There was the work of child rearing -- something that takes a lot of time and attention. There was the work of singing and dancing and sharing joy and culture and storytelling -- something that will still be needed. There was art and expression.
Right, this is exactly what I'm talking about. We, people, have been creating and being artistic for the whole of our known existence. It's for this reason that I am suspicious of all "necessities to incentivize creativity". If one is truly being himself he will have no problem creating for the sheer joy of it, whether it be procreating, painting, dancing, storytelling (and all of the modern and future derivatives of these activities).
This belief, of the core human endeavour for creating meaning out of nothing, is what allows me to get past the fear of the 'robo-apocalypse' because the paradigm shift that follows will surely be better for us all. I know that sounds kinda silly, but when I say 'robo-apocalypse' I mean that period where the First world shifts to the only labour source cheaper than third-word servitude, robotic automation. That's going to be a scarey time. I think it will be hard for us all to see past the turmoil of majority un-employment before governmental institutions have adapted to cope with the 'new order'. That's what I mean by scarey, and I think I might live to see it.
I can't wait for the society that exists to pursue its own interests with the zeal that comes from self-determination. It blows my mind to think about what it would be like if anyone who wanted to go to school could do it without the artificial pressures of 'how will I pay for this', 'shouldn't I learn what will land me a high paying job', 'vocation is more important than research, or pure science', etc.
you: If copyrights impose a burden on society (like real estate), why not tax them annually at some self-assessed buyout value (the cost the copyright holder would be content with to have the work in the public domain)?
Oh, but copyright holders might protest they can not fairly evaluate the copyright as some copyrights make a lot of money, and most do not. But there we have it -- the notion of copyright as a lottery ticket which the essay touches on. Do we want creative works funded as lotteries?
This is a really great point -- if copyrights are to be (against the Constitution) extended infinitely, thus creating in "intellectual property" the same rights as real property then why shouldn't these eternal copyrights be taxed?! That's great! This would also return the incentive to donate to the public domain, as it unprofitable copyrights would become a tax burden. As mentioned elsewhere, I'd be happier to go back to the pre-1976 epoch of copyrights (all works public domain unless registered), but in lieu of that a system like this might cancel out some of the harm done. I.e., Disney could keep Micky Mouse forever, but they would have to pay taxes on that "property", meanwhile I could write a book, get paid while it's novel and profitable, then release it to the public domain when the sales no longer outstrip the taxes. Interesting.
Thanks for the refreshing idea. That seems even more interesting in the near term than BIG.
Also in response to your post... So the future you are talking about is bound up into issues like a guaranteed income or fair share of rapidly increasing industrial productivity. So essentially a "Star Trek" like society, with matter replicators -- which are at most ten or twenty years away, as people are using limited prototypes of them now.
I think the time-frame is further out -- but the abolition of scarcity is a real conundrum that we may face one day. I think the abolition of labor will arrive sooner (c.f. Robot Nation et al). What happens when The Diamond Age is upon us and The Feed can suck up the untapped matter of the Earth at basically no cost and then re-compile it into just about anything? When it becomes trivial to produce food, shelter, and clean water, what will we fight wars over? Stephenson suggests in the book (for those that haven't read it) that there will be cultures that prize the scarcity of crafted goods, hence sustaining a small market for labor and materials.
I imagine this future-vision might be true, if so, for all intents and purposes, there will be no reason, unless one chooses, to work/create again. I think scenarios like this really urge us to deeply look inside ourselves (as creative, artistic beings) and ask: Why do I create? Why do I invent?
Sorry I was all over the place with this rambling post.
But they have failed not in that they have lost the "middle ground" but that they have not seen that contrary to copyright monopolies, the right to copy, share, and distribute information is a right!
That sentence is ridiculous. In fact, the essay is very strong until your begin to draw the parallel from the Industrial Revolution, it then slides into a rant around the time of the above. If you can't spot why after a couple readings I will point it out: You are using a circular logic, "the right to copy [...] is a right!".
