A FFA server might also be neat (possibly in combination with the above) - especially with one other component: you can PK any member of any faction, but you lose rep with that faction by doing so (but possibly increase rep with another faction)... so someone who indiscriminately PKs friendly players would end up KoS in every city, except the goblins' I guess.
Yes. This is part of my vision as well.
I also think it's a travesty that DKs don't lower your rep with either your racial faction or all friendly factions. Those who are unlawful should be treated as such by their own factions. As it stands now, you could go to TM and kill civilians over and over and over for weeks and it would never affect you negatively (especially over the long term). In fact, on RP servers alignment should even be tracked and punished by the server, i.e. a DK for a paladin is a huge rep loss. Whereas a DK for a rogue might be a small rep loss, and depending on the faction DK'd a minor rep gain with Ravenholdt, etc.
Then again, I know most Wow players don't know anything about actual RPGs, so I forgive Blizzard for not implementing character alignements.
But, in regards to your post, imho, PC looting in combination with FFA would lead to instant anarchy and no one would stick around. A hunter (assuming a hunter would play on such a server, see my earlier post) wins a roll on an item you want after downing a boss? Stalk him 'til he's alone and kill him. If you want to institute that kind of greifing you may as well let rogues pick-pocket players. PC looting is just totally unviable with Wow as it exists today.
new WoW server type: hardcore pvp if you die, then the other guy can raid you corpse. Now, honestly, letting them have all your stuff would be crazy, because it takes too freaking long to get it all, so...let them take a percentage of cash, (or not) and importantly, they can pick any one item from your iventory (epics and higher included) and take that as well, or maybe two items.
something along those lines, where it really DOES cost you to die, would appeal a different crown than the current carefree model.
This server would never work in WoW's world because it would only be populated with paladins (and maybe some mages that wanted to live dangerously).
At the first sign of trouble, the bubble would come out, the hearthstone would be used, the threat of losing anything would be escaped. After logging an alt and cooling down in the relative safety of the capitol, you could then venture back out to kill (i.e., gank) some lowbies (assuming you could even find a Horde player on such a server).
I guess the other option would be that everyone ran around in the lbrs 'smooth leather' gray set and some store bought greens. What would make it even less fun is you could never afford to buy a mount, let alone a fast mount, because you'd always be getting ganked -- again assuming that anyone besides paladins played on a server of that sort -- so travel would largely suck.
I think a better idea than your PK-looting server would just be a FFA server. You can heal and attack any player, regardless of faction. Then you could enjoy that real pvp feeling of getting ambushed (one-shotted if you're lucky!) by rogues when youre at the bank in a capitol all the time. Instances would be even more fun, because you'd never know when the priest targetting you was about to heal you or smite you (wrong button, oops!). Guildless douchebags would abound because you'd have to have a zero tolerance policy for grouping/raiding with PKers. Imagine how fun it would be to eye even "friendly" players with suspicion while riding the boat. Everyone's name would be yellow until they attacked you. Priceless.
Back in the bad old days WoW used to punish you badly for getting killed. Players didn't like it. They changed it. It takes a special kind of player to want to keep starting over again and again and again. If a majority of "gamers" wanted to start over all the time, games wouldn't have evolved to let us save state and emulators of games that didn't include such features wouldn't allow state saving either. If you want to play a pvp game where losing matters, take up boxing.
Isn't the fact that this plot was foiled proof that there is a reasonable defense that will work against an unreasonable enemy? Here's an example of police action overcoming terrorism, warrants and all. So why would you say, "There is no reasonable defense that will work against an unreasonable enemy. The sooner that is acknowleged the sooner many will realize just what a major problem it truly is."?
Here's a blast from the past:
"Senator Kerry has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. Recently he said, and I quote, "I don't want to use that terminology." In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation. As we have seen, however, that approach was tried before, and proved entirely inadequate to protecting the American people from the terrorists who are quite certain they are at war with us - and are comfortable using that terminology."
Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks by the Vice President Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum March 17, 2004
Wouldn't it suck if Kerry was right? Cheney mocked him for saying that we didn't need a 'war on terror', but instead better intelligence and coordinated police action. Better intelligence and coordinated police action seems to have worked yesterday for the U.K., thankfully.
"Well-educated leadership being necessary to govern a State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Does the above statement say that only the leaders can read books?
No.
While we're playing semantic games:
"A well educated bourgeois, being necessary to the democracy of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
Now the phrase retains the "desired ends, protected means" contruction. There is no argument that the desired ends are the only ends (take for example the unenumerated right to self-defense, mentioned at least once in the Federalist Papers -- maybe this was an "unenumerated end" to the right to keep and bear arms). In this example consider the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" as another useful end to the right to keep and read books. This end though is promoted by other means as you know.
The question though it not whether we have a right to bear arms. We do. It's explicit. The question was, is that right unlimited. Does the Congress have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States [...]" and "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia [...]" when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
I'm no expert, and I don't claim to be, but if our right to free speech can be regulated then so can our right to arms*. If giving up nukes is a slippery slope**, so be it. That just means that the NRA (and to a lesser extent related groups like the ACLU or NACDL) will need to be that much more vigilant.
*it is my opinion that the 2nd Amendment doesn't speak to any limit on the arms that we may keep and bear, but that Article 1.8 permits Congress to impose those limits. If we are to use the Framers' meaning of arms, then the position that the 2nd is unlimited has only one logical outcome: nukes for citizens.
**the slippery slope article is a long, and at parts redundant essay, but worth the read if you're interested in this sort of thing.
I asked, "Is it fair to say that having a neutral position on gun regulation is the same as not protecting the 2nd Amendment?"
Yes. While they may discuss and debate the issue, that's limited in scope to their corporate boardroom.
Your assertion is false to the best of my knowledge. How is even possible to assign congruence to the two? Gun regulation is at odds with the 2nd Amendment, how? The SCOTUS disagrees with you, but I'll hear you out.
Is it reasonable to believe that the Second Amendment is protecting the invididuals' right to prevent Federal tyranny -- and all the extremes that entails, including the necessity for civilian mutually assured destruction?
Yes, because that's what it explicitly says.
Substantiate this, given: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I'll pose it to you again: Do you believe the Second reads "nukes for citizens", i.e., an unlimited, individual right to arms? If so, justify that belief in light of the 2nd's specific use of militia, free State and the people (rather than say, "armed citizenry", "individual liberty" and "each man").
