That's complete bullshit. The citation I posted said that Hemingway retained copyright to his side of a conversation with an interviewer. It didn't say anything about the ownership of the recording device.
If I record a message on your machine, I retain copyright on it. You have fair use rights to quote from it, but there's no "implicit transfer of ownership". That's what my citation said. If you disagree, find one that supports your made up rules.
Look down to the "Copyright Infringement" section. It's about publishing private letters, but you're the one who's going to have to show that answering machine messages are treated differently than letters.
In summary, it says that it might be fair use to quote from a private letter, but the copyright in the letter stays with the author, not the recipient.
No, by the author. If you photocopy a book, you're the one making the copy, but that doesn't give you copyright in contents of the book. If you attend a free concert and record it, you don't get copyright in all the songs that were played. If you record what someone says to you, the copyright in their words stays with them.
If you put some authorship into the recording (e.g. by putting together a video), then you'll own copyright on the video as a whole, but you don't obtain copyright on everything shown in it.
The word is "cite", not "site". I have no idea of any court cases, but the US Copyright law in section 102 clearly states that sound recordings are copyrighted. The Berne Convention also includes sound recordings, although it's worded a little less clearly (or maybe I missed the clear bit). That covers most of the world.
I assume you're describing copying without permission, i.e. copyright infringement. Copying and giving away with permission is definitely sharing.
But I'm curious about who you think is suggesting that people should infringe copyright?
Or are you talking about Stallman's anti-software-patent position? Newly imposing software patents is the "theft"; it takes stuff that should be in the public domain, and gives the patent holder a monopoly on it.
I haven't seen the video, but the summary said it included photos taken from some web page, presumably without permission of the copyright holder. It also played a private message left by the Buckyball owner, again presumably without his permission.
Copyright in both photos and private messages remains with the creator by default, so there is a basis for a claim. It sounds from the summary that it was fair use, but apparently the copyright holder didn't think so, so it's not necessarily an abuse.
Of course, a much more sane protocol is "notice and notice", but we're not talking about a sane law here.
Since when is wanting to make a profit and stay in business greedy?
It is when the way to "stay in business" is to rely on taxpayer funded bailouts. This is the second major flight disruption in 10 years. Why don't airlines have their own insurance against this, if they are paragons of business sense? I don't owe the airlines a profit. If they get a bailout, they'll rely on bailouts always being available, i.e. they'll rely on *me* paying for their insurance.
This is where you are wrong. You have one fact. The fact that this drugs cures 1/3 of the people taking it in the tests.
No, it cured (not "cures") 1/3 of the patients taking it in the tests. The value of the additional studies is to learn whether this will happen in the real world too, and whether the long-term side effects don't outweigh the benefits.
I have talked with people who used to run an ad "service" company. To them, the customers are the people who pay for the ads. The people who go to the Web pages are not considered customers at all, but visitors/useful idiots at best, leeches and pirates at worst.
No wonder they're no longer in that business. They missed the whole point. The people who go to the Web pages are the *product* they're selling to the advertisers.
Also, it only works because the protocol allows the terminal to decide whether to use PIN verification or not. The card, which has never seen a verification request in this attack, will happily believe that the terminal never asked for it, and so will the issuing bank at the other end.
I think you got the last part wrong. The terminal asks for a PIN, the MITM fakes a no-PIN request, the card complies, the MITM tells the terminal "PIN verified", and the issuing bank believes a PIN was asked for and verified.
It requires possession of the card and some fancy equipment to intercept the communications between the terminal and the card; in the video, most of the equipment was up the sleeve of the researcher, and he inserted a fake card into the reader.
And Slashdot readers continue their 100% perfect record of not questioning the summary if it says something bad about someone they don't like.
The actual claim on Flickr doesn't mention copyright at all. It says
"This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. "
In fewer words:
- We made this available for particular purposes.
- You may not manipulate it.
- It may not be used in a way that suggests endorsement.
The second claim is wrong, because there's no basis for it, but the other two look correct. But there's no mention of copyright anywhere.
I remember a full page photo from one that I've tried to look up since, so far unsuccessfully. It was herons or swans or some other large birds in Japan in the winter, huddling in the snow.
In my memory it's a great image; the reality might be disappointing, but if anyone knows which issue it was in, I'd like to try to look it up.
