However, the article does not. Mixing British Pounds and US Dollars as it does is a *factual* mistake. It presumably meant to say twenty to twenty-two of one currency or the other. What they actually said was something like $15,000 off at one end or the other.
Yes, factual issues are more important than typographical issues. However, typos are easier to catch than errors. There is no reason not to make the minimal effort to catch the typos. You will catch some number of errors along the way (e.g. the incorrect currency symbol). Further, the minimal effort needed to find typos is still needed if you want to find errors, as you need to find where statements regarding facts are being made.
Another way of saying this is "If your realtor adds a 0 to the end of your house price, that is a typo. Would you then pay it as typos are unimportant?"
"If you go down for a minute every day, but only for a minute, will anyone care?"
Depends what you are doing. However, point taken in that stability in those cases where it is actually important is usually provided by failover setups (server farms, etc.). Anyone can have a single server go down. People who care use more than one server.
$5000 isn't enough of a prize for a stability test. It would be a reasonable prize for a throughput test that lasted a week or so. Can't be too much longer than that; otherwise, it won't be a good bet to compete. I.e. if there are ten teams putting in a year of server time, the expected value of the competition is only $500 (prize divided by number of teams). $500 might barely cover the setup cost for the server. It won't provide anything for the year of server time lost. The only way the contest works is if you can take your server and go use it after the contest. After a year, your finally tuned server will be out of date.
"Actually, Firefly pulled better numbers than either Buffy or Angel by a couple million viewers. Problem was they weren't big enough numbers for Fox. UPN and/or WB would have been thrilled with Firefly's numbers."
This is true of almost every Sci-Fi series that Fox cancels. I wish that people would just stop offering Sci-Fi to Fox. Fox has no interest in Sci-Fi. They don't understand what makes good Sci-Fi. They don't understand why the Sci-Fi that they make is often bad. Nor do they push it to be better (if anything, they push it to be worse).
Of course, part of the problem is that Fox the studio produces the shows that Fox the broadcaster cancels. I.e. Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Tru Calling, etc. were all produced by Fox. It was Fox (studio) that pushed Whedon to add a third series even though he was already struggling to handle two. It was Fox (studio) that pushed Buffy to UPN (where it never lived up to expectations; further, it took away the popular Buffy/Angel crossovers). It was Fox (studio) that pushed him to add a third series (Firefly) before his popularity dwindled.
The other part of the problem is that Firefly was expensive to make. I don't know that UPN or the WB could have made it. That was also part of the reason why Fox cancelled it. It was more expensive than its ratings allowed (Buffy and Angel did not require props as expensive as the ship was). Fox had been expecting the kind of ratings that Dark Angel (also expensive) had gotten in its first season. Firefly never matched up to Dark Angel's second season ratings.
"This is very recent. Before the last century, only a minority could actually afford to live like this. Parents were the most influential, sure, but people relied many others very early in their lives, and learned how to coexist in a very different social structure than that we have today."
This is not correct. Prior to the industrial revolution, people living with their parents was expected. It is only in the last two hundred years that it has been somewhat normal for people to move away from their families. I.e. what you are describing as new is actually the traditional norm. What you describe as traditional is actually the modern alternative.
You can still see this if you look at the pattern in other countries. Many still have traditional families where multiple generations live together.
A better question is why there has been this regression back to the way things were. I.e. why is industrial society returning to the structure of agricultural society (or at least parts of it).
One possibility is that the initial form of industrial society is actually abnormal, a blip caused by the strains of industry. I.e. industrial families are unable to support the large families possible to agricultural families. Initially, this resulted in the break up and spreading of families. Now that families are smaller (reducing the maintenance cost) and transportation is cheaper (so that members don't have to move to the job; instead, they commute from home), it is possible for families to stay together longer.
You can get Nvu (I have it), but it's not the same thing. Nvu is more reaching up towards the Frontpage/Dreamweaver crowd (reaching because it ain't there yet). In Mozilla, I could just hit edit page and there it was. I found this especially useful for adjusting tables, especially when I used vi for PHP code editing.
I.e. Mozilla Composer is an integrated part of the Mozilla suite, which makes it convenient to use. Nvu (and Dreamweaver, which I also use) are not integrated parts of Firefox (unless someone has made an extension for this since I last looked).
cuneAform is another contentder for Composer replacement. However, the reviews say that it isn't ready yet. It is in the correct space though (a Composer replacement needs to be accessible as a Firefox extension).
