That would be the Berne convention of 1886, signed into law in the US in 1989.. they sure were speedy to ensure they were compatible with the rest of the world!
You need to familiarize yourself with the UCC and it's intended purpose. It is after all, the thing that brought about the copyright act of 1976- 20 years after we signed and ratified it in 1955. The UCC was an alternative to the berne convention for countries that didn't like the language of the Berne convention.
Wow, so I didn't mention something so that means I know nothing about it. It was a short./ post not a copyright treatise.
Berne is a copyright framework and sets the term to "authors life + 50 years" or for photos +25 years from creation or films +50 years from showing (roughly).
You need to familarize yourself with the Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC) that the EU implemented in 1993.
Yup, and what's your point - European directives don't apply to US juridictions so how does this have a bearing on whether a company may have provided fiscal incentives to US elected officials?
I just disagree with the ignorance behind blaming everything on Disney and corrupt politicians. In fact, the blame was never even placed on Disney until it was pointed out that they would benefit in Eldred v. Ashcroft.
BTW, you really don't know about the copyright terms do you?
No, but nor was I attempting to blame Disney. You're clearly a logical person but you've slipped up a little. You claimed that Disney couldn't have had any input because it was simply due to the US ratifying the Berne Convention that copyright terms were extended. I countermanded with the note showing that the US were signatories long after Disney could have an influence and that they implemented a substantially longer term than required with Berne (so what if other economic zones have too, compatibility in legislation is hardly a force majeur in the drafting of US law from what I can see).
The copyright for a corporation is 120 from creation or 95 years from publication, whichever is shortest. Disney cannot switch to the 120 years for anything they have published.
Yeah, I can see how that's no better than 50 years from first presentation (for films) required under Berne. Regardless, Sonny Bono 'Act is hardly supporting your argument that Disney could never have influenced political decisions on copyright terms.
They also cannot create something, sit on it for 60 years, publish it and expect any more then the remainder of the 120 years (60) for copyright protection.
Nor would they want to, their business is selling artistic works not keeping them in a file somewhere.
Also, the EU directive pulled things in the public domain back under copyright if it was within the time allotted. Do you really think Disney would have ignored that when bribing the senators into creating and passing the law? You got to be fucking joking if you do. That would make Disney the BigEvil greedy corp that was not greedy.
A similar but equally blinkered mistake Slashdotters make is assuming that their personal circumstances, obsessions and/or needs should hold more sway than they do in the market because they represent those of the population in general. Either because it hadn't occurred otherwise to them or because they think they *are* average when they're far from it.
You'll be trying to tell us next that there are people no longer living in their parent's basement by the time they are 40.
That would be the Berne convention of 1886, signed into law in the US in 1989.. they sure were speedy to ensure they were compatible with the rest of the world!
Berne is a copyright framework and sets the term to "authors life + 50 years" or for photos +25 years from creation or films +50 years from showing (roughly).
What's the term in the US now? "authors life + 70" or 120 years??
So definitely no scope there for a pay-off from the likes of Disney.
So for Mickey Mouse, a film character, copyright would expire about 1980 under the prescribed terms. Has Mickey become public domain yet? Author's life + 70 would make it 2030 (ish) but no there's cunningly a 120 year term which puts us to 2050. So that's only 70 years more... but think of Walt Disney's livelihood, he must need that money to help him create new cartoons...
Sorry, the bit about needing a lawyer.. just because something appears to be legal doesn't mean you can't be sued for doing it. I can't really see a TV station suing schools for showing the inaugaration but strange things happen.
IANAL, it was not intended to be a troll but a slightly ascerbic observation on the state of copyright. The variables are too great for me to guess whether the proposals are infringing behaviour. My suspicion is that if the signals can be received over the air (or by satellite, cable) from the providers agents (eg local cable company) that setting up a secondary transmission (eg buffering an internet feed and relaying on the school network) will be a copyright infringement and hence be tortuous malfeasance.
The bits of law I linked too show that there are some exceptions for educational establishments that are showing TV as a regular part of a course (which this isn't really, but might be argued to be - "we always show inaugarations") provided guidelines are adhered too. Those guidelines include providing materials and a talk on copyright infringement as a part of the same course.
Assuming the guidelines are followed there are further technical restrictions which include deleting a show once it has been shown in the "class" and also preventing access to a show from anyone outside of enrolled students and school staff (make sure not to invite any parents or not yet enrolled students).
Why not watch one with say 5 minutes of the stations commentary and have a recording of another station and watch same on that. Then you could compare the stations, discuss what was and wasn't shown and highlight how much power the media have to influence us. That would be a lesson and a half.
