Remind me how it benefits the public to protect or even recognize the existence of 'moral rights' at all?
Anyone that writes anything (a business plan, say), makes a performance or performs a work (poem, monologue, photo) gains protection for themselves. You're right those selves are individual creators but they together amount to the populace (the public).
Personally I find it befits common decency to acknowledge a mans work as his own and to not slander a person by altering and falsely attributing their work. Such common decency affords a certain standard of civilisation, which "the public" benefit from.
I've read such docs as your summary before - it's obviously an important issue. The writer rather over exerts himself:
"Aisha did not know her precise age, and in fact, it was not a feature of her socio-cultural milieu to be accurately aware of one’s age in the way that we are accustomed to in today’s bureaucratized society"
She had to have very little concept of years to mistake 6 for 16. This is contrary to the reports of her being rather intelligent. She would know from simple observation that teenagers have developed breasts and children (in those times) and preteens have neither.
I find the arguments that attempt to appease modern sensibilities on Mohammed's paedophilia and his rape of captured women (say) to be at once unconvincing and destructive of any notion that the Koran and hadith bear any plain historical verity.
My choice of webpage was simply the last one I'd read on the subject, 2 days ago.
Ignoring the discussion and focussing on the hadith quotes here http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/muhammad-pedophile . We find that the hadith reports Aisha saying she was still playing with dolls and using a play swing when the Prophet chose to consummate the marriage (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234).
It would be quite strange for the child to be so old as you suggest and not be promised to anyone; not that that would have bothered Mohammed.
If that isn't clear enough then you might note that it being common practice in Arabia to leave off the most significant digits in ages would lead to a lot of confusion - you'd expect Professors to note such confusion at least in passing especially as, if the GP is to be believed, there is overwhelming evidence that Aisha was not 6/9.
I assume you have an extremely strong list of citations for "it was common for arabs to leave the tens digit off of numbers when they thought the magnitude was obvious" as it refutes umteen scholarly articles that I've read on the subject.
"There are other contemporaneous references that also suggest Aisha was significantly older than 7"
Daily newspapers can commission the same authors/reporters to spend the same amount as the Economist does if they wish. They do not wish to. The fact that a publication is daily is not the reason they spend less time on articles. They could announce a scoop and then produce a proper article later.
A publisher can then cease to publish your work for 5 years and thus do away with copyright restrictions, they then republish without paying you (the author). You need to work in protection against such abuse IMO. Not that it would be widespread, as copyright works tend to be catching the zeitgeist, but it would be abused.
If I work 30 years on a book the publisher isn't going to worry about waiting 5 to get that book for free.
Personally I would keep a lengthy period of protection of moral rights and otherwise harmonise with patent terms.
Authors and their kin or estate would have the ability to protect their right to be named as author and to prevent modifications. They would, after say 20 years, lose the right of monopoly of reproduction. After that time anyone could reprint their work with a note something along the lines "reproduced without authority of the author".
I don't think it is fair to allow after 20 years, against the authors wish, someone to simply take the work wholesale and re-label it as their own.
If the Pirate Parties terms stand then a media corp can simply sit on your book/film/song for 5 years and then print it without paying you anything claiming themselves as authors.
>my sister was very upset that someone wrote a sequel to Gone With the Wind, because the original author didn't want a sequel to be written (it was written after her death). That could have been prevented with modern copyright law.
With respect, you're wrong. Unless there is a specific provision in the USC for this, there is none in Europe.
The mega-crop media rights holders use trademarks to protect such things. There is no protection of characters or character names in copyright you can create a sequel or fanfic without infringing the original work.
The chances are they could have seen the helicopter but were not aware of its presence a couple of km away and so didn't know to look. They do, as you rightly say, know to attempt to conceal the weapon - indeed it's mere presence is not enough to warrant the helo to fire. It is only when the men with the RPG and rounds and AK's take cover (relative to the convoy) and start peaking around the wall at the APCs that they (helicopters) are released to fire.
Certainly to me this is abyssmal - I'm not trying to offer excuses I'm trying to determine the truth of what happened aside from the spin of either Wikileaks or others.
All I can say is that the ROE allow it and have been designed with information about hundreds of such incidents in the past. They do not know whether the van is bringing reinforcements or otherwise; it was not marked as an ambulance.
To attempt to turn Yahoo down and go with a worse offer from Google? Surely Yahoo will never look at them again and Google will have cut their offer from the original that was considered not good enough. I can't really see your interpretation being right.
>When asked if this would include sites such as Wikileaks, ministers said yes, it would, as the material they leak is copyrighted by its original owners. They were quick to point out that they wouldn't use it to infringe on freedom of speech though.
