So is a Toyota Tercel a knockoff of a Porsche? Does it matter if they are in the same color? They both have the same color and the Toyota copied Porsche's 4-wheel car design. If you sent someone to go to the car dealer and get the "red car with the 4-wheels" would you expect them to get significanly confused over the choices of colors and wheels?
The claim that CBP doesn't act unless someone complains isn't quite true, either. I had a shipment from overseas impounded by CBP and I know there was no manufacturer complaint.
Unfortunately for Sparkfun, ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse for breaking it.
They aren't ignorant of the law (trademark law is well known). It's that "trademark" is subjective, not objective. It's someone's opinion whether the item in question infringes, and there's no objective test of infringement.
Your argument is that ignorance of a ICE agent's opinion is illegal.
I can't recall having seen a multimeter maker that doesn't infringe, based on this description. I just looked at some major retailers, and every maker carried had at least one that looked just like the banned one. Some had green border or yellow, but they had both.
It's already generic, and was before the trademark.
Yet, you lack the balls to actually give up your US citizenship because deep down you know that the place you're living right now is built on sand.
No, it's because the US actively punishes ex-citizens, and can revoke renunciation at will. You *can't* give up US citizenship with certainty. You can only renounce, and hope that the US recognizes it, and if they do, make sure to never visit family back in the USA. If the US wasn't actively persecuting ex-citizens, I'd renounce. And the number of small rich enclaves is increasing as the US declines. Why live in the US for the Great Fall, when you could live in a better place and always be free to return if the US improves?
Market mechanisms are the interactions by which buyers and sellers arrive at efficient allocations of goods and services in a free market. Contracts and government enforcement of contracts are not "market mechanism", nor are they even necessary for market mechanisms to operate.
A contract sounds like a documentation of "interactions" to unambiguously define trade. I still don't understand how the documentation of a market mechanism isn't a market mechanism.
Or are you just trying to prove my "no true scotsman" hypothesis?
For a specific derivative work, the new aspects are then subject to copyright in the normal way. Derivatives specifically of that work (i.e., not merely other derivative works of the original, but something that is based on the derived, copyrighted work) are similarly subject to copyright in the normal way.
You are right in theory. But I don't live in a spherical frictionless vacuum.
Also, while you keep referring to how ripe this system is for abuse, my google-fu has failed to locate any cases of Disney actually suing people just for writing a story about Aladdin based on the original work, either. Citations welcome.
The only ones I know of where the creator was sued by someone else who created a derivative work were in software, not movies. But it happens, and there's nothing you can do about it, unless you have deeper pockets then the one suing you. If you release a "beta" and then someone else fixes all the bugs in it before you do, when you release your next version, you can either prove it was impossible to have copied from the other person's version, or you'll be found guilty of copyright violations. for making uncreative changes to your own original work. That's how it does work, and that's within the copyright laws you mention.
You contradict yourself. Read your first and second sentences (ignoring "yes" as a sentence). You state that modified Public Domain is still Public Domain, then state that modified Public Domain is copyrightable. Disney didn't invent the genie. Disney didn't invent the blue genie. But Disney asserts ownership over the funny blue genie.
But the idea that no-one else can tell a story that was first published at least a century ago because copyright somehow forbids it is crazy, an absurd abuse of the legal mechanism, and as I mentioned,
When the system is so ripe for abuse, the system is flawed. In this case, the system is so flawed that we'd be better off if the system was abolished.
Are contracts a market mechanism? As they are enforced by the government. Or are you just "No True Scotsman"ing me, where any counter-point I mention will be excluded from your moving target argument?
It's people like you who are condemning large portions of the US to poverty and inadequate medical care.
Not me. I saw so many loonitarian pricks and teabaggers getting power, I left the US. You have the country you deserve. I live in a place with lower taxes, universal free health care, and scores higher in livability and freedom indexes. Get more pay less. All you have to do is stop drinking the loonitarian koolaid and look around. Of course, your mental illness will not allow you to think.
I can make a single digital control system thats perfectly secure that sets line C high in line A and B are high. You can't hack an AND gate. There are plenty of places one can use provably correct digital control systems.
