Depends what you mean by sexual maturity. Mid-late 19th Century the age of consent in England and Wales was 13 (could have been 14, I don't have the text handy) but the average age of puberty was around 15-16 due to the diet being less than it is today. Even today in some Middle Eastern countries, a girl may be married once she has had her first menstruation. That can generally happen from about the age of 10 (earlier in the West again due to improved diet). Sexual maturity is shifting sand. Even in the US, someone can be jailed for having sex with a 'minor' who he could legally marry in another state.
Actually, the OJ Simpson case is a good example of when the jury used forensic evidence properly. The jury was presented with lots of DNA evidence, blood stains, foot prints etc. When Mark Furman was asked if he planted evidence, he pleaded the fifth amendment. All forensic evidence is therefore suspect and cannot be given any weight. No matter whether you think he did it or not, the jury had no option but to acquit. CSI is a good show, but it's just that, a show. The photographic close ups are the best. I remember one where they had a photo of a girl, there was a blur in her eye which they managed to extrapolate into a picture of her killer, pin sharp. It just not feasible. I also love the nice sharp finger prints they take off wood, no hint of wood grain. A bit more realism would be nice.
The issue is trademark confusion. As has been pointed out, again and again, this is not about trademark. It is about an agreement that Apple Computers signed stating they would not get into the music business.
My two cents: Apple's gone out of their way to refer to the music store as the "iTunes Music Store" and to avoid putting their company name on it unless absolutely necessary. This is good from a legal sense, and doubtless will work in their favor when courtroom proceedings are taking place.
Probably not in this case. Whether they try to avoid using the name "Apple" is probably irrelevant, the agreement is with the company. They could have called it Orange iTunes, but the fact remains that Apple Computers are now, very firmly, in the music industry.
Having said that, the address of the website is www.apple.com/itunes, the page name is Apple - iTunes, and it redirects from applemusic.com.
He has already used his anti-force squirrels (I forget what they are called) on Lucas. That was why he went over to the Dark Side and made The Phantom Mince and Attack of the Clowns.
Whoa Tiger. Using just the images or just the sound may be a breach of copyright. Yes, there are exceptions, notably parody, but it is a big grey area. You may like to have the tv on with the sound down, but broadcasting like that is a different matter. At the moment this flies under the radar but if it takes off they may need to watch out for law suits. Not that I agree with that, just pointing out that it may happen.
Modern communication. Most "artists" prior to around 1700 were paid by patrons. Da Vinci, Michaelangelo etc were paid employees or worked on commission. Their work was for members of an elite ruling class, such as the Medicis, or the Pope, or a king. Their work was not generally distributed to the public. Their work was reproducable but only with someone with a great deal of time and skill. Plus with a powerful patron, copying was risky, much as it is today with corporations. Music is simple, 300 years ago all music was live. Musicians were paid for a performance, there and then. There was no recording. Now any work can be freely replicated in ways never dreamed of 300 years ago. If Henry Smith wrote a song in 1700, the impact to him of someone taking that song and selling it in another country would be minimal. If someone started selling it in the same area he would know about it very quickly and be able to take action. In fact, many songwriters sold songs to printers who then sold copies to gypsies who in turn sold them all over the country (sound familiar?) I write in my spare time. Whether or not I get paid will not deter me from writing. However, if I write something which sells and makes money, why should I be unable to make money from this endeavour? Will I write better if I get paid? Probably not. If there was no money in it I know there would be very few publishers. Without someone to distribute work, I feel that society would be worse off. Having said that, I don't want copyright extended. 50 years seems like a long enough time to me anyway.
Never let logic get in the way of your argument. As I mentioned, illegal distribution is what copyright protects you from. Your initial assertion that only distributed work is copyrighted is wrong. From the US Patent office "Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work" (emphasis theirs, not mine) You just don't get it do you? Copyright protects from illegal distribution. In your mind this means only distributed works are copyrighted. To give you an example, I write a book about Harry Knackerbags, spy extraordinaire. I never publish it but show it to my friend. He then writes another Harry Knackerbags book, but does not publish. He is in breach of copyright whether he distributes or not, however, I am unlikely to take legal action because he has not made money out of it, but that doesn't stop me from doing so (plus the damages are likely to be insufficient to cover my legal bill). He has created a derivative work, which is illegal.
Being distributed has sod all to do with gaining or breaching copyright, but is linked because copyright grants you the exclusive right to distribute your work. Not exactly a subtle distinction, but you didn't get it.
