The "Downfall" satires IM(IANAL)HO would have been fine if they had taken actual archive footage of Hitler, or possibly reenacted the scene themselves
The point of fair use is that you use the actual work itself in a manner that is not an infringement. And copyrights also cover choreography and pantomime: Reenacting is NOT fine if you do not act under the fair use umbrella already. Selling a cheap imitation is no more acceptable than an accurate copy.
But those Hitler-reacts videos are satire, they're completely covered under fair use: Non-profit, only 2.5% of the original work, doesn't harm sales of the original (quite the contrary). Removing them en-masse is a clear attack on freedoms of speech and the principles of fair use of copyrighted works.
They are using a clip that's less than 4 minutes out of a 178 minute film.
True, but that doesn't necessarily make the 4 minutes free to use, especially for purposes other than making a comment on that particular film or its authors.
Taking a dramatic scene about an important historical event and making it silly is a comment.
And anyawy, the wording of the fair use part of the US copyright is not a complete list, but examples: the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
it's easy to get around the content filter really.
how do people not bother? Just change the audio pitch by...I think it's 1 half step? Or 1.1 half steps?
People are not geeks and have no idea what you're geeking on about. Getting the vid uploaded to youTube was all the technical stuff they were willing to put up with.
The "winnable" criteria seems completely arbitrary.
Some art is a riddle, and you "win" when you "get" it.
Once there was an AMAZING part of an art installation I only got when I was walking out: In the middle of a large installation, they had a vampire-mirror! It reflected the room but not the people in it (they had half the room with a mirror and the other with half the room replicated in reverse on the other side of where the mirror was on the "wall", and it was a very messy room, lots of stuff strewn about, a very intricate trick). I watched quite a few people walk past without noticing this amazingly awesome work of art: they lost the museum game. I only noticed it because I was wondering why there was a security guard nearby, it made me look around for something worth the extra protection (same guard going in and going out, not a random guard sighting).
And:
The game "Ico" is a work of art. Anyone who disagrees is an old man who doesn't really understand the things that were new when he already was a grown up, and/or is someone who hasn't played Ico.
I don't think that's necessarily a conclusive argument. I can draw a beautiful picture on page 874 of my personal copy of the federal tax code, but that doesn't make the tax code art.
Indeed, what makes the tax code art is having an artist sign it and displaying it in a museum. If it works for a urinal, it works for the tax code.
This makes me want to not pay for next album or movie just that much more...
Instead of just not paying for it, don't watch it at all. Or don't listen to it.
If you don't like their tactics, do not provide them with an avenue to distribute their products.
I'd LOVE to able to opt-out of the media cartel, but that would mean never going to a shop (where they have a radio playing), never reading or watching the news (where they plug their products with ads disguised as news content), etc.
I'd love to do that, but it's not a viable option, short of moving to the woods and trapping rats for their meat I can't avoid the media cartels: They won't let me.
I find it interesting that your sig supports personal freedom and independence (against government influence, considering that the crew of Serenity were smugglers and pirates), but your personal stance is one of asking the government to make the world safe for you.
You might want to rethink this a bit.
My personal stance is not allowing addictive poisons to saturate public spaces. Smokers had decades to learn to enjoy their personal freedoms without interfering with others, and they choose the "if you don't like it, leave" approach instead. So now they can't smoke anywhere. They pushed too far, and they're being pushed back. They ABUSED their right to smoke by forcing others to breathe smoke, now they're forced to respect others' rights and they're very upset that they have to show respect for others. This is troubling to them, they want to be able to just fill a room with noxious fumes and have others leave, but they can't be assholes and it turned them into crybabies instead.
If you want to smoke, get your own spaceship and go to edge of the verse. Don't pollute my atmosphere and tell ME to leave.
See, it is about personal freedom, the freedom not to have a jerk force you to breathe poison.
... from their "1984 ad" that announced the Macintosh.
Hey, 1984 wasn't like 1984, the moon did not blow up in 1999, pod bay doors opened just fine in 2001, and Jupiter shows no sign of exploding into a new sun in 2010. They have delivered in their promise of not accomplishing any sci-fi prophecy, you gotta give them that. Even their phones don't look like the ones from star trek.
I should be allowed to inject you with anything I wish. If you don't like it, go somewhere else before I'm done preparing the second injection.