While I disagree with the ACLU and their stance of not defending the 2nd admendment, there are state and national organizations that do a better job of that. Each organization has its place and I feel that the ACLU does a fairly good job of trying to defend the bill of rights.
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
(emphasis my own)
Is it reasonable to believe that the Second Amendment is protecting the invididuals' right to prevent Federal tyranny -- and all the extremes that entails, including the necessity for civilian mutually assured destruction? I think the ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amendment is appropriate and worth defending: States do need regular militias to protect against Federal tyranny, and any Federal step that supresses this right (States' militias) should be fought tooth and nail.
No reasonably person can argue that every citizen that can afford an anti-air battery should be permitted to install one. (That's the sort of installations we'd need to prevent supression by the immense power of the Federal Armed Services.) Does every Tom, Dick and Harry have the right to defend his home with an RPG launcher? Wouldn't the blast radius infringe on his neighbors' right not to get blown up? Maybe it's ok to buy and sell such arms (traffic them) in defense of the State -- well in this case, wouldn't you want some State involvement to limit exports for non-State conflicts? etc. I didn't mean to start asking questions. Frankly, no need to answer, consider them all rhetorical. I just want people to get past the (false) impression that the ACLU doesn't and won't protect the 2nd Amendment. (Again unless you believe the Second reads "nukes for citizens", i.e., an unlimited right to arms.)
(Subscribers: read my past posts regarding the ACLU for context.)
So wait -- scamming a scammer out of shipping and taxes is what's novel in this case? No it's not. The P-P-P-Powerbook showed us back in... May of 2004? Earlier? Good chance it's not the the earliest example either.
So to be clear -- why do I even need to say this? -- I think all the liars, cheats and scammers using the Internet should be stopped. I think it's dubious that vigilantism is necessary, and slightly ambivalent about whether it's appropriate. I'm pretty confident that it's ineffective though. Every time a nigerian gets a tatoo (or sculpts some wood!) at the behest of a bored Westerner that does nearly zero to stop this fraud from happening to others.
Since there is basically no point in scamming scammers but for one's own amusement, I don't think it's justified. You might not like flies, but are you pulling off their wings for fun? Amusing yourself and your Internet buddies at the expense of others doesn't seem terribly defensible.
To reiterate, scamming scammers is not worse than tricking grannies out of their retirement money. Scamming a scammer will not prevent scammers from tricking grannies out of their retirement money, no matter how hilarious it is.
This is the first reverse scam that involves wood carving, AFAIK.
:) Well you got me there... I guess it's a different kind of "nerd" that finds this "news", maybe it should be moved out of the IT section and into the Arts and Crafts section, where it might "matter".
Isn't this 'not news'? Scamming the 419ers has been around for a long time (nearly as long as Nigerian princes have been promising me huge sums of money).
All other harping may now cease. If you want the school rules changed, write them a letter or vote for a new school board that is in line with your desires.
By far the most enlightening thing I have read on the blogosphere in the past two months came from Republican Operative and founder of RedState.com Joshua Trevino, on Armando's and Trevino's new blog Swords Crossed. In an incredibly instructive piece--and I encourage everyone to read the whole thing--Josh Trevino does us all the favor of introducing us to the Overton Window.
Anyway, I know it's both faster and easier to just jump straight to the ad hominem rather than make any substantive argument. I don't fault you for it. Least resistance is the natural order.
When I was in CS in the mid-90s we took Theory of Computing (no computers) before we took Intro to C, Algorithms, Data Structures, etc for exactly this reason. Professors could presume we knew some actual fundementals (and unlearned all the BASIC and Pascal we'd done in grade- and highschool). We wrote software at terminals in a computer lab or via SLIP from home (with pico, vi or emacs). We turned in from the shell prompt. Same for Assembly and later, Unix Administration with Perl (first edition Camel book was the text:-p). It wasn't until Intro to Computer Graphics (description: "This course isn't how to use PhotoShop, it's how to write PhotoShop") that we where using IDEs.
parent: On the other hand, with highly interactive environments (which are extremely useful once you know what you are doing) beginners are all to tempted to fall into a trial and error loop until they get something that "works"--which is to say, it happens to produce reasonable results for whatever limited test case they are using--without ever really thinking about the program.
I concur, the trial and error method of "write a line of code, try to compile it, fix the compiler error, repeat until program runs, then test an input, if it's wrong make a change, recompile, test an input... etc" isn't really learning how to program (and at worst it's only teaching how to choose good tests). I mean it's kind of like the slowest most terrible implementation of evolutionary programming (highschoolers get a head start, google Lawrence J. Fogel) or a slightly better optimized "one million monkeys" scenario. Maybe it is learning how to program, but it isn't really learning how to be a programmer. Maybe that's a distinction worth discussing.
Not that I'm especially qualified, but this is how I'd teach a programming course: Present the concept, explain the concept, train the concept (this is all face time, auditory, visual learning); assign reading and homework on the concept, test/quiz the concept (student opportunity to take ownership and get special attention, hands-on learning); assign implementation of the concept and then grade the implementation (hands-on practice); repeat until finals week. Homework over short breaks m-w, w-f and t-r with imlementation over long breaks r-t, and f-m assuming two and three per week meetings. Kids love weekends in the lab! (Do they even program in the lab anymore?)
Whether or not the implementation phase involves an IDE or just a text editor shouldn't really have a huge impact on the students' understanding unless one has to spend time teaching the environment -- taking away time that students need spent on teaching and learning the concept.:-D Just my two cents.
You kind of forgot to quote an important section of the Wikipedia article... fair use is an affirmative defense. Claiming 'fair use' is an admission of infringement:
Fair use as a defense
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), that fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. This means that if the defendant's actions do not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's rights (for example, because the plaintiff's work was not copyrighted, or the defendant's work did not borrow from it sufficiently), fair use does not even arise as an issue. However, it also means that, once the plaintiff has proven (or the defendant concedes) that the defendant has committed an infringing act, the defendant then bears the burden of proving in court that his copying should nonetheless be excused as a fair use of the plaintiff's work.
Because of the defendant's burden of proof, some copyright owners frequently make claims of infringement even in circumstances where the fair use defense would likely succeed in hopes that the user will refrain from the use rather than spending resources in his defense. This type of frivolous lawsuit is part of a much larger problem in First Amendment law; see Strategic lawsuit against public participation.
