It's "Ich bin ein Berliner", which, literally, means "I'm a citizen of Berlin". Less literally, it can be interpreted as "I'm a Berliner doughnut", since those are sometimes called "Berliner". However, in the context that J.F. Kennedy uttered the phrase, it's perfectly clear that "Berliner" has the more literal meaning.
There's a German city called Hamburg, and it's perfectly fine to say "Ich bin ein Hamburger".
Legally speaking, it doesn't matter what the director thinks because this was a work-for-hire.
Not in Europe. "Work for hire" is an american concept. Here, the creator of a work retains his/her copyright (although the creator may be under contractual obligation to allow copying and distribution, or be forced to license his/her work in the case of multiple creators).
More significantly, the right to object to a work being treated in a way that destroys its artistic integrity can never be signed away. It always rests with the creator(s). European filmmakers have been using this right to take action against TV networks that ruin their movies with commercials in inappropriate places (for example, at the moment where suspense is at its highest).
[nitpick] A parody of X is when you make an exaggerated or humorous version of X in order to criticise or ridicule it. So a parody of The Downfall must try to criticise or ridicule the movie or the scene itself. If it doesn't (if it ridicules something else, or is just funny in itself), it's called a travesty. [/nitpick]
He he, I can give any even better reason to call the media industry "thieves".
Assume that copyright really is a form of property, like its proponents usually claim. The law of the land dictates that the first 50/75/95/whatever years of usage of a copyrighted work should belong to the author. After that the work enters public domain, and its usage belongs to the public.
Retroactively extending copyright then means that the media industry is *stealing* usage time from the public - for the sole reason of being able to sell it back to us, in small pieces, at high prices.
I'm not sure how it works in the USA, but in my jurisdiction (Sweden), fair use is only applicable to published works. For unpublished works (like a company's internal source code), you may not even make a single copy for yourself without permission of the copyright holder.
Depriving someone of potential profits is not theft. The loss of potential profits may be part of the reason we have copyright laws, but the person who makes unauthorised copies only breaches the copyright laws, not any laws against stealing.
Copyright is applicable to this case. By downloading the data from Google's servers, the hackers manufactured an unauthorized copy of it in their own computers, i.e, copyright infringement.
However, there may be laws against hacking and industrial espionage which make more sense to prosecute with.
According to the definition of deprivation you quote, it's not enough to cause the property to lose value. You have to withhold it from the rightful owner so that it loses value. And the hackers weren't able to withhold Googles own source code from them.
You don't need to re-distribute a copyrighted work to commit copyright infringement. Making a single copy for yourself constitutes copyright infringement.
1. Was the property provably taken without consent?
2. Was the property provably taken with the intent of depriving its rightful owner of said property?
Are you sure about the second criterion? For example, if I steal an apple from someone, the intent is not to deprive the other person of an apple, it's merely to get an apple for myself.
Unfortunately, Sweden is not one of those sane countries. Here, we have to pay a hefty media fee ("CD tax"), but are only allowed to copy directly from "official" (legally purchased) media.
We can't download from the Internet and put on the blank media, despite having paid the fee.
Same in Sweden. We have to pay a tax(*) on audio cassette tapes, VCR tapes, blank CDs, blank DVDs, etc, and are STILL not allowed to copy music from the Internet onto them. We are only allowed to copy directly from an "official" copy onto the blank media.
(*) Technically, it's a governmentally instituted fee, not a tax, but that's something for the lawyers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I just added humour to it.
I wish I hadn't wasted all my mod points on modding up "Micro$oft sux!" posts. *sob*
I watched different scenes on Youtube.
Pretty strange movie, though. The actors do the same things over and over, and only the subtitling is different?!
It's "Ich bin ein Berliner", which, literally, means "I'm a citizen of Berlin". Less literally, it can be interpreted as "I'm a Berliner doughnut", since those are sometimes called "Berliner". However, in the context that J.F. Kennedy uttered the phrase, it's perfectly clear that "Berliner" has the more literal meaning.