What, that doesn't sound ok? How about pouring things in your drink? Rubbing things on your skin? Or adding things to your food? You think it's ok to put things in my lungs, that I can just opt out once someone started to saturate the air with the chemicals of their choice, but you wouldn't let them do the same with other delivery methods? Why is that? It's easier not to drink something than not to breathe.
Cold turkey is the only method that actually works short of medication (which has its own problems).
You know that it's dangerous for alcoholics to quit cold turkey? Their metabolism has adapted to the constant presence of alcohol and it's a shock to suddenly have none. That's why it's important to be honest about people's alcohol intake when they need emergency surgery, they might need some in their drip if they are to survive.
Sudden withdrawal from drugs such as alcohol, benzodiazepines and barbiturates can be extremely dangerous, leading to potentially fatal seizures. In long-term alcoholics, going cold turkey can cause life-threatening delirium tremens and thus is not an appropriate method for breaking an alcohol addiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_turkey
One side says these are evil, harmful, addictive things that destroy lives; the other says (get this-- it's great) people will manage themselves fine while addicted to crack, and will get professional help and have doctors write prescriptions, and use their drugs responsibly.
No: One side says addicts should be dealt with by the police, the other says addicts should be dealt with by doctors.
Oh, ok, I'll meet you half way: One side says addicts are evil and their lives should be destroyed by the police, the other says addicts should be dealt with by doctors. There, that's closer to how you said it.
just which community standard is against satire and making fun of public figures?
Muslims, Jews and Catholics.
If you draw a picture of baby Mohamed sucking the Pope's penis while a Hasidic jew films the scene with cash sticking out of his pocket and the camera connected to the internet, you will get sued AND you will explode.
In fact that's such a horrible image, I think my karma might take a hit just by pointing out that people would not react well to something like that.
But this isn't censorship because Apple is not obligated to publish his app
It is censorship, it's just ordinary censorship. Like how you can't say in fuck in school. Why the fuck not? It doesn't hurt anybody: Fuck fuckety fuck fuckfuck. "Eric!"...
Sorry, I launched in a south park quote there, anyway, my point was that as I am now voluntarily censoring myself from quoting the rest of that Cartman diatribe, there are many common forms of censorship that happen in life, and Apple censoring stuff that might get them sued is unfortunate but tolerable.
But you know Apple is just trying to not get sued.
I blame that crazy old man that used to sue video games every time some young guy shot somebody. He proved you could harass companies over things that are not their fault for years. And that Jackson girl for showing her evil nipple of trauma, empowering prudes to new heights of shrill objections.
> Why assume the A4 is a dual-core PowerPC when it's built for an OS that restricts the use of multitasking?
"WTF" quote of the day. What does dual-core have to do with multitasking??????????????? Windows did multitasking long before dual core chips existed.
On a related note, the iPhone DOES multitasking; it just doesn't let the USER multitask. How do you suppose an incoming call gets through while you´re listening to music?
sunlight is certainly a limited resource. measuring over the life of the sun is meaningless if the people doing the measurement won't exist that long. Rather measure the amount of sunlight captured per square meter by say a solar panel or a tree and you will certainly find a limit. even measure all of the sunlight falling on earth during a day, huge for sure, but certainly finite in a reasonable sense.
But sunlight is infinite in the "renewable" sense: There will not come a day when you have used up all the sunlight. There is a point where you've cut down all the trees or mined out all the ore. Not with sunlight, that never ends (Ragnarok aside).
Now if you want to be reasonable, you'll have to agree to discuss the same definition of "finite", because there certainly is a limit to the amount of sunlight you can measure in a day or a space, but there is no end to the measurements themselves, you can keep making them forever.
Slashdot Mirror
On a related note - why do HUMANS think they need to defend GOD?
Because they invented him.
The "Downfall" satires IM(IANAL)HO would have been fine if they had taken actual archive footage of Hitler, or possibly reenacted the scene themselves
The point of fair use is that you use the actual work itself in a manner that is not an infringement. And copyrights also cover choreography and pantomime: Reenacting is NOT fine if you do not act under the fair use umbrella already. Selling a cheap imitation is no more acceptable than an accurate copy.
But those Hitler-reacts videos are satire, they're completely covered under fair use: Non-profit, only 2.5% of the original work, doesn't harm sales of the original (quite the contrary). Removing them en-masse is a clear attack on freedoms of speech and the principles of fair use of copyrighted works.
They are using a clip that's less than 4 minutes out of a 178 minute film.
