Most people doing handwriting use a pen for the actual writing (writing in snow(!) or dust being exceptions). Some use a stylus, I don't see how writing with a chisel in your hand should need a different wording. It's handwriting if you use your hands to hold a tool that is used to mark glyphs on a medium.
I doubt it, if it's a reproduction then it's likely to copy the style of the original author, possibly with mechanical precision (which term I use to include using casting or laser cutting). The original tablets would be unlikely to have been created in an attempt to deceive. You can tell peoples handwriting apart, but not if one is forging the other well.
I agree strongly with this. There was a long period where we could count on firefox, but not IE to render PNG files with transparency (boy, do I remember), or a large portion of the CSS spec. Didn't stop anyone from using transparent PNG files and standards-compliant CSS in their design if they wished, they just had to know that it wouldn't look good in IE (a show stopper for many). But IE e...v...e...n...t...u...a...l...l...y caught up.
It certainly did stop it. Sending GIF (which looked awful) to IE and PNG to other browsers was a pain in the proverbial.
Still when did IE catch up? IE8 still is not consistent in it's handling of gamma for PNG files, http://stackoverflow.com/questions/662616/background-colour-of-a-png-in-ie8 . Still some are having to do extra work to satisfy IE (I use PNG crush which removes gAMA chunks so it wasn't affecting me). They're nearly there with PNG only 13 years after the spec was finalised.
So will we have to do extra work for IE to show video properly until after 2022?
Specify one format that has to work (but allow as many as you like) for a proper compliant implementation of a HTML5 renderer, please.
Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?
Remember GIF? We have PNG now so we're OK (and I'm pretty sure the compression algo's are out of patent now). What about video though?
We don't have to have everything in Ogg Theora IMO, as long as all full HTML5 implementations support it (or any other common FOSS codec) - that will mean that one can freely create video that you know will be playable in a HTML5 standards compliant browser.
If there's no common FOSS codec agreed then content creators (I'm thinking individuals) may have to have licenses in order to create video content for the www. If that can be avoided it should be. At best there's going to be fragmentation without a common format meaning creators have to target individual browsers with different video files. Again, if that can be avoided it should be.
Apple is unwilling to take the risk that there are IP problems with the spec.
And yet they risk the same thing with their internal closed specs all the time (the difference being the profit motive).
I don't know how it would go down in the USA, but in a sane jurisdiction then publication of the full specs would mean that the notional skilled man in the art, knowing the prior art, would recognise if their patent were to be infringed. Then failing to launch proceedings would be a tacit agreement that use of Ogg Theora within HTML5 didn't infringe their patents. And then we could all ride home on unicorns to our tree houses made of chocolate.
I wonder if the W3C could just write to all the holders of codec patents (H03M 7/ ?) and ask if it infringes anything which they've applied to be patented... that would be interesting.
Absolutely - the notion of "submarine patents" rising up, should Theora take off, is not a new idea, and not specific to Apple. By mandating Theora in HTML5, you'd be risking the years of negotiations on the spec on the bet that there are no such patents - a bet I'd be surprised if any good Slashdot reader would take.
Ever cued for the bathroom, or swung on a swing... well don't, imagine a submarine patent could turn up at any time and show your being a tortuous infringer. Seriously WTF was/is the US doing allowing submarine patents to continue.
W3C must be funded sufficiently to get patent searches done. Or simply put the Ogg Theora spec in patent form and apply for WO patents and get the statutory searches done.
In the UK you can request the proprietor of a patent give a statement as to whether you'd be infringing their patent(s) or not by doing a specified act - if they don't tell you can have a declaration made by the Comptroller (Patent Office head) under Section 71 (IIRC) which has the same weight as a courts declaration of non-infringement.
I'd be happy that HTML5 doesn't specify a codec but instead specifies that any full implementation would allow use of a free gratis and libre codec and specify the acceptable licenses under which it is made available. Then it would be for content creators to decide to use the free codec or a proprietary one.
It's not as good as being able to use one free codec and know all HTML5 renderers will read it, but it's better to have to use multiple free codecs than have to use multiple proprietary ones.
The problem is not that apple won't adopt it, it's that apple *can't* adopt it, and nor can nokia, and nor can sony erricson, and nor can RIM, and nor can any of the other smart phone makers. There is *no* hardware support for decoding Ogg Theora, that makes it totally unsuitable for the task at hand. Even ignoring the submarine patent risk and the fact that it's far worse quality than h.264.
