Monster complaining that they're being bullied is rich.
Now they know how the legions of companies they've gone after for completely unrelated reasons feel.
They've deserved this for a very long time. It's nice to know that the boot they're feeling is being administered by a company big enough to not even remotely care how they feel about it.
There's one important element of these leaks that I've never seen anyone comment on: it's all well and good to hack a weak password, but how do these people wind up getting their hands on lists of celebrities' private email addresses? It's not like you can just throw some terms at Google and come up with anything useful.
Even if he flat out stole the thing, 1973 was almost 40 years ago -- long past any statute of limitations. So where's the justification in trying to force him to return it?
It looks to me like the Copyright Office accepted the renewal. Had they not, the record would/should show the original registration only, and you would be left to compute that since the original copyright was filed in 1954 and was not renewed, that the work was now in the public domain.
Also, the link you posted was for The Broken Sword, not for Brainwave.
About 12 years ago, I contacted PG because I was doing some work with pulp stories from the '30's that were public domain, and would have been great to get on the site. While they were a really flaky outfit to deal with, they did have a number of paranoid copyright attorneys at the top of the structure that carefully vetted anything that was even proposed to be included on the site.
There must be some kind of story behind how these sci-fi stories managed to bypass that process.
The instance cited in the article --
"However, even if ‘The Escape” had not been published as a novel, it would have remained under copyright protection until 1981 (28 years) and been eligible for copyright renewal. Authors of that era, and Anderson in particular, were very aware of the need to renew copyrights, and typically meticulously kept their copyright protections up to date. Copyright law for works created more recently is much easier: life plus 70 years. (Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 1998)."
-- is irrelevant because as a general rule of publishing in those magazines, copyright was assigned to the magazine. If the magazine screwed up and didn't renew its copyrights; or simply went out of business, in which case no one was tracking their assets; or got bought out by some other entity and the record keeping went all pear shaped, copyright did not magically revert to the author. Nor is there any precedent to have an author reassert their copyright claim on works that have been assigned to others.
The instance in which the magazine did not file a copyright is obviously a specialized case.
...This has got to be seen as a win for the band. They have to pay royalties back to 2002... which is >20 years since the song was released and became a monster hit. Surely its earnings potential has slacked off some since then. Imagine how bad it would be if they had to come up with royalties back to its heyday...
Obviously, the biggest use of Flash on the web is embedded video, but this is hardly the only use, and those are seldom mentioned in the HTML5 v. Flash discussions. With Scribd converting to HTML5, the field seems to be opening up (though their use of Flash always struck me as being an anti-copying measure more than anything else).
So far as I know, HTML5 isn't suitable for things like graphical configurators or 3D models (allowing the user to rotate them) -- or is it? There's QTVR for 3D stuff, but it's always seemed clunky to me. And I haven't seen anything but Flash used for configurators. Are there actually reasonable alternatives to Flash for this sort of thing?
As a photojournalist, I think it would be interesting to see just how many photos in fashion magazines are airbrushed or otherwise manipulated after the fact.
As a photojournalist -- and I don't mean this to be insulting -- you are obviously completely unaware of the publishing side of the equation, especially as it pertains to things like fashion magazines. It wouldn't be even remotely "interesting to see" how many photos in such magazines have been airbrushed/manipulated after the fact (presumably meaning after they've left the camera) because the answer is 100% of them. In fact, the only way that an unretouched photo is going to appear in a magazine like that is if they're making a specific point of showing their readers specifically what an unretouched photo looks like.
I ran a design shop specializing in advertising and package design for a bunch of years, and I can tell you from first hand experience that everything that came through the door was retouched. EVERYTHING. It could be as simple as adjusting the color balance, or removing undesirable elements like cold sores, blemishes, logos or objects (from uncontrolled locations), to taking the body/pose from one shot and adding it to a "better" head angle/facial expression from another one. (It's not unlike what they do in the movies if there are TV antennas in a shot of an 18th century cityscape.)
Instead of blaming Photoshop for people's image problems, maybe these people ought to work on addressing the utterly unrealistic assumption on the part of a vast segment of the public that everything they see in the media (print or broadcast) is appearing in some kind of pristine and natural state. (It's not just the French, there's apparently a growing push towards similar labeling in the US.) Do they not think that being able to inject regional ads into live broadcasts of TV events isn't destructively deceptive? C'mon...
If people don't get this concept on their own, then maybe the best solution is to forceably confront them with it. Make it mandatory that everyone work on their school newspapers or yearbook staff where they will be deliberately exposed to such practices (by dint of the curriculum). Like Robert Louis Stevenson said at the very beginning of The Art of Writing: "There is nothing more disenchanting to man than to be shown the springs and mechanism of any art. All our arts and occupations lie wholly on the surface; it is on the surface that we perceive their beauty, fitness, and significance; and to pry below is to be appalled by their emptiness and shocked by the coarseness of the strings and pulleys."