You are assuming physical security. You also didn't mention testing. Did you verify that the gate is an AND, and not an OR?
At Texas A&M, the choice was Computer Engineering, or Computer Science Engineering. Both were under the Electrical Engineering department. There was no computer science that wasn't managed by the EE department, and all were proper engineering courses.
But this whole idea you keep coming back to about somehow taking someone else's work and actually using copyright against them isn't actually supported by copyright law anywhere I know. It's certainly not part of the principle of copyright law as originally conceived or as defended to some extent by people like me today.
Then explain how it works with derivative works. Is a new unique work, put in the Public Domain by the author still in the Public Domain if someone alters it to improve on it? As Aladdin is copyrighted by Disney, I'd say yes. So if the author of the Public Domain work makes their own derivative work, they can be sued by the makers of the other derivative work. Some early software ended up with those problems. That's why the "tricks" like BSD/GPL were come up with.
That you don't know how copyright works around derivative works doesn't mean it's not part of the law.
Yes, and the lean-all-the-time is what drives the particulate generation. And gassers can do it, but only if you use "tricks" like direct injection in a gasoline engine. You are just a fuel bigot. The math and science don't make it as clear as you assert.
The government is eliminating market mechanisms like fraud. We'd be so much better off with no regulations at all. Keeping the poor multi-billionaires down by preventing mass fraud against the desperate. If they aren't millionaires, they obviously are inferior humans who deserve it.
Speeding is immoral? Never. Endangering people is immoral, but the speed isn't. Owning a firearm isn't immoral. Firing a firearm isn't immoral. Firing at someone likely is, depending on circumstance. But that seems to be a distinction you can't make. copying is *never* immoral, but stealing is. You equate the two. I don't. People associate owning a firearm with being eager to use it, so some people consider owning a firearm to be immoral, especially if there are children in the house or other factors. That you associate speeding with unsafe driving doesn't make it true. That you equate sharing with stealing doesn't make it true either.
Though you did seem to agree that sharing isn't stealing, so long as it's below your personal threshold. You sound like the person with cruise control set at 62 in a 55 in the fast lane, illegally blocking others. Anyone going faster than you is speeding, so you don't have to move over for illegal drivers. But the law proves you wrong. You could get pulled over and given two tickets. Too fast (speeding) and too slow (in the fast lane), at the same time. No, you aren't the morality police. You don't get to personally set the threshold of "immoral". And if it requires this much discussion, it likely should be 100% legal and discouraged (like abortion and drugs, two other topics full of people trying to push their morality on others).
That 58 (presuming you are using the opensecrets.org list) are *NOT* a majority Democrat as you assert. That, and the list is people who pay cash to parties, candidates, and PACs, not those who spend independent money on original research and release that as "independent", implying unbiased. That spending isn't required by law to be disclosed, so can't necessarily be counted. The count is the dollars that can be explicitly counted, disclosed as required by law. It doesn't count anything that doesn't trigger certain election law regulations, and so wouldn't reflect the majority of the work by the Kotch Brothers, but does put ActBlue at the top, as they are a cash-handling organization, everything it does triggering the "rules" opensecrets.org used.
Yes, some games are unplayable, regardless of the pay model. Some die by DRM. I own Spore, but ended up illegally downloading it so that I could actually play it (well, my kids play it). And Dungeon Keeper is playable, theoretically. But it was a poor balance of pay to play. I'm not sure how building a crappy game (delays and hurdles built in) has to do with some of the most profitable games in recent history being "free" (Clash of Clans, Hobbit, and others).
Sorry, I don't think I'm following your logic here. In a system without copyright (or any replacement we haven't mentioned) anyone would be free to take the creation of anyone else and make a profit from it if they could find a way to do so.
Yes. But they couldn't lock you out of your own creation. Much like Disney takes Public Domain stories, makes a movie from them, then aggressively persues those who copy the Public Domain story in a manner Disney doesn't like. In a post-copyright world, Disney could take anyone else's work and copy it all they like, but they couldn't then lock anyone else out from it. In practice, some early anti-copyright advocates managed to have some people take their work, modify it, then spread it around with copyright protections, then block the original author from distributing edited versions of their original work. The original author couldn't prove in court that they didn't see the modified (and copyrighted) version before they edited their original work.