So no hardware manufacturer would support Ogg Theora decoding if it were in HTML5?
We'd also have a strong case for optimisation of Ogg Theora by the leading manufacturers all adding their own optimisations to ensure longer battery life for products.
Submarine patents are a diversion - they could be found for pretty much any of the codecs or indeed any patentable technology.
(Codecs are generally just mathematical methods and shouldn't be patentable anyway! also if the compatibility clauses in European patent law had been adopted we'd be safe with such things, I digress...).
Perhaps it's hiding a stegonagraphic code - perhaps "pwned!"?
Or was that: "In Congress, July Fourth, one thousand seven hundred and seventy six. A declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. When in the course of human events..." the entire plaintext? (that would make it a more awesome achievement as it's very short).
What's the relevance of the excision of "General" from Jefferson's original.
I would prefer the headline to stay as it is, or perhaps to be changed to "Daily Receipt of Fellatio Helps Improve Fertility".
There is research that indicates fellatio can help to improve fertility. The analysis is something along these lines: female body can attack the sperm as it's recognised as being external matter; fellatio allows the body to recognise the sperm and adapt such that the immune response is reduced.
I tried boiling water. It worked for the immediate vicinity of the hole but didn't extend to killing a large proportion. I also tried methylated spirits... pour it down and then set fire to it. Worked OK, but the liquid in the hole thing seems flawed, perhaps it could be injected as a vapour. Fire is more fun.
Maybe a gas burner could be used to fill the nest with propane and then light it off at an exit hole? Not sure if this might be a little dangerous, YMMV.
The Taliban could believe, if they find they have a journo, that the eyes of the world could be focussed on them more. Surely then they could demand a huge ransom - then distribute the money to civilian causalties of American military activities. That's going to be a pretty good "we're nice guys really fighting against evil America" kind of story. If the newspapers don't report on it, the journo is useless, take out the trash...
Killing the guy is all well and good if you've garnering lots of coverage, but then the papers move on to the next victim. Keeping him alive in captivity will probably net you more coverage in the end. Indeed treat him well and you'll get a nice "the Taliban were bad for kidnapping me but treated me with the utmost respect unlike our soldiers with the prisoners in Gitmo" type story when you let them go.
Indeed if Osama wanted to place a story in the North American press then kidnapping one of the journos and giving them an interview would be a great way to do that.
So what if they can't help everyone in a similar situation? If someone says "help me, I've been shot" do you not help them because it would be unfair since you can not help everyone in that particular situation? No, that would be an asinine thing to do.
The situation is more akin to you thinking about helping people who are shot and deciding, I'll only help people who are shot if they're Slashdot users. You then create a framework designed not to help people who are shot unless they're Slashdot users.
Yes you can't help everyone, but should you set out with the distinct policy that you shouldn't try to help everyone you find who has been shot?
It is not that they tried to help it's that they withheld such help from others when they were in a situation to help. I wouldn't chastise you for performing CPR to save a life; I would chastise you if I knew that you had simply stood next to someone in need of CPR and watched them die whilst clearly being in possession of the skills needed to attempt to save them.
I think that he meant the Wikipedia Foundation and any other overseers who control the locking of topics, etc. - most people up to now have assumed good faith (!). Your link is certainly interesting though it's probably not had much coverage compared to the perception of Wikipedia as an unbiased medium.
Of course Wikipedia should have an interest in the story beyond the mere facts presented. They need to worry about copyright and tort liability for example. That kills your argument.
What you probably meant to say is that Wikipedia should have no MORAL interest in the story beyond the mere facts presented. [...]
If Wikipedia is reporting the news then they don't need to worry about tortuous infringement as news reporting is specifically disclaimed from being infringing coverage of copyrighted material. Mere presentation of facts for news reporting is allowed in all Berne Convention countries (under copyright law, it could be disallowed by other laws).
The decision to lie is hard, IMO.
Wikipedia is now clearly shown not to be the uncensored news channel we thought it was. This can have impact on the lives of many people - perhaps as an Iranian I would no longer go out in protest against the lack of democracy if Wikipedia shows that no-one else is protesting (evidence of edits in support of protest having been removed, etc.), now we must question whether Wikipedia's High-And-Mighties feel there is moral good in hiding the protests. Keeping people from protesting would probably save lives after all, at least in the short term.
What if Wikipedia misjudged it and the group killed the journalist from frustration and went after someone else instead.
