I have to say I'm not sure I agree with copyright on photography.
Fact is, whilst the professional photographer in the article, said that she considered it her property because of the lighting she created, the pose she directed etc. the same copyright law applies to a photograph of a field in bight sunshine.
If I go and stand in the same spot, with the same make of camera/film, a second after the initial photographer, chances are that I'll make an indistinguishable copy, to all intents and purposes.
So what in the photograph is of the photographer? Not the sun, the field, the angle, the light: all are free; communal.
What is it that the photographer really made, that merits protection in law, for the resulting image printed on a piece of paper? Both the photograph of the natural setting and of the artificial one get the same protection.
I think the law regarding photography, needs to emulate that regarding paintings.
I just bought a DVD Player for the first time.
I'm incensed that I'm forced to sit through a 10 second copyright notice AND the distributor's splash, before I can watch my movie.
EVERY SINGLE TIME!
I sit through them, cursing them, swearing at them, and telling them that I hope they rot in hell.
I'm sure my shouting at the screen will die down over time, but my anger at their act of compelling me to do something like this, giving me less controll than over a video I purchased, will not go away.
How they thought they could do this without causing resentment, is beyond me. Maybe they just don't care.
(Big mistake.)
"What's it like having to choose between the RIAA or P2P users? Either way you're screwed so which feels better?
"
Maybe she likes being spit-roasted?
(I appologise, entirely.... is there a -1 Gross?)
Right this minute, I've just finished watching a musical cartoon broadcast on UK tv channel, Channel 4, about how the peanut has become a success for Americcan producers, unlike other nuts' failures from poorer countries, who had their affairs tinkered with by the IMF and the World Bank.
I won't go into the details here, but, I can honestly say that if it weren't for the comedy, the animation and the witty songs, I wouldn't have watched a programme on the subject.
A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down, and all that.
As a cartoonist, I'm very interested in the way cartoons, and comic strips can be used to to discuss and explore serious, political, spiritual, and adult issues.
The idea that I could produce a comic strip, which deals with a serious issue, and have that protected, but could make a game out of that same material, and have it censored to hell, while exloring the same issues but using a newer medium, is clearly an error of judgement (quite literally.)
It's inconcievable that computer games will not become protected speech. All it will take is a well-targeted, and specifically designed game, to do the trick.
The thing I don't get is where they got the idea that we want to make a monthly subscription, in order to buy music?
What is it that makes all these companies have a problem with the £n per track, model? That's the way I, and almost everyone else, buy music now (more or less.)
Yet they refuse to offer us this way to buy music via dowload.
Rule No.1 when inventing something, that you hope to commercially exploit: Engage Paranoia Mode.
Trust no one. Tell no one. If you feel you absolutely need to tell someone, to further the idea's development, make sure you are protected, legally, and the idea can't be half-inched, by them, or anyone they tell.
"Please be advised that your use of the GODZILLA mark constitutes a trademark infringement and confuses consumers and the public into believing that your "GODZILLA" character originates from Toho, which it does not. Moreover, your use of the "ZILLA" formative along with imagery associated with GODZILLA is likely to cause the users of your site to believe that the "DAVEZILLA.COM" website is either associated with, authorized by, or sponsored by our client..."
Roxio's GoBack 3 has an "Auto-Revert" function that automatically restores the hard disk to a pre-determined "clean" state, at a given time/event (midnight/shutdown/whatever.)
They tout it as being ideal for cyber-cafes and libraries.
Unlike GoBack's normal working state, where a detailed history of the drive's activity is maintained, when Auto-Revert is enabled, no history is kept after a revert; all that's left is the "clean state."
Sounds ideal for preventing authoritarian agencies from snooping on their citizen's web surfing habits.:)
My post was a parody, but the underlying reality holds true. This is how things will be, legally. And it'll make a criminal out of all of us, you, me, our friends, your brother or sister, your parents and their friends; all "thieves."