In general though, I agree, Intellectual Property is not property, and as such there is no right to it (broadly, or inalienably). Your argument is an interesting side effect, that if there it no right to intellectual property then maybe there is a "right to copy". Our Constitution may also recognize this, as it only outlines for Congress (In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8) to have the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". After this exclusive time, it would seem there is a "right to copy" or at least, there is no longer a right not to copy. This is my biggest gripe with the current situation -- if the copyright laws had stayed the way they were prior to 1976 we might not even be having this argument; We might still satisfied with the status quo. Of course, IANAL nor a Constitutional scholar, ymmv.
Don't change the title at all, even if you do a re-write.:-D Bitter indeed!
So hats-off to The Apprentice for fostering another generation with these illusions.:-D
Showing 20-somethings eating caviar and cruising around in private jets is really just propagating the myth. And that's without the cult of celebrity.
The American Dream is alive, but its image has been skewed. Everyone can still work hard and have a good life but we (as a country) need to re-center on what that good-life is. You know, like push it back to the Levittown days or something, where a man could be happy with one car, one wife, one hundred-thousand-dollars, and one job that he liked for the rest of his life. The common belief that you have to be a millionaire (billionaire?) to be happy is poisoning our whole culture.
It's even funnier when you go straight to the linux.slashdot.org address... then the front page looks like this:
Mandrake to Acquire Conectiva
Linux Mandrake Posted by CowboyNeal on 2005-02-24 21:09 from the changing-of-hands dept. An anonymous reader writes "With a press release Mandrakesoft has announced the acquisition of Conectiva. 'Mandrakesoft, the number one European Linux company, today announced a definitive agreement to acquire Conectiva, the number one Linux company in Brazil and Latin America. This acquisition is expected to increase significantly Mandrakesoft's size and R&D capabilities.'"
( Read More... | 21 of 148 comments )
Ask Slashdot: Building a Linux Computer Lab for Schools? Software Posted by Cliff on 2005-02-24 14:12 from the penguins-in-education dept. joseamuniz asks: "After giving Linux classes to Secondary School Teachers, I got in touch with a non-profit organization called UNETE. This association has donated 1,523 computer labs to public schools in Mexico. I told them about Linux, and they are interested in equipping a beta computer lab with this Operating System, with Intel PIII, 256 MB RAM PCs. The more they like this lab, the higher chances to include Linux in the new labs donated by this institution." What hardware configurations and software packages would you install on such a machine to show off the real power of Linux in an educational environment?
( Read More... | 44 of 428 comments )
Mandrakesoft Acquires Conectiva Linux Business Posted by Zonk on 2005-02-24 11:25 from the one-plus-one-equals-linux dept. rednaxel writes "This morning, both companies issued press releases about the merge. French Mandrakesoft is acquiring all shares of brazilian Conectiva for a total amount of 1.79 million EUR (2.3 million USD) in stock." CNet has coverage of the merger as well. From the article: "This won't elevate us to the status of Red Hat or Novell/SuSE yet, of course, but this is a significant growth for us..."
( Read More... | 31 of 209 comments )
That's right, THE DUPES ARE SO CLOSE THEY APPEAR IN THE SAME FREAKIN WINDOW. They are seperated by one -- ONE -- other story. It's a new level of laziness.
By that metric, I'm more than twice as cool! Yeah, I'll probably get modded down because this post was stupid but I'll take any opportunity I can to show off...;)
Holy shit, I'm 4 times as cool! I must be frickin Cool as Ice...
(What's sad is this is, atleast, the second thread about UIDs attached to this story... maybe because there is no story here so we are all just going to sit around bs-ing.:-)
I think I might still have an XT with an MFM drive.:) Compare an 10mb MFM drive to a 10gb SATA drive, can you believe how much smaller and lighter? It's been what like 15 years? 10tb drives will be the size and weight of iPod Shuffles before you know it.
I know I'm just rambling, but I figured while we were reminiscing...
Me: [reproducing a TV broadcast] is a right you don't have.
You: It'd be more accurate to invert this; he has the right, he just can't legally exercise it. Under the right circumstances, he can exercise it. Free speech is what is limited by copyright, but it's inherent.
Duh, of course. I can shout "Fire!" it's just not legal in all cases. This is interesting to me. I thought (and again, I'm stupid) that the Betamax case made it "OK" to tape and time-shift stuff for your own use, and that an earlier law, the Home Recording Act [of some year], iirc, gave you the permission to format-shift. Is it that these are still 'infringing' but have have exceptions or defenses (or both)?
