You're confusing "genre" with "plot". If one was a rewrite of the other, would they still be distinct? Would the second need the permission of the first?
You do realize of course that many (if not all) books in the same "genre" have a very similar "plot".
The simple fact that two copyrights are issued but permission is required from the first is enough to see that it's the idea which is protected.
If it really is simply the idea, why would you need two seperate copyrights?
If it were only the expression of the idea, then you would have two choices. Either the film and the book are different expressions of the same idea and would receive separate copyrights
They are...a movie based on a book written years earlier gets a NEW copyright.
or they are the same expression of the idea and the book's copyright would cover the movie. If it were only the expression of the idea, you wouldn't need permission to express someone else's idea differently. But you do, so it's not just the expression which is protected.
The movie (assuming its based on the book) is a derivitive work, which is why permission is needed. The movie is using the same plot, and the SAME characters as the book. A significant portion of the movie is taken AS IS from the book. That is why permission is needed to make the movie. However, since it is in fact a different expression (expressing ideas in a book is different then expressing them in a movie), a seperate copyright is granted, because the visual component is added by the film.
or negligent walmart clerks that sold the game to the kids (about which I am in full agreement)
Um, what responsibility does walmart have to raise someone elses children? Perhaps the parents should do more active parenting, and know what their kids are up to. Its rediculous that walmart, or movie theaters, be expected to enforce the supposed values of the parents. I say supposed because some parents might not mind their 15 yr old seeing an R rated movie.
The game are rated. There should be no enforcement of the rules at puchase...it should be the parents job. So ask, whyu were they kids allowed to keep the game, and more importantly, where did they get the money to buy it in the first place? I agree with your first point though...they certainly shouldn't have been able to get thier hands onto guns..
Therefore, it's the idea which is protected, not just the expression of the idea.
Actually, you're wrong. Just change your scenario to two people that wrote romance novels. The 'structure' is the same in both, but under copyright they are DISTINCT works.
Copyright covers only the experession of a particular idea...otherwise, there'd be only one romance novel ever (which might be a good thing..).
Rebates. You having mailed in all those "mail in rebates" forms would put you in the category of "having a prior business relationship" escape clause of the DNC lists. If not that, the vendor you bought from already qualifies you.
Um, i belive thats wrong. The exception is a CURRENT buisiness relationship...not a prior one. Prior would most likely only come into affect if you owed them money. As soon as the rebate check is mailed to you, your relationship with that business ends.
Store cards. Ever sign up for one of those gift cards/member cards, and the only way to check the balance is to call them? Well, I realized in time Barnes and Noble does this, so I would be certain not to use a cell phone or a home phone. I would use work phone instead because at least that's blocked from telemarketing. Granted, they don't have my name, but they 1) could compare with lists of names previously associated with that number and 2) might learn that it's a valid number (assuming no caller ID blocking and unblocking one-upsmanship).
Um, not quite sure what you're getting at by mentioning gift cards. You use it, and when its done, your relationship with them has ended. If you have a membership card, i'd say you have a current relationship with them, and thus they could call you.
I'd think if you havea no solicitations sign up, and a soliciter steps onto your property, you could say they were tresspassing. You can discriminate against people when deciding who may step onto your property.
Like the telcos, cabling within your home is your responsibility. They also usually charge for a service call (inside or out). The installation charge is just that; a charge to hook everything up for you. If you did it yourself, i suggest you call your cable company and disupte the charge.
This probably explains why it's so difficult to raise taxes. I personally think progressive taxation is about the fairest way to ease the inequities of life but if the people in the lower income brackets only vote to lower taxes (which they aren't paying much of to begin with) then tough luck.
If i make a 1,000,000/yr, does a 25% tax matter to me much? Probably not, i still have 750,000.
But if i make 10,000/yr, a 25% tax DOES matter. I only get 7,500 after taxes. For someone that makes 10,000 / year, that extra 2,500 can make ALOT of difference.
Why should MS pay for other IM clients to use their servers
Um, because they are not. How does it cost them more to use a free 3rd party client over the free one that MS gives out? I really can't see how its costing them any more. The fact that they are offering a client for free means they'll have to provide servers for anyone who downloads thier client.
