Your salary is for a 40-hour week. If they want more than that they can pay you overtime or give you time in lieu. If not, you are entitled to refuse to work the extra hours. You do not have to quit and they cannot fire you for simply doing your job.
Or at least that's the way it should be and the way it is in most of the western world. But in Soviet Russia - er, sorry I mean corporatist America - the system screw you.
I couldn't agree with you more. Condensing Tolkien would definitely rob his writing of his beauty. But it's not just that - the books have a thematic balance between good and evil. While the films have done a good job, IMHO they have one significant flaw: By focusing on the action and stripping out characters like Tom Bombadil who drive theme but not plot, the movies lost the thematic balance between good and evil.
PS What do you mean 'I hope this is fair use'? Hansel and Gretel is not protected by copyright - think about it! H&G was a folk tale told in the oral tradition and collected (but not invented) by the Grimm brothers, so they did not own it. And even if the Grimm brothers had written it, they lived before copyright law existed. And even if copyright law had existed at the time, any protection would have long since expired.
... And besides if he's keeping it a secret, by definition he _can't_ have filed a patent. Patents were originally created to encourage people to make the design of their inventions public. You can hold exclusive rights over your invention forever if you keep the design a secret. But if the secret leaks out, you're screwed. On the other hand, if you make the design public through the patent process, the government will enforce your exclusive rights for you for a set period of time.
How the f*** did this get modded up to five as insightful?! Have the modders actually read the article? It was very interesting, very readable and far from whining. She was very positive about the female characters in many of the games she discusses - including the DOA Beach Volleyball girls. She also had some criticisms. But instead of responding to her arguments,/. readers have chosen to disparage her as a raving loony feminist. Get real, guys.
Even if there were no female game players (and there are) it's still desirable to have an interesting and diverse array of characters. It's not just a matter of not buying something - society has a greater good and we're entitled to discuss the issues. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having a bit of fun but it's good to have healthy debate.
Of course the US should be paying for reconstruction because the US is doing the damage. If I break a window in a neighbour's house, I pay to replace the window; it doesn't matter if they're a millionaire.
The original post may or may not be bogus but in response to the comment about the 6 year old doing the assignment, I believe this falls under the exemption of fair use.
Copyright does not imply a blanket ban. You're allowed to quote passages or discuss work and you're allowed to photocopy 10pc of a book. You're supposed to attribute it correctly and you can't copy the entire thing but you can do an awful lot.
You can also draw on other (copyright) literary work. I might be wrong but I believe Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway is still copyright but Michael Cunningham was entitled to use it as the basis for The Hours. This is why it's bogus for George Lucas to sue people for doing Star Wars reinterpretations. I think if it actually got to court and the defendant had a good lawyer, Lucas would lose. It's just he's got so much money no one fights him.
Quite right! It's not freemarket capitalism at all; it's old fashioned protectionism.
I'm not against copyright and patents in a limited form but I'm completely opposed to the ludicrous extensions we get so regularly. It's a complete distortion of the market and the original intention of the law.
I've already replied to this troll and my best arguments are in my other post (please read) but I wanted to mention one more thing.
>>Shakespear is 10000 times the writer you are and his stuff is not copyrighted. Nor is many many more GREAT wirters of the past yet people still buy books of their works
People do still buy books of their works but without copyright the cover price goes to the publisher not the writer.
I presume you are a fan of open source and the GPL. I like it too but it's a very different thing and in fact the GPL _relies_ on copyright. (See my other post for more).
You really are a fool. Not because I disagree with you but because you have gone off half-cocked without even a rudimentary understanding of what you're talking about.
I don't think the Mexican Government would seriously consider charging royalties for Shakespeare or the Bible, mainly because it would be hopelessly unpopular and unpractical. I think the point people were trying to make was that it was the logical conclusion of a 'slippery slope' argument.
I've not seen the proposed law and IANAL but in theory the law could apply to anything that was copyright in Mexico. This includes everything from Madonna's latest CD to The New York Times -not just material produced by Mexicans. I don't know that they'd actually do this but there's no theoretical impediment.
The difference is that obviously they would only charge the loyalties for reproduction/performances/sales in Mexico. The rest of the world is probably safe.
Your ignorance appalls me. Copyright is inherent, it is not something you opt to "take out". You are probably thinking of a _patent_ which is for invention not literary work. (Why do people always confuse the two?)