The article says that Gonze thinks his site is legal because it transmits urls rather than files. A news feed is copyright, audio and visual and altering a copyrighted work is grounds for legal action (and TV companies tend to be litigious). IANAL but this seems like very shaky ground.
Read the links. They expressly state that all work that is fixed is copyrighted. I take it English isn't your first language?
As another example, I write a book and show it to my friend. He then miraculously produces the same book and gets it published. My copyright has been breached and I have not distributed my work. It is still protected. You are confusing distribution of copyrighted works and illegal distribution. All works are protected, whether distributed or not, from illegal distribution.
Well, there is one reason: By maintaining a limited and temporary artificial scarcity we can encourage the production of more ideas that will become available for all of society to use. But that bargain only makes sense if it eventually *does* become available for all of society. Otherwise, why shouldn't we just allow nature to take its course? And a bloody good reason it is too. If we allow nature to take its course you stifle creativity. Artists will still paint, poets and authors will style write, it's not like any but a few get paid much anyway, but distribution is an issue. No-one would publish. Why would you when your competitors can read your work, copy it and print it without having to pay the creator, pay an editor, pay a proofreader, pay an artist to design the cover, pay advertisers to get the word about your book out. Creative endeavour is truly a benefit to society, Copyright exists to ensure that its creator is able to receive benefit from that creation too. What has happened is that the copyright owner and the creator are too often not the same person. The rights of the distributor are now seen as more important than the rights of the creator. 50 years seems a very generous time to benefit from an idea and allows for the fact that some create works early in life (like most musicians) and some create works later in life (like most authors) and balance with the need to allow distributors to be able to make some money too (otherwise they wouldn't do it). Anything longer than 50 years seems like stretching the friendship.
Wrong. Copyright protects any created work whether distributed or not. If I write a book and send it to a publisher who then publishes it without my permission they are breaching my copyright. I have not "distributed" my work but it is still protected. As soon as it it is "fixed" ie written down, it is protected by copyright. UK Patent Office
Stopping monopolies is not what this is about. This lawsuit is about stopping the abuse of monopoly position to gain leverage in other markets. The EU Commission regularly combats European companies, in fact Microsoft is the only non-European company to be sanctioned in 2004 (so far).
The Commisson is not going to "call their bluff and declare a ban". For one thing, banning a product helps no-one, neither the company nor the consumers. I think that what is likely to have happened is that MS have gone to the Commission with half-arsed remedies without fully understanding what the commission is considering. If I want to fine you a million euros, and you come to me offering to pay a hundred, I am not going to want to talk. If you offer 750 thousand, I will be more willing to look at it. I would bet that MS offered to unbundle WMP from OEM machines, but the commission is probably thinking more along the lines of removing WMP from all distros and cutting the price to suit this and also having a hefty great fine, maybe even opening up a load of APIs as well. Makes MS's offer look pretty stupid.
I read the article and thought, we know, we're nerds and fanboys. Maybe tomorrow we'll get a story posted about how some people have sort of online diaries that other people read and sometimes attract loads of readers, or that recently some dirty pictures have started appearing on the "Information Super Highway".
Interestingly, one of the reasons why Australia is not trying very hard to get Australian national held at Guantanamo released is that they will be unable to charge them with anything under Australian law. The law was changed but can't be retrospectively applied. The current Australian government is unlikely to be too bothered about Griffith to warrant protecting him to the detriment of their relationship with the US.
Dead right. The US does not want its citizens to be tried in a court without a jury, but is quote happy to subject everyone else's citizens to military tribunal without jury, appeal, etc etc. And Article 98 is only being forced on countries who depend on the US for aid. First World countries such as European countries are not required to sign. The words "double" and "standard" spring to mind.
I will be voting in my first Australian election probably later this year (just getting citizenship). We have compulsory voting and Preferential Votes. But, we also have different methods for the 2 Houses. Lower House - up to about 12 candidates. Number each one in order of preference, 1 to your favourite, 2 to the next etc Upper House - up to about 200 candidates. Either mark 1 in a box above the line (just the party name) or number every box below the line in order of preference. Now this sheet is about A1 size (for Americans that is about the size of a single bed sheet) so this takes time and gets really tedious. This stops similar candidates splitting the votes as you get voter run off as each lowest candidate is eliminated, but it also leads to lots of secret preference deals with minor parties. The thing about compulsory voting is that I am really split over it. I know it is my democratic right not to vote, yet I also know that making people vote gives you a much better outcome as everyone is represented. Having also voted in the UK I can tell you that the Australian system seems really complex in comparison to the UK system, but part of me tells me that in many ways it is better.
