Bourbon is not a protected geographical indicator, it is a style of whiskey. Jack Daniel's is not a Bourbon whiskey, it is a Tennessee whiskey. It tastes nothing like Bourbons of the same price range.
Uh, this has nothing to do with copyright. The TRIPS agreement formally established geographical indicators as protected intellectual property about 15 years ago. It's similar to a trademark, as it is an assurance of quality and consistency of product. As others above pointed out, the same protection exists for Champagne, Cognac, Parmigiano, Basmati, and several hundred others. I can make no assessment of whether this instance is justified or not, but the linked blog post (and most of the responses here) is kneejerk and uninformed.
The US is a member of the UN, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and a signatory to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, so, this does apply in the US. The particular terms may be different (e.g., Parmesan is permitted in the US, but within Europe the term "Italian hard cheese" is used to refer to cheese made in the style of, but not within the borders of, the Parmigiano-Reggiano region), but the protection is required of all signatory members.
This is not a copyright or patent issue, nor is it strictly a trademark issue either. It is the seldom-referenced fourth category of "intellectual property," geographical indicators. It, like trademark, is rooted in the principle that prevents you from opening up a burger shop with big golden arches out front. Companies have a right to enforce their brand, and geographical regions have a right to regulate the quality and authenticity of any product bearing a claim of origin in that region. This is the most defensible type of intellectual property. (That said, I know nothing about the merits of this particular case.)
They don't copyright their recipes, AFAIK, they keep them secret. I used to own a cookbook that taught how to make a taste-alike version of the Colonel's Original Recipe (flour, salt, white and black pepper and MSG) and Big Mac sauce; the author was not sued for copyright infringement. There are trademarks, which prevent you from selling something called a Big Mac, but right now Carl's Jr. (Hardee's) is selling a sandwich that they advertise as being a bigger Big Mac. Legal threats? Not so much.
Recipes (that is, listing of ingredients by proportion) are not copyrightable, at least in the USA. This has nothing to do with copyright. You don't understand what you're talking about.
Uh, before smart meters, the person after you was "stealing" from you due to a technical deficiency, now they're not. In fact, in Portland, you can move your car to a different spot and still use the remaining time, as long as you abide by the per-block time limits (usually 90 minutes).
And by the way, if parking is so horrible on the street, private garages will arise to compete and wring out any surplus.
Right? Look at any NBA center. Shaq, for example, has a rare genetic condition causing him to be a fucking giant and giving him an unfair advantage over me, a 6'1" 190 lb. dude. Should he be allowed to play professional basketball? Of course.
Seems to me that if a paid writer edited a page and it conformed to community standards (notariety, neutral POV, sourced, etc.), there wouldn't be a problem. If the writing didn't conform, then it would get rejected by the community, and the writer would likely not get paid. (And if someone wants to pay somebody to make rejected edits to Wikipedia, that's called a fiscal stimulus.)
There are plenty of ways to have a vested interest besides being directly paid, and Wikipedians have been very successful in finding and correcting egregiously self-serving edits. Why would writers getting paid break the current system?
Way to move the goalposts even within a single post.
Everybody dies.
True. And? Organ transplants are a great way to make your point because they're expensive and don't always work. How about prenatal care? It's cost-effective and affects a person over an entire life. Why should a child suffer because its mother is too poor to afford quality prenatal care? Very few people are interested in indefinitely prolonging life; virtually everyone talking about expanding government provision of health care financing is referring to improving the quality of life and increasing everyone's capacity to work.
Also, is 85 considered too old to get a new heart? Who decides? Congress?
It's easy enough to adjust the copay schedule so that the potential benefit is inversely proportional to the cost. You don't prohibit anyone from receiving desirable medical care, but you prevent people from using it wastefully.
But you were making a point about *shudder* bureaucrats. Right now, insurance companies are lobbying against comparative effectiveness research. You see, the free market hasn't done any comprehensive studies comparing different treatments against a placebo that take account of each treatment's cost. Now that the government wants to do it, they're trying to stop it. Yay free market health care!
They don't want us old folks to pass our money to our children or grandchildren. They'd prefer to tax us at 50% so there's next-to-nothing left.
Yeah, they don't want people to pass money down to their children, which is why they tax all estates, even those under $7 million, and also why 50% is not a marginal rate, but a fixed rate on the entire estate.
