He wants it sorted alphabetically, witht he exception that the folders are not mixed in but a seperated "section" on top or on bottom.
Then that's not alphabetical, is it? That's not sorting by name. It's partial sorting by kind, then by name. (which frustrates the shortcut of typing the first few characters to jump to that point in the display)
Maybe some sort of plug-in system for the Finder (akin to plug in contextual menus, which aren't as good as they used to be IMO), so that people can get the Finder to do this. But absolutely not by default.
Just to clear things up, it was a joke. Personally, though, I don't much care for how CC operates, though I do more or less like the result.
What I'd prefer to see, actually, is a reform of copyright laws such that basically nothing is copyrighted unless one goes through a formalized process to receive a copyright on a work, and where there is nevertheless a broad exception for otherwise infringing uses by natural persons, not for profit.
This would largely achieve the same outcome, but without the complication of licensing.
This I dig, especially if you can filter down the list with a substring match or regular expressions.
Well, maybe allowing filtering if deliberately entered, but not by default. It's better to show all files normally, but grey them out. Hiding things makes the UI seem more inconsistant.
5) Sort folders to top of directory listings I know that we don't go folder mining as much since we got Spotlight, so I won't labor on about this one.
Feh. If I want to sort a folder alphabetically, that means alphabetically, not 'folders first then everything else!' Sort by kind is how one gets folders to all appear together.
Off the top of my head, I think that the most likely situation you'd see it in would be situations involving parodying (by adding surrounding material) an inherently ridiculous highly factual work (preferably a newsworthy one), which the original authors had treated seriously.
So now I'm thinking of The Daily Show. If they took a short, but complete filmed interview in order to both report on it and ridicule it, I think they could get away with it.
But successfully using fair use to get away with murder, as it were, while possible, isn't common by any means.
But I genuinely appreciate the value of boiler-plate licenses. They are an attempt to bring the law down to the layman's level and not continue paying lawyers to further complicate it.
I don't see what there is to be appreciative about there.
it doesn't let someone copy the entire thing, the "book," and distribute it
Well, don't be so absolute. It could allow that to occur. Any kind of otherwise infringing activity is potentially a fair use. Whether it is one or not depends on the circumstances involved in the specific instance at hand.
Properly, you ought to be saying that it's unlikely that reproducing the entire work and distributing the unlawfully made copy would be a fair use during the copyright.
But as it happens, the Dvorak who writes columns for computer magazines is also the famed classical composer, so at least not too many notable people share the surname.;)
And Scruffy plays it on the bagpipes at Fry's funeral in the fifth season episode 'The Sting.' IIRC, Amy comforts Leela by saying that Fry is walking on sunshine now.
They've said they're going to go back and "hammer out license terms" anew. So it's not as though they've abandoned their stupid idea; they're going to try again.
Frankly, I'd find the idea that game developers are trying to impose a license on players (particularly given that it doesn't appear to be even vaguely necessary from anyone's perspective) to be unacceptable all by itself. The terms of the license, whatever they are, are not the part that's objectionable.
No, it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. There's even been attempts to bring what are really copyright cases under the Stolen Property Act, and they've been shot down in the courts. The exclusive remedies for these actions are those in the Copyright Act.
But in this age of ubiquitous commercial radio, it can almost be assumed that every defendant has had access to every work because all coincidences will be explained away as "subconscious copying", making originality not that much different from novelty.
Provided, of course, that it was on the radio, or some such. Besides, there's been some interesting criticism lately of the access/similarity and substantial similarity tests. I think we might see some form of change in the near future since they are so damn plaintiff friendly that they virtually reverse the burden of persuasion.
Surely the improvised performance is an original work of authorship
Yes, but not a fixed one, and fixation is an inescapable requirement.
and a recording of said performance is the original work fixed in a tangible medium of expression?
The recording has to be made by the artist, or under the artist's authority. Bootleggers making recordings don't qualify, and thus the copyright can't arise.
Educational use and parody aren't fair use. Parody is actually covered by derivative works and educational use is spelled out separately.
While I'd love for you to cite the section that exempts parodies, if not 107, you need to remember that fair use is a catch-all of last resort.
It doesn't exempt fair uses that fall under a specific exclusive right. It exempts all fair uses that need to be exempted. If an educational public performance can fall under 110 and 107, it's easier to apply the former. However, this doesn't mean that you can't ever resort to 107.