"Twinkle twinkle little vote, Are you what I really wrote? Down inside the Diebold booth Do you really tell the truth? Twinkle twinkle little vote Are you what I really wrote?"
or
"Hickory Dickory Dole The voters went to the poll The button said D but meant GOP Hickory Dickory Dole"
or
"See Saw, Marjory Daw, Jonny will have a new Master, He shall vote for the one that they want Because "Diebold is committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year""
or
"Three blind mice Three blind mice They all tried voting for policy change But something went wrong and it got rearranged And no-one could check that the outcome was strange for three blind mice"
This was brought to you by the letters G, W and the number 666.
According to the article "Among their surprises: all of Maryland's machines had two identical locks, which could be opened by any one of 32,000 keys or be easily picked."
Now, there are about 42,000 Democrats and about 52,500 Republicans in Maryland. If voter turnout is similar to the last 2 primaries, about 35% (source: Maryland Gazette http://www.gazette.net/200409/frederickcty/state/2 04353-1.html) will vote, reducing this to about 33,000 voters. That means that Diebold had enough keys floating around to give one to nearly everyone voting in the primary. Now I know that these numbers are nowhere near accurate but they do help to demonstrate that Diebold voting machines are less secure than my niece's lockable diary, and that's not getting into the technical side of things.
In simple terms, no. In not so simple terms, no. Would you allow car manufacturers to offer cars that were cheaper but lacked basic safety features such as seat belts? Would you like to be able to buy cheaper houses that used unshielded wires? Every industry has standards there to define what we expect from the service/goods. VOIP is a telephony service regardless of the technology. Why should VOIP be different? I agree that technologically it is going to be difficult to implement, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to comply with industry standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks remarkably similar in content to:3 1&tid=97&tid=99
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/15/22392
and just 6 days later.
Depends what you mean by sexual maturity. Mid-late 19th Century the age of consent in England and Wales was 13 (could have been 14, I don't have the text handy) but the average age of puberty was around 15-16 due to the diet being less than it is today.
Even today in some Middle Eastern countries, a girl may be married once she has had her first menstruation. That can generally happen from about the age of 10 (earlier in the West again due to improved diet).
Sexual maturity is shifting sand. Even in the US, someone can be jailed for having sex with a 'minor' who he could legally marry in another state.
Actually, the OJ Simpson case is a good example of when the jury used forensic evidence properly. The jury was presented with lots of DNA evidence, blood stains, foot prints etc. When Mark Furman was asked if he planted evidence, he pleaded the fifth amendment. All forensic evidence is therefore suspect and cannot be given any weight. No matter whether you think he did it or not, the jury had no option but to acquit.
CSI is a good show, but it's just that, a show. The photographic close ups are the best. I remember one where they had a photo of a girl, there was a blur in her eye which they managed to extrapolate into a picture of her killer, pin sharp. It just not feasible.
I also love the nice sharp finger prints they take off wood, no hint of wood grain.
A bit more realism would be nice.
The issue is trademark confusion.
As has been pointed out, again and again, this is not about trademark. It is about an agreement that Apple Computers signed stating they would not get into the music business.
My two cents: Apple's gone out of their way to refer to the music store as the "iTunes Music Store" and to avoid putting their company name on it unless absolutely necessary. This is good from a legal sense, and doubtless will work in their favor when courtroom proceedings are taking place.
Probably not in this case. Whether they try to avoid using the name "Apple" is probably irrelevant, the agreement is with the company. They could have called it Orange iTunes, but the fact remains that Apple Computers are now, very firmly, in the music industry.
Having said that, the address of the website is www.apple.com/itunes, the page name is Apple - iTunes, and it redirects from applemusic.com.
He has already used his anti-force squirrels (I forget what they are called) on Lucas. That was why he went over to the Dark Side and made The Phantom Mince and Attack of the Clowns.
That would be sweatlodges, eh.
Whoa Tiger. Using just the images or just the sound may be a breach of copyright. Yes, there are exceptions, notably parody, but it is a big grey area. You may like to have the tv on with the sound down, but broadcasting like that is a different matter. At the moment this flies under the radar but if it takes off they may need to watch out for law suits. Not that I agree with that, just pointing out that it may happen.