The other thing is that the movie is ridiculous about this. In the movie, they still have secret names. Ged's secret name is...Sparrowhawk!
How does swapping the use name and secret name help anything? How does adding a village girlfriend make up for removing the love interest who set up the spell to raise the dead? How...
To me, deter means that you are applying indirect pressure, e.g. fear of incarceration. Yes, it can have the effect of preventing a crime. However, there are no guarantees with a deterrent. By contrast, incarceration prevents crime directly by not allowing those disposed to commit crimes access to victims (at least not from the general populace; crimes against other criminals are of course possible). That is why I see the two as being distinct. It's the difference between putting up a sign that says "Don't drive drunk; you'll be jailed if caught" and putting in a breathalyzer that disables the car when a drunk blows in it. One is a suggestion; the other is definite (absent an operational failure). Do you get my drift now?
Generally, there are two groups of people. Those who think they would get caught and those who don't. Those who expect to get caught are deterred. Those who don't aren't. The magnitude of the punishment doesn't affect this much. Very seldom will someone say, well, if I only get six months in prison, it would be worth it; however, if I get six years it won't be.
"That is higher than the average federal sentence for murder"
No, it is higher than the average federal sentence for "non-negligent" manslaughter and murder cases combined (btw, murder is a capital crime in federal court...as how many years does the death penalty count?). Manslaughter is not murder, that's why it carries a lower sentence. Further, murder and manslaughter carry lower recidivism (repeat) rates than do property crimes.
People have this odd idea that incarceration is to deter people from committing crimes. It is not. The primary purpose of incarceration is to *prevent* people from committing crimes. Deterrence value of any punishment is weak, because it is not sure. Most criminals expect to get away with their crimes.
"Now if every hacker was fined, as opposed to jailed, what do you suppose that would do?"
Lead to a lot of unpaid fines? What do you do then? Very few criminals have large (legitimate) incomes or savings, especially after you confiscate the ill gotten ones (which already happens, even without the fines).
"And are they going to hack/phish/whatever for the next few months/years? Not if they're very intelligent."
If they were very intelligent, they wouldn't have gotten caught doing the crime in the first place!
"I would imagine these people's online activity would be monitored."
HOW?!? To do that, you would have to put them in some location where they were under constant surveillance and contact with others is restricted. What's that? A jail!
"9 Years is probably a bit excessive. For the average "geek-collar" criminal, 3 years would probably sufficiently scare them away from any such action."
For the average *criminal* ("geek-collar" or not), no punishment is sufficient. Criminals do not expect to get caught. They think that they will beat the system. Punishment of criminals is not primarily to deter crime. It is to prevent *that* criminal from committing crimes against the general populace during the term of their sentence.
The truth is that property criminals are more likely to commit future crimes than are "murderers." Further, if someone is getting less than nine years for murder, then they aren't convicted of murder. They are convicted of manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. In other words, they are convicted of recklessly causing the death of another human being. I.e. they weren't convicted of intentionally killing someone.
Finally, it is worth noting that nine years is long enough that 1337 sk1|_|_z are no longer current. Three years (which is likely to be 1.5 years in actual practice--time off for good behavior) just means that one needs a refresher course. Bans against various activities after release don't work. How do you enforce them? How do you tell if that person is using a computer?
They are already the first result in the main listing. What more could they get? One listing to the side? I can see why they're peeved. Their other (non-web) advertising is bringing customers to Google who end up going with someone else. However, that doesn't mean that they should have won.
What if it were agents of Geico who paid for the ads? What if it were related services (e.g. autobody repair, new car sales)? What if it was a customer that Geico doesn't pursue (e.g. Europeans)? Further, if Geico had won, what would have been the easiest solution for Google? Banning Geico as a search term.
"Isn't the music and movie industry protected by copyright?"
The issue is that under current law, software can be protected by *both* copyright and patent. Music and movies are not patentable, so they would still be covered under copyright even if he wins (no conflict there).
According to these people, Linux only has about one bug per 5700 lines. They show *ZERO* evidence that Microsoft's number is higher. Clearly, lower numbers can be attained (Linux did it!).