Not to stick the knife in, but since my comment was parody (not serious), I guess that would make your quote "That was the single most stupid comment I've ever seen on this board... sigh!" irony.:o|
Enjoy it while you can, mate. Soon this sort of thing will be seen as the Evil Piracy That It Is® and you'll have a totally deserved criminal record, and your nice big tv will be impounded.
"P2P typically involves "public performance" by making a work available to the whole damn world."
Firstly, with something like Kazaa, you're only announcing to the whole world that you have the work in your posession (which is not illegal.) You can terminate any attempt to download that work as you see fit, so you have discretion. How different is that to deciding who you let copy your album?
"And, if memory serves, "copying a CD from a friend" isn't fair use, either. Now, there may be some laws specific to audio tapes ala the Audio Home Recording Act..."
Regardless of whether it's "Fair Use" or simply allowed by the Home Recording Act, it is legal to copy a friends' cd.
What's the difference between putting an album on Kazaa, and organising a club (in a public building, or members' houses or something) where pople can borrow each other's cds, and learn about artists and music styles they'd never heard of?
I would argue that the only difference between those two scenarios is that one is done over a slightly greater distance than the other.
The question is, does the law actually differentiate between the two, and can it make one illegal without also making the other illegal?
How about someone explain to me the difference between someone who copies a cd from a friend via a trip to his house, and someone who copies a cd from a stranger via a p2p network? (Remembering that a stranger is just a friend you haven't yet met!)
No, seriously. How is the former, legitimate, sanctioned by law and wholly legal, but the latter is an act of theft, stealing the food from an artist's mouth and getting to be condemned completely?
Isn't there some confusion in the law on this? I mean where does the law actually draw the line?
All you really need is for the educated classes to get upset about it.
There was some town somewhere in the south of England where the local populace, who were all media-types and well educated, protested against StarBuck's intentions to open a branch in thier cosy little neighbourhood.
They got it stopped in it's tracks.
It's not the proles who'll kick off this fight, it's the middle classes; thence the media.
"Unfortunately..." "...I don't understand a fscking word of this document..."
It's a good job you don't understand it. The article's wording is an encryption device, (Legaleez(TM) v2.154) and understanding it would mean you've cracked it's code, landing you on the wrong side of the law, youngfellamelad.
You've had a lucky escape this time, but let that be a warning to ya, and leave the lawmakin' to the people who know best.
Seriously, though, doesn't the government have a responsibility to present the material in an easy to understand form so that the people it claims it wants feedback from (ie. Tony's subjects) can understand it and it's implications for them, well enough to make an objection, if they view it necessary?
Of course, you're missing one important point: that such censorship is against the Human Rights of the Employee, regarding his freedom of speech, AND there being a free press.
YOU are a journalist.
The fact that you may not be a paid, contracted or hired journalist does not mean that you're not a journalist. Whatever you write, about anything that happens, can be considered journalism, by law; by EU Human Rights Law.
The EU Patent office is actually breaching this man's right to free speech, AND his right to publish as a journalist.
The cable companies will be in such a state, because they won't want to be the one's left out, while their competitors put in the restrictions, and get the movies and revenue from the movies.
This is a blackmail attempt against the cable companies, et al. not the consumer. They just have to get the bluff to work against those a$$hol$. What are the chances???
Slashdot Mirror
I have to say I'm not sure I agree with copyright on photography.
Fact is, whilst the professional photographer in the article, said that she considered it her property because of the lighting she created, the pose she directed etc. the same copyright law applies to a photograph of a field in bight sunshine.
If I go and stand in the same spot, with the same make of camera/film, a second after the initial photographer, chances are that I'll make an indistinguishable copy, to all intents and purposes.
So what in the photograph is of the photographer? Not the sun, the field, the angle, the light: all are free; communal.
What is it that the photographer really made, that merits protection in law, for the resulting image printed on a piece of paper? Both the photograph of the natural setting and of the artificial one get the same protection.
