What's that CounterStrike thing supposed to mean anyway?
It shows MS's true colors. They will reap the benifits of other's allowed mods but they will tolerate no loss of control over [i]their[/i] stuff. Shortsighted and greedy, as the article says near the end.
I don't think that would be the answer. There are situations where you want to transfer copyrights. However, something along the lines of not allowing them to be controlled by a corperate entity for more than say, 7-15ish years might work.
hope not. Personally i don't see why many authors transfer ownership of copyright. It doesn't seem necessary.
Because in many forms it is effectivley impossible to be published if you don't. This isn't quite the case yet with novels, but it certainly is with music. No label will sign you without you giving up your copyright. And until about 10 years ago it was the case in the comic field as well. You either have to live with self publishing or give the corp the whole shabang.
Get off it. There never will be anything like "copyright lapsing through neglect". Neglect by who? For how long? How measured?
Probably not again, but yes, there used to be. Original provisions of copyright called for a 14 year term when you registered a copyright (neglect to register == no copyright) and renewable once (neglect to renew == no more copyright). As I said in my previous reply there, this sort of system was still in place until fairly recently. Automagic copyrighting of anything and everything anyone does is not how it has always been.
The excuses for theft conjured up by music pirates are just as venal and self-serving as the RIAA's excuses for using copyright to enforce a middleman's monopoly.
If you want to fight the concept of copyright itself, come out of the closet. If all you really want is free music, stay in the closet and keep your mouth shut.
A) I am not a music Pirate. I am, or was, one of the RIAAs better customers. Between my wife and I we own nearly a thousand CDs.
B) I do not wish to fight the concept of copyright itself. As Lessig, and most other modern minds interested in this debate, I feel that at it's heart copyright is a good idea. Allowing an author/inventor/artist to benefit directly from their creations is good for society. However as our copyright law has been written by big business interests and rubber stamped by congress the balance between the creator and society has gone far, far away from what it should be. So I am, and have been, coming out of the closet in that regard for years.
But the trouble is there is no such thing as a copyright lapsing through neglect.
Actually, there is. Or at least there was. Up until fairly recently the copyright owner had to renew the copyright on a work after a given period or it would lapse and go into the public domain. This happened with "It's a Wonderful Life" most famously. It's also happened with a large number of very low budget films from the 50s and 60s. IIRC "Night of the Living Dead" also had this happen due to a glitch - the distributor left off the copyright notice on one of the runs of the film and thus those copies were free for public use. That hole has since been closed.
IM clients have file trading aspects, and it is much more efficent to blast a file or files over to a buddie on you List than it is to have it sitting out on a p2p, tell your buddy what the file name is, then have your buddy go out and fine the file on a p2p service.
I usually do this when I need to send something to someone. It does however have one strong drawback - proactivity. You have to be sitting at your computer and he has to be sitting at his both ready to go. With a p2p network you can be sitting in class and say "Hey, yeah.. grab that program I wrote for CS3601 and tell me if it runs for you. It's call MyProj3.com" and he can then grab it anytime.
Packet shapers are bad because they lower the priority of anything that is not http. Ftp is useless, shh is useless even email with large files can take awhile since only http is optimized.
If your packet shaper is simply bumping up the priority of http packets than you have either a really crappy shaper or it is horribly configured, period.
They also do not address the still legal problem of filesharing because no matter how slow the connection becomes, students will still pirate.
This question has been addressed so many times I'm not gonna even really say much. Deal with the criminal, not the guy he bought the knife from.
But how could they add an 'or else' statement? The colleges haven't been doing anything. There's no way you can serve someone with a cease and desist or anything like that without THEM breaking laws. If anyone's breaking a law, it's the students!
With the tack the ??AAs have been taking already in their court cases is it really any stretch to see them try and get colleges for contributory? I mean, a college in this capacity is really just acting as an ISP. The DMCA is fairly clear on the role of an ISP here.. if the ??AAs say "Hey, these people are pirating" they have to take action or are liable.
Flamingly stupid, but that's the law right now, more or less.
