No. jQuery wraps the language APIs to make elements work. The parent was pointing out that the actual UI operates differently. You can't really abstract that part out as an app - you need to make two different UIs.
Because one has a button and the other doesn't? I hardly think so.
You end up having to write two apps within one app anyway, and in javascript...
Then again, isn't this kind of like the browser compatibility problems that jQuery aims to solve? Sure, the user has to download some code that won't be used, but the upshot is that the same code will display and function in a useful way on browsers all the way back to IE6.
It's all irrelevant anyways. In 2 or 3 years, most "apps" will be written in HTML5. There are very few apps that actually need to run on client hardware, especially considering that most client hardware is low capability.
Depends what you mean. If you're talking about content publishing, then voila -- TFA is describing some new HTML5-based tools for content publishing. I agree that we'll see a lot more HTML-based apps in future (even if we don't realize that's what we're looking at), but the idea here is that Yahoo wants to be one of the companies that makes that happen.
Content publishing doesn't represent the full breadth of mobile apps, however. How do you use HTML5 to access the phone's camera, webcam, GPS, accelerometer, or other sensors? How do you write an HTML game that takes advantage of a variety of different input mechanisms, depending on hardware? Can HTML5 gauge your battery level, or choose which content to download based on whether you're connected via WiFi or a mobile data network? There are lots of things that are easier to code using a native API.
Given how careful you had to be with just one 16k expansion, I can imagine typing with four attached without causing a crash would take some very steady hands indeed!
Oh hell yes. I remember clearly trying to port a text adventure game from some other dialect of Basic, hammering away on that dodgy membrane keyboard, and having the 16K cartridge fall out while I was trying to suss out the syntax errors. (Result: Crash, memory wiped.)
In what way does libertarianism not protect your rights?
Like this:
A. All healthcare should be provided by private business. B. All businesses have a right to operate without interference from the government. C. Therefore, all businesses have an absolute right to do business with anyone they want and only those whom they want. D. Therefore, any provider or insurance company has the right to deny you healthcare based on your race.
I don't really deal with these issues myself, as I am currently self-employed, but you might be a little out of touch with what Apple offers for businesses these days. Motorola offers similar enterprise integration and security functions for some of its Android models (and maybe other vendors do, too; like I said, I'm not up on everything).
By no means are Apple and the Android phone makers saying, "BlackBerry thinks business is all important but we don't care about that." On the other hand, RIM seems to make two kinds of BlackBerrys these days: The kind that students take to college so they can take photos and share them with their friends; and the kind that's sort of like the company car, where everybody gets a Buick Park Avenue because Buick bid the lowest on a car that has the perfect size glove box, the right number of cupholders, and a brand of tires that don't wear out too fast.
They seem to be having a hard time getting bought, though. The other option might be to slash the staff, slash the product line, and put heavy emphasis on licensing their technology. Think "Windows Phone featuring BlackBerry." If that works out, then I see Microsoft grabbing them in a couple years.
They couldn't hold in. With Windows Phone 7 they're risking irrelevancy. With Symbian/MeeGo/Qt, they ARE irrelevant.
Well, better to take the risk than to lie down and take the loss, then. Is Nokia hardware so sexy that it would succeed if it re-entered the market now as yet another Android vendor? Right as Google is starting to reign in some of the UI customizations that allow one vendor to differentiate its products from another's? Seems unlikely. Nokia has a hard road ahead of it and Windows Phone might just be its best bet. But to be sure, it is a risky bet.
I just don't see that happening. I don't hold great hope for RIM's future, but I just don't think they could limbo under the WP7 bar any time soon.
I actually do. Remember Microsoft still has Windows 8, Windows 8 Tablets, and Xbox 360 to use to push the Windows Phone 7 UI on everyone. All of that could fail... but "could fail" is still better than RIM's "tried it and already failed."
If I write a movie review on Walt Disney's "Steamboat Willie" and I have an image of Mickey Mouse, do they have the legal standing to compel me to remove the words and images they hold the trademarks too?
Nah, I think there's explicit language that describes this as Fair Use.
Why do most commercials in the US refer to their competitor as "the other leading brand" and use look-a-like packaging instead of just stating the brandname?
I don't think it's a trademark issue. One, they don't want to run an ad that specifically says that a specific competitor is deficient in some way that can later be proven wrong, thus incurring a lawsuit. They're playing it safe. Two, it's killing X birds with one stone! Why single out one competitor when you can be vague and have every consumer assume you're talking about whichever one they're using?