It's a dangerous precedent, but yes I'd probably do the same in their situation.
And you should read the sources more carefully. The forum post mentions in review 2 books who in turn reference sources at Bletchley park who were involved in the capture of the information via decryption of Enigma messages. They state that whilst Churchill was very guarded with use of information that was captured and whilst they knew there was going to be an attack, they didn't know where the bombing was to take place. One source says that Churchill believed the attack was on London and stayed in London on purpose.
Wikipedia could be lying about the sources, or about their content. The Bletchley sources themselves could be lying but that would require a government level conspiracy to cover up... still possible, I'm wearing my tin-foil hat, are you?!
Public performance immediately springs to mind. As a US-based copyright lawyer, Berne doesn't grant any rights or remedies here, and is basically useless; only the laws emanating from Congress or the courts matter.
How is public performance not a copy? It's not going to be an exact copy, granted, but it's still copying the work.
As for Berne I'm not that familiar with the methods used to ratify international treaties in the US (except one is via congress and one not, I think?) but as a signatory to Berne - on ratification - the US agrees to bind its citizens with that law.
The 1988 Implementation Act is a curious beast, Section 2 says: "(3) The amendments made by this Act, together with the law as it exists on the date of the enactment of this Act, satisfy the obligations of the United States in adhering to the Berne Convention and no further rights or interests shall be recognized or created for that purpose.".
Indeed the BCIA 1988 appears to be solely purposed in saying the regulations as set out in Berne apply but not because Berne applies but instead because they're set out in this act. That sounds crazy to me. Perhaps you can explain it? The US is saying its citizens are not bound by Berne, despite having signed and ratified, but expect Berne to protect its citizens? If you seek redress for copyright infringement abroad, for locally created works, it is through Berne's application that you find remedy against that infringement of your right (granted by Berne in signatory countries).
If Berne doesn't have legal effect then the US is reneging against its agreement; presumably also no other international law then would have effect there?? Or is it only in respect of Berne that the US places a disclaimer that the rights conferred under the treaty do not apply?
Of course until a judgement is delivered neither of us is wrong! Yet.
Going back to Boyle et al. did you notice how when the guy said "just make sure it's not a Simpsons character" he wasn't challenged. The writing between the lines here [I only just found there's an audio version, noscript!, it's much clearer now] is "this is how the law should be interpreted but not how it will be". I'm not really bothered how it should, just how it's going to be if someone has the balls to call Fox (or whoever's) bluff.
Boyle of course kills any possible discussion by claiming it's too facile a situation for him to even bother to cast his mind over - he mights as well say "if Hansen disagrees he's a moron", nice logic there. But, if *you* read the transcription you'll see that Hansen doesn't respond to this point, he's not been brought into the conversation yet - he responds to a different [straw man] question about is it against the law for a kid to say 3 words from a song or for a TV to be on in the background of a documentary (I think they specified it was a docu; these refer to the Simpsons and "everybody dance now" situations presumably).
If things were as clear cut as Boyle claims then Ms. Sewel's lawyer for the movie would have said "this is the clearest possible case of fair use, EMI will be laughed out of court". Would EMI really press a case they apparently knew instantly (according to Boyle) that they would lose. Indeed Ms. Sewel's lawyer should have pressed the point and offered to work no-win-no-fee. Also note we're talking 2005 here, no cases I know of have clarified the position yet - you'd think with publicity like in the NY Times that this "case" received that someone would have had the balls by now to push back with the support of the likes of Prof Boyle and the EFF. Even if Fox (eg for the Simpsons) go after you surely the US legal system can't be so corrupt that you can't win if Boyle is right.
Here's an idea for Prof Boyle - an documentary (advert length!) on Fair Use "if a film shows a TV on in the background [over his shoulder is Simpsons showing] or a person's cellphone plays a popular tune [Rocky plays on his cellphone]...". The ad would have all the "completely obviously Fair Use" material in. Then we'd have a bit more case law to look at methinks. Perhaps the opening of Wikipedia to video clips will lead to some litigation and clear up this area.
Tangentially, I find it strange that Profs Boyle and Hansen claim to disagree about the purpose of copyright - it is of course a deal between individual and state in which Boyle and Hansen are both right: an opportunity to gain from your creative labour protected by statute in exchange for placing your work in the public domain.
I worked in intellectual property for the UK government. I read the entire post and did some back research on the Prof, FWIW. I've read a deal of statute and case law reports (not so many actual verdicts and far less of court transcriptions) for many aspects of US copyright law.
