I write code for web applications and I do a little graphic design so my livelihood depends on my ideas and intellectual 'property', but tell me something: How complex must an idea be 'copryrightable?'
Well, as I already said, I am not a lawyer, but here's my take on it: I suspect it depends less on the complexity, and more on your ability to argue your case for being able to lay claim to it - stick your kid's play blocks in a museum and you'd probably have a good case.
As for patents - which are a different thing to copyrights - yes, the patent system is also hideously broken. Patents are not supposed to be awarded for ideas which are obvious, impossible, or have prior art, but in actual fact we see patents issued on things like the peanut butter & jelly sandwitch, the play-swing, using a laser pointer to entertain your cat, "perpetual motion" machines, one-click shopping, mini games during loading of a video game, the + shaped D-pad, and all kinds of other ridiculous things.
So, I ask one more time. At one point do objects lose their individual value and become new copyrightable ideas or objects? So, if the combination of numbers that make up a song is copyrightable, why can't I copyright 999, for example?
Because you can't make a good case for laying claim to it. Can you demonstrate that it's your original idea that hasn't been used before? amongst many other uses, 999 is the emergency number we use here in the UK (like 911 in the US), so you'd have a pretty tough battle against prior art. There's also the small matter that as far as I'm aware, numbers cannot be copyrighted.
However, if you made a painting which consisted of the number "999" in large pink digits, that would be copyrightable. Not the number, but the appearance of it. A similar example is how, if you write an arrangement of a piece of music which is in the public domain - say, a classical piece, then you hold the copyright on that specific arrangement, but not on the song itself. Other people can write their own arrangements and perform them without your permission, but they need your permission to perform your arrangement.
Now, I just said that numbers can't be copyrighted, so again we have the idea of "If a song is just a big number, and you can't copyright a number, why not just share the number online that makes up a particular song..." but while you cannot copyright that number you can copyright the number-interpreted-as-a-song.
At this point it all gets rather messy and incoherent, but basically, in any use where it could concievably be seen as a song rather than just a big number, the copyright would apply. So pretending it's a number for the sake of distributing it on a website probably wouldn't really work.. and even if it did, the moment anybody played that 'number' back through their media player, they'd be breaking copyright.
Unless you could make a pretty damn watertight case that you only ever intended to distribute a big number, and any incidences of the copyright song that cropped up were purely incidental and unintentional, then you wouldn't really have a leg to stand on.
Basically you're just playing with details here, which inevitably makes for a flimsy argument. It's rather like saying that an MP3 is not an exact copy of the original CD due to losses in the compression, and therefore what you have downloaded is NOT the copyrighted material from the CD, and therefore you are not causing copyright infringement. Or flimsier yet, blowing something up then claiming you didn't destroy it saying it's all still there.. all the atoms are intact, just rearranged.
It's a cute argument, but it would be squashed flat in half a second in any kind of legal situation.
So, I can copyright the arrangement of colored blocks preschoolers play with? Just a warning to all of you pirates: Do NOT stack your colored blocks in this order from top to bottom or I'll sic my attorney on you: Blue, Red, Red, Green, Blue, Yellow, Blue, Blue, Green. You've been warned.
No, because you didn't make it. The kid that put that construction together would hold the copyright on it. You automatically own the copyright to any original work you produce.
Sure, your example shows a situation in which it's silly - easily done by pushing anything to extremes. "Hey, I'll copyright the idea of putting one thing on top of another!"
There is a minimum level of complexity/originality required for copyright (I think - IANAL), but let's get to the root of this. Are you saying that nobody should ever under any circumstances be able to hold an exclusive right to something they've made/written/invented/otherwise produced?
I'm totally in favour of copyright reform - the present system is completely buggered. But I don't think it works to say that nobody can lay claim to ownership of anything. What happens when I want to make my living as a software developer. I spend a few months writing some really awesome app, and I need to make a decent profit from it to live off.. so I sell it for £100 a copy...
Except, because there's nothing to stop them doing so, Microsoft pick it up, and bundle it in with Windows for free - and offer it for download on their website. Leaving me utterly screwed.
