I dunno - I liked the old OAVs but I'm not terribly amazed about this. They _ought_ to be showing Cowboy Bebop (I recv'd disc three today - neener neener, Rob) although with better voices for Spike and Faye if it were dubbed.
At least I taped Reboot off of there back when I had cable. That was such a cool show once they finally got a good story arc going.
As for that episode of Dexter's Lab, yeah, that's easily the best parody of Speed Racer ever. It's in the same league as Mecha-Streisand is for Godzilla movies.
No, I don't think that the Tivo itself counts. Tivos are not customary methods of transferring binaries. If there was a CD along with the TiVo though, that would be ok.
Well no. I really doubt that anyone, even Hatch, is claiming that it's fair use for music to be available w/o authorization on napster. The issue is, is it Napster's problem?
And in a tangental issue, if Hatch's constituents want to use Napster, does he want to use Congress' ability to define copyright law to make it more legal to share music over the net, or force the record companies to somehow make their music commercially available on the net? (e.g. 50 cents per MB downloaded on RIAAster...)
I wholeheartedly agree - both in having no desire to take drugs of any sort (barring serious medical need) and in wanting to live in a free country and not a police state.
Is this a troll? I mean come on. You not only want to invade a soverign country and bomb it, but you have a remarkably one sided approach to the freedom of speech.
For instance, it would be illegal to describe the differences between cocaine and roach poison. While I'd be happiest if no one used cocaine recreationally (it has medicinal uses - they use it for some kinds of surgery) I would prefer that they did not kill themselves by taking something that's outright toxic; better that the person lives and gets straightened out.
Let's NOT ban speech. The farthest that the Supremes have tended to go is to ban speech that directly, immediately incites violence. So it would be illegal for me to go to Washington, find the bonehead that proposed this bill and tell an angry mob "Let's string him up." It would NOT be illegal for me to say "When the revolution comes, we're going to find him and string him up." because there's no immediate threat. Hanging the congressman is still a crime though, and there's a really significant difference between doing it and talking about it.
This is a dumb bill, and yet another example of our nations stupid War on Some Drugs.
Well, it's been a _long_ time since I took any politics classes that discussed this but IIRC it works like this:
There are no rules regarding riders per se. In fact, Congress can pass virtually any law they like although they run the risk of it being found unconstitutional and being struck down. However, the riders are amendments to bills that must be passed either on the floor (preferably when there's few enough people around that no one notices) or in a committee. Committees are typically ruled by their chairs, and the chairs are appointed by a combination of the majority party, seniority and favor exchanges.
Riders are actually fairly new (maybe ~50 years old) and before they became common, everything happened in the committees and the various chairs effectively ran the show. But you're right on the money as to why it is that we have riders; to pass an unpopular bill by attaching it in a remora-like fashion, to a bill that is likely to become law. Or to sometimes reverse it and villify whoever won't pass the good part of the bill.
It's unfortunate but the system does actually still tend to work - well, as much as it ever did. No small amount of the genius in our political system was in encouraging a system where it's difficult to ever do anything. Line item vetos were an attempt around riders, but it was both unconstitutional and even more dangerous.
Well... copyrights derive from the copyright clause of the constitution. The principle of Fair Use (among others) is of judicial origin. Later Congress adopted it as well, but the courts upheld it for over a hundred years as a boundary on copyrights as required by the copyright clause.
Congress has the power to expand Fair Use. They don't even have to enact a copyright law at all, unless they want to. But they can't contract it to less than the judicial version or the courts will overturn them.
That's correct. It would be ok to hand out a fair number of complete poems. Handing out something the length of the entire Faerie Queen would probably not be.
But it's something you have to decide on a case by case basis. That's my point. You can't say all copying and unauthorized redistribution is illegal. There are no small number of perfectly good reasons to do so that comply with the copyright clause, which is the ultimate master here.
It depends on the particular circumstances, but generally no, you would not be able to use the entire work. However it's not exclusively for purposes of study or education. It would be somewhat more accurate to say that it has to be for non-commercial purposes.
