On the options-in-lieu-of-pay thing -- that's gambling, but it could be a very profitable gamble. Beats playing the lottery. Not something you want to bet the mortgage on though. Your #2 is more absolutely true: depending on a bonus when the company is profitable is just asking to get cheated.
Accept a title in place of a raise in exactly one situation: When you're looking for another job anyway and getting that "Senior" or whatever will make you look more credible to prospective employers (particularly HR keyword-finders).
Since almost nobody checks the signature anyway (other than occasionally to check if the card has a signature), eliminating the signature requirement doesn't change much.
However, using contactless for credit card transactions has the same security issues as any other contactless system. One of which is that the system can be surreptitiously interrogated by a fraudster. Sit down with your fraud-o-matic for 15 minutes on a Saturday in any mall, and collect hundreds of card numbers as people walk by.
(and yes, if you RTFA, you'll find that some of the systems really do transmit the number in the clear)
Apple, on the other hand, probably IS willing to drop Universal's catalog from iTunes if Universal gets unreasonable. Which is the more likely thought process?
1) Oh, Universal's music is no longer available on iTunes. I'll buy this piece of crap Zune instead of the cool new iPod Femto
or
2) Oh, Universal's music is no longer available on iTunes. I'll have to <strike>pirate it like there's no tommorrow</strike> rip it from CD onto my iPod
You've been given your case. It was a case where copyright infringement was found based purely on the reproduction right, without distribution. Yes, section 117 was amended to allow the particular actions Peak was taking, but that simply carved out a narrow exception; it did not change the general case, and changed nothing for works other than computer programs.
If you're demanding a case where someone at home made a personal copy of a copyrighted work, didn't distribute it, didn't show it to anyone, and was sued for it, you're not going to get it. The action may have violated the rights of the copyright holder, but if the copyright holder can't find out about it, he can't sue based on it. That doesn't change the underlying law in any manner.
Second, I'll repeat again that copying alone is not sufficient grounds for an infringement case.
And I'll repeat again: 17 USC 106(1) and 17 USC 501(a) mean that copying along IS sufficient grounds for an infringement case.
The definition: "Any person who distributes a phonorecord or a copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) in violation of paragraph (1) is an infringer of copyright."
That is a section of 17 USC 109(b)(4) taken completely out of context. It has to do with renting a phonorecord or computer program. It does not limit infringement actions to distribution.
This is an excellent example--mix CDs are NOT FAIR USE. Where in 17 USC 107 do you see mix CDs being allowed by private individuals? Those rights come from *elsewhere*, including in no small part the AHRA. 17 USC 1008 explicitly exempts consumers from noncommercial uses, including mix tapes and creating a copy for use in an automobile.
17 USC 1008 does apply to mix TAPES. It does not apply to mix CDs created using a computer. The reason for this lies in the definition of "digital audio recording device" in 17 USC 1001. A computer is not a digital audio recording device. The Diamond Rio case hinged on this fact. Therefore either mix CDs are infringing, or the exemption of mix CDs must lie elsewhere. The only "elsewhere" which could possibly apply is 17 USC 107. The dicta in the Rio case does mention 17 USC 1008 -- but it also references the Betamax decision, which hinged on fair use.
Which is it? You're claiming (falsely) that you have all rights except those reserved, yet you're claiming that the law grants you specific rights in sections 109 and 117. It doesn't work that way. Ownership of the copy gives you physical property rights to that copy, as I specified. There is no argument there. Disposal and backup are physical property rights. You claimed ownership of the copy gives you ownership to intellectual property rights. This is not the case.
It's an inclusion/exclusion thing. As the owner of the copy, I have all the rights except those reserved to the copyright owner in section 106, plus the rights excluded from the section 106 rights by sections 109 and 117. Note that sections 107 through 112 and 117 are titled in part "Limitations on exclusive rights".
As to which are intellectual property rights, that's a whole different level of abstraction. When talking about which rights comprise copyright, we're in among the trees; there's no point in referencing the forest.
As the owner of a copy, I have all the rights except those reserved to the copyright holder by copyright law.
No. You have all the physical property rights as the owner of the copy. You have none of the copyright ownership except what has been granted by law or by license or independent contractual agreement.
This amounts to the same thing, because ownership of a copyright is nothing more than ownership of the exclusive rights granted by 17 USC 106 and modified by subsequent sections of copyright law.