Frank Miller adapting Will Eisner makes about as much sense as Sam Peckinpah adapting Jeeves and Wooster.
When Quentin Tarantino made Jackie Brown from Elmore Leonard's Rum Punch, people were all "dazzled" by how brilliant it was, this fusing of two great dialogue masters. Personally, I found that Tarantino's choices, starting with moving the story out of Miami and working right on through the list, did nothing more than systematically eliminate everything that made the book charming and great. In the end, what you had was something that was Tarantino's flesh and fetishes hung over the barest mention of Leonard's skeleton.
I fully expect that's what we're going to have with this Spirit movie. Frank Miller is possibly the least qualified person to adapt Eisner (personally, I think Kevin Smith would do a better job), and I'm glad Will's not around to see this.
So I'm reading TFA and they make a point about linking to a story about Mozilla's draconian approach to controlling what happens to the code via trademark law. Based on this, the new distro has decided to NOT include Firefox in favor of whatever this other unencumbered thing is. So I'm reading *that* story, and I notice the date -- 2006 -- and it occurs to me that this is kind of like deja vu all over again or something.
So if you don't want the TM protected Firefox artwork/branding... isn't that why they came up with Ice Weasel? There's nothing to say you can't use the code without worrying what MoFo thinks.
Here's a couple of choice quotes from their FAQ page:
Q: My site is worldwide, will I need licences for other territories?
A: Yes. Vuestar licences territory by territory â" VUESTAR System â.
Q: What happens if I donâ(TM)t pay?
A: You will not be granted the VUESTAR User Licence and will be unable lawfully to use visual images to access the worldwide web. Our collection agencies will recover unpaid fees.
So this is what happened to all those SCO execs...
Slashdot Mirror
Top of the thread.
They're calling it a 2 x 4. They're not saying that it's 2" x 4". There's a difference, and it's not subtle.
Maybe they'll use the name change as an opportunity to generate some further goodwill and kill off the browser plugin.
Flash does have uses outside the browser, and the new name reflects that. It's a completely dippy name for a browser plugin, though.
Adobe has ever been accused of forward thinking, but we can always hope.
...if they're smart enough to not sue Newegg?
"[H]igher quality publications"... That would rule out Reuters. Granted, they're not the AP, but still...
More to the point, how can you find out which chip the phone has before buying it?
Since when does Grado make $80 headphones?
Monster complaining that they're being bullied is rich.
Now they know how the legions of companies they've gone after for completely unrelated reasons feel.
They've deserved this for a very long time. It's nice to know that the boot they're feeling is being administered by a company big enough to not even remotely care how they feel about it.
There's one important element of these leaks that I've never seen anyone comment on: it's all well and good to hack a weak password, but how do these people wind up getting their hands on lists of celebrities' private email addresses? It's not like you can just throw some terms at Google and come up with anything useful.
Are you implying that the shooter in this case wasn't mentally disturbed?
Unless they've change it with this update, you can just skip the OCR half of the process, i.e. you only have to type the distorted text half.
You CAN do frame by frame advance: just hit "e".
Link to full article.
Even if he flat out stole the thing, 1973 was almost 40 years ago -- long past any statute of limitations. So where's the justification in trying to force him to return it?
The setting isn't download safe files, it's run safe files after downloading.
Not even close to the same thing.
And yes, even the existence of such a setting is stupid.
You're saying that it's udderly ridiculous?
It looks to me like the Copyright Office accepted the renewal. Had they not, the record would/should show the original registration only, and you would be left to compute that since the original copyright was filed in 1954 and was not renewed, that the work was now in the public domain.
Also, the link you posted was for The Broken Sword, not for Brainwave.
"However, even if ‘The Escape” had not been published as a novel, it would have remained under copyright protection until 1981 (28 years) and been eligible for copyright renewal. Authors of that era, and Anderson in particular, were very aware of the need to renew copyrights, and typically meticulously kept their copyright protections up to date. Copyright law for works created more recently is much easier: life plus 70 years. (Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 1998)."
-- is irrelevant because as a general rule of publishing in those magazines, copyright was assigned to the magazine. If the magazine screwed up and didn't renew its copyrights; or simply went out of business, in which case no one was tracking their assets; or got bought out by some other entity and the record keeping went all pear shaped, copyright did not magically revert to the author. Nor is there any precedent to have an author reassert their copyright claim on works that have been assigned to others. The instance in which the magazine did not file a copyright is obviously a specialized case.