Re: the Hatch family, there is still the commercial vs. non-commercial issue to be taken into account. Is a corporation using multiple copies of software in some way that is not a commercially significant activity? I suspect that the sharing of music in the Hatch household would not be considered to be commercially significant unless something extreme were done (e.g. the Hatch family consisting of several thousand people who pay admission in their own home or some such)
I don't think that the courts would decide that family members are committing infringement when making CDs for each other. How would it be contrary to the promotion of the arts and sciences for them to do so? That's the ultimate test for copyrights.
You bet. A useful bit of information is 17 USC 107:
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
* (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
* (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
* (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Re: the 2nd paragraph allow me to clarify: the lawful owner of a copy created with the authorization of the copyright holder. If you give me the original authorized copy, you're no longer able to retain other copies. But now I can make copies.
As always, simple statements can't handle this discussion. Sometimes it is fair use to make a copy of material to which someone else holds a valid copyright, and to give that copy away. Sometimes it isnt.
It depends.
I have another post in here along the same lines, but again the canonical example of making a copy and giving it away would be of a teacher who makes copies of material and hands it out to the students in the class. That's fair use.
In fact ONLY when a copy is distributed to someone is there even the possibility of it not being fair use. Your own personal copies are always fair use. Additionally, fair use isn't around b/c of being written into law; it has been around for a very long time in the courts before being written down. It's entirely possible for Congress's definition of what isn't fair use to be overturned in the courts. It's nigh-impossible for it to go the other way, however.
You're half right.Fair use can include the ability to give unauthorized copies to third parties. The canonical example is of a teacher xeroxing parts of books which are handed out to students.
I think that Hatch's example holds as well; did _he_ buy a CD or did he buy a CD as a member of the Hatch family? I'd say the latter. Certainly the method by which property is assessed and divvied up during divorces would seem to imply this.
Of course, if you're going to have people working as professional prostitutes (which is legal in parts of Nevada) then it strikes me that it would be a good idea to require health inspections, etc. due to the risk of spreading disease.
But I'd personally like to see the OSHA requirements;)
Well, a traditional space elevator or beanstalk goes _all_ the way up. IIRC the total height at the end is ~47k miles up. The rather nasty potential for failure is shown in "Red Mars."
Personally, I figure if we have nanotech that good, there are probably going to be some interesting ideas for more efficient engines coming along too.
I hate to break it to you, but the first manned Mercury flight was *twenty days* before Kennedy announced what would be the Apollo program.
Gemini didn't go to the moon, but it was research for Apollo. (e.g. long-duration flight, in-space docking, EVAs) If we hadn't planned on going to the moon, we would have hardly spent anything on NASA, nor would they have ever done a hell of a lot. You should check up on the dates of notable events in space exploration before wishing that we had cut out most of the beginnings.
They used to be. The reason was that the launch facility was in Florida, and the primary landing site was in California. Since then they've built a launch pad in California and a runway in Florida.
It was a converted 747 - one of the bigger changes was the tail assembly. But I'd hate to be the jet if the shuttle took off of it (e.g. the lamentable "Moonraker")
I'm told by some friends who used to work for NASA that the various contractors have a 'friendly' competition going. IIRC Lockheed got the contract for the crane deal that puts the shuttle on the 747. But it's a Boeing plane.
So Boeing painted 'PUT SHUTTLE HERE' on the top of the plane;) Perhaps some NASA people on/. can confirm or deny this story?
Slashdot Mirror
There's more than one damn cartoon cat.
Felix the Cat is totally different than Fritz the Cat. Check out this page or poke around on Google.
I dunno - I liked the old OAVs but I'm not terribly amazed about this. They _ought_ to be showing Cowboy Bebop (I recv'd disc three today - neener neener, Rob) although with better voices for Spike and Faye if it were dubbed.
At least I taped Reboot off of there back when I had cable. That was such a cool show once they finally got a good story arc going.
