As is the case with most Step-Three-Profit plans, your problem is in step two.
The state can certainly claim that the value is that in the tax records, but this can be challenged in court. As it happens, states do routinely make low offers, and routinely are required to pay much more, since just compensation is basically fair market value.
This entire discussion has been about "How is a GPL author supposed to come up with the money" to pay the hourly fee?
Which brings us right back to my suggestion that the author find an attorney willing to take the case on contingency, and sue for damages, along with injunctive relief. The lawyer gets a share of the settlement or the award, and the author doesn't have to front anything.
Gosh, and here I thought that lawyers drove rich cars and had rich houses because they were actually giving back to their community through their talents.
You need to know more lawyers. We're not all rich. God knows I'm not. Besides, law isn't what you go into if you want to get rich. Investment banking is much better.
You and I both know that pro bono requirements are (laughable) mostly met by filling out marriage certs, divorce papers, and handling custody cases for low income families.
Yes. All of which are quite important for the people involved. Especially since you can't have contingent fees for those things.
When's the last time a case handled on a pro bono basis actually set a legal precedent that did society, as a whole, any real good? Has there ever been one?
Yeah. There've been some civil rights cases along those lines.
But what does it matter here? GPL violations are pretty basic copyright infringement / breach of contract cases. They're not of great societal worth.
The reason why inequities exist is because laywer's can't be bothered for anything less than $5000.
Not at all. So long as you pay the hourly fee, you'd have little trouble finding a lawyer that was willing to bring a suit for nominal damages or injunctive relief.
But if you want them to work for free, you're going to have the same problem that you'd have with getting anyone to work for free. People don't do that much, as a rule. Lawyers do, but usually only for relatively indigent clients.
Plus, most inequities have other sources. The judicial system is an attempt to solve some of them, not to create more.
There are lawyers who will work for free, up front, until the close of a case? Really?
Oh yes. It's a very popular practice with plaintiff's attorneys in tort cases.
Obviously, though, some situations can't be handled on contingency. The way it works is that the lawyer gets a share of the eventual monetary award. So if there couldn't be an award (e.g. you're the defendant) or if it's prohibited (e.g. divorce cases) then you're stuck with regular fees.
Maybe if they've been handed an open-and-shut case with a guaranteed win which they can milk for every billable hour it's worth.
Contingency cases don't really involve hourly billing; instead, the lawyer gets a percentage of the eventual award. Usually it's around one third.
Whether a case is handled on a contingency basis or not is largely subject to the ethical rules that lawyers are required to follow and whatever the lawyer and the client can agree on. Lawyers don't have to offer it, and clients don't have to accept it.
Funny how it just never seems to apply in real life.
If you ever see an ad for a lawyer on TV, billboards, etc., I guarantee that they'll be talking up a storm about contingency fees, probably for personal injury cases.
If it did, then you'd be jumping on the GAIM vs. IMblaze case right now, wouldn't you?
Why aren't you?
I'm not that interested in it, at the moment. Plus we're pretty heavily regulated as to how we can advertise and solicit business, so it would be a bit of a PITA anyway.
No lawyer ever works for free unless they're two paychecks away from starving.
This is funny, since most jurisdictions require lawyers to do a certain number of pro bono hours annually. As it happens, I've represented numerous clients for free.
But remember, we're not really talking about pro bono work. We're talking about contingency fees, where the lawyer is gambling on his getting paid in the end, rather than up front. Lawyers on contingency aren't working for free.
That's really going to make the case well, isn't it. Sure, I'm exaggerating slightly and bnetd can probably come up with a few "legitimate" uses for their application, but I seriously doubt they're going to be able to meet the *substantial* qualification in "substantial non-infringing use".
Well, if we're talking contributory infringement (and that's not really important in this case), remember that Sony is concerned with whether there are potential substantial non-infringing uses. Not actual substantial non-infringing uses. So if we can imagine that someday Blizzard will stop running their servers for some reason, but many people will still want to play the game over networks, then they're set.
Well, I think they're off. Registrations are $30, and civil damages are either damages+profits or as much as $150,000 per _work_ not per infringement. (Or as low as $200, but not both at once)
This is precisely where the American legal system fails. In order to bring a suit against someone who has committed a civil wrongdoing (ie. not a crime against the state) the full burden of expense falls on the victim.
