The decision turned on the collection issue. The court ruled that since entire works were scanned that they constituted a collection and reproduction of said collection was a copyright infringement.
Try reading the case all the way through and commenting again. for example: For example, a recipe is a process, and not copyrightable, but the words used to describe it are; see Publications International v Meredith Corp. (1996).[2] Therefore, you can rewrite a recipe in your own words and publish it without infringing copyrights. But if you rewrote every recipe from a particular cookbook, you might still be found to have infringed the author's copyright in the choice of recipes and their "coordination" and "presentation", even if you used different words, though the West decisions below suggest that this is unlikely unless there is some significant creativity in the presentation.
Only if the original subject is in the public domain otherwise it is considered derivative. I was involved a few years ago with a rather stupid lawsuit where a publisher got ahold of a database containing tens of thousands of scanned pages of documents well into the public domain. (original documents were from the 17th and 18th century) They argued that they could publish the documents as they were in the public domain. The Owner of the scans argued that they were reproducing copyrighted work. The courts agreed with the owners of the original scans.
You may disagree all you want to but you would still be wrong. I was involved in a lawsuit 3 years ago that says otherwise. Scans are considered original works and are copywritable.
I am curious about the right to copy a rare public-domain book. Let's say someone owns the only copy of a book. They do not allow anyone else to scan it. But, they do scan it themselves.
Do they own the "scan". Can they copyright that?
yes
Could they sue me for copying their scanned version?
Yes
Suppose they ran it through some OCR. Then they changed the layout but not the text. Now could they use that as a basis from stopping me from copying it? It's their font/layout configuration after all.
Yes
I suppose further, I could run their scanned work through my own OCR, and since the text itself is not copyrighted, I could then distribute the text.
no because you used their work without permission An example of this is taking a photo of a work in the public domain. If it is your photo you can reproduce it and use it all you want. If it is someone else's photo you are SOL if you do not have rights to work with their photo.
Sounds silly and convoluted, but this is the kind of argument we can expect to see as information becomes easy to control and manipulate. And as more and more public domain items come into the light, there will be more and more "stake holders" trying to protect their cash cows.
you could however do it anyways and then they would have to prove that you used their copies to create your work. the problem is if it is a one of a kind and they can show you had access to it once again you are SOL.
Courts will sometimes file injunctions. An example of this is a law in Texas which makes it illegal for a bank to charge a service fee to cash a cheque drawn on one of its accounts, however the Texas Supreme Court has issued an injunction stopping the law from ever coming into effect. This is doubly interesting as in Texas, the Supreme Court of Texas handles only civil and juvenile delinquency issues, whereas the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort for criminal matters.
Lol @ self. Yes I meant bigger. That is what I get for posting after being awake for 27+ hours. Now it is time to get some rest. I shall abide by rules 1,3,5 and 7 of the Philosophy Department at the University of Wooloomooloo. And, as is always the case for me, there shall be no buggery involved at all!
I am 1.97M tall (6'6) and weigh in at 420 and I fit wonderfully well in a VW beetle so unless you are bugger than me I call BS. Plus most SUVs actually have less leg and driver space than cars do in my experience. You can do research at http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/Special-Needs/headroom.html for headroom if you are tall, or other articles for wide and or long legs. (BTW of that 1.97m all but.84m (33 inches) is torso)
And in http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061030-neanderthals.html a paper published in 2006 states there is strong evidence of interbreeding. So, I suggest the matter is still very much up for debate and not to be assumed one side or the other, which was my (then) unwritten point.
Which recent studies show they they are genetically different enough so that we could not mate with them? I ask not to be sarcastic, but most things i read on the subject lately seems to point the other direction that in fact the two lines merged to form modern man.
Oh maybe Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, West Virginia (after Virginia withdrew) or Maryland. In all of those states Slavery was legal and yet they did not secede from the union. Remember folks there were 15 states where slavery was legal and practiced, only 11 states seceded to form the Confederate states of America. If slavery was the reason or even primary reason for the war ask yourself why did those 4 states and one partial not also withdraw? Further ask yourself why Lincoln only freed the states in the 11 that seceded and not the other 4 plus 1.
First: I am not your "Dog" & Second: Wow a single source from the northern states, hmm how trustworthy is that? As Historian (though admittedly not in the American Civil war) I have to say you still do not know what you are talking about.
Can you explain then why Lincoln only freed the slaves in the southern states? The war was about states rights and economy. Of course slavery was intertwined with the economy but to think it had anything to so with the slaves themselves is historic revisionism. Remember an escaped slave in the north could still be arrested and sent back.
