You also can not copyright ideas unless you right them down. Even then they have to be original ideas and not something that somebody else has already written down. Are you starting to understand yet? Copyright is all about tangibility. A million people can have the same idea for a story but only the first one to write it down gets the prize. Notice I said write it down and not register it. Copyrights start when you put something into tangible form. Register it only makes it easier when it comes time to defend it.
I suggest you take a look at the copyright site I linked above and read through some of the facts. I think if you understand the true intent of copyright and not the disaster that is copyright is now you would have an easier time understanding what we are talking about.
I think you spend a little too much time listening to RMS. You don't copyright information. That is not possible. It is actually very clearly state on the Copyright website -
You cannot copyright..."Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship."
You can copyright your tangible analysis of information as long as it contains thoughts and ideas that are your own.
As for the money issue, copyright was created entirely with the idea of providing a living for people who create works of art and science.
Finally, I have created many works of art. I even consider this post to be a work of art. I find it very unlikely, however, that somebody in this universe is creating the same exact thing at the same exact time.
There is a difference here. I am not talking about using a clip from Steamboat Willie in another work. I am talking about creating a new movie called "Mickey Mouse does Dallas" and using new artwork and script. There is no derivative here because you are not using any existing Mickey Mouse script and you are drawing your own version of Mickey Mouse. You could even draw Mickey Mouse to look like a real mouse or have a live actor mickey mouse and you would still have to deal with the trademark on the phrase "Mickey Mouse." Remember that the trademark is not on the image of Mickey Mouse but on the phrase "Mickey Mouse."
I am telling you that after a work has become public domain you still can't use the characters if they are trademarked and you post a link to derivative works while a work is still under copyright protection. Is there a connection in there somewhere that I am missing?
He is also incorrect in saying that using a character from one novel in another novel is a derivative work. Here is a better source for information on copyrights - Library of Congress. I recommend you start there instead of using non-lawyer interpretations.
My whole point (which you seem to be so entirely oblivious to) is that you can't use one part of the Constitution to defend your idea and ignore another.
Disney holds a trademark on the phrase "Mickey Mouse" as it pertains to "Audio and visual recordings in all media." Trademark trumps everything else. If you want to take the story of Steamboat Willie and remake it into a gay porn movie you can as long as you don't say it is starring Mickey Mouse (that is after it become public domain). You could also take the original movie and repackage it along with a bunch of other PD movies and sell it on a DVD.
What I think you are missing is that Mickey Mouse is the actual trademark not Disney's Mickey Mouse.
I don't have time to go through all of your uneducated crap today but I will make one additional comment:
You said - "copyright should be permanent" and you talk about the 4th Amendment (which is totally unrelated but anyway...) of the Consitution.
Well let's see what the Constitution really says about Copyright - "The Congress shall have power to . . . promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" [Emphasis Mine].
Now who seems backwards. I will let the rest of slashdot educate you on the rest of your post.
I am not sure what points you think I was wrong on but I think you are the one that needs to go back and read those OD links. Only a particular drawing of a character can be copyrighted. From the Library of Congrees - "Copyright protects 'original works of authorship' that are fixed in a tangible form of expression." The drawings of Mickey Mouse used in Steamboat Willie are copyrighted as of their creation date (not the date it came out) but the general idea of a mouse who wears short pants and has a high pitched voice can not be copyrighted only trademarked.
People really need to do some research before posting.
Wow. Are you way off base. Copyright is a government endorsed temporary monopoly on the distribution of a creative work. It is intended to be a short term incentive to artists to create and be rewarded for their work. Copyright law has nothing to do with the intrinsic or perceived value of a title. The worst novel is protected just as equally as the best.
In your mind I assume that the works of Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dickens, Milton, etc. should all still be copyright protected because they still hold value? I am not sure how you can justify that one.
A settlement does not imply guilt in any way. It just means that the students would rather pay a fine than legal fees. They also would never have paid fines or done jail time. In a lawsuit such as this you only pay "damages."
What's wrong with that trademark? The trademark is only good for the sale of "Printed matter namely, greeting cards, posters and art prints." They can't sue you for using an emoticon in your email (no matter what the obvious parody press release says). You can only sue over a trademark if somebody uses it in the sale of a good or service that you hold the trademark for.
The idea is that somebody came up with a design for a plastic bag that made it sturdy enough to carry soda bottles but still light and flexible. I am sure that the patent also includes the whole dispenser and the hooks on the bags to fit the dispenser.
A lot times things just seem really obvious because you are so use to it but that doesn't mean that somebody shouldn't get rewarded for coming up with the idea.
You must be pretty old because I remember owning Spiderman underoos about 30 years ago. Spiderman became an over-commercialized corporate trademark long before Sony came along. Spiderman, Batman, Hulk, and Superman were all sell outs. Now give me Ghost Rider anyday.
