inappropriate how? titles (which domain names are, since they carry both a fxnal and an expressive element) are often used by authors in an artistic way, keeping the reader in "suspense." This is necessary part of a free speech per art.
In America, the controlling case law does not require disclaimers or other indicia that tell the viewer that the parody/satire is not endorsed. Free speech concerns trump Lanham Act concerns, unless there's something like bad faith involved. See Rogers, Cardtoons.
I read the account of what happened, and that "he just wants us not to use the Liberal party's intellectual property." Later, he frames it in terms of "proprietary interests." But the webmaster who contacted these guys says he just wants them to change the name of the site, presumably because it contains the NAME of one of their political figures. In other words, he's pressing a RIGHT OF PUBLICITY claim (an extenuated one, since it's not even the person, but his party, claiming the interest). Again, IANACL, but even in America (where we're pretty gung-ho about property interests versus free speech, late judicial trends notwithstanding--especially since the procedural posture of those cases makes the "trend" possibly less meaningful), RoP is a new and limited doctrine, and would probably easily be trumped by FS concerns, if not a straight 4-factor HarperV.Roe analysis. Again, IANACL!!! However, the people of Canada surely have an interest not only in providing incentives to produce works (ie interests in (C)), but interests in public discourse. see Cardtoons, Rogers.
In other words, unless CA's IP law is seriously f'd, these guys should be able to keep their domain name. To hold otherwise would be even worse than the PETA domain case ruling eariler this year (i think-it's late).
Information is not property (see the idea/expression distinction in IP law). Misappropriation doctrine comes closest to viewing info as property, but that doctrine is circumscribed by strong limits that intend to focus the doctrine on incentives to gather information. The "right to exclude" disappears as soon as the article isn't "hot news," meaning it's probably not really a right to exclude.
WRONG. This bill does not give (c) protection to anything. It protects against misappropriation. Read the bill - it requires the db to contain t-sensitive info, require effort to form, etc.
read the bill. it requires the db to contain time-sensitive data. it's just an extension of a misappropriation cause of action to the internet & dbs. no biggie.
you can copy the yellow pages. That's what Feist says. This is a misappropriation bill, aimed at protecting time-sensitive data that requires effort to collect and is time-sensitive, and on which a company is founded.
This is a valid misappropriation statute
on
Who Owns The Facts?
·
· Score: 1
The poster's invocation of Feist w/o reference to INS v. AP, or NBA v. Motorola, is very misleading. The limitations below make the legislation constitutionally valid. Policy-wise, that's a different question (indeed, whose interests are we trying to protect?). Also, this legislation is probably unnecessary, given the state law misappropriation causes of action out there. But the framing of story as a constitutional abomination is simply meant to rile the crowd. Have a nice day!
----
FROM THOMAS:
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST MISAPPROPRIATION OF DATABASES.
(a) LIABILITY- Any person who makes available in commerce to others a quantitatively substantial part of the information in a database generated, gathered, or maintained by another person, knowing that such making available in commerce is without the authorization of that person (including a successor in interest) or that person's licensee, when acting within the scope of its license, shall be liable for the remedies set forth in section 7 if--
(1) the database was generated, gathered, or maintained through a substantial expenditure of financial resources or time;
(2) the unauthorized making available in commerce occurs in a time sensitive manner and inflicts injury on the database or a product or service offering access to multiple databases; and
(3) the ability of other parties to free ride on the efforts of the plaintiff would so reduce the incentive to produce the product or service that its existence or quality would be substantially threatened.
Ever heard of DeCSS? There are no licensed players for linux. Thus the DMCA makes watching a dvd on a linux box illegal (anticircumvention, which fair use does not apply to -- even though it's explicitly listed in the statute!!!).
It's regulation. The writers of the constitution didn't foresee a Microsoft. As Corporations gain more power, the people need to be protected. Consider this: AOL "owns" about 1/4 of the Internet (and they do have property rights to this "area" -- see how they can filter spam through the courts as well as through technology). Should they be able to declare that noone will discuss "antipatriot" issues, or abortion, or Nazism? Whoever technically "owns" the ISP, or the OS, or the software code, the values of free speech need to endure. We need to be careful when assigning property rights-- especially to corporations--on the internet, because property rights are hard to take away. Regulation of this forum should be kept to a minimal, including regulation resulting from Microsoft. The internet is a "dumb network," and there is value in that. Indeed, online communities, even ones that might be primarily based around copyright infringement, have free speech value. Some might say a balance need be struck between the property rights we must assign artists and authors--to give them incentive to create--and free speech concerns. But that's a conservative, economic perspective (see easterbrook, posner, scalia). Some things are not reducable to money. Free Speech might actually be an absolute, at least as far as the Internet and personal use of corporate-created content is concerned.