Indeed? Did you read the parent's comment rather than just quoting it? It is diametrically opposed to your stated position. With regards to the free will debate it is binary either man has free will or he dos not if he does then we can talk about flavours if he doesn't then we can talk about complementarianism vs strict determinism, but first the mater of free will yes or no should be settled.
I am sorry this proves nothing in the deterministic debate. All it says is If the observers have free will then teh particles must have free will. It does not answer the question: Does the observer have free will?
You seem to believe that you know me well, too bad you are completely wrong in your statement of what I think.
Except here "deem unfit for use" is "They will not survive the womb. They cannot plant themselves."
Nice of you to clarify your definitions of things. I hope you do not mind me taking your comment apart.
the fact of the matter is a lot of those embryos AREN'T going to ever work any more.
Actually unless you are a prophet or a time traveller that is simply a supposition on your part. Further, the value of an individual is based on their person-hood not their ability to work according to your standards. Your ethics appear Utilitarian and I will grant you the assumption of consistency.
You'd put them in the womb they'd just take time before withering.
My ethics are deontological, embryos blastocysts and anything else you might happen to call the product of a fertilized egg from the moment of its activation through its teleological end of birth belong in the womb. Therefore it is the right thing to do to put them there if they are not in such a place. What happens to them once they are there is a teleological argument and therefore beyond the scope of my ethics, or at least not considered.
And I am trying to grab an organ donor card. Something besides this silly organ donor sticker.
And your euthenasia card? Or living will? Are you willing to submit to society deciding when you are no longer useful and determining your end even if you do not agree with it?
How very utilitarian of you. Please remember to sign your organ donation card and your euthanasia card so we may harvest any usable items from you when we deem you unfit for their use. oh and we will process your remains for dog food.
Slashdot Mirror
I have answered this elsewhere it fell under the issue of being a collection.
The decision turned on the collection issue. The court ruled that since entire works were scanned that they constituted a collection and reproduction of said collection was a copyright infringement.
Try reading the case all the way through and commenting again.
for example:
For example, a recipe is a process, and not copyrightable, but the words used to describe it are; see Publications International v Meredith Corp. (1996).[2] Therefore, you can rewrite a recipe in your own words and publish it without infringing copyrights. But if you rewrote every recipe from a particular cookbook, you might still be found to have infringed the author's copyright in the choice of recipes and their "coordination" and "presentation", even if you used different words, though the West decisions below suggest that this is unlikely unless there is some significant creativity in the presentation.
Only if the original subject is in the public domain otherwise it is considered derivative. I was involved a few years ago with a rather stupid lawsuit where a publisher got ahold of a database containing tens of thousands of scanned pages of documents well into the public domain. (original documents were from the 17th and 18th century) They argued that they could publish the documents as they were in the public domain. The Owner of the scans argued that they were reproducing copyrighted work. The courts agreed with the owners of the original scans.
You may disagree all you want to but you would still be wrong. I was involved in a lawsuit 3 years ago that says otherwise. Scans are considered original works and are copywritable.
I am curious about the right to copy a rare public-domain book. Let's say someone owns the only copy of a book. They do not allow anyone else to scan it. But, they do scan it themselves.
Do they own the "scan". Can they copyright that?
yes
Could they sue me for copying their scanned version?
Yes
Suppose they ran it through some OCR. Then they changed the layout but not the text. Now could they use that as a basis from stopping me from copying it? It's their font/layout configuration after all.
Yes
I suppose further, I could run their scanned work through my own OCR, and since the text itself is not copyrighted, I could then distribute the text.
no because you used their work without permission An example of this is taking a photo of a work in the public domain. If it is your photo you can reproduce it and use it all you want. If it is someone else's photo you are SOL if you do not have rights to work with their photo.
Sounds silly and convoluted, but this is the kind of argument we can expect to see as information becomes easy to control and manipulate. And as more and more public domain items come into the light, there will be more and more "stake holders" trying to protect their cash cows.
you could however do it anyways and then they would have to prove that you used their copies to create your work. the problem is if it is a one of a kind and they can show you had access to it once again you are SOL.
Courts will sometimes file injunctions. An example of this is a law in Texas which makes it illegal for a bank to charge a service fee to cash a cheque drawn on one of its accounts, however the Texas Supreme Court has issued an injunction stopping the law from ever coming into effect. This is doubly interesting as in Texas, the Supreme Court of Texas handles only civil and juvenile delinquency issues, whereas the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort for criminal matters.