Of course, in copyright cases, you can try to get attorney's fees awarded. And you can always see if there is a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency. So it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be.
The solution is a streamlined system of justice which isn't endlessly bottlenecked by paperwork, frivolous forms, and lawyers.
It's actually pretty streamlined now, particularly when you bear in mind that justice is often more highly valued than mere swiftness.
If a GAIM developer should walk into an attorney's office with proof that IMblaze is a ripoff of their code, there should be a compensation check and a court injunction against IMblaze within 24 hours.
While in the US, not only are there no special provisions for commercials, but since they're separate copyrighted works, if you included them, you might end up having to show fair use separately for them, along with the actual show.
(If we're talking about the Internet. TV rebroadcasters have something similar to the above, but people using BT don't qualify)
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
Sharing your captured broadcast material over the internet, whether with friends or not, cannot be considered 'criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research' without drastic modification from the current method of how that material is shared.
Sadly, the CO and the Register of Copyrights are not good sources of information regarding copyright.
Anyway, they appear to have misstated 107. In reality, any otherwise infringing act is a fair use if it is fair. Courts can determine fairness by using the four factors in the statute, plus anything else they want to consider.
However the 'list of various purposes' is merely intended as a guide. It is _likely_ that news reporting is fair, but its inclusion in the list means nothing. Only an actual analysis based on the factors involved matters. Fair uses may be other than those listed (note e.g. parody is not included), and those listed may not be fair uses based on the circumstances.
Additionally, fair use is perfectly capable of covering entire works, rather than mere portions thereof. And sometimes, using just a portion was not fair. Fair use depends entirely on the facts. You cannot make accurate blanket statements about what is and is not a fair use.
Further, a 1961 report is of not great value, given the statutory reformulation of fair use in 1976, and the 44 years of quite notable caselaw we've seen since '61.
Given that fair use is, at essence, a judicial doctrine, an equitable doctrine, I think you'd be better off looking at notable cases, chiefly since 1978.
But there were definitely a few nods to Dark Knight; I remember a Time magazine cover with a story about the fictional island (an ersatz Cuba) where the US was having a war (which name escapes me), for instance.
The fictional country is Corto Maltese (a reference to the European comic book character of the same name), but you're right IIRC, that that originated in DKR.
Still, Burton and Hamm clearly looked at other material (e.g. for the Joker's origins, which were not in DKR) and either way, the gas ultimately has earlier origins than DKR, whether they knew it or not.
Been ages since I read it, but I thought Roe was a penumbra case. That would mean the 9th plays a role, but so do some others.
the Federal government tries to make EVERYTHING an Interstate Commmerce issue
Well, aside from Lopez and Morrison, everything is.;)
I think it'll be a while before the Court backs down from Wickard. Still, there has been some success in related avenues, where courts have agreed that Congress can't rely on its Commerce power when a particular bit of legislation squarely falls within a different power. The usefulness of this is limited, but there is some.
Oh there's a bunch of 7th A. cases. Basically when there's disputes over whether some particular aspect of a trial can be decided by a jury. For example, in the copyright field, there was a case not too long ago in which the Supreme Court held that statutory damages were a jury issue.
As for the Bill of Rights and the ACLU, I think that their only significant blind spot is the 2d A. 9th and 10th are difficult to do anything with at this point in time, and given the ACLU's history, they probably find the federal government less abusive than the states. Their goal, after all, is to protect the civil liberties of people, and I think they could reasonably have decided that allying themselves with states-rights' folks isn't a good way to do that.
Third Amendment is quartering soldiers. And I vaguely recall that there was once a 3d A. case, but I don't remember when or where. I'd guess it'd be Civil War era. The situation just doesn't come up that much.
And the ACLU, I'm sure, has an interest in the 7th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th (doesn't come up as much as the 15th), 24th, and 26th (also doesn't come up as much as the 15th). There are some others as well, but they might have difficulty with standing issues.
The problem is that there's no taking. Taking requires that you deprive the owner of the thing taken; copying doesn't do that. A better, though still imperfect analogy, would be to trespassing.
Basically, you should work on your vocabulary; just because something is illegal, or even wrong in your opinion, doesn't mean you should call it stealing. A different word might be more appropriate. Arson isn't stealing, for example. Nor is kidnapping.