As for that episode of Dexter's Lab, yeah, that's easily the best parody of Speed Racer ever. It's in the same league as Mecha-Streisand is for Godzilla movies.
No, I don't think that the Tivo itself counts. Tivos are not customary methods of transferring binaries. If there was a CD along with the TiVo though, that would be ok.
So once we genetically engineer a cow that can't feel pain you'll dig in, is that what you're saying? Sounds like a plan to me.
But on the net anyone can be international. I would prefer that we get rid of the country tlds and move everyone into generic tlds.
What's so wrong about, e.g. elizabeth.uk.gov ? Is it more important that it's a governmental site or that it's British?
Yes this is true. I should have made this more clear, although I am aware of it.
Well no. I really doubt that anyone, even Hatch, is claiming that it's fair use for music to be available w/o authorization on napster. The issue is, is it Napster's problem?
And in a tangental issue, if Hatch's constituents want to use Napster, does he want to use Congress' ability to define copyright law to make it more legal to share music over the net, or force the record companies to somehow make their music commercially available on the net? (e.g. 50 cents per MB downloaded on RIAAster...)
And this in a state where Curley did so well? I'm shocked and appalled. I always liked Massachusetts (used to live there) but this is pretty sad.
I wholeheartedly agree - both in having no desire to take drugs of any sort (barring serious medical need) and in wanting to live in a free country and not a police state.
Is this a troll? I mean come on. You not only want to invade a soverign country and bomb it, but you have a remarkably one sided approach to the freedom of speech.
For instance, it would be illegal to describe the differences between cocaine and roach poison. While I'd be happiest if no one used cocaine recreationally (it has medicinal uses - they use it for some kinds of surgery) I would prefer that they did not kill themselves by taking something that's outright toxic; better that the person lives and gets straightened out.
Let's NOT ban speech. The farthest that the Supremes have tended to go is to ban speech that directly, immediately incites violence. So it would be illegal for me to go to Washington, find the bonehead that proposed this bill and tell an angry mob "Let's string him up." It would NOT be illegal for me to say "When the revolution comes, we're going to find him and string him up." because there's no immediate threat. Hanging the congressman is still a crime though, and there's a really significant difference between doing it and talking about it.
This is a dumb bill, and yet another example of our nations stupid War on Some Drugs.
Well, it's been a _long_ time since I took any politics classes that discussed this but IIRC it works like this:
There are no rules regarding riders per se. In fact, Congress can pass virtually any law they like although they run the risk of it being found unconstitutional and being struck down. However, the riders are amendments to bills that must be passed either on the floor (preferably when there's few enough people around that no one notices) or in a committee. Committees are typically ruled by their chairs, and the chairs are appointed by a combination of the majority party, seniority and favor exchanges.
Riders are actually fairly new (maybe ~50 years old) and before they became common, everything happened in the committees and the various chairs effectively ran the show. But you're right on the money as to why it is that we have riders; to pass an unpopular bill by attaching it in a remora-like fashion, to a bill that is likely to become law. Or to sometimes reverse it and villify whoever won't pass the good part of the bill.
It's unfortunate but the system does actually still tend to work - well, as much as it ever did. No small amount of the genius in our political system was in encouraging a system where it's difficult to ever do anything. Line item vetos were an attempt around riders, but it was both unconstitutional and even more dangerous.
Well... copyrights derive from the copyright clause of the constitution. The principle of Fair Use (among others) is of judicial origin. Later Congress adopted it as well, but the courts upheld it for over a hundred years as a boundary on copyrights as required by the copyright clause.
Congress has the power to expand Fair Use. They don't even have to enact a copyright law at all, unless they want to. But they can't contract it to less than the judicial version or the courts will overturn them.
That's correct. It would be ok to hand out a fair number of complete poems. Handing out something the length of the entire Faerie Queen would probably not be.
But it's something you have to decide on a case by case basis. That's my point. You can't say all copying and unauthorized redistribution is illegal. There are no small number of perfectly good reasons to do so that comply with the copyright clause, which is the ultimate master here.