Remember, you don't change laws in court, you change them in Congress.
If only more Americans understood this.
Lol @ self. Yes I meant bigger. That is what I get for posting after being awake for 27+ hours. Now it is time to get some rest. I shall abide by rules 1,3,5 and 7 of the Philosophy Department at the University of Wooloomooloo. And, as is always the case for me, there shall be no buggery involved at all!
Thanks for pointing out my gaff.
I am 1.97M tall (6'6) and weigh in at 420 and I fit wonderfully well in a VW beetle so unless you are bugger than me I call BS. Plus most SUVs actually have less leg and driver space than cars do in my experience. You can do research at http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/Special-Needs/headroom.html for headroom if you are tall, or other articles for wide and or long legs. (BTW of that 1.97m all but .84m (33 inches) is torso)
And in http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061030-neanderthals.html a paper published in 2006 states there is strong evidence of interbreeding. So, I suggest the matter is still very much up for debate and not to be assumed one side or the other, which was my (then) unwritten point.
Which recent studies show they they are genetically different enough so that we could not mate with them? I ask not to be sarcastic, but most things i read on the subject lately seems to point the other direction that in fact the two lines merged to form modern man.
Unlike ninjavideo who hides files on donation funded sites like archive.org
Oh maybe Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, West Virginia (after Virginia withdrew) or Maryland. In all of those states Slavery was legal and yet they did not secede from the union. Remember folks there were 15 states where slavery was legal and practiced, only 11 states seceded to form the Confederate states of America. If slavery was the reason or even primary reason for the war ask yourself why did those 4 states and one partial not also withdraw? Further ask yourself why Lincoln only freed the states in the 11 that seceded and not the other 4 plus 1.
First: I am not your "Dog" & Second: Wow a single source from the northern states, hmm how trustworthy is that? As Historian (though admittedly not in the American Civil war) I have to say you still do not know what you are talking about.
Plonk.
Instead of taking a history 101 course, try reading original source material from the day. You will find a radically different view from your own.
Can you explain then why Lincoln only freed the slaves in the southern states? The war was about states rights and economy. Of course slavery was intertwined with the economy but to think it had anything to so with the slaves themselves is historic revisionism. Remember an escaped slave in the north could still be arrested and sent back.
- Hungus
Indeed? Did you read the parent's comment rather than just quoting it? It is diametrically opposed to your stated position. With regards to the free will debate it is binary either man has free will or he dos not if he does then we can talk about flavours if he doesn't then we can talk about complementarianism vs strict determinism, but first the mater of free will yes or no should be settled.
I am sorry this proves nothing in the deterministic debate. All it says is If the observers have free will then teh particles must have free will. It does not answer the question: Does the observer have free will?
Try reading my post again, as I deny the usefulness of teleology. Feel free to reply once you learn to read critically.
I know you like to think...
You seem to believe that you know me well, too bad you are completely wrong in your statement of what I think.
Except here "deem unfit for use" is "They will not survive the womb. They cannot plant themselves."
Nice of you to clarify your definitions of things. I hope you do not mind me taking your comment apart.
the fact of the matter is a lot of those embryos AREN'T going to ever work any more.
Actually unless you are a prophet or a time traveller that is simply a supposition on your part. Further, the value of an individual is based on their person-hood not their ability to work according to your standards. Your ethics appear Utilitarian and I will grant you the assumption of consistency.
You'd put them in the womb they'd just take time before withering.
My ethics are deontological, embryos blastocysts and anything else you might happen to call the product of a fertilized egg from the moment of its activation through its teleological end of birth belong in the womb. Therefore it is the right thing to do to put them there if they are not in such a place. What happens to them once they are there is a teleological argument and therefore beyond the scope of my ethics, or at least not considered.
And I am trying to grab an organ donor card. Something besides this silly organ donor sticker.
And your euthenasia card? Or living will? Are you willing to submit to society deciding when you are no longer useful and determining your end even if you do not agree with it?
- I await your reply.
In your case: the part where you think you will get an answer posting anonymously.
Your definition of logic implies you have never actually studied logic. Remember that A->B != B->A
How very utilitarian of you. Please remember to sign your organ donation card and your euthanasia card so we may harvest any usable items from you when we deem you unfit for their use. oh and we will process your remains for dog food.
That has to be one of the most heinous and disgusting statements I have ever seen.