As it happens, there is a term that is exactly the right term to use: copyright infringement.
It might not inflame your passion, but it's accurate. I value the latter more, especially since it's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone that's being so emotional that they can't think straight.
No he can't. That's known as naked licensing, and it means he loses his trademark.
A proper trademark license requires attention to quality control standards, i.e. the licensor can dictate how the mark is used, can require the licensee to provide examples and submit to spot checks, and can be terminated if used wrongly. In practice, they should be for a limited term of years, and should be valid contracts, which requires consideration, etc.
Lucas likely has good trademark licenses with Kenner (or whoever the hell makes the toys now). I doubt they have anything good with fanfilms makers, though not having looked into it, I can't say.
And btw, there is no form of human endeavor that doesn't require lawyers.;)
Usually it does not, because works of officers and employees of the federal government, in their official capacities, are not copyrightable. 17 USC 105.
Read 17 USC 110(1) to see that it's typically perfectly legal to show entire movies in the course of education.
Plus, your comment about movies in school libraries is insane. I think you don't understand the difference between public performance and distribution. You also haven't read 17 USC 109, which does not distinguish between public and educational libraries.
Frankly, I think you should probably stop talking about copyright matters, as you have no understanding of them.
So what is your proposal? Never-ending copyrights?
First, they're not losing money, they're not making money. There is a difference.
Second, the purpose of copyright is not so that authors can make money. That's just a means to an end. The purpose of copyright is to benefit the public, and part of that means having copyrights terminate after a period of time, ideally as soon as possible whilst providing the greatest public benefit overall.
Slashdot Mirror
As is the case with most Step-Three-Profit plans, your problem is in step two.
The state can certainly claim that the value is that in the tax records, but this can be challenged in court. As it happens, states do routinely make low offers, and routinely are required to pay much more, since just compensation is basically fair market value.
Well, everything works right on the East Coast; it's the best coast. Now let's continue to be smug about our superiority. ;)
This entire discussion has been about "How is a GPL author supposed to come up with the money" to pay the hourly fee?
Which brings us right back to my suggestion that the author find an attorney willing to take the case on contingency, and sue for damages, along with injunctive relief. The lawyer gets a share of the settlement or the award, and the author doesn't have to front anything.
Gosh, and here I thought that lawyers drove rich cars and had rich houses because they were actually giving back to their community through their talents.
You need to know more lawyers. We're not all rich. God knows I'm not. Besides, law isn't what you go into if you want to get rich. Investment banking is much better.
You and I both know that pro bono requirements are (laughable) mostly met by filling out marriage certs, divorce papers, and handling custody cases for low income families.
Yes. All of which are quite important for the people involved. Especially since you can't have contingent fees for those things.
When's the last time a case handled on a pro bono basis actually set a legal precedent that did society, as a whole, any real good? Has there ever been one?
Yeah. There've been some civil rights cases along those lines.
But what does it matter here? GPL violations are pretty basic copyright infringement / breach of contract cases. They're not of great societal worth.
The reason why inequities exist is because laywer's can't be bothered for anything less than $5000.
Not at all. So long as you pay the hourly fee, you'd have little trouble finding a lawyer that was willing to bring a suit for nominal damages or injunctive relief.
But if you want them to work for free, you're going to have the same problem that you'd have with getting anyone to work for free. People don't do that much, as a rule. Lawyers do, but usually only for relatively indigent clients.
Plus, most inequities have other sources. The judicial system is an attempt to solve some of them, not to create more.
There are lawyers who will work for free, up front, until the close of a case? Really?
Oh yes. It's a very popular practice with plaintiff's attorneys in tort cases.
Obviously, though, some situations can't be handled on contingency. The way it works is that the lawyer gets a share of the eventual monetary award. So if there couldn't be an award (e.g. you're the defendant) or if it's prohibited (e.g. divorce cases) then you're stuck with regular fees.
Maybe if they've been handed an open-and-shut case with a guaranteed win which they can milk for every billable hour it's worth.
Contingency cases don't really involve hourly billing; instead, the lawyer gets a percentage of the eventual award. Usually it's around one third.
