No, but I'm pretty sure my current phone was made in 2005 or earlier. It's an Audiovox 8610 flip phone, and I keep it because $7.50 per month on Virgin Mobile is a lot cheaper than a smartphone plan.
When MS shuts off SHA-1 on July 1st, Windows 10 will still be free.
For one more month. I remember reading that Microsoft announced that the offer to upgrade compatible PCs with valid a Windows 7 or 8.1 license to Windows 10 without charge would be available only for the first year after the release of Windows 10. This year ends on July 29, 2016: "After the first year, upgrades will be paid via boxed product and VL Upgrades.”
Registering your music with your local copyright office would be a good start.
Let's say I do drop $35 (or $55 for a collaboration) on copyright.gov for a registration. I'd bet George Harrison did the same, yet the registration was invalidated in court. What steps should I take to make sure that some copyright owner won't sue me to invalidate the registration, or at least to mitigate the cost of a defense?
During the era without noise, prior to the 1990s, there was much less infrastructure through which to send signal. How would the infrastructure for sending signal have been financed without the involvement of noise?
My bandwidth in 1988 was fine and would have continued to improve simply because I, and others like me, were willing to pay for newer technology.
Had 100 percent of web sites been supported 100 percent by donations or paywalls or both, would there have been enough 'others like you' to support the expansion of infrastructure at near the rate seen in the 1990s and 2000s? And with RSA's U.S. Patent 4,405,829 encumbering SSL until September 2000, how would site operators in the 1990s have taken donations in the first place?
In which country? Besides, The "My Sweet Lord" case was not the only such case. There was also Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton, regarding two songs titled "Love Is a Wonderful Thing", the older by the Isley Brothers and the newer by Michael Bolton. But in any case, what steps should other songwriters take to prevent similar mistakes?
No it doesn't. A cursory search (Google donations vs advertising) turned up Ask HN: How much do you earn with donations vs. ads?, containing an anecdote that someone is earning 20,000% (200 times) more from ads than from donations.
You are making the rather enormous assumption that had the present copyright term been in place they still would have made the movie and they would have not obtained permission. What evidence do you have of that?
That's not what I intended. Had the present copyright term been in place at that time, Disney would not have made Pinocchio because it would have infringed had they done so. It would have had to find a different to adapt for its second animated feature, and Pinocchio would have been made much later once Disney had more money to spend on licensing.
and it is impossible to make a new work that doesn't infringe on a copyright
Say I write and record a song. What steps can I take to make sure that I don't accidentally infringe the copyright in one of the millions of songs in the BMI, ASCAP, or SESAC repertory? George Harrison was found liable for roughly a million dollars in damages for his accidental infringement (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music).
Then let me try again: Without the opportunity presented by advertising-supported publication, how likely is it that companies would have built out infrastructure to bring tens or hundreds of Mbps to the home?
How would security updates to the software installed on your computer have worked on a 1988 home Internet connection? Because without the influx of infrastructure investment powered by advertising, we would likely not have got to tens or hundreds of Mbps to the home by the 2010s.
Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough in my previous post. Once it becomes common to have to "use the other two [o]r look further down the query list", use of search engines will become significantly more time-consuming than it is today.
In the 1990s, I found an application that ran in the system tray. It had a yellow icon, that's all I really remember as far as its name. You used it as a proxy and it would block ads. You could download rules, it had some built in, and you could add domains, wildcards, subdomains, sizes, and the likes to your rules. For the life of me, I don't recall the name of the application. Twenty years is a long time to survive in my head.
It wasn't Proxomitron, was it? But support for wildcards already puts it ahead of APK's offering.
Then who funds the operation of the sites through which you 'inform yourself'?
Sales. Amazon and similar sites that sell products provide information and often, independent reviews.
That's one way. But which "similar sites" host independent reviews for products that are self-sold, as opposed to being sold through Amazon? Is it like Angie's List where people need to pay to view the reviews? Or are you just unwilling to buy any product if it isn't sold through a middleman that also hosts independent reviews?
Well then why not just say, "Early 1990s Internet?"
Because by then it had opened up to commercial entities, which means to advertising.
a video stream (a poor stream but a stream regardless)
Virtually nobody would be willing to pay to watch a feature film over a stream that poor, I'm guessing. This means YouTube, Hulu, Netflix streaming, and Amazon streaming would not be possible over "Early 1990s Internet". Even Netflix's mail service would have failed because postage would have been too high for VHS. One thing that helped increase investment in Internet infrastructure to the point where people could stream standard-definition video at home was commercial involvement, which means advertising.
I had fiber at the office early on, for example.
Which is in fact where Cyber Monday came from. It began when a lot of people had Internet access only on breaks at work.
It's hard to get viewers to "want to buy" a year's subscription just for one article found through a search engine or through a link shared by a friend. And even if viewers were willing to pay per page, it's hard to charge what viewers are willing to pay because of transaction fees. Bitcoin's transaction fee of 0.0001 BTC (currently 0.043 USD) is less than that of credit cards, but it's still significant compared to, say, 10 cents to read an article.