There's a German city called Hamburg, and it's perfectly fine to say "Ich bin ein Hamburger".
Legally speaking, it doesn't matter what the director thinks because this was a work-for-hire.
Not in Europe. "Work for hire" is an american concept. Here, the creator of a work retains his/her copyright (although the creator may be under contractual obligation to allow copying and distribution, or be forced to license his/her work in the case of multiple creators).
More significantly, the right to object to a work being treated in a way that destroys its artistic integrity can never be signed away. It always rests with the creator(s). European filmmakers have been using this right to take action against TV networks that ruin their movies with commercials in inappropriate places (for example, at the moment where suspense is at its highest).
However, if the clip is short enough to fall under fair use, it's legal to use it as a basis for your parody, don't you agree?
Of course not, you silly boi.
He's saying censorship is a good thing, because it makes you aware of the good stuff!
[nitpick]
A parody of X is when you make an exaggerated or humorous version of X in order to criticise or ridicule it. So a parody of The Downfall must try to criticise or ridicule the movie or the scene itself. If it doesn't (if it ridicules something else, or is just funny in itself), it's called a travesty.
[/nitpick]
He he, I can give any even better reason to call the media industry "thieves".
Assume that copyright really is a form of property, like its proponents usually claim. The law of the land dictates that the first 50/75/95/whatever years of usage of a copyrighted work should belong to the author. After that the work enters public domain, and its usage belongs to the public.
Retroactively extending copyright then means that the media industry is *stealing* usage time from the public - for the sole reason of being able to sell it back to us, in small pieces, at high prices.
I'm not sure how it works in the USA, but in my jurisdiction (Sweden), fair use is only applicable to published works. For unpublished works (like a company's internal source code), you may not even make a single copy for yourself without permission of the copyright holder.
Copyright is the exclusive right to make copies.
In that case, it's not the loss of potential profits that constitutes theft, it's the removal of property.
It would make no difference whatsoever if the shop owner had already decided to throw away the stuff the next day - taking it is still theft.
Depriving someone of potential profits is not theft. The loss of potential profits may be part of the reason we have copyright laws, but the person who makes unauthorised copies only breaches the copyright laws, not any laws against stealing.
Copyright is applicable to this case. By downloading the data from Google's servers, the hackers manufactured an unauthorized copy of it in their own computers, i.e, copyright infringement.
However, there may be laws against hacking and industrial espionage which make more sense to prosecute with.
According to the definition of deprivation you quote, it's not enough to cause the property to lose value. You have to withhold it from the rightful owner so that it loses value. And the hackers weren't able to withhold Googles own source code from them.
You don't need to re-distribute a copyrighted work to commit copyright infringement. Making a single copy for yourself constitutes copyright infringement.
P.S. It may also be industrial espionage and a number of other felonies.
Loosely speaking, you can call it "stealing". Legally, it's "copyright infringement".
Plagiarism isn't theft, it's just plagiarism.
Downloading a copyrighted mp3 is not theft, it's copyright infringement.
Using someone elses patented invention isn't theft, it's patent infringement.
And so on.
1. Was the property provably taken without consent?
2. Was the property provably taken with the intent of depriving its rightful owner of said property?
Are you sure about the second criterion? For example, if I steal an apple from someone, the intent is not to deprive the other person of an apple, it's merely to get an apple for myself.
Point taken.
In all honesty, I think the US-American terms (legislative, executive and judicial branch) are clearer than the ones we use.
Unfortunately, Sweden is not one of those sane countries. Here, we have to pay a hefty media fee ("CD tax"), but are only allowed to copy directly from "official" (legally purchased) media.
We can't download from the Internet and put on the blank media, despite having paid the fee.
Same in Sweden. We have to pay a tax(*) on audio cassette tapes, VCR tapes, blank CDs, blank DVDs, etc, and are STILL not allowed to copy music from the Internet onto them. We are only allowed to copy directly from an "official" copy onto the blank media.
(*) Technically, it's a governmentally instituted fee, not a tax, but that's something for the lawyers.
The US' dominant position in world economics won't last forever.