There's plenty of public domain stuff out there. Last time I used a P2P app it was to collect some Christmas music for a party my wife threw. None of it was copyrighted to my knowledge.
While I completely agree that p2p piracy (last time I used it was to get some music by a friend who distributes that way) it is, alas, more than likely that those songs were indeed under copyright. The musicial composition itself is most probably public domain but the particular recordings might not have been. Remember, if it was recorded after the early 20s it is still under copyright unless it either lapsed through neglect or was intentionally placed into the public domain by the author/artist.
From khkramer's summary, "Breyer joked that if Lessig's argument about 1998 applied equally to 1976, then he'd better find another argument. Everyonelaughed. (Everyone always laughed whenever a Justice made a joke.)"
I don't. Quite the opposite. If the justices are going to rule against the law because it would invalidate other laws, that's wrong. It shouldn't matter how many laws are effected when deciding if some particular legislation is or is not unconstitutional. Choosing to stay as-is because it would be difficult to fix the law is a horrible way to judge your current legal framework.
Small issue here: Disney Corp. does not create. People create, artists create. People that work for Disney Corp. create, Walt Disney did create. The company does not.
The ogg vorbis codec (even with the new integer implementation) is so CPU intensive that it does not fit into anything smaller than a 75MHZ ARM processor, and even then it's a squeeze. This means that despite all the merits of this format, it is not currently possible for manufacturers of inexpensive playback devices to support the format.
Just wondering.. is this before or after the integer only decoder that they released?
Gaiman's books are reviewed here, his new comics are mentioned, and his film projects are as well. All those go on the front page. Given that, it seemed newsworthy. Ad the editors seem to agree.
The long MiracleMan faq posted below is good for the miracle man side of things. Here's a link to a fairly short summery of what lead to the case itself. I apologize for not putting one in the initial submission.. I could have sworn/. had posted some news about this when the case was first filed.
I could care less who wins this...just a two huge egos fighting over something any two normal people would have fixed with a 20 min conversation...anyway I own issue #9 of spawn...the issue that caused all this...is it worth anything?..I got laid off from my dotcom job like 2 years ago and in desperate need of cash.
If you would actually read the links you would understand why this happened. One reasonable man (Gaiman) and one huge ego (McFarlane) did work this out in a meeting in 1997. Then last year McFarlane decided he didn't like that deal anymore and started acting as if it never happened. Thus, he got taken to court.
I don't suppose any legal eagle sites out there have a more in-depth look at this one? Legal and/or copyright sluts (myself included) want to know if this decision means anything other than a bunch of fanboys (myself towards the front of the line) finally get to buy the Miracleman trade paperbacks we've been coveting.
Honestly, this isn't a copyright issue. Copyrights are at stake, but the judicial decisions are all contract law. The two big points were basically if McF & Gaiman had 'contracts' based on agreements they made when Neil originaly wrote the Spawn issue and in 1997 when they supposedly settled this issue (which Todd later reneged on).
True - I'm also told that there may be other issues affecting reprints of the earlier (Alan Moore) works. Still, any result that gives Gaiman the right to continue the Miracleman story is good for me, whether it's an enforcement of the '97 contract or something more punitive.
Yes, there are still some other legal hassels involved. It seems there is some question as to whether the person who sold the MM rights to Eclipse back in the day actually had them to sell. If he didn't that would of course void all the Elipse owndership and all the subsequent transfers from there on.
Some of the best news I've heard in a long time. This legal wrangling has kept Miracleman out of print for far too long, and it's about time we saw reprints of the earlier trade paperbacks and the continuation of the story.
This is possible, but not certain. Late yesterday and today will be the penalty phase wherein Gaiman and the courts will decide what xactly happens now that they say he was right. In all probability he will simply enforce the 1997 agreement the two of them had, which gives Todd control over the Spawn characters and Neil MiracleMan. Given that McF defaulted on that contract, however, Gaiman could chose to persue a different set of terms. We shall see later today or tomorrow.
Alas, even that doesn't help much. Most of the major publishers are owned by the same media companies as everything else. That is a large part of the core of this problem. Something around 5 companies contitute something to the tune of 85% of all the media across the board.
