Sure, but it wasn't even the FBI or any other executive law enforcement department that arrested this guy; according to the summary, it was the local police. So, again, why would the FBI comment on the arrest of a bush-league hacker by the local Barney?
Correct. For works written before January 1, 1978, copyright extends for an initial term of 28 years and can be renewed for another 67 years. Copyrights that have not been renewed for all works published January 1, 1978 would be public domain. Furthermore, works published before January 1, 1978 had to registered for copyright protection status to be effective; this is not true for works written after January 1, 1978.
What is special about magazines is that many magazines did not register their copyrights for individual articles.
Would you tell something "in confidence" to someone who you expected to write down a detailed report of your statements, and send them into a system to analysed and passed around? Anyone speaking to a diplomat and expecting confidence was naive from day one.
Which is exactly why the release of these diplomatic cables really isn't that big of a deal, IMHO. Most of them involve loose transcripts of diplomatic meetings that took place; these diplomatic meetings always have minute takers on both sides. The parties fully expect that each respective government apparatus is going to dissect and analyze everything that was said
Go ahead. Read them. What you'll find should be no surprise: One cable talks about General Petraeus' meeting with Egyptian Intelligence Chief Soliman in Cairo, who told all present at the meeting that he would do everything he could to help Iraq's new government be welcomed into the Arab world and that his goals regarding Palestine were to undermine Hamas, support Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas, and that Egypt would be working closely with the Israelis to send humanitarian aid to Gaza. I'm sure no one expected anything different coming from Egypt. Duh. Nor did it seem to me that Soliman told Petraeus anything particularly secret. Nevertheless, this cable is classified as SECRET/NOFORN. Why? It reveals nothing that anyone couldn't find out by watching CNN or Al Jazeera, or, indeed, listening to the public statements of the Egyptian government.
The figurine maker could easily make an argument on fair use grounds -- so long as the figurine doesn't make portable media players, smartphones, computers or other consumer electronics, I'd say they were pretty safe to claim fair use as an affirmative defense (IANAL, etc.) (And, no, I don't forsee Apple going into the figurine business.) (The rules that apply to trademark fair use aren't the same as the rules that apply to copyright fair use, but the legal intent is roughly the same.)
Where they get into trouble is in using Steve Jobs' own image without his consent; except that Apple doesn't have ground to sue for Steve Jobs' image, only Steve Jobs does.
You and I have personal blogs, without advertising. I publish an article on mine. You re-publish that article on your blog and attribute it to me. If I want you to take that article down, I have every right to do so, and no judge on earth -- if I took it that far -- is going to rule in your favor. This has nothing to do with "commercial value"; it's not fair use by any measure.
First of all, you are incorrect: my blog does have advertising.
Secondly, even if what you stated were 100% correct, there is nothing to say what I post on my personal blog, or what you post on your personal blog, has no commercial value, advertising or no. Clearly that's not the case. We can reasonably expect to derive commercial value from our respective posts, even if such commercial value is only indirect.
The key difference here is that Righthaven doesn't have a single copy of the article in question posted anywhere on the Web. They didn't write it. The newspaper that did sold them the rights, and then licensed the article from Righthaven. Since Righthaven has already derived all expected economic value from the article in question, the article no longer has any commercial value to Righthaven whatsoever. The only party that does expect to derive further economic value from the article, the newspaper in question, is no longer the rights holder, so they have no standing to sue.
Hence, Righthaven's entire business model is flawed: what they clearly expect is to be able to derive further profits from nuisance lawsuits. The problem is that copyright law wasn't created for that reason. If Righthaven were more like ASCAP and BMI, who do derive additional revenues from their copyrighted works by licensing the material they hold the rights to, it'd be a different story. But Righthaven doesn't expect more revenue from anything but filing lawsuits. The judge is sending them a clear message: you cannot expect to abuse the court system to derive profits.
Your problem is that you are taking everything I say completely out of context.
How are these people not bonafide official U.S. citizens? Because they happen to be Hispanic?
The guy in the first article is from Puerto Rico. Citizens of Puerto Rico are, in fact, U.S. citizens and they are free to migrate anywhere to any of the 50 states, as any other American citizen would. The second guy was born in the U.S., the son of a decorated Vietnam War veteran (that's why he and his aunt had to locate his own and his father's birth certificates.)
