YES! We have this thing called outsourcing where our government thinks it's okay to let all of our jobs go overseas and that somehow America will do better if globalized corporations make more money while actual Americans live on welfare instead of working, and American companies that employ Americans and treat them right are penalized for it, with an economic system that tells them "How dare you pay employees an American minimum wage and give them an 8 hour work day and safe working conditions? This is not competitive. You must immediately use [choose one of the following:] slave labor / illegal aliens / foreign child labor".
And then those same unemployed Americans get blamed by foreign countries when the globalized corporations order our leaders to invade other countries and mass-murder people to steal their resources too.
America's supposed to be about the freedom and dignity of the individual. We shouldn't be in a climate where powerful organizations (governments, international bankers, corporate monopolies, religious cabals, Illuminati, etc.) make all the rules.
Free PEOPLE, not trade.
Iranians don't eat "Islamic" food aka Arabian food i.e. what is sold at Middle Eastern groceries (falafels, etc.). They eat Persian food, which is pre-Islamic and sold at Persian groceries, not Islamic/Arabian grocery stores.
The problem with getting public support for amending copyright law is that the programmers who are shouting the loudest about reform don't have the slightest bit of understanding of how the law works and instead just blame all lawyers instead of blaming the big money conspirators who make the decisions, and the lawyers who do know something about copyright law often end up working for the establishment because the fair use advocates push them away with their lawyer hating bias. At least the EFF gives jobs to good lawyers who want to help artists reach the public without financial roadblocks. I'm always so happy when members of the public actually realize they can sue the RIAA or MPAA and fight back, rather than simply trying to hide.
As for amending copyright law, those who are interested in making things more fair should go to law school and replace the people currently making the decisions (in addition to whining on slashdot).
The biggest problem with copyright law now is the term. The Founding Father said a copyright term of 14 years with an option to renew for 14. Right now the term is life of the author plus 70 years, meaning that no one can use art made during their lifetime. Ridiculous.
The other big problem with copyright law is that fair use is undefined. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act should have actually defined fair use for the digital millennium, but instead it left everyone confused, so the big money tries to convince everyone fair use doesn't exist, and people who use art don't know what their rights are.
Yes, I want to see export crumble, so that large global corporations fall and small business in America rises again, and our economy becomes more self sufficient.
Let's just withdraw from the WTO. The WTO does NOT have the authority to declare US IP invalid anywhere. Only individual nations have that authority and none would dare do so, because we would do the same and the US market is the biggest market for IP.
Why would we ever pay the $100 billion? I mean, aside from the fact that many of our leaders are corrupt traitos working for globalist conspirators.
Clearly the only way to settle this dispute is for the ninjas to have a fight against the Shaolin monks, winner take all. What's the point in arguing over who won? Hold a fight now and see who wins.
See? As a lawyer I'm able to provide practical solutions to disputes (and when both sides sue each other for personal injuries, the lawyers will win).
It's not real America's financial muscle, but rather the financial muscle of the international banking system that controls the America's economy, among others. But since the same people control the media and information, they'll definitely be interested in throwing their weight around to destroy or alienate an upstart nation like Antigua. The result will be that Antigua will be forced to forge a more self-reliant economy that isn't driven by finance. Then they'll be able to make friends with other such blacklisted countries like Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, and they'll eventually form an alliance of independent, self-sufficient nations free from the international banking system that's turning the rest of the world into a prison planet (just like Alex Jones says).
If I say you can make a maximum of N copies of something I've written, that's my prerogative as copyright holder.
Copyright is designed to protect artistic and scholarly works. Not coupons. A few generic phrases used in millions of similar forms would not be protected by copyright. Possibly if there was some elaborate artwork included in the background that might be copyright. But damages would be difficult to assess, if any.
Actually, copyright does not give much protection to "scholarly works" because facts are not protected by copyright. However, scholars can generally argue that their papers contain a modicum of creativity in a literary sense, and thus are protected.
As for the copyright holder, he does not get an absolute right to designate how many copies of the work may be made. The Copyright Act has many exceptions and limitations, such as 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107, which allows fair use of protected works. Furthermore, putting websites up on the Internet gives an implied right to make certain copies of everything on the site (which happens when you load the site in your browser), though the copyright holder can limit that implied license with notice to the web-surfer.
And who says sharing music for free is a crime? The record companies want people to forget about 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107 fair use as a statutory limitation on copyright, but it's still there, and people have rights. The whole point of copyright law is to make more content available to the public. With the power of the Internet already fulfilling that goal, it makes sense to sharply curb the strict monopoly rights of copyright law and uphold fair use, since so much more content is available without the public's grant of monopoly rights.
Maybe she can seize the copyrights to some songs... They don't own the copyrights to the songs.
But they do own copyrights in some sound recordings which she can seize. Oh, I beg to differ. The Big Four labels all own their own music publishers who, in many cases, do own the copyrights to the songs. As for sound recordings, its rare to see a signed artist that owns his own Master rights.
Fascism != Communism. USSR and China are fascist dictatorships. Cuba kind of is, but a more benevolent one perhaps. Anyway, don't confuse the evils of fascism with communism. Don't confuse the evils of communism with fascism.