I think the law regarding photography, needs to emulate that regarding paintings.
I just bought a DVD Player for the first time.
I'm incensed that I'm forced to sit through a 10 second copyright notice AND the distributor's splash, before I can watch my movie.
EVERY SINGLE TIME!
I sit through them, cursing them, swearing at them, and telling them that I hope they rot in hell.
I'm sure my shouting at the screen will die down over time, but my anger at their act of compelling me to do something like this, giving me less controll than over a video I purchased, will not go away.
How they thought they could do this without causing resentment, is beyond me. Maybe they just don't care.
(Big mistake.)
"Not to be rude, but what the fuck are you talking about?"
....no offence.
:)
You are a cunt...
I tried, but was told there was way too much prior art.
"What's it like having to choose between the RIAA or P2P users? Either way you're screwed so which feels better? " Maybe she likes being spit-roasted? (I appologise, entirely.... is there a -1 Gross?)
Right this minute, I've just finished watching a musical cartoon broadcast on UK tv channel, Channel 4, about how the peanut has become a success for Americcan producers, unlike other nuts' failures from poorer countries, who had their affairs tinkered with by the IMF and the World Bank.
I won't go into the details here, but, I can honestly say that if it weren't for the comedy, the animation and the witty songs, I wouldn't have watched a programme on the subject.
A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down, and all that.
As a cartoonist, I'm very interested in the way cartoons, and comic strips can be used to to discuss and explore serious, political, spiritual, and adult issues.
The idea that I could produce a comic strip, which deals with a serious issue, and have that protected, but could make a game out of that same material, and have it censored to hell, while exloring the same issues but using a newer medium, is clearly an error of judgement (quite literally.)
It's inconcievable that computer games will not become protected speech. All it will take is a well-targeted, and specifically designed game, to do the trick.
"Yeah, and even if you think the BBC is stupid and would never watch it, you don't have a choice."
Whereas you Americans with all your freedom have the choice not to have your programmes sliced up with commercials... oh no...hang on...
The thing I don't get is where they got the idea that we want to make a monthly subscription, in order to buy music?
What is it that makes all these companies have a problem with the £n per track, model? That's the way I, and almost everyone else, buy music now (more or less.)
Yet they refuse to offer us this way to buy music via dowload.
I find that very odd.
"Furthermore, IMHO terrorism is *never* justified. Civil disobedience sometimes is."
What about "Freedom Fighting?"
Rule No.1 when inventing something, that you hope to commercially exploit: Engage Paranoia Mode.
Trust no one. Tell no one. If you feel you absolutely need to tell someone, to further the idea's development, make sure you are protected, legally, and the idea can't be half-inched, by them, or anyone they tell.
"Please be advised that your use of the GODZILLA mark constitutes a trademark infringement and confuses consumers and the public into believing that your "GODZILLA" character originates from Toho, which it does not. Moreover, your use of the "ZILLA" formative along with imagery associated with GODZILLA is likely to cause the users of your site to believe that the "DAVEZILLA.COM" website is either associated with, authorized by, or sponsored by our client..."
No.
It does not.
Roxio's GoBack 3 has an "Auto-Revert" function that automatically restores the hard disk to a pre-determined "clean" state, at a given time/event (midnight/shutdown/whatever.)
:)
They tout it as being ideal for cyber-cafes and libraries.
Unlike GoBack's normal working state, where a detailed history of the drive's activity is maintained, when Auto-Revert is enabled, no history is kept after a revert; all that's left is the "clean state."
Sounds ideal for preventing authoritarian agencies from snooping on their citizen's web surfing habits.
My post was a parody, but the underlying reality holds true. This is how things will be, legally. And it'll make a criminal out of all of us, you, me, our friends, your brother or sister, your parents and their friends; all "thieves."