A better way of saying it would be: prior to testing, most code contains 20-30 bugs per 1000 lines. Linux catches over 99% of these. There is absolutely zero attempt to quantify how much Microsoft catches. Thus, we can make no comparisons between Linux and Microsoft.
Note: I am an open source fanboy. I would love for these numbers to be true. However, I see no actual evidence that they are. This is FUD in the classic IBM sales sense: set up a straw man; demolish straw man; proclaim victory.
"When reading it, bear in mind that most commercial software is produced for in-house use, receives very little QC, and frequently does not even compile cleanly. It's usuall just "good enough" to get the job done."
However, they are criticizing Microsoft OS software based on that projection. Microsoft OS software (for all its flaws) is for more than in house use, receives extensive (if often insufficient) QC, and probably compiles cleanly (if not, they could always rewrite the compiler).
Yes, I think that Linux has considerably fewer bugs than that shell script I wrote because I was tired of always typing the same set of commands. However, to be honest, I also would expect that Microsoft Windows would have fewer bugs per line than my average shell script. Estimating bugs in an OS based on the bugs in my shell scripts would be silly.
The figure may not be BS in general, but it is certainly BS when applied to Microsoft Windows.
"NASA was at its best when they had a concrete mission (the moon)"
Only if you define best as a meaningless achievement. Yes, we got to the moon. However, we didn't maintain any of the manufacturing capacity, because its *only* use was to reach the moon (where we haven't gone since those missions). Therefore, if we wanted to go back to the moon now, we would have to rebuild all the production lines. Even adjusting for inflation, it would not be much (if any) cheaper to go to the moon now than it was then. In other words, all that we accomplished by going to the moon was bragging rights.
Since that time, we established the ability to launch objects to earth orbit regularly. That enabled cable and satellite television, GPS, etc. That is cheaper now than it was then.
Manned space exploration is cool, but not very useful.
I've thought a number of times that we should be able to moderate sigs separate from the posts. Then, sigs would not appear in meta-moderation, which would make the system more anonymous. Further, if we could do that, then we could hide sigs based on their karma *separate* from that of the posting karma.
Of course, if it was that important, I guess I could code it and submit a patch.:)
It's also worth noting that the friend/foe mechanism has much of this functionality. It allows people to effectively mod up/down certain posters.
"That is why I'm willing to tolerate junk mail - because I'm not footing the bill for it."
Not only that, junk mail actually helps keep your mail costs down. Note that the mail person generally has to drive the same route, regardless of whether there is mail to deliver to you or not. With junk mail, the junk mail pays part of the cost of the route. Eliminate the junk mail, and you still have the same route.
By contrast, spam only increases the resource usage. It doesn't contribute anything financially, and even if it did, there aren't the same overhead costs with email as with snail mail.
Snail junk mail is more like television commercials. If commercials were banned tomorrow, all the broadcast channels (other than PBS) and some of the cable channels would go out of business. The remaining channels would go up in price.
CAN-SPAM explicitly allows states to pass laws against email fraud. It prevents laws against unsolicited email in general. The Virginia case was a fraud case (IIRC, not even email specific; existing law was used). The Ohio law may have the same focus.
It's also worth noting that federal commerce laws are based on the interstate commerce clause. If a spammer in Ohio sends email to an Ohio person's account with an Ohio ISP, federal law would not apply. This may not matter in this case but is worth keeping in mind.
Most abandonware does not have a clear owner. If it did, you could ask them to use it. Instead, it goes through a sequence of transfers (e.g. bankruptcies) where the actual owner is confused and dispersed. That's why there are suggestions like paying $1 to renew copyright every ten years, to make sure that there is always current info on who owns the copyright.
I'm fairly certain that you could claim a tax break for making something public domain now. I don't think that a foundation is needed to implement this.
Mickey Mouse is trademarked, not copyrighted. The stories are copyrighted, but that's not what keeps you from writing a new story about Mickey Mouse. Thus, even if this case goes the other way on appeal, you still won't be able to make Mickey Mouse cartoons.
Slashdot Mirror
"Personally, I rather an article has factuality"
However, the article does not. Mixing British Pounds and US Dollars as it does is a *factual* mistake. It presumably meant to say twenty to twenty-two of one currency or the other. What they actually said was something like $15,000 off at one end or the other.