This stuff intrigues me, but I don't know if I could go back to school for law... it seems so intense to grok.
As Alsee points out later I was imprecise in my original response. As you describe it, of course it's legal, that's what a TiVo, EyeTV, and countless other DVRs and VCRs do. There is no debate over whether or not it's allowed (excepted from infringement) to tape something off the air.
What I was basically addressing was your comment, "Personally I don't think broadcasters (cable is a different story) have a leg to stand on," in light of the parent that asks: "But how is downloading television episodes illegal? They're on the tube for free, for heaven's sake! As long as the content is not for profit, I don't see where they have a leg to stand on."
I was trying to explain why they have a leg to stand on.
You: HELLOOOOO! Your very next paragraph you yourself admit that is not infringment of the copyright holder's rights. This is indeed a "right" the public is free to engage in. I'm not sure what more argument or explanation I really need to make considering you've already admitted you were wrong on this point.
You got me there -- whoops:-D. I left out the statement about uploading. I thought there was an obvious difference between copying something for one's own fair use, and reproducing television broadcasts for distribution (via VHS, or BT). Wasn't that what we were talking about, downloading TV shows over the Internet? Both downloading and uploading television broadcasts is obviously infringement, cf., Napster.
Mooseguy:
[Over the air broadcasters] are dropping flyers from the sky, and complaining if you put one in your pocket to read it later.
Me: If you started copying the flyer and giving it to other people you'd be liable.
You: That is at least *potentially* copyright infringement. We'd need to look at specific details to make a determination either way. In some cases you can even go into business selling such copies and it's not infringment, for example the Pretty Woman case.
Public domain flyers (pre-1914 flyers), sure. Parody flyers? I guess. An exception for parody denotes some kind of alteration of the work. So yeah, I could make parodies of TV shows and distribute them (dubbing over the soundtracks with something humorous, ironic, satirical), and then when I got sued I would at least have a defense. I could have sworn I was talking about copies though, and not derivative works. Double check me.
None of these fair-use arguments are relevant to the point I was addressing: redistribution of EM transmission. Going way back, this whole thread is addressing the ancestor: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140452&cid=117 65691 But how is downloading television episodes illegal? They're on the tube for free, for heaven's sake! As long as the content is not for profit, I don't see where they have a leg to stand on.
It doesn't matter if they were on the tube for free, it's very clear that uploading TV is infringing. I think it's pretty clear that downloading is infringing too (again cf. Napster). There may be some convoluted time/format-shift defense for downloading a recording of a broadcast (maybe if the broadcast was intact, it wasn't an NFL broadcast because they disclaim all of that, if it was complete with commercials and thus there is no argument of derivation), but I know of no precedent.
P.s. I don't know if the sports broadcast over-the-air-disclaimer has ever been tested in court either. IANAL. Pardon any typos.
Reckless Visionary: you're supposed to "watch" the tv show on tv
You: Well, why don't you just keep doing what you are "supposed" to do and those of us who can think for ourselves will utilize great sites like ShunTV that allows us more freedom and choice in our television consumption. For someone who's login is "Reckless Visionary" your comment is more indicative of someone who's nick might be "Brainwashed Sheep".
Funny, your login is more like "Spineless Pussy".
These are strange days we live in. At least when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was standing up against laws he believed were wrong he didn't do it from the shadows of anonymity. Maybe like his namesake, instead of hiding, you could nail your improved vision of how to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" to the doors of Congress.
What's weird, is you defend your freedom of choice in television consumption. I mean doesn't that by its very virtue represent you as a 'brainwashed sheep' as well? Why aren't you stealing a 'zine or reacting in some avante garde theatre?
"I have to download my copies of the most popular forms of entertainment BECAUSE I'M DIFFERENT!" What a load of crap. If you could think for yourself why would you even bother with passive amusements like television programming?
MooseGuy529 said:... If I take this copy [the electromagnetic wave], take it out of the air, put it on magnetic tape (or a hard drive) and then later show it again, how is this invalidating a copyright? Personally I don't think broadcasters (cable is a different story) have a leg to stand on.
