I run at 1900x1280, not because I want bragging rights but because that is the native resolution of my monitor.
Isn't that an unusual resolution? I mean, I know 1920x1080 is HD 1080 and 1920x1200 is WUXGA, but 1900x1280 is a 95:64 aspect. I do see there are some wallpaper sites catering to this 1900x1280 resolution so I don't doubt it, but could you identify your display's make and model? It may need to be added to the video resolutions image.
It suggests a triple-head bay-window (portrait-landscape-portrait) setup of 1024+1900+1024x1280 of consistent DPI may be possible. (Previously a 1200+2560+1200 of sizes 20" 30" 20" and its opposite were known to be possible, accurate to 1/10 of an inch, but quite expensive.)
as long as you are comfortable with a resolution of 1920x1200 or below. Since so few PC gamers have screens larger than that, could the world of high-end PC graphics simply go away?"
My primary display is 2048x1536, my secondary is 3840x1024, and I've been wanting to build a 5040x1050 display but need to build a new system capable of driving it first (req. Windows XP with Nvidia 200 series GPUs, not supported under Vista).
This server replicates postings to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to be read everywhere.
Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [yn]
I would hope so, but how is this not using someone else's copyrighted crap for commercial gain?
That does not rule out fair use.
And isn't it in the end result just a collection of facts, which cannot be copyrighted either by Paramount or the people who did the analysis? (That is, only their presentation of the facts can be copyrighted.)
This is the same fair use of complete works as exercised by Turn It In.
Well, they only analyzed TOS, so those examples wouldn't apply. However, it would pick up on Mark Lenard playing first a Romulan Commander before later portraying Sarak.
I think it would be interesting to identify the people in fight scenes. The HD conversion makes the stunt doubles even more obvious.
I wonder if it could match up with the faces in the animated series next.
If only it did. If copyright lasted only as long as the medium to which it was affixed, there'd be a chance something would be newly entering the public domain today.
Not only does this month's paper wrapper covering your Big Mac® soiled with grease, cheese, pickle and onion juices, sesame seeds, and special sauce enjoy at least 95 years of copyright enforcement, it's also registered with the copyright office for punitive damages if you dare try to copy it without expressed written permission.
out of interest, would a cryogenically frozen person (or head, as it stands) qualify for a living author?
No. Life suspension is a suspension of life. Perhaps you could request restoration of copyright upon restoration of life, but any exploitation of copyright in the meantime would be immune to prosecution.
Further, one should not be able to extend one's copyrights by traveling at relativistic speeds.
So, the estate has possession of unpublished works. And the surviving Beatles want to finish it up and publish it. And the estate is sitting on it because it isn't getting a cut of the copyright.
What's to stop the estate from writing a contract with the surviving Beatles to get a cut of all royalties? Is there some strange clause in the existing copyright law that prevents someone from creating such a contract?
It would be wrong to allow the estate to sit on the only exploitable public domain copies. That's hoarding works from the public domain and grants the estate the power to destroy the works rather than be compelled to release them by the surviving Beatles or anyone else. A destroyed work never enters the public domain. Bankruptcy protects against seizure of all profits enjoyed by copyright of a willfully destroyed work.
If there's something useful in the estate that can be published, by all means, publish it. But then the copyright wouldn't belong to Joe Deadguy, it'd belong to whoever got around to publishing it.
Copyright vests in the author of the work, not its publisher. Sometimes it vests in the collective authorship of the work, others in the corporation that commissioned the work (the latter uncoupled from anyone's lifetime). To vest it in the publisher absent a living author extends the copyright. Even an unpublished work eventually becomes public domain anyway (but again results in hoarding with the potential for extinguishment).
But a last will and testament may permit a deceased person to continue publishing. I address a scenario about this in another subthread.
I don't see why Joe Deadguy's kids are somehow entitled to whatever profits his previous artistic works generated. If they want to make money from artistic works they ought to publish something new - either their own works, or something from the estate that hasn't been published yet.
I wouldn't say all his descendants deserve the royalties, but at least those that were his spouse or legal dependents at the time of his death, including those conceived ante mortem (not post mortem by frozen gametes or zygotes as that's using offspring as a profit tool) until the natural expiry of the copyright, presumably meted out by a trust to those that are under 18. That at least encourages continued production of works past retirement age until death, for which society will still eventually benefit.