I've no idea about PHP, but the usual problem with interpreted languages is that their model of the computer is too high level to be a good match to the hardware. To compile to fast code, the operations being performed need to map predictably to machine instructions. If the same a+b line could, depending on what preceded it, mean adding integers, adding floating point values, or concatenating strings, then it's not going to compile to anything as fast as a statically typed language where it might be one or two machine instructions.
The GPL doesn't talk about user rights, it's about redistribution rights. So if you bought the TV on the understanding that you could modify and redistribute the software on it without following the GPL, then you've probably got a right to complain to whoever told you that. But that's not normally how TVs are sold, so I think you're stuck with it.
You could try reading the summary next time. His proposal was for one flight, not 18000. I imagine his plan is still impractical for lots of reasons (you probably can't get enough impulse from each piece to approach the next one at a low enough speed, etc.), but it's still not as bad as your suggestion of 18000 manned space flights.
The ideal system you describe would be reasonable, but it's not the American system. Personally I'd prefer the Canadian system even to your ideal system, and your idealized Canadian system (with fully legitimate music sharing) would be even better.
If your country were Canada, it would already be your right to copy the music of anybody who'll let you. Right now you'd be paying extra for CDRs to compensate the copyright holders, but you'd be able to copy the music onto your iPod for free. The copyright collective wants you to pay for the iPod copying as well.
The levy doesn't only allow you to copy music you already paid for. It is the way you pay for music that you haven't purchased, you've just copied for your own use.
Should we adopt an American system where unauthorized copying is illegal, and you can be fined huge amounts for doing it? I don't think so.
And yet they can still nail you to the wall for it, and extort $20,000 per song out of you.
$20,000 is the upper limit for statutory damages for copyright infringement, but nobody is fined anything for private use, because in Canada that's legal. The CPCC says that file sharing is illegal, but nobody has been fined for that, either, and I'd guess that it's perfectly legal in Canada. After all, if copying something for my use is legal, how could it be illegal to lend me the mp3 to copy?
Slashdot Mirror
Nice try, troll.
I used yours.
That's complete bullshit. The citation I posted said that Hemingway retained copyright to his side of a conversation with an interviewer. It didn't say anything about the ownership of the recording device.
If I record a message on your machine, I retain copyright on it. You have fair use rights to quote from it, but there's no "implicit transfer of ownership". That's what my citation said. If you disagree, find one that supports your made up rules.
Citation, please.
Here's a citation:
http://www.publaw.com/biography.html
Look down to the "Copyright Infringement" section. It's about publishing private letters, but you're the one who's going to have to show that answering machine messages are treated differently than letters.
In summary, it says that it might be fair use to quote from a private letter, but the copyright in the letter stays with the author, not the recipient.
No, by the author. If you photocopy a book, you're the one making the copy, but that doesn't give you copyright in contents of the book. If you attend a free concert and record it, you don't get copyright in all the songs that were played. If you record what someone says to you, the copyright in their words stays with them.
If you put some authorship into the recording (e.g. by putting together a video), then you'll own copyright on the video as a whole, but you don't obtain copyright on everything shown in it.
The word is "cite", not "site". I have no idea of any court cases, but the US Copyright law in section 102 clearly states that sound recordings are copyrighted. The Berne Convention also includes sound recordings, although it's worded a little less clearly (or maybe I missed the clear bit). That covers most of the world.
I assume you're describing copying without permission, i.e. copyright infringement. Copying and giving away with permission is definitely sharing.
But I'm curious about who you think is suggesting that people should infringe copyright?
Or are you talking about Stallman's anti-software-patent position? Newly imposing software patents is the "theft"; it takes stuff that should be in the public domain, and gives the patent holder a monopoly on it.
I haven't seen the video, but the summary said it included photos taken from some web page, presumably without permission of the copyright holder. It also played a private message left by the Buckyball owner, again presumably without his permission.
Copyright in both photos and private messages remains with the creator by default, so there is a basis for a claim. It sounds from the summary that it was fair use, but apparently the copyright holder didn't think so, so it's not necessarily an abuse.
Of course, a much more sane protocol is "notice and notice", but we're not talking about a sane law here.
Of course the authors benefit from it: it enforces their copyright. A monopoly is a good thing to have.
Since when is wanting to make a profit and stay in business greedy?
It is when the way to "stay in business" is to rely on taxpayer funded bailouts. This is the second major flight disruption in 10 years. Why don't airlines have their own insurance against this, if they are paragons of business sense? I don't owe the airlines a profit. If they get a bailout, they'll rely on bailouts always being available, i.e. they'll rely on *me* paying for their insurance.
