A 512k floppy would be a hell of an impressive thing, given that the Mac 512k used 400k floppies, and was followed by the 512ke, which used 800k floppies.
The 512k figure refered to the amount of RAM it had.
Depends on how you define "fruits". People are rarely that alturistic that they don't get some kind of compensation, be it a "feel good" feeling, or money.
Copyright is basically about money. I don't disagree that there aren't other incentives for artists, but copyright doesn't do much to provide those.
That's an easy statement for people to make, for people have rarely done without. When the world no longer has artists (of any kind) then you can argue weither artists are important. IMHO they are important to any society.
I think artists are of great importance to society. But that doesn't mean letting artists dictate rules to society either. Particularly when those rules harm other artists.
If the world is made better in a way that incidentally results in there being fewer Stephen Kings, then I'm all for it. I'd also like artists to enjoy comfortable lives doing what they want, but then, I'd like that for everyone too. I'm not willing to prefer artists over everyone altogether.
The public good (a nebulous term at the least) is considered to be well served by providing some protection for original ideas for a period of time.
No, you've just given a backwards example. Protecting works (ideas aren't copyrightable) is, by itself, harmful. It's only acceptable if it results in a greater good than the harm it incurs. You need to alter your statement to allow for protection only where it results in a net benefit for the public that so desperately wants the work to not be protected.
But if I create a phone book with artwork, indexes, lots of pretty formatting in an easy to use form, this is copyrightable.
No, the artwork probably is copyrightable. The indices and formatting MAY be, if they rise to the level of being original, creative works, which is not too common -- most phone books look, and are arranged, alike; that's not original or creative.
The overall compilation too must rise to the level of being more than the sum of its parts in order to garner protection. Just because it's a phone book, that's not good enough.
As I said, the intent of copyright is to promote the public good. Seeking to encourage the creation of original and derivative works and to have those works in the public domain so that they can be enjoyed freely (including at no cost).
While typically the situation is such that a modicum of copyright increases the net public good -- trading off a small amount of immediate realization of the second goal for a commensurately larger amount of immediate realization of the first goal, and then belatedly realizing the second goal -- this isn't necessarily the case.
It is entirely within the realm of possibility that any amount of copyright protection no matter how slight would trade off part of the second goal while realizing nothing in regards to the first; possibly even a decline in creation.
Thus given the right circumstances ANY copyright law would fail to meet the public interest. In order to satisfy its intent, we'd have to abolish copyright altogether, which means not allowing creators to realize the fruits of their labors, at least in the ways copyright is concerned with.
You forget that some artists are willing to work without compensation.
I don't think that things are so bad as to mandate the abolishment of copyright, but it does need to be massively scaled back. This will result in a diminution in the fortunes of authors, but an overall improvement in the public good. I sympathize with authors, but not at a net cost to myself or the rest of the world. They're not that important. (And I _am_ an artist)
Well, it remains the only constitutional intent for copyright. Obviously many people are out there perverting it for their own interests.
And why wouldn't it have been true before the 20th century? All the contemporary writings on the subject revolved around that. The language in the Constitution is pretty clear, as was it before that, all the way back to the Statute of Anne.
Another example: You are the author of a sports almenac (sp?) with all scores from the past 50 years, like in back to the future. Wouldn't you want to own the work you put together? i mean, that probably took you a considerable amount of time to put together and you don't want anyone else to use it for free.
Of course, which is precisely why we don't listen to that person; in fact we ignore them almost completely in deciding what good laws will be. Authors are not important. With regards to drafting copyright laws, we need to consider them only in the same way that a rancher might think about his herd of cattle. And I guarantee you that the cattle don't much like what's in store for them.
No, you need to tell me why it is in MY best interest, as a member of the public, to extend protection to the author. Show me how I'll benefit from it more than I'll suffer, and I'll do it. But I need to come out ahead. Otherwise why should I bear a cross for some schmuck?
Remember, my interests are twofold: 1) I want things like this to be created. I don't care much by whom. And not just one thing -- I want such a diversity of works created that we'd never run short of something new, whether original or derivative. 2) I don't want to pay for it, and I don't want to be limited with regards to what I, or others, can do with it. So having things freely enjoyable, at no cost, and in the public domain is equally as important as having them created in the first place.
Do you feel that any database you take the time to put together should have no protection whatseover? As a whole, I mean..
On what basis?
Are you using uncopyrightable facts to create an original, creative, copyrightable work?
Or are you just such a dipshit that you think that you deserve something special for working hard? The sweat of the brow argument isn't constitutional. Read Feist.