All original literary work (and that can include ordinary things such as a letter) is _automatically_ copyright. You might choose not to enforce your rights but you still own the copyright.
Incidentally, an open source licence such as the GPL can only exist because of copyright. If there was no copyright, the licence would be meaningless and Microsoft would be entitled to (for example) take Linux code, put it on a CD, call it Windows and charge the earth for it. Maybe no one would buy it but without copyright, this would be legal!
I don't know if copyright law existed in Shakespeare's day but if it did, yes his stuff was copyright at the time. However, the idea is that copyright _expires_ after a certain length of time. Shakespeare's work is no longer copyright but that does not mean it was never copyright.
I have absolutely no problem with things going to the public domain after copyright expires, which was the entire point of my original post.
I'm actually a journalist at a newspaper rather than a fiction writer so my employer owns the copyright not me. Not my problem.
If I were a fiction writer, I would enforce copyright to a certain extent. That is, I would object if someone took my work and put their own name on it or if someone sold copies of my books without paying me for it. I think this is fair and reasonable.
But the point is that copyright in our society is often taken too far. For example, I think you should be entitled to make a backup copy of your music CDs for personal use. I also don't think George Lucas should file lawsuits to stop people people writing fan fiction with Darth Vader in it. (Actually a lot of these suits wouldn't succeed because you are actually entitled to draw on cultural influence and other literary work, the problem is that Lucas has the big bucks so people don't contest them).
Presumably it would apply to anything that was copyright in Mexico. This includes everything from Madonna's latest CD to The New York Times not just material produced by Mexicans.
Does anyone know if this would apply retrospectively (eg. Shakespeare or as someone pointed out, the bible) or simply as copyright expires in future. Both would be wrong but the former would be worse.
I am a writer so obviously I value copyright because without it my work would be worthless. But I also value the fact that I am able to draw on hundreds of years of cultural and literary tradition for my inspiration. This is why the public domain is so important. If I want to use the Cinderella myth I can (Disney doesn't own it yet!).
The Mexican proposal would be a disaster! Copyright was originally meant to be about 20 years. It was a state-granted monopoly to compensate the person who wrote/invented the material and to provide an incentive for future innovation.
Fair enough. But it needs to be balanced with the public interest in free and open access to cultural ideas. Do you really think that the makers of Clueless (okay, not a good movie but it's an example) should have to pay royalties to Jane Austen's estate? (It's a retelling of Emma).
This is why I object to the extensions of copyright made to appease companies like Disney. The inventor of Mickey Mouse died a long time ago and I think Disney has made enough money out of him already.
Extending copyright for the copyright owner is one thing (bad) but the government sticking its grubby paws into it is something else again (much worse). It's completely outrageous! If I write a book, how is it fair for the government (let alone the Mexican government since I'm Australian not Mexican) to claim the benefit? If anyone is going to benefit it should be me (I plan to live forever after all) or my estate. (Or preferably it should truly be in the public domain after a fair and reasonable length of time).
So far we've only discussed copyright so we're just talking about arts and literature and popular entertainment. Just wait until they start extending this to patents!
I believe this but I don't think it's good enough. Giving an extension will only encourage the problem. Unless you give, say, a 12-month extension only.
The CD patent does not include any reference to copy protection therefore any disc using this technology can not legally be marketed as a 'CD'.
This is not merely an academic point - I believe the patent holder, Philips, was quite serious about enforcing this (they are on the hardware rather than content side so it's against their interests to reduce the functionality of the product.
I've seen a few of these discs in Australia. They look the same except they are marked 'audio sound recording' rather than 'compact disc'. Also they are using some little symbol that doesn't look like anything but is supposed to constitute the consumer warning. There is text below it but it's literally in about 4-point text and most people can't read it without a microscope. (Not kidding).
I don't see too many pro-life people protesting against the death penalty. The US incarcerates and executes more people than just about any other country. Perhaps that's where pro-lifers should focus their efforts rather than persecuting women?
It might be because you'd contributed to the discussion? You can't mod and post in the same story. (Just a thought - you probably know this and it may be something else entirely).
Really? How strange. Porn shops in Australia have signs like 'Adult entertainment' or 'XXXX' or 'Sex toys'. If a shop has a sign saying 'News', it probably sells newspapers and magazines.