USSR and China are Communist/Bolshevik nations where an elite few (the "Party" leaders) robbed and enslaved their entire populations. Japan is a benevolent, fascist country where the nation's rapid progress, distinctive culture, and individual pride are derived from extreme nationalism (not to be confused with dynastic patriotism), without the economy being funneled into the bank accounts of a few elite industrialists bribing the government, at the expense of the people.
I think the RIAAs point is that whoever runs that router (and, presumably, the network connection) is responsible for the traffic it passes.
Like a Red-light camera: they send the ticket to the owner of the car, not necessarily the driver. (Of course, in that case, the owner can simply prove it was not them, and provide the name of the driver, and the ticket will be re-assigned.)
This sounds like arresting a mayor because someone robbed a bank in a city under his control, and he is therefore responsible for the people that pass through it.
And what about fair use and implied licenses? Every time you open a webpage you're downloading copyrighted material. Does that mean simply connecting to the World Wide Web would cause students to lose their privileges? And if its based on "infringement," who exactly is deciding what an infringement is?
I hope high school students evaluating the University of Kansas as a choice of college will think about their awful policy of trying to protect corporate interests rather than protecting their own students.
Doesn't Intel now have, what Teddy Roosevelt used to call, a "monopoly"? Isn't there a law against that? Shouldn't a monopoly be broken up by the government? Don't laugh, there was once a time when Americans elected leaders who actually defended us against the tyranny of capital.
Maybe this is why we can't replace batteries in Apple iPods. The iPods die, and We're dependent on their updates. The updates will contain worse and worse features.
Regardless of the composition, any recording you might have of Taps is likely much, much newer and the recording would NOT be in the public domain, because very little recorded music is in public domain (since copyright goes so far back that recording equipment didn't really exist in those times).
The worst aspect of copyright is the term, which was extended in the 1990's by the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. There was absolutely no value to this law except pandering to corporate interests.
Isn't Games Workshop estopped from changing their minds now after the producers spent their time and resources making the film, based on their detrimental reliance on the initial go-ahead? Doesn't laches apply here?
The Great Wall deserves to be on that list. The rest of them? Come on, they're not "wonders of the world." I mean, the Colloseum is in ruins. If it was ever a wonder if the world, it is no longer. What about the Great Pyramid of Giza and the Sphinx? Those are clearly wonders, and engineers still can't figure out how they were built. And how about the Space Station?
Don't let a few bad apples ruin the name of all lawyers. Some of us really want to help our communities and serve our clients ethically and faithfully. The problem is that a lot of scumbags go to law school and ruin the reputation of the legal field, but we're supposed to be the most loyal and most ethical people in the country. That's our duty.
Slashdot Mirror
YES! We have this thing called outsourcing where our government thinks it's okay to let all of our jobs go overseas and that somehow America will do better if globalized corporations make more money while actual Americans live on welfare instead of working, and American companies that employ Americans and treat them right are penalized for it, with an economic system that tells them "How dare you pay employees an American minimum wage and give them an 8 hour work day and safe working conditions? This is not competitive. You must immediately use [choose one of the following:] slave labor / illegal aliens / foreign child labor". And then those same unemployed Americans get blamed by foreign countries when the globalized corporations order our leaders to invade other countries and mass-murder people to steal their resources too. America's supposed to be about the freedom and dignity of the individual. We shouldn't be in a climate where powerful organizations (governments, international bankers, corporate monopolies, religious cabals, Illuminati, etc.) make all the rules. Free PEOPLE, not trade.
Iranians don't eat "Islamic" food aka Arabian food i.e. what is sold at Middle Eastern groceries (falafels, etc.). They eat Persian food, which is pre-Islamic and sold at Persian groceries, not Islamic/Arabian grocery stores.
The problem with getting public support for amending copyright law is that the programmers who are shouting the loudest about reform don't have the slightest bit of understanding of how the law works and instead just blame all lawyers instead of blaming the big money conspirators who make the decisions, and the lawyers who do know something about copyright law often end up working for the establishment because the fair use advocates push them away with their lawyer hating bias. At least the EFF gives jobs to good lawyers who want to help artists reach the public without financial roadblocks. I'm always so happy when members of the public actually realize they can sue the RIAA or MPAA and fight back, rather than simply trying to hide.
As for amending copyright law, those who are interested in making things more fair should go to law school and replace the people currently making the decisions (in addition to whining on slashdot).
The biggest problem with copyright law now is the term. The Founding Father said a copyright term of 14 years with an option to renew for 14. Right now the term is life of the author plus 70 years, meaning that no one can use art made during their lifetime. Ridiculous.
The other big problem with copyright law is that fair use is undefined. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act should have actually defined fair use for the digital millennium, but instead it left everyone confused, so the big money tries to convince everyone fair use doesn't exist, and people who use art don't know what their rights are.
Yes, I want to see export crumble, so that large global corporations fall and small business in America rises again, and our economy becomes more self sufficient.