Assuming copyright duration is meaningfully finite, i.e. within the lifetime of one's peers.
(This is where the slope starts getting slippery and where we've already slid down once, where we now allow copyrights to works produced as a newborn to survive the author's offspring.)
I'm more concerned about what happens to copyrighted works created by someone who died without any heirs and unassigned by any will, especially if foul play is involved. I don't know what happens in that situation now. Do works revert to the state which can sue for infringement? Do they fall into a legal limbo where they cannot be published until they expire, or where one can republish because no one survives to challenge (de facto public domain, similar to the reasoning behind republishing abandoned works)?
As for the old dude who created the original work right before he died: he's not going to be rewarded no matter the length of the copyright, so extending the copyright past his death is an insult to the purpose of copyright. Rewarding dead people at the expense of the living isn't the purpose of copyright.
Explicitly rewarding the dead at the expense of the living is an insult to the purpose of copyright. But assuming death sets its own schedule, his dependents should still enjoy the term he would have assumed he would get had he not died.
But not a single year longer.
Unless, as an element of the author's artistic expression, his works are withheld from publication until after his death on a schedule set forth in his will, and altered post mortem only by the deterministic methods (i.e. as by a program) set forth in that will, where copyright duration would be determined by the state of the law at the time the will was last amended with the willed publication date. If you want to provide for your future offspring, arrange to have your works published after your death. (An exception to the unpublished works copyright duration would need to be carved out to allow for the last-willed publication schedule of works, unless as part of the alterations to the work is something unique to you, such as the state of your decomposing corpse.)
If you can invent a machine that is left running after you die that can create works long after your death based on how you programmed it, you can provide for your offspring forever. Hopefully you can accurately predict the future market's demand for your works.
Imagine if "In the Year 2525" only released new verses on the year of the previous verse.
And why would we want to pay the artist's estate? Is the estate somehow going to turn out more artistic works?
The two surviving Beatles did finish one of John Lennon's unpublished works. The Lennon estate could have sat on it if it couldn't get a cut.
Fairness wouldn't tie author's death into the duration at all. I'd rather grant an estate the right to extensions than tie copyright duration to anyone's lifetime (but not if the estate is implicated in the death).
And no ex post facto extensions for anyone. Whatever duration was in force when you published is the one you should be stuck with. That would put an end to the extensions for Steamboat Willie, even for foreign works that enjoy longer protection in their countries of origin if they were willingly published here under a lesser term (only imported copies enjoy term of country of origin).
Current durations ensure that public copies will degrade before copyright expires, effectively ensuring no copies survive long enough to enter the public domain and only originals retained by the original publisher exist from which all PD copies must be produced. This creates a situation where public domain works are too easily hoarded by the estates of their creators and withheld from the public or destroyed rather than released.
So finally, no work may enjoy a copyright duration longer than the medium to which it was affixed. Press a DVD designed to degrade in 48 hours after the seal is broken, then your work is considered published the moment the seal is broken and its copyright is only good for the calendar year in which the seal is broken (because copyright is measured in units no smaller than a year, so break your seals on New Years Eve and copy them New Years Day). Fast food placemats and other instant-garbage can be copied the next calendar year instead of 95 years later by corporate copyright duration.
Because if copyright was only 5 years, a lot of purchases wouldn't be made because people would wait 5 years, thus eliminating a great deal of the profit.
That depends on the nature of the work. If people waited five years to purchase software to acquire it from the public domain, the hardware upon which it could run would be obsolete.
An author may reach the end of his productive career, and all of his works taken together may earn him a couple thousand dollars a month.
That's an argument for a copyright duration at least as long as the duration of retirement, about 50 years I'd say.
He deserves that couple of thousand, IMO. More, if he dies a short time after publication, his estate should be entitled to something.
So allow that 50 years of copyright to survive the author. He can have one, maybe two lazy generations of heirs before they have to start earning for themselves.
But enough of this codified so-called "incentive" for people to continue producing new works after their death. They are entertainers; they are not saints able to perform post mortem miracles.