Well this one is pretty clear WRT copyright law. See, the broadcaster has rights to copy the programme (via sending it out on "the air"). You don't own the rights to copy it. The exception for your viewing is the 'transitory' nature of the copy. When you put that EM wave you took out of the air and put it on tape (harddrive, etc) you are reproducing (fixing the work to a tangible medium). This is a right you don't have. That's why programmes have 'fine print' at the end of the credits that say things like "Copyright [Someone]. All rights reserved".
[Over the air broadcasters] are dropping flyers from the sky, and complaining if you put one in your pocket to read it later.
This point doesn't back up your argument, which is one of reproduction (red herring). Time-shifting is an established fair use. If you started copying the flyer and giving it to other people you'd be liable. Depending on the consequences of that action (fraud, large damages from, say, reproducing a flyer with a price typo), maybe worse.
You said: How long can a work be retained before is considered non-transitory? [...] CD players with ASP (Advanced Skip Protection) retain a copy of a work for up to 120 seconds. If that is not transitory, anyone listening to a protected work in one of those CD players is infringing.
No, I don't think would be the case. As the 'owner' of the CD you are extended certain exceptions to the reproduction rights of the copyright holder. This is why you can, for instance, format shift your 'own' audio, and can for instance, install software from CD or other fixed medium onto a harddrive (another fixed medium) and then load the program into RAM (as defined by case law since the 80s another fixed medium). You may also be granted exceptions to create reproductions for backup purposes.
IANAL. Other users may have a clearer or more precise answer than mine.
Foley, as a liscensee can't enforce the copyrights of his liscensors.
It's an interesting dilemma.
If I sell a computer, built into a cabinet with a joystick, this is legal. Additionally, if I sell it with MAME included, this is legal.
- If I include ROMs it is illegal (it both violates copyright and the MAME liscense). Only the holders of the copyrights (Capcom, Namco, etc) and whoever enforces MAME's license can go after me.
- If I include instructions for how to illegally download or purchase ROMs, I am breaking the law. This is contributory infringent, or conspiracy to commit infringement (Something along those lines c.f. Napster). Only law enforcement can go after me here at the behest of compeitors and liscensors, but they can't reliably sue me.
- If I include the MAME logo on the cabinent, this is illegal (it violates the copyright on the graphic). The owner of the copyright can sue me.
- The inclusion of other marks and graphics on the cabinet that are not my own can also get me sued by trademark and copyright holders (The likeness of Ms. Pacman, the Pole Position logo, etc).
My questions are these: - If I advertise that my product is capable of infringing copyright, is this legal?
I make a arcade cabinet with MAME inside and advertise it by saying "Capable of playing 4000 of the games you already own if you have hardware to copy ROMs from your original boards!!"
I can't say "Plays 4000 games you can download for free FROM THE INTERNET!!"
What's The Right Way for someone in this market to level the playing field?
(To the parent poster, "Work[ing] with the MAME group" doesn't seem like a sucessful tactic, as they can only (and already do) cover the sales of MAME with ROMs included. There's no vigilante way to enforce copyrights that you only license.)
(Pardon any typos, I didn't have time to proofread)
Stephen Samuel:...In other words: if he succeeds in getting the trademark on Mame, he could end up with a registered logo that he's at risk of being sued for if he actually uses it in public.
He would never have to use the mark to enforce it. Imagine this scenario:
I make a product that includes and emulates legally liscensed games. Someone else makes a product that emulates illegally included games. If the 'bad guy' advertises that "My cabinet uses MAME to provide you with nearly 4000 classica games!!" then I can now pursue the 'bad guy' (he's using my mark to advertise the features of his product). My lawyers shoot off a letter that says "hey, you can't use MAME in your avertising, that's not your trademark." Better yet, in this scenario, if a 'bad guy' includes the mame logo on the cabinet, BAM he's not only infringing the copyright of the graphic's author, but also the trademark. This 'bad guy' can get two letters from two different lawyers. Me, the trademark holder, and the copyright holder.
I don't know if he can be granted the trademark, but this is the way that it can be used. This is necessary because as a liscensee [of the retro-grames] he can't use lawyers to go after copyright infringers; Only the liscensor can do that.
As others have stated over and over, there is no 'prior-art' argument for trademark. MAME can't ever demonstrate that they were using the mark in a commercial endeavour, as commercial endeavours violate the license they distribute MAME with (doesn't distributing MAME with ROMs also violate the liscense?). It's their out -- it's what prevents them from getting crushed as contributory infringers.