:o|
Not to stick the knife in, but since my comment was parody (not serious), I guess that would make your quote "That was the single most stupid comment I've ever seen on this board... sigh!" irony.
How much time before a person or corporation bribes someone on the inside for the info?
I'd say the future employee is probably figuring out what to spend his/her new revenue stream on, from the moment their contract is signed.
Enjoy it while you can, mate. Soon this sort of thing will be seen as the Evil Piracy That It Is® and you'll have a totally deserved criminal record, and your nice big tv will be impounded.
Thief!!!!!!
{/high horse}
(omitted from original post)
You're right, of course. He's free to publish, and be damned (or rather sacked.)
:D
"P2P typically involves "public performance" by making a work available to the whole damn world."
Firstly, with something like Kazaa, you're only announcing to the whole world that you have the work in your posession (which is not illegal.) You can terminate any attempt to download that work as you see fit, so you have discretion. How different is that to deciding who you let copy your album?
"And, if memory serves, "copying a CD from a friend" isn't fair use, either. Now, there may be some laws specific to audio tapes ala the Audio Home Recording Act..."
Regardless of whether it's "Fair Use" or simply allowed by the Home Recording Act, it is legal to copy a friends' cd.
What's the difference between putting an album on Kazaa, and organising a club (in a public building, or members' houses or something) where pople can borrow each other's cds, and learn about artists and music styles they'd never heard of?
I would argue that the only difference between those two scenarios is that one is done over a slightly greater distance than the other.
The question is, does the law actually differentiate between the two, and can it make one illegal without also making the other illegal?
How about someone explain to me the difference between someone who copies a cd from a friend via a trip to his house, and someone who copies a cd from a stranger via a p2p network? (Remembering that a stranger is just a friend you haven't yet met!)
No, seriously. How is the former, legitimate, sanctioned by law and wholly legal, but the latter is an act of theft, stealing the food from an artist's mouth and getting to be condemned completely?
Isn't there some confusion in the law on this? I mean where does the law actually draw the line?
In order for the General Public(TM) to care about this, they need to understand exactly how it's going to effect them.
So, in language that the average, reasonably intelligent, member of the public can understand exactly how is it going to effect them?
All you really need is for the educated classes to get upset about it.
There was some town somewhere in the south of England where the local populace, who were all media-types and well educated, protested against StarBuck's intentions to open a branch in thier cosy little neighbourhood.
They got it stopped in it's tracks.
It's not the proles who'll kick off this fight, it's the middle classes; thence the media.
"Unfortunately..." "...I don't understand a fscking word of this document..."
It's a good job you don't understand it. The article's wording is an encryption device, (Legaleez(TM) v2.154) and understanding it would mean you've cracked it's code, landing you on the wrong side of the law, youngfellamelad.
You've had a lucky escape this time, but let that be a warning to ya, and leave the lawmakin' to the people who know best.
Seriously, though, doesn't the government have a responsibility to present the material in an easy to understand form so that the people it claims it wants feedback from (ie. Tony's subjects) can understand it and it's implications for them, well enough to make an objection, if they view it necessary?
I think in this context, they mean "open" like the back of a hospital gown, and the consumer is the person wearing the gown...
...and being asked to bend over.
Of course, you're missing one important point: that such censorship is against the Human Rights of the Employee, regarding his freedom of speech, AND there being a free press.
YOU are a journalist.
The fact that you may not be a paid, contracted or hired journalist does not mean that you're not a journalist. Whatever you write, about anything that happens, can be considered journalism, by law; by EU Human Rights Law.
The EU Patent office is actually breaching this man's right to free speech, AND his right to publish as a journalist.
IMHO.
This is a bluff, but it'll work.
The cable companies will be in such a state, because they won't want to be the one's left out, while their competitors put in the restrictions, and get the movies and revenue from the movies.
This is a blackmail attempt against the cable companies, et al. not the consumer.
They just have to get the bluff to work against those a$$hol$. What are the chances???