It's worse when you have a catch-all domain, especially if that domain shares a name with a blockbuster movie about to come out, or is in theaters, or was successful in theaters. It doesn't matter if it's.com,.org,.net, or whatever: spammers will forge under your domain and you'll get the bounce-back, and some of the addresses they spam to will also be spammers. Those spammers will then harvest those addresses and spam them directly, creating a feedback loop that grows so massive that your ISP will disable your server-side filters because they're too busy filtering the incoming spam, forcing you to close your catch-all domain to only those usernames for which you want to receive mail.
And then it will take hours for your ISP to open a new username at that domain instead of the mere seconds to whitelist it yourself, so you might as well register some obscure domain no one would ever want to trademark.
Though you may want to choose a domain that doesn't contain any HTML tag names like "script" or "table" in it. Some sites will strip anything that looks like an HTML tag from your registered e-mail address, leaving you unable to receive your password verification link.
I just treat uses of bold text as highlighting, and italic text I expect to be of a foreign language (typ. Latin, French, or Spanish) or the title of something (movie, tv show, magazine, newspaper, starship).
Now when something is marked strong or marked for emphasis I read it differently. I have rules on my client-side stylesheet to render strong and em content as small-caps. It gets annoying on some sites that decide that every word must be delivered emphatically.
Slashdot has its own problems due to legacy abuse of inline italic tags being abused as block quoting tags which still break comments displayed as stories in the Firehose and in user pages.
Since there are a lot of references to the root partition of a TiVo that aren't about acquiring root access to a running Tivo, that search gives lots of false hits, most of which is just about adding larger or additional hard drives. Also, earlier models of TiVos were more vulnerable than current models.
The TiVo firmware checks a RAM disk image for validity, which in turn checks the kernel and file system for validity and purges anything it seems modified. However, it appears someone has worked out how to break this chain of trust.
Whether someone has figured out how to make encrypted digital channel recordings store themselves unencrypted and make them transferable to a PC I don't know, but would appreciate being informed.
For me, the point of 0wning one's own box is to enable it do things it's been told not to let you do.
I don't know whether the summary was inaccurate, but the phrase "related to child pornography" is extremely disturbing. I run a website which frequently criticises child pornography laws, but doesn't contain child pornography. Will that be censored too?
Further, sites that offer counseling to children who've been subjects of child pornography are also "related" to child pornography, and could suffer censorship much like how some filters have cut off sites about breast cancer because they use depictions of nude female breasts to illustrate how to check for lumps.
So anyone could take your phonebook and use it as a source for his own database of a phone book.
They can still get you if they faked some data and you copied the fake data. Fake data aren't facts and thus protected by copyright, so if you copy the fake data, you've violated copyright.
This is done all over the place. Dictionaries will have fake words, phone books will have fake names, numbers, or addresses, even books reprinted from the public domain may change a word or a sentence or a spelling slightly and get you for infringement that way.
So if you're going to copy someone else's collection of facts or other public data, you'd better do a differential analysis of multiple independent sources of those facts to weed out the copyrighted entries before you publish.
The FSF's centerpiece, the GPL, depends wholly on copyright for enforcement. So saying that the FSF has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights" clearly demonstrates either a lack of research, a lack of understanding, or a lack of honesty on the part of the RIAA's lawyers.
I agree with the first sentence of your comment. As to the second sentence, I question your use of the word "or". The correct word should be "and". With that minor correction.... respect.
The problem isn't with him saying "or". "Or" allows any or all to be true. The real problem is the use of the word "either" which not only makes it an exclusive-or (xor, one and only one is true) but is also misused in a triple condition (either-x-or-y (and neither-x-nor-y) are only to be used with two options, never more).
Slashdot Mirror
I run at 1900x1280, not because I want bragging rights but because that is the native resolution of my monitor.
Isn't that an unusual resolution? I mean, I know 1920x1080 is HD 1080 and 1920x1200 is WUXGA, but 1900x1280 is a 95:64 aspect. I do see there are some wallpaper sites catering to this 1900x1280 resolution so I don't doubt it, but could you identify your display's make and model? It may need to be added to the video resolutions image.