That's worthless rhetoric - the US gov hold the copyright and it will be illegal in the UK fo the gov to prevent the US gov from having Wikileaks cut off from UK access. Unless they change the law.
On an unrelated point: I'm wondering when Mandelson is taking receipt of his new private island and lear jet courtesy of the record companies.
>Then they would be able to tell your ISP to cut your internet connection off if they caught you doing it again.
It was widely touted that there would be 3 strikes - 3 warnings breached and then you're cut off, or at least the location of your alleged infringement is cut-off along with anyone at that location. However, the law itself said something like "a number", so "zero is a number" is likely to be the call of the rights holders against anyone using P2P ports for any purposes.
Now, some that guy is now behind that wall where the camera operator is crouching taking a picture of an allied APC http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA?page=41 (possible it seems for bragging rights later based on that photogs other shots). If I were wanting to blow that up I'd crouch by the wall for cover to observe then move and fire - the pilots appear to believe the armed men are going to fire imminently and clearly become urgent to remove the threat. The taking of photos is the precursor to the RPG being used.
I think he means in depth knowledge of what constitutes reason for allowing firing on the insurgents vs withholding fire.
For example the insurgents can tell if they walk with children or women, in a smaller group and can conceal the RPG and extra rounds in a vehicle or cart (rather than swinging them around) then they likely won't be fired on before they attack the ground patrols.
It's not the cameraman behind the wall that is the threat. It's the guy with the loaded RPG and his friends with AK47 covering him. The photog that died just after taking the images of the passing patrol, as his buddy stood behind with the RPG, had form of being extremely intimate with the insurgents and off taking very good propaganda shots for them.
TBH I was ready to assume that this was all badass American youngsters killing obvious civilians as if playing a video game but on closer inspection apart from some disturbing verbal exchanges this seems to be warrantable action against obviously armed enemy preparing to hit an allied convoy/patrol with RPG rounds.
It's not pretty by any stretch, it's certainly war, bloody and atrocious.
That guy is now behind that wall (ie they have cover WRT the convoy) where the photog is crouching taking a picture of an allied APC (http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA?page=41 ; possible it seems for bragging rights later). If I were wanting to blow that up I'd crouch by the wall for cover to observe then move and fire - the pilots appear to believe the armed men are going to fire imminently and clearly become urgent to remove the threat.
The pilots urgency is warranted IMO. The helicopters were called in as support, they are supporting and taking out an active threat in the process of targeting allied vehicles - if they weren't doing that then they'd be covering a medevac a minute or so later.
The insurgents don't react to the presence of the two helicopters as they are about 2000m or so away, observe the delay between the helo firing (sound) and the impact of the bullets in the video's view. Also note at one point one of the helo pilots states he lacks a shot due to wall cover and the other that he has a low azimuth warning preventing weapons firing. In short they are at distance and flying low.
I suspect the BBC could have made a lot of money with decent contracts here that reduced the initial take and allowed the BBC to sell access rights on a per show basis to ex-UK viewers.
Probably the BBC toffs still made a lot of money so don't suppose they'll care. Their actions make things look more and more like a scam all the time to me - not sure of the details but it seems the BBC commission shows from their or their friends production companies, they don't appear to employ the show makers but employ the companies (why?). Even very long running shows are bought from outside. I was surprised to find, Top Gear or Gardeners Question Time (radio show) to be bought in, that can't be economical for the British public surely.
where employees are aware that copyrighted materials were being posted and not only did absolutely nothing, they were laughing about it.
But it was employees of the copyright holders that were also doing that at the same time - and even when those without the rights to distribute were "allowing" that to happen they were still profiting (in the sense of money and reputation) the copyright holders.
But in this case Viacom is complicit in the upload of video files for streaming. Basically whilst YouTube has violated copyrights by the letter it has actually benefitted the monopoly rights holders who have made more money from the spread of their works. YouTube is now reigned in but the media corps are happy to benefit from what would, and IMO could, not have happened had YouTube not grown in this way of overlooking users rights violations until rights owners declared their interest in removal of works.
If you were selling your software, somebody leaked it and it became a de-facto standard resulting in many millions of pounds of sales for you then you'd be legally able to claim copyright infringement damaged you. When it was found that in fact some of the leaked copies originated from you...
That is why GPL violations are evil and this sort of thing can be considered not to be - because for profit sales are considered to be motivated solely by the profit and not by the source of the profit. Whilst GPL reproduction is considered to be centred around the moral rights to control distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have thought a cosmic ray flipped an important bit.
Remind me how it benefits the public to protect or even recognize the existence of 'moral rights' at all?
Anyone that writes anything (a business plan, say), makes a performance or performs a work (poem, monologue, photo) gains protection for themselves. You're right those selves are individual creators but they together amount to the populace (the public).