For example, there is no exemption other than 107 for the teacher who xeroxes copyrighted materials to make copies for the whole class. (And because 107 is highly fact-dependent, it may or may not apply either)
Fair use is actually not very fuzzy at all.
Are you kidding? Judges have been known to complain in opinions about how nebulous fair use actually is, and they're the ones that have to apply it.
Can you elaborate a bit more what is an uncopyrighted performance?
The statute says it all: Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. 17 USC 102(a).
If a work isn't fixed (by or under the authority of the creator, per 17 USC 101) then it is ineligible for copyright. The canonical example is music performed by a jazz improv group. It's improvised on the spot, so there's no fixed composition; this means the composition is public domain. The performance has the same problem, since it's not performances that are copyrightable, it's recordings of the performances that are copyrightable.
Basically, this means that if you want a copyright in the work underlying a performance, you should have it written down or recorded beforehand. There's a limited exception for simultaneous recording of works being transmitted elsewhere (i.e. live tv and radio) but this requires the 'being transmitted elsewhere' part, and still you have to be recording at the time.
As noted, 17 USC 1101 was an attempt to change this, but it's been having awfully bad luck in the courts (and is virtually never ever used anyway).
I was saying that you could not start mass-copying the freely received CD and sell it at the marketplace.
Which is two kinds of infringement (reproduction and distribution) but know that distribution of lawfully made copies is itself lawful (basically; see 17 USC 109 and 602 (ALL of 602!) for details) and just saying 'distribution' or 'redistribution' by itself is confusing.
You ( slashdotters) keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Meh. Maybe.
The protection of parody in the United States is because parody is supposed to exercise a criticism of the original work, and is using the mechanism of ironic similarity to exercise that criticism. If I understand 17 USC 107 correctly, it is the act of criticism itself that is protected.
You don't understand it correctly. The Fair Use doctrine says that acts which are otherwise infringing of copyright, are not infringing, if they are fair. That's it. There is a test to determine fairness, and often it comes in certain forms, but the heart of the matter is simply what's fair.
Not all criticism, news reporting, educational uses, parodies, etc. are fair uses. The list that so many people get caught on in 107 is illustrative only, and even then is merely what Congress was thinking about when it decided to include a codification of the judicial doctrine.
Actual fairness is what's key, regardless of whether you can pigeonhole it or not, and it's typically determined by a test which is fuzzy and hard to apply since it's so deliberately vague. It has to be vague, since you can't foresee every sort of fair use, e.g. time shifting.
First, because the term 'prior art' doesn't even exist in the copyright world. Second, because copyrightability does not require novelty or nonobviousness, as patents do; instead it's originality that is required. This is a much lower standard.
The mere fact that there are multiple identical works is NOT a bar to the later of them being copyrightable. In that situation, the later one is only uncopyrightable if it was copied from the former. If they're coincidentally identical, however, copyright is ok.
A leading case on how this works is Nichols v. Universal, 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930). You might want to read it.
copyright applies to the compositions by Beethoven, Mozart, etc.
No, I don't believe that either had a copyright, at least as we know them. Maybe something in the vein of a stationer's copyright, but that's a totally different animal. Remember that copyright laws first appeared in 1710 in England, and spread slowly. Most of Europe had something in the 19th century, but much of the world didn't until the 20th.
You can't e.g. record a band's performance and then sell it (bootlegs) just because you recorded it.
That depends entirely on the circumstances. If it's an uncopyrighted performance, it's in the public domain. Since copyright requires fixation by the author, it's entirely possible to have lawful bootlegs. URAA (see 17 USC 1101) is a reaction against this, but there's been some rulings lately that it's unconstitutional. In fact IIRC there was an argument in SDNY just yesterday on the subject.
Same applies for something you get for free, you don't have the right to redistribute it. Unless, of course, the copyright holder explicitly gives you that right.
Could you clarify, because I think you're forgetting about first sale, if you're saying what I think you're saying.
Then someone caused them to do it, and they're presumably the copyright holder.
Remington might have made a typewriter, but if I make it type out certain words, it's not as though either the manufacturer or the machine itself gets to be the author.
OTOH, if there was just one key on the typewriter for 'Great American Novel,' which would be typed out automatically, then perhaps Remington is more likely the author. In some situations, perhaps both the typist and others have some claim.
But machines don't, and until they kill all humans, that's how it's gonna stay.
Copyrights are granted to authors of original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. N.b. that the word 'original' simply means that the work must have originated from the author, rather than from somewhere else; it doesn't have to be unique at all. Also, originality requires a modicum of creativity.