It suggests a triple-head bay-window (portrait-landscape-portrait) setup of 1024+1900+1024x1280 of consistent DPI may be possible. (Previously a 1200+2560+1200 of sizes 20" 30" 20" and its opposite were known to be possible, accurate to 1/10 of an inch, but quite expensive.)
as long as you are comfortable with a resolution of 1920x1200 or below. Since so few PC gamers have screens larger than that, could the world of high-end PC graphics simply go away?"
My primary display is 2048x1536, my secondary is 3840x1024, and I've been wanting to build a 5040x1050 display but need to build a new system capable of driving it first (req. Windows XP with Nvidia 200 series GPUs, not supported under Vista).
This server replicates postings to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to be read everywhere.
Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [yn]
Click on the Spock faces at the top of Season Two (Amok Time, http://facemining.pittpatt.com/S2E30/) All Vulcan men look alike to this software.
And even with Stonn inflating Spock's stats, Kirk still had more screen time.
I would hope so, but how is this not using someone else's copyrighted crap for commercial gain?
That does not rule out fair use.
And isn't it in the end result just a collection of facts, which cannot be copyrighted either by Paramount or the people who did the analysis? (That is, only their presentation of the facts can be copyrighted.)
This is the same fair use of complete works as exercised by Turn It In.
Well, they only analyzed TOS, so those examples wouldn't apply. However, it would pick up on Mark Lenard playing first a Romulan Commander before later portraying Sarak.
I think it would be interesting to identify the people in fight scenes. The HD conversion makes the stunt doubles even more obvious.
I wonder if it could match up with the faces in the animated series next.
Power surges and giant magnets probably won't erase a holographic disc.
Also chronological erasures will not work. You'll need a tapeworm to hunt down and destroy any desired memories.
Of course, we should have had this technology 8 to 13 years ago, as well as being able to make video phone calls from spinning space stations.
that depends entirely on quality of the napkin.
If only it did. If copyright lasted only as long as the medium to which it was affixed, there'd be a chance something would be newly entering the public domain today.
Not only does this month's paper wrapper covering your Big Mac® soiled with grease, cheese, pickle and onion juices, sesame seeds, and special sauce enjoy at least 95 years of copyright enforcement, it's also registered with the copyright office for punitive damages if you dare try to copy it without expressed written permission.
out of interest, would a cryogenically frozen person (or head, as it stands) qualify for a living author?
No. Life suspension is a suspension of life. Perhaps you could request restoration of copyright upon restoration of life, but any exploitation of copyright in the meantime would be immune to prosecution.
Further, one should not be able to extend one's copyrights by traveling at relativistic speeds.
So, the estate has possession of unpublished works. And the surviving Beatles want to finish it up and publish it. And the estate is sitting on it because it isn't getting a cut of the copyright.
What's to stop the estate from writing a contract with the surviving Beatles to get a cut of all royalties? Is there some strange clause in the existing copyright law that prevents someone from creating such a contract?
It would be wrong to allow the estate to sit on the only exploitable public domain copies. That's hoarding works from the public domain and grants the estate the power to destroy the works rather than be compelled to release them by the surviving Beatles or anyone else. A destroyed work never enters the public domain. Bankruptcy protects against seizure of all profits enjoyed by copyright of a willfully destroyed work.
If there's something useful in the estate that can be published, by all means, publish it. But then the copyright wouldn't belong to Joe Deadguy, it'd belong to whoever got around to publishing it.
Copyright vests in the author of the work, not its publisher. Sometimes it vests in the collective authorship of the work, others in the corporation that commissioned the work (the latter uncoupled from anyone's lifetime). To vest it in the publisher absent a living author extends the copyright. Even an unpublished work eventually becomes public domain anyway (but again results in hoarding with the potential for extinguishment).
But a last will and testament may permit a deceased person to continue publishing. I address a scenario about this in another subthread.
I don't see why Joe Deadguy's kids are somehow entitled to whatever profits his previous artistic works generated. If they want to make money from artistic works they ought to publish something new - either their own works, or something from the estate that hasn't been published yet.
I wouldn't say all his descendants deserve the royalties, but at least those that were his spouse or legal dependents at the time of his death, including those conceived ante mortem (not post mortem by frozen gametes or zygotes as that's using offspring as a profit tool) until the natural expiry of the copyright, presumably meted out by a trust to those that are under 18. That at least encourages continued production of works past retirement age until death, for which society will still eventually benefit.