Because paying a royalty fee may be much less expensive than having a potential copyright suit threaten the publication of a completed work in which a publisher has invested significant resources, many authors may seek a license even for uses that copyright law ostensibly permits without liability. (qtd. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_as_ a_defense
I kind of hate the the 'infringing until proven non-infringing' nature of current copyright law. It feels 'guilty until proven innocent' to me. Anyway, IANAL, so check with your lawyer first, but it seems like it is copyright infringement until they mount and win an affirmative defense (the four-pronged fair use defense) to retain the material. I know there are lawyers here, so maybe one of you can chime in here.
Thank you again for taking the time to reply. You didn't mention if you've already made up your mind, but you did respond.
So first things first, thank you for articulating your point of view: "I have been saying from the beginning that the DMCA is good for artists, and enables artists to have access to forms of distribution that they never had before. I have argued that it gives them tools to protect their work, and it is NOT about just protecting financial interests."
Now, some facts: I am an artist. I minored in art (drawing and painting). I also write music and play several instruments. I've dabbled in computer animation, but I wouldn't consider myself competent with any of the modern tools. So, I definitely see your point of view regarding "art", generalizations aside ("you don't know artists", art is not a commodity, what "artists" do and don't want people to do with their products, "every artist feels that way about" etc.). I also understand that art isn't about money (though you keep harping on the investment in your production). Software tools aren't cheap, instruments aren't cheap, we can both agree.
So -- in my opinion as an artist, telling someone what they can and can't do with a copy of your art is like telling them how they are supposed to feel when you're done with the performance. "I gave you this expression so you'd feel sad! How dare you parody it!" I'm not going to presume that you agree, even though this sounds like a pretty valid point to me. Now, don't misunderstand me, if I gave someone a painting, an original, and they cut it to pieces and re-arranged it into something else I would probably feel... upset, disappointed?... but the fact remains, I did give it to them. If I gave someone a copy of that original and they cut it to pieces and rearranged it into something new I know that I would feel differently (amused, pleased, conceivably honored, but at the very worst indifferent). Still laws aren't about how we feel, nor are poor choices illegal.
So, this is where our disagreement (or misunderstanding) comes from. For you, every download -- every copy -- feels like an original. For you, you need every technical measure possible, even the ones that arguably diminish other people's natural rights, to protect that feeling. I assert that it's pretentious to treat each copy as an original. I assert that copies don't need to be limited to only actions that amuse or enrich their creator. If someone uses a copy in a way that does not affect the creator's life, liberty, fortune, state granted expression monopoly, etc. I don't see why it should be regulated. Now on this point, the Constitution and the law agrees with me. That's why copyright doesn't govern use, it governs distribution.
Ok, so with that said, you can see why I'm against technical means to restrict my freedom (even with copies of other art/artistic products). I guess what it comes down to is (like usual) property rights. If an artistic work is fixed in a tangible medium it is property. Do you disagree? Why don't I have permission from you (and others like you) to exercise my own decisions about my own property?
Now, you say, "an attitude like [mine] will do more to stifle artistic expression than a 100 laws." How? If other artists can fairly use copies of my work in their own -- how on earth can I be stifling artistic expression. You accuse me of using fair use ambiguously. I do no such thing -- making personal copies (an activity I don't recall mentioning in the entirety of our conversation, maybe I have?) is just as fair a use as parody or commentary. Since I take it as a given that nearly all art doesn't spring forth without inspiration, I would go so far as to say that transformative derivatives should also be fair. I can see how this would be abused though, so I can understand and honor why the Copyright Law disallows it.
Now some direct responses:
"You seem to think the artist is some factory worker who's job it is to turn out
I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm saying that you don't need to have registered a work to 'prove' the copyright is yours. If someone else is screwing you over, and you have to sue them for it, then great, you have to file; Big deal. Filing before some arbitrary date or before you're infringed has an additional benefit -- again that doesn't make it a requisite.
Really, when I said this post contains factual errors you could have just looked it up, and said, "yep, it sure does." Nobody would have thought you were any less of a man. Instead, you have to defend your falsehood. Great. That makes you look like an ass. Of course, I'm an ass for carrying it this far.
So at last...
You said: Before the DMCA [...] to have the full protection of copyright law, you either had to file for a copyright with the copyright office, or the work had to be published with the markings you mention [...] in order to be considered a copyrighted piece of work.
This is wrong.
You said: (which pre-DMCA did not specifically include the Internet, or any electronic form, but rather published in the sense of having to go through a printing press, and be distributed),
You said: If you played a little ditty you came up with while sitting at the park, anyone who heard it could steal it, unless you had published sheet music for it.
False.
You said: That changed with the DMCA.
No it didn't.
You said: Copyright was changed to take effect at the moment of creation, not at the moment of publication, and the web and digital files were now considered to be a form of publication as well.
Wrong. As pointed out. This changed in '76. Work doesn't have to be published ever to have the protection of copyright.
That's all, man. It's not about your trials and tribulations with clients and what they should have done. It's not about any of that. It's about, hey, you made some false claims, and I thought I was doing you and others a favor by pointing that out. Your first comment about "the irony" should have never been marked informative, because it wasn't.
So I'll make this perfectly factual statement one more time: You do not have to register a work with the Copyright Office to have a copyright. The date you publish a work (or not) does not affect whether or not you have a copyright. As you've pointed out, you do gain ancillary benefits when making infringement claims if you do register and the degree of those benefits is affected by factors including the published state, and the published date if such exists and the registration date in relation to those. Is that pedantic enough for you? Is it perfectly clear?
That is all. Stop with the sophistry. You don't even have to admit you were wrong -- you just have to stop.
FWIW, Dell is definitely getting its name onscreen in this season of 24. Just like Cayce in Pattern Recognition I'm really starting to notice branding because of my negative reaction to it. Dell's logo appears on the back of every flat panel display, and each keyboard shot. I think the only reason you haven't noticed a name on the racks is they haven't zoomed in close enough to show the badge 'buttons'. Also prominently displayed: Cisco, Avaya, Ford, Treo. I've noticed the powerbooks and Macs (Henderson's home computer), but I can't recall if they've gone as far displaying the glowing Apple. Interestingly, they haven't really branded the weapons -- despite the use of obvious signature weapons like the Microtech OTF, 1911, HK USP P2000, etc.