DwarfGoanna (447841) Alter Relationship on 2005-02-21 0:28 (#11733456) Let's sue the creators of the simplest, cheapest, most functional, most popular means of playing retro video games ever.
Why is it the "cheapest...ever"? Probably has something to do with the unmitigated copyright infringement among the MAME fanboys.
Don't get me wrong, I think MAME is a great tool for serious retro arcaders -- the people who buy and restore the cabinents for hobby. The minute you start selling these cabinets with ROMs you're just like every other white collar criminal/ fraudster.
Anyhow, another example of why the copyright term has been extended beyond usefulness.
(Ironic side note, the ad on the top of my page is for Namco TV Classics over at Think Geek. I wonder if this product licensed the games legitamately.)
Why didn't you go on to point out that he didn't capitalize any proper nouns? He didn't even italicize the title of a creative work! Your pedant-circuits must have overloaded!
Oh wait, you wouldn't have noticed that small breach of grammar, because you, yourself, made the same mistake in your pedantic response.:-D
Slashdot Mirror
There was the work of child rearing -- something that takes a lot of time and attention. There was the work of singing and dancing and sharing joy and culture and storytelling -- something that will still be needed. There was art and expression.
Right, this is exactly what I'm talking about. We, people, have been creating and being artistic for the whole of our known existence. It's for this reason that I am suspicious of all "necessities to incentivize creativity". If one is truly being himself he will have no problem creating for the sheer joy of it, whether it be procreating, painting, dancing, storytelling (and all of the modern and future derivatives of these activities).
This belief, of the core human endeavour for creating meaning out of nothing, is what allows me to get past the fear of the 'robo-apocalypse' because the paradigm shift that follows will surely be better for us all. I know that sounds kinda silly, but when I say 'robo-apocalypse' I mean that period where the First world shifts to the only labour source cheaper than third-word servitude, robotic automation. That's going to be a scarey time. I think it will be hard for us all to see past the turmoil of majority un-employment before governmental institutions have adapted to cope with the 'new order'. That's what I mean by scarey, and I think I might live to see it.
I can't wait for the society that exists to pursue its own interests with the zeal that comes from self-determination. It blows my mind to think about what it would be like if anyone who wanted to go to school could do it without the artificial pressures of 'how will I pay for this', 'shouldn't I learn what will land me a high paying job', 'vocation is more important than research, or pure science', etc.
Thanks for more good links. Have a good one.
you: If copyrights impose a burden on society (like real estate), why not tax them annually at some self-assessed buyout value (the cost the copyright holder would be content with to have the work in the public domain)?
Oh, but copyright holders might protest they can not fairly evaluate the copyright as some copyrights make a lot of money, and most do not. But there we have it -- the notion of copyright as a lottery ticket which the essay touches on. Do we want creative works funded as lotteries?
This is a really great point -- if copyrights are to be (against the Constitution) extended infinitely, thus creating in "intellectual property" the same rights as real property then why shouldn't these eternal copyrights be taxed?! That's great! This would also return the incentive to donate to the public domain, as it unprofitable copyrights would become a tax burden. As mentioned elsewhere, I'd be happier to go back to the pre-1976 epoch of copyrights (all works public domain unless registered), but in lieu of that a system like this might cancel out some of the harm done. I.e., Disney could keep Micky Mouse forever, but they would have to pay taxes on that "property", meanwhile I could write a book, get paid while it's novel and profitable, then release it to the public domain when the sales no longer outstrip the taxes. Interesting.
Thanks for the refreshing idea. That seems even more interesting in the near term than BIG.
Also in response to your post... So the future you are talking about is bound up into issues like a guaranteed income or fair share of rapidly increasing industrial productivity. So essentially a "Star Trek" like society, with matter replicators -- which are at most ten or twenty years away, as people are using limited prototypes of them now.
I think the time-frame is further out -- but the abolition of scarcity is a real conundrum that we may face one day. I think the abolition of labor will arrive sooner (c.f. Robot Nation et al). What happens when The Diamond Age is upon us and The Feed can suck up the untapped matter of the Earth at basically no cost and then re-compile it into just about anything? When it becomes trivial to produce food, shelter, and clean water, what will we fight wars over? Stephenson suggests in the book (for those that haven't read it) that there will be cultures that prize the scarcity of crafted goods, hence sustaining a small market for labor and materials.