But what exactly is "real, original content"? Say I write a song, record it, and put it on YouTube. How can I be sure it isn't too similar to other existing songs?
Many films are made based on previously-published [stories].
Under the original Berne Convention, copyright lasted 50 years after the death of the author. Disney's film Pinocchio, a loose adaptation of a serial novel by Carlo Collodi, was released very soon after Collodi's copyrights expired. Years later, the Gershwin estate and Disney successfully lobbied to have the term extended to life plus 70 years. Had the present copyright term been in place in the early 1940s, Disney's film would have infringed.
Copyright terms get extended every time Micky Mouse or Snow White approach the public domain.
I wouldn't be so certain of that. The Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft was careful to draw a distinction between harmonization to the copyright term of another economically significant market and what has since come to be called "perpetual copyright on the installment plan". In the case of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, that market was the European Union, which a few years earlier had harmonized to the life plus 70 year copyright term of Germany. As of 2015, life plus 70 is still the standard, and life plus 100 is limited to only Mexico. And under current law, pre-1978 and corporate works are treated such that "life" ends 25 years after publication, meaning Rhapsody in Blue will enter the public domain at the end of 2019, and Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh will enter the public domain in the United States at the end of 2023. So if Congress again employs the harmonization excuse, what economically significant market would Gershwin and Disney suggest that Congress use by the end of 2023?
Then let me loosen the definition: "The largest strongly-connected set of computer networks supporting the applications associated with the Internet during the year 2015." The Internet as we know it is connected far more strongly than the BBSes of the 1980s and early 1990s that the Internet displaced, and BBSes never supported streaming video or software updates to gigabyte-scale operating system distributions.
Tell me, why do you have to go on such a contrived path of logic
Because it resembles the contrived paths that I've seen copyright owners' counsel use successfully to convince a federal judge to find an alleged infringer liable.
A copyright owner seeks to control not only its own works but other works substantially similar to it. To prove copyright infringement in a U.S. court, a copyright owner must prove three things: ownership of copyright, the infringer's access to the original work, and substantial similarity of the works. This means avoiding infringement requires avoiding either similarity or access. I was trying to point out the difficulty of successfully avoiding access.
to get people to accept Disney?
I don't want people to accept Disney. I want people to accept that copyright is unfit for its stated purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you use 2002 era phones still too?
No, but I'm pretty sure my current phone was made in 2005 or earlier. It's an Audiovox 8610 flip phone, and I keep it because $7.50 per month on Virgin Mobile is a lot cheaper than a smartphone plan.
When MS shuts off SHA-1 on July 1st, Windows 10 will still be free.
For one more month. I remember reading that Microsoft announced that the offer to upgrade compatible PCs with valid a Windows 7 or 8.1 license to Windows 10 without charge would be available only for the first year after the release of Windows 10. This year ends on July 29, 2016: "After the first year, upgrades will be paid via boxed product and VL Upgrades.”
Registering your music with your local copyright office would be a good start.
Let's say I do drop $35 (or $55 for a collaboration) on copyright.gov for a registration. I'd bet George Harrison did the same, yet the registration was invalidated in court. What steps should I take to make sure that some copyright owner won't sue me to invalidate the registration, or at least to mitigate the cost of a defense?
I don't see how. Content ID is designed to match copied recordings, not original recordings of copied music.
The internet got on just fine without those.
During the era without noise, prior to the 1990s, there was much less infrastructure through which to send signal. How would the infrastructure for sending signal have been financed without the involvement of noise?
How did newspapers get people to pay for centuries before the internet?
By taking cash payments. The drawback is that cash works only in person.
My bandwidth in 1988 was fine and would have continued to improve simply because I, and others like me, were willing to pay for newer technology.
Had 100 percent of web sites been supported 100 percent by donations or paywalls or both, would there have been enough 'others like you' to support the expansion of infrastructure at near the rate seen in the 1990s and 2000s? And with RSA's U.S. Patent 4,405,829 encumbering SSL until September 2000, how would site operators in the 1990s have taken donations in the first place?
Billboard ranked it the number 5 song of 1963.
In which country? Besides, The "My Sweet Lord" case was not the only such case. There was also Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton, regarding two songs titled "Love Is a Wonderful Thing", the older by the Isley Brothers and the newer by Michael Bolton. But in any case, what steps should other songwriters take to prevent similar mistakes?
The community donation model works well.
No it doesn't. A cursory search (Google donations vs advertising) turned up Ask HN: How much do you earn with donations vs. ads?, containing an anecdote that someone is earning 20,000% (200 times) more from ads than from donations.
You are making the rather enormous assumption that had the present copyright term been in place they still would have made the movie and they would have not obtained permission. What evidence do you have of that?
That's not what I intended. Had the present copyright term been in place at that time, Disney would not have made Pinocchio because it would have infringed had they done so. It would have had to find a different to adapt for its second animated feature, and Pinocchio would have been made much later once Disney had more money to spend on licensing.
and it is impossible to make a new work that doesn't infringe on a copyright
Say I write and record a song. What steps can I take to make sure that I don't accidentally infringe the copyright in one of the millions of songs in the BMI, ASCAP, or SESAC repertory? George Harrison was found liable for roughly a million dollars in damages for his accidental infringement (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music).