Assuming copyright duration is meaningfully finite, i.e. within the lifetime of one's peers.
(This is where the slope starts getting slippery and where we've already slid down once, where we now allow copyrights to works produced as a newborn to survive the author's offspring.)
I'm more concerned about what happens to copyrighted works created by someone who died without any heirs and unassigned by any will, especially if foul play is involved. I don't know what happens in that situation now. Do works revert to the state which can sue for infringement? Do they fall into a legal limbo where they cannot be published until they expire, or where one can republish because no one survives to challenge (de facto public domain, similar to the reasoning behind republishing abandoned works)?
As for the old dude who created the original work right before he died: he's not going to be rewarded no matter the length of the copyright, so extending the copyright past his death is an insult to the purpose of copyright. Rewarding dead people at the expense of the living isn't the purpose of copyright.
Explicitly rewarding the dead at the expense of the living is an insult to the purpose of copyright. But assuming death sets its own schedule, his dependents should still enjoy the term he would have assumed he would get had he not died.
But not a single year longer.
Unless, as an element of the author's artistic expression, his works are withheld from publication until after his death on a schedule set forth in his will, and altered post mortem only by the deterministic methods (i.e. as by a program) set forth in that will, where copyright duration would be determined by the state of the law at the time the will was last amended with the willed publication date. If you want to provide for your future offspring, arrange to have your works published after your death. (An exception to the unpublished works copyright duration would need to be carved out to allow for the last-willed publication schedule of works, unless as part of the alterations to the work is something unique to you, such as the state of your decomposing corpse.)
If you can invent a machine that is left running after you die that can create works long after your death based on how you programmed it, you can provide for your offspring forever. Hopefully you can accurately predict the future market's demand for your works.
Imagine if "In the Year 2525" only released new verses on the year of the previous verse.
And why would we want to pay the artist's estate? Is the estate somehow going to turn out more artistic works?
The two surviving Beatles did finish one of John Lennon's unpublished works. The Lennon estate could have sat on it if it couldn't get a cut.
Fairness wouldn't tie author's death into the duration at all. I'd rather grant an estate the right to extensions than tie copyright duration to anyone's lifetime (but not if the estate is implicated in the death).
And no ex post facto extensions for anyone. Whatever duration was in force when you published is the one you should be stuck with. That would put an end to the extensions for Steamboat Willie, even for foreign works that enjoy longer protection in their countries of origin if they were willingly published here under a lesser term (only imported copies enjoy term of country of origin).
Current durations ensure that public copies will degrade before copyright expires, effectively ensuring no copies survive long enough to enter the public domain and only originals retained by the original publisher exist from which all PD copies must be produced. This creates a situation where public domain works are too easily hoarded by the estates of their creators and withheld from the public or destroyed rather than released.
So finally, no work may enjoy a copyright duration longer than the medium to which it was affixed. Press a DVD designed to degrade in 48 hours after the seal is broken, then your work is considered published the moment the seal is broken and its copyright is only good for the calendar year in which the seal is broken (because copyright is measured in units no smaller than a year, so break your seals on New Years Eve and copy them New Years Day). Fast food placemats and other instant-garbage can be copied the next calendar year instead of 95 years later by corporate copyright duration.
I believe the fair use allowance is a valuable one, but the crappy baggage that came with it really overshadows the value therein.
And if the compromise was fair use for lifetime+, and they're reneging on fair use while becoming lifetime++....
Because if copyright was only 5 years, a lot of purchases wouldn't be made because people would wait 5 years, thus eliminating a great deal of the profit.
That depends on the nature of the work. If people waited five years to purchase software to acquire it from the public domain, the hardware upon which it could run would be obsolete.
An author may reach the end of his productive career, and all of his works taken together may earn him a couple thousand dollars a month.
That's an argument for a copyright duration at least as long as the duration of retirement, about 50 years I'd say.
He deserves that couple of thousand, IMO. More, if he dies a short time after publication, his estate should be entitled to something.
So allow that 50 years of copyright to survive the author. He can have one, maybe two lazy generations of heirs before they have to start earning for themselves.
But enough of this codified so-called "incentive" for people to continue producing new works after their death. They are entertainers; they are not saints able to perform post mortem miracles.