Let's see - they made $400 Million on the first movie. Let's say they would make another $500 Million on the other two (conservative in case the sequels suck). That is a pretty big hit to any companies financial plans. He doesn't say that it will bankrupt them. After all they have the Charlie's Angels movie coming soon and Anger Management already out and they also inked a $1.7B output deal with Starz a while back.
If I take $10 out of your wallet right now would it bankrupt you. No but it might affect your future dinner plans.
What a load of shit. You don't know what form the 46,000 complaints came in. If they were email complaints they very well could have been from some script kiddie. It takes time to verify the allegations, identify the source of the email, and prepare the proper legal documentation. Did you just want them to run and arrest the guy after one complaint? It amazes what length people will go to to attack the US government.
Except of course for the new do not call list and the existing unsolicited fax law. Give it time. Some states already have anti-spam laws and eventually I think you will see a nationwide one. Now enforcement is a whole other issue.
The statistics just don't support your conclusion. Most people who aren't online either have no interest in it at all or just can't afford it. Nowhere in the statistics does it say that people don't go online because they can't get a fast, permanent connection. Actually, what you are saying doesn't even make much sense. How can someone who has never been online know that the connection is too slow? The people who don't have computers in there home probably only experience high speed connections anyway (school, work, etc.)
I think you are projecting your own problems with the internet on the rest of the world which is never a good thing for a slashdotter to do.
I don't buy the advertising piece at all. I still see plenty of AOL, MSN, etc. ads and disks. The bubble bursting contributed to people being out of work and therefore dropping off the internet.
Actually according to this site it is 3% in the US (which is what we are talking about here). Granted the data is from 1980 but that is the number I see on several other sites and I don't think it has gone down that much. Where did you get 20%?
Anecdotal evidence means nothing. Your grandmother aside, there is a huge tech gap between those over 50 and those under 50. 71% of the people who said they would never go online are over 50. Only 6% of 18-29 year olds said they will never go online.
I would also point out that 99.999% of the elderly did not invent the computer, television, modern radio, etc. The 0.001% that did I am pretty sure are either dead or online.
Slashdot Mirror
You also can not copyright ideas unless you right them down. Even then they have to be original ideas and not something that somebody else has already written down. Are you starting to understand yet? Copyright is all about tangibility. A million people can have the same idea for a story but only the first one to write it down gets the prize. Notice I said write it down and not register it. Copyrights start when you put something into tangible form. Register it only makes it easier when it comes time to defend it.
I suggest you take a look at the copyright site I linked above and read through some of the facts. I think if you understand the true intent of copyright and not the disaster that is copyright is now you would have an easier time understanding what we are talking about.
I think you spend a little too much time listening to RMS. You don't copyright information. That is not possible. It is actually very clearly state on the Copyright website -
You cannot copyright..."Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship."
You can copyright your tangible analysis of information as long as it contains thoughts and ideas that are your own.
As for the money issue, copyright was created entirely with the idea of providing a living for people who create works of art and science.
Finally, I have created many works of art. I even consider this post to be a work of art. I find it very unlikely, however, that somebody in this universe is creating the same exact thing at the same exact time.
There is a difference here. I am not talking about using a clip from Steamboat Willie in another work. I am talking about creating a new movie called "Mickey Mouse does Dallas" and using new artwork and script. There is no derivative here because you are not using any existing Mickey Mouse script and you are drawing your own version of Mickey Mouse. You could even draw Mickey Mouse to look like a real mouse or have a live actor mickey mouse and you would still have to deal with the trademark on the phrase "Mickey Mouse." Remember that the trademark is not on the image of Mickey Mouse but on the phrase "Mickey Mouse."
I am telling you that after a work has become public domain you still can't use the characters if they are trademarked and you post a link to derivative works while a work is still under copyright protection. Is there a connection in there somewhere that I am missing?
He is also incorrect in saying that using a character from one novel in another novel is a derivative work. Here is a better source for information on copyrights - Library of Congress. I recommend you start there instead of using non-lawyer interpretations.
My whole point (which you seem to be so entirely oblivious to) is that you can't use one part of the Constitution to defend your idea and ignore another.
Disney holds a trademark on the phrase "Mickey Mouse" as it pertains to "Audio and visual recordings in all media." Trademark trumps everything else. If you want to take the story of Steamboat Willie and remake it into a gay porn movie you can as long as you don't say it is starring Mickey Mouse (that is after it become public domain). You could also take the original movie and repackage it along with a bunch of other PD movies and sell it on a DVD.
What I think you are missing is that Mickey Mouse is the actual trademark not Disney's Mickey Mouse.
I don't have time to go through all of your uneducated crap today but I will make one additional comment:
You said - "copyright should be permanent" and you talk about the 4th Amendment (which is totally unrelated but anyway...) of the Consitution.
Well let's see what the Constitution really says about Copyright - "The Congress shall have power to . . . promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" [Emphasis Mine].
Now who seems backwards. I will let the rest of slashdot educate you on the rest of your post.