That's a pretty fucked up dictionary you're reading there. Not to mention your moral compass, which seems to imply that if someone with a chronic health problem doesn't make enough money to treat it (often mutually reinforcing conditions), she should languish in poor health and/or die.
Maybe cable/satellite TV providers have an economic incentive to offering only a few packages rather than a la carte. Of course, what you want the FCC to do would require legislation and a massive increase in its authority, since it doesn't currently have the ability to regulate cable television. But that would encroach on your freedom, wouldn't it, Randriod.
The option is called "not using apt-p2p." I don't remember the exact syntax, but I think there's a switch in the file/etc/apt/this/is/the/default.behavior
Lastly, you can't drink beer in school labs. Fuck that:-D
Maybe not where you went to school. In our math department computer lab (6 Red Hat workstations), we had a mini fridge with at least a sixer in it at all times, with a cup on top for beer money. Ah, college.
I'm pretty sure a movie theater isn't legally liable if they let a 16-year-old into an R-rated movie, so this law would go above and beyond the protection that the ratings provide for other media.
Digital cost increase is also more than matched by a non-digital cost decrease. Specifically, the marginal increase in cost for a digital copy of a track is much, much lower than the marginal increase in cost for a non-digital copy. There is no physical media, no printing of the CD label, no case, no shrink-wrap, no theft prevention device, no shipping cost, no shelf-space.
This assumes that they send fewer units to stores in anticipation of the shift from physical to downloaded formats. (When was the last time the music industry anticipated anything?) More likely they had the same costs for physical media, printing, case, shrink-wrap, theft prevention device, shipping, and shelf space; they just sold fewer CDs.
Who the fuck modded this dickhead up? Way to go, making it more likely that random creeps from the internet are going to call and harass these teachers.
Slashdot Mirror
Bourbon is not a protected geographical indicator, it is a style of whiskey. Jack Daniel's is not a Bourbon whiskey, it is a Tennessee whiskey. It tastes nothing like Bourbons of the same price range.
Uh, this has nothing to do with copyright. The TRIPS agreement formally established geographical indicators as protected intellectual property about 15 years ago. It's similar to a trademark, as it is an assurance of quality and consistency of product. As others above pointed out, the same protection exists for Champagne, Cognac, Parmigiano, Basmati, and several hundred others. I can make no assessment of whether this instance is justified or not, but the linked blog post (and most of the responses here) is kneejerk and uninformed.
The US is a member of the UN, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and a signatory to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, so, this does apply in the US. The particular terms may be different (e.g., Parmesan is permitted in the US, but within Europe the term "Italian hard cheese" is used to refer to cheese made in the style of, but not within the borders of, the Parmigiano-Reggiano region), but the protection is required of all signatory members.
This is not a copyright or patent issue, nor is it strictly a trademark issue either. It is the seldom-referenced fourth category of "intellectual property," geographical indicators. It, like trademark, is rooted in the principle that prevents you from opening up a burger shop with big golden arches out front. Companies have a right to enforce their brand, and geographical regions have a right to regulate the quality and authenticity of any product bearing a claim of origin in that region. This is the most defensible type of intellectual property. (That said, I know nothing about the merits of this particular case.)
They don't copyright their recipes, AFAIK, they keep them secret. I used to own a cookbook that taught how to make a taste-alike version of the Colonel's Original Recipe (flour, salt, white and black pepper and MSG) and Big Mac sauce; the author was not sued for copyright infringement. There are trademarks, which prevent you from selling something called a Big Mac, but right now Carl's Jr. (Hardee's) is selling a sandwich that they advertise as being a bigger Big Mac. Legal threats? Not so much.
Recipes (that is, listing of ingredients by proportion) are not copyrightable, at least in the USA. This has nothing to do with copyright. You don't understand what you're talking about.
Uh, before smart meters, the person after you was "stealing" from you due to a technical deficiency, now they're not. In fact, in Portland, you can move your car to a different spot and still use the remaining time, as long as you abide by the per-block time limits (usually 90 minutes). And by the way, if parking is so horrible on the street, private garages will arise to compete and wring out any surplus.
That would make parking pretty expensive.
Right? Look at any NBA center. Shaq, for example, has a rare genetic condition causing him to be a fucking giant and giving him an unfair advantage over me, a 6'1" 190 lb. dude. Should he be allowed to play professional basketball? Of course.