It depends on the particular circumstances, but generally no, you would not be able to use the entire work. However it's not exclusively for purposes of study or education. It would be somewhat more accurate to say that it has to be for non-commercial purposes.
Re: the Hatch family, there is still the commercial vs. non-commercial issue to be taken into account. Is a corporation using multiple copies of software in some way that is not a commercially significant activity? I suspect that the sharing of music in the Hatch household would not be considered to be commercially significant unless something extreme were done (e.g. the Hatch family consisting of several thousand people who pay admission in their own home or some such)
I don't think that the courts would decide that family members are committing infringement when making CDs for each other. How would it be contrary to the promotion of the arts and sciences for them to do so? That's the ultimate test for copyrights.
Re: the 2nd paragraph allow me to clarify: the lawful owner of a copy created with the authorization of the copyright holder. If you give me the original authorized copy, you're no longer able to retain other copies. But now I can make copies.
As always, simple statements can't handle this discussion. Sometimes it is fair use to make a copy of material to which someone else holds a valid copyright, and to give that copy away. Sometimes it isnt.
It depends.
I have another post in here along the same lines, but again the canonical example of making a copy and giving it away would be of a teacher who makes copies of material and hands it out to the students in the class. That's fair use.
In fact ONLY when a copy is distributed to someone is there even the possibility of it not being fair use. Your own personal copies are always fair use. Additionally, fair use isn't around b/c of being written into law; it has been around for a very long time in the courts before being written down. It's entirely possible for Congress's definition of what isn't fair use to be overturned in the courts. It's nigh-impossible for it to go the other way, however.
You're half right.Fair use can include the ability to give unauthorized copies to third parties. The canonical example is of a teacher xeroxing parts of books which are handed out to students.
I think that Hatch's example holds as well; did _he_ buy a CD or did he buy a CD as a member of the Hatch family? I'd say the latter. Certainly the method by which property is assessed and divvied up during divorces would seem to imply this.
Of course, if you're going to have people working as professional prostitutes (which is legal in parts of Nevada) then it strikes me that it would be a good idea to require health inspections, etc. due to the risk of spreading disease.
;)
But I'd personally like to see the OSHA requirements
Well, a traditional space elevator or beanstalk goes _all_ the way up. IIRC the total height at the end is ~47k miles up. The rather nasty potential for failure is shown in "Red Mars."
Personally, I figure if we have nanotech that good, there are probably going to be some interesting ideas for more efficient engines coming along too.
As well as because it's otherwise useless land and there was already a testing range there.
I hate to break it to you, but the first manned Mercury flight was *twenty days* before Kennedy announced what would be the Apollo program.
Gemini didn't go to the moon, but it was research for Apollo. (e.g. long-duration flight, in-space docking, EVAs) If we hadn't planned on going to the moon, we would have hardly spent anything on NASA, nor would they have ever done a hell of a lot. You should check up on the dates of notable events in space exploration before wishing that we had cut out most of the beginnings.
They used to be. The reason was that the launch facility was in Florida, and the primary landing site was in California. Since then they've built a launch pad in California and a runway in Florida.
;) Perhaps some NASA people on /. can confirm or deny this story?
It was a converted 747 - one of the bigger changes was the tail assembly. But I'd hate to be the jet if the shuttle took off of it (e.g. the lamentable "Moonraker")
I'm told by some friends who used to work for NASA that the various contractors have a 'friendly' competition going. IIRC Lockheed got the contract for the crane deal that puts the shuttle on the 747. But it's a Boeing plane.
So Boeing painted 'PUT SHUTTLE HERE' on the top of the plane
The devil's in the details - copying someone else's work w/o permission is not necessarily wrong. Nor is it necessarily illegal. It depends.
OTOH, the RIAA are pretty much scum, yeah.
IIRC Alaska, Deleware, Oregon and New Hampshire haven't got sales taxes. I just wanted a big state...
A big magnesium robot that shoots fire? Boy now that's an accident waiting to happen ;)