The answer is that if the creator didn't do anything worth copyrighting -- that is if he didn't do anything original and creative and which benefits the public -- then he doesn't deserve protection.
First, the original intent of copyright has nothing to do with allowing creators to realize the fruits of their labor. If _labor_ were important, than we'd already have database copyrights since they operate entirely on a 'sweat of the brow' argument.
No, the intent of copyright is to promote the public good, specifically the dual public interests of seeing that more original and derivative works are created, and that more works are in the public domain.
Second, you're wrong about phone books. If a database isn't copyrighted you can indeed republish it exactly as-is.
Facts are uncopyrightable. Compilations of facts _may_ be copyrightable, but only if they are themselves original, and even then it doesn't protect the contents. A typical phone book is not original -- the selection is all-encompassing within a given area, so that's not protected, it lists unoriginal information such as name, number, address, so that's protected, and it arranges it alphabetically by last name, and that's not original nor protected.
This is a ridiculous law, but you don't seem to know much about our extant ridiculous laws.
To be somewhat more accurate, 105 works are always in the public domain from the moment they're fixed. There's no point during which they're copyrighted between fixation and publication which are distinct events though sometimes simultaneous.
The good thing arises from having been one of many people driving to work on Storrow Drive in bumper to bumper traffic _way_ over the speed limit. Accidents weren't all that common, even despite the dig shifting traffic around periodically. I suspect that takes a lot of skill, even though no margin for error remains.
Well, the common practice in Boston is for people to cross when they feel like it and to drive when they feel like it.
So basically, unless traffic stops for some reason, people will cross at a break in traffic or when there are enough people to significantly outnumber the cars, forcing them to slow down. Likewise, cars will begin to go once most people have crossed.
It's not so much a matter of regulation as it is that the drivers in Boston are really very good, and are willing to drive to the limits of their abilities.
Well, you're partly right, but you also haven't read the very important 17 USC 1001, which defines some of those terms used in the section you quoted. They don't always mean what you think they mean.
Intent of confusion? I don't recall that that's important. For infringement, MS has to PROVE that there was ACTUAL confusion. This basically means very carefully crafted surveys, lest they end up proving their point but not about the right group of people, or suchlike.
Just being or claiming to be a parody isn't enough. Just like it isn't enough in the copyright realm. Instead it merely increases the likelihood that it is not harmful, whether this is because it is not serious and thus not defamatory, or whether it is really a fair use, and not not infringing.
But there's no magical shield by virtue of being a parody. That's always a step towards something else.
I am having some trouble understanding this. I suspect you are not a native speaker of English.
1. It is true that libel and slander are not allowed because they can harm people's reputations. BUT, just hurting reputations isn't bad enough. The libel or slander must also be untrue. If it is true, then no matter how harmful it is to the victim, it is okay. Truth is a perfect defense. It is legal to speak the truth as far as libel and slander are in question.
2. Also, if there is no real harm to the victim's reputation, then it is okay. This can happen if, for example, no one would believe the libelous or slanderous statement. Famous people and government officials are more likely to not suffer harm (or to have to put up with it) than ordinary people.
3. Due to a special law, 47 USC 230, no one can sue a web site, ISP, or other Internet information provider, if all that they have done is to print libel that someone else made and gave to them.
For example, if I libeled someone here, then Slashdot is not responsible, and cannot be sued. I can still be sued though. And if I ran Slashdot, then Slashdot could be sued, since there was not a 'someone else' to give the libel to them.
This is a slightly new law. Under the old rules, a book publisher could be held responsible for the libel of an author since they were closely involved. A book seller probably would not be, however.
In sum, the web site here is OK and cannot be sued as long as they did not write the review that started this event. The professor is wrong to try. The professor can sue the person who actually wrote the review, however. I don't know who would win in that situation, because I don't know enough about it.
Slashdot Mirror
A 512k floppy would be a hell of an impressive thing, given that the Mac 512k used 400k floppies, and was followed by the 512ke, which used 800k floppies.
The 512k figure refered to the amount of RAM it had.
So does this mean he'll be sentenced to a lifetime of horror on Monster Island?
(Don't worry, it's just a name)
Have they got all of those running on WinXP?
Lucas didn't write Empire. Or did you mean that everything he's done since Empire was written has sucked?
Depends on how you define "fruits". People are rarely that alturistic that they don't get some kind of compensation, be it a "feel good" feeling, or money.
Copyright is basically about money. I don't disagree that there aren't other incentives for artists, but copyright doesn't do much to provide those.