Additionally: Jack Bauer sleeps with a gun under his pillow, but he could kill you with the pillow.
Wow. You are trolling me, again. I can't believe I started to think you were reasonable. I guess I'll keep playing for one more round.
> Ok, let's say that I make an animation, and I want to distribute it on the Internet [...] I absolutely do not want anyone editing it in any way I did not intend, or repurposing the content.
Except of course for fair uses, right? Except when the copyright expires, right?
> Now, I am sure to you the consumer, this all sounds quite unreasonable and like I am making demands that I have no right to, because you should be able to use the file any way you want. You, on the other hand, did not just give up two years of your life, and a fair chunk of what little money you have, to making this project.
Oh come off it. Every one works hard at what they do. Copyright still protects them regardless. If I download a movie -- because let's face it you are letting me do it, expression == giving -- and I want to crop it and mash it up and sit on it or any other concievable thing I CAN. What I can't do is distribute it.
> Now, before the DMCA, if you had downloaded that file off the Internet, decided to edit it like you wanted to, cropped it so my watermark was gone, cut the resolution in half, then encoded it in Flash with a fraction of the bitrate, and uploaded it to YouTube, I would have had no real recourse, because you were not doing anything wrong.
Another lie. If I uploaded it to anyone, let alone YouTube, I would have been infringing your copyright and BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW. A COPYRIGHT LAW THAT'S EXISTED SINCE THE FIRST CONGRESS. The DMCA didn't make copyright infringement illegal.
> Well, nothing wrong except shitting all over a couple years of my life, and perhaps damaging any chance I had of getting my project off the ground and making a decent living.
More pitiful appeals to emotion. I "shitted" on you? Well I guess I "shitted" on myself too by opening myself to criminal and civil penalties (again that existed before the DMCA). To claim a copyright infringer has done "nothing wrong" is yet another lie. Do you even hear yourself?
> However, legally, you had not actually done anything I could take legal action over.
Another lie. I've infringed a copyright, and since fair use is only an affirmative defense I am infact guilty until proven innocent, er sorry I mean to say infringing until found non-infringing. Copyright has always been stacked on the publisher's side.
> As such, there is no doubt in my mind that the only way I would have been able to release the piece (and maintain any control over its content) was through art house distribution, which would not have had the desired effect, and thus there is a piece of work that just never would have been made.
So you're saying that the business model that you want is impossible? It is about 'the money' right? Because otherwise, I would have imagined that art house distribution would be preferable to no distribution....but let's continue...
> After the DMCA, there are several issues with that scenario (even the dreaded Section 1201) and it would be a fairly straightforward issue to force (if need be) YouTube to take down the file. Furthermore, there would be a reasonable argument that could be made in court to be able to subpoena YouTube to provide the identity of the person redistributing the piece in an altered form, in order to send them a cease and desist order.
Without the DMCA, YouTube would have never accepted the upload in the first place without enough information to sheild themselves from liability. In the pre-DMCA world, YouTube would have been infringing, so they damn well would have taken it down the moment you called them, if they even existed at all. You wouldn't need a C&D "in good faith", you could easily go straight to the legal action. You can be damn sure they'd welcome a subpoena if it mitigated or absolved their contributory/vi
False. Again. No one (except claimants filing copyright infringement cases in federal district courts) has had to explicitly register a copyright since 1977. Of course you left out, "In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection." Which is exactly what I've been saying, over and over and over. This directly addresses your smarmy, "I would really like to hear you explain that one away as just being wrong. I would also like to hear how publication has nothing to do with copyright." Date of publication really does have nothing to do with copyright protection.
In your case, your or your friend's witless client still had proof of copyright (as you mentioned in invoices and business documents, presumably dated and your or your friend's sworn testimony). Except for the legal formality of registration before counter-suing, your client did not need registration, and frankly could be forgiven for not doing so. Not registering the trademark though is unforgivable. What business doesn't register its trademark? I can understand that paying you for an extra set of proofs, having a lawyer fill out a form, box it up and send in $30 bucks might be too onerous for a (assumption: small) business.
Anyway, as to your other flippant response, the two areas are different and separate, otherwise they could have both been resolved in the same case. The law isn't about how it 'feels' to you. It may 'feel' like trademark and copyright are the same thing, but they are undeniably different and undeniably separate.
> As such, no matter what the broad strokes of the previous law might have been, or what the broad strokes of the DMCA might be, the interpretation of the two is VERY different when you get into court.
Fair enough. We're probably coming from a very similar place. I just thought it was important to note that the reasons you claimed to support the DMCA (or at least disparage 'the bloggers' for not supporting it) are in fact reasons you support the 1976 Act and not the DMCA's provisions at all. Unless you design boats, run an ISP and backup other people's data, or are deeply invested in U.S. hegemony in global media/software markets the DMCA has little for you. I see it as just another government "land-grab", there can be no other reason to regulate that which was already illegal. All the legitimate benefits of the DMCA could have been the result of judicial clarification of existing law.
To me, placating the WIPO (a non-elected, non-representative, non-sovereign NGO) seems like a pretty dim silver lining. I don't want to debate whether the WIPO is neccessary or whether we should enter these byzantine Constitution-usurping treaties in the first place. I think we can leave it at "I'm no fan of the WIPO".
> I am not trying to be difficult, but it is also a fact that the Constitution says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." However, if you try to argue that constitutional point with an LAPD officer while carrying a gun on the subway, you are going to end up dead, or in jail. There are many laws that say very lofty, and important things. That doesn't mean that once you get to court it turns out to be the law that is applicable to your case.
Touche. But it should be pointed out that comparing the 2nd Amendment to Article 1 to Title 17 to the DMCA is like comparing apples to oranges to bananas to cherries. I mean yes they're all laws/fruits in the most gerneral terms, some loftier than others, but I don't think we can get any meaningful progress other than to agree that justices have a hard row to hoe.
Just in this particular case, we would be better off comparing the DMCA to Federal concealed carry laws -- at least then we'd be in the same ball park.:-p
> Before '98 there was very little short of registration of the work with the copyright office, or proof of publication, that a court would accept as proof of creation.
False. Again. No one has had to explicitly regerister a copyright since 1977. Since Ford signed the 1976 Act, every utterance, every scribble, every doodle, every little jingle-jangle of your keys has been copyright since the moment of creation. But... I now have an idea where the confusion of the issue comes from...