No you won't be hit with trademark infringement lawsuit.
Yes, he will. The name of the cartoon is Steamboat Willie . If he changed the title for the purposes of advertising, he could easily (and rightly) be slapped with a lawsuit for infringing trademarks of the Walt Disney Company. In fact, he would probably be sued (knowing Disney) just for marketing a film with the character of Mickey Mouse in it, since Mickey Mouse is also a trademark. This area of law is complicated and there is a lot of money at stake.
Back to the earlier point, no, people won't sue you for producing original content. And no, SyFy does not intentionally set out to make shitty movies as a way to avoid copyright lawsuits -- what a bizarre concept! SyFy movies are shitty because nobody spends any money on them, period. Copyright-wise, the ripoffs produced by studios such as Asylum are well in the clear... they're all based on public domain concepts such as mythical monsters, sharks, the Norse god Thor, H.G. Wells's The War of the Worlds, Sherlock Holmes, car racing, etc., etc.
We've had reports that a new mutated strain of the common cold virus has been detected in multiple metropolitan areas
Well, technically speaking, SARS was a variant coronavirus (one of the several viruses generally grouped under the term "common cold") and it was pretty deadly, though not particularly communicable, so you're not totally far off.
the ipad is a AWESOME device or textbooks, reading about dinosaurs and having animations or being able to have interactive parts is incredibly cool.
Well, yes... except in this case the animation and interactivity parts would all be lies, because nobody has ever seen a dinosaur move, much less interacted with one. It would just be things moving around and making noises for no reason... giving kids cartoons because presumably books are too boring. You might as well have them watch Ice Age. (Thank you for watching Dinosaur Textbook, brought to you by the makers of Ice Age! Stay tuned for Chapter 3, after this message!)
Copyright doesn't get "diluted" like trademark does. If someone really wanted to aggressively assert their copyright, then all of the other "I Have a Dream" speeches would be derivative works and therefore illegal.
And are you sure the publishers of said books didn't pay royalties to MLK's estate?
Can't be sure, but a simple Google search reveals full-length text, audio, and video copies of the speech all over the place. And not just fly-by-night Web sites, either, but major TV news networks, the Huffington Post, and on and on. Maybe the copyright issue is unresolved, but the idea that you have to pay somebody $10 just to hear the speech is absurd.
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family
on
A Copyright Nightmare
·
· Score: 1
Technically, anybody could transcribe the speech, slap their own copyright on it, and sell it themselves. That's how ridiculous copyright law is.
Not true, and I don't understand why you're saying that given the context of this whole topic.
Quoting a speech would probably be fair use even if they were under copyright.
Depends on how long the quote was and other standards of law. If you just reprinted the entire text of the speech on your Web site, you would be in violation of copyright.
The question though is why is one protected and the other is not? Both the painting and the public appearance took effort to produce.
Because it's a copyright. How do you make a copy of a public appearance? You can mimic the public appearance, but you can't have the same person appear on the same stage and deliver the exact same speech with the same intonation and have it take the same amount of time, where the weather is the same and a guy coughs three minutes into the speech, etc. Copyright isn't designed to assert moral rights to your actions or your efforts, it's designed to protect the duplication and distribution of your works -- works, in this case, meaning tangible things. If you want to own the copyright on that public appearance, be the only one who has a video recording of it.
You can't copyright a performance of an interpretive dance. You can copyright a video recording of an interpretive dance. Likewise, there is no concept of copyright for your morning jog, or for your physical appearance. When a photographer takes a photograph of you, the photographer owns the copyright to the photograph. You gain nothing. This is not to say that the copyright owner of the photograph can use it however he or she sees fit; you have other rights, just not copyright.
With a speech, there are two components. The speech itself is copyrighted as soon as it is written. Then, any video or audio recordings of the speech being delivered have their own copyrights. If you want to see this in action, open a CD and look at the booklet. You will probably see a circle-C copyright symbol, and also a circle-P copyright symbol. The circle-C just covers the lyrics and/or the sheet music (which we assume exists). The circle-P covers the audio recording itself. However, audio or video recordings of a speech (or a song) are derivative works of the original speech (or lyrics or sheet music), and are therefore subject to the control of the original copyright holder. This covers your case of the motivational speaker who earns money from his performances. The reason people sometimes break out the circle-P and circle-C into separate rights on CDs and the like is because the enter into contracts that explicitly license or sell those rights to various parties.