Personally I find it befits common decency to acknowledge a mans work as his own and to not slander a person by altering and falsely attributing their work. Such common decency affords a certain standard of civilisation, which "the public" benefit from.
I've read such docs as your summary before - it's obviously an important issue. The writer rather over exerts himself:
"Aisha did not know her precise age, and in fact, it was not a feature of her socio-cultural milieu to be accurately aware of one’s age in the way that we are accustomed to in today’s bureaucratized society"
She had to have very little concept of years to mistake 6 for 16. This is contrary to the reports of her being rather intelligent. She would know from simple observation that teenagers have developed breasts and children (in those times) and preteens have neither.
I find the arguments that attempt to appease modern sensibilities on Mohammed's paedophilia and his rape of captured women (say) to be at once unconvincing and destructive of any notion that the Koran and hadith bear any plain historical verity.
My choice of webpage was simply the last one I'd read on the subject, 2 days ago.
Ignoring the discussion and focussing on the hadith quotes here http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/muhammad-pedophile . We find that the hadith reports Aisha saying she was still playing with dolls and using a play swing when the Prophet chose to consummate the marriage (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234).
It would be quite strange for the child to be so old as you suggest and not be promised to anyone; not that that would have bothered Mohammed.
The antecedent to "the subject" is Aisha's age.
If that isn't clear enough then you might note that it being common practice in Arabia to leave off the most significant digits in ages would lead to a lot of confusion - you'd expect Professors to note such confusion at least in passing especially as, if the GP is to be believed, there is overwhelming evidence that Aisha was not 6/9.
He should really have been in a Porky Pig outfit though, no?
Um, she was 6 at the age of marriage, and 9 at the age of consummation - http://www.homa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=55
I assume you have an extremely strong list of citations for "it was common for arabs to leave the tens digit off of numbers when they thought the magnitude was obvious" as it refutes umteen scholarly articles that I've read on the subject.
"There are other contemporaneous references that also suggest Aisha was significantly older than 7"
Go on.
Daily newspapers can commission the same authors/reporters to spend the same amount as the Economist does if they wish. They do not wish to. The fact that a publication is daily is not the reason they spend less time on articles. They could announce a scoop and then produce a proper article later.
A publisher can then cease to publish your work for 5 years and thus do away with copyright restrictions, they then republish without paying you (the author). You need to work in protection against such abuse IMO. Not that it would be widespread, as copyright works tend to be catching the zeitgeist, but it would be abused.
If I work 30 years on a book the publisher isn't going to worry about waiting 5 to get that book for free.
Personally I would keep a lengthy period of protection of moral rights and otherwise harmonise with patent terms.
Authors and their kin or estate would have the ability to protect their right to be named as author and to prevent modifications. They would, after say 20 years, lose the right of monopoly of reproduction. After that time anyone could reprint their work with a note something along the lines "reproduced without authority of the author".
I don't think it is fair to allow after 20 years, against the authors wish, someone to simply take the work wholesale and re-label it as their own.
If the Pirate Parties terms stand then a media corp can simply sit on your book/film/song for 5 years and then print it without paying you anything claiming themselves as authors.
>my sister was very upset that someone wrote a sequel to Gone With the Wind, because the original author didn't want a sequel to be written (it was written after her death). That could have been prevented with modern copyright law.
With respect, you're wrong. Unless there is a specific provision in the USC for this, there is none in Europe.
The mega-crop media rights holders use trademarks to protect such things. There is no protection of characters or character names in copyright you can create a sequel or fanfic without infringing the original work.
The chances are they could have seen the helicopter but were not aware of its presence a couple of km away and so didn't know to look. They do, as you rightly say, know to attempt to conceal the weapon - indeed it's mere presence is not enough to warrant the helo to fire. It is only when the men with the RPG and rounds and AK's take cover (relative to the convoy) and start peaking around the wall at the APCs that they (helicopters) are released to fire.
Certainly to me this is abyssmal - I'm not trying to offer excuses I'm trying to determine the truth of what happened aside from the spin of either Wikileaks or others.
All I can say is that the ROE allow it and have been designed with information about hundreds of such incidents in the past. They do not know whether the van is bringing reinforcements or otherwise; it was not marked as an ambulance.
It is sad.
To attempt to turn Yahoo down and go with a worse offer from Google? Surely Yahoo will never look at them again and Google will have cut their offer from the original that was considered not good enough. I can't really see your interpretation being right.
>When asked if this would include sites such as Wikileaks, ministers said yes, it would, as the material they leak is copyrighted by its original owners. They were quick to point out that they wouldn't use it to infringe on freedom of speech though.
That's worthless rhetoric - the US gov hold the copyright and it will be illegal in the UK fo the gov to prevent the US gov from having Wikileaks cut off from UK access. Unless they change the law.