These space planes were developed largely in response to fears that the NASA space shuttle program would be cancelled as a result of the Challenger incident in 1986. Further problems with Columbia forced the Air Force to pick up the pace and sealed the fate of the remaining space shuttle program.
Why don't I see any BP boycott campaigns anywhere?
Probably you just haven't looked. There has been a massive boycott here in Florida: one, two, three. BTW -- If you're going to boycott BP, you need to boycott all of BP's brands, too.
No, fragment you quoted is one-half. From your link:
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
And I said "does not hurt the commercial value of the original."
As the article you linked to says, consult an attorney. That's why I said "there are few specifics as to what does and does not constitute fair use; whether a specific case is fair use depends entirely on the facts and circumstances of the case." The "facts and circumstances of the case" would include "the nature and character of the use," "the "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole," and "the nature of the copyrighted work,"
The amount and substantiality isn't set in stone -- note that there are no specifics in the law itself. Like I said, it's an affirmative defense. In some cases, use of the entire work can legitimately be considered fair use.
Of course, you read "the use of the article is non-commercial" and stopped right there. I, on the other hand, did account for all four points, if you'd read my whole post.
It's fair use, even though you used the whole thing and changed only two words (explodes -> asplodes, dark -> dork)
You're not selling anything -- the use is non-commercial in nature. Does it hurt the commercial value of the original? The answer is clearly "no." If anything, your use of the lyrics increases the commercial value of the Pink Floyd tunes Brain Damage and Eclipse, thereby increasing sales of the album Dark Side of the Moon.
While usually you'd be right, there are instances where reposting an entire article is considered fair use. For example, if the use of the article is non-commercial and does not hurt the commercial value of the original, that's basically fair use.
Understand that fair use is not a law;it's an affirmative defense in a copyright violation case. Therefore, there are few specifics as to what does and does not constitute fair use; whether a specific case is fair use depends entirely on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The post I was replying to mentioned a 386SX/16. What I should have said to be clear was the "16 MHz 386SX", which was released in 1988, about 3 years earlier, was well obsolete, but instead everyone had to harp on the specific thing I said rather than taking the comment in context.
So instead of taking my post at face value, I get 10 replies telling me I don't know the difference between "baud" and "bps" (nevermind that I deliberately avoided using the term "baud" to avoid such discussions), and another 10 telling me that the 386 wasn't obsolete, which I didn't say at all.
1) There are no 1200 kbps dialup modems. The fastest ones do 56 Kbps under specialized conditions.
2) If you meant to say 1200 bps modems, well, by the Linus wrote and released the first versions of the Linux kernel, 1200 bps modems and the 386SX were both well obsolete. The most common systems of that day were 486DXs running at 33 MHz at the sweet spot and 50 MHz at the high end. Most people had modems capable of greater than 9600 BPS (many around 14.4Kbps and 28.8Kbps)
3) Now quit making fun of us real old-timers and get off my lawn .
Yep. For those that haven't tried it without the patch, a multithreaded kernel compile will typically peg a modern multicore CPU at 100% and will even give you drunken mouse syndrome. Just being able to scroll around a browser window while doing a lengthy make -j64 is impressive. Being able to watch 1080p video smoothly is... astounding. Especially when you consider the minimum CPU requirement for 1080p H.264 playback is a 3 GHz single core or a 2 GHz dual core.
Quite right. The patent claims to own the concept of representing a database record with a class instance (object instance). The more interesting question is why Red Hat didn't challenge this patent based on originality or obviousness: I personally have prior art going back to the mid-90s, and I'm pretty sure that others right here on this site do as well; some may have prior art going back further.
People who suspect they have been infected will be able to put urine or saliva on to a computer chip about the size of a USB chip, plug it into their phone or computer and receive a diagnosis within minutes, telling them which, if any, sexually transmitted infection (STI) they have.
Bad headline. You aren't peeing on the phone, you're peeing on a slide that contains a chip that you plug into the phone.
Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs? Is that you?
Does this mean they'll start putting gold in their Caramel Cinnabons? For what they charge for those things, there ought to be gold in them!