Any affirmative action system will cut out those in the middle. Losing the aid system, as you suggest, might aid "blue collar and clerical workers" (God, how elitist is that? Why don't you just drop the H-bomb already?) in the short term, only to have the 1%ers take over in.5 generations.
he's tagged his code. that means it's copyrighted. he has a claim a/g SCO. If an IBM developer has a claim against this guy, he might bring it (eg "That's my code, not yours."), but this coder has still made a prima facia case.
Unlike you, I've actually followed this story for a while. It's obvious to me that there are thousands of people being ripped off by SCO (who is redistributing GPLed works absent the GPL). It doesn't matter which lines of code this coder wrote.
You have nothing against SCO. Hmmm. You don't have a problem with this company, whom Microsoft has a huge interest in now, spreading lies like "The GPL will kill your business! See what these Linux people are doing to us? They'll do it to you too!" You don't have a problem with them "trying on" an argument (fallacious at best - they do have lawyers, you know. probably more lawyers than coders), and in the process costing other companies money and time, and slowing down our already struggling economy, especially the IT sector, with frivolous claims and threats? Maybe you do need to see this guy's code. Straight logic certainly isn't working for you.
It doesn't matter if we know who this particular guy is or what his code is. There are a number of people like him - the point is that SCO is getting slapped back. In other words, we don't need to know where his original code is - only the court need know that, for his case. The only important thing to us is that at least one person is slapping SCO back. What a great move!
Linus need not be consulted. In the letter, the writer says that his code is tagged. That should be enough to copyright his work.
"Your letter to 1,500 end-user companies outlining your claim was vague. What is it that you want from these companies? The one thing that we specifically want from those 1,500 companies that we directly sent those letters to is for them to not take our word on the warning that we sent... but to seek an opinion of their legal counsel as to the issues that we raised."
1. SCO is on a fishing trip for counterarguments. They know so little of their own case that they rely businesses to do their work for them. 2. SCO is wasting other businesses' money in a floundering economy. 3. Could Microsoft (didn't they buy SCO, or some part of it, recently?) have another antitrust violation under its belt?
While there may be no legal recourse for these dirty, money-wasting tactics, there are "nonlegal pressures" the community may resort to (and probably ethically could).
he cares more about pride than his product.
on
No Abiword For Mac?
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
he probably got fired for being an immature, passive-aggressive annoyance.
Slashdot Mirror
inappropriate how? titles (which domain names are, since they carry both a fxnal and an expressive element) are often used by authors in an artistic way, keeping the reader in "suspense." This is necessary part of a free speech per art.
squashing parody/satire sites would fit in well with that agenda...
In America, the controlling case law does not require disclaimers or other indicia that tell the viewer that the parody/satire is not endorsed. Free speech concerns trump Lanham Act concerns, unless there's something like bad faith involved. See Rogers, Cardtoons.
I read the account of what happened, and that "he just wants us not to use the Liberal party's intellectual property." Later, he frames it in terms of "proprietary interests." But the webmaster who contacted these guys says he just wants them to change the name of the site, presumably because it contains the NAME of one of their political figures. In other words, he's pressing a RIGHT OF PUBLICITY claim (an extenuated one, since it's not even the person, but his party, claiming the interest). Again, IANACL, but even in America (where we're pretty gung-ho about property interests versus free speech, late judicial trends notwithstanding--especially since the procedural posture of those cases makes the "trend" possibly less meaningful), RoP is a new and limited doctrine, and would probably easily be trumped by FS concerns, if not a straight 4-factor HarperV.Roe analysis. Again, IANACL!!! However, the people of Canada surely have an interest not only in providing incentives to produce works (ie interests in (C)), but interests in public discourse. see Cardtoons, Rogers.
In other words, unless CA's IP law is seriously f'd, these guys should be able to keep their domain name. To hold otherwise would be even worse than the PETA domain case ruling eariler this year (i think-it's late).
about the hand gestures being understood at 15 fps, does that include motion blur?
just because a right is violated does not mean it has been alienated. come on - that's so simple!
Information is not property (see the idea/expression distinction in IP law). Misappropriation doctrine comes closest to viewing info as property, but that doctrine is circumscribed by strong limits that intend to focus the doctrine on incentives to gather information. The "right to exclude" disappears as soon as the article isn't "hot news," meaning it's probably not really a right to exclude.
