(b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title
if you pay someone to write a computer program for you and they retain the copyright, you are still able to use it.
Not true. If they don't allow you a license to use their copyrighted material then you're fucked. That's the whole point of copyright law. To control things in exactly this manner.
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid is irrelevant. That's a case about taking ownership of a physical object.
Actually it's according to law not contract. Title 17 USC Chapter 2
(b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
So I come up with an idea. I pay you to implement it. You own it and I can't legally use it? How does that work exactly? Why would anyone ever fund anything?
It's not an easy point to understand because it's about power not profits.
It's about both. They want power so they can make profits.
Thats their way of expressing dominance. It's not entirely about profits, because if it were they would take profits even at a loss of control which they don't and wont ever do.
What's wrong with them expressing dominance over their property? Are you saying no one should own anything?
They're allowed to take what profits they want and make what business deals they want. I think you're reading way too much into things.
They want to make money anytime someone watches Transformers 2, for example. That's it. They want legislation and DRM to make it as hard as possible for people to not pay them. They don't care about you. They don't care about your happiness. The just want cash every time someone watches their movie, listens to their song. It's really just that simple.
Pro-se. Motion for Summary judgment. The work in question was created before the platinif was born. It is impossible for them to have created it. They have no documentation to show transfer of the copyright.
Additionally this is all pointless as the work is old enough that it's in the public domain.
Title 17 is the United States Code Section 201 (a)
201. Ownership of copyright
(a) Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
You are completely wrong. It's always mattered. Only the creator can copyright something.
Copyright is treated the same as property. You can buy, sell, transfer just the same as a physical object.
There's also the work for hire concept. I'm paying you to make something for me. The copyright is mine. Otherwise if I payed you to do something I could never use it.
If these people you mention don't want to get rich then they need hold onto their copyrights or negotiate much better terms when they agree to give up the copyright. They hold all the power. You can't steal a copyright.
The cord on a mouse has never been a problem. Wireless mice have issues and cost more. I'm all for technology but a wireless mouse has always, with a few niche exceptions, seemed like a pointless innovation.
The device never moves more than about 4 inches. Added complexity. Added cost. No upside. It's a completely pointless feature.
This is about information control, and controlling who can and cannot be happy.
Wow that's quite the sentence.
The first part is the key problem with the copyright conflict. You view it as information. The rights holder, and the people authorized to use force, views it as property.
As for the second part. What the fuck are you talking about? IP rights holders are incapable of controlling happiness. Can you restate your point please?
Now you're directly contradicting the information presented in the study.
The comparisons showed that crash-involved drivers were over-represented in both high- and low- speed categories of the speed distribution.
Further, Solomon reported that the results of his study showed that "low speed drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents than relatively high speed drivers."
No, I'm just saying that the original statement was misinterpreted.
Both myself and the GP disagree.
No, we were arguing how speed affects safety. If you take that into extremes, it'll result in that. If you're a bit more reasonable, it says that the idiots who speed 20 [insert unit] over the limit are much more dangerous that people going 5 [insert unit] over the limit.
Of course. It's a higher delta. Just as someone going 20 slower is more dangerous than someone going 5 faster.
the evidence shows that the risk of having a crash is increased both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed.
So let me get this right. You're arguing the point that the GP already conceded was wrong?
If you want to cut down on accidents have police focus on following distance. Ticket the crap out of that. Media campaign the crap out of that. If everyone is properly spaced the number of accidents will be reduced. The problem is that it's completely against human nature.
Your argument results in everyone going 5 mph. since it's impossible to get hurt at that speed.
Your evidence clearly states everyone going really fast is just as safe as everyone going really slow. It also states that not speeding can be dangerous.
Also your evidence doesn't even address fatalities yet your premise mentions it.
He said nothing about tail gating. They are two independent things.
Around here the cops care more about separation than speed. If you're fast but have a huge buffer they're going to leave you alone over the 5+ over tail gater.
This is known as targeting the unsafe behavior rather than the law breaker.
Because of how skills are learned over a period using real-life time (u need not be logged-in for the time to count) a new player can never catch up on an older player.
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of EVE game mechanics. It's either complete ignorance or pure slander.
All skills in EVE are on a 1 to 5 scale. For example you can train Large Projectile Turrets to level 5 in a month. You can train it to 4 in about 6 days. Training from 1 to 4 takes 20% of the time as training from 1 to 5. In 20% of the time you can be 80% as good as that multi-year player.