> So, cut forward, and tens of thousands of dollars have built up in legal fees, and the ultimate resolution of the case turns out to be that even though the company that had the logo first could prove that they had been printing their logo on their invoices for years, even though they had business cards with the logo, even though they had a website with the logo, they had never registered the logo, and had never advertised using the logo, so it was found that the company with the full page ads, and the registered trademark, and the software boxes using the logo, got ownership of the logo.
Right! Registered a trademark. A completely different matter (but lumped under "intellectual property" to confuse the issue, sometimes intentionally). Trademarks, although they are copyrighted, must be registered with the PTO, the Patent and Trademark Office. (Copyrights don't have to be registered.) So what's interesting in this trademark infringement case, is that after the judge ruled in favor of the registerer, the original artists -- you two -- could have counter-counter-sued them after the injunction for violating your copyright on the design.:-D I have some friends in the ad business, so this story doesn't really surprise me, but it's not a failing title 17, and has nothing to do with the DMCA. The DMCA doesn't offer new protections for web publishing, it doesn't have to.
Anyhow, thanks for clarifying the scenario for me! The fact that plagiarists exist does suck, but people have been getting sued for fraud for ages. Let those scallywags hear from your lawyer.:-)
I've only read patent cases where the certified mail trick works. Which again is a whole 'nother (unrelated) facet to the "intellectual property" debate.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. This is part of my vision as well.
I also think it's a travesty that DKs don't lower your rep with either your racial faction or all friendly factions. Those who are unlawful should be treated as such by their own factions. As it stands now, you could go to TM and kill civilians over and over and over for weeks and it would never affect you negatively (especially over the long term). In fact, on RP servers alignment should even be tracked and punished by the server, i.e. a DK for a paladin is a huge rep loss. Whereas a DK for a rogue might be a small rep loss, and depending on the faction DK'd a minor rep gain with Ravenholdt, etc.
Then again, I know most Wow players don't know anything about actual RPGs, so I forgive Blizzard for not implementing character alignements.
But, in regards to your post, imho, PC looting in combination with FFA would lead to instant anarchy and no one would stick around. A hunter (assuming a hunter would play on such a server, see my earlier post) wins a roll on an item you want after downing a boss? Stalk him 'til he's alone and kill him. If you want to institute that kind of greifing you may as well let rogues pick-pocket players. PC looting is just totally unviable with Wow as it exists today.
This server would never work in WoW's world because it would only be populated with paladins (and maybe some mages that wanted to live dangerously).
At the first sign of trouble, the bubble would come out, the hearthstone would be used, the threat of losing anything would be escaped. After logging an alt and cooling down in the relative safety of the capitol, you could then venture back out to kill (i.e., gank) some lowbies (assuming you could even find a Horde player on such a server).
I guess the other option would be that everyone ran around in the lbrs 'smooth leather' gray set and some store bought greens. What would make it even less fun is you could never afford to buy a mount, let alone a fast mount, because you'd always be getting ganked -- again assuming that anyone besides paladins played on a server of that sort -- so travel would largely suck.
I think a better idea than your PK-looting server would just be a FFA server. You can heal and attack any player, regardless of faction. Then you could enjoy that real pvp feeling of getting ambushed (one-shotted if you're lucky!) by rogues when youre at the bank in a capitol all the time. Instances would be even more fun, because you'd never know when the priest targetting you was about to heal you or smite you (wrong button, oops!). Guildless douchebags would abound because you'd have to have a zero tolerance policy for grouping/raiding with PKers. Imagine how fun it would be to eye even "friendly" players with suspicion while riding the boat. Everyone's name would be yellow until they attacked you. Priceless.
Back in the bad old days WoW used to punish you badly for getting killed. Players didn't like it. They changed it. It takes a special kind of player to want to keep starting over again and again and again. If a majority of "gamers" wanted to start over all the time, games wouldn't have evolved to let us save state and emulators of games that didn't include such features wouldn't allow state saving either. If you want to play a pvp game where losing matters, take up boxing.
You could this "massive propaganda machine" the Ministry of Truth.
Sigh.
Here's a blast from the past:
Wouldn't it suck if Kerry was right? Cheney mocked him for saying that we didn't need a 'war on terror', but instead better intelligence and coordinated police action. Better intelligence and coordinated police action seems to have worked yesterday for the U.K., thankfully.
No.
While we're playing semantic games:
"A well educated bourgeois, being necessary to the democracy of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
Now the phrase retains the "desired ends, protected means" contruction. There is no argument that the desired ends are the only ends (take for example the unenumerated right to self-defense, mentioned at least once in the Federalist Papers -- maybe this was an "unenumerated end" to the right to keep and bear arms). In this example consider the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" as another useful end to the right to keep and read books. This end though is promoted by other means as you know.
The question though it not whether we have a right to bear arms. We do. It's explicit. The question was, is that right unlimited. Does the Congress have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States [...]" and "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia [...]" when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
I'm no expert, and I don't claim to be, but if our right to free speech can be regulated then so can our right to arms*. If giving up nukes is a slippery slope**, so be it. That just means that the NRA (and to a lesser extent related groups like the ACLU or NACDL) will need to be that much more vigilant.
*it is my opinion that the 2nd Amendment doesn't speak to any limit on the arms that we may keep and bear, but that Article 1.8 permits Congress to impose those limits. If we are to use the Framers' meaning of arms , then the position that the 2nd is unlimited has only one logical outcome: nukes for citizens.
**the slippery slope article is a long, and at parts redundant essay, but worth the read if you're interested in this sort of thing.
(I'm presuming the AC is still the OP)
Your assertion is false to the best of my knowledge. How is even possible to assign congruence to the two? Gun regulation is at odds with the 2nd Amendment, how? The SCOTUS disagrees with you, but I'll hear you out.
Substantiate this, given: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I'll pose it to you again: Do you believe the Second reads "nukes for citizens", i.e., an unlimited, individual right to arms? If so, justify that belief in light of the 2nd's specific use of militia, free State and the people (rather than say, "armed citizenry", "individual liberty" and "each man").
The ACLU does not have this stance, see: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190598&ci
http://aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
(emphasis my own)
Is it reasonable to believe that the Second Amendment is protecting the invididuals' right to prevent Federal tyranny -- and all the extremes that entails, including the necessity for civilian mutually assured destruction? I think the ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amendment is appropriate and worth defending: States do need regular militias to protect against Federal tyranny, and any Federal step that supresses this right (States' militias) should be fought tooth and nail.