First, they are right -- it's their network, and other people are piggy-backing on their servers for free and making bank on it. Why should they allow that? You have plenty of other options if you want to chat outside of Microsoft's servers...
Well, so are people using the offical client. They aren't paying either. So how does it cost MS more to allow 3rd party clients then it does to allow only the free client? It seems to me it takes EXTRA work to block 'nonoffical' clients.
Second, instead of the standard MS practice of just squashing the competition, they are introducing a reasonable (assuming the fee is reasonable) solution -- and have decided it's OK to join forces with third party products, if that's what the users want. I say "Bravo!" to MS in this instance.
Do you know of any MS products that have reasonable cost?
If Apple offered licensing to their music service servers for third-party developers, people would be cheering. But if it's MS, it simply must be bad, right?
I don't think anyone would really care. What the percentage of Mac users?
On top of this, presumably, part of the license fees include the network protocols - Which means less reverse-engineering, and less tail-chasing, which will probably counter-balance the cost of the license itself. And hell, these clients may actually work consistantly now.
I guess it depends on whether reverse engineering the client will be more expensive then the license fee or not. Since we don't know the cost of the license, we can't make any kind of comparission.
As far as clients consistantly working goes.. I've NEVER had a problem with a 3rd party client not working consistently, except when AOL was attempting to purposefully block Trillian. Other then that, they've been 100% reliable at sending messeges and files.
I want to encourage MS whenever they do anything even remotely reasonable. To show them they don't have to be anti-competetive, business-stealing, life-destroying bastards to make money.
So do i, but this hardly seems resonable. MS doesn't support users of 3rd party clients when there's a problem, so i don't see how the choice of client makes a difference.
There is no way they are going to give access to open source clients, they cite security and privacy concerns, and that implies client side security.
This is bad security design for sure, but means no open source anyway, period.
Indeed. I recently discovered that the IM character limit on MSN is a CLIENT side restriction. Kopete doesn't enforce the restriction, and larger IMs send just fine. The only 'problem' was the person on the other end wondering how i could send much more text at once..
Well...tell us, then. Did you sympathize with the laid-off factory workers?
Since my father was one of those laid-off factory workers, yes i did sympathize with them. I don't like ot see people lose thier jobs, since i know how devistating it can be.
How can you say such a thing about factory workers. They are the foundation and backbone of this country. Just think if all the machinists left this country.
I hate to tell you, but all the machinists have left the country, thanks to NAFTA. My dad was a machinist, and his employer left for mexico very shortly after NAFTA was approved.
I thikn the biggest problem of production moving out of the country is that it allows other countries to put a great hold over us. If we only import products, other nations could cut us off should the US do something forgein nations dont' approve of. Think of the gas shortage in the 70s.
But if you continue offshoring jobs, what will be left for those that remain here, and who will be able to afford the new stuff, such as an HDTV?
Do we all really want to be in the service industry, answring phones or waiting on people?
I don't know how the article can claim things are better off now then they were before free trade. The middle class is losing ground, the lower class is sinking lower...only the upper class is doing better. How that is better for society at a whole is beyond me.
I believe NASA is only up to using 486 computers for the shuttle program, because they know they are stable. Six months is probabaly NOT long enough of test time for something running in a nuclear power plant.
Yes, because everyone should rush to install a patch that may very well not fix the problem, open another hole, or break something unrelated. Good plan.
I for one DON'T want them to install patches as they are released at a nuclear power plant. I'd like them to install patches on test machines, to be sure the 'fix' doesn't break something else. Installing patches without testing them first is just as senseless (if not more so) then not patching..
Yes, but if i need to go to a website i know, i usually just type it. I don't bookmark things that often, b/c i don't usually forget the important ones. I bookmark sites i'm likely to forget about.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing "genre" with "plot". If one was a rewrite of the other, would they still be distinct? Would the second need the permission of the first?
You do realize of course that many (if not all) books in the same "genre" have a very similar "plot".
The simple fact that two copyrights are issued but permission is required from the first is enough to see that it's the idea which is protected.
If it really is simply the idea, why would you need two seperate copyrights?