Doesn't this violate the Microsoft agreement? There has to be a way to take Windows Media Player off your computer. If I am correct, there should be a program to illimate the presence of Microsoft products (IE, and that sorts) from desktop/startup menu. The program should also illimate WMP from these areas as well. Does anyone know for sure if this breaks the Microsoft agreement?
Nope.. note your own words there - "from the desktop/startup menu". All that crap is still on the computer and waiting to jump at the first beck and call. The obvious icons are just removed to give 3rd party software a "chance".
Well if you can see it's abusive and I can see it's abusive and 98% of most people can see it's abusive, then get the lawyer you retained to handle the contract. Whining does no one any good.
They often do that. At which point the labels point to their books and say "See.. these are all _your_ expensis." If this past year or five of legislation, technology, and litigation has shown you nothing else it should have shown that the RIAA doesn't make any deals it doesn't win. Having exhausted those routes the artist are now taking it to congress. I would hardly call forming a rights grouped backed by dozens of major artists "whining".
It's called a contract. read it. Or get a lawyer who can. I have no sympathy, sorry.
It's also called abusive and most probably illegal accounting practices. Filing it as a "production & promotion expense" to fly out a label head and his 6 buddies and all their assistants in 1st class to see your show is just sleezy business. Those kind of BS expenses should be shouldered by the company not out of the artists pocket.
Oh my. Let's feel bad for the poor band members who signed a contract without reading it. Those poor souls.
How can you, as a band member, know if and when the label is going to drop 200 grand sending in some execs and their assistants and put it on your tab? Or that they are going to insist you use a studio that costs ten grand a day (again, on your tab)? Spend tens of thousands on "promotors" getting your single on the radio only to find out that it was played once at 2am? And then cheat and lie on their accouting records to cover any royalties that might have gone to you even after you paid for all their mistakes and vanities?
Slashdot Mirror
What's that CounterStrike thing supposed to mean anyway?
It shows MS's true colors. They will reap the benifits of other's allowed mods but they will tolerate no loss of control over [i]their[/i] stuff. Shortsighted and greedy, as the article says near the end.
I don't think that would be the answer. There are situations where you want to transfer copyrights. However, something along the lines of not allowing them to be controlled by a corperate entity for more than say, 7-15ish years might work.
hope not. Personally i don't see why many authors transfer ownership of copyright. It doesn't seem necessary.
Because in many forms it is effectivley impossible to be published if you don't. This isn't quite the case yet with novels, but it certainly is with music. No label will sign you without you giving up your copyright. And until about 10 years ago it was the case in the comic field as well. You either have to live with self publishing or give the corp the whole shabang.
Get off it. There never will be anything like "copyright lapsing through neglect". Neglect by who? For how long? How measured?
Probably not again, but yes, there used to be. Original provisions of copyright called for a 14 year term when you registered a copyright (neglect to register == no copyright) and renewable once (neglect to renew == no more copyright). As I said in my previous reply there, this sort of system was still in place until fairly recently. Automagic copyrighting of anything and everything anyone does is not how it has always been.
The excuses for theft conjured up by music pirates are just as venal and self-serving as the RIAA's excuses for using copyright to enforce a middleman's monopoly.
If you want to fight the concept of copyright itself, come out of the closet. If all you really want is free music, stay in the closet and keep your mouth shut.
A) I am not a music Pirate. I am, or was, one of the RIAAs better customers. Between my wife and I we own nearly a thousand CDs.
B) I do not wish to fight the concept of copyright itself. As Lessig, and most other modern minds interested in this debate, I feel that at it's heart copyright is a good idea. Allowing an author/inventor/artist to benefit directly from their creations is good for society. However as our copyright law has been written by big business interests and rubber stamped by congress the balance between the creator and society has gone far, far away from what it should be. So I am, and have been, coming out of the closet in that regard for years.
But the trouble is there is no such thing as a copyright lapsing through neglect.