This isn't a traditional MMPOG like progression where a level 30 is completely incapable of touching a level 60. A one month old character can take out a multi-year player no problem.
Old characters aren't better they're simply more versatile. Say you can max your projectile skills in 4 months. They're maxed. They don't get any better. If you're 4 months old with maxed projectile and they're 24 months old with the same exact projectile skills how exactly did you not catch them?
Sure that 24 month old player can also use lasers really well. But that just gives him options. It doesn't make him better. You have the exact same skills. You're just as good.
A. All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Game and all copies thereof (including without limitation any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, character inventories, structural or landscape designs, animations, sounds, musical compositions and recordings, audio-visual effects, storylines, character likenesses, methods of operation, moral rights, and any related documentation) are owned or licensed by Blizzard.
These things (like intellectual property) have all the important aspects of property so they can serve with the exact same benefit as real, physical property.
No they can't. Users of Haboo signed a legally binding contract stating they were not property.
This is not my opinion as this has already been decided in court. Twice.
Habbo is run by a company in the States. In the States EULA are legal binding contracts. These has been decided by two separate districts. The cases are ProCD v Zeidenberg and Blizzard v bnetd (can't remember the real name of the defendant)
If the EULA says you don't own it then you don't own it.
Slashdot Mirror
In works for hire the creator is the employer.
Title 17 USC
Chapter 2
(b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title
if you pay someone to write a computer program for you and they retain the copyright, you are still able to use it.
Not true. If they don't allow you a license to use their copyrighted material then you're fucked. That's the whole point of copyright law. To control things in exactly this manner.
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid is irrelevant. That's a case about taking ownership of a physical object.
Actually it's according to law not contract.
Title 17 USC
Chapter 2
(b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
So I come up with an idea. I pay you to implement it. You own it and I can't legally use it? How does that work exactly? Why would anyone ever fund anything?
Yes the "logic" you posted is a joke.
However the follow up has some merit.
What's the solution? You seem to be saying that people who develop medicine shouldn't be able to charge and/or profit from it?
It's also relevant to ACTA, because, as most people here seem to continually forget, ACTA implicates patents as well.
This is the first I've heard of it. More info please.
It's not an easy point to understand because it's about power not profits.
It's about both. They want power so they can make profits.
Thats their way of expressing dominance. It's not entirely about profits, because if it were they would take profits even at a loss of control which they don't and wont ever do.
What's wrong with them expressing dominance over their property? Are you saying no one should own anything?
They're allowed to take what profits they want and make what business deals they want. I think you're reading way too much into things.
They want to make money anytime someone watches Transformers 2, for example. That's it. They want legislation and DRM to make it as hard as possible for people to not pay them. They don't care about you. They don't care about your happiness. The just want cash every time someone watches their movie, listens to their song. It's really just that simple.
No you can't.
Pro-se. Motion for Summary judgment. The work in question was created before the platinif was born. It is impossible for them to have created it. They have no documentation to show transfer of the copyright.
Additionally this is all pointless as the work is old enough that it's in the public domain.
Title 17 is the United States Code
Section 201 (a)
201. Ownership of copyright
(a) Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
I'm just going to assume that's a joke based on your use of the emoticon.
You are completely wrong. It's always mattered. Only the creator can copyright something.
Copyright is treated the same as property. You can buy, sell, transfer just the same as a physical object.
There's also the work for hire concept. I'm paying you to make something for me. The copyright is mine. Otherwise if I payed you to do something I could never use it.
If these people you mention don't want to get rich then they need hold onto their copyrights or negotiate much better terms when they agree to give up the copyright. They hold all the power. You can't steal a copyright.
No this is what you would use for CAD application.
http://www.3dconnexion.com/
The cord on a mouse has never been a problem. Wireless mice have issues and cost more. I'm all for technology but a wireless mouse has always, with a few niche exceptions, seemed like a pointless innovation.
The device never moves more than about 4 inches. Added complexity. Added cost. No upside. It's a completely pointless feature.
This is about information control, and controlling who can and cannot be happy.
Wow that's quite the sentence.
The first part is the key problem with the copyright conflict. You view it as information. The rights holder, and the people authorized to use force, views it as property.