No reasonably person can argue that every citizen that can afford an anti-air battery should be permitted to install one. (That's the sort of installations we'd need to prevent supression by the immense power of the Federal Armed Services.) Does every Tom, Dick and Harry have the right to defend his home with an RPG launcher? Wouldn't the blast radius infringe on his neighbors' right not to get blown up? Maybe it's ok to buy and sell such arms (traffic them) in defense of the State -- well in this case, wouldn't you want some State involvement to limit exports for non-State conflicts? etc. I didn't mean to start asking questions. Frankly, no need to answer, consider them all rhetorical. I just want people to get past the (false) impression that the ACLU doesn't and won't protect the 2nd Amendment. (Again unless you believe the Second reads "nukes for citizens", i.e., an unlimited right to arms.)
(Subscribers: read my past posts regarding the ACLU for context.)
So wait -- scamming a scammer out of shipping and taxes is what's novel in this case? No it's not. The P-P-P-Powerbook showed us back in ... May of 2004? Earlier? Good chance it's not the the earliest example either.
http://www.p-p-p-powerbook.com/
So to be clear -- why do I even need to say this? -- I think all the liars, cheats and scammers using the Internet should be stopped. I think it's dubious that vigilantism is necessary, and slightly ambivalent about whether it's appropriate. I'm pretty confident that it's ineffective though. Every time a nigerian gets a tatoo (or sculpts some wood!) at the behest of a bored Westerner that does nearly zero to stop this fraud from happening to others.
Since there is basically no point in scamming scammers but for one's own amusement, I don't think it's justified. You might not like flies, but are you pulling off their wings for fun? Amusing yourself and your Internet buddies at the expense of others doesn't seem terribly defensible.
To reiterate, scamming scammers is not worse than tricking grannies out of their retirement money. Scamming a scammer will not prevent scammers from tricking grannies out of their retirement money, no matter how hilarious it is.
Thanks for the clarification.
Here's the first story about the 419eater: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/13/164 2255
Isn't this 'not news'? Scamming the 419ers has been around for a long time (nearly as long as Nigerian princes have been promising me huge sums of money).
I make some retarded typos sometimes. Sheesh.
Ding ding ding...
d =15640396! Well done.
DougLorenz (964249) declared the winner by unanimous decision with post http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190026&ci
All other harping may now cease. If you want the school rules changed, write them a letter or vote for a new school board that is in line with your desires.
If you could read you'd know that he's actually meta-quoting Josh Trevino of http://redstate.com/ via http://www.swordscrossed.org/?p=50. Here's what you didn't read to illuminate the situation:
Anyway, I know it's both faster and easier to just jump straight to the ad hominem rather than make any substantive argument. I don't fault you for it. Least resistance is the natural order.
When I was in CS in the mid-90s we took Theory of Computing (no computers) before we took Intro to C, Algorithms, Data Structures, etc for exactly this reason. Professors could presume we knew some actual fundementals (and unlearned all the BASIC and Pascal we'd done in grade- and highschool). We wrote software at terminals in a computer lab or via SLIP from home (with pico, vi or emacs). We turned in from the shell prompt. Same for Assembly and later, Unix Administration with Perl (first edition Camel book was the text :-p). It wasn't until Intro to Computer Graphics (description: "This course isn't how to use PhotoShop, it's how to write PhotoShop") that we where using IDEs.
:-D Just my two cents.
parent: On the other hand, with highly interactive environments (which are extremely useful once you know what you are doing) beginners are all to tempted to fall into a trial and error loop until they get something that "works"--which is to say, it happens to produce reasonable results for whatever limited test case they are using--without ever really thinking about the program.
I concur, the trial and error method of "write a line of code, try to compile it, fix the compiler error, repeat until program runs, then test an input, if it's wrong make a change, recompile, test an input... etc" isn't really learning how to program (and at worst it's only teaching how to choose good tests). I mean it's kind of like the slowest most terrible implementation of evolutionary programming (highschoolers get a head start, google Lawrence J. Fogel) or a slightly better optimized "one million monkeys" scenario. Maybe it is learning how to program, but it isn't really learning how to be a programmer. Maybe that's a distinction worth discussing.
Not that I'm especially qualified, but this is how I'd teach a programming course: Present the concept, explain the concept, train the concept (this is all face time, auditory, visual learning); assign reading and homework on the concept, test/quiz the concept (student opportunity to take ownership and get special attention, hands-on learning); assign implementation of the concept and then grade the implementation (hands-on practice); repeat until finals week. Homework over short breaks m-w, w-f and t-r with imlementation over long breaks r-t, and f-m assuming two and three per week meetings. Kids love weekends in the lab! (Do they even program in the lab anymore?)
Whether or not the implementation phase involves an IDE or just a text editor shouldn't really have a huge impact on the students' understanding unless one has to spend time teaching the environment -- taking away time that students need spent on teaching and learning the concept.
I kind of hate the the 'infringing until proven non-infringing' nature of current copyright law. It feels 'guilty until proven innocent' to me. Anyway, IANAL, so check with your lawyer first, but it seems like it is copyright infringement until they mount and win an affirmative defense (the four-pronged fair use defense) to retain the material. I know there are lawyers here, so maybe one of you can chime in here.
Thank you again for taking the time to reply. You didn't mention if you've already made up your mind, but you did respond.
... but the fact remains, I did give it to them. If I gave someone a copy of that original and they cut it to pieces and rearranged it into something new I know that I would feel differently (amused, pleased, conceivably honored, but at the very worst indifferent). Still laws aren't about how we feel, nor are poor choices illegal.
So first things first, thank you for articulating your point of view: "I have been saying from the beginning that the DMCA is good for artists, and enables artists to have access to forms of distribution that they never had before. I have argued that it gives them tools to protect their work, and it is NOT about just protecting financial interests."
Now, some facts: I am an artist. I minored in art (drawing and painting). I also write music and play several instruments. I've dabbled in computer animation, but I wouldn't consider myself competent with any of the modern tools. So, I definitely see your point of view regarding "art", generalizations aside ("you don't know artists", art is not a commodity, what "artists" do and don't want people to do with their products, "every artist feels that way about" etc.). I also understand that art isn't about money (though you keep harping on the investment in your production). Software tools aren't cheap, instruments aren't cheap, we can both agree.