Actually, there is. Or at least there was. Up until fairly recently the copyright owner had to renew the copyright on a work after a given period or it would lapse and go into the public domain. This happened with "It's a Wonderful Life" most famously. It's also happened with a large number of very low budget films from the 50s and 60s. IIRC "Night of the Living Dead" also had this happen due to a glitch - the distributor left off the copyright notice on one of the runs of the film and thus those copies were free for public use. That hole has since been closed.
IM clients have file trading aspects, and it is much more efficent to blast a file or files over to a buddie on you List than it is to have it sitting out on a p2p, tell your buddy what the file name is, then have your buddy go out and fine the file on a p2p service.
I usually do this when I need to send something to someone. It does however have one strong drawback - proactivity. You have to be sitting at your computer and he has to be sitting at his both ready to go. With a p2p network you can be sitting in class and say "Hey, yeah.. grab that program I wrote for CS3601 and tell me if it runs for you. It's call MyProj3.com" and he can then grab it anytime.
Packet shapers are bad because they lower the priority of anything that is not http. Ftp is useless, shh is useless even email with large files can take awhile since only http is optimized.
If your packet shaper is simply bumping up the priority of http packets than you have either a really crappy shaper or it is horribly configured, period.
They also do not address the still legal problem of filesharing because no matter how slow the connection becomes, students will still pirate.
This question has been addressed so many times I'm not gonna even really say much. Deal with the criminal, not the guy he bought the knife from.
But how could they add an 'or else' statement? The colleges haven't been doing anything. There's no way you can serve someone with a cease and desist or anything like that without THEM breaking laws. If anyone's breaking a law, it's the students!
With the tack the ??AAs have been taking already in their court cases is it really any stretch to see them try and get colleges for contributory? I mean, a college in this capacity is really just acting as an ISP. The DMCA is fairly clear on the role of an ISP here.. if the ??AAs say "Hey, these people are pirating" they have to take action or are liable.
Flamingly stupid, but that's the law right now, more or less.
There's plenty of public domain stuff out there. Last time I used a P2P app it was to collect some Christmas music for a party my wife threw. None of it was copyrighted to my knowledge.
While I completely agree that p2p piracy (last time I used it was to get some music by a friend who distributes that way) it is, alas, more than likely that those songs were indeed under copyright. The musicial composition itself is most probably public domain but the particular recordings might not have been. Remember, if it was recorded after the early 20s it is still under copyright unless it either lapsed through neglect or was intentionally placed into the public domain by the author/artist.
From khkramer's summary, "Breyer joked that if Lessig's argument about 1998 applied equally to 1976, then he'd better find another argument. Everyonelaughed. (Everyone always laughed whenever a Justice made a joke.)"
I don't. Quite the opposite. If the justices are going to rule against the law because it would invalidate other laws, that's wrong. It shouldn't matter how many laws are effected when deciding if some particular legislation is or is not unconstitutional. Choosing to stay as-is because it would be difficult to fix the law is a horrible way to judge your current legal framework.
Small issue here: Disney Corp. does not create. People create, artists create. People that work for Disney Corp. create, Walt Disney did create. The company does not.
Why was this even posted? It's people like this that cause problems with the RIAA. That's not fair use, that's plain theft.
Nope. Check the audio home recording act. Not illegal.
The ogg vorbis codec (even with the new integer implementation) is so CPU intensive that it does not fit into anything smaller than a 75MHZ ARM processor, and even then it's a squeeze. This means that despite all the merits of this format, it is not currently possible for manufacturers of inexpensive playback devices to support the format.
Just wondering.. is this before or after the integer only decoder that they released?
Gaiman's books are reviewed here, his new comics are mentioned, and his film projects are as well. All those go on the front page. Given that, it seemed newsworthy. Ad the editors seem to agree.
The long MiracleMan faq posted below is good for the miracle man side of things. Here's a link to a fairly short summery of what lead to the case itself. I apologize for not putting one in the initial submission.. I could have sworn /. had posted some news about this when the case was first filed.
I could care less who wins this...just a two huge egos fighting over something any two normal people would have fixed with a 20 min conversation...anyway I own issue #9 of spawn...the issue that caused all this...is it worth anything?..I got laid off from my dotcom job like 2 years ago and in desperate need of cash.