Ideas are never protected by copyright (nor by patents, which deal with inventions, which are more refined than mere ideas). In fact, an essential concept of copyright law is the idea/expression dichotomy: an idea, such as 'boy meets girl' can be used by anyone, but specific expressions of that idea, such as 'The Old Man and the Sea' can be protectable.
Presently, a wide -- too wide, IMO -- range of works are eligible for copyright, including both musical works (i.e. compositions of notes and lyrics) as well as recorded performances of musical works (i.e. sound recordings).
When you create a derivative work of a public domain work, the new material added, if sufficient to be copyrightable, can be copyrightable, but that copyright doesn't cover preexisting material.
The mere fact that a sound recording is of a public domain work doesn't mean that the recording is not copyrightable. However, that copyright only covers the new material; if you can discern the notes being played, and they're in the public domain, you can play the music yourself.
You may find 17 USC 102 and 103 to be useful reading along these lines.
Well, actually, I'm saying that I don't think that analogies help. It's best to think of copyright as being its own thing, unrelated to more traditional crimes and torts. Trespass, while the best analogy I can think of, is still not really helpful, IMO.
Since they ofter it for $20 per "user" with minimal restrictions, it would seem that such a suit would net... $20 per user? I find it hard to believe that a judge would impose anything more onerous upon a group considering the circumstances of this change (i.e., lack of notification, no other such licenses in the entire industry, license granted indiscriminately to all based on a minimal fee.) It would appear the the "harm" such a group presents is merely an unpaid license fee, not the usual infringement penalties.
There's no reason you can't have breach of contract and copyright infringement in the same action, and the minimum statutory damages for copyright infringement in that situation are $750 per work.
Actually, the closest analogy to copyright infringement is trespassing. Copyright is a right to exclude people from doing certain things; trespassing is a right to exclude people from going into certain places. Neither is particularly concerned with evident harms when this exclusive right is infringed upon; doing it is harm enough. At most the degree of harm is only a factor when you're working out damages (and in copyright, often not even then).
Still, it's best to treat copyright sui generis, rather than trying to think of it as a form of some other crime or tort.
Slashdot Mirror
He wants it sorted alphabetically, witht he exception that the folders are not mixed in but a seperated "section" on top or on bottom.
Then that's not alphabetical, is it? That's not sorting by name. It's partial sorting by kind, then by name. (which frustrates the shortcut of typing the first few characters to jump to that point in the display)
Maybe some sort of plug-in system for the Finder (akin to plug in contextual menus, which aren't as good as they used to be IMO), so that people can get the Finder to do this. But absolutely not by default.
Just to clear things up, it was a joke. Personally, though, I don't much care for how CC operates, though I do more or less like the result.
What I'd prefer to see, actually, is a reform of copyright laws such that basically nothing is copyrighted unless one goes through a formalized process to receive a copyright on a work, and where there is nevertheless a broad exception for otherwise infringing uses by natural persons, not for profit.
This would largely achieve the same outcome, but without the complication of licensing.
This I dig, especially if you can filter down the list with a substring match or regular expressions.
Well, maybe allowing filtering if deliberately entered, but not by default. It's better to show all files normally, but grey them out. Hiding things makes the UI seem more inconsistant.
5) Sort folders to top of directory listings I know that we don't go folder mining as much since we got Spotlight, so I won't labor on about this one.
Feh. If I want to sort a folder alphabetically, that means alphabetically, not 'folders first then everything else!' Sort by kind is how one gets folders to all appear together.
What do you mean? The Mac has used menus that remain open w/o keeping the mouse button down for a long time. Since MacOS 8, IIRC.
Off the top of my head, I think that the most likely situation you'd see it in would be situations involving parodying (by adding surrounding material) an inherently ridiculous highly factual work (preferably a newsworthy one), which the original authors had treated seriously.
So now I'm thinking of The Daily Show. If they took a short, but complete filmed interview in order to both report on it and ridicule it, I think they could get away with it.
But successfully using fair use to get away with murder, as it were, while possible, isn't common by any means.
But I genuinely appreciate the value of boiler-plate licenses. They are an attempt to bring the law down to the layman's level and not continue paying lawyers to further complicate it.
I don't see what there is to be appreciative about there.
it doesn't let someone copy the entire thing, the "book," and distribute it
Well, don't be so absolute. It could allow that to occur. Any kind of otherwise infringing activity is potentially a fair use. Whether it is one or not depends on the circumstances involved in the specific instance at hand.