Whether a case is handled on a contingency basis or not is largely subject to the ethical rules that lawyers are required to follow and whatever the lawyer and the client can agree on. Lawyers don't have to offer it, and clients don't have to accept it.
Funny how it just never seems to apply in real life.
If you ever see an ad for a lawyer on TV, billboards, etc., I guarantee that they'll be talking up a storm about contingency fees, probably for personal injury cases.
If it did, then you'd be jumping on the GAIM vs. IMblaze case right now, wouldn't you?
Why aren't you?
I'm not that interested in it, at the moment. Plus we're pretty heavily regulated as to how we can advertise and solicit business, so it would be a bit of a PITA anyway.
No lawyer ever works for free unless they're two paychecks away from starving.
This is funny, since most jurisdictions require lawyers to do a certain number of pro bono hours annually. As it happens, I've represented numerous clients for free.
But remember, we're not really talking about pro bono work. We're talking about contingency fees, where the lawyer is gambling on his getting paid in the end, rather than up front. Lawyers on contingency aren't working for free.
Hence, contingency fees.
If you win, you pay nothing up front to the lawyer, and the lawyer takes a share of the award at the end of the case.
If you lose, you pay nothing at all to the lawyer.
It's designed so that clients that can't afford to pay hourly fees can still effectively go to court.
That's really going to make the case well, isn't it. Sure, I'm exaggerating slightly and bnetd can probably come up with a few "legitimate" uses for their application, but I seriously doubt they're going to be able to meet the *substantial* qualification in "substantial non-infringing use".
Well, if we're talking contributory infringement (and that's not really important in this case), remember that Sony is concerned with whether there are potential substantial non-infringing uses. Not actual substantial non-infringing uses. So if we can imagine that someday Blizzard will stop running their servers for some reason, but many people will still want to play the game over networks, then they're set.
Well, I think they're off. Registrations are $30, and civil damages are either damages+profits or as much as $150,000 per _work_ not per infringement. (Or as low as $200, but not both at once)
EVERY SINGLE SALE or DOWNLOAD is now a separate copyright violation, punishable by $20,000/USD to $200,000/USD PER INCIDENT.
Where are you getting these numbers from?
This is precisely where the American legal system fails. In order to bring a suit against someone who has committed a civil wrongdoing (ie. not a crime against the state) the full burden of expense falls on the victim.
Of course, in copyright cases, you can try to get attorney's fees awarded. And you can always see if there is a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency. So it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be.
The solution is a streamlined system of justice which isn't endlessly bottlenecked by paperwork, frivolous forms, and lawyers.
It's actually pretty streamlined now, particularly when you bear in mind that justice is often more highly valued than mere swiftness.
If a GAIM developer should walk into an attorney's office with proof that IMblaze is a ripoff of their code, there should be a compensation check and a court injunction against IMblaze within 24 hours.
That's simply ludicrous.
What, is it Mitochondrial Eve already? I love that holiday. It's so damn festive!
While in the US, not only are there no special provisions for commercials, but since they're separate copyrighted works, if you included them, you might end up having to show fair use separately for them, along with the actual show.
(If we're talking about the Internet. TV rebroadcasters have something similar to the above, but people using BT don't qualify)
Sharing your captured broadcast material over the internet, whether with friends or not, cannot be considered 'criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research' without drastic modification from the current method of how that material is shared.
Sadly, the CO and the Register of Copyrights are not good sources of information regarding copyright.
Anyway, they appear to have misstated 107. In reality, any otherwise infringing act is a fair use if it is fair. Courts can determine fairness by using the four factors in the statute, plus anything else they want to consider.
However the 'list of various purposes' is merely intended as a guide. It is _likely_ that news reporting is fair, but its inclusion in the list means nothing. Only an actual analysis based on the factors involved matters. Fair uses may be other than those listed (note e.g. parody is not included), and those listed may not be fair uses based on the circumstances.
Additionally, fair use is perfectly capable of covering entire works, rather than mere portions thereof. And sometimes, using just a portion was not fair. Fair use depends entirely on the facts. You cannot make accurate blanket statements about what is and is not a fair use.
Further, a 1961 report is of not great value, given the statutory reformulation of fair use in 1976, and the 44 years of quite notable caselaw we've seen since '61.
Given that fair use is, at essence, a judicial doctrine, an equitable doctrine, I think you'd be better off looking at notable cases, chiefly since 1978.