Let's just withdraw from the WTO. The WTO does NOT have the authority to declare US IP invalid anywhere. Only individual nations have that authority and none would dare do so, because we would do the same and the US market is the biggest market for IP. Why would we ever pay the $100 billion? I mean, aside from the fact that many of our leaders are corrupt traitos working for globalist conspirators.
ISBN numbers are CLEARLY not copyrightable. The bookstore is just using Draconian methods to maintain their high prices.
Clearly the only way to settle this dispute is for the ninjas to have a fight against the Shaolin monks, winner take all. What's the point in arguing over who won? Hold a fight now and see who wins. See? As a lawyer I'm able to provide practical solutions to disputes (and when both sides sue each other for personal injuries, the lawyers will win).
It's not real America's financial muscle, but rather the financial muscle of the international banking system that controls the America's economy, among others. But since the same people control the media and information, they'll definitely be interested in throwing their weight around to destroy or alienate an upstart nation like Antigua. The result will be that Antigua will be forced to forge a more self-reliant economy that isn't driven by finance. Then they'll be able to make friends with other such blacklisted countries like Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, and they'll eventually form an alliance of independent, self-sufficient nations free from the international banking system that's turning the rest of the world into a prison planet (just like Alex Jones says).
Copyright is designed to protect artistic and scholarly works. Not coupons. A few generic phrases used in millions of similar forms would not be protected by copyright. Possibly if there was some elaborate artwork included in the background that might be copyright. But damages would be difficult to assess, if any.
Actually, copyright does not give much protection to "scholarly works" because facts are not protected by copyright. However, scholars can generally argue that their papers contain a modicum of creativity in a literary sense, and thus are protected. As for the copyright holder, he does not get an absolute right to designate how many copies of the work may be made. The Copyright Act has many exceptions and limitations, such as 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107, which allows fair use of protected works. Furthermore, putting websites up on the Internet gives an implied right to make certain copies of everything on the site (which happens when you load the site in your browser), though the copyright holder can limit that implied license with notice to the web-surfer.And who says sharing music for free is a crime? The record companies want people to forget about 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107 fair use as a statutory limitation on copyright, but it's still there, and people have rights. The whole point of copyright law is to make more content available to the public. With the power of the Internet already fulfilling that goal, it makes sense to sharply curb the strict monopoly rights of copyright law and uphold fair use, since so much more content is available without the public's grant of monopoly rights.
But they do own copyrights in some sound recordings which she can seize. Oh, I beg to differ. The Big Four labels all own their own music publishers who, in many cases, do own the copyrights to the songs. As for sound recordings, its rare to see a signed artist that owns his own Master rights.
Like a Red-light camera: they send the ticket to the owner of the car, not necessarily the driver. (Of course, in that case, the owner can simply prove it was not them, and provide the name of the driver, and the ticket will be re-assigned.)
This sounds like arresting a mayor because someone robbed a bank in a city under his control, and he is therefore responsible for the people that pass through it.
The point is that the school's policy is so overbroad that it would prevent surfing, so long as someone wrote a cease and desist letter about it.
And what about fair use and implied licenses? Every time you open a webpage you're downloading copyrighted material. Does that mean simply connecting to the World Wide Web would cause students to lose their privileges? And if its based on "infringement," who exactly is deciding what an infringement is? I hope high school students evaluating the University of Kansas as a choice of college will think about their awful policy of trying to protect corporate interests rather than protecting their own students.
Doesn't Intel now have, what Teddy Roosevelt used to call, a "monopoly"? Isn't there a law against that? Shouldn't a monopoly be broken up by the government? Don't laugh, there was once a time when Americans elected leaders who actually defended us against the tyranny of capital.
Maybe this is why we can't replace batteries in Apple iPods. The iPods die, and We're dependent on their updates. The updates will contain worse and worse features.
Regardless of the composition, any recording you might have of Taps is likely much, much newer and the recording would NOT be in the public domain, because very little recorded music is in public domain (since copyright goes so far back that recording equipment didn't really exist in those times). The worst aspect of copyright is the term, which was extended in the 1990's by the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. There was absolutely no value to this law except pandering to corporate interests.
Actually, Bush shut down the Bin Laden unit of the CIA. He was probably worried that his friend might get caught.
Isn't Games Workshop estopped from changing their minds now after the producers spent their time and resources making the film, based on their detrimental reliance on the initial go-ahead? Doesn't laches apply here?
The Great Wall deserves to be on that list. The rest of them? Come on, they're not "wonders of the world." I mean, the Colloseum is in ruins. If it was ever a wonder if the world, it is no longer. What about the Great Pyramid of Giza and the Sphinx? Those are clearly wonders, and engineers still can't figure out how they were built. And how about the Space Station?
You're right. In many situations, a standardized or simplified system can replace the need for lawyers.
I don't know about all of us driving google cars. I think I'll be driving an Apple.
Don't let a few bad apples ruin the name of all lawyers. Some of us really want to help our communities and serve our clients ethically and faithfully. The problem is that a lot of scumbags go to law school and ruin the reputation of the legal field, but we're supposed to be the most loyal and most ethical people in the country. That's our duty.