That's an easy statement for people to make, for people have rarely done without. When the world no longer has artists (of any kind) then you can argue weither artists are important. IMHO they are important to any society.
I think artists are of great importance to society. But that doesn't mean letting artists dictate rules to society either. Particularly when those rules harm other artists.
If the world is made better in a way that incidentally results in there being fewer Stephen Kings, then I'm all for it. I'd also like artists to enjoy comfortable lives doing what they want, but then, I'd like that for everyone too. I'm not willing to prefer artists over everyone altogether.
The public good (a nebulous term at the least) is considered to be well served by providing some protection for original ideas for a period of time.
No, you've just given a backwards example. Protecting works (ideas aren't copyrightable) is, by itself, harmful. It's only acceptable if it results in a greater good than the harm it incurs. You need to alter your statement to allow for protection only where it results in a net benefit for the public that so desperately wants the work to not be protected.
But if I create a phone book with artwork, indexes, lots of pretty formatting in an easy to use form, this is copyrightable.
No, the artwork probably is copyrightable. The indices and formatting MAY be, if they rise to the level of being original, creative works, which is not too common -- most phone books look, and are arranged, alike; that's not original or creative.
The overall compilation too must rise to the level of being more than the sum of its parts in order to garner protection. Just because it's a phone book, that's not good enough.
Are you sure you're not thinking of the Stationer's Copyright?
Of course you can.
As I said, the intent of copyright is to promote the public good. Seeking to encourage the creation of original and derivative works and to have those works in the public domain so that they can be enjoyed freely (including at no cost).
While typically the situation is such that a modicum of copyright increases the net public good -- trading off a small amount of immediate realization of the second goal for a commensurately larger amount of immediate realization of the first goal, and then belatedly realizing the second goal -- this isn't necessarily the case.
It is entirely within the realm of possibility that any amount of copyright protection no matter how slight would trade off part of the second goal while realizing nothing in regards to the first; possibly even a decline in creation.
Thus given the right circumstances ANY copyright law would fail to meet the public interest. In order to satisfy its intent, we'd have to abolish copyright altogether, which means not allowing creators to realize the fruits of their labors, at least in the ways copyright is concerned with.
You forget that some artists are willing to work without compensation.
I don't think that things are so bad as to mandate the abolishment of copyright, but it does need to be massively scaled back. This will result in a diminution in the fortunes of authors, but an overall improvement in the public good. I sympathize with authors, but not at a net cost to myself or the rest of the world. They're not that important. (And I _am_ an artist)
Well, it remains the only constitutional intent for copyright. Obviously many people are out there perverting it for their own interests.
And why wouldn't it have been true before the 20th century? All the contemporary writings on the subject revolved around that. The language in the Constitution is pretty clear, as was it before that, all the way back to the Statute of Anne.
Another example: You are the author of a sports almenac (sp?) with all scores from the past 50 years, like in back to the future. Wouldn't you want to own the work you put together? i mean, that probably took you a considerable amount of time to put together and you don't want anyone else to use it for free.
Of course, which is precisely why we don't listen to that person; in fact we ignore them almost completely in deciding what good laws will be. Authors are not important. With regards to drafting copyright laws, we need to consider them only in the same way that a rancher might think about his herd of cattle. And I guarantee you that the cattle don't much like what's in store for them.
No, you need to tell me why it is in MY best interest, as a member of the public, to extend protection to the author. Show me how I'll benefit from it more than I'll suffer, and I'll do it. But I need to come out ahead. Otherwise why should I bear a cross for some schmuck?
Remember, my interests are twofold: 1) I want things like this to be created. I don't care much by whom. And not just one thing -- I want such a diversity of works created that we'd never run short of something new, whether original or derivative. 2) I don't want to pay for it, and I don't want to be limited with regards to what I, or others, can do with it. So having things freely enjoyable, at no cost, and in the public domain is equally as important as having them created in the first place.
Do you feel that any database you take the time to put together should have no protection whatseover? As a whole, I mean..
On what basis?
Are you using uncopyrightable facts to create an original, creative, copyrightable work?
Or are you just such a dipshit that you think that you deserve something special for working hard? The sweat of the brow argument isn't constitutional. Read Feist.
The answer is that if the creator didn't do anything worth copyrighting -- that is if he didn't do anything original and creative and which benefits the public -- then he doesn't deserve protection.
Compiling a database is typically not creative.
First, the original intent of copyright has nothing to do with allowing creators to realize the fruits of their labor. If _labor_ were important, than we'd already have database copyrights since they operate entirely on a 'sweat of the brow' argument.