...This has got to be seen as a win for the band. They have to pay royalties back to 2002... which is >20 years since the song was released and became a monster hit. Surely its earnings potential has slacked off some since then. Imagine how bad it would be if they had to come up with royalties back to its heyday...
Obviously, the biggest use of Flash on the web is embedded video, but this is hardly the only use, and those are seldom mentioned in the HTML5 v. Flash discussions. With Scribd converting to HTML5, the field seems to be opening up (though their use of Flash always struck me as being an anti-copying measure more than anything else).
So far as I know, HTML5 isn't suitable for things like graphical configurators or 3D models (allowing the user to rotate them) -- or is it? There's QTVR for 3D stuff, but it's always seemed clunky to me. And I haven't seen anything but Flash used for configurators. Are there actually reasonable alternatives to Flash for this sort of thing?
As a photojournalist, I think it would be interesting to see just how many photos in fashion magazines are airbrushed or otherwise manipulated after the fact.
As a photojournalist -- and I don't mean this to be insulting -- you are obviously completely unaware of the publishing side of the equation, especially as it pertains to things like fashion magazines. It wouldn't be even remotely "interesting to see" how many photos in such magazines have been airbrushed/manipulated after the fact (presumably meaning after they've left the camera) because the answer is 100% of them. In fact, the only way that an unretouched photo is going to appear in a magazine like that is if they're making a specific point of showing their readers specifically what an unretouched photo looks like.
I ran a design shop specializing in advertising and package design for a bunch of years, and I can tell you from first hand experience that everything that came through the door was retouched. EVERYTHING. It could be as simple as adjusting the color balance, or removing undesirable elements like cold sores, blemishes, logos or objects (from uncontrolled locations), to taking the body/pose from one shot and adding it to a "better" head angle/facial expression from another one. (It's not unlike what they do in the movies if there are TV antennas in a shot of an 18th century cityscape.)
Instead of blaming Photoshop for people's image problems, maybe these people ought to work on addressing the utterly unrealistic assumption on the part of a vast segment of the public that everything they see in the media (print or broadcast) is appearing in some kind of pristine and natural state. (It's not just the French, there's apparently a growing push towards similar labeling in the US.) Do they not think that being able to inject regional ads into live broadcasts of TV events isn't destructively deceptive? C'mon...
If people don't get this concept on their own, then maybe the best solution is to forceably confront them with it. Make it mandatory that everyone work on their school newspapers or yearbook staff where they will be deliberately exposed to such practices (by dint of the curriculum). Like Robert Louis Stevenson said at the very beginning of The Art of Writing: "There is nothing more disenchanting to man than to be shown the springs and mechanism of any art. All our arts and occupations lie wholly on the surface; it is on the surface that we perceive their beauty, fitness, and significance; and to pry below is to be appalled by their emptiness and shocked by the coarseness of the strings and pulleys."
Frank Miller adapting Will Eisner makes about as much sense as Sam Peckinpah adapting Jeeves and Wooster.
When Quentin Tarantino made Jackie Brown from Elmore Leonard's Rum Punch, people were all "dazzled" by how brilliant it was, this fusing of two great dialogue masters. Personally, I found that Tarantino's choices, starting with moving the story out of Miami and working right on through the list, did nothing more than systematically eliminate everything that made the book charming and great. In the end, what you had was something that was Tarantino's flesh and fetishes hung over the barest mention of Leonard's skeleton.
I fully expect that's what we're going to have with this Spirit movie. Frank Miller is possibly the least qualified person to adapt Eisner (personally, I think Kevin Smith would do a better job), and I'm glad Will's not around to see this.
So I'm reading TFA and they make a point about linking to a story about Mozilla's draconian approach to controlling what happens to the code via trademark law. Based on this, the new distro has decided to NOT include Firefox in favor of whatever this other unencumbered thing is. So I'm reading *that* story, and I notice the date -- 2006 -- and it occurs to me that this is kind of like deja vu all over again or something.
So if you don't want the TM protected Firefox artwork/branding... isn't that why they came up with Ice Weasel? There's nothing to say you can't use the code without worrying what MoFo thinks.
...the least we could do is provide a Coral Cache link to the blog entry.
Here's a link to US patent #7065520.
It was filed October 3, 2001, by an Australian guy who also holds patents in Oz and NZ.
More info re. their legal claims.
Here's a couple of choice quotes from their FAQ page:
Q: My site is worldwide, will I need licences for other territories?
A: Yes. Vuestar licences territory by territory â" VUESTAR System â.
Q: What happens if I donâ(TM)t pay?
A: You will not be granted the VUESTAR User Licence and will be unable lawfully to use visual images to access the worldwide web. Our collection agencies will recover unpaid fees.
So this is what happened to all those SCO execs...