This is where you are wrong. You have one fact. The fact that this drugs cures 1/3 of the people taking it in the tests.
No, it cured (not "cures") 1/3 of the patients taking it in the tests. The value of the additional studies is to learn whether this will happen in the real world too, and whether the long-term side effects don't outweigh the benefits.
I have talked with people who used to run an ad "service" company. To them, the customers are the people who pay for the ads. The people who go to the Web pages are not considered customers at all, but visitors/useful idiots at best, leeches and pirates at worst.
No wonder they're no longer in that business. They missed the whole point. The people who go to the Web pages are the *product* they're selling to the advertisers.
Also, it only works because the protocol allows the terminal to decide whether to use PIN verification or not. The card, which has never seen a verification request in this attack, will happily believe that the terminal never asked for it, and so will the issuing bank at the other end.
I think you got the last part wrong. The terminal asks for a PIN, the MITM fakes a no-PIN request, the card complies, the MITM tells the terminal "PIN verified", and the issuing bank believes a PIN was asked for and verified.
It requires possession of the card and some fancy equipment to intercept the communications between the terminal and the card; in the video, most of the equipment was up the sleeve of the researcher, and he inserted a fake card into the reader.
if the feds aren't making a copyright claim, then on what other basis can they limit usage of the photos?
There are a million other laws besides the copyright law that also don't apply. How do you expect me to pick one?
And Slashdot readers continue their 100% perfect record of not questioning the summary if it says something bad about someone they don't like.
The actual claim on Flickr doesn't mention copyright at all. It says
"This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. "
In fewer words:
- We made this available for particular purposes.
- You may not manipulate it.
- It may not be used in a way that suggests endorsement.
The second claim is wrong, because there's no basis for it, but the other two look correct. But there's no mention of copyright anywhere.
I remember a full page photo from one that I've tried to look up since, so far unsuccessfully. It was herons or swans or some other large birds in Japan in the winter, huddling in the snow.
In my memory it's a great image; the reality might be disappointing, but if anyone knows which issue it was in, I'd like to try to look it up.
I've no idea about PHP, but the usual problem with interpreted languages is that their model of the computer is too high level to be a good match to the hardware. To compile to fast code, the operations being performed need to map predictably to machine instructions. If the same a+b line could, depending on what preceded it, mean adding integers, adding floating point values, or concatenating strings, then it's not going to compile to anything as fast as a statically typed language where it might be one or two machine instructions.
The GPL doesn't talk about user rights, it's about redistribution rights. So if you bought the TV on the understanding that you could modify and redistribute the software on it without following the GPL, then you've probably got a right to complain to whoever told you that. But that's not normally how TVs are sold, so I think you're stuck with it.
You could try reading the summary next time. His proposal was for one flight, not 18000. I imagine his plan is still impractical for lots of reasons (you probably can't get enough impulse from each piece to approach the next one at a low enough speed, etc.), but it's still not as bad as your suggestion of 18000 manned space flights.
> Canada has a conservative government after all.
It must, because no liberal has ever told a lie in the entire history of the world
There is other evidence that the government is conservative, we don't need to rely on the fact that they lie to know that.
The ideal system you describe would be reasonable, but it's not the American system. Personally I'd prefer the Canadian system even to your ideal system, and your idealized Canadian system (with fully legitimate music sharing) would be even better.
If your country were Canada, it would already be your right to copy the music of anybody who'll let you. Right now you'd be paying extra for CDRs to compensate the copyright holders, but you'd be able to copy the music onto your iPod for free. The copyright collective wants you to pay for the iPod copying as well.
The levy doesn't only allow you to copy music you already paid for. It is the way you pay for music that you haven't purchased, you've just copied for your own use.
Should we adopt an American system where unauthorized copying is illegal, and you can be fined huge amounts for doing it? I don't think so.
The CPCC is the Canadian Private Copying Collective. It's not a private corporation, it's a non-profit agency.
And yet they can still nail you to the wall for it, and extort $20,000 per song out of you.
$20,000 is the upper limit for statutory damages for copyright infringement, but nobody is fined anything for private use, because in Canada that's legal. The CPCC says that file sharing is illegal, but nobody has been fined for that, either, and I'd guess that it's perfectly legal in Canada. After all, if copying something for my use is legal, how could it be illegal to lend me the mp3 to copy?