If you would actually read the links you would understand why this happened. One reasonable man (Gaiman) and one huge ego (McFarlane) did work this out in a meeting in 1997. Then last year McFarlane decided he didn't like that deal anymore and started acting as if it never happened. Thus, he got taken to court.
I don't suppose any legal eagle sites out there have a more in-depth look at this one? Legal and/or copyright sluts (myself included) want to know if this decision means anything other than a bunch of fanboys (myself towards the front of the line) finally get to buy the Miracleman trade paperbacks we've been coveting.
Honestly, this isn't a copyright issue. Copyrights are at stake, but the judicial decisions are all contract law. The two big points were basically if McF & Gaiman had 'contracts' based on agreements they made when Neil originaly wrote the Spawn issue and in 1997 when they supposedly settled this issue (which Todd later reneged on).
True - I'm also told that there may be other issues affecting reprints of the earlier (Alan Moore) works. Still, any result that gives Gaiman the right to continue the Miracleman story is good for me, whether it's an enforcement of the '97 contract or something more punitive.
Yes, there are still some other legal hassels involved. It seems there is some question as to whether the person who sold the MM rights to Eclipse back in the day actually had them to sell. If he didn't that would of course void all the Elipse owndership and all the subsequent transfers from there on.
Some of the best news I've heard in a long time. This legal wrangling has kept Miracleman out of print for far too long, and it's about time we saw reprints of the earlier trade paperbacks and the continuation of the story.
This is possible, but not certain. Late yesterday and today will be the penalty phase wherein Gaiman and the courts will decide what xactly happens now that they say he was right. In all probability he will simply enforce the 1997 agreement the two of them had, which gives Todd control over the Spawn characters and Neil MiracleMan. Given that McF defaulted on that contract, however, Gaiman could chose to persue a different set of terms. We shall see later today or tomorrow.
If they plan Linux support, why exactly is it called the "WiNRADiO" (complete with the cool-in-1992 lower case i's)?
I think I'll buy more books :)
Alas, even that doesn't help much. Most of the major publishers are owned by the same media companies as everything else. That is a large part of the core of this problem. Something around 5 companies contitute something to the tune of 85% of all the media across the board.
Doesn't this violate the Microsoft agreement? There has to be a way to take Windows Media Player off your computer. If I am correct, there should be a program to illimate the presence of Microsoft products (IE, and that sorts) from desktop/startup menu. The program should also illimate WMP from these areas as well. Does anyone know for sure if this breaks the Microsoft agreement?
Nope.. note your own words there - "from the desktop/startup menu". All that crap is still on the computer and waiting to jump at the first beck and call. The obvious icons are just removed to give 3rd party software a "chance".
Well if you can see it's abusive and I can see it's abusive and 98% of most people can see it's abusive, then get the lawyer you retained to handle the contract. Whining does no one any good.
They often do that. At which point the labels point to their books and say "See.. these are all _your_ expensis." If this past year or five of legislation, technology, and litigation has shown you nothing else it should have shown that the RIAA doesn't make any deals it doesn't win. Having exhausted those routes the artist are now taking it to congress. I would hardly call forming a rights grouped backed by dozens of major artists "whining".
It's called a contract. read it. Or get a lawyer who can. I have no sympathy, sorry.
It's also called abusive and most probably illegal accounting practices. Filing it as a "production & promotion expense" to fly out a label head and his 6 buddies and all their assistants in 1st class to see your show is just sleezy business. Those kind of BS expenses should be shouldered by the company not out of the artists pocket.
Oh my. Let's feel bad for the poor band members who signed a contract without reading it. Those poor souls.
How can you, as a band member, know if and when the label is going to drop 200 grand sending in some execs and their assistants and put it on your tab? Or that they are going to insist you use a studio that costs ten grand a day (again, on your tab)? Spend tens of thousands on "promotors" getting your single on the radio only to find out that it was played once at 2am? And then cheat and lie on their accouting records to cover any royalties that might have gone to you even after you paid for all their mistakes and vanities?