True, but that doesn't necessarily make the 4 minutes free to use, especially for purposes other than making a comment on that particular film or its authors.
Taking a dramatic scene about an important historical event and making it silly is a comment.
And anyawy, the wording of the fair use part of the US copyright is not a complete list, but examples: the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
directly using the entirety of the video from "The Downfall" is not going to be seen as fair use.
Running time 156 minutes (original cut)
178 minutes (extended cut)
Length of the extract used for obvious parody: About four minutes ( example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/21/hitler-finds-out-that-dow_n_545836.html ).
So, no, 4 is not the entirety of 156. It's about 2.5% of the entirety of "The Downfall".
it's easy to get around the content filter really.
how do people not bother? Just change the audio pitch by...I think it's 1 half step? Or 1.1 half steps?
People are not geeks and have no idea what you're geeking on about. Getting the vid uploaded to youTube was all the technical stuff they were willing to put up with.
The "winnable" criteria seems completely arbitrary.
Some art is a riddle, and you "win" when you "get" it.
Once there was an AMAZING part of an art installation I only got when I was walking out: In the middle of a large installation, they had a vampire-mirror! It reflected the room but not the people in it (they had half the room with a mirror and the other with half the room replicated in reverse on the other side of where the mirror was on the "wall", and it was a very messy room, lots of stuff strewn about, a very intricate trick). I watched quite a few people walk past without noticing this amazingly awesome work of art: they lost the museum game. I only noticed it because I was wondering why there was a security guard nearby, it made me look around for something worth the extra protection (same guard going in and going out, not a random guard sighting).
And:
The game "Ico" is a work of art. Anyone who disagrees is an old man who doesn't really understand the things that were new when he already was a grown up, and/or is someone who hasn't played Ico.
I don't think that's necessarily a conclusive argument. I can draw a beautiful picture on page 874 of my personal copy of the federal tax code, but that doesn't make the tax code art.
Indeed, what makes the tax code art is having an artist sign it and displaying it in a museum. If it works for a urinal, it works for the tax code.
Cows are lazy, [...] They're evil, too.
A cow tripped me once. It was tied up, started running and the steel cable it was tied with scythed my legs from under me.
I've eaten many of her sisters in revenge.
Instead of just not paying for it, don't watch it at all. Or don't listen to it.
If you don't like their tactics, do not provide them with an avenue to distribute their products.
I'd LOVE to able to opt-out of the media cartel, but that would mean never going to a shop (where they have a radio playing), never reading or watching the news (where they plug their products with ads disguised as news content), etc.
I'd love to do that, but it's not a viable option, short of moving to the woods and trapping rats for their meat I can't avoid the media cartels: They won't let me.
I find it interesting that your sig supports personal freedom and independence (against government influence, considering that the crew of Serenity were smugglers and pirates), but your personal stance is one of asking the government to make the world safe for you.
You might want to rethink this a bit.
My personal stance is not allowing addictive poisons to saturate public spaces. Smokers had decades to learn to enjoy their personal freedoms without interfering with others, and they choose the "if you don't like it, leave" approach instead. So now they can't smoke anywhere. They pushed too far, and they're being pushed back.
They ABUSED their right to smoke by forcing others to breathe smoke, now they're forced to respect others' rights and they're very upset that they have to show respect for others. This is troubling to them, they want to be able to just fill a room with noxious fumes and have others leave, but they can't be assholes and it turned them into crybabies instead.
If you want to smoke, get your own spaceship and go to edge of the verse. Don't pollute my atmosphere and tell ME to leave.
See, it is about personal freedom, the freedom not to have a jerk force you to breathe poison.
It could be a colloquial use of the word, but it does get used that way whether it tracks with you or not.
It's like rain on your wedding day!
... from their "1984 ad" that announced the Macintosh.
Hey, 1984 wasn't like 1984, the moon did not blow up in 1999, pod bay doors opened just fine in 2001, and Jupiter shows no sign of exploding into a new sun in 2010. They have delivered in their promise of not accomplishing any sci-fi prophecy, you gotta give them that. Even their phones don't look like the ones from star trek.
I take it you've never heard of network censors?
Hint: Network censors don't work for the government
I can't believe they haven't adopted a better name yet. Shouldn't they be called Distributed Sensitivity Consultants or something by now?
If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
I should be allowed to inject you with anything I wish. If you don't like it, go somewhere else before I'm done preparing the second injection.