Modern communication. Most "artists" prior to around 1700 were paid by patrons. Da Vinci, Michaelangelo etc were paid employees or worked on commission. Their work was for members of an elite ruling class, such as the Medicis, or the Pope, or a king. Their work was not generally distributed to the public. Their work was reproducable but only with someone with a great deal of time and skill. Plus with a powerful patron, copying was risky, much as it is today with corporations.
Music is simple, 300 years ago all music was live. Musicians were paid for a performance, there and then. There was no recording.
Now any work can be freely replicated in ways never dreamed of 300 years ago. If Henry Smith wrote a song in 1700, the impact to him of someone taking that song and selling it in another country would be minimal. If someone started selling it in the same area he would know about it very quickly and be able to take action. In fact, many songwriters sold songs to printers who then sold copies to gypsies who in turn sold them all over the country (sound familiar?)
I write in my spare time. Whether or not I get paid will not deter me from writing. However, if I write something which sells and makes money, why should I be unable to make money from this endeavour? Will I write better if I get paid? Probably not. If there was no money in it I know there would be very few publishers. Without someone to distribute work, I feel that society would be worse off. Having said that, I don't want copyright extended. 50 years seems like a long enough time to me anyway.
Never let logic get in the way of your argument. As I mentioned, illegal distribution is what copyright protects you from. Your initial assertion that only distributed work is copyrighted is wrong. From the US Patent office "Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work" (emphasis theirs, not mine)
You just don't get it do you? Copyright protects from illegal distribution. In your mind this means only distributed works are copyrighted.
To give you an example, I write a book about Harry Knackerbags, spy extraordinaire. I never publish it but show it to my friend. He then writes another Harry Knackerbags book, but does not publish. He is in breach of copyright whether he distributes or not, however, I am unlikely to take legal action because he has not made money out of it, but that doesn't stop me from doing so (plus the damages are likely to be insufficient to cover my legal bill). He has created a derivative work, which is illegal.
Being distributed has sod all to do with gaining or breaching copyright, but is linked because copyright grants you the exclusive right to distribute your work. Not exactly a subtle distinction, but you didn't get it.
The article says that Gonze thinks his site is legal because it transmits urls rather than files. A news feed is copyright, audio and visual and altering a copyrighted work is grounds for legal action (and TV companies tend to be litigious). IANAL but this seems like very shaky ground.
Read the links. They expressly state that all work that is fixed is copyrighted. I take it English isn't your first language?
As another example, I write a book and show it to my friend. He then miraculously produces the same book and gets it published. My copyright has been breached and I have not distributed my work. It is still protected. You are confusing distribution of copyrighted works and illegal distribution. All works are protected, whether distributed or not, from illegal distribution.
Well, there is one reason: By maintaining a limited and temporary artificial scarcity we can encourage the production of more ideas that will become available for all of society to use. But that bargain only makes sense if it eventually *does* become available for all of society. Otherwise, why shouldn't we just allow nature to take its course?
And a bloody good reason it is too. If we allow nature to take its course you stifle creativity. Artists will still paint, poets and authors will style write, it's not like any but a few get paid much anyway, but distribution is an issue. No-one would publish. Why would you when your competitors can read your work, copy it and print it without having to pay the creator, pay an editor, pay a proofreader, pay an artist to design the cover, pay advertisers to get the word about your book out.
Creative endeavour is truly a benefit to society, Copyright exists to ensure that its creator is able to receive benefit from that creation too. What has happened is that the copyright owner and the creator are too often not the same person. The rights of the distributor are now seen as more important than the rights of the creator. 50 years seems a very generous time to benefit from an idea and allows for the fact that some create works early in life (like most musicians) and some create works later in life (like most authors) and balance with the need to allow distributors to be able to make some money too (otherwise they wouldn't do it). Anything longer than 50 years seems like stretching the friendship.
Copyright only protects work that is distributed
*BBBZZZZZZZZT*
Wrong. Copyright protects any created work whether distributed or not. If I write a book and send it to a publisher who then publishes it without my permission they are breaching my copyright. I have not "distributed" my work but it is still protected. As soon as it it is "fixed" ie written down, it is protected by copyright.
UK Patent Office
US Patent Office
Ideaflood have already patented their asses, and enjoy having them infringed regularly.
Did you realise that you could register a similar domain in the Cook Islands and have kiss.my.co.ck?
Stopping monopolies is not what this is about. This lawsuit is about stopping the abuse of monopoly position to gain leverage in other markets.