As for the second part. What the fuck are you talking about? IP rights holders are incapable of controlling happiness. Can you restate your point please?
You can't. You didn't create it.
Porn dropped DRM because a DVD-CCA license costs $10,000 when I checked a few years ago.
Now you're directly contradicting the information presented in the study.
The comparisons showed that crash-involved drivers were over-represented in both high- and low- speed categories of the speed distribution.
Further, Solomon reported that the results of his study showed that "low speed drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents than relatively high speed drivers."
Also the graph in figure 1.
Done now. *plonk*
No, I'm just saying that the original statement was misinterpreted.
Both myself and the GP disagree.
No, we were arguing how speed affects safety. If you take that into extremes, it'll result in that. If you're a bit more reasonable, it says that the idiots who speed 20 [insert unit] over the limit are much more dangerous that people going 5 [insert unit] over the limit.
Of course. It's a higher delta. Just as someone going 20 slower is more dangerous than someone going 5 faster.
the evidence shows that the risk of having a crash is increased both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed.
So let me get this right. You're arguing the point that the GP already conceded was wrong?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1679082&cid=32500680
If you want to cut down on accidents have police focus on following distance. Ticket the crap out of that. Media campaign the crap out of that. If everyone is properly spaced the number of accidents will be reduced. The problem is that it's completely against human nature.
Your argument results in everyone going 5 mph. since it's impossible to get hurt at that speed.
Thanks for the update.
That's not a study that's just high school physics. Increase velocity means more force which means more possibility for damage.
Where does it show that higher speed causes accidents? So far the only speed info I've seen is that high differences in speed cause accidents.
Do you support rigorous policing of people going too slow?
So you support ticketing too slow drivers also? They're an equal risk.
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm
Your evidence contradicts your premise.
Your evidence clearly states everyone going really fast is just as safe as everyone going really slow. It also states that not speeding can be dangerous.
Also your evidence doesn't even address fatalities yet your premise mentions it.
He said nothing about tail gating. They are two independent things.
Around here the cops care more about separation than speed. If you're fast but have a huge buffer they're going to leave you alone over the 5+ over tail gater.
This is known as targeting the unsafe behavior rather than the law breaker.
Because of how skills are learned over a period using real-life time (u need not be logged-in for the time to count) a new player can never catch up on an older player.
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of EVE game mechanics. It's either complete ignorance or pure slander.
All skills in EVE are on a 1 to 5 scale. For example you can train Large Projectile Turrets to level 5 in a month. You can train it to 4 in about 6 days. Training from 1 to 4 takes 20% of the time as training from 1 to 5. In 20% of the time you can be 80% as good as that multi-year player.
This isn't a traditional MMPOG like progression where a level 30 is completely incapable of touching a level 60. A one month old character can take out a multi-year player no problem.
Old characters aren't better they're simply more versatile. Say you can max your projectile skills in 4 months. They're maxed. They don't get any better. If you're 4 months old with maxed projectile and they're 24 months old with the same exact projectile skills how exactly did you not catch them?
Sure that 24 month old player can also use lasers really well. But that just gives him options. It doesn't make him better. You have the exact same skills. You're just as good.
The UI is horribly bad. This is universally accepted by the player base. When in doubt right click.
According to the EULA blizzard owned when you had control. Blizzard owns it after you had control. You didn't buy it you paid for access to it.
From http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html
Ownership.
A. All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Game and all copies thereof (including without limitation any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, character inventories, structural or landscape designs, animations, sounds, musical compositions and recordings, audio-visual effects, storylines, character likenesses, methods of operation, moral rights, and any related documentation) are owned or licensed by Blizzard.
I never claimed either had to do anything with virtual property. They both clearly state that EULA are contracts.
Ahh yes Bragg v Linden Labs. One sentence in one motion with no ruling. Quite the precedent there.
The dutch teens ruling is immaterial as according to the news no dutch are involved.
These things (like intellectual property) have all the important aspects of property so they can serve with the exact same benefit as real, physical property.
No they can't. Users of Haboo signed a legally binding contract stating they were not property.
This is not my opinion as this has already been decided in court. Twice.
Habbo is run by a company in the States. In the States EULA are legal binding contracts. These has been decided by two separate districts. The cases are ProCD v Zeidenberg and Blizzard v bnetd (can't remember the real name of the defendant)
If the EULA says you don't own it then you don't own it.