Yes, factual issues are more important than typographical issues. However, typos are easier to catch than errors. There is no reason not to make the minimal effort to catch the typos. You will catch some number of errors along the way (e.g. the incorrect currency symbol). Further, the minimal effort needed to find typos is still needed if you want to find errors, as you need to find where statements regarding facts are being made.
Another way of saying this is "If your realtor adds a 0 to the end of your house price, that is a typo. Would you then pay it as typos are unimportant?"
I realize that I'm stomping on your joke, but how is "breaks" phonetic spelling? If they were going to do that, wouldn't they spell it brayks?
More likely, they are simply graduates of the "pick something off the spell checker's menu" school.
"If you go down for a minute every day, but only for a minute, will anyone care?"
Depends what you are doing. However, point taken in that stability in those cases where it is actually important is usually provided by failover setups (server farms, etc.). Anyone can have a single server go down. People who care use more than one server.
$5000 isn't enough of a prize for a stability test. It would be a reasonable prize for a throughput test that lasted a week or so. Can't be too much longer than that; otherwise, it won't be a good bet to compete. I.e. if there are ten teams putting in a year of server time, the expected value of the competition is only $500 (prize divided by number of teams). $500 might barely cover the setup cost for the server. It won't provide anything for the year of server time lost. The only way the contest works is if you can take your server and go use it after the contest. After a year, your finally tuned server will be out of date.
"Actually, Firefly pulled better numbers than either Buffy or Angel by a couple million viewers. Problem was they weren't big enough numbers for Fox. UPN and/or WB would have been thrilled with Firefly's numbers."
This is true of almost every Sci-Fi series that Fox cancels. I wish that people would just stop offering Sci-Fi to Fox. Fox has no interest in Sci-Fi. They don't understand what makes good Sci-Fi. They don't understand why the Sci-Fi that they make is often bad. Nor do they push it to be better (if anything, they push it to be worse).
Of course, part of the problem is that Fox the studio produces the shows that Fox the broadcaster cancels. I.e. Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Tru Calling, etc. were all produced by Fox. It was Fox (studio) that pushed Whedon to add a third series even though he was already struggling to handle two. It was Fox (studio) that pushed Buffy to UPN (where it never lived up to expectations; further, it took away the popular Buffy/Angel crossovers). It was Fox (studio) that pushed him to add a third series (Firefly) before his popularity dwindled.
The other part of the problem is that Firefly was expensive to make. I don't know that UPN or the WB could have made it. That was also part of the reason why Fox cancelled it. It was more expensive than its ratings allowed (Buffy and Angel did not require props as expensive as the ship was). Fox had been expecting the kind of ratings that Dark Angel (also expensive) had gotten in its first season. Firefly never matched up to Dark Angel's second season ratings.
"This is very recent. Before the last century, only a minority could actually afford to live like this. Parents were the most influential, sure, but people relied many others very early in their lives, and learned how to coexist in a very different social structure than that we have today."
This is not correct. Prior to the industrial revolution, people living with their parents was expected. It is only in the last two hundred years that it has been somewhat normal for people to move away from their families. I.e. what you are describing as new is actually the traditional norm. What you describe as traditional is actually the modern alternative.
You can still see this if you look at the pattern in other countries. Many still have traditional families where multiple generations live together.
A better question is why there has been this regression back to the way things were. I.e. why is industrial society returning to the structure of agricultural society (or at least parts of it).
One possibility is that the initial form of industrial society is actually abnormal, a blip caused by the strains of industry. I.e. industrial families are unable to support the large families possible to agricultural families. Initially, this resulted in the break up and spreading of families. Now that families are smaller (reducing the maintenance cost) and transportation is cheaper (so that members don't have to move to the job; instead, they commute from home), it is possible for families to stay together longer.
You can get Nvu (I have it), but it's not the same thing. Nvu is more reaching up towards the Frontpage/Dreamweaver crowd (reaching because it ain't there yet). In Mozilla, I could just hit edit page and there it was. I found this especially useful for adjusting tables, especially when I used vi for PHP code editing.
I.e. Mozilla Composer is an integrated part of the Mozilla suite, which makes it convenient to use. Nvu (and Dreamweaver, which I also use) are not integrated parts of Firefox (unless someone has made an extension for this since I last looked).
cuneAform is another contentder for Composer replacement. However, the reviews say that it isn't ready yet. It is in the correct space though (a Composer replacement needs to be accessible as a Firefox extension).