The nominations aren't necessarily political but the winners usually are. I didn't really mean that comment in relation to Spirited Away but I think it's certainly true for the big categories like Best Actor and Best Picture. There is no way that Halle Berry and Denzel Washington should have won last year if it were purely based on their performance in those particular films. Russell Crowe turned in the most amazing performance in A Beautiful Mind I've ever seen but he threw some guy against a wall, so they didn't feel like giving him a second Oscar. Denzel should have an Oscar based on his life work but not for that film in particular. And Halle Berry? Puh-lease! She's cute but her performance in Monster's Ball was nothing special. I can't believe Gwyneth Paltrow won the Oscar for Shakespeare in Love either. Oh dear.
I'm really happy that Spirited Away got a gong and I don't doubt that it deserved to, but I think if there had been _any_ convincing competition from an American film, it would have missed out for sure.
Since when has whether it's someone's best work got anything to do with it? After all, Russell Crowe won Best Actor for Gladiator, which was a fun movie with a solid but not terribly challenging performance, and not for A Beautiful Mind, which absolutely blew me away. It's all political.
Slashdot Mirror
Or at least that's the way it should be and the way it is in most of the western world. But in Soviet Russia - er, sorry I mean corporatist America - the system screw you.
You get so many Slashdotters with weird ideas about copyright, you can never be sure.
PS What do you mean 'I hope this is fair use'? Hansel and Gretel is not protected by copyright - think about it! H&G was a folk tale told in the oral tradition and collected (but not invented) by the Grimm brothers, so they did not own it. And even if the Grimm brothers had written it, they lived before copyright law existed. And even if copyright law had existed at the time, any protection would have long since expired.
... And besides if he's keeping it a secret, by definition he _can't_ have filed a patent. Patents were originally created to encourage people to make the design of their inventions public. You can hold exclusive rights over your invention forever if you keep the design a secret. But if the secret leaks out, you're screwed. On the other hand, if you make the design public through the patent process, the government will enforce your exclusive rights for you for a set period of time.
Even if there were no female game players (and there are) it's still desirable to have an interesting and diverse array of characters. It's not just a matter of not buying something - society has a greater good and we're entitled to discuss the issues. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having a bit of fun but it's good to have healthy debate.
Of course the US should be paying for reconstruction because the US is doing the damage. If I break a window in a neighbour's house, I pay to replace the window; it doesn't matter if they're a millionaire.
Copyright does not imply a blanket ban. You're allowed to quote passages or discuss work and you're allowed to photocopy 10pc of a book. You're supposed to attribute it correctly and you can't copy the entire thing but you can do an awful lot.
You can also draw on other (copyright) literary work. I might be wrong but I believe Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway is still copyright but Michael Cunningham was entitled to use it as the basis for The Hours. This is why it's bogus for George Lucas to sue people for doing Star Wars reinterpretations. I think if it actually got to court and the defendant had a good lawyer, Lucas would lose. It's just he's got so much money no one fights him.
I'm not against copyright and patents in a limited form but I'm completely opposed to the ludicrous extensions we get so regularly. It's a complete distortion of the market and the original intention of the law.
>>Shakespear is 10000 times the writer you are and his stuff is not copyrighted. Nor is many many more GREAT wirters of the past yet people still buy books of their works
People do still buy books of their works but without copyright the cover price goes to the publisher not the writer.
I presume you are a fan of open source and the GPL. I like it too but it's a very different thing and in fact the GPL _relies_ on copyright. (See my other post for more).
You really are a fool. Not because I disagree with you but because you have gone off half-cocked without even a rudimentary understanding of what you're talking about.
I've not seen the proposed law and IANAL but in theory the law could apply to anything that was copyright in Mexico. This includes everything from Madonna's latest CD to The New York Times -not just material produced by Mexicans. I don't know that they'd actually do this but there's no theoretical impediment.
The difference is that obviously they would only charge the loyalties for reproduction/performances/sales in Mexico. The rest of the world is probably safe.
All original literary work (and that can include ordinary things such as a letter) is _automatically_ copyright. You might choose not to enforce your rights but you still own the copyright.
Incidentally, an open source licence such as the GPL can only exist because of copyright. If there was no copyright, the licence would be meaningless and Microsoft would be entitled to (for example) take Linux code, put it on a CD, call it Windows and charge the earth for it. Maybe no one would buy it but without copyright, this would be legal!