No, I don't really think this would work in high school.
Of course you'll need to make sure you've got a license to present the broadcast! Oh and if you choose to use a PC relaying a broadcast (from the internet or from a TV signal) then you'll need to purchase "secondary transmission" rights...
In the US 17USC111 (a)(5) appears to give a publicly funded school a pass on this. But it does say under ibid (a)(2) that you must comply with 17USC110 (2) which at (2)(D)(ii)(I)(aa) [!] requires that any digital copy is deleted before the end of the classroom session. Oh and you'll need to "[provide] notice to students that materials used in connection with the course may be subject to copyright protection".
Sounds like you need a good lawyer. I hope the TV stations band together and sue all the schools! Justice must be done!!
Yea, yea, powering a 10,000 square foot house that functions as the home and office of a guy worth in excess of 100,000,000 dollars...How dare he use a ton of electricity!
Seriously.
Who forced him to have that home. Just because you can afford to waste resources doesn't mean you should. It doesn't matter how much money he has - he can't buy us a new planet now can he.
If your neighbour painted the wall opposite your house with a giant-sized Goatse image, then you'd maybe see...
Re:Yeah but KDE doesn't work.
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
Qt 4 used Xrender heavily, and Nvidia's driver had a piss-poor Xrender implementation. The forthcoming Qt 4.5 is supposed to move away from using Xrender all over the place, and the latest Nvidia driver has much better Xrender support to boot. openSUSE even provides a repo with weekly snapshots of the KDE 4.2 branch compiled against the weekly snapshots of Qt 4.5.
Kubuntu does seem particularly bad with KDE4 compared with OpenSUSE as far as slickness of presentation goes, I'm using suppurating edge however.
But, Xrender is an option in the Kwin settings.. so I've always used OpenGL (think that was default). Can't see that would mean Xrender was used too?!?
They've made KDE4 in pretty short time, it's a from the bottom rewrite, can't imagine porting Gnome to QT4 would take longer than porting KDE^w^w rewriting KDE to^w for QT4, especially with Canonical on the case.
I'm not a dev, I'm sure you'll let me know why and how I'm so wrong...
from the BTQ website: "While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular,.."
Begs the question why nobody has ever called me "a hardcore descriptivist"!:P
It's supposed to have better autocomplete or something, and the drop-down displays the cached HTML title of the page in addition to the URL.
I had reservations about the "awesome bar" (yuck!) because I was entrenched in a different use pattern consistent with the older style address bar.
Having the page title helps to choose the right page, better IMO. The search also uses some page text I think and so can match for pages with a poor title/url as long as you remember some of the content. The autocomplete enables the most often chosen items for a given string to bubble-up and so "d" takes me to digg but also to thedailywtf.
So IMO it does have better autocomplete, once it has learnt your choices for your short strings so that "s" pops up slashdot before seomoz, etc..
Many "family computers" really have no need of the separation between accounts.[...] Our kids use it too, mostly for games and tux paint. They are young enough they don't really need a separate account (the oldest is in grade 1).
My lad is 3 and has been using the computer since he was 2, he uses it for iPlayer (CBBC progs mainly), with help to look at things on youtube (volcanoes erupting today, again) and for gCompris, he also tries supertuxkart ("tux racing") and supertux ("tux walking") but prefers to sit on my lap and fire rockets/fireballs whilst I play.
Anyhow... he will now switch on, open Firefox (large logo on desktop) and navigate to iplayer (toolbar icon) and then choose a CBBC program to watch. That makes me nervous, occassionally I seem him clicking around to see what stuff does, which is kinda great. But I'm thinking very soon he'll need to be on a separate account away from being able to delete all my work files!
Slashdot Mirror
So in summary (Sumdumass responding to Tepples):
Actually, no Disney didn't pay US senators a bunch of money to make copyright work well over the human lifespan.
Is simply your guess and that as I asserted it is a possible scenario.
You need to familiarize yourself with the UCC and it's intended purpose. It is after all, the thing that brought about the copyright act of 1976- 20 years after we signed and ratified it in 1955. The UCC was an alternative to the berne convention for countries that didn't like the language of the Berne convention.
Wow, so I didn't mention something so that means I know nothing about it. It was a short ./ post not a copyright treatise.
You need to familarize yourself with the Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC) that the EU implemented in 1993.
Yup, and what's your point - European directives don't apply to US juridictions so how does this have a bearing on whether a company may have provided fiscal incentives to US elected officials?