Absolute crap. Copying is not prohibited by copyright. It's not there. You think it is, and you may have been lead to believe it is, but it's not. Cite a source otherwise.
I hope you're either lying about dealing with copyright law professionally or your clients are paying you to lie about copyright law, because it's right there in black and white. Yes, in Title 17, Section (not paragraph) 106, paragraph 1.
Wrong again. It's true that you are the owner of a copy, but that doesn't give you any legal status with regard to the copyright--your ownership of the copy is never the issue;
Incorrect. Ownership of the copy gives me rights under 17 USC 109 and (in the case of computer programs) 17 USC 117. These are the rights to dispose of a particular copy, the right to run a computer program even if copies are made in the process, and the right to make a backup copy of a computer program.
You're free to resell the CD, destroy it, write on it, even make a mix CD from it.
Making a mix CD from a purchased CD is only permissible under the "fair use" doctrine you are so dismissive of. Or under the AHRA, if I were to use a device which complies with the requirements of that law (which few do).
But you don't own any rights which allow you to profit commercially from it, to resell or rent copies, or to redistribute, because those rights are owned exclusively by the rightsholder, oddly enough.
On the contrary, I can sell the copy itself for any price I like, and profit by doing so, even if the copyright holder doesn't like it. If it is NOT a phonorecord or a computer program, I CAN rent it out for profit, even if the copyright holder objects.
Copyright laws are a contract entered on your behalf by the government with the personal works of a third party. The form of that agreement is a license to use the material.
Exactly backwards. Copyright laws are all that _restrict_ my use of the material. Any use of the material which copyright does not restrict, or which falls under one of the exceptions to those restrictions, is legal without any license.
Instead of you having all the rights except those forbidden by law, you as the customer have no rights except those granted by law or license.
Again, this is not correct. As the owner of a copy, I have all the rights except those reserved to the copyright holder by copyright law.
Looks like if you use the Quicken PIN-vault feature, or Apple's Keychain, or any other method (including paper) for retaining the PIN and password, the bank can tell you it's your fault. Nice. So you've got to remember all those secure passwords yourself. (if you use an insecure password, you're liable).
Under the rules they're setting up, the only reasonable thing to do is go back to using tellers.
In what capacity? Your sentence does not specify a premise or a point. "Private copying" is not prohibited by copyright. Derivative works without commercial (that is, public) use are not barred by copyright.
If you can't be bothered to read 17 USC 106, you've got no place in discussion of copyright. It specifies the rights reserved to the copyright holder. Reproduction and preparation of derivative works are two of those rights, and they are NOT qualified with the word "public", unlike the perfomance and display rights in the same section.
It's fairly rich for you to discuss Title 17 without evidently knowing the contents, nor do you seem to have a point you're trying to make. I work with copyright laws every day in a professional capacity. What, if any, is your point?
If you work with copyright laws every day in a professional capacity, you are either lying about them here or you are doing a poor job.
There you go again. Personal use != fair use; not all sanctioned uses are "fair use" in the slightest. Fair use is authorized use of copyright; personal, and by that I mean noninfringing use, is noninfringing and therefore not "fair use."
For a personal use to be noninfringing, it either has to not be covered by 17 USC 106 -- meaning that no copies are made nor derivative works prepared -- or it has to be covered by one of the specific exceptions, such as fair use.
Demonstrate how the law has "changed" to do so "in an oppressive manner" outside the provisions enacted by the passing of the DMCA, which have already been discussed.
Demonstrate how Mary Todd Lincoln had a bad experience watching "Our Country Cousins", aside from her husband being shot.
(and I use the term loosely because your actual rights, as a licensee, are not and have never been, as extensive as some people seem to believe)?
Usually, I'm not a "licensee". I'm an owner of a copy.
I've been using telephone banking since 1992. And it wasn't new then. It worked with any phone, land-line or mobile. Granted, security was laughable, and the user interface was poor, but it certainly got the job done. It was based on this technology called "DTMF"...
Cracking and synthesis are not the same process. Cracking breaks long-chain hydrocarbons into shorter ones. Fisher-Tropsch synthesis produces hydrocarbons from carbon-containing and hydrogen-containing materials.
All of which "affects the commercial uses of the rightsholder" where it is restricted as it says directly in the sentence you quoted.
No. Private copying and private preparation of derivative works are covered by copyright. Has nothing to do with commercial use. Even works with no commercial value are protected. Further, there are other uses -- like bad reviews --which DO affect the commercial uses of the rightsholder and are not covered by copyright.