WRONG. This bill does not give (c) protection to anything. It protects against misappropriation. Read the bill - it requires the db to contain t-sensitive info, require effort to form, etc.
read the bill. it requires the db to contain time-sensitive data. it's just an extension of a misappropriation cause of action to the internet & dbs. no biggie.
WRONG. The table of elements is not time-sensitive (at least i hope not...).
you can copy the yellow pages. That's what Feist says. This is a misappropriation bill, aimed at protecting time-sensitive data that requires effort to collect and is time-sensitive, and on which a company is founded.
The poster's invocation of Feist w/o reference to INS v. AP, or NBA v. Motorola, is very misleading. The limitations below make the legislation constitutionally valid. Policy-wise, that's a different question (indeed, whose interests are we trying to protect?). Also, this legislation is probably unnecessary, given the state law misappropriation causes of action out there. But the framing of story as a constitutional abomination is simply meant to rile the crowd. Have a nice day!
----
FROM THOMAS:
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST MISAPPROPRIATION OF DATABASES.
(a) LIABILITY- Any person who makes available in commerce to others a quantitatively substantial part of the information in a database generated, gathered, or maintained by another person, knowing that such making available in commerce is without the authorization of that person (including a successor in interest) or that person's licensee, when acting within the scope of its license, shall be liable for the remedies set forth in section 7 if--
(1) the database was generated, gathered, or maintained through a substantial expenditure of financial resources or time;
(2) the unauthorized making available in commerce occurs in a time sensitive manner and inflicts injury on the database or a product or service offering access to multiple databases; and
(3) the ability of other parties to free ride on the efforts of the plaintiff would so reduce the incentive to produce the product or service that its existence or quality would be substantially threatened.
so much for that - the editors have already pruned out dmca-able material.
Ever heard of DeCSS? There are no licensed players for linux. Thus the DMCA makes watching a dvd on a linux box illegal (anticircumvention, which fair use does not apply to -- even though it's explicitly listed in the statute!!!).
It's regulation. The writers of the constitution didn't foresee a Microsoft. As Corporations gain more power, the people need to be protected. Consider this: AOL "owns" about 1/4 of the Internet (and they do have property rights to this "area" -- see how they can filter spam through the courts as well as through technology). Should they be able to declare that noone will discuss "antipatriot" issues, or abortion, or Nazism? Whoever technically "owns" the ISP, or the OS, or the software code, the values of free speech need to endure. We need to be careful when assigning property rights-- especially to corporations--on the internet, because property rights are hard to take away. Regulation of this forum should be kept to a minimal, including regulation resulting from Microsoft. The internet is a "dumb network," and there is value in that. Indeed, online communities, even ones that might be primarily based around copyright infringement, have free speech value. Some might say a balance need be struck between the property rights we must assign artists and authors--to give them incentive to create--and free speech concerns. But that's a conservative, economic perspective (see easterbrook, posner, scalia).
Some things are not reducable to money. Free Speech might actually be an absolute, at least as far as the Internet and personal use of corporate-created content is concerned.
Labeling mail as "commercial," etc should decrease the amount of spam, yes? I'm assuming AMTP wouldn't have open relays
The AC wasn't complaining. What are you referencing?
Any affirmative action system will cut out those in the middle. Losing the aid system, as you suggest, might aid "blue collar and clerical workers" (God, how elitist is that? Why don't you just drop the H-bomb already?) in the short term, only to have the 1%ers take over in .5 generations.
linus might have a case a/g SCO for the libelous sign saying that he, personally, steals software, yes?
Expect more of these claims a/g SCO.
You have nothing against SCO. Hmmm. You don't have a problem with this company, whom Microsoft has a huge interest in now, spreading lies like "The GPL will kill your business! See what these Linux people are doing to us? They'll do it to you too!" You don't have a problem with them "trying on" an argument (fallacious at best - they do have lawyers, you know. probably more lawyers than coders), and in the process costing other companies money and time, and slowing down our already struggling economy, especially the IT sector, with frivolous claims and threats? Maybe you do need to see this guy's code. Straight logic certainly isn't working for you.
Linus need not be consulted. In the letter, the writer says that his code is tagged. That should be enough to copyright his work.
wow, this looks like a total peice of crap! way to go!
1. SCO is on a fishing trip for counterarguments. They know so little of their own case that they rely businesses to do their work for them. 2. SCO is wasting other businesses' money in a floundering economy. 3. Could Microsoft (didn't they buy SCO, or some part of it, recently?) have another antitrust violation under its belt?
While there may be no legal recourse for these dirty, money-wasting tactics, there are "nonlegal pressures" the community may resort to (and probably ethically could).
he probably got fired for being an immature, passive-aggressive annoyance.