If it were only the expression of the idea, then you would have two choices. Either the film and the book are different expressions of the same idea and would receive separate copyrights
They are...a movie based on a book written years earlier gets a NEW copyright.
or they are the same expression of the idea and the book's copyright would cover the movie. If it were only the expression of the idea, you wouldn't need permission to express someone else's idea differently. But you do, so it's not just the expression which is protected.
The movie (assuming its based on the book) is a derivitive work, which is why permission is needed. The movie is using the same plot, and the SAME characters as the book. A significant portion of the movie is taken AS IS from the book. That is why permission is needed to make the movie. However, since it is in fact a different expression (expressing ideas in a book is different then expressing them in a movie), a seperate copyright is granted, because the visual component is added by the film.
or negligent walmart clerks that sold the game to the kids (about which I am in full agreement)
Um, what responsibility does walmart have to raise someone elses children? Perhaps the parents should do more active parenting, and know what their kids are up to. Its rediculous that walmart, or movie theaters, be expected to enforce the supposed values of the parents. I say supposed because some parents might not mind their 15 yr old seeing an R rated movie.
The game are rated. There should be no enforcement of the rules at puchase...it should be the parents job. So ask, whyu were they kids allowed to keep the game, and more importantly, where did they get the money to buy it in the first place? I agree with your first point though...they certainly shouldn't have been able to get thier hands onto guns..
Therefore, it's the idea which is protected, not just the expression of the idea.
Actually, you're wrong. Just change your scenario to two people that wrote romance novels. The 'structure' is the same in both, but under copyright they are DISTINCT works.
Copyright covers only the experession of a particular idea...otherwise, there'd be only one romance novel ever (which might be a good thing..).
Rebates. You having mailed in all those "mail in rebates" forms would put you in the category of "having a prior business relationship" escape clause of the DNC lists. If not that, the vendor you bought from already qualifies you.
Um, i belive thats wrong. The exception is a CURRENT buisiness relationship...not a prior one. Prior would most likely only come into affect if you owed them money. As soon as the rebate check is mailed to you, your relationship with that business ends.
Store cards. Ever sign up for one of those gift cards/member cards, and the only way to check the balance is to call them? Well, I realized in time Barnes and Noble does this, so I would be certain not to use a cell phone or a home phone. I would use work phone instead because at least that's blocked from telemarketing. Granted, they don't have my name, but they 1) could compare with lists of names previously associated with that number and 2) might learn that it's a valid number (assuming no caller ID blocking and unblocking one-upsmanship).
Um, not quite sure what you're getting at by mentioning gift cards. You use it, and when its done, your relationship with them has ended. If you have a membership card, i'd say you have a current relationship with them, and thus they could call you.
I'd think if you havea no solicitations sign up, and a soliciter steps onto your property, you could say they were tresspassing. You can discriminate against people when deciding who may step onto your property.
Unless you buy a fancier car with a chip in the key..then copies won't help.
Driving is not a right, last I checked.
Yes, thats what the gov't brainwashes people to think. Just because they say it isn't a right, doesn't mean that it is not.
You might want to check out this for one opinion..
Like the telcos, cabling within your home is your responsibility. They also usually charge for a service call (inside or out). The installation charge is just that; a charge to hook everything up for you. If you did it yourself, i suggest you call your cable company and disupte the charge.
He does seem to have alot of time on his hands. I believe last i heard, he has spent over 53% of his time in office on vacation.
This probably explains why it's so difficult to raise taxes. I personally think progressive taxation is about the fairest way to ease the inequities of life but if the people in the lower income brackets only vote to lower taxes (which they aren't paying much of to begin with) then tough luck.
/yr, a 25% tax DOES matter. I only get 7,500 after taxes. For someone that makes 10,000 / year, that extra 2,500 can make ALOT of difference.
If i make a 1,000,000/yr, does a 25% tax matter to me much? Probably not, i still have 750,000.
But if i make 10,000
Ok, please reread the parent post I initially replied to, then reread my post.
Why should MS pay for other IM clients to use their servers
Um, because they are not. How does it cost them more to use a free 3rd party client over the free one that MS gives out? I really can't see how its costing them any more. The fact that they are offering a client for free means they'll have to provide servers for anyone who downloads thier client.