As for whether those restrictions are the crux of the matter, the statutes and the case law make it pretty darn clear that they ARE the crux of the matter. Read 17 USC 106. Better yet, read all of title 17 of the US Code.
The law does not disagree with you when it comes to actual fair use rights and approved noninfringing uses under such major guarantees as the HRA and quite a long history of case law.
Fair use is tough to use. Unless you stick to a few well-trod paths like parody, each case is decided according to its merits and the whims of the judge involved. Since, in any reasonable case where an indivdual is the defendant (as opposed to a news organization or a school), the plaintiff's lawyer will be better and the plaintiff will be better funded than the defendant, fair use is not sufficient protection. As for the Audio Home Recording Act, that's entirely useless. It protects only uses which the RIAA wouldn't discover anyway, which are arguably fair use, and which are done on devices which few people use. The AHRA was a phony compromise in which the RIAA gave away that which they didn't have in order to get what they wanted, which was to kill digital audio tape by mandating the Serial Copy Management System.
The problem is that instead of saying that the balance is out of whack, that the RIAA is abusing its power and exceeding its intellectual property rights, and that the law fails to account for a number of technological realities and developments,
This is an attempt to make the situation look a lot better than it is. It's not that the law "fails to account" for technological realities and developments. It's that the law has been changed to take technological realities and developments into account, and has been changed to do so in an oppressive manner.
Lately, some Slashdotters have been posting about how they fear Google is going to know everything and abuse this knowledge.
Yeah. The difference is that while it's fear and caution with Google, it's the next best thing to certain knowledge with Microsoft. Entrusting your data to Microsoft is like entrusting your hand to the garbage disposal.
Intellectual property isn't "control of information." It's not the information that's restricted; it's commercial use of that information, or use that affects the commercial uses of the rightsholder.
Not true. What's restricted is copying, distribution, preparation of derivative works, public display, public performance, and a few other things. The DMCA effectively added a right to control private, noncommerical use of copyrighted material by technical means.
You want to know why you can't get judges and lawyers to agree with you?
Because the law disagrees with us. Since the law was written by our opponents, this is not a surprise. The only reason we win a few is they were unable to write their laws to anticipate the future; for instance the DMCA 512 provisions aimed at ISP-hosted material failed to anticipate peer-to-peer networking, leading to the RIAA v. Verizon case.
Here's a hint: IP is *not* the idea. It's not the formula of the drug and it's not the code of a software product. It's not the waveforms of audio. The intellectual property IS the copyright, the patent, the trade mark, the contractual components, and/or the license that you own and may legally enforce.
That's, strictly speaking, true. But calling the subject of the patent or copyright or trade secret "intellectual property" is something people on all sides do. Sometimes deliberately to confuse, as the RIAA does with "IP theft". But more often as a convenient shorthand.
The idea that future administrations headed by Bush's political enemies are going to continue to cover up for the lawlessness of his administration is naive in the extreme.
No, that's the one thing you can put in the bank. No US president is going to be willing to subject a former US president to foreign (and the ICC counts as foreign) jurisdiction for his actions while in office, for obvious reasons of self-interest. Trying him here in the US is almost as unlikely for similar reasons.
The ICC is not established by the Geneva Conventions, so they aren't relevant to the question of ICC jurisdiction over US nationals.
The chance of any US court trying Bush for anything is as close to zero as doesn't matter. The chance of any future US administration allowing Bush to be tried by the ICC is even closer to zero.
The US is subject to international law regardless of the local jurisdiction's position on the matter.
No, it isn't. The US is subject only to that part of international law which it has acceded to by treaty.
Oh, and scumbag moderator: you're not fooling anyone by modding the replies "off-topic" and leaving the original untouched. If the thread is off-topic, the whole thing is, not just the parts which aren't anti-US.
The USA is currently approaching governments around the world and asking them to enter into illegal impunity agreements. These agreements provide that a government will not surrender or transfer US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes to the ICC, if requested by the Court. The agreements do not require the USA or the other state concerned to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, to prosecute such a person in US Courts. Indeed in many cases it would be impossible for US courts to do so, as US law does not include many of the crimes under the Rome Statute.
So the US government is attempting to prevent prosecution by an international court of US nationals for, while they were under US jurisdiction, committing actions which are not crimes in the US? Sounds like that for once, the US government is doing it's job.