On an unrelated point: I'm wondering when Mandelson is taking receipt of his new private island and lear jet courtesy of the record companies.
>Then they would be able to tell your ISP to cut your internet connection off if they caught you doing it again.
It was widely touted that there would be 3 strikes - 3 warnings breached and then you're cut off, or at least the location of your alleged infringement is cut-off along with anyone at that location. However, the law itself said something like "a number", so "zero is a number" is likely to be the call of the rights holders against anyone using P2P ports for any purposes.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100407/debtext/100407-0026.htm#10040767000001 links to the debate yesterday I gather.
Why can't they just scan it, preserve any information that's vested in the documents and then sell it.
You mean the guy turning around at 3:45 doesn't have an RPG? Look at http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php
Now, some that guy is now behind that wall where the camera operator is crouching taking a picture of an allied APC http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA?page=41 (possible it seems for bragging rights later based on that photogs other shots). If I were wanting to blow that up I'd crouch by the wall for cover to observe then move and fire - the pilots appear to believe the armed men are going to fire imminently and clearly become urgent to remove the threat. The taking of photos is the precursor to the RPG being used.
I think he means in depth knowledge of what constitutes reason for allowing firing on the insurgents vs withholding fire.
For example the insurgents can tell if they walk with children or women, in a smaller group and can conceal the RPG and extra rounds in a vehicle or cart (rather than swinging them around) then they likely won't be fired on before they attack the ground patrols.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php
It's not the cameraman behind the wall that is the threat. It's the guy with the loaded RPG and his friends with AK47 covering him. The photog that died just after taking the images of the passing patrol, as his buddy stood behind with the RPG, had form of being extremely intimate with the insurgents and off taking very good propaganda shots for them.
TBH I was ready to assume that this was all badass American youngsters killing obvious civilians as if playing a video game but on closer inspection apart from some disturbing verbal exchanges this seems to be warrantable action against obviously armed enemy preparing to hit an allied convoy/patrol with RPG rounds.
It's not pretty by any stretch, it's certainly war, bloody and atrocious.
You mean the guy turning around at 3:45 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0#t=3m40s doesn't have an RPG? Look at http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php, still believe that.
That guy is now behind that wall (ie they have cover WRT the convoy) where the photog is crouching taking a picture of an allied APC (http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA?page=41 ; possible it seems for bragging rights later). If I were wanting to blow that up I'd crouch by the wall for cover to observe then move and fire - the pilots appear to believe the armed men are going to fire imminently and clearly become urgent to remove the threat.
The pilots urgency is warranted IMO. The helicopters were called in as support, they are supporting and taking out an active threat in the process of targeting allied vehicles - if they weren't doing that then they'd be covering a medevac a minute or so later.
The insurgents don't react to the presence of the two helicopters as they are about 2000m or so away, observe the delay between the helo firing (sound) and the impact of the bullets in the video's view. Also note at one point one of the helo pilots states he lacks a shot due to wall cover and the other that he has a low azimuth warning preventing weapons firing. In short they are at distance and flying low.
I suspect the BBC could have made a lot of money with decent contracts here that reduced the initial take and allowed the BBC to sell access rights on a per show basis to ex-UK viewers.
Probably the BBC toffs still made a lot of money so don't suppose they'll care. Their actions make things look more and more like a scam all the time to me - not sure of the details but it seems the BBC commission shows from their or their friends production companies, they don't appear to employ the show makers but employ the companies (why?). Even very long running shows are bought from outside. I was surprised to find, Top Gear or Gardeners Question Time (radio show) to be bought in, that can't be economical for the British public surely.
where employees are aware that copyrighted materials were being posted and not only did absolutely nothing, they were laughing about it.
But it was employees of the copyright holders that were also doing that at the same time - and even when those without the rights to distribute were "allowing" that to happen they were still profiting (in the sense of money and reputation) the copyright holders.
But in this case Viacom is complicit in the upload of video files for streaming. Basically whilst YouTube has violated copyrights by the letter it has actually benefitted the monopoly rights holders who have made more money from the spread of their works. YouTube is now reigned in but the media corps are happy to benefit from what would, and IMO could, not have happened had YouTube not grown in this way of overlooking users rights violations until rights owners declared their interest in removal of works.
If you were selling your software, somebody leaked it and it became a de-facto standard resulting in many millions of pounds of sales for you then you'd be legally able to claim copyright infringement damaged you. When it was found that in fact some of the leaked copies originated from you...
That is why GPL violations are evil and this sort of thing can be considered not to be - because for profit sales are considered to be motivated solely by the profit and not by the source of the profit. Whilst GPL reproduction is considered to be centred around the moral rights to control distribution.