First, they are right -- it's their network, and other people are piggy-backing on their servers for free and making bank on it. Why should they allow that? You have plenty of other options if you want to chat outside of Microsoft's servers...
Well, so are people using the offical client. They aren't paying either. So how does it cost MS more to allow 3rd party clients then it does to allow only the free client? It seems to me it takes EXTRA work to block 'nonoffical' clients.
Second, instead of the standard MS practice of just squashing the competition, they are introducing a reasonable (assuming the fee is reasonable) solution -- and have decided it's OK to join forces with third party products, if that's what the users want. I say "Bravo!" to MS in this instance.
Do you know of any MS products that have reasonable cost?
If Apple offered licensing to their music service servers for third-party developers, people would be cheering. But if it's MS, it simply must be bad, right?
I don't think anyone would really care. What the percentage of Mac users?
On top of this, presumably, part of the license fees include the network protocols - Which means less reverse-engineering, and less tail-chasing, which will probably counter-balance the cost of the license itself. And hell, these clients may actually work consistantly now.
I guess it depends on whether reverse engineering the client will be more expensive then the license fee or not. Since we don't know the cost of the license, we can't make any kind of comparission.
As far as clients consistantly working goes.. I've NEVER had a problem with a 3rd party client not working consistently, except when AOL was attempting to purposefully block Trillian. Other then that, they've been 100% reliable at sending messeges and files.
I want to encourage MS whenever they do anything even remotely reasonable. To show them they don't have to be anti-competetive, business-stealing, life-destroying bastards to make money.
So do i, but this hardly seems resonable. MS doesn't support users of 3rd party clients when there's a problem, so i don't see how the choice of client makes a difference.
There is no way they are going to give access to open source clients, they cite security and privacy concerns, and that implies client side security.
This is bad security design for sure, but means no open source anyway, period.
Indeed. I recently discovered that the IM character limit on MSN is a CLIENT side restriction. Kopete doesn't enforce the restriction, and larger IMs send just fine. The only 'problem' was the person on the other end wondering how i could send much more text at once..
Sorry, wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't be going after Trillian, which is a windows only app.
We pay extra for each extra TV connected to Cable.
You're not supposed to. Its not legal for the cable company to do so. Unless you are renting a cable box.
Well...tell us, then. Did you sympathize with the laid-off factory workers?
Since my father was one of those laid-off factory workers, yes i did sympathize with them. I don't like ot see people lose thier jobs, since i know how devistating it can be.
How can you say such a thing about factory workers.
They are the foundation and backbone of this country. Just think if all the machinists left this country.
I hate to tell you, but all the machinists have left the country, thanks to NAFTA. My dad was a machinist, and his employer left for mexico very shortly after NAFTA was approved.
I thikn the biggest problem of production moving out of the country is that it allows other countries to put a great hold over us. If we only import products, other nations could cut us off should the US do something forgein nations dont' approve of. Think of the gas shortage in the 70s.
But if you continue offshoring jobs, what will be left for those that remain here, and who will be able to afford the new stuff, such as an HDTV?
Do we all really want to be in the service industry, answring phones or waiting on people?
I don't know how the article can claim things are better off now then they were before free trade. The middle class is losing ground, the lower class is sinking lower...only the upper class is doing better. How that is better for society at a whole is beyond me.
I believe NASA is only up to using 486 computers for the shuttle program, because they know they are stable. Six months is probabaly NOT long enough of test time for something running in a nuclear power plant.
Since patching also seems to open new holes while closing the old ones, i'm not sure your arguement holds on the client either.
All that said, it's pretty asinine to put a Windows box in something as critical as a nuclear reactor system, even for a client.
Agreed.
Yes, because everyone should rush to install a patch that may very well not fix the problem, open another hole, or break something unrelated. Good plan.
I for one DON'T want them to install patches as they are released at a nuclear power plant. I'd like them to install patches on test machines, to be sure the 'fix' doesn't break something else. Installing patches without testing them first is just as senseless (if not more so) then not patching..
Yes, but if i need to go to a website i know, i usually just type it. I don't bookmark things that often, b/c i don't usually forget the important ones. I bookmark sites i'm likely to forget about.
So why do you now blame deregulation?