I don't know if copyright law existed in Shakespeare's day but if it did, yes his stuff was copyright at the time. However, the idea is that copyright _expires_ after a certain length of time. Shakespeare's work is no longer copyright but that does not mean it was never copyright.
I have absolutely no problem with things going to the public domain after copyright expires, which was the entire point of my original post.
I'm actually a journalist at a newspaper rather than a fiction writer so my employer owns the copyright not me. Not my problem.
If I were a fiction writer, I would enforce copyright to a certain extent. That is, I would object if someone took my work and put their own name on it or if someone sold copies of my books without paying me for it. I think this is fair and reasonable.
But the point is that copyright in our society is often taken too far. For example, I think you should be entitled to make a backup copy of your music CDs for personal use. I also don't think George Lucas should file lawsuits to stop people people writing fan fiction with Darth Vader in it. (Actually a lot of these suits wouldn't succeed because you are actually entitled to draw on cultural influence and other literary work, the problem is that Lucas has the big bucks so people don't contest them).
(Although the author seems to be thinking of patents (which cover inventions) rather than copyright (which covers literary work)).
Presumably it would apply to anything that was copyright in Mexico. This includes everything from Madonna's latest CD to The New York Times not just material produced by Mexicans.
I am a writer so obviously I value copyright because without it my work would be worthless. But I also value the fact that I am able to draw on hundreds of years of cultural and literary tradition for my inspiration. This is why the public domain is so important. If I want to use the Cinderella myth I can (Disney doesn't own it yet!).
The Mexican proposal would be a disaster! Copyright was originally meant to be about 20 years. It was a state-granted monopoly to compensate the person who wrote/invented the material and to provide an incentive for future innovation.
Fair enough. But it needs to be balanced with the public interest in free and open access to cultural ideas. Do you really think that the makers of Clueless (okay, not a good movie but it's an example) should have to pay royalties to Jane Austen's estate? (It's a retelling of Emma).
This is why I object to the extensions of copyright made to appease companies like Disney. The inventor of Mickey Mouse died a long time ago and I think Disney has made enough money out of him already.
Extending copyright for the copyright owner is one thing (bad) but the government sticking its grubby paws into it is something else again (much worse). It's completely outrageous! If I write a book, how is it fair for the government (let alone the Mexican government since I'm Australian not Mexican) to claim the benefit? If anyone is going to benefit it should be me (I plan to live forever after all) or my estate. (Or preferably it should truly be in the public domain after a fair and reasonable length of time).
So far we've only discussed copyright so we're just talking about arts and literature and popular entertainment. Just wait until they start extending this to patents!
I believe this but I don't think it's good enough. Giving an extension will only encourage the problem. Unless you give, say, a 12-month extension only.
Irritating though! Were you able to spend them elsewhere?
This is not merely an academic point - I believe the patent holder, Philips, was quite serious about enforcing this (they are on the hardware rather than content side so it's against their interests to reduce the functionality of the product.
I've seen a few of these discs in Australia. They look the same except they are marked 'audio sound recording' rather than 'compact disc'. Also they are using some little symbol that doesn't look like anything but is supposed to constitute the consumer warning. There is text below it but it's literally in about 4-point text and most people can't read it without a microscope. (Not kidding).
I don't see too many pro-life people protesting against the death penalty. The US incarcerates and executes more people than just about any other country. Perhaps that's where pro-lifers should focus their efforts rather than persecuting women?
It might be because you'd contributed to the discussion? You can't mod and post in the same story. (Just a thought - you probably know this and it may be something else entirely).
Really? How strange. Porn shops in Australia have signs like 'Adult entertainment' or 'XXXX' or 'Sex toys'. If a shop has a sign saying 'News', it probably sells newspapers and magazines.
Yeah, I agree. I loved Pikmin and I like puzzle games but the two don't really go together. There aren't really _any_ puzzles in Pikmin.
How is Pikmin a puzzle game?
I take it all back - Nicole won Best Actress for The Hours. Woo hoo!
I'm really happy that Spirited Away got a gong and I don't doubt that it deserved to, but I think if there had been _any_ convincing competition from an American film, it would have missed out for sure.
Since when has whether it's someone's best work got anything to do with it? After all, Russell Crowe won Best Actor for Gladiator, which was a fun movie with a solid but not terribly challenging performance, and not for A Beautiful Mind, which absolutely blew me away. It's all political.