I don't see how this is any different to the situation today, except that with copyright someone who wants to give their work away freely-with-restrictions (GPL etc.) can do so and their wishes are legally enforceable for as long as the copyright lasts.
Other than it's impossible to give it away without restrictions, and not have copyright used against them later against that same work.
The example you gave indicated that it was a commercial failure, not an experimental one. There's a gap between monopoly pricing and "fair" pricing. That some musician has no concept of economics doesn't mean it was a failure. It just means his expectations were wrong.
Pay what you want is the model of the freemium games. You can play them and unlock most (or all) content without paying. But some people choose to pay. Pay what you want is that model. The game is worth more when you pay more for it, according to those that pay. The same is true of the pay-what-you-want offerings. Scott Adams tried it as well, and declared it a failure when a "free" book was discovered on a torrent site. There was no way to capture how many (if any) saw it on the site, read it, then went back to the author to buy a copy after. But it was instantly assumed that the pirated book was "lost revenue" even for a free book.
It's funny how people bitch about the Koch brothers while ignoring the 58 people and groups who spend MORE money to influence politics (the majority of which donate to Democratic Party campaigns).
How many of the 58 Democratic donators also donate Republican? Last I looked, most big business donated to both. It doesn't matter who wins if you buy out all candidates.
Because it takes a larger percent of a barrel of oil, meaning you need to pump more oil for Diesel. It's easier to make because it's closer to pure crude. When you take the same barrel and make gasoline, you also get plastics and other things in greater amounts than diesel. So Diesel is worse for the environment.
A TDI golf will blow the doors off a gasser with the same-displacement gasoline engine, it just walks away from it.
Are you comparing similarly sized turbo engines? I've seen a TDI Golf sized engine push an AWD Turbo Talon to a 10s 1/4 mi. And yes, the guy drove 200 + miles to the track to run it, and 200+ miles home after. Just changed tires to run it.
Slashdot Mirror
So what behavioral economcists are on the ICE payroll to make such determinations for seizures such as these?
So is a Toyota Tercel a knockoff of a Porsche? Does it matter if they are in the same color? They both have the same color and the Toyota copied Porsche's 4-wheel car design. If you sent someone to go to the car dealer and get the "red car with the 4-wheels" would you expect them to get significanly confused over the choices of colors and wheels?
Almost every one looks like the Fluke. And that was true before Fluke got the trademark.
The claim that CBP doesn't act unless someone complains isn't quite true, either. I had a shipment from overseas impounded by CBP and I know there was no manufacturer complaint.
Yeah, but that was heroine.
Unfortunately for Sparkfun, ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse for breaking it.
They aren't ignorant of the law (trademark law is well known). It's that "trademark" is subjective, not objective. It's someone's opinion whether the item in question infringes, and there's no objective test of infringement.
Your argument is that ignorance of a ICE agent's opinion is illegal.
I can't recall having seen a multimeter maker that doesn't infringe, based on this description. I just looked at some major retailers, and every maker carried had at least one that looked just like the banned one. Some had green border or yellow, but they had both.
It's already generic, and was before the trademark.
It's not a wealthy tax oasis, but whatever lies you have to tell to get through your pathetic little life...
Yet, you lack the balls to actually give up your US citizenship because deep down you know that the place you're living right now is built on sand.
No, it's because the US actively punishes ex-citizens, and can revoke renunciation at will. You *can't* give up US citizenship with certainty. You can only renounce, and hope that the US recognizes it, and if they do, make sure to never visit family back in the USA. If the US wasn't actively persecuting ex-citizens, I'd renounce. And the number of small rich enclaves is increasing as the US declines. Why live in the US for the Great Fall, when you could live in a better place and always be free to return if the US improves?
Market mechanisms are the interactions by which buyers and sellers arrive at efficient allocations of goods and services in a free market. Contracts and government enforcement of contracts are not "market mechanism", nor are they even necessary for market mechanisms to operate.
A contract sounds like a documentation of "interactions" to unambiguously define trade. I still don't understand how the documentation of a market mechanism isn't a market mechanism.
Or are you just trying to prove my "no true scotsman" hypothesis?