But there were definitely a few nods to Dark Knight; I remember a Time magazine cover with a story about the fictional island (an ersatz Cuba) where the US was having a war (which name escapes me), for instance.
The fictional country is Corto Maltese (a reference to the European comic book character of the same name), but you're right IIRC, that that originated in DKR.
Still, Burton and Hamm clearly looked at other material (e.g. for the Joker's origins, which were not in DKR) and either way, the gas ultimately has earlier origins than DKR, whether they knew it or not.
Oh bah. The laughing poison is a classic, and dates back to the 40's.
Been ages since I read it, but I thought Roe was a penumbra case. That would mean the 9th plays a role, but so do some others.
;)
the Federal government tries to make EVERYTHING an Interstate Commmerce issue
Well, aside from Lopez and Morrison, everything is.
I think it'll be a while before the Court backs down from Wickard. Still, there has been some success in related avenues, where courts have agreed that Congress can't rely on its Commerce power when a particular bit of legislation squarely falls within a different power. The usefulness of this is limited, but there is some.
Oh there's a bunch of 7th A. cases. Basically when there's disputes over whether some particular aspect of a trial can be decided by a jury. For example, in the copyright field, there was a case not too long ago in which the Supreme Court held that statutory damages were a jury issue.
As for the Bill of Rights and the ACLU, I think that their only significant blind spot is the 2d A. 9th and 10th are difficult to do anything with at this point in time, and given the ACLU's history, they probably find the federal government less abusive than the states. Their goal, after all, is to protect the civil liberties of people, and I think they could reasonably have decided that allying themselves with states-rights' folks isn't a good way to do that.
Third Amendment is quartering soldiers. And I vaguely recall that there was once a 3d A. case, but I don't remember when or where. I'd guess it'd be Civil War era. The situation just doesn't come up that much.
And the ACLU, I'm sure, has an interest in the 7th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th (doesn't come up as much as the 15th), 24th, and 26th (also doesn't come up as much as the 15th). There are some others as well, but they might have difficulty with standing issues.
The problem is that there's no taking. Taking requires that you deprive the owner of the thing taken; copying doesn't do that. A better, though still imperfect analogy, would be to trespassing.
Basically, you should work on your vocabulary; just because something is illegal, or even wrong in your opinion, doesn't mean you should call it stealing. A different word might be more appropriate. Arson isn't stealing, for example. Nor is kidnapping.
As it happens, there is a term that is exactly the right term to use: copyright infringement.
It might not inflame your passion, but it's accurate. I value the latter more, especially since it's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone that's being so emotional that they can't think straight.
No he can't. That's known as naked licensing, and it means he loses his trademark.
;)
A proper trademark license requires attention to quality control standards, i.e. the licensor can dictate how the mark is used, can require the licensee to provide examples and submit to spot checks, and can be terminated if used wrongly. In practice, they should be for a limited term of years, and should be valid contracts, which requires consideration, etc.
Lucas likely has good trademark licenses with Kenner (or whoever the hell makes the toys now). I doubt they have anything good with fanfilms makers, though not having looked into it, I can't say.
And btw, there is no form of human endeavor that doesn't require lawyers.
Usually it does not, because works of officers and employees of the federal government, in their official capacities, are not copyrightable. 17 USC 105.
Bzt, wrong, but thanks for playing.
Read 17 USC 110(1) to see that it's typically perfectly legal to show entire movies in the course of education.
Plus, your comment about movies in school libraries is insane. I think you don't understand the difference between public performance and distribution. You also haven't read 17 USC 109, which does not distinguish between public and educational libraries.
Frankly, I think you should probably stop talking about copyright matters, as you have no understanding of them.
No. The 110(1) exception applies to entire works, not just clips. Also n.b. that fair use (107) doesn't apply to just clips either.
However, you can't un-GPL the code you GPLed.
That's not necessarily true, actually.
So what is your proposal? Never-ending copyrights?
First, they're not losing money, they're not making money. There is a difference.
Second, the purpose of copyright is not so that authors can make money. That's just a means to an end. The purpose of copyright is to benefit the public, and part of that means having copyrights terminate after a period of time, ideally as soon as possible whilst providing the greatest public benefit overall.