I agree that the situation is ludicrous that these sorts of cases should be free to use the material but in this instance I don't think Sewel would win a Fair Use case. I have the utmost respect for Prof Boyle particularly as I'm a user of CC licenses, his book is good too ( http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/182 ). I hope I'm proved wrong.
Disney are using "PINOCCHIO" (case isn't important) to indicate that the goods or services thus marked originate with them.
Then what name are people supposed to use to indicate that a doll is 1. based on a likeness from an adaptation of the 1883 novel Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi, and 2. not made by Disney?
You use "Pinocchio" for that too.. you just have to be prepared to show that you weren't passing off your goods/services as originating with Disney. Something like "based on a likeness from the novel by Carolo Collodi" in a prominent position on your box and advertising.
Your only problem then is affording to be sued, that is not a failure of this specific law but of law in general.
If you're interested in what is and isn't protected in the US, I advise you to read 17 USC 102, 103, 105 and 106, and to refer to the definitions in section 101 frequently, since there are many terms of art which could trip you up.
Yes, of course I've read them; even quoted them here several times. Ditto UK law, TRIPS, Berne and sundry articles of case law from US, UK, Europe.
Disney's expression of the idea is protected by copyright.
If you copy their expression of the idea then you say you're free and clear... good luck with that.
You can make a rendition of the _story_ but not copy the actual Disney script of that story. You can't go and buy a Snow White DVD, scrub out Disney's name and duplicate and sell it . You can't copy their presentation.
"The defendant could parade around with a banner on the courthouse steps claiming to have copied the Snow White story from Disney and no one will ever care; it won't even come up in court"
If they copied it from Disney then they copied their presentation ("expression" if you like) of that story. If they wrote a story based on the ideas that form the historic Snow White story then they no more copied from Disney than from The Brothers Grimm or whoever they copied it off.
the mere fact of copying isn't sufficient for them to win an infringement case
No, but in general parlance it's not necessary to specify "an infringing copy" and specify disclaimers as to situations in which the copying may not infringe.
Anyway, I can see we won't progress any of that.
However, I'm intrigued
Really there's a whole slew of ways to infringe a copyright that have nothing to do with copying [my emphasis]
Pray tell. I can see prima facie you might argue that, say, failure to attribute authorship fits here (Berne Art6bis); but that would be wilful ignorance as its failure to attribute authorship/on a copy/.
If the music clip is being used commercially it's not fair use -
Dude, don't repeat internet folklore as if it were a serious legal authority. This bit of folklore is popular amongst people who like to believe that re-using content is OK as long as they don't make money off it. Has no basis in fact.
I have never nor would ever make that claim. Making money off something doesn't make it commercial use, for example denying the owner of a work their commercial exploitation by giving away said work. You may have a insightful comment but slurring me by claiming I'd endorse that sort of weak trashy argument is not necessary. I think perhaps you're making the fallacy of the excluded middle here?
If I affect your commercial exploitation of your work by it's use, except in the limited fair use exceptions (in the US) criticism/news reporting/parody then that is not a fair use.
Here's an interview with two lawyers (one of them extremely pro-industry) who both endorse the idea that documentary use is fair use. The even cite that ring tone as a classic example:
OK, Boyle is a professor of law, but I think he's wrong in this instance. If the music were a simple clip that was captured and incidental to the scene then it would not matter what music it was. The director shot herself in the foot - she says it's an essential element, the specific theme, to that scene. Without that particular music the scene would not have worked. That's not incidental. Nor is it an insubstantial part - again if it were it wouldn't set the mood the director is trying to create.
If the director had said "it didn't matter what ring tone it was" then she could have claimed it as an incidental capture.
Incidentally I don't think this is just only that it is the reading that I would expect a court to give based on US law.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldnt that be chisel writing?
Most people doing handwriting use a pen for the actual writing (writing in snow(!) or dust being exceptions). Some use a stylus, I don't see how writing with a chisel in your hand should need a different wording. It's handwriting if you use your hands to hold a tool that is used to mark glyphs on a medium.
I doubt it, if it's a reproduction then it's likely to copy the style of the original author, possibly with mechanical precision (which term I use to include using casting or laser cutting). The original tablets would be unlikely to have been created in an attempt to deceive. You can tell peoples handwriting apart, but not if one is forging the other well.
I could be wrong.
You're right, I need propane-oxygen, like a cutting torch; or maybe oxy-acetylene?