For a specific derivative work, the new aspects are then subject to copyright in the normal way. Derivatives specifically of that work (i.e., not merely other derivative works of the original, but something that is based on the derived, copyrighted work) are similarly subject to copyright in the normal way.
You are right in theory. But I don't live in a spherical frictionless vacuum.
Also, while you keep referring to how ripe this system is for abuse, my google-fu has failed to locate any cases of Disney actually suing people just for writing a story about Aladdin based on the original work, either. Citations welcome.
The only ones I know of where the creator was sued by someone else who created a derivative work were in software, not movies. But it happens, and there's nothing you can do about it, unless you have deeper pockets then the one suing you. If you release a "beta" and then someone else fixes all the bugs in it before you do, when you release your next version, you can either prove it was impossible to have copied from the other person's version, or you'll be found guilty of copyright violations. for making uncreative changes to your own original work. That's how it does work, and that's within the copyright laws you mention.
No, no it isn't. The gassers produce more soot than was previously believed. Again, try to keep up.
More than previously believed, but still well below the coal-fired Diesels.
But the idea that no-one else can tell a story that was first published at least a century ago because copyright somehow forbids it is crazy, an absurd abuse of the legal mechanism, and as I mentioned,
When the system is so ripe for abuse, the system is flawed. In this case, the system is so flawed that we'd be better off if the system was abolished.
Fraud isn't a market mechanism.
Are contracts a market mechanism? As they are enforced by the government. Or are you just "No True Scotsman"ing me, where any counter-point I mention will be excluded from your moving target argument?
It's people like you who are condemning large portions of the US to poverty and inadequate medical care.
Not me. I saw so many loonitarian pricks and teabaggers getting power, I left the US. You have the country you deserve. I live in a place with lower taxes, universal free health care, and scores higher in livability and freedom indexes. Get more pay less. All you have to do is stop drinking the loonitarian koolaid and look around. Of course, your mental illness will not allow you to think.
I can make a single digital control system thats perfectly secure that sets line C high in line A and B are high. You can't hack an AND gate. There are plenty of places one can use provably correct digital control systems.
You are assuming physical security. You also didn't mention testing. Did you verify that the gate is an AND, and not an OR?
At Texas A&M, the choice was Computer Engineering, or Computer Science Engineering. Both were under the Electrical Engineering department. There was no computer science that wasn't managed by the EE department, and all were proper engineering courses.
But this whole idea you keep coming back to about somehow taking someone else's work and actually using copyright against them isn't actually supported by copyright law anywhere I know. It's certainly not part of the principle of copyright law as originally conceived or as defended to some extent by people like me today.
Then explain how it works with derivative works. Is a new unique work, put in the Public Domain by the author still in the Public Domain if someone alters it to improve on it? As Aladdin is copyrighted by Disney, I'd say yes. So if the author of the Public Domain work makes their own derivative work, they can be sued by the makers of the other derivative work. Some early software ended up with those problems. That's why the "tricks" like BSD/GPL were come up with.
That you don't know how copyright works around derivative works doesn't mean it's not part of the law.
Yes, and the lean-all-the-time is what drives the particulate generation. And gassers can do it, but only if you use "tricks" like direct injection in a gasoline engine. You are just a fuel bigot. The math and science don't make it as clear as you assert.
The government is eliminating market mechanisms like fraud. We'd be so much better off with no regulations at all. Keeping the poor multi-billionaires down by preventing mass fraud against the desperate. If they aren't millionaires, they obviously are inferior humans who deserve it.
Speeding is immoral? Never. Endangering people is immoral, but the speed isn't. Owning a firearm isn't immoral. Firing a firearm isn't immoral. Firing at someone likely is, depending on circumstance. But that seems to be a distinction you can't make. copying is *never* immoral, but stealing is. You equate the two. I don't. People associate owning a firearm with being eager to use it, so some people consider owning a firearm to be immoral, especially if there are children in the house or other factors. That you associate speeding with unsafe driving doesn't make it true. That you equate sharing with stealing doesn't make it true either.