I just disagree with the ignorance behind blaming everything on Disney and corrupt politicians. In fact, the blame was never even placed on Disney until it was pointed out that they would benefit in Eldred v. Ashcroft.
BTW, you really don't know about the copyright terms do you?
No, but nor was I attempting to blame Disney. You're clearly a logical person but you've slipped up a little. You claimed that Disney couldn't have had any input because it was simply due to the US ratifying the Berne Convention that copyright terms were extended. I countermanded with the note showing that the US were signatories long after Disney could have an influence and that they implemented a substantially longer term than required with Berne (so what if other economic zones have too, compatibility in legislation is hardly a force majeur in the drafting of US law from what I can see).
The copyright for a corporation is 120 from creation or 95 years from publication, whichever is shortest. Disney cannot switch to the 120 years for anything they have published.
Yeah, I can see how that's no better than 50 years from first presentation (for films) required under Berne. Regardless, Sonny Bono 'Act is hardly supporting your argument that Disney could never have influenced political decisions on copyright terms.
They also cannot create something, sit on it for 60 years, publish it and expect any more then the remainder of the 120 years (60) for copyright protection.
Nor would they want to, their business is selling artistic works not keeping them in a file somewhere.
Also, the EU directive pulled things in the public domain back under copyright if it was within the time allotted. Do you really think Disney would have ignored that when bribing the senators into creating and passing the law? You got to be fucking joking if you do. That would make Disney the BigEvil greedy corp that was not greedy.
Again, how is that relevant to the US position.
A similar but equally blinkered mistake Slashdotters make is assuming that their personal circumstances, obsessions and/or needs should hold more sway than they do in the market because they represent those of the population in general. Either because it hadn't occurred otherwise to them or because they think they *are* average when they're far from it.
You'll be trying to tell us next that there are people no longer living in their parent's basement by the time they are 40.
I don't buy it.
That would be the Berne convention of 1886, signed into law in the US in 1989 .. they sure were speedy to ensure they were compatible with the rest of the world!
Berne is a copyright framework and sets the term to "authors life + 50 years" or for photos +25 years from creation or films +50 years from showing (roughly).
What's the term in the US now? "authors life + 70" or 120 years??
So definitely no scope there for a pay-off from the likes of Disney.
So for Mickey Mouse, a film character, copyright would expire about 1980 under the prescribed terms. Has Mickey become public domain yet? Author's life + 70 would make it 2030 (ish) but no there's cunningly a 120 year term which puts us to 2050. So that's only 70 years more ... but think of Walt Disney's livelihood, he must need that money to help him create new cartoons ...
Oh, wait ...
[...] so figure out where I fit in your slashmarket research.
Somewhere in the middle.
Sorry, the bit about needing a lawyer .. just because something appears to be legal doesn't mean you can't be sued for doing it. I can't really see a TV station suing schools for showing the inaugaration but strange things happen.
The UK Police (http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/14487.cfm, amongst others, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm) got in trouble for listening to commercial free-to-air radio at work without a license.
IANAL, it was not intended to be a troll but a slightly ascerbic observation on the state of copyright. The variables are too great for me to guess whether the proposals are infringing behaviour. My suspicion is that if the signals can be received over the air (or by satellite, cable) from the providers agents (eg local cable company) that setting up a secondary transmission (eg buffering an internet feed and relaying on the school network) will be a copyright infringement and hence be tortuous malfeasance.
The bits of law I linked too show that there are some exceptions for educational establishments that are showing TV as a regular part of a course (which this isn't really, but might be argued to be - "we always show inaugarations") provided guidelines are adhered too. Those guidelines include providing materials and a talk on copyright infringement as a part of the same course.
Assuming the guidelines are followed there are further technical restrictions which include deleting a show once it has been shown in the "class" and also preventing access to a show from anyone outside of enrolled students and school staff (make sure not to invite any parents or not yet enrolled students).
Perhaps it is a troll.
Yup, mod 'em up boys. Mod 'em up.
Why not watch one with say 5 minutes of the stations commentary and have a recording of another station and watch same on that. Then you could compare the stations, discuss what was and wasn't shown and highlight how much power the media have to influence us. That would be a lesson and a half.
No, I don't really think this would work in high school.
Of course you'll need to make sure you've got a license to present the broadcast! Oh and if you choose to use a PC relaying a broadcast (from the internet or from a TV signal) then you'll need to purchase "secondary transmission" rights ...
