People with no hands would obviously be exempt from the new fingerprint-based biometric passport system. Instead, they would have to apply for temporary, 12- month passports in order to travel, the MEPs agreed.
I can see this being popular with advocacy groups....
Especially when many non-EU countries are reluctant to welcome people with less than 6 months left on their passports. In effect many will have to apply for a temporary passport every 6 months.
Stupidity at its best. If the passport biometrics indicate they have no hands, the it should be very easy to verify this.
Either that or ask people for toe prints, or nose prints or stump prints.
There is an interesting paragraph in the article....
The real question, Mr. Rose said, is how does the record industry change its rights structure so it captures a fairer percent of the value it creates in funding, marketing and managing the launch of artists?
To paraphrase - we think the artists owe us more money
The individual songs, the lyrics, the music are the property of the recording artists - after all - they expended the energy, creativity, consumed the beer and pizza in order to write them.
Then time comes to record the music in an album. Essentially an album (CD, Tape, Vinyl, Whatever) is a combination of the music of the band, the lyrics, as well as the effort of the recording studio, the mixing, the physical production of the CD, the cover art, etc etc.
So you could well end up with a situation where the music is copyright to the artists (after all, they created it), however the assembly of the artists music into an album may well be copyright of the recording studio.
When I used to do some web sites for small businesses, I usually took the following approach (and there is a strong connection here - as the business didn't actually pay for the web sites).
The text, logos, information that the business provided I treated as the business having the copyright to - after all - they wrote it, or paid for the logos.
The actual HTML code, the websites were copyright of the organisation that I belonged to that made the code.
So, DIDN'T hold copyright over the information - but we DID hold copyright over the finished work.
So, the individual items are copyright one party.
The collected work could be copyright to a different party.
In reality - if we wanted to reuse the material - then we would need to negotiate for it - if they wanted to reuse our website - we would need to negotiate for it. It will most like come down to the contracts that are in use. (Read the fine print).
Standard Disclaimer: The closest I ever got to legal knowledge was sitting in one lecture, that I wasn't even enrolled in (IANAL).
Slashdot Mirror
"There are many copies"
I can see this being popular with advocacy groups....
Especially when many non-EU countries are reluctant to welcome people with less than 6 months left on their passports. In effect many will have to apply for a temporary passport every 6 months.
Stupidity at its best. If the passport biometrics indicate they have no hands, the it should be very easy to verify this.
Either that or ask people for toe prints, or nose prints or stump prints.
There is an interesting paragraph in the article....
To paraphrase - we think the artists owe us more money
As a thought consider the following situation.
The individual songs, the lyrics, the music are the property of the recording artists - after all - they expended the energy, creativity, consumed the beer and pizza in order to write them.
Then time comes to record the music in an album. Essentially an album (CD, Tape, Vinyl, Whatever) is a combination of the music of the band, the lyrics, as well as the effort of the recording studio, the mixing, the physical production of the CD, the cover art, etc etc.
So you could well end up with a situation where the music is copyright to the artists (after all, they created it), however the assembly of the artists music into an album may well be copyright of the recording studio.
When I used to do some web sites for small businesses, I usually took the following approach (and there is a strong connection here - as the business didn't actually pay for the web sites).
The text, logos, information that the business provided I treated as the business having the copyright to - after all - they wrote it, or paid for the logos.
The actual HTML code, the websites were copyright of the organisation that I belonged to that made the code.
So, DIDN'T hold copyright over the information - but we DID hold copyright over the finished work.
So, the individual items are copyright one party.
The collected work could be copyright to a different party.
In reality - if we wanted to reuse the material - then we would need to negotiate for it - if they wanted to reuse our website - we would need to negotiate for it. It will most like come down to the contracts that are in use. (Read the fine print).
Standard Disclaimer: The closest I ever got to legal knowledge was sitting in one lecture, that I wasn't even enrolled in (IANAL).