So -- in my opinion as an artist, telling someone what they can and can't do with a copy of your art is like telling them how they are supposed to feel when you're done with the performance. "I gave you this expression so you'd feel sad! How dare you parody it!" I'm not going to presume that you agree, even though this sounds like a pretty valid point to me. Now, don't misunderstand me, if I gave someone a painting, an original, and they cut it to pieces and re-arranged it into something else I would probably feel... upset, disappointed?
So, this is where our disagreement (or misunderstanding) comes from. For you, every download -- every copy -- feels like an original. For you, you need every technical measure possible, even the ones that arguably diminish other people's natural rights, to protect that feeling. I assert that it's pretentious to treat each copy as an original. I assert that copies don't need to be limited to only actions that amuse or enrich their creator. If someone uses a copy in a way that does not affect the creator's life, liberty, fortune, state granted expression monopoly, etc. I don't see why it should be regulated. Now on this point, the Constitution and the law agrees with me. That's why copyright doesn't govern use, it governs distribution.
Ok, so with that said, you can see why I'm against technical means to restrict my freedom (even with copies of other art/artistic products). I guess what it comes down to is (like usual) property rights. If an artistic work is fixed in a tangible medium it is property. Do you disagree? Why don't I have permission from you (and others like you) to exercise my own decisions about my own property?
Now, you say, "an attitude like [mine] will do more to stifle artistic expression than a 100 laws." How? If other artists can fairly use copies of my work in their own -- how on earth can I be stifling artistic expression. You accuse me of using fair use ambiguously. I do no such thing -- making personal copies (an activity I don't recall mentioning in the entirety of our conversation, maybe I have?) is just as fair a use as parody or commentary. Since I take it as a given that nearly all art doesn't spring forth without inspiration, I would go so far as to say that transformative derivatives should also be fair. I can see how this would be abused though, so I can understand and honor why the Copyright Law disallows it.
Now some direct responses:
"You seem to think the artist is some factory worker who's job it is to turn out
I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm saying that you don't need to have registered a work to 'prove' the copyright is yours. If someone else is screwing you over, and you have to sue them for it, then great, you have to file; Big deal. Filing before some arbitrary date or before you're infringed has an additional benefit -- again that doesn't make it a requisite.
Really, when I said this post contains factual errors you could have just looked it up, and said, "yep, it sure does." Nobody would have thought you were any less of a man. Instead, you have to defend your falsehood. Great. That makes you look like an ass. Of course, I'm an ass for carrying it this far.
So at last...
You said: Before the DMCA [...] to have the full protection of copyright law, you either had to file for a copyright with the copyright office, or the work had to be published with the markings you mention [...] in order to be considered a copyrighted piece of work.
This is wrong.
You said: (which pre-DMCA did not specifically include the Internet, or any electronic form, but rather published in the sense of having to go through a printing press, and be distributed),
This is also wrong.
You said: If you just had some piece of artwork, or a photo, or a script, and were just showing it around your local coffee shop, or had it up on your personal webpage, then you had no guaranteed legal recourse under copyright law, since you could not prove publication, no matter how many little ©s you had on the piece.
This is also false.
You said: If you played a little ditty you came up with while sitting at the park, anyone who heard it could steal it, unless you had published sheet music for it.
False.
You said: That changed with the DMCA.
No it didn't.
You said: Copyright was changed to take effect at the moment of creation, not at the moment of publication, and the web and digital files were now considered to be a form of publication as well.
Wrong. As pointed out. This changed in '76. Work doesn't have to be published ever to have the protection of copyright.
That's all, man. It's not about your trials and tribulations with clients and what they should have done. It's not about any of that. It's about, hey, you made some false claims, and I thought I was doing you and others a favor by pointing that out. Your first comment about "the irony" should have never been marked informative, because it wasn't.
So I'll make this perfectly factual statement one more time: You do not have to register a work with the Copyright Office to have a copyright. The date you publish a work (or not) does not affect whether or not you have a copyright. As you've pointed out, you do gain ancillary benefits when making infringement claims if you do register and the degree of those benefits is affected by factors including the published state, and the published date if such exists and the registration date in relation to those. Is that pedantic enough for you? Is it perfectly clear?
That is all. Stop with the sophistry. You don't even have to admit you were wrong -- you just have to stop.
Respectfully,
FWIW, Dell is definitely getting its name onscreen in this season of 24. Just like Cayce in Pattern Recognition I'm really starting to notice branding because of my negative reaction to it. Dell's logo appears on the back of every flat panel display, and each keyboard shot. I think the only reason you haven't noticed a name on the racks is they haven't zoomed in close enough to show the badge 'buttons'. Also prominently displayed: Cisco, Avaya, Ford, Treo. I've noticed the powerbooks and Macs (Henderson's home computer), but I can't recall if they've gone as far displaying the glowing Apple. Interestingly, they haven't really branded the weapons -- despite the use of obvious signature weapons like the Microtech OTF, 1911, HK USP P2000, etc.
Additionally: Jack Bauer sleeps with a gun under his pillow, but he could kill you with the pillow.
Wow. You are trolling me, again. I can't believe I started to think you were reasonable. I guess I'll keep playing for one more round.
...but let's continue...
> Ok, let's say that I make an animation, and I want to distribute it on the Internet [...] I absolutely do not want anyone editing it in any way I did not intend, or repurposing the content.
Except of course for fair uses, right? Except when the copyright expires, right?
> Now, I am sure to you the consumer, this all sounds quite unreasonable and like I am making demands that I have no right to, because you should be able to use the file any way you want. You, on the other hand, did not just give up two years of your life, and a fair chunk of what little money you have, to making this project.
Oh come off it. Every one works hard at what they do. Copyright still protects them regardless. If I download a movie -- because let's face it you are letting me do it, expression == giving -- and I want to crop it and mash it up and sit on it or any other concievable thing I CAN. What I can't do is distribute it.
> Now, before the DMCA, if you had downloaded that file off the Internet, decided to edit it like you wanted to, cropped it so my watermark was gone, cut the resolution in half, then encoded it in Flash with a fraction of the bitrate, and uploaded it to YouTube, I would have had no real recourse, because you were not doing anything wrong.
Another lie. If I uploaded it to anyone, let alone YouTube, I would have been infringing your copyright and BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW. A COPYRIGHT LAW THAT'S EXISTED SINCE THE FIRST CONGRESS. The DMCA didn't make copyright infringement illegal.