I agree strongly with this. There was a long period where we could count on firefox, but not IE to render PNG files with transparency (boy, do I remember), or a large portion of the CSS spec. Didn't stop anyone from using transparent PNG files and standards-compliant CSS in their design if they wished, they just had to know that it wouldn't look good in IE (a show stopper for many). But IE e...v...e...n...t...u...a...l...l...y caught up.
It certainly did stop it. Sending GIF (which looked awful) to IE and PNG to other browsers was a pain in the proverbial.
Still when did IE catch up? IE8 still is not consistent in it's handling of gamma for PNG files, http://stackoverflow.com/questions/662616/background-colour-of-a-png-in-ie8 . Still some are having to do extra work to satisfy IE (I use PNG crush which removes gAMA chunks so it wasn't affecting me). They're nearly there with PNG only 13 years after the spec was finalised.
So will we have to do extra work for IE to show video properly until after 2022?
Specify one format that has to work (but allow as many as you like) for a proper compliant implementation of a HTML5 renderer, please.
Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?
Remember GIF? We have PNG now so we're OK (and I'm pretty sure the compression algo's are out of patent now). What about video though?
We don't have to have everything in Ogg Theora IMO, as long as all full HTML5 implementations support it (or any other common FOSS codec) - that will mean that one can freely create video that you know will be playable in a HTML5 standards compliant browser.
If there's no common FOSS codec agreed then content creators (I'm thinking individuals) may have to have licenses in order to create video content for the www. If that can be avoided it should be. At best there's going to be fragmentation without a common format meaning creators have to target individual browsers with different video files. Again, if that can be avoided it should be.
Apple is unwilling to take the risk that there are IP problems with the spec.
And yet they risk the same thing with their internal closed specs all the time (the difference being the profit motive).
I don't know how it would go down in the USA, but in a sane jurisdiction then publication of the full specs would mean that the notional skilled man in the art, knowing the prior art, would recognise if their patent were to be infringed. Then failing to launch proceedings would be a tacit agreement that use of Ogg Theora within HTML5 didn't infringe their patents. And then we could all ride home on unicorns to our tree houses made of chocolate.
I wonder if the W3C could just write to all the holders of codec patents (H03M 7/ ?) and ask if it infringes anything which they've applied to be patented ... that would be interesting.
Absolutely - the notion of "submarine patents" rising up, should Theora take off, is not a new idea, and not specific to Apple. By mandating Theora in HTML5, you'd be risking the years of negotiations on the spec on the bet that there are no such patents - a bet I'd be surprised if any good Slashdot reader would take.
Ever cued for the bathroom, or swung on a swing ... well don't, imagine a submarine patent could turn up at any time and show your being a tortuous infringer. Seriously WTF was/is the US doing allowing submarine patents to continue.
W3C must be funded sufficiently to get patent searches done. Or simply put the Ogg Theora spec in patent form and apply for WO patents and get the statutory searches done.
In the UK you can request the proprietor of a patent give a statement as to whether you'd be infringing their patent(s) or not by doing a specified act - if they don't tell you can have a declaration made by the Comptroller (Patent Office head) under Section 71 (IIRC) which has the same weight as a courts declaration of non-infringement.
I'd be happy that HTML5 doesn't specify a codec but instead specifies that any full implementation would allow use of a free gratis and libre codec and specify the acceptable licenses under which it is made available. Then it would be for content creators to decide to use the free codec or a proprietary one.
It's not as good as being able to use one free codec and know all HTML5 renderers will read it, but it's better to have to use multiple free codecs than have to use multiple proprietary ones.
The problem is not that apple won't adopt it, it's that apple *can't* adopt it, and nor can nokia, and nor can sony erricson, and nor can RIM, and nor can any of the other smart phone makers. There is *no* hardware support for decoding Ogg Theora, that makes it totally unsuitable for the task at hand. Even ignoring the submarine patent risk and the fact that it's far worse quality than h.264.
So no hardware manufacturer would support Ogg Theora decoding if it were in HTML5?
We'd also have a strong case for optimisation of Ogg Theora by the leading manufacturers all adding their own optimisations to ensure longer battery life for products.
Submarine patents are a diversion - they could be found for pretty much any of the codecs or indeed any patentable technology.
(Codecs are generally just mathematical methods and shouldn't be patentable anyway! also if the compatibility clauses in European patent law had been adopted we'd be safe with such things, I digress ...).