No, the intent of copyright is to promote the public good, specifically the dual public interests of seeing that more original and derivative works are created, and that more works are in the public domain.
Second, you're wrong about phone books. If a database isn't copyrighted you can indeed republish it exactly as-is.
Facts are uncopyrightable. Compilations of facts _may_ be copyrightable, but only if they are themselves original, and even then it doesn't protect the contents. A typical phone book is not original -- the selection is all-encompassing within a given area, so that's not protected, it lists unoriginal information such as name, number, address, so that's protected, and it arranges it alphabetically by last name, and that's not original nor protected.
This is a ridiculous law, but you don't seem to know much about our extant ridiculous laws.
To be somewhat more accurate, 105 works are always in the public domain from the moment they're fixed. There's no point during which they're copyrighted between fixation and publication which are distinct events though sometimes simultaneous.
The good thing arises from having been one of many people driving to work on Storrow Drive in bumper to bumper traffic _way_ over the speed limit. Accidents weren't all that common, even despite the dig shifting traffic around periodically. I suspect that takes a lot of skill, even though no margin for error remains.
Well, the common practice in Boston is for people to cross when they feel like it and to drive when they feel like it.
So basically, unless traffic stops for some reason, people will cross at a break in traffic or when there are enough people to significantly outnumber the cars, forcing them to slow down. Likewise, cars will begin to go once most people have crossed.
It's not so much a matter of regulation as it is that the drivers in Boston are really very good, and are willing to drive to the limits of their abilities.
Scares the shit out everyone else though.
Well, they had some pretty damn big bugs in Nausicaa, so that's a significant point of concern.
the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of
That's not true of general purpose computers. This was discussed in the Diamond v. RIAA case a few years back with regards to portable mp3 players.
Well, you're partly right, but you also haven't read the very important 17 USC 1001, which defines some of those terms used in the section you quoted. They don't always mean what you think they mean.
Maybe you would prefer Azureus?
King did not use the Street Performer Protocol.
If he had, he would have set the overall target price for the entire work, and disclaimed all his rights to it once it had been met.
Instead he wanted $1 from each person, and wouldn't give up anything.
Perhaps if he had done a better job at this, and actually followed the SPP, it might have worked out better.
Intent of confusion? I don't recall that that's important. For infringement, MS has to PROVE that there was ACTUAL confusion. This basically means very carefully crafted surveys, lest they end up proving their point but not about the right group of people, or suchlike.
These kinds of things are always a PITA.
No, he's still okay if he does that, IIRC.
And it's not necessary that he do so either. Really, he ought to just leave it completely alone.
Please see my other, longer post on this subject, here
Just being or claiming to be a parody isn't enough. Just like it isn't enough in the copyright realm. Instead it merely increases the likelihood that it is not harmful, whether this is because it is not serious and thus not defamatory, or whether it is really a fair use, and not not infringing.
But there's no magical shield by virtue of being a parody. That's always a step towards something else.
Well, it's not relevant in this case anyway. Unless the people behind the site actually wrote the review, they're totally protected by 47 USC 230.
.sig does indicate that IANAL. With luck I'll be changing that later this year!
Also, my
I am having some trouble understanding this. I suspect you are not a native speaker of English.
1. It is true that libel and slander are not allowed because they can harm people's reputations. BUT, just hurting reputations isn't bad enough. The libel or slander must also be untrue. If it is true, then no matter how harmful it is to the victim, it is okay. Truth is a perfect defense. It is legal to speak the truth as far as libel and slander are in question.
2. Also, if there is no real harm to the victim's reputation, then it is okay. This can happen if, for example, no one would believe the libelous or slanderous statement. Famous people and government officials are more likely to not suffer harm (or to have to put up with it) than ordinary people.
3. Due to a special law, 47 USC 230, no one can sue a web site, ISP, or other Internet information provider, if all that they have done is to print libel that someone else made and gave to them.
For example, if I libeled someone here, then Slashdot is not responsible, and cannot be sued. I can still be sued though. And if I ran Slashdot, then Slashdot could be sued, since there was not a 'someone else' to give the libel to them.
This is a slightly new law. Under the old rules, a book publisher could be held responsible for the libel of an author since they were closely involved. A book seller probably would not be, however.
In sum, the web site here is OK and cannot be sued as long as they did not write the review that started this event. The professor is wrong to try. The professor can sue the person who actually wrote the review, however. I don't know who would win in that situation, because I don't know enough about it.