Sure, but it wasn't even the FBI or any other executive law enforcement department that arrested this guy; according to the summary, it was the local police. So, again, why would the FBI comment on the arrest of a bush-league hacker by the local Barney?
Correct. For works written before January 1, 1978, copyright extends for an initial term of 28 years and can be renewed for another 67 years. Copyrights that have not been renewed for all works published January 1, 1978 would be public domain. Furthermore, works published before January 1, 1978 had to registered for copyright protection status to be effective; this is not true for works written after January 1, 1978.
What is special about magazines is that many magazines did not register their copyrights for individual articles.
Which is exactly why the release of these diplomatic cables really isn't that big of a deal, IMHO. Most of them involve loose transcripts of diplomatic meetings that took place; these diplomatic meetings always have minute takers on both sides. The parties fully expect that each respective government apparatus is going to dissect and analyze everything that was said
Go ahead. Read them. What you'll find should be no surprise: One cable talks about General Petraeus' meeting with Egyptian Intelligence Chief Soliman in Cairo, who told all present at the meeting that he would do everything he could to help Iraq's new government be welcomed into the Arab world and that his goals regarding Palestine were to undermine Hamas, support Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas, and that Egypt would be working closely with the Israelis to send humanitarian aid to Gaza. I'm sure no one expected anything different coming from Egypt. Duh. Nor did it seem to me that Soliman told Petraeus anything particularly secret. Nevertheless, this cable is classified as SECRET/NOFORN. Why? It reveals nothing that anyone couldn't find out by watching CNN or Al Jazeera, or, indeed, listening to the public statements of the Egyptian government.
The figurine maker could easily make an argument on fair use grounds -- so long as the figurine doesn't make portable media players, smartphones, computers or other consumer electronics, I'd say they were pretty safe to claim fair use as an affirmative defense (IANAL, etc.) (And, no, I don't forsee Apple going into the figurine business.) (The rules that apply to trademark fair use aren't the same as the rules that apply to copyright fair use, but the legal intent is roughly the same.)
Where they get into trouble is in using Steve Jobs' own image without his consent; except that Apple doesn't have ground to sue for Steve Jobs' image, only Steve Jobs does.
First of all, you are incorrect: my blog does have advertising.
Secondly, even if what you stated were 100% correct, there is nothing to say what I post on my personal blog, or what you post on your personal blog, has no commercial value, advertising or no. Clearly that's not the case. We can reasonably expect to derive commercial value from our respective posts, even if such commercial value is only indirect.
The key difference here is that Righthaven doesn't have a single copy of the article in question posted anywhere on the Web. They didn't write it. The newspaper that did sold them the rights, and then licensed the article from Righthaven. Since Righthaven has already derived all expected economic value from the article in question, the article no longer has any commercial value to Righthaven whatsoever. The only party that does expect to derive further economic value from the article, the newspaper in question, is no longer the rights holder, so they have no standing to sue.
Hence, Righthaven's entire business model is flawed: what they clearly expect is to be able to derive further profits from nuisance lawsuits. The problem is that copyright law wasn't created for that reason. If Righthaven were more like ASCAP and BMI, who do derive additional revenues from their copyrighted works by licensing the material they hold the rights to, it'd be a different story. But Righthaven doesn't expect more revenue from anything but filing lawsuits. The judge is sending them a clear message: you cannot expect to abuse the court system to derive profits.
Your problem is that you are taking everything I say completely out of context.
How are these people not bonafide official U.S. citizens? Because they happen to be Hispanic?
The guy in the first article is from Puerto Rico. Citizens of Puerto Rico are, in fact, U.S. citizens and they are free to migrate anywhere to any of the 50 states, as any other American citizen would. The second guy was born in the U.S., the son of a decorated Vietnam War veteran (that's why he and his aunt had to locate his own and his father's birth certificates.)
Some planes do go BOOM, particularly when they hit Mach... ;)
These space planes were developed largely in response to fears that the NASA space shuttle program would be cancelled as a result of the Challenger incident in 1986. Further problems with Columbia forced the Air Force to pick up the pace and sealed the fate of the remaining space shuttle program.
Probably you just haven't looked. There has been a massive boycott here in Florida: one, two, three. BTW -- If you're going to boycott BP, you need to boycott all of BP's brands, too.