Sure, I know that's not how copyright works most of the time in practice - rather than protecting the little guy it's used to screw him. But my point is there IS a good reason for systems of ownership. It's just that our present one is completely broken, and only serves the purposes of the big guys.
Remember dude, if you wanna be an elite hacker and not just a techno weenie you gotta pull a righteous hack on some big metal - totally hack some Gibsons, man.
I watched that goddamn movie, and I can never ever get those minutes of my life back. I'd watch it again if I could erase my memory of the electro opera scene from the 5th Element though.
Not funny. I'm sick of hearing the same joke on every hardware related story. Really. Get over it.
It's almost like a... Beowulf Cluster of unoriginal, unfunny jokes! I wonder if it runs Linux? Maybe in Soviet Russia, at least. Or maybe only for old people in Korea
Seriously, you're never gonna be free of the tyranny of Slashdot memes - at least, not without leaving Slashdot. Yes, they're done to death, run into the ground, dug up, and done to death all over again.. but that's the way it goes on here.
Just look at any story remotely involving optics or lasers, and count the number of "do not look into laser with remaining eye" posts. It's like some kind of special nerd tourettes.. people on here just SOVIETRUSSIA! suddenly scream out various Slashdot HOTGRITS! memes DOESITRUNLINUX!
Doesn't really help all that much. Carbon is just an atom. So is hydrogen. Bit of this, but of that and you've got yourself a molecule. Few molecules here, few molecules there, and you've got yourself a Mercedes.
You still get nicked for taking one without paying though, and I don't think the charges are any less for running off with a "big pile of atoms" rather than a Merc.
Before anyone starts on about it btw, I know copyright infringment is not the same as stealing/theft - I'm not intending to make that comparison. I'm simply pointing out that you can't really equate "any old big number" with "this specific bit of music" any more than you can equate "any old big pile of atoms" with "this specific car". The important bit in both cases is not the digits or atoms, it's the order they're arranged in, that's what you're paying for.
Correct, the money goes to the record label. That's why it's mainly the record companies, and not the artists complaining about piracy & p2p nets. You're also on the right track about supporting artists - if you want to support your favourite artist, go to their gigs, buy their merchandise (the stuff that comes straight from them, I mean, not stuff put out by the label), or, heck, just send 'em money direct.
Quite frankly the business practices of most of the large labels are obscene. Even a lot of artists who you'd think did really well - had top 10 hits, etc - end up in massive debt to the labels.
Just off the top of my head, do you remember the female R&B trio, TLC? they were around in the early 90's. They had 3 back-to-back #1 hits, a debut album that sold over 4 million copies, and a follow up that sold over 10 million. They won grammys, topped the album charts for 5 weeks in the US, the only all female group to have more #1 US hits than TLC was The Supremes.
So.. they must be millionaires now, right? I mean, that kind of success would set you up for life, surely? In fact, they filed for bankrupcy due to a £3 million debt they owed to their record company, and spent ages in legal battles trying to untangle themselves from their contracts.
And that's far from being an isolated incident. Remember that the next time you hear an RIAA/record label representative sobbing about the plight of the poor starving musicians.
and we have not been attacked on our soil in four years.
Yeah, because it was an almost daily occurance before the war... Sounds like you'd be interested in my fantastic new Tiger Repelling Rock. It uses the latest in anti-tiger technology to keep you completely safe at all times*
*may not work in countries where there are tigers.
We laugh at Daikatana because it took approximately 400 years to develop, and was hyped the entire time as "It's gonna be the best game ever! So good it'll redefine the whole concept of what a 'game' is!" And then, of course, it just turned out to be an utter load of pants.
The Reality Distorition Field thing, I have slightly less of a firm grasp on, but it seems to be related to the fact that any time Jobs is involved in.. well.. anything, really.. all logic, reason, and common sense shoot straight out of the window, and are replaced by blue-sky idealism, promises, wild claims, and hype - and yet, even normally rational people seem to swallow it down. Presumably due to some alternate-universe effect that surrounds him, hence the Reality Distortion Field. (someone correct me if wrong)
And as for Milkshake, I believe that's a slang term for, loosely speaking, what one woman has that others don't. Her "unique selling point", if you will - maybe large breasts, or nice skin, or great booty-shaking skills. It's whatever aspect of her "Brings all the boys to the yard", as the song says.