What, that doesn't sound ok? How about pouring things in your drink? Rubbing things on your skin? Or adding things to your food? You think it's ok to put things in my lungs, that I can just opt out once someone started to saturate the air with the chemicals of their choice, but you wouldn't let them do the same with other delivery methods? Why is that? It's easier not to drink something than not to breathe.
Cold turkey is the only method that actually works short of medication (which has its own problems).
You know that it's dangerous for alcoholics to quit cold turkey? Their metabolism has adapted to the constant presence of alcohol and it's a shock to suddenly have none. That's why it's important to be honest about people's alcohol intake when they need emergency surgery, they might need some in their drip if they are to survive.
Sudden withdrawal from drugs such as alcohol, benzodiazepines and barbiturates can be extremely dangerous, leading to potentially fatal seizures. In long-term alcoholics, going cold turkey can cause life-threatening delirium tremens and thus is not an appropriate method for breaking an alcohol addiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_turkey
One side says these are evil, harmful, addictive things that destroy lives; the other says (get this-- it's great) people will manage themselves fine while addicted to crack, and will get professional help and have doctors write prescriptions, and use their drugs responsibly.
No: One side says addicts should be dealt with by the police, the other says addicts should be dealt with by doctors.
Oh, ok, I'll meet you half way: One side says addicts are evil and their lives should be destroyed by the police, the other says addicts should be dealt with by doctors.
There, that's closer to how you said it.
If the enemy of my enemy is his enemy for a different reason than mine, then he is still not my friend.
That is not what Robin Hood told me.
just which community standard is against satire and making fun of public figures?
Muslims, Jews and Catholics.
If you draw a picture of baby Mohamed sucking the Pope's penis while a Hasidic jew films the scene with cash sticking out of his pocket and the camera connected to the internet, you will get sued AND you will explode.
In fact that's such a horrible image, I think my karma might take a hit just by pointing out that people would not react well to something like that.
But this isn't censorship because Apple is not obligated to publish his app
It is censorship, it's just ordinary censorship. Like how you can't say in fuck in school. Why the fuck not? It doesn't hurt anybody: Fuck fuckety fuck fuckfuck. ...
"Eric!"
Sorry, I launched in a south park quote there, anyway, my point was that as I am now voluntarily censoring myself from quoting the rest of that Cartman diatribe, there are many common forms of censorship that happen in life, and Apple censoring stuff that might get them sued is unfortunate but tolerable.
the newstoon app was written specifically for the iPhone, but
Maybe the name reminded them of the Newton, and the memory was too painful to bear, so they rejected it out of misplaced grief?
Yes, Apple has a locked down system that rejects apps for arbitrary reasons.
This is a known fact, can we stop pretending its "stuff that matters?"
We're trying to find the pattern in the reasoning, if you don't mind.
I think they show it to a judgmental old lady and reject what she objects to. The reason for long approval times? Naps.
But you know Apple is just trying to not get sued.
I blame that crazy old man that used to sue video games every time some young guy shot somebody. He proved you could harass companies over things that are not their fault for years. And that Jackson girl for showing her evil nipple of trauma, empowering prudes to new heights of shrill objections.
Maybe you should understand the point of his post before flaming him?
*WOOSH!*
right back at ya!
> Why assume the A4 is a dual-core PowerPC when it's built for an OS that restricts the use of multitasking?
"WTF" quote of the day. What does dual-core have to do with multitasking??????????????? Windows did multitasking long before dual core chips existed.
On a related note, the iPhone DOES multitasking; it just doesn't let the USER multitask. How do you suppose an incoming call gets through while you´re listening to music?
And MacOS did multitasking before Windows!
(Yay, the mid-90s flamewar subjects are back!)
sunlight is certainly a limited resource. measuring over the life of the sun is meaningless if the people doing the measurement won't exist that long. Rather measure the amount of sunlight captured per square meter by say a solar panel or a tree and you will certainly find a limit. even measure all of the sunlight falling on earth during a day, huge for sure, but certainly finite in a reasonable sense.
But sunlight is infinite in the "renewable" sense: There will not come a day when you have used up all the sunlight. There is a point where you've cut down all the trees or mined out all the ore. Not with sunlight, that never ends (Ragnarok aside).
Now if you want to be reasonable, you'll have to agree to discuss the same definition of "finite", because there certainly is a limit to the amount of sunlight you can measure in a day or a space, but there is no end to the measurements themselves, you can keep making them forever.