Uh, have you ever seen Wikipedia? It's pretty well formatted. No one is talking about going from Word to Notepad.
Because I bought my computer in 2006 and it still works fine without paying $129 to upgrade. That would be $129 I couldn't use toward my new laptop.
Seems to me that if a paid writer edited a page and it conformed to community standards (notariety, neutral POV, sourced, etc.), there wouldn't be a problem. If the writing didn't conform, then it would get rejected by the community, and the writer would likely not get paid. (And if someone wants to pay somebody to make rejected edits to Wikipedia, that's called a fiscal stimulus.)
There are plenty of ways to have a vested interest besides being directly paid, and Wikipedians have been very successful in finding and correcting egregiously self-serving edits. Why would writers getting paid break the current system?
Way to move the goalposts even within a single post.
Everybody dies.
True. And? Organ transplants are a great way to make your point because they're expensive and don't always work. How about prenatal care? It's cost-effective and affects a person over an entire life. Why should a child suffer because its mother is too poor to afford quality prenatal care? Very few people are interested in indefinitely prolonging life; virtually everyone talking about expanding government provision of health care financing is referring to improving the quality of life and increasing everyone's capacity to work.
Also, is 85 considered too old to get a new heart? Who decides? Congress?
It's easy enough to adjust the copay schedule so that the potential benefit is inversely proportional to the cost. You don't prohibit anyone from receiving desirable medical care, but you prevent people from using it wastefully.
But you were making a point about *shudder* bureaucrats. Right now, insurance companies are lobbying against comparative effectiveness research. You see, the free market hasn't done any comprehensive studies comparing different treatments against a placebo that take account of each treatment's cost. Now that the government wants to do it, they're trying to stop it. Yay free market health care!
They don't want us old folks to pass our money to our children or grandchildren. They'd prefer to tax us at 50% so there's next-to-nothing left.
Yeah, they don't want people to pass money down to their children, which is why they tax all estates, even those under $7 million, and also why 50% is not a marginal rate, but a fixed rate on the entire estate.
What? I don't know what I'm talking about?
That's a pretty fucked up dictionary you're reading there. Not to mention your moral compass, which seems to imply that if someone with a chronic health problem doesn't make enough money to treat it (often mutually reinforcing conditions), she should languish in poor health and/or die.
Maybe cable/satellite TV providers have an economic incentive to offering only a few packages rather than a la carte. Of course, what you want the FCC to do would require legislation and a massive increase in its authority, since it doesn't currently have the ability to regulate cable television. But that would encroach on your freedom, wouldn't it, Randriod.
Yeah, this: http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239555926&sr=8-1
The option is called "not using apt-p2p." I don't remember the exact syntax, but I think there's a switch in the file /etc/apt/this/is/the/default.behavior
Lastly, you can't drink beer in school labs. Fuck that :-D
Maybe not where you went to school. In our math department computer lab (6 Red Hat workstations), we had a mini fridge with at least a sixer in it at all times, with a cup on top for beer money. Ah, college.
I'm pretty sure a movie theater isn't legally liable if they let a 16-year-old into an R-rated movie, so this law would go above and beyond the protection that the ratings provide for other media.
I dare you to run a KDE desktop without installing any Qt libraries.
Digital cost increase is also more than matched by a non-digital cost decrease. Specifically, the marginal increase in cost for a digital copy of a track is much, much lower than the marginal increase in cost for a non-digital copy. There is no physical media, no printing of the CD label, no case, no shrink-wrap, no theft prevention device, no shipping cost, no shelf-space.
This assumes that they send fewer units to stores in anticipation of the shift from physical to downloaded formats. (When was the last time the music industry anticipated anything?) More likely they had the same costs for physical media, printing, case, shrink-wrap, theft prevention device, shipping, and shelf space; they just sold fewer CDs.
I also live in Portland. The last new CD I bought was the new Guns 'n' Roses; it cost $17.99. I also bought a bunch of used CDs for $4.25 each.
The more common tasks can be accomplished in any browser, the more people will realize that paying extra for Windows is a dumb thing to do.
This demands that a stupid and futile gesture be done on someone's part.
Who the fuck modded this dickhead up? Way to go, making it more likely that random creeps from the internet are going to call and harass these teachers.
In all fairness, PowerPoint is pretty hard to use properly. I can't stop it from putting in *WHOOSH* sounds every time it changes slides.