The current civil penalties for copyright infringement in the US are not just the value of the work: 17 U.S.C. 504. Remedies for infringement . . . (c) Statutory Damages.-- (1) . . . the copyright owner may elect . . . to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action . . . in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. . .. (2) . . . where . . . the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000 . ..
[Insert here a long, tired speech about the differences between copyright infringement and theft.] Nevertheless, all penalties for stealing something are far in excess of the value of the goods. Otherwise, every shopper would walk out of every grocery store without paying every time. Why pay first when you can safely wait until after the seller complains?
If the taking first and only paying when forced to do so is allowed to be equally cheap with paying first, then there would be no incentive to pay first whatsoever. Such a low-balling of the damages is no less silly than the high-balling that RIAA does.
a. Obviously, game companies prefer no backwards compatibility so that they can sell more games.
b. However, users may balk if they can't play their library on the new hardware. The new hardware performs better than the old, has the new controllers, etc. By giving them their backwards compatibility, you can get some of the reluctant users to switch to the new system faster. Once they switch, every game they buy will be a new one.
How did the grandparent ever get modded up? What a silly complaint! The author of TFA wanted to present the historical research on the precursors to the PDA. He simply stopped at the beginning of the modern era. Nothing wrong with that.
Besides, covering PDAs from 1995 to present would take more than 10000 words all by itself. Here's hoping he tries it, though.
All Macrovision cares about is that if it becomes possible, THEY'LL be the ones doing it.
Why does a FOSS organization not pursue this as a tactic? Suppose it patents every software idea in sight. Then, it has two choices (a) dedicate the resulting patents to the public or (b) enforce the patents to prevent anyone doing malicious things like this.
The GPL is venerated for taking copyright and turning it against proprietary software. Software patents are even more amenable to being used defensively.
The GPL is a tool used to enforce free software in a world where copyright exists. Eliminating copyright on software eliminates at least part of the need for the GPL. (Though the I'll-share-mine if you-share-yours trade off is, admittedly, lost.)
No one may patent something they did not, in fact, invent. The presence or abscense of copyright has no effect on this.
It is true that if copyright on software were abolished, then anyone could copy anything into their projects (closed or not). The only exception would be those few functions that some one bothered to patent.
. . . copyright protection for any published work and lasts a maximum of 25 years from the date of publication. If an individual or business entity wishes to hold on to the copyright after that period then they have to pay a yearly tax for that privilege.
This is a very good idea. I'd call it a "fee" rather than the pejorative "tax". As you probably know, patents have something similar. U.S. Patents can last up to 20 years, but must pay fees every 4 years, which get progressively bigger.
The idea behind returning to some registration-based system is that (a) things the author thought important and worth bothering to register would be protected but (b) things the author didn't care about or have a use for would flow quickly to the public domain where some one else might find something good to do with them.
This eliminates copyright-by-accident or copyright-by-default, where all created material gets locked up for 100 years even if its unused and unwanted. Of course, there _are_ downsides. Condsider, for instance, musicians who only perform their works . . .
8. Works that go out of print for 1 year are abandoned and anyone may reprint them until the copyright holder resumes publication. If 10 years pass from the time the copyright holder stops publication, the work becomes permanently public domain. In any event, the copyright holder is not entitled to sales during periods of lapse.
7. Anything you do to a legally acquired copy of a work is OK (e.g. stripping the protection, backing up, resequencing a DVD to remove parts you don't like), but making more copies is not.
6. All copyrights revert to their individual (human) owners when their durations have half expired. No contract trying to evade this reversion is enforceable.
Slashdot Mirror
The current civil penalties for copyright infringement in the US are not just the value of the work: . .
17 U.S.C. 504. Remedies for infringement . . . (c) Statutory Damages.--
(1) . . . the copyright owner may elect . . . to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action . . . in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. . .
(2) . . . where . . . the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000 . .
The criminal penalties are on top of that (17 U.S.C. 506 and 18 U.S.C. 2319).
Yahoo is not selling DRM-free tracks. It says nothing about the value of ripped music that Yahoo is renting crippled music for $5.
[Insert here a long, tired speech about the differences between copyright infringement and theft.] Nevertheless, all penalties for stealing something are far in excess of the value of the goods. Otherwise, every shopper would walk out of every grocery store without paying every time. Why pay first when you can safely wait until after the seller complains?
If the taking first and only paying when forced to do so is allowed to be equally cheap with paying first, then there would be no incentive to pay first whatsoever. Such a low-balling of the damages is no less silly than the high-balling that RIAA does.