Dr.King clearly intended for his words to sway as many people as possible. For that reason I think a moral argument could be putting them in the public domain is most consistent with his intent. However Dr. King never *said* he intended to do this, and since his family is in a better position to say what his intent was, I have no doubt the law is on their side even though it is patently unjust.
You don't even have that painless process to deal with at all. You run a little exe. Wait 30 seconds. And you're done. No phonecalls. No screwing around.
Piracy. Still easier. Cheaper. Faster.
I dunno, in my experience that's getting to be more difficult. I've seen machines with pirated serials that ran well for six months or a year suddenly decide they are not activated. Also, a lot of keygens carry Trojan payloads these days. (When I want to test antivirus software, I usually head straight for Usenet and download a few random keygens.)
"Cheaper" gets to be relative when you have to waste time screwing around with stuff like this. If you're a high school student who really has no money, OK maybe. But if you work, Windows really isn't all that expensive for an individual machine (in fact, your copy may have come bundled with your PC). If you're the type of person who just likes to dick around with computers and you want to install Windows on a bunch of machines and VMs so you can play with Microsoft software, a TechNet subscription is dirt cheap ($200 up front, $150 per year to renew, and licenses are perpetual even if you let your subscription elapse). If either has anything to do with work, it's a tax write-off. But maybe I'm just getting old.
On a serious note, the City has numerous other specialized high school
This. Nobody in this thread seems to understand that this is sort of a tradition for New York City. In addition to the formal specialized high schools, which you need to pass a test to enroll in, there are a variety of other high schools around the Five Burroughs that specialize, both in science and in stuff like visual and performing arts. A high school that offers specialized coursework in programming and IT is hardly going to end the world of education.
Slashdot Mirror
No. jQuery wraps the language APIs to make elements work. The parent was pointing out that the actual UI operates differently. You can't really abstract that part out as an app - you need to make two different UIs.
Because one has a button and the other doesn't? I hardly think so.
You end up having to write two apps within one app anyway, and in javascript...
Then again, isn't this kind of like the browser compatibility problems that jQuery aims to solve? Sure, the user has to download some code that won't be used, but the upshot is that the same code will display and function in a useful way on browsers all the way back to IE6.
It's all irrelevant anyways. In 2 or 3 years, most "apps" will be written in HTML5. There are very few apps that actually need to run on client hardware, especially considering that most client hardware is low capability.
Depends what you mean. If you're talking about content publishing, then voila -- TFA is describing some new HTML5-based tools for content publishing. I agree that we'll see a lot more HTML-based apps in future (even if we don't realize that's what we're looking at), but the idea here is that Yahoo wants to be one of the companies that makes that happen.
Content publishing doesn't represent the full breadth of mobile apps, however. How do you use HTML5 to access the phone's camera, webcam, GPS, accelerometer, or other sensors? How do you write an HTML game that takes advantage of a variety of different input mechanisms, depending on hardware? Can HTML5 gauge your battery level, or choose which content to download based on whether you're connected via WiFi or a mobile data network? There are lots of things that are easier to code using a native API.
We're talking about TEXT here. TEXT.
Where does the summary say that?
For that matter, where does it talk about books?
In the case of mobile phones, "content publishing" means a variety of things, and it typically must include a UI.
Given how careful you had to be with just one 16k expansion, I can imagine typing with four attached without causing a crash would take some very steady hands indeed!
Oh hell yes. I remember clearly trying to port a text adventure game from some other dialect of Basic, hammering away on that dodgy membrane keyboard, and having the 16K cartridge fall out while I was trying to suss out the syntax errors. (Result: Crash, memory wiped.)
Why a dedicated mobile app? What's wrong with HTML?
Damn, you couldn't even make it past the first sentence of the summary? That's impressive even for Slashdot.
In what way does libertarianism not protect your rights?
Like this:
A. All healthcare should be provided by private business.
B. All businesses have a right to operate without interference from the government.
C. Therefore, all businesses have an absolute right to do business with anyone they want and only those whom they want.
D. Therefore, any provider or insurance company has the right to deny you healthcare based on your race.
My point is that one can refuse the pat-down and leave. Our rights have been eroded, but we can still do that much.