If your arrest record has been expunged, you're legally permitted to deny having been arrested except in a very few cases. Employment applications with private employers aren't one of those cases.
I had mine expunged (oops, but here I'm talking about it) but I don't think anyone has asked me about anything but convictions since.
Recording arrests protects officers because the official videotape mysteriously comes out blank when the cops do anything egregiously wrong. That's why preserving the right to tape them unofficially is important.
Since they weren't actually offering the million pounds, it doesn't mean anything. Put the offer on the table for real and see how many people accept, THEN you have a real survey.
(which is why the right answer the proposition in the old joke is "Is that an offer?" or perhaps "Show me the money!")
I could use PSIP information from the ATSC stream directly, but I've found it's often wildly inaccurate compared to Zap2It. If TitanTV relies on that, I worry about its accuracy. And again, Titan would have to be scraped since they don't provide a reasonably-formatted feed.
Unfortunately, Option 3 is not available. Nobody sells XML listings retail, and you probably can't afford wholesale (the minimum mentioned in the forums is $500/month/market). Looks like zap2it only wants to deal with people "in the trade".
Slashdot Mirror
On the options-in-lieu-of-pay thing -- that's gambling, but it could be a very profitable gamble. Beats playing the lottery. Not something you want to bet the mortgage on though. Your #2 is more absolutely true: depending on a bonus when the company is profitable is just asking to get cheated.
Accept a title in place of a raise in exactly one situation: When you're looking for another job anyway and getting that "Senior" or whatever will make you look more credible to prospective employers (particularly HR keyword-finders).
Since almost nobody checks the signature anyway (other than occasionally to check if the card has a signature), eliminating the signature requirement doesn't change much. However, using contactless for credit card transactions has the same security issues as any other contactless system. One of which is that the system can be surreptitiously interrogated by a fraudster. Sit down with your fraud-o-matic for 15 minutes on a Saturday in any mall, and collect hundreds of card numbers as people walk by. (and yes, if you RTFA, you'll find that some of the systems really do transmit the number in the clear)
1) Oh, Universal's music is no longer available on iTunes. I'll buy this piece of crap Zune instead of the cool new iPod Femto
or
2) Oh, Universal's music is no longer available on iTunes. I'll have to <strike>pirate it like there's no tommorrow</strike> rip it from CD onto my iPod
You've been given your case. It was a case where copyright infringement was found based purely on the reproduction right, without distribution. Yes, section 117 was amended to allow the particular actions Peak was taking, but that simply carved out a narrow exception; it did not change the general case, and changed nothing for works other than computer programs.
If you're demanding a case where someone at home made a personal copy of a copyrighted work, didn't distribute it, didn't show it to anyone, and was sued for it, you're not going to get it. The action may have violated the rights of the copyright holder, but if the copyright holder can't find out about it, he can't sue based on it. That doesn't change the underlying law in any manner.
What 7-11 finally realized is that Kwik-E-Mart is not really a parody. It's an entirely realistic portrayal. So why not take advantage of it?
As to which are intellectual property rights, that's a whole different level of abstraction. When talking about which rights comprise copyright, we're in among the trees; there's no point in referencing the forest.
This amounts to the same thing, because ownership of a copyright is nothing more than ownership of the exclusive rights granted by 17 USC 106 and modified by subsequent sections of copyright law.I hope you're either lying about dealing with copyright law professionally or your clients are paying you to lie about copyright law, because it's right there in black and white. Yes, in Title 17, Section (not paragraph) 106, paragraph 1.
Incorrect. Ownership of the copy gives me rights under 17 USC 109 and (in the case of computer programs) 17 USC 117. These are the rights to dispose of a particular copy, the right to run a computer program even if copies are made in the process, and the right to make a backup copy of a computer program. Making a mix CD from a purchased CD is only permissible under the "fair use" doctrine you are so dismissive of. Or under the AHRA, if I were to use a device which complies with the requirements of that law (which few do). On the contrary, I can sell the copy itself for any price I like, and profit by doing so, even if the copyright holder doesn't like it. If it is NOT a phonorecord or a computer program, I CAN rent it out for profit, even if the copyright holder objects. Exactly backwards. Copyright laws are all that _restrict_ my use of the material. Any use of the material which copyright does not restrict, or which falls under one of the exceptions to those restrictions, is legal without any license. Again, this is not correct. As the owner of a copy, I have all the rights except those reserved to the copyright holder by copyright law.Looks like if you use the Quicken PIN-vault feature, or Apple's Keychain, or any other method (including paper) for retaining the PIN and password, the bank can tell you it's your fault. Nice. So you've got to remember all those secure passwords yourself. (if you use an insecure password, you're liable).