I imagine this future-vision might be true, if so, for all intents and purposes, there will be no reason, unless one chooses, to work/create again. I think scenarios like this really urge us to deeply look inside ourselves (as creative, artistic beings) and ask: Why do I create? Why do I invent?
Sorry I was all over the place with this rambling post.
In general though, I agree, Intellectual Property is not property, and as such there is no right to it (broadly, or inalienably). Your argument is an interesting side effect, that if there it no right to intellectual property then maybe there is a "right to copy". Our Constitution may also recognize this, as it only outlines for Congress (In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8) to have the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". After this exclusive time, it would seem there is a "right to copy" or at least, there is no longer a right not to copy. This is my biggest gripe with the current situation -- if the copyright laws had stayed the way they were prior to 1976 we might not even be having this argument; We might still satisfied with the status quo. Of course, IANAL nor a Constitutional scholar, ymmv.
Don't change the title at all, even if you do a re-write.
So hats-off to The Apprentice for fostering another generation with these illusions. :-D
Showing 20-somethings eating caviar and cruising around in private jets is really just propagating the myth. And that's without the cult of celebrity.
The American Dream is alive, but its image has been skewed. Everyone can still work hard and have a good life but we (as a country) need to re-center on what that good-life is. You know, like push it back to the Levittown days or something, where a man could be happy with one car, one wife, one hundred-thousand-dollars, and one job that he liked for the rest of his life. The common belief that you have to be a millionaire (billionaire?) to be happy is poisoning our whole culture.
Yeah... I sure liked custom slashboxes back when they were new. It seems so long ago. I guess the novelty wore off when "JennyCam" died. Ha.
Chuckle. Touche. :-D Oh the cruel hands of fate that must have robbed me of 42!
A really low user ID, and that makes me cool.
;)
...
:-)
By that metric, I'm more than twice as cool! Yeah, I'll probably get modded down because this post was stupid but I'll take any opportunity I can to show off...
Holy shit, I'm 4 times as cool! I must be frickin Cool as Ice
(What's sad is this is, atleast, the second thread about UIDs attached to this story... maybe because there is no story here so we are all just going to sit around bs-ing.
3 digits?
*cough* *cough*.
Just to chime in about low UIDs. :-D
:) Compare an 10mb MFM drive to a 10gb SATA drive, can you believe how much smaller and lighter? It's been what like 15 years? 10tb drives will be the size and weight of iPod Shuffles before you know it.
I think I might still have an XT with an MFM drive.
I know I'm just rambling, but I figured while we were reminiscing...
Me: [reproducing a TV broadcast] is a right you don't have.
You: It'd be more accurate to invert this; he has the right, he just can't legally exercise it. Under the right circumstances, he can exercise it. Free speech is what is limited by copyright, but it's inherent.
Duh, of course. I can shout "Fire!" it's just not legal in all cases. This is interesting to me. I thought (and again, I'm stupid) that the Betamax case made it "OK" to tape and time-shift stuff for your own use, and that an earlier law, the Home Recording Act [of some year], iirc, gave you the permission to format-shift. Is it that these are still 'infringing' but have have exceptions or defenses (or both)?
This stuff intrigues me, but I don't know if I could go back to school for law... it seems so intense to grok.
As I mentioned, I'm not a laywer, but cpt kangarooski is. So maybe you'd be interested in this follow-up:
7 72287
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140329&cid=11
As Alsee points out later I was imprecise in my original response. As you describe it, of course it's legal, that's what a TiVo, EyeTV, and countless other DVRs and VCRs do. There is no debate over whether or not it's allowed (excepted from infringement) to tape something off the air.
What I was basically addressing was your comment, "Personally I don't think broadcasters (cable is a different story) have a leg to stand on," in light of the parent that asks: "But how is downloading television episodes illegal? They're on the tube for free, for heaven's sake! As long as the content is not for profit, I don't see where they have a leg to stand on."
I was trying to explain why they have a leg to stand on.