It's from The Register. They report real stories with a humorous slant - so basically, the robot took a couple of wrong turns.
The Reg's main reporting is on IT news, and for the most part that's pretty decent reporting. Stuff like this they just throw in for comic relief. They have a whole running theme of highly sensationalistic stories about how The Machines are going to try and wipe us out, regularly reporting on things like toasters electrocuting people, or people getting locked inside of high tech public toilets.
I'm sorry did I say something wrong well excuse me for breathing which I never do anyways so I don't even know why I bothered to say it oh god I'm so depressed.
(btw. do you get that in the US too? I thought it was a UK affliction).
I'm British too, you insensitive clod!:P But yeah. Good question.. any Americans know what we're referring to with Crazy Frog? (if not, consider yourselves lucky)
Err. This probably won't help much, but I've seen this exact question asked, and answered on Physlink which is an "ask the experts" type physics board . Unfortunately I can't seem to find it again, or remember what the answer was, so you'll just have to take my word for it - though if I can track it down I'll paste a link in here later.
But I remember the answer basically stated that no, that scenario doesn't work. I think possibly it was because if the light is reflected perfectly, no energy is imparted into the mirror to push it, as photons have no mass, or something.. but I could just be pulling that outta my ass. It's ages since I read it, and I'm no physics expert.
No! The solar wind is made up of ionized particles ejected by the Sun. These particles move much slower than light. A solar sail does not stop or reflect them, although they also may impart some of their momentum to the solar sail. However, the force from the solar wind is less than one percent of that from light pressure.
For one thing, almost by definition you can't travel towards a star on this thing because as you approach it, it will start to slow down, and eventually stop.
9 . Can a solar sail only provide thrust away from the sun?
No, thrust can be generated inward or outward with respect to the sun. By turning the sail at different angles, we can add or subtract velocity to the spacecraft. When we add velocity, the sail flies away from the Sun. When we subtract velocity, its orbit spirals inward.
That, in itself, is worth the entire license fee. What kind of retard buys that damn thing anyway? It's like a tax on stupidity. It should have a signal embedded in it that makes your mobile explode, killing you, thus rendering the gene pool free of the tyranny of your stupidity. And another thing--*fades into the distance, ranting and raving*
and we all know what their technical expertise is like explaining computer issues.
Actually.. I was watching BBC News 24 the other night, and they had their tech program on. Some guy wrote in saying he'd spilled coffee on his laptop, and now it wouldn't start up, and asking what he should do. The presenter basically just said "Well, it might be knackered, but you're best to get it checked out", then explained that the harddrive at least would probably be fine, and to remove it first so it wouldn't get wiped by the repairers (good advice)
Then, to my astonishment, he proceeded to dismantle a Dell laptop to show the general construction of a laptop, and how there's a plate beneath the keyboard, which should protect the insides from all but the most severe of coffee spills, and gave a whole bunch of very sound advice on rescuing a freshly-spilled-on laptop.
Not bad for a mainstream tech show. Usually from programmes like that, I expect about as much technical knowledge as you'd get from a Dixons employee.
Sure, you can never get absolute anonymity, but that's not a problem. All you need is "good enough" anonymity, and that most certainly IS achievable. If the cost of breaking anonymity, either in processing time or in required resources is high enough as to make it basically impractical, then your anonymity is probably good enough. I2P is close to that stage already, and is expected to be quite a bit stronger by the next major release
Slashdot Mirror
I write code for web applications and I do a little graphic design so my livelihood depends on my ideas and intellectual 'property', but tell me something: How complex must an idea be 'copryrightable?'
Well, as I already said, I am not a lawyer, but here's my take on it:
I suspect it depends less on the complexity, and more on your ability to argue your case for being able to lay claim to it - stick your kid's play blocks in a museum and you'd probably have a good case.
As for patents - which are a different thing to copyrights - yes, the patent system is also hideously broken. Patents are not supposed to be awarded for ideas which are obvious, impossible, or have prior art, but in actual fact we see patents issued on things like the peanut butter & jelly sandwitch, the play-swing, using a laser pointer to entertain your cat, "perpetual motion" machines, one-click shopping, mini games during loading of a video game, the + shaped D-pad, and all kinds of other ridiculous things.