O RLY? And that was just a random Google search; the case I was thinking of was a man.
I don't really deal with these issues myself, as I am currently self-employed, but you might be a little out of touch with what Apple offers for businesses these days. Motorola offers similar enterprise integration and security functions for some of its Android models (and maybe other vendors do, too; like I said, I'm not up on everything).
By no means are Apple and the Android phone makers saying, "BlackBerry thinks business is all important but we don't care about that." On the other hand, RIM seems to make two kinds of BlackBerrys these days: The kind that students take to college so they can take photos and share them with their friends; and the kind that's sort of like the company car, where everybody gets a Buick Park Avenue because Buick bid the lowest on a car that has the perfect size glove box, the right number of cupholders, and a brand of tires that don't wear out too fast.
They seem to be having a hard time getting bought, though. The other option might be to slash the staff, slash the product line, and put heavy emphasis on licensing their technology. Think "Windows Phone featuring BlackBerry." If that works out, then I see Microsoft grabbing them in a couple years.
They couldn't hold in. With Windows Phone 7 they're risking irrelevancy. With Symbian/MeeGo/Qt, they ARE irrelevant.
Well, better to take the risk than to lie down and take the loss, then. Is Nokia hardware so sexy that it would succeed if it re-entered the market now as yet another Android vendor? Right as Google is starting to reign in some of the UI customizations that allow one vendor to differentiate its products from another's? Seems unlikely. Nokia has a hard road ahead of it and Windows Phone might just be its best bet. But to be sure, it is a risky bet.
I just don't see that happening. I don't hold great hope for RIM's future, but I just don't think they could limbo under the WP7 bar any time soon.
I actually do. Remember Microsoft still has Windows 8, Windows 8 Tablets, and Xbox 360 to use to push the Windows Phone 7 UI on everyone. All of that could fail... but "could fail" is still better than RIM's "tried it and already failed."
If I write a movie review on Walt Disney's "Steamboat Willie" and I have an image of Mickey Mouse, do they have the legal standing to compel me to remove the words and images they hold the trademarks too?
Nah, I think there's explicit language that describes this as Fair Use.
Why do most commercials in the US refer to their competitor as "the other leading brand" and use look-a-like packaging instead of just stating the brandname?
I don't think it's a trademark issue. One, they don't want to run an ad that specifically says that a specific competitor is deficient in some way that can later be proven wrong, thus incurring a lawsuit. They're playing it safe. Two, it's killing X birds with one stone! Why single out one competitor when you can be vague and have every consumer assume you're talking about whichever one they're using?
Fansubs aren't original content. They are derivative works of the original script and/or film.
Films based on novels that are currently in copyright must be licensed. Films based on out-of-copyright novels need not be.
No you won't be hit with trademark infringement lawsuit.
Yes, he will. The name of the cartoon is Steamboat Willie . If he changed the title for the purposes of advertising, he could easily (and rightly) be slapped with a lawsuit for infringing trademarks of the Walt Disney Company. In fact, he would probably be sued (knowing Disney) just for marketing a film with the character of Mickey Mouse in it, since Mickey Mouse is also a trademark. This area of law is complicated and there is a lot of money at stake.
Back to the earlier point, no, people won't sue you for producing original content. And no, SyFy does not intentionally set out to make shitty movies as a way to avoid copyright lawsuits -- what a bizarre concept! SyFy movies are shitty because nobody spends any money on them, period. Copyright-wise, the ripoffs produced by studios such as Asylum are well in the clear... they're all based on public domain concepts such as mythical monsters, sharks, the Norse god Thor, H.G. Wells's The War of the Worlds, Sherlock Holmes, car racing, etc., etc.
We've had reports that a new mutated strain of the common cold virus has been detected in multiple metropolitan areas
Well, technically speaking, SARS was a variant coronavirus (one of the several viruses generally grouped under the term "common cold") and it was pretty deadly, though not particularly communicable, so you're not totally far off.
the ipad is a AWESOME device or textbooks, reading about dinosaurs and having animations or being able to have interactive parts is incredibly cool.
Well, yes... except in this case the animation and interactivity parts would all be lies, because nobody has ever seen a dinosaur move, much less interacted with one. It would just be things moving around and making noises for no reason... giving kids cartoons because presumably books are too boring. You might as well have them watch Ice Age. (Thank you for watching Dinosaur Textbook, brought to you by the makers of Ice Age! Stay tuned for Chapter 3, after this message!)