> Well, nothing wrong except shitting all over a couple years of my life, and perhaps damaging any chance I had of getting my project off the ground and making a decent living.
More pitiful appeals to emotion. I "shitted" on you? Well I guess I "shitted" on myself too by opening myself to criminal and civil penalties (again that existed before the DMCA). To claim a copyright infringer has done "nothing wrong" is yet another lie. Do you even hear yourself?
> However, legally, you had not actually done anything I could take legal action over.
Another lie. I've infringed a copyright, and since fair use is only an affirmative defense I am infact guilty until proven innocent, er sorry I mean to say infringing until found non-infringing. Copyright has always been stacked on the publisher's side.
> As such, there is no doubt in my mind that the only way I would have been able to release the piece (and maintain any control over its content) was through art house distribution, which would not have had the desired effect, and thus there is a piece of work that just never would have been made.
So you're saying that the business model that you want is impossible? It is about 'the money' right? Because otherwise, I would have imagined that art house distribution would be preferable to no distribution.
> After the DMCA, there are several issues with that scenario (even the dreaded Section 1201) and it would be a fairly straightforward issue to force (if need be) YouTube to take down the file. Furthermore, there would be a reasonable argument that could be made in court to be able to subpoena YouTube to provide the identity of the person redistributing the piece in an altered form, in order to send them a cease and desist order.
Without the DMCA, YouTube would have never accepted the upload in the first place without enough information to sheild themselves from liability. In the pre-DMCA world, YouTube would have been infringing, so they damn well would have taken it down the moment you called them, if they even existed at all. You wouldn't need a C&D "in good faith", you could easily go straight to the legal action. You can be damn sure they'd welcome a subpoena if it mitigated or absolved their contributory/vi
Here, let me be more specific:
False. Again. No one (except claimants filing copyright infringement cases in federal district courts) has had to explicitly register a copyright since 1977. Of course you left out, "In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection." Which is exactly what I've been saying, over and over and over. This directly addresses your smarmy, "I would really like to hear you explain that one away as just being wrong. I would also like to hear how publication has nothing to do with copyright." Date of publication really does have nothing to do with copyright protection.
In your case, your or your friend's witless client still had proof of copyright (as you mentioned in invoices and business documents, presumably dated and your or your friend's sworn testimony). Except for the legal formality of registration before counter-suing, your client did not need registration, and frankly could be forgiven for not doing so. Not registering the trademark though is unforgivable. What business doesn't register its trademark? I can understand that paying you for an extra set of proofs, having a lawyer fill out a form, box it up and send in $30 bucks might be too onerous for a (assumption: small) business.
Anyway, as to your other flippant response, the two areas are different and separate, otherwise they could have both been resolved in the same case. The law isn't about how it 'feels' to you. It may 'feel' like trademark and copyright are the same thing, but they are undeniably different and undeniably separate.
> As such, no matter what the broad strokes of the previous law might have been, or what the broad strokes of the DMCA might be, the interpretation of the two is VERY different when you get into court.
Fair enough. We're probably coming from a very similar place. I just thought it was important to note that the reasons you claimed to support the DMCA (or at least disparage 'the bloggers' for not supporting it) are in fact reasons you support the 1976 Act and not the DMCA's provisions at all. Unless you design boats, run an ISP and backup other people's data, or are deeply invested in U.S. hegemony in global media/software markets the DMCA has little for you. I see it as just another government "land-grab", there can be no other reason to regulate that which was already illegal. All the legitimate benefits of the DMCA could have been the result of judicial clarification of existing law.
To me, placating the WIPO (a non-elected, non-representative, non-sovereign NGO) seems like a pretty dim silver lining. I don't want to debate whether the WIPO is neccessary or whether we should enter these byzantine Constitution-usurping treaties in the first place. I think we can leave it at "I'm no fan of the WIPO".
> I am not trying to be difficult, but it is also a fact that the Constitution says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." However, if you try to argue that constitutional point with an LAPD officer while carrying a gun on the subway, you are going to end up dead, or in jail. There are many laws that say very lofty, and important things. That doesn't mean that once you get to court it turns out to be the law that is applicable to your case.
:-p
Touche. But it should be pointed out that comparing the 2nd Amendment to Article 1 to Title 17 to the DMCA is like comparing apples to oranges to bananas to cherries. I mean yes they're all laws/fruits in the most gerneral terms, some loftier than others, but I don't think we can get any meaningful progress other than to agree that justices have a hard row to hoe.
Just in this particular case, we would be better off comparing the DMCA to Federal concealed carry laws -- at least then we'd be in the same ball park.
Ok, just some little nits:
:-D I have some friends in the ad business, so this story doesn't really surprise me, but it's not a failing title 17, and has nothing to do with the DMCA. The DMCA doesn't offer new protections for web publishing, it doesn't have to.
:-)
> Before '98 there was very little short of registration of the work with the copyright office, or proof of publication, that a court would accept as proof of creation.
False. Again. No one has had to explicitly regerister a copyright since 1977. Since Ford signed the 1976 Act, every utterance, every scribble, every doodle, every little jingle-jangle of your keys has been copyright since the moment of creation. But... I now have an idea where the confusion of the issue comes from...
> So, cut forward, and tens of thousands of dollars have built up in legal fees, and the ultimate resolution of the case turns out to be that even though the company that had the logo first could prove that they had been printing their logo on their invoices for years, even though they had business cards with the logo, even though they had a website with the logo, they had never registered the logo, and had never advertised using the logo, so it was found that the company with the full page ads, and the registered trademark, and the software boxes using the logo, got ownership of the logo.
Right! Registered a trademark. A completely different matter (but lumped under "intellectual property" to confuse the issue, sometimes intentionally). Trademarks, although they are copyrighted, must be registered with the PTO, the Patent and Trademark Office. (Copyrights don't have to be registered.) So what's interesting in this trademark infringement case, is that after the judge ruled in favor of the registerer, the original artists -- you two -- could have counter-counter-sued them after the injunction for violating your copyright on the design.
Anyhow, thanks for clarifying the scenario for me! The fact that plagiarists exist does suck, but people have been getting sued for fraud for ages. Let those scallywags hear from your lawyer.
I've only read patent cases where the certified mail trick works. Which again is a whole 'nother (unrelated) facet to the "intellectual property" debate.