In the US 17USC111 (a)(5) appears to give a publicly funded school a pass on this. But it does say under ibid (a)(2) that you must comply with 17USC110 (2) which at (2)(D)(ii)(I)(aa) [!] requires that any digital copy is deleted before the end of the classroom session. Oh and you'll need to "[provide] notice to students that materials used in connection with the course may be subject to copyright protection".
Sounds like you need a good lawyer. I hope the TV stations band together and sue all the schools! Justice must be done!!
US law: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/111.html
US law: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/110.html
Worldwide situations: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/C/htmlC/copyrightlaw/copyrightlaw.htm
UK licensing: http://www.gla.ac.uk/copyright/video.htm
Yea, yea, powering a 10,000 square foot house that functions as the home and office of a guy worth in excess of 100,000,000 dollars...How dare he use a ton of electricity!
Seriously.
Who forced him to have that home. Just because you can afford to waste resources doesn't mean you should. It doesn't matter how much money he has - he can't buy us a new planet now can he.
If your neighbour painted the wall opposite your house with a giant-sized Goatse image, then you'd maybe see ...
Qt 4 used Xrender heavily, and Nvidia's driver had a piss-poor Xrender implementation. The forthcoming Qt 4.5 is supposed to move away from using Xrender all over the place, and the latest Nvidia driver has much better Xrender support to boot. openSUSE even provides a repo with weekly snapshots of the KDE 4.2 branch compiled against the weekly snapshots of Qt 4.5.
Kubuntu does seem particularly bad with KDE4 compared with OpenSUSE as far as slickness of presentation goes, I'm using suppurating edge however.
But, Xrender is an option in the Kwin settings .. so I've always used OpenGL (think that was default). Can't see that would mean Xrender was used too?!?
They've made KDE4 in pretty short time, it's a from the bottom rewrite, can't imagine porting Gnome to QT4 would take longer than porting KDE^w^w rewriting KDE to^w for QT4, especially with Canonical on the case.
I'm not a dev, I'm sure you'll let me know why and how I'm so wrong ...
Go ahead, mod me offtopic, but somebody has to do it.
http://begthequestion.info/
from the BTQ website: "While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, .."
Begs the question why nobody has ever called me "a hardcore descriptivist"! :P
It's supposed to have better autocomplete or something, and the drop-down displays the cached HTML title of the page in addition to the URL.
I had reservations about the "awesome bar" (yuck!) because I was entrenched in a different use pattern consistent with the older style address bar.
Having the page title helps to choose the right page, better IMO. The search also uses some page text I think and so can match for pages with a poor title/url as long as you remember some of the content. The autocomplete enables the most often chosen items for a given string to bubble-up and so "d" takes me to digg but also to thedailywtf.
So IMO it does have better autocomplete, once it has learnt your choices for your short strings so that "s" pops up slashdot before seomoz, etc..
Many "family computers" really have no need of the separation between accounts.[...] Our kids use it too, mostly for games and tux paint. They are young enough they don't really need a separate account (the oldest is in grade 1).
My lad is 3 and has been using the computer since he was 2, he uses it for iPlayer (CBBC progs mainly), with help to look at things on youtube (volcanoes erupting today, again) and for gCompris, he also tries supertuxkart ("tux racing") and supertux ("tux walking") but prefers to sit on my lap and fire rockets/fireballs whilst I play.
Anyhow ... he will now switch on, open Firefox (large logo on desktop) and navigate to iplayer (toolbar icon) and then choose a CBBC program to watch. That makes me nervous, occassionally I seem him clicking around to see what stuff does, which is kinda great. But I'm thinking very soon he'll need to be on a separate account away from being able to delete all my work files!
FWIW.
Kdawson made the phone calls to confirm this before posting it.
What is netcrafts phone number?
Of course you mean zero-size sigs, which are not equivalent to no sig ...
Curious sig
--
.
Mod the parent up, they actually read part of the summary .. after posting, but hey.
At least I'm pretty sure it must be in the summary somewhere.
Thanks for your comments.
Copyright in a work of authorship, on the other hand, is automatic in all Berne Convention member states.
Yes, one must apply for a patent, but one automatically gains copyright upon creation of a new work of artistic expression.
Good luck pursuing your copyright or patent infringement claim in Kyrgyzstan, Namibia, Papua-New-Guinea, ...
Perhaps the article wasn't controversial enough and he wanted to garner a few more ad impressions knowing that this would rile some of us.
Um, 3) Profit.
I believe that only copyright is international.
There's an international Patent Cooperation Treaty to which 139 countries are signatories. One learns something new everyday!
http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/treaty/about.htm
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=6