So, I ask one more time. At one point do objects lose their individual value and become new copyrightable ideas or objects? So, if the combination of numbers that make up a song is copyrightable, why can't I copyright 999, for example?
Because you can't make a good case for laying claim to it. Can you demonstrate that it's your original idea that hasn't been used before? amongst many other uses, 999 is the emergency number we use here in the UK (like 911 in the US), so you'd have a pretty tough battle against prior art. There's also the small matter that as far as I'm aware, numbers cannot be copyrighted.
However, if you made a painting which consisted of the number "999" in large pink digits, that would be copyrightable. Not the number, but the appearance of it.
A similar example is how, if you write an arrangement of a piece of music which is in the public domain - say, a classical piece, then you hold the copyright on that specific arrangement, but not on the song itself. Other people can write their own arrangements and perform them without your permission, but they need your permission to perform your arrangement.
Now, I just said that numbers can't be copyrighted, so again we have the idea of "If a song is just a big number, and you can't copyright a number, why not just share the number online that makes up a particular song..." but while you cannot copyright that number you can copyright the number-interpreted-as-a-song.
At this point it all gets rather messy and incoherent, but basically, in any use where it could concievably be seen as a song rather than just a big number, the copyright would apply. So pretending it's a number for the sake of distributing it on a website probably wouldn't really work.. and even if it did, the moment anybody played that 'number' back through their media player, they'd be breaking copyright.
Unless you could make a pretty damn watertight case that you only ever intended to distribute a big number, and any incidences of the copyright song that cropped up were purely incidental and unintentional, then you wouldn't really have a leg to stand on.
Basically you're just playing with details here, which inevitably makes for a flimsy argument. It's rather like saying that an MP3 is not an exact copy of the original CD due to losses in the compression, and therefore what you have downloaded is NOT the copyrighted material from the CD, and therefore you are not causing copyright infringement. Or flimsier yet, blowing something up then claiming you didn't destroy it saying it's all still there.. all the atoms are intact, just rearranged.
It's a cute argument, but it would be squashed flat in half a second in any kind of legal situation.
So, I can copyright the arrangement of colored blocks preschoolers play with?
Just a warning to all of you pirates: Do NOT stack your colored blocks in this order from top to bottom or I'll sic my attorney on you: Blue, Red, Red, Green, Blue, Yellow, Blue, Blue, Green.
You've been warned.
No, because you didn't make it. The kid that put that construction together would hold the copyright on it.
You automatically own the copyright to any original work you produce.
Sure, your example shows a situation in which it's silly - easily done by pushing anything to extremes. "Hey, I'll copyright the idea of putting one thing on top of another!"
There is a minimum level of complexity/originality required for copyright (I think - IANAL), but let's get to the root of this. Are you saying that nobody should ever under any circumstances be able to hold an exclusive right to something they've made/written/invented/otherwise produced?
I'm totally in favour of copyright reform - the present system is completely buggered. But I don't think it works to say that nobody can lay claim to ownership of anything. What happens when I want to make my living as a software developer. I spend a few months writing some really awesome app, and I need to make a decent profit from it to live off.. so I sell it for £100 a copy...
Except, because there's nothing to stop them doing so, Microsoft pick it up, and bundle it in with Windows for free - and offer it for download on their website. Leaving me utterly screwed.
Sure, I know that's not how copyright works most of the time in practice - rather than protecting the little guy it's used to screw him. But my point is there IS a good reason for systems of ownership. It's just that our present one is completely broken, and only serves the purposes of the big guys.
Sure, you can task it with that, but only if you've been empowered to envision a compatible paradigim.
Remember dude, if you wanna be an elite hacker and not just a techno weenie you gotta pull a righteous hack on some big metal - totally hack some Gibsons, man.
I watched that goddamn movie, and I can never ever get those minutes of my life back.
I'd watch it again if I could erase my memory of the electro opera scene from the 5th Element though.
Not funny. I'm sick of hearing the same joke on every hardware related story. Really. Get over it.