You got me there -- whoops
Public domain flyers (pre-1914 flyers), sure. Parody flyers? I guess. An exception for parody denotes some kind of alteration of the work. So yeah, I could make parodies of TV shows and distribute them (dubbing over the soundtracks with something humorous, ironic, satirical), and then when I got sued I would at least have a defense. I could have sworn I was talking about copies though, and not derivative works. Double check me.
None of these fair-use arguments are relevant to the point I was addressing: redistribution of EM transmission. Going way back, this whole thread is addressing the ancestor: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140452&cid=11
But how is downloading television episodes illegal? They're on the tube for free, for heaven's sake! As long as the content is not for profit, I don't see where they have a leg to stand on.
It doesn't matter if they were on the tube for free, it's very clear that uploading TV is infringing. I think it's pretty clear that downloading is infringing too (again cf. Napster). There may be some convoluted time/format-shift defense for downloading a recording of a broadcast (maybe if the broadcast was intact, it wasn't an NFL broadcast because they disclaim all of that, if it was complete with commercials and thus there is no argument of derivation), but I know of no precedent.
P.s. I don't know if the sports broadcast over-the-air-disclaimer has ever been tested in court either. IANAL. Pardon any typos.
Reckless Visionary: you're supposed to "watch" the tv show on tv
You: Well, why don't you just keep doing what you are "supposed" to do and those of us who can think for ourselves will utilize great sites like ShunTV that allows us more freedom and choice in our television consumption. For someone who's login is "Reckless Visionary" your comment is more indicative of someone who's nick might be "Brainwashed Sheep".
Funny, your login is more like "Spineless Pussy".
These are strange days we live in. At least when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was standing up against laws he believed were wrong he didn't do it from the shadows of anonymity. Maybe like his namesake, instead of hiding, you could nail your improved vision of how to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" to the doors of Congress.
What's weird, is you defend your freedom of choice in television consumption. I mean doesn't that by its very virtue represent you as a 'brainwashed sheep' as well? Why aren't you stealing a 'zine or reacting in some avante garde theatre?
"I have to download my copies of the most popular forms of entertainment BECAUSE I'M DIFFERENT!" What a load of crap. If you could think for yourself why would you even bother with passive amusements like television programming?
Am I getting the hang of it?
d =11768557
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140452&ci
MooseGuy529 said: ... If I take this copy [the electromagnetic wave], take it out of the air, put it on magnetic tape (or a hard drive) and then later show it again, how is this invalidating a copyright? Personally I don't think broadcasters (cable is a different story) have a leg to stand on.
Well this one is pretty clear WRT copyright law. See, the broadcaster has rights to copy the programme (via sending it out on "the air"). You don't own the rights to copy it. The exception for your viewing is the 'transitory' nature of the copy. When you put that EM wave you took out of the air and put it on tape (harddrive, etc) you are reproducing (fixing the work to a tangible medium). This is a right you don't have. That's why programmes have 'fine print' at the end of the credits that say things like "Copyright [Someone]. All rights reserved".
Why? http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
[Over the air broadcasters] are dropping flyers from the sky, and complaining if you put one in your pocket to read it later.
This point doesn't back up your argument, which is one of reproduction (red herring). Time-shifting is an established fair use. If you started copying the flyer and giving it to other people you'd be liable. Depending on the consequences of that action (fraud, large damages from, say, reproducing a flyer with a price typo), maybe worse.
I live in Jacksonville. If you are familiar with the place, I live in St. Nicholas, behind "The Old Bookshop".
You said: How long can a work be retained before is considered non-transitory? [...] CD players with ASP (Advanced Skip Protection) retain a copy of a work for up to 120 seconds. If that is not transitory, anyone listening to a protected work in one of those CD players is infringing.
No, I don't think would be the case. As the 'owner' of the CD you are extended certain exceptions to the reproduction rights of the copyright holder. This is why you can, for instance, format shift your 'own' audio, and can for instance, install software from CD or other fixed medium onto a harddrive (another fixed medium) and then load the program into RAM (as defined by case law since the 80s another fixed medium). You may also be granted exceptions to create reproductions for backup purposes.
IANAL. Other users may have a clearer or more precise answer than mine.
You sir, are brilliant. Thanks for the education. I've always felt in my gut that Allofmp3 would be illegal for me -- a Floridian -- to use.