No, fragment you quoted is one-half. From your link:
And I said "does not hurt the commercial value of the original."
As the article you linked to says, consult an attorney. That's why I said "there are few specifics as to what does and does not constitute fair use; whether a specific case is fair use depends entirely on the facts and circumstances of the case." The "facts and circumstances of the case" would include "the nature and character of the use," "the "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole," and "the nature of the copyrighted work,"
The amount and substantiality isn't set in stone -- note that there are no specifics in the law itself. Like I said, it's an affirmative defense. In some cases, use of the entire work can legitimately be considered fair use.
Of course, you read "the use of the article is non-commercial" and stopped right there. I, on the other hand, did account for all four points, if you'd read my whole post.
It's fair use, even though you used the whole thing and changed only two words (explodes -> asplodes, dark -> dork)
You're not selling anything -- the use is non-commercial in nature. Does it hurt the commercial value of the original? The answer is clearly "no." If anything, your use of the lyrics increases the commercial value of the Pink Floyd tunes Brain Damage and Eclipse, thereby increasing sales of the album Dark Side of the Moon.
While usually you'd be right, there are instances where reposting an entire article is considered fair use. For example, if the use of the article is non-commercial and does not hurt the commercial value of the original, that's basically fair use.
Understand that fair use is not a law;it's an affirmative defense in a copyright violation case. Therefore, there are few specifics as to what does and does not constitute fair use; whether a specific case is fair use depends entirely on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The post I was replying to mentioned a 386SX/16. What I should have said to be clear was the "16 MHz 386SX", which was released in 1988, about 3 years earlier, was well obsolete, but instead everyone had to harp on the specific thing I said rather than taking the comment in context.
So instead of taking my post at face value, I get 10 replies telling me I don't know the difference between "baud" and "bps" (nevermind that I deliberately avoided using the term "baud" to avoid such discussions), and another 10 telling me that the 386 wasn't obsolete, which I didn't say at all.
*sigh*
I guess I'm expecting too much for Slashdot.
Does this work with PTYs?
1) There are no 1200 kbps dialup modems. The fastest ones do 56 Kbps under specialized conditions.
2) If you meant to say 1200 bps modems, well, by the Linus wrote and released the first versions of the Linux kernel, 1200 bps modems and the 386SX were both well obsolete. The most common systems of that day were 486DXs running at 33 MHz at the sweet spot and 50 MHz at the high end. Most people had modems capable of greater than 9600 BPS (many around 14.4Kbps and 28.8Kbps)
3) Now quit making fun of us real old-timers and get off my lawn .
You could always use gdmflexiserver, which runs a new X session on a new TTY.
Yep. For those that haven't tried it without the patch, a multithreaded kernel compile will typically peg a modern multicore CPU at 100% and will even give you drunken mouse syndrome. Just being able to scroll around a browser window while doing a lengthy make -j64 is impressive. Being able to watch 1080p video smoothly is ... astounding. Especially when you consider the minimum CPU requirement for 1080p H.264 playback is a 3 GHz single core or a 2 GHz dual core.
s/ruling/patent
Which is exactly why it would have been in Red Hat's best interests as a database vendor to challenge the ruling.
Again, I ask the question: why did Red Hat not do this? There is something more here that nobody is telling us.
Come to think of it, so long as you include non-SQL, non-DBMS databases, I personally have prior art going back to, um, 1989 I think.
Quite right. The patent claims to own the concept of representing a database record with a class instance (object instance). The more interesting question is why Red Hat didn't challenge this patent based on originality or obviousness: I personally have prior art going back to the mid-90s, and I'm pretty sure that others right here on this site do as well; some may have prior art going back further.
At least read the summary:
People who suspect they have been infected will be able to put urine or saliva on to a computer chip about the size of a USB chip, plug it into their phone or computer and receive a diagnosis within minutes, telling them which, if any, sexually transmitted infection (STI) they have.
Bad headline. You aren't peeing on the phone, you're peeing on a slide that contains a chip that you plug into the phone.
True, but some trackers will not allow you to seed more than a certain number of torrents before it stops accepting connections from you.
Who needs trackers? All of these clients support trackerless torrents.