It's almost like a... Beowulf Cluster of unoriginal, unfunny jokes! I wonder if it runs Linux? Maybe in Soviet Russia, at least. Or maybe only for old people in Korea
Seriously, you're never gonna be free of the tyranny of Slashdot memes - at least, not without leaving Slashdot. Yes, they're done to death, run into the ground, dug up, and done to death all over again.. but that's the way it goes on here.
Just look at any story remotely involving optics or lasers, and count the number of "do not look into laser with remaining eye" posts. It's like some kind of special nerd tourettes.. people on here just SOVIETRUSSIA! suddenly scream out various Slashdot HOTGRITS! memes DOESITRUNLINUX!
Doesn't really help all that much.
Carbon is just an atom. So is hydrogen. Bit of this, but of that and you've got yourself a molecule. Few molecules here, few molecules there, and you've got yourself a Mercedes.
You still get nicked for taking one without paying though, and I don't think the charges are any less for running off with a "big pile of atoms" rather than a Merc.
Before anyone starts on about it btw, I know copyright infringment is not the same as stealing/theft - I'm not intending to make that comparison. I'm simply pointing out that you can't really equate "any old big number" with "this specific bit of music" any more than you can equate "any old big pile of atoms" with "this specific car".
The important bit in both cases is not the digits or atoms, it's the order they're arranged in, that's what you're paying for.
Correct, the money goes to the record label. That's why it's mainly the record companies, and not the artists complaining about piracy & p2p nets.
You're also on the right track about supporting artists - if you want to support your favourite artist, go to their gigs, buy their merchandise (the stuff that comes straight from them, I mean, not stuff put out by the label), or, heck, just send 'em money direct.
Quite frankly the business practices of most of the large labels are obscene. Even a lot of artists who you'd think did really well - had top 10 hits, etc - end up in massive debt to the labels.
Just off the top of my head, do you remember the female R&B trio, TLC? they were around in the early 90's. They had 3 back-to-back #1 hits, a debut album that sold over 4 million copies, and a follow up that sold over 10 million. They won grammys, topped the album charts for 5 weeks in the US, the only all female group to have more #1 US hits than TLC was The Supremes.
So.. they must be millionaires now, right? I mean, that kind of success would set you up for life, surely?
In fact, they filed for bankrupcy due to a £3 million debt they owed to their record company, and spent ages in legal battles trying to untangle themselves from their contracts.
And that's far from being an isolated incident.
Remember that the next time you hear an RIAA/record label representative sobbing about the plight of the poor starving musicians.
I'd be quite happy to have Britney Spears on my harddrive!
Oh, wait, you mean her music..
and we have not been attacked on our soil in four years.
Yeah, because it was an almost daily occurance before the war...
Sounds like you'd be interested in my fantastic new Tiger Repelling Rock. It uses the latest in anti-tiger technology to keep you completely safe at all times*
*may not work in countries where there are tigers.
We laugh at Daikatana because it took approximately 400 years to develop, and was hyped the entire time as "It's gonna be the best game ever! So good it'll redefine the whole concept of what a 'game' is!"
And then, of course, it just turned out to be an utter load of pants.
The Reality Distorition Field thing, I have slightly less of a firm grasp on, but it seems to be related to the fact that any time Jobs is involved in.. well.. anything, really.. all logic, reason, and common sense shoot straight out of the window, and are replaced by blue-sky idealism, promises, wild claims, and hype - and yet, even normally rational people seem to swallow it down. Presumably due to some alternate-universe effect that surrounds him, hence the Reality Distortion Field. (someone correct me if wrong)
And as for Milkshake, I believe that's a slang term for, loosely speaking, what one woman has that others don't. Her "unique selling point", if you will - maybe large breasts, or nice skin, or great booty-shaking skills. It's whatever aspect of her "Brings all the boys to the yard", as the song says.
It's from The Register. They report real stories with a humorous slant - so basically, the robot took a couple of wrong turns.
The Reg's main reporting is on IT news, and for the most part that's pretty decent reporting. Stuff like this they just throw in for comic relief. They have a whole running theme of highly sensationalistic stories about how The Machines are going to try and wipe us out, regularly reporting on things like toasters electrocuting people, or people getting locked inside of high tech public toilets.