Properly, you ought to be saying that it's unlikely that reproducing the entire work and distributing the unlawfully made copy would be a fair use during the copyright.
But as it happens, the Dvorak who writes columns for computer magazines is also the famed classical composer, so at least not too many notable people share the surname. ;)
And Scruffy plays it on the bagpipes at Fry's funeral in the fifth season episode 'The Sting.' IIRC, Amy comforts Leela by saying that Fry is walking on sunshine now.
They've said they're going to go back and "hammer out license terms" anew. So it's not as though they've abandoned their stupid idea; they're going to try again.
Frankly, I'd find the idea that game developers are trying to impose a license on players (particularly given that it doesn't appear to be even vaguely necessary from anyone's perspective) to be unacceptable all by itself. The terms of the license, whatever they are, are not the part that's objectionable.
You might want to look through some of the posts and comments from Prof. Patry's blog, from late last month.
No, it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. There's even been attempts to bring what are really copyright cases under the Stolen Property Act, and they've been shot down in the courts. The exclusive remedies for these actions are those in the Copyright Act.
But in this age of ubiquitous commercial radio, it can almost be assumed that every defendant has had access to every work because all coincidences will be explained away as "subconscious copying", making originality not that much different from novelty.
Provided, of course, that it was on the radio, or some such. Besides, there's been some interesting criticism lately of the access/similarity and substantial similarity tests. I think we might see some form of change in the near future since they are so damn plaintiff friendly that they virtually reverse the burden of persuasion.
Surely the improvised performance is an original work of authorship
Yes, but not a fixed one, and fixation is an inescapable requirement.
and a recording of said performance is the original work fixed in a tangible medium of expression?
The recording has to be made by the artist, or under the artist's authority. Bootleggers making recordings don't qualify, and thus the copyright can't arise.
Educational use and parody aren't fair use. Parody is actually covered by derivative works and educational use is spelled out separately.
While I'd love for you to cite the section that exempts parodies, if not 107, you need to remember that fair use is a catch-all of last resort.
It doesn't exempt fair uses that fall under a specific exclusive right. It exempts all fair uses that need to be exempted. If an educational public performance can fall under 110 and 107, it's easier to apply the former. However, this doesn't mean that you can't ever resort to 107.
For example, there is no exemption other than 107 for the teacher who xeroxes copyrighted materials to make copies for the whole class. (And because 107 is highly fact-dependent, it may or may not apply either)
Fair use is actually not very fuzzy at all.
Are you kidding? Judges have been known to complain in opinions about how nebulous fair use actually is, and they're the ones that have to apply it.
Can you elaborate a bit more what is an uncopyrighted performance?
The statute says it all: Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. 17 USC 102(a).
If a work isn't fixed (by or under the authority of the creator, per 17 USC 101) then it is ineligible for copyright. The canonical example is music performed by a jazz improv group. It's improvised on the spot, so there's no fixed composition; this means the composition is public domain. The performance has the same problem, since it's not performances that are copyrightable, it's recordings of the performances that are copyrightable.
Basically, this means that if you want a copyright in the work underlying a performance, you should have it written down or recorded beforehand. There's a limited exception for simultaneous recording of works being transmitted elsewhere (i.e. live tv and radio) but this requires the 'being transmitted elsewhere' part, and still you have to be recording at the time.
As noted, 17 USC 1101 was an attempt to change this, but it's been having awfully bad luck in the courts (and is virtually never ever used anyway).
I was saying that you could not start mass-copying the freely received CD and sell it at the marketplace.
Which is two kinds of infringement (reproduction and distribution) but know that distribution of lawfully made copies is itself lawful (basically; see 17 USC 109 and 602 (ALL of 602!) for details) and just saying 'distribution' or 'redistribution' by itself is confusing.
You mean like market dumping, which is generally frowned upon as being anticompetitive?
You ( slashdotters) keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Meh. Maybe.
The protection of parody in the United States is because parody is supposed to exercise a criticism of the original work, and is using the mechanism of ironic similarity to exercise that criticism. If I understand 17 USC 107 correctly, it is the act of criticism itself that is protected.
You don't understand it correctly. The Fair Use doctrine says that acts which are otherwise infringing of copyright, are not infringing, if they are fair. That's it. There is a test to determine fairness, and often it comes in certain forms, but the heart of the matter is simply what's fair.
Not all criticism, news reporting, educational uses, parodies, etc. are fair uses. The list that so many people get caught on in 107 is illustrative only, and even then is merely what Congress was thinking about when it decided to include a codification of the judicial doctrine.