Do people really drive around in a ton of metal and not know in advance how it operates when bad things happen to it?
Yes, they do. They tested it, they would "hurt the car". They know this because their mothers told them so.
Who really cares if it's backward compatable?
a. Obviously, game companies prefer no backwards compatibility so that they can sell more games.
b. However, users may balk if they can't play their library on the new hardware. The new hardware performs better than the old, has the new controllers, etc. By giving them their backwards compatibility, you can get some of the reluctant users to switch to the new system faster. Once they switch, every game they buy will be a new one.
How did the grandparent ever get modded up? What a silly complaint! The author of TFA wanted to present the historical research on the precursors to the PDA. He simply stopped at the beginning of the modern era. Nothing wrong with that.
Besides, covering PDAs from 1995 to present would take more than 10000 words all by itself. Here's hoping he tries it, though.
All Macrovision cares about is that if it becomes possible, THEY'LL be the ones doing it.
Why does a FOSS organization not pursue this as a tactic? Suppose it patents every software idea in sight. Then, it has two choices (a) dedicate the resulting patents to the public or (b) enforce the patents to prevent anyone doing malicious things like this.
The GPL is venerated for taking copyright and turning it against proprietary software. Software patents are even more amenable to being used defensively.
Every time they find a new one, the things just keep getting smaller.
;-)
That'd be because the big ones, them being summat easier to spot as they are, have been found already.
Really? I thought they were going to be in the Steam Pipe Distribution Venue.
Oh, thank _cripes_ some one pointed that out!
. [/rant]
[rant] Gorram clueless reactionary loudmouth kneejerk fanboy conspiracy-mongering doomsayers . .
How about we introduce a concept of time?
No backup copy can be used while the original (or any other copy) is being used.
The GPL is a tool used to enforce free software in a world where copyright exists. Eliminating copyright on software eliminates at least part of the need for the GPL. (Though the I'll-share-mine if you-share-yours trade off is, admittedly, lost.)
No one may patent something they did not, in fact, invent. The presence or abscense of copyright has no effect on this.
It is true that if copyright on software were abolished, then anyone could copy anything into their projects (closed or not). The only exception would be those few functions that some one bothered to patent.
. . . copyright protection for any published work and lasts a maximum of 25 years from the date of publication. If an individual or business entity wishes to hold on to the copyright after that period then they have to pay a yearly tax for that privilege.
This is a very good idea. I'd call it a "fee" rather than the pejorative "tax". As you probably know, patents have something similar. U.S. Patents can last up to 20 years, but must pay fees every 4 years, which get progressively bigger.
The idea behind returning to some registration-based system is that (a) things the author thought important and worth bothering to register would be protected but (b) things the author didn't care about or have a use for would flow quickly to the public domain where some one else might find something good to do with them.
This eliminates copyright-by-accident or copyright-by-default, where all created material gets locked up for 100 years even if its unused and unwanted. Of course, there _are_ downsides. Condsider, for instance, musicians who only perform their works . . .
Proposed Amendment XXVIII: Congress shall pass no law exceeding in length the United States Constitution.
This business of attaching unrelated, unpalatable amendments to popular bills has got to end. Let there be a separate up or down vote on each item.
8. Works that go out of print for 1 year are abandoned and anyone may reprint them until the copyright holder resumes publication. If 10 years pass from the time the copyright holder stops publication, the work becomes permanently public domain. In any event, the copyright holder is not entitled to sales during periods of lapse.
7. Anything you do to a legally acquired copy of a work is OK (e.g. stripping the protection, backing up, resequencing a DVD to remove parts you don't like), but making more copies is not.
6. All copyrights revert to their individual (human) owners when their durations have half expired. No contract trying to evade this reversion is enforceable.
5. Let software be protected by patent only. Back-end code is no more a "creative work" than engine-block design.
(The immediate result of this will be that most software will not be protected at-all-against copying, since patents are expensive to acquired.)
4. The notion of "derivative works" is abolished. Only copying is prohibited. New creations are OK.
3. All copying of a work is permitted so long as absolutely no money is made as a result of it (including ad revenue).
(C'mon, this is what we really want, right?)
2. The duration of copyright on a work is set at the time it is first published. It may not be later extended.
1. Copyright must be applied for. If copyright is not applied for within 1 year of publication, the work is public domain.
At 42", 16:9, 1280x720, each pixel is 726 microns wide. If a nanotube is ~1nm wide . . .
Some one want to educate me on how nanotubes are used to form pixels? What step limits the dot pitch of pixels for displays using this technology?