Perhaps it's hiding a stegonagraphic code - perhaps "pwned!"?
Or was that: "In Congress, July Fourth, one thousand seven hundred and seventy six. A declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. When in the course of human events..." the entire plaintext? (that would make it a more awesome achievement as it's very short).
What's the relevance of the excision of "General" from Jefferson's original.
I would prefer the headline to stay as it is, or perhaps to be changed to "Daily Receipt of Fellatio Helps Improve Fertility".
There is research that indicates fellatio can help to improve fertility. The analysis is something along these lines: female body can attack the sperm as it's recognised as being external matter; fellatio allows the body to recognise the sperm and adapt such that the immune response is reduced.
No, I don't have a citation ...
I tried boiling water. It worked for the immediate vicinity of the hole but didn't extend to killing a large proportion. I also tried methylated spirits ... pour it down and then set fire to it. Worked OK, but the liquid in the hole thing seems flawed, perhaps it could be injected as a vapour. Fire is more fun.
Maybe a gas burner could be used to fill the nest with propane and then light it off at an exit hole? Not sure if this might be a little dangerous, YMMV.
Doesn't anyone else find that too simplistic?
The Taliban could believe, if they find they have a journo, that the eyes of the world could be focussed on them more. Surely then they could demand a huge ransom - then distribute the money to civilian causalties of American military activities. That's going to be a pretty good "we're nice guys really fighting against evil America" kind of story. If the newspapers don't report on it, the journo is useless, take out the trash ...
Killing the guy is all well and good if you've garnering lots of coverage, but then the papers move on to the next victim. Keeping him alive in captivity will probably net you more coverage in the end. Indeed treat him well and you'll get a nice "the Taliban were bad for kidnapping me but treated me with the utmost respect unlike our soldiers with the prisoners in Gitmo" type story when you let them go.
Indeed if Osama wanted to place a story in the North American press then kidnapping one of the journos and giving them an interview would be a great way to do that.
So what if they can't help everyone in a similar situation? If someone says "help me, I've been shot" do you not help them because it would be unfair since you can not help everyone in that particular situation? No, that would be an asinine thing to do.
The situation is more akin to you thinking about helping people who are shot and deciding, I'll only help people who are shot if they're Slashdot users. You then create a framework designed not to help people who are shot unless they're Slashdot users.
Yes you can't help everyone, but should you set out with the distinct policy that you shouldn't try to help everyone you find who has been shot?
It is not that they tried to help it's that they withheld such help from others when they were in a situation to help. I wouldn't chastise you for performing CPR to save a life; I would chastise you if I knew that you had simply stood next to someone in need of CPR and watched them die whilst clearly being in possession of the skills needed to attempt to save them.
Still disgusted?
Wikipedia is not rumorpedia or spread-stuff-from-the-blogosphere-pedia {{FACT}}
In other words, Wikipedia should never contain breaking news.
But Wikipedia in its current form will always contain breaking news even if it requires a {{FACT}} tag.
Wikipedia may claim that wikipedians aren't journalists and that there's no place for firsthand news reports .. but it's not actually true is it.
Simple answer: it never could be.
I think that he meant the Wikipedia Foundation and any other overseers who control the locking of topics, etc. - most people up to now have assumed good faith (!). Your link is certainly interesting though it's probably not had much coverage compared to the perception of Wikipedia as an unbiased medium.
Of course Wikipedia should have an interest in the story beyond the mere facts presented. They need to worry about copyright and tort liability for example. That kills your argument.
What you probably meant to say is that Wikipedia should have no MORAL interest in the story beyond the mere facts presented. [...]
If Wikipedia is reporting the news then they don't need to worry about tortuous infringement as news reporting is specifically disclaimed from being infringing coverage of copyrighted material. Mere presentation of facts for news reporting is allowed in all Berne Convention countries (under copyright law, it could be disallowed by other laws).
The decision to lie is hard, IMO.
Wikipedia is now clearly shown not to be the uncensored news channel we thought it was. This can have impact on the lives of many people - perhaps as an Iranian I would no longer go out in protest against the lack of democracy if Wikipedia shows that no-one else is protesting (evidence of edits in support of protest having been removed, etc.), now we must question whether Wikipedia's High-And-Mighties feel there is moral good in hiding the protests. Keeping people from protesting would probably save lives after all, at least in the short term.
What if Wikipedia misjudged it and the group killed the journalist from frustration and went after someone else instead.
