs are actually in the Win32 APIs, I'm not exactly sure what you're complaining about. Windows sucks? Yeah, we know that. Internet Explorer sucks? Yeah, we know that too.
This is an example of taking a complex issue (the general evolution of the web and web technologies) and blaming it on a single scapegoat: Javascript. Unsurprisingly, you're wrong again. What was semi-valid in HTML 3.0 is not valid according to the HTML 4.0/CSS standards. What worked in Internet Explorer thanks to non-standard & windows-specific extensions is not going to work in a general purpose browser. And what was programmed poorly to begin with (e.g. assuming that only IE would support feature X) is going to show through in more robust, modern browsers. Sorry, but the web is only as good as those who develop for it. And as I pointed out in my previous post, the majority don't know the first thing.
Actually, that's exactly what it is. Perceived performance problems are performance issues that don't exist, but "feel" like they do. When a Java application refreshes the controls too quickly, it doesn't "feel" right. When a Java program shows an unpainted box while pulling itself from cache, it doesn't "feel" right. The underlying code and GUI systems are actually operating at a greater speed than their native cousins, but because they don't work the same they cause user frustration. That's a separate issue from the actual performance of the code.
Seriously, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The C64 was a 6502-based system. The BASIC symbols were about as far from 6502 code as you can get. All they were was a transmutation of a symbol like "PRINT" to a code like "42". Obviously, the latter takes less memory. But you've still got to interpret it with "lda nextSymbol; cmp 42; beq PRINT_API;" type of code. Which is a far cry from a simple (and fast) "jmp PRINT_API".
In any case, your assertion that "the interpreter was in the hardware chips" is a non-sensical statement. The BASIC interpreter was preloaded into ROM. That effectively meant that it was always in memory. (Which is unsuprising given that BASIC was effectively the Operating System.) It did NOT convey any special processing capabilities any more than loading a Java program on a USB Flash Drive (i.e. rewritable ROM) JITs a Java program.
I repeat, you are not up to date on the latest technology. What I mentioned was not "advertising material". It was real, quantifiable advantages that are used on a daily basis.