Copyright doesn't get "diluted" like trademark does. If someone really wanted to aggressively assert their copyright, then all of the other "I Have a Dream" speeches would be derivative works and therefore illegal.
And are you sure the publishers of said books didn't pay royalties to MLK's estate?
Can't be sure, but a simple Google search reveals full-length text, audio, and video copies of the speech all over the place. And not just fly-by-night Web sites, either, but major TV news networks, the Huffington Post, and on and on. Maybe the copyright issue is unresolved, but the idea that you have to pay somebody $10 just to hear the speech is absurd.
Technically, anybody could transcribe the speech, slap their own copyright on it, and sell it themselves. That's how ridiculous copyright law is.
Not true, and I don't understand why you're saying that given the context of this whole topic.
Quoting a speech would probably be fair use even if they were under copyright.
Depends on how long the quote was and other standards of law. If you just reprinted the entire text of the speech on your Web site, you would be in violation of copyright.
The question though is why is one protected and the other is not? Both the painting and the public appearance took effort to produce.
Because it's a copyright. How do you make a copy of a public appearance? You can mimic the public appearance, but you can't have the same person appear on the same stage and deliver the exact same speech with the same intonation and have it take the same amount of time, where the weather is the same and a guy coughs three minutes into the speech, etc. Copyright isn't designed to assert moral rights to your actions or your efforts, it's designed to protect the duplication and distribution of your works -- works, in this case, meaning tangible things. If you want to own the copyright on that public appearance, be the only one who has a video recording of it.
You can't copyright a performance of an interpretive dance. You can copyright a video recording of an interpretive dance. Likewise, there is no concept of copyright for your morning jog, or for your physical appearance. When a photographer takes a photograph of you, the photographer owns the copyright to the photograph. You gain nothing. This is not to say that the copyright owner of the photograph can use it however he or she sees fit; you have other rights, just not copyright.
With a speech, there are two components. The speech itself is copyrighted as soon as it is written. Then, any video or audio recordings of the speech being delivered have their own copyrights. If you want to see this in action, open a CD and look at the booklet. You will probably see a circle-C copyright symbol, and also a circle-P copyright symbol. The circle-C just covers the lyrics and/or the sheet music (which we assume exists). The circle-P covers the audio recording itself. However, audio or video recordings of a speech (or a song) are derivative works of the original speech (or lyrics or sheet music), and are therefore subject to the control of the original copyright holder. This covers your case of the motivational speaker who earns money from his performances. The reason people sometimes break out the circle-P and circle-C into separate rights on CDs and the like is because the enter into contracts that explicitly license or sell those rights to various parties.
Dr.King clearly intended for his words to sway as many people as possible. For that reason I think a moral argument could be putting them in the public domain is most consistent with his intent. However Dr. King never *said* he intended to do this, and since his family is in a better position to say what his intent was, I have no doubt the law is on their side even though it is patently unjust.
I agree.
And yet if you pirate it.
You don't even have that painless process to deal with at all. You run a little exe. Wait 30 seconds. And you're done. No phonecalls. No screwing around.
Piracy. Still easier. Cheaper. Faster.
I dunno, in my experience that's getting to be more difficult. I've seen machines with pirated serials that ran well for six months or a year suddenly decide they are not activated. Also, a lot of keygens carry Trojan payloads these days. (When I want to test antivirus software, I usually head straight for Usenet and download a few random keygens.)
"Cheaper" gets to be relative when you have to waste time screwing around with stuff like this. If you're a high school student who really has no money, OK maybe. But if you work, Windows really isn't all that expensive for an individual machine (in fact, your copy may have come bundled with your PC). If you're the type of person who just likes to dick around with computers and you want to install Windows on a bunch of machines and VMs so you can play with Microsoft software, a TechNet subscription is dirt cheap ($200 up front, $150 per year to renew, and licenses are perpetual even if you let your subscription elapse). If either has anything to do with work, it's a tax write-off. But maybe I'm just getting old.
On a serious note, the City has numerous other specialized high school
This. Nobody in this thread seems to understand that this is sort of a tradition for New York City. In addition to the formal specialized high schools, which you need to pass a test to enroll in, there are a variety of other high schools around the Five Burroughs that specialize, both in science and in stuff like visual and performing arts. A high school that offers specialized coursework in programming and IT is hardly going to end the world of education.