Actual fairness is what's key, regardless of whether you can pigeonhole it or not, and it's typically determined by a test which is fuzzy and hard to apply since it's so deliberately vague. It has to be vague, since you can't foresee every sort of fair use, e.g. time shifting.
No.
First, because the term 'prior art' doesn't even exist in the copyright world. Second, because copyrightability does not require novelty or nonobviousness, as patents do; instead it's originality that is required. This is a much lower standard.
The mere fact that there are multiple identical works is NOT a bar to the later of them being copyrightable. In that situation, the later one is only uncopyrightable if it was copied from the former. If they're coincidentally identical, however, copyright is ok.
A leading case on how this works is Nichols v. Universal, 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930). You might want to read it.
copyright applies to the compositions by Beethoven, Mozart, etc.
No, I don't believe that either had a copyright, at least as we know them. Maybe something in the vein of a stationer's copyright, but that's a totally different animal. Remember that copyright laws first appeared in 1710 in England, and spread slowly. Most of Europe had something in the 19th century, but much of the world didn't until the 20th.
You can't e.g. record a band's performance and then sell it (bootlegs) just because you recorded it.
That depends entirely on the circumstances. If it's an uncopyrighted performance, it's in the public domain. Since copyright requires fixation by the author, it's entirely possible to have lawful bootlegs. URAA (see 17 USC 1101) is a reaction against this, but there's been some rulings lately that it's unconstitutional. In fact IIRC there was an argument in SDNY just yesterday on the subject.
Same applies for something you get for free, you don't have the right to redistribute it. Unless, of course, the copyright holder explicitly gives you that right.
Could you clarify, because I think you're forgetting about first sale, if you're saying what I think you're saying.
Then someone caused them to do it, and they're presumably the copyright holder.
Remington might have made a typewriter, but if I make it type out certain words, it's not as though either the manufacturer or the machine itself gets to be the author.
OTOH, if there was just one key on the typewriter for 'Great American Novel,' which would be typed out automatically, then perhaps Remington is more likely the author. In some situations, perhaps both the typist and others have some claim.
But machines don't, and until they kill all humans, that's how it's gonna stay.
Copyrights are granted to authors of original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. N.b. that the word 'original' simply means that the work must have originated from the author, rather than from somewhere else; it doesn't have to be unique at all. Also, originality requires a modicum of creativity.
Ideas are never protected by copyright (nor by patents, which deal with inventions, which are more refined than mere ideas). In fact, an essential concept of copyright law is the idea/expression dichotomy: an idea, such as 'boy meets girl' can be used by anyone, but specific expressions of that idea, such as 'The Old Man and the Sea' can be protectable.
Presently, a wide -- too wide, IMO -- range of works are eligible for copyright, including both musical works (i.e. compositions of notes and lyrics) as well as recorded performances of musical works (i.e. sound recordings).
When you create a derivative work of a public domain work, the new material added, if sufficient to be copyrightable, can be copyrightable, but that copyright doesn't cover preexisting material.
The mere fact that a sound recording is of a public domain work doesn't mean that the recording is not copyrightable. However, that copyright only covers the new material; if you can discern the notes being played, and they're in the public domain, you can play the music yourself.
You may find 17 USC 102 and 103 to be useful reading along these lines.
Well, actually, I'm saying that I don't think that analogies help. It's best to think of copyright as being its own thing, unrelated to more traditional crimes and torts. Trespass, while the best analogy I can think of, is still not really helpful, IMO.
Since they ofter it for $20 per "user" with minimal restrictions, it would seem that such a suit would net... $20 per user? I find it hard to believe that a judge would impose anything more onerous upon a group considering the circumstances of this change (i.e., lack of notification, no other such licenses in the entire industry, license granted indiscriminately to all based on a minimal fee.) It would appear the the "harm" such a group presents is merely an unpaid license fee, not the usual infringement penalties.
There's no reason you can't have breach of contract and copyright infringement in the same action, and the minimum statutory damages for copyright infringement in that situation are $750 per work.
Actually, the closest analogy to copyright infringement is trespassing. Copyright is a right to exclude people from doing certain things; trespassing is a right to exclude people from going into certain places. Neither is particularly concerned with evident harms when this exclusive right is infringed upon; doing it is harm enough. At most the degree of harm is only a factor when you're working out damages (and in copyright, often not even then).
Still, it's best to treat copyright sui generis, rather than trying to think of it as a form of some other crime or tort.