I am not sure what points you think I was wrong on but I think you are the one that needs to go back and read those OD links. Only a particular drawing of a character can be copyrighted. From the Library of Congrees - "Copyright protects 'original works of authorship' that are fixed in a tangible form of expression." The drawings of Mickey Mouse used in Steamboat Willie are copyrighted as of their creation date (not the date it came out) but the general idea of a mouse who wears short pants and has a high pitched voice can not be copyrighted only trademarked.
People really need to do some research before posting.
Wow. Are you way off base. Copyright is a government endorsed temporary monopoly on the distribution of a creative work. It is intended to be a short term incentive to artists to create and be rewarded for their work. Copyright law has nothing to do with the intrinsic or perceived value of a title. The worst novel is protected just as equally as the best.
In your mind I assume that the works of Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dickens, Milton, etc. should all still be copyright protected because they still hold value? I am not sure how you can justify that one.
You are confusing copyright and trademarks. Disney holds several trademarks on Mickey Mouse and his likeness. Trademarks can be renewed forever.
The copyrights for Steamboat Willy are for the screenplay and the actual movie only. These copyrights should have run out long ago.
Even if "Steamboat Willy" becomes public domain people would still have to pay Disney to use Mickey Mouse.
A settlement does not imply guilt in any way. It just means that the students would rather pay a fine than legal fees. They also would never have paid fines or done jail time. In a lawsuit such as this you only pay "damages."
but netscape doesn't have money
Yeah. They are owned by that tiny no named company. What was it again? Oh yeah. AOLTW. I mean they only had $1.2 Billion in Income first quarter 2003.
Actually Longhorn is named after the saloon at the base of Whistler mountain. I think that beats your cat names hands down.
What's wrong with that trademark? The trademark is only good for the sale of "Printed matter namely, greeting cards, posters and art prints." They can't sue you for using an emoticon in your email (no matter what the obvious parody press release says). You can only sue over a trademark if somebody uses it in the sale of a good or service that you hold the trademark for.
The idea is that somebody came up with a design for a plastic bag that made it sturdy enough to carry soda bottles but still light and flexible. I am sure that the patent also includes the whole dispenser and the hooks on the bags to fit the dispenser.
A lot times things just seem really obvious because you are so use to it but that doesn't mean that somebody shouldn't get rewarded for coming up with the idea.
That's awesome. Any clue who's in it?
You must be pretty old because I remember owning Spiderman underoos about 30 years ago. Spiderman became an over-commercialized corporate trademark long before Sony came along. Spiderman, Batman, Hulk, and Superman were all sell outs. Now give me Ghost Rider anyday.
Let's see - they made $400 Million on the first movie. Let's say they would make another $500 Million on the other two (conservative in case the sequels suck). That is a pretty big hit to any companies financial plans. He doesn't say that it will bankrupt them. After all they have the Charlie's Angels movie coming soon and Anger Management already out and they also inked a $1.7B output deal with Starz a while back.
If I take $10 out of your wallet right now would it bankrupt you. No but it might affect your future dinner plans.
What a load of shit. You don't know what form the 46,000 complaints came in. If they were email complaints they very well could have been from some script kiddie. It takes time to verify the allegations, identify the source of the email, and prepare the proper legal documentation. Did you just want them to run and arrest the guy after one complaint? It amazes what length people will go to to attack the US government.
Except of course for the new do not call list and the existing unsolicited fax law. Give it time. Some states already have anti-spam laws and eventually I think you will see a nationwide one. Now enforcement is a whole other issue.
The statistics just don't support your conclusion. Most people who aren't online either have no interest in it at all or just can't afford it. Nowhere in the statistics does it say that people don't go online because they can't get a fast, permanent connection. Actually, what you are saying doesn't even make much sense. How can someone who has never been online know that the connection is too slow? The people who don't have computers in there home probably only experience high speed connections anyway (school, work, etc.)
I think you are projecting your own problems with the internet on the rest of the world which is never a good thing for a slashdotter to do.
a)Two (or more) people can watch TV at the same time.
b)New TV costs $100 - new usable Computer costs $500.
c)Second TV on Cable requires second cable box. Second Computer on Internet requires networking (wireless or wired).
What do you think of your analogy now?
I don't buy the advertising piece at all. I still see plenty of AOL, MSN, etc. ads and disks. The bubble bursting contributed to people being out of work and therefore dropping off the internet.
Actually according to this site it is 3% in the US (which is what we are talking about here). Granted the data is from 1980 but that is the number I see on several other sites and I don't think it has gone down that much. Where did you get 20%?
Anecdotal evidence means nothing. Your grandmother aside, there is a huge tech gap between those over 50 and those under 50. 71% of the people who said they would never go online are over 50. Only 6% of 18-29 year olds said they will never go online.
I would also point out that 99.999% of the elderly did not invent the computer, television, modern radio, etc. The 0.001% that did I am pretty sure are either dead or online.