The other thing is that the movie is ridiculous about this. In the movie, they still have secret names. Ged's secret name is...Sparrowhawk!
How does swapping the use name and secret name help anything? How does adding a village girlfriend make up for removing the love interest who set up the spell to raise the dead? How...
Darn, I meant not to get started on this.
To me, deter means that you are applying indirect pressure, e.g. fear of incarceration. Yes, it can have the effect of preventing a crime. However, there are no guarantees with a deterrent. By contrast, incarceration prevents crime directly by not allowing those disposed to commit crimes access to victims (at least not from the general populace; crimes against other criminals are of course possible). That is why I see the two as being distinct. It's the difference between putting up a sign that says "Don't drive drunk; you'll be jailed if caught" and putting in a breathalyzer that disables the car when a drunk blows in it. One is a suggestion; the other is definite (absent an operational failure). Do you get my drift now?
Generally, there are two groups of people. Those who think they would get caught and those who don't. Those who expect to get caught are deterred. Those who don't aren't. The magnitude of the punishment doesn't affect this much. Very seldom will someone say, well, if I only get six months in prison, it would be worth it; however, if I get six years it won't be.
"That is higher than the average federal sentence for murder"
No, it is higher than the average federal sentence for "non-negligent" manslaughter and murder cases combined (btw, murder is a capital crime in federal court...as how many years does the death penalty count?). Manslaughter is not murder, that's why it carries a lower sentence. Further, murder and manslaughter carry lower recidivism (repeat) rates than do property crimes.
People have this odd idea that incarceration is to deter people from committing crimes. It is not. The primary purpose of incarceration is to *prevent* people from committing crimes. Deterrence value of any punishment is weak, because it is not sure. Most criminals expect to get away with their crimes.
"Now if every hacker was fined, as opposed to jailed, what do you suppose that would do?"
Lead to a lot of unpaid fines? What do you do then? Very few criminals have large (legitimate) incomes or savings, especially after you confiscate the ill gotten ones (which already happens, even without the fines).
"And are they going to hack/phish/whatever for the next few months/years? Not if they're very intelligent."
If they were very intelligent, they wouldn't have gotten caught doing the crime in the first place!
"I would imagine these people's online activity would be monitored."
HOW?!? To do that, you would have to put them in some location where they were under constant surveillance and contact with others is restricted. What's that? A jail!
"he can hopefully do...a real job"
I think that you are being very optimistic here. Most crackers that are caught don't have the skills to hold a real job. That's why they got caught.
"9 Years is probably a bit excessive. For the average "geek-collar" criminal, 3 years would probably sufficiently scare them away from any such action."
For the average *criminal* ("geek-collar" or not), no punishment is sufficient. Criminals do not expect to get caught. They think that they will beat the system. Punishment of criminals is not primarily to deter crime. It is to prevent *that* criminal from committing crimes against the general populace during the term of their sentence.
The truth is that property criminals are more likely to commit future crimes than are "murderers." Further, if someone is getting less than nine years for murder, then they aren't convicted of murder. They are convicted of manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. In other words, they are convicted of recklessly causing the death of another human being. I.e. they weren't convicted of intentionally killing someone.
Finally, it is worth noting that nine years is long enough that 1337 sk1|_|_z are no longer current. Three years (which is likely to be 1.5 years in actual practice--time off for good behavior) just means that one needs a refresher course. Bans against various activities after release don't work. How do you enforce them? How do you tell if that person is using a computer?
They are already the first result in the main listing. What more could they get? One listing to the side? I can see why they're peeved. Their other (non-web) advertising is bringing customers to Google who end up going with someone else. However, that doesn't mean that they should have won.
What if it were agents of Geico who paid for the ads? What if it were related services (e.g. autobody repair, new car sales)? What if it was a customer that Geico doesn't pursue (e.g. Europeans)? Further, if Geico had won, what would have been the easiest solution for Google? Banning Geico as a search term.
"Isn't the music and movie industry protected by copyright?"
The issue is that under current law, software can be protected by *both* copyright and patent. Music and movies are not patentable, so they would still be covered under copyright even if he wins (no conflict there).
Firefox's history has a search box. Not something that I use often, so I can't really comment on it. However, it is there.
According to these people, Linux only has about one bug per 5700 lines. They show *ZERO* evidence that Microsoft's number is higher. Clearly, lower numbers can be attained (Linux did it!).