One tape did jam, and I opened it up and fixed it (try that with a CD).
I'm game.
Any suggestions on how to get a CD to jam?
Hmm... maybe if I shove it in a tape player...
Not a fan of Merzbow or Japanese Torture Comedy Hour, then?
I used to love wandering around with a C64 or Acorn Electron tape in my walkman.
I'm sorry did I say something wrong well excuse me for breathing which I never do anyways so I don't even know why I bothered to say it oh god I'm so depressed.
Hey, c'mon, that's not fair.
Lexmark make exceedingly good doorstops!
Ohhhh.. you wanted to use it for printing?
(btw. do you get that in the US too? I thought it was a UK affliction).
:P
I'm British too, you insensitive clod!
But yeah. Good question.. any Americans know what we're referring to with Crazy Frog? (if not, consider yourselves lucky)
Actually they played the Queen song "I want to break free" and the rover was like totally inspired to break free.
Actually, that one didn't work.
But then they played the Crazy Frog song at it, and it ran like hell
Err. This probably won't help much, but I've seen this exact question asked, and answered on Physlink which is an "ask the experts" type physics board
.
Unfortunately I can't seem to find it again, or remember what the answer was, so you'll just have to take my word for it - though if I can track it down I'll paste a link in here later.
But I remember the answer basically stated that no, that scenario doesn't work. I think possibly it was because if the light is reflected perfectly, no energy is imparted into the mirror to push it, as photons have no mass, or something.. but I could just be pulling that outta my ass. It's ages since I read it, and I'm no physics expert.
Yeah, replying to my own post, but there's another misconception a lot of people here seem to have that needs addressed.
Also from the Planetary.org Solar Sail FAQ
5. Does a solar sail fly on the solar wind?
No! The solar wind is made up of ionized particles ejected by the Sun. These particles move much slower than light. A solar sail does not stop or reflect them, although they also may impart some of their momentum to the solar sail. However, the force from the solar wind is less than one percent of that from light pressure.
For one thing, almost by definition you can't travel towards a star on this thing because as you approach it, it will start to slow down, and eventually stop.
From the Planetary.org solar sail FAQ
9 . Can a solar sail only provide thrust away from the sun?
No, thrust can be generated inward or outward with respect to the sun. By turning the sail at different angles, we can add or subtract velocity to the spacecraft. When we add velocity, the sail flies away from the Sun. When we subtract velocity, its orbit spirals inward.
haha
Well said, that man.
From the blog post:
No "Crazy Frog"
That, in itself, is worth the entire license fee.
What kind of retard buys that damn thing anyway? It's like a tax on stupidity. It should have a signal embedded in it that makes your mobile explode, killing you, thus rendering the gene pool free of the tyranny of your stupidity. And another thing--*fades into the distance, ranting and raving*
and we all know what their technical expertise is like explaining computer issues.
Actually..
I was watching BBC News 24 the other night, and they had their tech program on.
Some guy wrote in saying he'd spilled coffee on his laptop, and now it wouldn't start up, and asking what he should do.
The presenter basically just said "Well, it might be knackered, but you're best to get it checked out", then explained that the harddrive at least would probably be fine, and to remove it first so it wouldn't get wiped by the repairers (good advice)
Then, to my astonishment, he proceeded to dismantle a Dell laptop to show the general construction of a laptop, and how there's a plate beneath the keyboard, which should protect the insides from all but the most severe of coffee spills, and gave a whole bunch of very sound advice on rescuing a freshly-spilled-on laptop.
Not bad for a mainstream tech show. Usually from programmes like that, I expect about as much technical knowledge as you'd get from a Dixons employee.
Sure, you can never get absolute anonymity, but that's not a problem. All you need is "good enough" anonymity, and that most certainly IS achievable.
If the cost of breaking anonymity, either in processing time or in required resources is high enough as to make it basically impractical, then your anonymity is probably good enough.
I2P is close to that stage already, and is expected to be quite a bit stronger by the next major release
Wish granted. There is presently a project underway to develop a distributed content storage system for I2P
How about the GP32?
It's a completely open handheld gaming system
more info at GP32 Xtreme, one of the biggest GP32 community sites