The EU Commission regularly combats European companies, in fact Microsoft is the only non-European company to be sanctioned in 2004 (so far).
The Commisson is not going to "call their bluff and declare a ban". For one thing, banning a product helps no-one, neither the company nor the consumers.
I think that what is likely to have happened is that MS have gone to the Commission with half-arsed remedies without fully understanding what the commission is considering. If I want to fine you a million euros, and you come to me offering to pay a hundred, I am not going to want to talk. If you offer 750 thousand, I will be more willing to look at it. I would bet that MS offered to unbundle WMP from OEM machines, but the commission is probably thinking more along the lines of removing WMP from all distros and cutting the price to suit this and also having a hefty great fine, maybe even opening up a load of APIs as well. Makes MS's offer look pretty stupid.
I read the article and thought, we know, we're nerds and fanboys. Maybe tomorrow we'll get a story posted about how some people have sort of online diaries that other people read and sometimes attract loads of readers, or that recently some dirty pictures have started appearing on the "Information Super Highway".
Interestingly, one of the reasons why Australia is not trying very hard to get Australian national held at Guantanamo released is that they will be unable to charge them with anything under Australian law. The law was changed but can't be retrospectively applied. The current Australian government is unlikely to be too bothered about Griffith to warrant protecting him to the detriment of their relationship with the US.
Dead right. The US does not want its citizens to be tried in a court without a jury, but is quote happy to subject everyone else's citizens to military tribunal without jury, appeal, etc etc. And Article 98 is only being forced on countries who depend on the US for aid. First World countries such as European countries are not required to sign. The words "double" and "standard" spring to mind.
I will be voting in my first Australian election probably later this year (just getting citizenship). We have compulsory voting and Preferential Votes. But, we also have different methods for the 2 Houses.
Lower House - up to about 12 candidates. Number each one in order of preference, 1 to your favourite, 2 to the next etc
Upper House - up to about 200 candidates. Either mark 1 in a box above the line (just the party name) or number every box below the line in order of preference. Now this sheet is about A1 size (for Americans that is about the size of a single bed sheet) so this takes time and gets really tedious.
This stops similar candidates splitting the votes as you get voter run off as each lowest candidate is eliminated, but it also leads to lots of secret preference deals with minor parties.
The thing about compulsory voting is that I am really split over it. I know it is my democratic right not to vote, yet I also know that making people vote gives you a much better outcome as everyone is represented.
Having also voted in the UK I can tell you that the Australian system seems really complex in comparison to the UK system, but part of me tells me that in many ways it is better.
How about
"Twinkle twinkle little vote,
Are you what I really wrote?
Down inside the Diebold booth
Do you really tell the truth?
Twinkle twinkle little vote
Are you what I really wrote?"
or
"Hickory Dickory Dole
The voters went to the poll
The button said D
but meant GOP
Hickory Dickory Dole"
or
"See Saw, Marjory Daw,
Jonny will have a new Master,
He shall vote for the one that they want
Because "Diebold is committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next
year""
or
"Three blind mice
Three blind mice
They all tried voting for policy change
But something went wrong and it got rearranged
And no-one could check that the outcome was strange
for three blind mice"
This was brought to you by the letters G, W and the number 666.
According to the article "Among their surprises: all of Maryland's machines had two identical locks, which could be opened by any one of 32,000 keys or be easily picked."
2 04353-1.html) will vote, reducing this to about 33,000 voters. That means that Diebold had enough keys floating around to give one to nearly everyone voting in the primary.
Now, there are about 42,000 Democrats and about 52,500 Republicans in Maryland. If voter turnout is similar to the last 2 primaries, about 35% (source: Maryland Gazette http://www.gazette.net/200409/frederickcty/state/
Now I know that these numbers are nowhere near accurate but they do help to demonstrate that Diebold voting machines are less secure than my niece's lockable diary, and that's not getting into the technical side of things.
selling (or even just giving) a burned DVD of Star Wars should be illegal
I agree, and if that DVD is Attack of the Clones or Phantom Menace, selling any DVD of it should be illegal.
In simple terms, no. In not so simple terms, no. Would you allow car manufacturers to offer cars that were cheaper but lacked basic safety features such as seat belts? Would you like to be able to buy cheaper houses that used unshielded wires?
Every industry has standards there to define what we expect from the service/goods. VOIP is a telephony service regardless of the technology. Why should VOIP be different? I agree that technologically it is going to be difficult to implement, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to comply with industry standards.