It's a dangerous precedent, but yes I'd probably do the same in their situation.
Wikipedia says it happened. You really should choose a better source than a forum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz There is some pictures too on the page.
And you should read the sources more carefully. The forum post mentions in review 2 books who in turn reference sources at Bletchley park who were involved in the capture of the information via decryption of Enigma messages. They state that whilst Churchill was very guarded with use of information that was captured and whilst they knew there was going to be an attack, they didn't know where the bombing was to take place. One source says that Churchill believed the attack was on London and stayed in London on purpose.
Wikipedia could be lying about the sources, or about their content. The Bletchley sources themselves could be lying but that would require a government level conspiracy to cover up ... still possible, I'm wearing my tin-foil hat, are you?!
They have national [military] service in Switzerland don't they?
Could you specify?
Public performance immediately springs to mind. As a US-based copyright lawyer, Berne doesn't grant any rights or remedies here, and is basically useless; only the laws emanating from Congress or the courts matter.
How is public performance not a copy? It's not going to be an exact copy, granted, but it's still copying the work.
As for Berne I'm not that familiar with the methods used to ratify international treaties in the US (except one is via congress and one not, I think?) but as a signatory to Berne - on ratification - the US agrees to bind its citizens with that law.
The 1988 Implementation Act is a curious beast, Section 2 says:
"(3) The amendments made by this Act, together with the law as it exists on the date of the enactment of this Act, satisfy the obligations of the United States in adhering to the Berne Convention and no further rights or interests shall be recognized or created for that purpose.".
Indeed the BCIA 1988 appears to be solely purposed in saying the regulations as set out in Berne apply but not because Berne applies but instead because they're set out in this act. That sounds crazy to me. Perhaps you can explain it? The US is saying its citizens are not bound by Berne, despite having signed and ratified, but expect Berne to protect its citizens? If you seek redress for copyright infringement abroad, for locally created works, it is through Berne's application that you find remedy against that infringement of your right (granted by Berne in signatory countries).
If Berne doesn't have legal effect then the US is reneging against its agreement; presumably also no other international law then would have effect there?? Or is it only in respect of Berne that the US places a disclaimer that the rights conferred under the treaty do not apply?
It looks highly suspect.
Of course until a judgement is delivered neither of us is wrong! Yet.
Going back to Boyle et al. did you notice how when the guy said "just make sure it's not a Simpsons character" he wasn't challenged. The writing between the lines here [I only just found there's an audio version, noscript!, it's much clearer now] is "this is how the law should be interpreted but not how it will be". I'm not really bothered how it should, just how it's going to be if someone has the balls to call Fox (or whoever's) bluff.
Boyle of course kills any possible discussion by claiming it's too facile a situation for him to even bother to cast his mind over - he mights as well say "if Hansen disagrees he's a moron", nice logic there. But, if *you* read the transcription you'll see that Hansen doesn't respond to this point, he's not been brought into the conversation yet - he responds to a different [straw man] question about is it against the law for a kid to say 3 words from a song or for a TV to be on in the background of a documentary (I think they specified it was a docu; these refer to the Simpsons and "everybody dance now" situations presumably).
If things were as clear cut as Boyle claims then Ms. Sewel's lawyer for the movie would have said "this is the clearest possible case of fair use, EMI will be laughed out of court". Would EMI really press a case they apparently knew instantly (according to Boyle) that they would lose. Indeed Ms. Sewel's lawyer should have pressed the point and offered to work no-win-no-fee. Also note we're talking 2005 here, no cases I know of have clarified the position yet - you'd think with publicity like in the NY Times that this "case" received that someone would have had the balls by now to push back with the support of the likes of Prof Boyle and the EFF. Even if Fox (eg for the Simpsons) go after you surely the US legal system can't be so corrupt that you can't win if Boyle is right.
Here's an idea for Prof Boyle - an documentary (advert length!) on Fair Use "if a film shows a TV on in the background [over his shoulder is Simpsons showing] or a person's cellphone plays a popular tune [Rocky plays on his cellphone]...". The ad would have all the "completely obviously Fair Use" material in. Then we'd have a bit more case law to look at methinks. Perhaps the opening of Wikipedia to video clips will lead to some litigation and clear up this area.
Tangentially, I find it strange that Profs Boyle and Hansen claim to disagree about the purpose of copyright - it is of course a deal between individual and state in which Boyle and Hansen are both right: an opportunity to gain from your creative labour protected by statute in exchange for placing your work in the public domain.
