Actually copyright law does specificly recognize public performance and display of software.
Sort of. The display and performance of the graphics and storyline (respectively) is protected, but presumably we are talking here about the code itself. Yes, if you read the code out to a group of people, you'd be publically performing the code, I guess, but this is kind of useless (other than for educational purposes perhaps which would probably fall under fair use).
You need a public performance rights licence for software to be "publicly performed" in an arcade.
Unless the software is embodied in a coin-operated machine:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106(4) and 106(5), in the case of an electronic audiovisual game intended for use in coin-operated equipment, the owner of a particular copy of such a game lawfully made under this title, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner of the game, to publicly perform or display that game in coin-operated equipment, except that this subsection shall not apply to any work of authorship embodied in the audiovisual game if the copyright owner of the electronic audiovisual game is not also the copyright owner of the work of authorship. (
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 109(e))
Please explain what law protects music which doesn't protect software. I thought software had more protection.
OK, there's public performance/display, but I don't see how that matters, since you can't publically perform software, and publically displaying software doesn't make much sense.
I don't see why you keep going back to the Interstate Commerce Clause. This is obviously legit under the ICC, since Congress and the states are both agreeing to it.
So instead of taking the whole X session and cramming it over ssh (even with compression) you cache the majority of it and just pass the deltas.
Wow. VNC.
Re:Experience With a Restrictive Employment Contra
on
Who Owns Your Weblog?
·
· Score: 1
At the risk of going too long, remember too that Steve Wozniak worked for HP when he created the Apple computer. He offered it to them because as part of his contract he was required to do so. They had no interest at all, which I'm sure they regretted for a long time.
And I'm sure they won't make *that* mistake again.
One manager told me that the only reason they have that clause in the first contract they offer is as a test to see if an applicant will just accept what they are given, or if they will take the initiative to try to change it.
Ah but which of those two types of people were they looking for?
Say i'm hosting a web site in FL and CA wants to tax someone (as they are prone to do) for accessing my site...
As long as the person they're taxing is in California, I don't see the problem.
There's this new thing called the Constitution of the United States that gives the Congress power to control interstate commerce... which is the case here.
Hey, I don't deny that it's Constitutional. I'm just saying it's a bad idea.
In addition to the complexity and cost of keeping track of this, the packets from my site may actually be routed through another state before they get to your computer! In order to fully enforce the tax we would have to enforce routing within states.
I don't understand how this is an argument against my point that the federal government shouldn't be getting involved here. Obviously there are certain types of taxes (such as the one you describe) which are difficult to enforce. But others (such as a tax on dialup and DSL) aren't.
Actually, I'd prefer to keep the federal government out of the affairs of the states. If the states want to tax internet access, they should be able to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually copyright law does specificly recognize public performance and display of software.
Sort of. The display and performance of the graphics and storyline (respectively) is protected, but presumably we are talking here about the code itself. Yes, if you read the code out to a group of people, you'd be publically performing the code, I guess, but this is kind of useless (other than for educational purposes perhaps which would probably fall under fair use).
You need a public performance rights licence for software to be "publicly performed" in an arcade.
Unless the software is embodied in a coin-operated machine:
The proposed compulsory licensing laws would create a guaranteed distribution model for music.
Why can't a software author just create his own license which is identical to thhe compulsory one for music?
Music is protected by laws that software is not.
Please explain what law protects music which doesn't protect software. I thought software had more protection.
OK, there's public performance/display, but I don't see how that matters, since you can't publically perform software, and publically displaying software doesn't make much sense.
Can shareware authors convert their software to digital music and get paid for sharing it?
Why would they want to do that? It's better for a copyright holdere not to be forced to offer a compulsory license.
One suggestion I would make is to put your email address in an image. People can read it
Unless they're blind! Yeah, yeah, no one cares about the blind, you insensitive clods.
I don't see why you keep going back to the Interstate Commerce Clause. This is obviously legit under the ICC, since Congress and the states are both agreeing to it.
The Interstate Commerce Clause, as currently misinterpreted, trumps anything the States say.
Perhaps so, but it doesn't trump Article I Section 9.
What will force e-tailers in foreign nations to collect a tax and send it our way?
Customs agents.
But "the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States."
Is this sales tax revenue going to the US, or the state?
But once the price advantage of no sales tax goes away, goods that incur a shipping charge will be better bought locally, all things being equal.
More specifically, they'll be bought online and then picked up at the store.
Be sure to drink your Ovaltine. Ovaltine? A crummy commercial?
No, but if he sells the solution to someone for $50 more it will be.
IBM wants blood now
IBM wants money, just like any other shareholder-loving corporation.
And you got the idea from Advogato. Or maybe it was just that obvious :).
They can't make IBM dismiss the counterclaim.
I'm sure dropping the original lawsuit and agreeing to pay a certain amount for lawyer fees would be a good incentive to convince them too, though.
Yeah, it's even in my signature.
So instead of taking the whole X session and cramming it over ssh (even with compression) you cache the majority of it and just pass the deltas.
Wow. VNC.
At the risk of going too long, remember too that Steve Wozniak worked for HP when he created the Apple computer. He offered it to them because as part of his contract he was required to do so. They had no interest at all, which I'm sure they regretted for a long time.
And I'm sure they won't make *that* mistake again.
One manager told me that the only reason they have that clause in the first contract they offer is as a test to see if an applicant will just accept what they are given, or if they will take the initiative to try to change it.
Ah but which of those two types of people were they looking for?
I did, but I thought it was just because I turned back on Timothy stories.
How about transmission lines? Say, if a line passes through a state, would you allow them to tax the bits going through the line?
Well, such a tax would quite possibly be unconstitutional.
Also, many transmission lines follow along railroad lines and therefore come under federal jurisdiction under the Trans.Railroad act.
I never denied that the federal government has jurisdiction. I merely said that they shouldn't be getting involved here.
Say i'm hosting a web site in FL and CA wants to tax someone (as they are prone to do) for accessing my site...
As long as the person they're taxing is in California, I don't see the problem.
There's this new thing called the Constitution of the United States that gives the Congress power to control interstate commerce... which is the case here.
Hey, I don't deny that it's Constitutional. I'm just saying it's a bad idea.
In addition to the complexity and cost of keeping track of this, the packets from my site may actually be routed through another state before they get to your computer! In order to fully enforce the tax we would have to enforce routing within states.
I don't understand how this is an argument against my point that the federal government shouldn't be getting involved here. Obviously there are certain types of taxes (such as the one you describe) which are difficult to enforce. But others (such as a tax on dialup and DSL) aren't.
We like this don't we?
Actually, I'd prefer to keep the federal government out of the affairs of the states. If the states want to tax internet access, they should be able to do so.
You never worked for a dot com, have you?
You don't have a sense of humor, do you?
How does treating creative workers like assembly line factory workers improve the company's bottom line?
That's an easy one. When you dock somone's pay, you save money.