It's worse when you have a catch-all domain, especially if that domain shares a name with a blockbuster movie about to come out, or is in theaters, or was successful in theaters. It doesn't matter if it's .com, .org, .net, or whatever: spammers will forge under your domain and you'll get the bounce-back, and some of the addresses they spam to will also be spammers. Those spammers will then harvest those addresses and spam them directly, creating a feedback loop that grows so massive that your ISP will disable your server-side filters because they're too busy filtering the incoming spam, forcing you to close your catch-all domain to only those usernames for which you want to receive mail.
And then it will take hours for your ISP to open a new username at that domain instead of the mere seconds to whitelist it yourself, so you might as well register some obscure domain no one would ever want to trademark.
Though you may want to choose a domain that doesn't contain any HTML tag names like "script" or "table" in it. Some sites will strip anything that looks like an HTML tag from your registered e-mail address, leaving you unable to receive your password verification link.
I just treat uses of bold text as highlighting, and italic text I expect to be of a foreign language (typ. Latin, French, or Spanish) or the title of something (movie, tv show, magazine, newspaper, starship).
Now when something is marked strong or marked for emphasis I read it differently. I have rules on my client-side stylesheet to render strong and em content as small-caps. It gets annoying on some sites that decide that every word must be delivered emphatically.
Slashdot has its own problems due to legacy abuse of inline italic tags being abused as block quoting tags which still break comments displayed as stories in the Firehose and in user pages.
You really have an outdated, stereotypical view of the NYPD.
I can't speak for the GP, but I have been waiting forever for the next Duke Nukem game... oh, wait, they were the LAPD. Nevermind.
some quick googling indicates they have.
Since there are a lot of references to the root partition of a TiVo that aren't about acquiring root access to a running Tivo, that search gives lots of false hits, most of which is just about adding larger or additional hard drives. Also, earlier models of TiVos were more vulnerable than current models.
The TiVo firmware checks a RAM disk image for validity, which in turn checks the kernel and file system for validity and purges anything it seems modified. However, it appears someone has worked out how to break this chain of trust.
Whether someone has figured out how to make encrypted digital channel recordings store themselves unencrypted and make them transferable to a PC I don't know, but would appreciate being informed.
For me, the point of 0wning one's own box is to enable it do things it's been told not to let you do.
I don't know whether the summary was inaccurate, but the phrase "related to child pornography" is extremely disturbing. I run a website which frequently criticises child pornography laws, but doesn't contain child pornography. Will that be censored too?
Further, sites that offer counseling to children who've been subjects of child pornography are also "related" to child pornography, and could suffer censorship much like how some filters have cut off sites about breast cancer because they use depictions of nude female breasts to illustrate how to check for lumps.
So anyone could take your phonebook and use it as a source for his own database of a phone book.
They can still get you if they faked some data and you copied the fake data. Fake data aren't facts and thus protected by copyright, so if you copy the fake data, you've violated copyright.
This is done all over the place. Dictionaries will have fake words, phone books will have fake names, numbers, or addresses, even books reprinted from the public domain may change a word or a sentence or a spelling slightly and get you for infringement that way.
So if you're going to copy someone else's collection of facts or other public data, you'd better do a differential analysis of multiple independent sources of those facts to weed out the copyrighted entries before you publish.
I just need a good 3D model of a 1953 Martian War Machine.
If the amicus curiae felt 'neutral' on the subject, why would they be filing a brief?
Here's a neutral amicus curiæ: tell the court I said "Hello."
If he meant his "or" to imply exclusivity, he would've used "xor".
That's what either-or means, which he did use (and did so incorrectly).
The FSF's centerpiece, the GPL, depends wholly on copyright for enforcement. So saying that the FSF has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights" clearly demonstrates either a lack of research, a lack of understanding, or a lack of honesty on the part of the RIAA's lawyers.
I agree with the first sentence of your comment. As to the second sentence, I question your use of the word "or". The correct word should be "and". With that minor correction.... respect.
The problem isn't with him saying "or". "Or" allows any or all to be true. The real problem is the use of the word "either" which not only makes it an exclusive-or (xor, one and only one is true) but is also misused in a triple condition (either-x-or-y (and neither-x-nor-y) are only to be used with two options, never more).