[ http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-l/2005/10/msg00199.html - story with quote from Sewel about lawyers considered opinion]
[ http://blog.stayfreemagazine.org/2005/06/mad_hot_ballroo.html - ditto ]
I worked in intellectual property for the UK government. I read the entire post and did some back research on the Prof, FWIW. I've read a deal of statute and case law reports (not so many actual verdicts and far less of court transcriptions) for many aspects of US copyright law.
I agree that the situation is ludicrous that these sorts of cases should be free to use the material but in this instance I don't think Sewel would win a Fair Use case. I have the utmost respect for Prof Boyle particularly as I'm a user of CC licenses, his book is good too ( http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/182 ). I hope I'm proved wrong.
Disney are using "PINOCCHIO" (case isn't important) to indicate that the goods or services thus marked originate with them.
Then what name are people supposed to use to indicate that a doll is 1. based on a likeness from an adaptation of the 1883 novel Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi, and 2. not made by Disney?
You use "Pinocchio" for that too .. you just have to be prepared to show that you weren't passing off your goods/services as originating with Disney. Something like "based on a likeness from the novel by Carolo Collodi" in a prominent position on your box and advertising.
Your only problem then is affording to be sued, that is not a failure of this specific law but of law in general.
IANAL by any stretch of the imagination.
Purely speculating, but if it's an important work it may be on loan from a private collection.
It wasn't a translation was it?
If you're interested in what is and isn't protected in the US, I advise you to read 17 USC 102, 103, 105 and 106, and to refer to the definitions in section 101 frequently, since there are many terms of art which could trip you up.
Yes, of course I've read them; even quoted them here several times. Ditto UK law, TRIPS, Berne and sundry articles of case law from US, UK, Europe.
Disney's expression of the idea is protected by copyright.
If you copy their expression of the idea then you say you're free and clear ... good luck with that.
You can make a rendition of the _story_ but not copy the actual Disney script of that story. You can't go and buy a Snow White DVD, scrub out Disney's name and duplicate and sell it . You can't copy their presentation.
"The defendant could parade around with a banner on the courthouse steps claiming to have copied the Snow White story from Disney and no one will ever care; it won't even come up in court"
If they copied it from Disney then they copied their presentation ("expression" if you like) of that story. If they wrote a story based on the ideas that form the historic Snow White story then they no more copied from Disney than from The Brothers Grimm or whoever they copied it off.
the mere fact of copying isn't sufficient for them to win an infringement case
No, but in general parlance it's not necessary to specify "an infringing copy" and specify disclaimers as to situations in which the copying may not infringe.
Anyway, I can see we won't progress any of that.
However, I'm intrigued
Really there's a whole slew of ways to infringe a copyright that have nothing to do with copying [my emphasis]
Pray tell. I can see prima facie you might argue that, say, failure to attribute authorship fits here (Berne Art6bis); but that would be wilful ignorance as its failure to attribute authorship /on a copy/.
Could you specify?
(PS: Where do you practice? What's your field?)
If the music clip is being used commercially it's not fair use -
Dude, don't repeat internet folklore as if it were a serious legal authority. This bit of folklore is popular amongst people who like to believe that re-using content is OK as long as they don't make money off it. Has no basis in fact.
I have never nor would ever make that claim. Making money off something doesn't make it commercial use, for example denying the owner of a work their commercial exploitation by giving away said work. You may have a insightful comment but slurring me by claiming I'd endorse that sort of weak trashy argument is not necessary. I think perhaps you're making the fallacy of the excluded middle here?
If I affect your commercial exploitation of your work by it's use, except in the limited fair use exceptions (in the US) criticism/news reporting/parody then that is not a fair use.
Here's an interview with two lawyers (one of them extremely pro-industry) who both endorse the idea that documentary use is fair use. The even cite that ring tone as a classic example:
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2006/05/19/07
OK, Boyle is a professor of law, but I think he's wrong in this instance. If the music were a simple clip that was captured and incidental to the scene then it would not matter what music it was. The director shot herself in the foot - she says it's an essential element, the specific theme, to that scene. Without that particular music the scene would not have worked. That's not incidental. Nor is it an insubstantial part - again if it were it wouldn't set the mood the director is trying to create.
If the director had said "it didn't matter what ring tone it was" then she could have claimed it as an incidental capture.
Incidentally I don't think this is just only that it is the reading that I would expect a court to give based on US law.