Whoever modded the parent as a Troll obviously doesn't watch The Daily Show. :-D It was a direct quote from Feb. 16th's episode. Sheesh.
Foley, as a liscensee can't enforce the copyrights of his liscensors.
It's an interesting dilemma.
If I sell a computer, built into a cabinet with a joystick, this is legal. Additionally, if I sell it with MAME included, this is legal.
- If I include ROMs it is illegal (it both violates copyright and the MAME liscense). Only the holders of the copyrights (Capcom, Namco, etc) and whoever enforces MAME's license can go after me.
- If I include instructions for how to illegally download or purchase ROMs, I am breaking the law. This is contributory infringent, or conspiracy to commit infringement (Something along those lines c.f. Napster). Only law enforcement can go after me here at the behest of compeitors and liscensors, but they can't reliably sue me.
- If I include the MAME logo on the cabinent, this is illegal (it violates the copyright on the graphic). The owner of the copyright can sue me.
- The inclusion of other marks and graphics on the cabinet that are not my own can also get me sued by trademark and copyright holders (The likeness of Ms. Pacman, the Pole Position logo, etc).
My questions are these:
- If I advertise that my product is capable of infringing copyright, is this legal?
I make a arcade cabinet with MAME inside and advertise it by saying "Capable of playing 4000 of the games you already own if you have hardware to copy ROMs from your original boards!!"
I can't say "Plays 4000 games you can download for free FROM THE INTERNET!!"
What's The Right Way for someone in this market to level the playing field?
(To the parent poster, "Work[ing] with the MAME group" doesn't seem like a sucessful tactic, as they can only (and already do) cover the sales of MAME with ROMs included. There's no vigilante way to enforce copyrights that you only license.)
(Pardon any typos, I didn't have time to proofread)
Stephen Samuel: ...In other words: if he succeeds in getting the trademark on Mame, he could end up with a registered logo that he's at risk of being sued for if he actually uses it in public.
He would never have to use the mark to enforce it. Imagine this scenario:
I make a product that includes and emulates legally liscensed games. Someone else makes a product that emulates illegally included games. If the 'bad guy' advertises that "My cabinet uses MAME to provide you with nearly 4000 classica games!!" then I can now pursue the 'bad guy' (he's using my mark to advertise the features of his product). My lawyers shoot off a letter that says "hey, you can't use MAME in your avertising, that's not your trademark." Better yet, in this scenario, if a 'bad guy' includes the mame logo on the cabinet, BAM he's not only infringing the copyright of the graphic's author, but also the trademark. This 'bad guy' can get two letters from two different lawyers. Me, the trademark holder, and the copyright holder.
I don't know if he can be granted the trademark, but this is the way that it can be used. This is necessary because as a liscensee [of the retro-grames] he can't use lawyers to go after copyright infringers; Only the liscensor can do that.
As others have stated over and over, there is no 'prior-art' argument for trademark. MAME can't ever demonstrate that they were using the mark in a commercial endeavour, as commercial endeavours violate the license they distribute MAME with (doesn't distributing MAME with ROMs also violate the liscense?). It's their out -- it's what prevents them from getting crushed as contributory infringers.
DwarfGoanna (447841) Alter Relationship on 2005-02-21 0:28 (#11733456)
Let's sue the creators of the simplest, cheapest, most functional, most popular means of playing retro video games ever.
Why is it the "cheapest...ever"? Probably has something to do with the unmitigated copyright infringement among the MAME fanboys.
Don't get me wrong, I think MAME is a great tool for serious retro arcaders -- the people who buy and restore the cabinents for hobby. The minute you start selling these cabinets with ROMs you're just like every other white collar criminal/ fraudster.
Anyhow, another example of why the copyright term has been extended beyond usefulness.
(Ironic side note, the ad on the top of my page is for Namco TV Classics over at Think Geek. I wonder if this product licensed the games legitamately.)
Why didn't you go on to point out that he didn't capitalize any proper nouns? He didn't even italicize the title of a creative work! Your pedant-circuits must have overloaded!
:-D
Oh wait, you wouldn't have noticed that small breach of grammar, because you, yourself, made the same mistake in your pedantic response.
Glass houses and all that... Nothing personal.