Though you did seem to agree that sharing isn't stealing, so long as it's below your personal threshold. You sound like the person with cruise control set at 62 in a 55 in the fast lane, illegally blocking others. Anyone going faster than you is speeding, so you don't have to move over for illegal drivers. But the law proves you wrong. You could get pulled over and given two tickets. Too fast (speeding) and too slow (in the fast lane), at the same time. No, you aren't the morality police. You don't get to personally set the threshold of "immoral". And if it requires this much discussion, it likely should be 100% legal and discouraged (like abortion and drugs, two other topics full of people trying to push their morality on others).
That 58 (presuming you are using the opensecrets.org list) are *NOT* a majority Democrat as you assert. That, and the list is people who pay cash to parties, candidates, and PACs, not those who spend independent money on original research and release that as "independent", implying unbiased. That spending isn't required by law to be disclosed, so can't necessarily be counted. The count is the dollars that can be explicitly counted, disclosed as required by law. It doesn't count anything that doesn't trigger certain election law regulations, and so wouldn't reflect the majority of the work by the Kotch Brothers, but does put ActBlue at the top, as they are a cash-handling organization, everything it does triggering the "rules" opensecrets.org used.
Yes, some games are unplayable, regardless of the pay model. Some die by DRM. I own Spore, but ended up illegally downloading it so that I could actually play it (well, my kids play it). And Dungeon Keeper is playable, theoretically. But it was a poor balance of pay to play. I'm not sure how building a crappy game (delays and hurdles built in) has to do with some of the most profitable games in recent history being "free" (Clash of Clans, Hobbit, and others).
Sorry, I don't think I'm following your logic here. In a system without copyright (or any replacement we haven't mentioned) anyone would be free to take the creation of anyone else and make a profit from it if they could find a way to do so.
Yes. But they couldn't lock you out of your own creation. Much like Disney takes Public Domain stories, makes a movie from them, then aggressively persues those who copy the Public Domain story in a manner Disney doesn't like. In a post-copyright world, Disney could take anyone else's work and copy it all they like, but they couldn't then lock anyone else out from it. In practice, some early anti-copyright advocates managed to have some people take their work, modify it, then spread it around with copyright protections, then block the original author from distributing edited versions of their original work. The original author couldn't prove in court that they didn't see the modified (and copyrighted) version before they edited their original work.
I don't see how this is any different to the situation today, except that with copyright someone who wants to give their work away freely-with-restrictions (GPL etc.) can do so and their wishes are legally enforceable for as long as the copyright lasts.
Other than it's impossible to give it away without restrictions, and not have copyright used against them later against that same work.
The example you gave indicated that it was a commercial failure, not an experimental one. There's a gap between monopoly pricing and "fair" pricing. That some musician has no concept of economics doesn't mean it was a failure. It just means his expectations were wrong.
Pay what you want is the model of the freemium games. You can play them and unlock most (or all) content without paying. But some people choose to pay. Pay what you want is that model. The game is worth more when you pay more for it, according to those that pay. The same is true of the pay-what-you-want offerings. Scott Adams tried it as well, and declared it a failure when a "free" book was discovered on a torrent site. There was no way to capture how many (if any) saw it on the site, read it, then went back to the author to buy a copy after. But it was instantly assumed that the pirated book was "lost revenue" even for a free book.
It's funny how people bitch about the Koch brothers while ignoring the 58 people and groups who spend MORE money to influence politics (the majority of which donate to Democratic Party campaigns).
How many of the 58 Democratic donators also donate Republican? Last I looked, most big business donated to both. It doesn't matter who wins if you buy out all candidates.
It takes less energy input to make diesel,
Because it takes a larger percent of a barrel of oil, meaning you need to pump more oil for Diesel. It's easier to make because it's closer to pure crude. When you take the same barrel and make gasoline, you also get plastics and other things in greater amounts than diesel. So Diesel is worse for the environment.
A TDI golf will blow the doors off a gasser with the same-displacement gasoline engine, it just walks away from it.
Are you comparing similarly sized turbo engines? I've seen a TDI Golf sized engine push an AWD Turbo Talon to a 10s 1/4 mi. And yes, the guy drove 200 + miles to the track to run it, and 200+ miles home after. Just changed tires to run it.
Or that the deer whistles are on the shelf next to the tiger-repelling rocks.