Under the rules they're setting up, the only reasonable thing to do is go back to using tellers.
I've been using telephone banking since 1992. And it wasn't new then. It worked with any phone, land-line or mobile. Granted, security was laughable, and the user interface was poor, but it certainly got the job done. It was based on this technology called "DTMF"...
Cracking and synthesis are not the same process. Cracking breaks long-chain hydrocarbons into shorter ones. Fisher-Tropsch synthesis produces hydrocarbons from carbon-containing and hydrogen-containing materials.
No. Private copying and private preparation of derivative works are covered by copyright. Has nothing to do with commercial use. Even works with no commercial value are protected. Further, there are other uses -- like bad reviews --which DO affect the commercial uses of the rightsholder and are not covered by copyright.
As for whether those restrictions are the crux of the matter, the statutes and the case law make it pretty darn clear that they ARE the crux of the matter. Read 17 USC 106. Better yet, read all of title 17 of the US Code.
Fair use is tough to use. Unless you stick to a few well-trod paths like parody, each case is decided according to its merits and the whims of the judge involved. Since, in any reasonable case where an indivdual is the defendant (as opposed to a news organization or a school), the plaintiff's lawyer will be better and the plaintiff will be better funded than the defendant, fair use is not sufficient protection. As for the Audio Home Recording Act, that's entirely useless. It protects only uses which the RIAA wouldn't discover anyway, which are arguably fair use, and which are done on devices which few people use. The AHRA was a phony compromise in which the RIAA gave away that which they didn't have in order to get what they wanted, which was to kill digital audio tape by mandating the Serial Copy Management System.This is an attempt to make the situation look a lot better than it is. It's not that the law "fails to account" for technological realities and developments. It's that the law has been changed to take technological realities and developments into account, and has been changed to do so in an oppressive manner.
Not true. What's restricted is copying, distribution, preparation of derivative works, public display, public performance, and a few other things. The DMCA effectively added a right to control private, noncommerical use of copyrighted material by technical means.
Because the law disagrees with us. Since the law was written by our opponents, this is not a surprise. The only reason we win a few is they were unable to write their laws to anticipate the future; for instance the DMCA 512 provisions aimed at ISP-hosted material failed to anticipate peer-to-peer networking, leading to the RIAA v. Verizon case.That's, strictly speaking, true. But calling the subject of the patent or copyright or trade secret "intellectual property" is something people on all sides do. Sometimes deliberately to confuse, as the RIAA does with "IP theft". But more often as a convenient shorthand.
The ICC is not established by the Geneva Conventions, so they aren't relevant to the question of ICC jurisdiction over US nationals.
The chance of any US court trying Bush for anything is as close to zero as doesn't matter. The chance of any future US administration allowing Bush to be tried by the ICC is even closer to zero.
Oh, and scumbag moderator: you're not fooling anyone by modding the replies "off-topic" and leaving the original untouched. If the thread is off-topic, the whole thing is, not just the parts which aren't anti-US.
If your arrest record has been expunged, you're legally permitted to deny having been arrested except in a very few cases. Employment applications with private employers aren't one of those cases.
I had mine expunged (oops, but here I'm talking about it) but I don't think anyone has asked me about anything but convictions since.
Recording arrests protects officers because the official videotape mysteriously comes out blank when the cops do anything egregiously wrong. That's why preserving the right to tape them unofficially is important.
The retraction is wrong. The exemption under AHRA only applies if a SCMS-supporting device is used. I don't think those can make mix CDs.
Since they weren't actually offering the million pounds, it doesn't mean anything. Put the offer on the table for real and see how many people accept, THEN you have a real survey.
(which is why the right answer the proposition in the old joke is "Is that an offer?" or perhaps "Show me the money!")
I could use PSIP information from the ATSC stream directly, but I've found it's often wildly inaccurate compared to Zap2It. If TitanTV relies on that, I worry about its accuracy. And again, Titan would have to be scraped since they don't provide a reasonably-formatted feed.
Unfortunately, Option 3 is not available. Nobody sells XML listings retail, and you probably can't afford wholesale (the minimum mentioned in the forums is $500/month/market). Looks like zap2it only wants to deal with people "in the trade".