I'm actually going to digress slightly and use the example in the main topic. A newspaper's primary concern is making money. Suppose they have a column wherein they review books and have quotes. This is considered "fair use" based on precident. If the review is negative, it clearly hurts the marketability of the book, so it violates (4). A use need not satisfy all conditions to be considered "fair use."
If they own a copy of the book or have permission from the authors, then this is entirely a moot point. And don't forget, authors can opt out of this project.
This was actually supposed to be a response to " Copyright Law (Score:4, Insightful) by op12 (830015) Alter Relationship on Wednesday September 21, @03:25PM (#13616591) ", but I tarded out and didn't put it in the proper place
Who cares if it falls under those specific examples of "fair use."
This is from copyright.gov:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I think google's implementation of this project very clearly falls under scholarship and/or research purposes. Giving the reader brief snippets of the written work along with bibliographical information so they can find a copy of the work themselves certainly satisfies (3) by not reproducing a substantial portion of the work and (4) by, quite possibly, increasing the demand for the work when users desire to seek out a copy to actually read/study.
Who cares if it falls under those specific examples of "fair use."
This is from copyright.gov:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I think google's implementation of this project very clearly falls under scholarship and/or research purposes. Giving the reader brief snippets of the written work along with bibliographical information so they can find a copy of the work themselves certainly satisfies (3) by not reproducing a substantial portion of the work and (4) by, quite possibly, increasing the demand for the work when users desire to seek out a copy to actually read/study.
Here at the university I work at we're required to format drives 10 times with random bits. I guess it's a regulation for all state-run or state-funded facilities.
Religious beliefs are neither "orientation" nor "behavior" in a genetic sense. They are ideologies imbued into each generation by their environment (often family, sometimes it's an actual choice, sometimes government, etc...) and experiences (those who experience what they consider "miracles").
Although, religious beliefs can play a pivotal role in natural selection. A country that institutes some sort of religious cleansing, for example, can create an environment wherein a person of one religion has a much lower chance of passing on their genes because the government will kill them based on their beliefs.
Also, f*ck, in this sense, is clearly used under the definition "Used in the imperative as a signal of angry dismissal."
And, given this is Slashdot, I would expect the readers to have an above-average vocabulary (even if the average may be pretty low).
AI was far from excellent, mostly because Spielberg destroyed the end of the movie and Kubrick wasn't alive to fix it. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy watching it, I just turn it off before it degenerates into pointless drivel.
What about the Genica GN803 Tavarua? I picked up one of these in 2000-ish, and I think it was one of (if not the) first commercial mp3 cd player. Of course, it was (and is) also a big steaming pile.
Personally knowing the people in the highest-ranking US team (from University of Illinois), I had a chance to talk to them yesterday. Apparently no US team has placed since the contest began.
Personally knowing the people in the highest-ranking US team (from University of Illinois), I had a chance to talk to them yesterday. Apparently no US team has ever placed since the contest began.
As someone who lives in Illinois and has had to deal with such things before, this is yet another example of people wanting the government to parent their children for them. People do crazy things, that's a given. And having played my fair share of violent games, I can say I'm pretty well desensitized to CARTOON-esque violence (actual blood still makes me squirm a bit). That isn't to say that is a bad thing and I'm sure my parents don't think so. Hell, my dad got me a copy of Wolfenstein way back in the day (and I only hope I can do the same, or at least similar, for my kids someday). But I seem to have digressed slightly. If parents have a problem with something, then they should police their own kids; they don't need to force their beliefs on the general public.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm actually going to digress slightly and use the example in the main topic.
A newspaper's primary concern is making money. Suppose they have a column wherein they review books and have quotes. This is considered "fair use" based on precident. If the review is negative, it clearly hurts the marketability of the book, so it violates (4). A use need not satisfy all conditions to be considered "fair use."
If they own a copy of the book or have permission from the authors, then this is entirely a moot point. And don't forget, authors can opt out of this project.
...or continually strive to "organize the world's information"?
This was actually supposed to be a response to " Copyright Law (Score:4, Insightful)
by op12 (830015) Alter Relationship on Wednesday September 21, @03:25PM (#13616591) ", but I tarded out and didn't put it in the proper place
Who cares if it falls under those specific examples of "fair use."
This is from copyright.gov:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I think google's implementation of this project very clearly falls under scholarship and/or research purposes. Giving the reader brief snippets of the written work along with bibliographical information so they can find a copy of the work themselves certainly satisfies (3) by not reproducing a substantial portion of the work and (4) by, quite possibly, increasing the demand for the work when users desire to seek out a copy to actually read/study.
Who cares if it falls under those specific examples of "fair use."
This is from copyright.gov:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I think google's implementation of this project very clearly falls under scholarship and/or research purposes. Giving the reader brief snippets of the written work along with bibliographical information so they can find a copy of the work themselves certainly satisfies (3) by not reproducing a substantial portion of the work and (4) by, quite possibly, increasing the demand for the work when users desire to seek out a copy to actually read/study.
At least we still (sort of) have "freedom of the press."
Here at the university I work at we're required to format drives 10 times with random bits. I guess it's a regulation for all state-run or state-funded facilities.
Can games be released as "Unrated" in a similar way to movies? If so, I say down with ratings! :)
Religious beliefs are neither "orientation" nor "behavior" in a genetic sense. They are ideologies imbued into each generation by their environment (often family, sometimes it's an actual choice, sometimes government, etc...) and experiences (those who experience what they consider "miracles").
Although, religious beliefs can play a pivotal role in natural selection. A country that institutes some sort of religious cleansing, for example, can create an environment wherein a person of one religion has a much lower chance of passing on their genes because the government will kill them based on their beliefs.
Also, f*ck, in this sense, is clearly used under the definition "Used in the imperative as a signal of angry dismissal."
And, given this is Slashdot, I would expect the readers to have an above-average vocabulary (even if the average may be pretty low).
I think MC Hawking said it best...F*ck The Creationists.
(http://www.mchawking.com/)
AI was far from excellent, mostly because Spielberg destroyed the end of the movie and Kubrick wasn't alive to fix it. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy watching it, I just turn it off before it degenerates into pointless drivel.
What about the Genica GN803 Tavarua? I picked up one of these in 2000-ish, and I think it was one of (if not the) first commercial mp3 cd player. Of course, it was (and is) also a big steaming pile.
rarely does a US team place.
:)
OK, so rarely does a US team place
Personally knowing the people in the highest-ranking US team (from University of Illinois), I had a chance to talk to them yesterday. Apparently no US team has placed since the contest began.
Personally knowing the people in the highest-ranking US team (from University of Illinois), I had a chance to talk to them yesterday. Apparently no US team has ever placed since the contest began.
As someone who lives in Illinois and has had to deal with such things before, this is yet another example of people wanting the government to parent their children for them. People do crazy things, that's a given. And having played my fair share of violent games, I can say I'm pretty well desensitized to CARTOON-esque violence (actual blood still makes me squirm a bit). That isn't to say that is a bad thing and I'm sure my parents don't think so. Hell, my dad got me a copy of Wolfenstein way back in the day (and I only hope I can do the same, or at least similar, for my kids someday).
But I seem to have digressed slightly. If parents have a problem with something, then they should police their own kids; they don't need to force their beliefs on the general public.
If you like board games, give Acquire or Tigris & Euphrates a try.
I'd suggest playing Acquire (http://www.gamepile.com/3m01.html) and/or Carcassonne (http://www.gotdice.com/carcassonne.htm).