Then let me try again: Power companies have advertised heat pumps, LED lighting, and home energy efficiency checkups.
Then let me try again: Without the opportunity presented by advertising-supported publication, how likely is it that companies would have built out infrastructure to bring tens or hundreds of Mbps to the home?
How would security updates to the software installed on your computer have worked on a 1988 home Internet connection? Because without the influx of infrastructure investment powered by advertising, we would likely not have got to tens or hundreds of Mbps to the home by the 2010s.
Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough in my previous post. Once it becomes common to have to "use the other two [o]r look further down the query list", use of search engines will become significantly more time-consuming than it is today.
In the 1990s, I found an application that ran in the system tray. It had a yellow icon, that's all I really remember as far as its name. You used it as a proxy and it would block ads. You could download rules, it had some built in, and you could add domains, wildcards, subdomains, sizes, and the likes to your rules. For the life of me, I don't recall the name of the application. Twenty years is a long time to survive in my head.
It wasn't Proxomitron, was it? But support for wildcards already puts it ahead of APK's offering.
Then who funds the operation of the sites through which you 'inform yourself'?
Sales. Amazon and similar sites that sell products provide information and often, independent reviews.
That's one way. But which "similar sites" host independent reviews for products that are self-sold, as opposed to being sold through Amazon? Is it like Angie's List where people need to pay to view the reviews? Or are you just unwilling to buy any product if it isn't sold through a middleman that also hosts independent reviews?
Most of it is noise. Some is not. You appear to be willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or what am I missing?
Well then why not just say, "Early 1990s Internet?"
Because by then it had opened up to commercial entities, which means to advertising.
a video stream (a poor stream but a stream regardless)
Virtually nobody would be willing to pay to watch a feature film over a stream that poor, I'm guessing. This means YouTube, Hulu, Netflix streaming, and Amazon streaming would not be possible over "Early 1990s Internet". Even Netflix's mail service would have failed because postage would have been too high for VHS. One thing that helped increase investment in Internet infrastructure to the point where people could stream standard-definition video at home was commercial involvement, which means advertising.
I had fiber at the office early on, for example.
Which is in fact where Cyber Monday came from. It began when a lot of people had Internet access only on breaks at work.
It's hard to get viewers to "want to buy" a year's subscription just for one article found through a search engine or through a link shared by a friend. And even if viewers were willing to pay per page, it's hard to charge what viewers are willing to pay because of transaction fees. Bitcoin's transaction fee of 0.0001 BTC (currently 0.043 USD) is less than that of credit cards, but it's still significant compared to, say, 10 cents to read an article.
But what exactly is "real, original content"? Say I write a song, record it, and put it on YouTube. How can I be sure it isn't too similar to other existing songs?
Many films are made based on previously-published [stories].
Under the original Berne Convention, copyright lasted 50 years after the death of the author. Disney's film Pinocchio, a loose adaptation of a serial novel by Carlo Collodi, was released very soon after Collodi's copyrights expired. Years later, the Gershwin estate and Disney successfully lobbied to have the term extended to life plus 70 years. Had the present copyright term been in place in the early 1940s, Disney's film would have infringed.
Hypocrites.
We buy them all this physical stuff, when all they want is a tablet and apps.
And more smurfberries or other consumable "energy" IAPs to feed to the "free" apps.
Copyright terms get extended every time Micky Mouse or Snow White approach the public domain.
I wouldn't be so certain of that. The Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft was careful to draw a distinction between harmonization to the copyright term of another economically significant market and what has since come to be called "perpetual copyright on the installment plan". In the case of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, that market was the European Union, which a few years earlier had harmonized to the life plus 70 year copyright term of Germany. As of 2015, life plus 70 is still the standard, and life plus 100 is limited to only Mexico. And under current law, pre-1978 and corporate works are treated such that "life" ends 25 years after publication, meaning Rhapsody in Blue will enter the public domain at the end of 2019, and Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh will enter the public domain in the United States at the end of 2023. So if Congress again employs the harmonization excuse, what economically significant market would Gershwin and Disney suggest that Congress use by the end of 2023?
Then let me loosen the definition: "The largest strongly-connected set of computer networks supporting the applications associated with the Internet during the year 2015." The Internet as we know it is connected far more strongly than the BBSes of the 1980s and early 1990s that the Internet displaced, and BBSes never supported streaming video or software updates to gigabyte-scale operating system distributions.
Tell me, why do you have to go on such a contrived path of logic
Because it resembles the contrived paths that I've seen copyright owners' counsel use successfully to convince a federal judge to find an alleged infringer liable.
A copyright owner seeks to control not only its own works but other works substantially similar to it. To prove copyright infringement in a U.S. court, a copyright owner must prove three things: ownership of copyright, the infringer's access to the original work, and substantial similarity of the works. This means avoiding infringement requires avoiding either similarity or access. I was trying to point out the difficulty of successfully avoiding access.
to get people to accept Disney?
I don't want people to accept Disney. I want people to accept that copyright is unfit for its stated purpose.