A better way of saying it would be: prior to testing, most code contains 20-30 bugs per 1000 lines. Linux catches over 99% of these. There is absolutely zero attempt to quantify how much Microsoft catches. Thus, we can make no comparisons between Linux and Microsoft.
Note: I am an open source fanboy. I would love for these numbers to be true. However, I see no actual evidence that they are. This is FUD in the classic IBM sales sense: set up a straw man; demolish straw man; proclaim victory.
"When reading it, bear in mind that most commercial software is produced for in-house use, receives very little QC, and frequently does not even compile cleanly. It's usuall just "good enough" to get the job done."
However, they are criticizing Microsoft OS software based on that projection. Microsoft OS software (for all its flaws) is for more than in house use, receives extensive (if often insufficient) QC, and probably compiles cleanly (if not, they could always rewrite the compiler).
Yes, I think that Linux has considerably fewer bugs than that shell script I wrote because I was tired of always typing the same set of commands. However, to be honest, I also would expect that Microsoft Windows would have fewer bugs per line than my average shell script. Estimating bugs in an OS based on the bugs in my shell scripts would be silly.
The figure may not be BS in general, but it is certainly BS when applied to Microsoft Windows.
"NASA was at its best when they had a concrete mission (the moon)"
Only if you define best as a meaningless achievement. Yes, we got to the moon. However, we didn't maintain any of the manufacturing capacity, because its *only* use was to reach the moon (where we haven't gone since those missions). Therefore, if we wanted to go back to the moon now, we would have to rebuild all the production lines. Even adjusting for inflation, it would not be much (if any) cheaper to go to the moon now than it was then. In other words, all that we accomplished by going to the moon was bragging rights.
Since that time, we established the ability to launch objects to earth orbit regularly. That enabled cable and satellite television, GPS, etc. That is cheaper now than it was then.
Manned space exploration is cool, but not very useful.
"Only morons moderate based on a sig."
:)
I've thought a number of times that we should be able to moderate sigs separate from the posts. Then, sigs would not appear in meta-moderation, which would make the system more anonymous. Further, if we could do that, then we could hide sigs based on their karma *separate* from that of the posting karma.
Of course, if it was that important, I guess I could code it and submit a patch.
It's also worth noting that the friend/foe mechanism has much of this functionality. It allows people to effectively mod up/down certain posters.
"The people that make those arguments about selling support probably still live in their parents basement, or never had to work for a living."
"That is why I'm willing to tolerate junk mail - because I'm not footing the bill for it."
Not only that, junk mail actually helps keep your mail costs down. Note that the mail person generally has to drive the same route, regardless of whether there is mail to deliver to you or not. With junk mail, the junk mail pays part of the cost of the route. Eliminate the junk mail, and you still have the same route.
By contrast, spam only increases the resource usage. It doesn't contribute anything financially, and even if it did, there aren't the same overhead costs with email as with snail mail.
Snail junk mail is more like television commercials. If commercials were banned tomorrow, all the broadcast channels (other than PBS) and some of the cable channels would go out of business. The remaining channels would go up in price.
CAN-SPAM explicitly allows states to pass laws against email fraud. It prevents laws against unsolicited email in general. The Virginia case was a fraud case (IIRC, not even email specific; existing law was used). The Ohio law may have the same focus.
It's also worth noting that federal commerce laws are based on the interstate commerce clause. If a spammer in Ohio sends email to an Ohio person's account with an Ohio ISP, federal law would not apply. This may not matter in this case but is worth keeping in mind.
"it could be argued that longer copyright protection has encouraged some publishers to continue publishing their work for longer."
That shouldn't matter. It's not the publication that is important, but the *creation*.
Most abandonware does not have a clear owner. If it did, you could ask them to use it. Instead, it goes through a sequence of transfers (e.g. bankruptcies) where the actual owner is confused and dispersed. That's why there are suggestions like paying $1 to renew copyright every ten years, to make sure that there is always current info on who owns the copyright.
I'm fairly certain that you could claim a tax break for making something public domain now. I don't think that a foundation is needed to implement this.
Mickey Mouse is trademarked, not copyrighted. The stories are copyrighted, but that's not what keeps you from writing a new story about Mickey Mouse. Thus, even if this case goes the other way on appeal, you still won't be able to make Mickey Mouse cartoons.